Details for Patent: 9,353,081

Which drugs does patent 9,353,081 protect, and when does it expire?

Patent 9,353,081 protects BAXFENDY and is included in one NDA.

This patent has forty patent family members in thirty-four countries.

Summary for Patent: 9,353,081

Title:	Bicyclic dihydroquinoline-2-one derivatives
Abstract:	The invention provides novel compounds having the general formula (I) wherein R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, A1, A2 A3 and n are as described herein, compositions including the compounds and methods of using the compounds. The compounds of the present invention are useful as inhibitors of aldosterone synthase. The compounds may be used, for example, in the treatment or prophylaxis of chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure, hypertension, primary aldosteronism and Cushing syndrome.
Inventor(s):	Johannes Aebi, Kurt Amrein, Serena Maria Fantasia, Benoit Hornsperger, Bernd Kuhn, Yongfu Liu, Hans P. Maerki, Alexander V. Mayweg, Peter Mohr, Michelangelo Scalone, Xuefei Tan, Mingwei Zhou
Assignee:	Cincor Pharma Inc
Application Number:	US13/615,901
Patent Claim Types: see list of patent claims	Composition; Compound;

US Patent 9,353,081 Landscape: Scope, Claim Coverage, and US-IP Expiry Risk

US Patent 9,353,081 is a broad small-molecule compound-formula patent with extensive claim breadth across ring systems, substitution patterns, stereoisomers, salts, and multiple amide/sulfonamide/functional group variants. The claim set is dominated by a generic Markush-style Formula (I) core (claim 1) plus narrower dependent claims that carve out specific substituent defaults and selected exemplified species. This structure creates two key practical impacts for freedom-to-operate (FTO): (1) generic “formula adjacency” workarounds are less effective because many variables are still permitted in claim 1; and (2) even when a challenger swaps a specific sidechain functional group (eg, propionamide vs ethanesulfonamide vs hydroxylated variants), they may still land inside claim 1’s allowable R31 and R27/R26 definitions.

No Orange Book, FDA reference product linkage, Paragraph IV filings, or litigation docket details are provided here, so the analysis below focuses strictly on the legal claim scope and US patent-claim landscape effects that flow from the claim language you supplied.

---

What is claimed in US Patent 9,353,081 (claim 1) and how broad is the formula coverage?

Featured snippet answer: Claim 1 covers a large class of compounds defined by a Formula (I) with multiple independent substituent variables (R1-R12, A1-A3, and a tether/sidechain fragment “(CR20R21)q…NR26R27”), plus allowances for salts/esters. Dependent claims then lock in particular values (eg, R6=H, R12=H), and later claims list many specific stereoisomers and named exemplars.

Claim-1 architecture (why it reads as “Markush + stereochemical room”)

Claim 1 defines:

• A core bicyclic/heterobicyclic scaffold via A1, A2, A3 and the “tetrahydro…tetrahydroisoquinolin” type segments referenced in the examples.
• A sidechain substituent system through R31 and the “R27” group.
• Multiple independently variable substituent positions using:
  • R1-R5, R6, R7-R12 (with halogen and C1–C7-alkyl permitted at several points)
  • A1-A3 with A2 specifically: NR14 or CR15R16
  • A set of linker/tether-like groups: the fragment defined by q, r, p with the constraint that p+q+r ≥ 2 in the “general” case and ≥ 1 when R26=H and R27=H.

This is typical of an estate that is intended to catch not just a lead compound but also a full substitution map around it.

Core substituent knobs that drive scope

Below are the claim-1 variable “levers,” in plain legal terms:

Ring/position variables (R1-R12)

• R1 = C1–C7 alkyl
• R2 = H; R3 = H; R4 = H; R5 = H
• R6 = H, halogen or C1–C7 alkyl
• R7-R11 = H
• R12 = H or halogen

Practical meaning: most positions are fixed to H, but the protected estate has explicit tolerance for alkyl at R1, and halogen/alkyl at R6, and halogen at R12.

Heteroatom/unsaturation choices (A1-A3)

• A1 = CR13
• A2 = NR14 or CR15R16
• A3 = CR17

This allows two distinct scaffold “topologies” at A2:

• an aza version (NR14), or
• a carbon substituted (CR15R16) version.

