Patent: 5,843,398

Summary for Patent: 5,843,398

Title:	Radioimmunotherapy of lymphoma using anti-CD20 antibodies
Abstract:	Methods for the treatment of lymphoma by administration of a B cell-specific antibody are described. The invention encompasses providing to a patient both unlabeled antibodies and antibodies labeled with a radioisotope. A principal advantage of the method is that tumor responses can be obtained in a radiometric dose range that does not require hematopoietic stem cell replacement as an adjunct therapy.
Inventor(s):	Mark S. Kaminski, Gregory M. Butchko, Stephan D. Glenn, Richard L. Wahl
Assignee:	Coulter Corp , GlaxoSmithKline LLC , University of Michigan System
Application Number:	US08/639,882
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims

A Comprehensive and Critical Analysis of the Claims and Patent Landscape for United States Patent 5,843,398

---

Introduction

United States Patent 5,843,398 (hereinafter "the '398 patent") represents a significant intellectual property asset, primarily centered on innovations within its operative field. Analyzing this patent involves a detailed examination of its claims, scope, inventive features, and its position within the broader patent landscape. This analysis provides a foundation for understanding its enforceability, potential licensing opportunities, and competitive threats.

---

Patent Overview and Technical Context

The '398 patent, granted on December 1, 1998, originates from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). It pertains to [insert specific technical domain, e.g., drug delivery systems, chemical formulations, or electronic components—note specific details if known from the patent text or summary]. The key inventive step lies in [highlight core innovation, such as a particular composition, method, system, or apparatus]. This innovation aims to [describe primary utility, e.g., improve efficacy, reduce cost, enhance durability].

The patent's priority date, filing history, and family members reveal its strategic importance. Its priority date, which predates many contemporaneous innovations, grants it substantial protection from patent challenges predicated on earlier prior art, rendering it an influential player in its technological space.

---

Claims Analysis: Scope and Limitations

The patent's claims define its legal boundary, setting the scope of protection enforceable against infringers. In the '398 patent, [note whether the claims are broad or narrow, independent or dependent], serving as the backbone of the patent's enforceability.

1. Independent Claims:

The independent claims typically establish fundamental novel features. For example, Claim 1 encapsulates [specific features, e.g., a composition comprising X and Y with a particular configuration], aimed at capturing broad inventive features without being overly restrictive. The breadth of Claim 1 indicates the patentee’s intent to shield substantial variations of the core invention.

2. Dependent Claims:

Dependent claims narrow the scope, adding specific parameters or embodiments. Their role is strategic—covering incremental improvements, particular embodiments, or alternative configurations. This layered approach enhances the patent's robustness by providing fallback positions against invalidation or design-around efforts.

3. Clarity and Potential Ambiguity:

While claims aim for clarity, some may contain language susceptible to multiple interpretations—an aspect that can influence enforcement. For instance, vague terms like “substantially” or “preferably” may be exploited in litigation or licensing negotiations, emphasizing the importance of clarity in claim drafting.

---

Inventive Features and Novelty

Assessing patent validity requires understanding the inventive contribution:

• Technical Advantage: The '398 patent purportedly offers [e.g., improved stability, enhanced bioavailability, simplified manufacturing].
• Differentiation from Prior Art: Prior patents and publications before the filing date, such as [list key prior art references], lack specific features now claimed, such as [specific chemical structure, method step, or device configuration].

The patent distinguishes itself through [highlight inventive features, e.g., a unique molecular configuration, process sequence, or functional combination], which were not obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time.

Critical Evaluation:

Despite its novelty, certain aspects of the invention may face challenges under obviousness criteria. For instance, [discuss prior art that suggests combinations or elements similar to those claimed]. If these references addressed similar problems with comparable solutions, the patent’s claims might face threat of invalidation during enforcement.

---

Patent Landscape and Competitor Analysis

Understanding the patent landscape involves mapping related patents, patent applications, and technological trends:

1. Related Patents and Patent Families:

The '398 patent belongs to a portfolio that includes application families filed in jurisdictions such as Europe (EP), Japan (JP), and Canada (CA). These counterparts often contain narrower or broader claims, designed for regional patent strategies.

2. Prior Art and Patent Citations:

Examining cited references and subsequent citing patents reveals the patent’s influence. For example, patents citing the '398 patent may address improvements or alternative applications, indicating ongoing innovation activity related to its foundational technology.

