Last updated: August 7, 2025
Introduction
South Korean patent KR20060123403, filed in 2006, is a notable patent within the pharmaceutical sector, primarily covering innovations related to drug formulations, delivery systems, or active compounds. Understanding the scope and claims of this patent is vital for stakeholders, including pharmaceutical companies, patent strategists, and legal professionals, to navigate the competitive landscape effectively.
This analysis examines the patent’s scope, claims, and positioning within the broader patent landscape for pharmaceuticals in South Korea, offering insights into exclusivity, potential infringement considerations, and research implications.
Patent Overview
Publication Number: KR20060123403
Filing Date: 2006 (exact date not specified in the provided data)
Priority Date: Likely aligned with filing date or earlier applications
Status: Likely granted or published, based on the numbering and date (assuming granted)
Assignee: [Not specified in the provided data; typically, patent documents specify the rights holder]
Inventors: [Not specified]
Technical Field: The patent likely pertains to a novel pharmaceutical compound, formulation, or delivery mechanism, typical of medicinal patents filed in South Korea during this period.
Scope of the Patent
The patent's scope defines the breadth of protection conferred, with claims serving as the primary legal boundaries. In pharmaceutical patents, scope generally covers:
- Active Compound or Class of Compounds: The patent might claim specific chemical structures or classes thereof.
- Formulation or Composition: Protecting specific formulations, such as sustained-release, nanoparticles, or combinations with other agents.
- Method of Use or Administration: Covering therapy methods, dosages, or specific delivery routes.
- Manufacturing Processes: Innovations in synthesis or formulation procedures.
Given typical trends in 2006, the patent likely encompasses a novel therapeutic compound or innovative drug delivery system that improves efficacy, bioavailability, or stability.
Claim Analysis
While the actual claims are not provided here, standard patent claims in the pharmaceutical field fall into three categories:
- Independent Claims: Broadly define the core inventive concept—such as a chemical compound with specific activity or a unique formulation.
- Dependent Claims: Narrower claims that specify particular embodiments, such as particular substituents, dosages, or combinations.
- Use Claims: Cover the therapeutic application or method of administration.
Example of potential claim structure:
- An active pharmaceutical ingredient comprising [chemical formula], characterized by [specific properties], for use in treating [disease].
- The formulation of claim 1, wherein the active ingredient is encapsulated within a nanoparticle delivery vehicle.
- A method of manufacturing the formulation of claim 1, involving [specific synthesis process].
Scope Implications:
- The broadness of the independent claims determines the patent’s strength.
- Narrow claims limit infringement risk but may be easier to design around.
- The presence of multiple dependent claims underscores attempts to secure exclusivity across various embodiments.
Patent Landscape in South Korea for Pharmaceuticals
South Korea’s patent environment for pharmaceuticals is highly active and competitive, characterized by:
- Robust R&D: Leading pharmaceutical companies and biotech startups frequently file patents for innovative compounds and delivery systems.
- Strategic Patent Filing: Emphasis on securing broad patents early, with subsequent narrowing through dependent claims.
- Legal Framework: South Korea’s patent law aligns with international standards, offering approximately 20 years of patent protection from the filing date.
Positioning KR20060123403:
- Likely part of a patent family encompassing applications in other jurisdictions, especially in major markets like the US, EU, or China.
- Could be a key patent in a larger patent strategy focusing on a specific drug candidate or delivery system.
- The date suggests it might be an early-stage patent, potentially vulnerable to challenges from later filings; however, it contributes to the patent thicket protecting the product.
Patent Landscape and Competitor Strategies
- Patent Chains and Family Members: To evaluate whether this patent is part of a broader portfolio, one would analyze corresponding filings across jurisdictions.
- Freedom-to-Operate (FTO): Companies developing similar drugs should analyze whether claims overlap with KR20060123403 to avoid infringement.
- Litigation and Opposition: Existing patents from the same patent family, or similar claims by competitors, can lead to litigation or patent oppositions, impacting market entry strategies.
- Innovation Trends: South Korea favors patents relating to biologics, targeted therapies, and advanced delivery mechanisms, which may influence the scope and claims of this patent.
Legal and Commercial Implications
- Scope Enforcement: A broad independent claim enhances enforceability but increases scrutiny for novelty and inventive step.
- Patent Validity: Challenges could arise if prior art demonstrates lack of novelty or obviousness, typical in rapidly evolving pharmaceutical fields.
- Infringement Risks: Generics or biosimilar entrants need detailed claims analysis to design around this patent effectively.
Conclusion
South Korea’s patent KR20060123403 likely covers a significant innovation in pharmaceutical compounds or delivery systems from the mid-2000s. Its scope—defined by broad independent claims supported by narrower dependent claims—aims to secure a competitive edge for the patent holder. Stakeholders should evaluate this patent within a comprehensive patent landscape analysis, scrutinizing claim breadth, potential overlaps, and opportunities for licensing or licensing challenges.
Key Takeaways
- Scope Clarity: Analyze the independent claims to determine the broadness of patent protection—key for infringements and FTO analysis.
- Patent Strategy: The patent's timing suggests it could be part of a larger portfolio, emphasizing the importance of patent family analysis.
- Landscape Position: South Korea’s aggressive patent environment requires ongoing patent monitoring, especially for innovations in biologics and drug delivery.
- Validity Risks: Broader claims need continuous evaluation against prior art to maintain enforceability and defendability.
- Competitive Edge: Narrowing claims through dependent claims or strategic licensing can provide a competitive advantage while maintaining legal robustness.
FAQs
1. What is the typical scope of pharmaceutical patents filed in South Korea around 2006?
They commonly cover chemical compounds, formulations, or delivery methods, with some patents claiming broad classes of compounds or therapeutic methods, balanced by narrower claims for specific embodiments.
2. How can I determine if KR20060123403 overlaps with other patents?
Conduct a claim-by-claim analysis focusing on active ingredients, formulations, and methods; utilize patent databases such as KIPRIS for comprehensive landscape mapping.
3. What factors influence the enforceability of claims in South Korean drug patents?
Claim clarity, novelty, inventive step, and prior art presence are key; the scope must be sufficiently supported and non-obvious at the time of filing.
4. How does the patent landscape affect research and development in South Korea?
A dense patent environment encourages innovation but may increase infringement risks; firms often develop around existing patents or pursue licensing.
5. Can this patent be challenged or invalidated?
Yes, through prior art submissions or opposition procedures, especially if prior disclosures or obviousness can be demonstrated.
References
- KIPRIS Patent Database, Korean Intellectual Property Rights Information Service.
- World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications.
- South Korean Patent Act and Guidelines.
- Industry reports on pharmaceutical patent strategies in South Korea.
Note: For a comprehensive legal opinion or infringement analysis, review of the full patent document, including claims and detailed specifications, is recommended.
