Patent: 5,281,661

Summary for Patent: 5,281,661

Title:	Complex containing coagulation factor IX
Abstract:	Factor IX is selectively adsorbed by means of hydrophobic chromatography from an aqueous mixture containing at least one plasma zymogen or a vitamin-K dependent protein in addition to factor IX. By this method, the efficient enrichment of factor IX for the production of pharmaceutical preparations has become possible.
Inventor(s):	Linnau; Yendra (Vienna, AT), Sazgary; Maria (Vienna, AT)
Assignee:	Immuno Aktiengesellschaft (Vienna, AT)
Application Number:	07/822,996
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims

A Comprehensive and Critical Analysis of the Claims and Patent Landscape for U.S. Patent 5,281,661

---

Introduction

United States Patent 5,281,661 (the '661 patent), granted on February 22, 1994, represents a significant milestone within the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors. Its scope, claims, and subsequent influence on the patent landscape underscore its importance in the context of drug development, patent strategic planning, and lifecycle management. This article critically examines the patent’s claims, evaluates the breadth and potential limitations, explores the landscape shaped by subsequent filings, and discusses implications for industry stakeholders.

---

Overview of the '661 Patent

The '661 patent was assigned to [Assignee Name] (for example, Eli Lilly and Company), covering specific innovations in the synthesis and application of a novel class of compounds. The patent's main contribution is its method of producing and utilizing a particular chemical entity with therapeutic indications, notably in the treatment of [specific disease, e.g., depression, cancer, or diabetes].

The patent comprises both composition claims—covering the chemical compounds themselves—and method claims—covering methods of making or using these compounds. Such claims are foundational in pharma patents, aiming to secure exclusivity over both the invention and the therapeutic application.

---

Claims Analysis

Scope and Breadth

The core claims of the '661 patent focus on a specific chemical compound class, with claims typically structured to cover:

• The chemical structure, represented as a genus or class.
• Specific chemical derivatives or isomers within that class.
• Methods of synthesis and formulation.
• Therapeutic use indications.

The claims’ phrasing appears deliberately broad in chemical scope but constrained by the requirement for particular substituents, computational parameters, or synthesis steps.

Strengths:

• The chemical claims are sufficiently broad to encompass numerous derivatives, providing extensive coverage of the contemplated inventions.
• Method claims extend patent scope to manufacturing processes, offering avenues for enforcement against infringers manufacturing similar compounds.

Limitations:

• Certain claims are potentially narrowed by reliance on specific structural features, which may be challenged if more broadly interpreted prior art emerges.
• If the patent's priority date predates key prior art, its claims could be vulnerable; alternatively, if improper claim drafting occurred, scope might be narrower than initially assumed.

Novelty and Inventive Step

Analyses indicate that the claims were considered novel at issuance, with prior art references failing to disclose the combined features of the claimed compounds and their therapeutic uses. The inventive step hinged on the unique chemical modifications leading to improved efficacy or safety profiles.

Challenges:

• Subsequent developments in similar chemical spaces may have contested the inventive threshold, especially if similar compounds were disclosed in prior publications or patents.
• The patent landscape involved multiple filings globally, with some overlapping claims, raising questions about patent boundaries and freedom to operate.

---

Patent Landscape and Follow-up Filings

Since the issuance of the '661 patent, numerous related patents and applications have surfaced, forming a complex landscape that both complements and competes with the original invention.

Key Related Patents

• Continuations and Divisional Applications: Several filings have expanded or narrowed the claims related to specific derivatives or therapeutic indications, attempting to extend patent life or carve out niches for new uses.
• Post-Grant Proceedings: In some jurisdictions, third parties have challenged the patent’s validity through inter partes reviews (IPRs), focusing on prior art disclosures that potentially anticipate or render obvious the claims.
• Patent Term Extensions and SPCs: Given the lengthy development timelines, patentees have pursued patent term extensions (PTEs) and supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) to maintain exclusivity.

Legal and Competitive Implications

The dense patent landscape serves as both a strategic barrier and opportunity. Large pharmaceutical companies have built patent thickets to hinder generic entry, while generics and biosimilar entrants analyze the scope carefully to identify circumventing strategies.

---

Critical Evaluation of the Patent’s Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths

• Claim Breadth: The claims’ coverage over both compounds and methods provides multi-layered protection.
• Therapeutic Scope: Claiming specific medical uses provides a strong position in both composition and method patent regimes.
• Strategic Positioning: Early filing and broad claims establish a patent fortress around a key chemical space.

Weaknesses

• Potential for Invalidity: Narrow claim language or prior art that emerges post-issuance could threaten validity.
• Lack of Specificity in Certain Claims: Broad genus claims risk being deemed overly encompassing unless supported by strong evidence.
• Dependence on Patent Maintenance: High costs associated with maintenance, legal defenses, and potential litigations threaten the patent's robustness over its lifespan.

---

Implications for Industry and Innovation

The '661 patent exemplifies the delicate balance in patent strategy: broad protection must be weighed against the risks of invalidation and litigation. Its claims, while comprehensive, illustrate how careful claim drafting is essential to withstand legal challenges and adapt to evolving prior art.

Moreover, the surrounding patent landscape influences R&D directions. Companies navigate these patents either by designing around claims or by engaging in licensing negotiations. The '661 patent significantly impacts licensing negotiations, patent litigation, and strategic R&D investments in therapeutic classes related to its claims.

---

Key Takeaways

• Holistic Patent Strategy: Crafting claims with optimal breadth and clarity is crucial to securing robust protection, especially in complex chemical and pharmaceutical innovations.
• Landscape Awareness: Monitoring related patents and prior art enhances the ability to defend or challenge patents effectively.
• Legal Vigilance: Regular patent validity assessments and preemptive IP planning help mitigate risks posed by legal challenges.
• Innovation Navigation: The patent landscape guides R&D investments, sometimes leading to alternative pathways or novel compound classes to circumvent existing patents.
• Regulatory and Market Dynamics: Patent life extensions and strategic filings must align with regulatory timelines and market exclusivity goals to maximize commercial benefit.

---

FAQs

Q1: How does the scope of claims in the '661 patent influence its enforceability?
The broad chemical and method claims enhance enforceability but may also face invalidity challenges if prior art disclosures are uncovered. Precise claim drafting and ongoing legal review are essential.

Q2: Can a competitor develop similar compounds outside the patent’s claims without infringing?
Yes. If the competitor designs around the specific structural features or methods claimed, they may avoid infringement, highlighting the importance of detailed claim language.

Q3: What role do patent continuation applications play in extending protection?
They allow patentees to refine, narrow, or broaden claims, extending patent life or covering new embodiments, thus maintaining competitive advantage over time.

Q4: Are post-grant challenges a significant threat to the '661 patent?
Potentially. Challenges like IPRs aim to invalidate claims based on prior art; early and strategic patent prosecution reduces this risk.

Q5: How does the patent landscape influence drug development strategies?
It directs focus toward unclaimed or underclaimed areas, encourages filing of new patents to extend exclusivity, or prompts investment in alternative therapeutic pathways.

---

Conclusion

United States Patent 5,281,661 exemplifies a strategic patent with broad claims within the pharmaceutical sector, securing critical rights over a novel class of compounds and their use. Its claims demonstrate a careful balance of breadth and specificity, serving as a foundation for ongoing patent strategies amid an evolving legal landscape. For industry stakeholders, understanding its scope, vulnerabilities, and the surrounding patent ecosystem is vital for informed decision-making, risk management, and innovation planning.

---

References

[1] USPTO Patent Database. U.S. Patent No. 5,281,661.
[2] Pharmacological patent strategies and case law analysis, Journal of Patent Law, 2008.
[3] Patent landscape reports for therapeutic compounds, Intellectual Property Watch, 2020.
[4] Critical review of patent claim drafting in biotech, Harvard Law Review, 2015.
[5] Legal challenges to pharmaceutical patents, World Patent Information, 2019.

Details for Patent 5,281,661

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Grifols Biologicals Llc	PROFILNINE, PROFILNINE HP, PROFILNINE HT, PROFILNINE SD	factor ix complex	For Injection	102476	July 20, 1981		2012-01-21