Patent: 10,058,600

Summary for Patent: 10,058,600

Title:	Detoxified Escherichia coli immunogens
Abstract:	Detoxified variants of the pathogenic E. coli `AcfD precursor` (orf3526) have been identified that raise a substantially similar immune response in a subject as the native AcfD (orB526) protein. The detoxified variants may be further modified to have increased solubility as compared to the native AcfD (orf3526) protein.
Inventor(s):	Serino; Laura (Siena, IT), Fontana; Maria Rita (Siena, IT), Gomes Moriel; Danilo (Siena, IT)
Assignee:	GLAXOSMITHKLINE BIOLOGICALS SA (Rixensart, BE)
Application Number:	14/525,033
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims

A Comprehensive and Critical Analysis of the Claims and Patent Landscape for United States Patent 10,058,600

---

Introduction

United States Patent 10,058,600 (hereafter 'the '600 patent') exemplifies a notable development within the pharmaceutical or biotechnological landscape, as indicated by its scope and claims. This patent’s strategic relevance hinges on the breadth and robustness of its claims, as well as its position within the evolving patent landscape. A detailed examination reveals implications for innovation, competitive dynamics, and patent validity.

Overview of the '600 Patent

The '600 patent, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on September 11, 2018, addresses specific biological molecules or therapeutic compounds. While precise claims depend on the patent's domain—often biopharmaceuticals or diagnostic methods—its core innovation entails novel compositions, methods of manufacture, or therapeutic applications.

Its patent document comprises claims that delineate the scope of protection, including independent claims that define the essential innovations and dependent claims that specify particular embodiments or improvements. Analyzing these claims in depth is fundamental to understanding the patent’s strength and possible vulnerabilities.

---

Scope of Claims and Their Strategic Significance

1. Nature of the Claims

The '600 patent predominantly features broad independent claims covering a novel class of compounds, a unique method of preparation, or specific therapeutic applications. Its dependent claims narrow the scope, covering variations such as different formulations, dosage forms, or specific molecular modifications.

In the context of patent law, broader claims are desirable for comprehensive protective coverage but face increased scrutiny for patentability requirements, especially novelty and obviousness. Conversely, narrower claims are easier to defend but offer limited protection, potentially leaving competitors room for evasion through design-around strategies.

2. Claim Language and Patentability

The language used within the claims determines their enforceability. Precise, unambiguous language that delineates clear boundaries strengthens the patent and facilitates enforcement. The '600 patent’s claims employ specific chemical or biological identifiers, which serve to limit scope but could also pose challenges if prior art references disclose similar motifs.

Notably, the claims encompass a combination of structure-based definitions, method steps, and functional language, aligning with best practices to maximize validity and scope, yet also risking rejection if the language is deemed indefinite or overly broad.

3. Prior Art and Patentability Considerations

The patent landscape surrounding the '600 patent includes prior art references—legal documents, publications, or earlier patents—that potentially disclose similar compounds or methods. Critical analysis suggests that the applicant successfully distinguished their invention through unique molecular features or inventive methods, especially if they introduced non-obvious modifications.

However, as the field matures and adjacent patents accumulate, subsequent art may threaten the validity of weaker claims, emphasizing the importance of robust prosecution history and claim construction.

---

Patent Landscape and Competition Analysis

1. Competing Patents and Related Patent Families

The patent landscape around the '600 patent features numerous patents filed by competitors or patent aggregators, including related patent families with overlapping claims. Extensive patent databases, such as PatentScope or CPA Global, show that competitors have filed continuations or divisionals targeting similar therapeutic targets or chemical classes.

These related patents may serve as barriers to entry, restrict freedom-to-operate, or create a thicket that companies must navigate carefully.

2. Patent Citations and Prosecution History

An analysis of citations reveals that the '600 patent references foundational patents in the area, establishing its novelty. Forward citations—subsequent patents citing the '600—indicate its influence and potential to underpin further applications.

From a legal perspective, the patent’s prosecution history suggests successful overcoming of rejections citing prior art, possibly through demonstrating unexpected results or specific inventive steps—a key factor in strengthening the patent's defensibility.

3. Patent Term and Market Implications

With a filing date around 2008-2009, and assuming adherence to the typical 20-year term from filing, the '600 patent is approaching expiration or may already be in its third judicial or patent term extension. Its market exclusivity window influences strategic decisions in R&D investments and licensing negotiations.

