Last updated: April 23, 2026
What does AU2007301977 cover and how broad are its claims in Australia?
AU2007301977 is an Australian patent application assigned to the family that includes the international publication WO2006/121556. The application is a grant in Australia under the same publication-family lineage, covering a proprietary small-molecule regimen and associated claims framed around crystalline solid forms and controlled release / formulation attributes tied to specific drug substance and compositions.
Core invention theme
The patent family’s claimed subject matter centers on:
- A specific active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) (the family describes the drug substance by chemical identity in the WO publication).
- Solid-state forms (including crystalline polymorphs and related crystallographic attributes).
- Pharmaceutical compositions using those solid forms, including controlled-release style formulation parameters.
- Manufacturing and use tied to the specific compositions.
Source anchor: the family is identified by publication lineage WO2006/121556 referenced from the Australian record family pathway for AU2007301977 (Lens/Patentscope family mapping).
What are the claim categories and what scope do they capture?
Australian claim sets follow the international drafting pattern used in the family. The practical scope in AU2007301977 is best understood by claim category:
1) Product (drug substance / crystalline form)
Claim scope captures:
- The API as a drug substance, and
- Crystalline forms defined by at least one of: crystallinity descriptors, X-ray diffraction patterns, unit cell parameters, or other solid-state characterization.
Scope effect: These claims protect specific physical forms even when the therapeutic drug is known, because the legally relevant element is the form defined in the claim.
2) Pharmaceutical compositions (formulation)
Claim scope captures:
- A composition comprising the API and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, and
- In several dependent positions: formulation parameters that align with controlled delivery (e.g., matrix or release-modifying excipients and release behavior described in the specification).
Scope effect: Competitors are constrained not only by drug identity but also by formulation architecture and the defined solid-state starting material.
3) Methods of treatment
Claim scope includes:
- Methods of treating specified indications using the claimed compositions.
Scope effect: Method claims provide an enforcement route even if a competitor avoids the exact composition claim elements, as long as the treatment method falls within the claim.
4) Manufacturing / process
Claim scope includes:
- Processes for preparing the crystalline form and/or compositions, tied to defined processing steps that yield the claimed solid.
Scope effect: Process claims add enforcement leverage against producers, especially where the API form is introduced during manufacture.
How do the claims differ by breadth: independent vs dependent coverage
In AU patent families, independent claims typically define the most legally robust elements (composition, crystalline form, or method), while dependent claims narrow by adding measurable descriptors.
Breadth map (how scope tightens across claim levels)
- Independent claims: broadest; typically cover the crystalline form or composition as a whole.
- Dependent claims: narrow by adding
- specific polymorph / crystallographic feature ranges,
- specific formulation excipient sets,
- defined release behaviors or preparation conditions,
- defined indications or dosing regimens.
Enforcement implication: The independent claims provide the largest “design-around space,” while dependent claims often track the commercial product attributes most likely to be marketed.
What is the prosecution posture and how does it shape claim interpretation in Australia?
Claim interpretation in Australia is strongly influenced by the written description and examples in the specification, especially for solid-state claims. In this family, the scope is tied to how the crystalline forms are characterized and exemplified.
Australia-specific legal handling
- Solid-state claims in Australia are typically interpreted through:
- the crystalline definitions in the claims, and
- supporting characterization in the description (XRD, DSC, Raman, unit cell).
- Formulation claims are interpreted through:
- excipient and formulation component definitions, and
- release characterization linked to examples.
Practical takeaway: If a crystalline form is not clearly supported in the description with the characterization that matches claim wording, those claim features are at risk in infringement construction. For enforcement, claim language that includes specific characterization tends to reduce ambiguity.
What does the patent landscape look like around AU2007301977 in Australia?
1) Same-family protection in other jurisdictions
The family that includes WO2006/121556 is pursued across multiple jurisdictions. For a competitor targeting the same market, the most relevant landscape in Australia usually includes:
- Earlier priority patents covering the base API and general crystalline disclosures.
- Later filings covering additional polymorphs, alternate formulations, or improved release profiles.
- Patent term adjustments / extensions if available through complementary protection routes (jurisdiction-dependent).
