Details for Patent: 9,364,439

Summary for Patent: 9,364,439

Title:	Pharmaceutical compositions for the coordinated delivery of NSAIDs
Abstract:	The present invention is directed to drug dosage forms that release an agent that raises the pH of a patient's gastrointestinal tract, followed by a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug. The dosage form is designed so that the NSAID is not released until the intragastric pH has been raised to a safe level. The invention also encompasses methods of treating patients by administering this coordinated release, gastroprotective, antiarthritic/analgesic combination unit dosage form to achieve pain and symptom relief with a reduced risk of developing gastrointestinal damage such as ulcers, erosions and hemorrhages.
Inventor(s):	John R. Plachetka
Assignee:	Nuvo Pharmaceuticals (ireland) Designated Activity Co , Genus Lifesciences Inc
Application Number:	US14/956,645
Patent Litigation and PTAB cases:	See patent lawsuits and PTAB cases for patent 9,364,439
Patent Claim Types: see list of patent claims	Use; Composition; Dosage form;

US Patent 9,364,439: What Is Claimed, What It Covers, and Where the Landscape Pushes Back

US Drug Patent 9,364,439 is directed to an oral unit-dose combination of omeprazole and aspirin with pH-dependent release behavior for the aspirin coating and pH-independent release behavior (at least in part) for omeprazole. The claims also support daily dosing embodiments and tie use to cardiovascular risk reduction and prevention of NSAID-associated gastric ulcers.

Because the claim text you provided defines the scope directly, the analysis below focuses on claim architecture, technical boundaries, claim-to-patentability pressure points, and likely freedom-to-operate fault lines in the US landscape.

---

How Broad Is Claim 1’s Composition Scope?

Core structural definition

Claim 1 defines a pharmaceutical composition in unit dosage form for oral administration comprising therapeutically effective amounts of:

1) Omeprazole where at least a portion is not surrounded by an enteric coating
2) Aspirin that is surrounded by a coating that inhibits release from the unit dosage form unless the unit dosage form is in a medium with pH ≥ 3.5
3) The unit dosage form provides for release of omeprazole such that at least a portion is released regardless of pH of the medium

In practical scope terms, Claim 1 forces two release regimes to coexist in one dosage:

• Aspirin: delayed/conditional release tied to medium pH ≥ 3.5
• Omeprazole: partially immediate or pH-independent release, achieved by having a fraction not enterically coated and ensuring release occurs regardless of pH

Key “must be true” limitations

Claim 1 is not a general “omeprazole + aspirin” combination. It is limited by coating placement and functional dissolution logic:

• Omeprazole must be partially un-enteric-coated (or otherwise not surrounded by an enteric coating)
• Aspirin must be coated with a pH-triggered release inhibition threshold at ≥ 3.5
• The dosage form must be engineered so omeprazole releases even when pH does not meet the aspirin threshold
• Both ingredients must be in therapeutically effective amounts, but the specific numeric ranges are driven by dependent claims 2-5

What is actually broad vs. narrow

Broad elements:

• “Therapeutically effective amounts” is not numerically constrained in Claim 1.
• “Unit dosage form” covers multiple physical forms (later claims specify bilayer/multilayer).
• Aspirin coating is defined functionally by pH threshold (≥ 3.5), not by specific polymer chemistry in Claim 1.

Narrow elements:

• The release relationship is coordinated and functional: omeprazole has at least a portion pH-independent; aspirin is pH-conditioned
• The pH threshold is explicitly tied to the coating behavior: “unless… pH 3.5 or higher”

---

What Do Dependent Claims Add to Scope? (Dosage, Materials, Dissolution Thresholds)

Aspirin and omeprazole dose ranges (Claims 2-5)

These are the only numeric dosage ranges you provided:

• Claims 2 and 4:
  • Aspirin 40–100 mg
  • Omeprazole 5–50 mg
• Claims 3 and 5:
  • Aspirin 250–1000 mg
  • Omeprazole 5–50 mg

This splits the landscape into two dose bands for aspirin while keeping omeprazole in the same 5–50 mg window.

Excipient list (Claim 6)

Claim 6 is additive but not limiting to the invention’s key mechanism. It specifies excipients from:

• starch
• polyethylene glycol
• microcrystalline cellulose
• hydroxymethylcellulose

In FTO terms, this suggests the patent contemplates certain conventional tablet matrix/excipient systems but does not require any single one unless the dependent claim is asserted.

Coating/material-related components (Claim 7)

Claim 7 lists materials from:

• methacrylic acid copolymers
• triethyl citrate
• triacetin
• polyethylene glycol
• titanium dioxide
• polysorbate

This list is a strong indicator of coating formulation approaches that the applicants considered commercially realistic. It also creates a potential separation between claim scope based on functional parameters (pH triggers) versus enabling chemistry.

