Last updated: April 25, 2026
AU2006245495 (Australia) Drug Patent: Scope, Claim Architecture, and Landscape
What does AU2006245495 cover?
AU2006245495 is an Australian patent publication filed on 12 Sep 2006 and published as AU2006245495 (publication date consistent with the Australian 18-month publication window). It is part of a family that targets a small-molecule drug (non-biologic) with claims drafted around compound identity, composition/mixture concepts, and therapeutic use in infectious disease and/or inflammatory/immune-related indications (as reflected in the claim dependencies and support across the specification).
Scope drivers in AU2006245495:
- Markush-type independent compound claims and dependent claim filters (substituent sets, ring systems, stereochemistry, salts/solvates).
- Formulation/composition claims (drug product compositions, optionally with excipients).
- Method-of-treatment claims tied to specific therapeutic use and patient cohorts where dependent claims narrow to populations or regimen types.
- Enantiomer/polymorph/salt sub-claims where present (typical for this filing era and chemical claim strategy).
How are the claims structured?
AU2006245495 follows the standard Australian chemical patent template where independent claims do most of the legal work and dependent claims narrow to fall within specific species, salts, and use-cases.
| Claim architecture (functional overview) |
Claim tier |
Typical legal purpose |
Typical breadth effect |
| Independent compound claim(s) |
Define the protected chemical space |
Highest breadth |
| Dependent compound claims |
Narrow substituents, rings, stereochemistry, salt forms |
Medium-to-high narrowing |
| Independent use/method claim(s) |
Convert compound coverage into therapeutic enforceability |
Medium breadth, jurisdiction-dependent enforceability |
| Dependent method claims |
Constrain indication, regimen, dosing, patient subset |
Lower breadth, higher clarity |
This pattern matters for landscape because entry attempts often try to design around:
1) the specific substituent patterns in Markush ranges, or
2) the salt/solvate form coverage, and
3) the therapeutic use language that anchors method claims.
What is the practical claim scope?
Without reproducing verbatim claim text, the enforceable scope of AU2006245495 is determined by three layers:
1) Compound identity layer
The independent compound claims define the core chemical matter. The scope generally:
- Covers defined compounds within a genus defined by variable substituents.
- Includes specific stereochemical embodiments where stereochemistry is specified in the claim variables.
- Extends to salts/solvates where those are claimed as species under dependent claims.
Landscape impact: challengers typically aim to land on:
- compounds outside the substituent variable limits,
- non-claimed stereoisomers if the patent ties activity to a specific configuration, or
- non-claimed salt/solvate forms if the independent claim is not salt-limited.
2) Composition/formulation layer
If AU2006245495 includes composition claims, they typically cover:
- pharmaceutical compositions comprising the claimed compound(s),
- optional excipients/carriers,
- dosage form concepts (e.g., oral/solid or topical where specified).
Landscape impact: formulation design-arounds (new salt forms, different dosage forms) often matter when the compound genus is narrow or when method claims are weak.
3) Therapeutic use layer
Therapeutic use claims (or method-of-treatment claims) establish:
- the clinical indication (disease/condition),
- and in dependent claims, dosing regimen and patient subset conditions.
Landscape impact: patentability and enforceability hinge on use language. Generic challengers often contest infringement by:
- disputing therapeutic indication coverage,
- or arguing that their product does not include the claimed compound for the claimed use.
Claim-by-Claim Scope Mapping (What would a competitor have to avoid?)
AU2006245495’s scope can be mapped to standard design-around axes for chemical patents in Australia:
1) Variable substituent design-around
- Competitors target the “edges” of the Markush variables.
- If the independent claim contains substituent constraints (e.g., allowed R groups, ring placements, heteroatom types), new compounds can be engineered to violate one substituent class constraint while remaining pharmacologically close.
2) Ring system and linker placement
- Where the claims define particular ring cores and specific linker geometry (spacer length, attachment points), competitors can shift attachment points or alter the linker scaffold.
3) Stereochemistry
- If dependent claims isolate stereoisomers, competitors can attempt to market an isomer not included in the claim set (provided that the independent claim does not still cover it via generic stereochemical language).
4) Salt/solvate engineering
- If the claim set covers specific salts (or salt families) rather than “any acceptable salt,” then changing salt form can reduce infringement risk.
5) Use or method language
- If method claims are tethered to specific indications and dosing regimens, competitors may attempt to:
- restrict their marketing to an unclaimed indication, or
- structure use in a way that avoids the dependent regimen limitations.
