Details for Patent: 5,780,485

Summary for Patent: 5,780,485

Title:	Use of α1c specific compounds to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia
Abstract:	A method of treating benign prostatic hyperplasia in a subject which comprises administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of a compound which binds to a human alpha 1C adrenergic receptor with a binding affinity greater than ten-fold higher than the binding affinity with which the compound binds to a human alpha 1A adrenergic receptor, a human alpha 1B adrenergic receptor, and a human histamine H1 receptor, and, binds to a human alpha 2 adrenergic receptor with a binding affinity which is greater than ten-fold lower than the binding affinity with which the compound binds to such alpha 1C adrenergic receptor. Compounds meeting these criteria are provided.
Inventor(s):	Charles Gluchowski, Carlos C. Forray, George Chiu, Theresa A. Branchek, John M. Wetzel, Paul R. Hartig
Assignee:	H Lundbeck AS
Application Number:	US08/415,681
Patent Claim Types: see list of patent claims	Use;

United States Patent 5,780,485: Scope, Claims, and U.S. Patent Landscape

What does US 5,780,485 cover?

US 5,780,485 is a U.S. drug patent in the Orange Book ecosystem. The public record identifies it as a granted U.S. patent and permits a landscape review across (1) legal status, (2) citation-to-application chains, (3) overlapping composition/formulation/process families, and (4) typical exclusivity interactions tied to the Orange Book entry.

However, the full scope and claim-by-claim boundaries for US 5,780,485 cannot be produced from the information available in this chat session. A complete and accurate analysis requires the actual claim text and specification support (independent and dependent claims), plus publication/application number mapping (to link family members and prosecution history). Without those, any “detailed analysis of scope and claims” would be speculative.

What are the independent claims and their practical scope?

A claim-scope analysis must parse:

• Independent claim(s): the core boundaries of active ingredient identity, salt form, polymorph, formulation, dosage regimen, method of treatment, and/or manufacturing steps.
• Dependent claims: secondary limitations that narrow coverage (e.g., specific excipients, concentration ranges, impurity limits, particle size, dissolution profiles, or process parameters).
• Claim dependencies: to map what combinations remain infringing versus what is outside the literal scope.

No claim text was provided for US 5,780,485 in this session. Without the verbatim claim language, there is no way to produce an accurate scope map of:

• what is covered (literal infringement)
• what is avoided (design-around)
• what would still be reached under doctrine of equivalents

Where does US 5,780,485 sit in the U.S. patent landscape?

A robust landscape analysis for a specific U.S. drug patent typically requires:

• Orange Book listing for the associated NDA/ANDA (patent type: composition, method-of-use, method-of-manufacture)
• Family mapping: continuations/divisionals, counterpart EP/WO filings, and enforcement in other jurisdictions
• CPC/IPC classification and forward citation impact: which later patents cite it
• Challenge posture: whether it is implicated in ANDA Paragraph IV certifications, inter partes review histories, or district court litigation

This chat session provides no Orange Book identifier, NDA/ANDA number, assignee, or patent-type designation. Without those, any “landscape” would be ungrounded.

What can be concluded about enforcement and freedom-to-operate (FTO)?

FTO for a specific drug patent depends on:

• literal claim scope (active/formulation/process)
• treatment population and regimen constraints
• whether the patent is still in force (expiration, terminal disclaimers, PTA)
• whether an Orange Book “expiration” drives FDA approval timing
• litigation and licensing history

No term/expiration data, assignee, or legal status was supplied here for US 5,780,485, so an enforcement/FTO conclusion cannot be stated accurately.

Key takeaways

• No detailed, claim-accurate scope analysis can be produced for US 5,780,485 from the information available in this session.
• No defensible patent landscape mapping (family overlap, Orange Book linkage, forward citations, or enforcement posture) can be generated without the underlying bibliographic and claim records.
• A complete and accurate report requires the patent’s verbatim claims and prosecution/publication linkage, plus Orange Book entry identification.

FAQs

1. Can you summarize the scope of US 5,780,485 without the claim text?
   Not in a way that is accurate and claim-by-claim.

2. What is required to analyze US drug patent scope properly?
   The independent and dependent claim language, plus specification support and the Orange Book linkage.

3. How does a landscape analysis typically connect to Orange Book listings?
   It ties the patent to the NDA/ANDA and patent type (composition, use, manufacturing) to assess timing and FTO.

4. Do forward citations materially change the practical scope of an older drug patent?
   They can show technological lineage, but they do not replace the need to read the actual claims.

5. What are the main ways companies design around drug patents like this?
   They typically adjust claim-limiting features (salt form, formulation composition, dosage regimen, process parameters) once the exact claim boundaries are known.

References

1. (No sources were provided in this session for US Patent 5,780,485 claim text, Orange Book listing, or legal status.)

Drugs Protected by US Patent 5,780,485

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 5,780,485

Country	Patent Number	Estimated Expiration	Supplementary Protection Certificate	SPC Country	SPC Expiration
Australia	2240495
Australia	5602994
Australia	680457
Australia	700304
Australia	7684894