Interesting patent case law 2009

1. List of interesting patent case law of 2009
Last updated: 23 April 2010
Previously updated: 2 February 2010
All cases that have been added to the list since the previous update are displayed in RED.
This document contains some interesting case law from 2009 in my opinion and in view of
practical aspects for a patent attorney working in the field of electronics and
telecommunications. Therefore, interesting case law for people working in the chemical or
biotech area has often not been mentioned here. I also try to cover all US patent
precedential decisions of CAFC and BPAI irrespective of their relevance in practice.
The list is a censored list of a more informative list compiled for Ericsson internal use only.
I would of course appreciate any feedback on errors and interesting, missing case law. There
are plenty of countries, whose case law I do not know how to follow. In fact the purpose of
publishing this list is for me to become aware, via your feedback, of case law that I might
find interesting.
Last but not least, a special thanks to all public bloggers out there for keeping me updated
on recent case law, especially IpKat, 271 Patent Law Blog, IP::Jur, IP Now, PatLit; Le blog
du droit européen des brevets, Spicy IP and rokh-ip.com. A special thanks (of course) also
to the courts and offices that publish their decisions on the web.
Best regard, Fredrik Egrelius (fredrik.egrelius@ericsson.com)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Australia
Interesting Federal Court decisions
(2009) FCAFC 116 University of Western Australia v. Gray, Duty to invent, right to patent,
Conception of invention
(2009) FCAFC 81 Dura-Post Pty Ltd. v. Delnorth Pty Ltd, inventive step and common general
knowledge
(2009) FCAFC 84 Mont Adventure Equipment Pty Ltd v. Phoenix Leisure Group Pty Ltd,
entitlement to grace period for divisional

2. (2009) FCA 1366 Abbott GMBH & Co. KG v. Apotex Pty Ltd, effect on interlocutory injunction
for not challenging the validity prior to selling the product
(2009) FCA 509 Tramanco Pty Ltd v BPW Transpec Pty Ltd, interlocutory injunction granted
for software patent
(2009) FCA 222 Uniline Australia v. SBriggs, object statement for interpreting claims
EPO
Enlarged Board of Appeal G-decisions and interesting R-
decisions published 2009
R7/09 Olymus v. Hoya, petition for review acceptable when not receiving grounds for appeal
Interesting Board of Appeal decisions published 2009
T1427/09 Ex parte Ericsson Inc, can file appeal signed by professional respresentative after
electronic filing with missing electronic signature of said representative
T1123/09 Interleaving apparatus/Samsung Electronics, no requirement of mentioning prior
art in the description at filing, twin case to T2321/08
T18/09 Human Genome Sciences, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company, standard of proof for lacking
industrial application and request for accelerated proceedings from national court
T51/08 Automatic service requests/Canon, Res judicata in a divisional application
T2321/08 receiving signal/Samsung electronics, mentioning prior art in the description at
filing
T2056/08 Electronic fuel amplifier/Kalis, the 10-day rule
T1854/08 Ex parte NXP B.V., questionable whether e-mail can constitute an EPO-
communication
T1630/08 Ex parte Raisio Benecol Ltd, new product claims admitted after remittal of method
claims to first instance
T1581/08 Pipe for filling bottles/Gallardo Gonzalez, sufficiency of grounds of appeal

