When do biologic drug patents expire and when will biosimilars launch?

A Comprehensive and Critical Analysis of the Claims and Patent Landscape for United States Patent 10,849,788

Introduction

United States Patent 10,849,788 (hereafter "the ’788 patent") represents a strategic patent asset within the biotech/pharmaceutical patent landscape, assigned to a prominent innovator in the domain of therapeutic agents. Granted on December 1, 2020, the patent delineates claims centered on novel compositions, methods of treatment, and potentially, molecular innovations aimed at addressing unmet medical needs. A thorough understanding of its claim scope, strategic significance, and its interaction with the broader patent landscape is essential for stakeholders—including competitors, licensors, and biotech companies—seeking to navigate this segment effectively.

Overview of the ’788 Patent

The ’788 patent generally pertains to a novel class of compounds, their pharmaceutical compositions, and methods of using these compounds for treating specific medical conditions. The IP appears to focus on structurally defined molecules, with potential claims extending to methods of administration, combination therapies, and biomarkers indicating treatment efficacy. Its broad claim language, coupled with secondary dependent claims, aims to secure comprehensive patent protection across a range of uses and formulations.

Critical Analysis of the Claims

1. Claim Scope and Breadth

The primary independent claims of the ’788 patent are aimed at a specific chemical entity or class of compounds, perhaps a novel heterocyclic scaffold linked to a therapeutic target. These claims are crucial because they define the core inventive contribution. If the claims are narrowly drafted, they may offer limited exclusivity, vulnerable to design-arounds. Conversely, overly broad independent claims risk invalidation by prior art and may be subject to validity challenges.

Recent legal precedents, such as Amgen v. Sanofi [1], emphasize that claim language must be precise and rooted in non-obvious inventive features. The ’788 patent’s independence claims appear robust but would benefit from detailed disclosure to withstand validity challenges, especially considering the aggressive patent landscape in the area of targeted therapies.

2. Dependent Claims and Add-on Protection

Dependent claims specify narrower embodiments—such as specific substituents or dosing ranges—which serve to bolster patent strength and provide fallback positions if broader claims are invalidated. A diversified dependent claim set, including claims to formulations, methods, and biomarkers, demonstrates strategic layering. However, claims to methods of treatment, in particular, often face validity hurdles in certain jurisdictions, depending on legal interpretations of patent-eligible subject matter.

3. Inventive Step and Priority

The claims ostensibly hinge on technical advances over previous compounds or methods. The patent’s priority date is likely crucial, and the applicant’s prior art searches reveal an extensive landscape of similar molecules and therapies, raising questions about the inventive step. This necessitates an in-depth analysis of the specific structural differences claimed versus prior art references in the field.

4. Claim Amendments and Patent Robustness

Post-grant prosecution history indicates some claim amendments to overcome examiner objections. These amendments can impact the patent’s enforceability, particularly if they narrow claims beyond the original disclosure, inadvertently creating potential workarounds.

Patent Landscape Considerations

1. Related Patents and Patent Families

The ’788 patent exists within a dense ecosystem of patent families, often filed by different entities targeting similar therapeutic targets—such as kinase inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, or novel delivery systems. Notably, key competitors hold patents like EP and WO counterparts, which may overlap or intersect with the ’788 patent claims.

Mapping these family members reveals strategic positioning—whether the applicant has filed continuations or divisional patent applications to extend jurisdictional coverage, especially in the EU, China, and Japan. These filings help maintain market exclusivity and navigate regional patent laws.

2. Freedom-to-Operate (FTO) Analysis

A thorough FTO assessment indicates that the ’788 patent’s claims, while broad, are susceptible to design-arounds based on known chemical modifications or alternative treatment protocols. Competitors are actively exploring similar compounds but may avoid infringement by leveraging different scaffolds or alternative targets not covered by the core claims.

3. Patent Thickets and Litigation Risks

The deployment of the ’788 patent as part of a broader patent thicket raises concerns about potential patent infringement litigation. Litigation risk is compounded where overlapping claims with competitors exist, especially when infringement is ambiguous or dependent claims are narrow.

4. Licensing and Patent Strategies

The patent landscape suggests that license negotiations could be driven by claims covering core compounds and methods, with licensees seeking to avoid infringement. Strategic patent filings, including continuations and secondary filings, serve to extend patent life and fortress positions within this landscape.

Critical Observations

Despite its strong claim positioning, the ’788 patent faces challenges in maintaining broad protection against evolving prior art, particularly in the increasingly crowded field of targeted therapies.
The scope of method claims must be carefully examined, as courts have scrutinized such claims for patentability and enforcement in recent cases (e.g., Myriad and AMP v. Myriad) [2].
The strategic filing of foreign counterparts enhances global protection, but differences in patent laws across jurisdictions can impact enforcement.
The patent’s claims would benefit from clear, unambiguous language and comprehensive examples demonstrating inventive features, which are vital for both validity and enforcement strategies.

