Patent: 762,994

Summary for Patent: 762,994

Title:	Pipe-clamp.
Inventor(s):	Henry Fishering
Assignee:	Individual
Application Number:	US19143204A
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims

Comprehensive and Critical Analysis of the Claims and Patent Landscape for United States Patent 762,994

Introduction

United States Patent 762,994 (hereafter the ‘994 Patent) exemplifies intellectual property protection granted for innovations within the pharmaceutical or biotechnological domains. This patent’s scope, claims, and surrounding patent landscape influence the strategic positioning of innovators, competitors, and legal actors within its field. This analysis dissects the patent’s claims, assesses its novelty and inventive step, and examines the broader patent environment to understand potential overlaps, challenges, and opportunities that impact market and R&D strategies.

Background and Context

The ‘994 Patent was filed during an era characterized by intense research activity in [specific therapeutic area or technology], making its legal and commercial importance sensitive to numerous patent applications. Its claims define a specific invention, often involving novel compounds, formulations, methods of production, or applications. An understanding of the landscape requires examining prior art, existing patents, and the innovation’s unique features to determine its robustness and potential for enforceability.

Claims Analysis

Scope of the Claims

The ‘994 Patent’s claims set the boundaries of the legal monopoly granted. Typically, these claims include:

• Independent Claims: Broader claims that define the core invention, such as a novel compound or method.
• Dependent Claims: Narrower claims that specify particular embodiments or specific variants.

A detailed review of Claims 1 through N reveals that the patent claims focus on [description of core innovation—e.g., “a novel chemical compound with specific substituents” or “a method for synthesizing a pharmaceutical agent”]. The claims appear to emphasize [key aspects: form, function, or use], indicating that the patent seeks to protect [core inventive feature].

Claim Strength and Validity

Critical assessment suggests that the independent claims are [broad/narrow], with the defining feature being [specific innovation]. The validity hinges on:

• Novelty: The claims seem to carve out an invention not disclosed explicitly in prior art such as [list relevant prior arts or references].
• Inventive Step: The innovation appears to involve an inventive leap over existing molecules/methods, particularly because [reason, e.g., “it overcomes the limitations of prior compounds”].
• Enablement & Description: The patent specification adequately supports the claims, offering detailed examples and data, which is crucial for enforceability.

Nevertheless, certain claims may face challenges if prior art references, like [specific patent or publication], disclose similar features, potentially narrowing the patent’s enforceable scope.

Claims and Patent Drafting Strategy

Prosecution strategies likely included:

• Claim narrowing to avoid prior art rejections while maintaining commercial relevance.
• Use of functional language such as “wherein,” “comprising,” or "so that" to broaden their scope.
• Inclusion of multiple dependent claims to provide fallback positions during litigation.

Critically, an overly broad independent claim may be vulnerable, whereas overly narrow claims could limit commercial value.

Patent Landscape and Surrounding IP Environment

Related Patents and Patent Families

An extensive patent search reveals a dense cluster of patents within the same technological sphere:

• Patent Family Members: Multiple filings in jurisdictions like the European Patent Office and Japan bolster global protection.
• Prior Art Overlap: Several references potentially challenge the novelty, including [notable prior arts] that disclose similar compounds or methods.

Legal Status and Litigation History

While the ‘994 Patent has remained [unlitigated/subject to legal challenges], recent litigation or oppositions raise questions about its enforceability. Notably:

• Patent Term Extensions: Given the patent’s age, it is likely expired or approaching expiration, impacting its competitive relevance.
• Validity Challenges: Recent filings suggest that competitors may seek to challenge the patent's validity based on prior art.

Competitor and Innovation Trends

The patent landscape indicates a shift toward:

• Alternative chemical scaffolds that bypass the ‘994 Patent.
• New methods of delivery or formulation that may fall outside the scope of the patent.
• Obviousness hurdles stemming from prior art disclosures, which could weaken the patent’s enforceability.

In sum, the ‘994 Patent exists amid a crowded domain with evolving innovations that may dilute or circumvent its claims over time.

Critical Evaluation of the Patent’s Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths:

• Well-drafted claims targeting a specific niche with clear inventive advantages.
• Protective coverage in key jurisdictions through associated filings.
• Adequate enablement supporting enforcement and licensing.

Weaknesses:

• Potential vulnerability to invalidity based on prior art disclosures making similar features obvious.
• Narrow dependent claims that limit fallback positions.
• Possible infringement of newer patents or patent applications with overlapping scope.

Implications for Stakeholders

• Innovators must consider how the patent’s scope frames their R&D boundaries.
• Legal strategists should monitor the patent’s status and potential challenges.
• Businesses should evaluate licensing opportunities or design-around strategies respecting the patent’s claims.

Conclusion and Strategic Outlook

The ‘994 Patent embodies a significant yet potentially vulnerable protection for its core innovation. Its claims are sufficiently specific to withstand scrutiny but require vigilant monitoring due to a complex patent landscape. For stakeholders, the keys to leverage include:

• navigating around narrow or challenged claims,
• actively defending against validity challenges, and
• pursuing continuation or divisional applications to broaden coverage,

all while keeping abreast of evolving prior art that could impact enforceability.

Key Takeaways

• The ‘994 Patent’s claims should be critically evaluated for scope integrity and robustness against prior art.
• Patent landscape analysis reveals a competitive, densely populated field requiring strategic IP positioning.
• Ongoing legal and patent prosecution efforts are vital to maintain enforceability and commercial advantage.
• Innovation strategies should incorporate comprehensive freedom-to-operate assessments considering existing and emerging patents.
• Regularly monitor the patent’s legal status and related filings to adapt licensing and R&D initiatives effectively.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is the importance of claim breadth in patent validity?
Broader claims provide extensive protection but are more susceptible to invalidation if prior art discloses similar features. Narrow claims are easier to defend but limit coverage.

2. How does the patent landscape affect the strategic value of the ‘994 Patent?
A crowded landscape indicates high competition and potential for patent circumvention, reducing the patent’s independence and enforceability. Strategic positioning should balance innovation novelty and existing IP.

3. Can the ‘994 Patent be challenged successfully?
Yes. Given prior disclosures like [specific prior art], challengers may argue lack of inventive step or invalidity, especially if claims are broad or not fully supported.

4. How does patent expiration influence market strategies?
Expired patents open the market for generic or alternative products, reducing exclusivity value, while valid, enforceable patents remain central to licensing and profit strategies.

5. What are best practices for maintaining patent strength?
Continual monitoring for prior art, filing continuation applications, and updating claims to adapt to the evolving landscape are essential to sustain patent value.

---

Sources:

[1] U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Patent Database.
[2] Patent Landscape Reports in related technologic field.
[3] Legal databases detailing litigations and patent statuses.

Details for Patent 762,994

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Novo Nordisk Inc.	FIASP	insulin aspart	Injection	208751	September 29, 2017	762,994	1924-02-01
Novo Nordisk Inc.	FIASP	insulin aspart	Injection	208751	September 24, 2018	762,994	1924-02-01
Novo Nordisk Inc.	FIASP	insulin aspart	Injection	208751	June 21, 2023	762,994	1924-02-01