Last Updated: September 24, 2026

Details for Patent: 5,223,510


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


Summary for Patent: 5,223,510
Title:Alkylaminoalkyl derivatives of benzofuran, benzothiophene, indole and indolizine, process for their preparation and compositions containing them
Abstract:The subject of the invention is benzofuran, benzothiophene, indole or indolizine compounds of general formula: I in which: Het represents one of the groups: in which T,T' and T''represent particularly a group: R and Ra, identical or different, represent X represent -O- or -S- Y represents a radical These compounds are useful as medecines particularly for the treatment of pathological syndroms of the cardio-vascular system.
Inventor(s):Jean Gubin, Pierre Chatelain, Jean Lucchetti, Gilbert Rosseels, Henri Inion
Assignee: SABIFU , Sanofi SA
Application Number:US07/736,580
Patent Claim Types:
see list of patent claims
Use; Composition;
Patent landscape, scope, and claims:

US Patent 5,223,510: Claim Scope, Dronedarone Coverage, Expiration and Patent Landscape

US Patent 5,223,510 is the foundational U.S. composition-of-matter patent covering dronedarone and a broad family of benzofuran, benzothiophene, indole and indolizine cardiovascular compounds. Its strongest commercial claim is claim 10, which expressly recites dronedarone and related analogs. The patent issued on June 29, 1993, and, under the pre-Uruguay Round Agreements Act 17-year term applicable to the patent, expired on June 29, 2010.[1]

The patent no longer blocks generic dronedarone entry. FDA approval of Multaq occurred in 2009, with subsequent regulatory exclusivity periods ending years after the composition patent expired. Because dronedarone is a small molecule, the relevant competitive pathway is an ANDA with Paragraph IV or Paragraph III certifications, not a biosimilar application.[2][3]

What drug does US Patent 5,223,510 protect?

The patent covers dronedarone and a large Markush genus of substituted heteroaromatic compounds.

The commercially important compound is:

  • Dronedarone, also known as SR33589
  • Chemical class: substituted benzofuran derivative
  • Marketed product: Multaq
  • Active pharmaceutical ingredient: dronedarone hydrochloride
  • Original sponsor: Sanofi-Aventis
  • FDA indication: reduction of hospitalization for atrial fibrillation in specified patients
  • FDA approval: July 1, 2009
  • NDA: 022425[2]

Claim 10 expressly lists:

2-n-butyl 3-[4-(3-di-n-butylamino-propoxy)benzoyl]5-methylsulfonamido benzofuran

That compound corresponds to dronedarone in its free-base form. The patent also covers pharmaceutically acceptable salts, including the hydrochloride salt used in Multaq.

How does the claimed compound correspond to dronedarone?

The dronedarone structure maps onto the claim as follows:

Claim element Dronedarone correspondence
Heteroaromatic nucleus Benzofuran
Position 2 substituent n-Butyl
Position 3 substituent Benzoyl group
Benzoyl para substituent 3-(di-n-butylamino)propoxy
Position 5 substituent Methylsulfonamido
Terminal amine Di-n-butylamino group
Salt form Dronedarone hydrochloride

The patent specification and claim set therefore cover both the structural class and the specific active ingredient later developed as Multaq.

How broad is claim 1 of US Patent 5,223,510?

Claim 1 is a broad Markush composition-of-matter claim. It covers multiple heteroaromatic cores, multiple substituent families and multiple side-chain architectures.

The principal scope has five layers.

1. Heteroaromatic core

The claim reaches compounds based on:

  • Benzofuran
  • Benzothiophene
  • Indole
  • Indolizine

This is materially broader than dronedarone, which uses only the benzofuran core.

2. Sulfonamide and amino substituent options

The claim permits numerous substituent combinations involving:

  • Hydrogen
  • C1-C4 alkyl
  • Alkylsulfonyl groups
  • Trifluoromethyl
  • Phenyl and substituted phenyl
  • Benzyl and substituted benzyl
  • Benzoyl and substituted benzoyl
  • Cyclic amino substituents

The definition of R and Ra allows sulfonamide-related and amino-substituted variants. Claim 2 narrows the combination to R as a sulfonyl group and Ra as hydrogen, which corresponds to the methylsulfonamido arrangement in dronedarone.

3. Aromatic acyl and ether linkage

The claim covers compounds containing an aromatic carbonyl substituent linked to an oxygen- or sulfur-containing chain. Claim 3 narrows Y to a defined arrangement, while claims 4 and 5 specify benzoyl and 4-benzoyloxy-related structures.

Dronedarone falls within the benzoyl subclass and contains a para-substituted phenoxypropyl side chain.

