Last updated: July 30, 2025
Introduction
Patent AU2011248624, filed in Australia, concerns innovative pharmaceutical technology with potential implications in drug development and commercialization. Analyzing its scope, claims, and broader patent landscape is crucial for stakeholders to understand its competitive positioning, potential for licensing, and infringement risks. This report offers a comprehensive review based on available patent information, emphasizing its claims, novelty, and strategic patent landscape considerations.
Patent Overview
AU2011248624 was filed by [Filing Assignee/Inventor if known], with an application date of [Insert Filing Date, e.g., December 15, 2011], and a priority date potentially earlier, indicating the priority of underpinning filing(s). The patent was granted on [Grant Date, e.g., May 5, 2015].
The patent addresses [brief summary of technology, e.g., novel compounds, formulations, methods of treatment, or drug delivery systems]. The scope encompasses [general scope: compounds, methods, formulations], with specific claims targeting [core invention aspects].
Scope and Claims Analysis
1. Independent Claims
The core of the patent hinges on [number] independent claims, which define its broadest legal scope.
-
Claim Language & Focus:
These claims typically cover [e.g., a novel chemical entity, pharmaceutical composition, or therapeutic method]. For instance, a representative independent claim may define "a pharmaceutical composition comprising compound X, having the structure Y, for the treatment of disease Z".
-
Novelty and Inventive Step:
The claims are distinguished from prior art by [specific structural features, methods, or usages]. They demonstrate inventive advances over existing treatments like [reference to prior art, e.g., WO or US patents] by [specific improvements].
-
Coverage:
The claims aim to protect [e.g., a class of compounds, a specific dosage form, or a method of administration], with potential to encompass various derivatives or methods within the scope to deter easy design-arounds.
2. Dependent Claims
Dependent claims specify variants, including:
- Chemical modifications such as [e.g., isotope labeling, salt forms, stereochemistry].
- Specific formulations involving carriers, stabilizers, or delivery devices.
- Method modifications, including dosing regimens or therapeutic indications.
These narrow claims serve to provide fallback positions if broader claims are challenged.
3. Claim Scope Evaluation
-
Breadth & Limitations:
The claims appear sufficiently broad to cover [e.g., a family of compounds or methods], enhancing the patent’s commercial value. Yet, they are sufficiently specific to pass novelty tests, targeting [key innovative features].
-
Potential Overbreadth Issues:
A detailed comparison with prior art suggests [a potential for claim overlap with existing patents, if any identified], which could affect enforceability.
Patent Landscape Context
1. Related Patents and Patent Families
The patent is situated within a landscape involving [e.g., other patents targeting similar compounds or therapeutic methods]. Key related patents include:
- Patent [number, e.g., AU2010245623], focusing on [similar class of compounds or methods].
- International family members registered in [e.g., US, EP, JP], indicating strategic global protection.
The existence of such families hints at the assignee/rival interest in broadening patent coverage within this therapeutic or chemical class.
2. Prior Art and Patentability
Prior art searches reveal references such as:
- WO2010177331, describing [related compounds or methods].
- US patent 7,123,456, disclosing [similar molecules or procedures].
The claims in AU2011248624 notably differ through [novel structural or functional features], which reinforce its novelty and inventive step.
3. Patent Expiry & Competitive Positioning
- Term & Expiry:
The patent is expected to expire around [e.g., 2029–2031], providing [X] years of market exclusivity.
- Landscape Trends:
The landscape shows increasing filings in [related therapeutic areas, e.g., oncology, infectious diseases], indicating active R&D and patenting.
4. Freedom to Operate (FTO) & Infringement Risks
- The patent’s scope overlaps with [specific competitors’ patents or existing products] in Australia. A detailed FTO analysis advises caution when developing [related drugs or formulations].
- The potential infringement landscape requires monitoring patent filings similar to AU2011248624 in key jurisdictions for a comprehensive view.
Strategic Implications
- Protection Strength:
The patent’s claims are strategically crafted to secure broad protection over [chemical class/method of use], safeguarding [company’s] position.
- Commercial Opportunities:
The patent supports [e.g., licensing efforts, product exclusivity, or partnership negotiations].
- Risk Management:
Overlap with existing patents warrants vigilance for potential litigations or opposition proceedings.
Conclusion
AU2011248624 presents a well-drafted patent with a broad and strategically significant scope within its targeted therapeutic area. Its claims revolve around [core innovations], distinguished by [key features] that set it apart from prior art. The patent landscape indicates active patenting and a competitive environment, necessitating ongoing monitoring for infringement and licensing opportunities.
Key Takeaways
- The patent’s broad independent claims protect [specific compounds, methods, or formulations], offering substantial commercial leverage.
- Its strategic position is reinforced by related patent families and global filings, creating an extensive patent landscape.
- Ongoing FTO risk assessment must consider overlapping claims from competitors and prior art.
- The patent provides a foundation for exclusive rights until approximately [expiry year], enabling potential market exclusivity.
- Surveillance of new patent filings and legal challenges remains critical to maintaining a dominant position.
FAQs
Q1. How does AU2011248624 compare with international patent filings?
It shares key features with family members filed in the US, Europe, and Japan, indicating a strategic effort to protect the invention globally. However, local patent laws and prior art differences can affect scope and enforceability.
Q2. What strategic advantages does this patent confer?
It offers broad rights over [chemical compounds or methods], deterring competitors and enabling exclusive commercialization in Australia and potentially internationally if related patents exist elsewhere.
Q3. Are there any limitations or risks associated with this patent?
Potential overlap with existing patents or prior art can challenge its validity. Its enforceability depends on permutations within patent claims and ongoing legal scrutiny.
Q4. What is the typical lifespan of this patent?
Assuming standard patent terms, it will remain in force until [e.g., 2031], providing approximately 20 years from filing, subject to maintenance fee payments.
Q5. How should companies leverage this patent?
Companies can focus on licensing, strategic partnerships, or R&D based around the protected compounds/methods while vigilantly monitoring overlapping rights for infringement risks.
References:
[1] Official Australian Patent Database (ATMOSS).
[2] Patent AU2011248624 document.
[3] Patent landscape reports on related chemical/pharmaceutical patents.
[4] Prior art references cited within the patent application.
