|
Patent landscape, scope, and claims: |
US Patent 11,414,397: scope, claim architecture, and patent landscape
US Patent 11,414,397 covers a large genus of substituted quinolinyl-hydroxybenzonitrile (and closely related) small molecules, expressed as broad structural Markush sets, then narrowed in dependent claims through tighter substitution limits and through enumerated “example” compounds. The patent also claims pharmaceutical compositions and therapeutic methods tied to somatostatin receptor subtype 2 (SSTR2) modulation and indications including acromegaly and neuroendocrine tumors.
What is the core claim subject matter?
What does claim 1 actually claim?
Claim 1 is a genus claim to:
- A compound defined by a detailed multi-ring scaffold and variable substituents
- Or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt
- Or a solvate
- Or diastereomeric mixtures
- Or individual enantiomers
The claim’s chemical definition is driven by three layered substitution systems that expand the covered chemical space:
- Ra and Rb: substituents at two positions on the quinoline/phenyl system (each independently selected from very large lists including hydrogen, halogen, C1-C6 alkyl, C1-C6 fluoroalkyl, heteroalkyl, monocyclic carbocycles/heterocycles, cyano, hydroxyl/alkoxy, carbonyl/amide/urea-type fragments, sulfoxide/sulfone-type fragments, and substituted versions).
- RB: a substituent phenyl/pyrazolyl/pyridinyl/pyrimidinyl/pyrazinyl/pyridazinyl ring, with substitution by p Rc and q Rd (where p is 1 or 2; q is 0, 1 or 2).
- Rc/Rd are each independently selected from another broad set of functional groups.
- If Rc and Rd are on adjacent atoms, they can “close” into a 5- or 6-membered ring (carbocycle or heterocycle).
- X, Y, Z: constrained to CRf (with Rf hydrogen in the claim language provided), which effectively fixes those positions as hydrogen-bearing carbons.
The remainder of claim 1 establishes:
- m = 1 or 2
- n = 0, 1 or 2
- A large set of substituent definitions for R1, R2, R5, R7, R8, and then R14/R15, plus substitution patterns for those groups.
- One more expansion layer: each substituted alkyl/fluoroalkyl/heteroalkyl/carbocycle/heterocycle is further independently substituted with one or more R8 groups, and the R8 group list includes typical drug-like handles (halogen, C1-C6 alkyl, rings, CN, OR16, CO2R16, amides, sulfonamides/sulfones).
This makes claim 1 a hyper-broad genus: the scaffold is fixed by the structural core, but the substituents are allowed to vary over wide chemical classes and sizes, including ring-forming adjacency rules.
How does claim 1 tighten via dependent claims?
The dependent claims systematically reduce breadth by limiting:
- size ranges (C1-C6 to C1-C4 in some places),
- allowed substituent atoms (e.g., only F/Cl in some claims),
- allowed heterocycles (explicit lists),
- and by narrowing the functional groups available at Ra/Rb/Rc/Rd.
The “ladder” from claim 1 to later dependent claims is important for validity and design-around analysis: it suggests the applicant sought broad coverage early, then built fallbacks with narrower chemical constraints.
Claim-by-claim scope mapping (what each level covers)
Claims 2-4: what is the first tightening step?
- Claim 2 narrows:
- Ra and Rb are limited to C1-C4 variants (alkyl/fluoroalkyl/heteroalkyl and related fragments),
- plus reduced functional options (notably, the Ra list does not include sulfonyl/sulfone fragments in the same breadth as claim 1, based on the text provided).
- Claim 3 gives an explicit list of allowable Ra and Rb substituents (mostly small groups: halogens, short alkyls, hydroxyl/alkoxy, cyano, and carbonyl/amino motifs).
- Claim 4 collapses Ra and Rb options further:
- Ra = F or C1 (where “C1” in the claim text indicates a methyl-sized unit in context of the Markush language)
- Rb = F, Cl, CH3, OCH3, and a specific polyether substituent (“OCH2CH2OCH3” in the provided text).
Business impact: claims 2-4 define a “chemical funnel” from claim 1’s very large Markush space into a smaller set where only small and common substituents survive.
Claims 5-8: how are RB-side substituents constrained?
- Claim 5 limits Rc and Rd to smaller groups (C1-C4 alkyl/fluoroalkyl; and constrained heterocycles).
