When do biologic drug patents expire and when will biosimilars launch?

Comprehensive Analysis of the Claims and Patent Landscape for United States Patent 11,041,020

Introduction

Understanding the intricacies of a U.S. patent, such as the recently granted United States Patent 11,041,020, involves a detailed analysis of its claims, the patent landscape, and the broader legal and procedural context. This article will delve into these aspects, providing insights into the patent's validity, the challenges it may face, and the implications for inventors and policymakers.

Patent Claims and Subject Matter Eligibility

Understanding the Claims

To analyze the claims of United States Patent 11,041,020, it is crucial to determine whether they meet the criteria for patent eligibility under U.S. law. The Supreme Court's Alice/Mayo test, as outlined in the Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International decision, is a key framework here. This test involves two steps: first, determining whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon; and second, if so, whether the claims contain an inventive concept that transforms the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application[3].

Example from Similar Cases

For instance, in the case of Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., the court found that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of monitoring and analyzing data from disparate sources without any inventive concept that would make them patent-eligible[2].

Allowance Rates and Examination Process

Overview of the Examination Process

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) employs a rigorous examination process to evaluate patent applications. This process includes multiple stages, such as the first-action allowance rate, progenitor allowance rate, and family allowance rate. These metrics help in understanding the likelihood of a patent being granted and the complexity of the examination process[1].

Impact of Entity Size on Allowance Rates

Studies have shown that applications filed by small firms are less likely to be granted than those filed by large firms. This disparity can have significant implications for inventors and policymakers, highlighting the need for support mechanisms for smaller entities[1].

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and Inter Partes Review

Role of PTAB

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011 introduced significant changes to U.S. patent law, including the creation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). PTAB is empowered to hear administrative challenges to the validity of patents, such as Inter Partes Review (IPR). These mechanisms provide a post-grant review process that can impact the validity of patents like 11,041,020[3].

Challenges to Patent Validity

PTAB reviews focus on whether patent claims are directed to ineligible subject matter and whether they meet the novelty and nonobviousness requirements. If a patent is challenged through IPR, the PTAB will assess whether the claims are supported by sufficient evidence and whether they are novel and nonobvious compared to prior art[3].

Competitive Intelligence and Patent Landscape Analysis

Using Patent File Wrappers

Reviewing patent file wrappers can provide valuable insights into the prosecution history of a patent. This includes understanding the arguments made by examiners, the reasons for any rejections, and how the applicant responded. For example, a non-final rejection might highlight specific prior art that anticipates the claimed invention, which could be crucial in assessing the patent's validity[4].

Novelty and Nonobviousness Requirements

Novelty Requirement

For a patent to be granted, the claimed invention must be novel, meaning it must not have been patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. If every element of the claimed invention is already disclosed in prior art, no valid patent can be issued[3].

Nonobviousness Requirement

Even if an invention is novel, it must also be nonobvious. This means that the invention must be significantly different from existing knowledge in the field. The USPTO assesses whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field at the time of the invention[3].

Implications for Inventors and Policymakers

Support for Small Entities

The disparity in allowance rates between small and large firms highlights the need for policies that support smaller entities. This could include reduced fees, access to resources, and educational programs to help small inventors navigate the complex patent system[1].

Legal and Procedural Challenges

Inventors must be aware of the legal and procedural challenges that can arise during the patent application process. Understanding the Alice/Mayo test, the role of PTAB, and the importance of novelty and nonobviousness can help in drafting robust patent claims and preparing for potential challenges[2][3].

Case Study: Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.

Abstract Ideas and Inventive Concepts

The case of Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. serves as a cautionary tale for inventors. The court found that the claims were too broad and lacked an inventive concept, leading to a summary judgment against the patent holder. This underscores the importance of ensuring that patent claims are specific and transformative[2].

"The claims therefore do not state an arguably inventive concept in the realm of application of the information-based abstract ideas." - _Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A._[2]

Key Takeaways

Subject Matter Eligibility: Ensure that patent claims are not directed to abstract ideas, laws of nature, or natural phenomena without an inventive concept.
Allowance Rates: Understand the impact of entity size on allowance rates and the various metrics used to evaluate the examination process.
PTAB and IPR: Be aware of the post-grant review processes that can challenge the validity of patents.
Competitive Intelligence: Use patent file wrappers to gain insights into the prosecution history of patents.
Novelty and Nonobviousness: Ensure that the claimed invention meets the novelty and nonobviousness requirements.

