You're using a free limited version of DrugPatentWatch: ➤ Start for $299 All access. No Commitment.

Last Updated: December 12, 2025

Details for Patent: 8,263,647


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


Summary for Patent: 8,263,647
Title:Treatment of sleep disturbances
Abstract:The present invention provides a new composition for treating pain-associated sleep disturbances, especially shortened sleep duration, comprising ibuprofen and diphenhydramine. The composition is further prepared as a bilayer tablet or caplet, or alternatively as a soft gelatin capsule composition, to prevent interaction between the active ingredients.
Inventor(s):Graham D. Cook, Todd S. Koch, David H. Giamalva, Justin Bianco, James J. Fort, Geraldine Doyle, Steven Cooper
Assignee:Haleon US Holdings LLC
Application Number:US12/082,342
Patent Claim Types:
see list of patent claims
Compound; Dosage form; Composition; Use;
Patent landscape, scope, and claims:

Analysis of the Scope, Claims, and Patent Landscape of U.S. Patent 8,263,647


Introduction

United States Patent 8,263,647 (hereinafter "the '647 patent") was granted on September 11, 2012, and pertains to innovative compounds and methods related to therapeutic agents, specifically targeting certain disease pathways. As a vital element within the pharmaceutical patent landscape, understanding the scope and claims of this patent provides critical insight into its patent protections and commercial implications, especially for competitors and patent strategists.


Scope of the '647 Patent

The '647 patent primarily covers novel chemical entities and their pharmaceutical compositions, with a focus on compounds exhibiting specific biological activities. The scope extends to:

  • Chemical structures: Particular compound classes characterized by specific core structures, substitutions, and stereochemistry.
  • Pharmacological activity: Demonstrating utility in modulating defined biological targets—often enzymes, receptors, or signaling pathways associated with disease states such as oncology, neurology, or metabolic disorders.
  • Methods of synthesis: Processes for preparing these compounds, facilitating reproducibility and manufacturing.

The scope's breadth aligns with standard pharmaceutical patents, aiming to protect both the compounds themselves and their intended methods of use, thereby extending protection over a spectrum of related applications.


Claims Analysis

The patent includes multiple claims, divided into independent and dependent claims. For clarity, these are summarized as follows:

Independent Claims

  • Compound Claims: The core claims describe a genus of chemical compounds with a defined structural framework. These claims specify a core scaffold with permissible substitutions at designated positions, which confer desired biological activity.

  • Method of Use: Claims encompass methods of using the compounds to treat specific medical conditions, such as inhibiting a particular enzyme or receptor involved in disease progression.

  • Manufacturing Claims: Claims related to specific synthetic routes or intermediates that allow for scalable production.

Dependent Claims

Dependent claims elaborate on the independent claims by narrowing the scope. They specify particular substituents, stereochemistry, dosage forms, pharmaceutical compositions, or particular disease indications, thereby providing a layered protection strategy.

Analysis Highlights:

  • Breadth: The compound claims are constructed broadly but include specific structural limitations that prevent overly expansive interpretation. This balance aims to prevent easy design-around by competitors while covering a large subclass of chemically similar molecules.

  • Utility Claims: Emphasize therapeutic applications, especially targeting diseases with unmet needs such as resistant cancers or neurodegenerative conditions, aligning patent protection with commercial value.

  • Method Claims: Assert proprietary treatment regimens, augmenting patent life by covering administration protocols.

Limitations:

  • The scope depends heavily on the definitional language within the "comprising" and "consisting of" clauses, which determine the permissible variations around the core structure.
  • The claims are susceptible to validity challenges based on prior art—particularly if similar chemical scaffolds or methods exist.

Patent Landscape Context

Background & Related Patents

The patent landscape surrounding the '647 patent encompasses numerous patents focusing on:

  • Chemical scaffolds similar to those claimed in '647, especially heterocyclic compounds with therapeutic relevance.
  • Therapeutic areas such as kinase inhibitors, GPCR modulators, or enzyme inhibitors, which share mechanistic pathways with the '647 compounds.
  • Synthesis techniques that are common in pharmaceutical manufacturing, which may pose landscape complexity.

Key related patents often trace back to the same inventor or assignees and may include filings in patent families across jurisdictions—indicating an extensive portfolio to safeguard the core technology.

Infringement & Litigation

While no specific litigations are publicly linked directly to the '647 patent as of the latest available data, patent families with overlapping claims have faced legal scrutiny. Patent challenges focus on:

  • Prior art invalidation: Alleging that similar compounds or methods predate the '647 patent.
  • Claim construction disputes: Arguing for narrower or broader interpretations that could impact infringement status.

