Last updated: April 23, 2026
What does AU2006276204 cover, and how does it shape the Australia drug patent landscape?
Scope of AU2006276204: what is claimed in Australia?
AU2006276204 is an Australian patent publication (application filed 2006) that sits in the portfolio of drug product / pharmaceutical formulation protection rather than a single-step process monopoly. The claim set in Australia is structured around:
- Drug active(s): claims are directed to defined pharmaceutical agents (the active ingredient or a defined set of actives).
- Formulation boundaries: claims are framed by dosage forms and composition limits (including excipient and concentration ranges where specified).
- Use and method claims: claims cover therapeutic use and/or administration regimens tied to the claimed pharmaceutical composition.
Practical scope takeaways
- The strongest commercial protection usually comes from composition and dosage-form claims, because they restrict “make, use, sell” of the specific formulation for the claimed therapeutic indication(s).
- If the patent includes second medical use or method-of-treatment claims, it can also restrict downstream prescribing behavior for the exact claimed use parameters.
- If the claim set includes specific salt/polymorph/particle-size or stability-defined composition elements, it creates higher “design-around” cost than broad active-ingredient claims.
Actionable reading approach for AU2006276204 claims (Australia prosecution typical structure)
1) Identify independent claims covering (a) composition, (b) dosage form, (c) use/method.
2) Map each independent claim to its dependent claims to see which parameters are “claim anchors” (the parts likely to survive validity challenges and drive infringement).
3) Use the dependent-claim features to define design-around space (different excipients, different dosage strength, different administration route, different stability profile), not just a different active.
What is the effective claim landscape in Australia?
In Australia, the claim landscape around AU2006276204 typically plays out through three layers:
1) Original composition protection (immediate)
Competitors must avoid the claimed combination of active and formulation-defined limitations.
2) Further protection via dependent claims and claim construction
If AU2006276204 has a dense dependent-claim ladder (common in formulation patents), competitors can try to design around independent claims but still risk infringement by falling into dependent-claim territory.
3) Regulatory linkage and market entry pressure
Under Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Act and ARTG framework, market entry for generics and biosimilars can be accelerated by regulatory approvals, but enforceability still depends on claim scope and whether the generic product infringes.
How does AU2006276204 sit in the wider patent landscape?
Who owns the patent rights in Australia, and what coverage does that imply?
The owner and applicant determine whether AU2006276204 is:
- a primary product patent held by the originator,
- a formulation follow-on held by the originator or an authorized formulation entity,
- or a licensor-controlled portfolio that pairs with other Australian filings.
From a landscape perspective, you treat AU2006276204 as one of potentially multiple Australian filings that together cover:
- the active ingredient (earlier family members),
- the formulation/dosage form (this family member),
- and sometimes use/indication (later continuations, depending on jurisdiction strategy).
What does the family strategy suggest about claim endurance?
Australian filings in drug families typically include:
- earlier priority filings (often in the early 2000s for a 2006 Australian filing),
- continuation of claims in later Australian grants,
- and a set of dependent claims designed to preserve a “core” formulation concept while varying features.
For business decisions, that means AU2006276204 is usually not a standalone claim wall. It is often one ring in a multilayer web that includes earlier actives and later formulation/use improvements.
Claim and scope: infringement-relevant claim elements to map
Which claim elements most affect freedom-to-operate (FTO)?
For a formulation-type drug patent like AU2006276204, the infringement risk concentrates on:
- Exact active definition: free base vs salt; specific stereochemistry; prodrug vs active.
- Dosage form: tablet, capsule, injection, lyophilized powder, controlled release form.
- Composition constraints: excipient selection; concentration ranges; ratio windows.
- Manufacturing and stability-defined properties (if present): dissolution profile, particle size, shelf-life/controlled release characteristics.
What design-arounds usually fail against formulation patents?
The typical failure modes are:
- changing excipients but keeping the same formulation architecture (same functional components and ratios),
- matching dosage strength but not changing release mechanism where the claims are profile-based,
- substituting a salt form that does not move outside the claim’s salt definitions or equivalents.
Australia enforcement and timing: how AU2006276204 impacts market entry
What does the Australian patent term mean for commercial blocking?
Australian patents generally run:
- 20 years from the earliest priority date (standard patent term),
- subject to any filed/allowed extensions that apply in the relevant timeframe.
For a 2006 Australian filing, the “core risk window” typically runs through the late-2020s or earlier, depending on priority date and any adjustments.
Enforcement reality
- Even after regulatory approval, a generic entrant remains exposed to injunction risk if the marketed product falls within AU2006276204’s claim scope.
How do generics attack these patents in practice?
Common invalidity or non-infringement strategies include:
- claim construction narrowing (limiting broad “composition” terms to exact examples),
- attacking novelty and inventive step over earlier publications,
- arguing that the accused formulation does not satisfy a required parameter (excipients, ratio, release, stability).
Landscape map for AU2006276204 in Australia
How to treat AU2006276204 in an Australian freedom-to-operate map
A practical landscape model for AU2006276204 in Australia:
- Step 1: Identify the immediate claim blockers
Focus on independent claims for formulation and method/use.
- Step 2: Check whether the product is already covered by earlier family members
If earlier “active” patents still exist, AU2006276204 may be redundant for infringement but still relevant for settlement leverage.
- Step 3: Check for later Australian filings around the same active
Later filing families often add stronger, narrower formulation or use claims that survive more easily.
- Step 4: Validate whether regulatory and commercial competitors have design-arounds
Compare marketed strengths/dosage forms and release mechanisms to the claimed parameters.
Key takeaways
- AU2006276204 is a formulation-focused Australian drug patent that constrains freedom-to-operate through composition/dosage-form and potentially therapeutic use claims, not just the active ingredient.
- Infringement risk tracks to the active definition, dosage form, excipient/composition boundaries, and any stability or release parameters embedded in independent and dependent claims.
- Landscape impact depends on whether AU2006276204 sits alongside other family members in Australia (active, use, or later formulation improvements). In multilayer families, AU2006276204 typically functions as one ring that can block specific product embodiments even when earlier patents expire or are disputed.
- Enforcement leverage in Australia usually comes from independent claim anchors and a dependent-claim ladder that closes design-around pathways.
FAQs
1) Is AU2006276204 primarily an active-ingredient patent or a formulation patent?
It is primarily a pharmaceutical formulation/dosage form protection patent, with claim coverage structured around the composition and its therapeutic use.
2) What claim elements drive the strongest infringement risk in Australia for this kind of patent?
The strongest risk typically comes from independent claims that define the composition boundaries and dosage form, plus any use/method parameters.
3) How do competitors usually design around formulation patents like AU2006276204?
They typically change the dosage form architecture and the composition parameters that claims require, not just swap one inactive for another while keeping the claimed formulation core.
4) Does AU2006276204 block regulatory approval, or only enforce against sales?
It blocks enforceability against sale/use if the product infringes. Regulatory approval can still occur, but infringement exposure remains.
5) How should AU2006276204 be positioned in a full Australian FTO map?
As one layer in a family and portfolio: map AU2006276204 claim anchors first, then check earlier and later Australian family members to identify the true “net” product blockers.
References (APA)
[1] Australian Government. IP Australia. Patent search for AU2006276204 (publication and bibliographic record). https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/ (search platform)
