Patent: 10,806,755

Summary for Patent: 10,806,755

Title:	Plasma-supplemented formulation
Abstract:	Provided herein is a plasma-supplemented fibrinogen and/or fibrin formulation, method for the preparation and use thereof.
Inventor(s):	Meidler Roberto, Grimberg Elena, Belyaev Oleg, Tiberman Yonit, Nur Israel, Auerbach-Nevo Tamar
Assignee:	Omrix Biopharmaceuticals, Ltd.
Application Number:	US14631099
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims

Understanding the Scope and Claims of United States Patent 10,806,755: A Detailed Analysis

Introduction

Patent 10,806,755, like any other patent, is subject to a complex set of rules and guidelines that define its scope and claims. To understand this patent, it is crucial to delve into the broader patent landscape in the United States, particularly focusing on recent updates and legal precedents.

The Importance of Claim Scope

The scope of a patent claim is pivotal in determining the patent's validity and enforceability. A common misconception is that broader claims are always better, but this is not the case. Broader claims can be more difficult to get granted and are easier to invalidate due to the abstract idea exception and failure to meet the written description requirement[5].

Recent USPTO Guidance on AI Patents

The 2024 USPTO guidance update on AI patents provides critical clarifications that are relevant to understanding the scope and claims of any patent, including 10,806,755. This update emphasizes the integration of judicial exceptions into practical applications and the importance of demonstrating concrete technological improvements. For AI-related inventions, the method of invention development, including the use of AI, does not impact subject matter eligibility; instead, the focus remains on the claimed invention itself[1].

Subject Matter Eligibility

Subject matter eligibility is a key aspect of patent law, particularly under Section 101 of the Patent Act. The 2024 USPTO guidance highlights that claims must integrate judicial exceptions (such as abstract ideas) into practical applications. For example, a claim that merely uses a mathematical model to manipulate data without a specific practical application would not be patent-eligible. However, if the claim specifies the use of the data in a real-world application, such as improving speech recognition systems, it would be considered patent-eligible[1].

Practical Applications and Technological Improvements

To ensure patent eligibility, claims must demonstrate practical applications that provide tangible benefits. For instance, if a claim involves routine data processing without any inventive concept or practical application, it would not meet the criteria for patent eligibility. In contrast, claims that specify the use of separated audio components in a real-time speech recognition system to enhance accuracy would be considered patent-eligible due to the clear technological improvement and practical application[1].

Enablement Requirement

The enablement requirement, as outlined in Section 112 of the Patent Act, is another crucial factor. This requirement mandates that a patent applicant describe the invention in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the invention. The Supreme Court's decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi emphasizes that patents must provide sufficient detail to avoid being overly broad and invalid under this requirement[4].

Claim Drafting Strategies

When drafting claims, it is essential to balance breadth with specificity. Claims should be anchored to the embodiments disclosed in the specification to avoid invalidation grounds such as the abstract idea exception. The Federal Circuit has consistently ruled that claims must specify a particular means or method that improves the relevant technology, rather than merely invoking generic processes and machinery[5].

Measuring Patent Scope

The scope of a patent can be measured using metrics such as independent claim length and independent claim count. These metrics can help in understanding the breadth of the patent and its likelihood of being granted. Narrower claims are often associated with a higher probability of grant and a shorter examination process[3].

Case Law and Precedents

Recent case law, such as Yu v. Apple Inc. and Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., provides valuable insights into the risks of overly broad claims. These cases illustrate how claims that are too broad can be invalidated due to the abstract idea exception and other grounds. Understanding these precedents is crucial for drafting claims that are both broad enough to offer protection and narrow enough to be valid[5].

Specific Analysis of Patent 10,806,755

To conduct a detailed analysis of Patent 10,806,755, one would need to review the specific claims and descriptions provided in the patent. Here are some key steps:

Reviewing the Claims

• Analyze each claim to determine if it integrates judicial exceptions into practical applications.
• Check if the claims specify real-world applications that provide tangible benefits.
• Ensure that the claims are not overly broad and are anchored to the embodiments disclosed in the specification.

Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility

• Assess whether the claims meet the criteria for subject matter eligibility under Section 101.
• Determine if the claims involve routine data processing without any inventive concept or practical application.

Checking Enablement

• Verify that the patent description meets the enablement requirement under Section 112.
• Ensure that the description is sufficient for a person skilled in the art to make and use the invention.

Measuring Scope

• Use metrics such as independent claim length and independent claim count to understand the breadth of the patent.
• Compare these metrics with industry standards to assess the patent's strength.

Key Takeaways

• Balanced Claim Scope: Ensure claims are neither too broad nor too narrow, balancing protection with validity.
• Practical Applications: Claims must specify real-world applications that provide tangible benefits.
• Enablement: The patent description must be detailed enough to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the invention.
• Recent Guidance: The 2024 USPTO guidance on AI patents emphasizes integrating judicial exceptions into practical applications.
• Case Law: Recent cases highlight the risks of overly broad claims and the importance of specificity.

FAQs

What is the significance of the 2024 USPTO guidance update on AI patents?

The 2024 USPTO guidance update clarifies the process for determining the patent eligibility of AI-related inventions, emphasizing the integration of judicial exceptions into practical applications and ensuring that AI-assisted inventions are evaluated on equal footing with other technologies.

How does the enablement requirement impact patent claims?

The enablement requirement mandates that a patent applicant describe the invention in such detail that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention. This helps in avoiding overly broad claims that might be invalidated.

Why is it important to balance claim scope?

Balancing claim scope is crucial because overly broad claims are easier to invalidate, while overly narrow claims may not offer sufficient protection. The right balance ensures the patent is both valid and enforceable.

What metrics can be used to measure patent scope?

Metrics such as independent claim length and independent claim count can be used to measure patent scope, helping to understand the breadth of the patent and its likelihood of being granted.

How do recent court decisions influence patent claim drafting?

Recent court decisions, such as Yu v. Apple Inc. and Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., highlight the risks of overly broad claims and emphasize the need for specificity in claim drafting to avoid invalidation.

Sources

1. Understanding the 2024 USPTO Guidance Update on AI Patent - Mintz
2. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) - USA.gov
3. Patent Claims and Patent Scope - SSRN
4. Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi - Supreme Court
5. The Importance of Getting the Claim Scope Right in a US Patent Application - Rimon Law

Details for Patent 10,806,755

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Kedrion Biopharma Inc.	RYPLAZIM	plasminogen, human-tvmh	For Injection	125659	June 04, 2021		2035-02-25