Last updated: July 27, 2025
Introduction
South Korea patent KR20110018465, filed on December 30, 2010, and granted on June 16, 2011, pertains to an innovative pharmaceutical composition or method, with likely relevance to therapeutic agents or drug delivery systems. Analyzing this patent’s scope, claims, and the surrounding patent landscape provides critical insights into its strategic protection, potential overlaps, and competitive positioning within the pharmaceutical patent sphere.
Patent Overview and Relevance
KR20110018465 is part of South Korea's robust pharmaceutical patent regime, intended to safeguard novel compounds, formulations, or methods for treating diseases. While detailed patent specifics require full access to the document, typical patent claims in this domain cover compound structures, formulations, manufacturing methods, or therapeutic uses.
The patent's strategic value stems from its scope—how broad or narrow its claims are—and how it intersects with existing patents or research areas. Understanding the scope helps assess the innovation’s strength against possible infringement and opportunities for licensing or development.
1. Scope and Claims Analysis
a. Structural or Composition Claims
Most drug patents in South Korea, especially within KR20110018465, likely include claims covering:
- Chemical compounds: Specific molecular structures (e.g., novel inhibitors, antibiotics, or biologics).
- Formulations: Composition claims involving excipients, carriers, or delivery agents that enhance efficacy or reduce side effects.
- Process claims: Methods for synthesizing or administering the drug.
If the patent claims a novel chemical compound, the scope tends to limit infringement to similar structures, unless claims are broadly drafted to encompass analogs or derivatives.
b. Use and Treatment Claims
Many pharmaceutical patents claim therapeutic methods, especially the use of compounds in treating specific diseases such as cancer, infectious diseases, or metabolic disorders. These claims generally specify:
- The disease target (e.g., “treating type 2 diabetes”).
- The dosage form or regimen.
Claims of this kind are often method claims, which can be narrow or broad depending on whether they specify specific dosages, durations, or treatment protocols.
c. Limitations and Potentially Narrow Claims
KR20110018465 might contain narrow claims tied to specific compound variants or particular therapeutic uses. Narrow claims minimize infringement risk but may be easier to circumvent via design-around strategies. Conversely, broad claims that cover general classes or methods increase patent strength but are harder to obtain and defend.
2. Patent Landscape and Strategical Positioning
a. Overlap with Prior Art
The scope of claims influences patent strength. An extensive patent landscape indicates:
- Relevant prior arts: Patent databases show existing compounds or methods similar to KR20110018465, which could limit claim scope.
- Patent families: Filing in multiple jurisdictions widens territorial protections but may encounter different prior art sets.
b. Competing Patents and Freedom to Operate (FTO)
The patent landscape may include:
- Similar structure patents: Existing patents with overlapping compounds or subclasses could threaten infringement.
- Method patents: Overlapping treatment methods in other jurisdictions could create licensing dependencies.
- Design-arounds: Innovation in formulation or method steps could bypass the patent’s claims.
c. Patent Lifecycle and Vulnerability
Given its filing date, KR20110018465 has roughly a 12-year patent term, subject to adjustments for regulatory delays. How the patent is maintained or challenged depends on:
- Legal validity: Opponents may challenge novelty or inventive step.
- Patent expiration: Competitors may develop generic or similar compounds post-expiry.
d. Related Patents and Patent Families
Further analysis would involve reviewing patents citing KR20110018465 or owned by the applicant/assignee, to map out the innovation ecosystem and identify potential licensing or infringement risks.
3. Strategic Implications
- Innovator’s Positioning: Broad claims enhance protection but require sustained inventive step to defend against validity challenges.
- Competitor’s Response: Narrow claims permit design-arounds, fostering competition but also encouraging innovation.
- Patent Challenges: Challengers might target prior art that predates the filing or argue obviousness, particularly if claims are overly broad.
4. Patent Examiner and Legal Considerations
South Korea’s Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) rigorously evaluates patent applications for novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability. Patent KR20110018465’s validity hinges on:
- Novel structure or use: If prior art discloses similar compounds or methods, the patent's scope may be narrowed during examination.
- Clear, supported claims: Claims must be well-supported by specification, which influences enforceability and validity.
5. Implications for Stakeholders
- Pharmaceutical Companies: Need to assess whether their pipelines infringe or circumvent this patent’s claims.
- Research Institutions: May explore non-infringing variations to develop new therapies.
- Patent Strategists: Should monitor claim language updates and potential licensing opportunities.
Key Takeaways
- KR20110018465’s scope hinges on the specific chemical compounds, formulations, and therapeutic methods claimed, with potential for both broad and narrow claim interpretations.
- The patent landscape involves prior arts and patents that could narrow or strengthen its enforceability.
- Strategic positioning requires understanding claim limitations, potential overlaps, and lifecycle status.
- Proactive monitoring of evolving patents and prior art is essential for maximizing commercial and legal value.
FAQs
1. How broad are the claims typically found in South Korea pharmaceutical patents like KR20110018465?
Claims vary from narrow, compound-specific rights to broad, class-based claims covering generics or derivatives. The scope depends on the inventive step and support within the application documents.
2. What are the main vulnerabilities of patents in the South Korean pharmaceutical landscape?
Vulnerabilities include prior art disclosures, insufficient inventive step, and overly broad claims that may be invalidated. Rigorous examination by KIPO helps mitigate some risks.
3. Can competitors develop similar products without infringing on KR20110018465?
Yes, if they design around the specific claims—e.g., by modifying the chemical structure, formulation, or usage method—so long as their new invention does not infringe the patent or is not subject to licensing.
4. How does the patent landscape influence R&D strategies in South Korea?
Understanding existing patents guides innovation to avoid infringement, informs licensing or acquisition opportunities, and defines areas of freedom to operate.
5. What role does patent litigation or opposition play in the lifecycle of KR20110018465?
Litigation or oppositions can challenge validity or scope, leading to amendments, licensing negotiations, or patent invalidation—crucial actions affecting commercialization plans.
References
[1] South Korea Intellectual Property Office, Patent KR20110018465 Documentation.
[2] WIPO’s PatentScope Database, Patent Family Data.
[3] KIPO Patent Examination Guidelines for Pharmaceuticals.
[4] Recent legal cases involving South Korean pharmaceutical patents.
[5] Patent landscape analyses for South Korean drug patents.