- Claim 6 provides an explicit set for Rc/Rd, including:
- Rc: includes halogens, short alkyls, hydroxyl/alkoxy, amide-like motifs, and also specific heterocycles including azetidinyl and pyrrolidinyl.
- Rd: includes hydrogen/halogen/small alkyl, hydroxyl/alkoxy, plus specific heterocycles (e.g., pyrrolyl, imidazolyl, pyrazolyl, triazolyl, tetrazolyl).
- Claim 7 narrows Rc and Rd to a smaller list (Rc includes halogens, small alkyls, specific heterocycles, CN, OH, OCH3, OCF3; Rd includes fewer heterocycle options).
- Claim 8 narrows further and includes specific ether and hydroxyl patterns in Rd (for example OCH2OCH3, OCH2OCH2CH3, and related).
Business impact: these claims are critical for freedom-to-operate (FTO) because many competitors will vary the ring substituents on RB (p Rc and q Rd) more than they vary the scaffold. These dependent claims anticipate those substitution strategies and constrain them.
Claims 9-13: what happens to R1/R2/R5/R7/R8?
Claims 9 and 10 narrow substituent sizes and define when ring closure is allowed:
- Claim 9:
- fixes R1 = hydrogen
- sets R2 options, with alternative where R1 and R2 together form N-containing heterocycles,
- constrains R5 options and ring-closure conditions with R2,
- and limits R7 and R8 to small values (H or CH3 in the provided text).
- Claim 10:
- same overall tightening but with different constraint sets for R2 (C3-C6 cycloalkyl and C2-C6 heterocycloalkyl allowed).
- Claim 12 specifies:
- R2 = enumerated C1-C4/short heteroalkyl groups and oxetanyl option,
- R5 = enumerated set including halogens, OH, OCH3, NH2/NHCH3/N(CH3)2, certain carbonyl groups, and
- ring-closure where R2 and R5 together form piperidinyl/morpholinyl/thiomorpholinyl/piperazinyl.
- Claim 13 gives a very specific narrowing:
- R1 H, R2 H, R5 H; or R2 and R5 together forming morpholinyl.
Business impact: These dependent claims map closely to typical medicinal chemistry optimization levers: small changes to basicity (amine-containing rings) and hydrophilicity (ether vs carbonyl vs sulfonamide) at R2/R5.
Claims 14-16: what is the next tightening around RB and functional substituents?
- Claim 14 depends on claim 13 and introduces that RB is (value truncated in the text provided).
- Claim 15 then enumerates:
- Ra allowed = hydrogen, F, Cl, CH3, CF3, CN, OH, CH2OH, CH2CH2OH, OCH3, OCF3
- Rb allowed = hydrogen, F, Cl, CH3, CF3, CN, OH, OCH3, OCF3
- Rc allowed = hydrogen, F, Cl, CH3, CF3, CN, OH, NH2, OCH3, OCF3, and carbonyl/oxime-type fragments
- Rd allowed = hydrogen, F, Cl, CH3, CF3, CN, OH, NH2, OCH3, OCF3
- Claim 16 further tightens:
- Ra limited to F or Cl
- Rb restricted to F, Cl, CH3, OCH3, and a specific protected ether
- Rc and Rd lists become more curated (including imidazolyl in Rd).
Business impact: claims 15-16 resemble the final “safety net” narrowing used to salvage infringement if the broad genus is challenged.
Claim 17: what are the enumerated compounds?
Claim 17 is an explicit list of named compounds (2-1 through 2-300 in the provided claim text). These are concrete instantiations of the genus described in claim 1.
Key structural theme repeated across the enumerated list:
- Quinoline core with substituted phenyl-like systems
- 4-aminopiperidinyl, azetidinyl, morpholinyl-type substitutions, and fluoro/ difluoro substitution patterns on the aromatic rings
- plus variations such as benzonitrile vs phenol, pyridine carboxamides, benzodiazolones, hydroxylamino / methoxyimino motifs, and sidechain ring stereochemistry.
Business impact: enumerated examples are commonly used for:
- claim construction (what falls within the Markush),
- enablement support,
- and infringement mapping to a competitor’s specific chemical entity.
Method of use coverage: SSTR2 modulation and indications
What does the patent claim on therapeutic use?
- Claim 20: a method for modulating SSTR2 activity in a mammal by administering a compound of claim 1 (or salt).
