United States Patent 10,130,685: Dry Powder Therapeutic Composition Using “4-aminobutyl” Heterocyclic Carboxylate Anions (Scope, Claim Coverage, and Patent Landscape)

Executive summary

US 10,130,685 claims a broad dry powder therapeutic composition defined by (i) a biologically active agent and (ii) a specific heterocyclic “pharmaceutically acceptable anion of a heterocyclic compound” carrying a “-4-aminobutyl” motif (succinate-4-aminobutyl, glutarate-4-aminobutyl, maleate-4-aminobutyl, citraconate-4-aminobutyl, malonate-4-aminobutyl, oxalate-4-aminobutyl, fumarate-4-aminobutyl), plus (iii) at least one cation selected from a defined list (with sodium singled out). Dependent claims narrow to (a) terminal carboxylate, (b) solvent removal with specific processing techniques (spray drying, distillation, evaporation, lyophilization), (c) micronized/controlled particle properties and pulmonary suitability (including rugosity limits and particle size cutoffs), and (d) microparticle compositions and solid dosage forms. The claim set is positioned to capture both formulation and process embodiments that convert an initial solution (drug + specified anion + cation) into a dry powder, including inhalable particle engineering.

What is US 10,130,685 and what does claim 1 actually cover?

Claim 1 is the independent claim and sets the patent’s core composition/process boundary. It requires all of the following:

Dry powder therapeutic composition
Biologically active agent (defined broadly in claim 10, but claim 1 itself is already “biologically active agent” without limiting the class)
Pharmaceutically acceptable anion of a heterocyclic compound according to “Formula 1” where:
- R1 or R2 are independently one of:
  - succinate-4-aminobutyl
  - glutarate-4-aminobutyl
  - maleate-4-aminobutyl
  - citraconate-4-aminobutyl
  - malonate-4-aminobutyl
  - oxalate-4-aminobutyl
  - fumarate-4-aminobutyl
- E1 and E2 are NH
The anion further comprises at least one cation (so the salt/ion-pair system is not “anion alone”)
At least one cation is included, and claim 8 further limits the cation list.

Interpretation impact for freedom-to-operate (FTO):

The invention is not only a dry powder. It is a specific ion/salt architecture: an anion described by a heterocyclic “Formula 1” with E1 and E2 as NH and with R1/R2 substituted by one of the enumerated “X-4-aminobutyl” groups.
The “dry powder” is tied to an ion-associated formulation that can be manufactured from solution (see claim 3) and potentially processed into pulmonary-ready particles (see claims 11-18).

How do claims 2 and 3 refine claim 1’s salt architecture?

Claim 2: “At least one carboxylate functional group is a terminal carboxylate functional group.”
This narrows the anion’s substitution/positioning of carboxylate groups within the covered heterocycle/anion structure.
Claim 3: The dry powder is “formed by removal of a solvent from a solution containing”:
- the biologically active agent
- the pharmaceutically acceptable anion (as in claim 1)
- the at least one cation

This is an important claim structure for manufacturing attribution. If a competitor makes the same final dry powder but by a route not matching solvent removal from a solution containing all three components, claim 3 can be a non-infringing workaround, while claim 1 may still capture the end product if it meets the structural/functional definition of claim 1.

How broad is the anion definition in claim 1?

High-level: broad on the biologically active agent, narrow on the anion identity. The most actionable boundary is the heterocyclic “Formula 1” with:

E1 = NH and E2 = NH
R1 or R2 chosen from a fixed list of “dicarboxylate-type”-substituted 4-aminobutyl motifs (succinate, glutarate, maleate, citraconate, malonate, oxalate, fumarate)
“Pharmaceutically acceptable” is a typical but potentially litigated limiter, yet it usually tracks salt selection for formulation tolerability.

Substitution logic embedded in “R1 or R2 are independently selected”

Claim 1 says R1 or R2 are independently selected, implying:

the heterocycle can carry one or two substituents from the enumerated list (depending on how “Formula 1” is drawn in the specification).
If R1 and R2 are both variable positions, the claim may cover mixed-substituent variants (subject to how the formula defines E1/E2 and substitution sites).

For patent scope, this matters because an accused product with a close “look-alike” anion that swaps one substituent category could avoid literal coverage if the anion no longer uses the enumerated R groups, or if E1/E2 are not NH.

What manufacturing processes are claimed for making the dry powder?

Claims 3-7 create a process funnel that ties the composition to standard dry powder manufacturing operations, all starting from a solution containing the three components.

Claim 3: solvent removal from a solution containing drug + the specified anion + cation
Claim 4: solvent removal by spray drying
Claim 5: solvent removal by distillation
Claim 6: solvent removal by evaporation
Claim 7: solvent removal by lyophilization

Competitive risk profile from a process standpoint

If a competitor uses a different unit operation that still produces the same final product structure, infringement may still be asserted under claim 1, but claim 3-7 are the easiest hooks for process-based proof. If a competitor can demonstrate the dry powder is not “formed by removal of a solvent from a solution containing…” those components, it can try to de-risk the manufacturing pathway.

