US 6030999

I'll search for information on this patent, including any litigation/docket activity.

Let me search for litigation and the specific claim language.

Let me verify the exact claim language and check for any recent litigation.

Summary — U.S. Patent No. 6,030,999

Note on sources/limits: I could not directly query USPTO PatentCenter or the CAFC docket system with the tools available here. The summary below draws on the full patent text supplied (authoritative for this task), corroborated by Google Patents and FreePatentsOnline. Where I could not verify something, I say so explicitly.

Bibliographic data

Continuation chain (as recited in the specification): This application is a continuation of Ser. No. 08/461,341 (filed Jun. 5, 1995), which is a division of Ser. No. 07/986,943 (filed Dec. 8, 1992, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,422,368), which is a continuation of Ser. No. 07/469,442 (filed Apr. 10, 1990, abandoned). Family members include US 5,422,368; US 5,578,618; US 5,848,791; US 5,627,208; and US 6,429,226, among others.

Abstract (verbatim)

"The invention relates to ophthalmological compositions for topical treatment of glaucoma or ocular hypertension comprising an effective intraocular pressure reducing amount of a prostaglandin derivative of PGA, PGB, PGD, PGE or PGF, in which the omega chain contains a ring structure, in an ophthalmologically compatible carrier. The invention further relates to the preparation of said compositions and their use for treatment of glaucoma or ocular hypertension."

Independent claim — plain-language overview

This patent is unusual in that it has only one claim (1), and that claim is an independent composition claim:

"1. A therapeutic composition for topical treatment of ocular hypertension containing a prostaglandin PGF in an amount sufficient to reduce intraocular pressure without causing substantial intraocular irritation, and an ophthalmologically compatible vehicle, wherein said prostaglandin is 16-phenoxy, 17, 18, 19-trinorprostaglandin F2α."

Plain-language breakdown:

• Type of claim: A pharmaceutical/therapeutic composition (not a method or a compound per se), limited to topical (eye-drop style) use for ocular hypertension.
• Active ingredient: A single specific prostaglandin — "16-phenoxy, 17, 18, 19-trinorprostaglandin F2α" — i.e., a PGF2α analogue bearing a phenoxy group at the omega-chain position and shortened ("trinor") side chain.
• Functional limitation: The prostaglandin must be present in an amount sufficient to lower intraocular pressure without causing substantial intraocular irritation. This is a functional/result-oriented limitation and would be central to any infringement or validity dispute.
• Carrier: Any ophthalmologically compatible vehicle (saline, oils, ointments, etc., per the specification).
• Because the claim names one specific compound, its scope is narrow: it does not cover the broader genus of "omega-chain ring-containing" prostaglandins discussed in the specification (e.g., 17-phenyl-18,19,20-trinor-PGF2α, which is the latanoprost acid scaffold).

Important flags / uncertainties

1. Possible nomenclature inconsistency (interpreted literally, not auto-corrected). The claim recites "16-phenoxy, 17,18,19-trinorprostaglandin F2α," whereas the specification's evaluated compound (4) and the Alcon/Apotex proceedings refer to "16-phenoxy-17,18,19,20-tetranor-PGF2α" (isopropyl ester). I am reporting the claim wording exactly as it appears and not "correcting" it.
2. Certificate of Correction. One search result contained a reference to a USPTO Certificate of Correction for Patent No. 6,030,999 dated February 29, 2000, stating "Claim 1, Line 6, change '16-…'" — the text was truncated in the retrieved snippet. I could not retrieve the full corrected claim text, so the claim wording above may not reflect the post-correction text. This should be verified against the official PatentCenter record.

Litigation / CAFC 2026 docket check

• No 2026 CAFC docket or Federal Circuit appeal specific to U.S. Patent 6,030,999 was found in my searches. This is consistent with the record: the patent is listed as Expired – Fee Related (anticipated expiration April 10, 2010), so active 2026 appellate litigation over this specific patent would be unusual (though not impossible, e.g., for past damages/settlement enforcement). I cannot rule out a docket that my searches did not surface — treat the absence as "not found," not "confirmed none."
• Historical family litigation: Google Patents flags that the family "has litigation" (Darts-ip family 26660291). The relevant era of disputes was around 2001, when Pharmacia sued Alcon (over Travatan) and faced a declaratory-judgment suit from Allergan (over Lumigan), relating to latanoprost/Xalatan and prostaglandin-derivative patents. Contemporary reporting indicates both cases settled, with Alcon and Allergan paying sales-based royalties (and Allergan a lump sum). The European counterpart EP 0 364 417 B1 (Stjernschantz et al.) was later the subject of Alcon/Apotex disputes (see the PTAB/PTACTS record referencing testing of "16-phenoxy-17,18,19,20-tetranor-PGF2α" as Compound 4 of the '417 patent, described there as showing an initial IOP increase and "unacceptable hyperemia"). Note that the '417 document's own background also cites Woodward et al. (1988, 1989) reporting 16-phenoxy-17,18,19,20-tetranor-PGF2α as inactive in cat IOP studies — a potentially material prior-art/utility point for this narrow claim.

Bottom line

U.S. 6,030,999 is a late-chain continuation in the Pharmacia/Stjernschantz prostaglandin–glaucoma family, issuing in 2000 off an October 1988 priority, now expired (2010). It contains a single, narrow composition claim to a 16-phenoxy-trinor-PGF2α topical anti-ocular-hypertension composition characterized by substantially no intraocular irritation. I found no evidence of a 2026 CAFC case involving this patent number, and I recommend verifying the issued claim text against the official Certificate of Correction.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 6,030,999. Let me search multiple sources.

Bottom line

Based on the searches I was able to run, I found no U.S. litigation in which U.S. Patent No. 6,030,999 itself was identified as an asserted patent. I want to be explicit about that rather than infer a case from the patent's family. What I did find is that the patent's family (the Xalatan®/latanoprost family descending from application 07/469,442) was extensively litigated — but the reported decisions and the Orange Book ANDA suits I located asserted sibling patents (U.S. 5,296,504 and U.S. 5,422,368), not the '999 patent. I could not confirm a case naming '999 as a patent-in-suit.

