|
Patent landscape, scope, and claims: |
United States Patent 9,617,258: Scope, Claim Strength, and Patent Landscape
What does US 9,617,258 claim in enforceable terms?
US 9,617,258 is a broad genus patent directed to a substituted heteroaryl-aminated piperidine scaffold bearing an enone (prop-2-en-1-one, “acryloyl”) motif and a pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidine (or close analog) core. The claims are written as a layered Markush structure that (1) defines a chemical core, (2) then varies multiple substituent positions (R-group sets), and (3) explicitly permits pharmaceutical salts and stereochemical variants.
The claim set you provided includes independent Claim 1 (genus), dependent Claims 2-6 (narrowing to subsets and specific exemplars), and a formulation claim (Claim 6).
Claim 1 (genus) structure logic
Claim 1 covers:
- Core chemical class: “A compound having the structure … or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt or solvate … or an enantiomer or diastereomer …”
- Key substituent set R2: extensive selection of substituents including hydrogen/deuterium, C1-C6 alkyl, C3-C6 cycloalkyl, C6-C10 aryl, monocyclic/bicyclic heteroaryl (5/6-membered rings), aryl-alkyl, heteroaryl-alkyl, heterocyclic-alkyl, perfluoroalkyl, alkoxy, perfluoroalkoxy, halogen, cyano, hydroxyl, amino, carboxy, aminocarbonyl, sulfonamides/sulfones, and related “-SO2R” and “-NR…SO2…” groups.
- Optional substitution on alkyl/aryl/heteroaryl: halo/hydroxy/methoxy/amino/alkylamino/dialkylamino/CF3/cycloalkyl.
- R3: hydrogen/deuterium, C1-C6 alkyl, C1-C6 perfluoroalkyl, halogen, cyano.
- Ra/Rb/Rc/Rd: independently hydrogen, C1-C6 alkyl/perfluoroalkyl, alkylaryl, (aryl)C1-C6 alkyl, (heteroaryl)C1-C6 alkyl, heteroaryl, halogen, cyano, hydroxyl, C1-C6 alkoxy, amino, carboxy, aminocarbonyl, (heterocyclic)C1-C6 alkyl, (C1-C6 alkyl)aryl, (C1-C6 alkyl)heteroaryl, (C1-C6 alkyl)heterocyclic, with further optional substitution on the alkyl portion (halo/hydroxy/methoxy/amino/alkylamino/dialkylamino/CF3/cycloalkyl).
- Connectivity flex: “where, alternatively, R0 or R1, and/or R6 together with either of R4, Ra, Rb, Rc or Rd, may independently form a bond or a C1-C6 linear alkyl chain” and similar language for “R4 together with either of Ra/Rb/Rc/Rd…”. This expands coverage by allowing additional intramolecular/linkage patterns that change ring substitution topology while staying within the R-group framework.
- Z = N: fixes one core atom identity.
- R11 fixed to hydrogen in Claim 1.
- R12/R13/R14/R15: independently hydrogen, C1-C6 alkyl, C1-C6 perfluoroalkyl, C6-C10 aryl, alkylaryl, and (aryl)C1-C6 alkyl.
In practice, Claim 1 functions as a broad heteroaryl-aminated piperidine-acryloyl/enone genus with high combinatorial breadth across multiple positions.
What narrowing does Claim 2 provide?
Claim 2 fixes key variables to define a narrower sub-genus:
- R2 = hydrogen
- R3 = hydrogen
- Ra/Rb/Rc/Rd fixed to the listed set (still broad in chemistry): hydrogen, C1-C6 alkyl, C1-C6 perfluoroalkyl, alkylaryl, (aryl)C1-C6 alkyl, (heteroaryl)C1-C6 alkyl, heteroaryl, halogen, cyano, hydroxyl, C1-C6 alkoxy, amino, carboxy, aminocarbonyl, (heterocyclic)C1-C6 alkyl, (C1-C6 alkyl)aryl, (C1-C6 alkyl)heteroaryl, (C1-C6 alkyl)heterocyclic (with alkyl optional substitution as in Claim 1)
- R0/R1/R4/R6/R8/R9/R10 fixed to hydrogen
- R11 = hydrogen
Net effect: Claim 2 removes variability at multiple positions that would otherwise be used for design-around (notably those tied to R0/R1/R4/R6/R8/R9/R10 and R2/R3).
Which specific compounds are explicitly claimed in Claim 3?
Claim 3 lists a set of individual stereochemically defined exemplars (each is a member of Claim 1) including:
- Multiple (R)/(S) piperidine stereoisomers paired to pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidin-4-ylamino
- Variants including chloro-, fluoro-, methyl-, hydroxyl-, fluoro-, methoxyethyl-, hydroxymethyl-, ethyl- substitutions on the piperidine
- Explicit “carbonitrile” and piperidine nitrile/enone variants, including:
- “(R)-4-(1-acryloylpiperidin-3-ylamino)-7H-pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidine-5-carbonitrile”
- “(3R,5R)-5-(7H-pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidin-4-ylamino)-1-acryloylpiperidine-3-carbonitrile”
- At least one example containing a pyrrolo[2,3-b]pyridin analog (“3-chloro-1H-pyrrolo[2,3-b]pyridin-4-ylamino” variant)
This listing has practical value for enforcement: it anchors Claim 1 with concrete “practice” compounds that are less vulnerable to ambiguity about Markush coverage.
How do Claims 4 and 5 further narrow to single members?
- Claim 4 narrows Claim 1 to one specific stereoisomer:
- “1-(3R,4S)-3-(7H-pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidin-4-yl)amino)-4-methylpiperidin-1-yl)prop-2-en-1-one” (plus salt)
- Claim 5 narrows to one other stereoisomer:
- “1-((2S,5R)-5-(7H-pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidin-4-ylamino)-2-methylpiperidin-1-yl)prop-2-en-1-one” (plus salt)
These claims matter for litigation leverage: the patentee can assert infringement on a defined structure even if an accused product disputes membership in the broad genus.
What does Claim 6 cover from a commercial standpoint?
Claim 6 is a standard protection layer:
- “A pharmaceutical or a veterinary composition comprising a compound of claim 1 … and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.”
This covers formulations and combination products where the active ingredient is the claimed compound of Claim 1 (or its salts/solvates), assuming infringement theory matches claim scope.
How strong is the claim coverage vs design-around?
Where the patent is most “defensive”
Claim 1 is defensive because it:
- Fixes the core ring identity using “Z is N” and a pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidine framework (as reflected by the listed exemplars).
- Permits broad substitution on multiple substituent positions using expansive R-group sets (alkyl, aryl, heteroaryl, perfluoroalkyl, sulfonamide/sulfone variants, halogens, cyano).
- Includes stereochemical variants explicitly (“enantiomer or diastereomer”).
- Includes connectivity flex (R-group adjacency that forms a bond or short chain), expanding topology coverage.
- Adds a formulation claim tied to Claim 1.
Where the patent creates narrowing leverage
Claim 2 removes two major “escape hatches”:
- Setting R2 and R3 to hydrogen eliminates a class of substitutions that might otherwise tune potency or properties.
- Fixing multiple piperidine and linker substituents to hydrogen reduces the number of alternative substitution patterns that avoid Claim 2 while staying within Claim 1.
Where design-around is still plausible conceptually
The provided claim language shows broad substitution, but it is still constrained to the enone/acryloyl-containing piperidine-aminated heteroaryl architecture implied by the exemplars and by the fixed portions (e.g., R11 = hydrogen and Z = N). A meaningful design-around would likely require changing the pharmacophore-level motif (e.g., removing or replacing the enone functionality or changing the heteroaryl core), rather than swapping substituents alone. Claims 4 and 5 further increase the cost of exact “close match” design-around if the target product lands near those specific stereoisomers.
Practical patent landscape: what other patents matter to US 9,617,258?
A complete US landscape requires bibliographic data (assignee, filing family, priority, related continuations) and citation trees (INPADOC/PAIR, prosecution history, and citing patents). That information is not included in your input. Under strict constraints, no external search or claim-to-reference mapping can be produced from the claim text alone.
What can be concluded from the claim text itself is the type of competitive space it occupies:
- The patent is built as a core scaffold genus with wide permissible substituent sets and specific stereochemically enumerated members.
- That structure typically signals a composition-of-matter family rather than a narrow use/patentability clause. In most such cases, the landscape investor should expect:
- Related continuations with tighter Markush sets and additional stereoisomer listings
- Process patents and salt-form patents in parallel (common for amines and heteroaryl amides/sulfonamides)
- Overlap risk with later “second-generation” analog patents that change one of the R-group axes while keeping the same pharmacophore
No specific competitor patents can be named from the information provided.
Claim chart logic for infringement screening (structure-based)
For product screening against US 9,617,258, the practical checklist is:
- Core heteroaryl identity: pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidine (or the close exemplified alternative) with the relevant substitution pattern implied by the exemplars.
- Linker/functionality: acrylic/enone “prop-2-en-1-one” attached to the piperidine nitrogen-bearing substituent.
- Piperidine amination: an amino connection linking the heteroaryl to the piperidine framework.
- Z = N alignment: ensure the fixed atom identity in the core matches.
- Stereochemistry: check whether product is any diastereomer/enantiomer within the covered set (claims cover all).
- Substitution positions: evaluate whether R2/R3 and Ra-Rd, plus the fixed R0/R1/R4/R6/R8/R9/R10 and R11, land within Claim 1 or at least Claim 2.
- Salt/form: if product uses a pharmaceutically acceptable salt, the salt remains covered.
Key Takeaways
- US 9,617,258 claims a broad scaffold genus built on a pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidine (Z = N) heteroaryl-aminated piperidine with a prop-2-en-1-one (acryloyl/enone) motif, covering all enantiomers and diastereomers and pharmaceutically acceptable salts/solvates.
- Claim 1 is the main enforcement belt: expansive R-group substitution across R2, R3, Ra/Rb/Rc/Rd, and multiple additional substituent positions.
- Claim 2 narrows materially by fixing R2 = H and R3 = H and setting several other positions (R0/R1/R4/R6/R8/R9/R10) to hydrogen.
- Claims 3-5 lock in specific stereoisomer exemplars, reducing ambiguity and raising infringement leverage for those exact structures.
- Claim 6 extends coverage to formulations containing a compound of Claim 1.
FAQs
1) Does US 9,617,258 cover enantiomers?
Yes. Claim 1 includes “an enantiomer or diastereomer thereof,” and dependent exemplars include specific stereochemistry that are also members of the genus.
2) Is the enone/acryloyl motif required?
The exemplars and the claim framing identify the compound class as containing the “prop-2-en-1-one” motif (acryloyl/enone) on the piperidine-derived structure, making that motif a core element of the claimed architecture.
3) What does setting R2 and R3 to hydrogen accomplish?
In Claim 2, it removes substitution at those positions, tightening the structural envelope and making it harder to design around by only changing those axes.
4) Does the patent protect salts and solvates?
Yes. Claim 1 explicitly covers “pharmaceutically acceptable salt or solvate” forms, and the listed members in Claims 3-5 include salts.
5) Is there protection for drug formulations?
Yes. Claim 6 covers pharmaceutical or veterinary compositions comprising the Claim 1 compound plus a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.
References
- US Patent 9,617,258 (claims as provided in prompt).
More… ↓
⤷ Start Trial
|
