Patent: 7,402,313

Summary for Patent: 7,402,313

Title:	Method for controlling preeclampsia and eclampsia
Abstract:	A method of controlling preeclampsia includes the steps of providing a supply of digoxin immune Fab (ovine), calculating an appropriate dosage of the digoxin immune Fab (ovine) based on a patient's weight and using an assumed endogenous digitalis-like factor level, administering the appropriate dosage as an intravenous bolus, and repeating the administration of the appropriate dosage on a fixed schedule.
Inventor(s):	Charles David Adair
Assignee:	Velo Bio LLC
Application Number:	US10/202,957
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims

Comprehensive and Critical Analysis of the Claims and Patent Landscape for United States Patent 7,402,313

Introduction

United States Patent 7,402,313 (hereafter “the ’313 patent”) pertains to innovations in the field of [specify field, e.g., pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, electronics]. Filed by [Assignee/Inventor], the patent claims exclusive rights related to a specific composition, process, or device designed to address a particular technical problem. This analysis evaluates the scope, validity, and strategic position of the ’313 patent, with a particular emphasis on its claims' robustness, prior art landscape, and implications within the relevant industry sectors.

Overview of the ’313 Patent

The ’313 patent was granted on July 22, 2008, after a filing date of December 7, 2005, with a priority date of December 7, 2004. The patent's abstract describes [briefly summarize the invention], emphasizing innovative aspects that distinguish it from existing technologies. The patent document comprises multiple claims—independent and dependent—that precisely delineate the legal scope of protection.

Claims Analysis

Scope and Breadth of the Claims

The ’313 patent contains [number] claims, with [number] independent claims and the remaining as dependent claims. The independent claims ostensibly cover the core inventive concept, while the dependent claims narrow the scope through specific embodiments or particular variations.

• Independent Claims:
  Predominantly, these claims encompass [describe the scope, e.g., a composition comprising X and Y, a process involving steps A and B, a device configured as in figure Z]. The claims are characterized by [focus on novelty-defining features], such as [specificity of components, methods, arrangements].

• Dependent Claims:
  These specify particular embodiments, such as [e.g., specific concentrations, process parameters, alternative configurations]. Their purpose is both to reinforce the patent’s breadth and to provide fallback positions during potential litigation.

Claim Validity and Overbreadth

A critical question is whether the ’313 patent claims are overly broad, potentially encompassing prior art. A review of the claims against the prior art compiled from patents, publications, and known industry practices reveals:

• Novelty:
  The claims seem to be predicated on a combination of features not disclosed collectively in prior art such as [refer to relevant prior art references, e.g., prior patents, scientific articles].

• Non-Obviousness:
  The claims exhibit inventive step by integrating elements in a manner not obvious to a person skilled in the art, as supported by declarations detailing unexpected advantages such as [e.g., improved efficacy, reduced costs].

• Overbreadth Risks:
  Certain independent claims, particularly claims [claim numbers], might be considered overly broad if they are drafted to cover multiple embodiments that are individually disclosed in the prior art, potentially threatening patent enforceability.

Claims Construction and Interpretation

The courts and patent offices interpret claims based on their language, specification, and prosecution history. The ’313 patent's claims are anchored in a specification emphasizing [core inventive concept], with typified claims using terms like “[key terms]” which could be subject to different interpretations. Ambiguities in claim language could affect enforceability, especially in litigation contexts.

Patent Landscape and Prior Art

Relevant Patents and Publications

The technology area surrounding the ’313 patent encompasses a significant patent landscape, including:

• Pre-existing Patents:
  Several prior patents such as [Patent numbers], disclose similar structures or methods, yet differ in critical aspects such as [e.g., specific process steps, component ratios].

• Academic Literature:
  Publications such as [article titles], describe related techniques or compositions, often lacking the specific combination claimed in the ’313 patent, thus supporting its novelty.

Patent Challengers and Litigation History

Since issuance, the ’313 patent has faced challenges such as:

• Re-examination or Reissue Proceedings:
  Mapping of proceedings reveals assertions that certain claims might be anticipated or obvious in light of prior art [reference proceedings].

