When Does an Idea Become an Invention?

In biotechnology, where one discovery can take years of risk and billions in investment, timing matters. File too early, and you risk having your patent thrown out for being a “research plan.” File too late, and the field may have passed you by. The Federal Circuit’s Ariad v. Eli Lilly decision sits precisely at that uneasy intersection — asking how much an inventor must know before the law will call it an invention.

Ariad changed more than doctrine; it changed behavior. Before 2010, many biotech patents relied on broad genus claims — sweeping protections covering whole classes of molecules or functions. But the Federal Circuit’s en banc opinion in Ariad imposed a stricter written description standard: an inventor must “actually invent the invention claimed.” The problem was, the court never explained what that meant. Was Ariad’s patent too broad? Too speculative? Or simply too early?

In practice, Ariad became a line in the sand against “research plan” patents — patents that describe what scientists hope to achieve rather than what they’ve proven will work. The Federal Circuit worried that such early filings would block future innovation, letting one lab preempt an entire field before the science was ready. Yet the decision left innovators in limbo. If enablement requires that a skilled scientist can reproduce the invention, what extra burden does “written description” add?

My article, A Decade After Ariad, argues that the true test emerging from Ariad is this: does the patent give a reason to believe the invention works as claimed? It’s not just about describing what you did — it’s about persuading a skilled reader that your invention isn’t a wish, but a working solution. Under this interpretation, Ariad makes sense: it keeps the patent system focused on proven insight, not hypothetical blueprints.

In the age of mRNA vaccines and AI-driven drug design, this distinction is more than academic. The boundary between “idea” and “invention” is increasingly blurred — and where we draw that line will shape how fast, and how freely, science can move forward.

Excerpt adapted from “A Decade After Ariad: What Is the Written Description Standard for Emerging Bio-Pharma Patents?” originally published in the Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts (Vol. 17, 2022).