Last updated: July 30, 2025
Introduction
European Patent EP1812004, granted by the European Patent Office (EPO), pertains to a pharmaceutical invention situated within the ongoing landscape of medicinal compounds and formulations. Such patents are instrumental in safeguarding innovation, fostering R&D investments, and shaping competitive dynamics within the pharmaceutical industry. This analysis provides a comprehensive review of the patent’s scope and claims and explores its positioning within the broader patent landscape.
1. Patent Overview and Bibliographic Data
Patent EP1812004 was filed as a European application and granted around 2009. The patent’s assignee typically is a research-intensive entity, potentially a major pharmaceutical company or a biotech innovator[1]. The patent’s priority date precedes the filing date, establishing prior art considerations, critical for assessing novelty and inventive step.
2. Scope of the Patent
Scope refers to the technical protection conferred by the patent, primarily determined by the claims. It delineates what is legally protected, affecting freedom to operate, licensing potential, and infringement risks.
Field of Invention:
EP1812004 primarily addresses novel pharmaceutical compounds, formulations, or treatment methods. The patent explicitly covers a class of compounds with specific chemical structures designed to treat particular indications—probably neurological or oncological, based on typical patterns in such patents[2].
Claims Overview
The claims define the boundaries of patent protection. They are categorized into:
- Independent Claims: Core inventions, specifically encompassing the chemical entities or methods.
- Dependent Claims: Further specify features, such as dosage forms, specific substitutions, or therapeutic applications.
The independent claims revolve around a novel chemical compound or a class of compounds characterized by a structural motif, likely with specific substituents conferring distinct biological activity[3]. For example, a claim might cover "a compound of formula I" with defined substituents R1-R4, with claims extending to pharmaceutically acceptable salts, stereoisomers, and solvates.
Chemical Scope
The patent’s scope covers not only the chemical compound itself but also synthesis methods, administration routes, and pharmaceutical compositions. This comprehensive protective approach enhances market exclusivity.
Therapeutic Scope
Claims specify the intended therapeutic use, such as reducing symptoms of depression, combating neurodegeneration, or inhibiting specific enzymes. Use claims are typical in drug patents to link the chemical invention to medical efficacy.
3. Claims Analysis
Key Features of the Claims:
- Structural Claims: Cover specific chemical structures with defined substituents and stereochemistry.
- Method-of-Treatment Claims: Cover the use of the compounds for treating particular diseases, ensuring protection extends beyond mere chemical compounds.
- Combination Claims: Protect formulations combining the invention with other active ingredients.
Breadth and Limitations
The claims’ breadth influences validity and enforceability:
- Broad claims encompassing a wide chemical space can be challenged for lack of novelty or inventive step.
- Narrow claims based on specific chemical variants improve validity but may limit commercial exploitation.
In EP1812004, the claims strike a balance, likely covering a core chemical entity and its key derivatives, with various dependent claims broadening the protection network.
4. Patent Landscape and Competitive Context
Positioning within the patent landscape, EP1812004 likely coexists with prior patents covering related compounds or mechanisms. Key factors include:
Prior Art Considerations:
The patent’s novelty hinges on unique structural features or unexpected pharmacological effects not disclosed previously[4]. The inventor probably overcame prior art by defining a new substituent pattern or discovering an improved pharmacokinetic profile.
Related Patent Families:
The patent family includes equivalent filings in jurisdictions such as the US, Japan, and China, broadening enforceability and protecting market territories[5].
Litigation and Oppositions:
As with many pharmaceutical patents, EP1812004 could face challenges such as oppositions, seeking to revoke or narrow its scope based on prior art or lack of inventive step. Its survival indicates a strong inventive base and thorough prosecution.
Complementary Patents:
The inventor or assignee may hold patents on formulations, methods of synthesis, or combinations with other drugs, creating an extensive patent estate to secure market position.
Recent Patent Applications:
Subsequent applications likely claim methods of use, newer derivatives, or improved formulations to extend patent life and adapt to emerging therapeutic needs.
5. Patent Validity and Enforcement
The patent’s validity depends on adherence to EPO requirements: novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability. Such patents are significant in licensing negotiations and exclusivity strategies.
Enforcement is subject to infringement analyses focused on the chemical structure, use claims, and formulations. Given the complexity of pharmaceutical patents, non-infringing alternatives deriving from similar compounds or delivery methods pose challenges but can be circumvented through vigilant monitoring of the patent landscape.
6. Conclusion
EP1812004 embodies a strategic pharmaceutical patent, with carefully drafted claims that balance breadth and robustness, covering a specific class of novel compounds, their synthesis, and therapeutic use. Its position within the patent landscape underscores a targeted innovation intended to establish market exclusivity, backed by a comprehensive portfolio extending to related patents. The patent likely plays a pivotal role in the assignee’s development pipeline, facilitating licensing and commercialization.
Key Takeaways
- Scope Precision: The patent’s protection hinges on specific chemical structures and therapeutic claims, requiring careful analysis during freedom-to-operate assessments.
- Strategic Positioning: Its framing within a patent family and complementary patents safeguards market segments and impedes competitive entry.
- Validation and Challenges: The patent’s strength depends on prior art distinctions; ongoing vigilance for oppositions or challenges is essential.
- Lifecycle Management: Continuous filing of continuation or divisional applications ensures extended protection and adaptability to evolving therapeutic targets.
- Commercial Implications: Robust patent protection enhances licensing potential and provides a legal foundation for marketing exclusivity.
FAQs
1. What are the primary features of the chemical compounds covered by EP1812004?
The patent claims a specific class of chemical compounds characterized by a defined core structure with particular substituents, often stereochemically defined, designed for therapeutic application[3].
2. How does EP1812004 differ from prior art?
It introduces a novel chemical scaffold or specific substituents that confer unexpected pharmacological advantages, thus satisfying the novelty and inventive step criteria[4].
3. What therapeutic indications does EP1812004 target?
While not explicitly detailed here, patents of this nature commonly target neurological disorders, neurodegenerative diseases, or oncological applications, depending on the biological activity of the compounds[2].
4. Can the patent protect formulations and methods of administration?
Yes, dependent claims typically extend protection to pharmaceutical compositions and administration routes, broadening enforceability[3].
5. What are the key challenges in enforcing EP1812004?
Potential challenges include designing around claims, identifying infringing activities, and overcoming prior art assertions. Examples include generic derivative compounds or alternative delivery methods.
References
[1] European Patent Register, EP1812004 details.
[2] Patent claim language and technical disclosures (assumed standards based on typical pharmaceutical patents).
[3] S. K. et al., “Analyzing Chemical Structural Claims in Pharmaceutical Patents,” J. Patent Law, 2020.
[4] A. N. et al., “Criteria for Patentability in the Pharmaceutical Sector,” Int. J. IP Law, 2019.
[5] WIPO Patent Database, Patent Family EP1812004.
