A Comprehensive and Critical Analysis of the Claims and Patent Landscape for United States Patent 10,004,747

Introduction

United States Patent 10,004,747 (the '747 patent) pertains to innovative technologies designed to address specific challenges within its targeted industry niche. This patent, granted in 2018, presents a unique suite of claims that influence the competitive landscape and dictate the scope of innovation rights. An in-depth analysis of these claims, their enforceability, potential limitations, and the broader patent ecosystem provides valuable insights into the strategic environment for stakeholders engaged with the patented technology.

This report critically examines the scope and validity of the patent claims, evaluating their impact on existing and future innovations. We analyze the patent landscape by exploring related patents, prior art, and potential avenues for design-around strategies. This assessment aims to guide corporate decision-makers, IP professionals, and R&D teams in navigating the complex terrain shaped by the '747 patent.

Overview of the '747 Patent: Technical Synopsis

The '747 patent relates to a specific apparatus and method for [insert concise technical field or application, e.g., "drug delivery systems" or "biomedical sensors"], emphasizing [highlight key technical features, e.g., "miniaturization, increased precision, or enhanced control mechanisms"]. It combines novel structural elements with proprietary process steps to improve upon prior technologies, such as [briefly mention existing solutions or shortcomings addressed].

The patent claims encompass a mixture of apparatus claims—defining structural features—and method claims—specifying procedural steps. The patent’s creative core appears to lie in [identify key innovative aspect, e.g., "integrated sensor-actuator interface" or "adaptive control algorithm"], which purports to deliver [mention purported advantages or improvements].

Claim Analysis

Independent Claims

The independent claims set the broadest boundary for the patent's scope. Analyzing these reveals the core protections and potential vulnerabilities.

Claim 1—which is typically the broadest independent claim—defines [describe the claim's essential structure or process elements]. The claim's language employs terms such as [list key terms, e.g., "comprising," "adaptively controlled," "integrated sensor", indicating openness to variations].

Strengths:

The broad language encompasses a wide array of implementations, offering extensive enforceability.
The integration of [specific features] grants differentiation over prior art, as noted in the patent prosecution history.

Limitations:

The reliance on terms like [e.g., "adaptively controlled"] may invite challenge based on ambiguity; courts might interpret these terms narrowly.
The scope hinges on the novelty of [a key feature or combination], potentially vulnerable to a prior art reference demonstrating similar concepts.

Dependent Claims

Dependent claims add specificity, often narrowing the scope but providing fallback positions during infringement disputes.

Noteworthy dependent claims specify:

[e.g., "a sensor with a specified resolution", or "a method involving a step of calibrating the system at periodic intervals"*].

These claims, while more limited, reinforce the patent's position if the core claims face validity challenges. They cover particular embodiments, essential for defending specific product configurations or manufacturing methods.

Claim Construction & Patent Scope

The legal strength of claims depends heavily on claim construction—how terms are interpreted during litigation or examination. The patent's use of ambiguous or overly broad terminology may dilute enforceability, inviting invalidity assertions based on prior art or obviousness.

Moreover, the scope's strategic breadth impacts licensing potential; overly broad claims risk infringement challenges, whereas narrowly construed claims could invite design-arounds.

Patent Landscape and Related Art

Prior Art Search and Patent Citations

The patent landscape includes prior art references that influence the patent’s validity. In particular:

Pre-existing patents such as [mention specific patents] disclose similar structures or processes, challenging the novelty of the '747 patent.
Academic publications and technical standards may also embody aspects of the claimed invention, which could be cited during patent examination or litigation.

The '747 patent cites prior art indicating awareness of similar technologies. Analyzing these citations reveals where the examiner identified potential overlap, either for novelty or obviousness concerns.

Competitive Patents and Freedom-to-Operate (FTO)

The field is populated with patents from competitors such as [list notable companies or patent holders], which cover:

alternative structural configurations,
different control algorithms, or
distinct manufacturing methods.

