Last updated: December 28, 2025
Executive Summary
Patent FI3652145 pertains to a pharmaceutical invention filed in Finland, with potential global relevance depending on patent family expansion. This analysis evaluates the scope and claims to understand the patent’s protective breadth and strategic implications within the drug patent landscape. Key insights include its scope of protection, claim structure, positioning relative to prior art, and the patent landscape within the pharmacological domain. This document will serve as an essential resource for pharmaceutical innovators, patent strategists, and industry stakeholders aiming to assess IP barriers and opportunities.
Introduction
Patent FI3652145 was filed under the Finnish Patents and Utility Model Act, representing a national jurisdiction with specific standards aligned with the European Patent Convention. The patent's core pertains to a novel pharmaceutical compound/process (exact details to be specified based on the patent document). Understanding its claims and scope is vital for assessing competitive landscape, licensing potential, and infringement risks.
Summary of Key Patent Details
| Aspect |
Details |
| Patent Number |
FI3652145 |
| Filing Date |
(Specify date - e.g., 2019-04-15) |
| Grant Date |
(Specify date - e.g., 2021-07-20) |
| Applicant/Assignee |
(e.g., Pharmaceutical Company X) |
| Inventors |
(Names if available) |
| Patent Term |
20 years from the filing date, subject to maintenance fees |
| Priority Date |
(if applicable) |
| International Application Data |
(if part of PCT or filed elsewhere) |
Scope of Patent FI3652145
1. Theoretical Coverage
The scope is primarily defined by the independent claims, which specify the broadest legal protection. Dependent claims narrow scope, introducing specific embodiments or variants.
Main aspects encapsulated in the claims likely include:
- Active compounds or chemical entities (e.g., specific molecular structures, salts, stereoisomers)
- Pharmaceutical compositions comprising these compounds
- Method of use concerning particular medical indications
- Manufacturing processes for the active ingredient or formulation
2. Claim Structure and Language
| Claim Type |
Description |
Typical Language |
| Independent Claims |
Broader, defining core invention |
"A pharmaceutical composition comprising..." |
| Dependent Claims |
Narrower, detailing specifics |
"The composition of claim 1, wherein..." |
The scope's breadth hinges on whether the independent claims cover broad classes of compounds or specific embodiments.
3. Nature of the Claims
Based on standard pharmaceutical patents, FI3652145 likely comprises:
| Claim Category |
Expected Content |
Scope Implication |
| Compound Claims |
Novel chemical entities |
May be narrow unless they cover a broad class |
| Use Claims |
Methods for treating diseases |
Often strategic for extending protection |
| Formulation Claims |
Specific formulations |
May be narrower in scope |
| Process Claims |
Synthesis methods |
Useful for blocking generics |
Note: Exact claim language dictates enforceability and scope.
Patent Landscape and Strategic Positioning
1. Prior Art and Novelty
Assessment of prior art reveals the novelty level of the patent—especially whether the compound or process claims introduce meaningful innovation over existing drugs or synthesis methods.
- Key references include prior patents, scientific literature, and existing drugs.
- Novelty concerns could trigger higher inventive step thresholds, influencing claim language and scope.
2. Patent Family and Geographic Coverage
While FI3652145 is a Finnish national patent, companies often pursue regional and international patent applications to secure global exclusivity through PCT or regional patent offices (EPO, USPTO).
| Jurisdiction |
Status |
Notes |
| Finland |
Granted |
Main jurisdiction |
| EPO |
Pending/Granted |
Expanding scope in Europe |
| US |
Pending/Granted |
For broader market protection |
| Asia |
Potential filings |
For emerging markets |
3. Competitive Landscape
- Other patents in the same class (e.g., therapeutic or chemical class)
- Similar compounds or uses impacting freedom-to-operate
- Recent patent grants or applications, signaling innovation trends
4. Patent Life and Enforcement
- Warning periods for generic challenges
- Patent term adjustments, if applicable
- Opportunities for patent extension or supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) in Europe
Key Claim and Scope Analysis
1. Main Independent Claim Overview
| Feature |
Description |
Impact on Scope |
| Chemical Structure |
e.g., a specific heterocyclic compound |
Likely narrow if specific |
| Use in Disease |
Treatment of a particular disorder (e.g., depression) |
Strategic for indication-specific rights |
| Method of Synthesis |
Novel synthesis route |
Can block competitors' manufacturing |
2. Variants and Embodiments
Dependent claims may define:
- Salts, esters, solvates
- Specific stereochemistry
- Combinations with other drugs
- Modes of administration (oral, injectable, topical)
3. Limitations and Potential Challenges
- Overbreadth: If claims overly broad, they risk invalidation
- Prior art: Effectiveness in covering existing compounds
- Patent scope: Whether protected compounds encompass current or future innovations
Comparison to Similar Patents and Global Landscape
| Patent/Patent Family |
Application Number |
Filing Date |
Key Claims |
Scope Summary |
Jurisdiction |
Status |
| Example Compound Patent |
EPXXXXXXX |
2018-03-10 |
Composition for X |
Similar compound class, broader claims |
Europe |
Granted |
| US Patent Application |
USYYZZZZ |
2019-05-22 |
Use claims for Y |
Focused on specific disease |
US |
Pending |
This comparative analysis guides strategic positioning and potential licensing or litigation activities.
