Share This Page
Patent: 7,776,844
✉ Email this page to a colleague
Summary for Patent: 7,776,844
| Title: | N-(phosphonoalkyl)-amino acids, derivatives thereof and compositions and methods of use |
| Abstract: | The present invention relates to an N-(phosphonoalkyl)-amino acid, a related compound or a derivative thereof, the N-(phosphonoalkyl)-amino acid, related compound or derivative thereof being in a form as a free acid, salt, partial salt, lactone, amide or ester, or in stereoisomeric or non-stereoisomeric form, other than N-(phosphonomethyl)-glycine or N,N-bis(phosphonomethyl)-glycine. Also included is a composition including an N-(phosphonoalkyl)-amino acid, a related compound or a derivative thereof in a form as a free acid, salt, partial salt, lactone, amide or ester, or in stereoisomeric or non-stereoisomeric form, and a cosmetically or pharmaceutically acceptable vehicle for topical or systemic administration to a mammalian subject, as well as a method of administering an effective amount of such a composition for alleviating or improving a condition, disorder, symptom or syndrome associated with at least one of a nervous, vascular, musculoskeletal or cutaneous system. |
| Inventor(s): | Yu; Ruey J. (Chalfont, PA), Van Scott; Eugene J. (Abington, PA) |
| Application Number: | 12/428,906 |
| Patent Claims: | see list of patent claims |
| Patent landscape, scope, and claims summary: | United States Patent 7,776,844: Claim Scope, Validity Stress Points, and Landscape ImpactUS Patent 7,776,844 claims a broad, vehicle-based topical and systemic composition defined by a family of “N-(phosphonoalkyl)-amino acids” (and select “related compounds/derivatives,” including N,N-bis(phosphonoalkyl)-amino acids), paired with a large, catch-all list of cosmetic and pharmaceutical actives and a long list of cosmetic/dermatologic indications. The strongest practical enforcement risk is not novelty in the phosphonate-amino-acid chemistry per se, but the claim’s attempt to sweep across many substitution patterns, many stereochemical states, many salt/ester/lactone forms, both topical and systemic routes, and nearly any co-formulated agent that could be plausibly used in dermatology. What exactly is claimed in US 7,776,844?Core claim logic (Claim 1)Claim 1 requires all elements below:
Net effect: Claim 1 is a very large chemical genus plus a very large formulation and indication genus. Dependent claim tighteningKey dependent claims narrow parts of the genus:
Formulation and co-agent breadth (Claims 12-14)
Indication breadth (Claim 15)Claim 15 lists a very large set of cosmetic/dermatologic “conditions,” including:
Claim 16 narrows example use: systemic administration with N-(phosphonomethyl)-glycine for selected disorders (Claim 17: disturbed keratinization, acne, hyperkeratosis and ichthyosis). Bottom line: The claims combine (i) phosphonate-amino-acid chemistry with (ii) extremely flexible formulation vehicles/co-acts and (iii) broad cosmetic/derm purposes. How strong is the novelty story?A patentability challenge in this space usually hinges on whether phosphonate-alkyl/amino-acid derivatives and their formulations for skin indications were already disclosed, and whether the claimed genus is too broad relative to any disclosed teaching of topical/systemic use and specific effects. Claim features that are vulnerable to prior art
Dependent claims do not rescue patentabilityThe dependent claims focus on:
If the prior art discloses the same family members (or very close variants) in any formulation and for overlapping purposes, the enumerations can become a liability because they show the patentee’s intent to cover “everything in the neighborhood,” not a narrow breakthrough. Where does the claim face the highest validity risk? (Critical stress points)1) Overbreadth of Claim 1Claim 1 defines:
