|
Patent landscape, scope, and claims: |
US Patent 9,388,159 Scope and Claims Map: Compound Formula II, Two Lead Examples, and Full Composition Claims
US Drug Patent 9,388,159 is a chemical-structure patent built around a broad “Formula II” compound genus with extensive substituent variability, plus layered composition-of-matter claims covering pharmaceutical compositions in multiple dosing and oral formats, including two specific named compound embodiments. Based on the claim text provided, the claim set is structured to (1) capture large numbers of structural variants under Formula II, (2) narrow to particular parameter selections through dependent claims, and (3) secure follow-on protection for formulations and dosing modes.
What is US Patent 9,388,159 protecting: Formula II compound genus or specific molecules?
Answer: It protects both. Claim 1 secures a large genus under Formula II (compound-of-matter). Dependent claims narrow within that genus. Claims 12–33 protect pharmaceutical compositions containing covered compounds, including specific oral dosage and dosing cadence language. Claims 14–15 and 17–18 identify two concrete embodiment molecules.
Claim 1: Broad compound-of-matter (core “Formula II” genus)
Claim 1 defines a compound by a general structure labeled “Formula II,” with multiple definitional blocks:
-
Heterocyclic unit (“Het”)
- 6-membered heterocycle with 1 or 2 heteroatoms selected from N, O, S
- Allows 0 or 1 double-bonded substituent on Het selected from O or S
- Includes 3 to 4 single-bonded substituents on the heterocycle, independently chosen from a long list of substituent types (alkyl, substituted alkyl, alkenyl/alkynyl, aryl/heteroaryl, halogens, cyano, nitro, and many heteroatom-functional options such as OR11, SR11, NR11R12, carbamates/amides, thioamides).
-
A and B assignment
- The claim text states: A is sulfur and B is oxygen, consistent with Het having both S and O in the defined pattern.
-
Linking allowances
- Two single-bonded substituents can connect together to form an additional ring (aryl/heteroaryl/cycloalkyl type), expanding structural dimensionality.
-
R11 and R12
- Each independently selected from hydrogen, alkyl/alkenyl/alkynyl, aryl/heterocyclic aromatic/non-aromatic, and substituted variants
- R11 and R12 on the same substituent can join to form a ring heterocycle (additional structural diversity).
-
R1
- Selected from aryl and substituted aryl.
-
R2 and R3
- Together with the carbon to which they are linked, form a cycloalkyl or substituted cycloalkyl, explicitly covering different ring sizes later via dependent claims (cyclopropyl through cyclohexyl).
-
Substitution rules for “substituted alkyl/cycloalkyl/arylalkyl”
- The claim enumerates acceptable groups, including halogens, hydroxy, nitro, cyano, amino/amido, alkoxy, thiol/alkylthio, carboxy, and multiple carbonyl-containing moieties (carboxyl and amide-like patterns).
- Separate clauses repeat the permitted substituents for substituted cycloalkyl, substituted alkenyl/alkynyl, and substituted aryl-alkyl/alkenyl/alkynyl.
-
Aromatic substitution constraints
- Substituted aryl and substituted aromatic are enumerated with a large permitted set (halo, alkyl, haloalkyl, alkoxy, CF3, alkynyl, cyclic groups, multiple carbonyl and heteroatom functionalities, etc.).
- Substituted heteroaryl or substituted heterocyclic aromatic is allowed one to four substituents from the same large functional set.
Net effect: Claim 1 is a classic broad genus claim: the heterocycle and connectivity pattern are fixed (the core Het definition plus “Formula II” scaffold), while the substituents and ring-forming options permit many analogs.
Dependent claims: layered narrowing from the genus
-
Claim 2: R1 limited to phenyl or substituted phenyl.
-
Claim 3: phenyl substituted with fluoro.
-
Claim 4: phenyl substituted with methyl.
-
Claim 5: phenyl substituted with —C(O)NHCH3 (benzamide functionality).
