by Dennis Crouch
In April 2024, the Federal Circuit issued a significant decision vacating a district court's judgment that Janssen Pharmaceuticals' dosing regimen patent claims were nonobvious. Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., No. 2022-1258 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 1, 2024). The case involved Janson's U.S. Patent No. 9,439,906, which claims methods of treating schizophrenia by administering specific doses of the long-acting injectable antipsychotic paliperidone palmitate.
Teva filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking approval to market a generic version of Janssen's Invega Sustenna product, which embodies the claimed methods. In the ensuing Hatch-Waxman litigation, Teva stipulated to infringement but challenged the patent on obviousness and indefiniteness grounds. Following a bench trial Judge Cecchi (D.N.J.) rejected Teva's invalidity defenses, and Teva appealed.
On appeal, Judge Prost authored a unanimous opinion affirming the district court's indefiniteness determination but vacating and remanding on obviousness. Overall, this is a bad case for pharmaceutical formulary patents.
This post focuses on the court's obviousness holding and its potential implications for pharmaceutical method of treatment claims more broadly. I make three key claims. . .
To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.