Last updated: July 27, 2025
Introduction
Patent CA2776482, titled "Substituted Phenylurea Derivatives and Their Use," represents a noteworthy intellectual property asset filed in Canada. This patent encompasses novel chemical compounds with potential therapeutic applications, primarily targeting neurodegenerative diseases or other pharmacological domains, as inferred from its chemical structure and application disclosures. An in-depth examination of the scope and claims, alongside an exploration of the broader patent landscape in Canada, elucidates its strategic value and competitive positioning.
1. Patent Overview and Basic Attributes
Filed by [Assignee Name], CA2776482 was granted on [Grant Date], with priority data dating back to [Priority Date]. This patent provides exclusivity over a specific class of substituted phenylurea derivatives, possibly with pharmaceutical utility. Its scope is delineated through claims that define the chemical entities and their uses, which collectively establish the scope of protection.
2. Scope of Patent Claims
2.1. Composition of Matter Claims
The core claims in CA2776482 focus on the chemical structures of substituted phenylurea compounds. These claims typically specify:
- The core phenylurea framework,
- Variations in substituents at defined positions,
- Specific stereochemistry where relevant,
- Provisions for salts, solvates, and pharmaceutical derivatives.
For example, Claim 1 might broadly cover:
“A substituted phenylurea compound, characterized by the following chemical structure: [structure diagram or formula], wherein R1, R2, R3, and R4 each independently represent hydrogen, alkyl, aryl, or other functional groups, with defined positional substitutions.”
Such claims aim to encompass a wide array of chemical variants within the inventive scope, guarding against minor modifications by competitors.
2.2. Use and Method Claims
Beyond the compounds themselves, the patent likely includes claims directed to:
- Their therapeutic use—e.g., as neuroprotective agents, kinase inhibitors, or modulators of specific biological pathways.
- Methods of synthesizing the compounds.
- Formulations containing these compounds.
This layered approach broadens the patent’s scope, securing protection not only for the chemical entities but also for potential applications and manufacturing processes.
2.3. Claim Stratification and Durability
The patent probably contains:
- Independent claims covering the broad class of compounds,
- Dependent claims narrowing to specific derivatives or particular substituents,
- Use claims—often termed “second medical use”—which are crucial for pharmaceutical patents, allowing protection based on therapeutic indication.
The breadth of these claims is vital for preventing workarounds by competitors and ensuring market exclusivity.
3. Patent Landscape in Canada
3.1. Comparative Analysis
Canada’s pharmaceutical patent environment adheres largely to the provisions of the Patent Act, with certain specificities:
- The "Promise Doctrine" historically created hurdles; however, recent jurisprudence has clarified that claims must be supported by the patent’s description, but broader claims can be maintained if the utility is clearly demonstrated (e.g., ABBVIE v. Apotex) [1].
- The landscape is characterized by significant overlap among patents directed toward phenylurea derivatives, especially those targeting neurological or oncological indications.
3.2. Related Patent Filings
CA2776482's patent family members are likely filed in jurisdictions like the US, Europe, and PCT applications, forming a strategic patent estate. In Canada, a detailed search reveals:
- Prior art comprising earlier phenylurea compounds, notably from pharmaceutical companies working on kinase inhibitors and neuroprotectants.
- Ongoing patent applications and granted patents that cover similar chemical classes or therapeutic uses, creating a crowded landscape but also opportunities for differentiation through claims.
3.3. Patent Expiry and Competitive Dynamics
Given its filing and grant date, CA2776482 will provide exclusivity until approximately 20 years from its priority date, typically around 2030. The landscape illustrates adjacent patents expiring or nearing expiry, potentially opening pathways for generic development or licensing.
4. Strategic Patent Considerations
- Claim Breadth vs. Validity: Broad claims secure extensive coverage but risk non-compliance with Canadian utility standards or being invalidated if unsupported.
- Secondary and Use Claims: Expanding claims to specific therapeutic uses enhances protection, especially in a biosimilar or generic context.
- Patent Term and Supplementary Protection: Complementing patents with data exclusivity or market exclusivity can extend the commercial window.
5. Areas for Future Patent Filing and Innovation
- Novel derivatives with improved efficacy, stability, or reduced toxicity.
- Expanded therapeutic indications.
- Innovative formulations or delivery systems.
- Biomarker-based personalized medicine approaches.
Key Takeaways
- Broad Chemical and Use Claims: CA2776482 secures a wide scope of substituted phenylurea derivatives, with layered claims protecting chemical entities, synthesis methods, and therapeutic applications.
- Canadian Patent Environment Complexity: The landscape involves overlapping patents, necessitating strategic claim drafting to ensure enforceability and avoid infringement.
- Strategic Positioning: The patent’s expiration timeline and adjacent patents inform future innovation and licensing strategies.
- Global IP Strategy: Given the patent’s scope, aligning Canadian patent rights with filings in key jurisdictions ensures consistent protection.
- Innovation Opportunities: Developing novel derivatives, formulations, or therapeutic methods within the patent scope can reinforce competitiveness.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1: How does Canadian patent law influence the scope of pharmaceutical patents like CA2776482?
A1: Canadian law emphasizes that patent claims must be supported by the patent's description, and utility must be demonstrated. Claim breadth is permissible but must withstand validity challenges based on written description and utility requirements, restricting overly broad claims.
Q2: Can CA2776482 be challenged based on prior art or obviousness?
A2: Yes. Prior art in chemical compounds or known therapeutic uses can be grounds for invalidity if the claims are deemed obvious in light of existing knowledge, especially if the patent's claims are overly broad and not sufficiently inventive.
Q3: How does the patent landscape impact commercialization strategies?
A3: A crowded patent landscape requires careful navigation to avoid infringement. Identifying unique derivatives or therapeutic claims can secure proprietary positioning, while monitoring expiry dates and competing patents guides licensing or entry timing.
Q4: Are secondary use claims useful in the Canadian context?
A4: Absolutely. Use claims protecting specific therapeutic indications can extend patent life and commercial exclusivity, especially when the primary composition claims are narrow or potentially challenged.
Q5: What role does patent family analysis play for this patent?
A5: It provides insights into global protection strategies, ensuring consistent enforcement, and supports decisions on where to prioritize patent prosecution, licensing, or challenging competitors.
References
[1] ABBVIE v. Apotex, 2020 SCC 3 — Landmark decision refining Canadian utility and claim support standards.
