|
Patent landscape, scope, and claims: |
US Patent 8,080,551 scope and claim coverage map for compound claims, compositions, and solid dispersions
US 8,080,551 is a broad small-molecule Markush-style US compound patent with downstream claim layers that extend protection to (i) pharmaceutical compositions, (ii) methods of making the composition by mixing, and (iii) drug product performance technologies including nanoparticles (sub-1000 nm) and solid dispersions with specified water-soluble polymer families, viscosity bands, component ratios, and a spray-drying process. The independent compound claim (claim 1) is extremely expansive in substituent definitions and ring-system options, while dependent claims narrow to particular substituent “slices” (eg, R2′ cyano/aminocarbonyl; n′ = 0; m = 2; R4 methyl; X1 = NH/O; R1 hydrogen), and later product claims narrow to formulation archetypes (nanoparticles and solid dispersions).
What does US Patent 8,080,551 claim 1 cover (compound scope, Markush breadth, and structural degrees of freedom)?
Featured snippet answer: Claim 1 covers a family of compounds defined by a core formula with variable substituents R1, R2′, R2, a stereochemical isomer option, N-oxide, and salt forms, plus a large menu of ring and linker variables (X1, X2, X3, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R7a, R8, R9/R10/R11/R12/R13/R14/R15/R16, and chain length parameters n′ and m).
1) Claim-structure layers inside claim 1
Claim 1 is built as a hierarchy:
-
Core scaffold: “A compound of the following formula” with:
- N-oxide
- pharmaceutically acceptable addition salt
- quaternary amine
- stereochemically isomeric form
-
Primary substitution variables
- R1 is broadly defined as hydrogen, aryl, formyl, C1-6alkylcarbonyl, C1-6alkyl, C1-6alkyloxycarbonyl, C1-6alkyl substituted variants, or C1-6alkyloxyC1-6alkylcarbonyl-substituted variants.
- R2′ is limited to: halo, C1-6alkyl, trihalomethyl, cyano, aminocarbonyl, or C1-6alkyl substituted with cyano/aminocarbonyl.
- R2 is the largest single substituent bucket, including hydroxy, halogen, C1-6alkyl (optionally cyano or —C(═O)R6), multiple carbonyl/amido/urea-like fragments, thio/sulfoxide fragments, and radicals of a second formula defined via A1/A2.
-
Linker/heteroatom variable sets (X1, X2, X3)
- X1: a dense set including heteroatom connectors (NR5, NH—NH, N═N, O, C(═O), alkylene, —CHOH—, thioether/thiooxide analogs, and fused linker variants).
- X2: similar but restricted set, used inside X1 or as a component of X2-containing linkers.
- X3: defined as either heteroatom linkers or carbonyl-type bridges (eg, —C(═O)—, —C(═N—OR8)— plus substituted alkylene segments).
-
Attachment substituents and terminal groups
- R3 uses NR13/NR13R14 and carbonyl-terminated variants (eg —C(═O)—NHR13, —C(═O)—NR13R14, —C(═O)—R15, and related imine/oxime-linked form).
- R4 is another broad substituent: halo, hydroxy, C1-6alkyl, cycloalkyl, alkoxy, cyano, nitro, polyhalogenated versions, aminocarbonyl, and carbonyl/formyl/amino variants.
- R6: C1-4alkyl, amino, dialkylamino, or polyhalo-C1-4alkyl.
- R7 and R7a are ring-system variables defined as saturated/partially saturated/aromatic monocyclic, bicyclic, or tricyclic carbocycles or heterocycles, each optionally substituted with up to five substituents selected from a broad functional set (halo, hydroxy, mercapto, alkyl and hydroxyalkyl, aminoalkyl and dialkylaminoalkyl, carbonyl, cycloalkyl, alkoxy/alkoxycarbonyl, thio, cyano, nitro, polyhalomethyl/polyhaloalkyloxy, aminocarbonyl, and —CH(═N—O—R8) and “R7a—C1-4alkyl”.)
- R8: hydrogen, C1-4alkyl, aryl, or arylC1-4alkyl.
- n′: 0 to 4
- m: 0 to 4
-
Stereochemical and salt/N-oxide coverage
- Claim 1 explicitly captures N-oxide, salts, quaternary amines, and stereoisomers, expanding the legal “exit paths” against design-arounds: an accused product can still be captured even if the exact parent molecule is modified into those forms.
2) Functional impact: why claim 1 is hard to design around
Because claim 1 enumerates:
- wide substituent cardinalities (C1-6 ranges)
- multiple heteroatom and linker choices (X1/X2/X3)
- multiple ring scaffolds (R7/R7a family)
- inclusion of N-oxides, salts, stereoisomers, and quaternary amines
…coverage is driven less by one “key functional group” and more by whether a competitor stays within the allowed scaffold and variable set.
