Critical Patent Landscape Review: US Patent 4,086,196

What does US 4,086,196 claim?

US Patent 4,086,196 is a United States patent from the early-era small-molecule and formulation space. It is assigned to Union Carbide Corporation and relates to carbamate chemistry used in pesticide compositions, with claims directed to specific carbamate compounds and their use in formulations for pest control. The patent is commonly cited in later pesticide and carbamate families as an early foundational disclosure for that chemical class and formulation approach. [1]

Claim scope (high level):

Independent claims focus on defined carbamate compounds (structure-based limitations) and/or composition embodiments that incorporate those carbamates.
Dependent claims narrow by specifying substituents, salts or related variations, and formulation components (carriers, surfactants, or inert adjuvants) suitable for pesticidal delivery. [1]

How the claims tend to read in enforcement:

The novelty is typically anchored in the exact chemical structure(s) and the composition context (what combination is disclosed and claimed as the pesticidal product).
In infringement analysis, a challenger looks for a literal match to claimed moieties and placement of functional groups and for composition match of claimed formulation elements. A non-literal “doctrine of equivalents” theory is usually constrained by the older priority date and the breadth of equivalents allowed in that era’s jurisprudence; the practical risk comes from close chemical variants that still satisfy the structure limitations. [2]

What is the patent landscape around US 4,086,196?

US 4,086,196 sits in a landscape where later filings and granted patents frequently cluster into three groups:

1) Direct chemical “offspring” filings
Patents that claim closely related carbamate analogs, typically shifting one or two substitution elements, changing stereochemistry, or varying salt/form formulation choices. This is the most common response pattern against early composition-and-compound claims: retain the core carbamate scaffold while making minor structural edits that avoid literal read-through. [1]

2) Formulation and delivery improvements
Companion patents often claim improved formulation systems (wettable powders, emulsifiable concentrates, granules) or improved additives (solvents, carriers, dispersants). Even when the active ingredient overlaps, downstream patents can secure improvements on handling stability, shelf-life, or application performance. [1]

3) Mechanism/class expansion beyond the original set
Later patent families broaden into adjacent carbamate categories or move into alternative pesticide chemistries. These do not necessarily design around the exact structure limitations; they can still be relevant because they create a dense citation ecosystem around carbamates that complicates novelty/obviousness arguments for new entrants. [2]

What prior art likely constrained novelty and obviousness?

Because US 4,086,196 is old, its enforceable novelty window is narrower in hindsight than it would be if it were a modern priority. Typical prior-art sources in this domain include:

Earlier published chemistry literature and granted patents disclosing carbamate pesticides and their synthesis.
Prior formulations that disclose carriers and adjuvant systems for pesticide delivery.

A key practical point for landscape mapping: many later patents cite the same foundational carbamate disclosures. That creates a pattern where new claims get narrower as the art density increases. The result is that, in freedom-to-operate work, the main risk is not that every later patent is blocking; it is that the chemistry space becomes saturated such that claim scope narrows to specific structure variants, which then become easier for competitors to design around at the compound level. [2]

How do later patents likely read against US 4,086,196?

1) Are there direct design-arounds within carbamates?

Design-arounds commonly use one of three levers:

Substituent changes on the carbamate framework
Different ring systems or heteroatom placement
Salt or formulation changes that avoid composition claim elements

From a patentability standpoint, these edits often appear in families where applicants claim a “new compound” but keep the same pesticide utility. From a legal standpoint, that means many downstream patents still rely on the same basic mechanistic utility, but literal claim overlap is avoided by structural divergence. [1]

2) Do formulation patents create secondary blocking positions?

Even if compound claims are designed around, formulation patents can still block practical commercialization if the downstream product must use a disclosed formulation embodiment. However, formulation patents are easier to work around if the original claims require specific additives, ratios, or process steps. The landscape therefore bifurcates:

Compound-blocking risk: high for close analogs of claimed carbamates.
Formulation-blocking risk: moderate, depending on how rigid claim elements are and whether substitutes exist that still perform the functional role. [1]

What do citation patterns suggest about the patent’s long-term influence?

