|
Patent landscape, scope, and claims: |
United States Patent 7,767,675: Claim Scope, Structural Boundaries, and US Patent Estate Coverage for Defined Imidazo[1,2-b][1,2,4]triazin Series
Executive summary: U.S. Patent 7,767,675 is a US compound-and-method patent with 84 compound claims that all share a common core scaffold of imidazo[1,2-b][1,2,4]triazin substituted at defined positions (notably 2-aryl / 2-halo and 7-aryl/alkyl-heteroaryl, plus 4-benzamide-type substitution in many claims), with breadth achieved through extensive enumeration of permissible side-chain substituents and ring systems. Claim 85 adds a breast cancer treatment method using any compound from claims 1-84. The claim set is structured as a “closed” Markush style: it is broad across many enumerated analogs, but it does not read onto every conceivable substitution pattern outside the specifically recited substituent selections and placements.
What is the claim scope of U.S. Patent 7,767,675 (compound + breast cancer method)
Featured snippet answer: The patent claims a set of specifically defined small-molecule compounds (claims 1–84) built on an imidazo[1,2-b][1,2,4]triazin scaffold with defined substitution positions, plus a method of treating breast cancer (claim 85) by administering those compounds.
Core scaffold that constrains all compound claims
Across claims 1–84, the same medicinal scaffold appears repeatedly:
- Heterocycle: imidazo[1,2-b][1,2,4]triazin
- Key substitution pattern(s):
- Substitution at or near the 2-position includes 4-fluorophenyl, 2-fluoro, or halogenated/aryl variants in different claim families.
- Substitution at the 7-position includes benzyl, cyclopropyl, thioether, phenoxy, and heteroaryl-cyclopropyl/alkyl motifs (examples: “7-(4-methoxybenzyl)”, “7-(quinolin-6-ylcyclopropyl)”, “7-(quinolin-6-ylmethyl)”).
- Many claims include a benzamide group in the 4-substituted environment (examples: “...triazin-2-yl]benzamide”, and variants with N-substituted benzamide).
Breadth mechanism: enumerated analog families
The scope expands primarily by:
- Enumerating alternative aryl/heteroaryl substituents (quinoline, quinoxaline, pyridine, pyrimidine, pyrazole-bearing systems, imidazole/oxazolidinone variants, etc.).
- Enumerating alternative linkers (benzyl, methyl, thioether link, phenoxy link, cyclopropyl substituents, heteroaryl-methyl, etc.).
- Enumerating alternative N-substituents on benzamide side chains (cyclopropyl, cyclobutyl, methoxymethyl-substituted cycloalkyls, tetrahydropyran-4-yl, tetrahydrofuran-2-ylmethyl, azetidinylcarbonyl variants, dimethylamino-carbonyl side chain variants, stereodefined hydroxy/alkyl variants).
This creates a large “digital” space of coverage while keeping the claim boundaries tied to enumerated definitions.
How broad are claims 1–84: what exactly is locked vs variable
Featured snippet answer: The patent is broad across numerous enumerated analogs but is not open-ended. It is locked to the imidazo[1,2-b][1,2,4]triazin scaffold and to the specific substitution placements and enumerated side-chain chemotypes recited in the claim language.
Locked elements (high confidence from claim text)
- Scaffold identity: Each compound claim is a specific named chemical entity containing imidazo[1,2-b][1,2,4]triazin.
- Substitution positions and bonding classes are explicit: examples include:
- “7-(4-methoxybenzyl)”
- “7-(quinolin-6-ylmethyl)”
- “7-(quinolin-6-ylthio)” (thioether)
- “7-(4-methoxyphenoxy)” (phenoxy)
- “7-(quinolin-6-ylcyclopropyl)” and cyclopropyl-based derivatives.
- Linking atoms/groups are explicit (thio vs oxy vs carbon linker; benzyl vs methyl; cyclopropyl vs cyclobutyl; amide vs urea etc., as each appears in specific claims).
Variable elements (but limited by enumeration)
Within the enumerated set, variability exists in:
- Aryl ring identity (e.g., 4-fluorophenyl, 4-bromo-3-fluorophenyl, dichlorophenyl, pyridyl, quinolinyl, pyrimidinyl, quinoxalinyl)
- Substitution on aryl (methoxy, methylsulfonyl, acetyl-tetrahydropyridinyl, imidazolyl substitutions)
- Side-chain ring systems:
- Cyclopropyl, cyclobutyl, tetrahydropyran, tetrahydrofuran,
- Hydroxycyclohexyl with stereochemical labels in some claims,
- Azetidine and substituted amino-carbonyl variants.
- Stereochemistry appears in many claims where relevant:
- (1S), (1R), (3R), (1S,2S) examples among hydroxy/amine-adjacent substituents.
Practical infringement boundary (structural)
Because claims recite many discrete molecules rather than an open formula with substituent “any group,” an accused product can avoid literal coverage by changing:
- the scaffold (must still contain the imidazo[1,2-b][1,2,4]triazin core),
- the substitution class (for example replacing a thioether-linked group with an amine or sulfonamide linkage),
- the regiochemistry / attachment (e.g., moving from quinolin-6-ylmethyl to an alternative position),
- or the precise side-chain chemotype enumerated in the claim set.
However, avoiding literal coverage may not avoid equivalents depending on jurisdiction and prosecution history, which cannot be assessed from the claim list alone.
Which structural families dominate the claim set (and what that implies for freedom-to-operate)
Featured snippet answer: The claims cluster into several recurring chemotypes: (i) 7-benzyl substituted derivatives, (ii) 7-thioether/phenoxy linked derivatives, (iii) 7-quinolinyl-cyclopropyl and quinolinyl-methyl derivatives, and (iv) N-substituted benzamide variants with cycloalkyl and amino-carbonyl substituents, including stereodefined hydroxy motifs.
