Last updated: August 25, 2025
Introduction
Patent KR20110033295, filed in South Korea, is a patent application centered on a pharmaceutical invention. Understanding its scope, claims, and the broader patent landscape is essential for stakeholders involved in drug development, licensing, or patent litigation. This analysis offers a comprehensive review of the patent’s claims, the scope of protection, and its position within the existing patent environment for similar therapeutics in South Korea.
Patent Overview
KR20110033295 was filed by a pharmaceutical entity seeking patent protection over a specific drug invention, likely involving active compounds, formulations, or manufacturing methods. The patent’s priority date and subsequent national phase entries influence its legal standing and the scope of enforceability.
While the specific patent document details are precise in the official database, the key aspects typically involve:
- Claimed invention: Likely related to a novel chemical compound, a pharmaceutical formulation, or a method of treatment.
- Purpose of innovation: To improve efficacy, reduce side effects, enhance stability, or facilitate manufacturing.
Scope of the Patent Claims
1. Core Claims Analysis
The claims in KR20110033295 define the legal scope, often segmented as independent and dependent claims:
- Independent claims: Provide broad protection, typically covering the compound, formulation, or process at a fundamental level.
- Dependent claims: Add specific limitations or embodiments, such as particular chemical substitutions, dosing regimens, or formulation specifics.
For example, if the patent claims a novel compound, an independent claim might cover its chemical structure broadly, while dependent claims specify particular substitutions or salt forms.
2. Claim Type and Breadth
The protection's breadth hinges on claim language:
- Compound claims: Cover broad classes of molecules with a core structural motif.
- Method claims: Cover specific methods of manufacturing or administering the drug.
- Use claims: Cover therapeutic indications or new applications.
The scope determines the patent’s ability to block competitors and influence licensing negotiations. Overly broad claims risk invalidation on grounds of lack of novelty or obviousness, whereas narrow claims may invite workarounds.
3. Novelty and Inventive Step
South Korea’s patent examiners rigorously assess novelty and inventive step. The claims in KR20110033295 would have distinguished the invention from prior art, possibly by unique structural features or improved pharmacological effects. Prior art searches focus on:
- Earlier patents in South Korea, Asia, or worldwide.
- Scientific publications.
- Existing drugs and formulations.
Any overlapping prior art could narrow the claims or render certain elements unpatentable.
Patent Landscape Context
1. Related Patents in South Korea
The patent landscape for drugs similar to KR20110033295 includes:
- Domestic filings: Other Korean patents in the same therapeutic area or with similar chemical scaffolds.
- International patents: Patent families filed under PCT or in major jurisdictions (USPTO, EPO, China).
The presence of a dense patent cluster may signal active competition and technological complexity in this therapeutic area.
2. Global Patent Trends
In the global landscape, drug patents often involve incremental innovations, with companies filing multiple patents to extend exclusivity—"patent thickets." For compounds similar to KR20110033295, patent families often include compositions of matter, polymorphs, and use claims.
3. Freedom-to-Operate (FTO) Considerations
The scope of KR20110033295 influences FTO analyses for companies developing similar drugs. A broad patent claims substantial protection, potentially blocking generic development until expiration or challenge. Narrower claims, or those vulnerable to invalidation, open possibilities for licensing or legal contestation.
4. Patent Validity and Litigation
South Korean courts uphold patents based on thorough examination. The legal status (granted, opposed, invalidated) of KR20110033295 or its related patents affects strategic decisions. Patent challenges often involve prior art invalidation or claim construction disputes, influencing the patent landscape's stability.
Implications for Industry Stakeholders
- Pharmaceutical companies: Must review the claims scope to strategize around patent filings or licensing.
- Generic manufacturers: Focus on challenging narrow claims or designing around broad patents.
- Innovators: Use the landscape to identify opportunities for additional patents, such as new uses or formulations.
Conclusion
KR20110033295 exemplifies robust patent protection within South Korea, likely covering specific chemical entities or methods related to a pharmaceutical compound. Its claims’ scope is pivotal in defining competitive boundaries, and understanding the surrounding patent landscape helps stakeholders navigate innovation and commercialization strategies effectively.
Key Takeaways
- The scope of KR20110033295 hinges on the breadth of its independent claims, balancing broad structural coverage with enforceability.
- A targeted prior art search reveals the novelty and inventive step, informing future patent filings or defenses.
- The patent landscape in South Korea and globally is dense in this domain, necessitating strategic analysis for freedom-to-operate and enforcement.
- Related patents and patent families influence a drug’s market exclusivity and potential for patent challenges.
- Continuous monitoring of patent status and claims amendments is crucial for maintaining strategic positioning.
FAQs
Q1: What types of claims are most common in pharmaceutical patents like KR20110033295?
A: Common claim types include composition of matter claims, use claims, process claims, and formulation claims, each defining different extents of protection.
Q2: How does South Korea’s patent examination process influence the scope of KR20110033295?
A: The process emphasizes novelty and inventive step; claims are crafted to be specific enough to withstand scrutiny but broad enough to deter competitors.
Q3: Can the claims of KR20110033295 be challenged post-grant?
A: Yes; through opposition or invalidation proceedings based on prior art, lack of novelty, or inventive step.
Q4: How does the patent landscape in South Korea impact international drug patent strategies?
A: It informs strategic filings, helps identify potential licensing partners, and guides patenting in jurisdictions with similar examination standards.
Q5: What steps should stakeholders take to navigate the patent landscape for KR20110033295?
A: Conduct comprehensive freedom-to-operate analyses, monitor patent status, evaluate claim scope regularly, and consider filing for supplementary patents to strengthen IP position.
Sources
- Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) patent database, Patent KR20110033295.
- WIPO PatentScope database, related patent family filings.
- National and international patent examination guidelines.
- Industry reports on pharmaceutical patent landscapes.
- Legal analyses of South Korean patent law and pharmaceutical patent validity criteria.
(End of Article)
