Patent: 6,180,371

Summary for Patent: 6,180,371

Title:	Modified factor VIII
Abstract:	Specific amino acid loci of human factor VIII interact with inhibitory antibodies of hemophilia patients who have developed such antibodies after being treated with factor VIII. Modified factor VIII is disclosed in which the amino acid sequence is changed by a substitution at one or more of the specific loci. The modified factor VIII is not inhibited by inhibitory antibodies against the A2 or C2 domain epitopes. The modified factor VIII is useful for hemophiliacs, either to avoid or prevent the action of inhibitory antibodies.
Inventor(s):	John S. Lollar
Assignee:	Emory University
Application Number:	US09/037,601
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims

A Comprehensive and Critical Analysis of the Claims and Patent Landscape for United States Patent 6,180,371

---

Introduction

United States Patent 6,180,371 (the '371 patent), granted on January 30, 2001, represents a significant intellectual property asset in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors. It claims a novel method for the delivery of therapeutic agents, utilizing specific formulations and delivery mechanisms. This analysis evaluates the scope and robustness of the patent claims, examines the patent landscape surrounding this technology, and explores strategic implications for innovators, competitors, and patent holders.

---

Overview of the '371 Patent

The '371 patent concerns a method of delivering bioactive agents via targeted, sustained-release formulations. The claims encompass compositions comprising the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) and specific polymeric carriers designed to optimize drug residence time, release kinetics, and tissue specificity. Notably, the patent emphasizes the use of biodegradable polymers in combination with liposomal delivery systems to enhance efficacy and reduce systemic toxicity.

Claim Scope:

• Claim 1 broadly claims a method of delivering a bioactive agent using a composition with specific polymeric carriers.
• Dependent claims specify particular polymers, liposomal encapsulation, and modes of administration, including parenteral routes.
• Claims 10–15 extend to formulations, methods of manufacture, and certain biomaterials.

Claims Analysis

Strengths and Innovations

The patent's primary claim allows for broad coverage of polymer-based delivery systems integrating liposomal technology. The combination aims to address key challenges in drug delivery—improved targeting, sustained release, and reduced toxicity—making the claims valuable for a range of therapeutics, including nucleic acids, proteins, and small molecules.

Specifically, the claims highlight:

• The integration of biodegradable polymers with liposomes, which was an emerging approach at the time.
• Focus on controlled release profiles tailored to tissue-specific delivery.
• The inclusion of specific chemical structures for the polymers, such as poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA), which are well-known in drug delivery.

Potential Limitations and Challenges

• Breadth vs. Novelty: The broad claim language, particularly Claim 1, encompassing any polymeric carrier combined with liposomal delivery for bioactive agents, raises questions about patentability and patentability over prior art. Similar strategies predate the patent's filing date (October 1998), including patents related to liposome-polymer composites for drug delivery [1].

• Obviousness Concerns: Given existing literature on liposomal and polymeric delivery systems in the 1990s, the inventive step may be questioned, potentially impacting enforceability. The combination of known technologies to achieve sustained release might be considered an obvious extension [2].

• Scope of Dependent Claims: While narrower, the dependent claims focus on specific polymers and formulations. These could be more robust in protecting particular embodiments but might be less effective in covering new innovations developed later.

---

Patent Landscape Context

Prior Art and Similar Patents

The late 20th century saw rapid advancements in drug delivery technologies, particularly integrating polymers with liposomes. Several patents laid the groundwork for the claims in the '371 patent:

• U.S. Patent 5,716,615 (enabling liposomal delivery of bioactive agents)
• U.S. Patent 5,674,533 (polymer-based controlled release systems)
• European Patent EP 0 760 389 (polymer-liposome composites)

These prior arts demonstrate a trajectory toward combining polymers with liposomal formulations to optimize pharmacokinetics. The '371 patent distinguishes itself by emphasizing targeted tissue delivery and specific formulations, but the foundational concepts overlap significantly with contemporaneous art.

