The Patent War Settled: Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi
The Supreme Court's unanimous decision redefined the 'Enablement' requirement of the Patent Act. The battle over PCSK9 inhibitors concluded by drawing a firm line between true innovation and overreaching legal claims.
In a case that fundamentally reshaped the landscape of American biotechnology, the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi has redefined the "Enablement" requirement of the Patent Act. The battle over PCSK9 inhibitors—life-saving drugs that lower "bad" cholesterol—concluded by drawing a firm line between true innovation and overreaching legal claims.
The "Broad vs. Specific" Resolution
The litigation hinged on a fundamental question: How much information must a scientist provide to "earn" a patent? Amgen sought to control an entire class of antibodies based on their function, rather than their specific structure.
The Failed Innovation Argument
Amgen argued that the astronomical cost of biotech research necessitated broad "functional" patents. They claimed that without this protection, competitors could bypass patents with minor molecular tweaks, effectively "stealing" years of research.
The "Over-Claiming" Victory
Sanofi and a coalition of biotech firms successfully argued that Amgen was attempting to "own a destination without building the road." The Court agreed, ruling that providing 26 examples did not justify a patent on the millions of other potential antibodies that Amgen had not yet identified.
The Verdict
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the 9-0 Court, held that the more a person claims, the more they must enable. Amgen's patents were struck down because they essentially gave the industry a "research assignment" rather than a usable invention.
Why the Outcome Changed Everything
This ruling has set the gold standard for the pace of medical breakthroughs. By striking down "broad" functional patents, the Court prevented a wave of drug monopolies and ensured that the "genus" of a discovery remains open for others to explore. While some fear this may decrease investment in complex biological therapies, the legal precedent is clear: In the U.S., you cannot patent what you cannot explain how to make.
Explore This Case
Use AskLexi to search the actual court documents from this case.