Analysis of the Scope, Claims, and Patent Landscape of U.S. Patent 9,066,936
Introduction
U.S. Patent 9,066,936, issued on June 30, 2015, relates to a novel pharmaceutical invention with significant implications within its therapeutic or technological domain. A detailed understanding of its scope, claims, and patent landscape informs strategic decisions—ranging from R&D investments to competitive positioning, licensing, and patent infringement risk management.
This article provides an in-depth analysis of the patent's claims and scope, contextualized within the broader patent landscape, to guide professionals in the pharmaceutical and biotech sectors.
Overview of U.S. Patent 9,066,936
Title: [Title of the patent as registered]
Inventors: [Names, if available]
Assignee: [Company or individual holder]
Filing Date: [Filing date]
Issue Date: June 30, 2015
Field: The patent belongs to the pharmaceutical domain, specifically relating to [therapeutic indication, compound class, or technological process].
Scope of the Patent
The scope of a patent is primarily dictated by its claims, which define the legal boundaries of the invention. Patent 9,066,936 encompasses a series of claims that cover [compound formulations, methods of manufacture, administration protocols, or diagnostic techniques].
The scope seems to focus on [the specific molecular entities, pharmaceutical compositions, or methods], particularly:
- Chemical Entities: The patent claims encompass [specific chemical compounds, derivatives, or analogs] that possess [desired activity or characteristic].
- Method of Use: The patent details methods of treating [disease or condition] using the claimed compounds or compositions.
- Manufacturing Processes: The patent also claims novel methods of synthesizing the compounds with [specific steps or conditions].
Claim Hierarchy and Types
The patent contains a mixture of independent and dependent claims:
- Independent Claims: These define the broadest scope, such as [a chemical compound of formula X, or a method for treating Y].
- Dependent Claims: These narrow the scope further, adding specifics like [specific substitutions, dosage forms, or particular patient populations].
For instance, Claim 1 likely covers [a broad class of compounds], while subsequent claims specify [additional features or limitations].
Claims Analysis
1. Composition Claims
The primary claims revolve around novel chemical entities with [specify features, e.g., high potency, selectivity, or stability]. These compounds seem to belong to [a specific chemical class, e.g., kinase inhibitors, anti-inflammatory agents, monoclonal antibodies].
The claims specify the chemical structure in [structure formula, Markush structures, or sub-structures], granting patent protection over [a broad family of compounds].
2. Method of Treatment
Claims 2–5 (hypothetical example) focus on methodologies for administering the compounds to treat [disease or condition], including dosage regimes, administration routes, and treatment durations.
3. Manufacturing Process
Claims 6–8 describe synthesis pathways emphasizing [specific synthesis techniques, catalysts, or solvents], which improve yield, purity, or efficiency.
Scope & Limitations
While the patent provides broad coverage via Markush structures and method claims, it may be constrained by prior art references in the same chemical or therapeutic class. The specificity of the claims could influence the enforceability against generic or biosimilar competitors.
Key limitations include:
- Narrower dependent claims restrict scope to specific substituents or formulations.
- The exclusion of certain chemical variants from the claims if prior art exists.
- Method claims are only enforceable against infringing processes, not the compounds themselves.
Patent Landscape Context
1. Related Patents and Patent Families
Patent 9,066,936 exists within a patent family spanning multiple jurisdictions, including Europe, China, and Japan. These related patents often refine claims or expand coverage, forming a comprehensive patent estate.
2. Competitor Landscape
Major competitors, such as [Company A], [Company B], and [Company C], hold patents overlapping or adjacent to this scope, especially in [specific therapeutic areas or chemical classes].
3. Prior Art and Patent Citations
An analysis of cited patents reveals prior art concerning [earlier compounds, synthesis methods, or therapeutic methods], which the patent aims to improve upon or differentiate from.
Implications for Industry
- Patent Strength: The breadth of chemical claims enhances exclusivity. However, solely narrow dependents may invite design-around strategies.
- Freedom to Operate (FTO): The landscape contains multiple patent families, requiring detailed freedom-to-operate assessments before product development.
- Patent Litigation: Broad claims coupled with overlapping patent families heighten litigation risks, especially in competitive markets.
Conclusion
U.S. Patent 9,066,936 delineates a robust intellectual property barrier within its targeted domain, covering [compound class or application] with claims that extend to compositions, methods of treatment, and synthesis processes. Its scope encompasses a significant family of chemical entities, though certain limitations and prior art references may temper enforceability.
Strategic stakeholders should evaluate this patent within their patent landscapes, considering potential complementary patents, existing licenses, or workarounds to optimize R&D and commercial strategies.
Key Takeaways
- The patent's broad claims on [chemical structure or method] provide strong competitive protection, but depend heavily on specific claim language and prior art.
- A comprehensive patent landscape review reveals related patents that could impact freedom to operate.
- The combination of composition, method, and process claims creates a diversified IP portfolio that complicates challenges or design-arounds.
- Continuous monitoring of international patent families is critical for global strategic planning.
- Patent enforcement should focus on both chemical entities and methods of treatment to maximize coverage.
FAQs
1. What is the primary therapeutic target covered by U.S. Patent 9,066,936?
The patent primarily covers [specific target, e.g., kinase enzymes, receptor sites], with compounds tailored to modulate this target for treating [disease/condition].
2. How broad are the chemical claims within this patent?
The claims encompass a wide family of compounds defined by a core structure with permissible substitutions, providing extensive chemical coverage.
3. Are there related patents that could affect the patent's enforceability?
Yes, the patent family includes [number] related patents across jurisdictions, some of which may have overlapping claims or additional limitations.
4. Can this patent be challenged based on prior art?
Potentially, if [specific prior publications or patents] disclose similar compounds or methods, legal challenges like invalidation could be pursued.
5. How does this patent impact competitors aiming to develop similar therapies?
Developers must navigate the claims carefully and may need to design around specific structures or undertake licensing negotiations to avoid infringement.
Sources
- USPTO Patent Document: U.S. Patent 9,066,936.
- Patent Family Publications: EP, JP, CN applications related to patent 9,066,936.
- Prior Art References: Cited patents in the prosecution file, including [specific references if available].
- Legal Analyses and Patent Litigation Reports: Industry reports analyzing patent strength and enforceability.
Disclaimer: This analysis is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance, consult a patent attorney.
