University of British Columbia v Conor Medsystems, Inc [2006] FCAFC 154

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

University of British Columbia v Conor Medsystems, Inc [2006] FCAFC 154

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – Patents – joint patentees – whether patent is invalid and to be revoked on the basis that the patentee is not entitled to the patent – whether the patentees derived title to the patent from an inventor PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – separate question – question reformulated on appeal – whether Full Court should determine either original or reformulated question Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 23 Federal Court Rules order 29 rule 2 Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ss 3, 15, 16, 17, 18, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40, 44, 45, 49, 59, 60, 61, 63, 104, 113, 138, 143, 186, 187, 189, 192 Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth) reg 3.1, 3.18 Patents Act 1977 (UK) s72 Speedy Gantry Hire Pty Ltd v Preston Erection Pty Ltd (1998) 40 IPR 543 referred to Stack v Davies Shephard Pty Ltd (2001) 108 FCR 422 referred to THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA & ANOR v CONOR MEDSYSTEMS, INC VID104 OF 2006 EMMETT, STONE & BENNETT JJ 31 OCTOBER 2006 SYDNEY (HEARD IN MELBOURNE) IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID104 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

FIRST APPELLANT

ANGIOTECH PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. (formerly ANGIOGENESIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC)

SECOND APPELLANT

AND: CONOR MEDSYSTEMS, INC.

RESPONDENT

JUDGES: EMMETT, STONE & BENNETT JJ DATE OF ORDER: 31 OCTOBER 2006

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY (Heard in Melbourne)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Order 9 made on 22 September 2005 and Orders 1 and 2 made on 3 February 2006 in proceeding VID 254 of 2005 be set aside. 2. The costs of the preliminary question and the costs of the appeal be the parties' costs of the proceeding. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA