tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post116897652708772120..comments2024-03-29T06:53:23.405+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Angiotech appeal failsVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1169106768785826262007-01-18T07:52:00.000+00:002007-01-18T07:52:00.000+00:00What I find interesting in this case is whether th...What I find interesting in this case is whether the EPO problem and solution approach, correctly applied, would deliver the "obvious" result arrived at in England, or the "not obvious" answer delivered (so far) in Den Haag. But, as the TBA is only looking at admissibility, in its oral proceedings in March, we may never know what the TBA thinks about Art 56.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1169037013575744512007-01-17T12:30:00.000+00:002007-01-17T12:30:00.000+00:00Paclitaxel has some interesting patents associated...Paclitaxel has some interesting patents associated with it; in particular, the key inventive step of one patent is challenged and contradicted in the preamble of another patent!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1169030149471917182007-01-17T10:35:00.000+00:002007-01-17T10:35:00.000+00:00In terms of comparison between UK and EPO practice...In terms of comparison between UK and EPO practice, it looks as if this UK case was running in parallel with opposition proceedings in the EPO, which at first instance revoked the patent. So I'm not sure this highlights a different practice between the two offices/courts.<BR/><BR/>It would only go to court if it were a borderline case, so a degree of disagreement is not surprising.Geoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12424257512957515766noreply@blogger.com