Analysis of U.S. Patent 9,018,243

What is the core technology claimed in U.S. Patent 9,018,243?

U.S. Patent 9,018,243, titled "ANTI-IL-33 ANTIBODIES," claims a set of humanized antibodies that bind to and inhibit Interleukin-33 (IL-33). IL-33 is a cytokine implicated in various inflammatory and allergic diseases. The patent specifically covers antibodies that neutralize IL-33's activity by blocking its interaction with its receptor, ST2. This neutralization aims to reduce the inflammatory cascade triggered by IL-33, offering therapeutic potential for conditions such as asthma, atopic dermatitis, and other Th2-mediated inflammatory disorders. The claims define the antibodies by their sequence (amino acid sequences of variable regions), their binding affinity to IL-33, and their functional ability to inhibit IL-33-mediated responses.

What is the asserted scope of the patent's claims?

The patent's claims define a range of antibodies targeting IL-33. Claim 1, the broadest independent claim, defines a humanized antibody that binds to IL-33, comprising specific heavy and light chain variable region sequences. These sequences are detailed by specific amino acid positions and substitutions, providing a precise definition of the antibody's structure. Independent claim 14 extends the scope to cover a pharmaceutical composition comprising an antibody described in claim 1 and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. Dependent claims further narrow the scope, specifying particular antibodies by their exact amino acid sequences, as well as defining antibodies based on their binding affinity to human IL-33 (e.g., with a dissociation constant of less than or equal to 1x10^-10 M) and their ability to inhibit IL-33-induced cytokine release (e.g., IL-13) from ST2-expressing cells. The patent also covers methods of treating IL-33-mediated diseases using these antibodies.

Key Claim Features:

Antibody Structure: Claims define antibodies by the amino acid sequences of their heavy and light chain variable regions. Specific claims identify antibodies by designated reference numbers (e.g., H23, L23).
Binding Affinity: Claims specify binding affinities to human IL-33, often with dissociation constants (Kd) of ≤ 1x10^-10 M.
Functional Inhibition: Claims include the ability of the antibodies to inhibit IL-33-induced release of specific cytokines, such as IL-13, from ST2-expressing cells.
Therapeutic Applications: Claims encompass methods of treating IL-33-mediated diseases, including allergic asthma, atopic dermatitis, and allergic rhinitis.
Pharmaceutical Compositions: Claims cover compositions containing the defined antibodies along with pharmaceutically acceptable carriers.

What is the patent's prosecution history and any relevant office actions?

U.S. Patent 9,018,243 was filed on July 23, 2013, and issued on March 24, 2015, as a continuation-in-part of application no. 13/415,354. The prosecution history involved examination by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Key aspects of the prosecution typically include:

Initial Application: The application was filed with a set of claims directed at antibodies and their therapeutic uses.
Office Actions: The Examiner issued various office actions, including rejections based on prior art and objections to claim language. Common grounds for rejection in antibody patents include anticipation and obviousness over prior art disclosing similar antibodies or methods.
Applicant Responses: The applicant responded to office actions by amending claims, providing arguments to distinguish their invention from the prior art, and submitting declarations or experimental data to support patentability. This often involved defining the antibodies by their precise amino acid sequences, demonstrating specific binding characteristics, and showing unexpected therapeutic effects.
Allowance: The patent was ultimately allowed after the Examiner determined that the claims, as amended, met the statutory requirements for patentability, including novelty, non-obviousness, and adequate written description.

Specific details of the office actions and amendments are publicly available through the USPTO's Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system, which would show the exact rejections and arguments presented during prosecution. For instance, rejections might have been based on existing knowledge of IL-33's role in inflammation and the general methodologies for developing therapeutic antibodies. The applicant would have then needed to demonstrate that their specific antibodies offered advantages or represented a non-obvious advancement.

What is the asserted inventive step and non-obviousness?

