Boston Scientific Ltd & Anor v Palmaz & Anor [2000] EWCA Civ 83 (20 March 2000)

Boston Scientific Ltd & Anor v Palmaz & Anor [2000] EWCA Civ 83 (20 March 2000)

The patents are invalid for lack of novelty due to prior public disclosures by Dr Palmaz to Shiley and at the RSNA meeting, and are also obvious in light of the prior art. The NIR stent does not infringe the claims as it lacks essential features. The amendments do not save the patents from invalidity.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 83
Parties
Appellants/patentees: Dr Julio Palmaz and Expandable Grafts Partnership; Respondents/claimants: Boston Scientific Ltd and Boston Scientific International BV
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Patent Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; patents held invalid and not infringed
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Patent Infringement, Novelty, Obviousness, Added Matter, European Patents
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Validity Patent Infringement Novelty Obviousness Added Matter European Patents

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Julio Palmaz and Expandable Grafts Partnership

Appellants/patentees

Boston Scientific Ltd and Boston Scientific International BV

Respondents/claimants

Procedural Posture

Patent Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether European Patents (UK) Nos. 221 570 and 335 341 are valid and infringed
  2. 2 Whether the NIR stent infringes claim 1 of the patents
  3. 3 Whether the patents lack novelty due to prior disclosures

Ratio Decidendi

The patents are invalid for lack of novelty due to prior public disclosures by Dr Palmaz to Shiley and at the RSNA meeting, and are also obvious in light of the prior art. The NIR stent does not infringe the claims as it lacks essential features. The amendments do not save the patents from invalidity.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; patents held invalid and not infringed

Orders

  • Revocation of European Patents (UK) Nos. 221 570 and 335 341
  • No finding on added matter due to invalidity on other grounds