US 6479483

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me search specifically for the claim language and any litigation/appeal involving this exact patent.

US Patent 6,479,483 — Summary Report

Search scope note: I searched for the literal number 6,479,483 (and US6479483) and reviewed USPTO/PTAB, Google Patents, PubChem, Justia and Federal Circuit materials. I found no 2026 CAFC docket entry for this patent — see the important caveat in the litigation section.

---

1. Bibliographic data (authoritative, from the patent text itself)

Note: PubChem lists a slightly broader inventor list on the same record (including Hunkeler, Schnider, Stadler) and an assignee rendered as "HOFFMANN LA ROCHE (US)"; the patent front page (Google Patents) lists the current assignee as Hoffmann La Roche Inc. These are consistent.

Abstract (verbatim): "Compounds of the present invention are 4-phenyl-pyridine derivatives with activity as NK-1 receptor antagonists."

---

2. Subject matter (plain language)

The patent covers 4-phenyl-pyridine (nicotinamide-type) derivatives that act as antagonists of the Neurokinin-1 (NK-1 / substance P) receptor. According to the specification, such compounds are useful for treating conditions associated with excess or imbalanced tachykinin/substance P — notably depression and pain, CNS disorders (Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, anxiety), migraine, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, inflammatory bowel disease, motion sickness, and emesis. The specification states a pKi range of about 8.0–9.8 for preferred compounds.

Three especially-described species are highlighted as separate embodiments:

• Formula Ia: 2-(3,5-bis-trifluoromethyl-phenyl)-N-methyl-N-(6-morpholin-4-yl-4-o-tolyl-pyridin-3-yl)-isobutyramide (reported pKi 9.0; gerbil foot-tapping ED50 0.2 mg/kg p.o.; ferret emesis ED50 0.1 mg/kg p.o.).
• Formula Ib: 2-(3,5-bis-trifluoromethyl-phenyl)-N-methyl-N-[6-(4-methyl-piperazin-1-yl)-4-o-tolyl-pyridin-3-yl]-isobutyramide (reported pKi 9.0). Observation (chemical-name match, not confirmed by an authoritative register in these results): this structure corresponds to the compound known as netupitant, an NK-1 antagonist developed by Roche/Helsinn — see uncertainty note below.
• Formula Ic: 2-(3,5-bis-trifluoromethyl-phenyl)-N-[4-(2-chloro-phenyl)-pyridin-3-yl]-N-methyl-isobutyramide (reported pKi 8.6; weaker PK profile).

Preparation is by amide coupling of a pyridin-3-yl amine with an acid chloride (e.g., 2-(3,5-bis-trifluoromethyl-phenyl)-2-methyl-propionyl chloride) in dichloromethane with DIPEA, plus several alternative process variants (KHMDS/NaH alkylations, LiAlH₄/BH₃·THF reductions) and salt formation with inorganic/organic acids.

---

3. Independent claims — plain-language overview

Important limitation: The patent text available to me was truncated before the numbered claims, and the claim-language searches returned only secondary/quoting references rather than the verbatim claim set. I therefore cannot quote the exact independent claims verbatim, and the following is a specification-grounded reconstruction, not a verified quotation.

Based on the "Summary of the Invention" and the statement that "This invention includes compounds and pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof, the preparation of the above-mentioned compounds, medicaments containing them and their manufacture as well as the use of the above-mentioned compounds…", the independent claims are best understood as:

1. Compound claim (genus). A compound of formula I, or a pharmaceutically acceptable acid addition salt thereof, defined by the Markush variables recited in the patent:

   • R = lower alkyl, lower alkoxy, halogen or trifluoromethyl;
   • R¹ = halogen or hydrogen (or, when p = 1, taken with R to form —CH=CH—CH=CH—);
   • R², R²′ = independently H, halogen, trifluoromethyl, lower alkoxy or cyano (or together form a substituted/unsubstituted —CH=CH—CH=CH— when n = 1);
   • R³, R³′ = H, lower alkyl, or together with the attached carbon form cycloalkyl;
   • R⁴ = H, —N(R⁵)₂, —N(R⁵)(CH₂)ₙOH, —N(R⁵)S(O)₂-lower alkyl, —N(R⁵)S(O)₂-phenyl, —N=CH—N(R⁵)₂, —N(R⁵)C(O)R⁵, or a cyclic tertiary amine (optionally with an additional O/N/S heteroatom, optionally attached via —(CH₂)ₙN(R⁵)—);
   • X = —C(O)N(R⁵)—, —(CH₂)ₘO—, —(CH₂)ₘN(R⁵)—, —N(R⁵)C(O)—, or —N(R⁵)(CH₂)ₘ—; n, p, q = 1–4; m = 1 or 2.

   In effect, this is a broad genus claim to 4-phenyl-pyridine derivatives bearing an amide/ether/amine linker (X) and a variable pyridine-ring substituent (R⁴).

2. A further independent claim drawn to the specifically-claimed embodiments — the specification presents formula Ia, Ib and Ic as "an embodiment / another embodiment / yet another embodiment" of the invention. These may appear either as separate independent compound claims or as highly-favored dependent/markush species (I could not verify which). The three highlighted structures are, respectively, the morpholino, 4-methylpiperazinyl, and 2-chlorophenyl analogs described above.

3. Possible additional independent claims directed to (a) a pharmaceutical composition/medicament comprising a formula-I compound together with a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient (the specification provides full tablet/capsule/suppository/injection formulation examples), and (b) a use / method of treatment claim for NK-1–mediated disorders (especially depression, anxiety and emesis). The specification's own summary sentence expressly recites medicaments and "use of the above-mentioned compounds in the control or prevention of symptoms associated with certain conditions and diseases," which is consistent with claims of this type. I could not confirm the number or exact wording of these claims.

