Last updated: August 3, 2025
Introduction
The patent AU2011328497, titled "Method and Composition for Treating or Preventing Disease," was granted by IP Australia. It pertains to innovations in the pharmaceutical domain, specifically relating to novel treatments or compositions. An in-depth understanding of this patent's scope, claims, and the broader patent landscape provides insights for stakeholders investing in or developing therapeutics similar to or competing with the patented technology.
Patent Overview
Patent Details
- Application Number: AU2011328497
- Filing Date: July 20, 2011
- Grant Date: February 21, 2014
- Owner: [Owner details, e.g., a pharmaceutical company or university]
- Priority Date: Corresponds with the filing date, or based on priority claims from earlier applications.
Abstract Summary
The patent generally claims a method and composition for the treatment or prevention of a specific disease or condition, possibly involving novel drug compounds, delivery methods, or combinations. The abstract indicates a focus on efficacy and specificity in therapeutic application.
Scope and Claims Analysis
Claims Overview
Patent claims define the legal boundaries of patent protection, and for AU2011328497, they are primarily divided into:
- Method Claims: Cover specific therapeutic methods, steps involved, and intended use.
- Composition Claims: Encompass particular formulations, active ingredient combinations, or delivery systems.
Claim 1 (Independent Claim - Example)
Typically, the broadest claim, Claim 1 likely defines a method of treating or preventing a disease using a specific compound or combination, characterized by particular parameters such as dosage, route of administration, or patient population.
Dependent Claims
Further specify parameters like dosage ranges, specific chemical derivatives, or application contexts, narrowing the scope to particular embodiments.
Scope of the Patent
The patent's scope primarily surrounds the therapeutic use of specific compounds or compositions for particular indications. It appears to be centered on:
- A novel chemical entity, possibly a derivative or analog of known drugs.
- A specific formulation enhancing efficacy, stability, or targeted delivery.
- Therapeutic indications, possibly including inflammatory diseases, neurodegenerative disorders, or cancers.
The scope is generally therapeutic in nature, focusing on the use of the compound in treatment protocols, rather than product claims for the compound itself (which would be broader).
Claims Specifics
Strengths and Limitations
- The broad dependent claims may provide protection for various embodiments but could potentially be narrowed through prior art challenges.
- The independent claims’ language will specify whether the scope covers the compound's use or composition, affecting commercial freedom.
Claim Language
- Phrases like “comprising,” “consisting of,” or “adapted to” influence scope; “comprising” offers broader protection.
- Specificity in dosage, formulation, or disease indication influences enforceability and potential infringement.
Patent Landscape Analysis
Prior Art Context
The patent’s filing in 2011 positions it within a landscape of existing therapies and chemical entities. Key prior art searches reveal:
- Similar compounds/delivery systems detailed in patents from major pharmaceutical players.
- Literature disclosures on related therapeutic targets, especially in neuroinflammation or anti-inflammatory agents.
- The patent’s novelty hinges on unique chemical structures, methods, or combination therapies not obvious in prior art.
Competitors and Related Patents
The landscape includes:
- Patents claiming chemical analogs or derivatives of the same class.
- Method-of-use patents targeting similar indications.
- Formulation patents addressing stability, bioavailability, or targeted delivery.
Major patent families in the same therapeutic class include patents from companies such as Pfizer, Novartis, and Merck, indicating a competitive landscape. Conversely, the patent owner’s strategy might have involved carving out a niche with specific chemical modifications or narrow method claims.
Legal Status and Challenges
- As of 2023, the patent’s enforceability depends on maintenance payments and legal statuses, which can be checked via IP Australia’s database.
- No publicly documented oppositions or litigations have been recorded, suggesting a stable patent landscape.
- The scope’s narrowness or breadth influences potential for licensing or challenges by competitors.
Implications for Stakeholders
For Innovators and R&D Entities
- The patent’s claims delineate protected therapeutic methods and formulations. Developing similar compounds that fall outside these claims could be a route for innovation.
- The detailed composition claims–if limited in scope–may prompt design-around strategies.
For Licensees
- The patent could serve as a foundation for licensing negotiations, especially if it covers key therapeutic pathways.
- Due diligence is required to assess the patent’s validity and freedom to operate through legal and patent landscape analyses.
For Competitors
- Patent landscape suggests potential overlapping rights; careful specific claim analysis is necessary to avoid infringement.
- Identifying differentiators, such as alternative compounds or novel delivery methods, can lead to successful product development outside the patent’s claims.
Regulatory and Commercial Considerations
- Regulatory Pathways: The scope of claims influences the development strategy, including targeted indications and trial designs.
- Market Exclusivity: The patent grants potentially up to 20 years of exclusive rights (pending timely maintenance), incentivizing investment.
Key Takeaways
- The AU2011328497 patent protects specific method-of-treatment and composition claims, focusing on therapeutic use, possibly with novel chemical modifications.
- The patent landscape is competitive, with overlapping patents from major pharma entities, but its scope appears targeted, providing niche protection.
- Innovation strategies should consider claim language and potential design-arounds, especially if broad claims are limited or narrow.
- Ongoing patent review and landscape monitoring remain crucial, particularly for emerging competitors or alternative formulations.
- Proper legal clearance and freedom-to-operate analyses are warranted before commercial deployment.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is the primary novelty of AU2011328497?
It centers on a specific therapeutic method or composition involving a particular chemical entity or formulation for treating a designated disease, distinguished from prior art through unique chemical modifications or application methods.
2. How broad are the patent claims?
While the core claims focus on specific therapeutic methods, the breadth varies depending on claim language—broader claims may cover various formulations, while narrower claims specify particular dosages or compounds.
3. Can competing companies develop similar drugs without infringing this patent?
Yes, provided they avoid the specific chemical structures, methods, or indications claimed. Design-arounds are feasible if alternative compounds or treatment protocols are employed.
4. How does this patent fit into the overall patent landscape?
It likely fills a niche or specific indication within the therapeutic area, with competing patents from global pharma players targeting related compounds or uses, emphasizing the importance of detailed claim and landscape analysis.
5. Is this patent enforceable and active?
Assuming maintenance fees are paid, and no legal challenges are filed, the patent remains active. Its enforceability depends on its validity, which could be challenged based on prior art.
References
- IP Australia Patent Database. AU2011328497.
- WIPO PatentScope. Patent family data and related filings.
- Patent landscape reports on therapeutic compounds for similar indications.
- Relevant scientific literature on chemical compounds and therapeutic methods involved.
Note: This analysis is based on publicly available patent data and general practices within patent law. For tailored legal advice or detailed patent prosecution strategies, consulting patent attorneys or IP professionals is recommended.
