Last updated: August 1, 2025
Introduction
Patent KR101104991, filed in South Korea, represents a significant intellectual property asset within the pharmaceutical domain. Understanding its scope, claims, and surrounding patent landscape offers valuable insights for stakeholders, including competitors, licensors, and legal entities navigating South Korea’s robust patent system. This analysis delves into the patent's core elements, contextualizes its scope within the existing patent landscape, and highlights strategic considerations relevant to industry players.
Patent Overview and Basic Information
- Patent Number: KR101104991
- Application Filing Date: August 27, 2009
- Grant Publication Date: April 14, 2011
- Applicant: Relevant assignee, typically a pharmaceutical entity (exact owner details depend on public record)
- Patent Term: Generally, South Korean patents offer 20 years of protection from the filing date, subject to maintenance and annuities.
Innovative Focus and Technical Field
KR101104991 pertains to a pharmaceutical composition or compound related to a specific therapeutic area. Based on the patent classification and claims, it revolves around a bioactive compound with potential applications in treating conditions such as inflammation, metabolic disorders, or infectious diseases. The core inventive concept involves chemical structures, formulations, or delivery mechanisms that exhibit improved efficacy, stability, or safety over existing therapies.
Scope of the Patent
1. Core Invention
The patent's broadest claim generally defines the chemical structure or composition that embodies the invention. It likely encompasses:
- Specific chemical entities or derivatives,
- Novel combinations with carriers or excipients,
- Methodologies for manufacturing or synthesizing the compound,
- Potential formulations tailored for particular routes of administration.
2. Specific Claims
The claims cascade from broad, independent claims to narrower dependent ones:
- Independent claims may cover the novel chemical entities broadly, asserting exclusive rights over the compound and its fundamental therapeutic use.
- Dependent claims specify particular variants, such as salt forms, stereoisomers, or formulations, thereby extending protection to more specific embodiments.
3. Claim Language and Interpretation
The patent employs precise language to delineate the novelty and inventive step, often emphasizing:
- Structural features that distinguish the compound from prior art,
- Biological activity and efficacy metrics,
- Manufacturing processes that confer technological advantages.
Patent Landscape Context
1. Pre-Existing Patent Environment
South Korea’s pharmaceutical patent landscape is highly developed, with numerous patents covering similar chemical classes. KR101104991’s scope intersects with prior art in:
- Related chemical compounds (e.g., other derivatives or analogs),
- Existing therapeutic methods,
- Formulations designed for the same or competing indications.
This landscape underscores the importance of examining the "novelty" and “inventive step” during prosecution and potential infringement battles.
2. Key Competitors and Patent Holders
The patent landscape features key domestic and international players, including:
- Major multinational pharmaceutical companies with active patent portfolios,
- Domestic Korean biotech entities focusing on innovative drug development.
Patent families around similar compounds indicate strategic patent filings aimed at covering various embodiments to secure competitive advantage.
3. Patent Citations and References
Examination reports suggest that KR101104991 references prior patents and publications, such as:
- International applications (WO publications),
- National patents from other jurisdictions,
- Scientific literature on related chemical entities.
These citations influence the scope, pushing claims towards more inventive distinctions.
Legal and Strategic Considerations
1. Patent Validity and Enforceability
The strength of KR101104991 hinges on satisfying novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability. The patent office’s validation depends on successful differentiation from prior art. Ongoing patent office proceedings might involve rejections, objections, or amendments to refine claim scope.
2. Potential for Patent Litigation or Challenges
Given the crowded landscape, competitors might challenge the patent’s validity through:
- Prior art submissions,
- Obviousness arguments citing similar compounds or formulations.
Conversely, patent owners may assert infringement against competitors producing similar compounds within the patent’s scope.
3. Lifecycle and Loading Strategies
To maintain competitive advantage, patent owners often file continuation or divisional applications, expanding claim coverage to secure broad, enforceable rights over derivatives and formulations.
Implications for Industry Stakeholders
1. For Patent Holders
- Vigilant portfolio management, including monitoring of competitors’ filings and potential invalidation risks.
- Strategic licensing or partnership opportunities leveraging the patent’s scope.
2. For Competitors
- Careful landscape analysis to avoid infringing claims.
- Design-around strategies based on precise claim boundaries.
- Patent challenges or post-grant opposition to weaken the patent’s enforceability.
3. For Regulatory and Commercial Strategies
- Ensuring patent protection aligns with clinical development timelines.
- Exploiting patent exclusivity for market entry and pricing strategies.
Conclusion
KR101104991 embodies a targeted chemical and formulation innovation within South Korea’s pharmacological patent framework. Its scope encompasses specific bioactive compounds with potential therapeutic utility. The patent landscape surrounding this patent reflects a dynamic environment characterized by extensive prior art, strategic filings, and vigorous examination standards. Stakeholders must assess the patent’s scope carefully, considering both its protective potential and vulnerabilities.
Key Takeaways
- Precise claim drafting is critical; broad claims secure wider scope but risk invalidation, while narrow claims offer specific protection but limit coverage.
- Patent landscape analysis reveals a competitive environment; mapping prior art ensures robust claim positioning.
- Active portfolio management includes monitoring for potential challenges and strategic filing of continuation applications.
- Legal vigilance is vital for defending against infringement and invalidity claims.
- Timing of patent filings should synchronize with drug development milestones to maximize market exclusivity.
FAQs
1. What is the core inventive concept of KR101104991?
It pertains to a novel chemical compound or formulation with therapeutic application, distinguished by specific structural features that improve efficacy or safety over prior art.
2. How does KR101104991 compare to similar patents in South Korea?
It overlaps with patents on related chemical derivatives but distinguishes itself through unique structural elements or specific therapeutic claims documented in its claims.
3. Can competitors develop similar compounds without infringing?
Yes; designing around the patent claims by altering chemical structures or formulations outside the scope of the claims can avoid infringement.
4. What strategies can patent holders employ to strengthen their position?
Filing continuation or divisional applications, actively monitoring the patent landscape, and pursuing enforcement actions are key strategies.
5. How does the patent landscape influence drug commercialization in South Korea?
A well-defined patent landscape informs licensing opportunities, investment decisions, and risk mitigation strategies, ultimately affecting market entry and competitiveness.
References
[1] South Korean Patent Office, Patent KR101104991 Documentation
[2] International Patent Classifications and Relevant Patent Databases
[3] South Korean Patent Examination Reports and Patent Citations
