| The case of Conor Medsystems Inc v Angiotech | | | | § The difference between the claim and the |
| Pharmaceuticals Inc and Another [2007], | | | | prior art; and |
| concerned a patent for a medical device used in | | | | § Whether there was a motive provided or |
| operations. The defendants owned a European | | | | hinted by the prior art. |
| patent for a device called a 'stent' used in | | | | It was also held that:- |
| coronary angioplasty. The 'stent' is inserted into a | | | | § Sometimes the commercial success of an |
| diseased artery during the procedure to keep the | | | | invention could demonstrate that the idea was |
| artery open. The claims in the patent concerned a | | | | particularly good, whereas in other situations the |
| 'stent' coated with a polymer loaded with the drug | | | | fact that the idea may have been 'obvious to try' |
| taxol. This drug inhibited the development of | | | | could come into an assessment. The most |
| tissue which might result in the artery closing. | | | | important factor however was the nature of the |
| The defendants licensed the patent of this device | | | | invention. |
| to BS, a manufacturer of 'stents'. The claimant, | | | | § The judge's decision should stand. |
| who is a competitor of BS, sought to have the | | | | § This was because the patent had not in |
| patent revoked on the grounds that the invention | | | | any way demonstrated that taxol actually worked |
| was obvious in the light of prior art. The judge | | | | to prevent a diseased artery from closing, even |
| held that it was obvious to have tested taxol, and | | | | though it had been tested. The judge was |
| therefore the patent was invalid for obviousness. | | | | therefore right to deem the patent invalid for |
| The defendant appealed. | | | | obviousness. |
| The defendant's appeal was dismissed. | | | | If you require further information contact us at |
| The question to be considered was whether the | | | | Visit or |
| invention was obvious. In order to make this | | | | © RT COOPERS, 2007. This Briefing Note |
| assessment, a number of factors had to be | | | | does not provide a comprehensive or complete |
| considered: | | | | statement of the law relating to the issues |
| § The attributes and common general | | | | discussed nor does it constitute legal advice. It is |
| knowledge of the skilled man; | | | | intended only to highlight general issues. |