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

United States Patent 9,593,164: Claims Dissection and US Landscape Impact

What does US 9,593,164 claim, in enforceable terms?

US 9,593,164 is a granted US patent assigned to a specific technology profile, but the full, claim-by-claim text is not provided in the prompt and cannot be reliably reconstructed from public metadata alone. Without the actual independent and dependent claim language, any “claims dissection” would risk substituting assumptions for the legal text, which would undermine enforceability and claim-scope accuracy.

Because of that, no complete and accurate analysis of the claims’ novel features, limitations, and infringement-relevant elements can be produced.

What is the validity posture: where does the claim scope likely face attack?

A validity and design-around analysis depends on three items that are not present here: (i) the claim language (including all limitations), (ii) the priority dates and filing history, and (iii) the patent family and any post-grant events (inter partes review, reexamination, reissue, disclaimer/amendment). Those inputs govern which prior art is material, what claim construction pathways are available, and whether prosecution history estoppel narrows the scope.

Without the claim text and prosecution details, a critical invalidity analysis (35 USC 102/103/112) would be speculative.

What does the US patent landscape look like around 9,593,164?

Landscape mapping is not a generic exercise. It requires tying 9,593,164 to:

the claimed technology domain (for query strategy),
the claim-specific technical features (for relevance filters),
the family’s priority and expiration logic (for freedom-to-operate timing),
the geographic scope (US only vs global family),
and the most relevant citing/cited documents.

None of those linkages can be executed accurately without the patent’s claim text or at least the full bibliographic record (application number, assignee, title, IPC/CPC classes, priority and filing dates, and the family members). The prompt does not include any of that information, and guessing would produce a non-actionable map.

How strong is the patent as a business asset in the US?

Patent strength in the US depends on measurable factors:

independent claim count and breadth,
whether claims align with commercially implemented embodiments,
whether close prior art exists at the same priority date,
whether the patent sits in a crowded CPC/USPC neighborhood,
and whether it has survived post-grant challenges.

Those metrics require the actual claim set, citations, and post-grant history. The prompt provides none of these.

Key Takeaways

A complete and accurate, enforceability-focused analysis of US 9,593,164 requires the actual claim text and bibliographic/prosecution record; the prompt does not supply them.
Without the claim language, any statement about claim scope, novelty, infringement elements, validity attack points, or landscape relevance would be speculative and non-actionable.
No reliable citations or prior-art indexing can be produced from the patent number alone in this context.

FAQs

Can a claim-scope analysis be accurate without the independent claim text?
No. Claim scope in US litigation turns on the actual limitations in the independent claims and the dependent claim additions, plus construction context.
Can prior-art mapping be done from only a patent number?
Not to a business-grade standard. Effective landscape mapping needs CPC/USPC classing, citations, and family priority to filter relevance.
What determines whether validity attacks are strong (102/103/112) for this patent?
The specific claim limitations and priority dates, plus prosecution history and any amendments or disclaimers.
How do post-grant proceedings affect enforcement risk?
Surviving claims after IPR or other challenges can become narrower or invalidated, directly changing infringement and licensing value.
What data would be necessary for a true freedom-to-operate view?
Claim language, related family members, expiry/terminal disclaimer status, and close technical alternatives with their US filings.

Sources (APA)

[1] United States Patent and Trademark Office. (n.d.). Patent 9,593,164. https://patents.google.com/patent/US9593164
[2] United States Patent and Trademark Office. (n.d.). Patent Public Search / Patent Examination Data System (PAIR). https://ppubs.uspto.gov/
[3] USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board. (n.d.). Inter partes review and post-grant proceedings database. https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/patent-trial-and-appeal-board

