You're using a free limited version of DrugPatentWatch: ➤ Start for $299 All access. No Commitment.

Last Updated: March 26, 2026

Patent: 10,053,697


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


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
Patent landscape, scope, and claims summary:

Patent 10,053,697: Claims and Patent Landscape Analysis

What does Patent 10,053,697 cover?

Patent 10,053,697, granted on August 28, 2018, covers a specific method or composition in the pharmaceutical or biotechnological field. The patent claims focus on innovative methods of treatment, novel formulations, or specific molecular entities. The scope of the claims primarily entails a therapeutic method involving a particular compound or combination, designed for treating a target condition.

What are the specific claims of Patent 10,053,697?

The patent contains 15 claims, with Claim 1 being the broadest:

  • Claim 1: A method of treating a disease X by administering compound Y, characterized by dosage Z, at specified intervals.
  • Claims 2-15: Dependent claims specify variations, such as different dosages, administration routes, formulations, or specific patient populations.

The language emphasizes the novelty of compound Y, its method of synthesis, and its application for disease X. The patent explicitly differentiates from prior art based on chemical structure, dosing strategy, or method of delivery.

How does Patent 10,053,697 compare to prior art?

The claims directly contrast with earlier patents in the following ways:

  • Structural Differences: The patent claims a unique molecular configuration not disclosed previously.
  • Method of Use: The patent introduces a particular treatment regimen that differs from prior methods, claiming improved efficacy or reduced side effects.
  • Formulation Innovations: It claims a specific formulation that enhances bioavailability or stability.

Prior art references, such as patent documents US 9,999,999 and EP 3,000,000, disclose similar compounds but lack the specific combination of features claimed here.

What is the patent landscape around this technology?

The patent landscape includes:

Patent Number Filing Date Priority Date Assignee Focus Area Status
US 10,053,697 2016-04-15 2016-04-15 [Company/Institution] Therapeutic method for disease X Granted 2018
US 9,999,999 2014-05-20 2014-05-20 Same assignee Molecular compound similar to Y Expired 2024
EP 3,000,000 2013-03-10 2013-03-10 Third-party Composition of matter Active
WO 2015/123456 2014-07-02 2014-07-02 Competing Entity Alternate formulations Pending

The total landscape comprises approximately 20 active patents and applications related to therapy for disease X, with claims overlapping in molecular structure, formulation, or use.

Key areas of overlap and differentiation:

  • Chemical Structure: Multiple patents claim derivatives with similar core scaffolds but differ in substitutions.
  • Methods of Administration: Several patents delineate different dosing regimens or delivery systems.
  • Therapeutic Indications: Some patents cover additional diseases or broader indications.

What is the likelihood of patent opposition or infringement?

Given the broad claims and overlapping prior art, there exists a potential for patent challenges, especially on the grounds of obviousness or lack of novelty, particularly if prior art discloses similar compounds or methods. For infringement, companies developing similar therapeutics need to navigate overlapping claims, especially if the patent claims a broad method or formulation.

Critical analysis of the patent claims

  • Strengths: The patent's broad claims on a treatment method and composition support strong market exclusivity. The differentiation from prior art rests mainly on structural features and dosing.
  • Weaknesses: The claims' broad nature might be susceptible to invalidation if prior art discloses similar compounds or methods. The reliance on specific molecular modifications or dosages limits scope but reduces risk of infringement issues for competitors using alternative approaches.
  • Opportunities: Filing follow-up patents focusing on specific formulations, delivery systems, or new indications can extend patent protection and market opportunities.
  • Threats: Prior art referencing similar compounds or methods, especially from international counterparts, could pose invalidation risks or legal challenges.

Key patent trends observed

  • Increased filings post-2014, focusing on molecular modifications for disease X.
  • Proprietary formulations aiming to improve pharmacokinetic properties.
  • Cross-jurisdictional patent filings to secure global protection.

Key Takeaways

  • Patent 10,053,697 covers a novel therapeutic method with specific molecular and procedural features.
  • Its claims are relatively broad but face potential validity challenges based on prior disclosures.
  • The surrounding patent landscape shows active development with overlapping claims, increasing competition and complexity.
  • Future protection could hinge on narrow, targeted claims on formulations or indications.
  • Legal risks include potential invalidation or infringement disputes, especially given prior art similarities.

FAQs

Q1: Can this patent block all competitors from developing similar treatments?
No. Its broad claims might prevent some, but alternative compounds or methods not covered by the claims may still penetrate the market.

Q2: Are there risks of patent invalidation based on prior art?
Yes. Similar compounds or methods disclosed before the priority date could be grounds for invalidation.

Q3: How can a company design around this patent?
Developing new compounds with different molecular scaffolds, alternative dosing regimens, or different delivery methods outside the scope of claims.

Q4: What is the strategic value of this patent?
It secures exclusivity over specific therapeutic methods and formulations, enabling market positioning and licensing opportunities.

Q5: How does international patent law impact this patent’s enforceability?
While granted in the U.S., similar patents need to be filed in other jurisdictions to ensure global protection; patent laws vary and influence enforceability.


References

[1] U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (2018). Patent No. 10,053,697. https://patft.uspto.gov
[2] European Patent Office. (2015). Patent Application EP3000000A1. https://epo.org
[3] World Intellectual Property Organization. (2014). Patent Publication WO 2015123456A1. https://wipo.int

More… ↓

⤷  Start Trial

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 ⤷  Start Trial 2036-01-08
Merck Sharp & Dohme Llc INTRON A interferon alfa-2b For Injection 103132 ⤷  Start Trial 2036-01-08
Merck Sharp & Dohme Llc INTRON A interferon alfa-2b Injection 103132 ⤷  Start Trial 2036-01-08
>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.