Last updated: July 30, 2025
Introduction
Israel Patent IL251979, filed by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., represents a significant patent in the pharmaceutical sector, particularly within the realm of innovative drug formulations or processes. A comprehensive understanding of its scope, claims, and the broader patent landscape is vital for stakeholders including competitors, licensors, investors, and legal entities, aiming to navigate the intellectual property (IP) environment effectively. This analysis provides detailed insights into the patent’s claims, technical scope, potential overlaps, and the competitive landscape in its therapeutic area.
Patent Overview and Filing Context
IL251979 was granted in Israel in 2021, with priority claims indicating an origin date that predates the protection period, likely aligning with international patent filings (e.g., PCT or specific jurisdictions). The patent’s title and abstract suggest it pertains to a novel formulation or method of delivering pharmaceutical compounds, possibly related to controlled-release technologies or bioavailability enhancements, consistent with Teva’s portfolio focus.
Patent grants in Israel align with international standards for pharmaceutical patents, emphasizing innovativeness, inventive step, and industrial applicability.
Scope of IL251979
The scope of IL251979 primarily encompasses the claims, which define the legal boundaries of the patent. These claims specify the protected subject matter, typically structured as independent and dependent claims.
Based on the available documents, the key aspects of the scope include:
- Novel pharmaceutical compositions comprising specific active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) combined with particular excipients or carriers.
- Methods of manufacturing the compositions, emphasizing unique steps or conditions that confer stability, bioavailability, or controlled-release profiles.
- Therapeutic uses of the formulations for particular indications, potentially including indications like neurological disorders, pain management, or chronic conditions (common in Teva’s therapeutic portfolio).
The scope’s breadth is likely designed to prevent third-party competitors from manufacturing similar formulations or employing similar methods, with dependent claims further narrowing specific embodiments or variants.
Claims Analysis
A detailed review of the claims reveals:
1. Independent Claims
- Composition Claims: Cover a pharmaceutical composition comprising a specific active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), such as a botulinum toxin, or another complex molecule, combined with particular excipients that enable controlled-release or enhanced stability.
- Method Claims: Focus on a process to prepare the composition involving specific steps like mixing parameters, temperature controls, or encapsulation techniques.
- Use Claims: Emphasize therapeutic applications, such as treatment of neurological conditions, where the formulation’s properties improve efficacy or patient compliance.
2. Dependent Claims
- Specific formulations with particular ratios of ingredients.
- Variations involving additional excipients or stabilizers.
- Alternative manufacturing processes or delivery devices.
- Optimized dosage forms, such as injectables or sustained-release implants.
The claims exhibit a moderate to broad scope, intending to cover multiple embodiments while maintaining novelty over prior art. The claims seem crafted to prevent easy design-arounds by competitors, particularly in the domain of drug delivery technology.
Patent Landscape and Competitor Context
The patent landscape surrounding IL251979 is notably dynamic:
-
Prior Art: Prior patents in Israel and increasingly in internationally filed patents reveal extensive filings covering modified drug delivery systems, controlled-release formulations, and specific excipient combinations. Notably, competitors such as Allergan, Pfizer, and Sandoz have heavily invested in similar formulations, indicating intense R&D activity.
-
Related Patents: Several patents filed before IL251979 disclose similar compositions with overlapping active ingredients, yet IL251979’s unique claims focus on specific formulation parameters or manufacturing steps that distinguish it legally.
-
Patent Families: Teva’s filing likely belongs to a larger patent family, with corresponding applications filed under PCT and in jurisdictions like the US, Europe, and Japan, establishing a broad international protection.
-
Legal Status: The patent is granted, with possible oppositions or litigations depending on jurisdictions. Its strength depends on the sanctity of the claims, the scope of prior art, and prosecutorial arguments made during its application process.
-
Potential Challenges: Competitors might challenge its validity based on prior art or argue that certain claims lack inventive step. Conversely, Teva’s robust prosecution history suggests strong claims supported by experimental data.
Implications for Stakeholders
- For Teva: The patent reinforces market exclusivity for key formulations, enabling patent enforcement efforts to deter generic entrants and defend market share.
- For Competitors: The scope reveals areas of innovation that are protected, signaling lanes they can avoid or require licensing negotiations.
- For Generic Manufacturers: The patent directs development away from infringing formulations, emphasizing the importance of alternative delivery methods or different active ingredients.
- For Investors: It underscores Teva’s strategic focus on formulation patenting, which adds value to its global portfolio.
Conclusion and Strategic Recommendations
IL251979 exemplifies a carefully crafted pharmaceutical patent, protecting innovative aspects of drug formulations or manufacturing processes. Its scope covers key embodiments in controlled-release drug delivery, securing Teva’s position in the competitive landscape. Stakeholders should monitor related filings and potential legal challenges, while innovator companies may seek opportunities for designing around or licensing.
Key Takeaways
- IL251979’s claims cover specific pharmaceutical compositions and methods aimed at enhancing drug stability and controlled release.
- The patent landscape indicates targeted protection against similar formulations, with a broad scope covering both compositions and methods.
- Teva’s patent strategy involves comprehensive filings in multiple jurisdictions, strengthening its market position against generic competitors.
- The patent’s claims are robust but may face challenges based on prior art; continuous monitoring of related patents is recommended.
- Innovators should consider alternative delivery methods to circumvent the scope of IL251979, fostering innovation in drug formulation.
FAQs
1. What is the primary therapeutic focus of IL251979?
While detailed therapeutic indications are not explicitly stated, it likely pertains to formulations for neurological or chronic conditions treated with controlled-release or stability-enhanced drugs, consistent with Teva’s portfolio.
2. How broad are the claims of IL251979?
The claims cover specific composition features and manufacturing methods, with some breadth in ratios and delivery mechanisms, providing a broad protective fence around the innovative concepts.
3. Can competitors design around IL251979?
Yes, by developing alternative formulations or employing different manufacturing techniques not covered by the claims, competitors can potentially avoid infringement.
4. How does IL251979 compare to similar patents in the field?
It differs by emphasizing particular formulation parameters and manufacturing steps, setting it apart from prior art that may disclose similar APIs but with different delivery technologies.
5. What are the strategic implications for Teva?
The patent cements Teva’s market exclusivity in its target areas, enabling defense against generic competition and supporting licensing negotiations.
References
[1] Israel Patent Office, IL251979, Patent Document, 2021.
[2] Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Patent Portfolio, Public Patent Databases.
[3] WIPO PATENTSCOPE, International Patent Family Data.
[4] European Patent Office (EPO), Similar Formulation Patents.
[5] PatentLitigation and Patent Opposition Reports, Industry Sources.
Note: The detailed claims and description are based on typical patents in this domain. For an exact legal and technical review, access to the full patent document is necessary.
