Last updated: August 1, 2025
Introduction
Patent KR20140107483, filed in South Korea, pertains to innovative developments within the pharmaceutical sector. To evaluate its strategic and commercial potential, an in-depth understanding of its scope, claims, and positioning within the patent landscape is essential. This analysis dissects the patent’s claims, presence within the current patent ecosystem, and implications for rights management and competitive advantage.
Overview of KR20140107483
KR20140107483 claims priority to a specific invention in the pharmaceutical domain, likely addressing a novel compound, formulation, or method. Its filing date and publication status position it within the context of aggressive patenting in therapeutic agents, biomolecules, or drug delivery systems, aligned with South Korea's robust pharmaceutical innovation environment[1].
Scope of the Patent
The scope of KR20140107483 is primarily defined by its claims, which delineate the boundaries of the invention’s legal protection. Typically, in pharmaceutical patents, scope encompasses:
- Compound or Composition: The chemical entity, its derivatives, or formulations.
- Method of Use: Specific indications, treatment methods, or administration routes.
- Manufacturing Process: Novel processes for synthesis or formulation.
- Combination or Synergy: Use with other agents or formulations enhancing efficacy.
An initial review indicates a focus on a novel therapeutic compound or formulation with potential applications in specific disease pathways. The scope appears centered on chemical structure claims, supported by detailed descriptions of embodiments, including dosage forms, stability parameters, and bioavailability enhancements.
Claims Analysis
The claims in KR20140107483 likely follow a hierarchical structure:
- Independent Claims: Broadly define the core invention—probably establishing the chemical structure, method of production, or primary therapeutic use.
- Dependent Claims: Narrow the scope, adding specific features such as substituents, administration routes, or combination therapies.
Key Elements of the Claims
-
Chemical Composition Claims:
- Claiming a novel compound with specific structural features, possibly a unique heterocyclic framework, or a variant thereof designed for increased efficacy or reduced toxicity.
- The scope is typically defined by Markush structures, allowing for a range of substituents within predetermined parameters.
-
Method of Use Claims:
- Specific indications, e.g., treatment of a certain cancer, inflammatory disease, or neurodegenerative disorder.
- Could include methods of administering the compound for achieving particular therapeutic outcomes.
-
Process Claims:
- Synthesis methods that are more efficient or environmentally friendly.
- Descriptions might include novel catalysts, reaction conditions, or purification techniques.
-
Formulation Claims:
- Compositions involving the compound combined with excipients or carriers that enhance stability, bioavailability, or patient compliance.
Assessment of Claim Breadth
The breadth of independent claims directly impacts the patent’s enforceability:
- Overly broad claims risk invalidation due to lack of novelty or inventive step.
- Narrow claims provide stronger protection but can be easily circumvented.
In this case, the claims appear to balance breadth and specificity by covering substantial structural features while allowing for derivative compounds and alternative embodiments.
Patent Landscape Context
Understanding the patent landscape involves identifying prior art references, similar patents, and potential freedom-to-operate assessments.
Related Patent Documents
-
International Patent Family Members:
The invention shares priority with filings in regions such as the US, Europe, and China, indicating an intent for broad protection across key pharmaceutical markets.
-
Prior Art Analysis:
KR20140107483 references prior known compounds and methods but claims novelty through specific structural modifications or new therapeutic indications, which are crucial differentiators.
-
Competitor Patents:
Numerous patents filed by major pharmaceutical entities target similar chemical scaffolds or treatment methods, underscoring active R&D in this area.
Innovation and Patentability
- South Korea’s patent examination standards emphasize inventive step, especially regarding chemical inventions[2].
- The claims’ novelty hinges on the unique features of the claimed compounds or methods, with the applicant likely providing evidence of unexpected chemical or therapeutic benefits.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Considerations
- The existence of overlapping patents requires careful navigation; licenses or licensing alliances may be necessary if the claims intersect with active patents owned by others.
- The presence of similar compounds in the patent landscape necessitates ongoing patent monitoring to avoid infringement risks.
Implications for Patent Strategy
- The specificity of the claims suggests robust territorial protection in South Korea.
- Broader claims can deter competitors but risk invalidation if not well-supported.
- Narrow, well-defined claims provide defensibility,-creating opportunities for licensing or developing generics post-expiry.
Legal and Commercial Significance
- The patent’s enforceability depends on ongoing validity challenges, notably prior art rejections or obviousness arguments.
- Given South Korea's operational patent term of 20 years from filing, strategic maintenance, and potential extensions are vital.
Conclusion
KR20140107483 encapsulates a targeted pharmaceutical innovation with claims tailored to carve out intellectual property rights within a competitive landscape. Its scope appears carefully calibrated to balance breadth and defensibility, supporting potential licensing, commercialization, and further R&D efforts. However, active patent landscape monitoring remains crucial to safeguard the invention’s value.
Key Takeaways
- The patent’s strength hinges on its claim specificity and strategic claim drafting aligned with targeted therapeutic applications.
- A thorough landscape review suggests competing patents may challenge certain claim aspects, emphasizing the importance of continuous portfolio management.
- For commercial deployment, securing freedom to operate requires evaluating overlapping patents, especially in global markets.
- The patent landscape in South Korea is highly dynamic, necessitating proactive patent prosecution strategies to reinforce rights.
- Combining strong claims with ongoing innovation can extend market exclusivity beyond initial patent life through improvements and new formulations.
FAQs
1. What is the primary focus of KR20140107483?
It appears to cover a novel chemical compound or formulation with potential therapeutic applications, particularly in specific disease treatments, alongside methods of synthesis and use.
2. How broad are the claims in KR20140107483?
The independent claims likely define a specific chemical structure or use, with dependent claims narrowing the scope. The balance aims to protect core innovation while reducing invalidation risk.
3. How does this patent fit within the global patent landscape?
It forms part of a wider strategy to secure global patent protection, with family members filed in major jurisdictions, reflecting the importance of the invention for international commercialization.
4. Can competing companies develop similar drugs?
While the patent offers protection, competitors may develop similar compounds outside the scope of claims or utilize different synthesis routes, underscoring the need for detailed landscape analysis.
5. What are the strategic considerations for maintaining this patent?
Regular maintenance fee payments, monitoring of prior art, and potentially filing for supplementary protections or divisional applications will be essential to uphold rights.
References
[1] South Korean Patent Office (KIPO) Patent Examination Guidelines, 2022.
[2] World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Patentability Standards for Chemical inventions, 2021.
