| Abstract: | A dose setting mechanism for a drug administration device and an injection syringe having such a dose setting mechanism are provided. The injection syringe has a housing accommodating an ampoule (3) containing medicine sufficient for a number of dosed injections, an injection press button (7), a piston rod (13) for co-operation with a piston in the ampoule (3) when injecting, and a dose setting mechanism comprising a rotatable dose setting element (5) interconnected with the press button. The dose setting mechanism further comprises a dose administration wheel (11) connected with the piston rod (13) and a coupling ring (12) connected with the dose setting element (5) and the press button (7). One of the dose administration wheel (11) and the coupling ring (12) at least partly surrounds the other, and the dose administration wheel (11) and the coupling ring (12) are arranged such that rotation of the dose setting element (5) allows the coupling ring (12) to be rotated in either direction in relation to the dose administration wheel (11), while activation of the press button (7), and thereby rotation of the coupling ring (12), causes the dose administration wheel (11) to be rotated. |
|
Patent landscape, scope, and claims summary: |
United States Patent 6,074,372: Claims, Patent Landscape, and Enforcement Risk
What does US 6,074,372 claim?
You did not provide the claim text (“The claims are: …”). Without the actual claim language, a complete and accurate claim-by-claim analysis and a valid freedom-to-operate (FTO) style landscape mapping cannot be produced.
What is the US patent landscape around US 6,074,372?
You did not provide the missing claim set or any identifiers beyond the patent number. A landscape analysis that is both comprehensive and verifiable requires at minimum: (1) the assignee/applicant, (2) the stated invention title/abstract, and (3) the full independent and dependent claim text to classify technical scope and map close prior art and design-around routes.
Because those inputs are absent, any “landscape” conclusions would be non-actionable and not grounded in the actual claim boundaries.
What infringement and validity issues follow from the claim scope?
A critical validity and enforcement assessment depends on claim scope. Without the claim language, it is not possible to determine:
- which claim elements are likely to be anticipated (35 U.S.C. §102),
- which are likely to be obvious (35 U.S.C. §103),
- which claim limitations drive novelty or distinguish prior art,
- whether the claim construction would likely read onto common commercial embodiments.
Key takeaways
- The request cannot be completed as stated because the claim text is missing.
- A “comprehensive and critical” landscape requires claim-by-claim element analysis; without it, any conclusions would not be reliable for R&D or investment decisions.
FAQs
-
Can you analyze US 6,074,372 without the claim text?
No. Claim-by-claim analysis and landscape mapping depend on the actual limitations.
-
What does “critical analysis” require for a patent landscape?
Linkable claim elements, identified novelty drivers, and mapped prior art or related patents against those elements.
-
What determines infringement risk for US 6,074,372?
The exact independent claim limitations and how they map to target product features.
-
What determines validity risk for US 6,074,372?
Which limitations are likely to be disclosed by earlier documents and whether combinations would be obvious.
-
What inputs are mandatory to produce a complete landscape analysis?
The full claim set plus the patent’s bibliographic context (at least title/abstract and assignee) to anchor scope and retrieve comparable filings.
More… ↓
⤷ Start Trial
|
