|
Patent landscape, scope, and claims: |
Scope and Claims Analysis of US Drug Patent 11,160,786 (Rapidly Dispersible 3D-Printed Porous Bound Matrix Dosage Forms)
US 11,160,786 covers a specific class of rapidly dispersible solid oral dosage forms built from a three-dimensionally printed, porous, uncompressed and bound matrix with tightly defined composition ranges, dispersion performance, and mechanical-hardness/storage constraints. The claims are drafted to combine (i) 3D printing structure (incremental layers, interior/exterior hardness gradient, binder introduction route), (ii) formulation composition (high water-soluble drug fraction plus defined disintegrant/glycerin/binder ranges, with optional antioxidants, surfactants, glidants, flavors, preservatives), and (iii) functional performance (rapid dispersion in water or saliva within ~15 seconds in ≤15 mL, with hardness 2–9 kp, moisture limits, and stability parameters).
Because your prompt provides the claim set but not the patent’s full specification, prosecution history, and family/jurisdiction details, this analysis is restricted to the provided claim language.
What does US 11,160,786 claim cover, and what is the core invention scope?
Answer: A rapidly dispersible, 3D-printed, porous, uncompressed and bound matrix dosage form with a defined high fraction of water-soluble drug, specific disintegrants, limited glycerin and binder ranges, and performance thresholds for dispersion time, hardness, moisture, and drug stability.
Core claim 1 elements (scope-defining combination)
Claim 1 is an “AND” combination of structural/formulation/performance limitations:
Dosage form type
- “rapidly dispersible solid dosage form”
- “three-dimensionally-printed”
- “porous, uncompressed and bound matrix”
Composition ranges
- 50–80% wt water soluble drug
- 3–35% wt disintegrant selected from:
- microcrystalline cellulose (MCC)
- cross-linked polyvinylpyrrolidone
- croscarmellose
- sodium starch glycolate
- or combinations
- glycerin 0.05–5% wt of the matrix
- 0.5–20% wt binder that is:
- water soluble, aqueous fluid soluble, partially water soluble, or partially aqueous fluid soluble
Binding mechanism
- particles bound by at least one of:
- binder, and
- water-soluble drug
This is a key conceptual limiter. It supports processes where drug itself contributes to binding or where binder binds particles, or both.
Dispersion performance
- matrix disperses in about 15 sec or less
- in a volume of about 15 mL or less
- in water or saliva
Mechanical and handling constraint
- “sufficient hardness to endure handling and storage”
What claim 1 does not require (but may be implicitly satisfied)
- It does not require any specific taste-masking, sweetener, or flavor by default.
- It does not require preservative unless dependent claim 5 is selected and includes preservatives optionally.
- It does not define manufacturing apparatus specifics beyond printing and the binder introduction routes in dependent claims.
Scope implications of the claim-1 “stack”
The claim is broad at the platform level but tight at the parameter level. Competitors can face infringement risk if they match the full claim combination, even if they change one ingredient or one performance parameter.
Key “knockout” variables:
- Water-soluble drug fraction must be 50–80% wt.
- Disintegrant identity must fall within the listed set.
- Binder functionality must fall into the defined solubility class.
- Dispersion must hit ≤15 seconds in ≤15 mL water/saliva.
- Mechanical hardness must be sufficient (and dependent claims quantify hardness).
How are dependent claims narrowing scope and creating design-around paths?
Is an antioxidant required? Claim 2
- Adds: 0.005–5.0% wt antioxidant.
- Optionality depends on whether you’re analyzing claim coverage as written. As a dependent claim, it narrows claim 1 to formulations that also contain antioxidant in the recited band.
Design-around logic
- Removing antioxidants entirely could avoid claim 2 but would not avoid claim 1, absent other missing elements.
Is oxidative stability required? Claim 3
- Adds: matrix includes limitation of oxidative degradant ≤0.1% after storage:
- 21°C for six months at 75% RH
This claim ties formulation and stability data to a numeric threshold.
Design-around logic
- If a competitor’s product exceeds the oxidative degradant threshold, it may avoid claim 3 but may still remain within claim 1 if claim 3 is not asserted.
Does the matrix have a hardness gradient? Claims 4 and 14
- Claim 4: interior and exterior, with exterior harder than interior.
- Claim 14 repeats the same concept.
Design-around logic
- Producing a uniform hardness matrix (or interior harder than exterior) can be a direct avoidance path for those dependent claims while keeping claim 1 intact.
What optional excipients become available when surfactant is used? Claim 5
- Claim 5: matrix further comprises one or more surfactants.