Family A: 2-(4-fluorophenyl) / 7-benzyl and 7-aryl-thio/phenoxy variants
Claims 1–8 and nearby capture early diversification around:
- 2-(4-fluorophenyl)
- 7-(4-methoxybenzyl) (claim 1)
- 7-(methoxybenzyl analogs and cyclopropyl substitutions) (claim 2)
- 7-(quinolinyl-cyclopropyl / quinolinyl-methyl evolution) transitions in later claims
Implication: products built on the same 2-aryl and “7-methoxybenzyl/thio/phenoxy” arrangement are high literal risk if they fall on any enumerated molecules.
Family B: 4-benzamide scaffold with N-substitution diversity (claims 4, 9–21, 23–37, 39–44, 46–49, 58–74, 75–78)
Many claims use this pattern:
- “2-Fluoro-...-benzamide” or “...benzamide” with a heterocycle attached.
- N-substitution is the main dial:
- small cyclic amines (cyclopropyl/cyclobutyl),
- substituted cycloalkyl with methoxymethyl or hydroxyl,
- heteroatom-containing rings (tetrahydropyran, tetrahydrofuran),
- and stereochemically defined hydroxypropyl/alkyl carbonyl side chains.
Implication: if an accused drug only differs by minor modifications to the benzamide N-substituent, it still may map into one of these enumerated N-substituent options and thus retain literal coverage.
Family C: quinolin-6-ylmethyl vs quinolin-6-ylcyclopropyl vs quinolin-6-ylethyl at the 7-position
Claims appear to separate these substituent classes, for example:
- quinolin-6-ylmethyl variants (frequently)
- quinolin-6-ylcyclopropyl variants (frequently)
- quinolin-6-ylethyl variants (claims 75–78 and surrounding)
Implication: switching the linker geometry at the 7-position (methyl vs cyclopropyl vs ethyl) is a structural change that may move the design outside the enumerated set.
Family D: fused heteroaryl systems and different terminal groups (claims 35–37, 54–57, 82–84)
Later claims include:
- pyrazolyl-acetonitrile/acetamide/piperidine-carboxylate,
- pyrazolyl-propanenitrile,
- cyanomethyl and piperidine-1-carboxylate esters.
Implication: if the competitor’s compound uses a different heterocycle (e.g., non-pyrazole replacement) or different terminal nitrile/carbamate pattern not enumerated, it may not fall within the literal claim molecules.
What does claim 85 cover: method-of-use for breast cancer
Featured snippet answer: Claim 85 covers a method of treating breast cancer in a patient by administering any compound of claims 1–84 (or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof) in a therapeutically effective amount.
Claim 85 structure
- Trigger: “treating breast cancer in a patient”
- Act: “administering”
- Coverage: “a therapeutically effective amount of a compound of any one of claims 1-84”
- Form: “or pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof”
What claim 85 implies for litigation strategy
- If the accused product contains a compound that falls within claims 1–84, claim 85 adds a direct method claim tied to clinical indication.
- If the accused product uses only a non-enumerated analog, claim 85 may be harder to assert because the method claim is tied to the compound claims by reference.
How many distinct claim “coverage nodes” exist inside claims 1–84
Featured snippet answer: Claims 1–84 cover 84 enumerated molecules plus pharmaceutically acceptable salts, not a single generic formula. Coverage nodes are defined by (i) heterocycle substitution at the core scaffold and (ii) specific side-chain chemotypes and substituent positions.
“Closed enumeration” effect
Because each claim is written as a full chemical name (not a substituent range), the patent behaves like a list of protected molecules. That limits:
- “design-around” options if a competitor stays within the enumerated substitutions,
- and increases “strike risk” if a competitor’s candidate matches one listed molecule exactly.
Salt coverage
Each claim includes “pharmaceutically acceptable salt.” In infringement terms, this expands coverage to salt forms for the same base compound, including salts used in formulation development.
What patent estate coverage is likely outside this specific patent (US)
Featured snippet answer: Not determinable from the provided claim text alone. U.S. Patent 7,767,675 is a single listed US patent with its own claim scope, but the broader US estate (continuations, divisionals, related formulation or process patents) cannot be mapped without the publication family, assignee, and prosecution history.
(Per constraints, no additional estate assertions are made.)
Potential generic or biosimilar risks from this patent (from claim structure only)
Featured snippet answer: The patent is for small-molecule structures and a specific cancer indication method. It does not read like a biologic patent, and it is not a formulation-only claim based on the text provided; the core risk is direct chemical identity coverage and method-of-use coverage.
Generic risk pathway (small molecule)
- If a generic makes and sells a compound that matches one of claims 1–84, it can trigger literal infringement.
- If it makes a covered salt form, the “salt” language expands infringement exposure.
“Design-around” risk pathway (compound changes)
Given the enumerated nature:
- altering the 7-position linker type (benzyl vs thioether vs phenoxy vs cyclopropyl vs methyl),
- altering the 2-position aryl/halo class,
- or altering the benzamide N-substituent beyond the enumerated options,
is a likely route to avoid literal coverage, subject to equivalents.
Key Takeaways
- U.S. Patent 7,767,675 protects a defined imidazo[1,2-b][1,2,4]triazin scaffold with 84 specifically enumerated compound claims, each listing full chemical identity plus pharmaceutically acceptable salts.
- Breadth comes from enumeration of many side-chain and ring-system variants, not from open-ended genus language.
- Claim 85 adds a direct breast cancer treatment method using any compound from claims 1–84.
- For competitive assessment, the highest infringement risk is when a candidate’s structure matches one of the enumerated molecules at the core substitution positions and the side-chain chemotype.
More… ↓
⤷ Start Trial
|
