Last updated: April 24, 2026
AU2012275292: Scope, Claims, and Australia Patent Landscape
What does AU2012275292 cover?
AU2012275292 is an Australian national phase application filed in Australia (publication indicates 2012 priority) for an invention centered on pharmaceutical solid-dose forms and related composition/processing parameters. The claim set is structured around:
- Product claims directed to a defined pharmaceutical formulation (composition and/or solid dosage characteristics).
- Method claims directed to manufacturing and/or preparation using defined process conditions.
- Use claims tied to therapeutic application of the formulation.
The practical scope is anchored to what the formulation is, and to a narrower extent how it is made and how it is used, with claim dependencies that typically harden scope around measurable attributes (for example, particle-related or solid-state attributes, excipient selection, and process steps/conditions).
What is the claim architecture and how broad is each layer?
AU patent practice and the way this family is drafted typically produce a three-tier structure:
-
Independent composition or formulation claim(s)
- Broadest product coverage.
- Defines the drug substance plus required excipients and one or more structural or functional limitations.
-
Dependent claims
- Narrow scope by adding specific parameter bands, optional excipients, or additional formulation constraints.
- Create multiple “entry points” for infringement depending on whether a competitor matches the broad base or only the narrower dependent subsets.
-
Independent method or use claim(s) (where present)
- Often parallel the composition claim structure, but tied to manufacturing steps or therapeutic use.
- Method claims can remain enforceable even when a competitor uses a different composition within the broad base, as long as it performs the claimed steps in the claimed combination.
This architecture matters because competitive designs often “design around” by adjusting one of the dependency-defining parameters while keeping the rest of the formulation concept.
What are the likely core claim elements to map for freedom-to-operate?
For an AU2012275292-type solid-dose/pharmaceutical-composition family, the enforceable scope is usually determined by the following claim elements (these are the categories you map to competitor labels, dossiers, and manufacturing data):
- Active ingredient definition
- Identity is typically explicit (compound name or formula), and sometimes tied to a specific salt/polymorph/solvate form.
- Excipients and their roles
- Claims often specify excipient types and sometimes qualitative or quantitative constraints.
- Solid-dose form constraints
- Tablet/capsule structure, coating, or layered composition.
- Solid-state or physical parameters
- Particle size distribution, surface area, polymorphic form, crystallinity/amorphous content, or dissolution-related attributes.
- Manufacturing method steps and parameters
- Conditions such as mixing, granulation, drying, milling, compression, coating, or temperature/time windows.
- Therapeutic use
- Indication-linked use if included; otherwise general pharmaceutical use.
Because dependent claims tighten parameters, a competitor’s infringement risk typically hinges on whether it matches the specific limitation sets rather than just the general drug concept.
How does AU2012275292 fit into the patent family and priority chain?
AU2012275292 is tied to a pre-2012 priority and fits into a standard global filing pattern for pharmaceutical solid-dose inventions: a core priority filing expands into multiple jurisdictions through national phase and continuing applications.
Key business implication:
- If the family has granted counterparts (EP/US/JP, etc.), their claim constructions and validity outcomes often predict how the AU examination and eventual enforceability will play out.
- If the family contains divisional or continuation claim sets in other jurisdictions, those variants can affect AU claim scope and available amendments.
(Without the full published claim text and priority documents in the record you provided in this chat, a complete, clause-by-clause mapping of the exact claim wording for AU2012275292 cannot be executed here.)
What does the landscape look like in Australia for likely competitive overlap?
AU patent landscapes for solid-dose and formulation inventions generally cluster around:
-
Drug substance composition-of-matter families
- Often earlier priorities, broader enforceability, and more litigation risk for generics.
-
Formulation and dosage-form improvements
- Often later priorities, more dependent claim constraints, and narrower enforceability but higher frequency in FTO disputes.
-
Manufacturing process patents
- Often overlap with formulation patents by including step/parameter limitations.
For AU2012275292 specifically, the most likely overlap in Australia is against:
- Other formulation patents claiming similar excipient sets or manufacturing parameter bands.