3) Dependent claims create “narrower funnels” that still retain breadth
Claim 1 has many dependent claims that select particular parameter slices rather than switching claim direction. These slices are relevant for infringement mapping:
How do claims 2, 7–10, and 13–22 narrow claim 1 (substituent slicing and alternative linker architectures)?
Featured snippet answer: Claims 2 and 7–10 narrow claim 1 by restricting R3/R4 and a subset of linker classes (X3 and X1), typically to narrower substituent patterns (eg, cyano/aminocarbonyl/C1-alkyl amino substitution motifs) while keeping the core ring-system scope (R7/R7a) largely intact.
Claim 2: R3 and R4 narrowed simultaneously
Claim 2 requires:
- R3 includes C1-6alkyl substituted with multiple substituents from cyano/aminocarbonyl/NR9R10/R7
- R3 also includes alternative patterns with:
- “two hydrogen atoms on the same carbon replaced by C1-4alkanediyl”
- hydroxy + a second substituent
- alkoxy + cyano/aminocarbonyl/NR9R10/R7
- X3 remains with R4 and R7/R7a substitution language, and R4 is narrowed to the same set as claim 1’s large bucket but explicitly limited.
Claims 7–10: R3 expanded into multiple specific “substitution patterns”
- Claim 7: adds a large number of R3 variants and includes the R7 or —X3R7 case as an explicit R3 option.
- Claim 8: R3 = C2-6alkenyl substituted with cyano.
- Claim 9: R3 = R7; C1-6alkyl substituted with cyano and R7; C2-6alkenyl substituted with cyano and R7; C1-6alkyl substituted with R7; —C(═N—O—R8)—C1-4alkyl; or C1-6alkyl substituted with hydroxy and cyano or R7.
- Claim 10: enumerates multiple R3 patterns including:
- imide/amido/urea-like carbonyls (—C(═O)R15; —C(═O)NHR13; —C(═O)NR13R14)
- oxime-like moiety (—C(═N—OR8)—C1-4alkyl)
- multi-cyano substitution patterns on alkyl and alkenyl
- halogen substitution on alkenyl
- cyano + —C(═O)—C1-6alkyl variants
Claim 13: X3 narrowed
- Claim 13: X3 = —C(═O)—, —CH2—C(═O)—, or —C(═N—OR8)—C1-4alkanediyl-.
This matters because linker oxygen/nitrogen/carbonyl placements often distinguish close analogs.
What formulations are protected by US 8,080,551 (nanoparticles and solid dispersions)?
US 8,080,551 provides explicit drug product technology claims that can capture downstream competitors even when the exact compound form differs, as long as the accused product uses a compound “as claimed in claim 1.”
Nanoparticles claim set (claims 23–24)
- Claim 23: pharmaceutical composition where the claim 1 compound is in the form of nanoparticles with a surface modifier adsorbed on the surface, maintaining effective average particle size < 1000 nm.
- Claim 24: surface modifier is a non-ionic or anionic surfactant.
Practical infringement angle: competitors using a nanoparticle formulation with a surfactant-coated surface and sub-1000 nm particle size can fall within this claim layer irrespective of other formulation choices, provided they use a claim 1 compound.
Solid dispersion claim set (claims 25–39)
- Claim 25: solid dispersion comprising:
- (a) a claim 1 compound
- (b) one or more pharmaceutically acceptable water-soluble polymers
- Claims 26–28: polymer viscosity bands when dissolved at 20°C in 2% (w/v) aqueous solution:
- claim 26: apparent viscosity 1–5000 mPa·s
- claim 27: apparent viscosity 1–700 mPa·s
- claim 28: apparent viscosity 1–100 mPa·s
- Claim 29: polymer list includes:
- alkylcelluloses, hydroxyalkylcelluloses, hydroxyalkyl alkylcelluloses, carboxyalkylcelluloses and salts/esters
- starches, pectins, chitin derivatives and saccharides
- alginic acid and salts
- carrageenans, galactomannans, tragacanth, agar-agar, gummi arabicum, guar gum, xanthan gum
- polyacrylic acids and salts, polymethacrylic acids and salts
- methacrylate copolymers, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinylpyrrolidone
- PVP/vinyl acetate copolymers and combinations
- polyalkylene oxides and EO/PO copolymers
- cyclodextrins
- Claim 30: specifically hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC)
- Claims 31–33: component ratio (a):(b) ranges:
- claim 31: 1/100 to 100/1
- claim 32: 1/10 to 10/1
- claim 33: 1/5 to 5/1
- Claim 34: solid dispersion is a solid solution
- Claims 35–38: particle claim:
- claim 35: particle consisting of the solid dispersion
- claim 36: particle size < 600 μm
- claim 37: particle size < 400 μm
- claim 38: particle size < 125 μm
- Claim 39: process for preparing solid dispersion via:
- dissolving components (a) and (b)
- spray-drying through a spray dryer nozzle
- evaporating solvent at elevated temperature
Practical infringement angle: if a competitor uses the same compound-family member and chooses any water-soluble polymer in the enumerated list (or within that broad “water-soluble polymer” definition), then viscosity band and ratio and particle-size constraints create additional claim hooks. The spray-drying process claim adds a method-of-manufacture attack vector.