Title:	Bispecific EGFR/c-Met antibodies
Abstract:	Bispecific EGFR/c-Met antibodies and methods of making and using the molecules.
Inventor(s):	Chiu Mark, Moores Sheri, Neijssen Joost, Parren Paul, Schuurman Janine
Assignee:	Janssen Biotech, Inc.
Application Number:	US14086588
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims
Patent landscape, scope, and claims summary:	United States Patent 9,593,164: Claims Dissection and US Landscape Impact What does US 9,593,164 claim, in enforceable terms? US 9,593,164 is a granted US patent assigned to a specific technology profile, but the full, claim-by-claim text is not provided in the prompt and cannot be reliably reconstructed from public metadata alone. Without the actual independent and dependent claim language, any “claims dissection” would risk substituting assumptions for the legal text, which would undermine enforceability and claim-scope accuracy. Because of that, no complete and accurate analysis of the claims’ novel features, limitations, and infringement-relevant elements can be produced. What is the validity posture: where does the claim scope likely face attack? A validity and design-around analysis depends on three items that are not present here: (i) the claim language (including all limitations), (ii) the priority dates and filing history, and (iii) the patent family and any post-grant events (inter partes review, reexamination, reissue, disclaimer/amendment). Those inputs govern which prior art is material, what claim construction pathways are available, and whether prosecution history estoppel narrows the scope. Without the claim text and prosecution details, a critical invalidity analysis (35 USC 102/103/112) would be speculative. What does the US patent landscape look like around 9,593,164? Landscape mapping is not a generic exercise. It requires tying 9,593,164 to: the claimed technology domain (for query strategy), the claim-specific technical features (for relevance filters), the family’s priority and expiration logic (for freedom-to-operate timing), the geographic scope (US only vs global family), and the most relevant citing/cited documents. None of those linkages can be executed accurately without the patent’s claim text or at least the full bibliographic record (application number, assignee, title, IPC/CPC classes, priority and filing dates, and the family members). The prompt does not include any of that information, and guessing would produce a non-actionable map. How strong is the patent as a business asset in the US? Patent strength in the US depends on measurable factors: independent claim count and breadth, whether claims align with commercially implemented embodiments, whether close prior art exists at the same priority date, whether the patent sits in a crowded CPC/USPC neighborhood, and whether it has survived post-grant challenges. Those metrics require the actual claim set, citations, and post-grant history. The prompt provides none of these. Key Takeaways A complete and accurate, enforceability-focused analysis of US 9,593,164 requires the actual claim text and bibliographic/prosecution record; the prompt does not supply them. Without the claim language, any statement about claim scope, novelty, infringement elements, validity attack points, or landscape relevance would be speculative and non-actionable. No reliable citations or prior-art indexing can be produced from the patent number alone in this context. FAQs Can a claim-scope analysis be accurate without the independent claim text? No. Claim scope in US litigation turns on the actual limitations in the independent claims and the dependent claim additions, plus construction context. Can prior-art mapping be done from only a patent number? Not to a business-grade standard. Effective landscape mapping needs CPC/USPC classing, citations, and family priority to filter relevance. What determines whether validity attacks are strong (102/103/112) for this patent? The specific claim limitations and priority dates, plus prosecution history and any amendments or disclaimers. How do post-grant proceedings affect enforcement risk? Surviving claims after IPR or other challenges can become narrower or invalidated, directly changing infringement and licensing value. What data would be necessary for a true freedom-to-operate view? Claim language, related family members, expiry/terminal disclaimer status, and close technical alternatives with their US filings. Sources (APA) [1] United States Patent and Trademark Office. (n.d.). Patent 9,593,164. https://patents.google.com/patent/US9593164 [2] United States Patent and Trademark Office. (n.d.). Patent Public Search / Patent Examination Data System (PAIR). https://ppubs.uspto.gov/ [3] USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board. (n.d.). Inter partes review and post-grant proceedings database. https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/patent-trial-and-appeal-board More… ↓ ⤷ Start Trial

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Janssen Biotech, Inc.	RYBREVANT	amivantamab-vmjw	Injection	761210	May 21, 2021	9,593,164	2033-11-21
>Applicant	>Tradename	>Biologic Ingredient	>Dosage Form	>BLA	>Approval Date	>Patent No.	>Expiredate

Country	Patent Number	Estimated Expiration
South Africa	201504427	⤷ Start Trial
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)	2014081954	⤷ Start Trial
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)	2014081944	⤷ Start Trial
United States of America	9725497	⤷ Start Trial
United States of America	9695242	⤷ Start Trial
United States of America	9695228	⤷ Start Trial
>Country	>Patent Number	>Estimated Expiration

Patent: 9,593,164

Summary for Patent: 9,593,164