Which cations are covered by the salt in claim 1?

Claim 1 requires “at least one cation,” but claim 8 limits it to a closed list:

sodium
potassium
calcium
magnesium
lithium
triethylamine
butylamine
diethanolamine
triethanolamine

Claim 9 further narrows to sodium.

Practical implication

If an accused formulation uses the same anion and dry powder architecture but pairs it with a different cation not on the claim 8 list, the case for literal infringement weakens for dependent claims 8/9 but may still exist under claim 1 depending on how “at least one cation” is interpreted in combination with “pharmaceutically acceptable.”
If claim 1 is construed to include any cation, claim 8 becomes a limitation for dependent coverage only. If claim 1 is construed as inherently tied to “at least one cation” without being restricted to the list, then claim 8 is a narrowing dependent claim.

What biologically active agents are in scope?

Claim 10 is a broad list:

hormones
anticoagulants
immunomodulating agents
cytotoxic agents
antibiotics
antivirals
antisense
anti-inflammatories
vasoactive agents
neuroactive agents
cannabinoids
antigens
antibodies and active fragments/analogues

This list does not limit claim 1 to those categories, but it signals the intended breadth of biologically active agent coverage. It also increases the likelihood that the patent will be asserted against multiple therapeutic product teams if their formulation matches the anion/cation architecture and dry powder definition.

Do the claims cover pulmonary delivery?

Yes. Claims 11-18 create pulmonary-specific particle engineering coverage layered onto claim 1’s composition.

Claim 11-13: micronizing and rugosity

Claim 11: dry powder prepared by micronizing a solid
Claim 12: particles “suitable for pulmonary delivery”
Claim 13: particles have rugosity < 2

This trio is significant because “micronizing” and “rugosity” are measurable attributes that can be tested. A competitor could try to avoid by choosing a different particle creation method or by producing particles with rugosity not less than 2, though the endpoint “suitable for pulmonary delivery” can be litigated.

Claim 14-18: microparticles, size cutoffs, and pulmonary suitability

Claim 14: dry powder comprises microparticles
Claim 15: at least 50% of microparticles have diameter < 5 μm
Claim 16: at least 70% of microparticles have diameter < 5 μm
Claim 17: microparticles have rugosity < 2
Claim 18: microparticles suitable for pulmonary delivery

These are classic “distribution-based” product parameters. They can be used offensively: if an accused product’s PSD (particle size distribution) and rugosity fall inside the numeric thresholds, claim coverage is more straightforward.

Does the patent cover solid dosage forms?

Claim 19: the dry powder is formulated into a solid dosage form.
This captures downstream packaging into inhalation devices, capsules, tablets, or other solid dosage formats, depending on the specification and how “solid dosage form” is interpreted. It also reduces the chance that a competitor avoids infringement by only supplying dry powder without the final dosage integration.

Claim map: coverage by requirement (literal infringement checklist)

Claim element (high level)	What must be present in accused product/process	Main infringement leverage
Dry powder therapeutic composition	Solid dry particulate formulation	End product testing
Biologically active agent	Any biologically active agent in claim 1 definition	Broad drug-agnostic scope
Specific anion per Formula 1 with R1/R2 and E1/E2	Exact heterocycle identity with NH at E1/E2 and R groups in listed set	Structural chemistry and salt characterization
Salt includes at least one cation	Presence of cation counterion/association	Salt characterization (NMR, MS, crystallography)
Solvent removal from solution (claims 3-7)	Manufacturing route involves solvent removal starting from solution containing all key components	Process records, batch manufacturing, expert analysis
Spray drying / distillation / evaporation / lyophilization	Specific solvent removal unit operations	Factory process proof
Terminal carboxylate functional group (claim 2)	Carboxylate substitution geometry	Chemical structure confirmation
Cation list (claim 8) and sodium (claim 9)	Specific cation type	Salt selection and formulation chemistry
Micronizing solids (claim 11) and pulmonary suitability (claim 12)	Particle production pathway and intended pulmonary utility	Manufacturing method and performance studies
Rugosity < 2	Surface roughness metric	Particle testing, microscopy methods
Microparticles with PSD thresholds (<5 μm cutoffs)	Quantitative PSD compliance	Cascade impactor/laser diffraction results
Solid dosage form (claim 19)	Dry powder used to create solid dosage	Product form factor

What does this patent claim strategy suggest about the underlying technology?

The combination of:

defined heterocyclic “4-aminobutyl” carboxylate anions
salt pairing with specified cations
solution-to-dry powder manufacturing routes (spray drying, lyophilization, etc.)
pulmonary-ready particle engineering (size distribution and rugosity)

…indicates a platform directed at stabilizing and delivering biologically active agents in a dry powder form, likely focused on inhalation and/or other pulmonary routes. The presence of rugosity and <5 μm PSD cutoffs signals a focus on aerosolization performance.

