← Back to How Broadly Can I Claim?

Wyeth v. AstraZeneca: Dosage Claims and Full-Scope Enablement

Federal Circuit, decided 9 July 2026. Read from the primary document; quotations verified against its own text.

What it says

On July 9, 2026 the Federal Circuit affirmed judgment as a matter of law invalidating Wyeth's method-of-treatment claims for lack of enablement, in a case where the specification's dosage ranges far exceeded the maximum tolerated dose for at least one identified compound and the district court had separately held that clinical and safety requirements belong to the FDA rather than to the enablement inquiry.

Method-of-treatment claims recited dosage ranges. The specification could not support them: the claimed ranges far exceeded the maximum tolerated dose for at least one identified compound.

The Federal Circuit affirmed judgment as a matter of law invalidating the claims for lack of enablement. A claimed range the specification cannot support is a section 112 problem, and it fails on the same full-scope logic as the other decisions in this section.

The district court had separately held that clinical and safety requirements belong to the FDA rather than to the enablement inquiry. The two questions are not the same question, and answering one does not answer the other.

What This Does Not Decide

Enablement is a patentability requirement, so this page sits close to the line. It reports what the court affirmed and the reasoning it recounted. Whether any particular dosage claim is enabled is a legal determination on a record.
  • It does not say whether any dosage claim is enabled.
  • It does not say that FDA approvability and enablement track each other. The district court held the opposite.
  • It does not apply to anyone's specification.

Educational, not legal advice. This page reports what an authority says. Applying it to a matter is work for a registered practitioner with the file in front of them.

Sources