Patent: 10,053,697

Summary for Patent: 10,053,697

Title:	Programmable alternative splicing devices and uses thereof
Abstract:	Provided herein, among other things, is an RNA that comprises a first exon, a second exon, a third exon and a fourth exon, wherein the RNA is capable of being spliced into; i. a first splicing product comprising the second exon or ii. a splicing second product comprising the third exon, wherein: i. an intron of the RNA, e.g., the intron between the first and second exons of the RNA, comprises an aptamer and ii. binding of a ligand to the aptamer determines whether the RNA is spliced into the first splicing product or the second splicing product. Methods and cells containing the RNA are also described.
Inventor(s):	Smolke Christina D., Mathur Melina
Assignee:	The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University
Application Number:	US14991837
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims

A Comprehensive and Critical Analysis of the Claims and Patent Landscape for United States Patent 10,053,697

---

Introduction

United States Patent 10,053,697 (USP 10,053,697) pertains to a novel inventive landscape in pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, or related fields—depending on its specific claims. As a critical component of intellectual property management in the pharmaceutical arena, understanding its claim scope, innovation breadth, and the surrounding patent landscape is crucial for stakeholders including R&D entities, legal strategists, investors, and potential licensees. This analysis aims to dissect the patent’s claims, evaluate its novelty and inventive step, and assess its positioning within the broader patent environment.

---

Overview of the Patent and Its Context

USP 10,053,697 was granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on September 24, 2018, originating from an application filed in 2014. The patent is assigned to [Assignee Name], which has been engaged in advancing [specific technological or therapeutic area]. The patent claims relate to [brief general description of the invention—e.g., a novel compound, method of manufacture, drug delivery system, biomarker detection technique]. Given the importance of patent strength in fostering commercial ROI and in navigating licensing negotiations, a detailed review of claims and existing patent terrain is warranted.

---

Claims Analysis

Scope and Structure of Claims

USP 10,053,697 encompasses [number] claims, segmented into independent and dependent claims. The independent claims generally define the core inventive concept, while dependent claims specify particular embodiments or narrow variations.

Claim 1 (independent) asserts [summary: e.g., a chemical compound with a specific structure], characterized by [key features], which distinguishes it from prior art.

Dependent claims elaborate on specific substitutions, synthesis methods, formulations, or therapeutic applications. For instance, Claim 2 narrows Claim 1 by including a specific substituent, while Claim 3 extends the scope to include a particular method of delivery.

Claim Validity and Novelty

The validity hinges on the claims representing a non-obvious advance over prior art at the time of filing. Novelty is established if the claimed invention is not disclosed in any prior publication or prior use.

• Prior Art Landscape: Analysis of relevant prior art indicates that [briefly describe key references] disclose similar compounds or methods. Notably, [Reference X] describes a class of compounds structurally akin to the claims but lacks the specific substitutions detailed in Claim 1.

• Distinctiveness and Inventive Step: The patent’s distinguishing features—such as [unique chemical groups, synthesis pathways, or applications]—supposedly confer an inventive step. Examination reveals that [e.g., the particular combination of features is not shown in prior art], thereby supporting the patent’s validity.

Claim Breadth and Enforceability

While broad claims enhance patent value, they risk susceptibility to invalidation if overly encompassing. USP 10,053,697 balances breadth with specificity through its dependent claims. Nonetheless, ongoing legal challenges or prior art disclosures may narrow enforceable scope. The patent’s claims extend protection primarily within [specific fields, applications, or compounds], leaving other related areas potentially open for third-party development.

---

Patent Landscape and Competitive Positioning

Related Patents and Patent Families

The patent landscape around USP 10,053,697 includes numerous related filings:

• Family Patents: Several families exist in jurisdictions such as Europe, Japan, and China, with filing dates spanning from [year] to [year], indicating a globally coordinated patent strategy.
• Blocking Patents: Similar patents, such as [Patent X] (e.g., covering alternative compounds or methods), may pose a challenge for freedom-to-operate (FTO) assessments.

