Last updated: April 23, 2026
What does the Australian drug patent AU2015202884 cover, and where does it sit in the patent landscape?
AU2015202884 is an Australian patent application titled “Benzoxaborole derivatives” and is directed to benzoxaborole-based small-molecule compounds for therapeutic use, with the claims built around compound definitions (including specific substituted benzoxaborole scaffolds), pharmaceutical compositions, and method-of-treatment use.
This application sits in a landscape that is anchored by earlier chemistry and use filings for benzoxaborole derivatives used in topical and/or systemic anti-infective and anti-inflammatory programs, and it overlaps most directly with filings covering:
- benzoxaborole scaffold chemistry (substitution patterns, linkers, and salts/solvates),
- pharmaceutical compositions using those compounds, and
- method-of-treatment claims tied to specific diseases/indications.
What are the core claimed subject matters in AU2015202884?
1) Are the claims directed to compounds, compositions, or methods?
AU2015202884 claims each of the following buckets:
-
Chemical entities (compound claims)
The claim set is centered on benzoxaborole derivative compounds defined by structural features, including:
- benzoxaborole core,
- substitution at defined positions,
- optional substituent classes (typical for this chemistry family): alkyl, halo, heteroaryl, heterocyclyl, and related groups,
- optional formulation-relevant variants such as salts/solvates (where supported in the description).
-
Pharmaceutical compositions (composition claims)
The application includes claims covering pharmaceutical compositions comprising one or more claimed benzoxaborole derivatives, together with pharmaceutically acceptable carriers.
-
Methods of treatment (use/method claims)
The application includes method-of-treatment claims specifying therapeutic use of the compounds for disease states consistent with the benzoxaborole program scope (anti-infective and related therapeutic contexts, depending on the exact claim language in the granted/ongoing status).
2) How broad is the compound scope structurally?
The structural scope is broad at the scaffold level (benzoxaborole derivatives) and narrower at the substitution level. In practice, this means:
- the claims protect a chemistry class defined by the benzoxaborole framework,
- while the “room” for competitors is constrained by the particular allowed substituent patterns recited in the definitions and examples.
3) What typical claim forms increase enforceability risk?
AU2015202884’s enforceability profile is supported by claim forms that are harder to design around:
- Markush-style compound definitions tied to multiple substituent variables.
- Pharmaceutical composition claims that can capture product formulations even when a particular dose regimen differs.
- Method-of-treatment/use claims that can be implicated by prescribing behavior if the approved label aligns with the claim language.
How does the scope compare with earlier benzoxaborole patent families?
1) How it aligns with scaffold-driven protection
Benzoxaborole derivative filings across jurisdictions tend to follow a similar logic:
- early filings cover a scaffold and a set of substitutions,
- later filings refine substitution patterns, improve potency/selectivity, or add formulations and new indications.
AU2015202884 follows that pattern by anchoring claims to the benzoxaborole core and substitution chemistry, rather than claiming a single fixed structure only.
2) What does that mean for freedom-to-operate (FTO)?
For FTO, the risk typically comes from:
- any compound whose substitutions fall within the defined Markush ranges,
- any composition where the claimed compound is combined with standard carriers,
- any therapeutic use where label or off-label use tracks claim recitations.
Where competitors can still carve out:
- changes that move outside the allowed substitution classes,
- use in indications that do not match the method-of-treatment claim recitals,
- formulation strategies if the composition claims require specific concentration ranges or specific excipient combinations (only if such limitations exist in the published claim set).
What is the likely claim geography and operational effect inside Australia?
1) Status and enforcement path
AU2015202884 is an Australian patent application published in the Australian system. Enforcement in Australia generally follows:
- grant of the Australian patent (or reliance on corresponding applications depending on status),
- then standard infringement analysis comparing the accused product/process to each claim.
Because the application is claim-structured across compound/composition/use, it can create multiple enforcement hooks against:
- API manufacture,
- finished dosage forms, and
- prescribing for covered indications.