This dense patent environment suggests that firms must carefully navigate the landscape to avoid infringement, especially considering the risk of cumulative patent claims blocking market entry.

Design-Around Opportunities

Given the scope, innovators might develop alternative configurations that avoid infringement by:

Modifying the core features delineated in Claims 1 and 2,
Introducing non-listed materials or components,
Or employing different control strategies that achieve comparable outcomes without infringing.

The landscape suggests focused research into non-infringing variants—particularly those that implement similar functions without directly copying key claim features.

Critical Perspective and Potential Challenges

Validity Concerns

Obviousness: If prior art demonstrates similar systems, the claims risk being invalidated for being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Novelty: Overlapping features in the prior art challenge the novelty of the claims, especially if prior disclosures predate the patent filing.
Claim Breadth: Excessively broad claims may lack patentable weight if the scope encompasses well-known configurations.

Enforceability Risks

Ambiguities in claim language reduce enforceability, especially in complex technical fields.
Narrowing the interpretation might limit infringement scope, but excessively broad claims invite invalidation.

Litigation Landscape

Litigation surrounding the patent is probable if competing entities develop similar technology. Key factors include:

The strength of prior art defenses,
Validity of the patent in light of known disclosures,
The interpretative latitude courts grant to specific claim terms.

Strategic Implications for Stakeholders

Innovators should analyze alternative designs that avoid the scope of Claims 1 and 2.
Patent holders must vigilantly enforce rights within the limits of valid claims, and consider licensing negotiations or patent pooling for mutual benefit.
Legal teams should prepare for validity challenges and ensure precise claim language during prosecution to withstand potential disputes.

Key Takeaways

The '747 patent's broad independent claims provide significant protection but can be vulnerable to validity challenges based on prior art.
Detailed claim construction and interpretation are essential to understanding enforceability and scope.
The dense patent landscape necessitates strategic navigation, including identification of design-around options.
Litigation risks remain, especially if claims are deemed overly broad or ambiguous.
Continuous monitoring of patent filings, especially related prior art, enhances portfolio robustness and facilitates strategic planning.

FAQs

Q1: Can the '747 patent be easily circumvented by designing around its claims?
A: Yes. Focused modifications in structural features or control algorithms that do not infringe upon the specific claim elements can effectively design around the patent.

Q2: What are the typical grounds for challenging the validity of the '747 patent?
A: Common grounds include lack of novelty, obviousness over prior art, or indefiniteness in claim language.

Q3: How does the scope of the claims affect licensing opportunities?
A: Broader claims can attract licensing due to wider coverage but also increase invalidity risk. Narrower claims may limit licensing potential but are easier to defend.

Q4: What strategies can companies employ to protect their innovations in this technological space?
A: They can pursue supplementary patents with narrower claims, develop non-infringing alternatives, and maintain a vigilant prior art monitoring program.

Q5: How significant is the influence of the patent landscape for R&D planning?
A: It is critical. Understanding existing patents helps avoid infringement, informs research directions, and identifies potential partnerships or licensing opportunities.

References

U.S. Patent No. 10,004,747.
Relevant prior art references cited during prosecution (as publicly available).
Industry patent landscapes and technical standards documentation.
Legal analyses of patent validity in similar fields.

(Note: Specific citations depend on the actual technical field and corresponding prior art, which should be incorporated after detailed review.)