---

4. USPTO / PTAB and CAFC (2026) check

• No Federal Circuit 2026 docket entry, and no PTAB proceeding, was found that names US 6,479,483.
• Caution on a same-suffix confusion: 2026 CAFC coverage references a "'483 patent" in Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc. (appeal No. 2024-2001, decided Mar. 6, 2026, per Oliff's case summary) concerning a blood-diversion device and claim terms "vent" and "seal member." That is a different patent (a Magnolia patent whose number merely ends in "483"), not US 6,479,483 (a Roche NK-1 chemistry patent). The two must not be conflated.
• Similarly, PTAB documents I encountered referencing a "'948 patent" (e.g., IPR2021-00983, Metacluster LT, UAB) concern U.S. 10,601,948 (proxy-rotation software) — unrelated to 6,479,483.
• The patent's own record shows no noted litigation; it carries "Expired – Lifetime" status and was cited as prior art in later Roche/other NK-1 filings (e.g., a Russian patent family citations list and Justia's citation table for US 8,895,586).

---

5. Uncertainty statement

• Confident: number, title, assignee, inventor list, priority/filing/issue dates, divisional lineage, abstract, expiry status, and general NK-1 subject matter.
• Less certain / flagged: (i) the verbatim text and count of the independent claims — the claim section was not retrievable in this session, so the claim overview above is inferred from the specification; (ii) the mapping of formula Ib to the marketed drug netupitant is based on matching the chemical name to the known compound and is not confirmed by an authoritative register in these results; (iii) any implication that US 6,479,483 has been litigated at the Federal Circuit in 2026 — no such case was found, and the similarly-suffixed Magnolia '483 case is a different patent.

Sources: Google Patents (patents.google.com/patent/US6479483), PubChem patent record US-6479483-B2, uspto.report/patent/grant/6,479,483, Justia Patents citation tables, Oliff 2026 CAFC case summary (2024-2001), and the patent full text supplied in the task.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 6479483.

Let me check the specialized litigation databases.

Let me query the litigation databases more directly.

Summary of search findings

I searched for litigation involving US Patent 6,479,483 ("4-phenyl-pyridine derivatives," Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.; priority 1999-02-24; filed 2001-07-10 as a divisional of Ser. No. 09/507,456; granted 2002-11-12; anticipated expiration 2020-02-22; status: Expired – Lifetime).

Result: No litigation found

I found no evidence of any litigation — district court, Federal Circuit, ITC, or PTAB — involving US Patent 6,479,483.

Sources checked and what they returned:

Caveats (stated explicitly, per instruction not to fabricate)

1. These are negative results from the sources reachable during this session. They should be treated as "no litigation known to these databases," not as affirmative proof that no suit ever existed. The Google Patents page itself notes it makes no legal-status representation.
2. Search-result limitation: I was unable to complete a fully exhaustive, per-docket PACER sweep; the search tooling returned only indexed web results. A definitive negative check would require a direct PACER query by patent number and a Lex Machina/Docket Navigator patent-number search.
3. No auto-correction applied: I did not substitute any similarly-numbered patent (e.g., I explicitly excluded results for 6,746,885, 6,479,483-variant numbers, and other "647…" patents).
4. Related but distinct proceedings I encountered and excluded: The inter partes reexaminations I found in the results (Control Nos. 95/000,578; 95/000,579; 95/002,245; 95/000,679) relate to different patents (e.g., 6,746,885) and different parties — not to 6,479,483. Likewise, the Roche v. Apotex / Roche v. Cobalt / Roche v. Promega actions concern other Roche patents (e.g., 4,927,814; 7,410,957; the '818 Taq patent), not 6,479,483.

If no litigation is known — stated plainly

No litigation is known involving US Patent 6,479,483. There are therefore no plaintiff(s), defendant(s), jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome to report for any case, because no such case was identified.

If you need a litigation-grade clearance confirmation, I recommend running the patent number directly through Docket Navigator or Lex Machina (which index PTAB + district court + ITC by patent number) and pulling the full PACER docket history; if you'd like, I can attempt a narrower follow-up query once search capacity is available.

I'll start by verifying the structured data against live sources, since the prompt notes ODP may lag on older filings.

No proceedings surfaced yet. Let me run targeted checks on PTAB-specific sources and Unified Patents.

Let me check litigation/PTAB dockets directly and confirm whether the '483 patent has ever been the subject (rather than the art) of a challenge.

I hit the search-step ceiling, but the searches I completed were sufficient to resolve the core question. Here is the report.

PTAB Proceedings — U.S. Patent No. 6,479,483

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding naming US 6,479,483 as the challenged patent, and live web searches of PTAB materials (ptacts.uspto.gov petition/FWD documents, Docket Alarm PTAB dockets, and general PTAB reporting) surfaced no proceeding against it either. The breakdown is therefore: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0. The defensive posture is unusual but not negative: the patent was never attacked at the PTAB at all — because it expired on 2020-02-22 and was never a litigation target in the IPR era. A defendant facing an assertion today should not expect an IPR-estoppel problem, but should immediately check standing/§ 286 rather than briefing invalidity (see Strategic summary).

Flag on completeness. I could not confirm any proceeding number for a challenge to this patent, and I am deliberately not inventing one. The ODP "no proceedings" result and my independent searches agree. Treat the zero count as reliable; treat my inability to search every historical docket (e.g., pre-2018 Docket Alarm coverage, legacy ptabweb records) as the residual uncertainty, not as evidence of a hidden proceeding.

---

No proceedings to report

There is no IPR, PGR, or CBM to itemize. Two structural reasons explain the empty docket, and both matter to a defendant:

• PGR is legally unavailable. The patent has a priority date of 1999-02-24 and issued 2002-11-12 (application 09/901,982, filed 2001-07-10; divisional of Ser. No. 09/507,456). Post-grant review under § 321 applies only to patents with a claim having an effective filing date on or after 2013-03-16. This patent is pre-AIA; IPR was the only realistic AIA vehicle.
• CBM is inapplicable on subject matter. The claims are directed to 4-phenyl-pyridine NK-1 receptor antagonists (C07D213/82, A61P25/xx, etc.) — not a "financial product or service." No CBM eligibility.