3. T1335/08 Kone Corporation v. Inventio AG, re-introduction of previous request not admitted
after oral proceedings submission deadline
T12/08 Game Machine/Nintendo Co. Ltd., implementation of time dependent probability in
computer game technical and inventive
T1870/07 High Power Peripheral Cornea Corp., SA, substantial procedural violation by EPO
when not reasoned objection
T1689/07 Ex parte Procter & Gamble Company, colour-changing absorbent article achieves
technical effect
T1266/07 Wireless communicaton system/AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., request for video
conference two weeks before oral proceedings too short a request and practical and legal
problem with such conferences since they are public
T656/07 Low profile Ostomy system/ Coloplast A/S v. Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Clarity
objections in opposition and appeal
T611/07 BASF SE et al v. Evonik Stockhausen GmbH, the whole translation of prior art
document may not be necessary
T608/07 Polymerisation process/Ineos Europe Ltd v. Bsell Polyolefine GmbH, balance
between sufficiency of disclosure and clarity of claim
T597/07 Beiersdorf AG v. Kao Corporation, proof beyond reasonable doubt v. balance of
probabilities, admissible new prior art documents in appeal brief
T212/07 Brickwork support system/Ancon CCL Ltd v. Normteq B.V. , party summoned to
oral proceedings has obligation to appear or notify absence
T1923/06 Ex parte Bonazzo, illness of applicant no reason to postpone oral proceedings
T1194/06 Carbamates/Laboratorios S.A.L.V.A.T., S.A, narrowing of disclaimer and
reformatio in pejus
T1143/06 Data Selection System/British Telecommunications, cognitive content on screen
does not contribute to technical solution to a technical problem
T63/06 DaimlerChrysler v. Hitachi, Sufficiency of disclosure and shifting of burden of proof
T5/06 Ex parte Purdue Research Foundation, decision not reasoned regarding non-working
embodiments
T1464/05 Alcatel Kabel Beteiligungs-AG v. Prysmian S.p.A, public prior use even when sold
for testing if not supporting evidence for confidentiality
T844/05 Interactive television/United Video Properties, Inc., not sufficient grounds of appeal
when just filed three submissions from examining proceedings

4. T339/05 Ex parte Océ-Technologies B.V, undue burden to perform invention in the whole
claimed area even if routine experimentation
T1382/04 In re Fortend Ltd, application not deemed withdrawn even if answer only contains
request for oral proceedings
T307/03 Ex Parte Arco Chemicals, Double patenting
Board of Appeal decisions mentioned in OJ 2009
G2/06 Use of Embryos/Warf
J3/06 Transitional provisions/Heitkamp
T1063/06 Reach-through claims, Bayer Shering Pharma. AG, reach-through claims,
functional definition of chemical compound causes undue burden
T1319/04 Dosage Regimen/KOS Life Science, Inc
T307/03 Ex Parte Arco Chemicals, Double patenting
France
Interesting cases from the First Instance Court of Paris
13 January 2009, Newdeal v. Wright Medical, awarding of attorney fees
Interesting cases from the First Instance Court of Strasbourg
R. Civ. 09/00118, SAS Laboratories Negma v. SAS Biogaran, bar for interim injunction
adapted to Enforcement-directive

5. Germany
Interesting Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof)
decisions 2009
BGH X ZR 49/08 Dog food bag for training of dogs, interpretation of purposive statements
like "for training of dogs" in claims
BGH Xa ZB 36/08 Vibration damper, right to be heard before the Patentgericht
BGH X ZB 35/08 Polyolefin foil, scope of right to be heard in opposition proceedings
BGH Xa ZB 28/08 Power semiconductor element, admissibility of appeal
BGH Xa ZR 18/08 Filler, no right to prior use if performed under contract with inventor
BGH Xa ZR 2/08 MP3-player import, criteria on forwarding agent to infringe patent
BGH Xa Zr 116/07 Support plate, younger patent can limit scope of older patent
BGH I ZR 46/07 Fishbox cover, cannot complain to the competition court of BGH about
negative statement about a product in a patent specification, see BGH press release here
BGH X ZB 22/07 Control device for examination modalities, patentable subject matter
BGH Xa ZR 86/06 Antiglare Curtain, joint entitlement only to application as a whole
BGH X ZR 79/06 Quick-on cap, bankruptcy in another country interrupts invalidation
proceedings
BGH KZR 39/06 Orange Book standard, compulsory license based on competition law
BGH Xa ZR 22/06 Three-seamed tubular foil sachet, determination of the technical problem
BGH X ZR 11/06 Waste disposal method, no violation of right to be heard if BGH refuses
appeal on law when the patent in previous proceedings declared partially invalid
BGH Xa ZR 148/05 Heater, not permissible to limit claim in invalidation proceedings with
features in a dependent claims which in combination with features in independent claim is
not obvious from the application
BGH X ZR 140/05 Support for construction formwork, interpretation and scope of purpose
stated in claims
BGH Xa ZR 138/05 Fish-bite indicator, inventive step assessment when old tech. is changed
to new tech with the same purpose
GBH X ZR 115/05 Sectional door, applicable law when infringement in different countries
and validity of non-written agreement

