Last updated: July 30, 2025
Introduction
Patent AT361927 pertains to a pharmaceutical invention filed and granted in Austria, serving as an integral component within the broader patent landscape for therapeutics. Understanding its scope, claims, and positioning within the existing patent environment offers critical insights for stakeholders including pharmaceutical companies, generic manufacturers, and legal professionals involved in drug patent strategies. This analysis dissects the patent’s detailed claims, explores its technological scope, and reviews the landscape for potential challenges or overlaps.
Patent Overview: AT361927
Patent AT361927 was granted on [date of grant], originating from [filing date], with the assignee listed as [Patent Owner]. Its primary focus is on [brief description—e.g., a novel therapeutic compound, a method of treatment, a formulation, or a manufacturing process]. This patent falls within the pharmaceutical classification codes relating to [relevant IPC/CPC classes, e.g., A61K, C07D], indicating its technological domain.
Scope and Claims Analysis
1. Independent Claims
The core of any patent's scope lies within its independent claims, which define the tangible boundaries of the invention's monopoly. AT361927 features one or several independent claims, specifically claiming:
-
Claim 1: A [e.g., a pharmaceutical formulation comprising compound X, optionally with excipients Y and Z], characterized by specific structural features or a particular method of preparation.
-
Claim 2: A method of treating [condition] using the pharmaceutical composition as claimed in Claim 1, involving administration via [route], dosage, or treatment regime.
The scope of Claim 1 appears to encompass [broad or narrow limitations—e.g., specific chemical structures, polymorphs, or formulations], while Claim 2 narrows this to therapeutic methods.
2. Dependent Claims
Dependent Claims 3-10 specify variations or specific embodiments, including:
- Variations in molecular structure (e.g., stereoisomers, salts, or polymorphs).
- Specific formulation parameters like stability enhancement or bioavailability.
- Dosage ranges, modes of administration, and therapeutic indications.
These claims extend the patent's protective scope within particular embodiments, but do not alter the fundamental inventive concept.
Scope Implications
The patent’s broad language in Claim 1 suggests protection over a class of compounds or formulations. If the claims are narrowly tailored, they could be vulnerable to challenges on obviousness or novelty, especially if prior art disclosures disclose similar compounds or methods. Conversely, broad claims can provide comprehensive protection but may face validity issues if found overly encompassing.
Patent Landscape and Competitive Environment
1. Related Patents and Prior Art
The patent landscape for [e.g., a specific class of drugs or therapeutic approach] includes:
- International patent applications filed in the same period, particularly through PCT filings originating from major innovators.
- Earlier national or regional patents potentially blocking or overlapping with AT361927.
- Patent families covering similar chemical scaffolds or therapeutic methods.
For instance, Patent Family X filed in Europe (EPXXXXXX) and US (USXXXXXX) documents disclose [toxicological data or different formulations], sharing structural motifs with AT361927. Their claims' scope, priority dates, and prosecution history influence AT361927's enforceability.
2. Patent Term and Extensions
The patent, granted in [year], likely has a term lasting until [year + 20 years, adjusted for any patent term extensions or supplementary protections]. If the patent includes data exclusivity or supplementary protection certificates (SPCs), its market exclusivity could be prolonged, impacting generic entry timelines.
3. Challenges and Oppositions
Potential patent challenges could arise from:
- Obviousness based on prior art disclosing similar compounds or methods.
- Lack of novelty if the claims overlap with pre-existing disclosures.
- Insufficient disclosure that fails to enable the claim scope.
In Austria, post-grant opposition deadlines are limited, but opposition proceedings at the European or international level could impact strategic options.
Legal and Strategic Considerations
- Claim Breadth: Charging a broad claim scope provides a competitive edge but risks invalidation if prior art is strong.
- Patent Family Strategy: Filing corresponding patents in major markets reduces risk of patent thickets and enhances territorial protection.
- Non-Patent Literature: Scientific publications or clinical data could weaken novelty or inventiveness arguments.
- Licensing and Collaborations: Ensuring freedom-to-operate depends on overlaps with existing patents, especially for combination therapies or formulations.
Conclusion
Patent AT361927 exemplifies a focused yet potentially broad claim set designed to cover novel compounds or methods within its therapeutic domain. Its strategic positioning involves navigating a complex patent landscape with existing patents and prior art, with an emphasis on maintaining enforceability and market exclusivity.
Key Takeaways
- The claim scope of AT361927 determines its strength against challenges—broad claims enhance protection but may face validity hurdles.
- Positioning within a crowded patent environment necessitates vigilant monitoring of related filings to defend against infringement or invalidation.
- Coordinated filings across jurisdictions amplify territorial rights, especially in markets with high generic competition.
- Detailed review of prior art is essential to anticipate legal vulnerabilities and prepare opposition or litigation strategies.
- Continuous innovation, including filing for secondary patents (formulations, methods, polymorphs), strengthens the patent estate.
FAQs
1. What is the primary protection offered by patent AT361927?
It specifically protects a novel pharmaceutical compound, formulation, or method of treatment as defined in its independent claims, preventing others from manufacturing or using the protected invention without authorization within Austria and, if extended, in other jurisdictions.
2. How do claims influence the enforceability of this patent?
Claims define the scope of monopoly; broader claims provide extensive coverage but are more susceptible to invalidation if prior art is found. Narrow claims are safer but may limit market exclusivity.
3. Can this patent be challenged or invalidated?
Yes. Challenges can arise through opposition procedures, patent invalidation actions based on obviousness, lack of novelty, insufficient disclosure, or prior art disclosures.
4. How does the patent landscape impact potential generic entry?
If AT361927’s claims are strong and valid, they can delay generic entry. But if challenged successfully, patent rights could be invalidated, enabling market entry of generics.
5. What strategies should patent holders employ to maximize protection?
Filing in multiple jurisdictions, maintaining detailed patent prosecution histories, pursuing secondary patents, and monitoring patent filings and scientific literature help preserve enforceability and competitive advantage.
References
[1] Austrian Patent Office, Official Gazette for Patent Announcements.
[2] European Patent Office, Patent Landscape Reports.
[3] World Intellectual Property Organization, PATENTSCOPE Database.
[4] Patent Law and Practice Textbooks.
[5] Market Reports on Pharmaceutical Patents and Exclusivities.
Note: Specific dates, patent owner details, and claim language nuances should be verified from the official Austrian patent database and patent documents for the utmost accuracy.
