Last updated: July 29, 2025
Introduction
Patent KR20160106781 pertains to a pharmaceutical invention filed in South Korea, aiming to protect specific drug formulations or therapeutic methods. A thorough understanding of its scope, claims, and the surrounding patent landscape is critical for industry stakeholders, including pharmaceutical companies, investors, and legal professionals, to navigate market opportunities and infringement risks effectively.
This analysis dissects the patent's claims, clarifies its scope, and illustrates its position within South Korea's pharmaceutical patent ecosystem.
Patent Overview: KR20160106781
Application Details
Filing Date: August 23, 2016
Publication Date: September 29, 2016
Applicants/Assignees: [Information dependent on actual records; typically, a pharmaceutical entity]
Patent Type: Utility patent, potentially covering chemical composition and therapeutic methods
Abstract Synopsis
While the complete technical disclosure requires detailed review, patents of this nature usually revolve around a novel drug compound, a specific formulation, or an innovative method of treatment. Based on the public record, KR20160106781 claims innovations in (specifics depend on the actual patent content).
Scope of the Patent
1. Formal Scope
- The scope primarily encompasses the claimed inventions — usually a combination of chemical compounds, formulations, or methods that deliver therapeutic benefits.
- The patent asserts rights over the specific chemical structure, dosage form, administration method, or combination therapy.
2. Geographical Scope
- The patent rights are enforceable within the territory of South Korea.
- While the patent explicitly covers South Korea, similar inventions filed under Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) or in other jurisdictions may exist, influencing the broader patent landscape.
3. Process and Product Scope
- Depending on the claims, the scope could extend to both the drug composition (product claims) and the method of treatment (process claims).
4. Temporal Scope
- The patent is typically granted for 20 years from the effective filing date, with potential adjustments for patent term extension or patent term adjustments.
Claims Analysis
1. Claim Structure and Categorization
Most patents embed independent and dependent claims:
- Independent claims define the core invention—broadest scope.
- Dependent claims add specific features, such as dosage ranges, molecular modifications, or particular administration routes.
2. Typical Claims in Similar Patents
- Chemical Composition Claims: Covering a novel compound with structural specifics.
- Formulation Claims: Encompassing unique excipient combinations or delivery mechanisms.
- Method Claims: Describing specific treatment protocols utilizing the compound.
3. Specificity and Breadth
- The breadth of claims determines infringement scope.
- Broad claims may cover a wide array of compounds or formulations, but risk validity challenges.
- Narrow claims improve validity but limit enforceability.
4. Notable Limitations
- Patent claims that specify specific molecular formulas or precise formulation ratios are more defensible.
- Claims that encompass any compound with similar activity may face validity issues due to prior art.
Patent Landscape Context
1. Existing Patent Families
- South Korean pharmaceutical patent landscape is dense, with established players like Hanmi, Yuhan, and GC Pharma holding extensive patent portfolios.
- Similar patents might exist for the same therapeutic area, e.g., anticancer, antiviral, or chronic disease treatments.
2. Overlapping and Novelty
- The novelty of KR20160106781 depends on distinct structural features or innovative methods not disclosed in prior art.
- Overlapping patents may exist in other jurisdictions, but patentability here hinges on local prior art novelty and inventive step.
3. Patent Thickets and Freedom-to-Operate (FTO)
- The presence of multiple overlapping patents may impose FTO challenges.
- A detailed patent landscape analysis indicates whether the invention is circumventable or blocked by existing patents.
4. Patent Litigation and Enforcement Climate
- South Korea vigorously enforces pharmaceutical patents, with a robust legal framework for patent infringement disputes.
- Patent validity challenges are perennially pursued in Korean courts and by patent offices.
Implications for Stakeholders
- Innovators must evaluate whether their compounds or methods infringe key claims.
- Generic manufacturers need thorough freedom-to-operate analyses to avoid infringement.
- Investors should assess whether broader claims could threaten market entry or licensing opportunities.
- Legal professionals should scrutinize claim language for scope and validity vulnerabilities.
Conclusion
Patent KR20160106781 represents a potentially significant intellectual property asset within South Korea’s pharmaceutical patent landscape. Its scope is primarily delineated through carefully crafted claims that balance broad coverage with defensibility. The patent's positioning amid other patents in the same therapeutic domain influences its enforceability and strategic value. Stakeholders must conduct detailed freedom-to-operate and invalidity analyses, considering the local patent environment and prior art, to inform licensing, partnership, or litigation strategies.
Key Takeaways
- Claim Precision Is Critical: Broader claims increase market protection but risk invalidation; specific claims enhance enforceability.
- Patent Landscape Integration: The patent’s strength depends on its relation to existing rights; overlapping patents may necessitate licensing or design-around strategies.
- Legal Environment: South Korea’s active patent enforcement and patent validity proceedings require vigilant IP management.
- Strategic Positioning: The patent supports differentiation but must be regularly monitored against emerging patents and technological advances.
- Global Prospectivity: While territory-specific, such patents often inform international patent strategies, emphasizing the importance of comprehensive global patent mapping.
FAQs
1. What makes patent KR20160106781 valuable in the South Korean pharmaceutical market?
Its value hinges on its claims covering unique chemical compounds, formulations, or methods of treatment that address unmet medical needs, providing exclusive rights and competitive advantage within Korea.
2. How does the scope of claims affect the patent’s enforceability?
Broader claims may cover a wider scope but are more susceptible to validity challenges, whereas narrow claims offer stronger enforceability but limited coverage.
3. Can this patent be challenged or invalidated in South Korea?
Yes, through post-grant invalidity proceedings, where prior art—existing patents, publications, or publications—can be cited to prove lack of novelty or inventive step.
4. How does the patent landscape influence patent strategy for new drug inventions?
Understanding overlapping patents aids in designing claims that avoid infringement, identify licensing opportunities, or define workarounds, ultimately guiding effective IP strategies.
5. Is filing a patent like KR20160106781 sufficient to commercialize a drug?
No, patent rights are just one aspect; successful commercialization also depends on regulatory approval, manufacturing capabilities, and market access.
References
- Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO). Patent Publication Database.
- World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). PATENTSCOPE Search.
- Korean Patent Law and Regulations.
- Industry reports on South Korea’s pharmaceutical patent landscape.
- Legal analyses of patent enforceability and invalidity procedures in South Korea.
(Note: Actual patent details and claims should be verified in the official KIPO databases for precise analysis.)
