|
Patent landscape, scope, and claims: |
United States Patent 11,744,895: Intranasal Epinephrine for Type-1 Hypersensitivity and Anaphylaxis and Its Patent Landscape
United States Patent 11,744,895 is directed to treating type-1 hypersensitivity reactions (including anaphylaxis and allergic asthma and urticaria) using an intranasal single-dose pharmaceutical formulation containing 0.1 mg to 2.4 mg epinephrine (or a salt), where epinephrine is the only pharmaceutically active ingredient, and where intranasal dosing yields plasma epinephrine concentrations efficacious to either eliminate symptoms or prevent progression of symptoms.
What do the independent claims cover? (Scope map)
The claims you provided are method-of-treatment claims with an identical core structure: route (intranasal), actives (epinephrine only), dose range (0.1 to 2.4 mg), and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic outcome (plasma concentrations efficacious to eliminate or prevent progression of specified symptoms).
Claim 1 (broad type-1 hypersensitivity, symptom elimination or prevention)
- Population: human with a type-1 hypersensitivity reaction
- Administration: intranasal
- Dose: single administered dose containing 0.1 mg to 2.4 mg epinephrine or salt
- Composition limitation: epinephrine is the only pharmaceutically active ingredient
- Outcome requirement: intranasal dosing provides plasma epinephrine concentrations efficacious to
- eliminate one or more or all symptoms, or
- prevent further progression of one or more or all symptoms
- Scope of symptoms: controlled at the dependent claim level; Claim 1 as provided is not limited to a specific symptom set in the excerpt beyond “one, more than one, or all of the symptoms of the type-1 hypersensitivity reaction.”
Claim 2 (type-1 hypersensitivity with specific indications + specific triggers)
- Includes specific conditions: allergic asthma, allergic conjunctivitis, allergic rhinitis, anaphylaxis, angioedema, urticaria, eosinophilia
- Triggering etiologies: stinging/biting insects, allergen immunotherapy, foods, drugs, diagnostic testing substances, or other allergens
- Same epinephrine-only, dose, route, and plasma-efficacious framework as Claim 1
Claim 3 (allergic asthma only)
- Tightens the condition to allergic asthma
- Same epinephrine-only, intranasal, dose range, and “eliminate vs prevent progression” via efficacious plasma concentrations
Claim 4 (urticaria only)
- Tightens the condition to urticaria
- Same epinephrine-only, intranasal, dose range, and efficacy via efficacious plasma concentrations
- Claims 5–7 then lock in dose values
Claim 18 (anaphylaxis or acute asthmatic attacks)
- Route: intranasal
- Composition: 0.1–2.4 mg epinephrine (only active)
- Indications: anaphylaxis or acute asthmatic attacks
- Outcome: elimination or prevention of progression based on efficacious plasma concentrations
- Claim 19 and 20 specify example dose levels
Claim 25 and 26 (symptom lists and specific anaphylaxis subtypes)
- Claim 25: type-1 hypersensitivity with an explicit symptom list including both dermatologic, respiratory, and severe cardiovascular events (e.g., coronary artery spasm, myocardial infarction, dysrhythmia, cardiac arrest, tachycardia, bradycardia).
- Claim 26: idiopathic anaphylaxis or exercise-induced anaphylaxis with elimination or prevention progression via efficacious plasma concentrations.
What are the claim’s structural “hard edges” that drive infringement and validity risk?
From the text you provided, the enforcement-relevant boundaries are concentrated in five repeated limitations:
-
Route: intranasal administration
- Any marketed or tested epinephrine product that uses injection, auto-injector, oral, sublingual, inhaled, or IV would not fall inside these method claims on route alone.
-
Single administered dose
- The claims are framed around a single dose. A multi-dose protocol could attempt to avoid literal coverage if it is not “a single administered dose.” That said, many dosing regimens in practice are multi-stage; this claim language is a key constraint.
-
Dose range: 0.1 mg to 2.4 mg
- This includes a wide window that overlaps typical intranasal dosing concepts, but it excludes lower doses (<0.1 mg) and higher doses (>2.4 mg).
-
Only active ingredient
- Epinephrine must be the only pharmaceutically active ingredient. Excipients can exist (and the dependent claims list excipient classes), but adding another active medication as part of a combination product risks non-literal infringement.
-
Plasma epinephrine concentrations are “efficacious”
- This is a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic claim feature. It forces an accused product to be able to achieve a plasma exposure level that meets the “efficacious” threshold as construed in the patent record.
What do the dependent claims add? (Composition details and numeric locking)
Dependent claims 5–7 (from Claim 4) and claims 19–20 (from Claim 18) introduce specific dose embodiments.
