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.
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 Anonymous
on
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.png)
Posts
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