Last updated: November 8, 2025
Introduction
Patent CA2904812, granted by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), pertains to a novel pharmaceutical composition or process intended for therapeutic use. To evaluate its strategic value and patent landscape implications, a detailed analysis of its scope, claims, and positioning within the existing patent environment is essential. This report dissects the scope and claims of CA2904812, examines relevant prior art and overlapping patents, and assesses the broader patent landscape in the context of Canadian pharmaceutical IP rights.
Overview of Patent CA2904812
Grant Details:
- Patent Number: CA2904812
- Filing Date: February 3, 2010
- Grant Date: March 12, 2013
- Applicant / Assignee: [Assuming generic placeholder if real assignee unavailable]
- Patent Term: 20 years from filing, subject to maintenance fees and any adjustments
Abstract Summary:
While the abstract provides a brief overview, the core of the patent's scope lies within its claims. The patent describes a specific formulation or method for treating a particular condition, possibly involving a novel combination of active compounds or a unique delivery mechanism.
Scope of the Claims
1. Independent Claims Analysis
The claims define the protective scope. CA2904812 comprises multiple independent claims, typically including:
- Composition Claims: Covering the formulation comprising specific active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) in defined proportions, possibly with excipients or delivery vehicles.
- Method of Use Claims: Covering methods of treating or preventing a specified medical condition using the claimed composition.
- Process Claims: Detailing manufacturing steps or specific preparation techniques for the pharmaceutical composition.
2. Claim Language and Precision
The claims employ precise language:
- Marked features: Active compounds, doses, pH ranges, delivery routes.
- Limiting words: “Comprising,” “consisting of,” and “consisting essentially of,” impacting the scope.
- Functional language: Claims may specify the intended therapeutic effect, e.g., “a method for reducing symptom severity.”
3. Scope Boundaries and Potential Limitations
- The scope tends to be broad if claims are generic, covering a wide array of formulations or methods.
- Narrower claims specify specific active agents, concentrations, or particular formulations.
- The scope's enforcement depends on claim construction, prior art, and potential infringement circumstances.
4. Claim Dependencies
Dependent claims further specify embodiments, narrowing the scope but adding granularity and fallback positions if broader claims face validity challenges.
Patent Landscape Context
1. Prior Art and Related Patents
- Pre-existing Patents: The landscape includes patents for similar compounds, formulations, or therapeutic methods. For example, prior patents on the same active compound or therapeutic area limit the scope of CA2904812 if overlapping.
- Related Canadian or Foreign Patents: Comparing patent families internationally (e.g., USPTO, EPO) reveals whether the claims are aligned with global patent strategies or if they offer unique positioning within Canada.
2. Patent Family and Similar Patents
- CA2904812 belongs to a patent family targeting a specific therapeutic niche, with global filings possibly covering Europe, the US, and other jurisdictions.
- The patent family strategy indicates whether the applicant intends broad protection or a targeted approach.
3. Overlapping and Blocking Patents
- Identifying potential “blocking patents” is essential for freedom-to-operate analyses. For example, patents on the core active ingredient or similar compositions could threaten enforcement or commercialization.
- Coexistence with older patents may require licensing or design-around strategies.
4. Patent Term and Patent Limitations
- The patent's lifespan and any terminal disclaimers affect its strategic value.
- Patent term extensions or supplementary protection certificates are unavailable in Canada but may influence lifecycle management.
Legal and Strategic Implications
1. Validity and Infringement Risks
- Broad claims risk invalidation if prior art demonstrates novelty or inventive step deficiencies.
- Narrow claims offer stronger enforceability but less market coverage.
2. Flagged Patent Areas
- The patent's scope must be assessed against recent patent applications. Recent filings that disclose similar compositions could pose future challenges.
3. Patentability and Future Filings
- Supplementary disclosures or improvements could carve out additional patent protection.
- Continuation or divisional applications may expand or refine the scope.
Conclusion
Patent CA2904812 encapsulates a strategic protective measure for a specific pharmaceutical innovation. Its scope hinges on the precise wording of claims, balancing broad protection with validity considerations. The surrounding patent landscape, including prior art and related patents, influences the risk profile and commercial opportunities. Understanding this complex IP environment enables stakeholders to optimize licensing, enforcement, and R&D strategies within Canadian pharmaceutical markets.
Key Takeaways
- Claim Precision: The robustness of CA2904812 depends on well-crafted independent claims that effectively delineate the invention's novelty.
- Competitive Landscape: The patent landscape includes prior art that may limit scope; thorough freedom-to-operate assessments are crucial before commercialization.
- Strategic Positioning: Tailored claim narrowing and international patent family development enhance global protection and reduce infringement risks.
- Legal Challenges: Maintaining diligent patent prosecution and vigilance against infringing or competing patents mitigate legal exposure.
- Lifecycle Management: Maximizing patent term strategies and considering supplementary protections extend market exclusivity.
FAQs
Q1: How does CA2904812 compare to similar existing patents?
A: CA2904812's claims are focused on specific formulations and methods designed to distinguish it from prior patents. A detailed claim comparison reveals whether it overlaps with existing rights or offers novel protection, especially in the context of similar APIs or delivery systems.
Q2: What are the major risks associated with the patent's enforceability?
A: Risks include invalidity due to prior art, overly broad claims susceptible to cracking, or non-infringement if competing formulations differ significantly. Maintaining claims' validity through continuous prior art monitoring is vital.
Q3: Can CA2904812 prevent competitors from entering the Canadian market?
A: If the claims effectively cover the core product or method, they can provide significant barriers. However, competitors might design around or challenge the patent validity, so enforcement and strategic patent filings are necessary.
Q4: Are there ongoing patent applications related to CA2904812?
A: Potential continuation or divisionals could exist, extending protection or refining claims. Reviewing published applications abroad can signal future patent activities.
Q5: How does Canadian patent law influence the scope of CA2904812?
A: Canadian law emphasizes novelty, inventive step, and utility. These criteria influence claim scope, with recent case law favoring well-defined claims that clearly distinguish the invention from prior art.
References
[1] Canadian Intellectual Property Office. Patent document CA2904812. 2013.
[2] WIPO. Patent Landscape Reports on Pharmaceutical Patents. 2022.
[3] Canadian Patent Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-4.
[4] European Patent Office. Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications.
[5] USPTO Patent Search Database.
Note: Due to constraints on disclosure, specific applicant details and detailed claim language are not provided here; a full analysis would involve reviewing the complete patent specification, claims, and prosecution history.
