You're using a free limited version of DrugPatentWatch: Upgrade for Complete Access

Last Updated: December 25, 2024

Patent: 10,557,115


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


Summary for Patent: 10,557,115
Title:Medium containing uridine and N-acetyl-D-mannosamine
Abstract: Provided are a novel medium for expressing glycoproteins by culturing cells and a method for producing glycoproteins by culturing cells in the medium. Further provided are a medium comprising uridine and N-acetyl-D-mannosamine for the use of expression of a glycoprotein by culturing cells and a method for producing glycoproteins by culturing cells in for medium.
Inventor(s): Matev; Miroslav (Kobe, JP), Takahashi; Kenichi (Kobe, JP), Kakimoto; Shinji (Kobe, JP), Kotani; Ayaka (Kobe, JP)
Assignee: JCR Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. (Ashiya-shi, JP)
Application Number:16/364,304
Patent Claims:see list of patent claims
Patent landscape, scope, and claims summary:

Understanding the Claims and Patent Landscape of United States Patent 10,557,115

Introduction

Patents are a cornerstone of intellectual property law, providing inventors with exclusive rights to their inventions for a limited period. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) plays a crucial role in evaluating patent applications and granting patents. This article delves into the specifics of United States Patent 10,557,115, analyzing its claims and the broader patent landscape in which it exists.

What Are Patents?

Patents are granted by the USPTO and give their holders the exclusive right to make, use, sell, offer to sell, or import their inventions for a period of 20 years from the date the patent application was filed[1].

The Role of the USPTO

The USPTO is responsible for evaluating patent applications and granting patents on qualifying inventions. This process involves determining whether the patent application meets the requirements for eligible subject matter, novelty, nonobviousness, and utility[1].

Drafting Patent Claims

Patent claims are the heart of a patent application, as they define the scope of the invention. A nonprovisional patent application must have at least one claim that particularly points out and distinctly defines the invention. Claims can be written in independent or dependent form, with dependent claims referring to and further limiting the claimed invention[4].

The America Invents Act (AIA) and PTAB

The 2011 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) significantly altered U.S. patent law by creating the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). PTAB is a tribunal within the USPTO that hears administrative challenges to the validity of patents, including inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR)[1].

Inter Partes Review (IPR)

IPR is a process established by the AIA that allows parties to challenge the validity of a patent before the PTAB. This process is often more efficient and cost-effective than litigating in federal court, where the average legal costs can exceed $1 million and the process can take several years[1].

The Importance of PTAB Review

PTAB review is critical for maintaining the integrity of the U.S. patent system and the American manufacturing economy. It serves as an affordable alternative to defending against frivolous lawsuits and ensures that only valid patents are enforced. Over 40% of challenged U.S. patents have been found invalid through PTAB review[3].

Challenges in the Patent Landscape

The increasing number of patent applications and claims poses significant challenges. From 1963 to 1983, approximately 100,000 patent applications were filed annually, whereas in 2001, over 326,508 applications were filed. This trend is driven by technological innovation and facilitated by advancements in technology such as word processing and electronic database searching[2].

Analyzing United States Patent 10,557,115

Claim Structure and Scope

To analyze the claims of United States Patent 10,557,115, one must examine the claim structure and scope. Each claim should be a single sentence, numbered consecutively, and either independent or dependent. The claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the invention, providing clear support from the detailed description of the patent application[4].

Eligibility and Validity

The patent must meet the eligibility requirements, including being directed to eligible subject matter, novel, nonobvious, and useful. The claims must not be too specific or too general, and they must be supported by the detailed description to ensure they are patentable[1].

Prior Art and Novelty

The patent must be novel, meaning it must not be anticipated by prior art. The PTAB and courts use a higher standard of proof (clear and convincing evidence) to determine patent invalidity compared to other civil litigation issues (preponderance of the evidence)[1].

Nonobviousness

The invention must also be nonobvious, meaning it must be significantly different from existing technology. The Alice/Mayo test is used to determine if the patent claims have an "inventive concept" that transforms the nature of the ineligible subject matter[1].

