tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5564421052489212244..comments2024-03-29T09:21:58.696+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Angiotech win at the EPOVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-45877121505788707812007-03-15T21:34:00.000+00:002007-03-15T21:34:00.000+00:00Agreed, but not losing has the same effect as winn...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.David Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02336561458060095886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-69366695763444004872007-03-15T21:18:00.000+00:002007-03-15T21:18:00.000+00:00Yeah but the oral proceedings before the TBA was o...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com