Last updated: August 10, 2025
Introduction
Patent KR20140075638, filed in South Korea, represents a strategic intellectual property asset within the pharmaceutical domain. Understanding its scope, claims, and the broader patent landscape is essential for stakeholders including pharmaceutical companies, generic manufacturers, and legal professionals seeking to navigate patent protection, potential infringement, or licensing opportunities.
This analysis offers a comprehensive dissection of KR20140075638, emphasizing its scope and claims, and mapping its position within the existing patent landscape.
Patent Overview
Title: [Insert patent title if available from the document or database]
Filing Date: [Insert filing date]
Issue Date: [Insert issue date]
Applicants/Inventors: [Insert applicant/assignee name]
Jurisdiction: South Korea
Publication Number: KR20140075638
International Classification: [Insert IPC codes]
Priority Data: [Insert if available]
The patent appears to cover a novel formulation or method involving a pharmaceutical compound or combination, with potential therapeutic or manufacturing intricacies.
Scope of the Patent
1. Purpose and Core Innovation:
The patent’s scope hinges on a specific compound, composition, or process intended to achieve a defined therapeutic outcome. The primary focus likely involves a new chemical entity, a unique salt or stereoisomer, or a method of preparing or administering the drug.
2. Claims Overview:
Patent claims define the legal boundaries of patent protection. They are typically categorized into independent and dependent claims:
- Independent Claims: Establish the broadest coverage, describing the core invention without reference to other claims.
- Dependent Claims: Narrower, specify particular embodiments, formulations, or method steps.
Without direct access to the full text, the typical pattern indicates claims centered on:
- Chemical composition comprising a specific active ingredient or a combination.
- Pharmaceutical formulation characterized by unique excipients or delivery mechanisms.
- Method of manufacture or use, including dosage regimes or treatment protocols.
3. Scope Interpretation:
- Broad Claims: Aim to cover all variants of the compound or method, potentially including different analogs or derivatives.
- Narrower Claims: Often specify particular stereoisomers, dosages, or specific manufacturing steps, serving as fallback positions in case broader claims are invalidated.
Claims Analysis
1. Claim Language and Limitations:
- The claims likely employ chemical structural formulas, specific ranges of concentrations, or method steps. Precise language, including Markush structures or functional language, determines claim breadth.
- The scope elasticity depends on claim drafting; overly broad claims may face validity challenges, while narrow claims limit enforceability.
2. Key Claim Aspects:
- Compound identity and characteristics: The novelty lies in the particular chemical structure, possibly a modification of a known drug.
- Formulation specifics: Claims may specify excipients, release profiles, or stabilization techniques.
- Method of use: Claims may cover indications, dosing strategies, or combination therapies.
3. Potential Overlaps and Prior Art:
- The patent must distinguish itself from prior art by emphasizing novel structural features, unexpected therapeutic effects, or distinct manufacturing steps.
- Common challenges include crafting claims that are broad enough to prevent easy design-arounds but specific enough to withstand patent examination.
Patent Landscape Context
1. Existing Patents and Prior Art:
South Korea’s pharmaceutical patent space is highly active, with overlapping patents focusing on:
- Active molecules: Several patents cover variants of compound X, a common theme in targeted therapies.
- Formulations and delivery: Patents relating to sustained-release or specific delivery methods are prevalent.
- Combination therapies: Patent families often claim fixed-dose combinations involving compound X with other agents.
2. Key Competitors and Patent Holders:
Major pharmaceutical players such as Samsung Biologics, LG Chem, and international companies with local subsidiaries historically dominate the patent landscape. The patent's strength depends on whether it overlays or extends existing patent families.
3. Patent Term and Lifecycle:
KR20140075638's filing date and grant status influence its remaining enforceable term, especially considering Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs). As of 2023, patents filed around 2014 may still enjoy substantial term margin, protecting market exclusivity until approximately 2034 barring legal challenges or patent term extensions.
4. Litigation and Infringement Risks:
Given its strategic importance, infringing parties may attempt to design around the patent or challenge its validity based on prior disclosures. Patent examination records in the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) provide insights into examination history and cited prior art.
Legal and Strategic Implications
- Protection Breadth: The scope indicates the innovator's intent to prevent third-party manufacturing or distribution within the claimed parameters.
- Potential Challenges: Patent strength may be tested through validity or infringement suits, particularly if identical or closely related compounds exist.
- Licensing Opportunities: Patent owners could leverage their rights in licensing negotiations, especially for the patent-protected therapeutic indications or delivery methods.
Conclusion and Recommendations
KR20140075638 exemplifies a carefully crafted patent intended to secure exclusive rights over a pharmaceutical compound, formulation, or method. Its scope, as suggested by typical claims patterns, balances broad coverage with specificity, likely protecting multiple embodiments of the innovation.
Stakeholders should monitor existing patent families related to this patent, evaluate the scope comprehensively during market entry, and consider validity challenges if competitors propose alternatives. Patent owners are advised to reinforce their claims with thorough prior art searches and strong prosecution strategies to maintain enforceability.
Key Takeaways
- Patent KR20140075638 likely covers a novel drug compound, formulation, or method, with claims designed to balance breadth and defensibility.
- Understanding the precise language and claim dependencies is crucial for assessing infringement risks and licensing strategies.
- The patent landscape in South Korea’s pharmaceutical sector is highly competitive, with overlapping patents necessitating careful clearance and freedom-to-operate analyses.
- Monitoring patent expiry and legal status will inform timing for generic entry or licensing negotiations.
- Robust patent prosecution and strategic claims drafting are essential in defending pharmaceutical innovations within South Korea.
FAQs
Q1: What is the typical duration of patent protection for pharmaceuticals in South Korea?
A: Pharmaceutical patents in South Korea generally last 20 years from the priority date, with possible extensions through supplementary protections, depending on specific legal provisions and regulatory delays.
Q2: How does South Korea’s patent landscape affect generic drug entry?
A: Patent protection duration and potential patent litigation influence the timing of generic drug entry. Once patents expire or are invalidated, generics can enter the market freely.
Q3: Can patents claiming formulations provide broader protection than those claiming chemicals?
A: Yes. Formulation patents can encompass specific compositions, delivery mechanisms, and release profiles, potentially extending exclusivity beyond the chemical entity itself.
Q4: What strategies can patent holders pursue to strengthen their IP rights?
A: Filing broad, well-supported claims; conducting comprehensive prior art searches; and securing multiple patent families covering different aspects of the invention improve legal robustness.
Q5: How are patent disputes resolved in South Korea?
A: Patent disputes are typically resolved through KIPO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), or through civil litigation in the Korean courts, often involving infringement and validity challenges.
Sources:
[1] Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) database.
[2] Patent documentation and publication records.
[3] Industry-specific patent landscape reports.
