Patent: 11,426,520

Summary for Patent: 11,426,520

Title:	Medicament delivery devices for administration of a medicament within a prefilled syringe
Abstract:	An apparatus includes a housing, a medicament container and a movable member. The medicament container is movable within the housing between a first position and a second position in response to a force produced by an energy storage member. A proximal end portion of the medicament container includes a flange and has a plunger disposed therein. A first shoulder of the movable member exerts the force on the flange to move the medicament container from the first position to the second position. A portion of the first shoulder deforms when the medicament container is in the second position such that at least a portion of the force is exerted upon the plunger. A second shoulder of the movable member exerts a retraction force on the flange to move the medicament container from the second position towards the first position.
Inventor(s):	Edwards Eric S., Edwards Evan T., Licata Mark J., Meyers Paul F.
Assignee:	kaleo, Inc.
Application Number:	US16504725
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims

United States Patent 11,426,520: Claim Set and U.S. Patent Landscape Assessment

What does US 11,426,520 claim cover?

Insufficient information is provided to identify the actual claim text. The prompt ends at “The claims are:” without including the claims (or at least independent claim 1 and dependent claim set). Without the claim language, a complete and accurate analysis of claim scope, novelty, and enforceability cannot be produced.

What is the patent’s likely technological core and claim boundaries?

No claim content, specification excerpts, priority data, CPC classes, or drawings were provided. Without those inputs, the technological core (drug substance, formulation, route of administration, combination regimen, dosing schedule, method of treating a condition, manufacturing/process parameters, or device/delivery features) cannot be determined from the provided material.

What is the competitive U.S. patent landscape around it?

No claims, therapeutic area, active ingredient(s), target(s), dosing regimen, or formulation type were provided. A patent-landscape analysis for the U.S. must anchor on at least one of the following:

• the active ingredient or biologic name
• the claimed indication(s)
• the claimed dosing range or regimen
• the claimed formulation/process parameters
• the claimed method-of-treatment steps

None of these anchor points are present in the prompt, so the landscape cannot be built without risking inaccuracies.

Which prior art categories will most directly attack the claim validity?

Claim-dependent invalidity theories depend on what the claims actually recite. The most common U.S. attack vectors are:

• novelty (35 USC 102) against earlier patents, publications, or product labels
• obviousness (35 USC 103) based on combinations of references
• indefiniteness (35 USC 112(b)) if claim terms are not reasonably certain
• lack of written description and enablement (35 USC 112(a)) if the disclosure does not support scope

But without the claim text, the specific prior-art mapping and criticality cannot be performed.

How enforceable is the patent in practice?

Enforceability is driven by claim construction (what a court reads into terms), prosecution history, claim breadth, and whether the claims read cleanly on competitor products or processes. None of that is available in the prompt.

---

Key Takeaways

• The provided input does not include the actual claims for U.S. Patent 11,426,520, so a complete and accurate claim-scope, validity, or landscape analysis cannot be produced from the information given.
• Without claim text (and the associated invention details it encodes), any attempt to identify the technological core, map prior art, or assess competitive infringement would be speculative.

---

FAQs

1. Can you analyze claim scope without the claim text?
   No. The analysis requires the actual claim language to determine limitations, interpretability, and likely claim-construction outcomes.

2. What inputs are required to build a U.S. patent landscape?
   The invention anchors such as active ingredient/biologic name, indication, formulation/process parameters, and dosing regimen from the claims and specification.

3. How do claim types change the landscape?
   Composition, method-of-treatment, and process claims create different search strategies and different competitor-infringement pathways.

4. What drives validity risk the most?
   The specific claim elements and whether they are disclosed or suggested by earlier patents/publications, plus 35 USC 112 support for the breadth.

5. Why can’t you infer the claims from the patent number alone?
   A patent number lookup is not provided in the prompt, and the claim language is the only reliable basis for a precise legal-technical analysis under U.S. standards.

---

References

[1] (No sources were provided in the prompt.)

Details for Patent 11,426,520

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Genzyme Corporation	CEREZYME	imiglucerase	For Injection	020367	May 23, 1994	11,426,520	2039-07-08
Genzyme Corporation	CEREZYME	imiglucerase	For Injection	020367	September 22, 1999	11,426,520	2039-07-08
Bausch & Lomb Incorporated	VITRASE	hyaluronidase	Injection	021640	May 05, 2004	11,426,520	2039-07-08
Bausch & Lomb Incorporated	VITRASE	hyaluronidase	Injection	021640	December 02, 2004	11,426,520	2039-07-08
Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc.	AMPHADASE	hyaluronidase	Injection	021665	October 26, 2004	11,426,520	2039-07-08