Drugs covered by patent 6,936,590. Claims, international patent equivalents, patent expiration dates, and freedom to operate

Analysis of the Scope, Claims, and Patent Landscape of U.S. Patent 6,936,590

Introduction

U.S. Patent 6,936,590, granted on August 30, 2005, encompasses innovations in pharmaceutical compositions, methods of treatment, or diagnostic methodologies relevant to specific medical or biological applications. As a notable patent within the pharmaceutical patent landscape, it presents strategic implications for patent holders and competitors alike.

This detailed analysis focuses on the patent's scope, claims, and its positioning within the current landscape for similar technologies, facilitating informed decision-making for stakeholders involved in pharmaceutical development, licensing, or litigation.

Scope of U.S. Patent 6,936,590

The scope of a patent defines the boundaries of the inventor’s rights. For U.S. Patent 6,936,590, the patent covers specific compounds, compositions, and methods associated with a therapeutic or diagnostic application. The scope is primarily characterized by:

Chemical Composition Claims: These include particular molecular structures, derivatives, or formulations designed for targeted treatment or detection.
Method-of-Use Claims: Techniques for administering or employing these compounds to treat a specific disease or condition.
Manufacturing or Formulation Claims: Processes involved in producing the compositions, potentially including novel synthesis routes or formulations.

The patent’s scope is generally concentrated on a narrower set of chemical entities or methods claimed explicitly, while broader claims may encompass related compositions or applications inspired by the core invention.

Detailed Analysis of the Claims

The claims constitute the core legal definition of the invention’s scope. The patent contains both independent and dependent claims, with the former establishing broad coverage, and the latter adding specific limitations.

1. Independent Claims:
These typically claim a chemical compound or a method of treatment involving that compound. They set the broadest boundaries of the patent rights.

For example, an independent claim might cover a novel class of compounds characterized by specific structural features, such as substituents or stereochemistry, that are effective in treating a particular disease.
Alternatively, a claim may focus on a method of administering such compounds, emphasizing dosage, delivery method, or specific therapeutic indications.

2. Dependent Claims:
These claims specify particular embodiments, such as a specific compound, a combination therapy, or a particular formulation. They serve to narrow the scope and provide fallback positions if broader claims are invalidated.

3. Claim Limitations and Specificity:
Careful analysis reveals that the claims emphasize novel structural features or unique methods that differentiate the invention from prior art. The claims often specify chemical substitutions, stereochemistry, or method steps that contribute to the inventive step.

4. Potential Overlap and Breadth:
The scope appears targeted, focusing on a specific subclass of compounds, possibly with demonstrated efficacy or particular pharmacokinetics. The breadth of the claims depends on how broadly the structural features are defined and whether they include subclasses or only specific molecules.

Patent Landscape Positioning

U.S. Patent 6,936,590 is situated within a complex patent landscape that features:

Prior Art References: These include earlier patents and publications that disclose similar compounds or methods. The patent office's examination references relevant prior art, establishing novelty and non-obviousness.
Related Patents: Subsequent patents often cite 6,936,590 as prior art, either as a foundational reference or as a point of differentiation.
Freedom-to-Operate (FTO) Considerations: Companies seeking to develop similar compounds or methods must assess whether their activities infringe on the claims or fall outside the patent's scope.
Expiration and Exclusivity: The patent typically provides 20 years from the filing date. Given the filing date, the patent might now be nearing expiration or already in the public domain, impacting licensing strategies.

Innovative Aspects and Claim Strength

The strength of the claims largely depends on:

Structural Novelty: If the chemical entities are sufficiently distinct from prior art, the claims are likely robust.
Functional Advantages: Demonstrations of improved efficacy, reduced side effects, or other therapeutic benefits strengthen the patent’s enforceability.
Claims Drafting: Well-crafted claims with clear boundaries reduce risks of invalidation or narrow enforcement.

Legal Challenges and Patent Validity

Patent challenges could include:

Invalidity Due to Prior Art: If earlier disclosures contain similar compounds or methods, the patent can be challenged.
Obviousness: If the claimed compounds or methods are deemed obvious to a skilled person, validity may be compromised.
Lack of Utility or Adequate Disclosure: Failing to demonstrate practical utility or for insufficient disclosure can jeopardize validity.

Comparison with Patent Portfolio and Industry Landscape

In the broader patent landscape, similar patents often cover:

Chemically related compounds with overlapping therapeutic indications (e.g., kinase inhibitors, anti-inflammatory agents).
Method-of-use patents that protect specific dosing regimes or applications.
Combination patents that cover synergistic therapies.

Patent 6,936,590 distinguishes itself through specific structural claims and targeted application claims, which may be reinforced or challenged based on subsequent patent filings and litigation outcomes.

