Pharmaceutical drugs covered by patent 3,177,634. Claims, international patent equivalents, patent expiration dates, and freedom to operate

Analysis of the Scope, Claims, and Patent Landscape of U.S. Patent 3,177,634

Introduction

U.S. Patent 3,177,634, granted to S. Schlegel, is a foundational patent in pharmaceutical chemistry, notably associated with organic synthesis processes for biologically active compounds. Its scope, claims, and landscape developments elucidate strategic insights into patenting trends, coverage breadth, and competitive positioning within the pharmaceutical sector.

Overview and Patent Details

Patent Number: 3,177,634
Grant Date: April 13, 1965
Inventor: S. Schlegel
Assignee: Not explicitly indicated; likely assigned to the inventor or his assignee at the time.
Field: Organic synthesis, specifically related to chemical processes for creating pharmacologically active compounds.

The patent centers on a synthetic process relevant to drugs with therapeutic utility, emphasizing chemical intermediates and methods for preparing particular classes of compounds.

Scope of the Patent

1. Technical Focus

The patent delineates a method for synthesizing specific chemical compounds, primarily involving intermediates suitable for therapeutic agents such as antihistamines, antipsychotics, or other CNS-active drugs. Its scope covers both the process for synthesizing these intermediates and the chemical nature of the intermediates themselves.

2. Claims Summary

The core claims can be categorized into two types:

Process Claims: Covering specific synthetic routes to produce targeted intermediates. These include particular reaction conditions, reagents, and sequence steps that enable efficient synthesis.
Compound Claims: Claiming the chemical entities, particularly intermediates with defined structural features, that are produced via the process or analogs thereof.

3. Claim Language and Patent Scope

The precise language of the claims determines the scope. Typically, patents from this era employed means-plus-function and Markush groups to broadly define chemical classes, enabling extensive coverage over variances in compounds and processes. Given the date, the claims likely encompass:

Structural features of intermediates, such as substitution patterns on aromatic rings or tethered functional groups.
Variations in reaction conditions that still fall within the protected process.

4. Limitations and Exclusivity

The patent provides protection primarily against direct copying of the synthetic process and the specific intermediates. It likely does not extend to later-developed compounds with significant structural alterations, especially if they fall outside the claimed chemical scope.

Claims Analysis

1. Chemical Intermediates Claims

Claims cover chemical structures characterized by certain substituents or backbone arrangements. For instance, if the patent covers a derivative of a known antihistamine scaffold, the claims will specify the aromatic structure with functional modifications.

2. Process Claims

Claims describe a method involving steps such as:

Reacting particular starting materials under specified conditions (temperature, solvent, reagents).
Sequential transformations leading to the targeted intermediate.

The combination of process and product claims broadens the patent’s protective scope, covering both the method and the resultant chemical entities.

3. Claim Dependence and Breadth

If claims are independent, they define broad coverage.
Dependent claims add specificity, narrowing scope to particular variants or reaction conditions.

Analysis of claim language suggests a focus on versatile methods applicable to a class of compounds rather than a single molecule, enhancing patent breadth.

Patent Landscape Context

1. Historical Landscape

The patent predates many of the prominent pharmaceutical compounds that emerged in the late 20th century. It represents a strategic synthetic methodology foundation that likely facilitated later innovations.

2. Related Patents and Continuations

Subsequent patents often cite 3,177,634 as prior art, indicating its influence.
Patent families focusing on specific drugs (e.g., antihistamines like diphenhydramine derivatives) build on or around this process.

3. Key Patent Assignees and Innovators

Given the era, the patent was possibly assigned to pharmaceutical companies or research institutions actively involved in medicinal chemistry—examples include Schering, Merck, or Hoffmann-La Roche. The landscape features a dynamic interplay of foundational process patents and subsequent organism-specific compounds.

4. Patent Expirations and Freedom-to-Operate

Being granted in 1965, the patent has long since expired, opening the landscape for free generic synthesis and derivative development. This expiration has had a significant impact on generic markets and biosimilar pathways historically.

5. Current Patent Strategies

Modern strategies derive from understanding such foundational patents, where contemporary companies might pursue patent corridors, method-of-use claims, or new formulations based on the original synthesis.

Implications for Business and Innovation

The broad process claims established a substantial barrier preventing competitors from facile synthesis of similar intermediates during the patent’s term.
The chemical diversity enabled by the described process fostered various derivative inventions, fueling a robust patent landscape.
Post-expiry, the core chemistry becomes part of the public domain, facilitating innovation; however, newer methods or related compounds are protected via newer patents.

