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

United States Patent 11,384,139 Claim Scope and US Patent Landscape Analysis

Executive summary: Patent US 11,384,139 is not analyzable from the information provided. A complete, accurate claim-by-claim scope review, assessment of enforceability, obviousness/anticipation risk, and mapping to competitor freedom-to-operate requires the claim text and the patent bibliographic record (assignee, filing/priority dates, specification, and independent claims). Those inputs were not provided, so a defensible landscape and claim-strength analysis cannot be produced.

What are the exact claims in US 11,384,139?

Featured snippet answer: The claim language for US 11,384,139 is required to identify the independent claim coverage (active ingredient, composition, method, device, dosing regimen, process parameters, and any functional limitations), and to determine whether the claims are broad (generally cover the technology) or narrow (limited to specific embodiments or process steps).

How do independent claims define the protected subject matter?

Claim-scope mapping typically breaks into:
- composition claims (ingredients, ratios, excipients, polymorphs, particle size, stability)
- method claims (steps, order, parameters, conditions, endpoints)
- device/system claims (hardware components and interfaces)
- use claims (indications, patient subsets, monitoring, dosage schedules)

Without the actual claim set, no mapping can be performed.

What claim elements create design-around risk?

Common high-risk elements include:
- specific parameter ranges (temperature, pH, pressure, residence time)
- material identity constraints (specific polymers/copolymers, salts, catalysts)
- mandatory process sequences
- functional “means” limitations tied to narrow embodiments

Are the claims likely enabling and written-description compliant?

Evaluated from:
- whether the specification supports all claim embodiments
- whether later narrowing amendments created prosecution-history estoppel
- whether key terms are defined in the specification

No specification/record details were provided.

How strong is the patent estate around US 11,384,139?

Featured snippet answer: US 11,384,139 strength depends on:

whether it is a continuation/continuation-in-part (CIP)
the number and quality of related family members
whether priority predates critical prior art
claim breadth vs. known limitations in the field

What is the family structure for US 11,384,139?

Typical landscape deliverables include:

earliest priority date
continuation chain
related US publications and issued patents
EP/WO counterparts and their claim sets

No bibliographic or family data was provided.

Which jurisdictions likely have parallel coverage?

US (claims as issued)
WO/EP (often broader early drafts, later narrowed)
China/JP/KR (varies by family prosecution)
enforcement practicality and estoppel exposure

No jurisdictional data was provided.

What prior art categories are most relevant?

composition/process disclosures in:
- patent literature
- scientific literature
- regulatory filings and manufacturing disclosures
earlier patents with overlapping:
- formulation approaches
- synthesis methods
- method-of-use endpoints

No claim subject matter was provided.

What patents and publications anticipate or make US 11,384,139 obvious?

Featured snippet answer: Anticipation and obviousness risk can only be evaluated against the specific claim elements, which were not provided.

How do you screen the prior art for element-by-element overlap?

identify each claim limitation
search for disclosures that meet each limitation exactly (anticipation) or render it predictable (obviousness)
weight:
- disclosure specificity
- teaching away
- differences in performance metrics or structure-function

Which claim features are typically decisive in PTAB and district court validity?

structural limitations (chemical composition identifiers)
parameter ranges and criticality
functional limitations tied to measured results
combination claims needing synergy or unexpected results

What claim constructions are likely for key terms in US 11,384,139?

Featured snippet answer: The likely constructions depend on:

intrinsic evidence (spec, prosecution history)
whether terms are defined
how dependent claims use the same terminology

No claim terms or intrinsic record were provided.

What prior art and prosecution facts affect enforceability?

Featured snippet answer: Enforceability in US patents turns on:

prosecution history (arguments, amendments, office actions)
rejections based on the prior art
any disclaimers that narrow scope

No prosecution history was provided.

Does US 11,384,139 face terminal disclaimer, restriction, or priority issues?

Featured snippet answer: These issues are determined from the bibliographic record and prosecution timeline:

terminal disclaimer presence
restriction requirements and election
priority dates vs. intervening art

No filing/priority and prosecution timeline data was provided.

What generic entry risks exist if US 11,384,139 relates to an FDA-regulated product?

Featured snippet answer: Entry risks require:

drug product identity (active ingredient and dosage form)
FDA application and Orange Book status
whether US 11,384,139 is listed in Orange Book with a specific patent type:
- drug substance
- drug product
- method of use
- formulation/process

No drug identity or Orange Book mapping was provided.

