Federal Circuit: Written Description and Enablement Depend on What a Patent 'Claims,' Not What the Claims Cover

February 12, 2025

Reading Time : 3 min

By: Jason Weil, Rachel J. Elsby, Shivani Prakash

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court decision that found a patent that did not describe after-arising technology failed to satisfy the written description requirement. In so doing, the Federal Circuit explained that written description and enablement are evaluated based on the subject matter that is claimed, not the products that practice those claims. As a result, the patentee was not required to describe unclaimed, later-discovered features of the accused products despite the broad language in the claims that undisputedly covered the products.

Several companies filed ANDAs seeking approval to market a generic version of Novartis’s drug Entresto®, which consists of the compounds valsartan and sacubitril complexed together through weak noncovalent bonds. In response, Novartis brought suit in the District of Delaware alleging infringement of one of its patents directed to pharmaceutical compositions of valsartan and sacubitril “administered in combination.”

At the district court, Defendant MSN argued that the patent was invalid for lack of written description and enablement because it did not include any description of combinations of valsartan and sacubitril where the drugs were complexed. More specifically, MSN argued that by failing to disclose valsartan-sacubitril complexes, the patent failed to describe and enable the full scope of the claims. Novartis responded that because its Entresto®product was developed after the patent was filed—it is after-arising technology—the specification did not need to describe or enable complexed valsartan-sacubitril to satisfy the requirements of Section 112. It need only provide support for then known combinations of valsartan and sacubitril. Following a three-day bench trial, the district court held that the patent satisfied the enablement requirement, explaining that enablement is judged based on the state of the art at the time of filing, and need not enable later-developed, complexed combinations. But the district court took the opposite approach with respect to written description, reasoning that the same facts were fatal for written description purposes because Novartis could not possibly describe that which it had not yet conceived.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s written description determination (while affirming its holding on enablement). The court held that the district court “erroneously conflated the distinct issues of patentability and infringement,” leading it astray in its evaluation of the written description. The question is not whether the patent adequately described complexed forms of valsartan and sacubitril. Rather, the question is whether the patent adequately describes what is claimed, i.e. a combination of valsartan and sacubitril. In this case, the complexed form found in Entresto®is not “what is claimed.”  Although products like Entresto®include the claimed combination, they also include unclaimed features (i.e., the valsartan-sacubitril complexes) that were not known at the time. As to the claimed features, however, the specification provided ample disclosures demonstrating the inventors were in possession of a pharmaceutical composition of valsartan and sacubitril administered in combination

MSN recently petitioned for rehearing focused on the argument that when the broadly construed claims include technology that did not exist at the time of invention (and thus, could not have been described), the written description requirement is not met.

Practice Tip: While it is true that a patent must describe and enable the full scope of the claims, it is important to remember that the scope of what is claimed may differ from the scope of what the claims cover. Thus, when considering what is embraced by the full scope of the claims, and therefore, relevant to a written description or enablement analysis, parties should consider whether there are features present that were developed later in time. Those features may very well fall outside of the scope of the claims for the purposes of written description and enablement, while the product may nevertheless practice the claims as they are written.

In Re: Entresto (Sacubitril/Valsartan), 2023-2218 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 10, 2025).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to invalidate claims in district court.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.