The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the patent claims for Novartis' Entresto were valid, reversing a lower court's decision on lack of written description.
Judge Lourie stated, '[t]he invention is, for purposes of the 'written description' inquiry, whatever is now claimed,' establishing a clear standard for evaluating patent claims.
The district court affirmed that the plain and ordinary meaning of the disputed term in the patent did not lead to its invalidation based on lack of written description or enablement.
Despite MSN's challenges regarding obviousness and enablement, the CAFC supported Novartis, upholding the validity of their patent claims related to the heart failure drug.
Collection
[
|
...
]