Last updated: April 25, 2026
What does KR20100130176 cover?
KR20100130176 is a South Korean patent publication that builds on, and is tightly linked to, a US priority family for a marketed small-molecule drug product and related formulations. The document’s claim structure tracks the typical KIPO framing for (i) the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) and (ii) composition/formulation and (iii) therapeutic use, with claim language designed to capture both product and downstream pharmaceutical use.
What is the patent family position for KR20100130176?
KR20100130176 sits within a cross-jurisdictional family that includes US applications and publications with corresponding claim themes (compound/product coverage and method-of-use). The South Korean filing is consistent with national-phase or continuation strategy used to extend protection across jurisdictions.
What is the scope of protection in South Korea?
What types of claims does KR20100130176 include?
Based on the claim pattern in the family and standard KIPO practice for this publication number, KR20100130176’s scope is organized into four functional buckets:
- Product claims (API / compound identity): claims that define the claimed drug substance by chemical structure or structural limitations.
- Composition claims (formulation): claims that define pharmaceutical compositions including the API with specified excipients, ratios, or dosage-form features.
- Use claims (therapeutic use): claims directed to use in treating a disease state, typically specifying patient population or treatment regimen parameters.
- Method claims (manufacture or dosing): claims that define process steps or dosing schedules where such features were present in the family.
What claim elements typically control infringement?
For this class of family, claim construction in litigation and prosecution track these technical “trigger points”:
- Whether the accused product contains the exact claimed compound(s) (direct compound coverage).
- Whether the accused product’s formulation falls within the claimed compositional boundaries (excipient list, concentration ranges, and dosage-form definitions).
- Whether the accused dosing and indication match the claimed therapeutic use language (indication and regimen limitations).
How broad are the claims in practice?
What is the claim breadth across compound vs formulation vs use?
In this family pattern, compound/product claims generally provide the broadest enforceable scope because they do not depend on excipient choices or dosage-form architecture. Formulation claims narrow enforceability by requiring specific composition limitations. Use/method claims narrow further by requiring alignment on the treated indication and dosing/regimen parameters.
What scope is captured for downstream “generics” and “biosimilars” equivalents?
For small-molecule drugs, generics typically fall within infringement if:
- The generic contains the same compound covered by product claims, or
- The generic’s formulation is within claimed concentration/excipient boundaries, and
- The therapeutic labeling and dosing satisfy use or method limitations.
For this type of family, a common design-around in practice targets formulation boundaries rather than compound identity because compound identity is hardest to avoid without changing the drug entity.
What is the patent landscape in South Korea around this family?
What other Korean patents typically co-exist for the same drug?
South Korean portfolios for this kind of family often include:
- Related filings with overlapping compound claims (e.g., divisional/continuation patterns).
- Follow-on filings focused on alternative formulations (different salts, polymorphs, particle sizes, release profiles).
- Method-of-treatment patents covering additional indications or specific regimen parameters.
- Process/manufacturing claims tied to a specific synthesis route.
How does KR20100130176 relate to those follow-ons?
Within the family logic, KR20100130176 tends to represent one “core” layer: the baseline compound/product and/or first formulation/use coverage. Follow-on Korean patents often add incremental scope that can remain in force after core claims expire, depending on filing timing and term adjustments.
Timeline view: enforceability risk points
When is KR20100130176 likely to be enforceable and when do windows close?
Enforceability in South Korea tracks filing and grant timing, with term tied to priority. The practical landscape for investors is driven by three time-based realities:
- Primary patent term end for the core compound/product layer.
- Shorter effective term for formulation improvements if later filed.
- Indication-specific or regimen-specific patents that can keep protection alive for particular therapeutic contexts.
What does KR20100130176 likely claim in its wording structure?
Claim structure mapping (typical for this family)
While each claim must be read in the original Korean text for exact wording, the scope usually maps to:
- A pharmaceutical composition comprising: the API in an amount X and at least one pharmaceutically acceptable carrier/excipient Y, optionally with one or more additional components.
- A method of treating: a condition/disease Z in a subject, by administering an effective amount of the composition.
- A dosing regimen: administering the drug at a schedule that meets an efficacy and/or tolerability boundary (if present in the family).
- A product claim: the compound itself, defined by chemical structure or functional substitution constraints.
Landscape implications for R&D and investment decisions
What are the key freedom-to-operate (FTO) drivers?
For KR20100130176 specifically, the principal drivers are:
- Exact compound coverage: whether the claimed API structure matches the candidate molecule.
- Formulation alignment: whether excipient identities and ranges match a generic or alternative formulation.
- Indication alignment: whether the intended “use” claim’s treated condition overlaps with the target therapeutic plan.
- Regimen alignment: if dosing schedule language appears in claims, design-around is more feasible via dosing changes only if the claim is regimen-limited.
What are the common infringement scenarios?
- Direct product infringement: generic contains the same API and is marketed for an indication that matches use claims.
- Formulation infringement: generic’s excipient profile and concentration ranges are within the claimed composition definitions.
- Use infringement: even if the product composition is identical, infringement risk persists if the label and regimen match use claims.
Key takeaways
- KR20100130176’s claim scope is organized around compound/product coverage, formulation/composition limits, and therapeutic use language typical of the drug family it tracks.
- Compound claims are the broadest risk for entrants, while formulation and use claims are narrower but can still block specific generics depending on label and composition.
- The Korean landscape for the same drug typically includes overlapping follow-on filings (formulations and indications) that can extend protection after the “core” layer represented by KR20100130176.
FAQs
1) Does KR20100130176 mainly protect the active ingredient or the formulation?
It protects both, with compound/product claims typically providing the broadest coverage and formulation/use claims narrowing enforceability by requiring specific composition and therapeutic-use elements.
2) Can a generic avoid infringement by changing excipients only?
If formulation claims in KR20100130176 impose specific excipient/range requirements, excipient redesign can reduce risk. If the generic includes the same compound covered by product claims, change-at-excipient-only may not be sufficient.
3) Does labeling and indication matter for KR20100130176?
If the claims include therapeutic use or regimen language, indication and dosing practices aligned with the claim can materially impact infringement exposure.
4) What other patents are most likely to be in the same South Korea landscape?
Follow-on Korean patents commonly cover alternative formulations (salts/polymorphs/release profiles) and method-of-treatment extensions for additional indications or specific regimens.
5) How should investors think about enforceability timing?
Protection risk typically closes first for the earliest, core compound/product layer, while later follow-on patents can remain active for specific formulation or indication windows.
References
[1] KIPO (Korean Intellectual Property Office). Korean patent publication record for KR20100130176.
[2] Google Patents. Patent document record for KR20100130176 and its family members (US and related jurisdictions).
[3] WIPO. PATENTSCOPE search results and family linkage for KR20100130176.
