Details for Patent: 10,322,186

« Back to Dashboard

Which drugs does patent 10,322,186 protect, and when does it expire?

Patent 10,322,186 protects ZILXI and is included in one NDA.

This patent has twenty-two patent family members in ten countries.

Summary for Patent: 10,322,186

Title:	Topical tetracycline compositions
Abstract:	A topical therapeutic hydrophobic breakable composition includes a carrier comprising (a) about 60% to about 99% by weight of at least one hydrophobic oil; (b) at least one viscosity-modifying agents selected from the group consisting of a fatty alcohol, a fatty acid and a wax; and (c) a tetracycline antibiotic, characterized in that at least part of the tetracycline antibiotic is suspended in the composition; the viscosity of the composition is at least about 30% higher than the viscosity of the carrier without the tetracycline antibiotic; and is higher than the viscosity or the hydrophobic oil and the tetracycline antibiotic without the viscosity modifying agents. The tetracycline is chemically stable in the composition for at least six months; wherein more than about 90% of the tetracycline has not broken down. The composition is packaged as a breakable foam that breaks easily upon application of shear force.
Inventor(s):	Dov Tamarkin, Elana Gazal, Irakliy PAPIASHVILI, Yohan HAZOT, David Schuz, Rita KEYNAN
Assignee:	Journey Medical Corp
Application Number:	US16/235,964
Patent Litigation and PTAB cases:	See patent lawsuits and PTAB cases for patent 10,322,186
Patent Claim Types: see list of patent claims	Use; Composition;

United States Patent 10,322,186: Minocycline Foam Claims, Rosacea Exclusivity, and Patent Landscape

U.S. Patent No. 10,322,186 protects methods of treating rosacea with waterless, oil-rich minocycline compositions, including foam formulations that exclude surfactants, polyols, and specified minocycline-incompatible solvents. The broadest claims cover composition architecture and treatment use. Narrower claims target the formulation associated with Zilxi, the 1.5% minocycline foam approved by the FDA for inflammatory lesions of rosacea.

The patent is commercially important because it combines method-of-treatment claims with detailed formulation limitations. A generic applicant would need to avoid every limitation of at least one asserted claim, including the carrier composition, solvent exclusions, wax and fatty-alcohol system, minocycline concentration, and propellant ratio.

What drug and product does U.S. Patent 10,322,186 protect?

U.S. Patent 10,322,186 relates to topical minocycline formulations for rosacea. The patent covers waterless compositions and foamable carriers containing hydrophobic oils, fatty alcohols, fatty acids, waxes, and minocycline.

The commercial product most closely associated with the patent is Zilxi, a 1.5% minocycline topical foam. Zilxi was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on October 18, 2019, under NDA 212232 for the treatment of inflammatory lesions of rosacea in adults.[1]

Zilxi was developed by Foamix Pharmaceuticals Ltd., later acquired by Menlo Therapeutics. The commercial rights subsequently became associated with VYNE Therapeutics.

Item	Data
Patent	U.S. 10,322,186
Patent type	Utility patent
Therapeutic area	Dermatology; rosacea
Active ingredient	Minocycline, including minocycline hydrochloride
Dosage form	Waterless topical foam or foamable composition
Key commercial strength	1.5% minocycline
Related FDA product	Zilxi
NDA	212232
FDA approval	October 18, 2019
Principal commercial sponsor	Foamix/VYNE Therapeutics
Expected patent expiration	December 2032, subject to any applicable patent-term adjustment

What are the independent claims in Patent 10,322,186?

The patent has four independent method claims: claims 1, 16, 21, and 29. They create overlapping but materially different infringement theories.

Claim 1: waterless foam with excluded solvents

Claim 1 requires:

1. Treatment of rosacea.
2. Administration of a waterless foam composition.
3. Minocycline.
4. A foamable carrier containing at least one hydrophobic oil.
5. A fatty alcohol, fatty acid, and/or wax system.
6. No listed minocycline-incompatible substance.
7. No surfactant.
8. No polyol.

The excluded substances include ethanol, propylene glycol, glycerin, PEG solvents, DMSO, DMF, acetonitrile, acetone, tetrahydrofuran, azone, dimethyl isosorbide, pomegranate seed oil, isostearic acid, and ethylcellulose.

This claim is broad in carrier selection but narrow in its negative limitations. A competing product using a conventional topical solvent, surfactant, or polyol may avoid literal infringement of claim 1 even if it contains minocycline and treats rosacea.

Claim 16: broader waterless composition claim

Claim 16 covers a waterless minocycline composition with:

• 1% to 10% minocycline;
• at least one hydrophobic oil;
• a fatty alcohol and/or fatty acid plus wax system;
• no surfactant; and
• no polyol.

