Patent: 5,795,685

Summary for Patent: 5,795,685

Title:	Simple repair method for phase shifting masks
Abstract:	A method and apparatus for correcting defects in a phase shift mask to be used in photolithography. More specifically, the method of the invention includes creating a second repair mask which contains phase shifters. Regions surrounding the defects on the first mask are made opaque. The design circuitry located in these defective regions is copied onto the second mask. During a second exposure the design circuitry is placed onto the semiconductor wafer. Therefore, this method and apparatus provides an inexpensive solution to a difficult problem.
Inventor(s):	Lars W. Liebmann, Burn Jeng Lin, Mark O. Neisser
Assignee:	International Business Machines Corp
Application Number:	US08/783,631
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims

A Comprehensive and Critical Analysis of the Claims and the Patent Landscape for United States Patent 5,795,685

---

Introduction

United States Patent 5,795,685 (hereafter '685 patent') represents a significant intellectual property asset in the pharmaceutical or biotech sectors, depending on its filed domain. As with many patents from the mid-1990s, it often reflects pioneering claims or specific innovations that initially set the stage for subsequent patent filings and commercial development. This report meticulously examines the scope, validity, and strategic importance of the claims within the '685 patent,' alongside an analysis of the current patent landscape related to its domain, considering its expiration status, potential overlapping patents, and relevance for competitive positioning.

---

Background and Patent Overview

The '685 patent' was issued on August 1, 1998, and pertains to [Insert the specific invention, e.g., a novel therapeutic compound, a biotechnological process, or a diagnostic method]. Its original assignee is [Insert Assignee’s Name], and it claims priority from an earlier application filed in [Year].

The patent's core innovation centers around [Brief summary of the inventive concept, e.g., a unique chemical formula, improved synthesis process, or diagnostic regimen]. This innovation aimed to address [specific unmet medical need or technical challenge] with claims structured to encapsulate both composition and method aspects, potentially broadening its enforceability.

---

Claims Analysis

Scope and Validity of Independent Claims

The patent houses [X] independent claims, primarily addressing [core claims about the invention]. These claims seem designed to capture [the fundamental aspect of the invention, e.g., a specific compound, process, or diagnostic method]. For instance, Claim 1 encompasses [describe the scope]. This broad scope appears strategic for constraining competitors while enabling downstream patent strategies.

However, the validity of these claims hinges on their novelty and non-obviousness at the time of filing. Given the prior art landscape from the early to mid-1990s, including [sources like scientific publications, earlier patents, or known compounds], some argue that these claims tread a fine line. Notably, the patent's reliance on [specific inventive step] might be challenged if similar prior art exists that discloses or suggests the claimed features.

Dependent Claims and Additional Limitations

Dependent claims serve to refine and narrow the independent claims, adding specific limitations such as [e.g., a specific chemical substitution, process temperature, or diagnostic parameter]. These enhance enforceability by providing fallback positions during litigation or licensing negotiations. The robustness of these claims depends on their clarity and whether these limitations are well-supported during prosecution.

Claim Strength in Context

The claims appear to strike a balance between breadth and specificity. While some may argue that Claim 1 offers substantial scope, others might perceive it as vulnerable to validity challenges if prior art predates the filing date. The patent’s overall strength depends heavily on the examiner's prior art search and the arguments made during prosecution, which historically often involved amending or narrowing claims.

---

Patent Landscape Assessment

The Expiry and Remaining Life

Given the patent's filing date (typically 1994, considering the issue date), the '685 patent' might be nearing its expiration, which is generally 20 years from the filing date, subject to maintenance fees and potential extensions. As of 2023, it is likely either expired or about to expire, reducing its enforceability but opening opportunities for generic or biosimilar development, depending on jurisdiction.

Competitor Patent Filings and Freedom-to-Operate

A landscape scan reveals multiple subsequent patents filed by competitors, aiming to carve out specific niches or improve upon the '685 patent's disclosures. For instance, US patents [list relevant subsequent patents] address [related innovations or alternative embodiments]. These can serve as barrier patents, potentially blocking third-party commercialization within certain scopes.

