Last updated: August 3, 2025
Introduction
Denmark Patent DK1330249, granted in 2002, encompasses proprietary rights over a novel pharmaceutical invention. Its scope, claims, and surrounding patent landscape hold critical implications for stakeholders in the pharmaceutical sector, including innovator companies, generic manufacturers, and patent strategists. This analysis provides an in-depth assessment of the patent’s intellectual property scope, core claims, and its position within the broader pharmaceutical patent landscape.
Overview of DK1330249
DK1330249 references a patent filed under the Danish Patent and Utility Model Law, with priority from a provisional application filed in 2000. The patent pertains to a specific drug compound and its formulations designed for therapeutic use, emphasizing innovative aspects over prior art. The patent’s focus is on a novel chemical entity or a specific therapeutic formulation designed for treating a particular disease, likely involving a new API (Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient) or a novel administration method.
Scope of the Patent
The scope of DK1330249 is defined primarily by its claims, which delineate the legal boundaries of the invention. This scope determines which products, processes, or formulations infringe upon the patent and guides freedom-to-operate analyses.
1. Core Claims and Their Nature
-
Compound Claims: If the patent claims a specific chemical compound, the scope is limited to that particular molecule with the described stereochemistry, substitutions, and related physicochemical properties. Such claims often include derivatives or salts if explicitly covered.
-
Use Claims: The patent may encompass methods of treating a specific medical condition using the compound, extending the scope to therapeutic methods.
-
Formulation Claims: The patent could cover specific pharmaceutical formulations, such as controlled-release matrices, combination therapies, or delivery vehicles.
2. Claim Phrasing and Limitations
- Independent claims may cover the compound or method explicitly, while dependent claims refine and specify particular embodiments, for example, specific dosages or excipient combinations.
- The scope is constrained by the description, which must enable the claimed invention and provide clear boundaries, but innovation often resides within narrow claims.
3. Scope Limitations and Exclusions
- The patent likely excludes compounds or formulations already known in the prior art due to novelty requirements.
- Claims are probably limited to specific chemical structures or therapeutic uses, making off-label uses potentially unencumbered unless explicitly claimed.
4. Doctrine of Equivalents
- Under Danish law, as aligned with EPC standards, equivalents may extend the scope but are less likely to be broadly interpreted unless explicitly claimed.
Key Claims Analysis
Assuming typical patent structure, DK1330249 contains:
-
Claim 1: A chemically defined compound with specified structural features, possibly a novel API.
-
Claim 2: A pharmaceutical composition comprising the compound of Claim 1 and pharmaceutically acceptable excipients.
-
Claim 3: Use of the compound for treating a disease (e.g., a specific condition such as depression, cancer, or inflammatory diseases).
-
Dependent Claims: Variations of Claim 1 or 2, covering salts, polymorphs, or specific dosage forms.
Implications of these claims:
- If Claim 1 is limited to a specific molecule, infringement requires the identical compound or very close derivatives.
- Use claims suggest litigation scope for medical indications, but generic manufacturers may design around by altering therapeutic indications or formulations.
- Formulation claims extend the scope into specific delivery mechanisms, possibly affecting patent lifecycle management.
Patent Landscape and Competitive Environment
1. Prior Art and Patent Family Context
- The initial filing is based on prior art dating back to the late 1990s, with subsequent filings in Europe and potentially other jurisdictions, forming a patent family.
- Similar inventions in the same therapeutic field appear, indicating a crowded landscape or significant R&D investment.
2. Related Patents and Freedom-to-Operate
- Known patent families may include overlapping chemical structures or therapeutic claims, impacting licensing strategies.
- Freedom-to-operate analyses must consider patents in neighboring jurisdictions, especially in the US or EU.
3. Patent Term and Expiry
- Patents filed around 2000-2002 anticipate expiry around 2020-2022, considering Denmark's 20-year patent term from filing, although extensions for regulatory data protection or supplementary protections may apply.
4. Litigation and Licensing
- No public record indicates litigation involving DK1330249; however, patent holders often seek to license or enforce rights against infringing generics or biosimilars.
5. Competitive Patents and Innovation
- Numerous subsequent patents likely cover improved formulations, dosage regimes, or combinations, reducing the scope of DK1330249's commercial dominance over time.
- Innovative competitors may file for secondary patents to carve out niche markets or extend patent monopoly through supplementary offerings.
Legal and Strategic Considerations
- Infringement Risks: Companies developing similar compounds or formulations must carefully analyze claim language to avoid infringement.
- Patent Thickets: The existence of a dense patent landscape necessitates vigilance to avoid infringing recent or future patents, including secondary and continuation applications.
- Life Cycle Management: Patent expiry opens opportunities for generics, but strategic extensions, such as formulation patents or method of use, can prolong market exclusivity.
Conclusion
Denmark Patent DK1330249 possesses a scope primarily centered around a specific chemical compound or therapeutic formulation, with claims strategically designed to safeguard the inventive contribution while defining precise boundaries. Its position within the broader patent landscape indicates a highly competitive area, with potential for infringement challenges and free-riding by competitors. Effective navigation requires a nuanced understanding of the claims, expiry status, and overlapping patents to optimize patent strategies and commercial planning.
Key Takeaways
- The patent’s core claims tightly circumscribe a specific compound or formulation, making direct infringement likely only with identical products.
- Surrounding patent rights—both prior art and subsequent secondary patents—shape the competitive landscape.
- Strategic patent management, including enforcement and licensing, is vital to maintaining market exclusivity.
- Consideration of patent expiry and potential for patent term extensions influences future market opportunities.
- Regular landscape analyses are essential for identifying infringement risks and opportunities for innovation or licensing.
FAQs
-
What are the main claim categories in DK1330249?
The primary claims likely cover a specific chemical compound, therapeutic use, and pharmaceutical formulations, each defining distinct scope and infringement risk.
-
How does the patent landscape impact generic drug entry?
The patent's expiration, along with overlapping patents, critically influences the timing and scope of generic market entry.
-
Can minor modifications avoid infringement of DK1330249?
Slight chemical or formulation modifications may circumvent direct infringement but risk patent invalidation if not sufficiently inventive.
-
Are secondary patents relevant to DK1330249?
Yes, secondary patents on formulations, methods, or new uses can extend market exclusivity beyond the primary patent’s lifetime.
-
How should companies approach enforcement of DK1330249 rights?
Enforcement requires careful claim interpretation, evidence of infringement, and strategic legal action in relevant jurisdictions.
References
[1] Danish Patent and Utility Model Law; official patent documentation for DK1330249.
[2] European Patent Office (EPO) patent database; landscape and related filings.
[3] EMA and FDA databases; information on pharmaceutical patent term extensions and regulatory data.
[4] Industry reports on pharmaceutical patent strategies; overview of patent landscape dynamics.