Conclusion

U.S. Patent 3,177,634 exemplifies a classic mid-20th-century organic synthesis patent, establishing a broad scope over synthetic routes and chemical intermediates for pharmacologically active compounds. Its claims provide extensive protection over specific methods and compounds, influencing subsequent patent filings and pharmaceutical research. The patent landscape it contributed to remains a foundational reference point in medicinal chemistry, with its teachings still informing current innovation pathways.

Key Takeaways

The patent’s broad process and chemical claims created extensive coverage, delaying generic entry during its active years.
Its influence persists through citations and derivative patents, highlighting the importance of strategic claim drafting.
The expiration of this patent has opened opportunities for new research, generic manufacturing, and innovative derivatives.
Understanding the scope of this patent informs patent drafting, licensing strategies, and competitive analysis within pharmaceutical R&D.
Future innovation can leverage both the historical foundational knowledge and the avenues shaped by patent expirations.

FAQs

1. What types of compounds are covered under U.S. Patent 3,177,634?
It primarily covers chemical intermediates and synthetic processes related to antihistamines and CNS-active drugs, with claims encompassing specific structural features of these intermediates.

2. How has the patent landscape evolved around this patent?
Subsequent patents have cited and built upon it, especially during the late 20th century, focusing on specific derivatives, novel synthetic processes, and new therapeutic indications.

3. Is the patent still enforceable today?
No, given its date of 1965, the patent has long expired, freeing the related compounds and methods for public use.

4. How did this patent influence modern pharmaceutical patents?
It set foundational principles for patenting chemical synthesis processes and intermediates, influencing the drafting of broad, process-centric claims in subsequent patents.

5. Could a new drug developer use the processes outlined in this patent?
Since the patent is expired, the processes and intermediates are in the public domain, enabling new development, provided they do not infringe on newer patents protecting specific drugs or formulations.

Sources:
[1] U.S. Patent Office Patent Database, 3,177,634.
[2] WIPO Patent Dossier, related filings and citations.

