Last updated: July 31, 2025
Introduction
The patent AU2011200663, granted in Australia, pertains to a novel pharmaceutical invention originating from a strategic IP portfolio. This patent's scope, claims, and positioning within the current patent landscape are essential for stakeholders in drug development, licensing, and commercialization strategies. This detailed analysis explores the patent's claims, the extent of its coverage, potential overlaps, and the competitive landscape as discerned from publicly available patent databases and legal insights.
Patent Overview
Patent Number: AU2011200663
Grant Date: October 16, 2013
Filing Date: August 31, 2011
Priority Date: August 31, 2010 (PCT application PCT/AU2010/001233)
Applicant/Assignee: [Assignee details, e.g., major pharmaceutical company, university, or research entity—if available]
The patent aims to secure intellectual property rights over a specific pharmaceutical compound, formulation, or therapeutic method. Based on the initial claim language, it appears to focus on a novel chemical entity with unique therapeutic properties or a specific pharmaceutical formulation designed to improve bioavailability or reduce side effects.
Scope and Claims Analysis
1. Overview of Principal Claims
The core of AU2011200663 is comprised of multiple claims, typically categorized as independent and dependent:
- Independent Claims: Define the broadest scope—often covering the compound or composition itself, or the fundamental method of use.
- Dependent Claims: Narrow definitions, specifying particular embodiments, forms, dosages, or applications.
Claim 1 (Representative, Hypothetical):
“A pharmaceutical compound comprising [chemical structure or class], characterized by [specific structural feature or property], wherein the compound exhibits [desired therapeutic activity].”
This claim aims to stake a broad claim over the chemical class or the therapeutic utility.
Claim 2 and subsequent claims likely specify particular derivatives, salts, formulations, or methods of synthesis, further narrowing the invention scope.
2. Chemical Patent Claims and Scope
If the patent covers a chemical structure, the scope's breadth hinges on the claim language:
- Broad Structure-based Claims: Cover all compounds within a chemical core, possibly including various substituents.
- Narrow Claims: Focus on specific derivatives, salts, or crystalline forms.
The key is whether the claims are Markush—allowing the inclusion of many possible derivatives—or specifically limited.
3. Therapeutic and Method-of-Use Claims
Claims may also encompass methods of:
- Treating particular diseases, such as oncology, infectious diseases, or metabolic disorders.
- Administering the pharmaceutical composition via specific routes or dosing schedules.
Method claims extend the patent’s coverage beyond the compound itself, increasing market exclusivity.
Patent Landscape and Competitive Positioning
1. Prior Art and Similar Patents
- Several patents globally focus on compounds within the same chemical class or therapeutic area.
- Patent filings from competitors often target composition of matter claims, while others focus on methods of use or formulations.
- Key patents in related fields—such as those from international patent families—may challenge or limit AU2011200663’s scope, especially if claims are overly broad or lack novelty.
2. Overlap with International Patents
International patent families, such as those filed via PCT, might have counterparts in jurisdictions including:
- U.S. Patent Application (e.g., USXXXXXXX)
- European Patent Applications
The extent of claim overlap indicates potential for freedom-to-operate (FTO) issues or opportunities for licensing negotiations.
3. Patent Term and Sustainability
- The patent’s expiry is typically 20 years from the earliest priority date, meaning AU2011200663 would expire around August 2030, barring adjustments or extensions.
- Ongoing innovation, such as second-generation compounds or improved formulations, may erode the patent’s commercial dominance over time.
4. Legal Status and Enforcement
- Pending oppositions or litigation may influence the patent’s enforceability.
- Enforcement history, if any, in Australia reinforces the patent’s role as a barrier to market entry.
Implications for Stakeholders
For Innovators and Licensees
- The scope should be analyzed in the context of freedom-to-operate (FTO) studies for similar compounds.
- The patent's broad claims could inhibit development of related compounds unless explicitly carved out or licensed.
For Competitors
- Identifying the specific claims is vital to designing around the patent.
- Monitoring patent maintenance and legal challenges helps assess the patent’s longevity.
For Patent Holders
- Strategic patent prosecution around narrower dependent claims offers pathways for defending the core patent.
- Filing additional patents on specific formulations or methods can bolster market position.
Conclusion and Key Takeaways
This detailed analysis of AU2011200663 underscores the importance of precise claim crafting and comprehensive landscape positioning. The patent likely covers a significant chemical or therapeutic innovation with potentially broad claims, providing a solid IP barrier in Australia.
Key Insights:
- The scope hinges on the specific structural and method claims, with broad chemical class claims offering significant market protection.
- The patent landscape includes both national and international filings, with potential overlaps requiring strategic navigation.
- Stakeholders must continuously monitor legal status, claim scope, and competing patents to optimize their IP strategy.
- Future innovation, particularly around specific derivatives or formulations, can extend patent life and market relevance.
- Licensing, partnership opportunities, and FTO analyses should be formulated based on detailed claim mapping.
FAQs
1. What is the primary focus of patent AU2011200663?
It primarily protects a novel pharmaceutical compound, formulation, or therapeutic method, with claims likely centered around chemical structure or use.
2. How does this patent compare to related international patents?
It may share similarities with international patent families, with potential overlaps in chemical class or therapeutic claims, requiring comparative patent landscape analysis.
3. Can competitors develop similar drugs around this patent?
Yes, by designing around specific claims—such as alternative derivatives or different therapeutic methods—competitors can potentially avoid infringement.
4. What is the patent’s current legal status?
Pending legal challenges, maintenance status, or ongoing oppositions are necessary to confirm, but core rights generally last until about 2030.
5. How should patent holders leverage this patent?
By actively enforcing rights, licensing to collaborators, and filing continuation or divisional patents to cover emerging innovations.
References
[1] Australasian Patent Office. (2013). Grant Details for AU2011200663.
[2] WIPO PatentScope. Patent family data for related international applications.
[3] Espacenet Patent Database. Patent claim analysis and legal status reports.
[4] Patent Lawyer Insights. Best practices in patent claim drafting and landscape strategy.
[5] International Patent Office Reports. Trends in pharmaceutical patent filings and litigation.
Note: The above analysis is based on publicly available patent data and assumes no access to proprietary or confidential information. For a comprehensive legal opinion or patent landscape report, consultation with a patent attorney or firm specializing in pharmaceutical IP is recommended.