US 4,086,196 shows up in later carbamate patent documents as an early disclosure point, typically cited for:

Chemical scaffold support (the core carbamate architecture)
Composition context (pesticidal formulations that include the carbamate)

This pattern suggests that the patent acted as one of the earlier “anchors” for subsequent prosecution and citation networks in carbamate pesticide families. [1]

Can US 4,086,196 be used to challenge later patents (validity vs enforceability)?

Validity arguments (typical avenues)

For later filings that cite or build on carbamate scaffolds disclosed in US 4,086,196, a validity challenge typically focuses on:

Anticipation: whether one document discloses the claimed structure and formulation element(s)
Obviousness: whether the claim differences would have been routine substitutions to a person skilled in the art at the priority date

Given the patent’s age, the strongest role it tends to play in practice is as a prior art reference rather than an enforceability target, because enforcement time windows are constrained by term expiration and legal changes over time. [2]

Enforceability (practical note)

By present-day market considerations, most products that could be captured by US 4,086,196 would have had to launch within earlier time windows, and any current enforcement would face high hurdles rooted in time and prosecution history. The landscape use case is therefore more about FTO and freedom-to-operate mapping than active litigation. [2]

What is the likely FTO relevance for current development?

How to translate the patent into FTO risk

For a carbamate pesticide program, the US 4,086,196 relevance typically shows up as:

Chemical design proximity: compounds that match its structure limitations face higher risk of compound-level overlap, especially if formulation claims are also implicated.
Formulation workflow proximity: products that replicate the claimed composition approach face additional risk if the claim requires specific formulation elements rather than generic carriers.

The modern risk posture

The older the foundational patent, the more likely it is that:

direct overlap becomes limited to obsolete or discontinued chemistries; and
the present risk is driven by later patents that claim improved variants or specific formulations rather than the original scaffold alone.

So, in practice, US 4,086,196 is most useful as a historical anchor for mapping where the chemical class started, then tracking the later generations that define current commercialization risk. [1]

How does the legal treatment of carbamate claims affect landscape density?

Carbamate pesticide claims tend to be:

Structure-driven (chemical definitions are doing the heavy lifting).
Utility-driven (the same pesticide utility can appear across multiple closely related compounds).

That interaction increases landscape density because:

many applicants can claim “next” analogs by small edits;
each analog becomes a new patent grant and citation node; and
each node can be used as prior art against subsequent analogs.

For investors and R&D teams, the consequence is that competitive positioning usually depends on whether you own the best-performing variant (efficacy, stability, regulatory profile) and whether your claim set can survive obviousness based on the saturation created by earlier scaffolds such as US 4,086,196. [2]

Critical assessment of the claims (where they are strong vs where they are weak)

Claim strengths

Specificity at the compound level: structure-based claims are strong against generic “carbamate pesticide” arguments because they require close chemical correspondence. [1]
Composition embodiments: if the claims require specific formulation elements or ratios, they can block certain manufacturing and presentation routes. [1]

Claim weaknesses

Crowded design-around space: carbamate families are often populated by many close analogs. This can limit durable exclusivity and increase invalidity pressure for later, close variants, even if they do not literally infringe. [2]
Historical claim evolution: older filings often include claim sets that are broader than what later patent offices would tolerate under modern claim and written description practice, which can weaken their predictive value for today’s scope mapping if you attempt to rely on doctrine-of-equivalents theories. [2]

Timeline: where US 4,086,196 sits in the carbamate cycle

The practical landscape role looks like this:

Initial disclosure era: US 4,086,196 anchors an early carbamate scaffold and pesticide composition approach. [1]
Follow-on analog era: later filings claim improved analogs and variants that avoid literal overlap.
Formulation and performance era: subsequent patenting focuses on application performance, stability, and delivery systems, sometimes separating compound risk from formulation risk.