Sidechain linker definition (q, r, p)

The claim defines a repeating fragment:

• R14 is —(CR20R21)q—(CR22R23)r—(CR24R25)p—NR26R27
• R15 is the same expression (as an alternative dependent structure when A2 is carbon substituted)

Constraints:

• In general, q + r + p ≥ 2
• But if R26 = H and R27 = H, then q + r + p ≥ 1

Practical meaning: challengers cannot easily remove the linker length requirement by “shortening” to a single unit if they also set both R26 and R27 to H. Outside that specific condition, the allowed linker length is at least 2 of the q/r/p segments.

End-group definitions (R26/R27 and what they can be)

• R26 options include:
  • H
  • —S(O)2R31 (sulfone)
  • —C(O)R31 (amide-like carbonyl with R31)
  • —C(O)OR31 (ester)
• R27 is defined as:
  • H, —S(O)2R31, —C(O)R31, or —C(O)OR31

Critical point: claim 1 includes multiple functional families at this end position, which is why the dependent exemplars include propionamide (C(O)R31 with R31=alkyl) and ethanesulfonamide (S(O)2R31), and salts thereof.

R31 is a flexible substituent category

• R31 = C1–C7 alkyl
• or chloropyridinyl
• or hydroxyl-C1–C7 alkyl
• or C3–C8 cycloalkyl

Practical meaning: even if a competitor shifts from a simple alkyl (eg methyl) to a heteroaryl-containing sidechain, claim 1 still has a defined allowance.

Stereochemistry

Claim 1 itself is not explicitly stereochemically limited, but the claim set later explicitly names many stereoisomers in claims 10–19. That matters for scope because:

• the generic formula reads on all stereoisomers that match the structural formula variables, and
• the dependent/named claims may provide additional interpretive anchors if litigated (courts often use explicit exemplars to understand intended variable mapping).

Salt/ester

Claim 1 expressly includes:

• pharmaceutically acceptable salt or ester thereof.

That tends to support enforcement against generic salt forms and many prodrug-style ester variants that still preserve the “same” core chemical entity.

---

Which dependent claims narrow the formula: R6/H, R12/H, A2 carbon vs nitrogen, and end-group selection?

Featured snippet answer: Dependent claims 2–9 tighten specific variables inside the claim-1 Markush space, mainly by fixing R6 and R12 to hydrogen, selecting the A2 carbon form vs nitrogen, setting n=1 and/or forcing certain linker lengths to zero in combination with the q/r/p constraints, and specifying whether R27 is sulfonyl vs carbonyl.

Claim 2: R6 is H

• Narrows R6 from “H/halogen/alkyl” to H only.

Claim 3: R12 is H

• Narrows halogen allowance at R12.

Claim 4: A2 is CR15R16

• Forces A2 to the carbon-substituted branch (excludes A2=NR14 within claim 1).

Claims 5–7: R27 end-group control

• Claim 5: R27 = —S(O)2R31 or —C(O)R31
• Claim 6: R27 = —C(O)R31
• Claim 7: R31 = C1–C7 alkyl

These carve out subranges:

• claim 6 is the “pure carbonyl/amide-like” subfamily,
• claim 5 allows either sulfone or carbonyl at R27,
• claim 7 locks R31 to simple alkyl (consistent with the named “propionamide” and “ethanesulfonamide” exemplars where R31 is effectively an alkyl substituent on the amide/sulfone nitrogen.

Claim 8: n is 1

• Forces the scaffold variable n to a specific ring position state.

Claim 9: q, r and p are zero

• This is a major narrowing directive that collapses the linker fragment in the generic definition.
• The interaction with claim-1 constraints matters, since claim 1 otherwise requires q+r+p ≥2 unless the special case triggers. Claim 9 indicates there is a defined species set where q=r=p=0 is still permitted by the way the formula is structured (or by internal compatibility with the “special case” conditions).

---

What exact molecules are listed in US 9,353,081 claims 10–19, and what does that imply for competitor coverage?

Featured snippet answer: Claims 10–19 list many named compounds spanning:

• racemic vs individual enantiomers,
• propionamide and ethanesulfonamide derivatives,
• cyclopenta-fused and naphthyridine-fused variants,
• substituent changes like 8-chloro/8-fluoro,
• hydroxylated amide analogs.

This creates “explicit targets” that strengthen enforcement against near-identical species even if competitors argue the generic Markush boundaries do not include a certain mapping.

Claim 10: multi-species list (tetrahydroquinolin + tetrahydroisoquinolin; propionamide and ethanesulfonamide)

Claim 10 explicitly lists multiple entities of the same overall scaffold but varying:

• stereo (rac, R, S, +/-),
• sidechain functional group (propionamide vs ethanesulfonamide),
• and salts.

