Patent: 10,829,732

Summary for Patent: 10,829,732

Title:	Cell culture compositions with antioxidants and methods for polypeptide production
Abstract:	Cell culture media comprising antioxidants are provided herein as are methods of using the media for cell culturing and polypeptide production from cells. Compositions comprising polypeptides, such as therapeutic polypeptides, produced by the methods herein are also provided.
Inventor(s):	Vijayasankaran Natarajan, Meier Steven J., Varma Sharat, Yang Yi
Assignee:	Genentech, Inc.
Application Number:	US16151904
Patent Litigation and PTAB cases:	See patent lawsuits and PTAB cases for patent 10,829,732
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims

United States Patent 10,829,732: Claims and US Patent Landscape

What does US 10,829,732 claim?

US Patent 10,829,732 is a granted US patent. A claim-by-claim analysis requires the exact claim text (independent and dependent claims) and, for landscape mapping, the bibliographic data (applicant, filing and priority dates, assignees, CPC/IPC codes, and the full specification support for key claim terms).

Insufficient information is available in the provided prompt to produce a complete and accurate claims construction and enforceability assessment for US 10,829,732.

How does the claim set map to the patent landscape (US and closest families)?

A credible landscape analysis for US 10,829,732 depends on:

• the patent’s CPC/IPC classification and inventor/assignee data
• the priority chain and publication numbers (US pre-grants and PCT/EP counterparts)
• the scope-defining claim elements (to identify direct and design-around risks)
• citation and family data (forward/backward examiner citations)

The prompt does not provide the patent’s claim elements or bibliographic identifiers needed to map it to overlapping US filings and families.

What are the enforceability-critical claim features (novelty and obviousness risk points)?

A critical enforceability read requires:

• independent claims broken into limitation-level elements
• identification of which elements appear to be novelty drivers
• cross-check of each driver against prior art categories (patents, published applications, and non-patent literature if relevant)

Without the claim text and the described invention scope, novelty and obviousness risk cannot be determined without speculation.

Where are the main design-around opportunities likely to sit?

Design-around analysis is element-driven. It requires the precise technical boundaries defined in the claims and the specification’s definitions. Without that, any mapping to alternatives (process parameters, compositions, device structures, or dosing regimens) would be speculative.

How saturated is the US patent space around this technology?

Saturation assessment depends on the number and recency of:

• same-or-similar CPC classes in the relevant therapeutic/chemical/engineering area
• parallel families and continuation practices by major players
• claim transfer patterns that suggest common design-around routes

No classification data or claim scope is present in the prompt.

What do prosecution and citation patterns indicate about claim stability?

Prosecution stability analysis needs:

• file history or at least examiner citation outcomes
• amendments and claim cancellations
• any terminal disclaimer, continuation strategy, and claim narrowing

The prompt provides none of those inputs.

Can we identify likely litigations or licensing pressure points in the US?

Litigation pressure points require at minimum:

• assignee and related portfolio mappings
• known defendants or competitors by technology and therapeutic area
• claim similarity indicators based on claim text

None of that data is provided.

---

Key Takeaways

• A comprehensive, critical claims and landscape analysis cannot be completed from the information provided.
• Accurate claim construction, novelty/obviousness mapping, and design-around identification require the exact claim text and bibliographic and classification data for US 10,829,732.

---

FAQs

1. What is needed to analyze US 10,829,732 claims for enforceability?
   The full independent and dependent claim set, plus key term definitions from the specification.

2. How do you determine novelty and obviousness risk for a granted US patent?
   By comparing each limitation of the independent claims to the closest prior art, then assessing obviousness combinations and teaching away.

3. What drives a reliable US patent landscape for a specific granted patent?
   CPC/IPC classification, priority chain, family publications, and claim-scope elements that define overlap.

4. How do continuations and prosecution history affect landscape conclusions?
   They can expand or narrow effective claim scope and shift the risk profile for design-around and infringement.

5. Can citation networks substitute for claim-text analysis?
   No. Citation networks help prioritize references, but infringement and design-around risk must follow the actual claim limitations.

---

References

[1] US Patent 10,829,732 (bibliographic and claim text required for analysis).

Details for Patent 10,829,732

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Idec Pharmaceuticals Corp.	RITUXAN	rituximab	Injection	103737	February 19, 2002		2038-10-04
Genentech, Inc.	AVASTIN	bevacizumab	Injection	125085	February 26, 2004		2038-10-04
Genentech, Inc.	LUCENTIS	ranibizumab	Injection	125156	June 30, 2006		2038-10-04
Genentech, Inc.	LUCENTIS	ranibizumab	Injection	125156	August 10, 2012		2038-10-04
Genentech, Inc.	LUCENTIS	ranibizumab	Injection	125156	October 13, 2016		2038-10-04
Genentech, Inc.	LUCENTIS	ranibizumab	Injection	125156	March 20, 2018		2038-10-04

International Patent Family for US Patent 10,829,732

Country	Patent Number	Estimated Expiration
South Africa	201805630
South Africa	201506155
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)	2014145098
United States of America	2024400976
United States of America	2021017488
United States of America	2019144817
United States of America	2019002822