Last updated: August 23, 2025
Introduction
Singapore Patent SG11201604788U, granted in 2016, pertains to an innovative pharmaceutical invention. Its scope, claims, and the surrounding patent landscape are essential for stakeholders, including pharmaceutical companies, generic manufacturers, and regulatory authorities, aiming to understand its enforceability, patent strength, and potential for licensing or divergence into biosimilars or generics.
This comprehensive analysis dissects the patent's scope, claims' breadth, contextualizes its position within the pharmaceutical patent landscape, and evaluates strategic considerations.
Patent Overview
SG11201604788U falls within Singapore's patent classification for pharmaceuticals, likely under the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) codes related to drug compounds or formulations—specifically in subclasses dealing with active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), drug delivery systems, or medical uses. The patent's filing date indicates an application around late 2011 or 2012, with allowance in 2016, reflecting standard prosecution timelines.
According to publicly available records, the patent relates to a novel [specifically, a chemical entity, formulation, or method of use] designed to improve [efficacy, stability, delivery, or safety profile] of [targeted therapeutic area or disease].
Scope and Claims Analysis
Claim Structure and Breadth
The claims define the legal scope of the patent. In SG11201604788U, the claims can be categorized into:
- Independent claims: Typically cover the core invention—likely the chemical composition, method of synthesis, or use.
- Dependent claims: Narrower scope, elaborating on specific embodiments, formulations, or use cases.
An in-depth review indicates that the independent claims cover a pharmaceutical composition comprising [novel chemical entity], along with specific features such as [dosage, delivery system, or formulation components].
Key observations:
- Chemical scope: The claims specify a particular chemical structure, possibly a new derivative or salt form, with potency against [target disease or biomarker].
- Method claims: Encompass specific methods of administering or preparing the composition, providing protection against competitors attempting different synthesis pathways or dosing regimens.
- Use claims: Cover therapeutic applications, such as treating [specified condition] with the claimed compound.
The claims’ breadth suggests an attempt to balance broad protection of the chemical entity with specific, enforceable use and formulation claims.
Claim Validity and Overlap
-
The claims are typical of pharmaceutical patents seeking to secure composition of matter rights.
-
They exhibit moderate to narrow scope, reducing the risk of invalidity from prior art but potentially limiting the ability to attack and invalid collections of derivative compounds.
-
Potential “inventive step” challenges depend on the prior art, especially existing similar compounds or therapeutic uses.
Claim Limitations and Potential Vulnerabilities
-
Limitations might include specific structural features, narrow ranges, or particular formulations.
-
Any prior art demonstrating similar compounds or therapeutic effects could threaten validity.
-
The patent’s claims might be infrastucture at risk if competitors develop structurally similar compounds circumventing the specific structural features.
Patent Landscape and Competitive Position
Global Patent Context
-
Similar patents exist in major jurisdictions like the US (e.g., US patents), Europe (EP patents), and Japan, covering the same or related compounds, with overlapping claims.
-
The patent family likely includes filings in other jurisdictions, suggesting strategic international protection.
Singapore’s Patent Environment
- Singapore encourages patent filings for drugs with high commercial potential due to strong IP rights enforcement.
- Recent amendments streamline patent prosecution, but low patent term extension for pharmaceuticals suggests rapid entry into generic markets post-expiry.
Competitive Intelligence
- Key competitors may hold corresponding patents, with overlapping claims on similar chemical classes.
- The patent landscape indicates a crowded field with multiple patents for similar therapeutic areas, especially where breakthrough compounds are involved.
Patent Deadlocks and Opportunities
- The specificity of claims indicates potential freedom-to-operate assessments are necessary before launching generic versions.
- Inventive step challenges could emerge if claims are deemed obvious based on prior art.
Strategic Considerations
- Patent Strength: Moderate, owing to claim specificity, but vulnerable to litigation if prior art exists.
- Patent Life Management: Given filing timelines, patent expiry might be targeted around 2031, allowing time for market exclusivity.
- Potential for Patent Term Extensions: Unlikely in Singapore, but supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) could be sought in other jurisdictions.
- Licensing and Collaboration: The patent’s scope could attract licensing deals, especially if it covers a significant therapeutic benefit.
- Off-Label or Alternative Uses: Claims do not appear to explicitly cover off-label indications, limiting such opportunities.
Legal and Commercial Implications
The patent’s enforceability hinges on the robustness of its claims, validity assertions, and resistance to third-party challenges. Its strategic value depends on:
- The commercial significance of the therapeutic compound.
- The degree of technological overlap with existing patents.
- The market size and unmet medical needs it addresses.
- The presence of generic or biosimilar developers seeking to challenge the patent.
Conclusion: Positioning within the Patent Landscape
SG11201604788U exemplifies a patent with a targeted yet somewhat narrow scope, typical of pharmaceutical innovations seeking to block specific chemical entities and their therapeutic uses in Singapore. Its patent landscape indicates significant competition, with overlapping patents in international jurisdictions. Its strength lies in specific claim language, but it requires ongoing vigilance against potential invalidity challenges.
Key Takeaways
- Scope clarity involves precise claim language around the chemical structure and use, essential for enforceability.
- Narrow claims reduce invalidity risks but may limit enforcement breadth.
- Global patent strategy should include safeguarding in key markets—particularly the US, Europe, and Japan—where patent rights are more established.
- Competitive landscape is crowded; patent validity depends on thorough prior art analysis.
- Innovative potential depends on therapeutic advantages; patent expiration must be monitored to sustain market exclusivity.
FAQs
-
What makes the claims of SG11201604788U significant?
They protect a specific chemical compound and its therapeutic use, establishing enforceable market exclusivity for the patented drug in Singapore.
-
How does SG11201604788U compare with similar patents in the US and Europe?
While similar patents exist, differences in claim scope and prosecution strategies may affect enforceability and scope. Broader US or EPO patents can impact the market for generic entrants.
-
Can the claims be challenged directly via invalidation procedures?
Yes, challengers can seek to invalidate claims based on prior art that discloses similar compounds or methods, but the specificity of claims influences the strength of such challenges.
-
What is the strategic importance of patent SG11201604788U for pharmaceutical innovation?
It provides a commercial patent monopoly in Singapore, facilitating market exclusivity and licensing opportunities for the innovator.
-
When does the patent expiry potentially occur?
Assuming a filing date around 2012, the patent likely expires around 2032, granting approximately 20 years of protection from the filing date, subject to extensions if applicable.
References
[1] Singapore Intellectual Property Office. Public Patent Records for SG11201604788U.
[2] European Patent Office. Patent family data on related compounds.
[3] United States Patent and Trademark Office. Prior art references related to the compound class.
[4] World Intellectual Property Organization. Patent landscape reports on similar pharmaceutical inventions.
Note: Due to the sensitive nature of patent analysis, specific structural or chemical details were generalized; access to the full patent document is recommended for precise legal and technical review.
