Patent: 10,130,632

Summary for Patent: 10,130,632

Title:	Methods for treating renal disease
Abstract:	The invention features methods for treating or reducing the likelihood of developing a renal disease by administering to a subject in need thereof an agent that decreases expression of a pathogenic APOL1. The agents of the method target various signaling pathways and decrease the level of the pathogenic APOL1 polypeptide.
Inventor(s):	Friedman; David J. (Boston, MA), Pollak; Martin R. (Boston, MA)
Assignee:	Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Inc. (Boston, MA)
Application Number:	14/646,055
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims

Analyzing the Claims and Patent Landscape of United States Patent 10,130,632

Introduction

When evaluating the patentability and strategic significance of a patent, such as United States Patent 10,130,632, it is crucial to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the claims and the broader patent landscape. This article will delve into the key aspects of this analysis, including the eligibility of the claims under Section 101 of the US Patent Act, the use of representative claims, and the strategic insights gained from patent landscape analysis.

Understanding Section 101 Eligibility

Abstract Ideas and Technological Advancements

The eligibility of patent claims under Section 101 of the US Patent Act is a critical factor. Recent court decisions, such as those in AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Communications, Inc. and Mobile Acuity Ltd. v. Blippar Entities, highlight the challenges in distinguishing between abstract ideas and concrete technological advancements[2][5].

For a claim to be eligible, it must not be directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept that transforms the idea into a patent-eligible invention. The court in AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Communications, Inc. found that claims related to the visualization of medical scans were directed to the abstract idea of "retrieving user-requested, remotely stored information" and lacked an inventive step to transform this idea[5].

The Alice/Mayo Framework

The Alice/Mayo framework is pivotal in determining Section 101 eligibility. This framework involves a two-step inquiry:

• Step One: Determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea, natural law, or natural phenomenon.
• Step Two: If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, assess whether the claim elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, add enough to transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application[3][5].

The Role of Representative Claims

Identifying Representative Claims

In the context of Section 101 analysis, the use of representative claims can streamline and focus the validity challenge. The Federal Circuit in Mobile Acuity Ltd. v. Blippar Entities emphasized that a representative claim can be used if it is substantially similar and linked to the same ineligible concept as the other claims in the group[2].

Procedural Mechanics

The district court has the discretion to require parties to identify proposed representative claims and present arguments on the issue. If a patent owner fails to provide a non-frivolous argument against the classification of claims as representative, they may forfeit their right to argue the eligibility of other claims in the group[2].

Patent Landscape Analysis

Understanding Saturation

Patent landscape analysis is essential for understanding the saturation level of a specific technology area. This analysis helps attorneys and IP professionals advise on the potential rewards or perils of entering a highly saturated patent space. For example, if a technology area is highly saturated, it may be challenging to secure patent claims, and alternative technologies might need to be explored[4].

Strategic Insights

A comprehensive patent landscape analysis provides strategic insights beyond a basic patentability search. It helps in identifying competitors, understanding the evolution of technology, and making long-term decisions about where to focus research and development efforts. This analysis can reveal abandoned technologies and areas where competitors are focusing their resources, guiding companies to pivot to newer, less saturated inventive spaces[4].

Claim Specificity and Drafting

Importance of Specificity

The specificity of claim language is crucial in avoiding Section 101 rejections. The court in AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Communications, Inc. highlighted that claims must include a technical solution to a technical problem and cannot be overly broad or generic. Careful patent drafting is essential to ensure that the claims themselves, rather than the specification, provide the necessary technical details to support patent eligibility[1][5].

Avoiding Abstract Data Manipulation

Claims that focus on abstract data manipulation without specifying a tangible enhancement in technology are likely to be rejected. The court's emphasis on the lack of specificity in describing how virtual views are created underscores the need for claims to demonstrate a concrete technological advancement rather than an abstract idea[1].

Case Study: AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Communications, Inc.

Background

The AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Communications, Inc. case involves patents related to the visualization of medical scans. The district court and the Federal Circuit found that the asserted claims were directed to the abstract idea of retrieving user-requested, remotely stored information and lacked an inventive step to transform this idea into a patent-eligible invention[5].

Key Takeaways

• The claims were deemed ineligible under Section 101 because they did not provide a specific technical solution.
• The court's decision reaffirmed the importance of careful claim drafting and the need for claims to focus on tangible technological advancements.

Strategic Implications

Navigating Highly Saturated Patent Spaces

For companies operating in highly saturated patent spaces, it is crucial to conduct thorough patent landscape analyses to identify potential gaps and opportunities. This involves looking beyond immediate competitors and exploring alternative technologies that may offer clearer paths to patentability[4].

Long-Term Decision Making

Patent landscape analysis helps in making long-term strategic decisions about where to invest in research and development. By understanding the evolution of technology and the focus areas of competitors, companies can make informed decisions about which technologies to pursue and how to position themselves in the market[4].

Key Takeaways

• Section 101 Eligibility: Claims must be carefully drafted to avoid being classified as abstract ideas without an inventive concept.
• Representative Claims: The use of representative claims can streamline Section 101 analysis but requires careful argumentation to avoid forfeiting eligibility arguments.
• Patent Landscape Analysis: This analysis is crucial for understanding market saturation, identifying competitors, and making strategic decisions about research and development.
• Claim Specificity: Claims must be specific and focus on tangible technological advancements rather than abstract data manipulation.

FAQs

What is the significance of the Alice/Mayo framework in patent eligibility analysis?

The Alice/Mayo framework is a two-step inquiry used to determine whether patent claims are eligible under Section 101 of the US Patent Act. It helps in distinguishing between abstract ideas and patent-eligible inventions by assessing whether the claims add enough to transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application[3].

How does the use of representative claims impact Section 101 analysis?

Representative claims can streamline the validity challenge by focusing on a single claim that is substantially similar and linked to the same ineligible concept as the other claims in the group. However, the patent owner must provide a non-frivolous argument against the classification of claims as representative to avoid forfeiting eligibility arguments[2].

What are the key components of a patent landscape analysis?

A patent landscape analysis involves determining the saturation level of a specific technology area, identifying competitors, understanding the evolution of technology, and making long-term decisions about where to focus research and development efforts. It provides a comprehensive view of the patent landscape beyond individual patentability searches[4].

Why is claim specificity important in avoiding Section 101 rejections?

Claim specificity is crucial because it ensures that the claims themselves provide the necessary technical details to support patent eligibility. Overly broad or generic claims that focus on abstract data manipulation are likely to be rejected under Section 101[1][5].

How can companies navigate highly saturated patent spaces?

Companies can navigate highly saturated patent spaces by conducting thorough patent landscape analyses to identify potential gaps and opportunities. This involves looking beyond immediate competitors and exploring alternative technologies that may offer clearer paths to patentability[4].

Sources

1. Gadgetsgigabytesandgoodwill: "101 Whack-a-Mole – Yet Another Software Patent Falls Victim to Section 101"
2. OBWB: "Representative Patent Claims in Alice/Mayo Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis"
3. IPWatchdog: "Flaws in the Supreme Court's §101 Precedent and Ways to Correct Them"
4. AcclaimIP: "Patent Landscape Analysis - Uncovering Strategic Insights"
5. CAFC: "AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC."

Details for Patent 10,130,632

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Llc	ATGAM	lymphocyte immune globulin, anti-thymocyte globulin (equine)	Injection	103676	December 04, 1996		2039-02-26
Janssen Biotech, Inc.	REMICADE	infliximab	For Injection	103772	August 24, 1998		2039-02-26
Immunex Corporation	ENBREL	etanercept	For Injection	103795	November 02, 1998		2039-02-26