Last updated: August 1, 2025
Introduction
South Korea’s patent KR20110132475, filed in 2011, pertains to innovations in pharmaceutical compositions or processes, although the specific details of the patent are essential for strategic insight. A comprehensive understanding of its scope, claims, and place within the patent landscape is critical for stakeholders seeking to develop or commercialize similar therapeutics in South Korea or for competitive intelligence.
This analysis delineates the patent’s claim structure, evaluates its novelty and inventive step vis-à-vis prior arts, and contextualizes its position within South Korea’s emerging drug patent landscape.
Scope of the Patent
KR20110132475 broadly claims a novel pharmaceutical composition or process—likely in the domain of specific active compounds, formulations, or manufacturing methods. The scope, as in most pharmaceutical patents, hinges on:
- Core claims that protect specific chemical entities or classes.
- Method claims relating to synthesis, formulation, or administration.
- Use claims for treatment of targeted conditions.
The patent’s scope is typically anchored on the specificity of the chemical structures, dosages, or process parameters disclosed. A key aspect in such patents is the breadth of claims—whether they encompass a narrow subset aimed at particular compounds or a broader class designed for wide therapeutic coverage.
In this patent, the claims likely focus on a specific chemical derivative with improved pharmacokinetics or efficacy in treating particular disorders, possibly metabolic, neurological, or oncological conditions, aligned with the typical therapeutic breakthroughs registered in South Korea’s pharmaceutical patent filings.
Claims Analysis
Claim 1: Independent Claim
The primary independent claim likely defines the core compound or process. For example:
“A pharmaceutical composition comprising a compound of Formula I, wherein the compound exhibits [specified activity], or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt, solvate, or stereoisomer thereof.”
This claim asserts rights over the chemical entity and its variants, emphasizing the core innovation.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims elaborate on specifics, such as:
- Specific substitutions on the core structure.
- Dosage forms (tablet, capsule, injectable).
- Manufacturing methods.
- Combination with other agents.
An example:
“The composition of claim 1, wherein the compound of Formula I is administered in a dosage range of X mg to Y mg.”
Scope & Limitations
The scope depends on the breadth of the independent claim. If the claim encompasses a wide chemical class, it provides broader patent protection but may invite challenge under patent examination or legal scrutiny for obviousness or lack of novelty. Narrow claims targeting a specific compound or method provide precision but may be circumvented by designing around.
Claim Language and Precision
The clarity and novelty of pending and prior art references influence claim scope. Precise language—particularly definitions of structural features and activity—strengthens enforceability and defensibility.
Patent Landscape Context
Prior Art and Novelty
South Korea’s pharmaceutical patent landscape is robust, with strong filings from domestic and international companies addressing similar chemical classes or therapeutic indications. KR20110132475's novelty hinges on:
- A unique chemical modification not disclosed prior.
- A novel synthesis route.
- An unexpected therapeutic property.
Prior art searches (e.g., through KIPRIS, the Korean intellectual property database) would reveal whether similar compounds or processes exist in public or patent literature.
Inventive Step (Non-Obviousness)
For the patent to be enforceable, the claimed invention must involve an inventive step. This involves demonstrating that the claimed modifications or uses are not obvious to a person skilled in the art, especially given prior art disclosures. The patent’s scope might be widened if it presents a surprising result or a non-obvious benefit over existing solutions.
Patent Families & Related Applications
KR20110132475 forms part of a larger patent family possibly filed in other jurisdictions (e.g., WIPO, US, EU). Understanding these related filings informs:
- The breadth of protection sought globally.
- The strategic focus on certain markets.
- Potential challenges or infringements in other jurisdictions.
Legal and Regulatory Environment
South Korea's strict patent examination process, aligned with international standards like TRIPS, ensures quality claims. The patent’s enforceability is enhanced by compliance with statutory requirements, including novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability.
Implications for Industry Stakeholders
- Pharmaceutical Companies: Should review claims for freedom-to-operate and assess overlap with their pipelines.
- Research Entities: Must examine whether similar innovations are patentable or if existing claims preclude patenting novel compounds.
- Legal Practitioners: Need to consider potential challenges based on prior art or claim scope.
Conclusion
The scope of KR20110132475 delineates a protected chemical compound or process aimed at therapeutic utility. Its claims appear structured to safeguard the core innovation while allowing certain formulations and methods. Its position within South Korea’s competitive patent landscape reflects a growing emphasis on innovative pharmaceuticals, fortified by patent law that favors clear, novel claims.
Statistically, such patents serve as defensive tools and market-entry barriers, shaping the strategic considerations of patent holders and competitors alike.
Key Takeaways
- The patent’s breadth hinges on the specificity of its core chemical or process claims.
- Its validity depends on demonstrating novelty and inventive step over prior art.
- Strategic analysis involves reviewing related patent families and potential overlaps.
- Firms should conduct comprehensive freedom-to-operate assessments before commercialization.
- The evolving South Korean patent landscape favors firms with robust, well-defended patent portfolios aligned with national and international standards.
FAQs
Q1: How does KR20110132475 compare with similar patents in other jurisdictions?
A1: The patent's core claims are likely aligned with international filings, but differences may exist due to jurisdiction-specific patent laws and prior art references. Cross-referencing with PCT or EPO applications can clarify overlaps and differences.
Q2: Can the claims be broadened during patent prosecution?
A2: It depends on the initial claim scope and examiner feedback. Amendments during prosecution may broaden or narrow the claims, but broadening is often limited to maintain novelty and inventive step.
Q3: What are the risks of patent infringement for competitors?
A3: Competitors risk infringement if their products or processes fall within the scope of the claims. A detailed claim analysis and infringement opinion are necessary before market entry.
Q4: How does this patent impact generic drug development?
A4: If the patent's claims are broad, they could prevent generic versions from entering the market until patent expiry or invalidation. Patent challenges or licensing negotiations might be pursued.
Q5: Are there opportunities for patent litigation or opposition?
A5: Yes. Oppositions or invalidity trials can contest the patent if prior art or lack of inventive step is demonstrated, especially within South Korea’s legal framework.
References:
- KIPO Patent Search Database (KIPRIS)
- South Korea Patent Act, Rules, and Examination Guidelines
- International Patent Classification (IPC) relevant to pharmaceuticals
