United States Patent 4,868,216 Scope, Claim Construction, and Patent Landscape for 5-(2-(2-(2-ethoxyphenoxy)ethylamino)-2-methylethyl)-2-methoxybenzenesulfonamide Hydrochloride

Executive summary: U.S. Patent 4,868,216 claims a method of producing alpha-adrenergic antagonistic action in a host by administering an alpha-adrenergic-antagonist amount of a specific pharmaceutical composition containing 5-{2-[2-(2-ethoxyphenoxy)ethylamino]-2-methylethyl}-2-methoxybenzenesulfonamide hydrochloride plus a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient. The claim is composition-based by drug identity but functional by outcome (alpha-adrenergic antagonism). The enforceable scope is driven by (1) whether accused products contain the named hydrochloride, (2) whether administration qualifies as an “alpha-adrenergic antagonistic amount,” and (3) whether the administered formulation has the claimed “pharmaceutical composition” characteristics. The surrounding landscape typically clusters around (a) drug substance and salt form, (b) pharmaceutical formulations (oral, parenteral, sustained release), (c) dosing/regimen and method-of-treatment variants, and (d) design-around alternatives such as different salts, polymorphs, prodrugs, or non-infringing analog compounds.

What does U.S. Patent 4,868,216 claim and what is its practical enforceable scope?

Featured snippet answer: Claim 1 covers administering a formulation containing the named benzene sulfonamide hydrochloride to produce alpha-adrenergic antagonistic action in a host, with the formulation including a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient and the administered amount being an alpha-adrenergic-antagonist amount.

Claim 1 key elements (mapping to infringement questions)

Claim 1 (method claim) states:

Method of producing alpha-adrenergic antagonistic action
In a host
By administering
A pharmaceutical composition comprising:
- the active ingredient: 5-{2-[2-(2-ethoxyphenoxy)ethylamino]-2-methylethyl}-2-methoxybenzenesulfonamide hydrochloride
- plus pharmaceutically acceptable excipient
At an alpha-adrenergic antagonistic amount

Infringement pressure points

Active ingredient identity: A product must deliver the claimed hydrochloride form of the specific sulfonamide. If an accused product uses the free base or a different salt form, claim coverage turns on whether the active ingredient delivered is still the claimed compound (literal identity) or whether doctrine-of-equivalents arguments could be made based on interchangeability.
Composition requirement: The claim requires a “pharmaceutical composition” with a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient. This generally covers almost all marketed dosage forms that include standard carriers/binders/fillers/solvents. It is mainly a discriminator versus “pure API” or unusual preparations that lack an excipient or that are not formulated for administration.
Amount qualifier: “Alpha-adrenergic antagonistic amount” is a functional dosing limitation. Practically, this links to whether the prescribed or used dose range is sufficient to cause alpha-adrenergic antagonism.
Outcome and mechanism: “Producing alpha-adrenergic antagonistic action” is tied to pharmacology. If the active ingredient is pharmacologically alpha-adrenergic antagonist, this element is typically satisfied when the compound is administered at an effective antagonistic dose.

How broad is the claim likely to be on drug form and dosing?

Because the claim is drug-identity anchored (specific named hydrochloride) and outcome functional, it tends to be broad on:

Dosage form types (oral tablets/capsules, injectables, solutions, etc.) as long as they qualify as “pharmaceutical composition” with excipient and achieve antagonism.
Regimen and route, to the extent the claim does not limit to route, frequency, or specific duration. The “administering” language includes all routes unless constrained by the specification or dependent claims (not provided here).

It tends to be narrow on:

Substance identity: other analogs, different substitutions, or different salt forms fall outside literal scope.
No generic “alpha-blocker” catch-all: the claim is not written to cover “any alpha-adrenergic antagonist.” It ties to a specific chemical entity (hydrochloride).

What is the scope of “alpha-adrenergic antagonistic amount” in U.S. Patent 4,868,216?

Featured snippet answer: The claim limits infringement to administration at an amount sufficient to produce alpha-adrenergic antagonistic effects in the host. In practice, this is evaluated by whether the dosing corresponds to the pharmacologically effective alpha-blocking range for the claimed hydrochloride.

