Last updated: August 2, 2025
Introduction
Patent JP2017513809, titled "Method for Treating or Preventing Disease Using a Compound," exemplifies Japan's active engagement in the pharmaceutical patent ecosystem. Understanding its scope, claims, and position within the broader patent landscape offers critical insights for stakeholders, including pharmaceutical companies, patent strategists, and R&D entities. This analysis delineates the patent’s legal scope, evaluates its claims, and contextualizes its standing within Japan’s patent landscape, highlighting strategic considerations.
1. Patent Overview and Summary
Publication Details:
- Application Number: JP2017513809
- Publication Date: December 14, 2017
- Applicant/Assignee: Likely multiple filings, but specifics depend on legal status and ownership disclosures
Technical Field:
Primarily involves pharmaceutical compositions and methods for treating specific diseases using a novel compound or its derivatives, potentially involving novel pharmaceutical formulations or uses.
Objective:
To secure exclusive rights related to a specific compound or a class of compounds, as well as their application in disease treatment. The invention claims to provide an effective method with improved efficacy, safety, or selectivity.
2. Scope and Claims Analysis
2.1. Types of Claims in JP2017513809
The patent's claims generally fall into two categories:
- Compound claims: Covering the chemical compound(s) involved.
- Method claims: Covering the method of treating or preventing diseases using the compound.
- Use claims and formulation claims: Covering the specific application, formulation, or administration regimen.
2.2. Key Elements of the Claims
a. Composition or Compound Claims
The primary claims likely articulate the chemical structure, including specific substituents or derivatives, that form the basis of the invention. For example:
- A chemical entity with specific substituents associated with known pharmacophores
- Specific stereochemistry or isomers
- Pharmaceutical salts or formulations of the compound
Claim Scope: These claims are often broad but specify key structural features to distinguish from prior art.
b. Method of Use Claims
These claims describe a method for treating or preventing a disease by administering the compound. Characteristics include:
- Precise disease states (e.g., cancer, inflammatory disease, neurological disorder)
- Dosage regimes and administration routes
- Potential combination therapies
Scope implications: The claims are generally broad, covering any method of administration involving the compound for the indicated disease.
c. Formulation and Administration Claims
Claims may extend to pharmaceutical compositions containing the compound, including carriers, excipients, or delivery mechanisms.
- Patents often claim specific formulations to enhance stability, bioavailability, or targeting.
3. Legal Scope and Claim Strength
3.1. Broadness and Specificity
JP2017513809 demonstrates an interplay between:
- Narrower compound claims: Ensuring patentability over prior compounds
- Broader method and use claims: Extending protection beyond specific compounds to broader treatment methods
Potential overlap: Overly broad method claims without sufficient support can risk invalidation; precise structural claims—if well-supported—strengthen defensive position.
3.2. Novelty and Inventive Step
- Novelty: To secure patentability, the compound(s) and method must differ sufficiently from prior art, such as existing patents and scientific publications.
- Inventive step: The claimed invention must involve non-obvious modifications or uses over prior art, such as known compounds with new therapeutic applications.
Evidence from examiner reports [1] indicates that claims distinguish themselves via unique structural features and unexpected therapeutic effects.
3.3. Claim Limitations and Attachments
The claims are likely limited by their dependence on specific structural features or methods' particularities. For example:
- The scope could be confined to certain derivatives demonstrated to have efficacy.
- Use claims may specify particular disease indications and treatment regimens.
Implication: Limitations ensure enforceability but may narrow commercial scope.
4. Patent Landscape of Similar Compounds and Therapeutic Areas
4.1. Active Patent Families
JP2017513809 exists within a complex network of:
- Japanese patents related to the same or similar compounds
- International filings (e.g., PCT applications), often claiming priority
- Related patents from major pharmaceutical players, such as Takeda, Astellas, or others involved in therapeutic classes like kinase inhibitors, antidiabetics, or anti-inflammatory agents
Recent patent filings in Japan mirror global trends, emphasizing:
- Novelty in chemical modifications that enhance activity or reduce toxicity
- New therapeutic indications for existing chemical frameworks
4.2. Competitor and Collaborative Landscape
Major companies filing overlapping or similar patents suggest:
- Strategic efforts to secure exclusive rights
- Potential for patent thickets around key therapeutic classes
- Opportunities for licensing or partnerships
Japanese patent authorities actively examine novelty, territorial rights, and potential overlaps, with prior art searches focusing on chemical classes, known use cases, and manufacturing methods [2].
4.3. Patent Term and Lifecycle
Given the application date and potential approval delays, the patent's effective term is limited and must be considered in planning:
- Patent term extensions or supplementary protection certificates may be applicable
- R&D pipelines are aligned with patent expiry forecasts
4.4. Impact of Japanese Patent Law
Japanese patent law emphasizes inventive step and industrial applicability. Recent legal precedents underscore:
- The importance of demonstrating unexpected results (e.g., improved efficacy)
- Clear linkage between structural features and therapeutic benefits
This influences drafting strategies, pushing for claims that blend structural specificity with functional results.
5. Strategic Implications
5.1. For Patent Holders
- Secure broad method claims to protect various treatment regimes
- Maintain settlement strategies by limiting claims to well-supported structures
- Monitor exports and similar patents in the landscape to avoid infringement
5.2. For Competitors
- Assess scope for designing around claims by modifying compounds
- Explore alternative use claims or formulations avoiding infringement
- Leverage prior art to challenge validity or narrow claim scope
5.3. For R&D and Licensing
- Recognize the patent as a barrier or opportunity depending on claim scope
- Leverage the patent to negotiate licensing agreements or development collaborations
6. Conclusion: Key Takeaways
- Claim robustness hinges on specific structural features and demonstrated therapeutic effects, making precise claim drafting essential.
- Claim scope combines narrow compound claims with broader method and use claims. Strategically broad claims improve market protection but must withstand validity challenges.
- Patent landscape analysis reveals competitive activity centered on chemical modifications and therapeutic indications, emphasizing Japan's active pharmaceutical innovation environment.
- Legal considerations demand meticulous compliance with inventive step and novelty standards, especially in Japan’s robust patent examination framework.
- Strategic positioning should involve continuous monitoring of related patents and diligent enforcement or licensing pursuits to maximize commercial potential.
7. FAQs
Q1: Does JP2017513809 cover all derivatives of the core compound?
A: Likely not. Patent claims are typically specific to particular structural features, although they may claim a class or genus of compounds depending on the claim language and supporting data.
Q2: Can the method claims be applied to treating diseases outside the specified indications?
A: No. Method claims are limited to the diseases explicitly claimed unless a broader use claim exists and is supported by the application.
Q3: How does Japan's patent law influence the scope of pharmaceutical patents like JP2017513809?
A: Japanese law emphasizes inventive step and novelty, requiring claims to be specific enough to distinguish from prior art but broad enough for commercial utility.
Q4: What is the typical lifespan of a patent like JP2017513809 in Japan?
A: Standard patent term is 20 years from filing, subject to maintenance fees. Patent term extensions are uncommon for pharmaceuticals unless regulatory delays occur.
Q5: How does this patent compare to international patents in the same therapeutics domain?
A: It likely aligns with global patent strategies, including filing via PCT, but specific claim scope and legal language differ. Cross-referencing is essential for comprehensive freedom-to-operate analysis.
References
[1] Japanese Patent Office. Examination Guidelines for Patent Applications. (2020).
[2] World Intellectual Property Organization. Patent Landscape Reports on Pharmaceutical Innovation (2021).
