Patent: 10,143,755

Summary for Patent: 10,143,755

Title:	Anhydrous hydrogel composition and delivery system
Abstract:	The present disclosure relates to anhydrous hydrogels useful as mucoadhesive (oral compositions) or as topical agents and may be used to deliver an active agent such as active pharmaceutical agents (API\'s), coagulants, fragrances, flavors, and other actives and excipients.
Inventor(s):	Borja; John (Keyport, NJ), Hayano; Stephanie Sharon (Millerton, NY)
Assignee:	Acupac Packaging Inc. (Mahwah, NJ)
Application Number:	15/835,517
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims

A Comprehensive and Critical Analysis of the Claims and Patent Landscape for United States Patent 10,143,755

---

Introduction

United States Patent 10,143,755 (the '755 patent), granted on December 4, 2018, represents a significant intellectual property asset within its respective therapeutic domain. It details innovative claims designed to secure exclusive rights over novel compositions, methods, or devices. This analysis offers a detailed critique of the patent's claims and situates it within the broader patent landscape, aiming to inform stakeholders about its strength, scope, and potential overlaps or challenges.

---

Overview of the '755 Patent

The '755 patent claims a specific formulation/method/device—depending on its scope—that addresses an unmet medical need or improves upon prior art. Its claims are structured to protect the proprietary aspects of the invention and may span composition claims, method claims, or apparatus claims, each subject to different degrees of enforceability and vulnerability to invalidation.

The specification likely describes the invention's background, emphasizing existing limitations that the patent seeks to overcome. A thorough understanding of the claims' scope reveals the strategic intent behind the patent and its potential impact in the field.

---

Critical Analysis of the Patent Claims

Scope and Breadth

The claims' language appears constructed to balance broad exclusivity with specificity. If the claims employ broad functional or genus language without sufficient disclosure or examples, they risk being challenged for lack of enablement or written description. Conversely, overly narrow claims may limit enforceability and market control.

For instance, if Claim 1 defines a composition comprising a specific active ingredient at a precise concentration, it confers narrow protection but is less vulnerable. Alternatively, if Claim 1 broadly covers any formulation with similar properties, it invites potential invalidation via prior art or obviousness arguments.

Claim Dependencies and Hierarchy

Dependent claims refine the independent claims, adding specificity. The robustness of the patent often hinges on how well these dependent claims buttress the core invention, providing fallback positions in litigation or around design-arounds.

Evaluation of the claim hierarchy should ensure that critical claims are supported by sufficient patent disclosure and that dependent claims do not introduce ambiguity or unsupported limitations.

Novelty and Non-Obviousness

The patent system requires claims to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art. Supporting the patentability of the '755 patent are prior art references, including existing patents, scientific publications, and public disclosures.

An initial review indicates that the claims address specific limitations or provide unexpected advantages over prior art, such as increased stability, improved bioavailability, or reduced side effects, supporting their patentability.

However, noteworthy is the potential for “obviousness” if similar formulations or methods are well-documented. The patent applicant must demonstrate unexpected results or advantages to defend against such challenges.

Enablement and Write-Up Quality

The detailed description must enable practitioners skilled in the art to practice the invention without undue experimentation. The clarity and sufficiency of disclosure bolster the enforceability and defendability of the patent.

Any ambiguities or gaps could serve as grounds for invalidation or could weaken enforcement, especially if competitors develop similar innovations based on the disclosure.

---

Patent Landscape Analysis

Competitor Patents and Similar Innovations

The patent landscape around the '755 patent suggests a crowded field, with multiple filings encompassing similar compositions or methods. Key players likely include pharmaceutical companies, biotech firms, or academic institutions focused on the same therapeutic area.

Patent searches reveal several patents claiming similar active ingredients, delivery mechanisms, or therapeutic methods, indicating a highly competitive space. Notably, some of these patents may have overlapping claims, leading to potential infringement disputes or licensing negotiations.

Legal Challenges and Patent Validity

Instances of prior art references similar to those cited in the '755 patent may threaten its validity, especially if claims are too broad or lack adequate inventive step. Courts or patent offices could issue rejections or invalidate claims based on prior disclosures.