2) Where it can bite in the supply chain
Given the claim architecture:
- API producers face risk if a claimed compound falls within their catalog,
- formulation/finished dose companies face risk if their product includes a claimed compound in a composition that meets the composition claim limitations,
- pharma developers and prescribers face method-of-use risk if indications align.
How to read the scope practically: what design-arounds are most likely to work?
1) Substitution pattern shifts
The most practical design-around is to ensure the candidate’s substitution pattern is outside AU2015202884’s recited variables. In benzoxaborole families, even small positional changes can defeat literal coverage if the claims define specific positions and allowed classes.
2) Avoiding “composition” coverage
If composition claims are broad (single “comprising” clause), design-around via formulation is difficult. If composition claims add quantitative or excipient specificity, that can reduce risk.
3) Indication and method-of-treatment
Method-of-treatment claims become a strong carve-out lever only where:
- the candidate targets an indication not recited in the claims,
- and the label or clinical plan does not align with claim language.
Patent landscape map: what adjacent filings matter most?
1) Closest adjacency classes
In the benzoxaborole space, AU2015202884 will overlap most tightly with:
- Australian and PCT filings by the same chemistry owners for benzoxaborole derivatives,
- counterpart applications in key jurisdictions (US, EP, JP, CN) covering similar structures,
- continuation/divisional refinements that close gaps in substitution scope or formulation.
2) Typical landscape overlap points
Common overlap points include:
- core scaffold claims that remain consistent across families,
- substitution-variable ranges expanded or narrowed by later refinements,
- composition claim variations driven by formulation studies,
- use/indication claim expansions based on new data.
Claim-strength indicators to assess investment or R&D risk
1) Multi-layered claim coverage
AU2015202884’s compound + composition + method structure increases the probability that at least one claim layer will read onto a candidate product or use scenario.
2) Probability of infringement theories
For a product that contains benzoxaborole derivatives:
- if the API matches a claim compound, composition claims usually follow,
- if the product is used for a claimed indication, method-of-treatment claims follow.
3) Why this matters for competitor response
Competitors usually avoid entering the overlap zone by selecting compounds outside the Markush ranges or by shifting to non-covered indications. If both are locked down, AU filings can act as a stronger barrier to entry.
Key Takeaways
- AU2015202884 is a benzoxaborole-derivative application covering compound definitions, pharmaceutical compositions, and methods of treatment centered on the benzoxaborole scaffold and its permitted substitution patterns.
- The claim architecture creates multiple enforcement vectors in Australia: API, finished dosage forms, and therapeutic use.
- The most effective design-arounds are typically substitution-pattern exits from the claimed Markush ranges and indication strategies that do not match method-of-treatment recitals.
- In the broader benzoxaborole landscape, the application most tightly overlaps with scaffold-led chemistry families and later refinements that expand or narrow substitution coverage and therapeutic use.
FAQs
1) Is AU2015202884 a single-compound patent or a class patent?
It is a class-style chemistry filing, with claims structured around benzoxaborole scaffold definitions and substitution-variable coverage, rather than one fixed molecule only.
2) Does AU2015202884 protect the active ingredient only, or also products and use?
It covers active compounds, pharmaceutical compositions, and methods of treatment/use.
3) What is the main infringement risk for a benzoxaborole developer in Australia?
Literal risk concentrates on whether the candidate’s substitution pattern falls within the claim-defined variables, and whether its formulation and intended indication match the composition and method claims.
4) How do competitors typically design around benzoxaborole scaffold patents?
They shift outside the claimed substitution ranges and avoid covered indication language where method claims are targeted to specific therapeutic uses.
5) Where does AU2015202884 sit within a global patent strategy for benzoxaboroles?
It sits within a broader family strategy that uses scaffold claims in early filings and then refines substitution, formulation, and indication coverage in subsequent filings across jurisdictions.
References
[1] IP Australia. Australian patent application AU2015202884 (“Benzoxaborole derivatives”). Published application record.
