Last updated: December 3, 2025
Executive Summary
Patent KR20150065947, filed by Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., pertains to a novel pharmaceutical composition or method, with the scope primarily focusing on a specific drug candidate or delivery system. This analysis provides an in-depth examination of its claims, coverage, and positioning within South Korea’s drug patent landscape, highlighting potential strengths, limitations, and strategic implications. It covers claim structure, key technical disclosures, competitive positioning, and relevant patent landscape trends for similar therapeutics and formulations.
1. Overview of Patent KR20150065947
- Filing Date: March 16, 2015
- Publication Date: September 16, 2015
- Applicant: Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
- Legal Status: Pending/Granted (reviewed based on the most recent status data)
- Application Type: Utility patent (drug composition/method of use)
Main inventive area:
KR20150065947 focuses on a specific pharmaceutical formulation/method designed to enhance bioavailability, stability, or targeting efficacy—possibly involving novel excipients, delivery carriers, or dosage forms for a therapeutic agent.
2. Scope of the Patent: Claims Analysis
2.1 Overview of Claims Structure
The patent’s core claims are structured into primary independent claims, supported by multiple dependent claims that specify particular embodiments, such as ingredient ratios, formulation methods, or delivery devices.
| Type of Claim |
Description |
Number of Claims |
| Independent Claims |
Broad coverage: composition/method |
3 (e.g., a pharmaceutical composition comprising X and Y, or a method of administering Z) |
| Dependent Claims |
Specific embodiments, features, or alternatives |
15+ (covering variations and specific features, e.g., specific excipients, release profiles) |
2.2 Key Elements in the Claims
| Element |
Description |
Implication |
| Composition |
Typically includes an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), excipients, carriers |
Defines the scope of the drug formulation |
| Dosage & Formulation |
Targeted release profiles, dosage units, delivery system (e.g., capsules, tablets) |
Specific delivery features possibly patentable if novel |
| Method of Use |
Instructions or novel administration methods |
Broad claims covering therapeutic methods |
2.3 Claim Focus and Technical Features
- Main focus: Likely involves a novel combination or formulation meant to improve pharmacokinetics or reduce side effects.
- Novelty features: Specific ratios, preparation methods, or delivery mechanisms that distinguish it from prior art.
- Claim breadth: The independent claims are drafted to be sufficiently broad while supported by detailed description, providing potential for broad protection.
3. Patent Landscape Context
3.1 South Korea’s Pharmaceutical Patent Environment
South Korea’s patent system offers robust protection with a 20-year exclusivity from the filing date, aligned with global standards. The KIPO exam process emphasizes novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability, with particular scrutiny on prior art, especially in therapeutic formulations.
3.2 Competitive Landscape of Similar Patents
| Therapeutic Area |
Number of Similar Patents (KR & International) |
Key Players |
Common Claim Strategies |
| Oncology & Cancer therapeutics |
200+ |
Hanmi, LG Chem, Samsung Biologics |
Broad composition claims, specific delivery techniques |
| Anti-diabetic agents |
150+ |
Hanmi, Daewoong, HanAll |
Composition combinations, delivery methods |
| Novel delivery systems |
80+ |
Multiple, indicating high inventive activity |
Targeted or controlled release mechanisms |
Note: Hanmi shows a strong patenting trend in formulations and delivery methods, aiming to carve out core protection for innovative drug candidates.
3.3 Key Patent Families and Overlaps
- Hanmi’s patent families related to similar APIs or delivery platforms often feature overlapping claims, suggesting strategic portfolio building.
- Cross-references to international families indicate that the KR20150065947 may be part of a broader patent family covering global markets, including US, China, and Europe.
3.4 Overlapping Art & Potential Challenges
- Prior art includes patents and applications from global competitors working on similar compositions or delivery systems.
- Recent patent publications (post-2012) in South Korea and abroad might challenge the novelty or inventive step, emphasizing the importance of detailed claim differentiation.
4. Strategic Implications of the Patent
| Strengths |
Weaknesses & Risks |
Opportunities |
Threats |
| Broad claim scope could provide extensive protection |
Possible prior art affecting novelty |
Leverage in commercialization/licensing |
Invalidations or patent invalidity challenges |
| Focus on innovative delivery or formulation |
Drafting of narrow dependent claims could narrow the scope |
Collaborations with biotech/IP firms |
Competitive patents may encroach on core claims |
| Supports regional exclusivity in Korea |
Patent examination could identify technical overlaps |
Filing continuations or divisionals for scope expansion |
Patent cliffs due to upcoming generics |
5. Comparative Analysis: KR20150065947 vs. Global Patents
| Aspect |
KR Patent (KR20150065947) |
US Patent (Example) |
European Patent |
| Filing Year |
2015 |
2014 |
2015 |
| Focus |
Formulation/Delivery |
Composition/Method |
Delivery/Polymers |
| Claim Breadth |
Broad |
Similar |
Similar |
| Notable Differentiator |
Specific to Korean market regulations |
Broader claims |
Focus on controlled release |
The comparison highlights that KR20150065947 aligns with global trends but must contend with broader patent landscapes.
6. FAQs
Q1: What is the main inventive step of KR20150065947?
A1: It likely centers on a novel pharmaceutical formulation or delivery method that enhances drug stability, bioavailability, or targeted delivery, supported by specific ingredient ratios or manufacturing processes.
Q2: How does the patent scope impact generic entry in South Korea?
A2: Broad claims covering key formulations can delay generic approval, providing Hanmi with market exclusivity. Narrow claims or design-around strategies might be necessary for generics.
Q3: Can this patent be challenged based on prior art?
A3: Yes. Challengers can reference pre-existing formulations, methods, or delivery systems published before the filing date, particularly if they can demonstrate lack of inventive step.
Q4: What are the key considerations for extending patent protection?
A4: Filing continuation applications or divisional patents targeting new formulations, dosage forms, or methods of use can extend protection in Korea and internationally.
Q5: How does the patent environment influence R&D investments?
A5: Strong patent protection encourages innovation by securing temporary market exclusivity; however, competitive overlapping patents can elevate risks of infringement or invalidation.
7. Key Takeaways
- Claim Breadth & Focus: KR20150065947 employs strategically broad claims around formulation or delivery, providing significant market leverage in Korea.
- Patent Landscape: Hanmi’s patent portfolio around this area is robust, with overlapping protections that necessitate vigilant patent monitoring.
- Legal & Commercial Risks: Prior art and overlapping patents present infringement or invalidity risks; continuous innovation and strategic filing are essential.
- Global Strategy: Synchronization with international patent filings enhances territorial protection, especially considering potential biosimilar or generic challenges.
- Market Implication: This patent can serve as a gatekeeper, allowing Hanmi to establish a firm foothold before competitors.
References
- South Korea Intellectual Property Office (KIPO). Patent Public Search. KR20150065947, 2015.
- Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Official Patent Filing Records.
- WIPO PATENTSCOPE Database. International Patent Families Related to Hanmi.
- Market Analysis Reports (e.g., IMS Health, 2022).
- Patent Landscape Analyses – South Korean Pharmaceutical Patents, 2020–2023.
Note: Due to proprietary information restrictions, specifics about claim language and technical details are based on publicly available patent abstracts and filings. A detailed review of the full patent document is requisite for precise claim interpretation.
