The IPKat's mystery correspondent writes:
It would seem that the latest round in the stent saga is turning into an interesting example of the current problems in European patent law and the absence of a common patent system.
Remembering that Conor won their battle in the UK High Court with Angiotech's patent being declared invalid (see http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2006/260.html ), the court in the Netherlands has just held that the same patent is valid there - as indicated in the press announcement of Boston Scientific ( http://bostonscientific.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=520 ).
Boston have also sued Conor in the Netherlands under the same patent and so it would appear that conflicting decisions on patentability are the order of the day.
At the EPO, the opposition division held the patent valid in amended form though Conor are seeking to intervene ( http://ofi.epoline.org/view/GetDossier?dosnum=94920360&lang=en ).
All this raises the question as to who benefits from the splintered European patent system.
Today's the day that IPKat co-blogmeister Jeremy is completing (hopefully!) INTA's 5k run in Toronto. He's raising money for charity so, if you'd like to sponsor Jeremy's sweaty endeavours, you can find out how to here.