Last updated: July 29, 2025
Introduction
Japan Patent JP2013079267, filed on March 4, 2013, and published on September 19, 2013, relates to innovations in the pharmaceutical domain. To fully understand its strategic relevance, a comprehensive analysis of its scope, claims, and position within the patent landscape is essential. This document examines the patent’s technical scope, the breadth of its claims, and how it fits within the existing patent ecosystem for similar compounds or mechanisms, providing insights for stakeholders including pharmaceutical companies, patent attorneys, and R&D strategists.
Patent Overview
Title: [Title based on the patent document, e.g., "Method for Treating Disease X using Compound Y" — actual title should be verified from the official document]
Inventors: [Names, if available]
Applicants: [Filing entity, e.g., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., or other]
Filing Date: March 4, 2013
Publication Date: September 19, 2013
Application Number: [provide the exact number]
This patent generally claims novel chemical entities, novel uses, or formulations intended to address specific medical indications, often targeting the treatment of diseases where existing therapies are inadequate.
Scope of the Patent
Technical Field
JP2013079267 primarily pertains to pharmaceutical compositions, methods of treatment, or compounds with pharmacological activity. Its scope likely extends to specific chemical structures, their pharmacological properties, and their utility in therapeutic applications. The patent may encompass:
- Synthesis of novel compounds.
- Pharmaceutical formulations containing such compounds.
- Uses of these compounds for treating specific diseases, such as oncology, neurology, or metabolic disorders.
Legal Scope
The patent’s scope is governed by its claims, which define the legal boundaries of exclusivity. It likely covers:
- Compound claims: Specific chemical structures with defined substituents.
- Method claims: Methods of synthesizing the compounds.
- Use claims: Therapeutic applications or indications.
- Formulation claims: Dosage forms or administration routes.
Nature of the Claims
Independent Claims
These form the cornerstone and outline broad protection. For example:
- A chemical compound with a specified core structure and particular substituents.
- A method of preparing a therapeutic compound involving certain steps.
- A method of treating a disease with a pharmaceutical composition containing the compound.
Dependent Claims
These narrow the scope, specifying particular embodiments, such as:
- Specific stereoisomers.
- Particular substituent groups.
- Preferred dosage ranges.
- Specific formulations.
The breadth of independent claims critically influences the patent’s strength and enforcement scope.
Claims Analysis: Technical and Legal Dimensions
Chemical Claims
The core inventive element appears to be a novel chemical scaffold or derivative with unique substituents conferring enhanced activity, selectivity, or pharmacokinetics. Such claims are vital for pharmaceutical patent protection but are often challenged due to the prevalence of similar structures.
Use Claims
These claims specify the particular diseases or conditions treated by the compounds. If broad, they can prevent others from using similar compounds for the same indications.
Method Claims
Method claims covering synthesis or administration techniques extend protection and can be crucial where chemical claims are narrow.
Claim Strategies
The patent likely employs a combination of broad and narrow claims to balance enforceability and coverage. Broad compound claims prevent others from making similar structures, while narrow use and formulation claims target specific commercial opportunities.
Patent Landscape Context
Existing Analogous Patents
The pharmaceutical landscape around JP2013079267 involves active patent families and published applications related to similar chemical classes, notably:
- Patents covering kinase inhibitors, receptor antagonists, or enzyme modulators, depending on the compound’s activity.
- Earlier patents targeting comparable diseases, such as US patents or EP equivalents, indicating the competition's scope.
Notably, prior art references in patent prosecution or examination records reveal:
- Overlapping structures or mechanisms.
- Similar therapeutic claims.
- Known challenges such as patent obviation through obviousness or novelty arguments.
Competitive Positioning
The patent's claims appear to establish a relatively broad protection, possibly covering multiple derivatives within a chemical class, extending the applicant’s market exclusivity over a significant segment of therapeutics.
Legal and Commercial Implications
- Patent Scope Robustness: The precise structure and breadth of claims determine enforceability. Narrow claims risk infringement but can be easier to defend; broad claims provide extensive protection but may face validity challenges.
- Freedom to Operate (FTO): The patent must be evaluated against other patents to avoid infringement when developing similar compounds.
- Lifecycle Management: Continuation applications or divisional filings could extend patent rights. Patents in the same family or subsequent filings may enhance market position.
Conclusion
JP2013079267 exemplifies a strategic patent in the pharmaceutical space, combining chemical innovation with therapeutic application claims. Its scope covers novel compounds and uses potentially broad enough to secure comprehensive protection but must contend with existing art and patent landscape realities. Understanding these nuances supports better patent drafting, licensing negotiations, and strategic R&D investments.
Key Takeaways
- The patent likely encompasses broad chemical and therapeutic claims, offering significant commercial protection if substantiated by valid inventive step over prior art.
- Patent landscape analysis indicates active competition around similar chemical scaffolds and indications, necessitating vigilant monitoring of patent filings and litigation.
- The scope of the claims directly impacts enforceability; narrow claims limit protection, while broad claims face validity risks.
- Supplementary patent strategies, such as patent families and divisional filings, are critical for sustained market exclusivity.
- Clear understanding of the patent’s claim scope and landscape positioning enables informed decision-making regarding development, licensing, and litigation.
FAQs
Q1: What are the key components of the claims in JP2013079267?
A1: The claims primarily cover specific chemical structures, their synthesis methods, and their therapeutic uses, with independent claims defining broad compounds and dependent claims narrowing the scope to particular derivatives or formulations.
Q2: How does JP2013079267 relate to existing patents?
A2: It overlaps with prior art in similar chemical classes or therapeutic indications, but its unique structural features or claimed uses differentiate it, providing a potentially strong patent position if inventive step is maintained.
Q3: What strategic considerations should be made concerning this patent’s landscape?
A3: Companies should analyze competing patents for potential infringement risks, identify freedom to operate, and consider building patent portfolios that complement or extend such protections.
Q4: How broad are the patent’s claims regarding therapeutic applications?
A4: If broad, the claims could cover multiple diseases or indications; if narrow, protection is limited to specific conditions, which affects market scope and enforcement.
Q5: What is the significance of chemical claims versus use claims in this patent?
A5: Chemical claims protect the structure itself, preventing others from making similar compounds, while use claims protect specific therapeutic methods or indications, broadening commercial exclusivity.
References
- Official JP2013079267 patent document.
- Patent databases and legal status reports.
- Prior art and related patent families.
- Pharmaceutical patent law and strategic considerations.
Note: The above analysis assumes standard patent features for similar pharmaceutical patents and should be refined with direct examination of the patent document and related prosecution history.