What is the Orange Book status of US 11,384,139?

Featured snippet answer: Orange Book listing status cannot be determined without the NDA/ANDA/BLA and patent listing details.

What is the litigation and PTAB challenge risk for US 11,384,139?

Featured snippet answer: Litigation/PTAB risk requires:

any enforcement actions for the patent
inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), or covered business method review (CBM)
district court case captions and assertion targets

No litigation/PTAB data was provided.

How do settlements and consent judgments affect the practical threat?

settlement scope can define:
- design-around boundaries
- launch dates and carve-outs
- ongoing royalty or covenant-not-to-sue terms

No settlement record was provided.

How does US 11,384,139 compare with competing patents in the same technical space?

Featured snippet answer: Comparison requires:

the specific claimed technology
competitor patent numbers, filing dates, and independent claim structures

No technical subject matter was provided.

What do competitor patents cover that may be outside US 11,384,139?

Common differences include:

alternate formulations or polymorphs
different process steps or catalysts
different dosing regimens or patient populations
alternative delivery systems

Key Takeaways

US 11,384,139 cannot be assessed without the claim text and the patent record.
A claim-scope, validity risk, construction analysis, and freedom-to-operate landscape are not computable from “The claims are:” with no claims included.
No Orange Book, litigation, or family analysis can be responsibly produced without drug identity and bibliographic details.

FAQs

What information is needed to analyze a patent’s claim scope accurately?
How is anticipation analyzed for composition vs. method claims?
What makes an issued patent’s independent claims vulnerable in district court?
How do Orange Book patent types change generic launch risk?
How are claim terms construed differently at PTAB versus district court?

References

No sources were cited because no claim text, bibliographic record, or related filings were provided.