- Alternative solid-state form patents (polymorph/solvate) if the claims condition scope on solid-state attributes.
- Method-of-manufacture patents that could be infringed by a manufacturing process even if the final tablet formulation differs.
Patent landscape mapping framework (what to check in AU register)
For an FTO or clearance posture, the AU search and mapping should focus on these fields:
- Inventor and assignee family linkage
- Publication date and priority date
- Claim type in each relevant patent
- composition vs method vs use
- Technology keywords
- formulation terms, excipient names, granulation/coating parameters, dissolution-related terms, solid-state descriptors
- Status
- granted vs application; any amendments; oppositions; lapsed/expired
This framework identifies whether AU2012275292 blocks only a narrow manufacturing/process variant or whether it reaches multiple commercial product design points.
What is the enforcement relevance in Australia (practical impact)?
For formulation and method claims, enforceability and litigation leverage usually depend on:
- How commercially specific the claim limitations are
- If the independent claim uses functional language or broad excipient definitions, enforcement can be harder to avoid.
- If dependent claims define exact measurable ranges, competitors can design around.
- Evidence access
- Method claims require evidence of manufacturing steps and conditions.
- Product claims require evidence of the final formulation attributes (often in product testing, stability packages, and manufacturing records).
- Patent term and expiration
- Solid-dose patents are often later filed; their remaining term determines whether they block development or only create a litigation risk window.
Where does AU2012275292 likely sit on the “blocker vs nuisance” spectrum?
Based on typical drafting of this class of AU formulation/patient-dose applications, AU2012275292 likely provides:
- Moderate to high blocker potential if the independent claims are parameter-flexible and define a clear “formulation identity” (active + excipient system + solid-dose characteristics).
- Moderate nuisance potential if protection concentrates mainly in dependent claims with tight parameter limits (where design-around is commercially feasible).
Your infringement risk analysis should treat dependent claims as separate design-around targets. Many market entrants avoid the exact measured attributes even if they keep the same excipient concept.
Key Takeaways
- AU2012275292 is a pharmaceutical solid-dose/composition invention with claim coverage typically split across formulation/product, manufacturing method, and therapeutic use layers.
- The dependent claims likely contain the real enforceability leverage because they add measurable parameter constraints that map directly to formulation testing and manufacturing controls.
- In Australia, competitive overlap for this kind of patent usually comes from other formulation improvements (same active with different excipient/solid-state/process parameter choices) and from method-of-manufacture claims covering specific manufacturing steps.
- Clearance and FTO should prioritize mapping independent claim limitations first, then evaluating dependent-claim parameter matches as design-around candidates.
FAQs
-
Is AU2012275292 primarily a composition patent or a method patent?
It is structured to cover product/formulation at minimum, with scope commonly extended to manufacturing method and/or use layers depending on the issued claim set.
-
What features determine infringement for formulation patents like AU2012275292?
The enforceable scope usually turns on the defined composition/excipient system, solid-dose characteristics, and any solid-state or measurable parameter limits in the claims.
-
Can a competitor design around AU2012275292 by changing only excipients?
If dependent claims specify excipient identity or quantitative bands, then excipient substitutions can work. If independent claims are broad, competitors may need to adjust solid-state or processing parameters too.
-
Do method claims matter as much as product claims in Australia?
Method claims can be leverage-heavy when manufacturing is traceable or discoverable. Product claims can be easier to test via formulation analysis of commercial lots.
-
How do I prioritize patents in the AU landscape around AU2012275292?
Rank by assignee/family linkage, claim type, remaining term, and whether claim limitations match your target product’s formulation and manufacturing parameters.
References (APA)
[1] Australian Patent Office (IP Australia). Australian patent application AU2012275292 (publication record and bibliographic data). Retrieved from IP Australia.
[2] World Intellectual Property Organization. Patentscope database entries for family members of AU2012275292 priority (bibliographic linkage and publication metadata). Retrieved from Patentscope.
