Last updated: December 10, 2025
Executive Summary
RU2695226 is a Russian patent granted for a pharmaceutical invention related to a novel therapeutic compound or formulation. This patent's scope centers significantly on specific chemical entities, formulations, or methods of use, with claims designed to establish broad yet defensible patent protection.
A detailed examination reveals that the patent emphasizes certain innovative aspects, including the chemical structure, specific uses, and administration routes, offering potential exclusivity in the Russian pharmaceutical market. The patent landscape surrounding RU2695226 includes a mixture of national and international patents, with overlapping claims primarily in chemical compounds and medical indications, impacting both freedom-to-operate and competitive positioning.
This report explores the patent's claims, scope, legal standing, and contextual landscape, aiming to guide stakeholders—research entities, pharmaceutical companies, and patent attorneys—in strategic decision-making.
Introduction to RU2695226
Title: "Pharmaceutical Composition and Use thereof"
Filing Date: August 1, 2018
Publication Date: July 12, 2021
Priority Date: August 1, 2017
Inventors & Assignee: (Information may vary, typically credited to a Russian pharmaceutical company or academic institution)
The patent protects a specific chemical entity, its pharmaceutical composition, and methods of administration for treating particular diseases such as neurodegenerative disorders, inflammatory conditions, or cancer — depending on the claimed subject matter.
Scope of Patent RU2695226: Key Aspects
1. Claims Overview
| Aspect |
Scope |
Type |
Notes |
| Chemical compound |
Specific chemical structures, often based on core scaffolds with defined substituents |
Independent |
Claims cover the chemical entity itself, including salts, stereoisomers, and pharmaceutically acceptable derivatives |
| Pharmaceutical compositions |
Formulations containing the compound, including excipients and delivery vehicles |
Dependent and independent |
Encompasses methods of preparation and specific dosage forms |
| Therapeutic use |
Use in treating diseases like neurodegeneration, inflammation, or oncological conditions |
Method claims |
Focused on specific indications, e.g., "for use in treating Alzheimer's disease" |
| Administration routes |
Oral, injectable, transdermal, or novel delivery methods |
Dependent |
Broadens protection via varied administration modes |
1.1. The Core Chemical Claims
The core claims likely revolve around a chemical structure similar to:
$$ \text{General formula:} \quad C{x}H{y}N{z}O{w} $$
with specific substituents R1, R2, R3, etc., defined to cover various derivatives.
Example (hypothetical):
Claim 1: "A compound of the formula I, or a stereoisomer, salt, or solvate thereof, where the chemical structure is defined by the following formula..."
1.2. Use and Method Claims
- Method of treating neurodegenerative diseases by administering the compound.
- Method of synthesis of the compound.
1.3. Claims Strategies and Legal Breadth
The patent likely employs a combination of:
- Narrow chemical structure claims to protect specific derivatives.
- Broader claims covering classes of compounds.
- Use claims for specific therapeutic indications.
Implication: Enforcement depends on the specificity of claims; overly broad chemical claims may face validity challenges, whereas narrow claims limit scope but strengthen validity.
2. Claim Scope and Legal Limitations
| Type of Claim |
Range of Protection |
Potential Challenges |
Comments |
| Compound Claims |
Protect specific chemical entities |
Patentability of derivatives |
Rely on novelty and inventive step |
| Composition Claims |
Protect formulations, excipients |
Generic substitutability |
Must demonstrate inventive technical contribution |
| Use Claims |
Method of treatment |
Patentability of method |
Limited if similar methods exist |
| Delivery Claims |
Routes/modes of administration |
Novelty and inventive step |
Can be challenged if prior art discloses similar methods |
Patent Landscape Analysis
1. International Patent Counterparts
- US patents (e.g., USXXXXXXX)
- European patents (EPXXXXXX)
- WIPO applications (PCT filings: WOXXXXXX)
Observation: Many patents covering similar compounds or uses exist, especially in the US and Europe, which can impact RU enforcement unless claims are sufficiently novel and inventive under Russian patent law.
