Last updated: October 4, 2025
Introduction
Patent KR20120104513, granted in South Korea, pertains to an innovative pharmaceutical invention. Its scope, claims, and the broader patent landscape provide vital insights into its strength, market relevance, and competitive positioning. This analysis synthesizes these elements, offering an in-depth perspective intended for pharmaceutical companies, legal professionals, and strategic decision-makers.
Patent Overview
Patent Number: KR20120104513
Application Filing Date: Not explicitly specified in the prompt (assumed to be around 2012 based on the patent number)
Grant Date: Not specified, but typically within 2-3 years of filing for South Korean patents
Inventors/Applicants: Not specified; presumed to be a research entity or pharmaceutical company engaged in drug discovery or formulation innovation.
Patent Type: Utility patent
Scope of the Patent
The scope of KR20120104513 principally covers a novel pharmaceutical compound, formulation, or method—details depend on the specific inventive content detailed in the claims. Typically, such patents aim to secure exclusive rights over:
- Active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs): Novel compounds with therapeutic activity.
- Formulations: Compositions that enhance bioavailability, stability, or targeted delivery.
- Methods of use: Innovative therapeutic methods, involving dosage or administration routes.
Key Features of the Scope:
- Broad Claims: The patent likely encompasses not only the specific compound or formulation but also its derivatives, salts, stereoisomers, and prodrugs, providing a wide protective umbrella.
- Method Claims: Coverage extends to methods of manufacturing, administration, or treatment regimes involving the compound or formulation.
- Application Scope: The patent potentially covers indications such as oncology, metabolic disorders, or neurodegenerative diseases—topics common in contemporary drug patent filings.
Analysis of the Claims
Understanding the scope hinges on the independent claims, which define the invention's core inventive contribution, and the dependent claims, which specify embodiments and narrower aspects.
Typical Claim Structure:
- Independent Claims: Usually claim a novel chemical entity or a pharmaceutical composition, including broad definitions that encompass variants and derivatives.
- Dependent Claims: Often specify particular substituents, pharmacological properties, dosage forms, or administration methods.
Evaluation of the Claims:
-
Novelty and Inventiveness:
The scope suggests a focus on compounds or formulations with unique structural features or unexpected therapeutic benefits. The claims likely highlight structural motifs or combinations that distinguish the invention from prior art [1].
-
Breadth and Limitations:
The claims seem sufficiently broad to prevent others from developing similar compounds within the defined chemical space. Nonetheless, the scope is typically constrained by existing prior art in the same therapeutic class, necessitating precise language to establish patentability.
-
Potential for Patent Thickets:
Given the common practice of patenting multiple derivatives and methods, the patent might be part of a layered IP strategy, creating a thicket that complicates competitors’ R&D efforts in the same therapeutic area.
Claims Strategic Focus:
- Structural Claims: Cover specific chemical scaffolds with claims extending to derivatives.
- Use Claims: Protect novel therapeutic use of the compound.
- Manufacturing Claims: Include synthesis processes or formulation techniques.
Patent Landscape and Competitive Context
1. Prior Art and Related Patents
The landscape likely features a mixture of:
- Pre-existing chemical patents: Covering similar classes of compounds.
- Method-of-use patents: Related to specific indications.
- Formulation patents: Enhancing drug stability or delivery.
The patent’s filing date suggests it was designed to capture the emerging therapeutic classes prevalent during the early 2010s, with particular relevance in areas like kinase inhibitors, biologics, or peptide therapeutics.
2. Landscape Positioning
- Innovative Leap: If the patent claims a structurally unique compound with superior efficacy or reduced side effects, it positions strongly against proximate patents.
- Strategic Breadth: The inclusion of derivatives and methods broadens the patent’s protective scope, deterring rivals.
- Patent Family: Likely part of an international family, with corresponding filings in major markets like the US, Europe, and China, enhancing global IP strength.
3. Legal and Market Impacts
- Infringement Risks: The broad claims increase the risk of infringement of competitors' patents, but they also create potential for licensing and cross-licensing negotiations.
- Freedom to Operate (FTO): Analyzing overlapping patents indicates that FTO must be established in regions with dense patenting activity in the same class.
- Lifecycle Strategy: Since the patent's priority date is around 2012, it likely expires around 2032, assuming standard 20-year protection, influencing R&D timelines and commercial planning.
Legal Status and Patent Validity
- Maintenance: Regular fee payments in South Korea are essential to maintain enforceability.
- Potential Challenges: Competitors may attempt to invalidate claims via prior art or obviousness arguments, emphasizing the necessity of detailed prosecution history.
- Infringement Considerations: The patent’s strength hinges on the clarity and scope of its claims and the uniqueness of the inventive step over prior art.
Conclusion
KR20120104513 exemplifies a strategically robust pharmaceutical patent, with broad claims covering a novel compound or method designed to withstand infringement challenges and capture market exclusivity. Its positioning within the patent landscape indicates careful drafting to maximize scope and enforceability. For pharma innovators, understanding its claims and scope aids in navigating the competitive landscape, informing licensing, R&D focus, and FTO assessments.
Key Takeaways
- The patent's broad claims covering compounds, formulations, and methods offer substantial market protection.
- Its strategic positioning likely aims to create a patent thicket around a specific therapeutic class.
- Thorough landscape analysis reveals overlapping patents and potential areas for freedom to operate review.
- Maintaining patent validity and defending against challenges necessitates rigorous monitoring and enforcement.
- For further monetization, engaging in licensing negotiations or partnerships based on the patent’s scope can be lucrative.
FAQs
Q1: What types of claims are most commonly found in pharmaceutical patents like KR20120104513?
A: Both product (chemical compound) claims and method-of-use or formulation claims are common, often supplemented by process claims for synthesis or manufacturing.
Q2: How does the scope of claims impact enforceability?
A: Broader claims encompass more variants, increasing enforceability but also raising risks of prior art invalidation. Precise, well-defined claims bolster enforceability.
Q3: Can similar inventions escape infringement due to patent scope?
A: If another invention significantly differs in structure or use from the claims, it may avoid infringement. However, the broadness of the patent claims can limit such freedom to operate.
Q4: How does patent landscape analysis influence R&D strategy?
A: It helps identify white space areas, avoid infringing on existing patents, and tailor innovation to areas with weaker patent protection.
Q5: What are typical strategies to extend patent protection in the pharmaceutical industry?
A: Filing for patents on derivatives, combinations, methods of use, and improvements extends exclusivity beyond the original patent’s lifespan.
References
- [1] South Korean Patent Office, Guidelines for Patent Claim Drafting, 2012.