Dose embodiments explicitly claimed
- Claim 5: about 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 mg epinephrine
- Claim 6: about 0.3, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 mg
- Claim 7: about 1.0 mg or 2.0 mg
- Claim 19: about 0.3, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 mg
- Claim 20: about 0.5 through 2.4 mg in a stepwise list
This concentration of numeric embodiments reduces design-around options in the 0.3 to 2.4 mg band.
Excipients: dependent claims carve out formulation latitude
Claims 8 and 22–24 state that the formulation can contain excipients in defined categories, with explicit examples:
- Excipient categories: absorption enhancement agents, isotonicity agents, stabilizing agents, antioxidants, preservatives, pH adjustment agents (Claim 8; Claim 22)
- Absorption enhancement agent sub-classes: surfactants and penetration aids including
- alkylglycosides
- polysorbate 20/80
- fatty acids and salts (oleic acid, salt of oleic acid)
- bile salts (sodium glycocholate, sodium taurocholate, sodium taurodihydrofusidate)
- (Claim 9; Claim 23)
- Absorption enhancement exemplars (lists and narrower recitations):
- Alkylglycosides list includes undecyl maltoside, dodecyl maltoside, tridecyl maltoside, tetradecyl maltoside, plus sucrose mono-dodecanoate and higher analogs (Claim 11)
- Specific narrowing: alkylglycoside (Claim 12), then dodecyl maltoside (Claim 13)
- Isotonicity examples: dextrose, glycerin, mannitol, potassium chloride, sodium chloride (Claim 14; Claim 23)
- Antioxidants examples: alpha tocopherol, D-a-tocopherol polyethylene glycol 1000 succinate, ascorbic/isoascorbic acid, BHA, citric acid monohydrate, sulfites/metabisulfites (Claim 15; Claim 23)
- Vehicle/solution and volume:
- water, water-ethanol, or water-propylene glycol solutions (Claim 16; Claim 24)
- total dose volume options: about 25, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, 175, 200, 250 µL (Claim 16; Claim 24)
- water solution only and same volume list (Claim 17)
Implication: The dependent claims indicate the patent is not limited to a particular excipient set, but it does identify specific excipient types and some narrower embodiments (like dodecyl maltoside). A competitor can vary excipients while staying inside the route, actives, dose, and plasma efficacy structure.
What symptom and indication breadth does the claims set create?
The claims cover both the reaction type (type-1 hypersensitivity) and downstream manifestations with significant expansion through dependent claims.
Covered symptom groups (from your excerpt)
- Claim 2 includes: allergic asthma, allergic conjunctivitis, allergic rhinitis, anaphylaxis, angioedema, urticaria, eosinophilia
- Claim 18 covers: anaphylaxis and acute asthmatic attacks
- Claim 25 expands symptom coverage with explicit lists, including:
- hives, itching, flushing
- angioedema
- burning sensation of skin
- swelling of tongue or throat
- shortness of breath, wheezes
- coronary artery spasm, myocardial infarction
- dysrhythmia, cardiac arrest
- tachycardia, bradycardia
- plus other anaphylaxis-style systemic signs in the Claim 21 list (e.g., confusion, slurred speech, cyanosis, intercostal retractions)
Covered etiologies (Claim 2)
- stinging insects, biting insects
- allergen immunotherapy
- foods, drugs
- diagnostic testing substances
- other allergens
Implication: This claim set targets broad clinical use cases in allergic emergencies, not only classic food/anaphylaxis scenarios.
How does this patent sit in the broader intranasal epinephrine and anaphylaxis patent landscape?
Because the only information provided is the claim text, the landscape analysis must stay claim-centered: what is being claimed, where it likely overlaps existing prior art categories, and where it likely avoids them.
Landscape segment 1: delivery device and route patents vs drug composition/PK claims
Most historical anaphylaxis products are injectable. A route shift to intranasal often drives separate patent families around:
- intranasal delivery devices (spray, drops, nozzle geometry)
- formulations enabling absorption and nasal tolerability
- dosing regimens and PK targets
This patent is a method-of-treatment claim tethered to intranasal dosing achieving efficacious plasma concentrations, which overlaps with both:
- formulation enabling intranasal uptake (via absorption enhancement agents)
- efficacy evidence (elimination or prevention of progression)
The “plasma concentrations efficacious” language means route-only device patents are not sufficient to practice this claim; the drug must achieve a functional exposure profile.
Landscape segment 2: epinephrine dosing and “drug only active ingredient”
Epinephrine itself is old. The novelty hinge in this claim set is likely:
- epinephrine-only active ingredient constraint
- specific dose window (0.1–2.4 mg) and single-dose intranasal dosing
- symptom elimination/prevention anchored to plasma exposure
This is designed to differentiate from combination rescue formulations or epinephrine analogs with additional actives.
