Recently, we posted about MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s petition for certiorari and the several amicus briefs in support of that petition. On November 7, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. filed its brief in opposition. The case squarely presents the long-simmering doctrinal tension over how patent law treats “after-developed” or “after‑arising” technology—innovations not known at a patent’s filing but later alleged to fall within a claim’s scope.

A closely watched petition for certiorari asks the Supreme Court to resolve a fundamental question in patent law: may courts consider after-developed technology when assessing validity under Section 112’s written description and enablement requirements? The petition arises from the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Entresto, which sustained validity while accepting a broad infringement construction that captured a later-invented chemical “complex.” The outcome could reshape patent drafting, litigation strategy, and freedom-to-operate assessments across life sciences, high tech, and beyond.