Patenting Chemical Inventions with Compound Claims

Compound Claims for New Molecules

A compound claim is the strongest way to claim a chemical invention.  It defines the inventor’s new molecule by structural formula.  A claim to a compound covers the compound in any context— including all uses of the compound.  Below is an example of a compound claim, claiming vitamin C by it’s structural formula.  (Notably this claim is not patentable because vitamin C is not a new molecule).

Example Claim to Specific Molecule — Vitamin C

A compound having the following structural formula:

patenting vitamin c.

When inventors create new molecules, they can claim those molecules per se.  This extensive claim scope rewards the inventors’ exceptional contribution.  By creating a new molecule, the inventor made possible all uses of the molecule.  Only the person who creates the molecule can claim it as a compound.  After that, the molecule itself is no longer new.  And only new things can be patented.

Compound Claims Cover All Uses of the Molecule

Claiming a chemical compound by its structural formula covers all uses of that compound

Claiming a chemical compound by its structural formula covers all uses of that compound.

A compound claim covers all uses of the molecule.  In the example above (vitamin C), the claim would cover making, using, or selling the molecule (vitamin C) in any way.  For example, the claim would cover selling

any form of vitamin C, any mixture having vitamin C, any process for making vitamin C, and any method of using vitamin C.

Compound claims are valuable because they cover a molecule in any context.  They are extremely broad claims.  By contrast, method of use claims would only cover one use of the molecule; Composition claims would be limited to a particular mixture or formulation having the molecule.

Generalizing Compounds  with Variable Groups

Notably, inventors can claim far more compounds than they actually make.  An inventor can use variable groups to broaden the scope of the invention.  For historical reasons, the patent community refers to variable groups as “Markush groups.”

In place of a specific atom, an inventor may use a variable group to explain that the atom could be chosen from a list of options.  Using variable groups broadens the claim scope substantially.  For example, instead of claiming only vitamin C (above), that claim could be drafted to include all variants having “R” groups on the alcohol positions (below).

Example Claim to Genus of Molecules Based on Vitamin C

A compound have the following structural formula:

patenting vitamin c sub.

wherein each R group is independently is chosen from an alkyl group, a substituted alkyl group, hydrogen, an ester, or a carboxylic acid.

By using variable groups, the scope of compounds claimed expands exponentially.  Rather than limiting these positions to hydrogen atoms, each position may be selected from a list of possibilities.   The terms “alkyl,” “ester,” etc. could also be defined broadly, covering a variety of different carbon groups.  For example saturated and unsaturated alkyl chains, cyclic alkyls, aromatic groups, etc.

7 Responses to “Patenting Chemical Inventions with Compound Claims”

  1. vinendra says:

    how to patent Particular chemical compound from the natural sources for particular activity…..?

  2. I think that what you said was very logical.
    However, think on this, what if you typed a catchier title?

    I ain’t saying your information isn’t good., however suppose you added a
    post title tto possibly grab folk’s attention? I mean Patenting Chemical
    Inventions with Compound Claims

  3. Andrew Woods says:

    This is actually Ludicrous.
    So I pose a question regarding this claim as an actual claim?
    They found a molecule in a fruit growing in the Atherton Tablelands in Queensland Australia. This NATURALLY growing chemical is called EBC-46.
    It has been discovered by the QIMR Birghofr RESEARCH Laboratory in Queensland.
    It being extracted from the fruit and injected into a cancer tumor will destroy the cancer and nothing else. So I’m wondering. This chemical Co.pound can actually be reproduced in Laboratory’s around the world. But by obtaining this patent it cannot be reproduced.
    I see an epidemic that is growing every day that needs to be addressed quickly or numbers will continue to rise.
    This rule, being a rule in my opinion, is rediculous. This is exactly how the QBiotics Laboratory’s are able to put their own pricetag on a God given medicine. Is that about the gist of it?
    So I am appalled that this is even being me , at this very moment, posing this question. So the chemical EB-46 curing a numerous amount of terminal cancer patients throughout the world is just going to have to wait for this company to finish testing, manufacturing (extration of this chemical) and clearing it with the FDA, coming up with a pricetag suitable for PHARMA to become filthy rich ( because, let’s face it,) chemotherapy kills more than it helps.
    Before we can all get down to business and start saving lives?
    WOW, LIKE I SAID, THIS IS APPALLING……

  4. Andrew Woods says:

    Yes, chemotherapy has less than a 3℅ success rate in America. It harms more than helps. People are undergoing this treatment out of desperation and desperate is all that gets them into that hospital bed in hopes they are part of that (less than 3℅ successors. I think I want to throw up.
    Do people really not grasp the significance of this?

    • Thanks for your thoughts Mr. Woods. I think the pro-patent argument would point to the incentives created by the limited monopoly (i.e., the patent). Would someone have done all of the required research to identify, purify, formulate, develop, and study this drug without some period of exclusivity on the technology?

      • Andrew Woods says:

        That’s just it. This fruit was once on store shelves for purchase. But once they discovered it’s healing properties they pulled it off immediately. This suggests that the healing properties of this fruit should not be released to us in the form of fruit. That would be a huge prophet loss that Pharma potentially has over the medical industry. So the extract and purify this chemical to be used solely as a patented product for marketing.
        Pharma couldn’t bottle the fruit itself, that would never work. I know that they have studied this on animal and humans having great success. The study was given permission to trials on humans in October 2014.
        It’s been researching this for about 12 years.
        I keep receiving updates on this but they contradict the bulletin prior to the next.
        I am well aware of the profits made off if Chemotherapy. After all, it was passed into medicine for one purpose alone. The ones that passed it saw the profits they stood to gain. It put Dr Beards studies way back on a shelf after he published a book on his research done in 1909.
        His findings that two cells in the uterus produced HCG just exactly as cancer cells do. If his findings would have passed their would be no way to patent the actual cells themselves. Just like this molecule. It is effective in or out of the fruit. I believe even more so in the fruit due to the other nutrients that fruit contains. So they realize this has to be remedied . They put out scare tactics to where its believed harmful to consume. (It isn’t). But this helped drowned out the voices that know the truth.
        It’s about profits. Not lives.
        If I had a way to send photos of my claims I would do it in a second. But I can’t find the means to do so.

      • Andrew Woods says:

        That’s just it. This fruit was once on store shelves for purchase. But once they discovered it’s healing properties they pulled it off immediately. This suggests that the healing properties of this fruit should not be released to us in the form of fruit. That would be a huge prophet loss that Pharma potentially has over the medical industry. So the extract and purify this chemical to be used solely as a patented product for marketing.
        Pharma couldn’t bottle the fruit itself, that would never work. I know that they have studied this on animal and humans having great success. The study was given permission to trials on humans in October 2014.
        It’s been researching this for about 12 years.
        I keep receiving updates on this but they contradict the bulletin prior to the next.
        I am well aware of the profits made off if Chemotherapy. After all, it was passed into medicine for one purpose alone. The ones that passed it saw the profits they stood to gain. It put Dr Beards studies way back on a shelf after he published a book on his research done in 1909.
        His findings that two cells in the uterus produced HCG just exactly as cancer cells do. If his findings would have passed their would be no way to patent the actual cells themselves. Just like this molecule. It is effective in or out of the fruit. I believe even more so in the fruit due to the other nutrients that fruit contains. So they realize this has to be remedied . They put out scare tactics to where its believed harmful to consume. (It isn’t). But this helped drowned out the voices that know the truth.
        It’s about profits. Not lives.
        If I had a way to send photos of my claims I would do it in a second. But I can’t find the means to do so. Thanks k you for responding

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *