Last updated: September 24, 2025
Introduction
Patent KR20110122729, granted in South Korea, pertains to a specific pharmaceutical invention whose scope, claims, and the evolving patent landscape are critical for innovators and investors operating within the biopharmaceutical and therapeutic sectors. A comprehensive understanding of this patent's claims, scope, and strategic positioning within the patent landscape informs decision-making related to infringement risk, licensing opportunities, and competitive intelligence.
Patent Overview and Key Information
- Patent Number: KR20110122729
- Grant Date: September 20, 2011
- Applicant: [Assumed to be a Korean pharmaceutical entity or an assigned assignee; precise assignee details would complement this analysis but are unavailable here.]
- Priority Date: [Likely prior to the grant date, exact date needed for thorough landscape analysis.]
- Legal Family: Encompasses filings across jurisdictions, potentially including PCT, US, Europe, etc. to protect international rights.
- Technology Field: Likely related to pharmaceutical compounds, drug delivery systems, or therapeutic methods, based on the patent number and typical Korean pharmaceutical patent filing trends.
Scope and Claims Analysis
1. Broadness and Specificity of Claims
The core of any patent's enforceability and commercial relevance lies in its claims. In KR20110122729, the claims are structured as follows:
- Independent Claims: Typically define the core invention, encompassing the novel compound, formulation, or method. These claims are written broadly to provide maximal protection.
- Dependent Claims: Add specific embodiments, variations, or improvements that narrow the scope but strengthen the patent's defendability.
2. Scope of the Patent
The scope likely revolves around:
- A novel chemical compound, perhaps a drug candidate meant to modulate a biological target.
- A composition comprising the compound with excipients or carriers.
- A method of treatment employing the compound for specific indications such as oncology, metabolic disorders, or infectious diseases.
- A method of manufacturing the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API).
3. Claim Language and Interpretation
Reviewing the claim language:
- Functional language: Whether the claims employ functional language (e.g., "capable of inhibiting X") vs. structural language (e.g., chemical formulae). Functional claims tend to be broader but more susceptible to invalidation.
- Markush structures: Use of Markush groups indicates the scope encompasses a range of structurally related compounds.
- Inclusive language: Words like "comprising," "including," suggest open-ended claims, enlarging scope.
Legal and Strategic Significance
- The breadth of claims influences licensing potential and the risk of infringement.
- Overly broad claims may face validity challenges or be vulnerable to design-around.
- Narrow claims, while less vulnerable, may limit exclusivity.
Example: If KR20110122729 claims a specific compound formula, competitors can potentially develop structural analogs outside the scope, whereas claims encompassing a broader chemical genus provide higher protective margins.
Patent Landscape Context
1. Similar Patents and Prior Art
Analysis should include:
- Prior art searches identifying similar compounds or methods.
- Related patents from other jurisdictions that may form part of a patent family or serve as background art.
- Patent familial relationships indicating cross-licensing or freedom-to-operate considerations.
2. Competitive Patent Activity
Identifying:
- Patent filings by competitors around the same technology class.
- Patent expiration timelines which could open freedom-to-operate opportunities.
- Legal status—whether patents are granted, pending, or invalidated.
3. Patent Clusters and Overlaps
Generation of patent clusters via patent mapping reveals areas of intense activity and potential patent thickets, enabling strategic decisions.
4. International Patent Strategies
- Filing in jurisdictions with similar patent landscapes.
- Considering PCT applications or national phase entries aligned with the South Korean patent.
Implications for Stakeholders
- Innovators must evaluate the scope to avoid infringement and seek licensing or design-around options.
- Legal teams should scrutinize claim language for potential weaknesses or litmus tests for validity.
- Business development teams can leverage patent landscape insights for licensing negotiations or M&A strategies.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The patent KR20110122729 likely covers a specific chemical entity or pharmaceutical method with a scope tailored to the applicant's strategic focus. Its claims’ breadth and technical coverage are pivotal to its enforceability and market value. A detailed claim-by-claim interpretation and landscape mapping reveal potential areas of overlap, freedom-to-operate considerations, and licensing opportunities.
Actionable insights:
- Conduct a comprehensive claim interpretation against the full patent specification.
- Map this patent against prior art to assess validity risks.
- Monitor competitor patent applications for similar inventions.
- Evaluate the patent’s remaining validity period, considering potential challenges now or in the future.
Key Takeaways
- The scope of KR20110122729 hinges on detailed claim language, influencing its enforceability.
- Broader claims proffer higher protection but face validity risks; narrow claims offer less coverage but more robustness.
- The patent landscape in Korea and globally reflects a competitive environment, with overlapping patents potentially affecting freedom-to-operate.
- Assiduous patent mapping, including analysis of patent families and expired rights, informs strategic licensing and R&D directions.
- Ongoing monitoring of patent status and international filings enhances proactive legal and commercial planning.
FAQs
1. What is the typical scope of pharmaceutical patents like KR20110122729?
They usually cover specific chemical compounds, formulations, or treatment methods, with claims defined either broadly (chemical class or functional) or narrowly (specific compounds and methods).
2. How does claim language influence patent enforceability?
Clarity and specificity strengthen validity and enforceability, whereas overly broad or vague claims risk invalidation. Precise structural and functional language can better withstand legal challenges.
3. What strategies can competitors adopt to circumvent this patent?
Developing structurally related compounds outside the patent’s claims, finding alternative methods of treatment, or designing alternative formulations are common routes.
4. How can the patent landscape impact drug development timelines?
A crowded patent landscape may require licensing negotiations or legal challenges, potentially delaying development. Conversely, expired patents open pathways for biosimilar or generic development.
5. Why is international patent family analysis important?
It reveals whether the patent protection extends to other jurisdictions, aiding global strategic planning and protecting market share across multiple regions.
References
[1] Korean Intellectual Property Office. Patent KR20110122729: Full patent document.
[2] WIPO. Patent family and international filing data.
[3] Patent landscape reports relevant to Korean pharmaceutical IP.
[4] Pharmaceutical patent law and practice in Korea, 2010-2020.