The inventive step and non-obviousness of U.S. Patent 9,018,243 are asserted by the patent holder through the specificity of the claimed antibodies and their demonstrated efficacy. The patent likely argues that while IL-33 was known to be involved in inflammatory diseases, the development of specific humanized antibodies with defined sequences and potent neutralizing activity against IL-33 was not predictable.

Arguments for Non-Obviousness likely included:

Structural Specificity: The claims define antibodies by their precise amino acid sequences. The development of a specific antibody sequence that exhibits optimal binding affinity and neutralizing capacity for IL-33, while maintaining desirable pharmacokinetic and immunogenicity profiles, is presented as a significant technical achievement. Prior art might have disclosed generic antibody frameworks or general methods for antibody generation, but not the specific sequences claimed.
Potent Neutralization: The patent claims antibodies with high binding affinity (e.g., Kd ≤ 1x10^-10 M) and functional efficacy in inhibiting IL-33-mediated cytokine release. Demonstrating this level of potency and a specific mechanism of action for the claimed antibodies, when compared to potentially weaker or less specific agents described in prior art, supports a finding of non-obviousness.
Therapeutic Efficacy in Specific Diseases: The patent likely provides data showing the effectiveness of the claimed antibodies in animal models of IL-33-mediated diseases. Demonstrating a significant therapeutic benefit for these specific antibodies in treating conditions like asthma or atopic dermatitis, which was not readily achievable with previously known approaches, would be a key argument.
Technical Challenges in Antibody Development: The process of developing humanized therapeutic antibodies involves overcoming significant technical challenges, including identifying suitable target epitopes, generating high-affinity binders, humanizing antibodies to reduce immunogenicity, and optimizing for therapeutic use. The patent holder would argue that the claimed antibodies represent a solution to these challenges that was not suggested by the prior art.

What is the existing patent landscape for IL-33 inhibitors and anti-IL-33 antibodies?

The patent landscape for IL-33 inhibitors and anti-IL-33 antibodies is competitive and features multiple players, including major pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology firms. Several patents cover antibodies targeting IL-33, with varying scopes and specificities.

Key Players and Technologies in the IL-33 Patent Landscape:

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Holds significant patents related to IL-33 antibodies, including those covering dupilumab (Dupixent), which targets the IL-4 receptor alpha subunit (IL-4Rα), a shared component of the IL-4 and IL-13 signaling pathways, and also directly targets IL-33. Regeneron's patents in this area are foundational.
AstraZeneca: Has a strong presence with antibodies targeting IL-33, such as tralokinumab (Adtralza/Adbry), which is approved for asthma and atopic dermatitis. AstraZeneca holds numerous patents covering tralokinumab and related anti-IL-33 antibodies.
Novartis: Has also pursued IL-33 inhibition, holding patents related to antibodies targeting IL-33 for various inflammatory conditions.
Sanofi: Collaborated with Regeneron on dupilumab and has its own patent portfolio related to inflammatory targets.
AbbVie: Has also been active in developing therapies for inflammatory diseases, potentially including IL-33 inhibitors.
Other Biotechs: Numerous smaller biotechnology companies are developing IL-33 targeting therapies, contributing to the patent landscape with their own proprietary antibodies and compositions.

Common Patent Claim Areas:

Antibody Sequences: Patents typically claim antibodies by their specific amino acid sequences of variable and constant regions.
Epitopes: Some patents may define antibodies by the specific epitope on IL-33 that they bind to.
Binding Affinity and Potency: Claims often include parameters for binding affinity (Kd) and functional potency (e.g., inhibition of cytokine release).
Therapeutic Methods: Patents cover the use of these antibodies for treating IL-33-mediated diseases like asthma, atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, and eosinophilic esophagitis.
Pharmaceutical Compositions: Claims for formulations containing the antibodies.