Impact of PTAB Review on Patent Validity

PTAB review can significantly impact the validity of patents. If a patent is challenged through IPR or PGR, the PTAB may find the patent invalid if it does not meet the required standards. This process is crucial for ensuring that only valid patents are enforced, which helps in maintaining the integrity of the patent system[3].

Current Debates and Proposed Reforms

There are ongoing debates and proposed reforms regarding PTAB review, such as the PREVAIL Act. This act proposes several changes that could limit the effectiveness of PTAB review, including blocking certain parties from seeking review and prohibiting the consideration of prior art that was not evaluated by the USPTO. These changes could harm U.S. businesses and consumers by allowing invalid patents to be enforced[3].

Economic and Social Implications

The enforcement of invalid patents can have significant economic and social implications. It can lead to increased costs for products and services, harm U.S. competitiveness, and discourage innovation. The PTAB review process has been found to create benefits to the U.S. economy, including reducing the cost of defending against frivolous lawsuits and promoting technological progress[3].

Key Takeaways

  • Patent Claims: The claims of a patent define its scope and must meet specific requirements to be valid.
  • PTAB Review: The PTAB plays a critical role in ensuring the validity of patents through IPR and PGR.
  • Economic Impact: The enforcement of invalid patents can have significant economic implications, including increased costs and reduced innovation.
  • Current Debates: Proposed reforms like the PREVAIL Act could limit the effectiveness of PTAB review, potentially harming U.S. businesses and consumers.
  • Importance of Validity: Ensuring that only valid patents are enforced is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the patent system.

FAQs

Q: What is the role of the PTAB in the U.S. patent system? A: The PTAB is a tribunal within the USPTO that hears administrative challenges to the validity of patents, including inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR)[1].

Q: How does the AIA impact patent litigation? A: The AIA introduced IPR and PGR, providing a more efficient and cost-effective alternative to litigating patent validity in federal court[1].

Q: What are the eligibility requirements for a patent? A: A patent must be directed to eligible subject matter, novel, nonobvious, and useful. It must also meet the requirements for specification and claims[1].

Q: Why is PTAB review important for the U.S. economy? A: PTAB review helps maintain the integrity of the patent system, reduces the cost of defending against frivolous lawsuits, and promotes technological progress[3].

Q: What are the potential impacts of the PREVAIL Act on the patent system? A: The PREVAIL Act could limit the effectiveness of PTAB review, allowing invalid patents to be enforced, which could harm U.S. businesses and consumers and increase costs for products and services[3].

Sources

  1. Congressional Research Service, "The Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Inter Partes Review," Updated May 28, 2024.
  2. Google Patents, "US20110138338A1 - Patent Claims Analysis System and Method."
  3. BSA, "US: Joint Letter to Congress re PREVAIL Act," September 17, 2024.
  4. USPTO, "Learn how to draft a patent application," Final Version.

More… ↓

⤷  Subscribe

Details for Patent 10,557,115

Applicant Tradename Biologic Ingredient Dosage Form BLA Approval Date Patent No. Expiredate
Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc. NAGLAZYME galsulfase Injection 125117 May 31, 2005 10,557,115 2034-05-31
>Applicant >Tradename >Biologic Ingredient >Dosage Form >BLA >Approval Date >Patent No. >Expiredate

Make Better Decisions: Try a trial or see plans & pricing

Drugs may be covered by multiple patents or regulatory protections. All trademarks and applicant names are the property of their respective owners or licensors. Although great care is taken in the proper and correct provision of this service, thinkBiotech LLC does not accept any responsibility for possible consequences of errors or omissions in the provided data. The data presented herein is for information purposes only. There is no warranty that the data contained herein is error free. thinkBiotech performs no independent verification of facts as provided by public sources nor are attempts made to provide legal or investing advice. Any reliance on data provided herein is done solely at the discretion of the user. Users of this service are advised to seek professional advice and independent confirmation before considering acting on any of the provided information. thinkBiotech LLC reserves the right to amend, extend or withdraw any part or all of the offered service without notice.