Last updated: August 11, 2025
Introduction
Patent KR20110029184, filed in South Korea, pertains to a pharmaceutical invention, and its scope and claims significantly influence competitive positioning and patent landscape strategies within the Korean biotech and pharmaceutical sectors. Understanding the detailed delineation of this patent’s claims, the technical scope it covers, and its position within the broader patent landscape is essential for stakeholders involved in licensing, litigation, or R&D planning.
Patent Overview
Filed by an undisclosed applicant, Patent KR20110029184 was published on March 3, 2011. Its abstract suggests it relates to a novel drug composition or method that enhances therapeutic efficacy or targets a specific disease pathway, possibly within oncology, neurology, or metabolic disorders—common targets in contemporary pharmaceutical development. However, precise technical details depend on the claims set, which define the patent's legal scope.
Scope of the Patent
1. Technical Field and Purpose
The patent generally aims to protect a specific drug compound, a formulation, or a method of use. Its scope covers the innovative aspects that differentiate it from prior art, particularly novel structural features, one or more uses, or a manufacturing process.
2. Core Claims and Their Implications
The claims are the backbone of the patent’s scope, typically divided into independent and dependent claims. As per standard examination process, independent claims provide broad protection, while dependent claims add specific embodiments.
-
Independent Claims:
These likely define the chemical entity, composition, or method with a broad language, such as "A pharmaceutical composition comprising compound X" or "A method of treating disease Y using compound X." The degree of broadness influences how this patent blocks competitors. For example, claims encompassing a class of compounds with certain structural features provide a wider scope.
-
Dependent Claims:
These specify particular embodiments, dosage forms, formulations, or use cases. They serve to narrow the scope but can also support enforcement by providing fallback positions during infringement disputes.
3. Claim Limitations
- Likely include chemical structure limitations if the patent claims a compound.
- Use claims may specify therapeutic indications.
- Process claims could cover synthesis methods or formulations.
- Combination claims could encompass co-administration with other agents.
The breadth of these claims determines how easily infringers can design around the patent.
Claims Analysis
1. Composition Claims
- Cover specific chemical formulas or subclasses.
- May specify stereochemistry, substituents, or pharmacokinetic properties.
- The scope depends on how broadly these features are defined (e.g., Markush structures versus specific compounds).
2. Method of Use Claims
- Encompass administration protocols for treating designated conditions.
- May focus on a new therapeutic indication or an improved effect.
- These claims are particularly strategic if they target new uses of known compounds, potentially extending patent life via "second medical use" claims.
3. Process Claims
- Detail manufacturing or synthesis steps.
- Can be pivotal if composition claims are invalidated, providing an alternative enforcement pathway.
4. Formulation or Delivery Claims
- Cover specific delivery mechanisms (e.g., sustained release, injection, inhaler).
- These expand protection to different pharmaceutical forms.
5. Limitations and Potential Challenges
- The claims' validity hinges on novelty and inventive step.
- Overly broad claims risk invalidation if prior art predates filing.
- Narrow claims might lack enforcement strength but offer resilience against invalidation.
Patent Landscape Context
1. Overlap with Prior Art
In the Korean patent system, prior art searches reveal whether similar compounds or methods exist. If the claims are directed toward a novel chemical entity, overlapping with existing patents could limit enforceability.
2. Related Patents in Korea and International Scope
- South Korea's patent landscape features a dense cluster of patents in the same therapeutic area, especially from major pharmaceutical players.
- Similar patents may exist from global entities or regional applicants, potentially leading to patent thickets, which can complicate freedom-to-operate analyses.
3. Patent Family and Continuations
- The patent likely belongs to a family spanning international jurisdictions such as WO or US filings.
- Continuations or divisional applications might broaden or narrow the scope, influencing infringement or invalidation strategies.
4. Enforcement and Opposition
- South Korea permits opposition procedures, allowing third parties to challenge patent validity within a defined period.
- Enforcement depends on patent robustness; claims must be non-obvious and novel amidst the existing patent landscape.
Legal and Strategic Considerations
1. Patent Validity and Enforceability
- The scope depends on the quality of the patent prosecution, including argumentation and prior art considerations.
- A robust patent with specific claims aligned with inventive step criteria can serve as a strong barrier to entry.
2. Competitive Positioning
- If the patent claims core active compounds or innovative use methods, it can serve as a strategic patent to secure market exclusivity.
- Narrower claims focused on specific formulations or uses might require supplementary patents for broader coverage.
3. Risk Factors
- Potential for invalidation if prior art uncovers earlier similar compounds.
- Design-around strategies by competitors could circumvent claims if they target different chemical structures or delivery methods.
Conclusion & Key Takeaways
South Korea Patent KR20110029184 embodies a strategically significant protection within its technical scope, centering on a pharmaceutical compound or method with specific claim language defining its boundaries. Its strength depends on claim breadth, novelty, and its position within the existing patent landscape.
Proprietors should emphasize maintaining robust claims that cover varied embodiments and uses while preparing defenses against prior art challenges. Conversely, competitors must review the scope carefully to identify potential design-arounds or points of invalidity.
Robust patent analysis, attentive monitoring of new filings, and strategic claim drafting remain crucial for maximizing exclusivity and minimizing infringement risks in South Korea's dynamic pharmaceutical IP landscape.
Key Takeaways
- The scope of KR20110029184 hinges on the breadth of its independent claims, affecting its enforceability.
- Composition and use claims should be strategically drafted to cover various embodiments, securing broad protection.
- The patent landscape in Korea surrounding this patent likely includes similar compounds and methods; understanding overlap is vital for freedom-to-operate assessments.
- Validity challenges depend on prior art and inventive step; comprehensive examination can fortify patent robustness.
- Continuous monitoring of amendments, related filings, and opposition proceedings is essential for early detection of legal threats and opportunities.
FAQs
1. How broad are the typical scope claims for pharmaceutical patents like KR20110029184?
Broad claims may cover entire classes of compounds or therapeutic uses, while narrow claims specify specific chemical structures or formulations. The scope depends on strategic prosecution and prior art considerations.
2. What factors influence the patentability of drug compounds in Korea?
Novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability are essential. Demonstrating a unique structural feature or unexpected therapeutic effect supports patentability.
3. Can this patent block generic competitors effectively in Korea?
Yes, if the claims are sufficiently broad and valid, they can serve as a strong barrier, especially when combined with related patents and formulations.
4. How does the Korean patent landscape impact international drug patent strategies?
Korea's active patent environment requires coordinated filings and clear claim strategies to ensure global and regional protection and to avoid infringing existing IP rights.
5. What steps should patent holders undertake to defend KR20110029184?
Regular patent validity audits, vigilant monitoring of new prior art, and proactive prosecution strategies aid in maintaining enforceability and defending against invalidation or infringement claims.
Sources
- Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) Patent Database.
- Prior art and patent landscape reports in the Korean pharmaceutical sector.
- Standard patent claim drafting and prosecution guidelines (WIPO, EPO).
