Conor Medsystems Inc v Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc & Anor [2006] EWHC 260 (Pat) (24 February 2006)

Conor Medsystems Inc v Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc & Anor [2006] EWHC 260 (Pat) (24 February 2006)

The patent is invalid for obviousness. The concept of using a taxol/polymer-coated stent to prevent restenosis was obvious to the skilled person in light of the prior art and common general knowledge at the priority date. The patent specification was speculative and did not demonstrate a technical advance or inventive step. The secondary evidence of commercial success and acceptance did not outweigh the primary evidence of obviousness.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 260 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Conor Medsystems Inc.; Defendant: Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Defendant: The University of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation Action / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Patent revoked for lack of inventive step (obviousness)
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Inventive Step, Medical Devices, Pharmaceuticals
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Obviousness Inventive Step Medical Devices Pharmaceuticals

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Conor Medsystems Inc.

Claimant

Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Defendant

The University of British Columbia

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation Action / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether European Patent (UK) 706376 is invalid for obviousness over prior art
  2. 2 Whether the patent discloses an inventive step over the common general knowledge and cited publications

Ratio Decidendi

The patent is invalid for obviousness. The concept of using a taxol/polymer-coated stent to prevent restenosis was obvious to the skilled person in light of the prior art and common general knowledge at the priority date. The patent specification was speculative and did not demonstrate a technical advance or inventive step. The secondary evidence of commercial success and acceptance did not outweigh the primary evidence of obviousness.

Court Disposition

Patent revoked for lack of inventive step (obviousness)

Orders

  • European Patent (UK) 706376 is revoked.