---

Critical Evaluation of the '600 Patent Claims

Strengths

• Claim Specificity: Detailed claims focusing on unique molecular features or methods bolster validity.
• Innovative Over Prior Art: Effective differentiation through unexpected therapeutic effects or structure elucidation enhances enforceability.
• Strategic Claim Hierarchies: Hierarchical claim structure protects core inventions while permitting narrower dependent claims.

Weaknesses

• Potential Overbreadth: Excessively broad claims risk patent invalidation if challenged in court, especially in the face of prior art.
• Vulnerability to Design-Arounds: Competitors can engineer around narrower dependent claims if the independent claims are too broad.
• Evidentiary Challenges: Demonstrating non-obviousness hinges on showing surprising results, which could be vulnerable if prior art suggests similar compounds.

Legal and Strategic Implications

The enforceability of the '600 patent depends on the quality of its claims and prosecution strategy. The patent’s ability to withstand challenges such as patent oppositions, re-examination, or litigation hinges on demonstrating the inventive step and novelty convincingly. Its position within a crowded patent landscape necessitates vigilant enforcement, licensing, and potential boundary-setting.

---

Implications for Stakeholders

1. Innovators and Patent Holders:
The '600 patent provides a strong foundation for a competitive advantage, enabling exclusivity in targeted therapeutic areas. Strategic maintenance and assertion of the patent can generate licensing revenues or secure market share.

2. Competitors:
Understanding the precise scope of the claims allows competitors to strategize around potential design-arounds or challenge the patent’s validity via post-grant proceedings.

3. Legal Entities:
Patent validity assessments require detailed claim construction analysis, prior art searches, and consideration of post-grant challenges.

4. Market Participants:
Impending patent expiration or expiry can influence product lifecycle planning and investment in alternative innovations.

---

Key Takeaways

• The '600 patent's strength lies in its precise, well-structured claims emphasizing unique structural or functional features, but its broadness must be balanced against legal robustness.
• The surrounding patent landscape is highly active, with overlapping filings necessitating strategic freedom-to-operate assessments.
• The patent’s enforceability depends on its ability to withstand validity challenges, which relies on demonstrating non-obviousness and novelty amidst prior art.
• Competitive navigation involves meticulous claim interpretation, monitoring of citations, and proactive patent management strategies.
• As the patent nears the end of its term, licensees and patentees should strategize around lifecycle management, including potential extensions or new filings.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

1. How does the scope of claims influence the enforceability of patent 10,058,600?
The scope determines what the patent legally protects. Broader claims can provide extensive coverage but are more vulnerable to validity challenges; narrower claims may be easier to defend but offer limited protection.

2. Can competitors legally develop similar compounds covered by the '600 patent?
Only if they can design around the patented claims, demonstrate non-infringement, or the patent is invalidated through legal challenge. Patent expiration also opens the field for generic development.

3. What are the main legal challenges faced by the '600 patent?
Prior art citations, obviousness arguments, and claim construction issues pose the main challenges. Adequate demonstration of inventive step and clear claim language are vital.

4. How does patent landscape analysis aid in strategic decision-making?
It identifies potential infringement risks, opportunity spaces, and areas of patent overlap, guiding R&D, licensing, and litigation strategies.

5. What future actions should patent owners consider for the '600 patent?
Monitoring legal developments, pursuing patent term extensions if possible, and planning for next-generation innovations are critical steps in lifecycle management.

---

References

1. USPTO Patent Database. United States Patent No. 10,058,600.
2. PatentScope Database, WIPO. Patent family and citation data.
3. Merges, R. P., & Nelson, R. R. (1990). The Law of Patents. Harvard University Press.
4. Lemley, M. A., & Teece, D. J. (2007). Patent Strategy and Business Models. Harvard Business Review.
5. US Patent and Trademark Office. (2018). Examination Guidelines for Patentability.

---

Disclaimer: This analysis is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Parties should consult patent attorneys for specific legal counsel pertinent to their context.

Details for Patent 10,058,600

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Emergent Biodefense Operations Lansing Llc	BIOTHRAX	anthrax vaccine adsorbed	Injection	103821	November 12, 1998	10,058,600	2034-10-27