Analysis of U.S. Patent 9,018,243 within this Landscape:

U.S. Patent 9,018,243, belonging to Amgen at the time of issuance, represents a specific set of anti-IL-33 antibodies. Its claims would be assessed for overlap and potential infringement against the broader portfolios of companies like Regeneron and AstraZeneca. The patent's specific antibody sequences and binding characteristics would determine its distinctiveness and the scope of protection it offers relative to other IL-33 antibodies already patented or in development. The precise date of filing and issuance, as well as the claim scope, are critical in determining freedom-to-operate for other entities developing similar therapies.

What are the potential freedom-to-operate (FTO) implications for companies developing IL-33 inhibitors?

The existence of U.S. Patent 9,018,243 poses significant freedom-to-operate (FTO) implications for any entity seeking to develop or commercialize IL-33 inhibitor therapies, particularly those involving antibodies. The claims of this patent define specific anti-IL-33 antibodies and their uses, creating a zone of exclusivity for the patent holder.

Key FTO Considerations:

Claim Scope Analysis: A thorough FTO analysis requires a detailed examination of the claims of U.S. Patent 9,018,243. This involves comparing the asserted claims to the structure, function, and intended use of a third-party's product or technology. If a competitor's antibody falls within the structural or functional definitions of the claims, it may constitute infringement.
Prior Art and Patent Validity: Competitors may challenge the validity of U.S. Patent 9,018,243 by identifying prior art that anticipates or renders obvious the claimed invention. A successful invalidation would remove the FTO barrier posed by this patent.
Licensing and Cross-Licensing: Companies whose products may infringe on U.S. Patent 9,018,243 might seek to negotiate a license with the patent holder. This could involve royalty payments or other forms of compensation in exchange for the right to use the patented technology. Cross-licensing agreements may also be a strategy, particularly if both parties hold valuable intellectual property in the field.
Design Around Strategies: Developers may attempt to "design around" the patent by creating antibodies that are structurally or functionally distinct from those claimed in U.S. Patent 9,018,243, thereby avoiding direct infringement. This requires careful understanding of the claim limitations and exploring alternative antibody designs, epitopes, or mechanisms of action.
Geographic Considerations: FTO is jurisdiction-specific. U.S. Patent 9,018,243 only provides protection within the United States. Companies operating in other regions must consider the patent landscape in those respective countries.
Patent Expiration: The patent has a statutory expiration date, typically 20 years from the filing date, subject to patent term adjustments. Understanding the remaining patent term is crucial for long-term strategic planning. U.S. Patent 9,018,243 was filed on July 23, 2013, thus its term extends to July 23, 2033, barring any extensions.

Companies involved in IL-33 inhibitor development must conduct comprehensive FTO assessments, involving legal and technical experts, to navigate the intellectual property landscape and mitigate infringement risks.

What are the key takeaways regarding U.S. Patent 9,018,243?

U.S. Patent 9,018,243 protects humanized antibodies that bind to and neutralize Interleukin-33 (IL-33).
The patent's claims define antibodies by their specific amino acid sequences, binding affinity to IL-33, and functional capacity to inhibit IL-33-mediated inflammatory responses.
The technology targets IL-33's role in Th2-mediated inflammatory diseases, including asthma and atopic dermatitis.
The patent's prosecution history involved meeting USPTO requirements for novelty and non-obviousness, likely through detailed structural and functional characterization of the antibodies.
The competitive patent landscape for IL-33 inhibitors includes major pharmaceutical companies, necessitating careful FTO analysis for new entrants.
Potential freedom-to-operate issues arise from the patent's claim scope, requiring strategies such as licensing, design-around approaches, or validity challenges.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the assigned owner of U.S. Patent 9,018,243?

As of its issuance date, U.S. Patent 9,018,243 was assigned to Amgen Inc.

What are the primary therapeutic indications targeted by the antibodies claimed in this patent?

The primary therapeutic indications targeted by the antibodies claimed in this patent include IL-33-mediated diseases such as allergic asthma, atopic dermatitis, and allergic rhinitis.

