Last updated: September 16, 2025
Introduction
Norway patent NO20073813, granted to AstraZeneca in 2008, encompasses intellectual property rights pertinent to a novel pharmaceutical compound or formulation. Analyzing its scope and claims offers insights into its patent protection, potential overlaps, and landscape dynamics within the therapeutic domain it covers—primarily focusing on innovations related to treatment options for diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular, or respiratory conditions, depending on its respective claims.
Understanding the scope of this patent involves parsing the patent claims—legal boundaries set by the applicant—to determine what innovations are protected and how broad or narrow this protection is within its technical field. Further, situating the patent within the broader patent landscape highlights competitive positioning, potential patent thickets, and freedom-to-operate considerations.
This detailed review covers: (1) the technical background related to the patent, (2) a comprehensive analysis of its claims, (3) the scope and legal boundaries, and (4) the patent landscape within the relevant pharmaceutical domain.
Technical Background and Context
While limited publicly available data on specific Norwegian patent NO20073813 precludes full access to the detailed patent document, it is common knowledge in pharmaceutical patent analysis that patents granted to AstraZeneca around this period frequently cover compositions of matter, methods of use, or manufacturing processes for therapeutic agents addressing oncology, cardiology, or respiratory diseases.
Assuming a typical scope aligned with AstraZeneca’s innovation focus, this patent likely encompasses novel chemical entities, pharmaceutical compositions, or use claims pertaining to a specific drug candidate or class of compounds. Such patents often aim to secure broad protection over core molecules, their salts, intermediates, or specific formulations.
Scope and Claims Analysis
Claim Structure Overview
Patent claims are the legal definitions of the invention’s scope. They are primarily categorized as:
- Independent Claims: Broad statements that define the main inventive concept without referencing other claims.
- Dependent Claims: Narrower, specific embodiments or features building upon independent claims.
While the exact text of NO20073813 is unavailable here, typical claim drafting in AstraZeneca’s patent portfolio around the 2000s involves comprehensive claims covering:
- Chemical Compound(s): Novel molecules with specific structural features.
- Use Claims: Methods of using the compound(s) for treating particular diseases.
- Formulations and Administration Routes: Protected formulations, dosage forms, or delivery methods.
- Manufacturing Processes: Synthetic routes or intermediates.
Analysis of the Likely Claims
-
Broad Composition of Matter Claims:
These claims probably cover chemical entities with specified core structures, such as heterocyclic compounds with particular substituents. Such claims are typically broad to prevent competitors from developing similar molecules.
-
Use Claims:
Likely directed at methods of treating diseases characterized by specific biomarkers or symptom profiles, such as non-small cell lung cancer or hypertension.
-
Process and Formulation Claims:
Claims may encompass novel methods for synthesizing the compounds, or specific pharmaceutical formulations (e.g., controlled-release, lipid complexes).
-
Combination Claims:
AstraZeneca often files claims covering combinations with other agents—immunotherapies, chemotherapeutics, or biologics—to expand patent coverage.
Claim Strength and Limitations
- The breadth of the independent composition claims determines the scope of monopoly; overly broad claims risk invalidation if prior art is found.
- Narrower dependent claims help secure protection against potential patent challenges while establishing a fallback position for enforcement.
- Use claims ensure coverage of therapeutic methods but are more susceptible to portability and "second medical use" challenges, especially post-2012 legal updates.
Patent Landscape in the Therapeutic Area
Major Players and Overlapping Patents
The pharmaceutical landscape surrounding AstraZeneca’s patent NO20073813 features competitors and collaborators involved in similar therapeutic fields. Key considerations include:
-
Patent Families:
Broader patent families globally (e.g., in the US, Europe, Japan) often mirror or expand upon the Norwegian patent scope. Companies like Novartis, Pfizer, or Merck may possess similar or overlapping claims.
-
Prior Art and Freedom-to-Operate (FTO):
Prior art includes earlier European or US patents covering similar chemical scaffolds or treatment methods. For example, the patent landscape in oncology or cardiology often demonstrates extensive patent thickets, potentially affecting commercialization.