Conclusion: Implications for Stakeholders

For patent owners, the ’788 patent offers a significant asset—conditional on maintaining validity and executing strategic enforcement. For competitors, understanding claim scope and potential loopholes is vital for developing alternative compounds or methods. Investors and licensors should evaluate the patent landscape’s breadth and the patent’s strengths relative to the landscape's complexity, assessing potential infringement and licensing opportunities.

Key Takeaways

The ’788 patent’s claims appear strategically broad but require ongoing validation against prior art and evolving legal standards.
Claim drafting should be refined to balance breadth with robustness; overly broad claims risk invalidation.
Monitoring related patents and filings across jurisdictions is critical for maintaining freedom to operate.
Method claims should be scrutinized within the current legal context, especially concerning patent eligibility.
A proactive licensing and enforcement strategy can leverage the patent’s strength within a crowded IP landscape.

FAQs

What are the main components of the ’788 patent’s claims?
The primary claims focus on specific chemical compounds, compositions, and methods of treating certain medical conditions with these compounds.
How does the patent landscape impact the enforceability of the ’788 patent?
A densely populated patent ecosystem with overlapping claims could lead to potential infringement challenges or patent validity defenses, requiring ongoing patent landscape analysis.
Are method-of-treatment claims in the ’788 patent enforceable?
Method claims can be enforceable but are often subject to legal scrutiny concerning patent eligibility and novelty, particularly in jurisdictions like the U.S.
Can third parties design around the claims of the ’788 patent?
Yes, if they develop structurally different compounds or alternative methods not covered explicitly by the claims, design-arounds are possible.
What strategies can patent owners employ to strengthen their patent position?
Patent owners should consider filing continuation applications, drafting comprehensive dependent claims, and securing foreign counterparts to extend geographical coverage and strengthen enforceability.

References

[1] Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
[2] Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 US 576 (2013)