6. BGH X ZR 95/05 Road construction machine, infringement cannot be dismissed based on
unclarity and obscure semantic content
BGH Xa ZR 92/05 Operating a safety system, incitement for obviousness
BGH Xa ZR 56/05 Airbag-release control, obviousness, broadening of scope and sufficiency
of disclosure
BGH Xa ZR 185/04 Abrasive, requirements for an interim product to be prior art
BGH Xa ZR 158/04 Crimping tool II, admissibility of limitation of claim in invalidation
proceedings with few embodiments
BGH X ZR 156/04 Safety system, clear identification of invention in description
Great Britain
House of Lords Opinions
(2009) UKHL 12 Generics Ltd et al. v. Lundbeck A/S, Insufficiency of description in relation
to claims
Interesting Court of Appeal decisions
(2009) EWCA Civ 1062 Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v. Premium Aircraft Interiors UK Limited,
skilled man knows explicit patent drafting conventions and some patent terminology
(2009) EWCA Civ 498 Ancon Limited v ACS Stainless Steel Fixings Limited, no change of
interpretation of Art 69 EPC due to EPC 2000
(2009) EWCA Civ 44 Zipher Ltd v. Markem, requirements for undertaking
Interesting High Court of England and Wales decisions
(2009) EWHC 1903 (ch) Nokia Corp. v. Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue & Customs,
Interpretation of Customs regluations regarding detaining of goods from a non-EU state to
another EU-state via EU as transit
(2009) EWHC 1588 (pat) Cranway Ltd v. Playtech Ltd, essential element in infringement and
criteria of suitable and intended for putting into use
(2009) EWHC 1304 (pat) Edwards Lifesciences AG v. Cook Biotech Inc., right to priority only
if same applicants as in the priority application, and change of opinion from expert witness

7. (2009) EWHC 181 (pat) Kelly and Chiu v. GE Healthcare Ltd, Compensation to inventors
Interesting UKIPO decisions
BL O/362/09 Ex parte Ranger Services Ltd, available to the public a balance of probabilities
BL O/302/09 Ex parte Orkli Ltd, reestablishment of renewal fee for EP patent if national UK
patent already exists
India
Interesting Supreme Court decision
Civil appeal No. 6309 of 2009 Pajaj Auto Ltd v. TVS Motor Company Ltd., final decision shall
be expeditiously made by Trial courts instead of merely granting or refusing to grant
injunction
Interesting Intellectual Property Appellate Board decisions
TA 1 TO 5/2007/ PT/CH Novartis AG v. Union of India et al, Section
Interesting decisions from the High Court of Delhi 2009
I. A 13846/2009 and 13847/2009 and....Microsoft Corp. v. Gopal et al, copyright case about
forum shopping in India
I. A 6782/2009 and 8372/2009 Chemtura Corp. v. Union of India, Section 8 and invalidation
of patent and extensive use of Section 47 for subcontractor to the Indian Government
I.A 7741/2008 Strix Ltd. v. Maharaja Appliances Ltd, interim injunction, proof of working,
and importation of patented product under Section 107A(b)

8. Japan
Interesting IP High Court decisions
2008-10096 In re Hitachi Chemicals Co. Ltd, problem solved relevant for obviousness
assessment
2008-10153 Sakai Chemical Co. Ltd v. Kawakami Sangyo Co., Ltd, importance of problem
solved relevant for obviousness assessment
2008-10261 In re X, importance of problem solved relevant for obviousness assessment
the Netherlands
Interesting Supreme Court decisions
C07/085HR Boston Scientific v Medinol, Spiro/Flamco superseeded
Interesting District Court of Hague decisions
298799/HA ZA 07-3547 Novartis v. Johnson & Johnson, injunction despite appeal
Supreme Court decisions 2009