One related finding, correctly characterized. US 6,479,483 does appear in the PTAB record — as prior art, not as the challenged patent. In a netupitant-related IPR, the "Bös" reference was relied on as Exhibit 1014 and quoted for its teaching that netupitant has "valuable therapeutic properties as a highly selective antagonist of the Neurokinin 1 (NK-1, substance P)," spanning roughly 14:32–38 of the specification. That is consistent with the '483 specification naming, as formula Ib, the compound 2-(3,5-bis-trifluoromethyl-phenyl)-N-methyl-N-[6-(4-methyl-piperazin-1-yl)-4-o-tolyl-pyridin-3-yl]-isobutyramide — i.e., netupitant (Helsinn's Akynzeo component). The proceeding in which Ex. 1014 appears concerns Helsinn's later netupitant patents; US 6,479,483 was the attacking art, not the target. I could not confirm the specific proceeding number within my search budget, so I am not stating one. (Petition document on PTACTS — unverified proceeding number.)

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: nothing canceled, nothing adjudicated — and that is the whole story. No claim of US 6,479,483 has ever been canceled, confirmed, or construed by the PTAB. Claims 1–13 (the compound genus, the specific compounds of formulae Ia/Ib/Ic, the nicotinamide species, and the pharmaceutical-composition claims) are UNTESTED, not SUSTAINED. That distinction is not semantic: there is no FWD to cite, so there is no claim-level holding a defendant can lean on, and equally no estoppel that binds anyone. The only thing standing between this patent and a defendant is time.

The controlling defense is expiration, not invalidity. Google Patents and PubChem both record the anticipated expiration as 2020-02-22, with legal status "Expired - Lifetime." An expired patent cannot be infringed by post-expiration conduct, so any demand letter asserting ongoing infringement of the '483 is either stale or mis-aimed (it is likely aimed — incorrectly — at netupitant/Akynzeo, protection for which now lives in later Helsinn/Roche patents such as the netupitant and palonosetron family, not in the '483). Damages on an expired patent are limited to past infringement within the six-year lookback of 35 U.S.C. § 286, subject to laches/§ 282 defenses. Before spending a dollar on prior art against this patent, confirm the assertion date and the accused-conduct period.

Estoppel landscape — none triggered. Because no IPR was ever filed against the '483, there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel against any party, and no § 315(b) one-year bar clock has started for any defendant. Practically, that cuts both ways: a defendant is free to file an IPR on the '483 on any ground (IPR remains available against an expired patent, and there is no art that was "raised or reasonably could have been raised" by a predecessor petitioner), but it is also unprotected — there is no prior petitioner whose invalidity win the defendant can inherit. Pattern signals are correspondingly thin: no repeat-petitioner activity against this patent, no Unified Patents or other defensive-aggregator involvement identified, and no Federal Circuit appeal exists because there was never a Board decision to appeal. The one directional signal is that the '483 is cited broadly across the NK-1 art (the Russian counterpart filings for carboxymethyl-piperidine and cyclohexyl-pyridine derivatives each list it as "патентная литература 1"), which tells you the art is mature and dense even though the patent itself was never litigated to a Board decision.

---

Recommended next steps

• Do not brief invalidity first — brief standing and timing first. Pull the assertion letter and the accused-conduct dates. If infringement is alleged only after 2020-02-22, the '483 is expired and the assertion fails on its face; cite the Google Patents legal-status entry and PubChem's expiration field. If past sales are alleged, run the § 286 six-year window and evaluate laches.
• Identify what is actually being asserted. If the product at issue is netupitant (Akynzeo), confirm whether the real asserted patent is one of Helsinn's later netupitant/palonosetron patents rather than the '483. In that event, the more useful defensive asset is the Bös '483 specification itself as prior art — exactly the playbook the petitioner in the netupitant IPR used with Ex. 1014, quoting 14:32–38 to show netupitant was a known, described NK-1 antagonist. That is a ready-made § 102/§ 103 springboard against any later claim.
• If an IPR on the '483 is nevertheless contemplated, note the statutory timeline: a petition triggers a three-month PO preliminary response window, a § 314(b) six-month institution deadline, and a one-year FWD deadline from institution — all academic here only if the patent's expired status does not already dispose of the case. Filing an IPR against an expired patent still requires the patent owner to remain a party, so weigh cost against the § 286 cap.
• Watch for reissue or continuation family members. Because the '483's own term is spent, adversaries will route around it through later family members (e.g., US 6,770,637 — "Substituted 4-phenyl-pyridine compounds with activity as antagonists of neurokinin 1 receptors," Godel et al., issued 2004-08-03). Clear those before clearing the '483.

Bottom line for a defendant: the standing instruction is not "the patent survived IPRs and is hardened," and it is certainly not "claims 1–5 are canceled." It is: no IPR was ever filed on US 6,479,483, and the patent expired on 2020-02-22. Check whether the demand letter is citing a dead patent before you engage with it on the merits.

---

Sources consulted

• ODP structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (canonical, empty) — https://patents.google.com/patent/US6479483/en
• Google Patents US6479483B2 (dates, status "Expired - Lifetime," expiration 2020-02-22) — https://patents.google.com/patent/US6479483/en
• PubChem patent record US-6479483-B2 (priority/filing/grant dates, assignee) — https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-6479483-B2
• PTACTS petition documents citing Bös (Ex. 1014) in a netupitant IPR (proceeding number unverified) — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1557835](/patent/1557835)/download-documents
• USPTO PTAB E2E / PTACTS portal (no proceeding for US 6,479,483 located) — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb
• Related-family reference, US 6,770,637 (Godel et al., 2004-08-03) — https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[10058546](/patent/10058546).html

Caveat: I located no Federal Circuit docket and no settlement record, because there was no Board decision to appeal and no proceeding to settle. If a proceeding number surfaces that I could not confirm within my search budget, the count above changes and the estoppel analysis must be rerun.

I'll research the assignment record for US Patent 6,479,483. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me search more specifically for the assignment record and the specific compound (aprepitant).

I hit the tool-call limit while drilling into the Assignment Center record. Below is what I can state with grounding, flagged precisely where the record could not be retrieved.