Where are the likely gaps and workarounds in literal scope?

Workarounds cluster around the claim’s three most rigid pillars: anion identity, cation identity, and quantitative particle properties.

Anion substitution outside the enumerated R1/R2 set
Using a different “X-4-aminobutyl” substituent not listed in claim 1 could avoid literal coverage if the chemistry departs from the enumerated list or if E1/E2 are not NH.
Different cation than the claim 8 list
If a competitor uses an off-list cation while still using the same anion architecture, claim 8/9 are avoided; claim 1 coverage depends on whether claim 1 is interpreted as unrestricted beyond “at least one cation.”
Avoiding numeric particle thresholds
If an accused pulmonary product fails the <5 μm 50% or 70% thresholds, fails rugosity < 2, or uses a particle production method not captured by “micronizing a solid,” dependent claims 11-18 may be avoided even if composition-level claim 1 is met.
Manufacturing route not matching claim 3
If the dry powder is generated without solvent removal from a solution containing drug + the specified anion + cation, claims 3-7 may be harder to prove. That does not necessarily avoid claim 1 end-product infringement if the final composition matches.

Patent landscape analysis: how to view US 10,130,685 in the broader dry powder salt/formulation space

Because the prompt provides only claim text and not the patent’s bibliographic data (assignee, filing date, specification support, related continuations), a full landscape across family members and citation network cannot be produced without risking inaccuracies. What can be stated from the claim architecture alone is how it typically positions relative to other formulation patents in the US market:

Likely claim overlap zones with other formulation patents

Salt form patents: patents claiming specific drug-anion salt systems for stability and bioavailability often overlap on the salt identity piece. US 10,130,685’s novelty appears aimed at a specific heterocyclic anion “platform” rather than a single drug salt.
Dry powder inhalation patents: particle size distribution, rugosity, and pulmonary suitability are common in inhalation DPI patents. This patent adds a specific salt framework plus defined cation choices.
Process patents for spray drying/lyophilization: solvent removal methods are frequently claimed. Here, the process claims are tied to the specific anion/cation and drug solution starting composition.

Likely enforcement focus

In litigation, this type of patent typically enforces against:

competitors using the same anion/cation salt architecture in dry powders
pulmonary products where particle PSD and rugosity are within the claimed ranges
companies that can be tied to spray-drying or lyophilization routes starting from the claimed solution composition

Key Takeaways

US 10,130,685 claims a dry powder therapeutic composition defined by a specific heterocyclic “Formula 1” anion with R1/R2 selected from enumerated X-4-aminobutyl groups and E1/E2 = NH, paired with at least one cation.
Dependent claims add enforceable narrowing around:
- terminal carboxylate functionality (claim 2)
- solvent removal from a drug + anion + cation solution, including spray drying, distillation, evaporation, and lyophilization (claims 3-7)
- specific cations list, including sodium (claims 8-9)
- pulmonary particle engineering, including micronizing, rugosity <2, and <5 μm PSD thresholds (claims 11-18)
- formulation into solid dosage form (claim 19)
Freedom-to-operate risk concentrates on matching the anion structure, cation choice, and for DPI, the PSD and rugosity numeric limits.

FAQs

What is the most important claim limitation to avoid literal infringement of US 10,130,685?
Matching (or not matching) the specific heterocyclic anion “Formula 1” with E1/E2 = NH and R1/R2 selected from the enumerated X-4-aminobutyl groups.
Does US 10,130,685 require a specific biologically active agent?
No. Claim 1 is drug-agnostic; claim 10 lists example classes, but the independent claim’s biologically active agent requirement is not limited to one molecule.
Which dry powder manufacturing methods are explicitly covered?
Spray drying, distillation, evaporation, and lyophilization, all via solvent removal from a solution containing the drug, anion, and cation (claims 3-7).
How are pulmonary DPI claims quantified in this patent?
Microparticle content with PSD thresholds (<5 μm), rugosity <2, and a “suitable for pulmonary delivery” suitability requirement (claims 12-18).
Can a competitor avoid dependent claims 8-9 by using a different cation?
Yes for literal coverage of the cation-limited dependent claims; claim 1 still requires “at least one cation,” so the independence-vs-dependency interpretation matters for overall risk.

References

No sources were provided or cited because the prompt contains only claim text and does not include patent bibliographic identifiers (assignee, filing/publication numbers, family members), prosecution history, or external records needed to cite authoritative documents.

Country	Patent Number	Estimated Expiration	Supplementary Protection Certificate	SPC Country	SPC Expiration
Australia	2005277041	⤷ Start Trial
Brazil	122019022692	⤷ Start Trial
Brazil	PI0514293	⤷ Start Trial
Canada	2578175	⤷ Start Trial
China	101027057	⤷ Start Trial
>Country	>Patent Number	>Estimated Expiration	>Supplementary Protection Certificate	>SPC Country	>SPC Expiration

Details for Patent: 10,130,685

Summary for Patent: 10,130,685