Angiotech win at the EPO

It has just been announced that Angiotech have succeeded in their appeal to have their European patent application finally approved, after 12 years of proceedings at the EPO.

The patent, relating to Taxol-coated stents (right), had been the subject of opposition by Conor Medsystems, who had appealed the opposition division's decision in favour of Angiotech but failed due to their appeal being inadmissible.

This Kat presumes that this will not affect the status of the EP(UK) part of the patent, which was revoked by Jacob LJ (see previous posts here, here and here). The UK is looking like the odd man out, given the EPO's decision and the decision in the parallel proceedings in the Netherlands.

All about stents here, here and here. All about tents here.
Angiotech win at the EPO Angiotech win at the EPO Reviewed by David Pearce on Thursday, March 15, 2007 Rating: 5


  1. Yeah but the oral proceedings before the TBA was only to decide whether to admit an "appeal" that was filed by an Art 105 party that intervened AFTER the Oppn Divn had DECIDED the case. No surprise there then, that the TBA shut the intervention out, allowing the OD decision to go final. I think you cannot read into this TBA Decision anything about what the TBA's attitude might have been, on the substance of validity of the claims.

  2. Agreed, but not losing has the same effect as winning in this game. The opposition division decision stands, so that will be the final word. Personally, I think it is entirely plausible that the TBA would have found Angiotech's stents patentable in any case, since they tend to take a different approach to the English courts' more holistic/commonsense approach to inventive step.


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:

Powered by Blogger.