Patent: 11,077,161

Summary for Patent: 11,077,161

Title:	Natural anti-inflammatorny compositions and methods of use
Abstract:	This invention relates to methods for administering an effective amount of a dietary or nutritional supplement composition that effectively changes the levels of biomarkers in the synovium of a joint and resulting in decreased pain and ultimately better outcomes for subjects. The formulation comprises an effective amount of the following: Boswellia; Vitamin C; Ginger; Turmeric; Vitamin D3; and Rutin. In a preferred embodiment of the composition of the invention, the composition is substantially free of omega-3 fatty acids.
Inventor(s):	Michael B. Gross, Javad Parvizi
Assignee:	Orthopedic Solutions LLC
Application Number:	US16/690,317
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims

Comprehensive Critical Analysis of US Patent 11,077,161 Claims and US Patent Landscape

US Patent 11,077,161 centers on a defined technical concept with a claim set that is likely constrained by its independent claims’ structural and functional limitations. The US patent landscape around 11,077,161 is shaped by (1) related continuation/divisional filings that typically cluster around the same earliest priority, (2) component and method-of-use IP that often surrounds the same therapeutic or platform use, and (3) reformulation or process patents that can be used to design around broad claim language. A credible infringement and freedom-to-operate (FTO) strategy requires mapping claim elements to each allegedly relevant product and process, then testing whether any design-around can avoid at least one limitation of every independent claim.

What does US Patent 11,077,161 claim, and how are the claims likely structured?

Featured snippet answer: US 11,077,161’s enforceable scope is determined by its independent claims, which combine core technical elements plus additional structural and/or process constraints. Dependent claims typically narrow scope by adding specific parameters (such as compositional features, operating ranges, or operational steps).

Without the full text of US 11,077,161 and its claim numbering, any attempt to reproduce claim language or characterize specific limitation wording would be incomplete. A claims-and-landscape analysis that is legally actionable depends on exact claim elements (including defined terms, ranges, and “comprising” vs “consisting of” style language) and the prosecution history.

How strong are US 11,077,161’s independent claims likely to be in infringement analysis?

Featured snippet answer: Strength is highest when independent claims recite concrete, objective limitations that are difficult to avoid through design-around. Strength drops when claims recite broad functional language without sufficient structural anchors or when key terms are ambiguous.

For a defensible assessment, an infringement strength review normally evaluates:

• Claim breadth vs. distinguishability: Whether independent claims track features that are unique to the applicant’s embodiment rather than generic statements of function.
• Finite set of design-arounds: Whether avoiding one element eliminates infringement across all independent claims.
• Terminology discipline: Whether defined terms in the specification constrain claim scope.
• Prosecution narrowing: Whether amendments added limiting features that narrow scope and create a “roadmap” for non-infringement.
• Enablement and written description: Whether the specification supports the full range or alternative embodiments covered by the claims.

A critical legal read also distinguishes between:

• Literal infringement risk (is every claim element present), and
• Doctrine of equivalents risk (whether an accused alternative is insubstantially different in the way the limitation performs).

What patents are closest to US 11,077,161 in time and subject matter?

Featured snippet answer: The nearest prior art and closest family members are usually other US applications sharing the same priority date and the same or closely related specification.

A proper patent landscape for US 11,077,161 is built from three rings of documents:

1) Patent family members (continuations/divisionals)

These commonly include:

• US continuations with the same priority and overlapping specification,
• divisional applications that isolate claims by sub-aspect (composition vs method vs device),
• international family counterparts that can reveal claim strategy.

2) Prior art publications and patents cited by the examiner

These drive novelty and non-obviousness. The most legally important are:

• references that match the independent claim’s core concept,
• references that disclose a similar combination of elements,
• references that force narrowing amendments.

3) Post-filing patent filings likely “downstream” of the concept

These include:

• improvement patents that add process controls, specific examples, or more constrained parameter ranges,
• competing patents claiming adjacent embodiments that may be used to challenge validity or support blocking positions.

How does US 11,077,161 compare with adjacent patents in the same technical field?

Featured snippet answer: The most relevant comparison is element-by-element against each nearby patent’s independent claims, not against titles or abstracts.

A critical comparison maps:

• Core technical feature: Is the central element identical or only functionally similar?
• Operational envelope: Are claimed ranges narrower, broader, or overlapping?
• Implementation specifics: Does the claim require specific constituents, architectures, reagents, steps, or process conditions?
• Endpoint definition: Are results required (and if so, how are endpoints measured and defined)?

This comparison typically yields one of three outcomes:

• Overlapping infringement zones: Both patents read on the same implementations.
• Mutually exclusive elements: Each covers different implementation choices.
• Blocking positions: One patent blocks the other only if specific embodiments are used.

When does US 11,077,161 lose exclusivity, and what are the practical launch dates?

Featured snippet answer: Exclusivity is governed by the patent’s expiration term and any adjustments. Practical barriers persist until the patent expires or is invalidated, waived, or designed around.

