A Law360 reporter consulted attorney Laura W. Smalley for a recent article on the revived obviousness case on a Johnson & Johnson drug patent.

In a recent Federal Circuit ruling, the court disagreed with a New Jersey federal judge’s decision to uphold a Johnson & Johnson schizophrenia drug patent and reject the obviousness challenge of generics maker Teva Pharmaceuticals. According to the article, the Federal Circuit was clear that when analyzing the obviousness of a patent, the focus should be on what the patent covers.

“I think the court is really emphasizing that when you look at obviousness, you need to really look at the scope of the claims, and that was the big criticism of the district court,” Smalley says in the article.
Smalley is a member of the firm’s Intellectual Property and Appellate practice groups and focuses her practice on clients’ development of their technology and protecting and enforcing clients’ intellectual property rights.

Read the entire Law360 article. (Subscription may be required).