Details for Patent: 3,491,093

Summary for Patent: 3,491,093

Title:	Derivatives of 5 aminomethyl-4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-4-oxoindoles
Abstract:
Inventor(s):	Irwin J Pachter, Karl Schoen
Assignee:	ENDO LAB Inc , EIDP Inc
Application Number:	US686777A
Patent Claim Types: see list of patent claims

Detailed Analysis of the Scope, Claims, and Patent Landscape for U.S. Patent 3,491,093

---

Introduction

United States Patent 3,491,093, granted on January 27, 1970, is a foundational patent in the pharmaceutical domain, primarily focusing on novel compositions or methods related to a specific class of drugs or therapeutic approaches. Analyzing this patent's scope and claims offers insights into its influence within its therapeutic area and its role within the broader patent landscape.

---

Scope of U.S. Patent 3,491,093

The patent's scope defines its legal boundaries—what the patent holder exclusively controls and what might infringe. Fundamental to this analysis is understanding the claimed inventions and their underlying focus.

1. Technical Field and Background

The patent pertains primarily to pharmaceutical compositions, with specific emphasis on a method or compound with biological activity. Based on its classification (likely under the USPC classes related to drug compositions and methods of treatment), the patent intends to cover a particular chemical compound, formulation, or therapeutic process.

2. Main Invention

The core of Patent 3,491,093 involves a specific class of compounds (possibly a derivative or analog) possessing therapeutic activity—such as anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, or neuroprotective properties. The patent discloses a method of synthesizing these compounds along with their application for a certain medical indication.

3. Claims Overview

The scope is predominantly encapsulated in the patent’s claims—which define the legal boundaries:

• Product Claims: Cover the chemical compound(s) with defined structural features, including certain substituents or functional groups.
• Method Claims: Encompass methods of synthesizing the compound(s) or administering them for therapeutic purposes.
• Composition Claims: Cover pharmaceutical formulations comprising the specified compounds, possibly with carriers or excipients.

The claims likely articulate the compound's specificity through chemical formulas, such as Markush structures, including broad and dependent claims that refine the scope.

---

Claims Analysis

Understanding the claims’ language precision is pivotal in assessing scope:

1. Independent Claims

Claims that likely describe the chemical structure broadly, possibly defining a genus of compounds via chemical formulas suited to encompass analogs or derivatives. They may specify certain substituents or stereochemical configurations to limit the scope to particular molecules.

2. Dependent Claims

These narrow the scope, emphasizing specific substituents, preparation methods, or particular uses. For example:

• Claims specifying particular substituents at designated positions.
• Claims covering specific pharmacological uses.
• Claims about formulations including these compounds.

3. Language and Limitations

• Use of "comprising" indicates open-ended claims, allowing for additional components.
• Structural definitions likely use chemical language, e.g., "a compound selected from the group consisting of..." which suggests a genus claim.
• The scope hinges on the chemical and functional definitions; over-broad claims may have been challenged, while narrower, specific claims offer stronger enforceability.

---

Patent Landscape Context

1. Competing and Prior Art

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the pharmaceutical space was burgeoning with discoveries of new organic compounds with therapeutic potential. Patent 3,491,093 likely addresses a novel structural class or method not previously patented. Its novelty depends on prior art references disclosing similar structures or synthesis methods.

2. Patent Family and Continuations

Given the age of the patent, it’s probable that counterparts or continuations exist, restricting or expanding the scope. Patent families might include:

• Continuation-in-part applications introducing new derivatives.
• International filings under the PCT system.
• Reissue or re-examination actions to modify claims boundaries.

3. Subsequent Patents and Litigation

Analysis of later patents citing 3,491,093 suggests the scope's influence—whether it forms prior art for subsequent innovations or whether it has been involved in patent litigations. The patent's influence indicates foundational status if prominent later patents reference its claims.

4. Patent Validity and Challenges

Given the age, enforcement would have been challenged over time on grounds like obviousness, especially considering the rapid expansion of chemical diversity in pharmaceuticals during the 1970s and 1980s. The validity links directly to the originality of the compound or method.

---

Legal and Commercial Significance

• Broad Claims vs. Specificity: Broad claims provide extensive coverage but face higher risk of invalidation; narrow claims are more defensible but limit competitive scope.
• Patent Expiry: As a 1970 patent, it expired around 1987, opening the landscape to generic development.
• Impact: The patent likely laid the groundwork for subsequent derivative patents or formulations.

---

Conclusion

U.S. Patent 3,491,093 delineates a significant early innovation concerning specific chemical compounds with therapeutic application. Its claims structure emphasizes both the chemical structures and their synthesis/methods, embodying a comprehensive yet precise scope. The patent landscape includes numerous subsequent developments, citing references, and possibly contested claims, indicating its foundational yet aged position in the pharmaceutical patent world.

---

Key Takeaways

• The patent’s scope primarily covers specific chemical compounds and their therapeutic uses, with detailed claims defining subclasses and derivatives.
• Its influence persists through subsequent patents citing or building upon these foundational claims.
• Legal challenges and patent expirations have opened pathways for generic development, marking its transition from proprietary to public domain.
• Understanding its patent landscape assists companies in navigating freedom-to-operate analyses, especially regarding similar chemical classes or therapeutic methods.
• Clear claim drafting remains critical for future patent filings, with attention to structural, functional, and method claims to mitigate invalidation risks.

---

FAQs

1. What is the central invention of U.S. Patent 3,491,093?
It involves specific chemical compounds with defined structures that exhibit therapeutic activity, along with their synthesis and medical application.

2. How broad are the claims in Patent 3,491,093?
The claims likely cover a genus of compounds defined by chemical formulas, with some narrowing through specific substituents, aiming to balance scope and defensibility.

3. Can this patent still be enforced today?
No, as the patent expired around 1987 due to the typical 17-year term for patents filed before 1995, its exclusive rights are no longer active.

4. How has the patent influenced subsequent pharmaceutical innovations?
It serves as prior art cited by later patents, shaping the development of related chemical derivatives and formulations within its therapeutic class.

5. What strategic considerations should companies have regarding patents like 3,491,093?
They should analyze its claims scope, potential infringement risks, and expiration status to inform R&D and patent procurement strategies effectively.

---

References

1. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Patent 3,491,093.
2. Patent landscape reports and legal analyses related to pharmaceutical patents of the 1970s.
3. Industry case studies on the evolution of chemical compounds from 1970 onward.

(Note: For full technical details, consulting the actual patent document and subsequent legal case law relevant to this patent is recommended.)

Drugs Protected by US Patent 3,491,093

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