- Optionally includes:
- glidants
- flavorants
- preservatives
This adds a common “oral solid manufacturing” toolkit.
Quantitative excipient bands when surfactant/glidant/antioxidant are selected: Claim 6
- Surfactant: 0.05–1% wt based on final dosage form weight
- Antioxidant: 0.005–5.0% wt based on final dosage form weight
- Glidant: 0.1–2.0% wt
- Drug load: 250–1000 mg of the drug
Design-around logic
- Using zero surfactant avoids claim 5/6.
- Using surfactant levels outside these bands avoids claim 6, but could still infringe claim 1 if other elements align.
Is there a more specific composition ratio set? Claim 7
Claim 7 defines a preferred-composition sub-range (still dependent on claim 1):
- 60–70% wt water soluble drug
- 20–25% wt disintegrant
- 10–15% wt binder
- 0.5–2% wt sweetener
- 0.1–1.5% wt glidant
- 0.1–5% wt glycerin
- 0.05–1.5% wt surfactant
- 0–0.5% wt flavor
- binder still limited by solubility class
Design-around logic
- If a competitor uses no sweetener, or uses binder outside 10–15%, or disintegrant outside 20–25%, it can avoid claim 7 while potentially remaining within claim 1.
Hardness ranges: Claims 8 and 15
- Claim 8: hardness 2–6 kp
- Claim 15: hardness 3–9 kp
These bands overlap but are different. Any assertion strategy will map actual measured hardness to these ranges.
Design-around logic
- Keeping hardness outside both ranges (below 2 kp or above 9 kp) can avoid dependent hardness claims. Claim 1 only requires “sufficient hardness,” so exclusion of “sufficient” may be hard if the dosage must handle and store.
Preservative-free requirement: Claim 9
Design-around logic
- Adding preservatives can avoid claim 9, but may still be covered by claim 5 if preservatives are optional.
Shelf-life requirement: Claim 10
- Shelf-life at least one year
Design-around logic
- If shelf-life data fails to support “at least one year,” claim 10 may not be met. Claim 1 itself does not require shelf-life, but “handling and storage” implies some baseline stability.
Drug amount band: Claims 11 and 6
- Claim 11: 250 mg to 1000 mg drug
- Claim 6: also 250–1000 mg
Design-around logic
- Using drug dose outside this mass range avoids those dependent claims.
Moisture limit: Claim 12
- Moisture: not more than 10% wt and not less than 0.1%
- Determined by loss on drying at 120°C
Design-around logic
- Extreme drying (below 0.1%) or high moisture (above 10%) can avoid claim 12.
Drug solid form: Claim 13
- Drug is hydrate, hemi-hydrate, crystalline, amorphous, anhydrate, or combinations.
Impact: Claim 13 is broad and unlikely to be a strong design-around point. It mainly prevents an argument that only one solid state is covered.
Binder introduced by printing fluid or by bulk powder: Claims 16–17
- Claim 16: binder introduced via printing fluid used to form the matrix
- Claim 17: binder introduced via bulk powder used to form the matrix
Claim architecture impact
These dependent claims capture two manufacturing pathways:
- binder as part of the printable fluid
- binder incorporated via powder feed/material
Design-around logic
- A competitor could attempt to use a binder introduction method not captured by these two options, but without the specification and process claims, the actual boundary of “introduced into the bound matrix by way of printing fluid” versus “bulk powder” will depend on how the process is performed.
3D printing build geometry: Claim 18
- 15 to 50 printed incremental layers
- Incremental layer thickness: 0.008 to 0.012 inches
Design-around logic
- Varying layer thickness or total layers outside these ranges can avoid claim 18 while preserving claim 1.
Dosage form dimensions: Claim 19
- Diameter: 13–14 mm to about 20–25 mm (as drafted, it reads like a range with a boundary ambiguity)
- Height: 5–6 mm to about 8–10 mm
Design-around logic
- Changing tablet/cube dimensions outside these ranges can avoid claim 19.
How strong is the patent estate implied by these claims (claim breadth vs. testable performance limits)?
Breadth drivers
- Claim 1 spans multiple disintegrant chemistries and binder solubility classes.
- Drug solid form is broad.
- The binding mechanism allows binding by binder and/or drug.
Strength drivers
- Performance and property limitations are numeric or semi-numeric:
- ≤15 seconds in ≤15 mL water/saliva
- hardness bands (dependent claims)
- moisture band
- oxidative degradant limit after defined stress conditions
- Manufacturing-related limitations are included (layer count and thickness, binder introduction route, interior/exterior hardness gradient).
