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

Last Updated: March 16, 2025

Details for Patent: 7,645,459


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


Which drugs does patent 7,645,459 protect, and when does it expire?

Patent 7,645,459 protects ATELVIA and is included in one NDA.

This patent has eighty-five patent family members in thirty-three countries.

Summary for Patent: 7,645,459
Title:Dosage forms of bisphosphonates
Abstract:Oral dosage forms of a bisphosphonate comprised of a safe and effective amount of a pharmaceutical composition comprising a bisphosphonate, a chelating agent, and, means for effecting delayed release of the bisphosphonate and the chelating agent in the lower gastrointestinal tract provide delivery of the pharmaceutical composition to the lower gastrointestinal tract of the mammal subject and pharmaceutically effective absorption of the bisphosphonate with or without food or beverages. The present invention substantially alleviates the interaction between bisphosphonates and food or beverages, which interaction results in the bisphosphonate active ingredient not being available for absorption. The resulting oral dosage form may thus be taken with or without food. Further, the present invention effects delivery of the bisphosphonate and the chelating agent to the lower GI tract, substantially alleviating the upper GI irritation associated with bisphosphonate therapies. These benefits simplify previously complex treatment regimens and can lead to increased patient compliance with bisphosphonate therapies.
Inventor(s): Dansereau; Richard John (Cilncinnati, OH), Burgio, Jr.; David Ernest (Liberty Township, OH)
Assignee: The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, OH)
Application Number:11/106,816
Patent Litigation and PTAB cases: See patent lawsuits and PTAB cases for patent 7,645,459
Patent Claim Types:
see list of patent claims
Compound; Dosage form; Delivery; Use;
Patent landscape, scope, and claims:

United States Patent 7,645,459: A Detailed Analysis of Scope and Claims

Introduction

United States Patent 7,645,459, hereafter referred to as the '459 patent, is a significant patent in the pharmaceutical industry, particularly in the treatment of diseases characterized by abnormal calcium and phosphate metabolism. This patent, owned by Warner Chilcott Company, LLC, and Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, has been at the center of several legal battles, most notably against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Here, we will delve into the scope, claims, and the patent landscape surrounding this patent.

Background

The '459 patent is directed to oral dosage forms comprising risedronate (a bisphosphonate) and disodium ethylene-diaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), and methods of treating diseases such as osteoporosis. The commercial embodiment of this patent is Atelvia®, an oral formulation containing 35 mg risedronate and 100 mg EDTA[5].

Patent Claims

The '459 patent includes multiple claims, but the focus has often been on specific claims that were challenged in court.

Claim 16

Claim 16 of the '459 patent is one of the asserted claims that were central to the litigation. This claim specifies the composition and method of treating diseases characterized by abnormal calcium and phosphate metabolism using the combination of risedronate and EDTA. Here is a simplified overview of what this claim entails:

  • Composition: An oral dosage form containing risedronate and EDTA.
  • Method: A method for treating diseases such as osteoporosis using this composition.

Claim Structure

Patent claims are structured to define the scope of the invention. Independent claims, like Claim 16, stand alone and define the broadest scope of the invention. Dependent claims, on the other hand, build upon the independent claims and add additional limitations, narrowing the scope[3].

Patent Scope and Validity

The scope of a patent is crucial in determining its validity and enforceability. The '459 patent has faced challenges regarding its scope and validity, particularly in the context of obviousness.

Obviousness

In patent law, a claim is considered invalid as obvious if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art. The district court and subsequent appeals determined that Claim 16 of the '459 patent and Claim 20 of the related '460 patent were invalid for obviousness[2][5].

Litigation and Judicial Rulings

The '459 patent was at the center of a significant litigation between Warner Chilcott and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

Warner Chilcott v. Teva Pharmaceuticals

Teva filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the FDA, seeking approval for a generic version of Atelvia®, which led Warner Chilcott to file a lawsuit alleging infringement of the '459 and '460 patents. The district court conducted a bench trial and concluded that the asserted claims (Claim 16 of the '459 patent and Claim 20 of the '460 patent) were invalid as obvious. This decision was affirmed on appeal[2][5].

