|
Patent landscape, scope, and claims: |
US Patent 7,132,416: Scope, Claim Construction, and Patent Landscape
What is US Drug Patent 7,132,416 claiming in plain claim-scope terms?
US 7,132,416 is a broad chemistry patent built around Formula (I) compounds, plus limited dependent narrowing examples, a multi-path synthesis section, and formulation/composition coverage.
Core claim type: “A compound of formula (I)” (independent Claim 1), with dependent claims that lock in subsets of the variables. The claim set also includes:
- Process claims (Claim 12) for making Formula (I) compounds or salts
- Composition claims (Claim 13) for pharmaceutical compositions containing Formula (I)
- Compound selection claims (Claims 14 and 15) that enumerate specific structures or intermediates as defined in the patent
What is the independent claim 1 structural scaffold and how wide is it?
Claim 1 defines Formula (I) through a large set of substituent variables. The breadth comes from (a) wide alternative definitions for most positions and (b) nested substituent groups (IA, IB, IC) and an aryl/heteroaryl “Ring A” system.
1) Breadth drivers in Claim 1
Claim 1 uses broad option sets at multiple loci:
- Rv: hydrogen or C1-6alkyl
- R1 and R2: each is selected from hydrogen, C1-6alkyl, or C2-6alkenyl with the constraint that one of R1/R2 is from (hydrogen/C1-6alkyl/C2-6alkenyl) and the other from (C1-6alkyl/C2-6alkenyl)
- Rx and Ry: independently hydrogen, hydroxy, amino, mercapto, C1-6alkyl, C1-6alkoxy, N-(C1-6alkyl)amino, N,N-(C1-6alkyl)2amino, C1-6alkylS(O)a (a = 0 to 2)
- M: —N— or —CH—
- Rz: broad electrophile/functional group set (halo, nitro, cyano, hydroxy, amino, carboxy, carbamoyl, mercapto, sulphamoyl, C1-6alkyl, C2-6alkenyl, C2-6alkynyl, C1-6alkoxy, C1-6alkanoyl, C1-6alkanoyloxy, and multiple sulfonamide/thiocarbonyl-like variants) with a = 0 to 2 for S(O)a
- v: 0–5
- R4 and R5: one is a group of formula (IA), the other is independently selected from a similarly broad set of substituents (halo to sulfonamide-like moieties)
- IA group definition: introduces Ring A and further substituent ladders R3, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, plus X linkage options and optional carbon substitution arrays
2) The IA internal architecture (where most chemical variation lives)
Claim 1 makes Ring A either aryl or heteroaryl, optionally substituted by R17. It also defines:
- R7: hydrogen, C1-4alkyl, carbocyclyl or heterocyclyl; optionally substituted by R18
- R8: hydrogen or C1-4alkyl
- R9: hydrogen or C1-4alkyl
- R10: hydrogen, carbocyclyl or heterocyclyl; optionally substituted by R19
- R11: either
- a phosphorus/acid-like functionality list (carboxy, sulpho/sulphino/phosphono variants), or
- a group of formula (IB) or (IC) (each of which further expands allowed substituents)
3) IB/IC breadth explosion
Within IB and IC, Claim 1 allows large sets for substituents:
- R19, R20, R24, R26: halo/nitro/cyano/hydroxy/amino/carboxy/carbamoyl/mercapto/sulphamoyl, C1-4alkyl, C2-4alkenyl, C2-4alkynyl, C1-4alkoxy, C1-4alkanoyl, carbamoyl analogs, C1-4alkylS(O)a (a = 0 to 2), alkoxycarbonyl, sulfonamide variants, and carbocyclyl/heterocyclyl, plus protection-like groups (benzyloxycarbonylamino) and (C1-4alkyl)3silyl
- R21, R22: even larger set including trifluoromethyl and multiple heteroatom-bearing and protected functional groups
- R23 and R25: acid-like (carboxy, sulpho, phosphono) and other acyl/sulfonyl groups (C1-6alkyl, C1-6alkanoyl, C1-6alkylsulphonyl, carbamoyl, benzyl/benzyloxycarbonyl/benzoyl/phenylsulphonyl)
4) “Optional substitution” language multiplies coverage without enumerating each compound
Claim 1 repeatedly uses “optionally substituted by one or more Rxx.” That is a classic breadth amplifier because it:
- permits multiple substitution patterns on the same carbon/atom set, and
- expands the count of covered structures without needing separate independent claims per pattern.
How do dependent claims narrow Claim 1 into practical deliverables?
Dependent claims 2–10 lock specific values to make “readable” claim subsets, and Claim 11 enumerates additional specific chemical examples.
Claim 2–7: narrowing backbone variables
- Claim 2: Rv is hydrogen (or salt)
- Claim 3: R1 and R2 are both butyl
- Claim 4: Rx and Ry both hydrogen
- Claim 5: M is —N—
- Claim 6: v is 0
- Claim 7: R3 and R6 hydrogen
These tighten the backbone but still leave Ring A/IA/IB/IC variation.
