When do biologic drug patents expire and when will biosimilars launch?

United States Patent 10,012,654 (Method for Assaying Immunological Remission in IBD Treated With Anti-TNF): Claim Scope, Critical Validity Risks, and US Patent Landscape

United States Patent 10,012,654 claims a biomarker-guided treatment discontinuation framework in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients on anti-TNF antibody therapy, anchored on GI mucosal TNF-α expression levels measured by PCR and/or immunoassays, with a key decision rule based on whether TNF-α is normalized vs. a control (continue anti-TNF if not normalized; stop if normalized).

No complete, citable US patent landscape analysis (including other patents by family members, prosecution history, cited art, and current infringement/validity posture) can be produced from the claim text alone.

What does US Patent 10,012,654 claim for anti-TNF immunological remission in IBD patients?

Claim 1 is the independent method claim and sets the core inventive concept:

obtain a GI mucosal sample from an IBD patient treated with an anti-TNFα antibody,
measure TNFα expression in the sample using PCR or an immunological assay,
decide whether the patient is in immunological remission (IR) based on whether TNFα is normalized relative to a control,
continue anti-TNF if TNFα is not normalized, and
cease anti-TNF if TNFα is normalized.

Claim 1: elements that drive scope and infringement risk

Key functional and structural requirements:

Patient condition: IBD + treated with an anti-TNFα antibody (broadly named examples appear in dependent claim 7).
Sample type: GI mucosal sample. This narrows to tissue/biopsy-derived material rather than stool/blood unless “mucosal sample” is construed broadly.
Biomarker: TNFα expression level.
Assay modality: PCR or immunological assay.
Decision logic: comparison to a control and “normalized” status. This is the heart of claim construction.
Clinical outcome: “ceasing treatment” if normalized; “continuing” if not normalized. This ties the method to treatment steps, not just diagnostics.

Dependent claims that tighten scope

Claim 2: allows measurement of at least one further cytokine in addition to TNFα.
Claims 3 and 4: restrict to ulcerative colitis (UC) and adds IFN-γ detection.
Claim 5: ties patient selection to UCDAI ≤ 3.
Claim 6: adds requirement of endoscopic remission (a second clinical status constraint).
Claim 7: lists specific anti-TNF agents: certolizumab, golimumab, infliximab, adalimumab.
Claims 10-13: adds technical specifics for detection:
- Claim 10: measure nucleic acid encoding TNFα.
- Claim 11: PCR.
- Claim 12-13: measure protein TNFα via ELISA or RIA.

What the claim does not specify (and why that matters)

Claim 1 does not define:

the identity of the “control” used for normalization,
how “normalized” is quantified (threshold, fold-change, z-score, relative ratio, reference dataset),
the timing (when after anti-TNF dosing to sample),
whether the assay targets mRNA vs. total nucleic acid,
whether endoscopic remission is required (that appears only in claim 6).

Those omissions expand claim breadth but can also create validity vulnerability if prior art provides a similar decision framework with different controls/thresholds.

What prior art categories most directly threaten novelty and nonobviousness for claim 1?

Based on the claim structure, the most relevant prior art buckets are predictable:

1) Biomarker-guided anti-TNF de-escalation using mucosal cytokine expression

Threat theory:

If earlier publications demonstrate using intestinal mucosal TNFα expression (and similar cytokine normalization concepts) to guide withdrawal or continuation of anti-TNF, then claim 1’s novelty is weakened.
Even if prior art uses different cytokines, earlier “normalization vs. control” frameworks can be used to argue obviousness.

2) Molecular or immunoassay quantification of TNFα in GI mucosa in IBD

Threat theory:

If TNFα measurement by PCR and/or ELISA/RIA in GI mucosal tissue is well-established, then the measurement aspect alone is not the novelty.
The novelty likely depends on the normalization/control decision rule tied to treatment cessation.

3) Anti-TNF immunological remission concepts in IBD

Threat theory:

If “immunological remission” based on cytokine downregulation is known, the claim must still distinguish a specific TNFα normalization-based algorithm for stopping therapy.

4) UC-specific remission indices combined with biomarkers

Threat theory:

Claims 3-6 incorporate UCDAI and/or endoscopic remission. If prior art ties clinical remission states to treatment decisions, those are likely additional constraints but may not rescue validity if the biomarker decision rule is already suggested.

How strong is the claim construction around “normalized relative to a control” and “immunological remission”?

Normalization as an interpretive pivot

This phrase controls both:

scope (what constitutes “normalized”), and
infringement proof (whether an accused method performed the same normalization step).

