When do biologic drug patents expire and when will biosimilars launch?

Analyzing the Claims and Patent Landscape of United States Patent 8,173,157

Introduction

United States Patent 8,173,157, like any other patent, is a complex document that outlines specific claims and descriptions of an invention. To analyze this patent comprehensively, we need to delve into its claims, the broader patent landscape, and the legal and regulatory frameworks that govern it.

Understanding the Patent Claims

What are Patent Claims?

Patent claims are the heart of a patent, defining the scope of the invention and what is protected by the patent. They must be clear, concise, and definite to ensure that others understand what is patented and what is not[4].

Specific Claims of US Patent 8,173,157

Without the specific text of the patent, we can't analyze the exact claims. However, generally, patent claims can be divided into independent and dependent claims. Independent claims stand alone and define the invention, while dependent claims refer back to and further limit the independent claims.

The Patent Landscape

Historical Context

The patent landscape has evolved significantly over the years, especially with the enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) in 2011. This act introduced significant changes to U.S. patent law, including the creation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and new administrative challenges like inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR)[2].

Current Trends and Challenges

The current patent landscape is marked by ongoing debates and reforms regarding patent-eligible subject matter. Section 101 of the Patent Act, which defines what can be patented, has been the subject of several Supreme Court decisions that have narrowed the scope of patentable inventions. For example, the Alice/Mayo test has made it more challenging to patent abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena unless they contain an inventive concept that transforms the nature of the claim[4].

Legal and Regulatory Frameworks

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)

The PTAB plays a crucial role in the patent landscape by providing a faster and less expensive alternative to federal court litigation for challenging patent validity. PTAB processes, such as IPR and PGR, allow anyone to challenge patents before the USPTO, which can lead to the cancellation of patent claims if they are found to be invalid[2].

Patent-Eligible Subject Matter

The definition of patent-eligible subject matter is critical. Section 101 of the Patent Act outlines four categories of patentable inventions: processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter. However, judicially developed exceptions exclude certain types of inventions, such as abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena. The Alice/Mayo test is a two-step process to determine if a patent claim is directed to an ineligible concept and whether it has an inventive concept that makes it patentable[4].

Impact of Recent Developments

The 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance

The USPTO issued new guidance in 2019 to clarify how to apply the Alice/Mayo framework, which has been seen as lowering the barriers to patentability for computer-related inventions, including those involving artificial intelligence (AI). This guidance has led to an increase in the allowance rate for AI-related patent applications, although it is not binding on the courts[4].

Artificial Intelligence Patent Dataset (AIPD)

The USPTO's AIPD is a valuable resource for understanding AI-related inventions. The dataset identifies which U.S. patent documents contain AI and has been updated to include improvements from recent patent landscaping literature. This dataset helps in analyzing the trends and impacts of AI inventions, which can be crucial for understanding the broader patent landscape[3].

Gender and Inventorship Analysis

Gender Distribution in Patenting

Studies on inventorship, such as those using the World Gender-Name Dictionary (WGND), highlight the importance of accurately identifying gender in patent data. For instance, 91% of inventors can be matched to a gender, with the remaining 9% being ambiguous or unusual names. This analysis is crucial for understanding the demographics of inventors and the potential biases or gaps in the patent system[1].

Case Studies and Examples

Bilski v. Kappos and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.

These landmark cases illustrate the challenges in determining patent-eligible subject matter. In Bilski v. Kappos, the Supreme Court held that a business method for hedging price-fluctuation risk was not patentable. Similarly, in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., the Court ruled that a method for calibrating the dosage of a particular drug was not patentable because it was directed to a law of nature without an inventive concept[4].

Stakeholder Views and Impact

Industry and Academic Perspectives

Stakeholders have varying views on the current state of patent-eligible subject matter. Some argue that the Alice/Mayo framework has negatively affected investment in technology and innovation, while others see it as necessary to prevent the patenting of abstract ideas. The USPTO's 2019 Guidance has been seen as a positive step by some, as it has clarified the application of the Alice/Mayo test and increased the allowance rate for AI-related patents[4].

Director Review Decisions

USPTO Director Review Process

The USPTO Director Review process is another layer of oversight that ensures the accuracy and consistency of PTAB decisions. Recent decisions have addressed issues such as obviousness determinations and the interpretation of patent specifications. These reviews highlight the ongoing efforts to refine and improve the patent system[5].

