Last updated: May 5, 2026
RU2013155479: Scope, Claim Set, and Russian Patent Landscape
RU2013155479 is a Russian patent publication tied to a specific pharmaceutical drug application in the Russian Federation. It sits inside a dense national and international landscape where coverage is typically divided across: (i) active ingredient and its polymorph/crystal form, (ii) salt/hydrate/solvate forms, (iii) pharmaceutical composition formulation, (iv) method of treatment, (v) method of preparation, and (vi) packaging-use or dosing regimens where allowed.
However, a complete and accurate claim-by-claim scope and landscape cannot be produced from the information available in this chat. A scope and claims analysis requires the actual RU2013155479 document text (bibliographic data, claim wording, dependent claim structure, examples, and annexes), plus at least the citing/related family documents and prosecution status. Without the underlying patent text and cited family members, any “claim scope” would risk being materially wrong, and the landscape analysis could misidentify freedom-to-operate blockers and family members.
What is the scope of RU2013155479?
A scope analysis must map each independent claim to:
- Composition scope (ingredient identity, salt/polymorph definition, ratios, excipients, particle size if claimed)
- Use scope (therapeutic indication and any patient population constraints)
- Process scope (method steps, reaction conditions, purification, crystallization parameters)
- Product-by-process scope (if the claim uses process-limited product definitions)
- Dosing scope (dose ranges, frequency, treatment duration, and titration rules)
Without the claim text, no reliable mapping can be executed.
What does the claims set cover (independent vs dependent)?
A proper claim set review requires:
- Identifying all independent claims and their exact claim language
- Enumerating each dependent claim category (e.g., “wherein the compound is a salt,” “wherein the polymorph is Form X”)
- Determining whether the claims are:
- Markush-style (lists alternatives with “selected from”)
- Parameter-limited (particle size, dissolution rate, stability)
- Indication-limited (method of treatment for a named disease)
- Compound-limited (exact chemical entity definition)
No claim language is available here, so a claim-accurate breakdown cannot be produced.
Russian Federation drug patent landscape: how RU2013155479 typically interacts with other coverage
Russian pharmaceutical patent portfolios generally cluster around four buckets that drive enforcement and regulatory impacts:
- Active ingredient / compound patents
- Highest enforcement leverage due to broad composition and therapeutic use coverage.
- Polymorph, salt, and solid-state form patents
- Often block generic entry if the branded product uses a protected form.
- Formulation patents
- Can create secondary barriers (release profile, excipient system, particle engineering).
- Method-of-use patents
- Can protect specific indications or dosing regimens even after compound-level expiry.
For RU2013155479, the landscape is determined by what it protects. If RU2013155479 is compound-level, it will generally show dense overlap with patent families around the same API. If it is a formulation or method-of-use, it will overlap with later improvement patents and line extensions.
Without the RU2013155479 text, it is not possible to identify which bucket it belongs to, which dependent limitations apply, and which later patents in the Russian family network are likely to be design-arounds.
Freedom-to-operate implications (structured to be claim-accurate)
A correct FTO analysis would require:
- Claim-to-product mapping: branded drug formulation and dosage form used in RU
- Generic candidate mapping: API identity, salt/polymorph, excipients, particle engineering, and release profile
- Timing: Russian patent status (in force, lapsed, expired), term adjustments, and any restoration
- Regulatory linkage: whether the relevant Russian marketing authorization lists the protected form or method
None of these are derivable from the citation alone in this chat.
Key Takeaways
- RU2013155479 can be analyzed only by using the actual RU publication text (claim wording, definitions, and scope-limiting parameters) plus related family documents and status.
- A claim-by-claim scope and an enforceable patent landscape cannot be produced accurately from the information provided in this chat.
FAQs
-
Can RU2013155479 be evaluated for freedom-to-operate without claim text?
No. FTO depends on exact claim boundaries and dependent claim limitations.
-
What document elements drive scope in Russian drug patents?
Independent claim wording, dependent claim dependencies, and any definitions (salt/polymorph/formulation parameters).
-
How do polymorph and salt patents change the landscape?
They shift the barrier from “any generic API” to “generic that uses the same protected solid form.”
-
How are formulation patents typically enforced in Russia?
Through product composition and process-limited product-by-process definitions, often supported by examples and stability data.
-
What determines whether RU2013155479 blocks generics?
Whether the claim covers the same API form, formulation attributes, and method-of-use as the marketed reference product.
References (APA)
[1] Russian Patent Office. RU2013155479 (publication details and claims text required for analysis).
