|
Patent landscape, scope, and claims: |
US Patent 6,083,903 (United States): Scope, Claim Coverage, and US Patent Landscape for Proteasome Inhibitors
Executive summary: U.S. Patent 6,083,903 claims broad proteasome inhibitor chemical matter defined by a constrained scaffold with extensive substituent permutations (P, X2, R/R2/R3, Z1/Z2, and A), plus method-of-use claims covering proteostasis modulation via inhibition of proteasome-dependent pathways (muscle protein degradation; intracellular protein breakdown; p53/cyclin degradation; antigen presentation; cell adhesion) and broad therapeutic uses (notably cancer and HIV). The claim set is organized to (1) lock in a specific structural “core” and (2) keep claim breadth through enumerated substituent classes and generic functional language (“amino-group-protecting moiety,” dihydroxy moieties including common glycols/diols, aryl/heteroaryl substitutes, and chalcogen-linked substituents). This creates meaningful freedom-to-operate risk for follow-on analogs that preserve the scaffold while varying substituent identity within the listed ranges, and it increases the likelihood that generic/similar compounds could still fall within the doctrine of equivalents depending on how the applicant/record constrained interpretation during prosecution.
What is US Patent 6,083,903 and what does it claim?
Direct answer: U.S. 6,083,903 claims (i) proteasome inhibitor compounds of two closely related structural “compound” types (claim 1 and claim 13) and (ii) methods using those inhibitors to reduce proteolysis/degradation processes, including p53 and cyclin, and to modulate antigen presentation, cell adhesion, and muscle protein degradation, plus cancer and HIV treatment/inhibition.
Claim families in the patent
- Compound claims
- Claim 1: “A compound of the structure” (structure defined by variables P, X2, R7, R, R2, R3, R5, Y/R6, Z1/Z2, A).
- Claim 2–12: narrower embodiments of claim 1, culminating in a list of specific named boronic-acid/sulfonyl boronic-acid examples.
- Claim 13–18: a second structural group with similar variable language but different allowed substituent sets and explicit “P is H or amino-protecting moiety,” with additional embodiment coverage.
- Method claims
- Claims 19–32: methods for reducing proteolysis/degradation and modulating proteasome-linked biology, using “proteasome inhibitors of the structure” with broad variable ranges.
- Claims 33–42: higher-level therapeutic applications:
- Cancer treatment (claims 33 and 34)
- HIV inhibition (claims 35 and 36)
- p53 degradation reduction (claims 37 and 38)
- cyclin degradation inhibition (claims 39 and 40)
- NF-κB dependent cell adhesion inhibition (claims 41 and 42)
What patents protect proteasome inhibitors like those in US 6,083,903?
Direct answer: Based on the claim drafting, 6,083,903 is positioned as a scaffold-based claim set for proteasome inhibitors with a boronic acid/sulfonyl boronic acid motif and tunable aryl/heteroaryl substituents. The patent does not, in your excerpt, identify the assignee, priority data, or the bibliographic record necessary to enumerate “other patents” in the same family or competitor estates; therefore, an accurate cross-patent landscape cannot be completed from the claim text alone.
What the claim text implies about the invention class
- The presence of enumerated examples such as:
- “L-phenylalanine-L-leucine boronic acid”
- “L-alanine-L-leucine boronic acid”
- and “...quinoline...sulfonyl...boronic acid”
suggests the core is a peptidomimetic boronic acid proteasome inhibitor class.
- The scaffold variables are designed to capture both:
- direct carbamoyl/amide linkage patterns at the P/X2 positions, and
- diol-derived groups via Z1 and Z2 (including pinacol and related dihydroxy moieties).
What is the scope of claim 1: how broad is the chemical matter coverage?
Direct answer: Claim 1 is very broad for compound coverage because it defines one structural framework with multiple substituent “slots” that accept wide classes: hydrogen/alkyl; aryl/heterocycle/cycloalkyl; benzyl-like or heteroatom-linked groups; and multiple named dihydroxy moiety types.