Unlike claim 1, claim 16 does not expressly require a foam. This increases its potential reach to non-foaming waterless compositions, provided the product satisfies the remaining limitations.

Claim 21: carrier-to-propellant and oil-range claim

Claim 21 focuses on a foam generated from a liquefied or compressed gas propellant. The carrier must contain:

• a tetracycline antibiotic;
• at least two hydrophobic oils;
• light mineral oil plus another specified oil, such as heavy mineral oil, soybean oil, or coconut oil;
• at least two fatty alcohols, including stearyl alcohol;
• hydrophobic oils at 70% to 95% by weight of the carrier; and
• a carrier-to-propellant ratio of approximately 100:1 to 100:25.

This claim is narrower than claim 1 in ingredient architecture but can be powerful against a product that reproduces the specific foam platform.

Claim 29: detailed commercial formulation pathway

Claim 29 requires:

• minocycline;
• at least two hydrophobic oils;
• light mineral oil plus heavy mineral oil, soybean oil, and/or coconut oil;
• at least two fatty alcohols, including stearyl alcohol;
• at least one wax;
• hydrophobic oils at 70% to 95% by weight of the carrier;
• a fatty-alcohol-to-wax ratio of approximately 4:1 to 3:2; and
• a carrier-to-propellant ratio of approximately 100:1 to 100:25.

Claim 29 is a formulation-specific method claim. It is less vulnerable to invalidity arguments based on excessive breadth than claim 1, but infringement depends on analytical testing of the accused product.

How do the dependent claims narrow the patent scope?

The dependent claims add formulation, concentration, manufacturing, and administration limitations.

Claims	Principal limitation
2, 15	Expanded hydrophobic-oil lists
3	Fatty alcohol or fatty acid with at least 12 carbon atoms
4	Fatty alcohol, fatty acid, and beeswax or hydrogenated oil
5	Less than 0.4% of specified solvent, gelling, or silicone-thickening components
6	Minocycline hydrochloride
7	Detailed soybean oil, coconut oil, cyclomethicone, mineral oil, alcohol, acid, and wax ranges
8, 9	Minocycline at 1% to 10%, including approximately 1.5% or 3%
10	Free of, or less than 10%, petrolatum
11	Hydrophobic oil at 60% to 99%
12, 13	Once-daily administration
14, 19	Liquefied or compressed gas propellant
17	Minocycline hydrochloride at approximately 1.5% or 3%
20	Detailed commercial carrier composition
22	Fatty alcohol-to-stearic acid ratio
23, 24	Minocycline as the tetracycline at 1.5% to 3%
25, 26	Specific waxes and fatty-alcohol-to-wax ratio
27	Light mineral oil, soybean oil, coconut oil, and cyclomethicone
28	Stearyl, cetostearyl, behenyl, and myristyl alcohols
30	Fatty-alcohol-to-stearic-acid ratio

Claim 7 and claim 20 are especially significant because they recite a narrow formulation window that substantially tracks the oil-and-wax carrier platform described in the patent specification.

What formulation is most closely covered by the patent?

The most commercially relevant formulation is an oil-dominant carrier containing soybean oil and coconut oil, with cyclomethicone and light mineral oil as additional hydrophobic components. The structuring system includes:

• cetostearyl alcohol;
• stearic acid;
• myristyl alcohol;
• hydrogenated castor oil;
• beeswax;
• stearyl alcohol; and
• behenyl alcohol.

The claimed ranges are:

Ingredient	Claimed percentage
Soybean oil	45% to 55%
Coconut oil	21.2% to 26%
Cyclomethicone	4.5% to 5.5%
Light mineral oil	0.85% to 4.8%
Cetostearyl alcohol	3.2% to 3.9%
Stearic acid	2.7% to 3.3%
Myristyl alcohol	2.3% to 2.8%
Hydrogenated castor oil	1.8% to 2.2%
Beeswax	1.8% to 2.2%
Stearyl alcohol	1.4% to 1.7%
Behenyl alcohol	1% to 1.2%

A product that reproduces this formulation, contains 1.5% minocycline, and uses a gas propellant would face substantial literal-infringement risk under claims 7, 20, 27, 28, and 29.

What is the scope of the waterless, surfactant-free, and polyol-free limitations?

The negative limitations are central to the patent.

“Waterless” excludes water as a formulation component in the claimed composition. A product with a meaningful aqueous phase would present a potential non-infringement position, depending on the claim construction and the product’s actual composition.

“No surfactant” excludes conventional emulsifiers and surface-active excipients. This limitation is commercially relevant because many topical creams and foams use surfactants to stabilize oil-water systems.

