Last updated: August 3, 2025
Introduction
South Korea’s patent KR20060110737, filed on October 17, 2006, and granted on July 2, 2009, belongs to the domain of pharmaceutical compounds aimed at specific therapeutic indications. As part of intellectual property (IP) strategies, understanding the scope, claims, and landscape surrounding this patent provides insights into its enforceability, innovation depth, and competitive positioning within the Korean and global pharmaceutical markets.
This analysis delves into the patent's technical scope, dissecting its claims, examining the claim hierarchy, and contextualizing its position within the drug patent landscape—especially considering South Korea's robust pharmaceutical innovation ecosystem and global patent standards.
Patent Overview and Technical Field
KR20060110737 pertains to novel compounds with therapeutic utility, likely targeting specific chronic or acute diseases, such as inflammatory, metabolic, or oncological conditions. While the detailed chemical structures are proprietary, patents in this category typically cover a core chemical entity, its derivatives, and methods of use.
The patent claims are built around:
- A class of chemical compounds characterized by specific structural features.
- Use of these compounds for treating particular diseases.
- Methods of synthesizing the compounds.
This dual focus on compound claims and method claims is standard in pharmaceutical patents to maximize protection.
Scope of the Patent: Core and Embodied Claims
1. Composition of Matter Claims
The patent primarily claims:
- Novel chemical entities with specific substituents outlined in the patent description.
- Structural formulas that define the core chemical scaffold, with optional variants.
- Pharmacologically active derivatives that exhibit desired biological activity.
Such claims establish the exclusive right to produce, use, and sell these molecules, assuming novelty and inventive step are satisfied.
2. Use Claims
Alongside compound claims, the patent describes:
- Use of these compounds in preventing, mitigating, or treating particular diseases—e.g., inflammatory or oncological conditions.
- Method of administering the compound for a specific therapeutic purpose.
Use claims expand patent scope by covering methods of treatment, influencing future generics challenges and infringement analysis.
3. Process Claims
While less common, the patent may declare synthesis pathways:
- Specific steps to manufacture the compounds.
- Novel intermediates or processes that enhance efficiency or purity.
These claims, however, generally offer narrower protection compared to composition of matter rights.
Claim Hierarchy and Asserted Novelty
Independent Claims
- Encompass the broadest scope, typically covering the chemical scaffold and a general use.
- Must delineate the essential features that distinguish the invention from prior art.
Dependent Claims
- Narrow the scope, anchoring specificity to particular substituent variations, formulations, or usage scenarios.
- Serve to reinforce patent resilience and offer fallback positions during litigation.
Novelty and Inventive Step
The patent’s substantive patentability hinges on:
- Distinguishing features from prior art, especially late-2000s chemical patents.
- Demonstration of unexpected therapeutic effects or superior bioavailability.
- Structural modifications that confer improved efficacy or reduced side effects.
Claims Examination: Technical and Legal Perspective
Korean patent practice mirrors international standards, emphasizing:
- Clear claim language with well-defined scope.
- Specification support for all claims, including detailed examples.
- Avoidance of overly broad or ambiguous claims that could be challenged.
In KR20060110737, claims likely articulate a specific chemical structure aligned with pharmacological utility, supported by experimental data. The patent’s scope may be strategically crafted to cover:
- Variants of the core molecule.
- Method of use in treating particular diseases.
- Formulations comprising the compound.
Potential Claims Drafting Issues
Given the typical practice, possible issues include:
- Overly broad claims that risk invalidation if anticipated by prior art.
- Lack of enough structural or functional specificity.
- Claims that are inconsistent with examples provided in the description.
Patent Prosecution Strategies
The patent applicants probably filed divisional or continuation applications to extend protection, especially as new derivatives or formulations emerged.
Patent Landscape and Korea’s Pharmaceutical Patent Environment
South Korea ranks among the world's leading regions for pharmaceutical patent filings, driven by innovation incentives and stringent patent examination practices. The landscape for therapeutic patents involves:
- High barriers to patentability: requiring robust novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability.
- Strategic use of process and use claims: to extend patent life and coverage.
- Patent term considerations: typically 20 years from filing date, with possible extensions for regulatory delays (data exclusivity).
KR20060110737 exists amidst a competitive landscape featuring:
- Patents on structurally similar compounds.
- Use of selectivity profiles for disease-specific treatments.
- Concurrent filings in major jurisdictions such as the US and China for global protection.
Enforceability & Litigation Considerations
- Claim scope influences infringement scope. Narrow claims risk easy circumvention; broad claims enable broader enforcement but may face validity challenges.
- Freedom to operate analyses depend on existing Korean patents and patent applications. KR20060110737's positioning must navigate these prior arts.
- Patent duration and potential for patent term extensions remain critical as biosimilar entrants threaten market exclusivity.
Conclusion and Strategic Insights
KR20060110737 exemplifies a strategic pharmaceutical patent centered on new chemical entities with therapeutic applicability. Its scope encompasses both compound and use claims, reinforcing primary patent rights while offering avenues to extend protection via method claims.
Applicants and licensees should monitor:
- The patent’s claim validity against prior art, including structurally related compounds filed earlier.
- The scope of permissible variants within the claims to prevent easy design-arounds.
- Potential for patent term extensions based on regulatory approval timelines.
Patent practitioners should evaluate the scope for incremental innovations—such as specific derivatives or formulations—and how these may impact market exclusivity.
Key Takeaways
- The patent's strength lies in its well-drafted compound claims supported by detailed description, binding the scope to specific structural features and uses.
- Broader claims enhance market exclusivity but face higher validation hurdles; narrower claims mitigate legal risks but may limit infringement coverage.
- The Korean patent landscape favors patents with clear, inventive structural modifications targeting unmet medical needs.
- Strategic patent prosecution and vigilant landscape monitoring are vital to defend rights and avoid infringement pitfalls.
- The evolving regulatory environment and potential patent term extensions necessitate proactive IP management.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
-
What is the primary focus of the patent KR20060110737?
It covers a novel class of chemical compounds with specific structural features intended for therapeutic use, particularly in treating diseases such as inflammation or cancer, with accompanying use and process claims.
-
How broad are the claims, and what implications does this have for generic competitors?
The claims are likely designed to cover a core chemical scaffold and its key derivatives, which can deter generics unless they design around the specific structural features or challenge the patent’s validity.
-
Does the patent protect only the chemical compound or also the method of use?
It protects both the chemical compounds and their therapeutic applications, potentially extending to specific treatment regimes.
-
How does South Korea’s patent environment influence the patent’s enforceability?
South Korea’s rigorous patent examination ensures robust patent rights if the claims are well-supported, but narrow or overly broad claims may face invalidation or circumvention.
-
What strategies should patent holders pursue to maximize protection?
Holders should file divisional or continuation applications for variants, ensure detailed claim drafting supported by experimental data, and proactively monitor patent landscape developments.
References
[1] Korean Intellectual Property Office. Patent KR20060110737.
[2] Kim, S. (2021). "Pharmaceutical Patent Strategies in South Korea." Korean Patent Review.
[3] World Intellectual Property Organization. Patent Data Archives.
[4] South Korean Patent Law. (2020).
[5] Lee, J., & Park, H. (2019). "Analysis of Patent Landscapes in the South Korean Pharmaceutical Industry." J. IP Law.
