Last updated: October 19, 2025
Introduction
Patent KR20070100396, filed in South Korea, pertains to an innovative pharmaceutical composition or method—a document of significant interest for stakeholders involved in drug development, licensing, and patent strategy. A thorough understanding of its scope, claims, and broader patent landscape enhances decision-making for pharmaceutical companies, legal professionals, and R&D entities.
This analysis explores the patent's scope, examines its claims, assesses its position in the patent ecosystem, and discusses strategic implications.
Overview of Patent KR20070100396
Filing and Publication Details:
The patent was filed in South Korea, with a publication number indicating a filing date approximately in 2007. It falls within the biotech/pharmaceutical category, focusing on a novel drug-related composition or process.
Assumed technical focus:
Typically, patents with similar numbering and intended scope during that period relate to formulations, drug delivery systems, or chemical entities with therapeutic use. Without the explicit text here, the analysis will focus on standard patent scope considerations relevant to such filings.
Scope and Claims Analysis
1. Core Patent Claims Structure
Patent scope is predominantly defined by claims—legal boundaries delineating what the patent covers. The Korean patent law mirrors global standards, emphasizing:
- Independent claims: Broad, overarching claims defining the essential novelty.
- Dependent claims: Specific embodiments or particular implementations narrowing the scope.
2. Typical Claims Content
Based on assumed patent characteristics, the claims likely encompass:
-
Chemical composition claims:
Claiming specific chemical entities, analogs, or drug combinations with particular pharmacological effects.
-
Method claims:
Covering manufacturing processes, administration methods, or therapeutic protocols involving the composition.
-
Formulation claims:
Encompassing dosage forms such as tablets, capsules, injectables, with particular excipients or delivery mechanisms.
The most significant claims probably target a novel compound, its therapeutic application, or an innovative delivery system that enhances efficacy or stability.
3. Scope Analysis
-
Breadth and Novelty:
The claims likely aim to cover a specific class of compounds or a unique formulation. The scope’s breadth affects enforceability and licensing potential. Broad claims protect against close competitors but may risk invalidation if prior art is identified.
-
Limited vs. Executive Claims:
Narrow, dependent claims may specify particular substituents, dosages, or manufacturing steps, while broad independent claims aim to cover the core invention.
-
Potential Overlaps and Overlaps Avoidance:
A well-crafted patent balances broad coverage to deter competition and specific claims to withstand validity challenges.
4. Claim Scope in Context
-
Inhibition or treatment claims:
The patent possibly claims methods of treating particular diseases with the compound, aligning with South Korean patent practice that favors method claims for therapeutic inventions.
-
Patent Term Considerations:
Filed around 2007, the patent would have a term expiring around 2027, providing a 20-year monopoly period from the filing date, assuming standard patent life.
Patent Landscape and Strategic Position
1. Prior Art and Patentability
-
Prior Art Landscape:
Prior to 2007, multiple patents in the Biotech/Pharmaceutical sector focused on similar compounds and formulations. Patent KR20070100396 would need to demonstrate novelty and inventive step over existing Korean and international patents.
-
Potential Overlaps:
Given the proliferation of similar patents, close competitors might hold prior or concurrent patents covering similar chemical scaffolds or methods, requiring attention during freedom-to-operate analyses.
2. Related Patent Families and International Filings
-
Global Patent Portfolio:
The applicant may have filed corresponding applications, such as PCT or regional filings (e.g., US, EP). Identification of family members can reveal broader patent rights.
-
Cross-Licensing and Workarounds:
A dense patent landscape might facilitate licensing negotiations or encourage alternative development pathways to circumvent existing patents.
3. Patent Challenges and Enforcement
-
Validity Challenges:
The patent’s scope must withstand scrutiny of prior art, particularly for broad claims. Focused claims tend to have higher resilience.
-
Infringement and Litigation:
Enforcement hinges on precise claim interpretation. In South Korea, the courts consider claim scope critically in patent litigation.
4. Competitive Implications
-
Market Exclusivity:
Depending on claim strength, the patent confers market exclusivity within Korea, potentially covering key drug formulations or methods.
-
Pipeline Development:
The patent can be a cornerstone for R&D pipelines or licensing deals, especially if it encompasses a promising therapeutic target.
Legal and Commercial Implications
The scope and claims of KR20070100396 are pivotal in framing legal rights and strategic development. Broad claims, if valid, provide strong barriers; narrower claims may necessitate complementary patent protections or licensing.
Given the potential overlaps, a vigilant review of the patent landscape is crucial, including monitoring for third-party patents or challenges that could impact enforcement.
Key Takeaways
- Scope and claims are foundational; tightly drafted claims maximizing breadth yet maintaining validity are essential for strategic advantage.
- Patent landscape analysis reveals the likelihood of prior art references and potential for invalidity or licensing opportunities.
- Broader and specific claims must be balanced to ensure robust protection and enforceability.
- Global patent strategy should include filing in other jurisdictions with similar claims, leveraging patent family data.
- Continuous monitoring and legal vigilance are necessary, especially given legal reforms and evolving patent standards in South Korea.
FAQs
1. How does patent KR20070100396 compare to international patents in the same domain?
It likely claims similar compounds or methods but must be analyzed for overlaps with PCT applications or patents in the US/EU to assess global patent strength and freedom to operate.
2. Can the claims in KR20070100396 be broadened or amended post-grant?
Post-grant amendments are limited after approval; strategic planning during prosecution to draft comprehensive claims is crucial.
3. How does South Korean patent law influence the scope of pharmaceutical patents?
South Korea emphasizes novelty and inventive step, with specific considerations for method claims and incremental innovations, influencing claim drafting.
4. What are the main challenges in enforcing a patent like KR20070100396?
Challenges include invalidity risks due to prior art, interpretation of claim scope, and proving infringement, especially if claims are broad.
5. How might patent challenges from competitors impact the enforcement of this patent?
Competitors may file invalidation or non-infringement lawsuits, potentially narrowing scope or invalidating the patent, emphasizing the need for strong claim drafting and prior art clearance.
References
[1] Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) Patent Database.
[2] WIPO Patent Status Data.
[3] "South Korean Patent Law," KIPO, 2023.
[4] Patent landscape reports for biotech pharmaceuticals in South Korea.
[5] Standard patent claim structuring guides, WIPO.
Note: Specific claim language and technical details were inferred based on typical patent structures during the filing period, as the explicit text N/A. For precise legal and technical analysis, review of the full patent document is recommended.
