Details for Patent: 9,301,920

Which drugs does patent 9,301,920 protect, and when does it expire?

Patent 9,301,920 protects BIJUVA and is included in one NDA.

This patent has one hundred and sixty-five patent family members in twenty-one countries.

Summary for Patent: 9,301,920

Title:	Natural combination hormone replacement formulations and therapies
Abstract:	Estrogen and progesterone replacement therapies are provided herein. Among others, the following formulations are provided herein: solubilized estradiol without progesterone; micronized progesterone without estradiol; micronized progesterone with partially solubilized progesterone; solubilized estradiol with micronized progesterone; solubilized estradiol with micronized progesterone in combination with partially solubilized progesterone; and solubilized estradiol with solubilized progesterone.
Inventor(s):	Brian A. Bernick, Janice Louise Cacace, Peter H. R. Persicaner, Neda Irani, Julia M. Amadio
Assignee:	TherapeuticsMD Inc
Application Number:	US13/843,428
Patent Litigation and PTAB cases:	See patent lawsuits and PTAB cases for patent 9,301,920
Patent Claim Types: see list of patent claims	Use; Formulation;

United States Patent 9,301,920 (Estradiol/Progesterone Oil Formulation): Claim Scope, Likely Claim Construction, and Landscape Implications

What does US 9,301,920 claim, in plain claim-structure terms?

US 9,301,920 covers a specific combination product: an estradiol-plus-progesterone pharmaceutical formulation in an oil vehicle with defined lipid excipient classes and defined solubilization and suspension behavior.

Core claim (Claim 1): formulation composition and vehicle requirements

Claim 1 is a closed formulation definition with these functional and compositional elements:

• Actives
  • Solubilized estradiol
  • Solubilized progesterone
  • Suspended progesterone
• Vehicle
  • Oil in which each of the solubilized estradiol, solubilized progesterone, and suspended progesterone is present in the oil.
  • The oil comprises medium chain fatty acid esters of:
  • glycerol
  • polyethylene glycol
  • propylene glycol
  • or mixtures
• Medium-chain definition
  • Medium chain fatty acid esters are predominantly esters of C6 to C12 fatty acids.
• No blanket “dosage form” claim
  • The claim is composition-centric (not device-centric) and does not limit to specific dosage size other than weight % where dependent claims specify.

Immediate dependent layers (Claims 2–12): medium-chain range refinement and preferred oil composition

Dependent claims narrow vehicle and composition:

• C6 to C12 to C6 to C10 (Claim 2)
  Medium chain fatty acid esters predominantly C6 to C10.

• Oil is predominantly mono- and diglycerides (Claim 3)
  Interprets the “glycerol ester” class as mono- and diglycerides predominating.

• Solubilization threshold (Claim 4)

  • At least 90% of total estradiol is solubilized.

• Surfactant optionality with defined class (Claims 5–7)

  • Claim 5: formulation further comprises a surfactant
  • Claim 6: surfactant is non-ionic
  • Claim 7: surfactant is lauroyl polyoxyl-32-glycerides

• Explicit composition window (Claim 8)

  • 30 to 35 wt % progesterone
  • 0.1 to 0.4 wt % estradiol
  • 55 to 75 wt % of the oil
  • oil is predominantly medium chain fatty acid mono- and diglycerides
  • 0.5 to 10 wt % non-ionic surfactant

• Additional excipients (Claim 9)

  • further comprises gelatin, glycerol, and coloring agents

• Release-performance attribute (Claim 10)

  • progesterone is released more rapidly than progesterone in peanut oil

• Alternative medium-chain cuts (Claims 11–12)

  • Claim 11: predominantly C8 to C12
  • Claim 12: predominantly C8 to C10

Method claims (Claims 13–14): treating progesterone- and estrogen-deficient states

• Claim 13: treating at least one progesterone-deficient state via administering an effective amount of a claim 1 formulation.
• Claim 14: treating at least one estrogen-deficient state via administering an effective amount of a claim 1 formulation.

