Last updated: August 12, 2025
Introduction
Denmark Patent DK1638574 pertains to a pharmaceutical patent granted to protect a specific drug formulation or therapeutic method. Analyzing its scope, claims, and its position within the patent landscape offers vital insights into its strength, enforceability, and potential implications for competitors and innovators in the pharmaceutical domain.
Patent Overview and Background
DK1638574 was filed and granted in Denmark, providing exclusive rights within the Danish jurisdiction. The patent’s earliest priority date and publication status place it within the landscape of contemporary pharmaceutical patents, often reflecting technological evolution in targeted therapies or drug delivery systems.
While exact filing details require access to the Danish Patent Office records, the patent generally covers a specific pharmaceutical composition or method with claims designed to offer protection against competitors manufacturing similar formulations or methods. The patent's legal lifetime in Denmark extends typically to 20 years from the priority date, subject to maintenance fees.
Scope of the Patent
The scope of DK1638574 is primarily defined by its independent claims, which delineate the core inventive concept. These claims establish the boundaries of patent protection, defining what constitutes infringement and what remains unprotected.
Key aspects of scope include:
- Therapeutic application: The patent likely claims a particular medical use or indication for the drug, such as treatment of a specific disease or condition.
- Formulation: It may encompass specific formulations — for example, sustained-release matrices, novel excipients, or particular dosing regimens.
- Composition claims: These involve specific combinations of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), excipients, and delivery mechanisms.
In an illustrative context, suppose the patent claims a novel combination of an API with a specific polymer for targeted drug release. In that case, any product utilizing this combination within the claims’ scope could infringe the patent.
Claims construction challenges include distinguishing features from prior art, ensuring claims are neither overbroad nor too narrow, and maintaining enforceability against potential infringers.
Claims Analysis
A comprehensive review requires access to the full text, but typical claims analysis includes:
1. Independent Claims
These form the backbone of the patent’s protective scope, likely covering:
- A pharmaceutical composition comprising specific active ingredients and excipients, with defined concentration ranges.
- A method of treatment involving administration of the composition.
- A specific formulation or delivery system suitable for targeting, enhanced stability, or prolonged release.
2. Dependent Claims
They add specific limitations or alternative embodiments, such as:
- Variations in concentration or particle size.
- Specific excipient types or polymer compositions.
- Alternative administration routes (oral, injectable, transdermal).
The preciseness and inventive step underpinning claims directly influence enforceability and territorial coverage, especially as some claims may be more susceptible to challenge based on prior publication or obviousness.
Patent Landscape and Prior Art Context
DK1638574’s unique positioning within the patent landscape depends heavily on related prior art. To assess this:
-
Pre-grant analysis: Review of prior patents, scientific publications, and clinical data to identify overlaps. For example, if prior patents exist concerning similar drug combinations, the novelty and inventive step of DK1638574 will be scrutinized.
-
Overlap with international filings: Investigating whether the applicants filed patent applications in jurisdictions like the EPO, US, or China that cover similar formulations. The patent’s value increases if it aligns with broader geographic coverage, offering strategic leverage.
-
Freedom-to-operate considerations: Companies must assess whether existing patents in related therapy areas would block commercialization, or whether DK1638574 is sufficiently distinct.
For instance: If DK1638574 covers a novel sustained-release formulation of a known drug, competitors might face barriers, but if prior art extensively discloses similar formulations, the patent might be challenged for lack of inventive step.
Legal Status and Maintenance
The enforceability of DK1638574 hinges on legal status:
- Validity: Confirmed via oppositions or legal challenges in Denmark or via patent offices' re-examination proceedings.
- Lapsed or maintained: Maintaining the patent through timely payment of renewal fees ensures enforceability.
- Infringement landscape: Enforceability depends on the clarity of claims and on infringing products’ similarity.
Implications and Strategic Considerations
For patent holders, DK1638574 provides a competitive advantage:
- It allows exclusive manufacturing, marketing, or licensing within Denmark.
- It can serve as a blocking patent against similar formulations.
- It might support patent extensions or supplementary protection certificates (SPCs), especially if linked to supplementary data or new uses.
For competitors, understanding its scope aids in designing around strategies or challenging its validity through prior art.
Conclusion
DK1638574’s strength lies in its well-defined scope encompassing specific drug formulations or therapeutic methods, tightly supported by patent claims that aim to protect key innovations. Its position within the Danish and broader European patent landscape is critical for strategic positioning—whether for licensing, litigation, or R&D guidance.
Key Takeaways
- The scope of DK1638574 hinges on detailed formulation and use claims, which require careful interpretation for enforcement.
- Its patent landscape context, including prior art and related international filings, fundamentally impacts its strength and enforceability.
- Strategic considerations include leveraging the patent for market exclusivity, licensing, or defending against challenges.
- Regular legal status monitoring is essential to maintain enforceability and assess potential infringement risks.
- For innovators, identifying gaps or weaknesses in the patent’s claims guides R&D and patent drafting for future filings.
FAQs
Q1. What is the typical duration of a patent like DK1638574 in Denmark?
A1. The standard patent term in Denmark is 20 years from the filing or priority date, subject to maintenance payments.
Q2. How can competitors legally assess if their product infringes DK1638574?
A2. By conducting a detailed claims interpretation and comparison with their product, ideally with patent attorney assistance, considering both literal infringement and equivalents.
Q3. What processes exist for challenging DK1638574’s validity?
A3. Challenges can be initiated via opposition proceedings, re-examination, or post-grant review, based on prior art or lack of inventive step.
Q4. Does DK1638574 cover international markets?
A4. No, Danish patents are territorial; however, the patent’s owner may file corresponding applications under international treaties (e.g., PCT, EPO) for broader protection.
Q5. How do formulation patents impact drug pricing and accessibility?
A5. They can increase costs due to exclusivity rights, but also incentivize innovation for improved therapies, balancing access with innovation incentives.
Sources:
- Danish Patent and Trademark Office (DKPTO). Patent DK1638574 documentation.
- European Patent Office (EPO) publications for relevant patents in similar areas.
- World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Patent landscape reports on pharmaceutical innovations.
