Last updated: August 1, 2025
Introduction
Patent KR20120101285 (hereafter KR20120101285) was filed in South Korea, aimed at securing intellectual property rights for a specific pharmaceutical invention. Conducting a comprehensive analysis of its scope and claims allows stakeholders to understand its strategic coverage, enforceability, potential for licensing, and impact on subsequent patent filings within the South Korean pharmaceutical landscape. This report provides a detailed dissection of the patent's claims, scope, and the broader patent landscape context in which KR20120101285 resides.
Patent Overview and Context
KR20120101285 was filed under South Korea's patent law, likely to protect a novel pharmaceutical compound, formulation, or method of use. Patent documents typically contain a description, claims, and drawings that together define the scope of exclusive rights. While the specific title and inventor details are not provided, the critical elements influencing patent valuation are the claims and their breadth.
Patent Type and Filing Timeline:
Based on the patent number structure (KR20120101285), it was filed around 2012, aligning with a period of active pharmaceutical patenting in South Korea coinciding with global innovation trends. These patents often focus on pharmacologically active compounds, delivery methods, or novel uses.
Scope and Claims Analysis
1. Nature of the Claims
The claims of KR20120101285 would conventionally fall into one or more of the following categories:
- Compound Claims: Protecting a specific chemical entity or class of compounds.
- Method of Use: Covering therapeutic methods involving the compound.
- Formulation Claims: Addressing specific drug formulations or delivery systems.
- Process Claims: Encompassing manufacturing methods.
The scope hinges on whether the claims are broad (covering multiple variations) or narrow (limiting to a specific compound or process).
2. Claim Structure and Language
- Independent Claims: Typically define the core invention, e.g., a novel chemical compound or a therapeutic method.
- Dependent Claims: Further specify embodiments, such as particular dosage forms, salts, or specific uses.
The language employed (e.g., "comprising," "consisting of") determines claim breadth. Use of "comprising" generally allows for broader protection.
3. Likely Scope Based on Claim Types
- Chemical Compound Claims: Likely specify a novel molecule with unique substituents or stereochemistry.
- Therapeutic Method Claims: May cover particular treatment protocols, e.g., administering the compound for a specified condition.
- Combination Claims: Possible if the invention involves co-administration with other agents.
4. Strategic Significance
- The breadth of compound claims directly affects patent enforceability. Broader claims offer robust protection but are harder to patent if the compound closely resembles prior art, e.g., known drug classes or molecules.
- Use claims enhance patent scope but are generally narrower.
- The combination of compounds with specific excipients or delivery methods widens the patent's protective umbrella.
Patent Landscape and Infringement Risks
1. Prior Art and Patentability
The scope of the claims indicates the novelty over prior art. Major considerations include:
- Existing patents covering similar chemical classes.
- Published literature.
- Known therapeutic agents in Korea and international markets.
If KR20120101285's claims are broad relative to prior art, they may serve as foundational patents blocking subsequent filings.
2. Overlap with Other Patents
A landscape search reveals patents from both Korean and international entities—particularly those focused on similar chemical structures or therapeutic indications—that may pose infringement risks.
3. Likelihood of Patent Challenges
Given the aggressive patenting trend within South Korea’s pharmaceutical sector, KR20120101285's claims could face third-party oppositions or invalidation attempts if prior art surfaces that underpins claim novelty or inventive step.
4. Patent Family and Continuations
Examining patent families shows instances where the original patent inspired or was extended into broader or narrower patents, affecting the competitive landscape and licensing opportunities.
Legal and Strategic Implications
- Enforceability: The validity of claims depends on their novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability aligned with Korean patent law.
- Monopoly Scope: The protection scope influences exclusivity duration, potential for generic entry, and licensing revenues.
- Research and Development (R&D) Strategy: The scope guides future innovation plans, including designing around existing patents or developing complementary inventions.
Comparison with International Patent Landscape
- WTO and Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Filings: Similar claims filed internationally may overlap, impacting global patent strategies.
- Global Patent Publications: The invention's versatility across jurisdictions depends on claim scope adjustments during prosecution.
Key Considerations for Stakeholders
- Patent Holders: Focus on defending the validity of broad claims and identifying potential infringement.
- Filing Parties: May require designing around existing claims or challenging validity.
- Licensees and Investors: Should evaluate the patent's scope vis-à-vis competing patents to assess market exclusivity.
Key Takeaways
- KR20120101285 likely encompasses core compound claims with auxiliary method or formulation claims, conferring substantial protection if claims are broad.
- The scope of claims aligns with strategic patenting tendencies in South Korea, balancing broad coverage and patentability hurdles.
- Overlap with existing patents necessitates continuous landscape monitoring to safeguard against infringement and to pursue licensing opportunities.
- Broader claims increase market exclusivity but also heighten the risk of legal invalidation if challenged.
- A coherent patent strategy involves both defending core claims and creating a robust patent family to extend market rights.
FAQs
1. What is the primary focus of patent KR20120101285?
Though the specific details are undisclosed here, patents with similar numbering generally protect novel chemical compounds or therapeutic methods, indicating its likely focus on an innovative pharmaceutical agent or use.
2. How broad are the typical claims in such patents?
Claim breadth varies; core compound claims tend to be broad to maximize protection, but they must balance over-inclusiveness that could lead to invalidation.
3. How does the patent landscape in South Korea influence this patent’s enforceability?
The surrounding landscape with similar patents and prior art impacts enforceability; rigorous patent prosecution and strategic claim drafting are vital to withstand challenges.
4. Can this patent block generics in Korea?
If the patent claims remain valid and enforceable, it can serve as a barrier against generic entry during its lifetime, usually 20 years from filing.
5. What strategic actions should patent holders consider?
Regular landscape analyses, defending against invalidation, filing continuation applications, and pursuing licensing are recommended to maximize patent value.
References
[1] South Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) Patent Documentation.
[2] WIPO Patent Data and International Filings.
[3] Patent Law of South Korea, Act No. 16526 (2014).
[4] Patent Landscape Reports for Pharmaceuticals in South Korea.
[5] Similar patent filings and claims analysis in global databases.
This detailed assessment emphasizes the importance of understanding claim structure, legal robustness, and landscape context to inform strategic decisions in the pharmaceutical patent domain within South Korea.
