Details for Patent: 6,858,584

Summary for Patent: 6,858,584

Title:	Pharmaceutical compositions containing a glycopeptide antibiotic and a cyclodextrin
Abstract:	Disclosed are pharmaceutical compositions containing a cyclodextrin and a therapeutically effective amount of a glycopeptide antibiotic or a salt thereof. Also disclosed are methods of treating a bacterial disease in a mammal by administering such pharmaceutical compositions.
Inventor(s):	J. Kevin Judice, Jeng-Pyng Shaw, YongQi Mu, Michael W. Conner, John L. Pace
Assignee:	Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc
Application Number:	US09/846,893
Patent Claim Types: see list of patent claims	Composition;

US Patent 6,858,584 (Cyclodextrin + Lipidated Glycopeptide Antibiotic): Scope, Claim-by-Claim Boundaries, and US Patent Landscape

Executive summary: US 6,858,584 claims pharmaceutical compositions that combine (i) a cyclodextrin carrier and (ii) a lipidated glycopeptide antibiotic (or salt). The independent claim (claim 1) broadly covers “a pharmaceutical composition comprising a cyclodextrin and a lipidated glycopeptide antibiotic.” Dependent claims tighten scope by requiring water, powder/lyophilized powder form, and by specifying an aqueous cyclodextrin carrier with defined cyclodextrin and water weight-percent ranges. Narrower dependent claims further specify particular cyclodextrins (HPβCD and SBEβCD) and numeric cyclodextrin ranges (about 5–35 wt%, preferably about 10–30 wt%). For freedom-to-operate, infringement risk is driven by (a) whether the candidate product contains a cyclodextrin excipient and (b) whether the active is within “lipidated glycopeptide antibiotic” as construed. The patent’s competitive relevance depends on whether the lipidated glycopeptide is marketed or in development, and whether later US filings added differentiation around excipient type, concentration ranges, solid form, or salt selection.

---

What does US Patent 6,858,584 claim cover for cyclodextrin carriers with lipidated glycopeptide antibiotics?

Short answer: It covers compositions where the formulation contains both (a) a cyclodextrin and (b) a lipidated glycopeptide antibiotic (or salt). The broadest coverage is not limited to specific cyclodextrins, specific lipidated glycopeptides, or specific solid form. Dependent claims narrow to aqueous carrier compositions with specified cyclodextrin and water weight percentages and to lyophilized powder.

Claim 1 (independent): baseline infringement trigger

Claim 1: “A pharmaceutical composition comprising: (a) a cyclodextrin; and (b) a lipidated glycopeptide antibiotic or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof.”

Scope implications

• Cyclodextrin element is a gating requirement. Any accused product that lacks cyclodextrin does not satisfy claim 1 as written.
• Cyclodextrin type is not limited in claim 1. Dependent claims specify HPβCD and SBEβCD, but claim 1 alone reads on other cyclodextrins as well.
• Active class is broad at the “lipidated glycopeptide” level. The claim does not define the lipid moiety, chain length, linkage, or exact glycopeptide core in the text you provided. For claim interpretation, the patent specification would normally control what qualifies as “lipidated.”
• Salt coverage is explicit. Pharmaceutically acceptable salts fall within claim 1.

Practical claim boundary

• If a product uses lipidated glycopeptide + cyclodextrin in a pharmaceutical composition context, claim 1 is the first-line basis for infringement analysis.
• If a product uses lipidated glycopeptide without cyclodextrin, claim 1 is a strong non-infringement path.

Claim 2 (water): aqueous composition requirement

Claim 2: claim 1 further comprises water.

Scope implications

• Any claim-1 composition that does not include water (for example, anhydrous powders where water content is effectively zero) would not meet claim 2.
• Most liquid or reconstitutable aqueous products meet claim 2, but a dry solid with negligible residual moisture is a possible design-around depending on how “comprises water” is construed.

Claims 3–4 (powder, lyophilized powder): solid form narrowing

Claim 3: composition is a powder. Claim 4: composition is a lyophilized powder.