Claim 8–9: concrete R4/R5 and IA parameterization
- Claim 8: R4 is bromo, methyl, or methylthio
- Claim 9: R5 is a specific kind of IA-derived “Group (IA)” with defined sub-parameters:
- X is —O—
- Ring A is phenyl optionally substituted by R17
- n = 1; R7 = hydrogen; R8 = hydrogen; R9 = hydrogen; m = 0
- R11 is carboxy or formula (IB) or formula (IC)
- explicit constraints on IB/IC internal substituents including Y = —N(Rn)C(O)— with Rn hydrogen, and multiple parameters p, q, r
- R17 is hydroxy
- Ring B is pyrrolidin-1-yl or azetidinyl with carboxy/hydroxy substitution pattern via R23/R24
So Claim 9 is a meaningful narrowing to a “phenyl + hydroxy + defined ring B motif + defined carboxy/phosphoryl-like R11 choices” set.
Claim 10: maximum specificity example list for R5
Claim 10 sets:
- Rv hydrogen
- R1/R2 butyl
- Rx/Ry hydrogen
- M —N—
- v 0
- R3/R6 hydrogen
- R4 bromo/methyl/methylthio
- R5 enumerated as a massive set of named/defined substituents of the form “N-{(R)-α-[N-(carboxymethyl)carbamoyl]benzyl}carbamoylmethoxy” and many stereochemically specified variants, including:
- carboxyalkyl, hydroxyalkyl, sulphoethyl, methylthioethyl, trimethylsilyl-ethyl variants
- multiple stereochemical designations (R/S configurations)
This is the practical “anchor” dataset: it tells the scope of what the patent considers valuable embodiments.
Claim 11: enumerated Formula (I) compounds (select set)
Claim 11 provides a list of specific Formula (I) compounds, each with an explicit full name string. Examples include:
- compounds described as “1,1-dioxo-3,3-dibutyl-5-phenyl-7-methylthio-8-(N-{(R)-α-[N-((R)-1-carboxy-... )carbamoyl]-4-hydroxybenzyl}carbamoylmethoxy)-2,3,4,5-tetrahydro-1,2,5-benzothiadiazepine”
- multiple variations in the carboxy/hydroxyalkyl side chain on the nested carbamoyl group (carboxypropyl, carboxybutyl, sulphoethyl, etc.)
Claim 13: composition
- Pharmaceutical composition containing Formula (I) or salt with diluent/carrier.
What is Claim 12 (process) scope and how does it affect freedom-to-operate?
Claim 12 is an unusually detailed multi-process claim, organized as Process 1) through Process 7). It covers preparation routes for different sub-classes based on which functional group is present (notably the linkage X and R11 type).
Process map (Claim 12)
- Process 1: for compounds where X is —O—, —NRa, or —S—
- react compound of (IIa) or (IIb) with compound of (III) (where L is a displaceable group)
- Process 2: react an acid (IVa/IVb) or activated derivative with an amine (V)
- Process 3: for R11 = group (IB): react carboxy-containing intermediate with amine (VI)
- Process 4: for compounds where one of R4/R5 is C1-6alkylthio motif:
- react intermediate (VIIa/VIIb) with a thiol (VIII): Rm—H
- Process 5: for compounds where R11 is carboxy:
- Process 6: for R11 = group (IB) and R15 = carboxy:
- Process 7: for R11 = group (IB) and N(Rn)C(O)—:
- react acid (XIa) or activated derivative with amine (XII)
- then optionally convert between Formula (I) variants, remove protecting groups, or form salts
Business impact: Even if a competitor can design around compound coverage (Claim 1), the process claim can still create additional leverage if manufacturing uses one of these transformation classes.
How broad are the “selection” claims (14 and 15)?
- Claim 14: selects two named Formula (I) compounds (exact structural strings) or salts.
- Claim 15: selects a group including intermediates/variant formulas (IXa, IXb, Xa, Xb) where the variable definitions are tied back to Claim 1 parameter ranges, including Rp is C1-6alkyl or phenylC1-6alkyl.
This pushes coverage toward both end-products and certain defined synthetic nodes.
What is the practical claim scope summary (what you can and cannot easily read out)?
Claim 1 coverage is extremely wide on substituents but structured around one “family shape”
The patent does not claim “any benzothiadiazepine” broadly without limits. It claims a Formula (I) family with:
- a fixed macro scaffold implied by Ring A, the benzothiadiazepine-like descriptor in examples, and the defined linkage options (X),
- specific allowed substituent classes at many positions (halo through sulfonamide-like and acid/phosphono-like),
- and nested groups (IA, IB, IC) that define the principal pharmacophore side-chain region.