How strong is the patent estate for US 8,080,551 (claim breadth vs. enforceability risk, and what kinds of design-arounds still fail)?
Featured snippet answer: The estate is structurally broad for chemical coverage because claim 1 spans many substituents and includes N-oxides, salts, quaternary amines, and stereoisomers. Enforceability risk shifts from novelty to claim-construction and prosecution history scope (not provided here). For design-around, the formulation layers (nanoparticles and solid dispersions) reduce the ability to avoid infringement by changing dosage form alone.
Claim breadth hotspots that increase capture probability
- Compound claim includes multiple derivative forms (N-oxide, salt, quaternary amine, stereoisomers).
- R7/R7a ring systems allow extensive optional substitution (up to five substituents from a long list).
- R2 and R2′ accept broad halogen and cyano/aminocarbonyl patterns.
- Linkers (X1/X2/X3) allow multiple heteroatom and carbonyl architectures.
Design-around paths that remain uncertain based on the text alone
- Changing to a scaffold that falls outside the “formula” portion not reproduced in your excerpt.
- Using the same pharmacophore but moving outside the enumerated substituent classes (eg, substituents outside C1-6/C1-4/C3-7 ranges or outside the listed radical classes for R2 and R7).
- Avoiding the specific formulation technologies:
- using non-surfactant nanoparticle approaches, or maintaining particle size above 1000 nm
- using formulations not meeting the “solid dispersion” definition, not using water-soluble polymers as claimed, using viscosity outside the claimed bands, or avoiding spray-drying.
How many patents cover the same compound family (US 8,080,551 landscape and adjacent IP layers)?
Cannot be produced from the provided input.
Your request specifies only US 8,080,551 claim text and does not provide related patent numbers, assignees, patent family members, prosecution history, or Orange Book/FDA drug product mappings. A landscape count would require that dataset.
Orange Book status, FDA regulatory status, and Paragraph IV / biosimilar risk for compounds covered by 8,080,551?
Cannot be produced from the provided input.
No FDA product identifier, NDC, active ingredient name, Orange Book listing, or reference product is included. Paragraph IV and exclusivity timelines are not inferable from claim text alone.
Key claim-to-product mapping (accused product pathways by infringement theory)
A) Direct chemical infringement (composition product contains a claim 1 compound)
- Use a compound meeting claim 1’s variable scaffold and substituent restrictions.
- N-oxides, salts, quaternary amines, and stereoisomers remain within claim 1.
B) Nanoparticle formulation infringement (claims 23–24)
- Provide nanoparticles with:
- surface modifier adsorbed
- effective average particle size < 1000 nm
- surface modifier is non-ionic or anionic surfactant
C) Solid dispersion infringement (claims 25–39)
- Provide a solid dispersion with:
- claim 1 compound (a)
- water-soluble polymer (b), including enumerated polymer families
- optional constraints: polymer viscosity bands, (a):(b) ratio ranges, solid solution form
- optional particle size constraints (<600, <400, <125 μm)
- Manufacturing method: spray-drying from solution followed by solvent evaporation at elevated temperatures.
Key Takeaways
- Claim 1 is a broad Markush chemical claim that includes N-oxides, salts, quaternary amines, and stereoisomers, with extensive variability across R1, R2/R2′, linker options (X1/X2/X3), ring systems (R7/R7a), and chain-length parameters (n′, m).
- Dependent claims narrow specific slices that remain meaningful for infringement mapping: R2′ cyano/aminocarbonyl, n′ = 0, m = 2, R4 = methyl (or C1-6alkyl), X1 = NH/O, and R1 = hydrogen.
- Formulation claims extend protection beyond the molecule: nanoparticles (<1000 nm) with non-ionic/anionic surfactant surfaces and solid dispersions with specified water-soluble polymer families, viscosity bands, component ratios, and a spray-drying manufacturing process.
- Design-around by changing dosage form is constrained because nanoparticle and solid dispersion claims are directly tethered to “a compound as claimed in claim 1.”
- A full US patent landscape, Orange Book status, and litigation risk profile require FDA product and family/patent-number context that is not included in the provided input.
FAQs
- Does US 8,080,551 protect N-oxides and salts even if a competitor sells a different salt form?
- What particle-size and surfactant requirements must be met to fall under the nanoparticle claims (claims 23–24)?
- Which water-soluble polymer families are expressly enumerated for solid dispersions (claims 25–30)?
- How do the viscosity and component ratio bands (claims 26–33) change infringement exposure for solid dispersion products?
- Which linker narrowing selections (X3 in claim 13 and X1 in claims 19–20) most reduce the claim-coverage space?
References
- United States Patent 8,080,551. Claims 1–39 (provided claim text).
More… ↓
⤷ Start Trial
|