Interpretation pathways used in practice

Therapeutic dose alignment: If the accused product is labeled or practiced within a dose range known to produce alpha-adrenergic blockade for that compound, “alpha-adrenergic antagonistic amount” is usually satisfied.
Pharmacology evidence: Expert testimony may focus on receptor occupancy, functional blockade assays, or clinical pharmacodynamic markers (examples often include changes in blood pressure response to adrenergic stimuli, and symptomatic improvement tied to alpha-blockade).
Design-around by subtherapeutic dosing: A party could attempt to avoid the “antagonistic amount” by prescribing or using subeffective amounts. That is typically hard to operationalize because the product is the same chemical entity and marketed as an alpha antagonist; any routine dosing is likely to be antagonistic.

Key litigation dynamic

This limitation is likely the most contested in infringement disputes because it creates a dosing-based factual issue. Under U.S. patent litigation practice, the outcome still usually collapses back to whether the administered product and dose are expected to generate alpha-adrenergic antagonism.

What pharmaceutical compositions are covered by the excipient limitation?

Featured snippet answer: The claim covers the claimed active hydrochloride in combination with any pharmaceutically acceptable excipient, which usually includes standard formulation components used in oral and parenteral dosage forms.

Practical coverage sweep

Because “pharmaceutically acceptable excipient” is broad, most mainstream dosage forms containing the API and standard excipients fall inside literal scope. Typical excipient classes include:

oral: binders, disintegrants, lubricants, coatings
injectable: saline/solvents, stabilizers, buffering agents
controlled-release: polymer matrices that are still “pharmaceutically acceptable excipients”

The excipient limitation is less likely to exclude sustained-release or combination formulations as long as the claimed compound remains present.

Which patents likely overlap with U.S. Patent 4,868,216 in the U.S. market?

Featured snippet answer: Overlap is usually structured around the same active entity: (1) substance and salt form patents, (2) formulation patents for tablets/capsules/solutions and controlled release, (3) dosing and regimen claims framed as alpha-adrenergic antagonism or related therapeutic outcomes, and (4) method-of-treatment patents for specific indications where alpha-blockade is used.

Landscape categories to expect around this claim

Even without listing each specific co-pending/issued patent number, the enforceability and attack surface for a method claim like this is generally concentrated in four technical buckets:

1) Compound and salt-form patents

Patents that claim the sulfonamide scaffold itself or its hydrochloride salt.
Patents that claim different salts (e.g., different counterions) or solvates/polymorphs of the same salt.

These often create the “core” exclusivity that formulation or method claims build on. If a later party uses a different salt (or demonstrates the marketed product is a different salt form), the method claim may be avoided.

2) Formulation and dosage form patents

Immediate release compositions
Injectable formulations
Controlled-release/modified-release matrices
Bioavailability or stability improvements

Those typically do not change the active ingredient identity, so they often remain within method-of-administration scope if dosing achieves alpha antagonism.

3) Method-of-use patents and label-driven claims

Claims drafted around producing alpha-adrenergic blockade for a particular condition.
Claims linking antagonism to clinical endpoints.

If the same therapeutic area is pursued by multiple patents, claim charts usually show many overlapping elements: same API, similar dosing, and functional pharmacology outcomes.

4) Enforcement-adjacent patents

Patents that cover manufacturing methods for the API and drug product that can create supply-chain injunction leverage.
Patent families that coordinate with FDA submissions and Orange Book listings.

Where claim 1 sits in that ecosystem

Claim 1 is a method of producing a pharmacological effect via administration of the named composition. That places it as a potentially strong lever against:

products that contain the exact hydrochloride
and are dosed at an antagonistic level

It is weaker against:

products containing a different salt or analog
or products using subtherapeutic dosing (rare in commercial reality)

What generic entry risks exist for products containing the same hydrochloride?

Featured snippet answer: If a generic contains the same 5-{...}-2-methoxybenzenesulfonamide hydrochloride and is administered at a pharmacologically antagonistic dose, U.S. Patent 4,868,216 presents material litigation risk for method-of-use infringement. Generic entry risk increases if the reference product lists the same active ingredient and a comparable dosing regimen that produces alpha blockade.

Risk drivers

Literal identity of the active ingredient: The fastest path to infringement for this claim.
Dose sufficiency: Market dosing almost always targets therapeutic alpha blockade.
Route and dosage form: Unless constrained in claim construction, route is likely not limiting.

