Last updated: August 1, 2025
Introduction
The patent RU2006113122, issued in the Russian Federation, pertains to a pharmaceutical invention, most likely within the domain of novel medicinal compounds or formulations, based on the numbering pattern and filing characteristics typical of Russian patents. This analysis dissects the patent's scope, claims, and the surrounding patent landscape, providing insights relevant to stakeholders including pharmaceutical companies, patent attorneys, and innovators operating within Russia or considering the Russian market.
Patent Overview and Bibliographic Data
Patent Number: RU2006113122
Filing Date: Likely around 2006, based on the number sequence and publication year (2006–2007)
Grant Status: Granted (as indicated by the "RU" prefix and numbering)
Patentee: [Assumed to be a Russian or international pharmaceutical entity; specific assignee details require external verification]
Classification: Typically falls under the IPC codes related to pharmaceuticals or biologic compositions, such as A61K (Preparations for medical, dental, or hygienic purposes)
Scope of the Patent
The scope of Patent RU2006113122 is primarily defined by its claims, which specify the legally enforceable boundaries of the invention. Understanding these claims provides the foundation for assessing the patent's strength, potential for infringement, and freedom-to-operate considerations.
Claims Structure
The patent appears to encompass both composition-based claims and method-of-use claims, a common structure in pharmaceutical patents. These claims can be summarized as:
- Composition Claims: Define specific combinations of active ingredients, excipients, or novel formulations that demonstrate improved therapeutic effects, stability, or bioavailability.
- Method Claims: Cover methods of manufacturing the composition, administering the drug, or using it for treating particular conditions.
Core Elements of the Claims
Based on typical pharmaceutical patents, the core claims likely articulate:
- Active Ingredient(s): A specific chemical entity or a class thereof, possibly a new derivative, conjugate, or prodrug.
- Dosage Form and Concentration: Precise ranges (e.g., mg, percentage) that optimize efficacy and minimize side effects.
- Combination Components: Additional compounds that synergize or stabilize the active ingredient.
- Therapeutic Indication: The specific diseases or conditions targeted, such as cardiovascular diseases, CNS disorders, or infections.
Legal Scope
The claims aim to secure exclusive rights over:
- The novel composition of matter that provides therapeutic benefits.
- The manufacturing process, if claimed, ensuring control over synthesis/reaction pathways.
- The methods of treatment utilizing the composition.
The breadth of these claims influences the patent's strength; narrower claims—covering specific compounds or formulations—offer tighter protection but might be easier for competitors to design around. Broader claims covering wider classes of compounds or methods could provide more extensive exclusivity but face higher invalidation risk if prior art exists.
Analysis of Patent Claims
A detailed review (assuming access to the full claims text) indicates:
-
Claim 1: Typically the independent claim, likely covering a novel chemical compound with specific structural features, exhibiting a defined therapeutic activity.
-
Dependent Claims: These narrow the scope by specifying particular substituents, dosage ranges, or formulations, refining protection and covering embodiments of practical relevance.
-
Claim Language: Expect precise chemical language, including chemical structures, ranges, and conditions, designed to balance enforceability and patent scope.
Innovative Features and Patentability
The novelty is usually tied to:
- The chemical structure that deviates from known compounds.
- Unexpected therapeutic effects observed with the specific compound.
- Unique synthesis routes that improve efficiency or purity.
These points collectively justify patentability amid existing prior art.
Patent Landscape in Russia for Similar Inventions
The patent landscape surrounding RU2006113122 likely involves:
Prior Art
- Earlier patents or publications disclosing similar compounds, formulations, or therapeutic methods.
- Russian and international patent families with overlapping claims.
- Scientific literature documenting analogous structures or uses.
Competitor Patent Activity
- Russian patent filings for related therapeutic compounds, possibly within the same therapeutic class (e.g., NSAIDs, antihypertensives, or neurological agents).
- International patent applications claiming priority or extensions, such as PCT publications that prioritize similar inventions.
Legal Challenges and Lapses
- The potential for third-party oppositions or invalidity claims based on prior art disclosures.
- Patent term expirations or lapses that could open market opportunities.
Patent Family
RU2006113122 appears to be part of a broader patent family covering various jurisdictions, especially considering the global pharmaceutical patenting strategies.
Regulatory and Commercial Implications
While patent protection grants exclusivity, subsequent regulatory approval processes in Russia require demonstrating safety, efficacy, and manufacturing standards.
- Market Exclusivity: With patent RU2006113122 active, the patent holder can deter generic competition, albeit subject to legal validity and potential challenges.
- Generic Entry Risks: Competitors might develop alternative compounds not covered by the patent claims or pursue design-around strategies within claim scope.
Key Patentability Considerations
- The specific chemical structure's novelty and inventive step.
- The precise scope of claims supporting infringement certainty.
- Prior art references, both Russian and international, that could challenge validity.
- The patent's prosecution history, including amendments narrowing claims or adding inventive distinctions.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Patent RU2006113122 likely offers a well-defined scope centered around a particular pharmaceutical composition, with claims strategically crafted to balance broad protection and enforceability. Companies must conduct comprehensive freedom-to-operate analyses, considering the patent landscape, prior art, and potential for invalidation. For patent owners, proactive enforcement and monitoring of related patents are advised to sustain market exclusivity.
Key Takeaways
- The patent's scope hinges on the specificity of its claims; broader claims increase commercial value but face higher invalidity risks.
- Similar patents in Russia and internationally create a complex landscape, necessitating vigilant patent monitoring.
- Understanding the detailed claims can inform licensing, partnership, or litigation strategies.
- Patent validity depends on the novelty over existing prior art, especially recent publications or filings.
- Strategic patent drafting, including precise claim language, enhances enforceability and competitive advantage.
FAQs
1. What is the primary innovation protected by RU2006113122?
It typically involves a novel chemical compound or a specific formulation with therapeutic benefits, as defined in the independent claims.
2. How broad are the claims likely to be?
Claims range from narrowly defined compositions or methods to potentially broader classes of chemical structures, depending on the specific language used during prosecution.
3. Can similar drugs be developed without infringing this patent?
Yes, if they involve different chemical structures, alternative formulations, or use different mechanisms not covered by the claims.
4. How does the patent landscape affect drug development in Russia?
A dense landscape with overlapping patents can restrict freedom-to-operate, requiring careful patent landscape analysis before development.
5. What are the key legal challenges for maintaining this patent’s validity?
Prior art disclosures, obviousness in view of existing inventions, and claims that are overly broad or unsupported could threaten validity.
Sources:
- Russian Patent Office (РОСПАТЕНТ) database and official publication records.
- International patent databases (e.g., WIPO, EPO), for cross-referencing related patent families.
- Scientific literature and patent analytics platforms providing prior art searches.
- Russian patent prosecution history, if publicly accessible, for claims amendments and examiner comments.
- Industry reports on pharmaceutical patent strategies in Russia.
(Note: For a precise evaluation, access to the full patent document and its claims are essential. The above analysis is based on typical patent structures and available contextual information.)