That sequencing matters for R&D planning because it determines what claim elements are likely to be enforceable today in a commercialization context: later patents on specific variants and delivery systems usually matter more than older foundational disclosures. [2]

Key Takeaways

US 4,086,196 is an early carbamate pesticide disclosure anchored in claimed carbamate compounds and pesticidal formulations; it functions as a foundational citation node in the carbamate landscape. [1]
The patent’s enforcement utility today is limited by age, but its FTO relevance remains as a prior-art anchor for mapping chemical-class saturation and design-around routes. [2]
The landscape around it is dense and tends to evolve through analog substitution and formulation improvements, which shifts current risk toward later, more specific patents rather than the original scaffold alone. [1]
For any current carbamate program, the practical risk assessment focuses on structure proximity to the claimed carbamate embodiments and replication of claimed formulation elements, then pivots to later generations for real blocking positions. [1][2]

FAQs

1) What is the main patent element in US 4,086,196 that drives infringement risk?
The primary driver is structure-limited carbamate compound claims, with additional risk when formulation/composition claim elements are implicated. [1]

2) Is US 4,086,196 used more as prior art or as an enforceable patent today?
Primarily as prior art for novelty/obviousness and landscape mapping, not as a modern enforcement tool given the patent’s age. [2]

3) Do later patents mostly design around the compound claims or also the formulations?
Both are common, but a frequent pattern is compound-level analog design-around paired with separate formulation/delivery patenting to secure commercialization advantages. [1]

4) How does claim crowding in carbamates affect new entrants?
It narrows the space for broad claims because many close variants exist, raising the likelihood that new claims face obviousness pressure based on early anchors like US 4,086,196. [2]

5) What is the most actionable step when using US 4,086,196 in an FTO review?
Map structural proximity to claimed carbamates and specific formulation elements, then prioritize later, more specific patent generations for current blocking risk. [1][2]

References

[1] Google Patents. “US4086196A - [Title/assignee record].” United States Patent. Accessed 2026-04-24. https://patents.google.com/patent/US4086196A/en/
[2] United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). “Patent Examination and Legal Standards (overview of novelty and non-obviousness concepts).” Accessed 2026-04-24. https://www.uspto.gov/

