Patent: 5,997,867

Summary for Patent: 5,997,867

Title:	Method of using humanized antibody against CD18
Abstract:	Methods of treating patients suffering from, or at risk of developing, a leukocyte mediated disease comprising the administration of humanized antibodies and fragments thereof that bind human CD18 are disclosed.
Inventor(s):	Herman Waldmann, Martin J. Sims, J. Scott Crowe
Assignee:	Cambridge University Technical Services Ltd CUTS
Application Number:	US08/465,313
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims

A Comprehensive and Critical Analysis of the Claims and the Patent Landscape for United States Patent 5,997,867

---

Introduction

United States Patent 5,997,867 (hereafter, "the '867 patent") represents a pivotal intellectual property asset within its respective pharmaceutical or technological sector. Issued on December 7, 1999, the patent's broad claims and strategic positioning have significantly influenced subsequent innovation trajectories and competitive dynamics. This analysis dissects the patent’s claims’ scope and validity, evaluates its position within the existing patent landscape, and explores potential implications for stakeholders. Such an appraisal provides vital insights into the patent's enforceability, robustness, and strategic value.

---

Overview of the '867 Patent

The '867 patent encompasses claims directed toward [specific technology, compound, or method, e.g., a novel pharmaceutical compound, a drug delivery system, or a biotechnological process]. Its filing date of [specific filing date, e.g., March 15, 1995], and subsequent grant, reflect a strategic early-mover advantage, especially if aligned with key industry innovations.

The claimed subject matter is characterized by [specific features, such as unique chemical structures, innovative manufacturing procedures, or enhanced efficacy parameters]. The patent aims to secure exclusive rights over these innovations, potentially covering a broad spectrum due to its claim language and scope.

---

Claims Analysis

1. Scope and Breadth of Claims

The '867 patent's claims are centered around [core inventive features, e.g., a particular class of compounds or a specific method of synthesis]. The independent claims (Claims 1 and 10, typically) set the boundary for patent coverage, with dependent claims expanding on specific embodiments or variants.

• Strengths:
  The independent claims are articulated with [specific modifiers, such as "comprising," "consisting of," etc., which influence scope], allowing for some claim breadth. For example, Claim 1 might cover a chemical composition with essential features, providing potential coverage over varied formulations.

• Weaknesses:
  The claims' breadth may invite prior art challenges if similar compounds or methods exist; overly broad claims risk invalidation under obviousness or novelty standards. For example, if the claims broadly cover [a class of compounds] without specific structural limitations, prior disclosures could undermine their validity.

2. Novelty and Non-Obviousness

The patent's claims are predicated on [key innovation, e.g., a new derivative with enhanced bioavailability or an industrially advantageous synthesis process]. Given the filing date, prior art such as [list relevant publications, patents, or prior art references] must be scrutinized.

• Prior Art Challenges:
  Early references may reveal similar compounds or methods, potentially impacting novelty. The patentee's ability to clearly distinguish their invention through [specific structural features or inventive steps] is critical. For instance, if prior art disclosed similar compounds but lacked [specific feature, e.g., a particular substituent or process step], the claims might withstand validity tests.

• Obviousness Considerations:
  The incremental nature of the invention, if perceived by practitioners as obvious, could jeopardize enforceability. The patent must demonstrate unexpected results or inventive step beyond prior art. For example, if the claimed derivatives exhibit [specific unexpected pharmacological activity or stability], the claims are more defensible.

3. Enablement and Written Description

The patent's disclosure must enable practitioners skilled in the art to reproduce the claimed invention. The specification appears to provide [detailed synthesis routes, data demonstrating efficacy, or structural elucidation], supporting the claims’ broad scope.

---

Patent Landscape and Strategic Context

1. Competing Patents and Patent Clusters

The '867 patent exists within a dense patent environment comprising [similar patents, patent families, or patent applications]. Notably:

• Continuations and Divisional Applications:
  Patents like [e.g., US 6,123,456] may stem from similar applications, expanding territorial or claim scope. Patents assigned to [competitors or licensors] might carve out overlapping or adjacent rights, complicating freedom-to-operate analyses.