Ownership Analysis — US Patent 6,479,483

Important data-access caveat up front: In this session I was not able to retrieve the actual USPTO Assignment Center reel/frame entries for this patent. My searches returned the Google Patents front-page record, the PubChem patent summary, and unrelated assignment PDFs, but no reel/frame, no correspondent of record, and no post-issuance assignment document for US 6,479,483. Per your instruction ("don't fabricate assignments"), I will not invent reel/frame numbers, execution dates, or correspondent names. Where a fact is verified, it is cited; where it is not, I say so.

Inventors

Eight named inventors, per the Google Patents front page and the PubChem US-6479483-B2 record:

Employer at filing: The application was a divisional of Ser. No. 09/507,456 (filed 2000-02-22) and was assigned to Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Grenzacherstrasse 124, 4070 Basel, Switzerland. The inventor residence/nationality pattern (mostly CH, one DE, one CA, all on a Basel-originated research program) is consistent with these being Roche Basel medicinal-chemistry employees at the time of filing. I could not retrieve an individual employment record for each inventor in this session, so I state this as a strong inference from the residence data rather than as a documented fact.

Unusual-pattern check: I found no evidence of inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing, and no evidence of any inventor-side assignment, quitclaim, or nunc-pro-tunc correction. I also found no fire-sale-type movement of the inventor interests.

Original assignee

• Entity on the issued patent: Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. (the U.S. operating subsidiary; Google Patents lists "Hoffmann La Roche Inc" as both original and current assignee).
• Primary line of business: Pharmaceutical research and manufacturing (Roche group).
• Product embodying the claims: I found no evidence that Hoffmann-La Roche shipped a commercial product embodying these claims. The claimed genus is a 4-phenyl-pyridine NK-1 (substance P) receptor antagonist series. The flagship compound of the patent, 2-(3,5-bis-trifluoromethyl-phenyl)-N-methyl-N-(6-morpholin-4-yl-4-o-tolyl-pyridin-3-yl)-isobutyramide (formula Ia), was characterized in the patent as a research-stage NK-1 antagonist (pKi 9.0). The marketed NK-1 antagonist of the era was aprepitant (Emend), a Merck compound — a different molecule and different assignee — and I did not find it linked to this Roche patent. I therefore state plainly: no marketed Roche product is confirmed for this patent.
• Current status: Roche remains an operating company. The patent itself is Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration 2020-02-22, per the Google Patents legal-status record). No bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition of the assignee is implicated.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center record could not be retrieved in this session. Accordingly:

• I have no confirmed recorded assignment reel/frame for US 6,479,483.
• I have no post-issuance assignment (no transfer, security agreement, merger, license, or change-of-name record) attributable to this patent.
• The only ownership fact I can ground is that Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. is the assignee of record on the face of the issued patent, with F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (Basel) as the ultimate parent — the standard inventor-to-corporate-assignee chain that would have been recorded at or near filing in 2000–2001.

Per your instruction, because I cannot produce verified assignment entries, I am stopping the timeline here rather than populating it with unverified data. The correct next step (below) is a direct patent-number query in the Assignment Center, which will disclose the reel/frame and correspondent if any record exists.

Not a finding, just a note: For a patent that expired "Lifetime" with the original pharma assignee still listed as current assignee on both Google Patents and PubChem, the expectation is that the only recorded assignment is the original inventor→Roche assignment, with no subsequent links. I flag this as an expectation, not as a verified entry.

Timeline diagram

I can only render the events that are documentarily grounded (priority, filing, grant, expiry). I am deliberately not inserting an ownership-transfer node, because no transfer is verified.

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6479483
    1999 : Priority date 1999-02-24
    2000 : Parent application filed 2000-02-22
    2001 : Divisional filed 2001-07-10
    2002 : Patent granted 2002-11-12 to Hoffmann La Roche Inc
    2020 : Anticipated expiration 2020-02-22
         : Status Expired Lifetime

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Insufficient data.

The only ownership facts I could verify are that Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. is the original and listed current assignee (Google Patents + PubChem US-6479483-B2) and that the patent expired of its natural term on 2020-02-22. I could not retrieve any USPTO Assignment Center reel/frame entries, correspondents, or post-issuance documents in this session, so I have no evidence of any NPE-style transfer — and, equally, no verified confirmation that the chain consists solely of the original assignment. No shell LLC, known asserter, cascading transfer, or pre-litigation transfer is supported by the record I could reach. This is a "no adverse signal found, record not fully retrieved" outcome, not an affirmative clean bill.

Verification link (please re-run directly, ideally via a patent-number query):

• USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• Legacy Patent Assignment Search: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents record: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6479483/en
• PubChem patent record: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-6479483-B2

Recommended follow-up: Query the patent number directly in the Assignment Center and, for belt-and-suspenders, in Docket Navigator / Lex Machina (patent-number indexed across district court, ITC, and PTAB). If the Assignment Center returns a single inventor→Roche entry with no later links, that upgrades the verdict from "Insufficient data" to "Defensive / non-asserting — original operating-company owner throughout term."

I'll search for the specific patent and its prior-art citations.

I have the Justia claims and a partial citation list. Let me pull the full prior-art citation table.

Let me verify the key cited references and their dates.

US 6,479,483 — Prior-Art / Citation Analysis (35 U.S.C. § 102 screen)

Search target: literally 6479483 (US 6,479,483 B2). No similarly-numbered patent was substituted at any point in this analysis.

Sources used in this session: Google Patents record (patents.google.com/patent/US6479483), PubChem patent record (pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-6479483-B2) — which is the source of the citation table reproduced below, Justia Patents (patents.justia.com/patent/6479483) — which supplied the granted claim text, plus the EPO/Justia pages used to verify individual cited references. The full patent text supplied in the task was truncated before the numbered claims; the PubChem and Justia records filled that gap.

---

0. Correction to the earlier sections (flagged as instructed)

The previously generated "Independent claims — plain-language overview" was an inference from the specification because the claim section had not been retrieved. I have now retrieved the granted claim text. Two points in that earlier overview are contradicted by the actual claims:

This matters for § 102: the granted claim 1 is a narrower, amide-linked (X = —C(O)N(R⁵)—), amino/cyclic-amine-substituted (R⁴ ≠ H) 4-phenyl-pyridine genus than the specification's Summary would suggest — i.e., the netupitant-type and morpholino species sit inside claim 1.

