The CAFC affirmed the New Jersey district court's ruling that Teva Pharmaceuticals failed to prove the asserted claims of Janssen Pharmaceuticals’ patent for antipsychotic medications invalid for obviousness. The CAFC clarified that prior art overlapping numerical ranges did not support a presumption of obviousness. Additionally, the court found that the district court erred in requiring evidence of generalized dosing regimens, emphasizing the relevance of claims referring to "a" patient. The CAFC pointed out flaws in the district court's analysis of secondary considerations and misunderstandings related to FDA-approval arguments.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that Teva Pharmaceuticals did not prove the claims of Janssen Pharmaceuticals' patent for antipsychotic dosing regimens invalid for obviousness.
The CAFC highlighted that the district court misinterpreted the claims by conflating arguments related to FDA-approval processes with the actual claim scope.
Collection
[
|
...
]