Lords Patent Ruling Brings UK Further Into Line With Europe

by Ulrika Lomas, for LawAndTax-News.com, Brussels

15 July 2008

A ruling on the 'obviousness test' for patents delivered by the House of Lords last week has brought the United Kingdom's patent laws further into line with those in place elsewhere in Europe.

Angiotech Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the global specialty pharmaceutical and medical device company at the centre of the case, confirmed that the precedent-setting decision had been made on July 9th, and pertained to the validity of one of Angiotech’s patents related to its paclitaxel stent inventions.

“We are pleased that the House of Lords entered final judgment in Angiotech’s favor and view this outcome as further proof of the continued strength of our paclitaxel stent patent portfolio throughout the world,” announced Dr Bill Hunter, President and CEO of Angiotech, continuing:

“We remain committed to vigorously protecting our proprietary technologies and defending our intellectual property, and reaching supportive conclusion on this decision reaffirms this commitment.”

The patent at issue was granted to Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc. by the European Patent Office in June 1997. At the EPO, five different companies opposed the patent. After over nine years of legal battles their challenge proved unsuccessful and the validity of the patent was maintained.

In February 2005, Angiotech commenced suit against Conor Medsystems Inc. in the Netherlands. Conor responded by commencing proceedings in the UK to revoke the patent. Conor argued that, as of July 1993 (the priority date), the claims in the patent lacked inventive step (i.e., were obvious) under UK law.

Both the UK trial court and the UK Court of Appeal decided that the patent was invalid in view of several publications. Within the same time frame, several courts in the Netherlands following the approach of the EPO, concluded that Angiotech’s claimed invention was inventive and not obvious in view of the same publications. Angiotech appealed the UK lower court decisions to the House of Lords seeking to resolve these inconsistent outcomes.

In his lead opinion upholding the validity of Angiotech’s patent, Lord Hoffmann did not agree with the reasoning that the UK lower courts had used in justifying revocation, and instead agreed with the opinion of the Dutch Court.

Angiotech concluded by observing that:

"The House of Lords’ unanimous decision reflects an important development in bringing uniformity to the interpretation of the European Patent Convention among the national courts of Europe and the European Patent Office."

Recommended