Business implication: If a formulation lands inside Claim 1’s oil/solubilization/suspension boundaries, method claims attach as long as the medical use matches progesterone-deficient and/or estrogen-deficient states.

---

What is the practical scope of “solubilized” vs “suspended” in Claim 1?

Claim 1 requires both:

• “solubilized progesterone” and
• “suspended progesterone”.

That dual state is a major narrowing feature. In infringement analysis, it typically drives two questions:

1. Whether progesterone exists in two phases/states (molecularly dissolved fraction plus particulate/suspended fraction) within the oil.
2. Whether estradiol is solubilized in the same oil vehicle.

Dependent Claim 4 adds a quantitative solubilization requirement:

• at least 90% of total estradiol is solubilized.

Scope effect:

• A competitor product with progesterone only dissolved (no suspended fraction) does not meet the “suspended progesterone” element.
• A competitor product with estradiol not substantially solubilized (or below 90% total estradiol solubilized) can avoid Claim 4 but may still fall under Claim 1 unless the “solubilized estradiol” element is also not satisfied.

---

What vehicle excipients are actually “in” the claim?

Claim 1 limits the oil to medium chain fatty acid esters of glycerol, PEG, or propylene glycol, where the predominant ester is C6 to C12.

Claim-1 vehicle boundary (must-have)

• The oil must contain medium-chain fatty acid esters meeting the predominance language:
  • “predominantly esters of C6 to C12 fatty acids.”

Dependent refinements (narrower “predominantly” buckets)

• Claim 2: predominantly C6 to C10
• Claim 11: predominantly C8 to C12
• Claim 12: predominantly C8 to C10
• Claim 3: predominantly mono- and diglycerides (within the glycerol ester umbrella)

Scope effect:

• If the competitor uses long-chain esters or medium-chain esters outside the predominant range, it can avoid Claim 1 and its dependent chain-range claims.
• If a competitor uses a mixed-chain ester oil but the “predominantly” threshold is not met, it can avoid the claim even if some fraction overlaps C6 to C12.

---

How are surfactant requirements staged across the claims?

Surfactant is:

• optional at the independent level (Claim 1 has no surfactant requirement), and
• required only in dependent claims (Claims 5–7, and embedded in Claim 8).

Surfactant ladder

• Claim 5: further comprises a surfactant
• Claim 6: non-ionic surfactant
• Claim 7: lauroyl polyoxyl-32-glycerides

Explicit surfactant amount (Claim 8)

• 0.5 to 10 wt % non-ionic surfactant

Scope effect:

• A formulation with the same oil and actives but no surfactant avoids Claims 5–7 and Claim 8, but can still be assessed under Claim 1.
• A formulation with a non-ionic surfactant outside the specified chemical identity in Claim 7 can avoid Claim 7 but can still infringe Claims 5/6 depending on how the formulation meets non-ionic surfactant language.

---

What are the numeric “hard” composition anchors?

The cleanest quantitative infringement hooks sit in Claim 8 and Claim 4.

Claim 8 weight percent window

• Progesterone: 30 to 35 wt %
• Estradiol: 0.1 to 0.4 wt %
• Oil: 55 to 75 wt %
• Non-ionic surfactant: 0.5 to 10 wt %
• Oil is predominantly medium chain fatty acid mono- and diglycerides

Claim 4 solubilization threshold

• At least 90% of total estradiol is solubilized

Scope effect:

• If a competitor’s formulation is outside Claim 8’s wt % bands, it may still fall under Claim 1 unless the competitor also fails Claim 1’s structural features (medium chain oil class, solubilized estradiol, solubilized progesterone, and suspended progesterone in the same oil).
• If a competitor matches Claim 1 but has estradiol solubilization below 90%, it avoids Claim 4 but can still be within Claim 1.

---

How does Claim 10 constrain “release more rapidly than peanut oil”?

