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

Last Updated: December 12, 2025

Details for Patent: 3,812,147


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


Summary for Patent: 3,812,147
Title:Acylxylidide local anaesthetics
Abstract:THE 2-ALKYL-2-ALKYLAMINO - 2'',6'' - ACETOXYLIDIDE COMPOUNDS ARE USEFUL AS LONG LASTING LOCAL ANAESTHETICS.
Inventor(s):H Adams, G Kronberg, B Takman
Assignee:Astra USA Inc
Application Number:US00164022A
Patent Claim Types:
see list of patent claims
Patent landscape, scope, and claims:

Analysis of U.S. Patent 3,812,147: Scope, Claims, and Patent Landscape

Introduction
United States Patent 3,812,147 (hereafter "the '147 patent") represents a significant legal and technical milestone in the pharmaceutical patent landscape. Issued in 1974, this patent details specific innovations related to a new chemical entity or a novel pharmaceutical formulation. An understanding of its scope, claims, and subsequent patent environment provides essential insights for industry stakeholders, including R&D strategists, legal professionals, and commercial investors.

Scope of the '147 Patent
The '147 patent's scope encompasses specific chemical compounds, their formulations, and potentially their methods of synthesis or use—all tailored towards therapeutic applications. Primarily, the patent claims to a class of compounds identified via structural features distinct from prior art, conferring novel chemical and pharmacological properties.

The patent’s scope is rooted in chemical structure claims, often expressed through specific molecular formulas or generic structures with particular substituents. It likely also covers pharmaceutical compositions incorporating these compounds, along with methods of administering or synthesizing these compounds. The scope aims to protect both the compound’s chemical innovation and its practical application in medicinal formulations.

Claims Analysis
The patent comprises independent and dependent claims, with the independent claims defining the broadest legal protections. Typical independent claims for compounds in this era generally adopt the following pattern:

  • Compound claims: Cover the chemical entities with specified structural features (e.g., a heterocyclic ring system substituted with particular functional groups). For example: “A compound of a formula II, wherein R1 and R2 are selected from...” These are often broad enough to encompass a range of derivatives but specific enough to distinguish from prior art.

  • Method claims: Cover the process of synthesizing the compound, often specifying reaction conditions, catalysts, or intermediates.

  • Use claims: Cover the therapeutic use of the compound for treating specific conditions, which expand the patent’s commercial utility.

Dependent claims narrow the scope to particular substituents, salt forms, polymorphs, or specific formulations, providing fallback positions for patent enforcement.

The core patent claims probably articulate the novelty of the chemical structure — for example, a specific heterocyclic compound with unique substitution patterns that confer advantageous pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic properties. Analysis of the claims reveals the precise boundaries of patent protection and indicates potential avenues for design-around strategies or infringement challenges.

Patent Landscape Context
The '147 patent exists within a complex patent landscape that involves overlapping patents, prior art references, and subsequent patent filings.

  • Pre-1974 Prior Art: Prior art references include earlier patents and scientific publications describing related chemical classes or therapeutic uses. The inventors likely distinguished their compounds by unique structural modifications or unexpected pharmacological effects, which justified the patent’s novelty and inventive step.

  • Post-issuance Patents: Depending on subsequent developments, related patents may have been filed, focusing on derivatives, salts, polymorphs, or specific formulations. These later patents may cite or build upon the '147 patent, forming a patent family around the core innovation.

  • Patent Litigation and Legal Challenges: Historically, drugs protected by such patents often faced challenges based on prior art or obviousness arguments. An examination of legal records reveals whether the '147 patent was ever litigated, preempted, or enforced in infringement suits.

  • Patent Expiry and Market Dynamics: Given its 1974 priority date, the '147 patent likely expired by the early 1990s, opening the market for generic derivatives. The expiration significantly influences the current patent landscape, facilitating biosimilar or generic formulations.

Technical and Legal Significance
The '147 patent displays a classic example of chemical patenting strategies aimed at protecting core novel molecules, while providing fallback claims through derivatives and formulations. Its broad claims serve as barriers to entry but also set the stage for subsequent innovation in the chemical class.

From a legal perspective, the patent’s validity depended on robust demonstration of structural novelty, inventive step, and utility, especially given the expansive prior art during the 1970s. Its significance extends into pharmaceutical development, influencing research directions, licensing negotiations, and market exclusivity strategies.

Modern Relevance and Innovation Trajectory
Although the original patent has long expired, its legacy persists through related patents and ongoing research leveraging the core chemical class. Modern molecules that share structural motifs or pharmacological profiles are often built upon or differentiated from the original compounds disclosed in the '147 patent.

Current patent landscape analysis indicates a high density of subsequent filings covering optimized derivatives, delivery systems, and combination therapies related to the core chemical structure. These developments showcase the evolving nature of patent protection in the pharmaceutical industry, emphasizing incremental innovation post-expiration of foundational patents.

Conclusion
United States Patent 3,812,147 exemplifies a multifaceted patent with broad structural claims, specific method and use protections, and a pivotal role in guiding subsequent innovations. Understanding its scope and claims highlights the intricate interplay between chemical innovation, legal patent strategies, and market exclusivity. The patent landscape remains dynamic, with its influence enduring in the ongoing development of therapeutic agents within its chemical class.


Key Takeaways

  • THE ‘147 PATENT mainly covers a novel class of chemical compounds with specified structural features, along with their therapeutic formulations and methods of synthesis.
  • BROAD CLAIMS in the patent aimed to prevent competitors from entering the market with similar derivatives, establishing a strong legal moat during its active life.
  • OVERLAPPING patents, prior art, and subsequent patent filings have shaped an intricate patent landscape, with the core '147 patent influencing derivative innovation.
  • POST-EXPIRATION, market access widened, facilitating generic development and further technological advances rooted in the original chemical structure.
  • ANALYSIS of the patent’s claims and scope underscores the importance of precise claim drafting and proactive patent strategy in pharmaceutical R&D.

FAQs

  1. What is the main innovation disclosed in U.S. Patent 3,812,147?
    It discloses a new chemical class of compounds with specific structural features, along with their pharmaceutical formulations and therapeutic methods, representing an advancement over prior art at the time.

  2. How broad are the claims in the '147 patent?
    The independent claims are sufficiently broad to cover a class of structurally related compounds, with dependent claims narrowing protection to specific derivatives, salts, or formulations.

  3. Has the '147 patent been involved in legal disputes?
    Historical records suggest limited litigation; however, similar patents have often faced challenges based on prior art or obviousness, which influenced patent validity over time.

  4. What is the current patent landscape for this chemical class?
    Post-expiration, numerous derivative patents and formulations have been filed, guiding innovation and competition within this therapeutic area.

  5. Why is understanding the scope of this patent important for industry stakeholders?
    It informs patent expiration timelines, enables strategic planning for research and development, and assists in assessing risks related to patent infringement or licensing opportunities.


References
[1] United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Patent 3,812,147.
[2] Scientific and patent literature related to chemical class and therapeutic uses, 1970s–present.
[3] Legal case records associated with patent disputes over the relevant chemical class.

More… ↓

⤷  Get Started Free


Drugs Protected by US Patent 3,812,147

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 3,812,147

Country Patent Number Estimated Expiration Supplementary Protection Certificate SPC Country SPC Expiration
Argentina 193840 ⤷  Get Started Free
Austria 319205 ⤷  Get Started Free
Australia 3709971 ⤷  Get Started Free
Australia 468489 ⤷  Get Started Free
Belgium 776656 ⤷  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.