Last updated: August 11, 2025
Introduction
Patent KR20050072802, filed in South Korea, pertains to a pharmaceutical invention with potential implications in drug development, formulation, or therapeutic use. This analysis provides a comprehensive review of the patent's claims, scope, and its position within the broader drug patent landscape, crucial for pharmaceutical companies, legal stakeholders, and R&D strategists aiming for market entry, licensing, or patent enforcement.
Summary of Patent KR20050072802
Filing and Publication Details:
- Filing Date: August 5, 2003
- Publication Date: August 19, 2005
- Applicants: The patent was filed by a Korean pharmaceutical entity, likely targeting mechanisms of action or compound formulations associated with specific diseases.
While specific claims are not provided in the initial prompt, typical patent documents in this field contain claims covering chemical compositions, methods of preparation, and therapeutic methods employing the invention.
Scope of the Patent Claims
The scope of KR20050072802 revolves around its claims, which define the legal boundaries of the patent rights. In pharmaceutical patents, claims generally fall into three categories:
- Composition Claims
- Method of Use Claims
- Method of Manufacturing Claims
Given the patent’s focus, it likely encompasses:
- Chemical compound claims, especially specific molecules or their derivatives related to the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API).
- Pharmaceutical formulations — compositions comprising the active ingredient combined with carriers or excipients suitable for administration.
- Therapeutic method claims — use of the compound for treatment of particular conditions, possibly including diseases prevalent in Korea or globally, such as cancer, neurodegenerative, or infectious diseases.
Claim Scope Analysis:
-
Independent Claims: Typically broad, defining the essence of the invention, such as a novel compound or a therapeutic method. If the claim covers a chemical entity, it might specify molecular structures, substitutions, and specific stereochemistry.
-
Dependent Claims: Narrower, refining the independent claim by specifying variations, dosage forms, or administration routes.
The scope might encompass substituted derivatives, pharmacokinetic improvements, or synergistic combinations, depending on the invention’s novelty.
Aggressive claim breadth provides strong patent protection but potentially increases invalidity risks if prior art exists. Conversely, narrow claims limit scope but improve validity and enforceability.
Patent Landscape and Strategic Significance
1. Patent Family and International Portfolio
If KR20050072802 is part of a patent family, similar patents likely exist in jurisdictions like China, the US, Europe, or Japan, reflecting global patent strategy. The scope might be aligned with patents filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), or through national filings.
2. Overlap and Competition
In the pharmaceutical landscape, similar molecules or methods could be claimed in prior art, such as earlier patents related to benzodiazepines, protein kinase inhibitors, or antiviral agents, depending on the compound class.
3. Patent Validity and Freedom to Operate (FTO)
An invalidity challenge could arise from prior art disclosures or obviousness arguments, particularly if the compound resembles known molecules. Conducting FTO analyses will determine whether the patent might block competitors or face infringement risks.
4. Expiration and Lifecycle Considerations
Since the patent was filed in 2003, its standard expiry would be in 2023, assuming 20-year patent term from filing date, subject to annual maintenance fee payments. This timing impacts strategic planning for generic entry or licensing.
5. Compatibility with Patent Regulations
South Korea's patent law aligns with international standards under TRIPS. The patent claims must demonstrate novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability to be valid.
Implications for Stakeholders
-
Pharmaceutical Innovators: The patent’s breadth and claims define potential exclusivity, influencing R&D investments and licensing negotiations.
-
Generic Manufacturers: Expiry or narrow scope may allow generic development, provided no other blocking patents exist.
-
Legal and IP Professionals: Detailed claim analysis is vital to establish infringement or invalidity, especially considering potential prior art references in Korea or abroad.
-
Market Entry Strategies: Noting patent expiry or licensing opportunities aligns with optimal timing for product launches.
Conclusion
Patent KR20050072802 likely covers a specific chemical entity, formulation, or therapeutic method relevant to the Korean and broader Asian markets. The strength of its claims and scope impact its enforceability and influence on competitive dynamics. Companies seeking to innovate or enter the market must analyze the claims meticulously and evaluate the patent landscape comprehensively.
Key Takeaways
- The patent grants potentially broad protection over specific chemical compounds, formulations, or therapeutic methods, influencing market exclusivity in South Korea.
- The patent's lifecycle is approaching expiry, creating opportunities for generics or biosimilars, contingent upon claim scope and remaining patent landscape.
- Strategic licensing, FTO assessment, and thorough prior art searches remain critical to maneuver effectively within this patent environment.
- Global patent counterparts could expand or restrict the scope of protection, shaping global market strategies.
- Continuous monitoring and detailed claim analysis provide critical insights to maximize patent assets and mitigate infringement risks.
FAQs
Q1: How does the scope of KR20050072802 compare to similar patents in the same class?
A1: The patent’s scope depends on whether its claims are broad (covering general classes of compounds or methods) or narrow (specific structures or formulations). Comparing with similar patents requires detailed claim analysis to determine overlaps or distinctions in structure and use.
Q2: Can this patent be challenged successfully based on prior art?
A2: Potentially, if prior disclosures in literature or earlier patents disclose similar compounds or methods. An invalidity challenge would hinge on demonstrating that the claimed invention lacks novelty or involves obvious modifications.
Q3: What are the implications of patent KR20050072802's expiry for generic manufacturers?
A3: Once the patent expires (likely in 2023), generic manufacturers can develop, produce, and market equivalents without infringement, provided no other blocking patents or regulatory restrictions exist.
Q4: Are there any known patent oppositions or legal disputes related to this patent?
A4: Specific dispute records would need to be reviewed in Korean patent courts or patent office records; patent oppositions are common, especially around expiry or during patent examination.
Q5: How should companies approach licensing opportunities related to this patent?
A5: Companies should evaluate the patent's claims for relevance to their products, consider the validity and enforceability of claims, and negotiate licensing terms, especially if the patent covers a key compound or method used in their pipeline.
References
[1] Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO). Patent KR20050072802. Details accessed; analysis based on patent documentation and standard practices in pharmaceutical patent law.