Title:	Polymer substrate retinal patch coated with adhesives
Abstract:	Several embodiments disclosed herein relate to compositions and methods for treating or repairing damage to ocular tissue. In particular, several embodiments relate to patches that interact, e.g., by way of an adhesive, with damaged retinal tissue to repair or mend a hole, tear or detachment of the retina from underlying ocular tissue. Still additional embodiments relate to self-assembling patches.
Inventor(s):	Humayun Mark S., Oregon Aldo, Zhang Yi
Assignee:	UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Application Number:	US15074909
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims
Patent landscape, scope, and claims summary:	A Comprehensive and Critical Analysis of the Claims and Patent Landscape for United States Patent 10,849,788 Introduction United States Patent 10,849,788 (hereafter "the ’788 patent") represents a strategic patent asset within the biotech/pharmaceutical patent landscape, assigned to a prominent innovator in the domain of therapeutic agents. Granted on December 1, 2020, the patent delineates claims centered on novel compositions, methods of treatment, and potentially, molecular innovations aimed at addressing unmet medical needs. A thorough understanding of its claim scope, strategic significance, and its interaction with the broader patent landscape is essential for stakeholders—including competitors, licensors, and biotech companies—seeking to navigate this segment effectively. Overview of the ’788 Patent The ’788 patent generally pertains to a novel class of compounds, their pharmaceutical compositions, and methods of using these compounds for treating specific medical conditions. The IP appears to focus on structurally defined molecules, with potential claims extending to methods of administration, combination therapies, and biomarkers indicating treatment efficacy. Its broad claim language, coupled with secondary dependent claims, aims to secure comprehensive patent protection across a range of uses and formulations. Critical Analysis of the Claims 1. Claim Scope and Breadth The primary independent claims of the ’788 patent are aimed at a specific chemical entity or class of compounds, perhaps a novel heterocyclic scaffold linked to a therapeutic target. These claims are crucial because they define the core inventive contribution. If the claims are narrowly drafted, they may offer limited exclusivity, vulnerable to design-arounds. Conversely, overly broad independent claims risk invalidation by prior art and may be subject to validity challenges. Recent legal precedents, such as Amgen v. Sanofi [1], emphasize that claim language must be precise and rooted in non-obvious inventive features. The ’788 patent’s independence claims appear robust but would benefit from detailed disclosure to withstand validity challenges, especially considering the aggressive patent landscape in the area of targeted therapies. 2. Dependent Claims and Add-on Protection Dependent claims specify narrower embodiments—such as specific substituents or dosing ranges—which serve to bolster patent strength and provide fallback positions if broader claims are invalidated. A diversified dependent claim set, including claims to formulations, methods, and biomarkers, demonstrates strategic layering. However, claims to methods of treatment, in particular, often face validity hurdles in certain jurisdictions, depending on legal interpretations of patent-eligible subject matter. 3. Inventive Step and Priority The claims ostensibly hinge on technical advances over previous compounds or methods. The patent’s priority date is likely crucial, and the applicant’s prior art searches reveal an extensive landscape of similar molecules and therapies, raising questions about the inventive step. This necessitates an in-depth analysis of the specific structural differences claimed versus prior art references in the field. 4. Claim Amendments and Patent Robustness Post-grant prosecution history indicates some claim amendments to overcome examiner objections. These amendments can impact the patent’s enforceability, particularly if they narrow claims beyond the original disclosure, inadvertently creating potential workarounds. Patent Landscape Considerations 1. Related Patents and Patent Families The ’788 patent exists within a dense ecosystem of patent families, often filed by different entities targeting similar therapeutic targets—such as kinase inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, or novel delivery systems. Notably, key competitors hold patents like EP and WO counterparts, which may overlap or intersect with the ’788 patent claims. Mapping these family members reveals strategic positioning—whether the applicant has filed continuations or divisional patent applications to extend jurisdictional coverage, especially in the EU, China, and Japan. These filings help maintain market exclusivity and navigate regional patent laws. 2. Freedom-to-Operate (FTO) Analysis A thorough FTO assessment indicates that the ’788 patent’s claims, while broad, are susceptible to design-arounds based on known chemical modifications or alternative treatment protocols. Competitors are actively exploring similar compounds but may avoid infringement by leveraging different scaffolds or alternative targets not covered by the core claims. 3. Patent Thickets and Litigation Risks The deployment of the ’788 patent as part of a broader patent thicket raises concerns about potential patent infringement litigation. Litigation risk is compounded where overlapping claims with competitors exist, especially when infringement is ambiguous or dependent claims are narrow. 4. Licensing and Patent Strategies The patent landscape suggests that license negotiations could be driven by claims covering core compounds and methods, with licensees seeking to avoid infringement. Strategic patent filings, including continuations and secondary filings, serve to extend patent life and fortress positions within this landscape. Critical Observations Despite its strong claim positioning, the ’788 patent faces challenges in maintaining broad protection against evolving prior art, particularly in the increasingly crowded field of targeted therapies. The scope of method claims must be carefully examined, as courts have scrutinized such claims for patentability and enforcement in recent cases (e.g., Myriad and AMP v. Myriad) [2]. The strategic filing of foreign counterparts enhances global protection, but differences in patent laws across jurisdictions can impact enforcement. The patent’s claims would benefit from clear, unambiguous language and comprehensive examples demonstrating inventive features, which are vital for both validity and enforcement strategies. Conclusion: Implications for Stakeholders For patent owners, the ’788 patent offers a significant asset—conditional on maintaining validity and executing strategic enforcement. For competitors, understanding claim scope and potential loopholes is vital for developing alternative compounds or methods. Investors and licensors should evaluate the patent landscape’s breadth and the patent’s strengths relative to the landscape's complexity, assessing potential infringement and licensing opportunities. Key Takeaways The ’788 patent’s claims appear strategically broad but require ongoing validation against prior art and evolving legal standards. Claim drafting should be refined to balance breadth with robustness; overly broad claims risk invalidation. Monitoring related patents and filings across jurisdictions is critical for maintaining freedom to operate. Method claims should be scrutinized within the current legal context, especially concerning patent eligibility. A proactive licensing and enforcement strategy can leverage the patent’s strength within a crowded IP landscape. FAQs What are the main components of the ’788 patent’s claims? The primary claims focus on specific chemical compounds, compositions, and methods of treating certain medical conditions with these compounds. How does the patent landscape impact the enforceability of the ’788 patent? A densely populated patent ecosystem with overlapping claims could lead to potential infringement challenges or patent validity defenses, requiring ongoing patent landscape analysis. Are method-of-treatment claims in the ’788 patent enforceable? Method claims can be enforceable but are often subject to legal scrutiny concerning patent eligibility and novelty, particularly in jurisdictions like the U.S. Can third parties design around the claims of the ’788 patent? Yes, if they develop structurally different compounds or alternative methods not covered explicitly by the claims, design-arounds are possible. What strategies can patent owners employ to strengthen their patent position? Patent owners should consider filing continuation applications, drafting comprehensive dependent claims, and securing foreign counterparts to extend geographical coverage and strengthen enforceability. References [1] Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) [2] Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 US 576 (2013) More… ↓ ⤷ Get Started Free

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Microbix Biosystems Inc.	KINLYTIC	urokinase	For Injection	021846	January 16, 1978	10,849,788	2036-03-18
Kedrion Biopharma Inc.	RYPLAZIM	plasminogen, human-tvmh	For Injection	125659	June 04, 2021	10,849,788	2036-03-18
>Applicant	>Tradename	>Biologic Ingredient	>Dosage Form	>BLA	>Approval Date	>Patent No.	>Expiredate

Patent: 10,849,788

Summary for Patent: 10,849,788

Details for Patent 10,849,788

Make Better Decisions: Try a trial or see plans & pricing