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

Last Updated: December 22, 2024

Details for Patent: 8,552,025


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


Which drugs does patent 8,552,025 protect, and when does it expire?

Patent 8,552,025 protects RELISTOR and is included in one NDA.

This patent has forty-four patent family members in eighteen countries.

Summary for Patent: 8,552,025
Title:Stable methylnaltrexone preparation
Abstract: Stable pharmaceutical compositions useful for administering methylnaltrexone are described, as are methods for making the same. Kits, including these pharmaceutical compositions, also are provided.
Inventor(s): Sanghvi; Suketu P. (Kendall Park, NJ), Boyd; Thomas A. (Grandview, NY)
Assignee: Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Tarrytown, NY)
Application Number:12/639,862
Patent Litigation and PTAB cases: See patent lawsuits and PTAB cases for patent 8,552,025
Patent Claim Types:
see list of patent claims
Composition; Formulation; Compound; Dosage form;
Patent landscape, scope, and claims:

United States Patent 8,552,025: A Detailed Analysis of Scope, Claims, and Patent Landscape

Introduction

United States Patent 8,552,025, owned by Valeant Pharmaceuticals, pertains to a stable methylnaltrexone pharmaceutical preparation. This patent has been at the center of a significant legal battle, particularly in the context of patent obviousness. Here, we will delve into the scope, claims, and the broader patent landscape surrounding this invention.

Background of the Patent

The patent in question, US 8,552,025, describes a stable pharmaceutical preparation of methylnaltrexone or its salt, designed to mitigate the side effects of opioids. Methylnaltrexone is known to degrade in aqueous solutions, making stability a critical factor in its formulation[1][4].

Key Claims of the Patent

Claim 1

Claim 1 of the patent specifies a stable pharmaceutical preparation comprising a solution of methylnaltrexone or its salt, with a pH range between approximately 3.0 and 4.0. This pH range is crucial for maintaining the stability of the methylnaltrexone[1][4].

Claim 8

Claim 8, which is a dependent claim of Claim 1, further specifies that the preparation must be stable for storage at room temperature for 24 months. This claim emphasizes the long-term stability of the formulation, which is a significant innovation in the field[1][4].

Prima Facie Obviousness and Prior Art

In the context of patent law, the concept of prima facie obviousness is critical. A defendant can establish prima facie obviousness if the prior art discloses chemical formulas or compounds with overlapping characteristics to the claimed invention.

The Valeant vs. Mylan Case

In the case of Valeant Pharmaceuticals Intl. v Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Mylan argued that the patent claims were obvious over prior art that disclosed formulations of similar anti-opioids, such as naloxone and naltrexone. These prior art references showed pH ranges that overlapped with the claimed pH range of 3 to 4. Mylan also cited a pharmaceutical treatise that suggested the optimal pH range for drugs with amide linkages, like methylnaltrexone, is often between pH 3 and 4[1][2].

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Decision

The CAFC ruled that the District Court erred in granting a summary judgment in favor of Valeant. The CAFC held that overlapping pH ranges in prior art can indeed establish a prima facie case of obviousness, shifting the burden of proof to the patent holder to demonstrate non-obviousness. This decision highlights the importance of considering similar compounds and their properties in the assessment of patent obviousness[1][2].

Obvious to Try Analysis

The CAFC also addressed the "obvious to try" analysis, which is a factor in determining obviousness. Mylan argued that the District Court incorrectly dismissed their expert evidence and prior art references. The CAFC clarified that the "obvious to try" test does not require the pH to be the first variable an artisan would try; rather, it is about whether the range of options is limited and reasonable to explore. In this case, the CAFC found that the pH range of 3 to 7, while seemingly broad, is practically limited when considering the precision of pH measurements[1].

Impact on Patent Drafting and Strategy

The CAFC's decision in this case has significant implications for patent drafting and strategy. Patent drafters must now consider a wider range of prior art, including similar compounds with overlapping characteristics. This approach ensures that patents are more robust and less likely to be challenged on grounds of obviousness[1][2].