-
Claim 10: R2 and R3 ring defined specifically as cyclopropyl, cyclobutyl, cyclopentyl, or cyclohexyl.
-
Claim 11: R2 and R3 ring defined as cycloalkyl (general version).
-
Claim 12: composition-of-matter in a formulation: compound of claim 1 (or salt) + pharmaceutically acceptable carrier/diluent/adjuvant.
-
Claims 14–15 and 17–18: identify two specific molecules (see below).
-
Claims 6–9 contain additional Het/R4-R7 constraints, but in the claim text provided the Het selections and list items appear incomplete (the placeholders “wherein Het is selected from the group consisting of” appear without the terminal enumerations). The enforceable narrowing still exists structurally, but the full enumerated set is not present in the text you supplied.
What are the specific compound embodiments listed in US Patent 9,388,159?
Answer: The patent explicitly names two exemplars via pharmaceutical-composition dependent claims.
Named embodiments (as recited)
- Compound named in claims 14, 17, 20, 23, 26
- 4-[7-(6-cyano-5-trifluoromethylpyridin-3-yl)-8-oxo-6-thioxo-5,7-diazaspiro[3.4]oct-5-yl]-2-fluoro-N-methylbenzamide
- Compound named in claims 15, 18, 21, 24, 27
- 5-(8-oxo-6-thioxo-5-(4-methylphenyl)-5,7-diazaspiro[3.4]oct-7-yl)-3-trifluoromethylpyridine-2-carbonitrile
Commercial/legal relevance: These named structures are anchor points for claim construction. In litigation, they also guide how broadly the genus is being asserted (and whether the genus is supported by specification). They also map to likely marketed/lead candidates if those names correspond to actual development compounds.
How broad are the claims: what structural levers expand coverage under Formula II?
Answer: The scope expands across three main levers: Het substitution patterns, R-group combinatorics, and ring-forming linkages.
1) Het: 6-membered heterocycle with 1–2 heteroatoms (N/O/S) and O/S double-bond allowance
- Het is structurally constrained (6 atoms; heteroatoms only from N/O/S; O/S double-bond substituent limited to 0–1).
- Yet substituent freedom is high (3–4 single-bond substituents; each can be many functional classes).
2) R11 and R12: both substituent diversity and ring-closure capability
- Independently selected from hydrogen, multiple hydrocarbon and heteroaromatic/non-aromatic options.
- Allowing R11 and R12 to connect to form a ring adds significant analog coverage (especially in heterocycle-like substituent outcomes).
3) “Two substituents can be connected together to form a cycle”
- This provides additional structural degrees of freedom beyond simple substitution on the core scaffold.
4) R2/R3 ring is limited to cycloalkyl/cycloalkyl substituted
- Dependent claims explicitly include cyclopropyl to cyclohexyl (claim 10), bounding the ring size.
What pharmaceutical formulations does US Patent 9,388,159 claim in the US?
Answer: The composition claims cover:
- Generic composition structure (API + carrier)
- Treatment regimens described by dosing cadence language
- Oral dosage forms
- Form factor categories (solution, dispersion, suspension, powder, capsule, tablet, pill)
- Time-release versions
- Quantitative dosage range (1–1000 mg; narrower 1–500 mg)
- Specific formulations that name the two exemplars
Claim 13: dosing cadence types
Claim 13 says composition is formulated to deliver therapeutically effective amount when administered:
- (i) in a single dosage form
- (ii) in a divided dosage form for multiple times over one day
- (iii) continually
- (iv) continuously
This language is a typical “method-of-use-like” formulation/dosing claim implemented via composition framing.
Claim 16–21: oral and divided dosing
- Claim 16: oral dosage form
- Claim 19: divided dosage form for multiple administrations per day
- Claims 17–18 and 20–21 specify the two named compounds in those contexts.
Claims 22–27: dosage strength ranges
- Claim 22: oral dosage form containing 1 mg to 1000 mg
- Claim 25: oral dosage form containing 1 mg to 500 mg
- Dependent claims 23–24 and 26–27 tie those ranges to the named compound embodiments.
Claims 29–33: dosage forms and extended-release
- Claim 29: solution, dispersion, suspension, powder, capsule, tablet, pill
- Claim 30: time-release capsule/tablet/pill
- Claims 31–33: further specify capsule vs tablet vs pill
How many independent claim “layers” exist in US 9,388,159 based on the provided text?
Answer: Two major layers:
- Compound of matter: Claim 1 (with dependent narrowing via Claims 2–11).
- Pharmaceutical composition: Claim 12 (with dependent formulation/dosing/dosage form/strength via Claims 13–33).
There are no separate standalone method-of-treatment claims shown in the provided text; the dosing schedule language is embedded in the composition claims.
What risks exist for generic or biosimilar entry based on the claim structure?
Answer: For a small-molecule generics program, the dominant risk is that a generic applicant must avoid infringement not only of the API structure under Claim 1 but also formulation/dosing/dosage-form claims under Claims 12–33.
Generic entry risk drivers in practice
- API infringement (Claim 1 genus): If a generic’s proposed compound falls within the “Formula II” definitional ranges (Het and substituent rules), it is at risk.
- Formulation infringement (Claims 12–33): Even if API is covered, changing route or dosage form may reduce risk:
- Claims heavily emphasize oral dosage forms (Claim 16) and strength ranges (Claims 22 and 25).
- Extended-release forms are explicitly claimed (Claim 30).
Key practical point: Because Claim 1 is a broad genus, a “design-around” requires shifting outside the Het definition and/or substituent/ring-closure allowances, not merely swapping one substituent within the allowed lists.
How strong is the claim coverage: genus breadth vs dependent specificity?
Answer: The estate is structured for breadth. Claim 1 is expansive, while dependent claims narrow around common substituent patterns (phenyl variants; cyano/nitro; ring size). The named embodiments in Claims 14–15 and 17–18 provide concrete scope anchors.
Strength indicators from the text provided
- Combinatorial substituent lists (alkyl/aryl/heteroaryl, halogens, CF3/patterned aromatic substituents).
- Ring-forming options (two substituents connect to form a cycle; R11/R12 can cyclize).
- Composition claim multiplicity: dosing cadence, oral route, strength ranges, and extended-release are separately claimed.
Where enforceability may narrow in practice
- The breadth also raises construction questions: “Formula II” is not visually provided here, and Claims 6–9 have incomplete “Het selected from …” enumerations in your pasted text. In an infringement analysis, courts often require clear mapping from accused structures to each definitional element.
What patents are likely to be in the same landscape (within the same technology family)?
Answer: Not determinable from the information provided. The request is limited to US 9,388,159 and does not include the assignee, priority data, related continuations, or citing/cited patent numbers.