If a competitor uses:

different controls (e.g., healthy tissue vs. baseline vs. internal housekeeping gene normalization),
different statistical methods (ratio vs. absolute expression),
a different threshold, they may argue “not normalized relative to a control” under the patent’s construction.

Immunological remission linkage

The claim binds “normalized TNFα expression” to a patient being “in immunological remission.”
If prior art uses “remission” terminology broadly, “immunological remission” may be argued as not a technical limitation beyond what is already biologically implied.

Which dependent claims are the most infringement-likely vs. the most validity-vulnerable?

Most infringement-likely (breadth and practicality)

Claim 1: it covers both nucleic acid and protein immunological assays; it is not restricted to a specific agent; it is not limited to UC-only, UCDAI ≤ 3, or endoscopic remission.
Claim 10-11: PCR-based nucleic acid detection is common and likely to be used by many testing workflows if they target mucosal tissue.
Claim 12-13: ELISA/RIA on tissue lysates is also plausible.

Most validity-vulnerable (additional constraints may be found in combinations)

Claim 5 (UCDAI ≤ 3) and Claim 6 (endoscopic remission): if prior art already uses these clinical criteria to decide de-escalation, combining them with TNFα normalization could be attacked as obvious.
Claim 4 (IFN-γ in UC): if IFN-γ is a standard cytokine in UC immunology and is measured alongside TNFα in earlier work, then this may add little nonobviousness.

Most likely to support claim differentiation in litigation

The decision logic in claim 1 is narrow enough to define an algorithm (stop vs continue) but broad enough to cover multiple assay platforms. That algorithmic linkage can sustain enforceability if “normalization/control” is shown to be a distinguishing step.

How many US patents likely cover similar anti-TNF cessation decision rules based on mucosal cytokine normalization?

A count cannot be responsibly produced from the provided information. Patent landscape requires:

bibliographic identification of the actual 10,012,654 family,
its citation set and forward citations,
and current status in the relevant US docket.

The claim text alone does not allow a reliable enumeration of the patents covering:

TNFα normalization vs control in GI mucosa,
anti-TNF de-escalation algorithms,
or co-biomarker strategies (IFN-γ).

Outputting a number without record-backed searching would be non-actionable.

What would be the Orange Book status of US 10,012,654?

This cannot be stated from the claim text because Orange Book listing depends on whether the patent is listed for a specific FDA-approved drug and whether the patent is an applicable listed patent type (drug substance, drug product, method-of-use). A method claim like this is only Orange Book relevant if it is listed for a specific NDC and FDA-approved product.

What generic or biosimilar entry risks exist under this patent?

The risk profile depends on:

whether the patent is listed for a particular anti-TNF product in Orange Book,
whether the claim is a method-of-use that would be triggered by label-driven generic/biosimilar prescribing vs off-label decision-making,
and whether competitors perform GI mucosal TNFα normalization testing before cessation.

A reliable risk assessment cannot be produced without knowing:

which anti-TNF products are implicated by the patent’s enforcement target,
whether the claim is asserted in existing litigations,
and whether the patent is currently active or expired.

What patent litigation affects US 10,012,654 and its claim set?

No litigation docket or assertion history can be determined from the provided claim text alone. Litigation impact is assessed via:

PGR/IPR history,
district court cases asserting the patent,
settlement agreements and consent judgments affecting claim interpretation,
and any PTAB outcomes on similar claim language.

How does US 10,012,654 compare with other TNF biomarker and mucosal cytokine diagnostic patents?

A comparative analysis requires at minimum:

identification of other specific US patents and their claim language (especially on “normalized relative to a control”),
and the measured specimen (mucosa vs blood/stool),
and the decision endpoint (cessation vs treat-to-target vs monitoring).

The provided information does not identify the patent family, assignee, or cited references, so a legal-comparison chart cannot be constructed.

Key takeaways

US Patent 10,012,654 centers on an anti-TNF de-escalation algorithm: measure TNFα expression in GI mucosa, use PCR or immunological assays, compare the result to a control to determine whether the patient is in immunological remission, then continue or cease anti-TNF accordingly.
The phrase “normalized relative to a control” is the main claim-construction and infringement hinge.
Dependent claims narrow by UC/UCDAI ≤ 3/endoscopic remission and can add IFN-γ and assay specifics (nucleic acid by PCR; protein by ELISA/RIA).
A comprehensive US patent landscape (counts, expirations, related families, Orange Book listings, litigation, and competitive risks) cannot be completed from claim text alone.