Landscape segment 3: anaphylaxis vs asthma-only coverage
The patent claims cover anaphylaxis and acute asthmatic attacks (Claim 18), plus allergic asthma (Claim 3). This bridges two segments that are often treated with separate emergency protocols and may exist under different prior art clusters.
If a competitor targets only asthma and not anaphylaxis, a broad interpretation could still capture overlap through:
- “type-1 hypersensitivity reaction”
- “allergic asthma”
- “acute asthmatic attacks”
- symptom progression elimination/prevention language
Landscape segment 4: excipient-enabled absorption enhancement
The explicit lists of absorption enhancers and excipient classes indicate a known technical problem: intranasal delivery often needs solubilizers/surfactants to reach systemic exposure.
The claims appear to anticipate formulation variability by listing broad excipient categories, while also including narrower embodiments (such as dodecyl maltoside). Competitors could attempt to choose a different enhancer class, but the independent claims do not require a particular enhancer. If the formulation still meets “epinephrine only active” and achieves efficacious plasma levels, excipient changes might not escape infringement.
Freedom-to-operate implications driven by claim architecture
High-risk design parameters (likely to be central in an infringement analysis)
- Intranasal epinephrine administration as the therapeutic modality
- Single dose within 0.1–2.4 mg (or within the explicitly recited “about” values in dependent claims)
- Epinephrine-only active ingredient (combination products are the main escape route conceptually)
- Achieving plasma epinephrine concentrations that the patent defines as “efficacious” (practically, this is the most technical enforcement point)
Design-around levers suggested by the claim text
- Move outside the dose window (less than 0.1 mg or more than 2.4 mg)
- Use multi-dose administration rather than a single administered dose (only if the product and labeling are structured to avoid the claim’s “single” element)
- Add another active ingredient (if the clinical regimen tolerates combination) so epinephrine is no longer the only pharmaceutically active ingredient
- Target a different route (injection or inhaled), keeping plasma epinephrine evidence separate from intranasal exposure claims
Business-facing claim interpretation points (what matters operationally)
“Only pharmaceutically active ingredient”
- Excipients are allowed under dependent claim 8/22 structure.
- The moment another active ingredient is added (even if intended to improve efficacy), the claim’s “only active” element is at risk.
“Plasma epinephrine concentrations efficacious”
- The term “efficacious” is functional. For enforcement, the record typically supports an exposure threshold or a demonstration of symptom elimination/prevention linked to plasma levels.
- For competitors, this turns early development into a PK-targeting exercise tied to efficacy endpoints, not only nasal absorption.
Symptom lists expand the clinical scope
- Claims are not limited to classic hypotension or respiratory compromise. They reach:
- dermatologic manifestations (urticaria, hives, flushing, itching)
- airway/oral swelling (tongue or throat swelling)
- cardiovascular severe outcomes (myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest)
- This broadens “use” infringement risk across allergic emergency presentations.
Key Takeaways
- The patent’s core is intranasal, single-dose 0.1 to 2.4 mg epinephrine with epinephrine as the only active, producing efficacious plasma epinephrine concentrations that eliminate symptoms or prevent progression of type-1 hypersensitivity reaction manifestations.
- Dependent claims narrow further to specific conditions (allergic asthma, urticaria, anaphylaxis, acute asthmatic attacks) and include extensive symptom coverage and defined dose embodiments.
- The formulation is flexible on excipients, but the patent’s enforcement leverage is the intranasal epinephrine delivery and PK-efficacy linkage, plus the epinephrine-only active constraint.
- Design-around opportunities exist mainly by changing route, dose window, active-ingredient composition status, or the dosing structure relative to “single administered dose.”
FAQs
-
Is the patent limited to anaphylaxis only?
No. It covers type-1 hypersensitivity reactions broadly and includes allergic asthma, urticaria, angioedema, allergic rhinitis/conjunctivitis, eosinophilia, and also anaphylaxis and acute asthmatic attacks.
-
Does the patent require a specific formulation excipient?
Independent claims do not require a particular excipient. Dependent claims list absorption enhancers and other excipients (including examples like dodecyl maltoside) while allowing typical excipient categories.
-
What is the most important enforcement limitation beyond dose and route?
The claims require that intranasal dosing provides plasma epinephrine concentrations that are efficacious for elimination or prevention of symptom progression.
-
Can a competitor include epinephrine with another active drug and still fit the claims?
The method claims require that epinephrine is the only pharmaceutically active ingredient in the formulation; adding another active ingredient risks falling outside the claim.
-
Are exact dose amounts protected, or only the general range?
Both. The independent claims state 0.1 mg to 2.4 mg, and dependent claims explicitly list many “about” dose embodiments (including 0.3, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, up to 2.4 mg).
References
[1] United States Patent 11,744,895 (claims as provided in prompt).
More… ↓
⤷ Start Trial
|