Impact on Patent Landscape

The invalidation of these claims has significant implications for the patent landscape in the pharmaceutical industry.

Patent Quality and Scope

The debate over patent quality often revolves around the breadth and clarity of patent claims. The '459 patent case highlights the importance of ensuring that patent claims are not overly broad and are clearly distinguishable from prior art. Metrics such as independent claim length and count can be used to measure patent scope and predict the likelihood of grant and the duration of the examination process[3].

Licensing and Litigation

The invalidation of these claims reduces the barriers to entry for generic manufacturers, potentially increasing competition and reducing costs for consumers. However, it also underscores the challenges faced by innovator companies in protecting their intellectual property and the need for robust patent strategies to mitigate such risks[4].

Key Takeaways

  • Patent Claims: The '459 patent includes specific claims related to the composition and method of treating diseases using risedronate and EDTA.
  • Validity: The patent faced challenges regarding obviousness, with the court ruling that Claim 16 and related claims were invalid.
  • Litigation: The case involved significant litigation between Warner Chilcott and Teva Pharmaceuticals, with the district court's decision being affirmed on appeal.
  • Impact: The invalidation affects the patent landscape by emphasizing the need for clear and distinguishable claims and highlights the ongoing debate over patent quality.

FAQs

Q: What is the main subject matter of United States Patent 7,645,459? A: The '459 patent is directed to oral dosage forms comprising risedronate and EDTA, and methods for treating diseases characterized by abnormal calcium and phosphate metabolism.

Q: What was the outcome of the litigation between Warner Chilcott and Teva Pharmaceuticals regarding the '459 patent? A: The district court ruled that Claim 16 of the '459 patent and Claim 20 of the '460 patent were invalid for obviousness, a decision that was affirmed on appeal.

Q: How does the invalidation of these claims affect the pharmaceutical industry? A: The invalidation reduces barriers to entry for generic manufacturers, potentially increasing competition and reducing costs for consumers.

Q: What metrics can be used to measure patent scope? A: Metrics such as independent claim length and count can be used to measure patent scope and predict the likelihood of grant and the duration of the examination process.

Q: Why is patent scope important in the context of patent quality debates? A: Patent scope is crucial because overly broad patents can diminish incentives for innovation due to increased licensing and litigation costs.

Sources

  1. Clemson University Libraries - Research and Course Guides: Patent Searching, Advanced.
  2. United States District Court - Warner Chilcott Company, LLC, et al., v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
  3. SSRN - Patent Claims and Patent Scope.
  4. Federal Trade Commission - Actavis Inc. Acquisition.
  5. VLEX - Warner Chilcott Co. v. Teva Pharms. United States, Inc.

More… ↓

⤷  Try for Free


Drugs Protected by US Patent 7,645,459

ApplicantTradenameGeneric NameDosageNDAApproval DateTETypeRLDRSPatent No.Patent ExpirationProductSubstanceDelist Req.Patented / Exclusive UseSubmissiondate
Apil ATELVIA risedronate sodium TABLET, DELAYED RELEASE;ORAL 022560-001 Oct 8, 2010 AB RX Yes Yes ⤷  Try for Free ⤷  Try for Free Y TREATMENT OF OSTEOPOROSIS IN POSTMENOPAUSAL WOMEN ⤷  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
Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries

International Family Members for US Patent 7,645,459

CountryPatent NumberEstimated ExpirationSupplementary Protection CertificateSPC CountrySPC Expiration
Argentina 049022 ⤷  Try for Free
Argentina 098686 ⤷  Try for Free
Australia 2005247299 ⤷  Try for Free
Austria E475412 ⤷  Try for Free
>Country>Patent Number>Estimated Expiration>Supplementary Protection Certificate>SPC Country>SPC Expiration
Showing 1 to 4 of 4 entries

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.