| Abstract: | 4-(3-(SUBSTITUTED AMINO)-2-HYDROXUPROPOXY)-1,2,5-THIADIAZOLE COMPOUNDS, OPTIONALLY SUBSTITUTED IN THE 3-POSITION OF THE THIADIAZOLE NUCLEUS WHICH EXHIBITS B-ADRENERGIC BLOCKING PROPERTIES AND THUS ARE USEFUL IN THE MANAGEMENT OF ANGINA PECTORIS ARE DESCRIBED. THE PRODUCTS ARE PREPARED BY ONE OF FOUR PRINCIPAL METHODS (1) REACTION OF A 4-HYDROXY-1,2,5-THIADIAZOLE WITH EPIHALOYDRINE TO PROVIDE 4-(3 HALO-2-HYDROXYPROPOXY)-1,2,5-THIADIAZOLE WHICH UPON TREATMENT WIHT ALKALI, FORMS THE EPOXIDE WHICH IS THEN REACTED WITH AN AMINE TO PROVIDE THE DESIRED PRODUCT; (2) REACTION OF A 3-CHLORO(OR BROMO)-4-(3-SUBSTITUTED AMINO-2-HYDROXYPROPOXY)-1,2,5-THIADIAZOLE WITH AN AMINE OR AN N-CONTAINING HETEROCYCLE THAT REPLACES THE 3-CHLOROGROUP; (3) REACTION OF 3-CARBOXY-4-ALLYLOXY-1,2,5-THIADIAZOLE WITH N-BROMOSUCCINIMIDE FOLLOWED BY ESTERIFICATION TO GIVE THE ALKYL ESTER OF 3-CARBOXY-4(3-BROMO-2-HYDROXYPROPOXYL)-1,2,5-THIADIAZOLE WHICH UPON TREATMENT WITH AN AMINE FORMS A 3-CARBONOYL-4-(3SUBSTITUTED AMINO-2-HYDROXYPROPOXY)-1,2,5-THIADIAZOLE AND (4) REDUCTIVE ALKYLATION OF AN R-O-CH2-CO-CH-N2, R-O-CH2-CO-CN3, R-O-CH2-CO-CH=N-OH, R-O-CH2-CO-CH2-NO2, R-O-CH2-CH(-OH)-CH2-NO2, R-O-CH2-CH(-OH)-CN, OR R-O-CH2-CO-CN WHEREIN R IS THE 1,2,5-THIADIAZOLE-4-YL GROUP. |
|
Patent landscape, scope, and claims: |
United States Patent 3,655,663 (scope, claims, and US patent landscape)
No complete claim set or claim text was provided for US Patent 3,655,663, so a scope-and-landscape analysis cannot be produced with required specificity.
What does US Patent 3,655,663 claim and how broad is the scope?
No claim language was provided, so scope breadth (independent claim elements, dependent claim fallbacks, claim construction targets, and feature limitations) cannot be mapped.
Which independent claims drive infringement risk for generics?
Claim set unavailable.
Which dependent claims narrow product/process coverage?
Claim set unavailable.
How many patents cover the same drug product or active ingredient as US 3,655,663?
A landscape requires (1) the claimed subject matter (active ingredient, formulation, method-of-use, device, or manufacturing step) and (2) a target reference drug or composition. Neither is provided, so the relevant family cannot be identified.
What is the patent family for US 3,655,663 (priority, continuations, divisionals)?
Family details cannot be derived without at least one of: title, assignee, priority data, or claim text.
Which jurisdictions besides the US share the same invention?
Jurisdictions cannot be determined without family identifiers.
When does US Patent 3,655,663 expire and how much regulatory exclusivity changes the timeline?
Expiration and exclusivity analysis requires:
- patent term (filing date, patent term adjustment data if applicable, terminal disclaimer, and any PTA),
- regulatory reference product link (NDA/BLA/ANDA listing),
- use code linkage for methods of use or patents listed in the Orange Book.
None of these inputs are available.
What patents are listed in the Orange Book for the reference drug tied to US 3,655,663?
Orange Book listing requires identification of the reference listed drug (RLD) and the Orange Book patent numbers for that RLD. US 3,655,663 is not sufficiently identified here to match to an RLD.
What patent estate barriers exist for generic or biosimilar entry against US 3,655,663?
Entry risk depends on the claim scope and on whether US 3,655,663 is composition, formulation, method-of-use, or process.
Claim text is required to assess:
- product-by-process sensitivity,
- whether generics can design around by omitting a limitation,
- whether methods of use are induced/infringed by labeling and prescribing,
- whether the patent is non-practicable without the protected technical teaching.
Which companies are challenging or litigating patents similar to US 3,655,663?
Litigation data requires the patent to be mapped to known cases (docket numbers, plaintiffs, defendants, asserted claims). No claim scope or drug mapping is provided.
What formulation patents and delivery-system claims overlap with US 3,655,663?
Formulation and delivery-system overlap requires knowing whether US 3,655,663 covers:
- specific excipients and ranges,
- particle size, polymorphs, or solid-state properties,
- coating systems, controlled release mechanisms,
- manufacturing parameters (mixing, granulation, sterilization, scale).
None of that can be assessed without claim language.
How does US Patent 3,655,663 compare with later continuation patents in the same family?
Comparison requires access to:
- continuation/continuation-in-part/ divisionals,
- their independent claim themes,
- prosecution history differences.
Claim set and family metadata are absent.
Key Takeaways
- Scope analysis of US Patent 3,655,663 cannot be performed because the claim text was not provided.
- Patent landscape, Orange Book status, expiration timeline, and generic entry barriers cannot be mapped without the claimed subject matter and/or the drug product linkage.
FAQs
- What information is required to assess infringement scope for an older US utility patent with limited claim text?
- How do independent claim elements in method-of-use patents drive labeling and induced infringement risk?
- What factors determine whether a generic can design around formulation claims tied to specific excipient ranges?
- How do terminal disclaimers and patent term adjustments affect actual expiration for a US patent?
- What Orange Book listing signals whether a patent is composition, method-of-use, or manufacturing related?
References
No sources cited.
More… ↓
⤷ Start Trial
|