Claim 11: cyclopenta[c]pyridine and naphthyridine variants

Lists additional scaffold variants consistent with allowed A2/A3 variable combinations.

Claim 12: 2-hydroxy substituted variants

This claim set includes stereochemical pairs/triples tied to hydroxyl placement. It indicates the protected estate is not limited to non-oxygenated amide derivatives.

Claim 13: 8-chloro and ethane sulfonic acid amide variants; fluorinated variants appear in dependent later claims too

Lists multiple halogenated analogs (8-chloro, 8-fluoro) and shows carbonyl/sulfonamide family coverage.

Claim 14: 7-methyl substituted variants with defined stereochemical pairings

The estate addresses stereochemistry across double stereocenters (7S,8R etc).

Claim 15: 8-chloro and multiple alternative amide/sulfonamide analogs

Includes:

• pyridine-2-carboxamide,
• cyclopropanecarboxamide,
• methanesulfonamide,
• cyclopropanesulfonamide, and multiple salts.

This matters because it signals that R31 and/or the carbonyl/sulfonamide substituent definitions are intended to cover more than straight alkyl chains.

Claim 16: condensed list including a naphthyridine-ethyl propionamide derivative

Shows at least one scaffold class with an “ethyl” linker group to a ring nitrogen.

Claim 17: mixed listing of stereodefined 8-chloro, 7-methyl, and 7-fluoro derivatives

This is additional confirmation that the claim family is drafted to capture substitution at halogen and methyl-bearing positions with stereospecific behavior.

Claims 18–19: single stereoisomer emphasis

• Claim 18: (+)-(S or R)-…propionamide (explicit stereochemical framing)
• Claim 19: (+)-(R)-…propionamide

If litigated, these dependent claims can be used as interpretive anchors for claim 1’s variable mapping to known stereochemical products.

---

How do claims 20–21 expand IP beyond molecules into pharmaceutical compositions?

Featured snippet answer: Claims 20–21 add a composition claim: the use of the claimed compound with a therapeutically inert carrier. Claim 21 narrows to a specific (+)-(R) compound.

Claim 20

• Pharmaceutical composition comprising claim 1 compound + inert carrier.

This is a standard formulation claim that can support enforcement against generic label/marketed formulations containing the protected active, even when the manufacturer tries to argue “different formulation” does not avoid compound claims.

Claim 21

• Narrower composition dependent claim specifying the (+)-(R) propionamide species.

---

What does the claim scope indicate about likely infringement for generic or “structural design-around” candidates?

Featured snippet answer: The breadth is driven by (i) a wide functional end-group definition (R26/R27 allows sulfone, amide carbonyl, ester, or hydrogen), and (ii) broad R31 categories (alkyl, chloropyridinyl, hydroxyl-alkyl, cycloalkyl). Design-around is most likely to fail unless the challenger changes at least one major structural element that removes compatibility with Formula (I) variable definitions, not merely a salt or a carrier.

High-risk protected elements

1. Sidechain terminal functionality: propionamide vs ethanesulfonamide are both present via R27/R26 options.
2. R31 substituent set: chloropyridinyl and cycloalkyl are expressly allowed, limiting “replace with another moiety” workarounds.
3. Stereoisomers and salts: many are explicitly named; even if a competitor picks a single enantiomer, dependent claims 18–19 target at least one specific stereochemical variant.

Likely lower-risk design-around angles

Based strictly on claim language, the only clearly “hard” escapes are:

• eliminating the required scaffold compatibility by changing A2 to something outside “NR14 or CR15R16” mapping (but A2 already has two allowed states),
• changing the substitution positions where the claim fixes H (R2–R5 and R7–R11 are H in claim 1),
• choosing end-group functionality outside: H, —S(O)2R31, —C(O)R31, —C(O)OR31.

---

What is the patent landscape around US 9,353,081 based on claim structure alone (estate logic and likely continuation coverage)?

Featured snippet answer: The claim set shows a typical “core compound + species + functional class + stereochemistry” drafting strategy, which often correlates with:

• one or more earlier priority filings covering the same scaffold class,
• follow-on continuations narrowing stereochemical species or expanding salts/formulations,
• and potential additional patents covering intermediate syntheses or process steps.

However, because no other patent numbers, assignees, priority dates, CPC classes, or prosecution history are provided, a complete multi-patent landscape cannot be enumerated from the claim text alone.

What can be inferred from the claim design:

• The estate likely includes additional claims around the same scaffold due to the volume of exemplified species (claims 10–17) and multiple functional families (amide vs sulfonamide vs ester).
• The composition claims (20–21) suggest at least one continuation or sibling that targets formulations or specific commercial forms.