4. Terminal amine side chains

The claim permits:

  • Dialkylaminoalkoxy chains
  • Pyridyl-containing chains
  • Phenyl and phenoxy groups
  • Methylenedioxyphenyl groups
  • Substituted aromatic groups
  • Cyclic amines
  • Fused or tethered alkylene and alkenylene structures

Claim 6 narrows R1, R2 and R3 to n-butyl groups and sets n at 3. That limitation corresponds closely to the di-n-butylaminopropoxy side chain of dronedarone.

5. Heteroatom and ring-system alternatives

The claim permits X and A to be oxygen, sulfur or, in specified cases, nitrogen-containing linkages. W, W' and Z define alternative ring and unsaturation arrangements. These provisions expand the genus to several related heterocyclic and heteroatom-containing structures.

The result is a structurally extensive genus that reaches well beyond the approved drug.

Which claims directly cover dronedarone?

Claims 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are the most relevant claims for dronedarone.

Claim Relevance to dronedarone
1 Broad genus covering the overall chemical class
2 Methylsulfonamido-type substitution
3 Defined Y linkage consistent with the drug structure
6 n-Butyl substituents and three-carbon chain
7 Oxygen atom in the relevant linkage
8 Chain located at the specified aromatic position
9 Pharmaceutically acceptable salts, including hydrochloride
10 Express listing of dronedarone and related analogs
11 Pharmaceutical compositions containing claim 1 compounds
12 Pharmaceutical compositions containing claim 10 compounds
13-20 Human therapeutic methods
21 and 26 Veterinary compositions
22-25 Veterinary treatment methods, subject to dependency defects

Claim 10 is the most commercially significant because it names the specific dronedarone compound rather than relying solely on the broader structural formula.

What formulations are protected by US Patent 5,223,510?

The patent protects pharmaceutical compositions containing a claimed active compound with a pharmaceutical vehicle or excipient.

Claims 11 and 12 cover:

  • Oral solid dosage forms
  • Tablets
  • Capsules
  • Powders
  • Granules
  • Other compositions containing a claimed compound and excipient

The claims do not require a particular tablet composition, dissolution profile, coating, particle size, polymorph or manufacturing process. They are composition claims at a high level.

The patent does not appear, from the supplied claims, to require:

  • A 400 mg dose
  • Twice-daily administration
  • A specific excipient
  • A specific release profile
  • A specific crystalline form
  • A particular tablet coating
  • A particular manufacturing process

A later formulation patent could therefore have provided narrower protection for a commercial tablet, even though the broad composition claim in US 5,223,510 has expired.

What method-of-use patents and therapeutic claims are included?

Claims 13-20 cover treatment and medical-use applications for:

  • Angina pectoris
  • Hypertension
  • Arrhythmias
  • Cerebral circulatory insufficiency

The claimed dose range is 50 to 500 mg of active ingredient for the treatment claims in claims 13, 15, 16 and 17.

Claims 14 and 18-20 are medical-use claims directed to combining the compound with a pharmaceutical vehicle or excipient to produce a medicine for the listed conditions.

How strong are the method claims?

The method claims were narrower and commercially less important than the composition claims because they require:

  1. A compound falling within claim 1 or claim 10;
  2. A pharmaceutical composition;
  3. A specified disease or condition; and
  4. For claims 13 and 15-17, the 50-500 mg amount.

The arrhythmia claims were the closest to the eventual commercial use of dronedarone. The original patent claims, however, do not define the modern Multaq label indication, which is more specific than a general arrhythmia treatment claim.[2]

Are the veterinary claims enforceable?

Claims 21-26 address veterinary compositions and veterinary treatment methods. Claims 22-25 contain a dependency problem: they refer to a "veterinary composition according to claim 11," while claim 11 is directed to a pharmaceutical composition rather than the veterinary composition in claim 21.

That drafting issue creates a potential clarity and claim-construction vulnerability. Claim 26 separately covers veterinary compositions containing a claim 10 compound and is less dependent on the defective wording in claims 22-25.

The veterinary claims had no apparent relevance to the human Multaq product.

When did US Patent 5,223,510 expire?

Event Date
U.S. patent issued June 29, 1993
Statutory term 17 years from issue
Expiration June 29, 2010
Multaq FDA approval July 1, 2009
Five-year NCE exclusivity endpoint Approximately July 1, 2014
Current patent status Expired

US Patent 5,223,510 was issued before the change to the 20-year-from-earliest-effective-filing-date regime. Its term was therefore governed by the former 17-year-from-issue rule.[1]

No current patent-term extension can make the original patent an active patent today. Any regulatory exclusivity associated with Multaq was separate from the patent term and did not revive US 5,223,510.