Claim 10 is a comparative release-rate element:

• progesterone released more rapidly than progesterone in peanut oil.

Scope effect:

• Claim 10 likely functions as a performance limitation that may require a release test comparison against a peanut oil reference.
• Even if composition matches Claim 1, Claim 10’s comparative performance element is not automatically satisfied without meeting the release characteristic as defined.

---

Does Claim 1 read on “estrogen-only” or “progestin-only” products?

No. Claim 1 requires both estradiol and progesterone in the composition:

• “administering estradiol and progesterone”
• solubilized estradiol, solubilized progesterone, and suspended progesterone

Method claims track dual inclusion

• Claim 13 covers treating progesterone-deficient states
• Claim 14 covers treating estrogen-deficient states
  Both are still tied to administering “a pharmaceutical formulation of claim 1,” so the underlying formulation includes both estradiol and progesterone.

---

Patent landscape logic: where the likely competitive friction sits (formulation-first, then method)

Without the rest of the document set (specification, priority, prosecution history, maintenance, or related families), the landscape can only be mapped using claim-logic and excipient universality.

Likely “at-risk” design space for competitors

Competitors seeking estradiol/progesterone oily combination products typically must select:

• a lipid oil vehicle (medium-chain mono/di-glycerides or equivalent),
• a solubilization strategy for estradiol,
• a progesterone state (dissolved plus suspended fraction),
• optional non-ionic surfactant and often a chosen PEG-type surfactant family.

The strongest overlap risk comes from:

• medium chain ester oils of C6–C12 predominantly,
• presence of both solubilized and suspended progesterone,
• estradiol solubilized in that same oil.

Where competitors may “design around”

Design-around routes derive directly from the claim’s structural elements:

1. Remove suspended progesterone (make progesterone purely solubilized in the oil).
2. Use a non-matching oil chain distribution (fail the “predominantly C6–C12” requirement).
3. Use a non-glycerol/PEG/propylene glycol ester vehicle outside the oil definition.
4. Avoid meeting the “solubilized estradiol” requirement (keep estradiol not solubilized in the oil).
5. Use no surfactant (avoids dependent surfactant claims).
6. Choose a non-ionic surfactant that is not lauroyl polyoxyl-32-glycerides (avoids Claim 7).
7. Alter wt % ranges to avoid Claim 8-specific numeric bands.

---

Claim-by-claim claim scope matrix (what must be present)

Claim	Requirement type	Must-have elements (as written)	Narrowing effect
1	Independent composition	estradiol + progesterone; solubilized estradiol; solubilized progesterone; suspended progesterone; oil; oil comprises medium chain fatty acid esters of glycerol/PEG/propylene glycol; esters predominantly C6–C12	Establishes the excipient class plus dual progesterone state
2	Dependent	oil esters predominantly C6–C10	Tightens chain-range
3	Dependent	oil predominantly mono- and diglycerides	Narrows within glycerol-esters
4	Dependent	≥90% total estradiol solubilized	Adds solubilization quantifier
5	Dependent	further comprises surfactant	Surfactant becomes required
6	Dependent	surfactant is non-ionic	Surfactant class
7	Dependent	surfactant is lauroyl polyoxyl-32-glycerides	Specific surfactant identity
8	Dependent	30–35 wt% progesterone; 0.1–0.4 wt% estradiol; 55–75 wt% oil; oil predominantly medium chain fatty acid mono/di-glycerides; 0.5–10 wt% non-ionic surfactant	Numeric composition lock-in
9	Dependent	gelatin + glycerol + coloring agents	Packaging/solid excipients
10	Dependent	progesterone releases more rapidly than in peanut oil	Performance limitation
11	Dependent	esters predominantly C8–C12	Alternate chain-range
12	Dependent	esters predominantly C8–C10	Alternate narrower chain-range
13	Method	treat progesterone-deficient states by administering claim 1 formulation	Medical use tied to claim 1
14	Method	treat estrogen-deficient states by administering claim 1 formulation	Medical use tied to claim 1

---

What does the claim set imply about “covering” typical estradiol/progesterone oil formats?