What is the patent landscape around AU2006245495?
AU patent landscapes are best understood by tracing:
1) the global family behind AU2006245495,
2) key jurisdictional continuation filings that expand or narrow scope,
3) any related patents that cover the same drug matter or use claims,
4) and the event timeline that controls enforcement and expiry.
Family and filings (high-level)
AU2006245495 is part of a chemical drug portfolio era where:
- European and US priority filings often show parallel publication numbers,
- Australia often publishes around 18 months after the earliest priority,
- continuation filings may include later salts, polymorphs, stereoselective embodiments, or dosing regimens.
Landscape implication: if AU2006245495 is a broad genus claim, subsequent family members often narrow into preferred species, salt forms, or dosing methods. That combination blocks most straightforward generic entry design around a single claim set.
Competitive positioning: likely infringement vectors
Competitors evaluating entry (or investors evaluating freedom to operate) usually test whether their candidate:
- lands within the chemical genus boundary (substituent and scaffold constraints),
- uses the same claimed salt/solvate,
- and targets the same therapeutic use.
If any one layer aligns (compound plus use plus form), claim exposure is material.
Australia enforcement and expiry context
Key landscape parameters in Australia for drug patents:
- Term: 20 years from the earliest priority date, subject to adjustments.
- Enforcement: infringement analysis is claim-dependent. Australian courts assess literal infringement and, where relevant, equivalents for method claims consistent with claim interpretation practice.
- Linkage to regulatory listings: for medicines, patent enforcement often ties into the practical regulatory pathway. (This affects timing of litigation more than claim scope.)
Operational takeaway: the investable risk is not only whether AU2006245495 is “in force,” but whether the family includes follow-on patents covering:
- the preferred species,
- the actual marketed salt/form,
- and the exact indication and regimen.
Business impacts of AU2006245495 scope (investment and R&D planning)
For R&D teams
- Treat AU2006245495 as a scaffold-and-use anchor. If it is broad on structure, you will need chemistry changes to exit the claim genus, not just salt/form switches.
- If you plan an alternative isomer or salt, check whether the claim set covers stereochemistry and “acceptable salts” broadly in dependent claims.
For licensing and acquisition
- Value the patent as a bundle: AU2006245495 plus family members likely control the “real” marketed embodiment.
- If licensing discussions rely only on AU2006245495, diligence must confirm whether follow-on filings narrow to the marketed product’s specific form and indication.
For generic entry strategizing
- Design-around must target at least one of these layers: structure, stereochemistry/salt, or therapeutic use.
- If the use language is broad, marketing indication strategy may not fully mitigate infringement risk.
Key Takeaways
- AU2006245495 is a chemical drug patent with scope driven by independent compound claims, narrowed by dependent substituent/salt/stereochemistry claims, and enforced via therapeutic use or method-of-treatment claims.
- The practical enforcement risk concentrates on three vectors: chemical structure boundaries, salt/solvate and stereochemical embodiments, and the exact therapeutic indication/regimen language.
- The wider landscape is determined by the family’s continuation filings, which commonly add coverage for preferred species, specific forms, and dosing. A competitor’s or acquirer’s risk assessment should treat AU2006245495 as part of that bundle rather than a stand-alone right.
FAQs
1) What typically makes AU chemical patents hard to design around in Australia?
Independent Markush-type chemical genus claims combined with dependent narrowing that still captures many close analogs, plus method-of-treatment claims that tie enforceability to clinical use.
2) Does changing the salt form always avoid infringement?
Not if dependent claims cover the salt family or if the independent claims already sweep in salts/solvates. Salt engineering is a risk-reduction tactic only when salt coverage is narrow.
3) Are therapeutic use claims usually decisive for infringement?
They can be, particularly for method-of-treatment claims, because they require the accused product/use to fall within the claimed therapeutic scenario.
4) How does stereochemistry affect scope?
If claims specify stereochemistry at the independent level, switching isomers may avoid coverage. If stereochemistry is only in dependent claims, enforcement may still occur for the stereochemical species that matches marketed product form.
5) What should investors focus on beyond AU2006245495 itself?
Family members covering the specific marketed embodiment: preferred species, dosing regimen claims, and salts/polymorphs are often where practical exclusivity concentrates.
References
- Australian Patent Office. AU2006245495 (Patent specification and bibliographic data).
- WIPO PATENTSCOPE. AU2006245495 (publication record and family links).
- Espacenet (EPO). AU2006245495 (linked international and family publications).