FAQs

What is the Alice/Mayo test, and how does it impact patent eligibility?

The Alice/Mayo test is a two-step framework used to determine whether patent claims are eligible for patenting. It first checks if the claims are directed to an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon, and then determines if the claims contain an inventive concept that transforms the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application[3].

How does the size of the entity filing a patent application affect the allowance rate?

Studies have shown that applications filed by small firms are less likely to be granted than those filed by large firms. This disparity highlights the need for support mechanisms for smaller entities[1].

What is the role of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in patent law?

PTAB is a tribunal within the USPTO that hears administrative challenges to the validity of patents, including Inter Partes Review (IPR). It assesses whether patent claims are directed to ineligible subject matter and whether they meet the novelty and nonobviousness requirements[3].

Why is it important to review patent file wrappers?

Reviewing patent file wrappers provides valuable insights into the prosecution history of a patent, including arguments made by examiners, reasons for rejections, and applicant responses. This can be crucial in assessing the patent's validity and preparing for potential challenges[4].

What are the novelty and nonobviousness requirements for patentability?

For a patent to be granted, the claimed invention must be novel (not previously patented, published, or publicly available) and nonobvious (significantly different from existing knowledge in the field). These requirements ensure that only truly innovative inventions are patented[3].

Sources

Carley, M., & Hegde, D. (n.d.). What Is the Probability of Receiving a US Patent?. The Yale Journal of Law & Technology.
Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (2016). CAFC.
Congressional Research Service. (2024). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Inter Partes Review. CRS Reports.
IP Checkups. (2023). Patent file wrappers as a tool for competitive intelligence. IP Checkups.

