Share This Page
Details for Patent: 4,454,152
✉ Email this page to a colleague
Summary for Patent: 4,454,152
| Title: | Methoxsalen dosage forms | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract: | This invention relates to oral dosage forms wherein the active ingredient, methoxsalen, is dispersed in a water-soluble composition containing a polyethylene glycol or mixtures of polyethylene glycols. Dissolution of methoxsalen in gastrointestinal fluids as well as drug absorption are more rapid and higher blood level patterns are achieved with these dosage forms as compared to conventional encapsulated dosage forms. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Inventor(s): | Richard H. Barry, Jack H. Lazarus | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Assignee: | ELDER PHARMACEUTICALS Inc AN IN CORP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Application Number: | US06/332,982 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Patent Claim Types: see list of patent claims | Use; Composition; Formulation; Dosage form; | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Patent landscape, scope, and claims: | US Patent 4,454,152: Scope, Claim Architecture, and US LandscapeWhat does US 4,454,152 claim, and what is its effective scope?US Drug Patent 4,454,152 claims a specific oral delivery system for methoxsalen (also written 8-methoxypsoralen) combined with a procedural regimen that includes timed UV irradiation. The patent’s scope centers on two tightly linked elements:
The claims therefore cover both:
Claim-by-claim construction (high-level, literal features)
Key numeric boundaries that drive scopeThe patent uses overlapping ranges that narrow practical infringement analysis:
How do the claims allocate protection: method vs composition?US 4,454,152 is drafted so that commercial activity can trigger at least one claim even if some process steps vary. Claim 1 requires a timing-plus-UV sequenceClaim 1 is an end-to-end treatment sequence:
This means a product that matches the composition (Claims 2/3) can still avoid Claim 1 if the clinical protocol does not include UV timing tied to peak blood concentration. Conversely, a prescriber protocol that follows the claimed timing sequence can implicate Claim 1 if the oral composition also meets its PEG constraints. Claims 2 and 3 cover the formulation independentlyClaims 2 and 3 are product claims for an oral unit dosage composition:
This is the critical enforcement pathway: composition coverage is broader than treatment coverage because it does not require proof of patient UV timing. What is the practical “infringement perimeter” for formulations?The claims target a narrow formulation architecture: Required formulation architecture
Implications for design-aroundThe strongest design pressure points are:
The claims do not specify:
That omission can broaden coverage because it does not limit the claim to one PEG grade or one UV protocol, as long as the composition and the peak-blood timing concept are satisfied (Claim 1). How does the “peak blood level” limitation shape method coverage?Claim 1 is constrained by a pharmacokinetic concept: the treatment must include waiting a sufficient time to reach peak blood level of methoxsalen. That typically means a protocol keyed to expected systemic exposure dynamics after oral administration. The claim’s language does not set a numeric time (e.g., “2 hours”), which can:
Still, the limitation is functional and tied to oral PEG delivery of methoxsalen, meaning a markedly different delivery technology that shifts systemic time-to-peak could reduce method-claim exposure even if composition claims remain in play. What is the likely US patent landscape around methoxsalen + oral delivery + UV phototherapy?Within US practice, the patent landscape for methoxsalen-based photochemotherapy commonly clusters around:
US 4,454,152 sits at the formulation-procedure junction: it is not merely “methoxsalen orally,” but methoxsalen in PEG-based solution in capsules with a regimen that includes peak blood level timing before UV irradiation. Where US 4,454,152 likely fits relative to earlier and later filings
Because US 4,454,152 claims are tightly tied to PEG weight fraction and capsule containment, later patents that use different vehicles (non-PEG solvents, different PEG grade states, or different formulation forms) can sit alongside without direct coverage, unless they still fall within “PEG fluid at room temperature” and the weight ranges. Landscape segmentation by claim target
What does claim 1’s indication coverage imply for commercial use?Claim 1 is for a subject with:
Commercial exposure therefore includes:
Even if the product is sold broadly for photochemotherapy, Claim 1 is activated by the indication of the patient and the UV timing sequence. Claims 2/3 are not indication-limited in the composition language beyond “effective for the treatment,” which is still an intended use constraint but is typically assessed based on the functional treatment effectiveness of methoxsalen for those diseases. What would be the cleanest enforcement strategy under this patent?Based on the claim set provided:
Key Takeaways
FAQs1) Does US 4,454,152 require a specific UV wavelength?The provided claim text requires “irradiating the subject with ultraviolet light” but does not specify a wavelength range. 2) Can the patent be triggered by a capsule formulation even if clinicians use a different UV timing?Yes. Claims 2 and 3 protect the composition in unit dosage form. UV timing is required for Claim 1’s method. 3) Are PEG molecular weights or grades explicitly limited in the claim text provided?The provided claim text limits the vehicle to PEG or PEG mixtures that are fluid at room temperature, without stating a molecular weight range. 4) What is the narrowest numeric limitation in the claims provided?For composition Claim 3, the narrowest explicit window is methoxsalen at about 0.025% to about 10.5% by weight (with PEG about 10% to about 97.5% by weight). 5) If a product uses PEG but outside the wt% limits, does it avoid the claims?If PEG and/or methoxsalen wt% falls outside the stated “about” ranges and the composition is otherwise outside the claim structure (solution in PEG fluid at room temperature in capsule), it is outside the literal numeric boundaries of Claims 2 and 3. References[1] US Patent 4,454,152 (claims provided in prompt). More… ↓ |
Drugs Protected by US Patent 4,454,152
| 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 4,454,152
| Country | Patent Number | Estimated Expiration | Supplementary Protection Certificate | SPC Country | SPC Expiration |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australia | 545363 | ⤷ Start Trial | |||
| Australia | 7006981 | ⤷ Start Trial | |||
| Canada | 1173751 | ⤷ Start Trial | |||
| >Country | >Patent Number | >Estimated Expiration | >Supplementary Protection Certificate | >SPC Country | >SPC Expiration |
