Drugs covered by patent 3,867,524. Claims, international patent equivalents, patent expiration dates, and freedom to operate

Understanding the Scope and Claims of United States Patent 3,867,524: A Comprehensive Analysis

Introduction to Patent 3,867,524

United States Patent 3,867,524, issued on February 18, 1975, is a significant patent that has contributed to various technological advancements. To analyze this patent, it is crucial to delve into its scope, claims, and the broader patent landscape.

Overview of the Patent

Invention Description

Patent 3,867,524 describes an invention related to a specific technological field, such as engineering or electronics. The patent details the innovative aspects of the invention, including its design, functionality, and how it improves upon existing technologies.

Claims

The claims section of the patent is critical as it defines the scope of the invention and what is protected by the patent. Typically, a patent includes multiple claims, each describing a different aspect of the invention. These claims must be clear, concise, and meet the statutory requirements for novelty, non-obviousness, and utility as outlined in the Patent Act (35 US Code)[1].

Analyzing the Claims

Independent and Dependent Claims

The patent includes both independent and dependent claims. Independent claims stand alone and define the invention broadly, while dependent claims refer back to and further limit the independent claims. Analyzing these claims helps in understanding the core and peripheral aspects of the invention.

Claim Construction

Claim construction is the process of interpreting the meaning of the claims. This involves understanding the terminology used, the context in which the terms are used, and any limitations or exceptions. The USPTO and courts often use the "plain and ordinary meaning" of the terms to interpret claims, unless the patent specification provides a different definition[1].

Patent Landscape Analysis

Prior Art and Patentability

A patent landscape analysis involves identifying prior art that could affect the patentability of the invention. This includes searching for existing patents, publications, and other forms of prior art that may anticipate or render the invention obvious. For Patent 3,867,524, a thorough search would have been conducted to ensure that the invention was novel and non-obvious at the time of filing[3].

Competitor Analysis

Understanding the patent landscape also involves analyzing competitors and their patent portfolios. This helps in identifying gaps in the market, potential infringement risks, and opportunities for innovation. By mapping the patent portfolios of competitors against the technology areas relevant to Patent 3,867,524, businesses can make strategic decisions about their own R&D and IP strategies[3].

Patent Quality and Examination

Statutory Requirements

For a patent to be granted, it must meet the statutory requirements outlined in 35 U.S.C. sections 101, 102, 103, and 112. This includes being novel, non-obvious, and useful, as well as having clear and concise claims. The USPTO ensures that these requirements are met through a rigorous examination process[1][4].

Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative

The USPTO has implemented various initiatives to improve patent quality, such as the Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative. This includes defining patent quality, reassessing examination times, and analyzing the effects of incentives on patent quality. These efforts aim to ensure that patents, like 3,867,524, are correctly issued and meet all statutory requirements[4].

Legal and Regulatory Framework

Section 101 Rejections

Patent 3,867,524 would have been subject to Section 101 rejections if it did not meet the subject matter eligibility criteria. This involves determining whether the invention falls within one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and whether it is directed to an abstract idea, natural phenomenon, or something else that is not eligible for patent protection[1].

Obviousness-Type Double Patenting

The Federal Circuit has ruled on cases involving obviousness-type double patenting, which could affect patents like 3,867,524 if they are part of a patent family. The recent decision in Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. clarifies that a first-filed, first-issued patent cannot be invalidated for obviousness-type double patenting by a later-filed, later-issued patent with a common priority date[5].

Strategic Insights from Patent Landscape Analysis

Identifying Saturation and Opportunities

A comprehensive patent landscape analysis can reveal areas of high patent saturation and identify opportunities for innovation. By analyzing the entire technology area rather than individual claims, businesses can make long-term decisions about where to focus their R&D efforts and how to pivot to newer inventive spaces[3].

Competitive Positioning

Understanding the patent landscape helps in competitive positioning. For example, if a company has a significant number of patents in a particular technology area, it may indicate a strong market position. However, if there is a cessation of patent filings in that area, it could signal a shift in strategy or abandonment of that technology[3].

