|
Patent landscape, scope, and claims: |
United States Patent 6,413,980: Scope, Claims, and U.S. Patent Landscape
What does US 6,413,980 claim in plain scope terms?
US 6,413,980 claims a broad class of small-molecule compounds defined by a highly substituted heteroaromatic/heterocyclic scaffold with extensive Markush-style variability. The claims are structured to cover:
- Core compound class (Claim 1): A compound selected from a group of Markush-defined structures (or stereoisomer or pharmaceutically acceptable salt) with wide latitude in multiple ring systems and substituents.
- Combinatorial narrowing tiers (Claims 2-19): Successive dependent claims reduce variables and constrain specific heterocycles, linkers, and substituent types.
- Explicit exemplified compounds (Claim 18 and dependent claims 19-26): A set of named structural embodiments are recited as standalone compound claims.
- Product and use layer (Claims 27-28 compositions; Claims 53-78 methods):
- Pharmaceutical compositions containing the claimed compounds.
- Methods for treating a thromboembolic disorder using claimed compounds.
This is an enforceable structure claim set with broad coverage at the independent level and targeted embodiments plus functional medical-use coverage at the later layers.
What is the claim architecture and hierarchy?
How Claim 1 sets the broadest boundaries
Claim 1 is a Markush claim covering:
- Substitution count limits
- “compounds… substituted with 0-2 R3”
- Linker and ring selection
- G is “a group of formula I or II”
- ring D is one of multiple options, including:
- aliphatic chains: “—(CH2)3—, —(CH2)4—”
- imine-type motifs: “—CH2N=CH—, —CH2CH2N=CH—”
- or “a 5-6 membered aromatic system” with 0-2 heteroatoms drawn from N, O, S subject to: “provided that from 0-1 O and S atoms are present”
- “ring D, when present, is substituted with 0-2 R”
- “alternatively, ring D is absent; when ring D is absent, ring E is selected…” (same heteroaryl family)
- Terminal ring E
- E is selected from phenyl, pyridyl, pyrimidyl, pyrazinyl, pyridazinyl with “substituted with 0-1 R”
- Halogen and functional substituents
- R is defined by a list that includes halogens (Cl, F, Br, I), hydroxyl, halomethoxy, amines, and sulfonamide/sulfone related groups via the nested definitions elsewhere.
- A dense second substitution system
- The claim further defines:
- Z is N or CR1a
- Z1 is S, O, or NR3
- Z2 is selected from H, C1-4 alkyl, phenyl, benzyl, C(=O)R3, and S(O)pR3c
- extensive selections for R1a, R1′, R2, R2a, R2b, R2c, R3, R3a, R3b, R3c, A, B, X, Y, R4, R4a, R4b, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9 and ring-forming options.
Bottom line: Claim 1 is a large chemical “basket” spanning multiple heterocycle classes (including optional omission of ring D), multiple allowed heteroatom compositions in ring systems, and multiple substitution patterns across side chains.
How dependent claims narrow that basket
- Claim 2: Narrows the allowed G set and expands/clarifies A and B:
- A becomes explicitly one of specific carbocyclic and heterocyclic systems (substituted with 0-2 R4).
- B is constrained to “Y and X-Y” forms (still not cycloalkoxy).
- X allowed list is shortened versus Claim 1 to fewer linkers (still broad).
- Special bicyclic heteroaryl ring options appear (including a K constraint and “s is 0”).
- Claims 3-4: Reduce ring options further and narrow substituent types (notably constraining G to smaller set in Claim 3 and specifying explicit A and B selections in Claim 4).
- Claims 9-17: Repeatedly narrow to specific A and B selections, constrained R2/R2a values, and restricted R4/R4a sets.
- Claim 18: Converts the structural space into explicitly listed concrete embodiments (named by full chemical description and stereochemical tags), each covered as a compound claim.
- Claims 19-26: Further restrict to subsets of the explicit embodiments from Claim 18.
Composition and method claims
- Claims 27-52: Pharmaceutical compositions for compounds “of claim 1 or 2 or 3 … 19.” (Each composition claim ties to a corresponding compound claim number.)
- Claims 53-78: Methods for treating a thromboembolic disorder:
- Each method claim corresponds to a compound claim (1 through 26) in a one-to-one structure.
What are the key scope drivers (where design-arounds likely fail)?
1) Scaffold flexibility with optional ring presence
The “ring D absent” alternative plus ring D presence options substantially expand chemical coverage without changing the fundamental architecture. That makes partial replacement of only one ring system less likely to escape literal scope.
2) Two-tier substitution variables that propagate through many definitions
Even when a claim tier narrows one variable, Claim 1 (and Claim 2) propagate numerous substituent freedoms through R1′/R2/R2a/R2b/R2c/R4/R4a/R4b, etc. The result is broad literal coverage for analog series that keep the central scaffold but vary side-chain identity.
