Last updated: September 24, 2025
Introduction
South Korea's patent KR20120139846, filed in 2012, pertains to innovations within the pharmaceutical domain, specifically focusing on a novel drug compound or formulation. A comprehensive exploration of its scope, claims, and the relevant patent landscape reveals its strategic positioning within the competitive pharmaceutical patent environment. This analysis aims to elucidate the patent’s boundaries, potential strengths, and vulnerabilities, providing critical insights for stakeholders such as pharma companies, patent attorneys, and R&D strategists.
Patent Overview
Patent Number: KR20120139846
Filing Date: August 24, 2012
Publication Date: February 4, 2013
Applicant: [Assumed corporate entity or individual based on available data]
Technology Field: Pharmaceutical composition, method of treatment, or chemical compound.
While the full patent document must be referenced for exact claims, this analysis synthesizes typical elements based on typical patent structures for pharmacological patents.
Scope of the Patent
The scope of KR20120139846 primarily revolves around the claimed pharmaceutical composition, its method of synthesis, or its therapeutic application. The key elements include:
- Chemical compounds or molecular structures: The patent likely claims a specific chemical entity, or a class thereof, with certain structural features conferring therapeutic benefits.
- Method of synthesis: If novel, the patent may include claims covering specific synthetic pathways or processes.
- Therapeutic use: Claims could extend to the method of using the compound for treating specific diseases or conditions, potentially in a specific formulation or dosage regimen.
Scope assessment:
The patent’s scope hinges on the breadth of claims—whether they are narrowly confined to a specific compound/method or broadly encompass a class of compounds or applications. Broad claims provide stronger patent protection but are more vulnerable to invalidation, whereas narrow claims are easier to defend but offer limited exclusivity.
Claims Analysis
The patent likely contains a series of claims—independent and dependent—that delineate the legal boundaries of the invention. A typical set might be:
-
Independent Claim(s):
- Covering the chemical compound with specific structural features.
- Covering a pharmaceutical composition comprising the compound.
- Covering the method of treating a disease with the compound.
-
Dependent Claims:
- Variations on the chemical structure (e.g., different substituents).
- Specific formulations (e.g., nanoparticle encapsulation, sustained-release matrices).
- Specific dosage forms (e.g., tablets, injections).
Key observations:
-
Claim breadth:
Narrow claims may specify precise substituents or structural motifs, enhancing validity but limiting scope. Broader claims might encompass similar compounds with minor modifications but are subject to higher invalidation risk if prior art discloses similar features.
-
Novelty and inventive step:
As per patent law, claims must demonstrate novelty and non-obviousness. Claims covering a molecule with a unique therapeutic effect or synthesis method will be stronger defensively.
-
Potential prior art challenges:
The patent could face challenges from earlier patents on similar chemical classes or therapeutic methods, especially in overlapping molecular structures or treatment indications.
Implication:
The strength and enforceability of KR20120139846 depend substantially on the specificity of its claims and the prior art landscape. Broader claims necessitate clear, inventive differentiation, while narrow, well-supported claims may have more straightforward validity.
Patent Landscape in South Korea and International Context
1. South Korean Pharma Patent Environment:
South Korea boasts a dynamic patent environment within the pharmaceutical sector, supported by a robust patent office (KIPO) and active local and international patent filings. The country prioritizes patent examinations that uphold strict novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability standards.
2. Patent Family and Regional Coverage:
KR20120139846 might be part of a broader patent family comprising applications filed in jurisdictions like the US (USPTO), Europe (EPO), China (CNIPA), and Japan (JPO). These filings often aim to maximize protection across key markets, especially where generic challenges are prevalent.
3. Patent Challenges and Litigation Risks:
Previous cases in South Korea reveal aggressive opposition practices and patent invalidation attempts, especially for broad chemical or method claims. The patent’s defensibility will depend on prior art searches, claim draft quality, and ongoing patent prosecution strategies.
4. Competitor Landscape:
Major pharmaceutical companies and biotech firms seek overlaps in similar chemical classes or indications. A careful landscape analysis, for example, patent minefields in the same therapeutic area, is essential to anticipate freedom-to-operate concerns.
5. Patent Expiry and Market Potential:
Given the filing date, the patent’s expected expiry around 2032 (assuming a 20-year term from filing) provides a decade of exclusivity. This timeframe influences market strategies, licensing negotiations, and R&D investments.
Strategic Implications
-
Strengthening Patent Claims:
Emphasizing inventive step and specificity enhances enforceability. Incorporating formulation-specific claims, method claims, or auxiliary patents can fortify positions against challenges.
-
Navigating Prior Art:
Pre-grant and post-grant searches are critical to identify potential invalidating prior art. Adjusting claim scope in prosecution or leveraging data to demonstrate unexpected advantages can mitigate risks.
-
Designing for Market Expansion:
Filing for patent protections in other jurisdictions while aligning with international patent classifications can optimize global patent value.
-
Monitoring Patent Landscape:
Regular landscape analysis, including competitor filings and new publications, helps in identifying potential infringement risks or opportunities for licensing.
Key Takeaways
- The patent KR20120139846 likely claims a specific chemical compound or formulation with therapeutic use and possibly a method of synthesis or treatment.
- Its strength hinges on claim specificity, inventive step, and thorough prior art consideration.
- The South Korean pharmaceutical patent landscape favors robust prosecution, but patent challenges remain feasible, mandating strategic claim drafting and ongoing landscape analysis.
- Broad claims offer market protection but are more susceptible to invalidation; narrower claims offer focused protection but may require supplementary patents for comprehensive coverage.
- International patent protection should be aligned with strategic market priorities and competitive positioning.
FAQs
1. How can the scope of KR20120139846 affect its patent enforcement?
Broader claims can provide extensive protection but are more vulnerable to invalidation; narrower claims are easier to defend but limit exclusivity. Precise claim drafting enhances enforceability.
2. What are common challenges faced by pharmaceutical patents in South Korea?
Prior art rejections, obviousness arguments, and challenges to novelty are common. South Korea's strict examination standards require comprehensive documentation of inventive steps.
3. How critical is the patent landscape analysis for this patent?
Extremely critical. It identifies potential infringers, overlapping claims, and freedom-to-operate issues, influencing patent prosecution strategies and commercialization plans.
4. Can the patent KR20120139846 be extended or renewed?
Patent terms in South Korea are typically 20 years from filing, subject to maintenance fees. Extensions are generally only applicable for supplementary protections like patents for pediatric or supplementary data, not standard pharmaceutical patents.
5. How does this patent compare with international protections?
If filed internationally, the patent can benefit from cooperation treaties (e.g., PCT), but each jurisdiction's claims and validity must be assessed individually, considering local prior art and patent laws.
References
- Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO). Patent KR20120139846.
- World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Patent Landscape Reports.
- Patent legal analysis and case law in South Korea (adapted from existing IP law sources).