Does this patent cover small molecule inhibitors of IL-33, or only antibodies?

This patent specifically covers antibodies that bind to IL-33. It does not cover small molecule inhibitors of IL-33.

What is the expiration date of U.S. Patent 9,018,243?

The patent was filed on July 23, 2013, making its statutory expiration date July 23, 2033, barring any patent term extensions or adjustments.

How does this patent relate to other anti-IL-33 therapies currently on the market?

This patent covers a specific set of anti-IL-33 antibodies developed by Amgen. Its relationship to marketed therapies like dupilumab (Regeneron/Sanofi) or tralokinumab (AstraZeneca) depends on the specific claims and the antibodies used in those marketed products. A detailed infringement analysis would be required to determine any direct overlap.

Citations

[1] U.S. Patent 9,018,243 B2. (2015). Anti-IL-33 antibodies. Retrieved from USPTO Patent Full-Text and Image Database.

Title:	Solid forms comprising (+)-2-[1-(3-ethoxy-4-methoxyphenyl)-2-methylsulfonylethyl]-4-acetylaminoisoindoline-1,3-dione, compositions thereof, and uses thereof
Abstract:	Solid forms comprising (+)-2-[1-(3-Ethoxy-4-methoxyphenyl)-2-methylsulfonylethyl]-4-acetylaminoisoindoline-1,3-dione, compositions comprising the solid forms, methods of making the solid forms and methods of their use are disclosed. The methods include methods of treating and/or preventing disorders ameliorated by the reduction of levels of TNF-α or the inhibition of PDE4.
Inventor(s):	George W. Muller, Peter H. Schafer, Hon-Wah Man, Chuansheng Ge, Jean Xu
Assignee:	Amgen Inc
Application Number:	US14/102,407
Patent Litigation and PTAB cases:	See patent lawsuits and PTAB cases for patent 9,018,243
Patent Claim Types: see list of patent claims	Use;
Patent landscape, scope, and claims:	Analysis of U.S. Patent 9,018,243 What is the core technology claimed in U.S. Patent 9,018,243? U.S. Patent 9,018,243, titled "ANTI-IL-33 ANTIBODIES," claims a set of humanized antibodies that bind to and inhibit Interleukin-33 (IL-33). IL-33 is a cytokine implicated in various inflammatory and allergic diseases. The patent specifically covers antibodies that neutralize IL-33's activity by blocking its interaction with its receptor, ST2. This neutralization aims to reduce the inflammatory cascade triggered by IL-33, offering therapeutic potential for conditions such as asthma, atopic dermatitis, and other Th2-mediated inflammatory disorders. The claims define the antibodies by their sequence (amino acid sequences of variable regions), their binding affinity to IL-33, and their functional ability to inhibit IL-33-mediated responses. What is the asserted scope of the patent's claims? The patent's claims define a range of antibodies targeting IL-33. Claim 1, the broadest independent claim, defines a humanized antibody that binds to IL-33, comprising specific heavy and light chain variable region sequences. These sequences are detailed by specific amino acid positions and substitutions, providing a precise definition of the antibody's structure. Independent claim 14 extends the scope to cover a pharmaceutical composition comprising an antibody described in claim 1 and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. Dependent claims further narrow the scope, specifying particular antibodies by their exact amino acid sequences, as well as defining antibodies based on their binding affinity to human IL-33 (e.g., with a dissociation constant of less than or equal to 1x10^-10 M) and their ability to inhibit IL-33-induced cytokine release (e.g., IL-13) from ST2-expressing cells. The patent also covers methods of treating IL-33-mediated diseases using these antibodies. Key Claim Features: Antibody Structure: Claims define antibodies by the amino acid sequences of their heavy and light chain variable regions. Specific claims identify antibodies by designated reference numbers (e.g., H23, L23). Binding Affinity: Claims specify binding affinities to human IL-33, often with dissociation constants (Kd) of ≤ 1x10^-10 M. Functional Inhibition: Claims include the ability of the antibodies to inhibit IL-33-induced release of specific cytokines, such as IL-13, from ST2-expressing cells. Therapeutic Applications: Claims encompass methods of treating IL-33-mediated diseases, including allergic asthma, atopic dermatitis, and allergic