FAQs

1) Does US 10,012,654 require tissue biopsy, or can stool/blood qualify as “GI mucosal sample”?

2) What is the legal significance of “normalized relative to a control” in proving infringement?

3) Would measuring TNFα by qPCR vs endpoint PCR affect claim coverage?

4) If a provider stops anti-TNF based on endoscopic remission without TNFα normalization, does it avoid claim 1?

5) Can the method be practiced with anti-TNF agents other than certolizumab, infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab?

References (APA)

(No citable sources provided in the prompt sufficient to support a factual patent landscape, litigation status, or bibliographic verification for US Patent 10,012,654.)

Title:	Biomarkers in inflammatory bowel disease
Abstract:	The present invention provides a method of determining whether a patient with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and who has been treated with anti TNF.alpha. therapy is in immunological remission (IR), said method comprising determining the level of a cytokine selected from TNF.alpha., IL-17 and IFN-y in a Gl mucosal sample from said patient. Also provided are methods of prognosis and treatment using said method of determination, in particular discontinuing treatment if said patient is in IR and continuing treatment if said patient is not in IR.
Inventor(s):	Florholmen; Jon (Tromso, NO), Olsen; Trine (Tromso, NO), Rismo; Renathe (Tromso, NO), Goll; Rasmus (Tromso, NO), Cui; Guanglin (Tromso, NO)
Assignee:	UNIVERSITY OF TROMSO (Tromso, NO)
Application Number:	14/653,750
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims
Patent landscape, scope, and claims summary:	United States Patent 10,012,654 (Method for Assaying Immunological Remission in IBD Treated With Anti-TNF): Claim Scope, Critical Validity Risks, and US Patent Landscape United States Patent 10,012,654 claims a biomarker-guided treatment discontinuation framework in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients on anti-TNF antibody therapy, anchored on GI mucosal TNF-α expression levels measured by PCR and/or immunoassays, with a key decision rule based on whether TNF-α is normalized vs. a control (continue anti-TNF if not normalized; stop if normalized). No complete, citable US patent landscape analysis (including other patents by family members, prosecution history, cited art, and current infringement/validity posture) can be produced from the claim text alone. What does US Patent 10,012,654 claim for anti-TNF immunological remission in IBD patients? Claim 1 is the independent method claim and sets the core inventive concept: obtain a GI mucosal sample from an IBD patient treated with an anti-TNFα antibody, measure TNFα expression in the sample using PCR or an immunological assay, decide whether the patient is in immunological remission (IR) based on whether TNFα is normalized relative to a control, continue anti-TNF if TNFα is not normalized, and cease anti-TNF if TNFα is normalized. Claim 1: elements that drive scope and infringement risk Key functional and structural requirements: Patient condition: IBD + treated with an anti-TNFα antibody (broadly named examples appear in dependent claim 7). Sample type: GI mucosal sample. This narrows to tissue/biopsy-derived material rather than stool/blood unless “mucosal sample” is construed broadly. Biomarker: TNFα expression level. Assay modality: PCR or immunological assay. Decision logic: comparison to a control and “normalized” status. This is the heart of claim construction. Clinical outcome: “ceasing treatment” if normalized; “continuing” if not normalized. This ties the method to treatment steps, not just diagnostics. Dependent claims that tighten scope Claim 2: allows measurement of at least one further cytokine in addition to TNFα. Claims 3 and 4: restrict to ulcerative colitis (UC) and adds IFN-γ detection. Claim 5: ties patient selection to UCDAI ≤ 3. Claim 6: adds requirement of endoscopic remission (a second clinical status constraint). Claim 7: lists specific anti-TNF agents: certolizumab, golimumab, infliximab, adalimumab. Claims 10-13: adds technical specifics for detection: Claim 10: measure nucleic acid encoding TNFα. Claim 11: PCR. Claim 12-13: measure protein TNFα via ELISA or RIA. What the claim does not specify (and why that matters) Claim 1 does not define: the identity of the “control” used for normalization, how “normalized” is quantified (threshold, fold-change, z-score, relative ratio, reference dataset), the timing (when after anti-TNF dosing to sample), whether the assay targets mRNA vs. total nucleic acid, whether endoscopic remission is required (that appears only in claim 6). Those omissions expand claim breadth but can also create validity vulnerability if prior art provides a similar decision framework with different controls/thresholds. What prior art categories most directly threaten novelty and nonobviousness for claim 1? Based on the claim structure, the most relevant prior art buckets are predictable: 1) Biomarker-guided anti-TNF de-escalation using mucosal cytokine expression Threat theory: If earlier publications demonstrate using intestinal mucosal TNFα expression (and similar cytokine normalization concepts) to guide withdrawal or continuation of anti-TNF, then claim 1’s novelty is weakened. Even if prior art uses different cytokines, earlier “normalization vs. control” frameworks can be used to argue obviousness. 2) Molecular or immunoassay quantification of TNFα in GI mucosa in IBD Threat theory: If TNFα measurement by PCR and/or ELISA/RIA in GI mucosal tissue is well-established, then the measurement aspect alone is not the novelty. The novelty likely depends on the normalization/control decision rule tied to treatment cessation. 3) Anti-TNF immunological remission concepts in IBD Threat theory: If “immunological remission” based on cytokine downregulation is known, the claim must still distinguish a specific TNFα normalization-based algorithm for stopping therapy. 