Patent Scope and Claim Language

The scope of a patent is often measured by the language of its claims. Research has shown that metrics such as independent claim length and independent claim count can be used to assess patent scope. Narrower claims, as seen in the case of US 8,552,025, are often associated with a higher probability of grant and a shorter examination process[3].

Pharmaceutical Formulation Patents

Pharmaceutical formulation patents, like US 8,552,025, are particularly sensitive to the issue of obviousness. The stability and efficacy of a formulation can be critical, and small variations in pH or other parameters can significantly impact the product's performance. Therefore, establishing a clear distinction from prior art is essential for the validity of such patents[1][2].

Conclusion

The case surrounding US Patent 8,552,025 underscores the complexities and nuances of patent law, particularly in the realm of pharmaceutical formulations. The CAFC's decision emphasizes the importance of thorough prior art analysis and the consideration of similar compounds in determining obviousness. For patent holders and drafters, this case serves as a reminder to meticulously evaluate the patent landscape to ensure the robustness and validity of their claims.

Key Takeaways

  • Prima Facie Obviousness: Overlapping characteristics in prior art can establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
  • Prior Art Consideration: Similar compounds with overlapping properties must be considered in patent obviousness assessments.
  • Patent Drafting: Patent drafters should examine a broader range of prior art to strengthen patent claims.
  • Claim Language: Narrower claims are associated with a higher probability of grant and shorter examination processes.
  • Pharmaceutical Formulations: Stability and efficacy parameters are critical in distinguishing pharmaceutical formulation patents from prior art.

FAQs

Q: What is the main claim of US Patent 8,552,025?

A: The main claim (Claim 1) specifies a stable pharmaceutical preparation of methylnaltrexone or its salt with a pH range between approximately 3.0 and 4.0.

Q: Why is the pH range important in this patent?

A: The pH range is crucial for maintaining the stability of methylnaltrexone, which degrades in aqueous solutions.

Q: What was the outcome of the CAFC decision in the Valeant vs. Mylan case?

A: The CAFC decided that Mylan’s defense deserved to be heard in a full trial, reversing the District Court’s summary judgment in favor of Valeant.

Q: How does the "obvious to try" analysis impact patent obviousness?

A: The "obvious to try" test assesses whether the range of options is limited and reasonable to explore, without requiring the variable in question to be the first one tried.

Q: What implications does this case have for patent drafting?

A: Patent drafters must consider a wider range of prior art, including similar compounds with overlapping characteristics, to strengthen patent claims and avoid obviousness challenges.

Sources

  1. Prima Facie Obviousness Established From Similar Compounds - PCK Intellectual Property
  2. Imagine That | IP Law Blog | Volpe Koenig
  3. Patent Claims and Patent Scope - SSRN
  4. US8552025B2 - Stable methylnaltrexone preparation - Google Patents
  5. Patent Obviousness and Prior Art - Harness IP

More… ↓

⤷  Subscribe


Drugs Protected by US Patent 8,552,025

Applicant Tradename Generic Name Dosage NDA Approval Date TE Type RLD RS Patent No. Patent Expiration Product Substance Delist Req. Patented / Exclusive Use Submissiondate
Salix Pharms RELISTOR methylnaltrexone bromide SOLUTION;SUBCUTANEOUS 021964-002 Sep 27, 2010 AP RX Yes Yes ⤷  Subscribe ⤷  Subscribe Y ⤷  Subscribe
Salix Pharms RELISTOR methylnaltrexone bromide SOLUTION;SUBCUTANEOUS 021964-001 Apr 24, 2008 RX Yes Yes ⤷  Subscribe ⤷  Subscribe Y ⤷  Subscribe
Salix Pharms RELISTOR methylnaltrexone bromide SOLUTION;SUBCUTANEOUS 021964-003 Sep 27, 2010 AP RX Yes Yes ⤷  Subscribe ⤷  Subscribe Y ⤷  Subscribe
>Applicant >Tradename >Generic Name >Dosage >NDA >Approval Date >TE >Type >RLD >RS >Patent No. >Patent Expiration >Product >Substance >Delist Req. >Patented / Exclusive Use >Submissiondate

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.