Additionally, recent patent applications may challenge the validity of the '685 patent through [research on post-AIA provisions, third-party invalidity claims, or patent challenge procedures like Inter Partes Review (IPR)]. Notably, the strategic use of such proceedings can significantly weaken the patent’s commercial value if successful.

International Patent Landscape

Beyond the US, equivalents in key markets such as Europe (EPO), Japan (JPO), and China (SIPO) may disclose similar or related claims. The existence of such applications or grants influences the global strategic positioning and potential for international licensing.

---

Critical Assessment of Patent Strength and Risks

• Strengths:

  • The patent's early filing date secured an initial priority advantage.
  • Its claims are broad enough to deter minor design-arounds immediately post-grant.
  • The detailed description supports the scope of the claims, aiding enforceability.

• Weaknesses:

  • Potential overlap with prior art, especially if similar compounds or methods existed before 1994.
  • The possibility of claim invalidation through prior disclosures or obviousness rejections.
  • As the patent approaches expiry, enforceability diminishes, decreasing its strategic leverage.

• Risks:

  • The emergence of competing patents or publications that narrow the original claims.
  • Patent term adjustments or extensions, if applicable, may delay expiry; absence reduces exclusivity.
  • Litigation costs to defend or uphold the patent may outweigh the benefits if enforcement is weak.

---

Strategic Implications

Organizations relying on or seeking to license the '685 patent' must carefully evaluate its remaining enforceability, potential for infringement, and the landscape of derivatives. For innovators, recent filings that license or sidestep the claims could present opportunities for new patent filings that bridge gaps or innovate beyond the original scope.

Moreover, patent expiration may open avenues for generic manufacturing, especially if no subsequent patents protect the core invention, thus altering market dynamics. Companies should also monitor ongoing legal challenges and patent judicial decisions surrounding the patent's claims.

---

Conclusion

The '685 patent' exemplifies a mid-1990s strategic patent document, balancing broad claims with specific limitations. Its ongoing strategic value depends on its validity, remaining term, and the surrounding patent landscape. While it currently serves as an important barrier, its imminent expiration or invalidity challenges necessitate proactive patent portfolio management and vigilant landscape surveillance.

---

Key Takeaways

• Claims Analysis: The '685 patent' claims are broad but potentially vulnerable to prior art challenges, emphasizing the importance of continuous landscape monitoring.
• Patent Term and Expiry: Its approaching expiration diminishes exclusivity, creating opportunities for competitors or generics.
• Landscape Vigilance: Subsequent patents and publications can weaken the original patent’s enforceability; companies must evaluate competing IP for potential infringement or licensing.
• Global Considerations: International patent filings and legal frameworks influence the patent’s strategic value worldwide.
• Legal Challenges: Stay alert for post-grant proceedings or litigation that could impact the patent’s validity and scope.

---

FAQs

1. When does United States Patent 5,795,685 expire?
Assuming standard term calculations and no extensions, it likely expired 20 years from its filing date—around 2014—though specific maintenance and extension details could modify this.

2. Can the '685 patent' be enforced after its expiration?
No, enforceability applies only during its active term unless revived through specific legal procedures. Once expired, it cannot be enforced and may serve as prior art against new applications.

3. How does the patent landscape impact opportunities for new products?
If the patent has expired or is invalidated, it opens the field for generic or biosimilar products. Conversely, robust subsequent patents may restrict market entry or require licensing.

4. Are there ongoing legal challenges to this patent?
The landscape indicates potential patent challenges, such as IPR or litigation. Continuous monitoring of legal proceedings is essential to assess enforceability.

5. How do international patents affect the U.S. patent’s strategic value?
International filings can either complement or complicate the patent’s protection strategy, depending on whether equivalents are granted or challenged in other jurisdictions.

---

Sources:

[1] USPTO Patent Database, Patent 5,795,685
[2] Patent prosecution and legal status records (e.g., PAIR system)
[3] Patent landscape reports and recent filings in the relevant domain
[4] Patent Office guidelines on patent term adjustments
[5] Legal analyses of patent validity and challenge strategies

Details for Patent 5,795,685

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.s.a., Inc.	KALBITOR	ecallantide	Injection	125277	December 01, 2009		2017-01-14