STENT AND SPRINT

Stent wars

The IPKat's mystery correspondent writes:

It would seem that the latest round in the stent saga is turning into an interesting example of the current problems in European patent law and the absence of a common patent system.

Remembering that Conor won their battle in the UK High Court with Angiotech's patent being declared invalid (see http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2006/260.html ), the court in the Netherlands has just held that the same patent is valid there - as indicated in the press announcement of Boston Scientific ( http://bostonscientific.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=520 ).




Boston have also sued Conor in the Netherlands under the same patent and so it would appear that conflicting decisions on patentability are the order of the day.

At the EPO, the opposition division held the patent valid in amended form though Conor are seeking to intervene ( http://ofi.epoline.org/view/GetDossier?dosnum=94920360&lang=en ).

All this raises the question as to who benefits from the splintered European patent system.


5k run



Today's the day that IPKat co-blogmeister Jeremy is completing (hopefully!) INTA's 5k run in Toronto. He's raising money for charity so, if you'd like to sponsor Jeremy's sweaty endeavours, you can find out how to here.
STENT AND SPRINT STENT AND SPRINT Reviewed by Unknown on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.