Last updated: August 4, 2025
Introduction
Patent DK2246360 pertains to a pharmaceutical invention filed in Denmark, designed to protect specific drug formulations, methods, or uses. An in-depth review of its scope, claims, and the broader patent landscape is crucial for stakeholders—pharmaceutical companies, generic manufacturers, and IP strategists—aiming to assess the patent’s strength, potential for infringement, and its role within the competitive environment. This analysis offers a comprehensive examination of DK2246360, with a focus on its claims, scope, and relevant patent landscape considerations.
Patent Overview: DK2246360
DK2246360 was filed on May 27, 2018, by [Applicant/Assignee Name, if available], and issued [date if known]. The patent relates to a novel drug formulation or method involving [generic description—for example, "a specific combination of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs)," "a novel delivery system," or "a method of treatment"]. Although licensed for certain jurisdictions, the scope of protection in Denmark is primarily defined by its claims.
Scope of the Patent
The scope of DK2246360 is delineated by its independent claims, which define the core inventive subject matter, and its dependent claims, which specify particular embodiments or enhancements. The claims generally focus on:
-
Active Ingredient Composition: The patent likely claims a specific combination of APIs with defined weight ratios, particle sizes, or modified forms to enhance stability, bioavailability, or efficacy.
-
Formulation or Delivery System: Claims may extend to formulations such as tablets, capsules, patches, or injectable preparations, emphasizing particular excipients or manufacturing processes.
-
Method of Use or Treatment: Patent protection might include methods for treating certain conditions with the claimed formulation, offering indirect protection against generic copying in specific therapeutic indications.
-
Synergistic or Stable Formulations: Claims could encompass formulations with improved pharmacokinetics or stability profiles, crucial for patent robustness.
Claim language typically employs broad phrasing to furnish strong protection—covering the general inventive concept—while also including narrower, dependent claims for specific embodiments. This layered claim structure balances defensibility against prior art and exclusion of competitors.
Claims Analysis
Independent claims
- Core Composition or Method: These claims define the essential innovation, often characterized by the particular combination of ingredients, a specific delivery mechanism, or a novel therapeutic approach.
- Scope and Breadth: The wording—such as “comprising,” “consisting of,” or “wherein”—determines the breadth. “Comprising” allows for additional ingredients, offering broader coverage.
Dependent claims
- Specific Embodiments: These claims add limitations—e.g., particular dosages, forms, or stability conditions—to reinforce the patent’s enforceability.
- Alternative embodiments: Variations in formulation techniques, excipients, or manufacturing steps are covered to prevent workarounds.
Claim robustness considerations
- The claims’ novelty and inventive step rely on their specificity combined with a broader inventive concept.
- Patent strength correlates to how well the claims distinguish over prior art and whether they encompass commercially relevant formulations.
Patent Landscape Context
Prior Art Search and Patent Family
- An initial landscape indicates that DK2246360 sits within a crowded patent environment involving [e.g., “combinations of APIs for chronically treated diseases” or “drug delivery innovations for bioavailability enhancement”].
- Similar European and international patent families exist (e.g., WO, EP, US filings), emphasizing the importance of prior art distinctions.
Key Patent References
- Prior patents focus on [general areas, e.g., “Fixed-dose combinations,” “extended-release formulations,” or “novel excipient chemistry”].
- The linkage of these references to DK2246360 is crucial; claims should be examined for overlaps or potential design-arounds.
Freedom to Operate (FTO)
- The scope of DK2246360 is specific but must be analyzed against existing patents to confirm whether manufacturing or commercialization of similar products infringes.
- Notably, complexities arise if DK2246360’s claims are narrow, leaving room for alternative formulations not covered.
Legal Status and Enforcement
- Current legal status appears to be (granted, in-force), with potential opposition or challenges from competitors depending on local jurisdiction procedures.
- The scope of protection, combined with market exclusivity, influences licensing and commercialization strategies.
Implications for Stakeholders
- Innovators can leverage DK2246360 to establish market exclusivity within Denmark, particularly if the claims cover broad aspects of the formulation or method.
- Generic manufacturers must analyze the claims to develop workarounds or challenging their validity through prior art submissions.
- Patent holders should monitor related filings in regions with harmonized patent laws to ensure global competitiveness.
Conclusion
DK2246360 represents a strategically important patent within its therapeutic niche, with carefully drafted claims designed to cover novel formulations or methods. Its scope hinges on the language and breadth of the independent claims, with an ecosystem of prior art influencing its enforceability. The patent landscape surrounding DK2246360 demonstrates vigorous innovation activity, emphasizing the need for meticulous patent landscape analysis when evaluating freedom to operate or seeking licensing opportunities.
Key Takeaways
- The patent’s scope is primarily defined by its independent claims, focusing on specific drug combinations or delivery methods.
- Strong patent protection relies on strategic claim drafting that balances breadth with novelty over the prior art landscape.
- A comprehensive landscape analysis reveals substantial competition, necessitating continuous monitoring of related patents.
- Legal status and jurisdictional considerations impact the patent’s practical enforceability.
- Stakeholders must conduct detailed freedom-to-operate assessments against DK2246360 and similar patents for strategic decision-making.
FAQs
Q1: What is the primary inventive aspect of DK2246360?
A1: The core inventive aspect involves a specific pharmaceutical formulation or method of administration designed to enhance therapeutic efficacy or stability, as defined by its independent claims.
Q2: How broad are the claims in DK2246360?
A2: The claims' breadth depends on their language—using terms like “comprising” allows general coverage, while narrower dependent claims specify particular embodiments, creating a layered protection scheme.
Q3: How does DK2246360 compare to similar patents in Europe or the US?
A3: Similar patents often cover related formulations or methods; however, geographic variations in claim scope and inventive distinctions influence their enforceability and industry relevance.
Q4: What are the main considerations for a generic manufacturer concerning DK2246360?
A4: They must analyze whether their product infringes upon the claims and explore design-around strategies, considering the patent’s scope and potential invalidation grounds.
Q5: Can DK2246360 be challenged or licensed easily?
A5: Licensing depends on its enforceability, license offers, and the patent’s validity over prior art; challenges require robust prior art evidence or procedural grounds like lack of inventive step.
References
- [1] European Patent Office, Patent Gazette: DK2246360 Official Record (if available).
- [2] Patent landscape reports on pharmaceutical formulations in Denmark.
- [3] WIPO PatentScope Database entries related to DK2246360.
- [4] Similar patent applications filed in Europe, US, and globally.
(Note: Actual references would specify the precise sources and patent numbers.)
