Patent Law Weblog

recent posts

about

Patent Profile: PuriCore Announces Issuance of Patent for Wound and Ulcer Treatment

    By Kwame Mensah —

Logo
PuriCore recently announced that it had been granted U.S. Patent No. 7,276,255, entitled "Wound and Ulcer Treatment with Super-Oxidized Water."  The ‘255 patent covers methods of treating an open wound with hypochlorous acid solutions at neutral or near-neutral pH.  The method includes two processes:  reducing wound bioburden and promoting tissue repair.  Research data submitted with the application show that the method of the invention creates a wound-healing environment by decreasing the bioburden of harmful microorganisms within the wound and by promoting skin cell proliferation and re-growth.

The ‘255 patent is the first U.S. patent specifically related to wound therapy to be issued to PuriCore, whose research focuses on the control of infectious pathogens.  Commenting on the issuance of the ‘255 patent, PuriCore CEO Greg Bosch stated that "the granting of this patent complements our broad intellectual property portfolio focused on antimicrobial solutions and devices for producing these solutions."  In addition to the ‘255 patent, PuriCore’s patent portfolio comprises U.S. Patent No. 6,632,347 and recently-issued U.S. Patent No. 7,303,660.

The ‘255 patent issued from U.S. Application Number 10/830,878, filed April 23, 2004.  Representative independent claims 1 and 18 of the ‘255 patent recite:

1.  A method for treating an open wound in a human or animal body comprising administering to the open wound an output solution comprising hypochlorous acid, said output solution: having a pH of 4 to 7, a redox potential of >950 mV, and being obtained by electrochemical treatment of a saline solution; and wherein the output solution is administered in an amount effective to act as a biocide and permit cell proliferation for wound healing.

18.  A method for treating an open wound in a mammal comprising administering to the open wound an output solution obtained by electrochemical treatment of a saline solution, the output solution comprising hypochlorous acid, having an available free chlorine concentration of about 144 mg/l to 400 mg/l, and having a pH of 4 to 7, wherein the output solution is administered in an amount effective to act as a biocide and permit cell proliferation for wound healing.

Posted in

3 responses to “Patent Profile: PuriCore Announces Issuance of Patent for Wound and Ulcer Treatment”

  1. kuppy kuppy the humble puppy Avatar
    kuppy kuppy the humble puppy

    “and being obtained by electrochemical treatment of a saline solution”
    A method-by-process claim?
    Interesting.
    So if I only administer the solution but I don’t obtain it, I don’t infringe. Right?

    Like

    Reply
  2. Kevin E. Noonan Avatar
    Kevin E. Noonan

    Dear Puppy:
    Glad you’re back. You might be interested in the Monsanto v. Syngenta Seed case, where the putatively infringed claim was “planting a seed produced by the method of claim 1 to obtain progeny thereof.” The seed itself had been made by the patentee, and the infringing act was alleged to be planting that seed to produce a recombinant plant.
    Not so fast, said the CAFC. Applying the dependent claim rules of Sec. 112, the Court determined that defendants did not infringe because they did not perform every step recited in the claim. There is another case, a business methods case, I think, from last year with a similar outcome – the steps of the method were performed by different entities, and the Court held there was no joint infringer liability when one entity didn’t practice the entire claim.
    So there is a risk with this type of claim drafting, and your interpretation is not an outrageous one. I think the patentee would be better served by defining the solution and how to make it, and leaving any characterizing limitations to be structural (in this case the pH, the chloride ion concentration and the redox potential).
    Of course, a review of the file history shows that the applicant initially defined the term as “super oxidized water,” which the Examiner found indefinite. The methodological steps were added from a dependent claim, in a successful effort to overcome the rejection.
    This will ultimtely be an issue of claim construction, and that means an accused infringer will have the chance to argue your position to a judge and (ultimately) the CAFC.
    Thanks for the comment.

    Like

    Reply
  3. k.k. the h.p. Avatar
    k.k. the h.p.

    I too am aware of the shifting (hardening) sands in the area of multi-party infringement.
    “the applicant initially defined the term as “super oxidized water,” which the Examiner found indefinite. The methodological steps were added from a dependent claim, in a successful effort to overcome the rejection.”
    Oy. Goodbye D.O.E., too.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to k.k. the h.p. Cancel reply