4) UC-specific remission indices combined with biomarkers Threat theory: Claims 3-6 incorporate UCDAI and/or endoscopic remission. If prior art ties clinical remission states to treatment decisions, those are likely additional constraints but may not rescue validity if the biomarker decision rule is already suggested. How strong is the claim construction around “normalized relative to a control” and “immunological remission”? Normalization as an interpretive pivot This phrase controls both: scope (what constitutes “normalized”), and infringement proof (whether an accused method performed the same normalization step). If a competitor uses: different controls (e.g., healthy tissue vs. baseline vs. internal housekeeping gene normalization), different statistical methods (ratio vs. absolute expression), a different threshold, they may argue “not normalized relative to a control” under the patent’s construction. Immunological remission linkage The claim binds “normalized TNFα expression” to a patient being “in immunological remission.” If prior art uses “remission” terminology broadly, “immunological remission” may be argued as not a technical limitation beyond what is already biologically implied. Which dependent claims are the most infringement-likely vs. the most validity-vulnerable? Most infringement-likely (breadth and practicality) Claim 1: it covers both nucleic acid and protein immunological assays; it is not restricted to a specific agent; it is not limited to UC-only, UCDAI ≤ 3, or endoscopic remission. Claim 10-11: PCR-based nucleic acid detection is common and likely to be used by many testing workflows if they target mucosal tissue. Claim 12-13: ELISA/RIA on tissue lysates is also plausible. Most validity-vulnerable (additional constraints may be found in combinations) Claim 5 (UCDAI ≤ 3) and Claim 6 (endoscopic remission): if prior art already uses these clinical criteria to decide de-escalation, combining them with TNFα normalization could be attacked as obvious. Claim 4 (IFN-γ in UC): if IFN-γ is a standard cytokine in UC immunology and is measured alongside TNFα in earlier work, then this may add little nonobviousness. Most likely to support claim differentiation in litigation The decision logic in claim 1 is narrow enough to define an algorithm (stop vs continue) but broad enough to cover multiple assay platforms. That algorithmic linkage can sustain enforceability if “normalization/control” is shown to be a distinguishing step. How many US patents likely cover similar anti-TNF cessation decision rules based on mucosal cytokine normalization? A count cannot be responsibly produced from the provided information. Patent landscape requires: bibliographic identification of the actual 10,012,654 family, its citation set and forward citations, and current status in the relevant US docket. The claim text alone does not allow a reliable enumeration of the patents covering: TNFα normalization vs control in GI mucosa, anti-TNF de-escalation algorithms, or co-biomarker strategies (IFN-γ). Outputting a number without record-backed searching would be non-actionable. What would be the Orange Book status of US 10,012,654? This cannot be stated from the claim text because Orange Book listing depends on whether the patent is listed for a specific FDA-approved drug and whether the patent is an applicable listed patent type (drug substance, drug product, method-of-use). A method claim like this is only Orange Book relevant if it is listed for a specific NDC and FDA-approved product. What generic or biosimilar entry risks exist under this patent? The risk profile depends on: whether the patent is listed for a particular anti-TNF product in Orange Book, whether the claim is a method-of-use that would be triggered by label-driven generic/biosimilar prescribing vs off-label decision-making, and whether competitors perform GI mucosal TNFα normalization testing before cessation. A reliable risk assessment cannot be produced without knowing: which anti-TNF products are implicated by the patent’s enforcement target, whether the claim is asserted in existing litigations, and whether the patent is currently active or expired. What patent litigation affects US 10,012,654 and its claim set? No litigation docket or assertion history can be determined from the provided claim text alone. Litigation impact is assessed via: PGR/IPR history, district court cases asserting the patent, settlement agreements and consent judgments affecting claim interpretation, and any PTAB outcomes on similar claim language. How does US 10,012,654 compare with other TNF biomarker and mucosal cytokine diagnostic patents? A comparative analysis requires at minimum: identification of other specific US patents and their claim language (especially on “normalized relative to a control”), and the measured specimen (mucosa vs blood/stool), and the decision endpoint (cessation vs treat-to-target vs monitoring). The provided information does not identify the patent family, assignee, or cited references, so a legal-comparison chart cannot be constructed. Key takeaways US Patent 10,012,654 centers on an anti-TNF de-escalation algorithm: measure TNFα expression in GI mucosa, use PCR or immunological assays, compare the result to a control to determine whether the patient is in immunological remission, then continue or cease anti-TNF accordingly. The phrase “normalized relative to a control” is the main claim-construction and infringement hinge. Dependent claims narrow by UC/UCDAI ≤ 3/endoscopic remission and can add IFN-γ and assay specifics (nucleic acid by PCR; protein by ELISA/RIA). A comprehensive US patent landscape (counts, expirations, related families, Orange Book listings, litigation, and competitive risks) cannot be completed from claim text alone. FAQs 1) Does US 10,012,654 require tissue biopsy, or can stool/blood qualify as “GI mucosal sample”? 2) What is the legal significance of “normalized relative to a control” in proving infringement? 3) Would measuring TNFα by qPCR vs endpoint PCR affect claim coverage? 4) If a provider stops anti-TNF based on endoscopic remission without TNFα normalization, does it avoid claim 1? 5) Can the method be practiced with anti-TNF agents other than certolizumab, infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab? References (APA) (No citable sources provided in the prompt sufficient to support a factual patent landscape, litigation status, or bibliographic verification for US Patent 10,012,654.) More… ↓ ⤷ Start Trial

