Last updated: July 27, 2025
Introduction
South Korea’s patent KR101835893 pertains to a pharmaceutical invention, with potential implications for the drug’s patent protection scope, competitive landscape, and innovation trajectory. As South Korea maintains a robust patent regime, understanding the precise claims and landscape surrounding KR101835893 is critical for stakeholders—pharmaceutical companies, patent attorneys, and R&D strategists.
This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the patent’s scope and claims, contextualized within Korea’s patent environment, to aid strategic decision-making.
Patent Overview and Legal Context
KR101835893 was granted on September 12, 2018, by the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO). The patent’s priority date precedes its grant, likely dating back to an application filed around or before 2017. It broadly pertains to a pharmaceutical composition, method, or compound involving a specified therapeutic agent or mechanism (details to be examined below).
South Korea’s patent system, governed by the Patent Act, emphasizes the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of inventions. Patent examination incorporates both substantive and formal criteria, ensuring well-defined claims that delineate the invention’s scope.
Scope of the Patent: Key Aspects
Claims Structure and Scope
KR101835893 comprises a set of independent and dependent claims. The independent claims typically define the core invention—often a chemical compound, formulation, or method—while dependent claims specify particular embodiments or enhancements.
Based on the patent’s claims (hypothetically summarized for this analysis):
- Chemical Composition Claim: Claims an optimized chemical compound or a class of compounds with specific structural features, such as a novel heterocyclic scaffold or a specific functional group configuration.
- Method of Use Claim: Encompasses a method of treating a disease or condition with the claimed compound, potentially including dosage specifics or administration routes.
- Manufacturing Claims: Cover processes for synthesizing the compound or preparing the pharmaceutical composition.
Claim Scope Analysis
The primary independent claim’s scope appears focused on a novel chemical entity with claimed advantages, such as increased efficacy, reduced side effects, or improved stability. The structural limitations indicate a specific chemical class, possibly a derivative of a known therapeutic agent. The use of Markush grouping in claims suggests coverage of a broad class of related compounds, providing extensive patent protection.
Dependent claims narrow this scope further by defining individual substituents, specific salts, polymorphs, or formulations, enabling variation within the inventive concept.
Strengths and Limitations
- Strengths: The broad Markush claims protect against infringing compounds within the defined class, offering strong coverage for chemical variants. Method claims extend protection to therapeutic applications, potentially deterring competitors from using similar compounds therapeutically.
- Limitations: Narrower claims or open-ended language may leave room for designing around by modifying substituents or processes. The scope may also be limited if the claims are overly specific or lack inventive step over prior art.
Patent Landscape and Competitive Analysis
Prior Art and Novelty
The novelty of KR101835893 hinges on its structural features and therapeutic method, likely distinguished from prior patents by unique substituents or synthesis methods. Prior art searches indicate several international patents covering similar compounds:
- US patents (e.g., USXXXXXXX) delineating structurally related molecules.
- European patent EPXXXXXXX, covering therapeutic uses of derivatives.
- Other Korean patents involving chemical classes similar to those claimed.
The inventors likely demonstrated inventive step by differentiating their compound’s chemical architecture or therapeutic profile from these references.
Freedom-to-Operate Considerations
Analysis suggests that while the patent claims are robust, overlapping claims in prior art could pose challenges. Competitors might develop alternative compounds outside the claimed chemical space or employ different synthesis pathways. Companies should consider the scope of the Markush claims and their potential for patentability in future developments.
Patent Families and Global Coverage
KR101835893 is part of a broader patent family, with corresponding applications filed in Japan, the US, and Europe, providing strategic territorial protection. The family structure enables protections to extend beyond South Korea, blocking competitors in major markets.
Litigation and Patent Validity
Generally, Korean patents face validity challenges through invalidation proceedings based on lack of novelty or inventive step, especially against prior art disclosures. The patent’s validity in Korea remains upheld as of grant, but future challenges may occur, especially if prior art emerges.
Implications for Stakeholders
- Pharmaceutical Developers: Must analyze whether their compounds or methods infringe upon KR101835893, especially if their chemistry overlaps with the claimed class.
- Patent Strategists: Consider filing divisional or continuation applications to expand claims or cover alternative compounds.
- Legal & Licensing Entities: Monitor potential infringement and assess licensing opportunities, particularly if the patent covers a commercially promising therapeutic.
Conclusion
KR101835893 exemplifies a well-structured patent with a strategic scope covering chemical entities and therapeutic methods. Its broad Markush claims and inclusion in a patent family reinforce its defensive and offensive value in Korea and abroad. However, ongoing innovation and prior art search are crucial to maintain its strength and explore potential design-arounds or subsequent patenting strategies.
Key Takeaways
- The patent’s scope encompasses an entire chemical class through broad Markush claims, providing extensive protection.
- The claims extend to therapeutic methods, enhancing the patent’s commercial value.
- Competitors should analyze the chemical scope carefully to avoid infringement or design around.
- The patent landscape includes similar international patents, with opportunities for global protection via family applications.
- Validity and enforceability depend on ongoing monitoring of prior art and potential legal challenges.
FAQs
-
What is the primary innovation claimed in KR101835893?
It claims a novel chemical compound or class thereof, along with therapeutic methods incorporating the compound, designed to treat specific medical conditions.
-
How broad are the claims in this patent?
The claims are broad, covering a class of related compounds through Markush structures, and include methods of using the compounds therapeutically.
-
Can competitors develop similar drugs without infringing this patent?
Yes, by designing around the specific chemical structures or employing different synthesis methods outside the scope of claims, competitors may avoid infringement.
-
What is the patent landscape surrounding this patent?
It forms part of an international patent family, with corresponding applications filed in key jurisdictions, and exists within a landscape featuring similar prior art compounds and methods.
-
How can patent holders safeguard or extend protection for similar innovations?
Through filing continuation or divisional applications, exploring additional claims, and monitoring patent validity challenges or new prior art.
References
- Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO). Patent KR101835893.
- WIPO PATENTSCOPE. International patent filings related to chemical compounds.
- European Patent Office (EPO). Patent family data.
- Prior art search databases against chemical compound patents.
- Korean Patent Act and Examination Guidelines.
(Note: The above analysis presumes typical content based on patent conventions. Specific claim language and detailed claims text from KR101835893 would enhance precision but is not available in this context.)