Dependent claims carve out an embodiment ladder
- Claim 2–8 restrict backbone defaults (Rv, R1/R2, Rx/Ry, M, v, R3/R6, R4).
- Claim 9 restricts R5 to an IA-style “phenyl + hydroxy + Ring B (pyrrolidinyl/azetidinyl) + defined R11 (carboxy or IB/IC)” profile.
- Claim 10 and Claim 11 enumerate stereochemically specified side chains and full compounds for higher evidentiary value.
Where does this sit in a patent landscape strategy? (scope-based landscape logic)
Without external bibliographic metadata (filing date, assignee, priority chain, prosecution history, or cited art), the only defensible landscape statements are structural and scope-based: the patent’s value and risk profile depends on whether competitor compounds fall within the Formula (I) variable matrix and whether their processes match Claim 12 transformations.
Key landscape dimensions to evaluate against competitors’ products
-
Whether competitor molecules match Formula (I) variables
- Are their Ring A substitutions within aryl/heteroaryl + R17 allowed sets?
- Do they have compatible R11 functionality (carboxy/sulpho/phosphono or IB/IC variants)?
- Is Ring B the same (pyrrolidin-1-yl or azetidinyl in the narrower dependent set)?
- Are the side-chain types (carboxyalkyl/hydroxyalkyl/sulphoalkyl/methylthioalkyl) within the permitted IB/IC substituent families?
-
Whether competitor molecules match the defined linkage X
- Claim 1 supports X = —O—, —N(Ra)—, —S(O)b—, or —CH(Ra)—, with Ra and b constraints.
- Process Claim 12 Process 1 is conditional on X being among —O—, —NRa, or —S—.
-
Whether competitor manufacturing routes use the Claim 12 process classes
- Many synthesis programs use acid-amine coupling, deprotection steps, and displacement reactions.
- If competitor synthesis uses acid + amine coupling to create the R11 or nested carbamoyl motifs, Claim 12 Process 2/3/7 can matter.
- If they implement the defined thiol substitution (Process 4), that becomes a specific risk.
Scope audit: claim coverage “hot zones”
The patent’s broadest coverage is not random. It concentrates around:
- R5 / group IA: phenyl/heteroaryl ring plus optional substitutions and a defined side-chain region
- R11: acid-like functional group choices or IB/IC groups
- Nested stereochemical side chains in Claim 10/11: carboxy and hydroxyalkyl plus sulphoalkyl and methylthioalkyl families, plus protected forms like trimethylsilyl
This is where a product designer can unintentionally land inside the claim if substituent choices remain inside the variable sets.
Key Takeaways
- US 7,132,416 Claim 1 is a broad Formula (I) chemistry claim built from wide substituent option sets plus nested group definitions IA, IB, IC; breadth is amplified by repeated “optionally substituted by one or more Rxx” language.
- Dependent claims 2–8 tighten backbone defaults (Rv, R1/R2, Rx/Ry, M, v, R3/R6, R4), while Claim 9 constrains the R5/IA architecture (notably phenyl ring A with R17 = hydroxy and a Ring B = pyrrolidin-1-yl or azetidinyl pattern).
- Claims 10 and 11 provide high-value, enumerated stereochemically specified embodiments that function as concrete “coverage anchors” within the broader variable matrix.
- Claim 12 adds enforceability beyond compounds via seven conditional process routes tied to linkage X and functional group types (including displacement, acid-amine coupling, thiol substitution, and deprotection).
- Claim 13–15 add formulation coverage (Claim 13) and additional enumerated selections/intermediates (Claims 14–15), expanding the scope of what is potentially constrained in practice.
FAQs
1) Is Claim 1 limited to a single ring system or does it allow heteroaryl?
Claim 1 requires Ring A to be aryl or heteroaryl, with optional substituents defined by R17.
2) Does the patent claim salts or only free-base compounds?
It repeatedly includes “or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt,” including in Claim 2 and through the dependent structure.
3) How do the dependent claims relate to the broad Formula (I) variables?
Dependent claims fix specific variable selections (for example Rv, R1/R2, Rx/Ry, M, v, R3/R6, R4) and in Claim 9 also constrain IA/R5 parameters and Ring B identity.
4) What is the highest-risk area for design-around in competitors’ molecules?
The R5/IA side chain and R11 choices (carboxy/sulpho/phosphono or IB/IC) combined with the allowed Ring A/Ring B motifs and the IB/IC substituent sets.
5) Can manufacturing processes create liability even if a compound is redesigned outside Claim 1?
Yes. Claim 12 provides process coverage tied to intermediate classes and transformation types (displacement, acid-amine coupling, thiol substitution, deprotection, and final coupling/salt formation).
References
- US Patent 7,132,416. “A compound of formula (I)…” claims and specifications excerpted in the provided claim text.
More… ↓
⤷ Start Trial
|