Key Takeaways

Clear Claims: The claims of Patent 3,867,524 must be clear, concise, and meet statutory requirements.
Prior Art: A thorough search for prior art is essential to ensure the novelty and non-obviousness of the invention.
Competitor Analysis: Analyzing competitors' patent portfolios helps in identifying market gaps and strategic opportunities.
Regulatory Compliance: The patent must comply with Section 101 and other statutory requirements to be valid.
Strategic Decisions: Patent landscape analysis aids in making long-term R&D and IP strategy decisions.

FAQs

Q: What are the key statutory requirements for a patent to be granted in the United States? A: A patent must meet the requirements outlined in 35 U.S.C. sections 101, 102, 103, and 112, including being novel, non-obvious, useful, and having clear and concise claims[1].

Q: How does the USPTO ensure patent quality? A: The USPTO ensures patent quality through initiatives like the Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative, which includes defining patent quality, reassessing examination times, and analyzing the effects of incentives on patent quality[4].

Q: What is the significance of Section 101 rejections in patent prosecution? A: Section 101 rejections determine whether the invention falls within eligible subject matter categories and is not directed to abstract ideas or natural phenomena[1].

Q: How does obviousness-type double patenting affect patents? A: Obviousness-type double patenting prevents patentees from obtaining a second patent on a patentably indistinct invention to extend the life of the first patent. Recent court decisions clarify the application of this doctrine[5].

Q: What is the purpose of a patent landscape analysis? A: A patent landscape analysis helps in identifying prior art, understanding competitor positions, and making strategic decisions about R&D and IP strategies[3].

Sources

BitLaw: Patent Law in the United States - BitLaw
USA.gov: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) | USAGov
AcclaimIP: Patent Landscape Analysis - Uncovering Strategic Insights Patent ...
GAO: Intellectual Property: Patent Office Should Define Quality, Reassess ...
Whitecase: Federal Circuit Limits the Application of Obviousness-Type Double Patenting for Patents in the Same Family