This pattern typically narrows the practical set of products that actually satisfy every element. It also increases evidentiary needs in infringement and validity challenges because outcomes (dispersion time, hardness, moisture, degradant levels) are measured.
What specific infringement “practice points” follow from the claim terms?
1) Dispersion time measurement is central
Claim 1 and dependent claims require rapid dispersion in water or saliva within a defined volume constraint. Any enforcement posture will likely require:
- a defined dispersion test protocol
- measurement of dispersed state and timing
Because claim language uses “about” terms, exact boundaries depend on the assay method used in the patent and in the accused product’s testing.
2) Hardness and uncompressed structure
Claim 1 requires “uncompressed” porous bound matrix plus “sufficient hardness.” That combination pushes toward printed compacts that are not post-compressed heavily, yet still mechanically stable.
3) Material composition matching
The most straightforward infringement map is compositional:
- water-soluble drug wt%
- disintegrant wt%
- binder wt% and binder solubility class
- glycerin wt%
- optional additives only matter for dependent claims.
4) Binding mechanism
The claim includes “particles bound by at least one of binder and water-soluble drug.” If a formulation relies on a different binder type not meeting the solubility class, or relies on processes that do not create the claimed binding, it can weaken coverage.
5) Structure-based dependent claims
Interior/exterior hardness gradient and incremental layer geometry are typical “engineering fingerprints.” If a competitor changes printing parameters, it may preserve claim 1 while avoiding dependent claims.
Which formulation features are likely to be “claim differentiators” in competitive products?
Given the claim set, the differentiating features in the marketplace are likely:
- very high drug loading (50–80% wt)
- specific disintegrants (MCC, cross-linked PVP, croscarmellose, SSG)
- binder solubility class (water soluble / aqueous fluid soluble / partially soluble)
- glycerin in 0.05–5%
- rapid dispersion within 15 sec in ≤15 mL
- mechanical hardness within ~2–9 kp range (dependent)
- moisture window 0.1–10% at 120°C LO D
- oxidative degradant performance under 21°C/75% RH for 6 months
Any product matching these tends to look like the same platform.
Patent landscape positioning for US 11,160,786: what competitors would likely cite or design around
Without the patent’s citation list, family member data, or prosecution record, the landscape can only be inferred from claim design trends. The likely competitive pressure points are:
-
3D-printed oral fast-dispersing matrices
Competitors can be exposed if they use the same structural and performance profile.
-
High drug loading fast-disintegrating solids
Many “rapid dissolve/disperse” systems use surfactants, superdisintegrants, and soluble binders. Here, the claim constrains the specific set of disintegrants and the dispersion volume/time.
-
Manufacturing parameter control
Layer thickness and count limits imply that some other printing architectures can avoid dependent claims.
-
Hardness gradient manufacturing
If the competitor builds a uniform hardness matrix, it can avoid interior/exterior dependent limitations.
-
Stability and oxidative degradant control
Dependent claim 3 forces oxidative degradant control for a defined storage condition.
-
Moisture management
Claim 12 provides a measurable window that can be used as an infringement/validity lever.
Key claim-to-formulation mapping table (what must be present to infringe claim 1 vs. dependent claims)
| Feature |
Claim 1 |
Claim 2 |
Claim 3 |
Claim 4 / 14 |
Claim 5 |
Claim 6 |
Claim 7 |
Claim 8 / 15 |
Claim 9 |
Claim 10 |
Claim 11 |
Claim 12 |
Claim 18 |
Claim 19 |
| 3D-printed porous bound matrix, uncompressed |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
| Water-soluble drug wt% |
50–80 |
50–80 |
50–80 |
50–80 |
50–80 |
250–1000 mg + 50–80 |
60–70 |
50–80 |
50–80 |
50–80 |
250–1000 mg |
50–80 |
50–80 |
50–80 |
| Disintegrant identity |
Listed MCC/cross-linked PVP/croscarmellose/SSG |
Same |
Same |
Same |
Same |
Same |
20–25% |
Same |
Same |
Same |
Same |
Same |
Same |
Same |
| Disintegrant wt% |
3–35 |
3–35 |
3–35 |
3–35 |
3–35 |
3–35 |
20–25 |
3–35 |
3–35 |
3–35 |
3–35 |
3–35 |
3–35 |
3–35 |
| Glycerin wt% |
0.05–5 |
0.05–5 |
0.05–5 |
0.05–5 |
0.05–5 |
(implied via claim 1) |
0.1–5 |
(implied via claim 1) |
(implied via claim 1) |
(implied via claim 1) |
(implied via claim 1) |
(implied via claim 1) |
(implied via claim 1) |
(implied via claim 1) |
| Binder wt% and solubility class |
0.5–20; water soluble/partially soluble class |
Same |
Same |
Same |
Same |
Same |
10–15 |
Same |
Same |
Same |
Same |
Same |
Same |
Same |
| Antioxidant |
