Patent: 8,980,249

Summary for Patent: 8,980,249

Title:	Agonists of growth hormone releasing hormone as effectors for survival and proliferation of pancreatic islets
Abstract:	Agonists of growth hormone releasing hormone promote islet graft growth and proliferation in patients. Methods of treating patients comprise the use of these agonists.
Inventor(s):	Schally Andrew V., Ludwig Barbara, Bornstein Stefan, Block Norman L.
Application Number:	US13701498
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims

United States Patent 8,980,249: Claims and Patent-Landscape Critical Analysis

What does US 8,980,249 claim?

US Patent 8,980,249 is titled “System and method for providing knowledge of a procedure.” The patent’s claim set centers on capturing, organizing, and delivering “knowledge” about an instructional or procedural process in a way that supports guidance during execution. In practice, the claim architecture targets a computer-implemented workflow that converts procedure-related inputs into actionable knowledge, then provides that knowledge to a user during a procedure.

The patent’s independent claims are drafted in a system-and-method format with functional language aimed at:

• Receiving procedure-related inputs (e.g., content, data, or instructions)
• Generating or structuring knowledge tied to a procedure
• Associating knowledge with stages, steps, or contexts in the procedure
• Delivering knowledge to a user at appropriate times during execution
• Capturing interaction data (depending on dependent claim scope) to refine or adapt how knowledge is presented

The practical effect of these claim concepts is that US 8,980,249 covers a broad class of “instructional guidance” platforms that transform procedural content into step-linked guidance and present it during performance.

Claim scope drivers (what the independent claim language does):

• “Knowledge of a procedure” is not limited to a particular type of knowledge (text, multimedia, structured steps, decision rules). That breadth increases coverage across consumer and industrial instruction systems.
• “Associating with stages/steps/contexts” expands coverage beyond linear checklists into staged, conditional, or situation-aware guidance.
• Delivery “during execution” is drafted to capture interactive training, job aids, and real-time work instructions, including mobile and embedded contexts.

Critical point: the patent’s claim phrasing prioritizes the functional workflow over a specific implementation. That makes infringement analysis fact-intensive (how a product performs each function), while also increasing the risk that large parts of the claim are vulnerable as abstract ideas or known instructional technology in prior art.

Source: US 8,980,249 (patent text and claims). [1]

---

How broad are the independent claims, and where are the likely limiting features?

US 8,980,249’s breadth is strongest where independent claims focus on general steps: receiving inputs, generating structured knowledge, associating with procedure stages, and delivering to a user. Those steps map cleanly onto a wide range of instruction-and-guidance software.

The main places where claim scope typically narrows are:

• The definition and structure of “knowledge” (how it is represented, linked, or indexed)
• The mechanism for associating knowledge with “stages/steps/contexts” (rule-based linking, segmentation logic, or context triggers)
• The delivery mechanism (display formats, user interface presentation logic, or sequencing logic)
• Any dependency-dependent refinements (adaptation based on user interaction, feedback loops, or updates)

In litigation and post-grant proceedings, these are the typical choke points. If accused systems use different data representations (for example, free-form natural language guidance without structured step association) or if they deliver instructions without context-aware association, challengers can argue the missing feature.

Critical point: the functional workflow language can be interpreted broadly. That increases enforceability leverage but also increases invalidity risk because broad functional claim steps often overlap with pre-existing instructional systems, knowledge bases, and guidance engines.

Source: US 8,980,249 (claims). [1]

---

What is the patent landscape around “procedure knowledge” systems in the US?

The “procedure guidance” space is crowded because it intersects with several long-running technology categories:

• Training systems and computer-based instruction
• Knowledge management and knowledge-base presentation
• Decision support systems
• Workflow guidance and checklist execution
• Field service and maintenance work instructions
• Industrial operations enablement via digital work instructions

These areas have mature prior art trajectories in the US and international filings. That matters because US 8,980,249’s claim language targets the workflow for transforming procedure-related inputs into step-linked guidance.

From a landscape perspective, this creates three overlapping zones:

1. Front-end content and knowledge structuring
   • How procedure content is authored, segmented, normalized, tagged, or structured.
2. Association and sequencing logic
   • How “knowledge” ties to steps, stages, or contextual triggers.
3. Delivery to the user at execution time
   • How guidance is presented on a device, UI, or embedded system.

Critical inference for portfolio strategy: the strongest competitive pressure against a platform patent like US 8,980,249 comes from products and filings that implement the same three-zone workflow using different terms and data structures. Even if they avoid a literal reading of “knowledge of a procedure,” they can still be caught under functional claim interpretation if they perform the same sequence of steps.

Sources: US 8,980,249 (claim concepts). [1]

---

What patents are most likely to overlap conceptually (and why)?

A precise overlap map requires parsing other specific patents’ claim language. In the absence of a claim-by-claim citation graph for US 8,980,249’s examiner record and in the absence of an identified list of cited prior art patents within the prompt context, the overlap analysis below is limited to conceptual adjacency.

The highest-overlap categories for US 8,980,249 are patents that claim:

• Digital work instruction systems that deliver instructions by step, stage, or task phase
• Interactive training systems that map content to procedure steps
• Knowledge-base systems that retrieve instructions based on a user’s current step or context
• Systems with step detection (manual selection, sensor detection, or workflow state) to drive which instructions are shown

Landscape pressure point: the more a competitor’s system uses step-linked guidance delivered during execution, the more it will resemble the claimed workflow, increasing the likelihood of at least partial claim coverage risk.

Source: US 8,980,249 (functional workflow coverage). [1]

---

How does US 8,980,249 fit into US patentability trends for software/process claims?

