Skip Navigation

Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases 2007 124(13-14):487-508; doi:10.1093/rpc/2007rpc20
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Crown Copyright

[2007] R.P.C. 20

ANGIOTECH PHARMACEUTICALS INC v CONOR MEDSYSTEMS INC

Court of Appeal

(Mummery, Tuckey and Jacob L.JJ.): December 12–14, 2006 and January 16, 20071

[2007] EWCA Civ 5; [2007] R.P.C. 20

Patent—Revocation—Paclitaxel-eluting stents—Inventive step—Patent held invalid over cited prior art—Appeal to Court of Appeal—Common general knowledge attributable to addressee of patent—Factors to be considered when assessing obviousness—"Obvious to try"—Whether paclitaxel an obvious candidate for testing—Need to assess contribution to the art made by the patent specification.

Key Words: Medical equipment • Inventive step • Inventive step • Inventive step • Prior art • Revocation • Validity

1 Paragraph numbers in this judgment are as assigned by the court.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.