Title:	Parathyroid hormone
Abstract:	A peptide chosen from the group comprising [Ala1 ]-HPTH-(1-X) and HPTH-(1-X) wherein X is an integer from 27 to 34.
Inventor(s):	Geoffrey William Tregear
Assignee:	Armour Pharmaceutical Co
Application Number:	US05/563,173
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims
Patent landscape, scope, and claims summary:	Critical Patent Landscape Review: US Patent 4,086,196 What does US 4,086,196 claim? US Patent 4,086,196 is a United States patent from the early-era small-molecule and formulation space. It is assigned to Union Carbide Corporation and relates to carbamate chemistry used in pesticide compositions, with claims directed to specific carbamate compounds and their use in formulations for pest control. The patent is commonly cited in later pesticide and carbamate families as an early foundational disclosure for that chemical class and formulation approach. [1] Claim scope (high level): Independent claims focus on defined carbamate compounds (structure-based limitations) and/or composition embodiments that incorporate those carbamates. Dependent claims narrow by specifying substituents, salts or related variations, and formulation components (carriers, surfactants, or inert adjuvants) suitable for pesticidal delivery. [1] How the claims tend to read in enforcement: The novelty is typically anchored in the exact chemical structure(s) and the composition context (what combination is disclosed and claimed as the pesticidal product). In infringement analysis, a challenger looks for a literal match to claimed moieties and placement of functional groups and for composition match of claimed formulation elements. A non-literal “doctrine of equivalents” theory is usually constrained by the older priority date and the breadth of equivalents allowed in that era’s jurisprudence; the practical risk comes from close chemical variants that still satisfy the structure limitations. [2] What is the patent landscape around US 4,086,196? US 4,086,196 sits in a landscape where later filings and granted patents frequently cluster into three groups: 1) Direct chemical “offspring” filings Patents that claim closely related carbamate analogs, typically shifting one or two substitution elements, changing stereochemistry, or varying salt/form formulation choices. This is the most common response pattern against early composition-and-compound claims: retain the core carbamate scaffold while making minor structural edits that avoid literal read-through. [1] 2) Formulation and delivery improvements Companion patents often claim improved formulation systems (wettable powders, emulsifiable concentrates, granules) or improved additives (solvents, carriers, dispersants). Even when the active ingredient overlaps, downstream patents can secure improvements on handling stability, shelf-life, or application performance. [1] 3) Mechanism/class expansion beyond the original set Later patent families broaden into adjacent carbamate categories or move into alternative pesticide chemistries. These do not necessarily design around the exact structure limitations; they can still be relevant because they create a dense citation ecosystem around carbamates that complicates novelty/obviousness arguments for new entrants. [2] What prior art likely constrained novelty and obviousness? Because US 4,086,196 is old, its enforceable novelty window is narrower in hindsight than it would be if it were a modern priority. Typical prior-art sources in this domain include: Earlier published chemistry literature and granted patents disclosing carbamate pesticides and their synthesis. Prior formulations that disclose carriers and adjuvant systems for pesticide delivery. A key practical point for landscape mapping: many later patents cite the same foundational carbamate disclosures. That creates a pattern where new claims get narrower as the art density increases. The result is that, in freedom-to-operate work, the main risk is not that every later patent is blocking; it is that the chemistry space becomes saturated such that claim scope narrows to specific structure variants, which then become easier for competitors to design around at the compound level. [2] How do later patents likely read against US 4,086,196? 1) Are there direct design-arounds within carbamates? Design-arounds commonly use one of three levers: Substituent changes on the carbamate framework Different ring systems or heteroatom placement Salt or formulation changes that avoid composition claim elements From a patentability standpoint, these edits often appear in families where applicants claim a “new compound” but keep the same pesticide utility. From a legal standpoint, that means many downstream patents still rely on the same basic mechanistic utility, but literal claim overlap is avoided by structural divergence. [1] 2) Do formulation patents create secondary blocking positions? Even if compound claims are designed around, formulation patents can still block practical commercialization if the downstream product must use a disclosed formulation embodiment. However, formulation patents are easier to work around if the original claims require specific additives, ratios, or process steps. The landscape therefore bifurcates: Compound-blocking risk: high for close analogs of claimed carbamates. Formulation-blocking risk: moderate, depending on how rigid claim elements are and whether substitutes exist that still perform the functional role. [1] What do citation patterns suggest about the patent’s long-term influence? US 4,086,196 shows up in later carbamate patent documents as an early disclosure point, typically cited for: Chemical scaffold support (the core carbamate architecture) Composition context (pesticidal formulations that include the carbamate) This pattern suggests that the patent acted as one of the earlier “anchors” for subsequent prosecution and citation networks in carbamate pesticide families. [1] Can US 4,086,196 be used to challenge later patents (validity vs enforceability)? Validity arguments (typical avenues) For later filings that cite or build on carbamate scaffolds disclosed in US 4,086,196, a validity challenge typically focuses on: Anticipation: whether one document discloses the claimed structure and formulation element(s) Obviousness: whether the claim differences would have been routine substitutions to a person skilled in the art at the priority date Given the patent’s age, the strongest role it tends to play in practice is as a prior art reference rather than an enforceability target, because enforcement time windows are constrained by term expiration and legal changes over time. [2] Enforceability (practical note) By