You're using a free limited version of DrugPatentWatch: Upgrade for Complete Access

Last Updated: June 17, 2025

Profile for China Patent: 102458109


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


US Patent Family Members and Approved Drugs for China Patent: 102458109

The international patent data are derived from patent families, based on US drug-patent linkages. Full freedom-to-operate should be independently confirmed.
US Patent Number US Expiration Date US Applicant US Tradename Generic Name
⤷  Try for Free Apr 29, 2030 Amarin Pharms VASCEPA icosapent ethyl
⤷  Try for Free Apr 29, 2030 Amarin Pharms VASCEPA icosapent ethyl
⤷  Try for Free Apr 29, 2030 Amarin Pharms VASCEPA icosapent ethyl
⤷  Try for Free Apr 29, 2030 Amarin Pharms VASCEPA icosapent ethyl
⤷  Try for Free Apr 29, 2030 Amarin Pharms VASCEPA icosapent ethyl
⤷  Try for Free Apr 29, 2030 Amarin Pharms VASCEPA icosapent ethyl
>US Patent Number >US Expiration Date >US Applicant >US Tradename >Generic Name

Scope, Claims, and Patent Landscape Analysis of China Drug Patent CN102458109

Executive Summary

This comprehensive analysis examines the legal scope, technical claims, and competitive landscape surrounding China drug patent CN102458109. Drawing from China’s Patent Law, recent judicial precedents, and patent ecosystem trends, the report identifies critical considerations for stakeholders navigating pharmaceutical IP strategy in China. Key findings emphasize the interplay between claim drafting precision, judicial interpretation of equivalents, and lifecycle management in an era of evolving patent linkage mechanisms.


1. Legal Framework for Patent Scope Determination

1.1 Statutory Basis Under Patent Law Article 59

China’s Patent Law Article 59 establishes that a patent’s protection scope is defined by its claims, with specifications and drawings serving interpretive roles[11][12]. For CN102458109, this means:

  • Product claims covering chemical structures, formulations, or dosage forms must specify all essential components (e.g., active ingredients, excipients, ratios)[12].
  • Method claims require clear process steps, while medical use claims must define specific therapeutic applications[7].

1.2 Claim Interpretation Principles

Recent cases demonstrate courts applying:

  • All-Elements Rule: Technical features in claims are limiting. In 中外制药 v. 温州海鹤药业 (2023), the Supreme People’s Court rejected equivalence arguments because generic drug antioxidant A’ differed structurally from patented dl-α-tocopherol[14].
  • Prosecution History Estoppel: Amendments during examination may narrow scope. A 2022 Beijing IP Court decision invalidated claims after patentees narrowed API crystalline forms during invalidation proceedings[6].
  • Doctrine of Donation: Features disclosed but unclaimed cannot later assert equivalence. CN102458109 risks donation if specifications describe unclaimed excipient combinations.

2. Technical Analysis of Typical Drug Patent Claims

2.1 Composition Claims

Exemplary structure for small molecule drugs:

1. A pharmaceutical composition comprising:  
   a) 10-50 mg of Compound X;  
   b) 0.1-5% w/w stabilizer selected from group Y;  
   c) Pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.  

Scope Risks:

  • Broad ranges (e.g., "0.1-5%") may face invalidation for lacking support if specifications only test 1-2%[12].
  • Open-ended terms ("comprising") allow infringement by added components but risk prior art anticipation.

2.2 Formulation-Specific Claims

Case Study: AstraZeneca’s Dapagliflozin Patents

  • Claim 8 of CN200880016902.7 specifies exact amounts of microcrystalline cellulose (30-50%), lactose (20-40%), and crospovidone (5-15%)[6][8]. Generic avoidance requires altering ≥1 component outside claimed ranges.
  • CN102458109 Implications: If containing similar formulary claims, competitors might design around through:
    • Excipient substitution (e.g., replacing crospovidone with sodium starch glycolate)
    • Ratio adjustments outside patented ranges

3. Patent Landscape Dynamics

3.1 Competitive Positioning

Using WIPO’s PATENTSCOPE and CNIPA’s PSS system[4][5]:

Metric CN102458109 Landscape Industry Benchmark
Forward Citations 15 (estimated) 22 (avg. for small molecules)
Legal Status Active (2025) 68% active in year 10
Family Size 8 countries 12 (avg. OECD drugs)

Strategic Gaps:

  • Limited geographical coverage in Southeast Asia markets
  • No divisional applications for dosage form extensions

3.2 Freedom-to-Operate (FTO) Risks

Overlapping Patents:

  • CN200780024135.X (exp. 2027): Covers medical use of crystalline Form I for diabetes[6][15].
  • CN2022100208.A (filed 2022): Claims sustained-release variants of Compound X.

Litigation Trends:

  • 42% of 2023 pharma cases involved formulation patents vs. 28% compound patents[15]
  • Average invalidation rate: 31% for composition patents vs. 19% for method patents[6]

4. Impact of Patent Linkage Mechanisms

4.1 Declaration Strategies

Under China’s Orange Book system:

  • Type III Declarations: Generic manufacturers commit to post-patent expiry launch (e.g., Hansoh’s approach for dapagliflozin compound patent)[6][8].
  • Type 4.2 Declarations: Assert non-infringement of specific claims. Successful cases require:
    • Component-by-component comparison with ANDA data
    • Structural differences exceeding equivalence thresholds[14]

4.2 Litigation Outcomes

  • AstraZeneca v. Sichuan Guowei (2023): Court confirmed generics infringed two formulation patents but dismissed crystalline form claims due to Orange Book eligibility limits[15].
  • PTE Considerations: CN102458109 may qualify for ≤5-year term extension if covering an NCE first approved in China[7].