A caveat on sources: the Google Patents page for US6030999 carries a "Family has litigation" flag keyed to Darts-ip family ID 26660291 (https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=26660291). That flag is at the family level and therefore does not, by itself, establish that the '999 patent was ever asserted. I was not able to open PACER or the Unified Patents caselist directly in this session, so my conclusion rests on the open-web results above and may be incomplete.

Why the family is litigated but '999 likely was not asserted

US 6,030,999 issued February 29, 2000 (App. No. 09/307,814, filed May 10, 1999), claiming priority to SE 8803110 (Sept. 6, 1988), and expired April 10, 2010 (recorded as "Expired – Fee Related"). It is a continuation of 08/461,341, itself a division of 07/986,943 (now U.S. 5,422,368), a continuation of 07/469,442 — i.e., the same family as U.S. 5,296,504, 5,321,128, 5,578,618, 5,627,208, 5,849,791, 6,429,226 and later continuations.

Critically, the '999 patent has one claim only, and it is narrow:

"A therapeutic composition for topical treatment of ocular hypertension containing a prostaglandin PGF … wherein said prostaglandin is 16-phenoxy, 17, 18, 19-trinorprostaglandin F2α."

That is a specific 16‑phenoxy analog — not latanoprost (which is 13,14‑dihydro‑17‑phenyl‑18,19,20‑trinor‑PGF2α isopropyl ester, the compound covered by the '504 patent). The narrowness of the '999 claim and its different compound both make it an unlikely Orange Book–listed/asserted patent for Xalatan® generics, which is consistent with my not finding it in any infringement suit.

Family-level litigation I could confirm (NOT the '999 patent)

Related family/industry activity (also not '999-specific, and mostly non-U.S.):

• Allergan, Inc. v. Pharmacia Corp. — declaratory-judgment action filed March 2001 in the District of Delaware over Lumigan® vs. Xalatan® patents; settled October 2002 (Allergan paid Pharmacia $120 million plus royalties). The complaint's specific patent list is not confirmed in the sources I retrieved.
• Pharmacia–Alcon global settlement (October 2002) of IP disputes over Travatan®.
• European/Italian track: EP 0 364 417 and divisional EP 1 225 168, SPC and pediatric extension, and the Italian competition-authority (AGCM) abuse-of-dominance decision against Pfizer (upheld by the Consiglio di Stato, Feb. 12, 2014). These are European, not U.S., proceedings and do not involve '999.

Important disambiguation (numbers that are NOT 6,030,999)

Because you asked me not to conflate similar numbers, these surfaced in the same searches and are different patents:

• U.S. 7,249,099 — asserted in Actus, LLC v. Bank of America et al. (E.D. Tex.).
• U.S. 8,778,999 — bromfenac/Bromsite® patent in Sun Pharma Global FZE v. Lupin Ltd. (D.N.J. 18-2213, Sept. 30, 2021).
• U.S. 6,651,099 — asserted/IPR'd in network-monitoring litigation (e.g., Sandvine).

What I could not verify

• Any docket naming 6,030,999 as a patent-in-suit, in district court, the Federal Circuit, the ITC, or PTAB. I found no IPR/PGR on the '999 patent either.
• Whether the Allergan DJ complaint (D. Del., March 2001) listed the '999 patent. If you need certainty here, the right next steps are to pull the D. Del. docket (sometime captioned Allergan, Inc. v. Pharmacia Corp.) and to run "6,030,999" through PACER/RECAP, Lex Machina, Darts-ip (family 26660291) and the Unified Patents caselist directly. I'd treat my finding as "no litigation located," not as a positive statement that none exists.

If you'd like, I can draft the precise PACER/Darts-ip/Lex Machina queries (including the exact patent-number string variants) for a paralegal to run to close that gap.

I'll verify the structured data against public sources before writing up. Let me run some searches.

Let me probe further for any AIA challenge on this patent or its family members.

PTAB Proceedings — US 6,030,999

Prepared 2026-09-27. Sources: USPTO ODP "PTAB proceedings on file" structured block (canonical list, per prompt); public web search for corroboration.

Proceedings overview

Zero. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no AIA trial proceedings (no IPR, PGR, or CBM) naming US 6,030,999 as the challenged patent — the breakdown is therefore 0 active / 0 claim-invalidated / 0 claim-sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution-denied. The bottom line for a defendant is unusual and blunt: this patent has never been tested at the PTAB, and it does not need to be — it is expired. The Google Patents legal-status record shows an anticipated expiration of 2010-04-10 and a current status of "Expired – Fee Related." The absence of PTAB activity here is not a sign of hardening; it is a sign of an old patent that ran out of term before AIA trials became routine, and whose single claim (16-phenoxy-17,18,19,20-trinor PGF₂α — Compound (4) of the specification) was never the commercially important molecule anyway.

Proceedings on US 6,030,999

None. Nothing to report at claim level.

I want to be explicit about the limits of that statement, per the no-fabrication constraint:

• I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition, institution decision, FWD, or Federal Circuit appeal involving US 6,030,999 in any public source.
• I cannot rule out a terminated/settled proceeding filed before the ODP ingest window, but nothing in public dockets surfaces one, and the structured ODP block — which is the canonical list — reports none.
• I did not locate any PTAB proceeding against the sibling family members either (US 5,422,368; 5,578,618; 5,849,791; 5,627,208; 6,429,226). Those are all part of the same 1988-09-06 priority family and all now expired.

There are therefore no judge panels, no petition grounds, no institution reasoning, no FWD claim-level dispositions, and no appeals to report for this patent. Any document purporting to show an IPR number for US 6,030,999 should be treated as suspect until verified in PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov).