Examination or litigation often treats such combinations as raising “enablement” and “written description” pressure, especially where the specification supports only a fraction of the genus. Even without reading the specification here, the claim text alone shows breadth that can exceed what a single inventive concept can reasonably support. 2) Co-agent lists may be “obviousness boosters,” not patent shieldsClaims 12-14 allow incorporation of essentially any common dermatologic/pharmaceutical active, including standard antibiotics, steroids, retinoids, analgesics, antifungals, antivirals, MMP inhibitors, peptides, vitamins, and many named drugs. That breadth creates two outcomes:
3) Indication list reads like a catch-allClaim 15’s list includes endpoints ranging from “photoaging” and “wrinkles” to “wound healing” to “abnormal synthesis of dermal components.” This is broad enough that an attacker can map overlap to prior formulations that addressed at least one of those outcomes, then argue the rest is routine. 4) Functional languageThe claim uses “treatment of a cosmetic condition or dermatological disorder.” If prior art describes similar compositions for any cosmetic/derm benefit (even under different terminology), the functional limitation may not differentiate. 5) Genus-to-specification mismatch riskClaims 4-5 and 9-11 enumerate dozens of specific amino acid derivatives, including unusual ones (creatine/creatinine, taurine, indospicine, various hydroxylated forms, methylated amino acid derivatives). Such enumerations can be used to argue lack of disclosure across all listed species if the examples focus on a smaller subset. Claim coverage map: what types of products could fall in?Eligible activesThe claim covers:
Eligible “forms”
Eligible formulations
Eligible delivery
Eligible endpoints
Implication for landscape analysis: If competitors pursue phosphonate-amino-acid skin actives or antioxidant/chelating/keratinization modulators with phosphonomethyl derivatives, they face structural risk of falling inside the claim’s genus even when their exact use case differs within the listed skin categories. How does the claim constrain design-around strategies?Because Claim 1 has multiple “axes” (chemical substitution, route, forms, stereochemistry, co-agent, and indication), design-around must break at least one axis in a way the claim does not capture:
Net effect: The claim’s broadness makes “minor formulation tweaks” unlikely to provide a safe harbor. What is the practical enforcement posture?The patent likely targets:
Because Claim 1 is broad, an enforcement strategy can pick accused products with:
The enumerations in Claims 3-5 and 9-11 increase the likelihood that a specific competitor ingredient maps directly to a dependent claim species. What is the overall patent landscape risk in the US?Even without enumerating individual family members and prosecution documents here, the landscape inference from the claim language is straightforward:
From an investment/R&D standpoint, US 7,776,844 should be treated as a “broad platform claim” anchored to phosphonoalkylated amino acids, not a narrow formulation claim. Key takeaways
FAQs1) What ingredient class is protected by US 7,776,844? 2) Does the patent cover both topical and systemic administration? 3) Can an accused product avoid infringement by changing salt or ester forms? 4) Do the claims require the composition to contain an additional co-agent? 5) Which claim element is most important for enforcement mapping? References (APA)
More… ↓ |
Details for Patent 7,776,844
| Applicant | Tradename | Biologic Ingredient | Dosage Form | BLA | Approval Date | Patent No. | Expiredate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. | ACTHREL | corticorelin ovine triflutate | For Injection | 020162 | May 23, 1996 | ⤷ Start Trial | 2029-04-23 |
| Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. | TRASYLOL | aprotinin | Injection | 020304 | December 29, 1993 | ⤷ Start Trial | 2029-04-23 |
| Ony Biotech Inc. | INFASURF | calfactant | Suspension | 020521 | July 01, 1998 | ⤷ Start Trial | 2029-04-23 |
| Ony Biotech Inc. | INFASURF | calfactant | Suspension | 020521 | December 12, 2002 | ⤷ Start Trial | 2029-04-23 |
| Ony Biotech Inc. | INFASURF | calfactant | Suspension | 020521 | ⤷ Start Trial | 2029-04-23 | |
| >Applicant | >Tradename | >Biologic Ingredient | >Dosage Form | >BLA | >Approval Date | >Patent No. | >Expiredate |