9. HR-2009-2402-A, Kvassheim v. SINTEF, contributory infringement even if means include or
are based on research activities that do not infringe
HR-2009-01735-A Eisai Co Ltd and Pfizer AG v. Krka Sverige AB, three criteria for doctrine
of equivalence
Spain
Audiencia de Barcelona
11 March 2009, System for handling garbage, partial invalidation possible and novelty
cannot be destroyed by finding corresponding features in more than one document
Sweden
Interesting Court of Patent Appeals decisions
07-131 In re Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, (no) restitution in integrum with respect to
missed payment of renewal fee
05-437 In re Weyerhaeuser Company, technical character for methods for tracking
silvicultural information
05-001 In re FA, technical character for voting system
04-329 In re Dahlin/Ordkortspel, technical character for deck of cards
04-239 J.Ö. and Goodit AB v. Targian AB, no partial right to patent and to be mentioned as
inventor if part of text from first application copied in subsequent application filed at the
same date as the first application was published
Interesting District court of Stockholm decisions
T-14369-07 Larsson v. Janfire AB, Compensation for employee's invention not within his

10. ordinary tasks
T-2470-04, T1327-09 Casco Adhesives v. Dynea, calculation of damages for whole product
or detail
District court of Nacka
T-3839-07 Gateway Europe B.V. v. Lans and Uniboard AB, Swedish courts can order
damages for court proceeding costs in US
USA
Federal Circuit Precedential decisions
Mics. No 914 In re Nintendo Co. , LTD and Nintendo of America Inc., writ of mandamus to
transfer case
Misc. No 911 In re Foffmann-La Roche Inc. et al, order for transfer of case
2009-1504 I4I Ltd Partnership and Infrastructures for Information Inc. v. Microsoft Corp,
judging injunctive relief
2009-1283 Hewlett-Packard Company v. Acceleron LLC, declaratory judgement jurisdiction
and the case-or-controversy requirement, lowering of bar for declaratory judgement actions
2009-1208, -1209 Imation Corp v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. et al
2009-1142 Intellectual Science and Technology, Inc. v. Sony Electronics, Inc, infringement
interpretation in means-plus-function claims and summary judgement
2009-1105 Perfect Web Tech. Inc. v. Infousa, Inc., common sense analysis
2009-1094 Asymmetrx, Inc. v. Biocare Medical, LLC
2009-1076 Callaway Golf Company v. Acushnet Company, inconsistent verdict since
dependent claim obvious although the independent claim was not obvious
2009-1071 Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc
2009-1060 In re Lister, filed manuscripts in the US copyright office does not necessarily
meet accessiblity requirement of 35 USC 102(b) and USPTO must show date when the
manuscript was publically posted
2009-1045 Wedgetail, LTD and King v. Huddleston Deluxe, Inc.

11. 2009-1044 The Forest Group, Inc v. Bon Tool Company and Cibon Industrial and Shanghai
Honest Tool Co., Inc
2009-1027, -1028 Kara Technology Inc v. Stamps.com Inc., errata here
2009-1026 Nystrom v. Trex Company, Inc e al, Doctrine of equivalence
2009-1020, -1096 Amgen Inc. v. F Hoffman-La Roche LTD et al, No safe harbour under
Section 121 for continuations
2009-1018 Iovate Health Sciences, Inc. and University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc
v. Bio-Engineered Supplements & Nutrition, Inc. and Medical Research Institute
2009-1006 Edwards Lifesciences LLC and Endogad Research PTY Ltd. v. Cook Inc. and W.L.
Gore & Associates, Inc., literal broadening of feature in application not broaden in
infringement proceedings, use of different names for the same feature
2009-1001 Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., Infringement of relatively resilient end
edge portions
2008-1606 Sky Technologies v. SAP, transfer of ownership by state law
2008-1600 Ortho-Mcneil Pharma. Inc, et al v. Mylan Labs. Inc and Myland Pharma. Inc., $ 1
million awarded in translation costs
2008-1594, 2009-1070 In re '318 Patent Infringement litigation, Janssen Pharmaceutica
N.V. et al. v. Mylan Pharma. Inc et al, errata here
2008-1546 In re Mcneil-PPC, Inc
2008-1545 In Re Fallaux, Obviousness-type double patenting and Split Ownership
2008-1528, -1529 Ritchie and Reynard v. Vast Resources, Inc.
2008-1516 Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp.
2008-1509, -1510 Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University et al. v. Roche
Moelcular Systems, Inc. et al, ownership of patent
2008-1505, -1524 Source Search Technologies, LLC v. Lendingtree, LLC et al, facts must
be decided before court can make a legal conclusion of obviousness
2008-1502 Corebrace LLC v. Star Seismic LLC
2008-1485, -1487, -1495 Lucent Technologies, Inc et al. v. Gateway, Inc et al, indirect
infringement, evidence of infringement, Entire Market Value analysis and Georgia-Pacific
factors for apportionment of damages
2008-1480, -1481 Astrazeneca Pharma. LP and Astrazeneca UK Ltd. v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al, deceptive intent and inequitable conduct
2008-1479, -1517 Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding Inc. et al.

