Patented processes production

Because the epoxidation with Tl(III) is stoichiometric to produce Tl(I), reoxidation is needed. Halcon has patented processes based on such epoxidation to yield ethylene oxide (200—203). The primary benefits of such a process are claimed to be high yields of ethylene oxide, fiexibihty to produce either propylene oxide or ethylene oxide, and the potential of a useful by-product (acetaldehyde). Advances usiag organic hydroperoxides ia place of oxygen for reoxidation offer considerable promise, siace reaction rates are rapid and low pressures can be used. 

There was significant interest in developing commercial processes based on phenolic resins in the 1890-1910 era. By this time, cellulose nitrate, vulcanized rubber, and viscose rayon had all found places in commerce [24]. Smith patented processes for manufacture of commercially useful molded articles from phenolic in 1899-1900 [2,25-28]. His products were made with phenol, paraldehyde (2,4,6-trimethyl-1,3,5-trioxane) or parafonnaldehyde, and additives in the presence of HCl at elevated temperatures. 

The definition of the patented process offers the opportunity to an innovative chemist to develop a process which bypasses the original patent claims and offers a new legally clear route to an economically attractive product. 

Kvaerner Chemetics have developed a novel, patented process [1] for the removal of multivalent anions from concentrated brine solutions. The prime market for this process is the removal of sodium sulphate from chlor-alkali and sodium chlorate brine systems. The sulphate ion in a brine solution can have a detrimental effect on ion-exchange membranes used in the production of chlorine and sodium hydroxide consequently tight limits are imposed on the concentration of sulphate ions in brine. As brine is continuously recycled from the electrolysers back to the saturation area, progressively more and more sulphate ions are dissolved and build up quickly in concentration to exceed the allowable process limits. A number of processes have been designed to remove sulphate ions from brine. Most of these methods are either high in capital or operating cost [2] or have large effluent flows. 

An examination of two listed product-by-process patents illustrates this latter point. Patent Nos. 6,063,927 (the 927 patent) and 6,172,233 ( 233) both claim paroxetine hydrochloride made according to specified processes. In each case, the patent itself acknowledges that paroxetine hydrochloride was well known at the time the brand-name company applied for the patents. The brand-name company represented to the Patent Office in the patent document that the recited process was new and made the claims patentable. Therefore, if valid, these patents cover only those products (paroxetine hydrochloride) made according to the specified process, just as process patents cover products made according to the specified process. In contrast, product patents, such as listable drug substance and formulation patents, cover a product regardless of the process by which it is made. Thus, product-by-... 

A process claim covers performance of the process steps, but it also provides patent coverage to products made according to the recited process. 35 U.S.C. 271(g) ( Whoever without authority imports into the United States or offers to sell, sells, or uses within the United States a product which is made by a patented process in the United States shall be liable as an infringer. . . . ). 

The CFX MiniFix technology is categorized as a chemical fixation/stabilization process. The patented process, enhanced by additional proprietary developments, stabilizes mobile constituents within a waste matrix by ntiUzing the chemical reactions between complex silicates. The reactions solidify and stabilize the wastes into a claylike product that is suitable for either on-site or landfill disposal. The matrix-forming chemistry is assisted as needed by reaction-promoting additives. 

Other similar lipase/esterase resolution processes have been developed such as the use of Bacillus that esterase to produce the substituted propanoic acids that are precursors of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drags, snch as naproxen and ibuprofen etc., and the formation of chiral amines by Celgene. Other methods start from prochiral precursors and have the advantage that enantioselective synthesis allows the production of particular isomers in yields approaching 100%, rather than the 50% yields characteristic of resolution processes. For instance Hoechst have patented the production of enantiomers using Pseudomonas fluorescens lipase to either acylate diols or hydrolyse diacetate esters. 

Distinguish between patents protecting products, processes and apphcations (uses). 

There are a very large number of patented processes for the synthesis of pyridines, often in very small yields, from ketones and ammonia. Most of the syntheses must involve the condensation of two molecules of the carbonyl compound to give an a,/3 -unsaturated aldehyde or ketone, and such unsaturated compounds can be used directly. The early work on the vapour-phase catalytic processes dates from the 1920s and a series of papers by Chichibabin. In one of these (24JPR(107)154) he records the use of acrolein, acetaldehyde, and ammonia over an alumina catalyst at 370-380 °C to give a poor yield of pyridine and a very poor yield of 3-methylpyridine. The major problems are to separate the mixtures of products from the considerable amount of tarry material. Many catalysts and many mixtures of ketones have since been used a few of the better yields are reported here. 

A patented process for the production of green notes applying bakers yeast for in situ reduction of enzymatically produced aldehydes [67, 68] has been called into question regarding the effective production of (Z)-3-hexenol. According to Gatfield s report [69] the isomerisation of (Z)-3-hexenol to (E)-2-hexenal is a very fast process. The latter undergoes facile conversion to hexanol. Beside this, baker s yeast can add activated acetaldehyde to ( )-2-hexenal, forming 4-octen-2,3-diol. 

The Indian Patent Act 1970 came into force in April 1972. It replaced the nation s first Patent Act of 1911, a copy of the British Act, which had been imposed under colonial rule. Ripe with the national fervor to attain self-sufficiency in pharmaceutical chemical production, the 1970 regime for the protection of pharmaceutical patents was a discontinuity with the old patent regime. Product patents for pharmaceuticals, food and agrochemicals became unavailable. The patent term for pharmaceutical processes was shortened to five years from the date of sealing of the patent, or seven years from the date of the patent (section 53(l)(a) see OCGPDT 2005). 

Two extrusion products, regular and sucrose-free (abbreviated Reg and SF) Duraromes, were encapsulated at MCP Foods using patented processing parameters (14). The SF matrix was composed of maltodextrin, polyhydric alcohols and emulsifiers, while the Reg matrix consisted of maltodextrin, sucrose and emulsifiers. 

---