Conor Medsystems Inc v Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc

The case of Conor Medsystems Inc v Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc involved a dispute over the validity of a European patent held by Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc, relating to a stent coated with taxol for preventing or treating restenosis. Conor Medsystems Inc, an American competitor, sought revocation of the patent in both the United Kingdom and the Netherlands on the ground that the claimed invention was obvious. In the United Kingdom, the patent was revoked by Pumfrey J and the Court of Appeal, while in the Netherlands, the District Court of The Hague upheld the validity of the patent. Angiotech appealed to the House of Lords, which found in its favour.

The legal issues in the case centred on the interpretation of the European Patent Convention and the Patents Act 1977, specifically the requirements for an inventive step and the sufficiency of the patent specification. The House of Lords considered whether the patent involved an inventive step and whether the specification was sufficient to support the claims.

The court held that the patent was valid and involved an inventive step. The Lords of Appeal in Ordinary disagreed with the lower courts' reasoning that the patent merely taught that taxol was worth trying to prevent restenosis. They found that the specification did claim that a taxol-coated stent would prevent or treat restenosis. The court rejected the notion that the patent was vulnerable only if the skilled person would have an expectation of success sufficient to induce him to incorporate taxol in a drug-eluting stent. Instead, they held that the question was whether it was obvious to use a taxol-coated stent to prevent restenosis, which was not the case.

The court further held that the requirement for a demonstration that the invention would work was not a sufficient reason for not applying the ordinary principles of obviousness to the claimed invention. The House of Lords allowed the appeal and upheld the validity of the patent.

In conclusion, the House of Lords found in favour of Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc and upheld the validity of the European patent relating to a stent coated with taxol for preventing or treating restenosis. The court rejected the argument that the patent merely taught that taxol was worth trying and found that the specification did claim that a taxol-coated stent would prevent or treat restenosis. The patent was held to involve an inventive step and the specification was deemed sufficient to support the claims.