|
Patent landscape, scope, and claims: |
Scope, Claims, and US Patent Landscape for US 11,013,809
US 11,013,809 covers a long-acting injectable (LAI) pharmaceutical composition where risperidone base is formulated in a solution containing (i) an 80/20 poly(DL-lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) with a carboxy terminal group and (ii) one or more specified solvents/excipients selected from a large Markush list. The patent also claims dose levels, PLGA molecular weight ranges, and clinical performance attributes (steady state from 4 to 6 weeks; therapeutic plasma levels after injection), plus treatment methods for schizophrenia (and broader “mental conditions” in dependent claims), including once-per-month subcutaneous injection and absence of supplemental daily oral risperidone for specified time windows.
What does US 11,013,809 claim, in scope terms?
What is the protected product concept?
The independent claim (claim 1) is a composition claim that defines four essential elements:
- Drug: risperidone base in a solution.
- Polymer: 80/20 PLGA copolymer that has a carboxy terminal group.
- Vehicle/solvent: N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, 2-pyrrolidone, N,N-dimethylformamide, dimethyl sulfoxide, propylene carbonate, caprolactam, triacetin, ethanol, glycerin, propylene glycol, butanol, acetone, diethyl ketone, methyl ethyl ketone, 2-ethoxyethyl acetate, ethyl acetate, methyl acetate, ethyl lactate, ethyl butyrate, diethyl malonate, diethyl glutaconate, tributyl citrate, diethyl succinate, tributyrin, isopropyl myristate, dimethyl adipate, dimethyl succinate, dimethyl oxalate, dimethyl citrate, triethyl citrate, acetyl tributyl citrate, glyceryl triacetate, dimethylacetamide, tetrahydrofuran, solketal, oleic acid, 1-dodecylazacycloheptan-2-one, ethylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, glycerol formal, glycofurol, dimethyl sulfone, epsilon-caprolactone, butyrolactone, diacetin, N,N-dimethyl-m-toluamide, benzyl alcohol, benzyl benzoate, dipropylene glycol, ethyl oleate, isopropyl myristate, isopropyl palmitate, oleic acid, polyethylene glycol, or a combination of two or more.
- Combination flexibility: the solvent/excipient element is a broad Markush group (select one or two or more).
The second-level scope is set by dependent claims that narrow:
- solvent selection (e.g., DMSO-only in claim 2; multi-solvent list in claim 3),
- risperidone base amount(s),
- PLGA molecular weight windows, and
- solution weight fraction windows of polymer vs solvent.
What are the material limitations that most affect infringement risk?
Key “hard” numerical and structural constraints are:
- PLGA composition and end-group: strictly 80/20 lactide:glycolide and carboxy terminal group. (Claim 1 and all dependent claims that incorporate it.)
- PLGA molecular weight range: 10,000 to 45,000 Da (claim 14); narrower 15,000 to 40,000 Da (claim 15).
- Risperidone base loading:
- “about” dosage anchors: 90 mg or 120 mg (claim 4),
- and multiple “about” dose embodiments: 30/60/90/120/180 mg (claims 18-22),
- broader bands: 3 to 300 mg (claim 23), 9 to 900 mg (claim 24),
- and weight fraction ranges:
- 10 to 50 wt% (claim 6),
- 10 to 30 wt% (claim 7),
- 10 to 20 wt% (claim 8),
- about 15 wt% (claim 9).
- Solution wt% polymer vs solvent fraction:
- 45/55 split of (i)/(ii) (claim 10),
- broad: 10 to 70 wt% polymer (i) and 10 to 70 wt% solvent (ii) (claim 11),
- narrower: 20 to 70 wt% polymer (i) and 30 to 70 wt% solvent (ii) (claim 12),
- tight: 40 to 50 wt% polymer and 50 to 60 wt% solvent (claim 13).
- Clinical effect constraints in method claims (not in claim 1):
- steady-state plasma levels from 4 to 6 weeks (claim 5),
- therapeutic plasma levels immediately after injection (claim 27).
- Dosing regimen constraints:
- subcutaneous once per month (claim 17),
- no supplemental daily oral risperidone (claim 25),
- and no supplemental daily oral risperidone for first 21 days (claim 26).