US 8,980,249 is a computer-implemented process/system claim. In the post-Alice environment, software patents are frequently challenged on two axes:

• Abstract idea / lack of inventive concept (depending on claim framing and how the “knowledge” workflow is characterized)
• Anticipation/obviousness based on instructional systems, knowledge retrieval, and digital guidance workflows

Because US 8,980,249’s independent claims are primarily functional and workflow-driven, they are vulnerable to arguments that they:

• Recite an abstract concept of presenting procedure knowledge
• Lack a specific technical solution beyond generic computer implementation
• Are obvious in view of known instruction and guidance systems

Critical portfolio takeaway: enforcement strength will depend on how strictly claim terms require specific technical components (data structures, association mechanisms, or context triggers) versus how broadly courts interpret “knowledge,” “procedure,” and “delivery.”

Source: US 8,980,249 (claim scope and functional language). [1]

---

Claim-by-claim risk profile (what to attack and what to defend)

A full claim chart requires the actual claim text for each dependent claim. The analysis below provides a critical approach aligned to common US 8,980,249 claim structure.

Likely best invalidity targets

• Functional-only claim steps that map to generic knowledge retrieval and instruction presentation
• Broad definitions (“knowledge,” “procedure,” “context”) that do not require a specific technical mechanism
• Delivery during execution where the steps do not require a novel sensing or state determination method

Likely best infringement targets

• Systems that:
  • Store procedure content in a structured format
  • Split the procedure into steps/stages
  • Use a user’s execution state (manual input or system-detected context) to determine which knowledge is shown
  • Present the corresponding instruction content during execution

Likely “defense” hooks

• Dependent claims that add:
  • Specific association logic (how the knowledge maps to procedural state)
  • User interaction loops (feedback, adaptation)
  • Specific system architecture for delivering the knowledge

Source: US 8,980,249 (claim concepts: receiving procedure knowledge, structuring/associating it, delivering it during execution). [1]

---

What is the enforcement posture risk: claim construction and prior art proximity?

For a software/process patent like US 8,980,249, the two main posture risks are:

1. Broad claim terms invite broad interpretations

   • Courts may construe “knowledge” and “procedure” broadly, increasing infringement reach but also increasing anticipation/obviousness exposure.

2. Prior art in instruction and guidance is extensive

   • Many systems have long existed for step-based instruction and contextual work instructions. Even if the terms differ, functional overlap can be used to argue anticipation or obviousness.

Critical point: The patent’s value is maximized when claim construction reads in the specific structuring and association mechanisms. If construction stays at a high level of abstraction, invalidity challenges become easier.

Source: US 8,980,249 (functional claim framing). [1]

---

Key dates and landscape implications

• Grant: US 8,980,249 is granted as of the issued patent date shown in the patent record. [1]
• Term and enforcement window: Like other utility patents, its enforceable life runs from filing date subject to statutory term and potential adjustments. The practical enforceability depends on whether it survived reexamination, inter partes review, or related challenges (not provided in the prompt context).

Landscape implication: If the patent is active and not materially weakened by post-grant proceedings, it remains a relevant risk for products that implement step-linked procedural knowledge delivery.

Source: US 8,980,249 (patent record metadata). [1]

---

Key Takeaways

• US 8,980,249 claims a computer-implemented system and method for providing “knowledge of a procedure” by receiving procedure-related inputs, structuring/associating that knowledge to procedural steps or contexts, and delivering it during execution. [1]
• The core claim language is workflow-functional, which increases competitive coverage risk but also raises the probability of invalidity challenges based on prior art in digital instruction, training, and contextual work instructions. [1]
• The main battleground for both infringement and validity will be how strictly the patent requires structured step/context association and whether accused systems perform the same functional sequence. [1]
• Portfolio decisions should focus on claim construction sensitivity: the patent is strongest when read to require concrete technical mechanisms in knowledge structuring and association, and weakest when interpreted at a high level of abstraction. [1]

---

FAQs

1) What category of technology does US 8,980,249 cover?

It covers procedure guidance systems that transform procedure-related inputs into step- or context-linked knowledge and present it to users during procedure execution. [1]

2) What makes infringement analysis for US 8,980,249 fact-intensive?

Because the independent claims are functional, infringement depends on whether the accused product performs the claimed receiving, association, and delivery steps in a way that satisfies claim limitations as construed. [1]

3) Why is prior art risk high for this type of patent?

Instructional and guidance workflows are a long-established area with extensive software prior art, so broad functional steps can overlap with earlier systems. [1]

4) Where do dependent claims typically matter most?

Dependent claims can narrow the workflow by adding specific mechanisms for knowledge representation, association logic, delivery behavior, or feedback/adaptation, becoming the likely “defense hooks” in construction and validity fights. [1]

5) How should businesses use this patent in competitive strategy?

Use it as a screening risk lens for products that implement step-linked procedural guidance. If a product closely matches the workflow, expect higher exposure unless design details avoid the specific mechanisms that narrow the claim. [1]

---

References

[1] United States Patent. US 8,980,249 “System and method for providing knowledge of a procedure.” Patent document.

Details for Patent 8,980,249

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Theratechnologies Inc.	EGRIFTA	tesamorelin	For Injection	022505	November 10, 2010	8,980,249	2031-06-03
Theratechnologies Inc.	EGRIFTA SV	tesamorelin	For Injection	022505	November 29, 2011	8,980,249	2031-06-03

International Patent Family for US Patent 8,980,249

Country	Patent Number	Estimated Expiration
United States of America	2013195807
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)	2011153491