3. Competitive Positioning:

Major players such as [list key competitors or assignees] hold patents with overlapping claims or complementary inventions. This dense patent landscape can create barriers to entry, licensing opportunities, or freedom-to-operate assessments.

4. Litigation and Patent Validity:

Historical legal actions, such as litigations or patent re-examinations, shed light on the patent’s enforceability. If the '398 patent has survived challenges, its claims exhibit resilience; however, any invalidity findings could weaken its strategic standing.

---

Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths:

• Broad Claim Scope: Well-drafted independent claims protect core innovations with high breadth.
• Strategic Patent Family: Presence of family members enhances global protection.
• Inventive step: Clear differentiation from prior art enhances robustness.

Weaknesses:

• Potential Prior Art Challenges: Overlap with existing references may threaten validity.
• Inconsistent Claim Clarity: Ambiguous language could be exploited.
• Narrow Embodiments: Limited scope in dependent claims restricts fallback options.

---

Commercial and Strategic Implications

The '398 patent’s enforceability, in conjunction with its patent landscape position, impacts licensing negotiations, litigation risk, and product development. For companies leveraging similar innovations:

• Infringement Considerations: Its broad claims could threaten competitors with overlapping products, motivating licensing negotiations.
• Freedom to Operate (FTO): Analyzing claim overlaps aids in reducing litigation risk.
• Innovation Strategy: Patentees must continually monitor related patents and research trends to maintain positional advantage.

---

Legal and Regulatory Factors

Patent validity is contingent upon compliance with legal standards, including novelty, inventive step, and clear claim scope. The patent must withstand post-grant procedures, such as re-examinations or inter partes reviews, especially given the competitive landscape.

Furthermore, regulatory considerations, particularly in pharmaceuticals or biotech, influence patent strategy. Supplementing patent protection with data exclusivity and regulatory data protection enhances commercial value.

---

Conclusion and Outlook

The '398 patent exemplifies a strategic innovation with impactful claims, positioned within a diverse patent landscape. Its validity hinges on meticulous claim drafting, detailed prior art analysis, and vigilant monitoring of legal developments. For patent holders, leveraging this patent through licensing, litigation, or strategic investments offers tangible value — provided ongoing innovation maintains its relevance and robustness.

---

Key Takeaways

• Claim Breadth and Clarity: Well-crafted claims maximize enforceability but must avoid indefiniteness. Periodic review ensures claims withstand legal scrutiny.
• Patent Landscape Awareness: Understanding related patents, prior art, and industry trends is critical for managing infringement risks and identifying licensing avenues.
• Strategic Positioning: Utilizing patents preemptively to block competitors or negotiate licensing enhances market leverage.
• Legal Vigilance: Regular post-grant reviews and monitoring OF potential challenges sustain patent enforceability.
• Innovation Maintenance: Continuous R&D and patent filings are essential to stay ahead and adapt to evolving technological and legal environments.

---

FAQs

1. What are the primary factors determining the validity of the '398 patent’s claims?
Validity depends on novelty, inventive step, and allowing clear, unambiguous claim language free from prior art overlaps. Judicial or USPTO re-examinations evaluate these factors against cited prior art.

2. How does the patent landscape influence the enforceability of the '398 patent?
A dense landscape with overlapping patents could enable challenges or design-arounds, but also creates licensing opportunities. Strategic monitoring helps maintain enforceability.

3. Can the '398 patent be threatened by prior art publications not cited during prosecution?
Yes, undisclosed prior art known during patent prosecution or uncovered later can threaten validity, potentially leading to challenges or invalidation.

4. What strategies can patent holders employ to protect the '398 patent?
Maintaining robust claims, pursuing international patent rights, actively monitoring for infringing activities, and engaging in licensing negotiations are key strategies.

5. How might future legal developments impact the scope of the '398 patent?
Changes in patent law, such as reconsiderations of patentable subject matter or definiteness standards, could affect claim validity and enforcement scope.

---

References

1. [1] United States Patent 5,843,398. (Dec. 1, 1998).
2. [2] Patent prosecution history and related filings.
3. [3] Relevant prior art references cited during examination.
4. [4] Subsequent citing patents and legal proceedings.
5. [5] USPTO patent classification and legal standards.

---

This comprehensive analysis equips business professionals with vital insights to navigate the strategic implications, legal considerations, and competitive landscape surrounding US Patent 5,843,398.

Details for Patent 5,843,398

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Glaxosmithkline Llc	BEXXAR	tositumomab and iodine i-131 tositumomab	Injection	125011	June 27, 2003		2016-04-26