House of Lords judgment in Conor v. Angiotech brings UK closer to EPO

Remco de Ranitz (De Ranitz Advocatuur) and Otto Swens (Vondst Advocaten)

“And so yesterday, a bit sudden, there was the ‘Opinions’ decision  of the House of Lords in Conor v. Angiotech which the patent world so anxiously awaited . The well-known English IP weblog www.ipkat.com immediately headed “Breaking news: Angiotech appeal allowed”. Indeed: breaking news, for in the first and second instance Conor was found to be in the right and the patent of Angiotech was invalidated for lack of inventive step. The House of Lords, however, applied a different criterion and subsequently considered the patent valid.

(…) The House of Lords, the highest court in the UK undeniably brings English patent law further in line with ‘European’ patent law, in particular regarding inventive step. Amongst others, they criticise (certain applications of ) the ‘obvious to try’ test. Further, for our Dutch readers, it is pleasant to see that the Lords explicitly concur with several of the considerations on inventive step in the judgment of January 17, 2007 by the The Hague District Court in the Dutch case Angiotech v. Conor case, in particular because the English appeal court precisely criticized the inventive step approach of ‘our’ District Court.

(…) Lord Walker in the end, however, does not draw a distinct conclusion from these considerations, and the other Lords do not discuss the ‘obvious to try’ test further. The Lords in particular do not discuss the European criterion for examination of inventive step, the ‘problem solution’ approach. Therefore, this decision can hardly (yet?) contains an explicit choice for the European inventive step approach. Nonetheless, it is crystal clear that the strong emphasis that the Lords place on the ‘expectation of success’ and their criticism on the ‘obvious to try’ test moves UK patent law closer again to the EPO and ‘the continent’.”

Read the article here. (The authors represent Angiotech in Dutch patentprocedures).