Adjacent matters that are NOT proceedings on this patent (flagged for situational awareness)

The instruction was to flag older or unindexed proceedings. I found three things in the neighborhood. None of them is an AIA trial on US 6,030,999, and I am stating that affirmatively rather than implying otherwise:

1. IPR2017-01434 — [Petitioner unidentified in my retrieval] v. Alcon, U.S. Pat. No. 5,886,035. This is a real IPR on a different Alcon patent (tafluprost-related, a 15-fluoro prostaglandin). It matters to you only as a prior-art echo: the petitioner and patent owner litigated over Klimko and over Stjernschantz EP 0 364 417 — the European family member of the WO 90/02553 / US 6,030,999 family. In that IPR the patent owner argued that the Stjernschantz disclosure carved out the 16-phenoxy compound as therapeutically unacceptable, and that the reference therefore did not teach Compound C (the very 16-phenoxy tetranor isopropyl ester that is the sole claim of US 6,030,999) as a usable lead. See the patent owner's preliminary response and exhibits at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2017-01434/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._5886035/ and the underlying Stjernschantz-based argument at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1489854](/patent/1489854)/download-documents. I did not confirm the petitioner's identity from the retrieved text, so I am not naming one.

2. District court litigation — Allergan v. Pharmacia, No. 01 CV 00141-SLR (D. Del.). The patent family carries a "Family has litigation" flag (Darts-IP family ID 26660291, https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=26660291). This is a § 271 district court action, not an AIA trial. In it, Stjernschantz (the disclosure underlying US 6,030,999) was used as prior art against Allergan's bimatoprost claims — the court records plaintiff's characterization of Compound 2 and Compound 9 as the disclosed anti-glaucoma agents. See https://patentdocs.typepad.com/files/lumigan-order.pdf and https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.42263.217.0.pdf. That is the inverse posture from a PTAB challenge: the family's specification is the sword, not the target.

3. Non-US proceedings. The family saw European opposition/appeal activity — e.g. T 1872/14 (fluprostenol isopropyl ester, EPO Board of Appeal, https://legacy.epo.org/boards-of-appeals/decisions/pdf/t141872eu1.pdf) and UK litigation (Alcon v. [ ], [2021] EWHC 1026 (Pat)), https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/pat/2021/1026/generated.pdf. These are EPO/UK proceedings, not PTAB proceedings, and they concern other molecules (fluprostenol/travoprost), though they again turn on the Stjernschantz teaching.

Strategic summary

Claim status: the question is moot. US 6,030,999 has exactly one claim. It is not canceled — it was never challenged — and it is not enforceable in any practical sense because the patent expired. The anticipated expiration date recorded is 2010-04-10, and the status is "Expired – Fee Related," which means it lapsed for non-payment of maintenance rather than running to a full term with all fees paid. Because the expiration was for fee reasons, I would not assume there is any statutory-disclaimer or intervening-rights nuance worth litigating; the operative fact is that the right to exclude is gone. UNTESTED: claim 1, and only claim 1. SUSPENDED: nothing. CANCELED: nothing.

Estoppel landscape is academic. § 315(e)(2) estoppel only attaches to a petitioner who instituted an IPR and obtained a final written decision. No IPR was ever instituted on this patent, so no petitioner, real party in interest, or privy is estopped as to US 6,030,999 — every prior-art ground that ever existed remains formally available. That sounds favorable to a defendant, but it is a trap: the patent's expiration is a complete defense, and spending PTAB or district-court resources on an invalidity case for an expired, single-claim patent is wasted money. Confirm expiration and fee-lapse status in Patent Center (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov) and, if you must, in the USPTO maintenance-fee records, before engaging on validity at all.

Pattern signals to watch. (a) No repeat petitioner — there is only one petitioner-of-record on this patent, and that count is zero. (b) The patent owner has not pursued PTAB appeals on this patent — there is nothing to appeal. The family's appellate energy went to the EPO (T 1872/14) and to defending its own later patents in district court, not to defending US 6,030,999 at the PTAB. (c) No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) appears anywhere in the chain — consistent with the patent being too old and too marginal to interest them. (d) The commercially significant molecules from this disclosure — latanoprost (Compound 9) and 17-phenyl-18,19,20-trinor PGF₂α (Compound 2) — sit in the sibling patents (US 5,422,368; 5,578,618; 5,849,791; 5,627,208; 6,429,226), all sharing the 1988-09-06 priority and all expired by roughly the same date. If a demand letter has reached you, the number on it probably is not 6,030,999, and you should ask which one it is.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant being asserted on US 6,030,999: check the expiration first, then stop. The record shows anticipated expiration 2010-04-10 with "Expired – Fee Related" status (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6030999/en). An expired patent cannot be infringed for post-expiration conduct. There is no FWD to quote and no canceled claim to cite — the defense is temporal, not merits-based, and I would not dress it up as a PTAB win, because it is not one.
2. If the demand letter cites a sibling patent, identify it precisely and verify its expiration independently. I have not verified each sibling's expiration date; the 1988-09-06 priority chain and the ODP status of this member suggest they all lapsed around the same period, but treat that as a hypothesis to confirm, not a finding.
3. Do not file an IPR on this patent. There are no active claims to invalidate, the statutory window has long closed, and any spend is unrecoverable. If a counterparty pressures you into a validity fight, the correct response is a Rule 12 motion or summary judgment on expiration, not a § 311 petition.
4. No trial-stage milestones exist to track. With zero pending proceedings, there is no institution deadline, no oral hearing, and no one-year FWD clock running on US 6,030,999.
5. Verify before relying on the "no PTAB activity" conclusion. Cross-check PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov) and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision archive under the patent number, and check the sibling numbers as well. If anything surfaces that contradicts this report, the search results should control over my summary.

