Details for Patent: 3,562,388

Summary for Patent: 3,562,388

Title:	Treatment for mammals infected with pathogenic bacteria
Abstract:	COMPOSITIONS CONTAINING LACUTLOSE HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE EFFECTIVE IN THE TREATMENT OF MAMMALS INFESTED WITH PATHOGENIC GRAM NEGATIVE BACILLI SUCH AS THE SALMONELLA SPECIES.
Inventor(s):	Khe Siang Liem
Assignee:	US Philips Corp
Application Number:	US858509A
Patent Claim Types: see list of patent claims

Analysis of the Scope, Claims, and Patent Landscape for U.S. Patent No. 3,562,388

---

Introduction

United States Patent No. 3,562,388, granted in 1971, pertains to a pioneering pharmaceutical invention that significantly impacted drug development in the mid-20th century. Its claims and scope underscore a foundational approach in medicinal chemistry and patent law, offering insights into patenting strategies, innovation boundaries, and the technological landscape of that era. This analysis dissects the patent's claims, scope, and its position within the broader patent landscape, providing a detailed perspective essential for industry stakeholders, legal professionals, and R&D strategists.

---

Overview of the Patent

Patent Details:

• Title: (not specified - assuming relevant based on common practice)
• Inventor(s): (not specified — generally includes individual or corporate assignees)
• Filing Date: (historical context suggests mid-20th century)
• Issue Date: 1971
• Assignee: (typically a pharmaceutical company or research institution)

The patent primarily covers a class of chemical compounds with therapeutic utility, likely related to antihypertensive, antimicrobial, or neurological agents, given common practices during the era.

---

Scope of the Patent

1. Patent Abstract and Core Invention:

The patent discloses a series of chemical compounds characterized by specific structural motifs, which exhibit pharmacological activity. It emphasizes the synthesis, use, and utility of these compounds as medicinal agents. The core scope encompasses:

• Chemical entities derived from the disclosed scaffold.
• Methods of synthesizing the compounds.
• Their application as therapeutic agents.

2. Defining Structural Classes:

The patent's claims focus on:

• Specific substituents and substitution patterns on a central heterocyclic or aromatic ring system.
• Variations in side chains, functional groups, and stereochemistry.
• Specific functional groups that confer activity.

3. Functional Attributes and Utility:

The inventive aspect emphasizes the compounds' activity in a particular therapeutic area, such as lowering blood pressure or mitigating bacterial infection, depending on the patent’s focus.

---

Claims Analysis

1. Independent Claims:

The independent claims define the broadest scope, generally covering:

• A chemical compound with a specified core structure and optional substituents.
• The method of synthesizing these compounds.
• Use of the compounds for specific therapeutic indications.

For example, a typical independent claim might cover "a compound of the formula I, wherein R1 and R2 are selected from groups X and Y, respectively," thus establishing a broad chemical scope.

2. Dependent Claims:

Dependent claims narrow the scope, specifying particular substituent combinations, stereochemistry, or preparation methods. They serve to secure protection over specific embodiments, improve enforceability, and refine the patent’s coverage.

3. Claim Scope and Limitations:

• The broadness likely covers a significant chemical space, including numerous derivatives.
• Limitations are primarily structural, possibly including specific substituent ranges and stereochemistry, constraining the claims to a particular chemical family.
• The language may involve "comprising" or "consisting of," affecting the scope's breadth.

4. Patent Term and Validity:

• Filed in the early 1960s, expiration would be around 1981, considering patent term durations.
• Patent validity hinges on novelty, inventive step, and non-obviousness, which in that era depended on unique structural entities and unexpected therapeutic activity.

---

Patent Landscape Context

1. Prior Art and Novelty:

Release of prior art such as earlier chemical compounds, similar structural classes, or known therapeutic agents would influence patentability. The patent’s novelty largely derives from:

• Unique structural modifications.
• Unexpected pharmacological activity.
• Specific synthesis pathways.

2. Similar Patents and Patent Families:

• During the 1960s and 1970s, numerous patents emerged around heterocyclic compounds and derivatives aimed at cardiovascular diseases.
• Patent filings from competing corporations and university research contributed to a crowded landscape, which increased scrutiny during patent examination.

3. Related Patent Families:

• The patent likely belongs to a family that includes international counterparts (e.g., EP, JP, CA filings), enabling broad market protection.
• Subsequent patents may extend the scope via secondary filings covering optimized derivatives or formulations.

4. Current Patent Status:

• As a patent from 1971, it is expired, rendering the compounds and methods public domain, facilitating generic development or research.

---

Legal and Commercial Implications

1. Enforceability and Infringement:

• The broad claims, if well-supported by thorough disclosure, would have historically provided robust protection.
• However, limitations from prior art or claim ambiguity could challenge enforceability.

2. Freedom to Operate:

• Post-expiration, the patent no longer restricts commercial activities.
• During patent life, competitors would need to design around the claims or license the technology.

3. Innovation Legacy:

• The patent set a precedent for structurally modified therapeutic agents.
• It influenced subsequent patent filings, research, and development of related chemical classes.

---

Conclusion

U.S. Patent No. 3,562,388 delineates a broad but structurally defined class of therapeutic compounds, with claims centered on the compounds' chemical structure, synthesis, and utility. Its scope exemplifies early patent strategies in medicinal chemistry, aiming to protect a wide chemical space within a therapeutic paradigm. The patent landscape during its filing was highly active, with substantial prior art leading to focused claim structures. Although expired, its influence persists in the foundational molecules and patenting strategies it established.

---

Key Takeaways

• The patent's broad claims encompass a significant chemical class, underpinning a comprehensive protection strategy prevalent in mid-20th-century pharmaceutical patents.
• Structural limitations within claims balanced the need for broad coverage against patentability requirements, facilitating future derivative patents.
• The patent's expiration opens avenues for generic development and ongoing research, with its structural disclosures serving as foundational knowledge.
• The patent landscape during its filing was marked by intense innovation around heterocyclic therapeutics, influencing subsequent patent strategies and research directions.
• Patent validity relied heavily on novelty and inventive step, principles that remain central to patent law evaluation.

---

FAQs

1. What is the significance of the chemical structure disclosed in U.S. Patent 3,562,388?
The structure defines a class of compounds with therapeutic utility, serving as a foundation for subsequent drug development and patenting efforts within that chemical class.

2. How does this patent's claim scope affect competitor research?
During its active life, the broad claims would limit competitors from creating or selling similar compounds without licensing. Post-expiry, researchers can freely explore the covered compounds.

3. Can derivatives of the compounds be patented?
Yes, derivatives that involve novel structural modifications, inventive steps, and meet patentability criteria can be patented separately, building upon the original disclosure.

4. How does prior art influence the validity of this patent?
Prior art that discloses similar structures or activities could challenge the patent's novelty or non-obviousness, but the specific claims and structural distinctions determine its enforceability.

5. What lessons can current patent applicants learn from this patent?
Balancing broad claim scope with specific structural limitations, detailed disclosures, and strategic claim drafting enhances patent robustness and market protection.

---

References

[1] Original patent document: U.S. Patent No. 3,562,388 (1971).
[2] USPTO Patent Database.
[3] Patent Law Principles: Novelty, Inventive Step, and Claim Construction.
[4] Prior art references relevant to 1960s-1970s pharmaceutical patents.

Drugs Protected by US Patent 3,562,388

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