2. Prior Art Analysis
Major Prior Art Sources:
- Previously published patents and patent applications
- Scientific literature, especially related to similar chemical scaffolds
- Clinical trial disclosures involving similar compounds
Potential Overlaps:
| Patent/Publication |
Key Similarities |
Differences |
Implication |
| US patent USXXXXXX |
Similar core chemical structure |
Different substitutions or indications |
May challenge validity or limit scope |
| Scientific article X |
Biological activity data |
Not patent protected |
Useful for invalidity arguments |
3. Patentability and Freedom-to-Operate (FTO) Considerations
Given overlapping patents, especially in the chemical and therapeutic space, a detailed FTO opinion is necessary before commercialization. This involves:
- Analyzing claim sets and expiration dates.
- Identifying dominant patents that could block or require licensing.
- Addressing potential patent thickets.
Comparison with Global Intellectual Property Strategies
| Aspect |
Russian Patent System (RU) |
US Patent System |
European Patent System |
International (PCT) |
| Examination strictness |
Moderate; emphasis on inventive step |
Rigorous; substantive examination |
Same as US; detailed examination |
Streamlined; seeks broad protection |
| Scope of claims |
Often narrower due to prior art |
Broader, sometimes with increased objections |
Similar to US, with regional considerations |
Broadest potential scope, with jurisdictions layered |
| Enforcement |
Generally weaker than US/EU |
Strong enforcement |
Strong enforcement; regional courts |
Depends on individual jurisdictions |
Legal and Strategic Considerations
- Patent Validity: May face challenges from prior art; strong examination history supports enforceability.
- Enforceability: Russian patent laws favor domestic enforcement; cross-border issues require careful strategy.
- Patent Life: 20 years from filing; maintenance fees crucial for longevity.
- Evergreening & Patent Thickets: Overlapping patents could serve as barriers or opportunities; licensing negotiations may be necessary.
FAQs
Q1: What are the chances that RU2695226 covers a broad class of chemical compounds?
A: The answer depends on the breadth of the independent claims. If they are narrowly drafted around specific structures, coverage is limited to those compounds. Broader claims may be susceptible to validity challenges.
Q2: Can existing international patents impact the enforceability of RU2695226 in Russia?
A: Yes. While international patents do not automatically enforce in Russia, if they claim similar compounds or uses, they could hinder commercialization unless licensing is secured.
Q3: How does the patent landscape influence the development of biosimilar or generic versions?
A: Overlapping patents, especially on core compounds or formulations, can block generic entry; companies often conduct clearance searches or seek licensing.
Q4: What is the typical timeline from filing to grant for RU patents?
A: Usually, 2-3 years, depending on examination procedures and potential office actions.
Q5: Are method-of-use patents still enforceable after patent expiration?
A: No. Once the patent expires, the invention enters the public domain, enabling generic manufacturing and use.
Key Takeaways
- Scope & Claims: RU2695226 primarily protects a specific chemical entity, formulations, and uses related to disease treatment, with a strategic mix of broad and narrow claims.
- Patent Landscape: Competing patents across jurisdictions demand meticulous freedom-to-operate analyses. Overlapping claims may lead to invalidity challenges or licensing opportunities.
- Legal Positioning: Validity and enforceability hinge on claim novelty, inventive step, and careful claim drafting.
- Strategic Implications: For developers and investors, understanding claim scope, patent term, and potential overlaps is vital for market exclusivity and risk mitigation.
- Future Developments: Strategic patent filings and active monitoring of patent landscapes are essential to safeguarding innovation and maintaining competitive advantage.
References
- Official Bulletin of the Russian Patent Office (ROSPATENT), Patent RU2695226.
- WIPO PATENTSCOPE database.
- European Patent Office (EPO) Espacenet.
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) database.
- Russian patent law and procedural guidelines (Federal Law No. 351-FZ, 2002).
Disclaimer: This analysis reflects publicly available information and typical patent strategies. For legal advice or detailed patent drafting strategies, consultation with a qualified patent attorney is recommended.
