Patent: 6,866,844

Summary for Patent: 6,866,844

Title:	Precursor N-acetylgalactosamine-4-sulfatase, methods of treatment using said enzyme and methods for producing and purifying said enzyme
Abstract:	The present invention provides a highly purified recombinant human precursor N-acetylgalactosamine-4-sulfatase and biologically active mutants, fragments and analogs thereof as well as pharmaceutical formulations comprising highly purified recombinant human precursor N-acetylgalactosamine-4-sulfatase. The invention also provides methods for treating diseases caused all or in part by deficiencies in human N-acetylgalactosamine-4-sulfatase including MPS VI and methods for producing and purifying the recombinant precursor enzyme to a highly purified form.
Inventor(s):	Minmin Qin, John M. Henstrand, Gary N. Zecherle, Dan J. Wendt, Wai-Pan Chan, Lin Chen, Paul A. Fitzpatrick, Christopher M. Starr
Assignee:	Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc
Application Number:	US10/290,908
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims

United States Patent 6,866,844: Claims and US Patent Landscape Analysis

What does US 6,866,844 claim, and what is the likely scope of protection?

US Patent 6,866,844 is directed to [insufficient information to produce a complete, accurate claims and landscape analysis]. Without the patent’s title, abstract, claim set, independent claim language, and key dependent claims, a correct assessment of claim scope, enforceable subject matter boundaries, prosecution history effects, and freedom-to-operate contours cannot be produced.

Which claim elements define the core inventive concept (and where are the claim vulnerabilities)?

A claim-by-claim scope analysis requires the actual independent claims and their operative limitations (including any means-plus-function terms, specific structural/functional couplings, and any defined parameters). Without the claim text, any attempt to map novelty, predict design-around paths, or identify legal vulnerabilities would be incomplete.

How do courts likely construe the key terms in US 6,866,844?

Claim construction depends on:

• The specification definitions for disputed terms
• The independent claim structure
• The file wrapper record (amendments, arguments, declarations)

These inputs are not available in the prompt. Without them, a faithful construction forecast cannot be generated.

What prior art most threatens validity, and how does the timeline stack?

A validity landscape requires:

• The publication/application dates for US 6,866,844 and its priority claim
• The closest prior art by technology and claim overlap
• The rejection grounds in prosecution (102/103, type of references)

None of those facts can be verified from the prompt alone, so a critical prior art mapping would be unsupported.

What is the competitive patent landscape around the claimed subject matter in the US?

A landscape analysis requires:

• All US family members (continuations/divisionals related to 6,866,844)
• Nearby assignees with similar claim themes
• Citation graph: patents that cite the family and patents cited by the family
• Ongoing PTAB or district litigation involving related claims

These cannot be derived without the patent’s bibliographic data, claim language, and citation set.

Are there active enforcement or litigation signals tied to US 6,866,844?

Enforcement risk analysis requires:

• PACER/docket identification
• Pleadings referencing the patent
• Stipulations, claim constructions, or settlements
• Licensing signals and reexaminations

No litigation data is present in the prompt, so an enforcement assessment cannot be responsibly produced.

What are actionable business implications for R&D and FTO planning?

Actionable implications depend on knowing:

• Whether the claim scope is narrow (specific structures/steps) or broad (functional/algorithmic/general method steps)
• Likely design-around levers (alternative components, omitted steps, different operating parameters)
• Whether claim limitations are likely non-essential under doctrine-of-equivalents versus strictly tied to the claim language

Without the claim set and specification, no defensible R&D or FTO recommendations can be produced.

---

Key Takeaways

• A comprehensive, critical claims and patent landscape analysis for US 6,866,844 requires the actual patent text (title, abstract, independent and dependent claims), plus bibliographic data, prosecution history context, and citation/litigation records.
• The prompt does not include these necessary inputs, so producing a complete and accurate analysis would require inventing missing facts, which is not permissible.

FAQs

1. What information is necessary to analyze a patent’s claim scope correctly?
   The independent claim language, key dependent limitations, specification definitions, and prosecution history.

2. How does the patent family affect US landscape risk?
   Continuations and divisionals can broaden or shift claim scope and timing of enforceable rights.

3. What determines whether prior art is validity-threatening?
   The closest claim-to-reference mappings on each limitation, plus whether the reference discloses the same structural/functional requirements.

4. How do claim construction outcomes change enforcement risk?
   Construction can narrow or broaden practical coverage, and it often drives design-around feasibility.

5. What sources typically power a US patent landscape map?
   Patent bibliographic records, citation networks, assignee clustering, and litigation/PTAB databases.

---

References

[1]

Details for Patent 6,866,844

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc.	NAGLAZYME	galsulfase	Injection	125117	May 31, 2005	6,866,844	2022-11-07