---

1. The complete citation list on the face of US 6,479,483

Both the PubChem record and the Google Patents record list the following. Note the tag (APP) attached to every entry in the PubChem table — i.e. these appear to be applicant-cited references, not examiner-added art. I could not retrieve the examiner's Form-892 annotations or any § 102 rejection in the file wrapper in this session, so I cannot tell you which (if any) of these were actually applied against the claims. A citation is not evidence of anticipation.

1a. Patent citations

1b. Non-patent literature cited

---

2. The most relevant prior art, ranked

Tier 1 — chemically closest (still not anticipatory)

1. Natsugari et al., J. Med. Chem. 1995, 38(16), 3106–3120 (and its patent counterpart EP 0 733 632 A1, Takeda). This is the closest thing in the cited set to the '483 chemotype: 4-aryl-[fused]pyridine N-benzylcarboxamide substance-P antagonists. It matters because claim 1's defining features are (i) a pyridine ring bearing an aryl at the 4-position, and (ii) a carboxamide linker (X = —C(O)N(R⁵)—) to an N-substituted benzyl group. Against that, Natsugari/Takeda uses a fused pyrido[3,4-b]pyridine bicyclic core and does not disclose the 6-amino/6-(cyclic tertiary amino) substituent R⁴, nor the bis(trifluoromethyl)phenyl group. Potential § 102 target: none of claims 1–12 — the core ring system differs, so at least one limitation of claim 1 is missing. It is, however, the reference most likely to have been used in a § 103 obviousness combination.

2. WO 95/16679 A1 (Merck Sharp & Dohme, June 1995) — verified this session as disclosing "certain morpholine and thiomorpholine compounds as substance P antagonists," including the compound later developed as aprepitant's precursor (2-(R)-(1-(R)-(3,5-bis(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)ethoxy)-3-(S)-(4-fluorophenyl)-4-(3-(5-oxo-1H,4H-1,2,4-triazolo)methyl)morpholine). Why it is relevant: the '483 claims require a cyclic tertiary amine and a bis(trifluoromethyl)phenyl group; WO 95/16679 teaches both structural motifs (and the same 3,5-bis-CF₃ phenyl group), but on a morpholine central ring, not a 4-phenyl-pyridine. Potential § 102 target: none of claims 1–12 — the central scaffold is different, so claim 1 is not anticipated. It is, again, a § 103-style reference.

Tier 2 — same field, different chemotype

• US 5,387,595, EP 0 638 557, EP 0 733 632, WO 95/33744, US 5,554,633, US 5,612,337, WO 97/36871, US 5,719,147, WO 98/21185, WO 94/21611, US 5,714,147-class art: all belong to the 1993–1998 NK-1/tachykinin antagonist wave (Merck, Pfizer, Takeda, Sanofi, etc.). They establish that NK-1 antagonism by aryl-substituted amine/amide compounds was a crowded, well-developed field by the 1999 priority date — the classic basis for a § 103 rejection, not a § 102 one. I could not verify the individual titles/assignees for most of these in this session and have therefore not assigned descriptions I cannot support.

Tier 3 — non-analogous / background art

• GB 1,557,420; KR 810001320; KR 810001697; EP 0 089 765; EP 0 235 663; EP 0 244 080; EP 0 244 937; US 4,764,361; EP 0 359 547; EP 0 385 350; EP 0 405 931; EP 0 425 726; WO 92/06080; EP 0 524 781; WO 93/11110 — 1979–1993 general pyridine/heterocycle chemistry. These are the sort of references cited for the individual substituent definitions (e.g., "halogen," "lower alkoxy," "cyclic tertiary amine") rather than for the combination. No § 102 potential against claims 1–12.

Tier 4 — method-of-use art (cannot anticipate compound claims)

• WO 95/18124; WO 95/23798; US 5,972,938; Navari et al. 1999; Kramer et al. 1998; Barker 1996; Maggi 1993. These disclose indications for NK-1 antagonists (anxiety, depression, psychosis, emesis). They could only bear on any use/method or pharmaceutical-composition claims, and only if such claims recite a method the reference does not already disclose — which, given the generic NK-1 antagonism disclosed, is a live § 103 issue, not § 102.

---

3. Bottom line on § 102

1. No cited reference anticipates claim 1, or any of claims 1–12 as granted. Claim 1 requires the combination of (a) a 4-phenyl-pyridine (nicotinamide) core, (b) X = —C(O)—N(R⁵)—, and (c) R⁴ = an amino or cyclic tertiary amino group. Every candidate reference in the cited set fails at least one element:
   • Natsugari/Takeda (EP 0 733 632, J. Med. Chem. 1995) → different (fused bicyclic) core, no 6-amino R⁴.
   • WO 95/16679 (Merck) → morpholine central scaffold, not a 4-phenyl-pyridine.
   • The 1979–1993 pyridine-chemistry citations → no amide-linked bis-CF₃-benzyl motif and no NK-1 teaching.
   • The method-of-use citations → no compounds at all (or only unrelated compounds).
2. The realistic risk profile of this citation set is § 103, not § 102. Natsugari/Takeda + WO 95/16679 (optionally + US 5,387,595 / US 5,719,147) is the combination an examiner would most plausibly have assembled against the genus. Because I could not retrieve the Form-892 with examiner markings or any rejection in the file wrapper, I cannot state which references were actually applied — the list above is the face-of-patent citation set only.
3. All 30 patent citations carry the "(APP)" tag in the PubChem data, i.e. they read as applicant-cited. If accurate, no examiner-added art appears in this list — consistent with a clean allowance, and a further indication that none of these was treated as anticipatory.
4. Date law used: priority 1999-02-24 (foreign); U.S. filing 2001-07-10; divisional of Ser. No. 09/507,456 (2000-02-22). Pre-AIA § 102 therefore applies, with a § 102(b) critical date of ~1999-02-22 (one year before the parent's U.S. filing date) and § 102(a)/(e) keyed to 1999-02-24. On those dates, all references published 1979–1998 are available as art; US 6,294,537 B1 (2001) is available only as § 102(e) art, and only if its effective filing date predates the critical date — and I flag that if it is a commonly-owned Roche sibling it may not be prior art at all.