Confidence statement. I have high confidence that no AIA trial proceeding is on file for US 6,030,999, based on the canonical ODP block plus corroborating searches. I have lower confidence about pre-2012-era or fully-terminated matters that public dockets may not surface, and I have not independently confirmed the expiration mechanics (natural term vs. fee lapse) or the expiration dates of the sibling patents. Where I could not confirm something — notably the identity of the petitioner in IPR2017-01434 — I have said so rather than filling the gap.

I'll research the assignment record for US 6,030,999. Let me run several searches.

Let me try to locate the specific USPTO assignment records and reel/frame numbers.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 6,030,999

Tooling limitation (read first). The USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) and the legacy Assignment Search (assignment.uspto.gov) are JavaScript applications that I could not query directly with the tools available here, and the mirrored records I could reach (Google Patents legal-events, FreePatentsOnline, uspto.report) do not expose reel/frame numbers or the correspondent of record. I therefore cannot report reel/frame or correspondent data for this patent — I am not substituting anything invented for those fields. What follows is built from the recorded assignment events that are publicly surfaced (Google Patents legal events), the patent text itself, and corroborating non-US register entries. Where a reel/frame would normally go, I mark it [reel/frame not retrieved].

Inventors

Both are listed on the face of the patent and on the family's European records (e.g., EP 1 310 256 A3, which gives the Uppsala addresses; EP 0 569 046, INPI record).

Unusual patterns: I found no evidence that either inventor departed the original assignee within 12 months of filing, so the "inventors bail out → fire-sale" tell is not present. The inventors remained associated with Pharmacia's Swedish prostaglandin program through the 1990s (Stjernschantz is the named figure behind the latanoprost program). Note the long gap between the 1988 priority and this 1999 continuation — no inventor-change event accompanies it.

Original assignee

Pharmacia & Upjohn Aktiebolag (Swedish entity; rendered on Google Patents as "Pharmacia and Upjohn AB"; FreePatentsOnline lists "Pharmacia & Upjohn Aktiebolag"). Application 09/307,814 was filed May 10, 1999 by this entity and the patent issued Feb 29, 2000 in its name.

• Primary line of business: Research-based pharmaceutical manufacturing. This entity is the Swedish arm of the Pharmacia & Upjohn group (formed by the 1995 Pharmacia–Upjohn merger; the Swedish predecessor was Kabi Pharmacia AB, whose name appears as the assignee on the earlier family members US 5,296,504 / US 5,321,128).
• Product embodying the family: The commercially relevant compound from this patent family is latanoprost (Xalatan), the 17‑phenyl‑18,19,20‑trinor‑PGF2α isopropyl ester. Important caveat: the single claim of the '999 is to a different compound — "16‑phenoxy...trinorprostaglandin F2α" — so the claim is narrower than the family's commercial product. (See the nomenclature flag carried over from the prior section: the claim says "trinor," while the specification's evaluated Compound 4 is "16‑phenoxy‑17,18,19,20‑tetranor‑PGF2α‑IE." I am not auto-correcting either.)
• Current status: Acquired. The Pharmacia group was absorbed by Pfizer (merger announced 2002, closed April 2003). The Swedish patent-holding entity now appears as Pfizer Health AB (per Google Patents current-assignee field and an EP register listing showing both "PHARMACIA AB" and "PFIZER HEALTH AB" as applicants for a sibling case, EP 1 154 902).

Assignment timeline

No assignment from the inventors is separately visible in the '999 record (the chain of title for the 1988 priority application sits in the earlier family members). The only post‑issuance recorded events Google Patents surfaces for US 6,030,999 are two change‑of‑name recordings, both dated 2001‑08‑10:

1. 2001-08-10 (executed) / recorded 2001-08-10 — Reel [reel/frame not retrieved]

   • Conveyance: Change of Name
   • Assignor: Pharmacia Aktiebolag
   • Assignee: Pharmacia & Upjohn Aktiebolag
   • Correspondent: [not retrieved — Assignment Center not directly queryable]
   • Context: Internal corporate reorg — name-change recording capturing the Pharmacia→Pharmacia & Upjohn (1995 merger) renaming on the US register.

2. 2001-08-10 (executed) / recorded 2001-08-10 — Reel [reel/frame not retrieved]

   • Conveyance: Change of Name
   • Assignor: Pharmacia & Upjohn Aktiebolag
   • Assignee: Pharmacia Aktiebolag
   • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
   • Context: Internal corporate reorg — the reverse-direction name-change recording (the entity reverting to the "Pharmacia Aktiebolag" style as the group rebranded to Pharmacia Corporation after the 2000 Monsanto combination). The two recordings being lodged the same day is a title-cleanup pattern, not a transfer to a third party.

3. Implied but not verified on the US register: current assignee Pfizer Health AB (per Google Patents' current-assignee field). A 2007‑03‑14 filing at the Danish Patent Office requested a name change of "Pharmacia AB" to Pfizer Health AB, which corroborates a real corporate renaming; I could not confirm the corresponding US recording for the '999 in the sources available. Treat the Pharmacia→Pfizer Health step as strongly indicated but not reel/frame-verified.

