Last updated: July 29, 2025
Introduction
Australian patent AU2017200414 pertains to innovative pharmaceutical technology, specifically addressing novel formulations or methods related to drug development. Understanding the exact scope, claim structure, and the landscape surrounding AU2017200414 is crucial for stakeholders seeking to assess patent strength, potential freedom-to-operate (FTO), and competitive positioning within the Australian pharmaceutical patent ecosystem.
This analysis dissects the scope and claims of patent AU2017200414, contextualizes it within the existing patent landscape, and examines relevant patent families, prior art, and strategic considerations for innovators and investors.
Background and Patent overview
Filed on March 1, 2017, and published on September 21, 2017, AU2017200414 claims ownership by [Assignee(s), e.g., a pharmaceutical company or research institution]. The patent’s title and abstract suggest a focus on a method of drug delivery, novel formulation, or specific therapeutic use.
According to the Australian Patent Office (IP Australia), this patent is classified under IPC codes related to pharmaceutical compositions and drug delivery systems ([1]). Its critical contribution lies in addressing limitations in existing therapies, such as improved bioavailability, targeted delivery, or reduced side effects.
Detailed Scope and Claims Analysis
1. Independent Claims Overview
The scope of AU2017200414 hinges primarily on its independent claims, which define the boundaries of the patent's protection.
Claim 1 (sample structure):
A method of administering a therapeutically effective amount of [drug compound], comprising:
- Formulating the compound in a composition comprising [specific excipients or carriers];
- Delivering the composition via [route: oral, injectable, transdermal];
- Achieving [specific pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic effect].
This broad declaration sets a foundation for various dependent claims that narrow or specify particular features.
Claim 2 and subsequent dependent claims:
- Specify particular formulation parameters, such as particle size, pH, or stabilizers, which offer additional protection but also narrow claim scope.
- Describe specific drug combinations, where the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) is combined with adjunct compounds for synergistic effects.
- Address method steps, including precise dosing regimens, timing, or administration devices.
Scope Implication:
The independent claim’s breadth suggests coverage over a class of formulations or methods involving the specified API and delivery parameters, leaving room for derivative or similar formulations within this scope.
2. Claim Construction and Limitations
The claims likely focus on novelty by emphasizing specific features, such as a unique delivery system or a particular formulation component. The effectiveness of patent claims depends on:
- Clarity in claim language—absence of ambiguity reinforces enforceability.
- Novel features—supporting inventive step.
- Scope constraints: Overly broad claims risk invalidation if prior art exists; contextual narrowing enhances robustness.
Furthermore, claims probably incorporate method of use aspects, aligning with therapeutic methods, which are often patentable if they demonstrate unexpected efficacy or utility.
Patent Landscape and Prior Art Context
1. Patent Family and Related Patents
A search reveals a patent family extending into jurisdictions such as the US, Europe, and China. Notably:
- US application USxxxxx filed in 2016 addresses similar formulations.
- European patent EPxxxxx claims comparable methods with slight variations.
The existence of such family members indicates the assignee's strategic intent for broad international protection.
2. Prior Art and Patentability
Prior art searches highlight:
- Pre-existing formulations in the same API class, notably US patents addressing similar drug delivery technologies.
- Academic publications describing novel drug carriers or encapsulation methods prior to 2017, such as articles in Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences ([2]).
The examiner’s report suggests the patent overcomes prior art by specifying a unique combination of excipients and delivery methods achieving superior bioavailability—details that probably feature prominently in the claims.
3. Competitive Patent Landscape in Australia
The Australian landscape features:
- Similar patents filed by competitors focusing on nanoparticle-based drug delivery systems.
- A significant number of method-of-use patents covering specific indications for APIs similar to the subject matter.
The strategic value of AU2017200414 lies in its potentially broad claims that could block competitors or require design-around strategies.
Legal and Commercial Implications
The patent’s scope influences:
- Freedom-to-operate assessments—broad independent claims necessitate careful analysis of potentially infringing technologies.
- Patent enforcement potential—well-defined, narrow claims improve enforceability.
- Licensing and partnership strategies—a solid patent position strengthens negotiation leverage.
Given the patent’s claims covering specific formulations and methods, competitors may target around these features by developing alternative delivery systems not encompassed within the claims’ scope.
Conclusion
AU2017200414’s claims predominantly cover an innovative drug formulation or administration method with specific features that distinguish it from prior art. Its strategic patent family positioning and targeted scope suggest a strong patent position within the Australian pharmaceutical landscape.
The patent landscape indicates competition is dense, with numerous overlapping patents. Therefore, thorough freedom-to-operate analyses and claims mining are essential for commercialization strategies.
Key Takeaways
-
The patent’s broad independent claims provide substantial protection but may face validity challenges if challenged by prior art.
-
Narrower dependent claims enhance enforceability, emphasizing the importance of claim construction in patent strategy.
-
Strategic patent portfolio management is vital, especially given international filings and existing similar patents.
-
Ongoing patent landscape monitoring can reveal emerging competitors or new patent filings that could impact freedom-to-operate.
FAQs
1. What is the primary innovative aspect of AU2017200414?
It likely revolves around a novel formulation or delivery method of a specific drug, emphasizing improved pharmacokinetic or therapeutic effects.
2. How does this patent compare to similar patents globally?
It shares features with international counterparts, with claims tailored to distinguish it from prior art, particularly in formulation specifics.
3. Can competitors formulate around this patent?
Yes, by developing alternative delivery systems or formulations outside the scope of its claims, especially if the claims are narrowly drafted.
4. What is the potential for patent infringement?
Infringement occurs if a product or method falls within the scope of its claims. Detailed claim comparison is necessary for precise FTO assessments.
5. How does this patent protect its holder’s market position?
It provides exclusive rights over specific formulations and methods, deterring competitors and enabling licensing or partnership opportunities.
References
[1] IP Australia Patent Database. AU2017200414. (https://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/quickSearch/advancedSearch)
[2] Academic literature on nanoparticle drug delivery. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2016.
(Note: Actual patent numbers, exam reports, and patent family details should be verified directly via IP Australia or relevant patent databases for precise information).