---

4. Explicit uncertainties (do not treat as verified)

• I did not retrieve title/assignee/subject-matter for the majority of the 30 patent citations (items 1–18, 20–23, 25, 27, 28, 30 in the table). Their "brief description" cells are left blank or given only as a class; I will not invent them. A per-reference verification pass against Google Patents/Espacenet would be needed to fill those cells authoritatively.
• Publication dates shown without a "verified" flag are my best-known values and are not confirmed by this session's search results. Where a search result did supply a date (WO 95/16679 → June 1995; EP 0 733 632 → Takeda case; US 5,972,938 → description-quoted), that is flagged.
• The claim-1 X Markush discrepancy (claim 1 recites X = —C(O)N(R⁵)— while claim 2 purports to narrow X to the same value) is unresolved and could change the § 102 analysis of any reference disclosing an ether- or amine-linked 4-phenyl-pyridine. Verify against the official USPTO image of the patent.
• The claim set extends past claim 12 (the Justia excerpt ends there); I have not seen any composition or use claims, and my § 102 statements for those are necessarily incomplete.
• This is a technical screening analysis, not a legal opinion. A definitive § 102/§ 103 conclusion requires the full file wrapper (Form-892 with examiner markings, any rejections and responses) and the full claim set.

Primary URLs: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6479483 · https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-6479483-B2 · https://patents.justia.com/patent/6479483 · http://data.epo.org/publication-server/rest/v1.2/patents/EP0733632NWA1/document.pdf (Takeda EP 0 733 632) · https://patents.justia.com/patent/[5747491](/patent/5747491) (confirms WO 95/16679 = June 1995, morpholine/thio-morpholine tachykinin antagonists)

I'll ground the obviousness analysis by checking what prior art is actually cited on this patent's record and what the state of the NK-1 art was around the 1999 priority date.

The searches surfaced the actual prior-art citations from the European sibling (EP 1 035 115 B1). Let me confirm the two key non-patent references, since they are the linchpin of the § 103 analysis.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 6,479,483 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Date of analysis: 2026-04-26 (task date) · Patent: US 6,479,483 B2, "4-phenyl-pyridine derivatives," Hoffmann‑La Roche Inc.

---

0. Scope, assumptions, and cross-reference to earlier sections

This section builds on and does not repeat the earlier-generated Patent summary, Litigation summary, and PTAB challenges sections. Two cross-references and one correction:

• Confirmed (resolving an earlier flag). The earlier summary flagged as "not confirmed by an authoritative register" the mapping of formula Ib to netupitant. That mapping should now be treated as confirmed. Independent sources in this session expressly name the compound: "2-(3,5-bis(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)-N,2-dimethyl-N-(6-(4-methylpiperazin-1-yl)-4-(o-tolyl)pyridin-3-yl)propanamide (netupitant)" (Helsinn US2018194788A1 / Espacenet). That is the same structure the '483 specification presents as formula Ib.
• Contradiction / limitation carried forward. The earlier summary stated the verbatim claim text was not retrievable and that its claim overview was inferred from the specification. That limitation is carried forward here and materially limits this § 103 analysis: I analyze obviousness against the subject matter the specification identifies as the invention (the Markush genus of formula I and the specific species Ia/Ib/Ic/nicotinamides), not against a verified claim set. Where claim scope matters, I say so.
• On "the Prior Art section of this page." As fetched, the Google Patents "Prior art" content for this record consists principally of the "Prior art keywords" field — methyl, tolyl, trifluoromethyl, bis, nicotinamide (US6479483) — plus citation counts. The substantive prior-art references I rely on are drawn from (i) the specification's own Background and (ii) the search report of the European sibling of this family, EP 1 035 115 B1 (filed 15.02.2000; priority 24.02.1999 EP 99103504 — the same priority date on the US face), which lists the documents the examiner actually considered. I treat the EP search report as the best available proxy for the "prior art of record."

---

1. Governing legal framework

US 6,479,483 is a pre-AIA patent (application 09/901,982, filed 10 Jul 2001; divisional of Ser. No. 09/507,456, filed 22 Feb 2000; issued 12 Nov 2002). No claim has an effective filing date on or after 16 Mar 2013, so pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) governs. The inquiry is the Graham v. John Deere framework:

1. scope and content of the prior art;
2. differences between the prior art and the claims;
3. level of ordinary skill (here: a medicinal chemist with an advanced degree and several years of experience in CNS/GPCR small-molecule discovery);
4. secondary considerations.

Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a combination is obvious not only where the prior art contains an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation, but also where the variation is a predictable, "obvious to try" use of a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Where the prior art teaches that a structural class is a "design option," the burden shifts to the patent owner to show the claimed variation is not obvious.

Effective prior-art date: 24 Feb 1999 (EP 99103504). References published before that date (and certainly those published more than one year before 22 Feb 2000) are § 102(b) printed publications and combinable under § 103(a).

---

2. Step 1 — The claimed subject matter, decomposed

From the specification's Summary of the Invention, the genus (formula I) is a 3,4,6-substituted pyridine:

The specification breaks the genus into two amide orientations, which are the analytically important "sub-classes":

• Class A — "reverse amide," X = —N(R⁵)C(O)—. Acyl side is a 2-aryl‑2-methyl isobutyryl group; amine side is the pyridin‑3‑yl. Prototype (formula Ia/Ib): 2-(3,5-bis-trifluoromethyl-phenyl)-N-methyl-N-(6-morpholin-4-yl-4-o-tolyl-pyridin-3-yl)-isobutyramide and the 4-methylpiperazinyl analogue (netupitant).
• Class B — "nicotinamide," X = —C(O)N(R⁵)—. Acyl side is the pyridine‑3‑carbonyl; amine side is N‑methyl‑N‑(3,5‑bis‑trifluoromethyl‑benzyl). Prototype: N-(3,5-bis-trifluoromethyl-benzyl)-N-methyl-4-o-tolyl-nicotinamide.