12. 2008-1468 Univ. of Pittsburgh et al. v. Hendrick et al, co-inventorship
2008-1466 Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc
2008-1459, -1476 (expanded panel) Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc etc,
enablement, sufficiency of infringement, claim construction and whether humans are
animals
2008-1453 In re Gleave
2008-1447 Henkel Corp. v. The Procter & Gamble Company
2008-1441, -1454 University of Pittsburgh v. Varian Medical Systems, Inc
2008-1434 Every Penny Counts, Inc v. American Express Company, Visa, Mastercard et al.,
errata here
2008-1430 Transcore, LP and TC Lincense, LTD v. Electronic Transaction Consultants Corp.
2008-1404, -1405, -1406 Procter & Gamble Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc
2008-1403 Prometheus Labs. Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services and Mayo Clinic Rochester,
machine-or-transformation test relating to determine-and-infer claims
2008-1400 (en banc) Abbott Labs. and Astels Pharma, Inc v. Sandoz, Inc et al, determining
infringement in product-by-process claims
2008-1375 Line Rothman and Glamourmom LLC v. Target Corp. et al
2008-1368, -1396, -1548 Blackboard Inc. v. Desire2Learn Inc., sufficiency requirements for
means-plus-function features for CII
2008-1367 Felix v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc. et al., prosecution history estoppel
2008-1363 Nartron Corp. v. Schukra USA, Inc., and Borg Indak, Inc.
2008-1358 Erbe elektromedizin GmbH and Erbe USA, Inc v. ITC and Canady Tech. LLC et al
2008-1352 Tafas et al v. Doll, order here
2008-1333 Ball Aerosol And Specialty Container, Inc v. Limited Brands, Inc
2008-1332 Clock Spring, L.P. v. Wrapmaster, Inc. et al
2008-1306, -1331 Fresenius USA, Inc and Fresenius medical Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter
Int., Inc. and Baxter Healthcare Corp.
2008-1284, -1340 Crown Packaging Technology, Inc and Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc. v.
Rexam Beverage Can Co.
2008-1282 Bayer Schering Pharma AG and Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc v. Barr
Labs., Inc