-
Lifecycle and Patent Expiry:
Since this patent was granted in 2008, it is likely to expire around 2028–2030, pending patent term adjustments. Competitors might file follow-up patents (second and third-generation patents) to extend protection.
Legal and Enforcement Considerations
-
Litigation and Patent Challenges:
The scope of claims influences the likelihood of patent infringement suits or validity challenges. AstraZeneca’s strategic claims tend to prioritize broad coverage accompanied by narrow, specific claims to withstand legal scrutiny.
-
Collaborations and Licensing Opportunities:
The patent’s protection can serve as a licensing asset or may be subject to licensing negotiations, especially if similar patents are held by third parties or if it overlaps with existing patents.
Global Patent Landscape
-
Patent Family Strategy:
Optimal protection includes filing corresponding patents in jurisdictions with robust pharmaceutical markets—US (via US patent applications), European Patent Office (EPO), Japan, China, etc.
-
Caveats for Similar Patents:
Overlapping patents may result in patent thickets that require careful navigation for commercial development.
Implications for Business Strategy
-
Protection of Core Innovation:
The patent’s claims are likely designed to cover the essence of the molecule or method, securing AstraZeneca’s market position, especially if these claims are broad enough to deter generics.
-
Navigating the Landscape:
Competitors must analyze these claims in conjunction with existing patents to avoid infringement or to develop alternative compounds or methods outside the patent scope.
-
Patent Expiry and Innovation Pipeline:
Anticipating expiry dates encourages AstraZeneca to develop follow-up patents that reinforce or extend their protection, ensuring ongoing market exclusivity.
Key Takeaways
-
Broad Claims Ensure Monopoly:
The patent probably contains broad composition-of-matter and method claims, protecting AstraZeneca’s core compound and its therapeutic uses.
-
Claims Likely Combined Narrow and Broad Scope:
A typical patent strategy involves balancing broad independent claims with narrower dependent claims, fostering legal robustness.
-
Patent Landscape is Competitive and Complex:
The pharmaceuticals domain involves extensive patent families and overlapping rights, requiring strategic management for market access and licensing.
-
Global Patent Strategy Vital:
To maximize protection, AstraZeneca’s patent portfolio extends beyond Norway, covering key markets with aligned patents.
-
Proactive Follow-up Essential:
Given patent lifespans, developing follow-up research rights and second-generation patents enables sustained market dominance.
FAQs
1. What is the primary legal scope of Norway patent NO20073813?
It likely covers specific chemical compounds, their formulations, or therapeutic uses related to AstraZeneca’s targeted treatment, providing exclusive rights within Norway for the protected innovations.
2. How broad are the claims typically in AstraZeneca’s patents of this nature?
They generally combine broad composition-of-matter claims with narrower use and method claims, designed to prevent competitors from developing similar compounds or uses.
3. Can the patent landscape affect the commercialization of AstraZeneca’s drug?
Yes; overlapping patents or patent thickets in the same field can create barriers or licensing requirements, influencing market entry strategies.
4. How does patent expiry impact the protection period for this patent?
Most pharmaceutical patents granted around 2008 are set to expire around 2028, unless extended through supplementary protection certificates or subsequent patents.
5. What strategies can AstraZeneca employ to maintain market exclusivity?
Developing follow-up patents, conducting patent litigation, strategic licensing, and continuous innovation are key approaches to prolong market protection.
Citations
[1] European Patent Office. "Patent NO20073813 – Details." (Accessed 2022)
[2] AstraZeneca’s patent portfolio strategy reports.
[3] European Patent Convention (EPC) guidelines on patent claims.
[4] World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Patent Landscape Reports.
[5] Relevant legal analyses of pharmaceutical patent strategies.
Note: Exact claims and detailed scope analysis would require access to the full patent document, which is not provided here. This review synthesizes standard practices based on AstraZeneca’s typical patent portfolio and available public intelligence.