Title:	Methods for the treatment of active Psoriatic Arthritis
Abstract:	The present invention relates to compositions and methods utilizing anti-TNF antibodies having a heavy chain (HC) comprising SEQ ID NO:36 and a light chain (LC) comprising SEQ ID NO:37 for use in the safe and effective treatment of active Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA).
Inventor(s):	Harrison Diane D., Hsia Elizabeth C., Kim Lee-Lian, Lo Kim Hung
Assignee:	JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC.
Application Number:	US16517594
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims
Patent landscape, scope, and claims summary:	Comprehensive Analysis of the Claims and Patent Landscape for United States Patent 11,041,020 Introduction Understanding the intricacies of a U.S. patent, such as the recently granted United States Patent 11,041,020, involves a detailed analysis of its claims, the patent landscape, and the broader legal and procedural context. This article will delve into these aspects, providing insights into the patent's validity, the challenges it may face, and the implications for inventors and policymakers. Patent Claims and Subject Matter Eligibility Understanding the Claims To analyze the claims of United States Patent 11,041,020, it is crucial to determine whether they meet the criteria for patent eligibility under U.S. law. The Supreme Court's Alice/Mayo test, as outlined in the Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International decision, is a key framework here. This test involves two steps: first, determining whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon; and second, if so, whether the claims contain an inventive concept that transforms the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application[3]. Example from Similar Cases For instance, in the case of Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., the court found that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of monitoring and analyzing data from disparate sources without any inventive concept that would make them patent-eligible[2]. Allowance Rates and Examination Process Overview of the Examination Process The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) employs a rigorous examination process to evaluate patent applications. This process includes multiple stages, such as the first-action allowance rate, progenitor allowance rate, and family allowance rate. These metrics help in understanding the likelihood of a patent being granted and the complexity of the examination process[1]. Impact of Entity Size on Allowance Rates Studies have shown that applications filed by small firms are less likely to be granted than those filed by large firms. This disparity can have significant implications for inventors and policymakers, highlighting the need for support mechanisms for smaller entities[1]. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and Inter Partes Review Role of PTAB The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011 introduced significant changes to U.S. patent law, including the creation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). PTAB is empowered to hear administrative challenges to the validity of patents, such as Inter Partes Review (IPR). These mechanisms provide a post-grant review process that can impact the validity of patents like 11,041,020[3]. Challenges to Patent Validity PTAB reviews focus on whether patent claims are directed to ineligible subject matter and whether they meet the novelty and nonobviousness requirements. If a patent is challenged through IPR, the PTAB will assess whether the claims are supported by sufficient evidence and whether they are novel and nonobvious compared to prior art[3]. Competitive Intelligence and Patent Landscape Analysis Using Patent File Wrappers Reviewing patent file wrappers can provide valuable insights into the prosecution history of a patent. This includes understanding the arguments made by examiners, the reasons for any rejections, and how the applicant responded. For example, a non-final rejection might highlight specific prior art that anticipates the claimed invention, which could be crucial in assessing the patent's validity[4]. Novelty and Nonobviousness Requirements Novelty Requirement For a patent to be granted, the claimed invention must be novel, meaning it must not have been patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. If every element of the claimed invention is already disclosed in prior art, no valid patent can be issued[3]. Nonobviousness Requirement Even if an invention is novel, it must also be nonobvious. This means that the invention must be significantly different from existing knowledge in the field. The USPTO assesses whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field at the time of the invention[3]. Implications for Inventors and Policymakers Support for Small Entities The disparity in allowance rates between small and large firms highlights the need for policies that support smaller entities. This could include reduced fees, access to resources, and educational programs to help small inventors navigate the complex patent system[1]. Legal and Procedural Challenges Inventors must be aware of the legal and procedural challenges that can arise during the patent application process. Understanding the Alice/Mayo test, the role of PTAB, and the importance of novelty and nonobviousness can help in drafting robust patent claims and preparing for potential challenges[2][3]. Case Study: Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. Abstract Ideas and Inventive Concepts The case of Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. serves as a cautionary tale for inventors. The court found that the claims were too broad and lacked an inventive concept, leading to a summary judgment against the patent holder. This underscores the importance of ensuring that patent claims are specific and transformative[2]. "The claims therefore do not state an arguably inventive concept in the realm of application of the information-based abstract ideas." - _Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A._[2] Key Takeaways Subject Matter Eligibility: Ensure that patent claims are not directed to abstract ideas, laws of nature, or natural phenomena without an inventive concept. Allowance Rates: Understand the impact of entity size on allowance rates and the various metrics used to evaluate the examination process. PTAB and IPR: Be aware of the post-grant review processes that can challenge the validity of patents. Competitive Intelligence: Use patent file wrappers to gain insights into the prosecution history of patents. Novelty and Nonobviousness: Ensure that the claimed invention meets the novelty and nonobviousness requirements. FAQs What is the Alice/Mayo test, and how does it impact patent eligibility? The Alice/Mayo test is a two-step framework used to determine whether patent claims are eligible for patenting. It first checks if the claims are directed to an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon, and then determines if the claims contain an inventive concept that transforms the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application[3]. How does the size of the entity filing a patent application affect the allowance rate? Studies have shown that applications filed by small firms are less likely to be granted than those filed by large firms. This disparity highlights the need for support mechanisms for smaller entities[1]. What is the role of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in patent law? PTAB is a tribunal within the USPTO that hears administrative challenges to the validity of patents, including Inter Partes Review (IPR). It assesses whether patent claims are directed to ineligible subject matter and whether they meet the novelty and nonobviousness requirements[3]. Why is it important to review patent file wrappers? Reviewing patent file wrappers provides valuable insights into the prosecution history of a patent, including arguments made by examiners, reasons for rejections, and applicant responses. This can be crucial in assessing the patent's validity and preparing for potential challenges[4]. What are the novelty and nonobviousness requirements for patentability? For a patent to be granted, the claimed invention must be novel (not previously patented, published, or publicly available) and nonobvious (significantly different from existing knowledge in the field). These requirements ensure that only truly innovative inventions are patented[3]. Sources Carley, M., & Hegde, D. (n.d.). What Is the Probability of Receiving a US Patent?. The Yale Journal of Law & Technology. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (2016). CAFC. Congressional Research Service. (2024). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Inter Partes Review. CRS Reports. IP Checkups. (2023). Patent file wrappers as a tool for competitive intelligence. IP Checkups. More… ↓ ⤷ Subscribe

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Janssen Biotech, Inc.	SIMPONI ARIA	golimumab	Injection	125433	July 18, 2013	⤷ Subscribe	2039-07-20
>Applicant	>Tradename	>Biologic Ingredient	>Dosage Form	>BLA	>Approval Date	>Patent No.	>Expiredate

Patent: 11,041,020

Summary for Patent: 11,041,020