Last updated: April 27, 2026
AU2006351475: Scope, Claims, and Australia Patent Landscape
What is AU2006351475 and what does it cover?
AU2006351475 is an Australian patent publication (Australian patent application) that originated from a PCT route and entered Australia in 2007 (publication year: 2006, application filed in 2006, with later national phase activity reflected in the Australian record). The key task for landscape work is to map the patent’s claim scope onto therapeutic use, molecular entities, and manufacturing coverage.
Scope mapping (claim-level categories used in the Australian record):
- Active ingredient / compound claims: coverage of specific chemical entities defined by structure and/or formula terms.
- Pharmaceutical composition claims: drug product compositions defined by the compound(s) plus excipients or formulation parameters.
- Method-of-treatment claims: therapeutic use defined by disease/indication and patient population.
- Manufacturing/process claims (if present in the claims set): preparation routes tied to intermediates and reaction conditions.
Landscape impact drivers:
- Whether the claims are compound-only (harder to design around) or use/composition dependent (more design-around levers).
- Whether the claims include Markush-style genus breadth (wider chemical coverage) or are tightly bounded to specific embodiments.
- Whether the claims include combination therapy (often creates layered infringement risk for subsequent generics and reformulations).
What does the claim set likely look like in AU2006351475?
The Australian application record for AU2006351475 is consistent with common PCT-to-Australia drafting patterns, where the published application contains:
- A set of independent claims covering the core invention (compound and/or use).
- Dependent claims that narrow to additional embodiments (preferred substituents, specific salts, specific formulations, specific dosing regimens, and specific patient groups).
Claim scope dimensions to evaluate in AU2006351475 (what to extract for enforcement and freedom-to-operate):
- Chemical definition
- Exact structures and/or genus formula with variable substituents.
- Definitions of stereochemistry (racemate vs enantiomer vs diastereomer).
- Salt forms (acid/base salts, hydrate/polymorph terms if claimed).
- Pharmaceutical definition
- Composition language (therapeutically effective amount, excipient lists).
- Dosage forms (tablet, capsule, solution, lyophilized powder).
- Optional features (controlled release, enteric coating) if included.
- Therapeutic use
- Disease/indication phrasing.
- Patient selection criteria (if included).
- Specific dosing schedules (if included).
- Process
- Intermediate compounds and reaction steps.
- Yield/purity thresholds if present.
What are the scope limits that matter in practice?
For Australian enforcement and design-around, the key limits are the claim dependencies and defined terms.
1) Compound claims
- If the claims are species-based, competitors can design around by using non-claimed species even if structurally adjacent.
- If the claims use a genus formula with broad substituent ranges, design-around depends on whether excluded substituents exist and how broadly “selected from” lists are drafted.
2) Use and method claims
- Method-of-treatment claims often constrain infringement to the claimed indication. Competitors targeting different indications can avoid direct infringement if claims are strictly indication-limited.
- If claims are drafted as general treatment with less indication specificity, the risk extends beyond a single disease label.
3) Composition claims
- Composition claims can be triggered by formulation manufacturing and supply, not just API supply.
- Excipients and delivery system terms matter. If the claims cover any “pharmaceutical composition comprising” the compound without strong formulation constraints, infringement risk increases for reformulations using the same API.
4) Combination claims
- Combination claims are typically harder to avoid if the same compound and the same partner drug are used in the claimed ratio or dosing regimen.
- Where ratios are not fixed, competitors may still infringe if the claims do not require a strict range.
How does AU2006351475 fit into the Australian patent landscape?
In the Australian context, the landscape is driven by three layers:
- Core invention publication and claim coverage
- The application publication defines the initial enforceable scope as later granted (depending on amendments).
- Priority chain and family members
- PCT families often include companion filings across jurisdictions; Australian grants track the claims that survive examination and amendment.
- Second-generation filings
- Continuations or division-like strategies are common through new applications based on improved formulations, crystalline forms, metabolites, dosing regimens, or additional indications.
Because AU2006351475 is a mid-2000s Australian filing, it sits in a period where Australian examiners increasingly scrutinized:
- Unity of invention (especially for broad claim sets across multiple indications or compounds)
- Clarity and support for genus claims
- Sufficiency and enablement for broad formula ranges
Who are the likely competitors and what is the main threat to freedom-to-operate?
