Thank you Dennis. This is very helpful.
The Federal Circuit recently issued an important decision in Janssen Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals and Mylan that highlights several key principles for assessing the obviousness of pharmaceutical method of treatment claims.? In this #HatchWaxman case, Janssen sued Teva for infringing its patent covering a particular dosing regimen for administering paliperidone to treat schizophrenia. The district court found Janssen's claims nonobvious, but the Federal Circuit vacated that ruling. The case is an important one favoring obviousness findings, especially in method-of-use claims associated with an already known product. Three key takeaways: 1. The obviousness analysis must focus on the actual claim language. The Federal Circuit faulted the district court for requiring the claimed dosing to be generally suitable for broader patient populations when the claims only recited treating "a" patient. 2. Prior art must be analyzed flexibly and holistically. The district court erred by taking an overly rigid, piecemeal approach to the prior art. The Federal Circuit emphasized that under KSR, the obviousness inquiry must account for the knowledge and creativity of skilled artisans. 3. Objective indicia like unexpected results and blocking patents must be evaluated from the perspective of skilled artisans. The district court improperly relied on the inventors' own surprise rather than what the prior art taught. It also failed to take a practical approach (rather than legalistic) when consider whether earlier blocking patents would have deterred others from pursuing the claimed dosing regimen. https://lnkd.in/gK9ND-xN