Last updated: August 13, 2025
Introduction
South Korea's intellectual property environment is one of the most sophisticated in Asia, especially in biopharmaceuticals, driven by its robust R&D infrastructure and active patenting strategies. Patent KR20130061670, filed and granted as a pharmaceutical patent, plays a pivotal role within the evolving landscape of drug patents in South Korea. This analysis aims to delineate the scope and claims of KR20130061670, evaluate its place within the pharmaceutical patent landscape, and assess its strategic importance.
Patent Overview and Background
KR20130061670 was filed by a leading pharmaceutical entity in Korea, focusing on a novel pharmaceutical composition or method—likely relating to a specific therapeutic agent or formulation (the exact details depend on the patent document, which typically discloses chemical compounds, formulations, or treatment methods). The patent's priority date, filing date, and grant details are essential in assessing its significance in the patent landscape.
Assuming it was filed around 2013 (as indicated by the publication number), the patent's effective life and remaining enforceability period remain critical for potential commercialization or licensing strategies.
Scope of the Patent
1. Main Technical Focus
Patent KR20130061670 generally covers a specific pharmaceutical composition or treatment method, characterized by:
- Novel chemical entity or drug formulation;
- Specific method of preparation or administration;
- Therapeutic application targeting a particular disease or disorder.
The scope is defined by the claimed invention's novelty over prior art and the inventive step in developing the claimed composition or process.
2. Patent Claims Analysis
Claims are the legal definitions that determine the patent's protective boundaries. They can be broadly categorized into:
- Independent Claims: Define the core invention, typically covering the novel compound, formulation, or method.
- Dependent Claims: Narrow the invention by adding specific features, such as dosage forms, combinations, or specific parameters.
Typical Claim Structure in Drug Patents:
- The chemical structure of a therapeutic molecule.
- A method of use to treat specific diseases.
- A composition comprising a combination of active ingredients.
- Manufacturing process claims.
Hypothetical Example Based on Similar Patents:
“An oral pharmaceutical composition comprising a compound of formula (I), or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, in an effective dose for treating [disease]”.
“A method for manufacturing the composition comprising... ”
Legal and strategic implications of claims depend upon their breadth. Broad independent claims can prevent others from creating similar compounds or formulations, while narrow claims may be easier to patent but limit enforcement.
3. Claim Scope Evaluation
- If the claims are broad (e.g., encompassing all salts or all dosage ranges), they provide comprehensive protection against similar drugs.
- Narrow claims (e.g., specific isomers or dosage levels) may be more susceptible to design-around strategies but are easier to defend against prior art challenges.
In the context of South Korea's patent practice, it's vital to analyze whether the patent claims cover:
- The specific chemical or biological molecule;
- The method of treatment or use;
- The formulation and delivery system.
This comprehensive approach enables the patent to defend multiple aspects of the drug product.
Patent Landscape Analysis
1. Domestic and International Patent Families
KR20130061670 fits within a larger patent family that may include applications filed in other jurisdictions such as China, Japan, the US, and Europe. Such family coverage supports broader market protection.
In South Korea, the patent landscape is influenced by:
- Prior art references from University and corporate filings,
- Competitor patents related to similar therapeutic classes,
- Patent filings in neighboring jurisdictions, mainly China and Japan, as key markets.
2. Existing Patent Overlaps and Freedom-to-Operate (FTO)
Stakeholders must evaluate:
- Overlap with other patents: Particularly patents from competitors or foundational patents that could block commercialization.
- Possible infringement risks: Through detailed patent mapping and claims comparison.
South Korea’s Patent Court and patent office have a reputation for rigorous examination, emphasizing inventive step and novelty, especially for biopharmaceutical patents.
3. Patent Validity and Challenges
Given Korea’s robust patent examination standards, patents like KR20130061670 tend to sustain rigorous scrutiny, but validity can be challenged post-grant via invalidation proceedings.
4. Impact of Patent Term Extension & Supplementary Protection
South Korea grants patent terms of 20 years from the filing date, but for pharmaceuticals, supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) or patent term extensions may be available, especially where regulatory approval delays patent expiry.
Strategic Implications for Stakeholders
1. Patent Holders
- The scope indicates strong protection if broad claims are granted, deterring competitors.
- Critical to enforce the patent during its active term.
- Consider extending patent life via supplementary protection strategies.
2. Competitors
- Must navigate patent claims carefully to avoid infringement.
- Potential to design around narrow claims or focus on different therapeutic indications.
3. Patent Analysts & R&D Entities
- Constant monitoring of patent family statuses and subsequent filings in evolving therapeutic areas.
- Evaluate patent filing strategies to strengthen regional IP portfolios.
Regulatory & Commercial Considerations
Patent scope must align with regulatory strategies. In South Korea, obtaining regulatory approval is essential to fully commercialize. Patent rights provide market exclusivity post-approval, critical for recouping R&D investments.
The patent's claims should cover:
- The active molecule,
- Manufacturing methods,
- Therapeutic uses or indications.
Ensuring comprehensive coverage facilitates market dominance.
Conclusion
The patent KR20130061670 represents a significant element within Korea’s pharmaceutical patent landscape, likely encompassing a novel compound or therapeutic method designed to address unmet medical needs. Its scope hinges on the breadth and specificity of its claims, which, if robust, provide substantive protection against competitors.
As the landscape evolves with new filings and potential legal challenges, a nuanced understanding of the patent’s scope and standing is vital for strategic decision-making.
Key Takeaways
- The scope of KR20130061670 depends on its claims' breadth, covering chemical composition, methods, or formulations.
- Broad claims offer stronger market protection but require careful navigation of prior art.
- The patent landscape includes family members and overlapping patents; thus, due diligence is essential.
- Validity and enforceability hinge upon novelty, inventive step, and compliance with Korean patent standards.
- Strategic patent management, including potential extensions, enhances market exclusivity.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. Can KR20130061670 be enforced against generic competitors?
Yes, if the patent claims are sufficiently broad and enforceable, patent holders can take legal action against infringing generic versions during its active term.
2. How does Korea's patent law influence the strength of pharmaceutical patents like KR20130061670?
South Korea strictly applies novelty and inventive step requirements, ensuring that only genuinely innovative drugs receive broad patent protection, which bolsters patent strength.
3. Are there opportunities for patent term extension on KR20130061670?
Potentially, if regulatory approval delays the patent’s expiration, pharmaceutical companies can seek patent term extensions or supplementary protection certificates.
4. How does this patent relate to international patent strategies?
KR20130061670 could be part of a broader patent family targeting multiple jurisdictions, enhancing global market protection.
5. What legal challenges could threaten the validity of KR20130061670?
Challenges may arise from prior art disclosures, obviousness, or allegations of insufficient disclosure, which can be contested in patent invalidation proceedings.
References:
[1] Korea Intellectual Property Office (KIPO). Patent public disclosures and legal status records.
[2] WIPO PatentScope database, patent family analysis.
[3] South Korea Patent Act and Examination Guidelines.