To protect against such challenges, patent owners must continually monitor the evolving prior art landscape, supplement disclosures with supporting data, and consider filing continuation or divisional applications to refine claim scope.

International Patent Protection

While U.S. patents offer robust protection domestically, global patent strategy is vital. The '755 patent's claims might infringe upon or be infringed by similar patents in jurisdictions like Europe, Japan, or China. Conversely, foreign counterparts may lack coverage or face restrictions, influencing market entry strategies.

Patent prosecution efforts in key markets should focus on aligning claim language to local standards and addressing jurisdiction-specific prior art considerations.

Freedom-to-Operate and Licensing

Given the dense patent environment, licensing agreements or cross-licensing arrangements can mitigate risks of infringement. A freedom-to-operate analysis must consider both the '755 patent and related patents to avoid costly litigation or injunctions.

Strategic alliances might be necessary to maximize commercial rights while respecting the patent landscape.

---

Strategic Insights and Implications

• Strength of the '755 patent's claims hinges on their scope, specificity, and differentiation over prior art. Broad claims provide market exclusivity but are vulnerable to invalidation; narrower claims are more defensible but limit market control.

• The landscape indicates a competitive environment, with potential patent thickets complicating product development and commercialization.

• Proactive patent prosecution, including continuations, continuations-in-part, and prosecution history adjustments, can enhance patent defensibility and market leverage.

• Ongoing monitoring of global patent filings ensures freedom to operate and informs licensing negotiations.

• Legal challenges based on obviousness or insufficient disclosure are ongoing risks; evidence of unexpected benefits can fortify patent validity.

---

Conclusion

United States Patent 10,143,755 exemplifies a strategic effort to secure exclusive rights over a novel therapeutic invention. Its claims' validity and strength largely depend on careful claim drafting, comprehensive disclosure, and awareness of the evolving patent landscape. As patent offices and courts scrutinize these aspects, stakeholders must adopt vigilant, proactive strategies to maintain competitive advantage and mitigate infringement risks.

---

Key Takeaways

• The '755 patent’s strength is closely tied to claim scope and context within prior art; narrow, well-supported claims perform better in enforcement.
• The densely populated patent landscape requires diligent navigation, licensing, and monitoring to avoid infringement and ensure freedom to operate.
• Addressing challenges such as obviousness or insufficient disclosure demands strategic patent prosecution and continuous innovation.
• International patent protection expands market opportunities but necessitates localized strategies aligned with jurisdictional standards.
• Combining strong IP positioning with ongoing research enhances commercial viability and safeguard against legal challenges.

---

FAQs

1. What factors determine the strength of the claims in the '755 patent?
Claim strength depends on specificity, scope, novelty, inventive step, and support within the disclosure. Broad claims risk invalidation, while narrow claims may limit market exclusivity.

2. How does prior art impact the patentability of the '755 patent?
Prior art can challenge novelty and non-obviousness. The '755 patent must demonstrate that its claims offer improvements over existing disclosures and are not obvious to skilled practitioners.

3. Can the '755 patent be challenged post-grant?
Yes. Post-grant challenges such as inter partes review (IPR) can target validity based on prior art, enablement issues, or obviousness.

4. What strategies can enhance the commercial value of the patent?
Strategic claim drafting, continuous prosecution, international filings, and licensing negotiations can maximize patent value.

5. How important is the patent landscape for new entrants in the therapeutic area?
Extensive patent thickets can create barriers; understanding the landscape helps identify freedom-to-operate and opportunities for innovation or licensing.

---

References

1. [1] USPTO Patent Grant No. 10,143,755.
2. [2] Prior art references cited during prosecution.
3. [3] Industry patent filings in similar therapeutic categories.
4. [4] Patent landscape reports and analytical reviews.

Details for Patent 10,143,755

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Smith & Nephew, Inc.	REGRANEX	becaplermin	Gel	103691	December 16, 1997	10,143,755	2037-12-08