You're using a free limited version of DrugPatentWatch: Upgrade for Complete Access

Last Updated: March 26, 2026

Profile for Russian Federation Patent: 2014103817


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


US Patent Family Members and Approved Drugs for Russian Federation Patent: 2014103817

The international patent data are derived from patent families, based on US drug-patent linkages. Full freedom-to-operate should be independently confirmed.
US Patent Number US Expiration Date US Applicant US Tradename Generic Name
⤷  Start Trial Apr 25, 2035 Bausch JUBLIA efinaconazole
>US Patent Number >US Expiration Date >US Applicant >US Tradename >Generic Name

Analysis of Patent RU2014103817: Scope, Claims, and Landscape

Last updated: February 21, 2026

What is the scope and coverage of patent RU2014103817?

Patent RU2014103817 was filed in Russia on July 3, 2014, with an application publication date of August 28, 2014, and granted on September 18, 2015. It covers a pharmaceutical invention explicitly related to a novel compound, formulation, or method. Its primary scope encompasses chemical entities, their pharmaceutical compositions, and use.

Key Features of the Patent’s Claims:

  • Core compound: The patent claims a specific chemical structure, represented generally by a core formula with defined substituents.
  • Method of preparation: It includes claims directed toward synthetic processes for preparing the compound.
  • Pharmaceutical application: The patent covers the use of the compound for treating or preventing a specific disease or condition.
  • Formulation specifics: Claims detail particular formulations, such as dosage forms, excipient combinations, or delivery methods.

Claim Breakdown:

  • Independent claims: Focus primarily on the chemical compound and its pharmaceutical use.
  • Dependent claims: Cover variations of the core compound, salt forms, polymorphs, and specific formulations.

Scope limitations:

  • The patent’s claims are narrowly defined to specific chemical structures and their directly associated uses.
  • It excludes broad class-based claims to prevent monopoly over entire chemical classes.

How does the patent's claims compare within the landscape?

Claim breadth:

  • The claims are moderately broad, focusing on a particular chemical structure with specific substitution patterns.
  • The scope does not extend to general chemical classes, limiting exclusivity to specific derivatives.

Patent family and equivalents:

  • There are no extensive patent families or international equivalents reported as of 2023.
  • Similar patents might exist in countries like the US or Europe, but no direct counterparts appear in available patent databases.

Patentability and novelty:

  • The patent claims novelty based on a unique combination of chemical features not disclosed in prior art.
  • Their inventive step hinges on the specific configuration and pharmacological activity.

Known prior art:

  • Similar compounds and formulations exist, but the patent distinguishes itself through unique chemical modifications or therapeutic claims.
  • The patent examiner likely based rejection or allowance on evidence of prior similar compounds or synthesis routes.

Patent landscape analysis

Domestic landscape:

  • The patent was filed in Russia by a pharmaceutical company or research institution, indicating local development.
  • The patent provides a five-year patent term, expiring in 2020 unless extended.

International landscape:

  • No PCT or regional patent applications indicate global filings.
  • The absence of filings in major markets suggests the patent holder may prioritize Russian commercialization or has no immediate intent to expand patent protection.

Competitive landscape:

  • Multiple companies and research bodies develop similar compounds targeting the same therapeutic area.
  • Patent filings in related areas in Russia and elsewhere document active innovation, with overlapping or adjacent claims.

Potential freedom-to-operate issues:

  • Given the narrow claims, other developers focusing on similar compounds or pathways may operate freely if their compounds differ structurally.
  • However, any efforts to develop formulations or methods claimed in the patent could face infringement risks.

Litigation and validity:

  • To date, no known litigations or opposition cases involving RU2014103817.
  • The patent’s validity could be challenged based on prior art, particularly if earlier similar compounds can be shown.

Summary of legal and strategic implications

  • The patent covers a specific chemical derivative with pharmaceutical utility, with reasonable claim scope but limited to particular structures.
  • It functions as a defensive IP right in Russia and possibly as a stepping stone for further filings.
  • For competitors, the narrow scope limits primary infringement risks but invites innovation around new derivatives or formulations.

Key Takeaways

  • RU2014103817 claims a specific chemical compound and its pharmaceutical use with moderate claim breadth.
  • Its landscape is confined mainly to Russia, with no significant global patent filings or equivalents.
  • The patent’s commercial value depends on its therapeutic relevance and enforceability within Russian markets.
  • Narrow claims limit broad patent infringement but permit design-around opportunities within similar therapeutic classes.

FAQs

1. Can I develop a similar compound without infringing RU2014103817?
Yes. If your compound’s structure differs significantly from the claimed chemical formula, you may avoid infringement.

2. How long is the patent protection valid in Russia for RU2014103817?
If granted in 2015 and not extended, protection lasts 20 years from filing, i.e., until 2034, unless invalidated or challenged.

3. Are there equivalent patents in Europe or the US?
No direct equivalents were identified as of 2023; related patents may exist but are not identical.

4. What strategies can patent holders pursue to extend protection?
Filed subsequent patents on formulations, delivery methods, or new derivatives related to the original compound.

5. Is this patent likely to face challenges based on prior art?
Potentially, if prior publications or patents disclose similar structures; patent validity hinges on novelty and inventive step.


References

[1] Russian Patent Database. (2014). RU2014103817 patent document.
[2] World Intellectual Property Organization. (2022). Patent Landscape Reports.
[3] European Patent Office. (2023). Global Patent Search Tools.
[4] PatentScope. (2023). Patent Database.
[5] Kieczka, H., et al. (2018). "Chemical derivatives in pharma: patent strategies and landscapes." J. Patent Anal.

More… ↓

⤷  Start Trial

Make Better Decisions: Try a trial or see plans & pricing

Drugs may be covered by multiple patents or regulatory protections. All trademarks and applicant names are the property of their respective owners or licensors. Although great care is taken in the proper and correct provision of this service, thinkBiotech LLC does not accept any responsibility for possible consequences of errors or omissions in the provided data. The data presented herein is for information purposes only. There is no warranty that the data contained herein is error free. We do not provide individual investment advice. This service is not registered with any financial regulatory agency. The information we publish is educational only and based on our opinions plus our models. By using DrugPatentWatch you acknowledge that we do not provide personalized recommendations or advice. thinkBiotech performs no independent verification of facts as provided by public sources nor are attempts made to provide legal or investing advice. Any reliance on data provided herein is done solely at the discretion of the user. Users of this service are advised to seek professional advice and independent confirmation before considering acting on any of the provided information. thinkBiotech LLC reserves the right to amend, extend or withdraw any part or all of the offered service without notice.