In early April, a Federal Circuit panel found that a New Jersey federal judge ruled incorrectly that generics maker Teva had shown that a patent on a dosing regimen for a Johnson & Johnson’s schizophrenia drug was obvious based on a clinical trial protocol and other evidence.
This precedential opinion highlights the Federal Circuit’s views regarding key issues in generic drug cases. Law360 spoke with Finnegan partner Justin Hasford who said that the Federal Circuit's fact-intensive decision doesn't make new law, since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in KSR v. Teleflex held that "there shouldn't be sort of this rigid test for obviousness, and that's what the court applied here.”
Justin added that generics makers often argue that drug patents are obvious based on multiple references each covering one element of the patent, so he found it ironic that the generic side in the case was the one emphasizing creativity and what the evidence suggests when taken as a whole.
"That's not usually the way the generic side argues, but that was a successful argument here," Hasford said.
Read “3 Takeaways from Revived Obviousness Case On J&J Patent”