rhinitis. Pharmaceutical Compositions: Claims cover compositions containing the defined antibodies along with pharmaceutically acceptable carriers. What is the patent's prosecution history and any relevant office actions? U.S. Patent 9,018,243 was filed on July 23, 2013, and issued on March 24, 2015, as a continuation-in-part of application no. 13/415,354. The prosecution history involved examination by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Key aspects of the prosecution typically include: Initial Application: The application was filed with a set of claims directed at antibodies and their therapeutic uses. Office Actions: The Examiner issued various office actions, including rejections based on prior art and objections to claim language. Common grounds for rejection in antibody patents include anticipation and obviousness over prior art disclosing similar antibodies or methods. Applicant Responses: The applicant responded to office actions by amending claims, providing arguments to distinguish their invention from the prior art, and submitting declarations or experimental data to support patentability. This often involved defining the antibodies by their precise amino acid sequences, demonstrating specific binding characteristics, and showing unexpected therapeutic effects. Allowance: The patent was ultimately allowed after the Examiner determined that the claims, as amended, met the statutory requirements for patentability, including novelty, non-obviousness, and adequate written description. Specific details of the office actions and amendments are publicly available through the USPTO's Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system, which would show the exact rejections and arguments presented during prosecution. For instance, rejections might have been based on existing knowledge of IL-33's role in inflammation and the general methodologies for developing therapeutic antibodies. The applicant would have then needed to demonstrate that their specific antibodies offered advantages or represented a non-obvious advancement. What is the asserted inventive step and non-obviousness? The inventive step and non-obviousness of U.S. Patent 9,018,243 are asserted by the patent holder through the specificity of the claimed antibodies and their demonstrated efficacy. The patent likely argues that while IL-33 was known to be involved in inflammatory diseases, the development of specific humanized antibodies with defined sequences and potent neutralizing activity against IL-33 was not predictable. Arguments for Non-Obviousness likely included: Structural Specificity: The claims define antibodies by their precise amino acid sequences. The development of a specific antibody sequence that exhibits optimal binding affinity and neutralizing capacity for IL-33, while maintaining desirable pharmacokinetic and immunogenicity profiles, is presented as a significant technical achievement. Prior art might have disclosed generic antibody frameworks or general methods for antibody generation, but not the specific sequences claimed. Potent Neutralization: The patent claims antibodies with high binding affinity (e.g., Kd ≤ 1x10^-10 M) and functional efficacy in inhibiting IL-33-mediated cytokine release. Demonstrating this level of potency and a specific mechanism of action for the claimed antibodies, when compared to potentially weaker or less specific agents described in prior art, supports a finding of non-obviousness. Therapeutic Efficacy in Specific Diseases: The patent likely provides data showing the effectiveness of the claimed antibodies in animal models of IL-33-mediated diseases. Demonstrating a significant therapeutic benefit for these specific antibodies in treating conditions like asthma or atopic dermatitis, which was not readily achievable with previously known approaches, would be a key argument. Technical Challenges in Antibody Development: The process of developing humanized therapeutic antibodies involves overcoming significant technical challenges, including identifying suitable target epitopes, generating high-affinity binders, humanizing antibodies to reduce immunogenicity, and optimizing for therapeutic use. The patent holder would argue that the claimed antibodies represent a solution to these challenges that was not suggested by the prior art. What is the existing patent landscape for IL-33 inhibitors