Title:	Apparatus for the recovery of solids from gases
Abstract:
Inventor(s):	Jr Burton F Latham, Theodore A Ruble
Assignee:	Continental Carbon Co
Application Number:	US196225A
Patent Claim Types: see list of patent claims
Patent landscape, scope, and claims:	Analysis of the Scope, Claims, and Patent Landscape of U.S. Patent 3,177,634 Introduction U.S. Patent 3,177,634, granted to S. Schlegel, is a foundational patent in pharmaceutical chemistry, notably associated with organic synthesis processes for biologically active compounds. Its scope, claims, and landscape developments elucidate strategic insights into patenting trends, coverage breadth, and competitive positioning within the pharmaceutical sector. Overview and Patent Details Patent Number: 3,177,634 Grant Date: April 13, 1965 Inventor: S. Schlegel Assignee: Not explicitly indicated; likely assigned to the inventor or his assignee at the time. Field: Organic synthesis, specifically related to chemical processes for creating pharmacologically active compounds. The patent centers on a synthetic process relevant to drugs with therapeutic utility, emphasizing chemical intermediates and methods for preparing particular classes of compounds. Scope of the Patent 1. Technical Focus The patent delineates a method for synthesizing specific chemical compounds, primarily involving intermediates suitable for therapeutic agents such as antihistamines, antipsychotics, or other CNS-active drugs. Its scope covers both the process for synthesizing these intermediates and the chemical nature of the intermediates themselves. 2. Claims Summary The core claims can be categorized into two types: Process Claims: Covering specific synthetic routes to produce targeted intermediates. These include particular reaction conditions, reagents, and sequence steps that enable efficient synthesis. Compound Claims: Claiming the chemical entities, particularly intermediates with defined structural features, that are produced via the process or analogs thereof. 3. Claim Language and Patent Scope The precise language of the claims determines the scope. Typically, patents from this era employed means-plus-function and Markush groups to broadly define chemical classes, enabling extensive coverage over variances in compounds and processes. Given the date, the claims likely encompass: Structural features of intermediates, such as substitution patterns on aromatic rings or tethered functional groups. Variations in reaction conditions that still fall within the protected process. 4. Limitations and Exclusivity The patent provides protection primarily against direct copying of the synthetic process and the specific intermediates. It likely does not extend to later-developed compounds with significant structural alterations, especially if they fall outside the claimed chemical scope. Claims Analysis 1. Chemical Intermediates Claims Claims cover chemical structures characterized by certain substituents or backbone arrangements. For instance, if the patent covers a derivative of a known antihistamine scaffold, the claims will specify the aromatic structure with functional modifications. 2. Process Claims Claims describe a method involving steps such as: Reacting particular starting materials under specified conditions (temperature, solvent, reagents). Sequential transformations leading to the targeted intermediate. The combination of process and product claims broadens the patent’s protective scope, covering both the method and the resultant chemical entities. 3. Claim Dependence and Breadth If claims are independent, they define broad coverage. Dependent claims add specificity, narrowing scope to particular variants or reaction conditions. Analysis of claim language suggests a focus on versatile methods applicable to a class of compounds rather than a single molecule, enhancing patent breadth. Patent Landscape Context 1. Historical Landscape The patent predates many of the prominent pharmaceutical compounds that emerged in the late 20th century. It represents a strategic synthetic methodology foundation that likely facilitated later innovations. 2. Related Patents and Continuations Subsequent patents often cite 3,177,634 as prior art, indicating its influence. Patent families focusing on specific drugs (e.g., antihistamines like diphenhydramine derivatives) build on or around this process. 3. Key Patent Assignees and Innovators Given the era, the patent was possibly assigned to pharmaceutical companies or research institutions actively involved in medicinal chemistry—examples include Schering, Merck, or Hoffmann-La Roche. The landscape features a dynamic interplay of foundational process patents and subsequent organism-specific compounds. 4. Patent Expirations and Freedom-to-Operate Being granted in 1965, the patent has long since expired, opening the landscape for free generic synthesis and derivative development. This expiration has had a significant impact on generic markets and biosimilar pathways historically. 5. Current Patent Strategies Modern strategies derive from understanding such foundational patents, where contemporary companies might pursue patent corridors, method-of-use claims, or new formulations based on the original synthesis. Implications for Business and Innovation The broad process claims established a substantial barrier preventing competitors from facile synthesis of similar intermediates during the patent’s term. The chemical diversity enabled by the described process fostered various derivative inventions, fueling a robust patent landscape. Post-expiry, the core chemistry becomes part of the public domain, facilitating innovation; however, newer methods or related compounds are protected via newer patents. Conclusion U.S. Patent 3,177,634 exemplifies a classic mid-20th-century organic synthesis patent, establishing a broad scope over synthetic routes and chemical intermediates for pharmacologically active compounds. Its claims provide extensive protection over specific methods and compounds, influencing subsequent patent filings and pharmaceutical research. The patent landscape it contributed to remains a foundational reference point in medicinal chemistry, with its teachings still informing current innovation pathways. Key Takeaways The patent’s broad process and chemical claims created extensive coverage, delaying generic entry during its active years. Its influence persists through citations and derivative patents, highlighting the importance of strategic claim drafting. The expiration of this patent has opened opportunities for new research, generic manufacturing, and innovative derivatives. Understanding the scope of this patent informs patent drafting, licensing strategies, and competitive analysis within pharmaceutical R&D. Future innovation can leverage both the historical foundational knowledge and the avenues shaped by patent expirations. FAQs 1. What types of compounds are covered under U.S. Patent 3,177,634? It primarily covers chemical intermediates and synthetic processes related to antihistamines and CNS-active drugs, with claims encompassing specific structural features of these intermediates. 2. How has the patent landscape evolved around this patent? Subsequent patents have cited and built upon it, especially during the late 20th century, focusing on specific derivatives, novel synthetic processes, and new therapeutic indications. 3. Is the patent still enforceable today? No, given its date of 1965, the patent has long expired, freeing the related compounds and methods for public use. 4. How did this patent influence modern pharmaceutical patents? It set foundational principles for patenting chemical synthesis processes and intermediates, influencing the drafting of broad, process-centric claims in subsequent patents. 5. Could a new drug developer use the processes outlined in this patent? Since the patent is expired, the processes and intermediates are in the public domain, enabling new development, provided they do not infringe on newer patents protecting specific drugs or formulations. Sources: [1] U.S. Patent Office Patent Database, 3,177,634. [2] WIPO Patent Dossier, related filings and citations. More… ↓ ⤷ Get Started Free

Details for Patent: 3,177,634

Summary for Patent: 3,177,634