Analytical consequence. Class B shares the identical "warhead" already reported in the literature (see § 3). Class A requires more assembly but is a documented design trajectory. As discussed in § 6, the broad genus claim is harder to invalidate as a whole than the narrow species/Class A/B claims, because obviousness is assessed claim-by-claim and broad Markush genera require the art to render the full claimed breadth obvious (cf. In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).

---

3. Step 2 — The prior art of record

3.1 The pivotal references (from the EP search report for the sibling patent)

3.2 Utility / target-validation art (from the '483 specification's own Background)

• WO 95/16679, WO 95/18124, WO 95/23798 — substance-P/NK‑1 antagonists implicated in CNS disorders (anxiety, depression, psychosis).
• U.S. Pat. No. 5,972,938 — method of treating a psychoimmunologic/psychosomatic disorder with a tachykinin (NK‑1) antagonist.
• N. Engl. J. Med. 340(3):190–195 (1999) — reduction of cisplatin-induced emesis by a selective NK‑1 antagonist.
• "Tachykinin Receptor and Tachykinin Receptor Antagonists," J. Auton. Pharmacol. 13:23–93 (1993) — review of the target class.

These establish that (a) NK‑1 antagonism was a validated therapeutic strategy and (b) emesis and depression were recognized indications — directly pre-empting novelty/obviousness arguments on the utility claims and supplying the motivation prong.

3.3 What the record does not contain

I did not locate, in this session, a verified reference disclosing a 4-(2-methylphenyl)-pyridine-3-carboxamide or 6-(cyclic-amino)-4-aryl-pyridine-3-carboxamide core per se. That gap is the crux of whether the species claims (not just the genus) fall. It should be resolved by pulling the full "Cited By/Citations" tables and the U.S. file wrapper (IDS/PTO‑892) rather than assumed.

---

4. Step 3 — Differences between art and claims

---

5. Step 4a — The strongest § 103 combinations

Combination 1 — [Ikeura 1997] + [Natsugari 1995] → Class B nicotinamide claims

Proposed rejection: Claim 1 (genus, insofar as X = —C(O)N(R⁵)—) and the nicotinamide species (e.g., N-(3,5-bis-trifluoromethyl-benzyl)-N-methyl-4-o-tolyl-nicotinamide) are obvious over Ikeura in view of Natsugari.

Why a POSA would combine them:

1. Same field, same problem, same warhead. Both references are substance-P/NK‑1 antagonist papers from the same research group (Natsugari is a co-author of both), using the same N-(3,5-bis(trifluoromethyl)benzyl)-N-methylcarboxamide pharmacophore. This is not analogous-art bridging; it is one line of chemical research.
2. Express guidance, not mere hindsight. Ikeura states the 6‑membered heterocycle is preferred and that ring B "does not seem to be essential," with aromatic and aliphatic ring B both potent. A POSA optimizing the core is therefore taught to vary the ring system, including to a monocyclic 6-membered azine.
3. Anchoring rationale. Ikeura teaches the 6-membered ring "fixes the pendant phenyl group in a desirable orientation." Placing a phenyl/aryl at the pyridine 4-position of a nicotinamide core is the direct implementation of that teaching.
4. KSR "obvious to try." The art identifies a small, finite set of predictable ring/heterocycle variations around a fixed warhead and reports oral activity. Selecting a 4-(o-tolyl)-pyridine core is a predictable substitution, not an unpredictable leap.
5. Corroboration by the record itself. The "Prior art keywords" on the US face — methyl, tolyl, trifluoromethyl, bis, nicotinamide — are precisely the fragments of the Class B species, reflecting that examiners perceived this structural space as a known concept field (US6479483).

Reasonable expectation of success: High. The references report in vitro potency and oral ED₅₀ ≈ 0.2–0.27 mg/kg — success in the very assay family the '483 relies on (guinea-pig capsaicin extravasation vs. gerbil foot-tapping).

Combination 2 — [Ikeura 1997] + [Natsugari 1995] + [EP 0 235 663] → Class A reverse-amide claims

Proposed rejection: The Class A compounds (X = —N(R⁵)C(O)—), including the isobutyramide genus members, are obvious over Ikeura/Natsugari in further view of the piperidine art of EP 0 235 663.

Explanatory notes and honest limits:

• This combination is weaker than Combination 1 because the art provides the amide in the opposite orientation to Class A. It relies on (a) the POSA's recognition that amide orientation is a routine variable in this chemotype and that the specification itself claims both orientations within a single genus (an implicit admission of interchangeability), and (b) EP 0 235 663 supplying the 3,4-disubstituted azacycle + basic nitrogen scaffold, which the EP B1 examiner expressly called the "structurally closest prior art."
• A § 103(g)/analogous-art question arises for EP 0 235 663 (muscarinic utility). Because NK‑1 and muscarinic ligands share a basic-amine/G‑PCR pharmacophore and the same structural neighborhood, the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem (cf. In re Clay; In re Bigio), but this is a contestable point that a patent owner will press.

Combination 3 — Utility/composition claims

Proposed rejection: Claims to a pharmaceutical composition and to methods of treating NK‑1‑mediated disorders (depression, anxiety, emesis) are obvious over any of Ikeura/Natsugari/'483-background art (WO 95/16679, WO 95/18124, WO 95/23798, US 5,972,938, NEJM 1999, J. Auton. Pharmacol. 1993) in view of the conventional formulation art. The references themselves teach oral administration and therapeutic use; the '483's tablet/capsule/suppository examples are conventional excipients (lactose, corn starch, talc, stearic acid).

Combination 4 — The highlighted species (formulae Ia / Ib / Ic)

For the 6-substituted species — formula Ia (6-morpholino) and Ib (netupitant; 6-(4-methylpiperazin-1-yl)) — the additional feature over Combination 1/2 is the cyclic tertiary amine at pyridine C6. A posited rejection would add art teaching that bis-CF₃-aryl + morpholine is a productive NK‑1 pharmacophore — e.g., the aprepitant / MK‑869 literature (Merck, published in the 1996–1998 window) — to show the amine/solubilizing group and bis-CF₃-aryl combination was known.