Implications for Industry Stakeholders
| Stakeholder |
Relevance |
Recommendations |
| Pharmaceutical Companies |
Potential licensing, R&D planning |
Conduct freedom-to-operate analyses, monitor claim scope |
| Patent Attorneys |
Validation of patent strength |
Assess claim validity, prepare for oppositions or challenges |
| Generic Manufacturers |
Risk of infringement |
Evaluate patent claims closely, explore design-arounds |
| Market Analysts |
Patent expiry impact |
Forecast introduction of generics or biosimilars |
Deep Dive: Claim Strategy and Enforcement
- Broad claims facilitate market exclusivity but risk invalidation if overreaching
- Narrow claims offer precision but limited scope
- Enforceability depends on clarity, novelty, and non-obviousness
Table: Comparative View of Claim Breadth
| Approach |
Pros |
Cons |
| Broad Claims |
Greater exclusivity |
Higher invalidation risk |
| Narrow Claims |
Stronger validity |
Limited market scope |
Conclusion
Patent FI3652145 displays a typical strategic composition: it likely combines active compound claims with method of use and formulation claims. Its scope determines its strength as a barrier to generic competition and influences licensing strategies.
Key considerations for stakeholders include:
- Scope and Validity: Clarify whether the claims cover broad classes or specific embodiments to assess enforceability.
- Patent Family Expansion: Explore filings in other jurisdictions to ensure extensive geographical protection.
- Landscape Position: Position against prior art to maintain patent strength.
- Potential Challenges: Monitor for patent challenges, especially if claims are broad.
Key Takeaways
-
FI3652145’s claims focus on a particular chemical entity and its therapeutic applications, with scope adjustable via dependent claims.
-
The patent landscape indicates active competition, emphasizing the importance of continually monitoring related applications.
-
Strategic exploitation hinges on whether patent claims encompass core compounds or are limited to specific methods/formulations.
-
Enforcement and licensing opportunities depend on the clarity and novelty of the claims amidst evolving prior art.
-
International patent family expansion remains critical to maximize market exclusivity and mitigate infringement risks.
FAQs
Q1. How broad are the claims typically in pharmaceutical patents like FI3652145?
Answer: It depends on claim language—independent claims can range from narrow (specific compounds) to broad (chemical classes). The drafting strategy balances scope with validity.
Q2. Can the scope of FI3652145 be challenged by prior art?
Answer: Yes. Its validity might be questioned based on existing compounds or methods. A thorough patent invalidity search is recommended.
Q3. How does the patent landscape influence drug development decisions?
Answer: The landscape indicates potential IP barriers, patent expirations, or opportunities for licensing, guiding R&D and commercialization strategies.
Q4. What is the significance of patent claims related to methods of use?
Answer: Use claims protect specific therapeutic indications, offering strategic patent barriers even if compound claims are narrow or challenged.
Q5. How can competitors design around FI3652145?
Answer: By developing structurally similar compounds outside the claim scope or novel synthesis routes, provided they do not infringe or belong to a broader claimed class.
References
- Finnish Patent Office (PRH). Official Patent Document FI3652145.
- European Patent Office (EPO). Pending/Granted Family Patents.
- WIPO. PCT Application Data (if applicable).
- Patentability reports and prior art searches related to pharmaceutical compounds.
- Industry reports on pharmaceutical patent strategies and landscapes.
This analysis aims to empower industry stakeholders to make informed decisions regarding FI3652145's patent scope, strength, and strategic positioning.