Title:	Antibody targeting cell surface deposited complement protein C3d and use thereof
Abstract:	An anti-C3d antibody or antibody fragment; method for use thereof to kill cancer cells; and related methods and compositions.
Inventor(s):	Adrian U. Wiestner, Martin W. Skarzynski, Margaret A. Lindorfer, Ronald P. Taylor, Christoph Rader, Berengere Vire
Assignee:	UVA Licensing and Ventures Group, US Department of Health and Human Services
Application Number:	US16/047,929
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims
Patent landscape, scope, and claims summary:	United States Patent 11,384,139 Claim Scope and US Patent Landscape Analysis Executive summary: Patent US 11,384,139 is not analyzable from the information provided. A complete, accurate claim-by-claim scope review, assessment of enforceability, obviousness/anticipation risk, and mapping to competitor freedom-to-operate requires the claim text and the patent bibliographic record (assignee, filing/priority dates, specification, and independent claims). Those inputs were not provided, so a defensible landscape and claim-strength analysis cannot be produced. What are the exact claims in US 11,384,139? Featured snippet answer: The claim language for US 11,384,139 is required to identify the independent claim coverage (active ingredient, composition, method, device, dosing regimen, process parameters, and any functional limitations), and to determine whether the claims are broad (generally cover the technology) or narrow (limited to specific embodiments or process steps). How do independent claims define the protected subject matter? Claim-scope mapping typically breaks into: composition claims (ingredients, ratios, excipients, polymorphs, particle size, stability) method claims (steps, order, parameters, conditions, endpoints) device/system claims (hardware components and interfaces) use claims (indications, patient subsets, monitoring, dosage schedules) Without the actual claim set, no mapping can be performed. What claim elements create design-around risk? Common high-risk elements include: specific parameter ranges (temperature, pH, pressure, residence time) material identity constraints (specific polymers/copolymers, salts, catalysts) mandatory process sequences functional “means” limitations tied to narrow embodiments Are the claims likely enabling and written-description compliant? Evaluated from: whether the specification supports all claim embodiments whether later narrowing amendments created prosecution-history estoppel whether key terms are defined in the specification No specification/record details were provided. How strong is the patent estate around US 11,384,139? Featured snippet answer: US 11,384,139 strength depends on: whether it is a continuation/continuation-in-part (CIP) the number and quality of related family members whether priority predates critical prior art claim breadth vs. known limitations in the field What is the family structure for US 11,384,139? Typical landscape deliverables include: earliest priority date continuation chain related US publications and issued patents EP/WO counterparts and their claim sets No bibliographic or family data was provided. Which jurisdictions likely have parallel coverage? US (claims as issued) WO/EP (often broader early drafts, later narrowed) China/JP/KR (varies by family prosecution) enforcement practicality and estoppel exposure No jurisdictional data was provided. What prior art categories are most relevant? composition/process disclosures in: patent literature scientific literature regulatory filings and manufacturing disclosures earlier patents with overlapping: formulation approaches synthesis methods method-of-use endpoints No claim subject matter was provided. What patents and publications anticipate or make US 11,384,139 obvious? Featured snippet answer: Anticipation and obviousness risk can only be evaluated against the specific claim elements, which were not provided. How do you screen the prior art for element-by-element overlap? identify each claim limitation search for disclosures that meet each limitation exactly (anticipation) or render it predictable (obviousness) weight: disclosure specificity teaching away differences in performance metrics or structure-function Which claim features are typically decisive in PTAB and district court validity? structural limitations (chemical composition identifiers) parameter ranges and criticality functional limitations tied to measured results combination claims needing synergy or unexpected results What claim constructions are likely for key terms in US 11,384,139? Featured snippet answer: The likely constructions depend on: intrinsic evidence (spec, prosecution history) whether terms are defined how dependent claims use the same terminology No claim terms or intrinsic record were provided. What prior art and prosecution facts affect enforceability? Featured snippet answer: Enforceability in US patents turns on: prosecution history (arguments, amendments, office actions) rejections based on the prior art any disclaimers that narrow scope No prosecution history was provided. Does US 11,384,139 face terminal disclaimer, restriction, or priority issues? Featured snippet answer: These issues are determined from the bibliographic record and prosecution timeline: terminal disclaimer presence restriction requirements and election priority dates vs. intervening art No filing/priority and prosecution timeline data was provided. What generic entry risks exist if US 11,384,139 relates to an FDA-regulated product? Featured snippet answer: Entry risks require: drug product identity (active ingredient and dosage form) FDA application and Orange Book status whether US 11,384,139 is listed in Orange Book with a specific patent type: drug substance drug product method of use formulation/process No drug identity or Orange Book mapping was provided. What is the Orange Book status of US 11,384,139? Featured snippet answer: Orange Book listing status cannot be determined without the NDA/ANDA/BLA and patent listing details. What is the litigation and PTAB challenge risk for US 11,384,139? Featured snippet answer: Litigation/PTAB risk requires: any enforcement actions for the patent inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), or covered business method review (CBM) district court case captions and assertion targets No litigation/PTAB data was provided. How do settlements and consent judgments affect the practical threat? settlement scope can define: design-around boundaries launch dates and carve-outs ongoing royalty or covenant-not-to-sue terms No settlement record was provided. How does US 11,384,139 compare with competing patents in the same technical space? Featured snippet answer: Comparison requires: the specific claimed technology competitor patent numbers, filing dates, and independent claim structures No technical subject matter was provided. What do competitor patents cover that may be outside US 11,384,139? Common differences include: alternate formulations or polymorphs different process steps or catalysts different dosing regimens or patient populations alternative delivery systems Key Takeaways US 11,384,139 cannot be assessed without the claim text and the patent record. A claim-scope, validity risk, construction analysis, and freedom-to-operate landscape are not computable from “The claims are:” with no claims included. No Orange Book, litigation, or family analysis can be responsibly produced without drug identity and bibliographic details. FAQs What information is needed to analyze a patent’s claim scope accurately? How is anticipation analyzed for composition vs. method claims? What makes an issued patent’s independent claims vulnerable in district court? How do Orange Book patent types change generic launch risk? How are claim terms construed differently at PTAB versus district court? References No sources were cited because no claim text, bibliographic record, or related filings were provided. More… ↓ ⤷ Start Trial

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Genentech, Inc.	HERCEPTIN	trastuzumab	For Injection	103792	September 25, 1998	⤷ Start Trial	2038-07-27
Genentech, Inc.	HERCEPTIN	trastuzumab	For Injection	103792	February 10, 2017	⤷ Start Trial	2038-07-27
>Applicant	>Tradename	>Biologic Ingredient	>Dosage Form	>BLA	>Approval Date	>Patent No.	>Expiredate

Patent: 11,384,139

Summary for Patent: 11,384,139