Scope implications

• Powder-only products can still meet claim 3 if they otherwise include cyclodextrin + lipidated glycopeptide (+ salt).
• Lyophilized products that are also powders can meet claim 4; non-lyophilized solids or solutions cannot.

Design-around logic

• A liquid formulation that is not a “powder” avoids claims 3–4.
• A powder that is not “lyophilized” avoids claim 4 but may still fall within claim 3.

---

What are the key dependent claim limitations that tighten infringement risk in US 6,858,584?

Short answer: The numeric constraints (1–40 wt% cyclodextrin and 60–99 wt% water) and the specified cyclodextrin species (HPβCD or SBEβCD) are the most operationally meaningful constraints for product formulation and FTO.

Claim 5: aqueous cyclodextrin carrier + defined composition premise

Claim 5: pharmaceutical composition comprising:

• (a) an aqueous cyclodextrin carrier and
• (b) a therapeutically effective amount of a lipidated glycopeptide antibiotic (or salt).

Scope implications

• Claim 5 requires an aqueous carrier. That is distinct from claim 1, which does not require water presence.
• It also requires “therapeutically effective amount” of the lipidated glycopeptide.

FTO angle

• If a formulation uses cyclodextrin but not as an aqueous carrier, claim 5 may be avoided even if claim 1 could still be implicated by a broader reading.

Claim 6: weight-percent ranges (most enforceable “formulation recipe”)

Claim 6: the composition comprises:

• (a) therapeutically effective amount of lipidated glycopeptide antibiotic or salt
• (b) 1 to 40 weight percent cyclodextrin
• (c) 60 to 99 weight percent water based on 100 weight percent composition

Scope implications

• The “1–40 wt% cyclodextrin” and “60–99 wt% water” windows create a quantitative infringement test.
• Products with lower cyclodextrin loading (<1 wt%) or low water content (for example, freeze-dried cakes where water content is not within 60–99 wt% at the time of composition) would fall outside claim 6.

Formulation design-around logic

• Shifting to a solid dosage form where “water based on 100 wt% composition” is not 60–99 wt% can avoid claim 6.
• Using cyclodextrin levels above 40 wt% (if feasible while maintaining pharmaceutical viability) can also avoid claim 6, though it may still raise claim 1 risk.

Claim 7: specific cyclodextrins

Claim 7: cyclodextrin is hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin (HPβCD) or sulfobutyl ether β-cyclodextrin (SBEβCD).

Scope implications

• Claim 7 narrows to two excipient identities.
• If an accused product uses another cyclodextrin species (for example, β-cyclodextrin), claim 7 is not met, but claim 1 could still be met.

Claim 8: HPβCD specific

Claim 8: cyclodextrin is hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin.

Scope implications

• Only products using HPβCD can meet claim 8.

Claims 9–10: preferred numeric subranges

Claim 9: cyclodextrin comprises about 5 to 35 wt%. Claim 10: cyclodextrin comprises about 10 to 30 wt%.

Scope implications

• These ranges sit inside the broader 1–40 wt% range of claim 6.
• A formulation that fits claim 6 but not claim 9 (for example, 1–5 wt% or 35–40 wt%) could avoid claims 9–10 while still meeting claim 6 (and possibly claim 5).

“About” language

• “About” introduces variability. The specification typically supplies how the patentee interprets “about” (for example, tolerances).
• For design-around, moving outside the outer bounds without relying on tolerance shrinkage is the safest approach.

---

How does US 6,858,584 map to product design choices (cyclodextrin selection, water content, and solid form)?

Short answer: The claim set creates a matrix where cyclodextrin presence (yes/no) controls claim 1; water and solid form control claims 2–4; and composition recipe controls claims 5–6 and claims 7–10.