No |
0.005–5% |
No (but still needs claim 1) |
No |
Optional (via claim 5/6) |
0.005–5% |
May or may not |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
| Oxidative degradant limit |
No |
No |
≤0.1% after 21°C/75% RH 6 months |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
| Exterior harder than interior |
No |
No |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
| Surfactant |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Yes |
0.05–1% (final dosage form) |
0.05–1.5% |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
| Glidant |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Optional |
0.1–2% |
0.1–1.5% |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
| Sweetener / flavor |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Optional (flavor via claim 5) |
Optional (glidant listed; flavorants optional via claim 5) |
Sweetener 0.5–2%; flavor 0–0.5% |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
| Hardness (kp) |
sufficient |
sufficient |
sufficient |
sufficient |
sufficient |
sufficient |
sufficient |
2–6 or 3–9 |
sufficient |
sufficient |
sufficient |
sufficient |
sufficient |
sufficient |
| Shelf-life ≥1 year |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
No |
| Preservative-free |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Preservatives optional via claim 5 |
preservative optional |
preservative optional |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
| Moisture band (LO D at 120°C) |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
0.1–10% |
No |
No |
| Dispersion in ≤15 sec in ≤15 mL |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
| Incremental layers/thickness |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
15–50 layers, 0.008–0.012 in |
No |
| Dimensions |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
diameter 13–14 to ~20–25 mm; height 5–6 to ~8–10 mm |
How does this claimset translate into a “platform vs. product-specific” claim strategy?
- The platform is captured by claim 1: it defines a manufacturing-formulation-performance bundle.
- Product-specific tightening is done via dependent claims that control:
- stability metrics (oxidative degradant)
- testable physical properties (hardness range, moisture window)
- manufacturing parameters (layer count/thickness)
- geometric attributes (dimensions)
- excipient presence/levels (antioxidant, surfactant, glidant, sweetener, flavor)
- internal structure (hardness gradient)
This structure is typical of patents that aim to cover an entire technology family while enabling fallback positions in litigation if the broadest elements are challenged.
Key Takeaways
- US 11,160,786 claim 1 is a composite platform claim requiring a 3D-printed porous uncompressed bound matrix with high water-soluble drug loading (50–80% wt), specified disintegrant chemistries, defined binder solubility class (0.5–20% wt), and rapid dispersion performance (≤15 seconds in ≤15 mL water or saliva).
- Dependent claims add enforceable sub-bands around excipient selection and concentration (antioxidant, surfactant, glidant, sweetener, flavor), physical properties (hardness 2–9 kp, moisture 0.1–10% at 120°C), stability (oxidative degradant ≤0.1% after specified storage), and manufacturing geometry (15–50 layers, 0.008–0.012 inch thickness, interior/exterior hardness gradient).
- The most practical infringement analysis hinges on measurable endpoints: dispersion time/volume, hardness, moisture, and oxidative degradant under defined storage conditions, combined with compositional matching to the stated wt% ranges.
FAQs
-
What single test outcome would most directly determine infringement risk for US 11,160,786?
The matrix dispersion time in water or saliva within ~15 seconds in ≤15 mL, tied to claim 1.
-
Which excipients are “hard-limited” by the claim language and easiest to use for design-around?
The disintegrant is limited to MCC, cross-linked PVP, croscarmellose, sodium starch glycolate, or combinations, plus the glycerin and binder wt% windows.
-
How do the hardness limitations in dependent claims affect enforcement?
They narrow coverage to formulations whose measured hardness falls within 2–6 kp (claim 8) or 3–9 kp (claim 15), while claim 1 only requires “sufficient hardness.”
-
Can a competitor avoid all dependent claims while still potentially infringing claim 1?
Yes. If it matches claim 1’s core platform and performance elements but changes antioxidant, surfactant/glidant/sweetener/flavor, hardness gradient, moisture, stability, or printing-layer parameters, it can avoid dependent claim coverage.
-
Does the claim require a specific solid-state form of the water-soluble drug?
No. It includes hydrates, hemi-hydrates, crystalline, amorphous, anhydrate, or mixtures.
References (APA)
No external sources were provided or cited.
More… ↓
⤷ Start Trial
|
