The article discusses the Federal Circuit's decision in In re Entresto, which approved patent claims that include after-arising technology not explicitly covered in the original patent specifications. The court upheld the validity of a patent claiming a combination of valsartan and sacubitril, despite the claim's application method being discovered after the patent was filed. The authors argue that this decision strays from established patent law principles concerning enablement and written description. They advocate for a further evolution of these legal standards to address challenges presented by future technological advancements.
The Federal Circuit's ruling in In re Entresto marked a significant departure from established precedent, allowing patents on after-arising technologies not explicitly described in specifications.
The decision raises important questions about the sufficiency of disclosures in patent law, particularly concerning the breadth of claims and the concept of enablement.
Collection
[
|
...
]