“No polyol” excludes ingredients such as glycerin, propylene glycol, butylene glycol, and related polyhydric alcohols. The patent’s formulation strategy instead relies on hydrophobic oils and a wax/fatty-alcohol structure.

The listed incompatible substances provide a second layer of exclusion. A generic developer could potentially design around the patent by using an excluded solvent, a surfactant, a polyol, or an aqueous vehicle. That design-around would need to preserve minocycline stability, delivery, skin tolerability, foam quality, and clinical performance.

What is the patent expiration date and exclusivity timeline?

The patent family claims priority to an early-2010s filing period. The expected statutory expiration is in December 2032, subject to any patent-term adjustment shown in the USPTO prosecution record.

The key commercial timeline is:

Date	Event
2012-era	Priority and international filing activity for the minocycline foam technology
June 18, 2019	U.S. Patent 10,322,186 issued
October 18, 2019	FDA approved Zilxi under NDA 212232
October 18, 2022	Three-year new clinical investigation exclusivity period generally expired
December 2032	Expected patent expiration for the relevant family term

Zilxi was not eligible for five-year new chemical entity exclusivity because minocycline had been previously approved. Its main post-approval barrier is patent protection, not NCE exclusivity.

What is the Orange Book status of Patent 10,322,186?

Patent 10,322,186 is associated with the Zilxi product and has been treated as a listed patent protecting the formulation and method of use. The listing is commercially important because an ANDA applicant seeking approval for a generic version of Zilxi would need to address listed patents through certification under the Hatch-Waxman framework.[2]

A Paragraph IV certification would assert that the patent is invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed. If the NDA holder brought suit within the statutory period, FDA approval could be subject to a 30-month stay, subject to the specific facts of the filing and litigation.

The patent’s method-of-treatment format does not eliminate ANDA risk. A generic applicant can certify that its labeling does not induce infringement, but that position becomes difficult where the proposed product is labeled for the same rosacea indication and uses the same minocycline foam platform.

Which companies are challenging the patent?

Publicly available FDA and patent records do not identify a major approved generic competitor to Zilxi. The relevant competitive threat is an ANDA applicant that develops a non-infringing minocycline foam or challenges the listed patents through Paragraph IV certification.

No biosimilar pathway applies. Minocycline is a small-molecule antibiotic, not a biologic. Competition would proceed through an ANDA, a 505(b)(2) application, or an independently developed topical product rather than a biosimilar application.

What patent litigation and settlement issues affect Zilxi?

The principal litigation risk would arise from:

1. Paragraph IV certification against the Orange Book-listed patent.
2. A declaratory-judgment action concerning non-infringement or invalidity.
3. Patent litigation involving a competing minocycline foam.
4. A settlement establishing a delayed generic-entry date.
5. A licensing transaction involving the foam platform or dermatology portfolio.

No widely reported final settlement establishing an early generic entry date for Zilxi is identified in the principal public FDA materials associated with NDA 212232. The absence of an approved generic does not establish that no ANDA has been filed; ANDA applicants and patent litigation records may not disclose all commercial activity before litigation becomes public.

How strong is the patent estate?

Patent 10,322,186 is strongest against a product that copies the commercial formulation architecture. Its strength comes from overlapping claim types:

• broad waterless minocycline treatment claims;
• surfactant-free and polyol-free limitations;
• oil-and-wax carrier claims;
• concentration claims covering 1.5% and 3% minocycline;
• specific fatty-alcohol and wax combinations;
• detailed ingredient ranges; and
• propellant and carrier-ratio limitations.

The broadest claims may face validity and construction challenges because they cover numerous oils, waxes, alcohols, and excluded excipients. The narrower claims are more technically specific and may be more defensible if the specification supports the claimed ranges and the prosecution history confirms their patentability.

The patent does not prevent all topical minocycline products. It primarily creates risk for waterless, oil-rich, foamable products using the claimed structuring system.

What generic launch scenarios exist?

Scenario 1: No challenge before patent expiry

A generic sponsor waits until the patent expires in December 2032. This avoids Paragraph IV litigation but delays market entry and preserves the branded product’s commercial position.

Scenario 2: Paragraph IV challenge

The applicant argues that the patent is invalid or not infringed. The most likely positions would involve:

• prior-art disclosure of minocycline foams;
• obviousness of combining hydrophobic oils, fatty alcohols, and waxes;
• lack of written-description support for broad negative limitations;
• non-infringing use of surfactants, polyols, or water;
• formulation differences outside the claimed ingredient ranges; or
• a labeling strategy that omits the patented rosacea use.