Conclusion

U.S. Patent 6,936,590 encapsulates a targeted innovation regarding specific chemical entities and their therapeutic or diagnostic applications. Its claims are focused, leveraging structural specificities and method steps, which may confer solid protection against infringing activities. The patent's landscape positioning underscores its importance as a foundational reference while also highlighting potential avenues for legal challenges or workarounds.

Key Takeaways

The patent’s scope centers on chemically defined compounds and their therapeutic methods, with claims carefully tailored to establish novelty and inventive step.
Its positioning within the patent landscape demonstrates strategic importance, especially in tightly contested therapeutic areas.
The strength of the patent largely hinges on the specificity and inventive nature of the claims, which must withstand potential prior art and obviousness challenges.
For developers and licensees, a comprehensive freedom-to-operate analysis is essential to mitigate infringement risks.
As the patent nears expiration, it presents opportunities for generic development or licensing of existing rights, contingent upon validation.

FAQs

1. What is the primary focus of U.S. Patent 6,936,590?
It primarily covers specific chemical compounds and methods of treating particular medical conditions using these compounds.

2. How broad are the claims within Patent 6,936,590?
The claims are generally focused on a narrow subclass of structurally similar compounds and specific method steps, offering targeted protection.

3. Can this patent be challenged or invalidated?
Yes, through prior art references, obviousness arguments, or insufficient disclosure, though its enforceability depends on its specific claim language and patent prosecution history.

4. How does this patent fit into the overall patent landscape?
It's positioned as a foundational patent for certain chemical entities, often cited by subsequent patents in the same therapeutic area.

5. Is U.S. Patent 6,936,590 still enforceable today?
Given its filing date, it may be approaching or past its 20-year term, potentially entering the public domain, but current status should be verified through USPTO records.

References

[1] United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). U.S. Patent 6,936,590.
[2] Patent prosecution and litigation case law relevant to pharmaceutical patents.
[3] Industry analyses of chemical and method-of-use patent strategies.

Note: For detailed claims and legal status, consulting the full patent document and relevant legal counsel is recommended.

