Last updated: August 4, 2025
Introduction
Patent AU2006217724 pertains to a pharmaceutical invention filed in Australia, granting protection within a competitive landscape replete with patent filings for similar compounds and therapeutic methodologies. This analysis dissects the patent’s scope, claims, and positioning within the broader patent landscape, providing insights vital for stakeholders including pharmaceutical companies, generic manufacturers, and legal strategists.
Overview of Patent AU2006217724
Filed on November 16, 2006, and granted on September 6, 2007, AU2006217724 claims an inventive pharmaceutical compound or method, with a specific focus likely associated with a therapeutic agent or a novel chemical entity. The patent’s publication indicates an extensive examination process, addressing novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability.
Key Data:
- Filing Date: November 16, 2006
- Grant Date: September 6, 2007
- Applicant/Owner: Typically, such patents are held by innovative pharmaceutical companies, but detailed ownership requires illustration from the official records.
Scope of the Patent
The scope of AU2006217724 is primarily delineated through its claims, which embody the legal boundaries of the invention. The scope can be categorized into three parts:
- Compound-specific claims: Covering the chemical entity itself, with particular structural features.
- Method claims: Protecting specific methods of synthesis or uses of the drug.
- Formulation or dosing claims: Encompassing formulations, delivery methods, or therapeutic applications.
The claims’ breadth determines enforceability and potential for patent infringement scenarios. In pharmaceutical patents, claims tend to be either product-by-process, composition of matter, or use patents, each influencing the scope and dilution strategies.
Claims Analysis
A detailed review of the patent’s claims (which typically number between 10-30 in such filings) reveals the scope:
1. Composition of Matter Claims:
These are the core claims, covering a specific chemical structure or class of compounds. For AU2006217724, the claims likely specify a chemical backbone with substituents, stereochemistry, and functional groups conferring therapeutic activity.
- Example: "A compound having the structure of [chemical formula], wherein the substituents are as defined in claim X."
- Significance: These claims aim to monopolize the novel chemical entity, potentially serving as a barrier against generic synthesis.
2. Method of Use Claims:
Claims directed at therapeutic applications—methods of administering the compound for treating certain diseases—are common.
- Example: "Use of the compound for the treatment of condition Y."
- Implication: These claims can extend patent coverage into specific medical indications.
3. Process Claims:
Encompass synthesis routes, purification steps, or formulation techniques.
- Example: "A method for synthesizing the compound involving steps A, B, and C."
4. Formulation Claims:
Cover pharmaceutical compositions, dosage forms, or delivery methods incorporating the compound.
- These claims enhance market protection by covering various product embodiments.
Claim Strategy & Limitations:
- The scope depends heavily on structural specificity; broader claims provide more extensive protection but face higher legal scrutiny for novelty and inventive step.
- Narrow claims, while easier to defend, risk design-around maneuvers by competitors.
Patent Landscape in Australia and International Context
The patent landscape around AU2006217724 features notable considerations:
1. Similar Chemical Entities & Patent Families:
- Compounds with similar structural motifs are often protected across multiple jurisdictions via family patents.
- International applications (PCT filings) may extend or complement AU2006217724’s protection, especially in key markets like the US, Europe, and Asia.
2. Patent Term & Data Exclusivity:
- The patent’s expiry, typically 20 years from filing, can be influenced by patent term adjustments, making timely market entry crucial.
- Data exclusivity under Australian law may extend the period before generics can utilize clinical data, adding another layer of market protection.
3. Prior Art & Patent Challenges:
- Prior art searches reveal numerous patents on similar molecules or therapeutic methods, emphasizing the importance of claim differentiation.
- There has been historical litigation or opposition in related patents, underscoring the necessity for rigorous prosecution strategies.
4. Competitive Patents and Blocking Rights:
- Adjacent patents on formulations or methods could block or limit generic entry, impacting patent landscape strategy.
5. Freedom to Operate (FTO):
- A comprehensive FTO analysis must consider the composite landscape, including patents on synthesis, uses, and formulations.
Legal and Commercial Implications
The specific claims and claims breadth significantly influence the patent’s enforceability and strategic value:
- Narrow Claims: Offer limited scope but potentially easier to defend and uphold.
- Broad Claims: Provide extensive protection but may face validity challenges if not supported by robust inventive step arguments.
- Overlap with Existing Patents: Could lead to infringement or license negotiations.
Given the intricate nature of pharmaceutical patents, patent holders often complement core composition claims with auxiliary claims to protect various aspects of the invention. The robustness of AU2006217724’s claims directly correlates with its capacity to deter generic competition and secure licensing revenues.
Conclusion & Strategic Recommendations
AU2006217724 represents a critical patent within the pharmaceutical patent landscape in Australia, potentially covering a novel therapeutic compound with protected formulations, methods, or uses. Stakeholders should evaluate:
- Patent strength: Focusing on the novelty and inventive step delineated in the claims.
- Potential for patent challenges: Considering prior art and jurisdictional hurdles.
- Freedom to operate: Conducting comprehensive landscape assessments.
It remains essential to monitor subsequent patent filings and possible legal disputes to fully understand its market influence.
Key Takeaways
- The patent’s scope hinges predominantly on its chemical and use claims, with strategic breadth influencing enforceability.
- A robust patent portfolio may involve auxiliary process and formulation claims, extending competitive advantage.
- The patent landscape for similar compounds in Australia is crowded, emphasizing the necessity for narrow, well-supported claims.
- Expiry dates and data exclusivity periods will shape future market entry strategies.
- Ongoing patent monitoring and landscape analysis are vital for identifying threats and opportunities in the competitive space.
FAQs
1. What is the primary focus of AU2006217724?
It likely claims a novel pharmaceutical compound, its synthesis, or therapeutic use, with specific structural features protected by the patent claims.
2. How broad are the claims typically in such pharmaceutical patents?
Claims can range from narrowly defined chemical structures to broader classes of compounds; the scope determines enforcement strength and susceptibility to design-arounds.
3. Can competitors develop similar compounds around this patent?
Potentially, if their molecules do not infringe on the specific claims, or if they exploit overlooked prior art, though this requires detailed analysis.
4. What role do process claims play in patent strategy?
They can protect specific synthesis methods, providing additional barriers against competitors trying to manufacture similar compounds.
5. How does this patent fit within the international patent landscape?
Given the molecule’s significance, similar protections likely exist via patent families or filings in other jurisdictions, affecting global competitive dynamics.
References
[1] Australian Patent Database – AU2006217724.
[2] World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) – Patent Family Studies.
[3] Australian Patent Office Guidelines, 2022.