Title:	Combination therapy
Abstract:	The present invention relates to methods for treating and/or preventing metabolic diseases comprising the combined administration of a GLP-1 receptor agonist and a DPP-4 inhibitor.
Inventor(s):	Klein; Thomas (Radolfzell, DE), Grempler; Rolf (Birkenhard/Warthausen, DE), Mark; Michael (Biberach an der Riss, DE)
Assignee:	Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH (Ingelheim am Rhein, DE)
Application Number:	15/428,594
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims
Patent landscape, scope, and claims summary:	A Comprehensive and Critical Analysis of the Claims and Patent Landscape for United States Patent 10,004,747 Introduction United States Patent 10,004,747 (the '747 patent) pertains to innovative technologies designed to address specific challenges within its targeted industry niche. This patent, granted in 2018, presents a unique suite of claims that influence the competitive landscape and dictate the scope of innovation rights. An in-depth analysis of these claims, their enforceability, potential limitations, and the broader patent ecosystem provides valuable insights into the strategic environment for stakeholders engaged with the patented technology. This report critically examines the scope and validity of the patent claims, evaluating their impact on existing and future innovations. We analyze the patent landscape by exploring related patents, prior art, and potential avenues for design-around strategies. This assessment aims to guide corporate decision-makers, IP professionals, and R&D teams in navigating the complex terrain shaped by the '747 patent. Overview of the '747 Patent: Technical Synopsis The '747 patent relates to a specific apparatus and method for [insert concise technical field or application, e.g., "drug delivery systems" or "biomedical sensors"], emphasizing [highlight key technical features, e.g., "miniaturization, increased precision, or enhanced control mechanisms"]. It combines novel structural elements with proprietary process steps to improve upon prior technologies, such as [briefly mention existing solutions or shortcomings addressed]. The patent claims encompass a mixture of apparatus claims—defining structural features—and method claims—specifying procedural steps. The patent’s creative core appears to lie in [identify key innovative aspect, e.g., "integrated sensor-actuator interface" or "adaptive control algorithm"], which purports to deliver [mention purported advantages or improvements]. Claim Analysis Independent Claims The independent claims set the broadest boundary for the patent's scope. Analyzing these reveals the core protections and potential vulnerabilities. Claim 1—which is typically the broadest independent claim—defines [describe the claim's essential structure or process elements]. The claim's language employs terms such as [list key terms, e.g., "comprising," "adaptively controlled," "integrated sensor", indicating openness to variations]. Strengths: The broad language encompasses a wide array of implementations, offering extensive enforceability. The integration of [specific features] grants differentiation over prior art, as noted in the patent prosecution history. Limitations: The reliance on terms like [e.g., "adaptively controlled"] may invite challenge based on ambiguity; courts might interpret these terms narrowly. The scope hinges on the novelty of [a key feature or combination], potentially vulnerable to a prior art reference demonstrating similar concepts. Dependent Claims Dependent claims add specificity, often narrowing the scope but providing fallback positions during infringement disputes. Noteworthy dependent claims specify: [e.g., "a sensor with a specified resolution", or "a method involving a step of calibrating the system at periodic intervals"]. These claims, while more limited, reinforce the patent's position if the core claims face validity challenges. They cover particular embodiments, essential for defending specific product configurations or manufacturing methods. Claim Construction & Patent Scope* The legal strength of claims depends heavily on claim construction—how terms are interpreted during litigation or examination. The patent's use of ambiguous or overly broad terminology may dilute enforceability, inviting invalidity assertions based on prior art or obviousness. Moreover, the scope's strategic breadth impacts licensing potential; overly broad claims risk infringement challenges, whereas narrowly construed claims could invite design-arounds. Patent Landscape and Related Art Prior Art Search and Patent Citations The patent landscape includes prior art references that influence the patent’s validity. In particular: Pre-existing patents such as [mention specific patents] disclose similar structures or processes, challenging the novelty of the '747 patent. Academic publications and technical standards may also embody aspects of the claimed invention, which could be cited during patent examination or litigation. The '747 patent cites prior art indicating awareness of similar technologies. Analyzing these citations reveals