The crowded part of the anti-VEGF estate is the antibody itself; the defensible part is often how you formulate it. US10568951B2 - "Pharmaceutical composition of an anti-VEGF antibody," issued February 25, 2020 to Formycon AG - sits in the second category, and reading it as a formulation species rather than an antibody genus is the whole exercise.
Anti-VEGF biologics (the bevacizumab and ranibizumab lineages) are a textbook genus: dozens of assignees, led by Genentech, hold claims across C07K 16/22. A new composition-of-matter claim on 'an anti-VEGF antibody' broadly would collide with that prior art instantly. So the claim narrows to the species - the specific stabilized composition - where novelty is plausible and the prior art thins out.
The trade-off is enforcement reach. A genus claim, if it survived, would let the holder sue anyone making any anti-VEGF binder for the indication. The formulation species reaches only competitors who replicate that composition. For a biosimilar developer like Formycon, that is often exactly the point: the goal is freedom to operate around the originator's formulation patents, and a tightly-drawn species both clears prior art and signals where the developer believes the white space sits.
The CPC tagging tells the story economically. C07K 16/22 is the antibody-against-growth-factor bucket; the supporting tags (C07K 2317/24, /55, /76) describe constant-region and humanization features. A formulation claim leans on the composition limitations - buffer, stabilizer, concentration - not the CDR sequence, which is why a reader should never describe this patent by its title alone. The title says 'anti-VEGF antibody'; the claim says 'this composition of one.'
For anyone mapping the Eylea/Lucentis biosimilar fight, grants like this are the quiet infrastructure. The molecule wars get litigated loudly, but the practical freedom-to-operate question often turns on whether your formulation reads on a species claim like this one.