What is the Orange Book status of US Patent 5,223,510?

US Patent 5,223,510 was historically associated with Multaq and dronedarone hydrochloride. Its Orange Book significance was as an expired composition-of-matter patent.

The Orange Book distinguishes between:

  • Patent listings;
  • Regulatory exclusivity;
  • Approved drug products; and
  • Patent certification status for ANDA applicants.

An expired listed patent does not create a current patent barrier. An ANDA applicant would generally not need to make a Paragraph IV challenge to an expired patent. The relevant certification would ordinarily be Paragraph III if the patent remained listed but expired before approval, or the patent may no longer have practical blocking significance in the active listing analysis.[3]

Which companies challenged the patent under Paragraph IV?

The patent and claim text do not identify any ANDA challenger, settlement agreement or litigation defendant. The patent itself cannot establish the identity of later generic challengers.

The key legal point is that any Paragraph IV dispute involving US 5,223,510 would have been time-limited by the June 29, 2010 expiration date. FDA approval of Multaq occurred close to the end of the patent term, and the five-year NCE exclusivity period extended beyond the patent expiration date. That timing reduced the commercial value of a Paragraph IV challenge to the original patent alone.

A later generic applicant would have focused on:

  • Any unexpired listed patents;
  • Formulation or solid-state patents;
  • Labeling restrictions;
  • Regulatory exclusivity;
  • Patent settlement terms; and
  • Whether a skinny-label launch could avoid active method-of-use claims.

Did the patent protect the Multaq formulation?

US 5,223,510 protected compositions containing the claimed active compounds, including dronedarone. It did not, based on the supplied claims, claim a detailed commercial formulation.

The patent’s formulation protection is therefore broad in subject matter but limited in technical specificity. It could cover a composition containing dronedarone and an excipient, but it does not establish protection for a particular:

  • Tablet hardness;
  • Dissolution specification;
  • Excipients system;
  • Particle-size distribution;
  • Polymorph;
  • Salt crystallization process; or
  • Manufacturing sequence.

Any such protection would have to arise from a separate patent or regulatory exclusivity provision.

How does the patent estate compare with competing antiarrhythmic drugs?

US 5,223,510 had a stronger historical position than a typical method-of-use patent because it covered the active molecule itself. Composition-of-matter protection generally blocks substitution with the same active ingredient until expiration, regardless of formulation differences.

Product Active ingredient Regulatory pathway Main generic risk
Multaq Dronedarone hydrochloride ANDA Same-active-ingredient generic
Cordarone Amiodarone hydrochloride ANDA Established generic competition
Betapace Sotalol hydrochloride ANDA Established generic competition
Tikosyn Dofetilide ANDA with restricted-use considerations Product-specific regulatory and labeling requirements
Multaq follow-on Dronedarone ANDA Formulation, labeling and exclusivity issues

Dronedarone has no biosimilar risk because it is a chemically synthesized small molecule. Competition is based on generic-drug approval, not the Public Health Service Act biosimilar pathway.

How strong was the patent estate?

The estate had high historical strength for the specific active ingredient and weaker relative strength for broad genus coverage.

Strongest elements

  • Claim 10 expressly names dronedarone.
  • Claim 9 covers pharmaceutically acceptable salts, including hydrochloride.
  • Claims 11 and 12 reach pharmaceutical compositions.
  • The core composition claims were stronger than the therapeutic-use claims.
  • A generic using the same active ingredient could not avoid an unexpired composition claim merely by changing excipients.

Potential vulnerabilities

  • Claim 1 uses a highly complex Markush structure with many alternatives.
  • Broad genus claims can face written-description and enablement attacks if the disclosure does not adequately support the full scope.
  • Some subgeneric combinations could be vulnerable to anticipation or obviousness based on earlier benzofuran antiarrhythmic chemistry.
  • Claims 22-25 contain dependency inconsistencies.
  • The therapeutic claims use broad disease categories that may raise questions about written description, enablement or claim construction.
  • The patent does not, from the supplied claims, establish protection for later-developed polymorphs, formulations or manufacturing processes.

Those vulnerabilities were commercially secondary after expiration. They would have mattered most during pre-expiration validity litigation.

What generic launch scenarios existed?

Three launch scenarios were commercially relevant.

Paragraph III launch

A generic applicant could acknowledge the patent and wait until its expiration. For US 5,223,510, that date was June 29, 2010.

Paragraph IV challenge

An applicant could allege that the patent was invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. A timely Paragraph IV notice could trigger Hatch-Waxman litigation and a 30-month stay, subject to the statutory requirements and Orange Book listing status.[4]

Post-exclusivity launch

After the NCE exclusivity period and expiration of any unexpired listed patents, an ANDA applicant could seek approval without challenging a live composition patent. This was the lowest litigation-risk scenario.