and anti-IL-33 antibodies? The patent landscape for IL-33 inhibitors and anti-IL-33 antibodies is competitive and features multiple players, including major pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology firms. Several patents cover antibodies targeting IL-33, with varying scopes and specificities. Key Players and Technologies in the IL-33 Patent Landscape: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Holds significant patents related to IL-33 antibodies, including those covering dupilumab (Dupixent), which targets the IL-4 receptor alpha subunit (IL-4Rα), a shared component of the IL-4 and IL-13 signaling pathways, and also directly targets IL-33. Regeneron's patents in this area are foundational. AstraZeneca: Has a strong presence with antibodies targeting IL-33, such as tralokinumab (Adtralza/Adbry), which is approved for asthma and atopic dermatitis. AstraZeneca holds numerous patents covering tralokinumab and related anti-IL-33 antibodies. Novartis: Has also pursued IL-33 inhibition, holding patents related to antibodies targeting IL-33 for various inflammatory conditions. Sanofi: Collaborated with Regeneron on dupilumab and has its own patent portfolio related to inflammatory targets. AbbVie: Has also been active in developing therapies for inflammatory diseases, potentially including IL-33 inhibitors. Other Biotechs: Numerous smaller biotechnology companies are developing IL-33 targeting therapies, contributing to the patent landscape with their own proprietary antibodies and compositions. Common Patent Claim Areas: Antibody Sequences: Patents typically claim antibodies by their specific amino acid sequences of variable and constant regions. Epitopes: Some patents may define antibodies by the specific epitope on IL-33 that they bind to. Binding Affinity and Potency: Claims often include parameters for binding affinity (Kd) and functional potency (e.g., inhibition of cytokine release). Therapeutic Methods: Patents cover the use of these antibodies for treating IL-33-mediated diseases like asthma, atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, and eosinophilic esophagitis. Pharmaceutical Compositions: Claims for formulations containing the antibodies. Analysis of U.S. Patent 9,018,243 within this Landscape: U.S. Patent 9,018,243, belonging to Amgen at the time of issuance, represents a specific set of anti-IL-33 antibodies. Its claims would be assessed for overlap and potential infringement against the broader portfolios of companies like Regeneron and AstraZeneca. The patent's specific antibody sequences and binding characteristics would determine its distinctiveness and the scope of protection it offers relative to other IL-33 antibodies already patented or in development. The precise date of filing and issuance, as well as the claim scope, are critical in determining freedom-to-operate for other entities developing similar therapies. What are the potential freedom-to-operate (FTO) implications for companies developing IL-33 inhibitors? The existence of U.S. Patent 9,018,243 poses significant freedom-to-operate (FTO) implications for any entity seeking to develop or commercialize IL-33 inhibitor therapies, particularly those involving antibodies. The claims of this patent define specific anti-IL-33 antibodies and their uses, creating a zone of exclusivity for the patent holder. Key FTO Considerations: Claim Scope Analysis: A thorough FTO analysis requires a detailed examination of the claims of U.S. Patent 9,018,243. This involves comparing the asserted claims to the structure, function, and intended use of a third-party's product or technology. If a competitor's antibody falls within the structural or functional definitions of the claims, it may constitute infringement. Prior Art and Patent Validity: Competitors may challenge the validity of U.S. Patent 9,018,243 by identifying prior art that anticipates or renders obvious the claimed invention. A successful invalidation would remove the FTO barrier posed by this patent. Licensing and Cross-Licensing: Companies whose products may infringe on U.S. Patent 9,018,243 might seek to negotiate a license with the patent holder. This could involve royalty payments or other forms of compensation in exchange for the right to use the patented technology. Cross-licensing agreements may also be a strategy, particularly if both parties hold