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

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 11, 2025

In considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of the “child” patent for purposes of indirect and willful infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 8, 2025

Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using plaintiff’s trade secrets. The district court further required defendants to reassign to plaintiff patents and patent applications that disclosed or were derived from plaintiff’s trade secrets as part of its equitable relief.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2025

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the “entire market value rule.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

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.