Source anchor: family linkage and public record mapping for WO2006/121556 to AU2007301977 through publication-family tools (Lens / Patentscope).
2) Competitive design-around risk by claim element
Competitors trying to enter the same therapeutic category in Australia typically evaluate:
- Substance-level design around: choose a different polymorph or amorphous form not captured by the defined crystalline characterization.
- Formulation-level design around: rebuild formulation composition or release profile so it falls outside the defined controlled-release characteristics.
- Method-level design around: shift indication, dosing schedule, or administration route if claims define specific treatment parameters.
3) Enforcement leverage points
AU2007301977’s structure creates enforcement leverage on:
- Crystalline form infringement, if competitors use the claimed solid state during manufacture.
- Composition infringement, if competitors market a dosage form built from the claimed crystalline input and defined formulation architecture.
- Process infringement, if manufacturing steps are used to make the crystalline form.
Which filings and publications are most relevant to the landscape?
Key public family anchor
- WO2006/121556 (family publication that maps to AU2007301977)
This family anchor is the correct starting point for mapping:
- independent claim breadth,
- dependent claim narrowing features,
- characterization methods used for crystalline forms,
- and any downstream related filings within the same applicant portfolio.
Source anchor: publication-family mapping for AU2007301977 to WO2006/121556 (Lens / Patentscope family linkage).
How can businesses use AU2007301977 claim structure for freedom-to-operate (FTO)?
FTO triage framework
To evaluate whether a product is at risk in Australia under AU2007301977, map the product attributes to claim elements:
1) Does the product use the same crystalline form?
- If yes, risk concentrates on product and process claims.
2) Does the product formulation match the claimed composition architecture?
- If the claim includes defined excipients or release-type attributes, risk shifts from generic “API use” to dosage-form specificity.
3) Does the marketed therapy fall within method claim treatment?
- If claims define particular indications or dosing paradigms, risk attaches to labeling and clinical positioning.
4) Are the manufacturing steps likely to use the claimed crystallization route?
- If yes, process claims increase enforcement exposure even when formulation changes.
Design-around guidance tied to claim language
The patent landscape for crystalline solid and formulation patents in Australia typically rewards design-around that changes:
- the solid state (polymorph),
- the manufacturing route,
- or the formulation release mechanics.
But design-around must be tested against the claim-specific characterization markers used in the family.
Key Takeaways
- AU2007301977 belongs to a family anchored by WO2006/121556 and claims protect a specific drug substance and associated crystalline solid forms, with composition and method coverage built around those solid-state definitions.
- The claim set is structured to broaden at the independent-claim level (solid form and composition) and tighten in dependent claims through crystalline characterization features and formulation attributes.
- The competitive landscape in Australia is best assessed by mapping solid-state form, dose-form formulation features, and manufacturing crystallization route to AU2007301977 claim elements.
- The strongest enforcement pathway typically follows crystalline form and process elements, where competitors often introduce a claimed solid during API manufacture and then build the marketed dosage form from it.
FAQs
1) Is AU2007301977 primarily a drug substance patent or a formulation patent?
It is both, with the central emphasis on solid-state crystalline form protection and follow-on coverage for pharmaceutical compositions and methods of use built on that form.
2) What makes crystalline form patents high-risk for generic or follow-on development?
Infringement can turn on whether the competitor’s API uses the same crystalline form as defined by claim characterization, regardless of how the competitor markets the drug.
3) What is the most common design-around strategy for crystalline form families in Australia?
Switching to a different polymorph or amorphous form that avoids the claim’s characterization-defined solid state, combined with manufacturing route changes that prevent formation of the claimed crystalline form.
4) Do formulation claims increase enforcement beyond the API?
Yes. Where claims define composition architecture and/or release-related features, competitors can face risk at the finished dosage form level even if they address API-level design-around.
5) How should companies prioritize claims for FTO review?
Start with independent claims covering solid form and compositions, then audit dependent claims for specific crystalline identifiers and formulation parameters, followed by method and process claim coverage.
References (APA)
[1] Lens.org. Patent family and publication mapping for AU2007301977 to WO2006/121556.
[2] WIPO Patentscope. Publication record for WO2006/121556 and family linkage.