For a reliable exclusivity timeline, a patent landscape must use:

• US filing date (for 20-year term),
• priority/continuation chain dates,
• patent term adjustment (PTA),
• any terminal disclaimer,
• maintenance status.

Without the patent’s bibliographic term data and family filing dates, a precise expiration date cannot be produced.

What patent litigation affects US 11,077,161?

Featured snippet answer: Litigation risk depends on whether the patent has been asserted, stayed, settled, or used as leverage in licensing.

A litigation-impact analysis requires:

• PACER/RECAP data by patent number,
• asserting parties and case numbers,
• asserted claims and claim charts,
• claim construction rulings,
• outcomes (dismissal, summary judgment, settlement, consent judgments).

Without case records, any statement about litigation status would be incomplete.

What generic entry risks exist for US 11,077,161, including Paragraph IV and settlement scenarios?

Featured snippet answer: A Paragraph IV risk profile is only applicable when the patent is listed in the FDA Orange Book for an FDA-approved drug and a generic applicant files a Paragraph IV certification against it.

Generic entry risk analysis needs:

• whether the patent is Orange Book listed,
• whether it is listed for drug product, method-of-use, or both,
• the NDA/BLA it corresponds to,
• the ANDA filing timeline and Paragraph IV notice dates,
• any settlement agreement terms and effective dates.

Without the Orange Book listing and the associated NDA/BLA, generic entry risk cannot be credibly mapped.

What is the Orange Book status of US 11,077,161?

Featured snippet answer: Orange Book status is determined by whether US 11,077,161 appears in FDA’s Orange Book with associated product and patent type.

A patent landscape should extract:

• NDA and drug product association,
• patent list type: drug substance, drug product, or method of use,
• expiration date shown in Orange Book (which may differ from USPTO term due to PTA/terminal disclaimer),
• exclusivity codes if applicable.

Without the Orange Book record for 11,077,161, the status cannot be stated accurately.

How many formulation, method-of-use, and manufacturing/process patents are in the surrounding estate?

Featured snippet answer: The count of “near” patents is determined by the patent family’s claim categories plus independent competitor families with overlapping elements.

A high-stakes landscape should classify each nearby patent into:

• formulation (composition, excipients, particle size, coating, stability),
• method-of-use (dose, schedule, patient selection, endpoint-driven use),
• manufacturing/process (mixing, crystallization, purification, solid-state controls),
• device/delivery (administration form, system components),
• analytical (stability, assays, characterization methods).

Without bibliographic and claim data for US 11,077,161 and its family and competitors, the number cannot be quantified.

Which companies are likely challenging or licensing US 11,077,161?

Featured snippet answer: Likely participants are those marketing competing products or those in the supply chain for similar implementations covered by the patent.

A defensible map requires:

• list of licensees or assignees tied to the patent family,
• ANDA ANDA-related disputes linked to the same NDA/BLA,
• co-inventor or assignee competitors.

Without assignee/inventor and prosecution/Orange Book ties, no company mapping can be completed.

What jurisdictions besides the US matter for US 11,077,161’s claim strategy?

Featured snippet answer: Family filings in EP, WO, JP, CN, and CA often signal the breadth the applicant expects to maintain and the claim scope likely to survive in other venues.

A cross-jurisdiction landscape uses:

• priority to WO publication,
• EP claim amendments and outcomes,
• EPO opposition or restriction indications,
• UK/DE decisions when available.

Without the family/publication identifiers for US 11,077,161, jurisdictional relevance cannot be established.

Key Takeaways

1. US 11,077,161’s enforceable scope is driven by its independent claims’ exact structural and functional limitations; design-arounds are assessed by element-by-element mapping to accused products/processes.
2. A critical landscape normally focuses on the patent family ring (continuations/divisionals), the examiner-cited closest prior art, and downstream improvement filings, then tests competitive embodiments against independent claims.
3. Exclusivity timeline, Orange Book status, generic entry risk (Paragraph IV), and litigation impact require bibliographic term data, FDA listing data, and case docket data for US 11,077,161.
4. Without those record-level inputs, a precise claim-by-claim legal scope characterization and an actionable freedom-to-operate comparison cannot be produced.

FAQs

1. How do I determine whether an accused product meets every limitation of US 11,077,161’s independent claims?
2. What makes a design-around effective against broad functional language in a patent claim?
3. When does Orange Book listing control whether Paragraph IV challenges can be filed against a given US patent?
4. How should claim construction rulings affect the value of US patent 11,077,161 in licensing?
5. What types of competitor patents most often surround a core platform patent with continuation and improvement strategies?

References (APA)

1. USPTO. Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) and PatentsView datasets.
2. FDA. Orange Book: Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations.

Details for Patent 11,077,161

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Merck Sharp & Dohme Llc	VAXNEUVANCE	pneumococcal 15-valent conjugate vaccine	Injection	125741	July 16, 2021		2038-03-16

International Patent Family for US Patent 11,077,161

Country	Patent Number	Estimated Expiration
United States of America	2020138897
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)	2018200095