Claim-to-formulation matrix

Product feature	Meets claim 1?	Meets claim 2?	Meets claim 3?	Meets claim 4?	Meets claim 5?	Meets claim 6?	Meets claim 7?	Meets claim 8?	Meets claim 9?	Meets claim 10?
Cyclodextrin present + lipidated glycopeptide	Yes	depends on water	depends on form	depends on form	depends on aqueous carrier	depends on wt%	depends on type	depends on type	depends on wt%	depends on wt%
Cyclodextrin absent	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Water present	Yes	Yes	depends	depends	yes if aqueous carrier	must fit wt%	depends	depends	depends	depends
Powder (non-lyophilized)	Yes	depends	Yes	No	depends	depends	depends	depends	depends	depends
Lyophilized powder	Yes	may	Yes	Yes	depends	likely no (if water not 60–99 wt%)	depends	depends	depends	depends
Cyclodextrin 1–40 wt% and water 60–99 wt%	possible	possible	depends	depends	possible	Yes	depends	depends	possible	possible
Cyclodextrin 5–35 wt%	possible	possible	depends	depends	possible	possible	depends	depends	Yes	possible
Cyclodextrin 10–30 wt%	possible	possible	depends	depends	possible	possible	depends	depends	possible	Yes
Cyclodextrin = HPβCD	possible	possible	depends	depends	possible	possible	depends	Yes	yes (if wt%)	yes (if wt%)
Cyclodextrin = SBEβCD	possible	possible	depends	depends	possible	possible	Yes	No	depends	depends
Cyclodextrin = other CD	possible	possible	depends	depends	possible	possible	No	No	depends	depends

---

What patents likely surround US 6,858,584 in the US landscape for lipidated glycopeptide delivery with cyclodextrins?

Short answer: The surrounding US patent estate for lipidated glycopeptide antibiotics typically clusters into four buckets: (1) lipidation and prodrug forms, (2) formulation stabilizers and excipients (often including cyclodextrins), (3) solid-state process and lyophilization conditions, and (4) method-of-use claims. US 6,858,584 sits squarely in bucket (2), with composition claims that can overlap with (3) if the specification ties cyclodextrin to lyophilized product performance.

How to structurally analyze “scope neighbors” without inventing missing patent numbers

Given only the claim text, the landscape analysis must remain bounded to claim mechanics:

• If a company uses cyclodextrin + lipidated glycopeptide in aqueous composition, it risks claim 1 and claim 5.
• If it uses HPβCD or SBEβCD, it risks claims 7–8.
• If it uses aqueous carrier with cyclodextrin 1–40 wt% and water 60–99 wt%, it risks claim 6.
• If it uses lyophilized powders it risks claims 3–4, even if it avoids claim 6 by lowering water content outside the specified range.

Likely overlap with later or earlier patents

• Earlier patents may cover lipidated glycopeptide molecules themselves (composition of matter for the active). Those would be broader to the active regardless of excipient.
• Later patents may cover specific cyclodextrin concentration windows, different cyclodextrin species, or different solubilization systems (for example, polymeric surfactants, salts, or amino acid buffers) designed to avoid claim 6 or claims 7–10.
• Process patents could claim lyophilization method parameters that improve stability, indirectly reinforcing the commercial advantage of using cyclodextrin with the lipidated glycopeptide.

---

Where are the strongest infringement levers and the cleanest design-arounds for US 6,858,584?

Short answer: Strongest levers are cyclodextrin presence plus the “lipidated glycopeptide” active, while the cleanest design-arounds are removing cyclodextrin or moving the formulation outside the aqueous wt% windows and outside specified cyclodextrin species.

Infringement levers

1. Claim 1 (cyclodextrin + lipidated glycopeptide) is the broad anchor.
2. Claim 5 adds “aqueous cyclodextrin carrier” and therapeutic effective amount.
3. Claim 6 adds explicit quantitative constraints and is likely to be central in formulation disputes.
4. Claims 7–10 tie to cyclodextrin identity and concentration subranges.

Clean design-arounds (conceptual, tied to claim text)

• Eliminate cyclodextrin: avoids claim 1 completely.
• Avoid “aqueous carrier”: for example, formulate as a non-aqueous system where water is not part of the carrier.
• Move outside wt% constraints: keep cyclodextrin below 1 wt% or water outside 60–99 wt% on a 100% basis.
• Use cyclodextrins other than HPβCD or SBEβCD: avoids claims 7–8, but not claim 1.
• Use solid form not lyophilized: avoids claim 4 (while still potentially meeting claim 3 and claim 1).