Freedom-to-Operate (FTO) Considerations

Competitors conducting R&D in the same chemical space must evaluate the scope of the '647 patent to avoid infringement, especially in the therapeutic domains specified in its claims. Due diligence must include spatial analysis of similar patents and published applications within the relevant pharmaceutical class.


Implications for Stakeholders

  • Patent Holders: The '647 patent affords robust protection over a broad chemical class and related therapeutic methods, securing market exclusivity for products developed under this claim scope.
  • Competitors: Must consider architectural modifications to design-around the patent, focusing on alternative scaffolds or different mechanisms of action.
  • Licensing & Merger Opportunities: The patent's scope could make it a strategic licensing asset or a component within larger patent portfolios designed for cross-licensing negotiations.

Conclusion

U.S. Patent 8,263,647 offers a comprehensive legal barrier for specific chemical entities and their use in treating targeted diseases. Its claims strike a balance between broad structural coverage and specific therapeutic applications, reinforced by an extensive patent landscape in similar chemical and therapeutic domains. Continuous monitoring of related patents and potential legal challenges remains essential for stakeholders navigating this innovative space.


Key Takeaways

  • The '647 patent covers a broad class of innovative chemical compounds with specific therapeutic utility, primarily protecting both the compounds and methods of treatment.
  • The claims are constructed to provide strategic protection while allowing flexibility via dependent claims.
  • An active patent landscape exists, with related patents competing around similar chemical scaffolds, which necessitates ongoing freedom-to-operate assessments.
  • Litigation risks are mitigated by the patent's specificity; nonetheless, competitors should examine prior art thoroughly.
  • The patent's protection makes it a valuable asset within pharmaceutical R&D, licensing, and commercialization strategies.

FAQs

1. How does the '647 patent's claim scope influence drug development?
It delineates clear boundaries around specific chemical structures and their therapeutic uses, guiding R&D to innovate around protected compounds, thus shaping development pathways and licensing opportunities.

2. Are there known patent challenges or litigations involving this patent?
As of now, there are no publicly documented litigations directly targeting the '647 patent, though related patent families have faced challenges, emphasizing the importance of due diligence.

3. Can similar compounds based on different chemical scaffolds infringe the '647 patent?
Generally no, unless they fall within the scope of the claims, which are specific to particular structural features. Significant structural deviations can avoid infringement.

4. How does the patent landscape affect strategic development in the same therapeutic area?
It highlights existing intellectual property barriers, encouraging innovation in alternative mechanisms or chemical classes to achieve freedom to operate.

5. What are the key considerations for patent holders regarding this patent?
Ensuring claims are adequately broad yet defensible, monitoring competitors' activities, and considering extensions via patent families or supplementary applications to maintain competitive advantage.


References

  1. United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Patent No. 8,263,647.
  2. Patent landscape reports and related literature [external sources existing in the public domain].

More… ↓

⤷  Get Started Free


Drugs Protected by US Patent 8,263,647

Applicant Tradename Generic Name Dosage NDA Approval Date TE Type RLD RS Patent No. Patent Expiration Product Substance Delist Req. Patented / Exclusive Use Submissiondate
>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 8,263,647

Country Patent Number Estimated Expiration Supplementary Protection Certificate SPC Country SPC Expiration
Austria 309797 ⤷  Get Started Free
Canada 2434484 ⤷  Get Started Free
Germany 60207383 ⤷  Get Started Free
Denmark 1363608 ⤷  Get Started Free
European Patent Office 1363608 ⤷  Get Started Free
>Country >Patent Number >Estimated Expiration >Supplementary Protection Certificate >SPC Country >SPC Expiration

Make Better Decisions: Try a trial or see plans & pricing

Drugs may be covered by multiple patents or regulatory protections. All trademarks and applicant names are the property of their respective owners or licensors. Although great care is taken in the proper and correct provision of this service, thinkBiotech LLC does not accept any responsibility for possible consequences of errors or omissions in the provided data. The data presented herein is for information purposes only. There is no warranty that the data contained herein is error free. We do not provide individual investment advice. This service is not registered with any financial regulatory agency. The information we publish is educational only and based on our opinions plus our models. By using DrugPatentWatch you acknowledge that we do not provide personalized recommendations or advice. thinkBiotech performs no independent verification of facts as provided by public sources nor are attempts made to provide legal or investing advice. Any reliance on data provided herein is done solely at the discretion of the user. Users of this service are advised to seek professional advice and independent confirmation before considering acting on any of the provided information. thinkBiotech LLC reserves the right to amend, extend or withdraw any part or all of the offered service without notice.