The commercial launch analysis for dronedarone therefore depended more on later patents and FDA exclusivity than on US 5,223,510 after 2010.

What licensing deals are associated with this patent?

The patent is associated with the Sanofi dronedarone development program. The supplied claim text does not identify a license, assignment agreement, co-development agreement or royalty arrangement.

Patent ownership and commercial sponsorship should be distinguished from licensing. The patent’s assignee history, any assignments recorded at the USPTO, and any Sanofi transaction documents would control ownership analysis. No licensing right can be inferred from the claim language itself.

What manufacturing and IP barriers remain after expiration?

Expiration of the composition patent removed the primary molecule-level barrier. Remaining barriers could include:

  • Salt selection;
  • Crystalline form;
  • Particle engineering;
  • Tablet formulation;
  • Dissolution performance;
  • Stability specifications;
  • Analytical methods;
  • Impurity controls;
  • Process chemistry;
  • Supplier qualification;
  • FDA drug-master-file support;
  • Labeling restrictions; and
  • Other unexpired Orange Book patents.

These barriers are narrower than composition-of-matter protection. A generic manufacturer can often design around them through an alternative process, formulation or solid form, but approval still requires pharmaceutical equivalence, bioequivalence and adequate chemistry, manufacturing and controls documentation.

Key Takeaways

  • US Patent 5,223,510 is the original U.S. dronedarone composition patent.
  • Claim 10 expressly covers dronedarone.
  • Claim 9 reaches pharmaceutically acceptable salts, including dronedarone hydrochloride.
  • Claim 1 covers a broad genus of benzofuran, benzothiophene, indole and indolizine derivatives.
  • Claims 11 and 12 cover pharmaceutical compositions, but not a narrowly defined Multaq tablet formulation.
  • Claims 13-20 cover angina, hypertension, arrhythmia and cerebral circulatory insufficiency uses.
  • The patent expired on June 29, 2010.
  • Multaq’s NCE exclusivity continued beyond the patent expiration date, approximately until July 1, 2014.
  • Dronedarone is a small molecule, so generic competition proceeds through the ANDA pathway rather than biosimilar approval.
  • The patent’s historical strength came from its direct composition coverage, especially claim 10.
  • Current generic-entry risk depends on later patents, FDA exclusivity and product-specific regulatory requirements, not on US 5,223,510.

FAQs

What is the chemical name of the drug covered by claim 10?

Claim 10 covers dronedarone in free-base form, with the marketed product supplied as dronedarone hydrochloride.

Does US Patent 5,223,510 cover amiodarone?

No. The patent covers a genus of substituted heteroaromatic compounds that includes dronedarone and related compounds. It does not claim amiodarone as the active ingredient.

Can a generic avoid claim 10 by using dronedarone hydrochloride instead of dronedarone free base?

No practical distinction remains because claim 9 covers pharmaceutically acceptable salts, and the patent expired in 2010 in any event.

Is a dronedarone extended-release tablet covered by this patent?

The supplied claims do not require extended release or any specific release profile. A separate formulation patent would be needed for narrow extended-release protection.

Does expiry of US Patent 5,223,510 eliminate all legal barriers to generic Multaq?

No. It eliminates the original composition patent barrier. Later patents, FDA exclusivity, Orange Book listings, labeling provisions and formulation or process rights may still affect approval and launch timing.

References

  1. United States Patent and Trademark Office. (1993). U.S. Patent No. 5,223,510, benzofuran, benzothiophene, indole or indolizine derivatives, their preparation and their application as medicaments.
  2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Multaq (dronedarone hydrochloride) prescribing information. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC.
  3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations: Orange Book.
  4. U.S. Code, 21 U.S.C. § 355(j), abbreviated new drug applications and patent certifications.

More… ↓

⤷  Start Trial


Drugs Protected by US Patent 5,223,510

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

Foreign Priority and PCT Information for Patent: 5,223,510

Foriegn Application Priority Data
Foreign Country Foreign Patent Number Foreign Patent Date
France90 10036Aug 06, 1990

International Family Members for US Patent 5,223,510

Country Patent Number Estimated Expiration Supplementary Protection Certificate SPC Country SPC Expiration
Austria 145645 ⤷  Start Trial
Australia 648569 ⤷  Start Trial
Australia 8142891 ⤷  Start Trial
Brazil 9103354 ⤷  Start Trial
Canada 2047773 ⤷  Start Trial
Czechoslovakia 9102427 ⤷  Start Trial
>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.