- Claim 21: method of treating acromegaly, neuroendocrine tumor, pain, or combinations, by administering the claim 1 compound.
- Claims 22-23: subset methods:
- acromegaly
- neuroendocrine tumor
Scope note: these method claims typically attach to the same chemical genus as claim 1, so clinical candidates in SSTR2 space can fall under the patent even if their exact structure is not used in the examples, as long as it still meets claim 1 Markush.
Pharmaceutical composition coverage
- Claim 18: a pharmaceutical composition containing a claim 1 compound (or salt) plus excipient.
- Claim 19: same, but specifically for claim 17 compounds.
Business impact: compositions can block product formulation variants even when the free base or salt form changes, though scope still depends on what form the competitor uses.
Practical scope: where infringement is most likely
What parts of claim 1 drive infringement risk?
Based on the text provided, infringement sensitivity concentrates on:
- The fixed scaffold identity implied by claim 1’s quinoline-phenyl-hydroxybenzonitrile framework with specified X/Y/Z as CRf (Rf = H).
- RB ring identity: phenyl, pyrazolyl, pyridinyl, pyrimidinyl, pyrazinyl, pyridazinyl and substitution by p Rc and q Rd.
- Substitution function sets: the allowed groups in Ra/Rb/Rc/Rd include oxime-type motifs, sulfonamides/sulfones, carbonyl-linked amides, and ether and hydroxyl groups.
- Stereochemistry and diastereomeric coverage: claim 1 covers individual enantiomers and mixtures.
Competitors changing “outside the scaffolding” may still land inside the claim if the changes fall within the allowed Markush sets. Competitors changing the scaffold likely reduce risk, but that depends on the exact structural boundary set by the claim’s structural formula (not fully shown in the text you provided).
Patent landscape (US-focused) based on the provided record
What can be concluded from the provided information only?
The information supplied is the full claim text (in your prompt) but it does not include:
- filing date, priority date, prosecution history, assignee name,
- related family members,
- examiner’s cited prior art,
- continuation/divisional details,
- other US patents in the same family,
- or any publication numbers.
Because a patent landscape requires identifying:
- which earlier patents are cited/related,
- which later grants or publications share the same priority,
- whether this patent is the “core” or a continuation,
- and what other SSTR2 compounds occupy neighboring IP positions,
no complete and accurate landscape can be produced from the provided text alone.
Therefore: a detailed competitive or validity-oriented landscape (families, expiry timelines, potential blocking patents, and freedom-to-operate mapping) cannot be completed here without external bibliographic and citation data.
Key Takeaways
- US 11,414,397 claim 1 is a very broad Markush genus over a quinoline-containing scaffold, covering salts, solvates, enantiomers, and diastereomeric mixtures.
- Dependent claims 2-16 systematically narrow substituent size, halogen content, and allowed functional-group types, especially for Ra/Rb and the RB-ring substitution sets (Rc/Rd).
- Claim 17 enumerates 2-1 through 2-300 concrete compounds, providing direct infringement targets and anchoring claim construction.
- Method claims 20-23 extend coverage to SSTR2 modulation and therapeutic uses including acromegaly and neuroendocrine tumors (plus pain in claim 21).
- A full US patent landscape cannot be derived from the claim text alone because essential family, bibliographic, and citation data is absent.
FAQs
1) Is US 11,414,397 limited to a single compound?
No. Claim 1 covers a genus with extensive variable substituents, plus salts/solvates/enantiomers. Claim 17 then lists many specific compounds within that genus.
2) Does the patent cover both salts and free bases?
Yes. Claim 1 explicitly includes pharmaceutically acceptable salts and also solvates, alongside the base stereochemical variants.
3) What determines whether a competitor compound infringes?
In practice, infringement hinges on whether the competitor’s structure satisfies claim 1’s scaffold constraints and its Markush variable substituent definitions for Ra/Rb/RB and Rc/Rd, plus related R1/R2/R5/R7/R8 layers.
4) Are the method claims broad?
Yes. The patent claims SSTR2 modulation and therapeutic treatment of acromegaly and neuroendocrine tumors, with pain included in claim 21.
5) What do claims 18-19 add to enforcement?
They cover pharmaceutical compositions containing the claimed compounds plus excipients, which can matter if a product uses a different formulation or salt form.
References
[1] United States Patent No. 11,414,397 (claim text provided in prompt).
More… ↓
⤷ Start Trial
|
