Kendall Gurule examines two recent Federal Circuit decisions, Teva v. Eli Lilly and Wyeth v. AstraZeneca, that reached opposite enablement outcomes for method-of-treatment patent claims. Gurule explains how the claimed patentable advance can shape the enablement inquiry and presents a three-step framework for understanding the court’s reasoning. The article highlights how closely comparing the claimed advance, the specification and the required experimentation can help practitioners assess enablement in method-of-treatment cases.