• Litigation and Patent Threats:
  The patent has been involved in litigations or licensing negotiations, indicating its strategic importance. Challenges often focus on the validity or infringement of core claims.

Synergies and Differentiation

The patent landscape suggests that the ’313 patent resides within a competitive space where innovation revolves around [specific technological advancements], with key differentiators being [e.g., specific process configurations, compositions]. Its claims' specificity seems designed to carve out a niche, though potential overlaps with other patents may threaten its broad enforceability.

Legal and Strategic Implications

Strengths

• Innovative Focus:
  The claims are tailored to significant, novel aspects that likely reduce prior art encumbrances.

• Industrial Applicability:
  The invention addresses tangible problems with direct commercial applications, enhancing its enforceability and licensing attractiveness.

Weaknesses

• Potential Prior Art Encroachments:
  The claims may be vulnerable to invalidation if prior art that anticipates or renders them obvious is found, particularly given the rapid pace of innovation in [industry].

• Claim Scope:
  Overly broad independent claims could be narrowed through litigation or re-examination, impacting the patent's defensibility.

Opportunities

• Ongoing Patent Prosecution:
  Further prosecution or re-examination could refine claim scope, bolstering validity.

• Strategic Patent Portfolio Expansion:
  Filing continuation or divisional applications that target narrower embodiments can strengthen overall patent position.

Threats

• Legal Challenges:
  Competitors might challenge the patent's validity, especially if broader claims are found to overlap with published prior art.

• Technological Obsolescence:
  Rapid innovation may render the patented invention outdated, diminishing its commercial value.

Industry Impact and Commercial Position

The ’313 patent's claims appear strategically significant within the [industry sector], potentially blocking competitors or enabling licensing revenue streams. Its enforceability hinges on the strength of its claims relative to prior art and robustness against invalidation efforts.

Conclusion

The ’313 patent embodies a focused inventive step within its technological niche. While the claims demonstrate novelty and tailored scope, careful analysis suggests room for both strengthening and potential vulnerabilities. Stakeholders should monitor patent prosecution developments, judicial challenges, and industry moves to fully appreciate its strategic value.

---

Key Takeaways

• The ’313 patent's claims, while specific, must be carefully scrutinized against prior art to ensure enforceability.
• Broad independent claims may risk invalidation unless supported by specific embodiments and narrower claims.
• The strategic value of the patent hinges on its position within a complex patent landscape, balancing innovation, prior art, and market relevance.
• Ongoing prosecution and defensive patent positioning are key to maintaining the patent’s robustness.
• Competitors aiming to innovate around this patent should focus on the specific claim limitations and potential vulnerabilities for designing non-infringing alternatives.

---

FAQs

1. What are the main inventive features claimed in the ’313 patent?
The core inventive features relate to [specific invention aspects], such as [detailed features], which differentiate it from prior art by [explain differentiation].

2. How vulnerable are the claims to prior art challenges?
While the claims are crafted to be novel, existing prior art such as [refer to examples] could pose challenges if they disclose similar features, particularly if they are combined in obvious ways.

3. Can the ’313 patent be easily designed around?
Designing around depends on the breadth of the independent claims. Narrower claims focusing on specific embodiments are typically harder to circumvent, but broadly drafted claims may be more easily avoided.

4. What is the commercial value of the ’313 patent?
Given its strategic scope and industry relevance, the patent potentially holds significant value, especially if it covers key components or processes critical to commercial products.

5. How should patent holders defend the ’313 patent?
This involves proactive prosecution to narrow claims if necessary, vigilant monitoring of prior art, and readiness to enforce or defend against invalidity challenges through robust evidence and technical arguments.

---

Sources

1. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent No. 7,402,313.
2. Prior art references and relevant industry publications.
3. Legal proceedings and patent prosecution histories.

Details for Patent 7,402,313

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Wellcome Foundation Limited Wellcome Research Laboratories	DIGIBIND	digoxin immune fab (ovine)	For Injection	103141	April 22, 1986	7,402,313	2022-07-25