Assessment: every recorded link is a name change or a corporate acquisition within the same pharmaceutical line. There is no assignment to any third-party licensing entity.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6030999
    1988 : Priority application filed
         : Inventors assign to Kabi Pharmacia AB
    1995 : Entity becomes Pharmacia and Upjohn AB
    1999 : Continuation filed by Pharmacia and Upjohn AB
    2000 : US 6030999 issued
    2001 : Name change recordings to Pharmacia AB
    2003 : Pharmacia group acquired by Pfizer
    2007 : Swedish entity renamed Pfizer Health AB
    2010 : Patent expired

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The chain never moves to a licensing-only LLC. Both 2001 recordings are change-of-name events between operating pharma entities (reel/frame not retrieved; events dated 2001‑08‑10 per Google Patents legal events). No "IP/Holdings/Licensing/Ventures" assignee appears.
2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. Assignees are Pharmacia Aktiebolag / Pharmacia & Upjohn Aktiebolag / Pfizer Health AB — operating pharmaceutical manufacturers. None appears on the Acacia / Marathon / IV / Wi‑LAN / Conversant / Pendrell / Round Rock NPE lists or on Unified Patents / RPX high-frequency-plaintiff directories.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR. The requirement is recurrence of a single recording attorney, and I could not retrieve any correspondent for this patent. Cannot be assessed; reported as unclear rather than inferred from the corporate names.
4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. Only two same-day name-change recordings (2001‑08‑10), no chained LLCs, no sub‑24‑month multi-hop sequence.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. The recorded 2001 events are renamings, not pre-suit transfers; the family's enforcement activity (Pharmacia v. Alcon over Travatan; Allergan DJ over Lumigan) ran roughly 2001–2002 and ended in settlements involving sales-based royalties, and I found no assignment executed within 6 months of a suit naming this patent.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding; the change of control was the solvent Pfizer acquisition (2003).
7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. No operating-company→NPE transfer; enforcement history (if any) stayed in-house with the original pharma.
8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. Chain does not terminate at RPX / AST / LOT / Unified / OIN.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Justification: the entire chain of title stays inside operating pharmaceutical manufacturers — the two recorded events for this patent are change-of-name recordings dated 2001‑08‑10 (reel/frame not retrieved) between Pharmacia Aktiebolag and Pharmacia & Upjohn Aktiebolag, and the current assignee is Pfizer Health AB (the former Pharmacia Swedish entity, acquired by Pfizer in 2003). There is no shell transfer, no known NPE, and no defensive-aggregator terminus, so no NPE signal is supported. The only qualification is that the family's enforcement was historically run by Pharmacia against actual competitors (Alcon, Allergan) around the latanoprost product, and the single narrow claim here (16‑phenoxy‑trinor‑PGF2α) is not the commercialized latanoprost compound — so whether this specific claim was ever asserted is unclear; the ownership pattern, however, is unambiguously operating-company.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ — search by patent number 6030999 to obtain the reel/frame numbers and the correspondent of record that I was unable to retrieve, and to confirm the Pharmacia→Pfizer Health AB recording.

Cross-references to prior section: consistent with the earlier summary (issued to Pharmacia & Upjohn; current assignee Pfizer Health AB; expired 2010‑04‑10). The earlier flag about the possibly truncated Certificate of Correction ("Claim 1, Line 6, change '16-…'") remains unresolved here and is unrelated to assignment; it should still be checked on PatentCenter.

I'll search for the specific patent and its cited references.

I found the Justia source listing cited references. Let me get the complete list of patent citations.

I have the U.S. patent citation list. Let me verify the complete list including foreign references, and research the key references.

Prior Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 6,030,999

Methodological note / limits. My only tool here is web search (no direct USPTO PatentCenter / file-wrapper API). I therefore located the "References Cited" (front-page Form PTO-892-type list) for US 6,030,999 via three corroborating mirrors of the printed patent — Google Patents (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6030999), Justia (https://patents.justia.com/patent/6030999), and EveryPatent (http://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat6030999.html). I was not able to pull the prosecution file wrapper (the examiner's actual §102/§103 rejections and which reference was applied to which claim). Where the subject matter of an individual cited patent is not something I can verify with high confidence, I say so rather than guessing.

Critical framing for the §102 question. US 6,030,999 has exactly one claim (claim 1) — a composition claim to a 16‑phenoxy, 17,18,19‑trinor‑prostaglandin F2α. Consequently, every anticipation inquiry collapses to a single question: does the reference disclose, in a single embodiment, (a) 16‑phenoxy‑17,18,19‑trinor‑PGF2α, (b) in a topical ophthalmic intraocular‑pressure‑reducing amount, (c) in an ophthalmologically compatible vehicle? Any "which claim(s)" answer below is therefore claim 1 (the sole claim) or "none."

A. U.S. patent documents cited on the face of US 6,030,999

Grant dates below are as printed on the patent (per EveryPatent/Justia). Filing dates marked "*" are my best recollection and should be verified; I could not confirm all filing dates.

*(The cited "Other Publications"/non‑patent literature list on the face includes Bito 1983/1987/1989, Camras 1981/1987a/1987b/1988, Crawford 1987, Flach & Eliason 1988, Giuffre 1985, Kaufman 1986, Kerstetter 1988, Lee 1988, Nilsson 1987, Villumsen & Alm 1989, Burke (ARVO 1988), Gabelt & Kaufman 1989, Bill 1975, and "Bundy, Chem. Abst. 90:168141d, 1979.")*

B. The single most relevant prior art for claim 1

Ranking by genuine §102 exposure to the sole claim:

1. Bundy's 16‑phenoxy prostaglandin work (U.S. 3,987,087 and/or Bundy, Chem. Abstr. 90:168141d (1979)). The claimed species is a 16‑phenoxy, trinor PGF2α. The Upjohn/Bundy 16‑phenoxy prostaglandin F series is the direct chemical neighborhood of the claim, and Bundy's 1979 abstract is the one non‑patent reference in the list that speaks to exactly that chemotype. This is where an anticipation argument under §102 would most plausibly be made — but only if the reference literally names the claimed trinor (vs. tetranor) species. Note the nomenclature problem flagged below.

2. Bito, U.S. 4,599,353 (and 4,883,819). Supplies the topical‑ophthalmic‑carrier and IOP‑reduction limitations in a single teaching; anticipation still requires the reference's genus/species to read on the 16‑phenoxy compound.

3. Ueno, U.S. 5,151,444 / 5,166,178 / 5,194,429. Same "ocular hypotensive agent" field, but different chemotype — genus‑level relevance, weak §102.

4. Stjernschantz, U.S. 5,422,368 and 5,847,791. Related by family — the controlling doctrine is more likely statutory‑type double patenting / §102(b) self‑collision than third‑party anticipation.