These constraints define where a competitor must either (a) match all elements of a particular independent/dependent claim or (b) design around at the structural/polymer level, at the solvent selection level, at the dosing regimen level, or at the claimed clinical outcome level for the method claims.
Claim-by-claim scope map (what each claim adds)
Independent claim
Claim 1 (composition)
- Risperidone base + solution containing:
- (i) 80/20 PLGA with carboxy terminal group
- (ii) one or more from the extensive solvent/excipient Markush list.
Dependent composition claims (vehicle composition and loading)
- Claim 2: (ii) comprises dimethyl sulfoxide.
- Claim 3: (ii) comprises a specific multi-component subset including N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, dimethyl sulfoxide, N,N-dimethylformamide, acetone, ethyl acetate, tributyl citrate, diethyl succinate, triethyl citrate, acetyl tributyl citrate, glyceryl triacetate, dimethylacetamide, epsilon-caprolactone, or combinations.
- Claim 4: composition comprises about 90 mg or about 120 mg risperidone base.
- Claim 6: risperidone base is 10 to 50 wt%.
- Claim 7: risperidone base is 10 to 30 wt%.
- Claim 8: risperidone base is 10 to 20 wt%.
- Claim 9: risperidone base is about 15 wt%.
- Claim 10: solution is about 45 wt% (i) and about 55 wt% (ii).
- Claim 11: solution is 10 to 70 wt% (i) and 10 to 70 wt% (ii).
- Claim 12: solution is 20 to 70 wt% (i) and 30 to 70 wt% (ii).
- Claim 13: solution is 40 to 50 wt% (i) and 50 to 60 wt% (ii).
- Claim 14: PLGA molecular weight 10,000 to 45,000 Da.
- Claim 15: PLGA molecular weight 15,000 to 40,000 Da.
Method claims (treatment, regimen, and clinical profile attributes)
- Claim 16: treating schizophrenia by administering a therapeutically effective amount of claim 1 composition.
- Claim 17: administering by subcutaneous injection once per month.
- Claim 18-22: therapeutically effective amounts with specific “about” doses:
- 30/60/90/120/180 mg risperidone base.
- Claim 23: 3 to 300 mg risperidone base.
- Claim 24: 9 to 900 mg risperidone base.
- Claim 25: patient is not given supplemental daily oral risperidone.
- Claim 26: patient is not given supplemental daily oral risperidone for first 21 days.
- Claim 27: method provides therapeutic plasma risperidone levels immediately after injection.
- Claim 28: treatment of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, Tourette syndrome, or autistic spectrum disorder with claim 1 composition.
- Claim 29: bipolar disorder embodiment.
- Claim 30: autistic spectrum disorder embodiment.
How broad is the solvent/excipient element?
What is the effective “scope size” of claim 1’s Markush solvent element?
The claim 1 Markush list is unusually wide: it includes multiple polar aprotic solvents (DMF, DMSO, NMP), lactones (epsilon-caprolactone, butyrolactone), esters and triglyceride-like plasticizers (triacetin, tributyl citrate), common pharmaceutically acceptable solvents (acetone, ethyl acetate, THF), and high-HLB carriers (polyethylene glycol). It also includes lipophilic fatty acids and their analogs (oleic acid; isopropyl myristate; isopropyl palmitate; ethyl oleate).
Practical result: an accused product that still uses:
- risperidone base (not a salt such as risperidone in different form),
- 80/20 PLGA with carboxy end groups, and
- any of the enumerated solvents (alone or in combination)
is likely to fall within the claim 1 composition scope even if the formulation differs materially in the specific solvent mixture.
Where do dependent claims still narrow?
Dependent claims do narrow in two ways:
- specific solvent selections (claims 2 and 3), and
- quantitative formulation windows (wt% polymer/solvent and wt% risperidone base).
A design-around that swaps to a solvent not listed in claim 1 could be a direct route out of the claim 1 solvent element. A swap of PLGA end-group away from “carboxy terminal” is a different high-value lever because it changes the polymer element rather than the solvent element.
What does the patent landscape likely look like for LAI risperidone PLGA depot products?
Where the patent sits in the typical LAI patent structure
Even without file wrappers here, the claim drafting pattern is consistent with LAI “formulation + regimen” protection:
- composition claim capturing polymer identity + solvent selection + drug form, and
- method claims capturing clinical dosing schedule and plasma profile and use without oral supplementation.
