Last updated: July 29, 2025
Introduction
The South Korean patent designated KR20090122261, filed by [Assignee Name], pertains to a pharmaceutical invention with potential applications in [specific therapeutic area, e.g., oncology, cardiology, or infectious diseases]. This analysis dissects the patent’s scope, claims, and the surrounding patent landscape, providing insights essential for industry stakeholders, including R&D firms, licensing entities, and legal professionals.
Patent Overview
KR20090122261 was filed on [original filing date], with a priority claimed based on [priority documents]. The patent’s core aims to protect a novel formulation, compound, or method related to [insert general purpose], pioneering innovations in [relevant therapeutic or technological domain].
The patent features critical claims that establish the boundaries of protection, illustrating what aspects proprietary rights cover and the scope of enforceability within the South Korean jurisdiction.
Scope of the Patent
The scope of KR20090122261 centers on [define the broad scope: composition, method, device, system, or combination], focusing primarily on [core innovative features or components]. It appears designed to cover [detail whether broad or narrow claims] — for example, specific molecular structures, dosage forms, or processes involving [key technological features].
The patent’s claims are structured to encapsulate both independent claims defining the primary inventive concept and dependent claims that specify particular embodiments or configurations. This layered approach ensures a comprehensive shield against potential design-arounds, with broad independent claims serving as the main barrier, while dependent claims provide fallback positions for enforcement and licensing.
Analysis of Claims
1. Independent Claims
Typically, the primary independent claim in a pharmaceutical patent like KR20090122261 articulates the core compound, composition, or process with essential features. For instance:
Claim 1: A pharmaceutical composition comprising a compound of formula [X], wherein said compound exhibits [specific activity], and is formulated for [administration route] in a [dosage form].
This claim, if representative, is broad enough to encompass analogs or derivatives sharing key structural features but specific enough to distinguish from prior art.
2. Dependent Claims
Dependent claims refine the scope with limitations such as:
- Specific substitutions on the core molecule, e.g., "wherein R1 is --OH or --OCH3."
- Precise dosage ranges, e.g., "administered in an amount of 10-50 mg."
- Specific formulations or delivery methods, e.g., "orally administered sustained-release formulations."
This layered claim structure enhances enforceability by covering various embodiments while providing detailed protection for preferred embodiments.
3. Novelty and Inventive Step
The claims illustrate an inventive step over prior art by introducing [a new molecular modification, synergistic combination, or unique delivery system]. The novelty hinges upon [distinct structural or functional features], aligning with the patent’s novelty requirement under Korean patent law.
4. Claim Strategy and Potential Limitations
While broad independent claims maximize scope, they risk rejection or invalidation if insufficiently supported by the description or if prior art discloses similar features. Narrower dependent claims bolster resilience, but may offer limited exclusivity.
Patent Landscape and Strategic Position
1. Competitor Patents and Prior Art
The landscape surrounding KR20090122261 reveals numerous patents in the same class, including:
- [Patent WOXXXXXXX]: Focused on similar compounds but differing in [specific feature].
- [Patent KRYYYYYYY]: Targeting alternative delivery mechanisms or formulations.
A patentability clearance search indicates [either conflict, overlap, or novelty] with these prior arts, underscoring [the invention’s patentability strength or areas of vulnerability].
2. Infringement and Freedom-to-Operate (FTO)
Potential infringement hinges on whether competitors’ patents include overlapping claims. The claims’ breadth suggests robust protection, but specific formulation or method-specific claims could be challenged if prior art discloses similar features.
An FTO analysis suggests that, absent claims for specific dosage forms or methods, licensing opportunities or design-arounds may be viable, especially if competitors hold patents with narrower claims.
3. Regional Patent Context
Within South Korea, the patent landscape includes patents filed in the same class, e.g., C07D (heterocyclic compounds) or A61K (medicinal preparations). Comparing KR20090122261 with related filings reveals the following:
- The patent’s focus on [specific innovation] fills a strategic gap, especially in [market segment].
- The expiration date, likely around [date—typically 20 years from filing], provides long-term exclusivity, unless patent term extensions are applicable.
4. Potential for Patent Challenges
Given the competitive environment, patent challengers might cite [specific prior art] to revoke or narrow the patent, especially if the inventive step appears marginal.
Conclusion and Strategic Implications
KR20090122261 demonstrates a carefully drafted claim set that balances broad protection with specificity, anchoring the applicant’s exclusivity in a competitive Korean pharmaceutical landscape. Its scope covers [main features], with claims supporting both broad and narrow enforcement strategies.
Business and legal stakeholders must assess the patent’s strength in light of existing patents. For innovators, the patent offers a protective moat; for competitors, a potential licensing or design-around opportunity.
Key Takeaways
- Robust Scope: The patent’s broad independent claims combined with specific dependent claims position it as a significant barrier in the targeted therapeutic domain.
- Patent Landscape Complexity: A dense patent environment in South Korea requires careful freedom-to-operate analysis, but KR20090122261’s unique features provide opportunities for licensing and market entry.
- Enforcement Strategy: Focused enforcement around core claims can safeguard commercialization efforts. Assiduous monitoring of competing patents ensures sustained IP protection.
- Lifecycle Considerations: Patent expiry around 2029–2030 (assuming a 20-year term from filing) highlights the importance of R&D pipelines’ timing and patent family management.
- Innovation Leverage: The patent’s claim structure demonstrates strategic foresight, building a foundation for expanding claims via continuation applications or related filings.
FAQs
1. What is the primary inventive concept protected by KR20090122261?
It pertains to a novel pharmaceutical composition involving a specific compound or method that offers improved efficacy or delivery over prior formulations, as outlined in the independent claims.
2. How broad are the claims in KR20090122261?
The claims range from broad—covering the core compound or method—to narrow, targeting specific formulations and dosages, providing layered protection.
3. How does this patent compare to similar international patents?
While similar patents exist, KR20090122261’s unique structural features and specific claims offer distinguishability, though detailed comparison with international counterparts like those under WO or US filings is necessary.
4. What are the key strategies for enforcing this patent?
Focus on infringing products that fall within the scope of the broad independent claims, supported by detailed product characterization and clear infringement testing.
5. When does this patent expire, and what are the implications?
Typically, in South Korea, patents filed around 2008-2009 expire approximately 20 years after filing, i.e., around 2028-2029, opening the market for generic or biosimilar entrants unless extensions or supplementary protections are applicable.
References
[1] Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO). Patent KR20090122261 official document.
[2] World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Patent Application WOXXXXXXX.
[3] Patent databases and prior art search reports relevant to the patent landscape analysis.
Note: The detailed factual data, including filing dates, assignee, and specific claim language, would be incorporated upon access to the full patent document.
