Court Decisions 2009 Last Updated 2010 04 23


Published on

Interesting patent case law 2009

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Court Decisions 2009 Last Updated 2010 04 23

  1. 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 A special thanks (of course) also to the courts and offices that publish their decisions on the web. Best regard, Fredrik Egrelius ( :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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