Claim 1 variable map (coverage “slots”)
- P: limited to one of two substituent sets:
- P is one of (i) ##STR85## or (ii) ##STR86##, with a further example in claim 2: N-morpholinylcarbonyl
- X2: a major structural branch
- Claim 3 gives a specific: X2 is --C(O)NH--
- R (on the scaffold):
- R2 and R3:
- independently hydrogen, alkyl, cycloalkyl, aryl, heterocycle, or --CH2--R5
- R5:
- aryl, aralkyl, alkaryl, cycloalkyl, heterocycle, or --Y--R6
- Y is a chalcogen, and R6 is alkyl
- Z1 and Z2:
- independently alkyl, hydroxy, alkoxy, aryloxy, or (if jointly taken) form a dihydroxy compound-derived moiety having:
- at least two hydroxy groups
- separated by at least two connecting atoms
- chain/ring comprised of carbon atoms
- optional additional heteroatoms N/S/O
- Claim 9 lists multiple named diol sources (pinacol, perfluoropinacol, pinanediol, ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, cyclohexanediol isomers, propanediols, butanediols, glycerol, diethanolamine)
- A:
- A is 0 (so the claim’s scaffold includes a fixed “A=0” feature)
Practical breadth implications
- The substituent language is class-based, not limited to a single chemical entity. A designer changing R2/R3 from aryl to heteroaryl or swapping R5 between aryl and heterocycle can remain inside claim 1 if the overall scaffold and the constraints on P/X2/Z1/Z2/A are satisfied.
- The Z1/Z2 diol module is broad in two ways:
- explicit classes (hydroxy, alkoxy, aryloxy), and
- an enumerated set of dihydroxy-derived moieties that are common in prodrug/boronate masking strategies.
What narrower embodiments are explicitly claimed in US 6,083,903 claims 2–12?
Direct answer: Claims 2–12 reduce variability by pinning specific settings for P, X2, and specific R2/R3 examples, and culminate in a list of explicit chemical examples.
Claim 2 and 3: concrete structural anchors
- Claim 2: P is N-morpholinylcarbonyl
- Claim 3: X2 is --C(O)NH--
Claims 4–6: constraining R2/R3 combinations
- Claim 4: R2 and R3 are independently:
- Claim 5: R2/R3 independently:
- C1-4 alkyl or --CH2 R5
- where R5 is cycloalkyl, aryl, or heterocycle
- Claim 6: R3 is isobutyl and R2 is --CH2 R5
- R5 is C5-10 aryl with ring substitutions where one or more ring carbons can be replaced by O/N/S
Claims 8–10: diol mask specificity
- Claim 8: Z1 and Z2 are both hydroxy
- Claim 9: Z1 and Z2 together form a moiety derived from named diols (pinacol etc.)
- Claim 10: combines specific R3/R2/Z1/Z2 pattern and a defined X2 “--C(O)--NH--” setting.
Claim 11–12: explicitly named inhibitor compounds (featured in litigation risk)
Claim 11 lists five named boronic acid compounds:
- N-(2-pyridine)carbonyl-L-phenylalanine-L-leucine boronic acid
- N-(2-quinoline)carbonyl-L-phenylalanine-L-leucine boronic acid
- N-(3-furoyl)-L-phenylalanine-L-leucine boronic acid
- N-(2-pyrrolyl)carbonyl-L-phenylalanine-L-leucine boronic acid
- N-(8-quinoline)sulfonyl-L-phenylalanine-L-leucine boronic acid
Claim 12 lists additional named members including β-(1-naphthyl) analogs and morpholine/quinoline/pyridine variations:
- N-(4-morpholine)carbonyl-β-(1-naphthyl)-L-alanine-L-leucine boronic acid
- N-(8-quinoline)sulfonyl-β-(1-naphthyl)-L-alanine-L-leucine boronic acid
- N-(2-pyrazine)carbonyl-L-phenylalanine-L-leucine boronic acid
- N-(2-quinoline)sulfonyl-L-homophenylalanine-L-leucine boronic acid
- N-(3-Pyridine)carbonyl-L-phenylalanine-L-leucine boronic acid
- N-(4-Morpholine)carbonyl-L-phenylalanine-L-leucine boronic acid
How does claim 13 differ from claim 1 and what does it expand or narrow?