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Janssen Biotech, Inc.	REMICADE	infliximab	For Injection	103772	August 24, 1998	⤷ Start Trial	2033-12-23
Abbvie Inc.	HUMIRA	adalimumab	Injection	125057	December 31, 2002	⤷ Start Trial	2033-12-23
Abbvie Inc.	HUMIRA	adalimumab	Injection	125057	February 21, 2008	⤷ Start Trial	2033-12-23
>Applicant	>Tradename	>Biologic Ingredient	>Dosage Form	>BLA	>Approval Date	>Patent No.	>Expiredate

Patent: 10,012,654

Summary for Patent: 10,012,654

United States Patent 10,012,654 (Method for Assaying Immunological Remission in IBD Treated With Anti-TNF): Claim Scope, Critical Validity Risks, and US Patent Landscape

What does US Patent 10,012,654 claim for anti-TNF immunological remission in IBD patients?

Claim 1: elements that drive scope and infringement risk

Dependent claims that tighten scope

What the claim does not specify (and why that matters)

What prior art categories most directly threaten novelty and nonobviousness for claim 1?

1) Biomarker-guided anti-TNF de-escalation using mucosal cytokine expression

2) Molecular or immunoassay quantification of TNFα in GI mucosa in IBD

3) Anti-TNF immunological remission concepts in IBD

4) UC-specific remission indices combined with biomarkers

How strong is the claim construction around “normalized relative to a control” and “immunological remission”?

Normalization as an interpretive pivot

Immunological remission linkage

Which dependent claims are the most infringement-likely vs. the most validity-vulnerable?

Most infringement-likely (breadth and practicality)

Most validity-vulnerable (additional constraints may be found in combinations)

Most likely to support claim differentiation in litigation

How many US patents likely cover similar anti-TNF cessation decision rules based on mucosal cytokine normalization?

What would be the Orange Book status of US 10,012,654?

What generic or biosimilar entry risks exist under this patent?

What patent litigation affects US 10,012,654 and its claim set?

How does US 10,012,654 compare with other TNF biomarker and mucosal cytokine diagnostic patents?

Key takeaways

FAQs

1) Does US 10,012,654 require tissue biopsy, or can stool/blood qualify as “GI mucosal sample”?

2) What is the legal significance of “normalized relative to a control” in proving infringement?

3) Would measuring TNFα by qPCR vs endpoint PCR affect claim coverage?

4) If a provider stops anti-TNF based on endoscopic remission without TNFα normalization, does it avoid claim 1?

5) Can the method be practiced with anti-TNF agents other than certolizumab, infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab?

References (APA)

Details for Patent 10,012,654

Make Better Decisions: Try a trial or see plans & pricing