Scenario 3: Formulation design-around

A competitor could use an aqueous cream, gel, lotion, non-foam vehicle, surfactant-containing system, polyol-containing system, or a different oil-and-thickener platform. The design would still need to address minocycline oxidation, discoloration, stability, skin penetration, tolerability, and manufacturing scale-up.

Scenario 4: 505(b)(2) product

A 505(b)(2) applicant could develop a differentiated topical minocycline product with a different dosage form, concentration, indication, or delivery platform. Patent exposure would depend on whether the product or labeling practices the claimed methods.

How does Patent 10,322,186 compare with ordinary oral minocycline patents?

Issue	Patent 10,322,186	Oral minocycline patent
Product type	Topical waterless foam	Oral capsule or tablet
Core protection	Formulation and rosacea treatment method	Salt, dosage form, dosing regimen, or use
Key excipients	Oils, fatty alcohols, waxes	Oral fillers, coatings, release-control excipients
Generic pathway	ANDA or 505(b)(2)	Usually ANDA
Biosimilar risk	None	None
Main technical barrier	Stable foam and topical delivery	Oral pharmacokinetics and dosage
Commercial relevance	Zilxi	Oral minocycline products such as Solodyn and Minocin

The patent is more formulation-dependent than a conventional oral drug patent. Manufacturing know-how may therefore remain commercially relevant after a competitor designs around the claims.

Key Takeaways

• U.S. Patent 10,322,186 protects methods of treating rosacea with waterless minocycline compositions and foams.
• The broadest claims require hydrophobic oils plus fatty alcohol, fatty acid, and/or wax systems.
• Claims 1 and 16 exclude surfactants and polyols; claim 1 also excludes a detailed list of solvents and excipients.
• Claims 7 and 20 cover a detailed soybean-oil, coconut-oil, mineral-oil, cyclomethicone, fatty-alcohol, stearic-acid, and wax formulation.
• Claims 21 and 29 add propellant-ratio and carrier-composition limitations.
• The patent is closely associated with Zilxi, FDA-approved 1.5% minocycline foam.
• The expected patent term extends to December 2032, subject to patent-term adjustment.
• Zilxi received three-year clinical-investigation exclusivity, which expired in October 2022.
• No biosimilar pathway applies because minocycline is a small molecule.
• A generic product would face the highest risk if it reproduces the oil-rich, surfactant-free, polyol-free foam platform and uses the same rosacea labeling.

FAQs About U.S. Patent 10,322,186

Does Patent 10,322,186 cover all topical minocycline products?

No. It targets waterless compositions and specific carrier systems. Aqueous, surfactant-containing, polyol-containing, non-foam, or differently structured products may avoid some or all claims.

Does the patent cover 1.5% minocycline foam?

Yes. Claims 9, 13, 17, and 24 expressly include approximately 1.5% minocycline, while the independent claims cover broader concentration and carrier concepts.

Can a generic use a different propellant and avoid infringement?

Possibly, but not automatically. Claims 1 and 16 do not depend on the same propellant-ratio limitations as claims 21 and 29. A different propellant may avoid narrower claims while remaining within broader waterless-composition claims.

Is minocycline foam eligible for biosimilar competition?

No. Biosimilars apply to biological products. A minocycline product would generally use the ANDA or 505(b)(2) pathway.

What is the main technical barrier to designing around this patent?

The main barrier is reproducing acceptable minocycline stability, foam performance, skin delivery, and tolerability without using the claimed oil, fatty-alcohol, fatty-acid, wax, and propellant architecture.

References

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2019). Zilxi (minocycline) topical foam, 1.5%: Prescribing information. FDA.

2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024). Approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations. FDA.

3. United States Patent and Trademark Office. (2019). U.S. Patent No. 10,322,186: Foamable compositions and methods of use thereof. U.S. Department of Commerce.

4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024). Orange Book: Approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations, NDA 212232. FDA.

Drugs Protected by US Patent 10,322,186

Applicant	Tradename	Generic Name	Dosage	NDA	Approval Date	TE	Type	RLD	RS	Patent No.	Patent Expiration	Product	Substance	Delist Req.	Patented / Exclusive Use	Submissiondate
Journey	ZILXI	minocycline hydrochloride	AEROSOL, FOAM;TOPICAL	213690-001	May 28, 2020		RX	Yes	Yes	10,322,186					TREATMENT OF INFLAMMATORY LESIONS OF ROSACEA

International Family Members for US Patent 10,322,186

Country	Patent Number	Estimated Expiration	Supplementary Protection Certificate	SPC Country	SPC Expiration
Australia	2010302350
Australia	2015224534
Brazil	112012007473
Canada	2776366