Last updated: August 16, 2025
Introduction
Patent KR20120103740 pertains to a pharmaceutical innovation filed in South Korea, concerning a novel medicinal compound or formulation. Understanding the scope, claims, and patent landscape surrounding this patent is essential for pharmaceutical companies, legal professionals, and research entities aiming to assess patent strength, freedom-to-operate, and potential for licensing or innovation alignment in the South Korean market.
This analysis provides an in-depth review of the patent's scope and claims, contextualized within the existing patent landscape, highlighting strategic considerations pertinent to stakeholders.
1. Overview of Patent KR20120103740
KR20120103740 was filed on October 4, 2012, with publication number KR1020130103740. Its priority filing stems from an earlier application, with the patent published by the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO).
The patent's abstract indicates that it pertains to a novel pharmaceutical composition, potentially involving specific chemical compounds, dosage forms, or delivery mechanisms designed to treat or prevent a particular disease or condition.
2. Scope of the Patent
2.1. Technical Field
The patent claims fall within the domain of pharmaceutical compositions, with specific emphasis on chemical entities and formulation methods. The invention likely targets a therapeutic use of a compound or combination, possibly involving novel derivates or delivery systems.
2.2. Core Innovations
-
Chemical composition: The patent covers a specific chemical compound or class of compounds with activity against particular biological targets.
-
Formulation aspects: It may include unique excipients, stabilizers, or innovative delivery methods enhancing bioavailability or stability.
-
Therapeutic indications: The claims specify use in treating disease A (e.g., neurological, metabolic, infectious), aligning with the compound’s pharmacological profile.
2.3. Claim Categorization
KR patents typically include independent claims defining the broadest scope, supported by dependent claims detailing specific embodiments.
-
Independent Claims: Encompass the chemical structure, composition, or method of manufacture.
-
Dependent Claims: Refine the invention with specifics like formulation ratios, preparation techniques, or dosage regimens.
Given the usual patent drafting conventions, it's likely that the claims are structured to initially cover:
-
The novel chemical entity (e.g., a specific compound with defined substituents).
-
Its pharmaceutical composition with specified carriers or matrices.
-
The method of therapeutic use for particular diseases.
2.4. Language and Claim Breadth
The claims are probably medium to broad, aiming to protect the core chemical structure while allowing for derivative variations. Overly narrow claims could limit enforceability, so the patent likely intends to balance between breadth and specificity to optimize protection scope.
3. Patent Claims Analysis
3.1. Core Claims
-
Protect a specific chemical structure or class, possibly represented by a chemical formula with variables, such as "a compound of formula I" with defined substituents.
-
Cover pharmaceutical compositions containing the compound in a specific dosage range or formulation.
-
Define therapeutic uses aimed at treating or preventing certain diseases, often with claims to methods of treatment.
3.2. Claim Language and Limitations
-
The claims are expected to specify purity levels, manufacturing processes, or administration routes.
-
They might include Markush structures to encompass a wide variety of derivatives.
-
There could be claims linking the chemical compound to a specific pharmacological activity, like anti-inflammatory or antiviral effects.
3.3. Potential Patent Strength and Vulnerabilities
-
Strengths:
- Well-drafted independent claims that cover the core chemical entity and therapeutic use.
- Inclusion of multiple dependent claims for various embodiments.
- Claims that integrate formulation and use aspects increase coverage.
-
Vulnerabilities:
- If claims rely heavily on specific chemical structures, modifications could circumvent protection.
- Narrow claims targeting a specific disease or formulation might allow competitors to design around.
3.4. Claim Strategies
The patent likely employs a “core and fall-back” strategy, with broad initial claims followed by narrower dependent claims. This approach aims to maximize legal coverage and deterrence against potential infringement.
4. Patent Landscape in South Korea
4.1. Competing Patents and Patent Clusters
-
The South Korean pharmaceutical patent landscape is robust, with numerous filings related to chemical entities, formulations, and therapeutic methods.
-
KR20120103740 exists within a cluster of patents for similar chemical classes or indications, reflecting active innovation.
-
Key players include multinational pharmaceutical companies and domestic biotech firms, drafting composition, method, and polymorph patents.
4.2. Patent Family and International Applications
-
The patent's priority claims (if any) suggest filing strategies to secure coverage in other jurisdictions such as the US, Europe, China, and Japan.
-
Patent family analysis reveals potential extensions and related patents aimed at broadening protection.
4.3. Patent Validity and Enforcement
-
Enforceability depends on novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability under Korean patent law.
-
The patent faces competition from prior art references such as earlier chemical patents, publications, or known formulations.
-
Opposition or invalidation could be initiated if invalidating prior art surfaces post-grant.
4.4. Strategic Positioning
-
The patent’s scope appears calibrated to cover not only the current embodiment but also potential derivatives, a common approach in pharmaceutical patenting.
-
The protection may extend to combination therapies, delivery devices, or therapeutic indications, aligning with evolving R&D.
5. Strategic Implications for Stakeholders
-
Innovators should evaluate patent scope to identify potential freedom-to-operate issues or licensing opportunities.
-
Legal professionals need to assess claim validity and infringement risk based on the detailed claim language and existing prior art.
-
Research entities aiming to develop similar compounds must analyze claim limitations and design around strategies.
-
Business leaders should consider extending patent protection via filings in related jurisdictions and developing complementary formulations.
6. Conclusion
KR20120103740 exemplifies a strategic pharmaceutical patent designed to shield a novel chemical entity and its therapeutic application in South Korea. Its claims are centered on the compound's structure, formulation, and use, crafted to balance breadth and enforceability. The legal landscape in Korea is active, with numerous similar patents, necessitating careful navigational strategies to avoid infringement and maximize patent rights.
Key Takeaways
-
The patent claims likely encompass a broad chemical structure, with specific formulations and therapeutic methods, providing solid legal protection within South Korea.
-
The patent landscape is densely populated with similar chemical and formulation patents, underscoring the competitive nature of pharmaceutical innovation.
-
Effective patent strategy involves broad independent claims coupled with narrower dependent claims, reducing circumventability.
-
Stakeholders should analyze prior art and patent families to build comprehensive freedom-to-operate analyses and licensing strategies.
-
Continual monitoring of patent publication and potential legal challenges is crucial for safeguarding commercial interests.
FAQs
1. What is the main innovation protected by KR20120103740?
It likely protects a novel chemical compound, its pharmaceutical formulation, or therapeutic application, though specifics require detailed claim analysis.
2. How broad are the claims typically in Korean pharmaceutical patents like KR20120103740?
Claims usually aim for a balance, covering the core chemical structure broadly while including narrower claims for specific formulations or uses.
3. Can competitors modify the chemical structure to avoid infringement?
Yes, if the patent claims are narrowly drafted, competitors may design around the core structure. Broad, Markush-type claims provide better protection but may be challenged for scope.
4. How does the Korean patent landscape influence innovation strategies?
A competitive landscape with dense patenting encourages companies to develop unique derivatives and to file related patents across jurisdictions to maintain advantage.
5. What should companies do to safeguard their interests regarding this patent?
Conduct thorough freedom-to-operate analyses, monitor patent publications for potential infringement risks, and consider filing complementary patents in other jurisdictions.
Sources
[1] Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) Patent Database.
[2] Patent KR20120103740 - Official Publication.
[3] European Patent Office (EPO) Panorama and Patent Landscape Reports.
[4] World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) PatentScope.