Claim-by-claim coverage matrix (based strictly on your provided claim text)
| Claim |
Coverage Type |
What it covers (high-level) |
Enforceable anchor points from provided text |
| 1 |
Compound (genus) |
“Formula II” Het-based scaffold with extensive substituent options |
Het: 6-membered, 1–2 N/O/S; 0–1 O/S double-bonded substituent; 3–4 single substituents; ring closures allowed; R1 aryl/substituted aryl; R2/R3 cycloalkyl |
| 2 |
Dependent |
R1 = phenyl or substituted phenyl |
phenyl substitution set |
| 3 |
Dependent |
phenyl substituted with fluoro |
fluoro-phenyl specifically |
| 4 |
Dependent |
phenyl substituted with methyl |
methyl-phenyl specifically |
| 5 |
Dependent |
phenyl substituted with —C(O)NHCH3 |
benzamide-bearing phenyl |
| 6–9 |
Dependent |
Additional Het and R4–R7 constraints |
lists not fully included for some “Het selected from…” items |
| 10 |
Dependent |
R2/R3 = cyclopropyl to cyclohexyl |
ring size bounded |
| 11 |
Dependent |
R2/R3 = cycloalkyl |
generic cycloalkyl version |
| 12 |
Composition |
compound of claim 1 (or salt) + pharmaceutically acceptable carrier |
API + carrier |
| 13 |
Composition dosing cadence |
single, divided (multiple per day), continual, continuous |
cadence variants captured |
| 14/17/20/23/26 |
Composition + exemplar |
Named compound #1 in oral/divided/time-release/strength contexts depending on chain |
exact molecule: “4-[7-(6-cyano-5-trifluoromethylpyridin-3-yl)-8-oxo-6-thioxo-…]-2-fluoro-N-methylbenzamide” |
| 15/18/21/24/27 |
Composition + exemplar |
Named compound #2 in oral/divided/time-release/strength contexts depending on chain |
exact molecule: “5-(8-oxo-6-thioxo-5-(4-methylphenyl)-…)-3-trifluoromethylpyridine-2-carbonitrile” |
| 16/19 |
Composition route/cadence |
oral dosage; divided for multiple times per day |
oral and dosing frequency |
| 22–24 |
Composition strength |
oral dosage 1–1000 mg tied to exemplar #1 and #2 |
strength range + exemplar |
| 25–27 |
Composition strength |
oral dosage 1–500 mg tied to exemplar #1 and #2 |
tighter strength range |
| 28 |
Composition generic |
therapeutically effective amount |
no extra specifics beyond claim 12 |
| 29 |
Composition form |
solution, dispersion, suspension, powder, capsule/tablet/pill |
multiple dosage formats |
| 30–33 |
Composition form |
time-release capsule/tablet/pill; then specific capsule/tablet/pill |
extended-release explicitly claimed |
Key Takeaways
- US 9,388,159 is built around a broad Formula II compound genus in Claim 1, driven by a defined 6-membered Het (N/O/S content and O/S double-bond allowance) plus very large substituent variability and ring-forming connectivity.
- The patent secures composition and formulation coverage in Claims 12–33, including oral dosage forms, dosing cadence language (single/divided/continual/continuous), strength ranges (1–1000 mg; 1–500 mg), and extended-release formats (time-release capsule/tablet/pill).
- Two named exemplar molecules are embedded through dependent claims (Claims 14–15 and 17–18; repeated through later formulation claims), giving litigation-grade anchors:
- 4-[7-(6-cyano-5-trifluoromethylpyridin-3-yl)-8-oxo-6-thioxo-5,7-diazaspiro[3.4]oct-5-yl]-2-fluoro-N-methylbenzamide
- 5-(8-oxo-6-thioxo-5-(4-methylphenyl)-5,7-diazaspiro[3.4]oct-7-yl)-3-trifluoromethylpyridine-2-carbonitrile
FAQs
1) Does US 9,388,159 include method-of-treatment claims?
The provided claim set frames dosing cadence through composition claims (Claim 13) rather than separate standalone method-of-treatment claims.
2) Are both exemplars protected in oral dosage and strength ranges?
Yes. The exemplars are tied into oral formulation chains and strength windows: 1–1000 mg (Claims 22–24) and 1–500 mg (Claims 25–27).
3) What is the most important claim for blocking generic API entry?
Claim 1’s Formula II genus is the main API infringement hook because it is a broad compound-of-matter definition.
4) Can a design-around avoid infringement by changing from oral to non-oral delivery?
Reducing risk is possible because oral route is explicitly claimed (Claim 16), but Claim 12 is not limited to oral. Avoiding infringement depends on whether the proposed API falls outside Claim 1 and whether the proposed dosage format avoids the narrower dependent claims.
5) Do extended-release dosage forms increase formulation protection?
Yes. Claim 30 explicitly claims time-release capsule/tablet/pill, and Claims 31–33 further narrow to specific formats.
References
- US Patent 9,388,159. “A compound having the Formula II” and “A pharmaceutical composition comprising a compound of claim 1.” (Claim text as provided in the user prompt).
More… ↓
⤷ Start Trial
|