Hardening the aspirin-coating dissolution threshold (Claims 8-9)

The dependent claims tighten the “coat does not dissolve” condition:

• Claim 8: coating does not dissolve unless pH ≥ 4
• Claim 9: coating does not dissolve unless pH ≥ 5

This is a key axis for landscape mapping because many enteric or pH-dependent coatings use thresholds around pH 5 to 6. By explicitly adding pH 4 and pH 5 dependent embodiments, the patent captures a range that overlaps common GI-site targeting systems.

Dosage-form geometry (Claims 10-11)

• Claim 10: unit dosage form is a bilayer tablet
• Claim 11: unit dosage form is a multilayer tablet

These structural limitations matter for infringement in practice: if an accused product uses different architecture (e.g., separate granules in capsules, dual tablets, sachets, or osmotic systems), there may be a non-infringement pathway even if the functional release profile is similar.

Once daily (Claims 12-13)

• Claim 12: once daily for Claim 4 dependent composition
• Claim 13: once daily for Claim 5 dependent composition

This creates an enforcement hook for marketed regimens that position the product as a daily combo.

---

How Are Medical Indications Claimed? (Cardiovascular vs. GI Ulcers)

Cardiovascular risk reduction (Claims 14-16)

• Claim 14: method reducing risk of stroke or heart attack
• Claim 15: reduces risk of stroke
• Claim 16: reduces risk of heart attack

These method claims are essentially use claims anchored to Claim 1 compositions.

NSAID-associated gastric ulcer prevention (Claims 17-23)

• Claim 17: method reducing incidence of NSAID-associated gastric ulcers in patients at risk
• Claim 18-19: aspirin/omeprazole dose sub-ranges
• Claim 20-21: coating does not dissolve unless pH ≥ 4 or pH ≥ 5
• Claim 22: multilayer tablet
• Claim 23: once daily

The GI indication is where the patent’s release logic has the most clinical plausibility: omeprazole must be present early enough and/or independent of pH to raise or protect the gastric environment while aspirin is released more distally via pH-triggered coating.

---

What Is the “Alternative Mechanism” Claim Set? (Claims 24-30)

Claims 24-30 expand the method framework beyond the earlier functional description by explicitly introducing an alternative formulation logic:

Claim 24’s added elements

Method for NSAID ulcer incidence reduction comprising administering:

• Omeprazole or pharmaceutically acceptable salt, in a form/route sufficient to raise gastric pH to at least 3.5 upon administration
• Aspirin with pH-dependent release inhibition (release inhibited unless medium pH ≥ 3.5)
• Dosage form provides coordinated release
• At least a portion of omeprazole releases independent of pH
• The composition reduces incidence of ulcers

How Claim 24 differs from Claim 17

Claim 17 focuses on a compositional functional definition: unit dosage form releases omeprazole regardless of medium pH while aspirin is pH-inhibited.
Claim 24 also requires that the administered omeprazole is sufficient to raise gastric pH to ≥ 3.5 upon administration of one or more unit doses, which is a physiological outcome limitation.

This creates a different infringement pressure point: a product could potentially match the physical release behavior without meeting an asserted “raise gastric pH to at least 3.5” effect threshold, depending on how the patent is litigated and how the claim is construed.

Remaining dependent claims (25-30)

• Claims 25-26: aspirin 40-100 mg or 250-1000 mg with omeprazole 5-50 mg
• Claims 27-28: coating does not dissolve unless pH ≥ 4 or pH ≥ 5
• Claims 29-30: multilayer tablet; once daily

---

Scope Map: What an Accused Product Must Contain to Land in These Claims

High-confidence infringement elements

A product that matches multiple of these tends to be within reach:

1) Single oral unit dosage containing both omeprazole + aspirin 2) Aspirin is coated with a threshold that prevents release unless GI medium pH reaches ≥ 3.5 3) Omeprazole has a portion not enterically coated and that portion releases independent of pH 4) Dosing regimen can be once daily (dependent) 5) Tablet architecture is bilayer or multilayer (dependent)

Major “avoidance lanes”

To design around, most plausible lanes involve breaking one of the structural or functional preconditions:

• Split products into separate dosage forms or administration schedules (break “unit dosage form provides coordinated release”)
• Use aspirin formulation not inhibited by a pH trigger at 3.5 (break the aspirin coating behavior)
• Ensure omeprazole is fully enteric-coated so it is pH-dependent (break “not surrounded by enteric coating” and/or “released regardless of pH”)
• Use non-tablet or non-bilayer/multilayer architectures (break dependent structural claims)

---

Patent Landscape Signals for US Enforcement (What Claims Likely Overlap and Where Prior Art Hits)

The claim package is built around a specific concept: combination delayed aspirin with early or pH-independent omeprazole exposure, with coatings whose behavior toggles around pH 3.5, 4, or 5.

From a landscape perspective, the main competitive clusters in the US will typically be:

• Enteric-coated aspirin systems and co-therapies with acid suppression for GI protection
• Omeprazole formulations including immediate and modified-release variants
• Fixed-dose combination tablets aimed at reducing GI toxicity while maintaining antiplatelet exposure

The claims you provided indicate the patent is likely to be strongest against products that literally replicate the coating threshold architecture around pH 3.5 and the partial non-enteric omeprazole exposure. Claims 8-9 extend the capture to coatings that resist dissolution until pH ≥ 4 or ≥ 5, aligning with many common coating design spaces.

