US Patent 10,927,129: Scope, Claim Structure, and Patent Landscape
US Patent 10,927,129 is a composition-of-matter and formulation patent with claim sets that are structurally dominated by:
1) a compound (and its pharmaceutically acceptable salts), and
2) pharmaceutical compositions that contain the compound (or salt) plus a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier or diluent.
The claims you provided show a repeated motif across claims 1-12. However, the claim text you supplied contains blanks for the actual chemical structures and defining features of the “compound” terms in claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11. Without the missing chemical definitions, the scope can only be assessed at the structural level (what is claimed) and not at the technical boundary level (which structures fall inside the literal scope).
What does the patent claim, in plain scope terms?
Based on your claim excerpts, the patent asserts coverage for:
- Six independent compound claims (claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11) each directed to “a compound” and/or its pharmaceutically acceptable salt.
- Six corresponding formulation claims (claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12) each directed to a pharmaceutical composition comprising:
- a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier or diluent, and
- the compound from the paired earlier claim (and/or its pharmaceutically acceptable salt).
Claim-by-claim scope (structural mapping)
| Claim |
Category |
What it covers (per your text) |
| 1 |
Compound |
“A compound” or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt |
| 2 |
Composition |
Carrier/diluent + compound of claim 1 (or salt) |
| 3 |
Compound |
“A compound” (definition missing in your excerpt) |
| 4 |
Composition |
Carrier/diluent + compound of claim 3 |
| 5 |
Compound |
“A compound” (definition missing in your excerpt) |
| 6 |
Composition |
Carrier/diluent + compound of claim 5 |
| 7 |
Compound |
“A compound” or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt |
| 8 |
Composition |
Carrier/diluent + compound of claim 7 (or salt) |
| 9 |
Compound |
“A compound” (definition missing in your excerpt) |
| 10 |
Composition |
Carrier/diluent + compound of claim 9 |
| 11 |
Compound |
“A compound” (definition missing in your excerpt) |
| 12 |
Composition |
Carrier/diluent + compound of claim 11 |
Immediate scope implication: If the compound definitions in claims 1,3,5,7,9,11 are each different members of a chemical series (as is typical), then the patent creates six separate compound coverage islands, each paired to a six separate composition island.
How broad is the protection?
Literal breadth: formulation claims are generally broad
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 are framed as standard formulation language:
- “a pharmaceutical composition comprising a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier or diluent together with the compound…”
This formulation language is typically broad because:
- It does not limit route of administration (oral, injectable, topical, etc.) in your excerpt.
- It does not limit dosage form (tablet, capsule, suspension, etc.) in your excerpt.
- It allows any “pharmaceutically acceptable” carrier/diluent system.
So, for any compound that is inside the compound claims, the formulation claims likely cover any conventional formulation using any conventional pharmaceutically acceptable carrier/diluent.
Compound-claims breadth depends entirely on missing structural definitions
The “compound” terms in claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 are not shown in your excerpt. The scope could be:
- Very specific (named structures, examples, or Markush-defined substituent patterns), or
- Wider (genus claims using Markush ranges, alternative definitions, or functional group constraints).
Because the actual defining text is missing, the safe, accurate assessment is:
- The patent’s formulation scope is broad at the level of carriers/diluents.
- The patent’s compound scope cannot be quantified (genus vs. narrow exemplars) from the provided claim text alone.
What is the likely patent strategy in US 10,927,129?
Dual coverage: compound and formulation
The pairing of each compound claim with a corresponding composition claim indicates a typical strategy to:
- protect the active ingredient (or salt), and
- protect downstream products (any composition with the active ingredient plus carriers).
Six compound members, each with a formulation
The number pattern (1 and 2; 3 and 4; 5 and 6; 7 and 8; 9 and 10; 11 and 12) implies the patent is not just a single lead compound but multiple discrete chemical targets or multiple alternative structures.
Business implication: If one member of the series is not selected commercially, others may still be protected, which can matter for portfolio coverage, design-around risk, and freedom-to-operate (FTO) planning.
Where are the claim vulnerabilities? (at the structural level)
No explicit limitation visible in the excerpt
Your excerpt shows no explicit limitations like:
- specific substituent patterns, heterocycles, ring systems, or exact substituents in the compound definition lines (they are missing),
- specific salt forms (only “pharmaceutically acceptable salt” is visible for some claims),
- specific dosage regimens, particle sizes, release profiles, or manufacturing parameters.
This means the only explicit constraints we can read from your excerpts are the compound identity and the presence of a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier/diluent.
Salt coverage is partial and claim-dependent
Claims 1 and 7 explicitly include “or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof” in your text. Claims 2 and 8 similarly include salt coverage language.
Claims 3-6 and 9-12 do not show the same “salt” phrase in your excerpt. That does not prove salt coverage is absent (it may exist in the missing compound definitions or elsewhere), but structurally it suggests the salt coverage may vary by claim pair.
What does this mean for enforcing scope in the US?
If the compound is practicing, formulation exposure is likely
If a product contains a compound that falls within any of the compound claims, then formulation claims are typically implicated for almost any commercially used formulation because “pharmaceutically acceptable carrier or diluent” is broad.
Practically, enforcement posture would focus on:
- identifying the compound in the accused product (and whether it matches the compound definition), and
- identifying carrier/diluent inclusion (usually straightforward for drug product formulations).
If the compound is designed around, formulation claims likely fall
If a competitor swaps the active ingredient to a non-claim compound, then formulation claims generally do not attach. In practice, the compound-claim scope controls the entire enforcement engine for this patent family segment.
US Patent 10,927,129: Patent landscape considerations
Your request asks for “patent landscape,” but you did not provide:
- the actual chemical identifiers/structures for the “compound” terms,
- the assignee, applicants, or inventors,
- priority dates,
- whether this is part of a family (continuations, provisionals),
- citations, related patents, or references.
Without those, a complete landscape (family, nearest prior art, INPADOC family, continuations, and overlap with competitor portfolios) cannot be produced in a way that is accurate and decision-grade.
Landscape map at the only defensible level from the excerpt
From claim architecture alone, US 10,927,129 sits in a common enforcement and overlap zone that typically includes:
- Other compound patents in the same chemical series (genus or alternative substitution patterns).
- Salt/polymorph patents tied to specific solid forms.
- Formulation patents tied to specific delivery formats (extended release, specific excipient systems, particle-size control).
- Process patents (less relevant to composition-of-matter enforcement unless inducement/production methods are targeted).
- Device or method-of-use patents if the series also has clinical indications covered elsewhere.
Actionable coverage assessment framework (for investors and R&D)
Because the compound definitions are missing from your excerpt, the only defensible action steps are structural:
1) Treat claim pairs (1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-8, 9-10, 11-12) as six separate risk islands.
2) For each island, identify whether the compound definition is a genus or a finite set.
3) Assume formulation claims are broad unless the missing compound definition or specification imposes limits.
4) Assess salt coverage per claim pair based on whether the “pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof” phrase appears (as it does in claims 1, 2, 7, 8 in your text).
What is the scope you can rely on from the provided claims?
Guaranteed scope elements
From your excerpts alone, you can rely on these elements as definitely claimed:
- The patent includes compound claims for defined “compounds” and at least some pharmaceutically acceptable salts.
- The patent includes pharmaceutical composition claims comprising:
- a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier or diluent, and
- the compound and/or salt.
Not reliably determined from your excerpt
- The exact chemical identity boundaries of each “compound” claim.
- Whether compound claims are Markush broad genus ranges vs. narrow exemplars.
- Whether salt coverage is present in claims 3-6 and 9-12 beyond what your excerpt shows.
- Whether there are additional dependent claims not provided.
Key Takeaways
- US 10,927,129 claims six compound members (claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11) and six matching formulation claims (claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12).
- The formulation scope is structurally broad: it uses “pharmaceutically acceptable carrier or diluent” language without visible dosage-form or route limits in your excerpts.
- The compound scope breadth cannot be quantified from the provided text because the defining chemical structures/features are missing from the “compound” lines.
- Salt coverage is explicitly visible for claims 1/2 and 7/8 in your excerpt; salt coverage for claims 3-6 and 9-12 is not shown in what you provided.
FAQs
1) Do claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 cover any dosage form?
They cover compositions containing the claimed compound plus a “pharmaceutically acceptable carrier or diluent.” Your excerpt does not impose dosage-form limits.
2) Are there multiple active ingredients covered?
Yes. The patent structure shows six separate compound claims (1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11), each with a corresponding composition claim.
3) Does the patent protect salts?
Your excerpt explicitly includes “pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof” in claims 1, 2, 7, 8. Salt coverage for other claims is not visible in the text you provided.
4) What determines whether a competitor’s product infringes?
For this patent, infringement hinges on whether the competitor’s active ingredient falls within the compound definitions in claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, because the formulation claims are then satisfied by inclusion in a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier/diluent.
5) Can the formulation claims be avoided by changing excipients?
If the active compound remains inside the compound claim scope, merely changing excipients is unlikely to avoid a formulation claim that broadly covers “pharmaceutically acceptable carrier or diluent.”
References
[1] United States Patent and Trademark Office. US Patent 10,927,129 (claims as provided by the user excerpt).
