court decision 1: ‘monied meat encasings’ (2001) Pres. Judge of the Court of The Hague, 6 June 2001, Jif Pak vs Anka (in Dutch)

court decision 2: ‘the perfect cut’ (2002) Appellate Court of The Hague, 31 January 2002, Hagleitner vs Georgia-Pacific (in Dutch)

court decision 3: ‘the misunderstood venturi effect’ (2002) Court of The Hague, 24 April 2002, Koene vs Spark (in Dutch)

court decision 4: ‘cartridge war avant la lettre’ (2002) Court of The Hague, 30 October 2002, Seiko Epson vs Pelikan (in Dutch)

court decision 5: ‘you can only patent once’ (2003) Appellate Court of The Hague, 6 March 2003, Pal vs Multifoil (in Dutch)

court decision 6: ‘an expert is not a skilled person’ (2003) Supreme Court, 25 April 2003, Gouda vs Henkel (in Dutch)

court decision 7: ‘copyright and industrial design: a bad combination’ (2003) Supreme Court, 11 July 2003, Baby Dan vs Werkvoorzieningschap c.s. (in Dutch)

court decision 8: ‘een priorly used roots pump (combination)’ (2003) Appellate Court of The Hague, 18 December 2003, Aerzener vs Naaktgeboren (in Dutch)

court decision 9: ‘a distinguishing domain name doesn’t constitute a trade mark’ (2004) Supreme Court, 23 January 2004, Dutch-art.nl vs BMB (in French)

court decision 10: ‘a first explosive matter’ (2004) Court of The Hague, 25 januari 2004, Rüegg vs Zilka (in Dutch)

court decision 11: ‘a forum dispute following a settlement agreement’ (2005) Pres. Judge Zwolle-Lelystad, 2 November 2005, ID-Lelystad vs Vétoquinol (in Dutch)

court decision 12: ‘this incidental ruling is as MP3 in one’s ears’ (2006) Court of The Hague, 9 August 2006, Sandisk vs Sisvel (in Dutch)

court decision 13: ‘the inventor knuckled down’ (2006) Court of The Hague, 6 September 2006, Goudsmit vs Basko (in Dutch)

court decision 14: ‘having an eye for the moment of invention’ (2006) interim judgment Court of Rotterdam, 13 September 2006, NIIOC vs Oogziekenhuis (in Dutch)

court decision 15: ‘a second explosive matter: suspended in a torpedo action (2006) Court of The Hague, 18 October 2006, Steur vs Zilka (in English)

court decision 16: ‘admissible citations in a thesis’ (2006) County Court of Rotterdam, 21 November 2006, 010 vs NFM (in Dutch)

court decision 17: ‘having an eye for the moment of invention’ (2008) final judgment Court of Rotterdam, 30 January 2008, NIIOC vs Oogziekenhuis (in Dutch)

court decision 18: ‘the bio-availability of a micro-emulsion’ (2008) Court of The Hague, 2 July 2008, Novartis vs Actavis et al (in English)

court decision 19: ‘an admissible bundling of older publications?’ (2009) Pres. Judge of the Court of Rotterdam, 010 vs PPP (in Dutch)

court decision 20: ‘the first explosive matter: confirmed in appeal’ (2009) Appellate Court of The Hague, 6 October 2009, Rüegg vs Zilka (in Dutch)

court decision 21: ‘the second explosive matter: revoked at the EPO’ (2009) Techn. Board of Appeal EPO, 13 October 2009, Steur vs Zilka (in English)

court decision 22: ‘the comfortably steering baby stroller’ (2010) Appellate Court of The Hague, 30 March 2010, Bébécar vs Maxi Miliaan (in Dutch)

court decision 23: ‘the adhesive side of parallel hair extensions’ (2010) Pres. Judge of the Court of The Hague, 26 October 2010, Balmain vs Indorata (in Dutch)

court decision 24: ‘on bus shelters and (employers’) copyright’ (2011-2012) Court of Maastricht, 31 August 2011, 29 February 2012, 1 August 2012, CBS vs RBL (in Dutch)

court decision 25: ‘the adhesive side of parallel hair extensions: confirmed in appeal’ (2011) Appellate Court of The Hague, 18 October 2011, Balmain vs Indorata (in Dutch)

court decision 26: ‘clickerbar: an evident configuration by its own admission’ (2012) Appellate Court of The Hague, 19 June 2012, MBrands vs Kubus (in Dutch)

court decision 27: ‘the rightful licence for an extreme fairground attraction’ (2012) Court of Zutphen, 27 June 2012, GeRe vs KMG (in English)

court decision 28: ‘Jet Set - Verwater cs’ Vzr. Court of The Hague 17 september 2013, Jet Set c.s. vs Verwater c.s. (in Dutch)