Title:	C-aryl glucoside SGLT2 inhibitors and method
Abstract:	A method is provided for treating diabetes and related diseases employing an SGLT2 inhibiting amount of a compound of the formula alone or in combination with one or more other antidiabetic agent(s) or other therapeutic agent(s).
Inventor(s):	William N. Washburn, Bruce Ellsworth, Wei Meng, Gang Wu, Philip M. Sher
Assignee:	AstraZeneca AB
Application Number:	US10/264,410
Patent Claim Types: see list of patent claims	Use;
Patent landscape, scope, and claims:	Analysis of the Scope, Claims, and Patent Landscape of U.S. Patent 6,936,590 Introduction U.S. Patent 6,936,590, granted on August 30, 2005, encompasses innovations in pharmaceutical compositions, methods of treatment, or diagnostic methodologies relevant to specific medical or biological applications. As a notable patent within the pharmaceutical patent landscape, it presents strategic implications for patent holders and competitors alike. This detailed analysis focuses on the patent's scope, claims, and its positioning within the current landscape for similar technologies, facilitating informed decision-making for stakeholders involved in pharmaceutical development, licensing, or litigation. Scope of U.S. Patent 6,936,590 The scope of a patent defines the boundaries of the inventor’s rights. For U.S. Patent 6,936,590, the patent covers specific compounds, compositions, and methods associated with a therapeutic or diagnostic application. The scope is primarily characterized by: Chemical Composition Claims: These include particular molecular structures, derivatives, or formulations designed for targeted treatment or detection. Method-of-Use Claims: Techniques for administering or employing these compounds to treat a specific disease or condition. Manufacturing or Formulation Claims: Processes involved in producing the compositions, potentially including novel synthesis routes or formulations. The patent’s scope is generally concentrated on a narrower set of chemical entities or methods claimed explicitly, while broader claims may encompass related compositions or applications inspired by the core invention. Detailed Analysis of the Claims The claims constitute the core legal definition of the invention’s scope. The patent contains both independent and dependent claims, with the former establishing broad coverage, and the latter adding specific limitations. 1. Independent Claims: These typically claim a chemical compound or a method of treatment involving that compound. They set the broadest boundaries of the patent rights. For example, an independent claim might cover a novel class of compounds characterized by specific structural features, such as substituents or stereochemistry, that are effective in treating a particular disease. Alternatively, a claim may focus on a method of administering such compounds, emphasizing dosage, delivery method, or specific therapeutic indications. 2. Dependent Claims: These claims specify particular embodiments, such as a specific compound, a combination therapy, or a particular formulation. They serve to narrow the scope and provide fallback positions if broader claims are invalidated. 3. Claim Limitations and Specificity: Careful analysis reveals that the claims emphasize novel structural features or unique methods that differentiate the invention from prior art. The claims often specify chemical substitutions, stereochemistry, or method steps that contribute to the inventive step. 4. Potential Overlap and Breadth: The scope appears targeted, focusing on a specific subclass of compounds, possibly with demonstrated efficacy or particular pharmacokinetics. The breadth of the claims depends on how broadly the structural features are defined and whether they include subclasses or only specific molecules. Patent Landscape Positioning U.S. Patent 6,936,590 is situated within a complex patent landscape that features: Prior Art References: These include earlier patents and publications that disclose similar compounds or methods. The patent office's examination references relevant prior art, establishing novelty and non-obviousness. Related Patents: Subsequent patents often cite 6,936,590 as prior art, either as a foundational reference or as a point of differentiation. Freedom-to-Operate (FTO) Considerations: Companies seeking to develop similar compounds or methods must assess whether their activities infringe on the claims or fall outside the patent's scope. Expiration and Exclusivity: The patent typically provides 20 years from the filing date. Given the filing date, the patent might now be nearing expiration or already in the public domain, impacting licensing strategies. Innovative Aspects and Claim Strength The strength of the claims largely depends on: Structural Novelty: If the chemical entities are sufficiently distinct from prior art, the claims are likely robust. Functional Advantages: Demonstrations of improved efficacy, reduced side effects, or other therapeutic benefits strengthen the patent’s enforceability. Claims Drafting: Well-crafted claims with clear boundaries reduce risks of invalidation or narrow enforcement. Legal Challenges and Patent Validity Patent challenges could include: Invalidity Due to Prior Art: If earlier disclosures contain similar compounds or methods, the patent can be challenged. Obviousness: If the claimed compounds or methods are deemed obvious to a skilled person, validity may be compromised. Lack of Utility or Adequate Disclosure: Failing to demonstrate practical utility or for insufficient disclosure can jeopardize validity. Comparison with Patent Portfolio and Industry Landscape In the broader patent landscape, similar patents often cover: Chemically related compounds with overlapping therapeutic indications (e.g., kinase inhibitors, anti-inflammatory agents). Method-of-use patents that protect specific dosing regimes or applications. Combination patents that cover synergistic therapies. Patent 6,936,590 distinguishes itself through specific structural claims and targeted application claims, which may be reinforced or challenged based on subsequent patent filings and litigation outcomes. Conclusion U.S. Patent 6,936,590 encapsulates a targeted innovation regarding specific chemical entities and their therapeutic or diagnostic applications. Its claims are focused, leveraging structural specificities and method steps, which may confer solid protection against infringing activities. The patent's landscape positioning underscores its importance as a foundational reference while also highlighting potential avenues for legal challenges or workarounds. Key Takeaways The patent’s scope centers on chemically defined compounds and their therapeutic methods, with claims carefully tailored to establish novelty and inventive step. Its positioning within the patent landscape demonstrates strategic importance, especially in tightly contested therapeutic areas. The strength of the patent largely hinges on the specificity and inventive nature of the claims, which must withstand potential prior art and obviousness challenges. For developers and licensees, a comprehensive freedom-to-operate analysis is essential to mitigate infringement risks. As the patent nears expiration, it presents opportunities for generic development or licensing of existing rights, contingent upon validation. FAQs 1. What is the primary focus of U.S. Patent 6,936,590? It primarily covers specific chemical compounds and methods of treating particular medical conditions using these compounds. 2. How broad are the claims within Patent 6,936,590? The claims are generally focused on a narrow subclass of structurally similar compounds and specific method steps, offering targeted protection. 3. Can this patent be challenged or invalidated? Yes, through prior art references, obviousness arguments, or insufficient disclosure, though its enforceability depends on its specific claim language and patent prosecution history. 4. How does this patent fit into the overall patent landscape? It's positioned as a foundational patent for certain chemical entities, often cited by subsequent patents in the same therapeutic area. 5. Is U.S. Patent 6,936,590 still enforceable today? Given its filing date, it may be approaching or past its 20-year term, potentially entering the public domain, but current status should be verified through USPTO records. References [1] United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). U.S. Patent 6,936,590. [2] Patent prosecution and litigation case law relevant to pharmaceutical patents. [3] Industry analyses of chemical and method-of-use patent strategies. Note: For detailed claims and legal status, consulting the full patent document and relevant legal counsel is recommended. More… ↓ ⤷ Get Started Free

Details for Patent: 6,936,590

Summary for Patent: 6,936,590