Key Takeaways

Patent Claims: Clear and definitive claims are crucial for defining the scope of an invention.
PTAB and Administrative Challenges: IPR and PGR provide faster and less expensive alternatives to federal court litigation for challenging patent validity.
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter: The Alice/Mayo test and Section 101 of the Patent Act govern what can be patented, with ongoing debates and reforms.
AI and Patent Landscape: The AIPD and USPTO guidance have facilitated the patenting of AI-related inventions.
Gender and Inventorship: Accurate gender analysis in patent data is important for understanding demographics and potential biases.

FAQs

What is the role of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)?

The PTAB is a tribunal within the USPTO that hears administrative challenges to the validity of patents, including inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR), providing a faster and less expensive alternative to federal court litigation.

How does the Alice/Mayo test affect patent eligibility?

The Alice/Mayo test is a two-step process to determine if a patent claim is directed to an ineligible concept (such as an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon) and whether it has an inventive concept that makes it patentable.

What is the Artificial Intelligence Patent Dataset (AIPD)?

The AIPD is a dataset created by the USPTO to identify which U.S. patent documents contain AI, using machine learning models to classify patents and pre-grant publications.

How has the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance impacted AI patents?

The 2019 Guidance has clarified how to apply the Alice/Mayo framework, leading to an increase in the allowance rate for AI-related patent applications.

What is the significance of gender analysis in patent data?

Gender analysis helps in understanding the demographics of inventors and identifying potential biases or gaps in the patent system, with studies showing that 91% of inventors can be matched to a gender.

Sources

National Science Foundation, "Invention, Knowledge Transfer, and Innovation," February 29, 2024.
Congressional Research Service, "The Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Inter Partes Review," May 28, 2024.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, "Artificial Intelligence Patent Dataset," June 25, 2021.
Congressional Research Service, "Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Reform: An Overview," December 4, 2024.
IPWatchdog, "Examining USPTO Director Review Decisions in the Second Half of 2024," December 23, 2024.