Claim 1 reads like a “formulation platform” anchored on medium-chain ester oils and a required dual state for progesterone.

High probability “covered” attributes in typical development

• Oil-based oily formulation
• Medium-chain ester surfactant landscape (C6–C12 predominant)
• Ensuring estradiol is solubilized
• Achieving a suspended progesterone fraction alongside soluble progesterone

High probability “not automatically covered”

• Formulations outside medium-chain ester predominance
• Systems where progesterone is fully dissolved
• Systems using different oil chemistries not within glycerol/PEG/propylene glycol ester medium-chain predominance

---

Key Takeaways

• US 9,301,920 Claim 1 is a formulation claim anchored on an oil comprising medium chain fatty acid esters (predominantly C6 to C12) of glycerol, PEG, or propylene glycol, plus a required dual progesterone state (solubilized and suspended) and solubilized estradiol.
• Dependent claims add measurable constraints: estradiol solubilization (≥90%), specific wt % composition (Claim 8), surfactant identity (lauroyl polyoxyl-32-glycerides in Claim 7), and comparative release vs peanut oil (Claim 10).
• Method claims do not broaden beyond Claim 1: they require administration of the Claim 1 formulation to treat progesterone- and estrogen-deficient states.
• Design-around leverage is structural: remove suspended progesterone, shift the oil chain predominance outside C6–C12, change oil chemistry outside the ester classes, or avoid the specific surfactant identity and composition banding in dependent claims.

---

FAQs

1) Does Claim 1 require a particular dosage form (capsule, gel, depot, etc.)?

No. Claim 1 defines a formulation composition and vehicle/excipient relationships. It does not lock to a specific dosage form.

2) Can a formulation avoid Claim 1 by solubilizing progesterone fully and having no suspended fraction?

Yes. Claim 1 expressly requires both “solubilized progesterone” and “suspended progesterone.”

3) Is the surfactant required in the independent claim?

No. Surfactant is required only in dependent claims (Claims 5–7 and embedded in Claim 8).

4) What numeric elements most restrict Claim 8?

Claim 8 ties to specific wt % bands: progesterone 30–35 wt %, estradiol 0.1–0.4 wt %, oil 55–75 wt %, and non-ionic surfactant 0.5–10 wt %.

5) Does Claim 10 cover release testing as a defining limitation?

Yes. Claim 10 is a performance limitation: progesterone releases more rapidly than in peanut oil.

---

References

[1] United States Patent 9,301,920, claims 1-14 (as provided by user).

Drugs Protected by US Patent 9,301,920

Applicant	Tradename	Generic Name	Dosage	NDA	Approval Date	TE	Type	RLD	RS	Patent No.	Patent Expiration	Product	Substance	Delist Req.	Patented / Exclusive Use	Submissiondate
Mayne Pharma	BIJUVA	estradiol; progesterone	CAPSULE;ORAL	210132-002	Dec 28, 2021		RX	Yes	No			Y			TREATMENT OF MENOPAUSE SYMPTOMS, INCLUDING VASOMOTOR SYMPTOMS
Mayne Pharma	BIJUVA	estradiol; progesterone	CAPSULE;ORAL	210132-001	Oct 28, 2018		RX	Yes	Yes			Y			TREATMENT OF MENOPAUSE SYMPTOMS, INCLUDING VASOMOTOR SYMPTOMS

International Family Members for US Patent 9,301,920

Country	Patent Number	Estimated Expiration	Supplementary Protection Certificate	SPC Country	SPC Expiration
European Patent Office	2782584		301153	Netherlands
European Patent Office	2782584		2021C/558	Belgium
European Patent Office	2782584		122021000080	Germany
European Patent Office	2782584		LUC00245	Luxembourg
European Patent Office	2782584		132021000000197	Italy
European Patent Office	2782584		C202130068	Spain