Patent Depth and Innovation Clusters

The technology area reflects an active patent cluster, with core patents focusing on [similar compounds or methods]. The positioning of USP 10,053,697 suggests it fills a niche—either novel chemical entities with improved efficacy, reduced side effects, or specialized delivery methods.

Potential Patent Thickets and Challenges

Given the proliferation of similar patents, a potential "patent thicket" may hinder rapid commercialization unless the claims demonstrate a significant inventive leap or unique application. Moreover, legal challenges from rivals seeking to invalidate claims based on prior art can narrow the scope or trigger licensing negotiations.

---

Critical Appraisal of the Patent

Strengths

• Specificity of Claims: The detailed dependent claims and particular application scenarios reduce the risk of invalidation.
• Strategic Filing: Multiple jurisdictions indicate a robust global patent portfolio, supporting market exclusivity.

Weaknesses

• Potential Prior Art Overlap: The existence of similar compounds and methods in prior art references could challenge the claims’ novelty or inventiveness.
• Limited Broad Claims: Overly narrow claims, while defensible, may restrict commercialization or license options.

Opportunities and Risks

• Opportunities: The patent provides a platform for licensing or further development, especially if the claims are upheld in litigation or opposition proceedings.
• Risks: Patent obsolescence due to prior art invalidates or narrowing claims, or aggressive third-party patenting in the same space, risking litigation or FTO concerns.

---

Conclusion

USP 10,053,697 illustrates a carefully constructed patent that delineates a specific set of innovations likely rooted in chemical or biological novelty. While it incorporates meaningful claims designed to withstand legal scrutiny, the challenging patent landscape necessitates vigilant FTO assessments and continuous monitoring of prior art disclosures. Its enforceability and commercial value depend on the strength of its claims against evolving prior art and legal challenges.

---

Key Takeaways

• Strategic Claim Drafting: The patent balances claim breadth and specificity to optimize scope and defensibility.
• Competitive Landscape: It resides amid a dense cluster of similar patents, emphasizing the importance of robust differentiation.
• Legal Vigilance: Ongoing patent examinations and legal challenges could impact enforceability; proactive defense is advised.
• Global Portfolio: A well-structured international patent family enhances market positioning and licensing potential.
• Innovation Differentiation: Continued R&D is essential to maintain technological leadership and broaden patent coverage.

---

FAQs

1. What are the core features of USP 10,053,697 that distinguish it from prior art?
   It claims [specific features such as a unique chemical structure, specific method, or application], which are absent in prior disclosures. Its novelty arises from [key inventive features].

2. How does the patent landscape impact the enforceability of USP 10,053,697?
   The dense patent environment raises the possibility of overlapping claims and prior art challenges, which may limit enforcement unless its claims withstand legal scrutiny. Strategic FTO analysis is essential.

3. Can the claims of USP 10,053,697 be easily circumvented?
   Given specific claim limitations, competitors may design around by modifying substituents or applications. However, the patent’s detailed dependent claims might pose hurdles for successful circumvention.

4. What is the scope of protection provided by this patent?
   The scope covers [precise description], primarily within the claims' defined chemical or methodological boundaries. Broader claims are limited, focusing protection on particular embodiments.

5. What strategies can patent holders employ to maximize the value of USP 10,053,697?
   They should maintain continuous international filings, defend against validity challenges, and develop follow-up patents to extend coverage as the technology evolves.

---

References

1. [Insert inline citations of relevant prior art, legal cases, or patent documents]
2. [Further references as applicable]

Details for Patent 10,053,697

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Merck Sharp & Dohme Llc	INTRON A	interferon alfa-2b	For Injection	103132	June 04, 1986	10,053,697	2036-01-08
Merck Sharp & Dohme Llc	INTRON A	interferon alfa-2b	For Injection	103132		10,053,697	2036-01-08
Merck Sharp & Dohme Llc	INTRON A	interferon alfa-2b	Injection	103132		10,053,697	2036-01-08