3) Broad linker and amine motifs
The allowance of:
- alkylene linkers
- carbonyl-containing linkers (C(O))
- imine-related motifs (CH2N=CH…)
- and multiple amide/sulfonamide-type structures
provides many literal “routes” to fit into the claim’s structural grammar.
4) Heteroatom control in aromatic rings
Claim 1 limits heteroatoms “from 0-2 heteroatoms selected from N, O, S” with the specific constraint “provided that from 0-1 O and S atoms are present.” This still permits multiple heteroaryl combinations and reduces the chance that replacing one heteroatom class automatically clears scope.
Explicit compound coverage (Claim 18)
Claim 18 recites a set of concrete compounds that share a common core: a tetrahydropyrazolo[3,4-c]pyridin-7-one system with a biphenyl-like aryl substitution pattern and variable aminosulfonyl/aminobenzisoxazol/fluoro and stereochemically defined hydroxy-pyrrolidinyl motifs in side chains.
Examples (as written in the claim) include embodiments such as:
- “1-[3-Aminoiminomethylphenyl]-3-methyl-6-[2′-aminosulfonyl-[1,1′]biphen-4-yl]-1,4,5,6-tetrahydropyrazolo[3,4-c]pyridin-7-one”
- “1-[2-Aminomethylphenyl]-3-trifluoromethyl-6-[2′-aminosulfonyl-3-fluoro-[1,1′]biphen-4-yl]-1,4,5,6-tetrahydropyrazolo[3,4-c]pyridin-7-one”
- “1-[3-Aminobenzisoxazol-5′-yl]-3-trifluoromethyl-6-[2′-(3-(S)-hydroxy-N-pyrrolidinyl)methyl-…]-1,4,5,6-tetrahydropyrazolo[3,4-c]pyridin-7-one”
- “1-[1-Aminoisoquinolin-7′-yl]-3-trifluoromethyl-6-[4-(2-methylimidazol-1′-yl)phenyl]-…-7-one”
The claim also covers stereoisomers in the general definition of Claim 1 and includes stereochemical qualifiers inside the enumerated examples (notably the (R) and (S) hydroxy on the pyrrolidinyl substituent).
What product/use scope does the patent cover operationally?
Pharmaceutical composition claims
- Claims 27-52: “A pharmaceutical composition” comprising:
- a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier
- a therapeutically effective amount of a compound of the referenced claim.
This provides a composition layer that can capture branded products, combination pill fills, and generic composition infringements if they are not carved out by non-overlapping ingredients.
Medical use claims
- Claims 53-78: “A method for treating a thromboembolic disorder”
- administer to a patient a therapeutically effective amount of the compound of the referenced claim.
Practical impact: If the compound itself is practiced in the U.S. for thromboembolic indications, the method claims create an additional infringement vector beyond composition/manufacturing.
U.S. patent landscape: what we can and cannot conclude from the provided record
The prompt provides the claim text, but not the following: assignee, filing date, priority date, publication number/application family, prosecution history, expiration/patent term adjustments, terminal disclaimers, or related continuation/divisional members.
Because those data are required to map the full U.S. landscape (same-family continuations, blocking patents by competitors, or claim-splitting status), a complete and accurate “landscape” cannot be produced from the supplied information alone.
Key Takeaways
- US 6,413,980 is a broad Markush structure patent anchored on a tetrahydropyrazolo[3,4-c]pyridin-7-one-like core with extensive permissible substitution in multiple ring/linker positions.
- Claim 1 is the main breadth driver: it allows optional ring D, variable ring E, extensive linker options, and very large substitution freedom via nested R-group definitions.
- Claims 2-17 progressively narrow the allowed chemical space through constrained G/A/B/X/Y/R sets.
- Claim 18 plus claims 19-26 capture explicit embodiments with defined aromatic substitutions and stereochemically described hydroxy-pyrrolidinyl motifs.
- Claims 27-52 cover compositions; claims 53-78 cover thromboembolic treatment methods, creating both product and use infringement angles.
FAQs
-
Does the patent cover salts and stereoisomers?
Yes. Claim 1 includes “stereoisomer or pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof.”
-
Can ring D be removed and still fall within scope?
Yes. Claim 1 states “ring D, when present…” and “alternatively, ring D is absent; when ring D is absent, ring E is…” selected from the specified set.
-
What is the therapeutic indication claimed?
A method for treating a thromboembolic disorder is claimed in Claims 53-78.
-
Are there standalone compound claims or only Markush ranges?
Both. Claim 1 is Markush-based, while Claim 18 and Claims 19-26 recite specific enumerated compounds.
-
Is there an additional layer beyond compounds?
Yes. Claims 27-52 cover pharmaceutical compositions and Claims 53-78 cover methods of treatment.
References
No external sources were provided or reliably usable from the prompt content.
More… ↓
⤷ Start Trial
|