Direct answer: Claim 13 redefines a second structure type with similar variable concepts but different substituent enumerations and introduces P being H or an amino-group-protecting moiety, which can materially expand coverage around how the scaffold terminus is protected or substituted.
Claim 13 key scope points
- P: “H or an amino-group-protecting moiety”
- R: hydrogen or alkyl
- R3: broad class (hydrogen, alkyl, cycloalkyl, aryl, heterocycle, --CH2--R5)
- R2: explicitly limited to naphthylmethyl, pyridylmethyl, or quinolylmethyl
- R5: aryl/aralkyl/alkaryl/cycloalkyl/heterocycle/--Y--R6 (Y chalcogen; R6 alkyl)
- Z1/Z2 diol module: same style of independent classes or joint formation from named dihydroxy-derived moieties
- A is 0 again
Claims 14–18: additional narrowing/enumeration
- Claim 14: X2 is --C(O)NH--
- Claim 15: R3 is isobutyl
- Claim 16: Z1 and Z2 both hydroxy
- Claim 17: Z1 and Z2 together form one of named dihydroxy moieties (same set)
- Claim 18: consolidates X2 and R3 and Z1/Z2 patterning
What method-of-use rights are covered (claims 19–32)?
Direct answer: Claims 19–32 cover proteasome-driven degradation and related biology, using “proteasome inhibitor of the structure” language. The methods target both protein breakdown rates and downstream pathway effects tied to proteasome function.
Method claim targets by category
- Muscle protein degradation
- Claim 19: reduce rate of muscle protein degradation in a cell
- Intracellular protein breakdown
- Claim 28: reduce rate of intracellular protein breakdown in cells
- p53 degradation
- Claim 29: reduce degradation rate of p53 protein
- Cyclin degradation
- Claim 30: inhibit cyclin degradation
- Antigen presentation
- Claim 31: inhibit antigen presentation
- Cell adhesion
- Claim 32: inhibit cell adhesion in an animal
- Each is anchored to the same underlying structural proteasome inhibitor concept with variable ranges for P/X2/R/R2/R3/Z1/Z2/A.
Which biological mechanism is claimed (from the claim language)
The claims are framed as functional outcomes of proteasome inhibition:
- reduced degradation/breakdown rates (general and protein-specific),
- pathway-level effects:
- p53 and cyclin stabilization implications,
- antigen presentation modulation,
- NF-κB-dependent adhesion control (explicitly reflected in the therapeutic claims 41–42).
What higher-level therapeutic indications are claimed (claims 33–42)?
Direct answer: The patent claims both compound-administered methods for broad disease treatment and specific mechanistic process claims.
Therapeutic indications
- Cancer treatment
- Claim 33: method for treating cancer by administering compound of claim 1
- Claim 34: same using compound of claim 13
- HIV inhibition
- Claim 35: inhibit HIV infection by administering compound of claim 1
- Claim 36: same using compound of claim 13
Mechanism-aligned indication refinement
- p53 degradation
- Claim 37 (claim 1 compounds) and 38 (claim 13 compounds)
- Cyclin degradation
- Claim 39 (claim 1 compounds) and 40 (claim 13 compounds)
- NF-κB dependent cell adhesion
- Claim 41 (claim 1 compounds) and 42 (claim 13 compounds)
How should this claim set be interpreted for infringement risk and design-around?
Direct answer: The claim set is structured to make design-around difficult by combining:
- a constrained scaffold (“structure: … where A is 0”),
- broad substituent classes for several positions, and
- multiple independent method claims tied to proteasome inhibition outcomes.
Key infringement triggers
- If a competitor’s compound falls within the defined structural formula with the same scaffold and A=0, the burden shifts to whether the competitor’s substitutions map into the enumerated classes for P, X2, R/R2/R3, R5/Y/R6, and Z1/Z2.
- Even if a competitor changes one substituent within a listed class (for example, swapping an aryl for a heteroaryl at an R slot), the breadth in claims 1 and 13 can keep the compound within literal coverage.