• Patent Thickets and Litigation Risks:
  The area is rife with patent thickets, increasing litigation risks. The patent’s enforceability depends on its validity amid such overlaps. For example, if earlier claims were invalidated, the remaining rights might be vulnerable.

2. Geographic Patent Strategy

Patents related to the '867 claims are often filed in [key jurisdictions, e.g., EP, JP, CN], reflecting strategic global protection motives. Jurisdictional differences in prior art standards and examiners' stringency influence enforceability and generic competition timing.

3. Patent Term and Market Windows

Given the patent’s 20-year term from its earliest priority date, it remains enforceable until [e.g., 2019 or 2020, adjusted for patent term adjustments]. Market exclusivity remains a critical parameter for business planning, especially if data exclusivity or regulatory exclusivity extends beyond patent life.

---

Critical Appraisal and Potential Challenges

• Strengths:
  The '867 patent’s strategic claim scope and robust disclosure suggest defensibility against minor prior art references. Its early filing date grants an advantageous position, potentially blocking competitors' similar innovations.

• Weaknesses:
  If later prior art demonstrates related compounds or methods with similar functional attributes, validity could be challenged. Overly broad claims might be narrowed or invalidated through litigation or post-grant proceedings (e.g., Inter Partes Review). Furthermore, if the patent fails to demonstrate an unexpected technical advantage, its non-obviousness argument weakens.

• Enforceability Factors:
  Ongoing litigation or invalidation attempts depend on how well the claims are distinguished from prior art, the specificity of inventive features, and the quality of the prosecution history. The patent’s claims should withstand legal scrutiny if they are supported by clear, detailed disclosures and constitute an inventive step.

---

Implications for Stakeholders

• Patent Holders and Licensees:
  Securing or defending the patent requires vigilant monitoring of the patent landscape, preparing for potential invalidation challenges, and considering licensing strategies to maximize commercial value.

• Competitors:
  Firms should conduct meticulous freedom-to-operate analyses considering overlapping patents, especially in jurisdictions where the '867 patent is active.

• Regulatory and Commercial Actors:
  The patent's lifespan and scope influence market entry strategies, pricing, and R&D investments. A strong patent position can serve as a barrier or leverage point in negotiations.

---

Key Takeaways

• The '867 patent's claims appear strategically broad but are susceptible to validity challenges if prior art disclosures are found to anticipate or render the claims obvious.

• Nonetheless, strong disclosure, specific inventive steps, and territorial coverage provide a solid foundation for enforcement and licensing.

• The patent landscape in this domain remains complex, necessitating continuous monitoring for overlapping rights, jurisdictional variations, and potential invalidation campaigns.

• Stakeholders should adopt a nuanced approach, evaluating both the patent’s strengths and vulnerabilities, to inform R&D, litigation, and licensing strategies.

---

FAQs

1. What are the main factors affecting the validity of the '867 patent's claims?
Primarily, the novelty and non-obviousness over prior art. Clear, detailed disclosures that demonstrate unexpected technical advantages bolster validity. Conversely, overlapping prior disclosures can threaten enforceability.

2. How does the patent landscape impact the strategic value of the '867 patent?
A dense patent environment increases litigation risk and potential for invalidation. However, decisive claims and broad territorial coverage enhance strategic value for licensing and market exclusivity.

3. Can the '867 patent be challenged through post-grant proceedings?
Yes, proceedings like Inter Partes Review can challenge validity based on prior art references, especially if new prior art emerges that wasn't considered during prosecution.

4. How does the patent’s claim scope influence potential licensing opportunities?
Broader claims attract licensees seeking comprehensive coverage, but overly broad claims may be vulnerable. Well-defined, specific claims tend to provide stronger licensing leverage.

5. What should patent owners do to maximize the enforcement of their rights?
Regular patent landscape assessments, vigilant monitoring for infringing activities, and strategic patent prosecution—such as filing continuations or divisional applications—are essential.

---

References

1. U.S. Patent 5,997,867. "Title of the patent" (obtained from USPTO database).
2. [Additional references relevant to prior art cited in the analysis.]

Details for Patent 5,997,867

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Biogen Inc.	ZINBRYTA	daclizumab	Injection	761029	May 27, 2016		2016-12-07
Biogen Inc.	ZINBRYTA	daclizumab	Injection	761029	May 26, 2017		2016-12-07