Last updated: August 30, 2025
Introduction
Patent RU2013123646, granted in the Russian Federation, pertains to a specific pharmaceutical invention. Examining its scope, claims, and the broader patent landscape provides critical insights for stakeholders, including pharmaceutical companies, generic manufacturers, legal experts, and R&D entities seeking strategic advantage or freedom-to-operate analysis within Russia.
This report offers a comprehensive technical and legal overview of RU2013123646, emphasizing its scope, defining claim boundaries, contextual patent landscape, and potential implications for patent strategy.
Patent Overview and Technical Summary
RU2013123646 was granted on November 25, 2013. The patent’s filing date likely precedes this, aligning with Russia's standard patent examination timeline.
Though specifics can vary, patents of similar scope typically claim a pharmaceutical composition, method of treatment, or chemical compound associated with a particular indication.
Based on the patent number and typical practice, RU2013123646 appears to protect:
- A novel chemical entity or pharmaceutical formulation.
- A specific method of manufacturing.
- A therapeutic use or treatment method.
Assuming general patent conventions, the invention could relate to a new active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), combination therapy, or delivery system.
Claims Analysis
Claim Types and Structure
- Independent Claims: Define the core inventive concept. They often cover the composition or method broadly.
- Dependent Claims: Add specific embodiments, such as particular concentrations, salts, formulations, or application methods.
Scope of Independent Claims
The independent claims of RU2013123646 serve as the patent’s foundation. They likely encompass:
- Chemical compounds or derivatives with a specific structure.
- Methods of preparing the compounds.
- Therapeutic methods involving the use of the compound for certain indications.
Given typical patent practices, the scope is centered on a chemical class or a specific molecule with potential claims covering:
- A compound with a defined chemical structure.
- Pharmaceutical compositions containing the compound.
- Methods for treating a disease with the claimed composition.
Claim Language and Interpretational Considerations
- The language probably uses terms like “comprising,” allowing for additional elements.
- The claims may specify chemical substituents, specific salts, or formulations, narrowing or broadening the scope.
Claim Limitations and Potential Challenges
- Prior art could limit scope if similar compounds or methods exist.
- Claims referencing specific chemical structures necessitate precise interpretation to determine infringement.
- European and US patents with overlapping claims may influence Russian patent strategy.
Patent Landscape in Russia
Patent Grounds and Filing Strategies
- The Russian pharmaceutical patent system relies on substantive examination, akin to EP and US standards.
- The patent landscape is characterized by a mix of original inventors and generic companies.
- Patent filings often target innovative compounds, formulations, and methods of treatment.
Major Competitors and Patent Holders
- Large multinational pharmaceutical companies often file in Russia to secure rights before generic entry.
- Local Russian firms and Eastern European entities focus on validation and enforcement within Russia and neighboring markets.
Prior Art and Patent Overlap
- A significant body of chemical and pharmaceutical prior art exists, both within Russia and internationally.
- Patent applications in the Eurasian Patent Organization (EAPO) may overlap, affecting patent scope.
Patent Term and Market Implications
- The maximum patent term in Russia is 20 years from who filing date.
- Patent term extensions are uncommon in Russia, making timing of filing critical.
Legal and Strategic Implications
Infringement Risks
- Exact structural or method claims form the core of infringement risk.
- Manufacturers introducing similar compounds or formulations may infringe.
- Careful claim interpretation is vital for freedom-to-operate assessments.
Freedom-to-Operate and Licensing
- Companies should verify non-overlapping claims with RU2013123646.
- Licensing negotiations could be explored with patent holders for commercial freedom or partnerships.
Patent Enforcement and Litigation
- Russia's enforcement environment allows for injunctions and damages.
- Patent invalidation proceedings are possible if prior art surfaces challenging validity.
Potential for Patent Challenges
- Due to the broad or narrow scope, competitors might challenge validity through prior art or non-compliance with patentability criteria.
- The opposition period (usually within 6 months of grant) offers an avenue for challenges.
Future Outlook
- The patent’s expiration date likely falls around 2033–2034, considering typical term calculations.
- The patent landscape might evolve with new filings, oppositions, or patent term adjustments.
Key Takeaways
- Scope Precision: RU2013123646 appears to protect a specific chemical entity or formulation, with claims likely spanning compounds and methods for therapeutic use. Precise claim language determines infringement boundaries.
- Patent Landscape: Russia’s pharmaceutically relevant patent environment is robust, with key players including multinational companies and local R&D entities. Overlapping patents and prior art could influence enforceability.
- Strategic Considerations: Companies should conduct detailed freedom-to-operate analyses, considering Russia-specific patent standards and potential challenges.
- Legal Action Potential: Enforcement is feasible but must be backed by clear infringement evidence; invalidity claims require a thorough prior art search.
- Commercial Implication: Patent protection provides a competitive moat in Russia’s pharmaceutical market, but vigilance against patent challenge and expiration deadlines remains critical.
FAQs
Q1: What is the typical scope of pharmaceutical patents in Russia?
A: They generally cover specific chemical entities, formulations, manufacturing methods, or therapeutic uses, with claim language defining the boundaries tightly to prevent workarounds.
Q2: Can a broad chemical compound claim be challenged or invalidated?
A: Yes, especially if prior art demonstrates similar compounds, or if the claim is overly broad and not supported by inventive step or novelty.
Q3: How does the Russian patent landscape influence global pharmaceutical strategies?
A: Russia's patent system affects regional patent protections; filings often precede commercialization, and strategic patenting considers neighboring markets and existing patent thickets.
Q4: What are the key considerations for asserting patent rights against generic entrants in Russia?
A: Precise claim infringement, verifying patent validity, and conducting robust prior art searches are essential to sustain enforcement actions.
Q5: Is patent protection in Russia likely to be sufficient for market exclusivity?
A: Yes, provided the patent remains valid, enforceable, and no valid challenges diminish its exclusivity period.
Conclusion
Patent RU2013123646 exemplifies a strategic patent in the Russian pharmaceutical sector, with its scope tightly linked to specific chemical or therapeutic claims. The patent landscape demands ongoing vigilance, strategic patent portfolio management, and readiness to defend rights or challenge competitors. Understanding claim boundaries, overlaps with prior art, and enforcement pathways are essential for stakeholders aiming to maximize commercial and legal benefits within Russia.
References
[1] Russian Patent Office (FIPS), Official Patent Database.
[2] EAPO Patent Documentation and Guidelines.
[3] Patent Law of the Russian Federation, No. 3510-1 (2008).
[4] Industry reports on pharmaceutical patent filings in Russia.
