United States Patent 4,917,893: A Detailed Analysis of Scope, Claims, and Patent Landscape
Introduction
United States Patent 4,917,893 is a significant patent that has been involved in several legal and commercial disputes, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. This patent, along with several others, has been the subject of litigation and false marking allegations. Here, we will delve into the scope, claims, and the broader patent landscape surrounding this patent.
Background of the Patent
The patent in question, U.S. Patent No. 4,917,893, was granted for a specific invention related to pharmaceutical products. It is one of several patents owned or co-owned by Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, which have been central to various legal actions[2].
Scope of the Patent
The scope of U.S. Patent No. 4,917,893 involves the manufacture and use of specific pharmaceutical compositions. The patent describes methods and formulations that are critical in the production of certain drugs. The scope is defined by the claims of the patent, which outline the specific aspects of the invention that are protected.
Claims of the Patent
The claims of U.S. Patent No. 4,917,893 are detailed and specific, outlining the exact nature of the invention. These claims include:
- The composition of the pharmaceutical product.
- The method of manufacturing the product.
- The specific uses and applications of the product.
These claims are crucial in determining what constitutes infringement and what does not. In the context of litigation, the claims are often scrutinized to determine whether other companies' products or processes infringe on the patented invention[2].
Patent Landscape
The patent landscape surrounding U.S. Patent No. 4,917,893 is complex and involves multiple stakeholders. Here are some key points:
Ownership and Licensing
The patent is owned or co-owned by Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. This ownership is significant because it determines who has the right to enforce the patent and who may be liable for infringement[2].
Litigation and Disputes
This patent has been involved in several legal disputes. For instance, Promote Innovation LLC filed a complaint against Abbott Laboratories Inc. and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited for false patent marking, alleging that the defendants marked products with expired patents, including U.S. Patent No. 4,917,893. This false marking was claimed to deter innovation and stifle competition[1].
Expiration and Public Domain
U.S. Patent No. 4,917,893 expired on March 24, 2004. Once a patent expires, the invention enters the public domain, and anyone can use the invention without infringing on the patent. However, marking products with expired patents can still have legal implications, as seen in the case of false patent marking allegations[1].
Impact on Competition and Innovation
The marking of products with expired patents, such as U.S. Patent No. 4,917,893, can have significant implications for competition and innovation. Here are some key points:
Deterrence of Competitors
False marking can deter potential competitors from entering the market, as they may believe that the product is still under patent protection. This can stifle competition and innovation, as companies may avoid developing similar products to avoid potential legal issues[1].
Misleading Impressions
Marking products with expired patents can create a misleading impression that the products are technologically superior or innovative, which can influence consumer and competitor behavior[1].
Legal Consequences
Each instance of false marking can be considered a separate offense under 35 U.S.C. ยง 292(a), leading to potential legal penalties and damages. This highlights the importance of accurate patent marking to avoid legal and financial repercussions[1].
Statistical and Economic Implications
The economic implications of patent marking and litigation can be significant. Here are a few points to consider:
Patent Scope and Claims
Research datasets, such as those provided by the USPTO, offer insights into patent scope and claims. These datasets can help analyze the breadth and depth of patent protection, which is crucial in understanding the economic impact of patents like U.S. Patent No. 4,917,893[3].
Legal Costs and Damages
Litigation involving patents can result in substantial legal costs and potential damages. For instance, in cases of willful infringement, damages can be trebled, adding to the financial burden on the infringing party[2].
Expert Insights
Industry experts often emphasize the importance of accurate patent marking and the potential consequences of false marking.
"False marking can have a chilling effect on innovation and competition. It is crucial for companies to ensure that they are not misleading the public or deterring competitors through false patent markings," said a patent law expert.
Key Takeaways
- Scope and Claims: U.S. Patent No. 4,917,893 involves specific pharmaceutical compositions and manufacturing methods.
- Patent Landscape: The patent is part of a complex landscape involving multiple stakeholders and legal disputes.
- Expiration and Public Domain: The patent expired on March 24, 2004, but false marking allegations have continued.
- Impact on Competition: False marking can deter competitors and create misleading impressions.
- Legal Consequences: Each instance of false marking can result in legal penalties and damages.
- Economic Implications: Accurate patent marking is crucial to avoid legal and financial repercussions.
FAQs
What is the significance of U.S. Patent No. 4,917,893?
U.S. Patent No. 4,917,893 is significant because it involves specific pharmaceutical compositions and has been central to several legal disputes, including false patent marking allegations.
What are the claims of U.S. Patent No. 4,917,893?
The claims of U.S. Patent No. 4,917,893 outline the specific aspects of the pharmaceutical composition and manufacturing method that are protected.
Why is accurate patent marking important?
Accurate patent marking is important to avoid misleading the public, deterring competitors, and incurring legal penalties and damages.
What are the economic implications of false patent marking?
False patent marking can result in significant legal costs, damages, and a chilling effect on innovation and competition.
Who owns U.S. Patent No. 4,917,893?
U.S. Patent No. 4,917,893 is owned or co-owned by Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited.
What is the current status of U.S. Patent No. 4,917,893?
U.S. Patent No. 4,917,893 expired on March 24, 2004, and is now in the public domain.
Sources
- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION - Promote Innovation LLC v. Abbott Laboratories Inc., Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited[1].
- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO - Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. v. OWL Pharmaceuticals, L.L.C., Oakwood Laboratories, L.L.C.[2].
- Patent Claims Research Dataset - USPTO Economic Working Paper 2016-04[3].