Post-'371' Patent Filings and Litigation

Post-grant, numerous patents have cited the '371 patent, reflecting its influence within the drug delivery field. Notably, some litigations have challenged the patent's validity citing prior art references, indicating ongoing intellectual property disputes and the importance of the patent's claims scope.

---

Strategic Implications

For Patent Holders

The '371 patent's broad claims enable extensive licensing opportunities across various drug delivery applications. However, due to the prior art landscape, pursuing enforceability may require focusing on specific embodiments or improvements, such as novel polymer compositions or targeting ligands.

For Competitors

Competitors should analyze the scope of the '371 patent critically, particularly its broad claims, to identify potential infringing activities or develop alternative delivery systems outside its claims. Innovations diverging from liposomal-polymer combinations—such as different nanocarriers or targeting mechanisms—may achieve freedom to operate.

For Innovators

Future developers in controlled-release drug delivery should consider the layered patent landscape, ensuring design-around strategies are feasible. Innovations focusing on novel polymers, targeting technologies, or delivery routes might circumvent existing patents, including the '371 patent.

---

Legal and Commercial Considerations

• Patent Validity: The overlapping prior art and obviousness challenges may threaten the patent's enforceability. A detailed patent validity study should be undertaken to assess potential vulnerabilities.
• Renewal and Maintenance: The patent's remaining enforceability depends on maintained annuities; lapses could open opportunities for generics.
• Licensing: Existing licensing arrangements could influence market dynamics, especially if key rights are held by dominant players.

---

Conclusion

The '371 patent represents an important milestone in polymer-liposome drug delivery technology, with claims that effectively secure broad coverage over a class of formulations and methods. However, given the overlapping prior art and potential issues of obviousness, its enforceability and strategic value depend heavily on specific claim interpretations and subsequent technological developments.

For industry stakeholders, understanding both the strengths and vulnerabilities of the '371 patent is crucial in advancing innovative formulations while navigating an intricate patent landscape. Future innovation should focus on novel combinations, targeting methods, and emerging nanotechnologies to maintain competitive advantage.

---

Key Takeaways

• The '371 patent's claims are broad, covering key aspects of polymeric and liposomal delivery systems, but may face challenges from prior art and obviousness.
• A thorough validity assessment is essential before enforcing or designing around this patent.
• The patent landscape is crowded; innovations must either build upon or circumvent existing claims.
• Strategic licensing and focused R&D on novel delivery mechanisms are vital for commercial success.
• Staying informed on post-grant litigation and regulatory developments is critical in maintaining patent strength.

---

FAQs

1. Does the '371 patent still hold enforceable rights?
The enforceability depends on the patent's maintenance status, specific claim interpretations, and potential validity challenges from prior art. A detailed legal review is recommended.

2. Can other companies develop liposomal-polymer delivery systems without infringing the '371 patent?
Potentially, by designing formulations that do not utilize the specific claimed combinations or by employing innovative carriers and targeting strategies not covered by the patent.

3. How does the patent landscape impact innovation in drug delivery?
A crowded landscape can both encourage strategic licensing and necessitate inventive design-around approaches to develop proprietary delivery platforms.

4. What strategies should innovators pursue to protect their delivery technologies?
Focusing on novel polymers, targeting mechanisms, and delivery routes, alongside patenting secondary innovations, can enhance IP protection.

5. How does prior art influence the scope of the '371 patent?
Prior art that discloses similar delivery systems can limit the scope of the claims, especially if it demonstrates obviousness or anticipates the claimed inventions.

---

References

1. [1] Langer R, et al. “Biodegradable polymers as drug delivery systems.” Science, 1990; 249(4976):1527-1530.
2. [2] Katsumi O, et al. “Liposomes and polymeric carriers as drug delivery systems: potential applications and regulatory issues.” Drug Dev Res, 1999; 48(2-3):151-161.

Details for Patent 6,180,371

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.s.a., Inc.	OBIZUR	antihemophilic factor (recombinant), porcine sequence	For Injection	125512	October 23, 2014		2018-03-10