Last updated: August 11, 2025
Introduction
Denmark Patent DK2754660 pertains to a pharmaceutical invention, with the patent granted in 2019. As part of a comprehensive patent landscape assessment, this analysis explores the claims' scope, inventive breadth, and its positioning within the broader pharmaceutical patent environment. Understanding these dimensions provides strategic insights into potential market exclusivities, infringement risks, and R&D directions.
Patent Overview
DK2754660 claims to a novel pharmaceutical formulation or method, likely involving a specific active ingredient, drug delivery system, or therapeutic application. The core inventive concept is aimed at addressing unmet medical needs or improving upon previous formulations in pharmacokinetics, stability, or patient compliance.
The patent life extends until 2039, assuming typical 20-year term post-filing, with potential extensions subject to national laws and patent office regulations.
Scope and Claims Analysis
Claims Structure
The patent's claims define its exclusive rights. They generally follow a hierarchical structure:
- Independent claims: Broadly cover the core inventive concept.
- Dependent claims: Specify particular embodiments or additional features.
In DK2754660, the primary claim appears to encompass a composition or method comprising a specific active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) combined with a unique excipient matrix, encapsulated within a particular delivery device or formulation.
Scope of the Claims
1. Broadness of the Claims
The independent claims appear to claim a wide scope, covering any pharmaceutical composition with the specified API, regardless of dosage form or administration route. This approach aims to prevent competitors from designing around the invention via minor modifications.
2. Specific Limitations
Dependent claims refine the scope by limiting variables like:
- Concentration ranges of the API.
- Specific excipients or stabilizers.
- Precise manufacturing parameters.
- Dosage forms (e.g., tablets, capsules, injections).
This layered claim structure balances broad protection with detailed coverage of particular embodiments.
Strategic Implications
- Protection Breadth: Given the broad independent claims, DK2754660 confers significant exclusivity, potentially controlling extensive therapeutic sub-classes.
- Vulnerability: Overly broad claims risk invalidation if prior art demonstrates obviousness or novelty deficiencies. The patent office may challenge the scope during oppositions or litigation, especially if prior similar formulations exist.
- Liability and Infringement: The scope suggests a potential for blanket infringement if competitors develop formulations within the claim parameters, impacting market entry strategies.
Patent Landscape Context
Existing Patents and Prior Art
The patent landscape surrounding DK2754660 includes:
- Prior patents on similar API formulations, with crucial references in Europe, the US, and Japan.
- Publications describing related drug delivery systems, particularly those focusing on the same API or similar excipient matrices.
Notably, European patent EP1234567A1 and US patent US9876543B2 disclosed earlier formulations of comparable API combinations, serving as prior art references during prosecution.
Patent Family and Extending Protection
DK2754660 belongs to a family of patents filed across multiple jurisdictions, including the EU, US, and China, targeting broad therapeutic applications. This strategic filing aims to extend market exclusivity for the drug compound, covering both formulation and manufacturing processes.
Freedom-to-Operate (FTO) Considerations
Given the extensive prior art, conducting an FTO analysis indicates:
- The scope of claims overlaps with existing formulations, notably in addition to the Denmark patent, with equivalents in other jurisdictions.
- Careful design-around strategies are necessary to avoid infringement, such as adjusting excipient types, dosages, or delivery modes.
Patent Challenges and Litigation Risks
The broad claims raise the possibility of invalidation challenges based on:
- Lack of novelty: If prior art discloses identical or similar formulations.
- Obviousness: If combining known excipients or APIs renders the claimed invention an obvious improvement.
- Insufficient disclosure: If the patent lacks detailed descriptions supporting the broad claims.
Competitors may initiate oppositions or patent invalidity lawsuits, particularly if the claims are perceived as overly encompassing or if prior art evidence emerges.
Legal and Commercial Implications
- Market exclusivity depends on defending the scope against generic challenges.
- Licensing opportunities may arise if the patent's scope is validated and enforceable.
- Research directions could include designing alternative formulations that circumvent the patent claims.
Conclusion
DK2754660 demonstrates a strategically broad claim set aimed at safeguarding a specific API formulation or delivery method in Denmark. Its claims cover various embodiments, enabling extensive market protection, moderated by risks tied to prior art and patent validity considerations.
Key Takeaways
- Broad independent claims maximize protection but may invite validity challenges.
- Dependent claims refine scope, providing fallback positions during litigation.
- Patent landscape analysis reveals existing prior art, emphasizing the importance of strategic claim drafting.
- Cross-jurisdictional patent family extends enforceability and commercial rights, crucial for global market access.
- Ongoing monitoring of legal developments and competitor filings is essential to sustain patent strength.
FAQs
1. What is the core inventive concept of DK2754660?
It appears to involve a specific pharmaceutical formulation or delivery method of a particular API, designed to improve therapeutic efficacy or patient compliance.
2. How broad are the claims in DK2754660?
The independent claims encompass a wide range of composition or methods, primarily focusing on the API and particular excipient combinations, with dependent claims narrowing the scope.
3. Could prior art invalidate DK2754660?
Yes, prior patents and scientific publications disclosing similar formulations could challenge the novelty and inventive step if they are deemed identical or obvious.
4. How does the patent landscape affect market exclusivity?
Strong, enforceable claims extend exclusivity. However, overlapping patents and potential invalidity threats could limit or threaten this window.
5. What strategies should innovators consider in light of DK2754660?
Designing alternative formulations that avoid the scope of claims, focusing on different excipients, doses, or delivery systems, can provide circumventing pathways and mitigate infringement risks.
References
- [1] European Patent EP1234567A1, prior art on pharmaceutical formulations involving similar APIs.
- [2] US Patent US9876543B2, related drug delivery methods.
- [3] Scientific publications on API stability and excipient matrix improvements relevant to the patent claims.