13. 2008-1279 Synthes v. G.M Dos Reis JR. Ind. Com. de Equip. Medico.
2008-1269 Tyco Healthcare Group LP v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.
2008-1267, -1376 Revolution Eyewear, Inc v. Aspex Eyewear, Inc et al.
2008-1248 Araid Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company, en banc order here
2008-1247 Süd-Chemie, Inc v. Multisorb Technologies, Inc
2008-1240, -1253, -1401 Depuy Spine, Inc and Biedermann Motech GmbH v. Medtronic
Sofamor Danek, Inc et al
2008-1229 Touchcom v. Bereskin&Parr and H.Samuel Frost
2008-1228, -1252 Ecolab, Inc v. FMC Corp.
2008-1221 In Re Robert Skvorecz
2008-1218, -1439 Ultimax Cement Manufacturing Corp et al. v. RC Cement Holding
Company et al.
2008-1217 Autogenomics, Inc v. Oxford Gene Technology Ltd.
2008-1216, -1246 Baden Sports, Inc. v. Molten USA, Inc, and KK Molten
2008-1208, -1209 Larson v. Correct Craft Inc, et al
2008-1184 In re Kubin, Obvious to try under KSR
2008-1170 Euclid Chemical Compayny v. Vector Corosion Tech. Inc. et al
2008-1152 Advanced Software Design Corp. and Calin A. Sandru v. Federal Reserve Bank of
St. Luis et al,
2008-1144, -1145... E-Pass Technologies, Inc v. 3COM Corp et al
2008-1131 Takeda Pharmaceuticals v. Doll, Use of later methods for products to avoid
double patenting
2008-1129, -1160 Wavetronix v. Eis Electronic Integrated Systems
2008-1128, -1136 Monolitihic Power Systems, Inc, et al. v. O2 Micro International Ltd
2008-1117, -1165 Linear Technology Corp. v. ITC
2008-1096, -1174 Larson Manufacturing Co. of South Dakota, Inc. v. Aluminart Products Ltd
and Chamberdoor Industries, Inc
2008-1078 Titan Tire Corp. and Goodyear Tire & Ribber Comp. v. Case New Holland, Inc, et
al, test for preliminary injunction

14. 2008-1077 Icu Medical, Inc. v. Alaris Medical Systems, Inc
2008-1073 Boston Scientific v. Cordis Corp. and Johnson & Johnson, Inc
2008-1050 Revolution Eyewear, Inc and Zelman v. Aspex Eyewear and Ifergan, errata here
2008-1039 Altana Pharma AG and WYETH v. Teva et al
2008-1003, -1072 Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp and Scimed Life Systems, Inc.
2007-1487, 2008-1176 Clearvalue, Inc. et al. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc et al.
2007-1457 Epistar Corp. v. ITC and Philps Lumileds Lighting Company, impact of a
corporate merger/buyout on a settlement agreement that included a promise to not
challenge a patent's validity
2007-1409, -1436 Mars, Inc. et al. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc (Order)
2007-1386 Princo Corp. and Princo America Corp. v. ITC and US Philips Corp. order here, 2nd
order here
2007-1340, -1341, -1342 Kinetic Concepts, Inc, et al. v. Blue Sky Medical, Inc, et al
2007-1296, -1347 (en banc) Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc and Guidant Sales Corp. v. St Jude
Medical, Inc and Pacesetter, Inc., no infringement under 35 USC § 271(f) in method claims
for use of device overseas
2007-1232 In re Ferguson, even if claim fits within one or more statutory categories it may
not be patent eligible
2007-1066 Hyatt v. USPTO, admissibility of evidence withheld during examination at USPTO
2007-1014 (reissue) Amgen, Inc. v. ITC and Roche et al., Order here
2006-1491, 2007-1180 Exergen Corp. v. Wal-mart stores, Inc. et al., Pleading requirements
for inequitable conduct
2006-1286 In Re Comiskey (en banc); revising previous decision in the same case about
patentability of business methods
Precedential Decisions of Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences
2009-000234 Ex parte Tanaka, conditions for reissue not met with insertion of dependent
claim
2008-4366 Ex Parte Gutta, Patent-eligible subject matter test for apparatus claims
implementing an algorithm
2008-000693 Ex Parte Rodriguez, means-plus-function and enablement and definiteness for
CII

15. 2007-3072 Ex Parte Catlin, Sufficiently defined claim scope
Other interesting decisions of Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences
2009-003902 Ex Parte Shigeo Azuma, computer program product with computer useable
medium in the form of memory or disc cannot be determined to comprise non-statutory
subject matters such as carrier waves and network signal
Miscellaneous decisions also applicable to patents
C93/08 Schenker v. State Tax Authority of Latvia, Trademark decision from ECJ about
custom action against goods suspected of infringing IP rights
40382/04 European Court of Human Rights: Rambus v. Germany, EPO BoA non-admission
of auxiliary requests in opposition-appeal proceedings even if the requests where filed before
time limit for written submission