Design-around options that plausibly reduce risk

Different salt form not encompassed by the claim’s “hydrochloride” limitation.
Different chemical entity (analog or prodrug) not literally the same API.
Formulation-only changes that do not change API identity typically do not avoid a method claim.

How do formulation patents affect the infringement picture under U.S. Patent 4,868,216?

Featured snippet answer: Formulation patents usually do not change the core infringement inquiry for claim 1 if the generic still contains the claimed hydrochloride at an antagonistic dose. Instead, formulation IP more often shifts litigation to other patents (composition or manufacturing patents) and to Orange Book listed exclusivities.

Common outcomes

Litigation focuses on whether the generic’s active ingredient matches the claimed hydrochloride.
If the generic is bioequivalent and uses the same salt, claim 1 risk remains high.

What is the Orange Book status of U.S. Patent 4,868,216?

No Orange Book status can be stated from the information provided. Without the FDA reference product name, application number, listed NDA/ANDA, and patent listing details, a complete and accurate Orange Book mapping cannot be produced.

When does exclusivity end for products covered by this kind of method claim?

No definitive exclusivity timeline can be stated from the single claim text provided. A complete and accurate “lose exclusivity” timeline requires file dates, priority chain, patent grant date and expiration, prosecution history, terminal disclaimers, and any FDA 180-day exclusivity interactions for the specific reference product.

What patent litigation issues typically arise for alpha-adrenergic antagonist method-of-administration claims?

Featured snippet answer: Litigation usually centers on (1) whether the accused product uses the exact claimed hydrochloride, (2) whether the administered dosing is sufficient to produce alpha-adrenergic antagonism, and (3) whether route/dosage form limitations exist in claim construction.

Typical dispute set

Chemical identity and salt form proof
- API characterization, XRPD, DSC, salt-specification analytics.
Pharmacology and dosing evidence
- pharmacodynamic markers and dose-response data.
Claim construction
- meaning of “alpha-adrenergic antagonistic amount” and “pharmaceutical composition comprised of … hydrochloride … and excipient.”

Key patent estate implications for licensing and freedom-to-operate

Featured snippet answer: The claim is enforceable against competing products that (i) contain the named hydrochloride and (ii) are administered at alpha-adrenergic antagonist doses. Licensing strategy typically targets chemical identity and dosage regimes, not only formulation design.

Actionable estate strategy

Core substance first: License (or design-around) at the level of the salt-form or scaffold if that is the main point of differentiation.
Dosing mapping: Ensure the product’s dose labeling and practical administration align or deliberately avoid “antagonistic amount” if attempting to reduce risk (often commercially unattractive).
Secondary leverage: Even if claim 1 is avoided, other patents (manufacturing, formulation, polymorphs, and method-of-treatment claims) often still present barriers.

Key Takeaways

U.S. Patent 4,868,216 claim 1 is a method-of-administration claim tied to a specific alpha-adrenergic antagonist hydrochloride plus a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient.
The claim’s enforceable scope is anchored by chemical identity and operationalized by whether the administered dose is an alpha-adrenergic antagonistic amount.
Most mainstream formulations containing the same hydrochloride at therapeutic doses are likely to fall within scope.
The biggest design-around levers are changing salt form or using a different chemical entity, not merely changing excipients or dosage form.
A full U.S. landscape including expiration, Orange Book listings, and litigation outcomes cannot be completed from the claim text alone.

FAQs

Does U.S. Patent 4,868,216 cover the free base if the marketed product is not the hydrochloride salt?
What evidence is used to prove that an administered dose is an “alpha-adrenergic antagonistic amount”?
Do controlled-release or sustained-release formulations increase or reduce exposure under claim 1?
Can a generic avoid infringement by labeling a lower dose even if the dose is effectively antagonistic in practice?
How do combination products that include the same hydrochloride affect method-of-administration infringement analysis?

References

United States Patent 4,868,216.

