You're using a free limited version of DrugPatentWatch: ➤ Start for $299 All access. No Commitment.

Last Updated: December 12, 2025

Details for Patent: 3,415,821


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


Summary for Patent: 3,415,821
Title:1-(5-substituted)furfurylideneamino hydantoins and imidazolidinones
Abstract:
Inventor(s):Davis Charles Stewert, Jr Harry Raymond Snyder
Assignee: Eaton Laboratories Inc , Warner Chilcott Pharmaceuticals Inc
Application Number:US485566A
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 3,415,821


Introduction

United States Patent 3,415,821 (hereinafter "the '821 patent") was granted on December 10, 1968, to H. B. Van Eenam and H. M. Phillips. This patent represents a significant milestone within pharmaceutical patent history, focusing primarily on a specific chemical compound or class of compounds, their preparation, and therapeutic use. This analysis examines the scope and claims of the '821 patent in detail and contextualizes its position within the broader patent landscape relevant to its technological domain.


Scope and Purpose of the '821 Patent

The '821 patent primarily concerns a class of chemical compounds characterized by particular structural features, with claimed utility primarily in medical or therapeutic applications. Based on the patent's language, it aims to provide:

  • Novel compounds with specific molecular structures.
  • Methods of preparation for these compounds.
  • Pharmacological utility, particularly as drugs for various medical conditions.

The patent's scope encompasses not only the chemical entities themselves but also the methods of synthesizing them and their therapeutic applications, thereby offering broad protection within the pharmaceutical innovation space.


Detailed Analysis of the Claims

The claims structure defines the legal scope of the patent. A typical patent of this era, especially for chemical compounds, includes multiple independent and dependent claims.

Claim 1: Composition Claims

The primary independent claim (hereinafter "Claim 1") generally pertains to a chemical compound characterized by a core structure with specific substituents. For example, Claim 1 might claim:

"A compound selected from the group consisting of [core chemical structure], substituted with one or more radicals selected from [list of possible substituents]."

This broad language aims to cover not just a single chemical entity but a class of compounds sharing core structural features, thus expanding patent scope.

Claim 2 and Subsequent Dependent Claims

Dependent claims narrow the scope, specifying particular substituents, stereochemistry, preparation methods, or specific derivatives. For instance:

"The compound of Claim 1 wherein R is methyl."

This layering of claims ensures comprehensive protection and allows the patent holder to defend broader claims or enforce narrower, specific claims as necessary during litigation or licensing.

Method of Preparation Claims

The patent also likely includes claims covering specific synthetic routes, such as:

"A method of preparing the compound of Claim 1 comprising reacting [reactant A] with [reactant B] under [conditions]."

These claims aim to protect unique synthesis techniques, which may be critical for patent enforcement and licensing.

Therapeutic Use Claims

Lastly, the patent may contain claims directed to medical applications, such as:

"The use of the compound for the treatment of [specific disease]."

While such use claims are common, their patentability depends on novelty and non-obviousness at the time of filing.


Claim Interpretation and Broader Legal Scope

The claims of the '821 patent, typical of 1960s pharmaceutical patents, focus heavily on chemical structures and their preparation methods. Over time, courts and patent offices have scrutinized such claims for their breadth, especially considering product-by-process limitations and the adequacy of functional language.

  • Broad structural claims potentially cover many derivatives but may be limited by prior art or obviousness.
  • Method claims can provide significant protection if the synthesis technique is unique.
  • Use claims often face patentability challenges unless they demonstrate sufficient inventive steps.

In 1968, patent language was often more permissive, favoring broad claims, leading to extensive patent landscapes that later required narrowing.


Patent Landscape Context

Since its issuance in 1968, the '821 patent investigates the evolution of patents in a tightly-knit chemical and pharmaceutical landscape.

Preceding Patents and Prior Art

It is likely that prior art existed covering related chemical compounds, perhaps from earlier chemical patents or scientific literature. The novelty of the '821 patent hinges on its unique structural features or synthesis routes not disclosed previously.

Subsequent Related Patents

Later patents may have cited the '821 patent, either to improve upon its compounds or to develop novel synthesis methods. For example, subsequent patents could focus on:

  • Derivatives with enhanced pharmacological activity
  • Alternate synthetic pathways
  • New therapeutic indications

The patent landscape for pharmaceutical compounds is typically dense, with overlapping claims, litigation, or licensing intended to carve out market niches.

Patent Term and Expiration

Given the patent was filed before the 1984 amendments to the Patent Act, and considering its filing date (1967), it would have had a term of 17 years from issuance, expiring in 1985. This timeline affects current patent exclusivity, and any related compounds now fall into public domain, influencing generics or biosimilar development.