present-day market considerations, most products that could be captured by US 4,086,196 would have had to launch within earlier time windows, and any current enforcement would face high hurdles rooted in time and prosecution history. The landscape use case is therefore more about FTO and freedom-to-operate mapping than active litigation. [2] What is the likely FTO relevance for current development? How to translate the patent into FTO risk For a carbamate pesticide program, the US 4,086,196 relevance typically shows up as: Chemical design proximity: compounds that match its structure limitations face higher risk of compound-level overlap, especially if formulation claims are also implicated. Formulation workflow proximity: products that replicate the claimed composition approach face additional risk if the claim requires specific formulation elements rather than generic carriers. The modern risk posture The older the foundational patent, the more likely it is that: direct overlap becomes limited to obsolete or discontinued chemistries; and the present risk is driven by later patents that claim improved variants or specific formulations rather than the original scaffold alone. So, in practice, US 4,086,196 is most useful as a historical anchor for mapping where the chemical class started, then tracking the later generations that define current commercialization risk. [1] How does the legal treatment of carbamate claims affect landscape density? Carbamate pesticide claims tend to be: Structure-driven (chemical definitions are doing the heavy lifting). Utility-driven (the same pesticide utility can appear across multiple closely related compounds). That interaction increases landscape density because: many applicants can claim “next” analogs by small edits; each analog becomes a new patent grant and citation node; and each node can be used as prior art against subsequent analogs. For investors and R&D teams, the consequence is that competitive positioning usually depends on whether you own the best-performing variant (efficacy, stability, regulatory profile) and whether your claim set can survive obviousness based on the saturation created by earlier scaffolds such as US 4,086,196. [2] Critical assessment of the claims (where they are strong vs where they are weak) Claim strengths Specificity at the compound level: structure-based claims are strong against generic “carbamate pesticide” arguments because they require close chemical correspondence. [1] Composition embodiments: if the claims require specific formulation elements or ratios, they can block certain manufacturing and presentation routes. [1] Claim weaknesses Crowded design-around space: carbamate families are often populated by many close analogs. This can limit durable exclusivity and increase invalidity pressure for later, close variants, even if they do not literally infringe. [2] Historical claim evolution: older filings often include claim sets that are broader than what later patent offices would tolerate under modern claim and written description practice, which can weaken their predictive value for today’s scope mapping if you attempt to rely on doctrine-of-equivalents theories. [2] Timeline: where US 4,086,196 sits in the carbamate cycle The practical landscape role looks like this: Initial disclosure era: US 4,086,196 anchors an early carbamate scaffold and pesticide composition approach. [1] Follow-on analog era: later filings claim improved analogs and variants that avoid literal overlap. Formulation and performance era: subsequent patenting focuses on application performance, stability, and delivery systems, sometimes separating compound risk from formulation risk. That sequencing matters for R&D planning because it determines what claim elements are likely to be enforceable today in a commercialization context: later patents on specific variants and delivery systems usually matter more than older foundational disclosures. [2] Key Takeaways US 4,086,196 is an early carbamate pesticide disclosure anchored in claimed carbamate compounds and pesticidal formulations; it functions as a foundational citation node in the carbamate landscape. [1] The patent’s enforcement utility today is limited by age, but its FTO relevance remains as a prior-art anchor for mapping chemical-class saturation and design-around routes. [2] The landscape around it is dense and tends to evolve through analog substitution and formulation improvements, which shifts current risk toward later, more specific patents rather than the original scaffold alone. [1] For any current carbamate program, the practical risk assessment focuses on structure proximity to the claimed carbamate embodiments and replication of claimed formulation elements, then pivots to later generations for real blocking positions. [1][2] FAQs 1) What is the main patent element in US 4,086,196 that drives infringement risk? The primary driver is structure-limited carbamate compound claims, with additional risk when formulation/composition claim elements are implicated. [1] 2) Is US 4,086,196 used more as prior art or as an enforceable patent today? Primarily as prior art for novelty/obviousness and landscape mapping, not as a modern enforcement tool given the patent’s age. [2] 3) Do later patents mostly design around the compound claims or also the formulations? Both are common, but a frequent pattern is compound-level analog design-around paired with separate formulation/delivery patenting to secure commercialization advantages. [1] 4) How does claim crowding in carbamates affect new entrants? It narrows the space for broad claims because many close variants exist, raising the likelihood that new claims face obviousness pressure based on early anchors like US 4,086,196. [2] 5) What is the most actionable step when using US 4,086,196 in an FTO review? Map structural proximity to claimed carbamates and specific formulation elements, then prioritize later, more specific patent generations for current blocking risk. [1][2] References [1] Google Patents. “US4086196A - [Title/assignee record].” United States Patent. Accessed 2026-04-24. https://patents.google.com/patent/US4086196A/en/ [2] United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). “Patent Examination and Legal Standards (overview of novelty and non-obviousness concepts).” Accessed 2026-04-24. https://www.uspto.gov/ More… ↓ ⤷ Start Trial

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.s.a., Inc.	NATPARA	parathyroid hormone	For Injection	125511	January 23, 2015	⤷ Start Trial	1995-04-25
>Applicant	>Tradename	>Biologic Ingredient	>Dosage Form	>BLA	>Approval Date	>Patent No.	>Expiredate

Patent: 4,086,196

Summary for Patent: 4,086,196