C. Mandatory flags (do not auto‑correct)

1. Nomenclature mismatch (interpreted literally). Claim 1 recites "16‑phenoxy, 17,18,19‑trinorprostaglandin F2α," whereas the specification's tested compound (4) and the EP 0 364 417 record call the compound "16‑phenoxy‑17,18,19,20‑tetranor‑PGF2α." Under a literal reading, claim 1 covers a trinor (three‑carbon‑shortened) species, while the disclosed/claimed‑in‑practice compound is generally described as tetranor. This matters directly to §102: the anticipation reference must disclose the compound as literally claimed. I have not "corrected" either term.

2. Certificate of Correction. The earlier analysis flagged a possible Certificate of Correction for No. 6,030,999 (grant date Feb. 29, 2000) that may amend claim 1's compound text. I could not retrieve the amended text. If a CoC changed the recited compound, the entire §102 target species changes. Verify against PatentCenter before relying on the claim wording.

3. File wrapper not retrieved. I could not confirm which of the above references the examiner actually applied under §102 (versus mere §103/background citations). Front‑page citations ≠ rejections. To answer "which claim it anticipates" definitively, pull the prosecution history at https://patentcenter.uspto.gov for application 09/307,814.

4. Foreign patent documents. The snippets I recovered showed only U.S. patent documents followed by the non‑patent‑literature list; I did not observe a "Foreign Patent Documents" block. I cannot state affirmatively that none exists — treat this as "not found."

5. One prior-art/utility contradiction to carry forward: the family's own EP 0 364 417 record cites Woodward et al. (1988, 1989) reporting 16‑phenoxy‑17,18,19,20‑tetranor‑PGF2α as inactive in cat IOP studies, and describes the compound as showing an initial IOP increase with "unacceptable hyperemia." If those reports are accurate, they cut against the claim's functional limitation ("sufficient to reduce intraocular pressure without causing substantial intraocular irritation") — a §112/utility problem more than §102, but worth flagging alongside the Bundy art.

Bottom line: The front‑page prior art comprises ~22 U.S. patents (1976–1998) plus an extensive non‑patent‑literature list. Because the patent has a single claim, the §102 question is all‑or‑nothing on claim 1: the only references with a realistic shot at anticipating it are (i) Bundy's 16‑phenoxy prostaglandin F‑series art (U.S. 3,987,087 / Chem. Abstr. 90:168141d) if it literally discloses the claimed species, and (ii) the Bito '353/'819 topical‑IOP teachings, which supply the carrier/route/dose elements. The Stjernschantz '368 and '791 are same‑family siblings (double‑patenting, not third‑party anticipation). All of this should be re‑run against the corrected claim text and the actual prosecution history.

I'll ground this analysis in the available prior-art record before writing. Let me verify key references and dates.

Let me pin down a few dates and assignees that will be decisive for the §103 analysis.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 6,030,999 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Prepared: 2026 · Effective date assumed: Sept. 6, 1988 (SE 8803110 priority)
Building on: the earlier summary in this file (bibliographic data, single-claim structure, litigation history). I do not repeat that material; where it bears on § 103 I cross-reference it.

0. A note on the "Prior Art section" actually available on this page

Before the merits, one methodological caveat, because it changes which references are usable.

The Google Patents page for US 6,030,999 does not contain a conventional examiner-cited "References Cited" block. What it supplies as prior-art-adjacent material is: (i) a Prior art keywords field (pgf; phenyl; sub; trinor; prostaglandin); (ii) the REFERENCES list embedded in the specification itself (Bill 1975; Bito et al. 1983; Camras; Crawford; Giuffre; Kaufman; Kerstetter; Lee; Miller et al. 1975; Nilsson; Villumsen); (iii) Cited By (24); and (iv) Families Citing this family (229).

Two consequences:

1. Most of the "Cited By" and "Families Citing" art post-dates the 1988 priority and therefore is not § 102/§ 103 prior art to this claim. The Alcon/Klimko prostaglandin patents (US 5,516,792; EP 0 639 563; and the Alcon/P&G prostaglandin filings with 1992–1994 priorities), the Aerie and Sucampo documents, and the Duke hair-growth filings are all later art. They are useful only as evidence of how the art later characterized the claimed compound, not as § 103 references.
2. The patent's own REFERENCES list and the specification's admissions supply the pre-1988 art. Section 103 permits, and case law encourages, using an applicant's own specification as a roadmap to what was known at the time. The '999 specification expressly admits: "The use of prostaglandins and their derivatives is described for instance in U.S. Pat. No. 4,599,353 and EP 87103714.9, and by Bito L Z et al (1983), Camras C B et al (1981, 1987a, 1987b, 1988), Giuffre G (1985), Kaufman P L (1986), Kersetter J R et al (1988), Lee P-Y et al (1988) and Villumsen J et al (1989)."

1. The claim to be tested, construed literally

Claim 1. "A therapeutic composition for topical treatment of ocular hypertension containing a prostaglandin PGF in an amount sufficient to reduce intraocular pressure without causing substantial intraocular irritation, and an ophthamologically compatible vehicle, wherein said prostaglandin is 16-phenoxy, 17, 18, 19-trinorprostaglandin F 2 α."

Construing strictly (no auto-correction), the claim comprises four elements:

Two scope flags carried forward (not repeated here): (i) the recited "17,18,19-trinor" designation does not match the specification's tested compound (4), "16-phenoxy-17,18,19,20-tetranor-PGF2α-isopropylester" — these are different homologs unless the claim was corrected; and (ii) a Certificate of Correction appears in the record but its corrected text could not be retrieved. The analysis below proceeds on the claim as recited and, where the corrected "tetranor" reading would matter, says so.

Effect of the functional limitation on § 103: element C does not add structure; it recites a result. Under § 103 it is analyzed as (a) a statement of the intended result that the prior art need only make reasonably achievable, and (b) the anchor for any "unexpected results" rebuttal. As shown in § 7 below, the specification's own data undercut (b).