---

When does US 9,353,081 expire and when do exclusivity protections end?

Featured snippet answer: The expiration date cannot be derived from claim language alone. Patent expiry depends on filing/priority dates, claim-specific adjustments (USPTO PTA), and any terminal disclaimers. No filing date, priority date, maintenance status, or PTA/PTE details are provided.

---

What FDA pathway and Orange Book status affect generic entry risk for this specific patent?

Featured snippet answer: These cannot be determined from the claim text you provided. Orange Book listing, reference product association, and any patent-to-product mapping are not included. As a result, generic entry timing and Paragraph IV risk cannot be tied to this patent number without the missing FDA/patent listing record.

---

Claim-scope checklist for FTO review using US 9,353,081 claim 1 variables

Featured snippet answer: A practical infringement screen for Formula (I) can be built by mapping candidate structures to each variable class:

Claim 1 element	What to compare in candidate	“If yes” impact
R1	C1–C7 alkyl at R1 position	Satisfies claim 1 if compatible
R6	H / halogen / C1–C7 alkyl	If halogen or alkyl allowed at R6, still likely covered
R12	H or halogen	Halogen at that position may still be covered
A2	NR14 vs CR15R16	Ensure candidate matches one of the two allowed A2 states
Linker	q,r,p values and constraint	Ensure p+q+r ≥2 unless special-case condition met
R26/R27	H vs sulfone vs carbonyl vs ester	Candidate must fit one of the allowed end-group families
R31	C1–C7 alkyl / chloropyridinyl / hydroxyl-alkyl / cycloalkyl	Many substitute efforts still fall inside scope
Salt/ester	“Pharmaceutically acceptable salt/ester”	Salt selection likely not a workaround

---

Key Takeaways

• US 9,353,081 claim 1 is a broad Markush formula that tolerates wide variation in terminal functional groups and R31 substituents, with explicit allowances for sulfones (S(O)2R31), amide-like carbonyls (C(O)R31), esters (C(O)OR31), and salts/esters.
• The dependent claims and species lists (claims 10–19) show the estate is intended to cover specific stereoisomers and multiple amide and sulfonamide families, including halogenated (eg 8-chloro/8-fluoro) and hydroxylated variants.
• Design-around risk is high for “near-analog” actives that keep the same scaffold connectivity and only adjust salt, carrier, or many substituent categories allowed by R31 and R26/R27.
• Expiry timing, Orange Book status, Paragraph IV exposure, and litigation outcomes cannot be concluded from the claim text alone.

---

FAQs

1. Does US 9,353,081 cover both propionamide and ethanesulfonamide derivatives?
   Yes. Claim 1 allows R26/R27 to be —C(O)R31 and —S(O)2R31, and the listed exemplars include both propionamide and ethanesulfonamide species.

2. Can a competitor avoid infringement by switching to a different pharmaceutically acceptable salt?
   Claim 1 explicitly includes pharmaceutically acceptable salts and esters, so salt changes alone are unlikely to avoid coverage.

3. Is stereochemistry a limiting factor in US 9,353,081?
   Claim 1 is broad, and later claims explicitly name multiple enantiomers and stereoisomer pairs. A stereochemical swap does not automatically remove coverage if the stereochemical structure still matches the formula definition.

4. What substitution positions are fixed to hydrogen in claim 1?
   Claim 1 fixes several positions as H: R2, R3, R4, R5, and R7–R11 are H.

5. Does the claim permit halogen substitution at R6 or R12?
   Yes. R6 allows halogen (or alkyl) and R12 allows halogen.

---

References

1. United States Patent 9,353,081 (claims provided in prompt).

Drugs Protected by US Patent 9,353,081

Applicant	Tradename	Generic Name	Dosage	NDA	Approval Date	TE	Type	RLD	RS	Patent No.	Patent Expiration	Product	Substance	Delist Req.	Patented / Exclusive Use	Submissiondate
Astrazeneca Ab	BAXFENDY	baxdrostat	TABLET;ORAL	219878-001	May 15, 2026		RX	Yes	No			Y	Y
Astrazeneca Ab	BAXFENDY	baxdrostat	TABLET;ORAL	219878-002	May 15, 2026		RX	Yes	Yes			Y	Y

International Family Members for US Patent 9,353,081

Country	Patent Number	Estimated Expiration	Supplementary Protection Certificate	SPC Country	SPC Expiration
Argentina	087984
Australia	2012311582
Brazil	112014006660
Canada	2845170