Title:	Sulfamoyl-substituted phenethylamine derivatives and process of producing them
Abstract:	Novel sulfamoyl-substituted phenethylamine derivatives which exhibit α-adrenergic blocking action and are useful as an antihypertensive agent and an agent for the treatment of congestive heart failure.
Inventor(s):	Kazuo Imai, Kunihiro Niigata, Takashi Fujikura, Shinichi Hashimoto, Toichi Takenaka
Assignee:	Astellas Pharma Inc
Application Number:	US07/311,366
Patent Claim Types: see list of patent claims	Use; Composition;
Patent landscape, scope, and claims:	United States Patent 4,868,216 Scope, Claim Construction, and Patent Landscape for 5-(2-(2-(2-ethoxyphenoxy)ethylamino)-2-methylethyl)-2-methoxybenzenesulfonamide Hydrochloride Executive summary: U.S. Patent 4,868,216 claims a method of producing alpha-adrenergic antagonistic action in a host by administering an alpha-adrenergic-antagonist amount of a specific pharmaceutical composition containing 5-{2-[2-(2-ethoxyphenoxy)ethylamino]-2-methylethyl}-2-methoxybenzenesulfonamide hydrochloride plus a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient. The claim is composition-based by drug identity but functional by outcome (alpha-adrenergic antagonism). The enforceable scope is driven by (1) whether accused products contain the named hydrochloride, (2) whether administration qualifies as an “alpha-adrenergic antagonistic amount,” and (3) whether the administered formulation has the claimed “pharmaceutical composition” characteristics. The surrounding landscape typically clusters around (a) drug substance and salt form, (b) pharmaceutical formulations (oral, parenteral, sustained release), (c) dosing/regimen and method-of-treatment variants, and (d) design-around alternatives such as different salts, polymorphs, prodrugs, or non-infringing analog compounds. What does U.S. Patent 4,868,216 claim and what is its practical enforceable scope? Featured snippet answer: Claim 1 covers administering a formulation containing the named benzene sulfonamide hydrochloride to produce alpha-adrenergic antagonistic action in a host, with the formulation including a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient and the administered amount being an alpha-adrenergic-antagonist amount. Claim 1 key elements (mapping to infringement questions) Claim 1 (method claim) states: Method of producing alpha-adrenergic antagonistic action In a host By administering A pharmaceutical composition comprising: the active ingredient: 5-{2-[2-(2-ethoxyphenoxy)ethylamino]-2-methylethyl}-2-methoxybenzenesulfonamide hydrochloride plus pharmaceutically acceptable excipient At an alpha-adrenergic antagonistic amount Infringement pressure points Active ingredient identity: A product must deliver the claimed hydrochloride form of the specific sulfonamide. If an accused product uses the free base or a different salt form, claim coverage turns on whether the active ingredient delivered is still the claimed compound (literal identity) or whether doctrine-of-equivalents arguments could be made based on interchangeability. Composition requirement: The claim requires a “pharmaceutical composition” with a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient. This generally covers almost all marketed dosage forms that include standard carriers/binders/fillers/solvents. It is mainly a discriminator versus “pure API” or unusual preparations that lack an excipient or that are not formulated for administration. Amount qualifier: “Alpha-adrenergic antagonistic amount” is a functional dosing limitation. Practically, this links to whether the prescribed or used dose range is sufficient to cause alpha-adrenergic antagonism. Outcome and mechanism: “Producing alpha-adrenergic antagonistic action” is tied to pharmacology. If the active ingredient is pharmacologically alpha-adrenergic antagonist, this element is typically satisfied when the compound is administered at an effective antagonistic dose. How broad is the claim likely to be on drug form and dosing? Because the claim is drug-identity anchored (specific named hydrochloride) and outcome functional, it tends to be broad on: Dosage form types (oral tablets/capsules, injectables, solutions, etc.) as long as they qualify as “pharmaceutical composition” with excipient and achieve antagonism. Regimen and route, to the extent the claim does not limit to route, frequency, or specific duration. The “administering” language includes all routes unless constrained by the specification or dependent claims (not provided here). It tends to be narrow on: Substance identity: other analogs, different substitutions, or different salt forms fall outside literal scope. No generic “alpha-blocker” catch-all: the claim is not written to cover “any alpha-adrenergic antagonist.” It ties to a specific chemical entity (hydrochloride). What is the scope of “alpha-adrenergic antagonistic amount” in U.S. Patent 4,868,216? Featured snippet answer: The claim limits infringement to administration at an amount sufficient to produce alpha-adrenergic antagonistic effects in the host. In practice, this is evaluated by whether the dosing corresponds to the pharmacologically effective alpha-blocking range for the claimed hydrochloride. Interpretation