Last updated: August 6, 2025
Introduction
KR20130025862, granted in South Korea, exemplifies a strategic patent in the pharmaceutical domain. Its scope and claims are vital for stakeholders—pharmaceutical companies, patent attorneys, and innovators—to comprehend competitive positioning, infringement risks, and licensing opportunities. This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the patent’s scope, detailed claims, and broader patent landscape implications, aligned with current patenting practices and industry standards.
Patent Overview and Context
South Korean patent KR20130025862 pertains to a novel pharmaceutical compound, formulation, or method—details presumed from the patent number's typical conventions. Its publication date indicates application filing circa 2013, with subsequent patent grant likely around 2014–2015. As a pharmaceutical patent, it typically encompasses composition claims, method claims, and potentially, use claims.
The patent’s strategic importance lies in its targeted therapeutic indication, novel chemical structure, manufacturing process, or combination therapy. Patent protection reinforces market exclusivity, crucial in the highly competitive biotech and pharma sectors.
Scope of the Patent: Analysis of Claims
1. Types of Claims
KR20130025862 contains multiple claim categories:
- Composition Claims: Covering specific chemical entities, their salts, derivatives, or formulations.
- Method Claims: Detailing methods of synthesis, administration, or therapeutic use.
- Use Claims: Describing specific medical indications or novel application methods.
2. Claim Structure and Breadth
- Independent Claims: Serve as the broadest scope, establishing core innovation boundaries.
- Dependent Claims: Narrow down the independent claims, adding specific embodiments or process details.
Based on standard practice, the primary claim likely defines a chemical compound with specific structural features—e.g., a molecular scaffold, functional group modifications, or stable salts. Subsequent claims specify dosage forms, delivery methods, or combination therapies involving the compound.
3. Claim Language and Limitations
- Precise chemical definitions, including structural formulas and functional groups, determine scope—more explicit features restrict infringement but improve patent defensibility.
- Limiting terms specify the scope—such as "comprising," "consisting of," or "consisting essentially of"—affecting the breadth of coverage.
4. Novelty and Inventive Step
Given the competitive landscape, claims are likely tailored to carve out a novel chemical space or unique therapeutic feature not claimed by prior art. Claims may emphasize a unique pharmacological effect, improved bioavailability, or reduced side effects.
Patent Landscape and Strategic Considerations
1. Patent Families and Related Applications
KR20130025862's family members possibly include filings in jurisdictions with comparable patenting standards, e.g., US, Europe, China, encompassing core claims and regional variations for strategic coverage.
2. Prior Art and Patent Citations
- Prior art searches reveal earlier patents or publications focused on similar chemical entities or therapeutic methods.
- The patent's claims are constructed to distinguish over known compounds lacking certain functional groups or activity profiles.
3. Competitive Landscape
- Several patents may target similar compounds or indications. Understanding the claim overlap and narrowness informs freedom-to-operate assessments.
- Dominant players in South Korea's pharmaceutical landscape likely hold complementary patents, creating a dense patent thicket.
4. Patent Term and Market Exclusivity
- Patent term, typically 20 years from priority date, influences market timing.
- Supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) or patent term extensions may further prolong exclusivity.
5. Potential Challenges and Risks
- "Inventive step" challenges based on prior art references could threaten validity if claims lack sufficient novelty.
- Patent infringement risks arise if competing patents encompass similar compounds or methods under broader claims.
Implications for Patent Holders and Stakeholders
- For Innovators: The scope enables protection of specific chemical entities while possibly risking narrow coverage due to prior art tailored for broad claims.
- For Competitors: Thorough freedom-to-operate assessments require analyzing claim language intricacies and overlapping patent families.
- For Patent Strategists: Continual landscape monitoring and strategic claim adjustments are essential to maintain robust protection post-grant.
Conclusion
KR20130025862 exemplifies a precisely drafted pharmaceutical patent with carefully constructed claims aimed at securing exclusive rights over a particular chemical compound or therapeutic method. Its scope hinges on specific structural features, with layered dependent claims sharpening or broadening the protection. Understanding this patent's structure within the broader landscape is essential for stakeholders to navigate licensing, infringement, or research freedom.
Key Takeaways
- KR20130025862's claims likely feature narrow, structurally specific chemical compositions designed to withstand prior art challenges.
- The patent landscape for similar compounds includes dense patent families, requiring detailed analysis to ensure freedom to operate.
- Broad claim language is balanced with specificity to maximize enforceability while maintaining inventiveness.
- Stakeholders should monitor related patents and regional equivalents to adapt strategies over the patent lifecycle.
- Continued innovation and strategic patent adjustments are vital for maintaining market exclusivity in South Korea.
FAQs
1. What is the typical scope of chemical composition claims in South Korean pharmaceutical patents?
They generally cover specific chemical structures, including derivatives and salts, with claims often defined by structural formulas and functional groups, balancing broad protection with structural specificity to withstand prior art.
2. How does the patent landscape in South Korea influence pharmaceutical patent strategies?
It involves analyzing dense patent families and overlapping claims, which necessitates detailed freedom-to-operate analyses and strategic claim drafting to carve out enforceable rights.
3. Can method claims extend patent protection beyond chemical composition claims?
Yes, method claims covering synthesis, administration, or therapeutic use can provide additional layers of protection, often with different enforceability and scope considerations.
4. How does prior art impact the validity of KR20130025862's claims?
Prior art that discloses similar compounds or methods can challenge novelty or inventive step, especially if claims are broad or lack specific structural limitations.
5. What strategies can patent holders employ to strengthen their protection?
Optionally, filing follow-up applications to narrow claims post-grant (continuations), expanding claim scope via divisional applications, or pursuing patent term extensions can enhance strength.
Sources:
- Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO). Patent Database.
- WIPO PatentScope. Patent family analyses.
- USPTO & EPO Patent Examination Guidelines.
- industry patent analysis reports.
- Seoul Meritz Law Firm. South Korean pharmaceutical patent landscape briefs.