Where the landscape will pressure this patent is in prior art that already discloses any of the following:

• A combo tablet with aspirin enteric coating and omeprazole acid suppression in one unit
• Omeprazole formulations that include mixed coated and uncoated fractions to modulate gastric availability
• Use claims for NSAID ulcer reduction by proton pump inhibitors and antiplatelet combinations

Because the independent claim is not tied to a specific polymer system and instead uses functional pH thresholds and coating placement requirements, the decisive novelty and enforceability usually hinge on claim construction: whether a reference meets “at least a portion not surrounded by an enteric coating” and “released regardless of pH,” and whether an aspirin coating truly has the claimed pH 3.5 or higher release inhibition behavior.

---

Practical Claim-Strength Assessment by Limitation Tier

Tier 1: Mechanism-defining limitations (highest leverage)

• Omeprazole: at least a portion not surrounded by enteric coating
• Aspirin: coated to inhibit release unless pH ≥ 3.5
• Omeprazole: at least a portion releases regardless of pH

These govern whether the concept is present in a product regardless of formulation details.

Tier 2: Envelope expansion (high leverage in close cases)

• Aspirin coating “does not dissolve unless pH ≥ 4” (Claim 8)
• Aspirin coating “does not dissolve unless pH ≥ 5” (Claim 9)

These define alternative embodiments that cover common enteric/pH-dependent regimes.

Tier 3: Dose and form factors (useful for market targeting)

• Aspirin dose bands (Claims 2-5)
• Omeprazole dose band (5-50 mg)
• bilayer/multilayer (Claims 10-11)
• once-daily (Claims 12-13, 23, 30)

These help enforcement match commercial packaging and strength.

Tier 4: Indication-specific hooks

• stroke/heart attack reduction (Claims 14-16)
• NSAID gastric ulcer incidence reduction (Claims 17-23, 24-30)

In litigation, the indication requires proof of method use and patient context (e.g., NSAID-associated ulcer risk), but the composition already drives much of the infringement analysis because these are method claims tied to Claim 1 or Claim 24 compositions.

---

Key Takeaways

• US 9,364,439 is a fixed-dose oral unit aimed at coordinated GI protection and distal aspirin exposure: aspirin release is pH-triggered (≥ 3.5) while omeprazole has a fraction that releases regardless of pH via partial non-enteric coating.
• Independent Claim 1 defines the core engineering logic (coating placement + functional release independence for omeprazole + pH inhibition for aspirin). Dependent claims broaden capture via pH thresholds of 4 and 5, tablet architecture (bilayer/multilayer), and dose ranges (aspirin 40-100 mg or 250-1000 mg; omeprazole 5-50 mg).
• Two method claim sets cover both cardiovascular risk reduction and NSAID ulcer incidence reduction, with Claim 24 adding a physiological limitation that omeprazole raises gastric pH to ≥ 3.5.
• Freedom-to-operate risk concentrates on products that preserve the same two-part release regime inside a single unit dosage form: pH-inhibited aspirin release at ~3.5 and partially non-enteric, pH-independent omeprazole release.

---

FAQs

1) What is the single most important technical requirement for Claim 1?
A unit dosage form where some omeprazole is not enterically coated and releases regardless of medium pH, while aspirin release is inhibited unless medium pH is at least 3.5.

2) Do the dependent claims significantly change the formulation concept?
They narrow or expand scope through explicit pH dissolution thresholds (≥4 or ≥5), specific aspirin/omeprazole dose bands, and bilayer/multilayer geometry. The core concept stays the same.

3) How do the two NSAID ulcer method claim families differ?
Claims 17-23 rely on the coordinated-release functional definition. Claims 24-30 add that omeprazole is sufficient to raise gastric pH to at least 3.5 upon administration, adding a physiological outcome element.

4) Does the patent require a particular coating polymer?
Not in Claim 1. Claim 7 lists typical materials (e.g., methacrylic acid copolymers and plasticizers), but Claim 1 is anchored primarily to functional pH behavior and enteric coating placement.

5) Where is the most likely litigation leverage?
On whether the accused product meets the functional release and coating-threshold limitations (pH 3.5 for aspirin inhibition; pH-independent omeprazole release due to partial lack of enteric coating), plus the unit dosage form architecture for bilayer/multilayer-dependent embodiments.

---

References

No sources were provided in the prompt for US 9,364,439 (e.g., publication text, file history, prosecution documents, or related family members). No external citations are included.

Drugs Protected by US Patent 9,364,439

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 9,364,439

Country	Patent Number	Estimated Expiration	Supplementary Protection Certificate	SPC Country	SPC Expiration
European Patent Office	1411900		C300481	Netherlands
European Patent Office	1411900		91858	Luxembourg
European Patent Office	1411900		1190013-1	Sweden