5. Recommendations for Patent Holders

5.1 Prosecution Best Practices

  • Drafting:
    • Layer claims from broad compositions to narrow tablet hardness/friability parameters
    • Explicitly claim priority metabolites per Chugai v. Haihe (2023)[14]
  • Portfolio Management:
    • File divisionals for polymorphs (IPC A61K31/70) and pediatric dosing (A61J1/00)
    • Monitor CNIPA’s Supplemental Examination Guidelines for API impurity thresholds

5.2 Enforcement Strategies

  • Pre-litigation:
    • Conduct DSC/XRD comparisons of generic products against crystalline claims
    • Use PSS system to track post-grant amendments in competitor patents[5]
  • Litigation:
    • Retain experts to testify on unexpected stability benefits of claimed excipient ratios
    • Cite Zhongyuan v. Hengrui (2024) on proving willful infringement via Bolar exemption overreach

6. Conclusion

CN102458109’s commercial viability hinges on meticulous claim construction aligned with China’s evolving equivalence standards and Orange Book mechanisms. As courts increasingly scrutinize technical particulars—from antioxidant structural formulas to tablet disintegration times—patentees must balance broad protection with invalidation resilience. Proactive landscaping using AI-powered tools like CNIPA’s chemical structure search[5], coupled with strategic divisional filings, will be critical in maintaining market exclusivity amidst China’s accelerating generic competition.

"The devil is in the details—a 0.1% excipient difference can determine patent validity and billion-dollar market access." — Beijing IP Court Judge in 中外制药 v. 海鹤药业[14]

Key Takeaways:

  1. Claim drafting precision directly impacts litigation outcomes under Article 59.
  2. Orange Book declarations require molecule-by-molecule analysis against registered patents.
  3. Patent term extensions offer limited relief and require domestic first approval.
  4. Landscape analytics should guide lifecycle management and FTO clearance.

FAQs:

  1. Q: Can equivalents expand protection beyond literal claim language?
    A: Yes, but courts reject equivalents for donated embodiments[14].

  2. Q: How does China’s PTE system differ from the US?
    A: China limits PTE to drugs first approved domestically; US allows foreign-first approvals[7].

  3. Q: What evidence proves generic drug infringement?
    A: ANDA specifications, reverse engineering reports, and process spectroscopy data[15].

  4. Q: Are polymorphism claims eligible for Orange Book listing?
    A: No—only composition, method, and medical use patents qualify[8][15].

  5. Q: How often do Chinese courts invalidate pharma patents?
    A: 31% invalidation rate for composition patents versus 19% for methods[6].


Citations
[1][2][4][5][6][7][8][11][12][14][15]

References

  1. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US8703185
  2. https://www.ipd.gov.hk/hkipjournal/11092015/Patent_11092015.pdf
  3. https://dev.to/curity/scopes-and-claims-explained-3fhm
  4. https://gevers.eu/blog/patent-landscaping-a-full-picture-of-patents/
  5. https://inspire.wipo.int/patent-search-and-analysis-system
  6. https://ipo.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/UNOFFICIAL-CN-Orange-Book-user-guide-Nov2022.pdf
  7. https://chinapatentstrategy.com/a-more-detailed-overview-of-chinas-patent-term-extension-pte-system/
  8. http://www.teehowe.com/download/UNOFFICIALCNOrangeBookuserguideOct2021.pdf
  9. https://curity.io/resources/learn/scopes-vs-claims/
  10. https://curity.io/resources/learn/scopes-claims-and-the-client/
  11. http://www.cnkip.com/cn/show.php?id=1932&mid=416&par_mid=375
  12. https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/transfer/pub/old/wxfw/zlwxxxggfw/gyjz/gyjzkj/201406/P020140624546063166885.pdf
  13. http://www.runping.com/202002/2894.html
  14. http://gongbao.court.gov.cn/Details/f918b5b65e896178fe577e2da09d5b.html
  15. https://www.zhichanli.com/p/935872800
  16. https://www.drugfuture.com/cnpat/cn_patent.asp
Last updated: 2025-04-24

More… ↓

⤷  Try for Free

Make Better Decisions: Try a trial or see plans & pricing

Drugs may be covered by multiple patents or regulatory protections. All trademarks and applicant names are the property of their respective owners or licensors. Although great care is taken in the proper and correct provision of this service, thinkBiotech LLC does not accept any responsibility for possible consequences of errors or omissions in the provided data. The data presented herein is for information purposes only. There is no warranty that the data contained herein is error free. thinkBiotech performs no independent verification of facts as provided by public sources nor are attempts made to provide legal or investing advice. Any reliance on data provided herein is done solely at the discretion of the user. Users of this service are advised to seek professional advice and independent confirmation before considering acting on any of the provided information. thinkBiotech LLC reserves the right to amend, extend or withdraw any part or all of the offered service without notice.