---

Does US 6,858,584 cover method-of-use, dosage, or manufacturing processes?

Short answer: Based on the provided claims, it is limited to pharmaceutical composition claims. The claim text contains no explicit method-of-use steps, no dosing regimen, and no manufacturing process steps.

Implication for litigation posture

• A product that uses the same active but differs on excipient and formulation could avoid this patent even if it still uses lipidated glycopeptide and achieves similar clinical effect.
• Conversely, even if the product differs in dosing, a directly matching excipient and composition recipe creates a direct product formulation infringement theory.

---

What does the claim set imply about Orange Book listing and ANDA risk?

Short answer: If the patented product is listed in the FDA Orange Book with the relevant patents tied to formulations containing cyclodextrins and lipidated glycopeptides, an ANDA referencing the listed reference drug could create Paragraph IV risk on a per-patent basis. However, the claims provided do not establish Orange Book listing status, reference drug identity, or listed active ingredient(s).

Practical regulatory linkage

• Composition patents like this typically appear as “Drug Substance” or “Drug Product” patents depending on how the patent ties to the marketed formulation.
• The most consequential risk is where the ANDA applicant’s formulation includes cyclodextrin and matches the aqueous wt% recipe.

---

Key takeaways

• US 6,858,584 claim 1 is broad: cyclodextrin + lipidated glycopeptide antibiotic (or salt) in a pharmaceutical composition.
• Claims 2–4 narrow by water and solid form: water presence (claim 2) and powder/lyophilized powder (claims 3–4).
• Claims 5–6 are formulation-recipe constraints: aqueous cyclodextrin carrier plus cyclodextrin 1–40 wt% and water 60–99 wt%.
• Claims 7–10 narrow cyclodextrin identity and dosing excipient loading: HPβCD or SBEβCD, and “about” cyclodextrin ranges of 5–35 wt% and 10–30 wt%.
• FTO focus: confirm whether a candidate product uses cyclodextrin at all, then check solid form and whether it matches the aqueous wt% recipe and the cyclodextrin species.

---

FAQs

1. Does US 6,858,584 require lyophilization to infringe?
   No. Claim 1 and claim 5 do not require lyophilization; claims 3–4 add powder and lyophilized powder limitations.

2. If a product uses HPβCD but not an aqueous carrier, is it still at risk?
   Claim 1 can still be implicated if the composition contains cyclodextrin and the lipidated glycopeptide antibiotic or salt. Claim 5 requires an aqueous cyclodextrin carrier.

3. How do the 1–40 wt% cyclodextrin and 60–99 wt% water limits affect design-around?
   A formulation outside those weight-percent ranges avoids claim 6, even if claim 1 could still be asserted.

4. Can switching from HPβCD to another cyclodextrin avoid claims 7 and 8?
   Yes, claims 7–8 are limited to HPβCD and SBEβCD, but claim 1 remains broader.

5. Is the patent limited to specific glycopeptide antibiotics?
   The claim text you provided frames the active class as “lipidated glycopeptide antibiotic,” without naming a specific glycopeptide. The precise scope depends on the patent specification and definition of the lipidated glycopeptide within the claims’ context.

---

References (APA)

1. United States Patent 6,858,584. “Cyclodextrin carrier for lipidated glycopeptide antibiotic.”

Drugs Protected by US Patent 6,858,584

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 6,858,584

Country	Patent Number	Estimated Expiration	Supplementary Protection Certificate	SPC Country	SPC Expiration
European Patent Office	1292612		C300507	Netherlands
European Patent Office	1292612		CA 2011 00033	Denmark
European Patent Office	1292612		91908	Luxembourg
European Patent Office	1292612		PA2012002	Lithuania
European Patent Office	1292612		1190036-2	Sweden
European Patent Office	1292612		11C0051	France
European Patent Office	1292612		PA2012002,C1292612	Lithuania