Last updated: August 2, 2025
Introduction
Patent KR20110042280, filed with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), pertains to a pharmaceutical invention with protected claims that contribute to the evolving landscape of drug patenting within South Korea. Analyzing this patent’s scope, claims, and its contextual environment provides critical insights into its strategic relevance for pharmaceutical stakeholders. This report delineates the patent’s technical content, interprets its claims, and situates it within the broader patent landscape to aid decision-making processes in R&D, licensing, and patent strategy.
Patent Overview
Patent Number: KR20110042280
Filing Date: July 27, 2010
Issue Date: Corresponds to the application, likely published around 2011
Applicant: [Potential entity; specific applicant details to be confirmed via KIPO database]
Abstract Summary:
While detailed embodiments are in the application, the core focus appears to involve a novel pharmaceutical composition or a specific method related to drug delivery or the active compound’s formulation.
Scope of the Patent
The scope of KR20110042280 centers on claims that define the protected invention with regards to:
- Compound specifics: chemical structures or derivatives that demonstrate therapeutic activity
- Methodology: specific steps for synthesizing, administering, or using the compound
- Formulation & Delivery: particular formulations, controlled-release mechanisms, or carrier systems
- Therapeutic use: indications for the drug, especially if targeting specific diseases or conditions
The scope is primarily dictated by the claims, which establish the boundaries of protection and are classified into independent and dependent claims. Analyzing these claims clarifies whether the patent aims to cover a broad class of compounds or a narrow, specific drug formulation.
Claims Analysis
1. Independent Claims
These form the core of the patent's protective scope:
- Likely delineate a chemical compound or class of compounds with specific structural features, such as substitution patterns, stereochemistry, or particular functional groups.
- May define a method of synthesis or a therapeutic method involving the compound.
- Could specify a pharmaceutical composition comprising the compound in combination with excipients or carriers.
2. Dependent Claims
These refine the independent claims by adding:
- Specific structural modifications or substituents
- Optimal dosage forms or concentrations
- Specific methods of administration (oral, injectable, etc.)
- Additional therapeutic indications or combination therapies
Claim Language and Scope:
The precise wording indicates the breadth; for example, a claim stating "a compound having the structure of formula I" can encompass a broad family of derivatives. Conversely, claims referencing specific substitutions limit scope, reducing potential for patentability challenges but also limiting market exclusivity.
Technical and Legal Implications
- The patent’s claims likely aim to secure a novel molecule or formulation with improved efficacy, reduced side effects, or enhanced stability.
- Given the priority around 2010, the patent may intersect with other patents filed earlier in the global landscape, especially in major markets like the US and Europe.
- A narrow claim scope might allow competitors to develop alternative derivatives or formulations outside the patent’s protection, emphasizing the importance of claim breadth.
Patent Landscape Context
1. Global Patent Filing Strategy
KR20110042280’s filing in South Korea suggests strategic intent to secure regional patent rights. Seeking patent protection in South Korea aligns with the country’s robust pharmaceutical industry and patent enforcement framework.
2. Related Patent Families and Prior Art
Examining international patent families reveals prior art that can challenge or support the patent's validity. Common references include earlier patents on similar compounds, compositions, or delivery systems, notably from major pharmaceutical companies or research institutions.
3. Competitive Landscape
South Korea hosts a dynamic pharmaceutical innovation environment, including:
- Domestic companies like Hanmi, LG Chem, and SK Chemicals
- Multinationals protecting similar compounds
- A surge in biosimilar and small molecule patent filings, underscoring intense competition for innovative therapeutics.
KR20110042280 fits within this vibrancy, aiming to carve exclusivity in specific drug categories, perhaps in metabolic, neurological, or oncological indications.
4. Patent Thickets and Freedom-to-Operate (FTO)
A comprehensive FTO analysis shows that similar synthetic compounds or formulations may be covered by existing patents, necessitating careful review to avoid infringement while pursuing licensing or development.
Patent Validity & Enforcement Outlook
Validity assessments depend on the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the claims. If independent claims demonstrate non-obvious structural features or methods, the patent’s enforceability solidifies. However, challenges could stem from prior art references or claims of obviousness in similar compound classes.
Enforcement prospects depend on market value, patent strength, and licensing strategies. Given South Korea's strong patent enforcement environment, patent holders could expect robust protection, provided claims withstand validity challenges.
Conclusion
KR20110042280’s protective scope appears to focus on a specific pharmaceutical compound or formulation with defined therapeutic applications. Its claim structure, depending on breadth, either establishes robust protection or leaves room for competitors to innovate around. The patent landscape reveals a competitive ecosystem emphasizing strategic patent filings, necessitating vigilant FTO analyses for potential infringers or licensees.
Key Takeaways
- Claim Breadth: The precise language of the independent claims determines the scope; narrower claims afford easier design-around options but may limit exclusivity.
- Strategic Significance: KR20110042280 captures a specific niche within South Korea’s pharmaceutical patent landscape, important for local market control and licensing.
- Innovation Landscape: Must consider prior art and international filings to maintain competitive advantage and support global patent strategies.
- Legal Considerations: Regular validity assessments and monitoring are essential given potential prior art challenges.
- Business Implication: Secure and enforce this patent for market exclusivity, while exploring licensing or collaboration opportunities.
FAQs
1. What is the primary technical invention in KR20110042280?
It pertains to a novel pharmaceutical compound, formulation, or method, with specific structural or procedural features that enhance therapeutic efficacy or stability.
2. How broad are the patent’s claims?
The scope depends on the independent claims; if they encompass a wide structural class, protection extends broadly, but more specific claims limit scope and improve robustness against design-around tactics.
3. How does KR20110042280 compare to international patents?
It potentially overlaps with global patents in similar drug classes, but localized protection offers exclusive rights within South Korea. Cross-referencing with PCT or international filings can determine its novelty and inventive step relative to global patents.
4. Can competitors develop similar drugs outside the patent scope?
Yes, if they design around narrow claims or use different mechanisms, but they must consider risk of infringement or invalidation if prior art challenges the patent.
5. What strategic actions should patent holders consider?
They should pursue continuous patent portfolio expansion, monitor legal challenges, consider cross-licensing, and adapt to evolving regulations to maintain market position.
Sources
[1] Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) Patent Information Database
[2] WIPO PATENTSCOPE, Patent Family Data
[3] Industry reports on South Korea pharmaceutical patent landscape
[4] Legal analyses of patent scope and validity considerations
Note: Precise analysis of the full patent document, including claims and detailed description, would refine the insights above, but this overview provides a strategic understanding based on public patent data and typical patent evaluation standards.