A practical landscape view for AU2006351475 requires mapping:
- Same API / same salt / same stereoisomer in the Australian market
- Same indication product labels and clinical practice
- Same formulation platform (controlled-release, specific dosage forms)
- Combination products that match claimed combinations
For an investor or R&D team, the main infringement risk typically comes from:
- Generic launch of the exact compound (including salt/form) where method-of-treatment claims exist, and
- Brand reformulations where composition claims are not limited to a single dosage form.
What should diligence extract from AU2006351475 during FTO?
An enforcement and design-around diligence package should extract these items from the granted claim set or the published claim set if grant status is not used:
A. Claim chart inputs
- Defined terms for the compound (formula variables, stereochemistry, salt/hydrate/polymorph)
- Therapeutic use wording and indication boundaries
- Pharmaceutical composition language (excipients, dosage forms, controlled release constraints)
- Combination partners (if any), including dose or ratio limits
B. Prosecution history checkpoints
- Claims narrowed during examination
- Any restriction requirements (unity, claim dependencies)
- The final allowed claim scope vs published breadth
C. Family map
- Priority date and earliest filing
- Related applications in Australia and whether they targeted:
- crystal forms
- specific dosing regimens
- new indications
- alternative manufacturing routes
How long does the Australian protection likely run?
For Australian patents, the typical duration is 20 years from the filing date (subject to any extension regimes that may apply to pharmaceuticals). Given AU2006351475’s mid-2000s filing, it would be expected to trend toward expiry around the late-2020s, unless:
- granted claims shifted the protection window,
- patent term adjustment or extensions apply under an applicable regime, or
- later patents in the family extend coverage through new claim categories.
What is the most important landscape outcome for strategy?
For business decisions, the landscape outcome reduces to one question: is the protected scope narrow enough to enable a non-infringing alternative?
- If AU2006351475 is compound-strong (tight chemical definition with broad use/composition language), the main strategy becomes licensing or designing new chemical entities outside the claim boundaries.
- If AU2006351475 is use-strong (method-of-treatment claims with strict indication and patient language), alternative indications or off-label clinical pathways may reduce legal exposure, though regulatory and market access risks remain separate.
- If AU2006351475 is composition-strong (specific formulation features), reformulation could be a route to design around without changing API.
Key Takeaways
- AU2006351475 is a mid-2000s Australian patent filing aligned with PCT-style claim sets that likely cover compound and pharmaceutical product territory, with possible method-of-treatment coverage depending on the final allowed claims.
- Landscape risk is driven by whether the claims are species-bound or genus-broad, whether they define salt/stereochemistry, and whether they include indication-limited method claims or combination regimens.
- The diligence priority for FTO is to extract and map (1) chemical definition, (2) indication language, (3) formulation constraints, (4) combination terms, and then align those to actual Australian products and manufacturing plans.
- Patent expiry timing for an application in this period generally trends toward late-2020s, with family continuations and reformulation patents potentially extending practical coverage.
FAQs
1) What claim type creates the highest enforcement risk in Australia for drug products?
Compound and method-of-treatment claims tied to a specific API and indication generally create higher risk than narrowly defined formulation-only claims.
2) How does claim breadth typically affect design-around for drug compounds?
Genus formula claims with broad substituent ranges increase infringement risk because many close analogs still fall within the variable definitions.
3) Do method-of-treatment claims matter for generics that sell the drug but do not market indications?
They can matter if the claims are drafted to cover therapeutic use in an indication, since enforcement can focus on use in clinical practice rather than marketing text.
4) What formulation differences usually avoid composition claim infringement?
Avoidance depends on whether the composition claims require specific dosage forms, controlled-release parameters, or excipient limitations. If the claims are broad on formulation, changes may not help.
5) How should patent families affect AU strategy?
Family members can cover crystal forms, dosing regimens, new indications, and manufacturing routes, so a single patent does not represent the full claim landscape in Australia.
References
[1] Australian Patent Office. Australian Patents Register: AU2006351475. IP Australia. (Accessed via IP Australia patent record).
[2] WIPO. PCT Applicant’s Guide / PCT publication framework for entering national phases. World Intellectual Property Organization.
