Details for Patent: 3,876,802

Summary for Patent: 3,876,802

Title:	Phenoxy-hydroxypropylamines, method and pharmaceutical preparations for treating cardiovascular diseases
Abstract:	Para-substituted phenoxy-hydroxypropylamines having the general formula And pharmaceutically acceptible, non-toxic acid addition salts thereof, wherein R is an isopropyl or tertiarybutyl radical; Z is a member selected from the group consisting of --OR", --SR", and --NHCOOR", R" being a straight or branched lower alkyl radical having 1 to 3 carbon atoms; and n is 1, 2, or 3, are disclosed as are methods for their preparation. Pharmaceutical preparations are prepared whose active ingredients include at least one of the newly discovered phenoxy-hydroxypropylamine compounds. Therapeutically effective does of these preparations selectively block the .beta.-receptors of the heart marking them useful in treating heart diseases in animals including humans.
Inventor(s):	Arne Elof Brandstrom, Per Arvid Emil Carlsson, Stig Ake Ingemar Carlsson, Hans Rudolf Corrodi, Lars Ek, Arne Hjalmar Ablad
Assignee:	Individual
Application Number:	US433565A
Patent Claim Types: see list of patent claims	Use; Composition; Formulation; Dosage form;

What Is the Claim and Scope Profile of US Patent 3,876,802?

US Patent 3,876,802 is a United States drug patent with a defined legal scope determined by its independent claims, their dependent claim fenceposts, and the specification-supported interpretation of claim terms under US claim construction standards. The practical “patent landscape” impact is driven by (1) the active-ingredient perimeter defined in the claims, (2) any composition-formulation limits, and (3) any method-of-use limitations that can narrow or enable design-arounds.

Critical limitation: This analysis cannot be completed accurately without the actual claim text and bibliographic data (inventor/assignee, filing and issue dates, claim numbering, and claim language). No claim set for US 3,876,802 was provided in the prompt, and producing a detailed scope-and-landscape analysis from memory would risk factual errors on claim wording, category (composition vs method), and expiration/ETL details.

Why Can’t the Scope and Claim-by-Claim Analysis Be Produced from the Given Input?

A correct “scope and claims” analysis requires direct access to:

• All claim language (independent + dependent) for US 3,876,802
• Specification disclosures that constrain how terms are interpreted
• Patent metadata (assignee, priority chain, filing dates) that governs legal timeline and related family scope

A “patent landscape” analysis also requires at minimum:

• Identification of family members and related US continuations
• Mapping to later US Orange Book / FDA-listed patents only when claim coverage intersects the marketed indication or formulation
• Identification of cited documents in the prosecution record to assess novelty boundaries

With none of this included, any attempt to draft detailed claim scope, identify landscape cohorts, or list design-around routes would not meet the requirement for accuracy.

Key Takeaways

• A detailed, accurate scope and claims analysis of US Patent 3,876,802 requires the patent’s actual claim text and bibliographic data.
• A defensible patent landscape assessment also requires family mapping and prosecution citation/relationship context.
• The provided input does not include the necessary source materials to complete the requested analysis to a high-stakes standard.

FAQs

1. What defines the legal scope of US 3,876,802?
   The actual claim language (independent claims first, then dependent claim limitations) construed in light of the specification.

2. What drives a patent landscape for a drug patent?
   The active-ingredient coverage, formulation boundaries, and any method-of-use claims, plus family and later related patent families in the same therapeutic space.

3. Can scope be inferred without the claims?
   Not reliably. Drug patent scope hinges on precise claim wording and how courts interpret claim terms.

4. What is needed to map landscape design-arounds?
   The exact claim elements and their limits, then comparison to later formulations/indications and competitor claim strategies.

5. Why does claim numbering matter?
   Dependent claims create specific “fences” that narrow coverage and often determine what is still infringed under partial substitutions.

---

References

[1] US Patent 3,876,802 (bibliographic and claim text required for analysis).

Drugs Protected by US Patent 3,876,802

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 3,876,802

Country	Patent Number	Estimated Expiration	Supplementary Protection Certificate	SPC Country	SPC Expiration
Austria	134971
Austria	307386
Austria	310144