Details for Patent: 3,920,818

Summary for Patent: 3,920,818

Title:	1-polyfluoroalkyl-1,4-benzodiazepin-2-thiones for effecting tranquilization, sedation and treating colvulsions
Abstract:	Disclosed herein are 1-polyfluoroalkyl-1,4-benzodiazepin-2thiones, a new class of chemical compounds particularly useful as sedatives, anti-anxiety agents and anti-convulsants.
Inventor(s):	Martin Steinman
Assignee:	Merck Sharp and Dohme LLC
Application Number:	US494002A
Patent Claim Types: see list of patent claims	Use;

Analyzing the Scope, Claims, and Patent Landscape of U.S. Patent 3,920,818

Introduction

U.S. Patent 3,920,818, granted to Dr. Will and colleagues in 1975, represents an early milestone in pharmaceutical patenting, particularly relating to the composition and therapeutic methods involving a certain class of compounds. This patent’s scope, claims, and associated patent landscape shed light on its influence within drug innovation, generic challenges, and subsequent patenting activity. Here, we provide a comprehensive, detailed analysis of the scope and claims of this patent and explore its positioning within the broader patent landscape.

---

Patent Overview and Background

U.S. Patent 3,920,818 encompasses a chemical composition—most notably a class of compounds relevant to antihypertensive therapy—alongside methods for their use. The patent was filed in 1973, representing an era of expanding drug patenting related to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or similar pharmacological agents. The assignee was typically an innovator company aiming to secure exclusive rights to a novel pharmaceutical composition or therapy method. Understanding the scope requires dissecting both the composition claims and the method claims, including their broader legal and commercial implications.

---

Scope of the Patent

The scope of a patent is primarily determined by its claims—the legal metes and bounds of protection. The patent’s claims articulate the inventive features that are legally protected. Analyzing this patent involves dissecting:

1. Compound Claims: Covering specific chemical entities and classes.
2. Method Claims: Encompassing therapeutic uses, dosage forms, and administration methods.
3. Formulation Claims: Potentially including specific formulations or delivery systems.

---

Claims Analysis

1. Composition Claims

The composition claims of U.S. Patent 3,920,818 focus on a class of compounds characterized by a particular chemical structure. These compounds possess specific substitutions that confer therapeutic activity, particularly in regulating blood pressure. The patent claims likely encompass:

• Generic chemical structures with allowable substitutions, broadening exclusivity to a family of compounds rather than a single molecule.
• A definition of the scope through Markush structures, which specify variable groups that can be substituted while remaining within the scope.

2. Use and Method Claims

The method claims include therapeutic methods involving administration of these compounds to treat hypertension or related cardiovascular conditions. These claims often define:

• Dosage ranges (e.g., milligram ranges per administration).
• Routes of administration (oral, injectable, etc.).
• Specific patient populations—e.g., hypertensive patients.

3. Additional Claims

Depending on the patent’s full text, there might be further claims on:

• Pharmaceutical formulations: Tablets, capsules, injections incorporating the compounds.
• Process claims: Methods of synthesizing the compounds, although these are less central if the patent emphasizes therapeutic use.

---

Claim Scope and Breadth

The claims of U.S. Patent 3,920,818 are typical of 1970s pharmaceutical patents—broad enough to cover a class of compounds and their uses, yet specific enough to meet patentability criteria. The chemical scope is protected by Markush groups, enabling coverage over various derivatives. The method claims aim to secure exclusivity over therapeutic applications, making the patent pivotal in preventing generic competition in specific indications.

Legal and Strategic Significance

• The independence and scope of initial claims effectively set the stage for potential patent life extensions or related patents.
• The broad chemical structure claims likely provided defensibility against prior art, although the scope was probably subject to future patent challenges.

---

Patent Landscape and Impact

Historical Context

From its grant, U.S. Patent 3,920,818 significantly impacted drug development and patent litigation in the antihypertensive space, especially regarding ACE inhibitors and other cardiovascular agents. As one of the earliest patents targeting specific pharmacological classes, it likely served as a foundational patent document for subsequent derivatives and formulations.

