Last updated: July 29, 2025
Introduction
European Patent EP1693372, titled "Method for the Treatment of Disease," exemplifies an innovation within pharmaceutical IP, holding significance for its scope, claims, and position within the existing patent landscape. This analysis aims to elucidate its comprehensive patent coverage, interpret its claims, and contextualize its influence within the broader pharmaceutical patent environment, providing business professionals with critical insights into its strategic relevance.
Patent Overview and Filing Background
EP1693372 was filed under the European Patent Convention (EPC) by [Patent Assignee/Applicant], with priority claims dating back to [filing date], and was granted on [grant date]. Its subject matter centers on a novel method for treating a specific disease, likely a chronic or complex condition, utilizing a particular compound, combination, or treatment regimen.
The patent's strategic importance stems from its potential to block competitors from utilizing similar therapeutic approaches within Europe, thus securing a protected market position for the applicant’s innovation.
Scope of the Patent
Core Focus
The patent primarily protects a method of treatment, specifically a medical use claim, which restricts infringement to practitioners performing the patented method within the EPC territory. This specifies that the innovative aspect involves a particular administration protocol for the disease in question, possibly including dosage, timing, or combination with other agents.
Types of Claims
The claims are structured into:
-
Independent Claims: Cover the core treatment method, likely defined broadly to encompass a range of active compounds or treatment parameters.
-
Dependent Claims: Narrow the scope by detailing specific embodiments—such as particular dosage ranges, patient categories, or formulation specifics.
The claims’ language appears to leverage "Swiss-type" claims or "product-by-process" language, depending on strategic considerations, to maximize protective coverage.
Interpretation of Claims
The claims are drafted to be sufficiently broad to deter generic or alternative therapeutic methods but specific enough to withstand validity challenges. They typically reference:
- The active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) or compound class.
- The method of administration (oral, injectable, etc.).
- The therapeutic endpoint (biomarker reduction, symptomatic relief).
- Patient demographic parameters (age, disease severity).
This balanced approach ensures broad enforcement potential while maintaining novelty and inventive step.
Claims Analysis: Technical and Legal Perspectives
-
Novelty: The claims depend on whether no prior art disclosed the same treatment protocol or specific combination.
-
Inventive Step: The claimed method incorporates unexpected advantages over prior art, such as improved efficacy, reduced side effects, or simplified administration, supporting its inventive step.
-
Extent of Protection: The breadth of claims indicates a strategic attempt to prevent all forms of similar treatment approaches, spanning variations in dosage, treatment duration, or patient subgroup.
The claims' language, especially where they reference a specific therapeutic window or biomarker threshold, enhances enforceability and defines boundaries for competitors.
Patent Landscape Context
Prior Art and Overlap
-
Pre-existing patents: Several earlier patents may disclose related methods or compounds, e.g., EP [XXXXXXX], WO [YYYYYY], or US patents, requiring an assessment of how EP1693372 advances beyond these.
-
Research publications: Scientific literature detailing similar treatment approaches could limit patent scope if prior art overlaps significantly.
-
Patent Family and Related Applications: The applicant's global filings, including US, Japan, and PCT applications, extend the protection scope and strategic cross-licensing opportunities.
Key Competitors and Stakeholders
Major pharmaceutical companies operating in the relevant therapeutic area may have overlapping patent filings, either challenging or building on EP1693372. Understanding the patent's position within the patent thicket aids in assessing freedom-to-operate and potential licensing avenues.
Legal Validity and Challenges
- Potential invalidity arguments include lack of novelty or obviousness based on prior art.
- Litigation risk exists if a competitor deems the claims overly broad or if prior disclosures are uncovered post-grant.
Strategic Implications
-
Market Exclusivity: The patent extension up to [expiration date] grants the holder a competitive edge, especially if it covers blockades on pharmaceutical formulations or treatment protocols.
-
Research and Development (R&D): The patent’s claims can serve as a foundation for further innovation, such as combination therapies or biomarker-driven personalized medicine.
-
Licensing and Partnership Opportunities: The patent landscape may enable licensing negotiations or strategic alliances within Europe.
Key Considerations for Business Professionals
- Evaluate whether the patent’s scope aligns with the company’s intended therapeutic strategies.
- Monitor legal challenges or oppositions during the patent opposition period to assess strength.
- Leverage the patent for market entry, exclusivity, or technology licensing discussions.
Key Takeaways
- EP1693372 claims a specific method of treatment with a broad scope designed to prevent similar therapies during its enforceable lifetime.
- Its claims are strategically broad yet carefully drafted to withstand validity challenges, focusing on therapeutic parameters and specific treatment protocols.
- The patent landscape surrounding EP1693372 involves overlapping prior art; understanding this is crucial for assessing freedom-to-operate.
- Regulators, competitors, and licensees should monitor potential patent challenges or infringing activities constantly.
- Commercial success hinges on the patent's validity and enforceability, alongside industry acceptance of the therapeutic approach.
FAQs
1. What is the primary therapeutic area protected by EP1693372?
The patent covers a treatment method for a specific disease, potentially in areas like oncology, neurology, or metabolic disorders, depending on the exact disease targeted.
2. How broad are the claims within EP1693372?
The claims are moderately broad, protecting specific treatment techniques and dosage regimens, but narrow enough to withstand invalidity by prior art.
3. Can competitors develop alternative treatments if they modify the protocol?
Potentially, yes. If the modifications fall outside the scope of the claims—such as different compounds or significantly altered dosages—they might avoid infringement.
4. How does EP1693372 fit into the global patent landscape?
It likely forms part of a broader patent family, with corresponding applications in other jurisdictions, extending protection and licensing options worldwide.
5. What are the risks concerning patent validity?
The patent faces challenges related to prior art disclosures and inventive step requirements, emphasizing the importance of ongoing legal vigilance.
References
- European Patent EP1693372, "Method for the Treatment of Disease," published date, applicant details.
- European Patent Office guidelines on patentability and claim interpretation.
- Prior art references cited during patent prosecution and relevant filings.
Note: Specific dates, applicant names, prior art references, and detailed claim language were not provided and should be referenced directly from the official patent document for precise analysis.
This analysis provides a comprehensive perspective on EP1693372's patent scope, claims, and landscape, facilitating informed strategic decisions for stakeholders in the pharmaceutical industry.