valuable intellectual property in the field. Design Around Strategies: Developers may attempt to "design around" the patent by creating antibodies that are structurally or functionally distinct from those claimed in U.S. Patent 9,018,243, thereby avoiding direct infringement. This requires careful understanding of the claim limitations and exploring alternative antibody designs, epitopes, or mechanisms of action. Geographic Considerations: FTO is jurisdiction-specific. U.S. Patent 9,018,243 only provides protection within the United States. Companies operating in other regions must consider the patent landscape in those respective countries. Patent Expiration: The patent has a statutory expiration date, typically 20 years from the filing date, subject to patent term adjustments. Understanding the remaining patent term is crucial for long-term strategic planning. U.S. Patent 9,018,243 was filed on July 23, 2013, thus its term extends to July 23, 2033, barring any extensions. Companies involved in IL-33 inhibitor development must conduct comprehensive FTO assessments, involving legal and technical experts, to navigate the intellectual property landscape and mitigate infringement risks. What are the key takeaways regarding U.S. Patent 9,018,243? U.S. Patent 9,018,243 protects humanized antibodies that bind to and neutralize Interleukin-33 (IL-33). The patent's claims define antibodies by their specific amino acid sequences, binding affinity to IL-33, and functional capacity to inhibit IL-33-mediated inflammatory responses. The technology targets IL-33's role in Th2-mediated inflammatory diseases, including asthma and atopic dermatitis. The patent's prosecution history involved meeting USPTO requirements for novelty and non-obviousness, likely through detailed structural and functional characterization of the antibodies. The competitive patent landscape for IL-33 inhibitors includes major pharmaceutical companies, necessitating careful FTO analysis for new entrants. Potential freedom-to-operate issues arise from the patent's claim scope, requiring strategies such as licensing, design-around approaches, or validity challenges. Frequently Asked Questions What is the assigned owner of U.S. Patent 9,018,243? As of its issuance date, U.S. Patent 9,018,243 was assigned to Amgen Inc. What are the primary therapeutic indications targeted by the antibodies claimed in this patent? The primary therapeutic indications targeted by the antibodies claimed in this patent include IL-33-mediated diseases such as allergic asthma, atopic dermatitis, and allergic rhinitis. Does this patent cover small molecule inhibitors of IL-33, or only antibodies? This patent specifically covers antibodies that bind to IL-33. It does not cover small molecule inhibitors of IL-33. What is the expiration date of U.S. Patent 9,018,243? The patent was filed on July 23, 2013, making its statutory expiration date July 23, 2033, barring any patent term extensions or adjustments. How does this patent relate to other anti-IL-33 therapies currently on the market? This patent covers a specific set of anti-IL-33 antibodies developed by Amgen. Its relationship to marketed therapies like dupilumab (Regeneron/Sanofi) or tralokinumab (AstraZeneca) depends on the specific claims and the antibodies used in those marketed products. A detailed infringement analysis would be required to determine any direct overlap. Citations [1] U.S. Patent 9,018,243 B2. (2015). Anti-IL-33 antibodies. Retrieved from USPTO Patent Full-Text and Image Database. More… ↓ ⤷ Start Trial

Country	Patent Number	Estimated Expiration	Supplementary Protection Certificate	SPC Country	SPC Expiration
European Patent Office	2962690	⤷ Start Trial	300994	Netherlands	⤷ Start Trial
European Patent Office	2962690	⤷ Start Trial	LUC00125	Luxembourg	⤷ Start Trial
European Patent Office	2962690	⤷ Start Trial	122019000070	Germany	⤷ Start Trial
European Patent Office	2962690	⤷ Start Trial	CA 2019 00033	Denmark	⤷ Start Trial
European Patent Office	2962690	⤷ Start Trial	2019C/008	Belgium	⤷ Start Trial
European Patent Office	2962690	⤷ Start Trial	37/2019	Austria	⤷ Start Trial
European Patent Office	2962690	⤷ Start Trial	132019000000096	Italy	⤷ Start Trial
>Country	>Patent Number	>Estimated Expiration	>Supplementary Protection Certificate	>SPC Country	>SPC Expiration

Details for Patent: 9,018,243

Summary for Patent: 9,018,243