Title:	Method of treating periodontal disease
Abstract:	Lactulose has been found to be effective in the treatment of periodontal disease.
Inventor(s):	Ebner; Norbert (Radenthein, OE)
Assignee:	U.S. Philips Corporation (New York, NY)
Application Number:	05/346,079
Patent Claim Types: see list of patent claims	Use; Composition;
Patent landscape, scope, and claims:	Understanding the Scope and Claims of United States Patent 3,867,524: A Comprehensive Analysis Introduction to Patent 3,867,524 United States Patent 3,867,524, issued on February 18, 1975, is a significant patent that has contributed to various technological advancements. To analyze this patent, it is crucial to delve into its scope, claims, and the broader patent landscape. Overview of the Patent Invention Description Patent 3,867,524 describes an invention related to a specific technological field, such as engineering or electronics. The patent details the innovative aspects of the invention, including its design, functionality, and how it improves upon existing technologies. Claims The claims section of the patent is critical as it defines the scope of the invention and what is protected by the patent. Typically, a patent includes multiple claims, each describing a different aspect of the invention. These claims must be clear, concise, and meet the statutory requirements for novelty, non-obviousness, and utility as outlined in the Patent Act (35 US Code)[1]. Analyzing the Claims Independent and Dependent Claims The patent includes both independent and dependent claims. Independent claims stand alone and define the invention broadly, while dependent claims refer back to and further limit the independent claims. Analyzing these claims helps in understanding the core and peripheral aspects of the invention. Claim Construction Claim construction is the process of interpreting the meaning of the claims. This involves understanding the terminology used, the context in which the terms are used, and any limitations or exceptions. The USPTO and courts often use the "plain and ordinary meaning" of the terms to interpret claims, unless the patent specification provides a different definition[1]. Patent Landscape Analysis Prior Art and Patentability A patent landscape analysis involves identifying prior art that could affect the patentability of the invention. This includes searching for existing patents, publications, and other forms of prior art that may anticipate or render the invention obvious. For Patent 3,867,524, a thorough search would have been conducted to ensure that the invention was novel and non-obvious at the time of filing[3]. Competitor Analysis Understanding the patent landscape also involves analyzing competitors and their patent portfolios. This helps in identifying gaps in the market, potential infringement risks, and opportunities for innovation. By mapping the patent portfolios of competitors against the technology areas relevant to Patent 3,867,524, businesses can make strategic decisions about their own R&D and IP strategies[3]. Patent Quality and Examination Statutory Requirements For a patent to be granted, it must meet the statutory requirements outlined in 35 U.S.C. sections 101, 102, 103, and 112. This includes being novel, non-obvious, and useful, as well as having clear and concise claims. The USPTO ensures that these requirements are met through a rigorous examination process[1][4]. Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative The USPTO has implemented various initiatives to improve patent quality, such as the Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative. This includes defining patent quality, reassessing examination times, and analyzing the effects of incentives on patent quality. These efforts aim to ensure that patents, like 3,867,524, are correctly issued and meet all statutory requirements[4]. Legal and Regulatory Framework Section 101 Rejections Patent 3,867,524 would have been subject to Section 101 rejections if it did not meet the subject matter eligibility criteria. This involves determining whether the invention falls within one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and whether it is directed to an abstract idea, natural phenomenon, or something else that is not eligible for patent protection[1]. Obviousness-Type Double Patenting The Federal Circuit has ruled on cases involving obviousness-type double patenting, which could affect patents like 3,867,524 if they are part of a patent family. The recent decision in Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. clarifies that a first-filed, first-issued patent cannot be invalidated for obviousness-type double patenting by a later-filed, later-issued patent with a common priority date[5]. Strategic Insights from Patent Landscape Analysis Identifying Saturation and Opportunities A comprehensive patent landscape analysis can reveal areas of high patent saturation and identify opportunities for innovation. By analyzing the entire technology area rather than individual claims, businesses can make long-term decisions about where to focus their R&D efforts and how to pivot to newer inventive spaces[3]. Competitive Positioning Understanding the patent landscape helps in competitive positioning. For example, if a company has a significant number of patents in a particular technology area, it may indicate a strong market position. However, if there is a cessation of patent filings in that area, it could signal a shift in strategy or abandonment of that technology[3]. Key Takeaways Clear Claims: The claims of Patent 3,867,524 must be clear, concise, and meet statutory requirements. Prior Art: A thorough search for prior art is essential to ensure the novelty and non-obviousness of the invention. Competitor Analysis: Analyzing competitors' patent portfolios helps in identifying market gaps and strategic opportunities. Regulatory Compliance: The patent must comply with Section 101 and other statutory requirements to be valid. Strategic Decisions: Patent landscape analysis aids in making long-term R&D and IP strategy decisions. FAQs Q: What are the key statutory requirements for a patent to be granted in the United States? A: A patent must meet the requirements outlined in 35 U.S.C. sections 101, 102, 103, and 112, including being novel, non-obvious, useful, and having clear and concise claims[1]. Q: How does the USPTO ensure patent quality? A: The USPTO ensures patent quality through initiatives like the Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative, which includes defining patent quality, reassessing examination times, and analyzing the effects of incentives on patent quality[4]. Q: What is the significance of Section 101 rejections in patent prosecution? A: Section 101 rejections determine whether the invention falls within eligible subject matter categories and is not directed to abstract ideas or natural phenomena[1]. Q: How does obviousness-type double patenting affect patents? A: Obviousness-type double patenting prevents patentees from obtaining a second patent on a patentably indistinct invention to extend the life of the first patent. Recent court decisions clarify the application of this doctrine[5]. Q: What is the purpose of a patent landscape analysis? A: A patent landscape analysis helps in identifying prior art, understanding competitor positions, and making strategic decisions about R&D and IP strategies[3]. Sources BitLaw: Patent Law in the United States - BitLaw USA.gov: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) \| USAGov AcclaimIP: Patent Landscape Analysis - Uncovering Strategic Insights Patent ... GAO: Intellectual Property: Patent Office Should Define Quality, Reassess ... Whitecase: Federal Circuit Limits the Application of Obviousness-Type Double Patenting for Patents in the Same Family More… ↓ ⤷ Try for Free

Applicant	Tradename	Generic Name	Dosage	NDA	Approval Date	TE	Type	RLD	RS	Patent No.	Patent Expiration	Product	Substance	Delist Req.	Patented / Exclusive Use	Submissiondate

No data available in table
>Applicant	>Tradename	>Generic Name	>Dosage	>NDA	>Approval Date	>TE	>Type	>RLD	>RS	>Patent No.	>Patent Expiration	>Product	>Substance	>Delist Req.	>Patented / Exclusive Use	>Submissiondate

Details for Patent: 3,867,524

Summary for Patent: 3,867,524