2. Level of ordinary skill in the art (POSA)

By September 1988 a POSA would be a medicinal chemist or ocular pharmacologist (Ph.D. or M.S. plus 2–5 years, or equivalent) working on prostanoid analogues for ophthalmic use, familiar with (i) the prostaglandin SAR literature, (ii) the published clinical/animal work on topical prostaglandins for IOP, and (iii) conventional ophthalmic formulation (sterile saline, polysorbate, benzalkonium chloride, isopropyl/methyl esters as penetration-enhancing prodrugs).

3. The prior-art references and what each teaches

Dates below are as verified to the extent my sources allowed; where unverified I say so.

Cross-reference to the two sources the record provides that describe the claimed compound itself:

• The '999 specification's own Tables III–V describe "16-phenoxy-17,18,19,20-tetranor-PGF2α-IE (4)" — irritation 0.3 ± 0.2 in cats (Table III); conjunctival hyperemia 2.3 ± 0.3 in rabbits at 0.5 µg (Table IV); and, in cat eyes (marked "**"), an initial IOP rise from 20.5 ± 1.2 mmHg to 25.7 ± 1.2 mmHg at 1–2 h before falling (Table V).
• Later art attributes to Woodward et al. (1988, 1989) a report that 16-phenoxy-17,18,19,20-tetranor-PGF2α was inactive in cat IOP studies. (This attribution came through the Alcon documents flagged in the earlier section; I did not independently retrieve the Woodward paper this pass.)

4. Limitation-by-limitation mapping

The pieces tile exactly. The only genuine question is motivation.

5. The § 103 combinations

5.1 Combination I (primary) — P4 (Bowler/ICI) in view of P1 (Bito '353)

Proposed rejection: Claim 1 is obvious over US 4,321,275 in view of US 4,599,353.

Why a POSA would combine them — the articulated reason:

1. Same field, same molecule class, same target receptor. Both references concern synthetic PGF2α analogues. P4 supplies the ω-chain-modified (16-aryloxy-tetranor) chemotype and teaches it is more potent than natural PGF2α; P1 supplies the therapeutic application (topical ocular hypertension) and teaches that PGF2α and its C1–C5 alkyl esters are the preferred actives.
2. The combination is a substitution of one known PGF2α analogue class for another in a known method. The result is the union of P4's disclosure with P1's method — the classic "known compound, known use" combination.
3. P4 itself supplies the selection rationale. P4's genus literally covers the claimed species (phenoxy is the unsubstituted member of its "16-aryloxy" genus; the specification's own compound is the isopropylester of exactly this species). Where a reference discloses a genus and the prior art provides a reason to select a member, the member is obvious. P4 additionally teaches that the class members are more potent than PGF2α, which is a reason to select the class for a therapy (P1) whose known limitation was potency/penetration ("relatively high concentrations … had to be used," P2/P1).
4. P7 confirms the class was the recognized high-potency lead. "The high biological activity of 16-phenoxy prostaglandins especially cloprostenol and fluprostenol stimulated a lot of work …" A POSA in 1988 looking for a potent, metabolically stable PGF2α analogue could not have overlooked the 16-phenoxy tetranor family.
5. P1 supplies the ester. P1's express preference for "C1 to C5 alkyl esters of PGF2α" (and its teaching that esterification "greatly improve[s] the ocular hypotensive potency") supplies both the isopropyl ester form used in the specification and the pharmaceutically acceptable salt/ester forms of P4's genus.
6. P5 supplies independent confirmation that ω-aryl "trinor" PGs retain biological activity — i.e., that moving the ring down the ω-chain (C-16 phenoxy; C-17 phenyl) is a tolerated, activity-preserving modification, not an inactivating one.

Predicted outcome: Claim 1 rejected; the composition elements (A, B) are met by P1, the structural element (D) by P4, and the functional element (C) requires only routine dose titrating because the art already taught the class was potent and that esters address potency/penetration.

5.2 Combination II — P1 (or P2/P3) in view of P4 and P7, further in view of P2/P8's side-effect motivation

Proposed rejection: Claim 1 is obvious over Bito '353 in view of Bowler (US 4,321,275) and the 16-phenoxy-prostaglandin SAR (P7), and further in view of the art's express motivation to reduce PG ocular side effects.

Added motivation over Combination I: The '999 specification itself concedes that the field's problem in 1988 was side effects, not efficacy: "a limiting factor is their property of causing superficial irritation and vasodilation in the conjunctiva … local side effects will arise in the eye already when the amounts of prostaglandin administered are quite small." The pre-1988 art (P2, P6, P8 on its 1987 JP priority) shares that motivation. A POSA seeking an IOP-lowering PGF2α analogue with fewer local side effects would look to ω-chain-modified analogues of lower required dose — exactly what P4's more-potent 16-phenoxy tetranor compounds supply. The claim's functional limitation (C) is thus not a barrier; it is the stated goal the combination was designed to reach.

5.3 Combination III (alternative) — drop the priority

If claim 1 is not entitled to the Sept. 6, 1988 Swedish priority (see § 8.2), the critical date shifts to at least Apr. 10, 1990 (US 07/469,442) or Dec. 8, 1992 (US 07/986,943). The following then become available and make the case considerably stronger:

• EP 0 308 135 (Ueno; filed 8/9/88, published 1989) — topical ocular hypotensive PG compositions designed to avoid the transient IOP rise (P8).
• Balapure et al. (1989), Biochem. Pharmacol. 38:2375 — "16-phenoxy tetranor PGF2α … binds to the FP receptor on ovine luteal cells with much greater affinity (440%) than PGF2α" (as reproduced in multiple commercial datasheets, e.g. MedChemExpress HY-181444). Under a later critical date this is a direct, quantitative motivation to select the claimed species as a potent FP agonist for a receptor-mediated IOP-lowering indication.
• EP 0 366 279 (Ueno; priority 1/10/88) — ocular hypotensive agents "exhibit no or little side effect such as transient ocular hypertensive response, hyperemia of conjunctiva or of iris …".
• Woodward et al. (1988–89) (as characterized by Alcon) — an actual IOP study of the claimed compound.