This structure creates a landscape with three “layers” of potential overlap:
- Polymer depot technology patents (PLGA chemistry, end groups, molecular weight ranges).
- Specific risperidone depot formulation patents (drug form and solvent system).
- Use and regimen patents (monthly injection schedules, no oral overlap, plasma timing).
Typical claim competition dynamics
For a competitor product to avoid US 11,013,809:
- matching claim 1 is enough for composition infringement risk,
- matching claim 16-30 is enough for method infringement risk (even if the composition differs), but the method claims incorporate both regimen and outcome attributes (immediate therapeutic levels; steady-state window),
- dependent claims carve narrower embodiments that a competitor could inadvertently land in if they match a specific dose strength or weight ratio.
Landscape analysis by “attack and defense” points (what matters most)
1) Polymer identity is the cleanest design-around lever
Claim 1 requires 80/20 PLGA with carboxy terminal group. If an accused formulation uses:
- a different PLGA ratio (not 80/20),
- a different terminal functionality (not carboxy),
- or a polymer outside the molecular weight windows in claims 14-15 (for narrower dependent embodiments),
the claim scope likely narrows quickly.
2) The solvent Markush is broad; swapping solvents is harder unless it exits the list
Because claim 1 allows any one or more of many solvents/excipients, a competitor can’t rely on minor solvent changes that remain inside the listed set. To avoid claim 1 directly, a solvent system would need to move outside the enumerated list.
3) Clinical/regimen method claims narrow by practice pattern
For method claims 16-27, a competitor can avoid by changing:
- administration route (claim 17 requires subcutaneous),
- dosing frequency (claim 17 requires once per month),
- or oral supplementation practice (claims 25-26).
The “plasma timing” limitations (claims 5 and 27) are also a constraint tied to pharmacokinetic outcomes, which typically makes infringement more fact-intensive than pure compositional comparison.
What is the practical claim hierarchy and likely infringement shape?
Composition-first coverage
If a competitor product matches the polymer and solvent elements and uses risperidone base in a solution meeting claim 1, the product fits the broadest independent claim regardless of the exact dose strength in claims 4 and 18-22, unless the dose strength is used only as dependent claim limiting.
Dependent claim “snap-ins” that increase exposure
Even if the core formulation fits claim 1, exposure increases if the product is marketed/used in a way that also:
- uses PLGA within 10,000-45,000 Da (claim 14) or 15,000-40,000 Da (claim 15),
- uses ~15 wt% risperidone base or uses specific depot composition splits (claims 9, 10, 13),
- and aligns with monthly subcutaneous dosing with no oral risperidone overlap (claims 17, 25-26).
Key takeaways
- US 11,013,809 centers on LAI risperidone base formulated with 80/20 PLGA (carboxy-terminated) and a broad enumerated solvent/excipient Markush, making the polymer identity the highest-impact design-around lever.
- The claim set covers both composition and treatment/regimen, including monthly subcutaneous injection, no supplemental oral risperidone for defined periods, and pharmacokinetic timing.
- The solvent list in claim 1 is extensive, so many “minor” vehicle changes may not remove risk if they remain inside the enumerated set.
- Dependent claims lock in specific wt% formulations, PLGA molecular weight windows, and dose strengths, increasing exposure for products that match common depot formulation targets.
FAQs
1) Does claim 1 cover risperidone base only, not risperidone salts?
Yes. Claim 1 explicitly recites risperidone base as the drug form.
2) Is the solvent system fixed in claim 1?
No. Claim 1 uses a Markush list that permits one or more solvents/excipients from the enumerated set.
3) Is the polymer composition strictly limited?
Yes. Claim 1 requires 80/20 PLGA and specifies a carboxy terminal group.
4) Do method claims require monthly subcutaneous administration?
Yes. Claim 17 specifies subcutaneous injection once per month.
5) Can a product avoid method infringement by using oral overlap?
Yes for those dependent method claims. Claims 25 and 26 require no supplemental daily oral risperidone, including a first 21 days limitation for claim 26.
References
[1] US Patent No. 11,013,809 (claims as provided in prompt).
More… ↓
⤷ Start Trial
|
