Invalidity dossier
US 8927592
Antitumoral use of cabazitaxel
Current assignee: Sanofi Mature IP
Added 9/21/2026, 10:42:09 AM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview — US 8,927,592 B2
Title: "Antitumoral use of cabazitaxel"
Patent number: US8927592B2 (application US13/456,720; publication US20120301425A1)
Inventor: Sunil Gupta
Assignee: Original — Aventis Pharma SA; current assignee listed — Sanofi Mature IP
Key dates: Priority date 2009-10-29; filing date 2012-04-26; granted/publication date 2015-01-06; anticipated expiration 2030-10-27
Purpose and plain-language scope: The patent concerns the antitumoral use of cabazitaxel, a taxane-class compound (shown in the excerpt by two chemical structures). In plain terms, it covers a medical use of cabazitaxel — treating tumors — rather than the compound's composition alone. The classification A61K31/337 confirms placement among medicinal preparations containing taxol-type (four-membered-ring oxygen heterocycle) active ingredients. The recurring prior-art keywords in the supplied text — "cabazitaxel," "solvate," "hydrate," "administered," "dose" — indicate the disclosed subject matter centers on administering cabazitaxel, including solvate/hydrate forms and dose-related features. The specific indications, dosing regimens, and claim wording are not reproduced in the excerpt.
What the excerpt does not establish: The excerpt contains no claim text, no written description, no examples, no prior-art references, and no statement of the specific cancers treated or dosage amounts. It therefore does not establish the metes and bounds of any claim, the effective filing or priority chain, patentability, or validity. The listed assignees and dates carry Google Patents' own caveats: priority date, legal status, and assignee listings are described as assumptions or non-legal conclusions, and "the listed assignees may be inaccurate." The "Active" status is likewise a stated assumption. Litigation entries, ownership reassignments, and related-family filings appearing in the source are outside the scope requested and are not analyzed here.
Generated 10/1/2026, 10:01:15 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 8927592. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.