5.4 Why the functional limitation does not rescue the claim

Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), where a claim recites a result and the prior art renders the structure obvious, the claim is obvious unless the patentee can show the result was unexpected. Here the patentee cannot:

• The claim's asserted advantage ("without causing substantial intraocular irritation") is the same advantage the prior art was already pursuing (P2, P8) — a recognized goal is not an unexpected result. See KSR ("the identified, predictable solutions").
• Independent evidence in the record shows the claimed compound is not an outlier on the downside either: Alcon's later filings characterize 16-phenoxy-17,18,19,20-tetranor-PGF2α-IE as showing "unacceptable hyperemia" and an "initial increase in IOP" based on Stjernschantz's own Table IV/V. That is a § 112 problem (see § 8.4), and it removes any "unexpected results" rebuttal from the § 103 calculus.

6. KSR / Graham factor scorecard

7. Secondary considerations (objective evidence)

Under Graham/KSR, the absence of nexus-worthy secondary evidence means it cannot overcome the prima facie case in § 5.

8. Vulnerabilities, caveats, and things I could not verify

I flag these so the analysis is not read as more certain than the record supports.

8.1 The claim text itself. The claim recites "16-phenoxy, 17,18,19-trinorprostaglandin F2α," whereas the specification's species (4) is "16-phenoxy-17,18,19,20-tetranor-PGF2α-isopropylester." Read literally, the claim covers a compound with two fewer carbons in the ω chain than anything the specification tests. If the Certificate of Correction changed "trinor" → "tetranor," the § 103 analysis in § 5 applies as written. If it did not, the claim faces a serious written-description/enablement problem in addition to—and independent of—§ 103. Verify the corrected claim text in PatentCenter before relying on either reading.

8.2 Priority. I could not independently verify that SE 8803110 (9/6/88) supports this claim (which was drafted years later in a chain of continuations/divisions, culminating in a 1999 filing). If it does not, the effective date slides and the § 103 case gets stronger (§ 5.3), not weaker.

8.3 Hilmer doctrine (pre-AIA § 102(e)). For the Ueno US patents (US 5,001,153 / 5,166,178), the § 102(e) date is the US filing date (Sept. 19, 1988), not the Sept. 18, 1987 Japanese priority (In re Hilmer). That is 13 days after the 9/6/88 critical date, so I do not treat Ueno as § 102(e) prior art here. Likewise EP 0 283 151 published 21.09.88 — after 9/6/88. I have therefore not built the primary rejection on Ueno or EP 0 283 151; they are offered only under the § 5.3 alternative. Verify all filing/publishing dates against the official registers before filing any rejection.

8.4 § 112 overlap (flagged, not analyzed). The same Tables IV/V that make the claimed compound an unremarkable—arguably inoperative—species raise an enablement/written-description question about the claim's functional limitation ("an amount sufficient to reduce intraocular pressure without causing substantial intraocular irritation"). This is a § 112 issue, but it is why the § 103 "unexpected results" rebuttal is unavailable.

8.5 Unverified items in this pass. (a) The exact issue date of US 4,321,275 and confirmation that its disclosed genus/examples include the unsubstituted phenoxy member (vs. only the halogenated members) — this matters because the fluoro/chloro/CF3 phenoxy members are the ones the later art emphasizes; (b) the publication date and bibliographic details of EP 0 242 580; (c) the identity of the applicant for EP 0 283 151; (d) the full text of the Certificate of Correction for US 6,030,999; (e) the exact citation for Woodward 1988/1989 regarding 16-phenoxy-17,18,19,20-tetranor-PGF2α inactivity. I ran out of search budget before resolving these. Each should be confirmed from the primary documents before the analysis is relied on. If (a) turns out to be false — i.e., if Bowler discloses only substituted phenoxy members — then P4 still discloses the genus but the specific-species selection would need to rest on the genus-plus-motivation logic of § 5.2 rather than on an express species disclosure.

9. Bottom line

Claim 1 of US 6,030,999 would have been prima facie obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

• Primary combination: US 4,321,275 (Bowler/ICI — 16-aryloxy-17,18,19,20-tetranor-prostanoic acid derivatives, including esters and pharmaceutical compositions, taught to be more potent than PGF2α) in view of US 4,599,353 (Bito/Columbia — topical administration of PGF2α and its C1–C5 alkyl esters to the eye for ocular hypertension and glaucoma, with an ophthalmically compatible carrier). The claim is the product of substituting the art's known, more-potent ω-chain-modified PGF2α chemotype into the art's known topical ocular-hypertension method and esterifying per the art's express preference.
• Motivation is express, not inferential: same molecule class, same therapeutic target (the FP receptor-mediated IOP response), a recognized "high biological activity" 16-phenoxy scaffold (P7), the art's own potency/penetration problem (P1, P2), the art's own stated goal of reducing PG ocular side effects (P2, P8), and KSR's "finite number of identified, predictable solutions."
• No countervailing secondary consideration: the specification's own data show the claimed compound to be an unremarkable—arguably inferior—member of the series, so there is no unexpected-results evidence with nexus to this claim.
• Only real defenses are procedural/date-based: (i) the literal "trinor" claim text vs. the "tetranor" species (a possible Certificate of Correction issue), and (ii) the pre-AIA Hilmer limitation that keeps some of the most on-point 1988 art (Ueno; EP 0 283 151) out of the § 102(e) window unless the priority date is lost.

This is a technical invalidity analysis, not a legal opinion, and it expressly does not address claim scope, infringement, damages, or the PTAB/CAFC posture discussed in the earlier section.