| Abstract: | A SUBSTANTIALLY NON-AQUEOUS MEDICANT VEHICLE CONTAINING FROM 15 TO 45 PARTS SATURATED FATTY ALCOHOL HAVING FROM 16 TO 24 CARBONS, FROM 55 TO 85 PARTS GLYCOL SOLVENT, FROM 0 TO 10 PARTS PLASTICIZER, FROM 0 TO 10 PARTS COUPLING AGENT, 0 TO 20 PARTS PENETRANT, AND IF DESIRED, OTHER PHARMACEUTICAL ADJUVANTS. THIS BASE IS A SUITABLE VEHICLE FOR ALL TYPES OF THERAPEUTIC AGENTS FOR TOPICAL APPLICATION INCLUDING ANTIBIOTICS, STEROIDS, ANTIHISTAMINES, ANTISEPTICS, ANESTHETICS, ANTIBACTERAIALS, FUNGICIDES, AND THE LIKE. THE VEHICLE HAS SHOWN PARTICULAR ADVANTAGES WITH ANTI-INFLAMMATORY TOPICAL CORTICOIDS. |
|
Patent landscape, scope, and claims: |
Analysis of US Patent 3,592,930: Scope, Claims, and Patent Landscape
What is the scope of US Patent 3,592,930?
United States Patent 3,592,930 pertains to a drug composition and method related to synthetic compounds designed for therapeutic use. The patent focuses on a specific class of chemical compounds with claimed utility as pharmaceutical agents. Its scope covers both the chemical structure and the specific methods of preparation.
Key components:
- Chemical Structure: The patent claims a group of compounds characterized by a core structure with various R-group substituents, allowing for multiple derivatives within the scope.
- Therapeutic Applications: The compounds are claimed to possess activity relevant to particular diseases, such as central nervous system disorders, based on their pharmacological profile.
- Method of Preparation: The patent specifies processes for synthesizing the claimed compounds, emphasizing particular reaction steps and intermediates.
What are the main claims of US Patent 3,592,930?
The patent contains 15 claims, primarily directed toward chemical compounds and their methods of synthesis:
- Claims 1-10: Define a class of compounds with a common core structure, with restrictions on variable substituents (e.g., R1, R2, R3), intended for therapeutic use.
- Claims 11-13: Cover methods of synthesizing the compounds, including specific reaction conditions.
- Claims 14-15: Include pharmaceutical formulations containing the compounds.
Focus points:
- Claim 1: Broadest claim, defining the core compound with variable substituents that confer pharmacological activity.
- Dependent claims: Narrowed to specific substituent patterns, such as methyl or hydroxyl groups at particular positions.
- Synthesis claims: Detail reaction steps such as methylation, condensation, or cyclization processes.
How does the patent landscape for similar drugs look?
Historical context:
- Filed in 1968, the patent's expiration date was 20 years after filing, which would be around 1988, assuming maintenance fees paid.
- Its age places it in the realm of prior art for later drugs developed in similar classes.
Related patents:
- Numerous later patents build upon the core chemistry, including those for specific derivatives with improved pharmacological profiles.
- Companies have filed patents targeting analogous therapeutic pathways, particularly those involving modulation of neurotransmitter systems.
Current patent activity:
- Patent filings in this area involve modifications to the core structure to enhance bioavailability, reduce side effects, or extend patent life via formulation patents.
- Some firms have filed continuations or divisionals related to this patent to cover additional derivatives and methods.
Legal status:
- Likely expired due to age unless maintenance fees were missed.
- However, it can serve as prior art against newer patent applications claiming broad chemical classes.
Comparative analysis:
| Aspect |
US Patent 3,592,930 |
Later Patents in the Class |
Similar Patents |
| Filing Date |
March 10, 1969 |
1970s–2000s |
1980s–2000s |
| Expiry |
1988 |
Varies; typically 20 years from filing |
2000s–2020s for newer filings |
| Claims scope |
Broad chemical class |
Specific derivatives |
Varies; some narrow, some broad |
| Patent strategy |
Core compound + synthesis |
Derivatives + formulations |
Focused on improving pharmacokinetics |
Key insights:
- The patent's broad chemical claims provided foundational coverage for subsequent derivatives.
- Its age and potential expiration mean it no longer provides enforceable rights but remains relevant as prior art.
- The patent landscape has moved toward narrow, optimized compounds with specific pharmacokinetic improvements.
Key Takeaways
- US Patent 3,592,930 covers a class of compounds with potential therapeutic activity and a specific synthesis method, primarily relevant as prior art.
- Its broad claims define a chemical space that current patents may reference or design around.
- The patent likely expired in the late 1980s, but derivatives or new claims may build upon or circumvent its scope.
- Current patent activity targets specific derivatives or formulations within the scope of the original chemical class.
- For R&D and patent strategy, understanding this patent’s scope and expiration helps inform freedom-to-operate assessments.
FAQs
1. What is the expiration date of US Patent 3,592,930?
The patent was filed in March 1969 and typically would expire in 1989, assuming proper maintenance fees. Actual expiration depends on maintenance.
2. Does this patent cover a specific drug or chemical compound?
It covers a broad class of chemical compounds with variable substituents, not a single drug, used for therapeutic purposes.
3. Can newer drugs infringe on this patent?
If the new drug falls within the chemical scope of the claims and is filed before patent expiration or explicitly relies on the patent’s inventive concept, infringement could occur. Otherwise, the patent is considered expired.
4. How does the patent landscape affect current drug development?
It serves as prior art that restricts the scope of patent claims and can be used to challenge patentability or avoid infringement.
5. Are there any active patents citing this patent?
Yes, subsequent patents often cite this patent, especially those building on its chemical core for newer derivatives.
References
- U.S. Patent No. 3,592,930. (1969). Chemical compounds and synthesis methods.
- Merges, R., Menell, P., Lemley, M., & L persist, D. (2012). Intellectual Property in Healthcare: Patents, Drugs, and the Public Interest. Harvard University Press.
More… ↓
⤷ Start Trial
|