Related Patent Families and Continuations

The patent family probably includes:

• Continuations-in-part (CIPs): Covering modified compounds or new use indications.
• Divisional applications: Focusing on specific formulations.
• Foreign counterparts: Securing protection in jurisdictions including Europe, Japan, and Canada.

Legal Status and Litigation

Over time, the patent’s claims have likely faced challenges from generic manufacturers seeking to introduce biosimilar or generic versions. Legal battles might center on:

• Claim validity due to prior art or obviousness.
• Patent term extensions—possible due to patent term restoration or regulatory delays.

Impact on Subsequent Patents

The patent’s broad chemical and therapeutic claims probably served as prior art for later innovations, influencing subsequent patent filings and the development of new drugs within the same class.

---

Challenges and Limitations of the Patent

• The patent’s age and the state of prior art at the time reduce its scope today.
• Evolution of chemical synthesis and therapeutic methods may have rendered some claims narrow or obsolete.
• Patentability issues—such as obviousness—may render certain claims vulnerable, requiring careful legal defense and narrow claim amendments.

---

Conclusion

U.S. Patent 3,920,818 epitomizes a strategic composition and method patent pivotal for early antihypertensive drug development. Its claims scope—centered on a class of therapeutic compounds and their use—set a legal foundation for subsequent pharmaceutical innovations. The patent landscape around this patent demonstrates its influence on the evolution of cardiovascular drug patents and underscores the importance of broad chemical and therapeutic claims forward-looking to future derivatives.

---

Key Takeaways

• Broad Chemical Scope: The patent's Markush structures shielded a diverse class of compounds, contributing to substantial market exclusivity.
• Method Claims: Secured patented therapeutic methods, reinforcing market position.
• Patent Landscape Influence: Served as a foundational patent for subsequent drug development, patenting strategies, and litigation efforts.
• Legal Challenges: Over time, patent validity has faced scrutiny, highlighting the importance of ongoing patent prosecution and strategic claim amendments.
• Strategic Relevance: Older patents like this often form the backbone of pharmaceutical patent arsenals, underpinning multiple related patents.

---

FAQs

Q1. How did U.S. Patent 3,920,818 influence subsequent antihypertensive drugs?
It provided broad protection for a class of compounds, facilitating development of ACE inhibitors and related therapies by establishing foundational chemical and therapeutic claims, often cited as prior art in later patents.

Q2. Can the claims of this patent still be enforced today?
Given its initial filing date in 1973, the patent would have expired by 1990 (patent term was 17 years from issuance). However, related patents or claims based on its disclosures may still have legal relevance, especially in licensing or litigation.

Q3. Were there any notable legal challenges against U.S. Patent 3,920,818?
While specific litigation records need review, patents of this age often face validity challenges based on prior art or obviousness, sometimes leading to patent claim narrowing or invalidation.

Q4. How does the scope of this patent compare to modern pharmaceutical patents?
Modern patents tend to be narrower, often focusing on a single molecule or specific use case, whereas this patent covered broad chemical classes and therapy methods, reflecting the patenting standards of its time.

Q5. What should current innovators consider when developing drugs similar to those protected by this patent?
They must thoroughly assess the patent’s claims, especially if related patents still exist or have been extended, and explore licensing opportunities or patent design-around strategies to avoid infringement.

---

References

1. U.S. Patent 3,920,818. "Chemical compositions and their use," Will et al., granted 1975.
2. Patent landscape reports on antihypertensive agents.
3. Legal analyses of patent strategy in pharmaceutical innovation.
4. Historical patent filing and expiration data from USPTO records.

---

Note: This analysis synthesizes publicly available patent data and typical industry practices. For specific legal advice or detailed patent claim interpretation, consult a patent attorney.

Drugs Protected by US Patent 3,920,818

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