Title:	Pharmaceutical composition comprising phenylamidine derivative and method of using the pharmaceutical composition in combination with antifungal agent
Abstract:	A pharmaceutical composition comprising a phenylamidine derivative or a salt thereof, represented by a general formula,
Inventor(s):	Nishikawa Hiroshi
Assignee:	Toyama Chemical Co., Ltd.
Application Number:	US12443750
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims
Patent landscape, scope, and claims summary:	Analyzing the Claims and Patent Landscape of United States Patent 8,173,157 Introduction United States Patent 8,173,157, like any other patent, is a complex document that outlines specific claims and descriptions of an invention. To analyze this patent comprehensively, we need to delve into its claims, the broader patent landscape, and the legal and regulatory frameworks that govern it. Understanding the Patent Claims What are Patent Claims? Patent claims are the heart of a patent, defining the scope of the invention and what is protected by the patent. They must be clear, concise, and definite to ensure that others understand what is patented and what is not[4]. Specific Claims of US Patent 8,173,157 Without the specific text of the patent, we can't analyze the exact claims. However, generally, patent claims can be divided into independent and dependent claims. Independent claims stand alone and define the invention, while dependent claims refer back to and further limit the independent claims. The Patent Landscape Historical Context The patent landscape has evolved significantly over the years, especially with the enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) in 2011. This act introduced significant changes to U.S. patent law, including the creation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and new administrative challenges like inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR)[2]. Current Trends and Challenges The current patent landscape is marked by ongoing debates and reforms regarding patent-eligible subject matter. Section 101 of the Patent Act, which defines what can be patented, has been the subject of several Supreme Court decisions that have narrowed the scope of patentable inventions. For example, the Alice/Mayo test has made it more challenging to patent abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena unless they contain an inventive concept that transforms the nature of the claim[4]. Legal and Regulatory Frameworks Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) The PTAB plays a crucial role in the patent landscape by providing a faster and less expensive alternative to federal court litigation for challenging patent validity. PTAB processes, such as IPR and PGR, allow anyone to challenge patents before the USPTO, which can lead to the cancellation of patent claims if they are found to be invalid[2]. Patent-Eligible Subject Matter The definition of patent-eligible subject matter is critical. Section 101 of the Patent Act outlines four categories of patentable inventions: processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter. However, judicially developed exceptions exclude certain types of inventions, such as abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena. The Alice/Mayo test is a two-step process to determine if a patent claim is directed to an ineligible concept and whether it has an inventive concept that makes it patentable[4]. Impact of Recent Developments The 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance The USPTO issued new guidance in 2019 to clarify how to apply the Alice/Mayo framework, which has been seen as lowering the barriers to patentability for computer-related inventions, including those involving artificial intelligence (AI). This guidance has led to an increase in the allowance rate for AI-related patent applications, although it is not binding on the courts[4]. Artificial Intelligence Patent Dataset (AIPD) The USPTO's AIPD is a valuable resource for understanding AI-related inventions. The dataset identifies which U.S. patent documents contain AI and has been updated to include improvements from recent patent landscaping literature. This dataset helps in analyzing the trends and impacts of AI inventions, which can be crucial for understanding the broader patent landscape[3]. Gender and Inventorship Analysis Gender Distribution in Patenting Studies on inventorship, such as those using the World Gender-Name Dictionary (WGND), highlight the importance of accurately identifying gender in patent data. For instance, 91% of inventors can be matched to a gender, with the remaining 9% being ambiguous or unusual names. This analysis is crucial for understanding the demographics of inventors and the potential biases or gaps in the patent system[1]. Case Studies and Examples Bilski v. Kappos and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. These landmark cases illustrate the challenges in determining patent-eligible subject matter. In Bilski v. Kappos, the Supreme Court held that a business method for hedging price-fluctuation risk was not patentable. Similarly, in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., the Court ruled that a method for calibrating the dosage of a particular drug was not patentable because it was directed to a law of nature without an inventive concept[4]. Stakeholder Views and Impact Industry and Academic Perspectives Stakeholders have varying views on the current state of patent-eligible subject matter. Some argue that the Alice/Mayo framework has negatively affected investment in technology and innovation, while others see it as necessary to prevent the patenting of abstract ideas. The USPTO's 2019 Guidance has been seen as a positive step by some, as it has clarified the application of the Alice/Mayo test and increased the allowance rate for AI-related patents[4]. Director Review Decisions USPTO Director Review Process The USPTO Director Review process is another layer of oversight that ensures the accuracy and consistency of PTAB decisions. Recent decisions have addressed issues such as obviousness determinations and the interpretation of patent specifications. These reviews highlight the ongoing efforts to refine and improve the patent system[5]. Key Takeaways Patent Claims: Clear and definitive claims are crucial for defining the scope of an invention. PTAB and Administrative Challenges: IPR and PGR provide faster and less expensive alternatives to federal court litigation for challenging patent validity. Patent-Eligible Subject Matter: The Alice/Mayo test and Section 101 of the Patent Act govern what can be patented, with ongoing debates and reforms. AI and Patent Landscape: The AIPD and USPTO guidance have facilitated the patenting of AI-related inventions. Gender and Inventorship: Accurate gender analysis in patent data is important for understanding demographics and potential biases. FAQs What is the role of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)? The PTAB is a tribunal within the USPTO that hears administrative challenges to the validity of patents, including inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR), providing a faster and less expensive alternative to federal court litigation. How does the Alice/Mayo test affect patent eligibility? The Alice/Mayo test is a two-step process to determine if a patent claim is directed to an ineligible concept (such as an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon) and whether it has an inventive concept that makes it patentable. What is the Artificial Intelligence Patent Dataset (AIPD)? The AIPD is a dataset created by the USPTO to identify which U.S. patent documents contain AI, using machine learning models to classify patents and pre-grant publications. How has the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance impacted AI patents? The 2019 Guidance has clarified how to apply the Alice/Mayo framework, leading to an increase in the allowance rate for AI-related patent applications. What is the significance of gender analysis in patent data? Gender analysis helps in understanding the demographics of inventors and identifying potential biases or gaps in the patent system, with studies showing that 91% of inventors can be matched to a gender. Sources National Science Foundation, "Invention, Knowledge Transfer, and Innovation," February 29, 2024. Congressional Research Service, "The Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Inter Partes Review," May 28, 2024. United States Patent and Trademark Office, "Artificial Intelligence Patent Dataset," June 25, 2021. Congressional Research Service, "Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Reform: An Overview," December 4, 2024. IPWatchdog, "Examining USPTO Director Review Decisions in the Second Half of 2024," December 23, 2024. More… ↓ ⤷ Try for Free

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Nielsen Bioscience, Inc	CANDIN	candida albicans skin test antigen for cellular hypersensitivity	Injection	103257	November 27, 1995	⤷ Try for Free	2027-10-03
>Applicant	>Tradename	>Biologic Ingredient	>Dosage Form	>BLA	>Approval Date	>Patent No.	>Expiredate

Patent: 8,173,157

Summary for Patent: 8,173,157