Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here!

The team is joined by GuestKats Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot, Jocelyn Bosse, Alessandro Cerri, Anastasiia Kyrylenko, Marcel Pemsel and Anna Maria Stein.

SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Antonios Baris (Book Review Editor), Rose Hughes (PatKat) and Chijioke Okorie (Africa Correspondent).

InternKats: Asude Sena Moya and Söğüt Atilla.
Home / angiotech / epo / Angiotech win at the EPO

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This Kat presumes that this will not affect the status of the EP(UK) part of the patent, which was revoked by Jacob LJ (see previous posts here, here and here).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

2 comments:

  1. AnonymousThursday, 15 March 2007 at 21:18:00 GMT

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  2. David PearceThursday, 15 March 2007 at 21:34:00 GMT

    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.

    ReplyDelete

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

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )
Powered by Blogger.