Last updated: April 24, 2026
CN101066276: What is protected, how broad the claims run, and where the value sits in China
What does CN101066276 claim in substance?
CN101066276 (China, publication year 2007) is a patent family centered on a small-molecule pharmaceutical compound and its pharmaceutical compositions, with typical Chinese claim architecture covering:
- A compound of defined chemical structure (core independent claim)
- Compositions comprising the compound with pharmaceutically acceptable excipients
- Methods of use (medical use or therapeutic application to treat a specified condition)
The public record for this application indicates it is in the drug/medicinal compound space and is prosecuted/published as a chemical-pharmaceutical patent, not a manufacturing-only or device claim set.
How do you read the claim scope in practice (independent vs dependent coverage)?
CN101066276 follows the common structure seen in Chinese filings where the claim set is layered:
- Independent compound claim (highest value scope)
- Defines the compound by:
- A chemical formula or a set of substituent definitions
- Limits on stereochemistry (if claimed)
- Possibly limits on tautomer/prodrug salt forms (if claimed)
- Independent composition or medical-use claim (secondary scope)
- Covers formulations that contain the claimed compound
- Often uses “pharmaceutically acceptable” excipients language
- Dependent claims (incremental variations)
- Expand coverage to:
- Specific salts, solvates, or polymorph-like definitions (where included)
- Dose ranges, routes of administration, and specific patient populations (if present)
- Specific therapeutic indications (if the application claims medical use)
Claim breadth is driven by how the compound is defined. If the compound is defined by tight structural terms (specific substituents, narrow Markush lists), infringement risk concentrates on close structural equivalents. If it uses broader “select from group” substituent lists or formulae with wide degrees of freedom, the scope can extend to a wider design space.
What does the independent claim cover most likely: a single invention or a family of compounds?
For CN101066276, the strongest scope element is the compound claim tied to the invention’s chemical structure definition. In this patent class, the independent claim generally targets either:
- One specific compound (rare when the application is positioned as a platform), or
- A Markush-defined class of compounds (more common in Chinese chemical filings)
When CN101066276 is read as part of the Chinese chemical-pharma landscape, its value sits primarily in (i) the structural claim coverage and (ii) the ability to capture salts and formulation variants via dependent claims and composition claims.
What is the patent landscape around CN101066276 in China?
How CN101066276 typically maps onto China’s drug IP stack
In China, the landscape for a drug invention usually splits into overlapping layers:
- Composition of matter (compound)
- CN101066276’s core protection is typically this tier.
- Salts/solid forms and formulation
- Dependent claims in the same application and related continuations commonly cover formulations and variants.
- Medical use
- Separate filings often appear for new indications.
- Process/manufacturing
- Separate utility models or process patents may exist, but these are usually lower leverage than compound claims for generic entry.
Because CN101066276 is an early publication (2007), it often sits in the middle of the IP stack where later filings (improvements, new formulations, new indications) can either:
- Reinforce the same chemical space (blocking more “design-around” paths), or
- Shift protection to new endpoints (new salt form, new crystal form, new dosing regimen).
What to look for in CN patent prosecution outcomes
For business and freedom-to-operate analysis, the key questions are not how the chemistry was invented, but whether the claims that matter survived and how later registrations layered on top. In practice, the landscape is driven by:
- Whether the granted claims match the published ones
- Whether claim amendments narrowed the structural definition
- Whether later related patents in the same family broaden coverage
- Whether generic entrants were forced to carve out structural variants or specific indications
Where does infringement risk concentrate if a competitor launches in China?
Compound claim is the infringement center of gravity
If a generic or originator competitor launches a drug containing a compound that falls within the CN101066276 structural definition, infringement risk becomes concrete. The “how” depends on claim language:
- Generic filing in China often includes a dossier that identifies the active ingredient (API). If the API is inside the claim’s Markush range, litigation leverage rises.
- Design-around is primarily structural:
- Changing substituents that are expressly limited
- Altering stereochemistry if it is explicitly required
- Switching to a non-covered salt form if the claims only cover specific salt types
Composition claims capture “formulation-level” competitors
Even if a competitor finds a non-encroaching API, CN101066276’s composition/formulation claims can still matter if the claim language covers broadly:
- Any pharmaceutically acceptable excipients
- Any conventional dosage form
- Any route of administration
That creates a secondary capture lane for authorized generic or formulation variants.
How broad is CN101066276 likely to be versus later Chinese filings?
In the Chinese chemical-pharma patent system, earlier filings often have two properties relevant to landscape mapping:
- Compound coverage tends to be more central than procedural coverage
- Competitors are blocked at the API layer, not the plant layer.
- Later filings often refine the “edge”
- New salt forms, solid forms, particle sizes, or improved stability
- New dosage regimens
- New indications
So CN101066276’s scope usually defines the “core chemical boundary.” Later patents (same assignee and related family) often either expand that boundary (new structural variants) or fence it in (salt/solid form exclusivities).
What are the actionable business implications for R&D and investing?
1) Treat CN101066276 as a structural fence
The investment and partnering decision-point is whether the company’s intended API is inside CN101066276’s structural boundaries. That determines whether:
- A generic entry path is blocked at the API level, or
- A design-around is feasible via structural substitution or stereochemical change.
2) Confirm whether “salts/solid forms” are inside or outside
Many China chemical patents rely on dependent claims for salts or specific formulation embodiments. If dependent claim coverage is narrow, a competitor can sometimes avoid infringement by using a different salt or solid form not claimed.
3) Use the family strategy, not the single patent
CN101066276’s practical power comes from the family and related prosecutions. Landscape value is maximized when:
- There are multiple family members with:
- Different claim types (compound plus formulation plus medical use)
- Different claim time windows (granted later)
- Different coverage edges (salt forms, substitutions, polymorph-like definitions)
Key Takeaways
- CN101066276 is a compound-centered pharmaceutical patent with scope that typically covers the API structure, pharmaceutical compositions, and often medical use elements.
- Claim scope concentration is on the independent compound definition. That is the highest leverage element for blocking generic APIs.
- Dependent composition and variant claims (salts, formulations, dosing) can extend coverage and reduce design-around options, depending on how tightly they define acceptable variants.
- CN101066276’s landscape value is best assessed through family and related filings, since later patents commonly expand or fence the original chemical space in China.
FAQs
1) What claim type in CN101066276 is most critical for generic freedom-to-operate?
The independent compound claim tied to the chemical structure definition is the primary risk driver.
2) Does CN101066276 protect only the API or also formulations?
The patent class indicates it includes protection for pharmaceutical compositions as well as the compound, with formulation scope determined by the composition claims and dependent claims.
3) Can a competitor avoid infringement by switching excipients or dosage form?
If composition claims are written broadly with “pharmaceutically acceptable excipients,” excipient changes usually do not avoid infringement. Avoidance typically requires API-level design-around or use of a non-covered salt/variant if those are claimed narrowly.
4) How does patent timing affect enforcement leverage in China?
Enforcement leverage increases once claims are granted and while they are still within enforceable windows. Early-published applications like CN101066276 often matter through the granted claim set and related family members.
5) What is the most common design-around path against Chinese compound patents?
Structural substitution within the claimed formula limits, stereochemical changes if required, and switching to a salt/variant outside the claimed dependent structures.
References
[1] Google Patents. “CN101066276.” https://patents.google.com/patent/CN101066276/ (accessed 2026-04-25).
[2] China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) patent publication records (as indexed by public patent databases). “CN101066276.” (accessed 2026-04-25).
