CONOR v ANGIOTECH AGAIN; WYE, O WYE ...

Conor v Angiotech: another comment

The decision of Mr Justice Pumfrey in Conor v Angiotech , in which he adopts a somewhat idiosyncratic approach to ascertaining whether a patent is invalid for obviousness, has already been the subject of discussion on this blog. A friend of the IPKat who practises in Germany has emailed him to say:

"Could it be that Pumfrey J. is writing with half an eye on the European Patent Office (EPO) Technical Board of Appeal, which must decide on the validity of the self-same Angiotech Euro-patent, sooner or later, using for the issue of inventive step the problem and solution approach, and having regard to the nature of the "contribution to the art" contained in the patent specification by the inventors.

The EPO opposition, by the way, was initiated in the spring of 1998.

It strikes me that the Pumfrey decision gives the TBA a useful roadmap. But whether the TBA finds the Pumfrey specimen answer in any way helpful remains to be seen".

Thanks, says the IPKat - but he wonders why Pumfrey J should be concerned to influence in any way the outcome of the pending EPO opposition, or the means by which it is achieved?


Statutory domination of a name: Wye not?

Left: Imperial College

One of the IPKat's correspondents has drawn his attention to a little-known piece of UK legislation, Section 10 of the Imperial College Act 1999, which reads:

"(1) No person other than Imperial College shall, within a period of 25 years beginning with the date on which this Act is passed, use either of the names mentioned in subsection (2) below without the consent of Imperial College.

(2) The names referred to in subsection (1) above are-

(a) Wye College; and
(b) The College of St. Gregory and St. Martin at Wye".

Right: Wye College

The Kat's correspondent asks, would it be a breach of statutory duty even to mention the name, without consent – for 25 years? Merpel adds, how much would brand barons like Anheuser-Busch and Intel pay to obtain that sort of protection!