pathways used in practice Therapeutic dose alignment: If the accused product is labeled or practiced within a dose range known to produce alpha-adrenergic blockade for that compound, “alpha-adrenergic antagonistic amount” is usually satisfied. Pharmacology evidence: Expert testimony may focus on receptor occupancy, functional blockade assays, or clinical pharmacodynamic markers (examples often include changes in blood pressure response to adrenergic stimuli, and symptomatic improvement tied to alpha-blockade). Design-around by subtherapeutic dosing: A party could attempt to avoid the “antagonistic amount” by prescribing or using subeffective amounts. That is typically hard to operationalize because the product is the same chemical entity and marketed as an alpha antagonist; any routine dosing is likely to be antagonistic. Key litigation dynamic This limitation is likely the most contested in infringement disputes because it creates a dosing-based factual issue. Under U.S. patent litigation practice, the outcome still usually collapses back to whether the administered product and dose are expected to generate alpha-adrenergic antagonism. What pharmaceutical compositions are covered by the excipient limitation? Featured snippet answer: The claim covers the claimed active hydrochloride in combination with any pharmaceutically acceptable excipient, which usually includes standard formulation components used in oral and parenteral dosage forms. Practical coverage sweep Because “pharmaceutically acceptable excipient” is broad, most mainstream dosage forms containing the API and standard excipients fall inside literal scope. Typical excipient classes include: oral: binders, disintegrants, lubricants, coatings injectable: saline/solvents, stabilizers, buffering agents controlled-release: polymer matrices that are still “pharmaceutically acceptable excipients” The excipient limitation is less likely to exclude sustained-release or combination formulations as long as the claimed compound remains present. Which patents likely overlap with U.S. Patent 4,868,216 in the U.S. market? Featured snippet answer: Overlap is usually structured around the same active entity: (1) substance and salt form patents, (2) formulation patents for tablets/capsules/solutions and controlled release, (3) dosing and regimen claims framed as alpha-adrenergic antagonism or related therapeutic outcomes, and (4) method-of-treatment patents for specific indications where alpha-blockade is used. Landscape categories to expect around this claim Even without listing each specific co-pending/issued patent number, the enforceability and attack surface for a method claim like this is generally concentrated in four technical buckets: 1) Compound and salt-form patents Patents that claim the sulfonamide scaffold itself or its hydrochloride salt. Patents that claim different salts (e.g., different counterions) or solvates/polymorphs of the same salt. These often create the “core” exclusivity that formulation or method claims build on. If a later party uses a different salt (or demonstrates the marketed product is a different salt form), the method claim may be avoided. 2) Formulation and dosage form patents Immediate release compositions Injectable formulations Controlled-release/modified-release matrices Bioavailability or stability improvements Those typically do not change the active ingredient identity, so they often remain within method-of-administration scope if dosing achieves alpha antagonism. 3) Method-of-use patents and label-driven claims Claims drafted around producing alpha-adrenergic blockade for a particular condition. Claims linking antagonism to clinical endpoints. If the same therapeutic area is pursued by multiple patents, claim charts usually show many overlapping elements: same API, similar dosing, and functional pharmacology outcomes. 4) Enforcement-adjacent patents Patents that cover manufacturing methods for the API and drug product that can create supply-chain injunction leverage. Patent families that coordinate with FDA submissions and Orange Book listings. Where claim 1 sits in that ecosystem Claim 1 is a method of producing a pharmacological effect via administration of the named composition. That places it as a potentially strong lever against: products that contain the exact hydrochloride and are dosed at an antagonistic level It is weaker against: products containing a different salt or analog or products using subtherapeutic dosing (rare in commercial reality) What generic entry risks exist for products containing the same hydrochloride? Featured snippet answer: If a generic contains the same 5-{...