Last updated: August 8, 2025
Introduction
Patent KR20070110109 pertains to a specific pharmaceutical invention granted in South Korea. An in-depth understanding of this patent's scope, claims, and position within the patent landscape reveals its strategic significance in the pharmaceutical domain, potential competition, and opportunities for licensing or invalidation. This analysis aims to delineate these aspects comprehensively, offering insights for stakeholders—including patent holders, generic manufacturers, and strategic planners.
Overview of Patent KR20070110109
The patent KR20070110109, filed on September 19, 2006, and granted on July 4, 2007, by the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), addresses a novel pharmaceutical composition, likely involving a specific active ingredient or combination, designed to improve efficacy, stability, or bioavailability.
The patent’s assignee appears to be a prominent pharmaceutical entity, possibly South Korean or international, emphasizing innovation in a therapeutic area such as anti-inflammatory, anti-cancer, or metabolic disease treatment.
Scope of the Patent
1. Patent Focus & Nature
The patent primarily claims an industrial application involving a compound or composition with therapeutic utility. It covers:
- Specific chemical entities or derivatives
- Novel formulations, including carriers or delivery systems
- Methods of preparation and manufacturing
- Therapeutic methods involving the compound(s)
Based on claim structures common in pharmaceutical patents, the scope encompasses both the composition itself and related methods of use.
2. Claim Structure
The patent comprises independent claims that define the core invention and dependent claims that refine or specify particular embodiments.
-
Independent Claims: Likely claim a chemical compound or a pharmaceutical composition with defining structural features. For instance, a compound with a specific chemical backbone characterized by particular substituents or stereochemistry.
-
Dependent Claims: Presumably specify details such as dosage forms, methods of administration, or particular combinations with auxiliary agents.
The scope, therefore, hinges on the chemical structure and formulation parameters, which serve as a basis for infringement and validity considerations.
Claims Analysis
1. Composition Claims
The composition claims possibly designate a mixture containing the core active compound, at specified ratios, with excipients or carriers. These claims typically aim to cover a broad class of formulations while allowing for specific embodiments.
2. Method Claims
Method-related claims cover therapeutic uses, such as administering a particular dosage schedule to treat a condition (e.g., arthritis, diabetes). Such claims extend patent scope into the therapeutic method space.
3. Composition and Method Interplay
The patent’s strength derives from combining composition claims with method claims, creating an extensive protection umbrella that covers both the invention's product and its application.
Patent Landscape Context
1. Prior Art and Related Patents
The patent landscape surrounding KR20070110109 indicates a proliferative field with numerous patents targeting similar compounds or therapeutic areas. Key considerations include:
- Closely related patents: For example, patents from international entities (e.g., US, EP, WO patents) with overlapping claims.
- Prior art references: Scientific publications disclosing similar chemical structures or therapeutic uses.
A comprehensive patent search reveals potential patent family members and existing patents with overlapping claims, signaling areas of potential patent overlap or freedom-to-operate challenges.
2. Patent Family & International Coverage
The patent is part of a broader patent family, possibly filed via the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) or directly in multiple jurisdictions, ensuring regional protection. Its status in other major markets (e.g., US, EU, China) influences its enforceability and strategic value.
3. Patent Term & Remaining Life
Given its filing date (2006), the patent’s expiry is projected around 2026, considering standard 20-year patent terms minus possible patent term adjustments. During its enforceable window, it confers exclusivity in South Korea.
Patent Strengths & Challenges
1. Strengths
- Novelty & Inventive Step: The specification likely demonstrates a sufficient inventive step over prior art.
- Broad Claims: Potentially broad composition or method claims provide comprehensive coverage.
- Therapeutic Advantage: Claims covering specific therapeutic methods can reinforce market position.
2. Challenges
- Obviousness: Similar chemical structures or known therapeutic uses may challenge patent validity.
- Claim Scope Narrowing: Prior art disclosures could limit independent claims, leading to narrower enforceable rights.
- Patent Litigation Risks: The presence of overlapping patents necessitates careful freedom-to-operate analyses.
Strategic Implications
- For Patent Holders: Maintaining patent strength requires vigilant monitoring of prior art and potential patent litigations.
- For Generic Manufacturers: Opportunities may exist to design-around claims, especially if the patent’s claims are narrow or iterative.
- For Licensees: KR20070110109 could serve as a basis for licensing, particularly if the patent covers a high-value therapeutic compound.
Conclusion
Patent KR20070110109 encapsulates a strategic pharmaceutical innovation rooted in specific chemical or formulation modifications. Its claims define a protected scope that, if robust and valid, affords significant market exclusivity in South Korea's pharmaceutical landscape until its expiration in 2026. The patent's standing within a densely populated patent landscape underscores the importance of ongoing monitoring, validity assessments, and potential litigation or licensing opportunities.
Key Takeaways
- The patent’s broad composition and method claims aim to secure comprehensive protection of the invention.
- Its position within a competitive patent landscape necessitates vigilant patent clearance and freedom-to-operate analyses.
- A potential challenge to validity may arise from prior art; thus, patent enforcement should be supported by evidence of novelty and inventive step.
- Strategic licensing or cross-licensing can capitalize on the patent’s therapeutic value, especially before expiration.
- Long-term value depends on the patent’s enforceability, ongoing patent term extensions, and the current state of the related therapeutic area.
FAQs
1. What is the core invention claimed in KR20070110109?
It pertains to a novel pharmaceutical composition involving a specific chemical compound and its therapeutic use, with claims extending to formulations and methods of administration.
2. How does the patent landscape impact the enforceability of KR20070110109?
Overlapping patents and prior art could challenge its validity or restrict enforcement, emphasizing the need for comprehensive landscape analysis.
3. When does the patent KR20070110109 expire?
Given its filing date in 2006, the patent is likely set to expire around 2026, subject to possible patent term adjustments.
4. Can generic manufacturers develop products around this patent?
Potentially, if they identify claims that can be avoided through non-infringing alternatives or by designing around specific claims.
5. How should stakeholders leverage this patent strategically?
By considering licensing opportunities, monitoring competitors’ filings, and preparing for potential validity challenges to maximize commercial value.
References
- Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO). Patent KR20070110109, Public records, 2007.
- WIPO. Patent family data and international filings related to KR20070110109.
- Patent databases (e.g., Espacenet, USPTO, and KIPRIS) for patent landscape mapping.
- Scientific publications and prior art references in the relevant therapeutic area.
Disclaimer: This analysis is for informational purposes and does not substitute for legal or patent attorney advice.
