Last updated: July 30, 2025
Introduction
Germany patent DE602004028678, filed by [Applicant's Name], represents a notable intellectual property asset within the pharmaceutical landscape. It encompasses specific claims and scope that define its legal protection and market relevance. A comprehensive analysis is vital for stakeholders—pharmaceutical companies, patent attorneys, and R&D entities—to navigate the patent landscape effectively. This review dissects the patent's scope, claims, and its position within the broader patent environment in Germany, providing insight into potential infringement risks, licensing opportunities, and innovation strategies.
Patent Overview and Filing Details
Patent DE602004028678 was filed on June 4, 2004, with a publication date of January 11, 2006 [1]. It is classified within the IPC classes A61K, A61P, and C07D, indicative of medicinal preparations, pharmaceutical compositions, and chemical compounds with potential therapeutic relevance. The patent's priority rights, inventive step, and the scope of protection are grounded in its claims, which delineate the protected subject matter.
Scope of the Patent
Scope definition is crucial in understanding the boundaries and enforceability of DE602004028678. The patent mainly covers:
- Pharmaceutical compositions comprising specific chemical entities or their derivatives.
- Methods of synthesis of these compounds.
- Therapeutic applications, particularly their use in treating certain diseases or conditions (e.g., cancer, inflammation).
The scope employs language that claims a broad class of compounds with certain functional groups, allowing the patent to cover multiple chemical variants within a chemical genus [2]. This breadth is strategic, aiming to prevent competitors from developing similar compounds that fall within the claims' parameters.
Notably, the patent claims extend to both the chemical entities and their pharmaceutically acceptable salts and esters, broadening protection. The inclusion of method claims indicates coverage on synthesis pathways, preventing competitors from circumventing the patent by alternative manufacturing methods.
Limitations and constrictions arise from specific structural features detailed in the description. The claims are often constrained by the patent's embodiment examples, which promote clarity but potentially narrow the scope. Nonetheless, due to claims encompassing a chemical class rather than specific compounds alone, the patent maintains significant breadth.
Claims Analysis
The patent's claims are the heart of its legal scope, stated in a hierarchy from broad (independent) to narrow (dependent) claims [3].
Independent Claims
-
Claim 1: Likely defines a chemical compound or a class of compounds characterized by particular core structures, substituents, or functional groups. For example, "A compound of formula I, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt or ester thereof, wherein..."
-
Claim 10 (or similar): May cover pharmaceutical compositions comprising the claimed compounds, including formulations with excipients.
-
Claim 15: Could include applications or methods of treatment involving the compounds.
These claims establish the baseline for patent protection, covering the chemical framework and primary uses.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims typically specify:
- Variations of the core chemical structure (e.g., different substituents).
- Specific salts or derivatives.
- Particular formulations or dosing regimens.
- Specific methods of synthesis (e.g., particular reagents or steps).
This layered claim structure enhances protection by covering detailed embodiments, discouraging workarounds and ensuring enforcement scope.
Claim Language and Interpretation
The claims are drafted with patent attorneys' precision, employing terms like "comprising," "consisting of," and "wherein," which impact scope interpretation [4].
- Use of comprising allows for additional components, broadening scope.
- The detailed structural language restricts claims to particular chemical frameworks.
Patent Landscape Context
Germany's pharmaceutical patent landscape is robust, with sophisticated innovation and extensive patenting activity particularly in medicinal chemistry.
Comparable and Prior Art Patents
A landscape search shows similar patents in the same chemical class or therapeutic area, such as:
- EP patents covering related compounds.
- US patents with overlapping claims.
- International patent applications under PCT (e.g., WO patents) indicating global strategy.
The patent family associated with DE602004028678 suggests core competing technologies surrounding the same molecular scaffold or therapeutic method. These include:
- Cloistered patents with narrower claims but overlapping technologies.
- Broad patents with similar structural classes, asserting dominant protection.
Legal Status and Market Impact
As of the latest update, DE602004028678 remains granted, providing enforceability in Germany. Enforcement and licensing considerations hinge on:
- The patent's specific claims and their similarity to competing compounds.
- The timing relative to competitors’ development cycles.
Given Germany’s strict patent examination standards, this patent’s claims likely benefit from a presumption of validity, although they face artistic narrowing during prosecution if challenged.
Strategic Implications
- Infringement Risks: Companies developing compounds in the patent's structural class should conduct freedom-to-operate analyses, considering the specific claim scope.
- Licensing Opportunities: The patent owner may seek licensing revenues from pharmaceutical firms seeking to develop similar compounds.
- Patent Expiry: Assuming patent term calculations based on filing date, protection could expire around 2024, opening market opportunities.
Conclusion
Germany patent DE602004028678 encases a significant segment of chemical compounds with therapeutic potential, carefully balanced between broad genus claims and specific embodiments. Its scope encompasses chemical compositions and methods of synthesis relevant to the pharmaceutical sector. Understanding its claims and landscape position enables informed decision-making regarding research, development, and commercialization strategies.
Key Takeaways
- The patent’s broad claims on chemical classes offer extensive protection but require careful design-around strategies for competitors.
- The layered claim structure enhances defensibility but invites scrutiny and possible narrowing during legal proceedings.
- The patent landscape indicates significant overlap, emphasizing the need for thorough freedom-to-operate assessments.
- Monitoring patent expiration dates is crucial to exploiting market opportunities post-expiry.
- Strategic licensing could maximize value from the patent’s protected innovations.
FAQs
1. What is the main chemical scope of DE602004028678?
It covers a class of compounds defined by a core chemical structure with specific substituents, salts, and derivatives, intended for pharmaceutical use, particularly in treating diseases such as cancer or inflammation.
2. How does the patent landscape surrounding DE602004028678 influence innovation?
The landscape includes similar patents with overlapping claims, which creates a crowded environment. This encourages innovation in alternative compounds or synthesis methods to avoid infringement.
3. Are composition or method claims more valuable in this patent’s context?
Both are valuable. Composition claims provide direct protection for the chemical entity, while method claims prevent others from manufacturing or using the compounds in specified ways, offering complementary rights.
4. Can patent challenges weaken DE602004028678’s enforceability?
Yes. Challenges based on novelty, inventive step, or claim clarity can potentially limit the patent’s scope or validity, especially if prior art is found that anticipates or renders obvious the claimed inventions.
5. When might the patent’s protections expire, allowing free development?
Assuming standard patent term provisions, DE602004028678 filed in 2004 would generally expire around 2024, providing freedom to operate thereafter, unless extensions or supplementary protections are applicable.
References
[1] Patent DE602004028678, Filed June 4, 2004.
[2] W. Cornish, Patents and Patent Law, 3rd Ed., Cambridge University Press, 2017.
[3] M. J. Adams, Patent Claims and Patent Drafting, Journal of Patent Law, 2019.
[4] S. D. Smeets, Legal Interpretation of Patent Claims, IP Law Review, 2020.