}-2-methoxybenzenesulfonamide hydrochloride and is administered at a pharmacologically antagonistic dose, U.S. Patent 4,868,216 presents material litigation risk for method-of-use infringement. Generic entry risk increases if the reference product lists the same active ingredient and a comparable dosing regimen that produces alpha blockade. Risk drivers Literal identity of the active ingredient: The fastest path to infringement for this claim. Dose sufficiency: Market dosing almost always targets therapeutic alpha blockade. Route and dosage form: Unless constrained in claim construction, route is likely not limiting. Design-around options that plausibly reduce risk Different salt form not encompassed by the claim’s “hydrochloride” limitation. Different chemical entity (analog or prodrug) not literally the same API. Formulation-only changes that do not change API identity typically do not avoid a method claim. How do formulation patents affect the infringement picture under U.S. Patent 4,868,216? Featured snippet answer: Formulation patents usually do not change the core infringement inquiry for claim 1 if the generic still contains the claimed hydrochloride at an antagonistic dose. Instead, formulation IP more often shifts litigation to other patents (composition or manufacturing patents) and to Orange Book listed exclusivities. Common outcomes Litigation focuses on whether the generic’s active ingredient matches the claimed hydrochloride. If the generic is bioequivalent and uses the same salt, claim 1 risk remains high. What is the Orange Book status of U.S. Patent 4,868,216? No Orange Book status can be stated from the information provided. Without the FDA reference product name, application number, listed NDA/ANDA, and patent listing details, a complete and accurate Orange Book mapping cannot be produced. When does exclusivity end for products covered by this kind of method claim? No definitive exclusivity timeline can be stated from the single claim text provided. A complete and accurate “lose exclusivity” timeline requires file dates, priority chain, patent grant date and expiration, prosecution history, terminal disclaimers, and any FDA 180-day exclusivity interactions for the specific reference product. What patent litigation issues typically arise for alpha-adrenergic antagonist method-of-administration claims? Featured snippet answer: Litigation usually centers on (1) whether the accused product uses the exact claimed hydrochloride, (2) whether the administered dosing is sufficient to produce alpha-adrenergic antagonism, and (3) whether route/dosage form limitations exist in claim construction. Typical dispute set Chemical identity and salt form proof API characterization, XRPD, DSC, salt-specification analytics. Pharmacology and dosing evidence pharmacodynamic markers and dose-response data. Claim construction meaning of “alpha-adrenergic antagonistic amount” and “pharmaceutical composition comprised of … hydrochloride … and excipient.” Key patent estate implications for licensing and freedom-to-operate Featured snippet answer: The claim is enforceable against competing products that (i) contain the named hydrochloride and (ii) are administered at alpha-adrenergic antagonist doses. Licensing strategy typically targets chemical identity and dosage regimes, not only formulation design. Actionable estate strategy Core substance first: License (or design-around) at the level of the salt-form or scaffold if that is the main point of differentiation. Dosing mapping: Ensure the product’s dose labeling and practical administration align or deliberately avoid “antagonistic amount” if attempting to reduce risk (often commercially unattractive). Secondary leverage: Even if claim 1 is avoided, other patents (manufacturing, formulation, polymorphs, and method-of-treatment claims) often still present barriers. Key Takeaways U.S. Patent 4,868,216 claim 1 is a method-of-administration claim tied to a specific alpha-adrenergic antagonist hydrochloride plus a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient. The claim’s enforceable scope is anchored by chemical identity and operationalized by whether the administered dose is an alpha-adrenergic antagonistic amount. Most mainstream formulations containing the same hydrochloride at therapeutic doses are likely to fall within scope. The biggest design-around levers are changing salt form or using a different chemical entity, not merely changing excipients or dosage form. A full U.S. landscape including expiration, Orange Book listings, and litigation outcomes cannot be completed from the claim text alone. FAQs Does U.S. Patent 4,868,216 cover the free base if the marketed product is not the hydrochloride salt? What evidence is used to prove that an administered dose is an “alpha-adrenergic antagonistic amount”? Do controlled-release or sustained-release formulations increase or reduce exposure under claim 1? Can a generic avoid infringement by labeling a lower dose even if the dose is effectively antagonistic in practice? How do combination products that include the same hydrochloride affect method-of-administration infringement analysis? References United States Patent 4,868,216. More… ↓ ⤷ Start Trial

Foriegn Application Priority Data
Foreign Country	Foreign Patent Number	Foreign Patent Date
Japan	55-14382	Feb 08, 1980

Country	Patent Number	Estimated Expiration	Supplementary Protection Certificate	SPC Country	SPC Expiration
European Patent Office	0034432	⤷ Start Trial	SPC/GB96/017: EXPIRE	United Kingdom	⤷ Start Trial
European Patent Office	0034432	⤷ Start Trial	96C0048	Belgium	⤷ Start Trial
Argentina	227533	⤷ Start Trial
>Country	>Patent Number	>Estimated Expiration	>Supplementary Protection Certificate	>SPC Country	>SPC Expiration

Details for Patent: 4,868,216

Summary for Patent: 4,868,216