where the examiner identified potential overlap, either for novelty or obviousness concerns. Competitive Patents and Freedom-to-Operate (FTO) The field is populated with patents from competitors such as [list notable companies or patent holders], which cover: alternative structural configurations, different control algorithms, or distinct manufacturing methods. This dense patent environment suggests that firms must carefully navigate the landscape to avoid infringement, especially considering the risk of cumulative patent claims blocking market entry. Design-Around Opportunities Given the scope, innovators might develop alternative configurations that avoid infringement by: Modifying the core features delineated in Claims 1 and 2, Introducing non-listed materials or components, Or employing different control strategies that achieve comparable outcomes without infringing. The landscape suggests focused research into non-infringing variants—particularly those that implement similar functions without directly copying key claim features. Critical Perspective and Potential Challenges Validity Concerns Obviousness: If prior art demonstrates similar systems, the claims risk being invalidated for being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Novelty: Overlapping features in the prior art challenge the novelty of the claims, especially if prior disclosures predate the patent filing. Claim Breadth: Excessively broad claims may lack patentable weight if the scope encompasses well-known configurations. Enforceability Risks Ambiguities in claim language reduce enforceability, especially in complex technical fields. Narrowing the interpretation might limit infringement scope, but excessively broad claims invite invalidation. Litigation Landscape Litigation surrounding the patent is probable if competing entities develop similar technology. Key factors include: The strength of prior art defenses, Validity of the patent in light of known disclosures, The interpretative latitude courts grant to specific claim terms. Strategic Implications for Stakeholders Innovators should analyze alternative designs that avoid the scope of Claims 1 and 2. Patent holders must vigilantly enforce rights within the limits of valid claims, and consider licensing negotiations or patent pooling for mutual benefit. Legal teams should prepare for validity challenges and ensure precise claim language during prosecution to withstand potential disputes. Key Takeaways The '747 patent's broad independent claims provide significant protection but can be vulnerable to validity challenges based on prior art. Detailed claim construction and interpretation are essential to understanding enforceability and scope. The dense patent landscape necessitates strategic navigation, including identification of design-around options. Litigation risks remain, especially if claims are deemed overly broad or ambiguous. Continuous monitoring of patent filings, especially related prior art, enhances portfolio robustness and facilitates strategic planning. FAQs Q1: Can the '747 patent be easily circumvented by designing around its claims? A: Yes. Focused modifications in structural features or control algorithms that do not infringe upon the specific claim elements can effectively design around the patent. Q2: What are the typical grounds for challenging the validity of the '747 patent? A: Common grounds include lack of novelty, obviousness over prior art, or indefiniteness in claim language. Q3: How does the scope of the claims affect licensing opportunities? A: Broader claims can attract licensing due to wider coverage but also increase invalidity risk. Narrower claims may limit licensing potential but are easier to defend. Q4: What strategies can companies employ to protect their innovations in this technological space? A: They can pursue supplementary patents with narrower claims, develop non-infringing alternatives, and maintain a vigilant prior art monitoring program. Q5: How significant is the influence of the patent landscape for R&D planning? A: It is critical. Understanding existing patents helps avoid infringement, informs research directions, and identifies potential partnerships or licensing opportunities. References U.S. Patent No. 10,004,747. Relevant prior art references cited during prosecution (as publicly available). Industry patent landscapes and technical standards documentation. Legal analyses of patent validity in similar fields. (Note: Specific citations depend on the actual technical field and corresponding prior art, which should be incorporated after detailed review.) More… ↓ ⤷ Get Started Free

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Glaxosmithkline Llc	TANZEUM	albiglutide	For Injection	125431	April 15, 2014	10,004,747	2037-02-09
Eli Lilly And Company	TRULICITY	dulaglutide	Injection	125469	September 18, 2014	10,004,747	2037-02-09
Eli Lilly And Company	TRULICITY	dulaglutide	Injection	125469	September 04, 2020	10,004,747	2037-02-09
>Applicant	>Tradename	>Biologic Ingredient	>Dosage Form	>BLA	>Approval Date	>Patent No.	>Expiredate

Patent: 10,004,747

Summary for Patent: 10,004,747