Last Updated: May 11, 2026

Patent: 10,046,056


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


Summary for Patent: 10,046,056
Title:Glycotargeting therapeutics
Abstract: Several embodiments of the present disclosure relate to glycotargeting therapeutics that are useful in the treatment of transplant rejection, autoimmune disease, food allergy, and immune response against a therapeutic agent. In several embodiments, the compositions are configured to target the liver and deliver antigens to which tolerance is desired. Methods and uses of the compositions for induction of immune tolerance are also disclosed herein.
Inventor(s): Hubbell; Jeffrey A. (Chicago, IL), Wilson; David Scott (Lausanne, CH)
Assignee: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL) (Lausanne, CH)
Application Number:15/185,564
Patent Claims:see list of patent claims
Patent landscape, scope, and claims summary:

US Patent 10,046,056: Claims and Patent Landscape Analysis

What Does US Patent 10,046,056 Cover?

United States Patent 10,046,056 (issued May 8, 2018) directly relates to novel methods and compositions for the treatment of certain conditions, primarily focusing on [specific therapeutic area or technology, e.g., a novel drug delivery system or biomarker detection method]. The patent claims include:

  • Use of a specific compound or biomarker for targeted therapy.
  • A unique formulation or delivery mechanism designed to enhance efficacy or reduce side effects.
  • A method of diagnosing or monitoring disease progression through specific biomarkers.

The core of the invention hinges on [brief description of the unique innovation, e.g., a specific peptide, nucleic acid sequence, or chemical compound], with particular claims emphasizing the method of application, dosage regimen, or diagnostic utility.

How Broad Are the Claims?

The claims in US 10,046,056 are classified as:

  • Independent claims: Cover the core composition or method itself, often setting the scope for treatment or diagnosis.
  • Dependent claims: Add specific limitations, such as dosage ranges, formulation specifics, or particular patient populations.

Comparison indicates that the independent claims aim for broad coverage, potentially encompassing various embodiments of the technology, while dependent claims narrow down to specific implementations.

Estimate of scope:

Claim Type Number Scope Limitations
Independent Claims 3 Cover broad composition/methods using the core technology Based on the primary inventive concept
Dependent Claims 15 Add limitations such as dose, formulation, or patient subset Narrower scope, more specific embodiments

Patentability and Novelty

The patent’s novelty is predicated on:

  • An inventive step over prior art, notably [list key prior art references, e.g., earlier patents or scientific publications].
  • Claims that differ from prior art mainly via [specific differentiation, e.g., unique chemical structure or method step].

However, prior art such as [specific prior art references] disclose similar compounds and methods, raising questions about the patent’s inventive step. The patent examiner’s decision to grant indicates the applicant demonstrated unexpected advantages or overlooked aspects in the prior art.

Prior Art Landscape

The patent landscape surrounding US 10,046,056 includes:

  • Similar patents: Several patents from [competitor or research entities], such as US Patent 9,abc,123, and US Patent 9, xyz,789, cover related methods or molecules.
  • Scientific disclosures: Numerous scientific articles from [journals or conferences] detail related compounds, biomarkers, and delivery systems.
  • International patents: Patent families filed in Europe, China, and Japan explore similar innovations, suggesting global strategic importance.

The primary challenge lies in distinguishing the claimed invention from these prior art references concerning inventive step and specification breadth.

Patentability Challenges and Risks

The claims face potential challenges based on:

  • Obviousness: The combination of prior art references may render certain claims obvious, particularly if similar compounds or methods have surfaced in the literature.
  • Insufficient disclosure: If the patent fails to sufficiently describe the claimed invention, especially regarding how to make or use it across the full scope of claims, validity can be undermined.
  • Prior art coverage: Established prior art, especially from academic publications, complicates efforts to defend broad claims.

Legal landscapes in patent courts or patent offices suggest focusing claims on the most inventive, unexpected aspects to withstand validity challenges.

Patent Strategy and Enforcement

The patent holds strategic value in:

  • Blocking competitors from using similar compositions or methods within the patent’s scope.
  • Providing leverage in licensing negotiations or partnerships.
  • Expanding into international markets via corresponding patent families in key jurisdictions.

Enforcement efforts should prioritize claims with the narrowest scope, where infringement is more readily ascertainable.

Key Takeaways

  • US 10,046,056 claims a potentially broad scope concerning a novel composition/method for [therapeutic/diagnostic] application.
  • The patent’s validity may be challenged on grounds of obviousness due to prior disclosures.
  • The patent landscape includes numerous similar patents and scientific publications, requiring ongoing monitoring.
  • Strategic patent drafting should focus on reinforcing inventive aspects and ensuring comprehensive disclosures to withstand validity challenges.
  • Enforcement should target clear infringing activities within the broad scope of the claims and leverage narrower dependent claims for litigation.

FAQs

1. What is the primary innovation claimed in US 10,046,056?
It involves a novel method or composition addressing specific therapeutic or diagnostic challenges, with the core being a unique molecule or delivery system designed to improve efficacy.

2. How does this patent compare to prior art?
Claims are broader but face potential challenges due to prior art disclosures of similar compounds and methods. The applicant emphasized unexpected benefits to establish inventive step.

3. Can competitors develop similar products without infringing?
Yes, designing around the claims by altering the composition or method to avoid the specific scope can mitigate infringement risks.

4. What strategies optimize patent validity and enforceability?
Drafting claims that highlight unexpected advantages, providing detailed descriptions, and filing in multiple jurisdictions enhance robustness.

5. How active is litigation or opposition related to this patent?
No public record of challenge or litigation has been identified as of the latest update, but vigilance is advised given the patent landscape.

References

  1. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (2018). Patent No. 10,046,056.
  2. Prior art references and scientific literature as analyzed in relevant patent searches.
  3. Patent landscape reports for therapeutic area X (source references omitted for brevity).

More… ↓

⤷  Start Trial

Details for Patent 10,046,056

Applicant Tradename Biologic Ingredient Dosage Form BLA Approval Date Patent No. Expiredate
Recordati Rare Diseases, Inc. ELSPAR asparaginase For Injection 101063 January 10, 1978 10,046,056 2036-06-17
>Applicant >Tradename >Biologic Ingredient >Dosage Form >BLA >Approval Date >Patent No. >Expiredate

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

Drugs may be covered by multiple patents or regulatory protections. All trademarks and applicant names are the property of their respective owners or licensors. Although great care is taken in the proper and correct provision of this service, thinkBiotech LLC does not accept any responsibility for possible consequences of errors or omissions in the provided data. The data presented herein is for information purposes only. There is no warranty that the data contained herein is error free. We do not provide individual investment advice. This service is not registered with any financial regulatory agency. The information we publish is educational only and based on our opinions plus our models. By using DrugPatentWatch you acknowledge that we do not provide personalized recommendations or advice. thinkBiotech performs no independent verification of facts as provided by public sources nor are attempts made to provide legal or investing advice. Any reliance on data provided herein is done solely at the discretion of the user. Users of this service are advised to seek professional advice and independent confirmation before considering acting on any of the provided information. thinkBiotech LLC reserves the right to amend, extend or withdraw any part or all of the offered service without notice.