Uncertainty flag (important). I could not verify, within this session, the specific preprint/patent publication of the aprepitant (MK‑869) structure that would be the correct citation for that combination. I am not inventing a document number. Treat Combination 4 as a candidate line of attack requiring verification of the morpholine-containing NK‑1 art before it can be asserted. The '483 record itself does not list such a reference; the EP search report's cited documents for this family are Ikeura, Natsugari, EP 0 235 663, and the (later) Roche-internal EP 1 103 545 / 1 103 546 and WO 00/50398.

---

6. Step 5 — Motivation, expectation, and the claim-level strategy

Motivation (articulated, not conclusory). Combining the references restates the actual reasoning a medicinal chemist would have used: fix the high-affinity bis‑CF₃‑benzyl-carboxamide warhead of Ikeura/Natsugari, keep the pendant-aryl orientation the 6‑membered ring enforces, and optimize the core and the solvent-exposed 6‑position for metabolic/PK properties. Ikeura's own SAR conclusions supply both the "what to vary" (ring A/B) and the "why" (potency + oral activity).

Reasonable expectation of success. The art's reported function is the same function claimed (NK‑1 antagonism with oral efficacy). There is no teaching away.

Claim-level reality check. A court/Board assesses each claim separately:

• The narrow Class B nicotinamide species and the Class A isobutyramide species are the most exposed (§ 5, Combinations 1–2).
• The broad formula-I genus is less exposed as a whole, because the Markush breadth (five X variants; R²/R²′ naphthalene cyclizations; many R⁴ options) is not rendered obvious by art directed to one warhead on a small set of cores (cf. In re Baird). If the goal is invalidation, the practical route is to attack the species and the narrowed nicotinamide genus, not the full Markush.
• If the earlier section's reconstruction of claims 1–13 (compound genus, formula Ia/Ib/Ic species, nicotinamides, composition) is accurate, then Claims 1 and the composition/use claims are the broad targets and the Ia/Ib/Ic species are the narrow, more vulnerable ones.

---

7. Counterarguments the patent owner will raise — and responses

---

8. Defenses the patent owner can invoke on the record as it stands

1. Common ownership / § 103(c) (pre‑AIA). Several family-adjacent documents (EP 1 103 545, EP 1 103 546, WO 00/50398, and the Roche "intermediate" patents US 6,297,375 / 6,303,790 / 6,531,597) were cited against the family. Where subject matter and the '483 were commonly owned by Hoffmann‑La Roche at the time of invention, those documents are disqualified as § 103 prior art under pre‑AIA § 103(c). Any obviousness combination must be built from third‑party art (Ikeura, Natsugari, EP 0 235 663) — which Combination 1 and Combination 3 do.
2. Date problem for WO 00/50398 (published ~mid‑2000, after the 24.02.1999 priority). It cannot be § 102(a)/(b) art and should be excluded absent a verified earlier § 102(e) US filing date.
3. Genus breadth. As noted, the full Markush genus survives better than the species (see § 6).

---

9. Bottom-line assessment

The single strongest § 103 theory is Ikeura 1997 + Natsugari 1995 against the Class B nicotinamide claims. Ikeura discloses verbatim the N‑[3,5‑bis(trifluoromethyl)benzyl]‑N‑methylcarbamoyl warhead on six-membered aza-heterocycles bearing a pendant phenyl, reports oral NK‑1 activity, and expressly teaches that the ring system may be varied (ring B not essential; 6‑membered rings preferred) — supplying motivation and a reasonable expectation of success for arriving at a 4‑aryl‑pyridine‑3‑carboxamide such as N‑(3,5‑bis‑trifluoromethyl‑benzyl)‑N‑methyl‑4‑o‑tolyl‑nicotinamide.

---

10. Uncertainty and verification checklist

• Verbatim claims not available to me. All claim mapping is against the specification's Summary of the Invention. Before relying on any of the above, obtain the issued claims (USPTO PatentCenter / the PDF) and the U.S. file wrapper (IDS, PTO‑892, any § 103 rejections of record — the U.S. prosecution history of the parent and the '483 is the best guide to what the examiner actually combined).
• Unverified features. (i) Any reference disclosing a 4‑(o‑tolyl)-pyridine-3-carboxamide core; (ii) the morpholine/bis‑CF₃ NK‑1 art (aprepitant/MK‑869) needed for Combination 4 — no document number cited here because none was verified.
• Not novel/inventive per se. Nothing above asserts the '483 was objectively invalid; it identifies the combinations that a challenger would plead and the reasoning a tribunal would weigh. Actual outcome depends on the real claim text, the priority/prosecution record, and any secondary-considerations evidence.

---

Sources

• US 6,479,483 B2 (Google Patents) — https://patents.google.com/patent/US6479483/en
• Justia US 6,479,483 — https://patents.justia.com/patent/6479483
• uspto.report/patent/grant/6,479,483 — https://uspto.report/patent/grant/6,479,483
• PubChem US-6479483-B2 — https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-6479483-B2
• EP 1 035 115 B1 (sibling; lists Ikeura, Natsugari, EP 0 235 663, EP 1 103 545/546, WO 00/50398) — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/bb/0c/dd/56231b635d02aa/EP1035115B1.pdf
• EP 1 035 115 A1 — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/3b/e4/03/9b6e5c64258d8b/EP1035115A1.pdf
• Ikeura et al. 1997, Chem. Pharm. Bull. 45(10):1642–1652 — https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/[9353892](/patent/9353892)/
• Natsugari/Ikeura author record (researchmap) — https://researchmap.jp/hn441212/published_papers/[10761389](/patent/10761389)?lang=en
• Netupitant composition-of-matter identification (Helsinn) — https://hr.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=[9908907B2](/patent/9908907B2)
• Family citation table (FPO, citing US 6,479,483) — https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[10058546](/patent/10058546).html
• Later-analogue citation of the '483 (RU2673084C2) — https://patenton.ru/patent/RU2673084C2.pdf

Note on dates: this analysis was prepared for the task date of 2026‑04‑26; the patent's own record shows it expired 2020‑02‑22, which affects enforceability but not the § 103 validity analysis above.