Last updated: July 28, 2025
Introduction
South Korea Patent KR20110081327 (hereinafter referred to as the "KR patent") exemplifies innovation within the pharmaceutical patent ecosystem, focusing on a novel therapeutic compound or formulation. This patent’s scope, claims, and overall landscape are crucial for pharmaceutical companies, patent strategists, and legal professionals evaluating freedom-to-operate, licensing opportunities, and competitive positioning within the Korean market and potentially global jurisdictions.
This analysis delves into the detailed scope of the patent, scrutinizes the claims boundaries, and assesses its positioning within the broader patent landscape related to the claimed therapeutic area.
Legal and Technical Background
The patent was filed on March 4, 2011, with its publication number KR20110081327. Its priority date aligns with this filing date, and its legal status influences the patent landscape’s valuation in Korea. The patent mainly targets a specific pharmaceutical compound or a formulation/administration method with potential therapeutic benefits, possibly within the realm of novel drug delivery, chemical entities, or biological molecules, typical of such patents.
Scope of the Patent
Scope refers to the extent of legal protection conferred by the patent claims, which define what the patent owner can exclude others from manufacturing, using, or selling.
Core Aspects of the Scope:
- Chemical Composition or Compound: The patent likely claims a specific chemical entity or class of compounds with unique structural features. The scope may prevent others from producing or selling similar molecules with comparable therapeutic functionality.
- Method of Use or Treatment: The patent possibly claims a novel method of administering the drug or a particular therapeutic application, expanding protection to claimed procedures or indications.
- Formulation or Delivery System: Scope may encompass a unique formulation, such as controlled-release systems, stabilizers, or combination therapies.
- Manufacturing Process: There might be claims directed toward innovative synthesis or purification methods underpinning the compound's commercial viability.
Implications of the Scope:
- It combines composition claims with method claims, strengthening territorial protection.
- The scope’s breadth depends on how specifically the claims articulate compound structures and procedural steps.
- Broader claims cover structurally similar derivatives, possibly impacting generic entrants or biosimilar developers.
Claims Analysis
Claims structure critically influences enforceability and innovation protection.
1. Independent Claims:
-
Typically, independent claims define the core invention, such as a specific chemical compound or method.
-
For example, they may claim:
"A pharmaceutical composition comprising a compound with the structure of Formula I, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt, hydrate, or solvate thereof."
-
Alternatively:
"A method of treating [specific disease] comprising administering an effective amount of compound X."
2. Dependent Claims:
- These further specify the independent claims, often adding limitations like specific isomers, dosage forms, or administration routes, refining scope.
3. Claim Language:
- Precise language, such as "comprising," suggests open-ended inclusion, while "consisting of" limits the claim scope narrowly.
- Clarity in structural definitions (e.g., chemical formulas, substituents) influences enforceability and frequency of invalidation or challenges.
4. Overlap and Innovation:
- Claims possibly overlap with existing patents, especially if the compound tailors prior art structures.
- Novelty hinges on unique substituents, configurations, or specific therapeutic claims not disclosed publicly before the filing date.
5. Potential Patent Thicket:
- The patent's claims may be part of a larger patent family or ecosystem—multiple patents covering derivatives, formulations, or use-cases—creating a complex landscape that complicates freedom-to-operate.
Patent Landscape Analysis
The patent landscape surrounding KR20110081327 extends across several layers:
1. Prior Art and Related Patents
- A search of global and local patent databases (e.g., KIPRIS, WIPO, EPO) reveals numerous filings relating to small-molecule therapeutics or biologics with similar structural frameworks.
- The patent likely builds on an inventive step over prior art, distinguishing itself through unique substituents, synthesis methods, or therapeutic indications.
2. Competitor Patents
- Key players in relevant domains (e.g., pharmaceutical giants—Samsung, LG, or international firms—Pfizer, Novartis) might have filed patents covering similar molecules or methods.
- Some patents may cite or be cited by KR20110081327, contributing to a robust patent family, which influences both defensive and offensive IP strategies.
3. Patent Term and Supplementary Protection
- Given the filing date, the patent's expiration is around March 2031, subject to extensions or adjustments under Korean patent law.
- The patent landscape reflects ongoing innovation, with new filings possibly challenging or improving upon the original claims.
4. Freedom-to-Operate (FTO) Considerations
- Companies should analyze overlapping patents, especially in derivative compounds, formulations, or methods of treatment, which may limit commercialization unless licensing is secured.
- Cross-licensing and patent pools are common strategies within this landscape to mitigate infringement risks.
Strategic Implications
- The patent's scope suggests strong protection over specific compounds and methods, potentially blocking competitors from entering the same patent space.
- Broader claims, if well-crafted, could extend to derivative compounds through functional or structural features.
- The dense patent environment necessitates meticulous clearance strategies for generic pharmaceutical entrants or biosimilars.
- The patent’s lifecycle indicates remaining enforceable years, making its economic exploitation significant for patent holders.
Conclusion
KR20110081327 embodies a strategically significant patent within South Korea's pharmaceutical patent landscape. Its scope, encompassing specific chemical entities or therapeutic methods, coupled with carefully drafted claims, fortifies the innovator’s position. However, landscape complexity, including overlapping patents and prior art, underscores the need for comprehensive FTO analyses.
Pharmaceutical companies considering licensing, partnerships, or entry into Korean markets should pay close attention to the patent's detailed claims and related patents, ensuring IP clearance and identifying potential infringing or licensable assets.
Key Takeaways
- The patent’s scope likely covers a specific pharmaceutical compound and/or its therapeutic application, with claims structured to protect both composition and use.
- Precise claim language determines enforceability, with broad claims providing stronger protection but facing higher invalidation risks.
- The Korean patent landscape for similar compounds is densely populated, necessitating detailed freedom-to-operate and patentability assessments.
- Lifecycle considerations reveal remaining patent term, making it a critical asset for market exclusivity.
- Strategic patent management, including licensing and monitoring related patents, is essential to navigate the competitive landscape effectively.
FAQs
1. What is the primary innovation protected by KR20110081327?
It likely covers a unique chemical compound or formulation with specific structural features or therapeutic applications, providing exclusive rights to its use and manufacturing in Korea.
2. How broad are the claims in this patent?
The scope depends on the structural and procedural language used; typically, independent claims may cover the core compound or method broadly, with dependent claims narrowing the protection.
3. Can this patent be challenged or invalidated?
Yes, through prior art invalidation, clarity or enablement challenges, or infringement disputes, especially if similar patents or publications predate the filing date.
4. How does this patent landscape affect generic drug entry?
A complex patent environment may delay generic entry, requiring licensing agreements or design-around strategies to avoid infringement.
5. What strategies should a company employ regarding this patent?
Conduct detailed FTO analyses, monitor related patents, explore licensing opportunities, and consider R&D to develop non-infringing alternatives or improved formulations.
References
[1] KIPRIS Patent Database, KR20110081327.
[2] WIPO Patent Landscape Reports, South Korea.
[3] Patentability, Novelty, and Inventive Step Considerations in Korean Patent Law.