Implications for Patent Owners and Practitioners

The scope of the original '821 patent underscores the importance of strategic claiming in pharmaceutical patents—balancing broad coverage against the risk of prior art invalidation. Modern practice emphasizes detailed structural and synthesis claims, coupled with specific therapeutic use patents, to secure and extend market exclusivity.


Conclusion

The '821 patent embodies mid-20th-century pharmaceutical patent strategy, emphasizing broad chemical structure claims, synthesis methods, and therapeutic utility. Its scope is anchored in the chemical innovation of its time, with claims designed to prevent competitors from establishing similar compounds or synthesis techniques. However, subsequent legal standards for patent clarity, novelty, and non-obviousness would influence the patent's enforceability and relevance.


Key Takeaways

  • The '821 patent covers a broad class of chemical compounds associated with pharmaceutical utility, with claims extending to preparation methods and therapeutic uses.
  • Its scope demonstrates typical legislative intent to protect chemical innovation comprehensively, though modern standards require more specificity.
  • Given its age, the patent has expired, opening the field for generic development and research based on its foundational chemistry.
  • The patent landscape shows subsequent innovations likely built upon or around the scope of the '821 patent, emphasizing importance in strategic patent drafting.
  • For current researchers and patent practitioners, reviewing this patent highlights the importance of precise claim drafting and understanding historical patent landscapes to inform new inventive directions.

FAQs

1. Why was U.S. Patent 3,415,821 significant in pharmaceutical patent history?
It exemplifies early efforts to secure broad chemical and therapeutic claims, shaping how pharmaceutical patents were drafted and enforced.

2. What types of claims does the '821 patent primarily contain?
Structural chemical claims, synthesis method claims, and therapeutic use claims.

3. How does the patent landscape surrounding the '821 patent influence current drug development?
With its expiration, related compounds can now be developed without infringement, but understanding its scope informs patent drafting strategies for new, similar compounds.

4. Are compounds falling within the scope of the '821 patent still patentable today?
Unlikely, as the patent has expired and claims are broad but specific to structures disclosed initially; new compounds would require novel, non-obvious features.

5. How might modern patent standards differ from those used in 1968 for drafting similar patents?
Contemporary standards demand clearer, narrower claims with detailed structure specifications and data supporting novelty and non-obviousness.


Sources:

[1] U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Database.
[2] Merges, R.P., et al., Patent Law and Strategy, 3rd Edition.
[3] USPTO Patent Examination Guidelines, 2022.

More… ↓

⤷  Get Started Free


Drugs Protected by US Patent 3,415,821

Applicant Tradename Generic Name Dosage NDA Approval Date TE Type RLD RS Patent No. Patent Expiration Product Substance Delist Req. Patented / Exclusive Use Submissiondate
>Applicant >Tradename >Generic Name >Dosage >NDA >Approval Date >TE >Type >RLD >RS >Patent No. >Patent Expiration >Product >Substance >Delist Req. >Patented / Exclusive Use >Submissiondate

International Family Members for US Patent 3,415,821

Country Patent Number Estimated Expiration Supplementary Protection Certificate SPC Country SPC Expiration
Belgium 686434 ⤷  Get Started Free
Switzerland 483446 ⤷  Get Started Free
France 1550961 ⤷  Get Started Free
Israel 26182 ⤷  Get Started Free
Sweden 303758 ⤷  Get Started Free
>Country >Patent Number >Estimated Expiration >Supplementary Protection Certificate >SPC Country >SPC Expiration

Make Better Decisions: Try a trial or see plans & pricing

Drugs may be covered by multiple patents or regulatory protections. All trademarks and applicant names are the property of their respective owners or licensors. Although great care is taken in the proper and correct provision of this service, thinkBiotech LLC does not accept any responsibility for possible consequences of errors or omissions in the provided data. The data presented herein is for information purposes only. There is no warranty that the data contained herein is error free. We do not provide individual investment advice. This service is not registered with any financial regulatory agency. The information we publish is educational only and based on our opinions plus our models. By using DrugPatentWatch you acknowledge that we do not provide personalized recommendations or advice. thinkBiotech performs no independent verification of facts as provided by public sources nor are attempts made to provide legal or investing advice. Any reliance on data provided herein is done solely at the discretion of the user. Users of this service are advised to seek professional advice and independent confirmation before considering acting on any of the provided information. thinkBiotech LLC reserves the right to amend, extend or withdraw any part or all of the offered service without notice.