Most “design-around sensitive” claim elements
- A is 0: altering the scaffold’s “A” feature is often the fastest way to exit literal scope.
- Z1/Z2 diol masking module: if the competitor replaces the dihydroxy-derived moiety with a group not captured by “alkyl, hydroxy, alkoxy, aryloxy” or by the enumerated diols-derived set, it can reduce literal risk.
- X2 selection: claim 3/14 pin X2 to a specific amide/urea-like pattern, but claims 1/13 treat X2 as one of defined structures (with X2 explicitly as different enumerated options in the full definition). A non-enumerated X2 can help.
What generic entry risks exist for this patent?
Direct answer: Because this is a composition-of-matter and use patent directed to proteasome inhibitors, generic entry risk depends on whether a generic seeks to market:
- the same or substantially similar inhibitor chemical entity, and
- methods of administration that fall within the claimed method language.
Given the breadth of the structure definitions and the enumerated examples, the practical risk is high for “same compound” generics and moderate for close analogs that retain the scaffold and the diol and substituent classes.
What is the Orange Book status of US 6,083,903?
Direct answer: The claim text you provided does not include FDA/Orange Book identifiers, listed drug names, NDA/BLA numbers, or Orange Book citation lines. Without that record, an accurate Orange Book status mapping cannot be produced.
What patent litigation affects this patent’s enforceability?
Direct answer: No litigation docket information, settlement agreement dates, or related case identifiers are present in the provided content. A litigation impact analysis cannot be completed from claim text alone.
Key Takeaways
- US 6,083,903 is a scaffold-focused proteasome inhibitor patent with broad chemical matter coverage through multiple permissive substituent classes across P, X2, R2/R3, R5/Y/R6, and a Z1/Z2 dihydroxy-derived module, with A fixed at 0.
- The claims include both compound coverage (claims 1 and 13) and process/function coverage (claims 19–32) tied to reduced proteasome-linked protein degradation, plus therapeutic method claims for cancer and HIV (claims 33–36) and pathway-linked adhesion (NF-κB dependent, claims 41–42).
- The explicit named examples in claims 11–12 anchor the protected universe to specific boronic acid proteasome inhibitors, increasing enforcement leverage for “same-structure” products.
- For design-around, the most meaningful literal-scope risk reducers are changing the scaffold-level feature captured by A=0, and/or moving Z1/Z2 off the captured diol-derived patterns, and/or selecting X2 outside the enumerated options.
FAQs
-
Do claims 19–32 require the proteasome inhibitor to be administered, or can they be “contacting” methods only?
The claim language uses both “contacting” and “administering” depending on the individual method claim. Claims 19 and 28 use “contacting,” while several others use “administering.”
-
Which part of the structure is most critical for literal infringement: the peptide-like boronic acid moiety or the diol-derived Z1/Z2 group?
Literal infringement depends on satisfying all structural constraints, including the A=0 scaffold and the Z1/Z2 definitions. The Z1/Z2 module is a common axis of variation that is captured broadly, so it can materially increase coverage for analogs that retain the module.
-
How do claim 11–12 affect scope versus the broader structural formula of claim 1?
The named examples demonstrate enabled embodiments and can support interpretation of the structural terms, but literal infringement is driven by whether a target compound fits claim 1’s variable-defined structure.
-
Can a competitor avoid method-of-use infringement by choosing not to target p53/cyclin/antigen presentation pathways?
The method claims are tied to specific outcomes (reducing p53 degradation, inhibiting cyclin degradation, etc.). If a competitor’s product does not achieve or is not used to achieve those claimed outcomes, method infringement risk changes. Product composition infringement risk is separate.
-
Does the patent provide broader coverage through claim 13 even if claim 1 is avoided?
Yes. Claim 13 defines a different but overlapping structural universe with different constraints (notably R2 being restricted to naphthylmethyl/pyridylmethyl/quinolylmethyl and P being “H or amino-protecting moiety”), so a design-around must check both claim families.
References
- U.S. Patent 6,083,903. “Proteasome inhibitors and methods of use.” (Claims excerpt as provided in prompt).
More… ↓
⤷ Start Trial
|
