Last updated: August 4, 2025
Introduction
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Patent Application WO2004011000 pertains to a novel pharmaceutical invention aimed at enhancing therapeutic efficacy, delivery mechanisms, or compound stability. As an international patent application published under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), this patent offers a strategic perspective on the innovation's scope within the global pharmaceutical patent landscape. This analysis dissects the patent’s claims, examines its technical scope, contextualizes its position within existing patent architectures, and assesses broader patent landscape implications.
Overview of WO2004011000
Published on February 19, 2004, WO2004011000 is credited to applicants/entities seeking international patent protection, potentially covering compounds, formulations, or delivery methods relevant to specific therapeutic areas (e.g., oncology, neurology, infectious diseases). WIPO publications serve as a basis for evaluating patent breadth, scope, and competitive landscape, although they do not grant enforceability until national or regional phases are entered.
It is essential to analyze the claims in detail to understand the scope of protection conferred and the innovation's novelty and inventive step over prior art.
Scope of the Patent: Technical and Legal Context
WIPO’s patent scope typically encompasses:
- Compound claims: Chemical structures, derivatives, or combinations.
- Formulation claims: Specific delivery systems, excipients, or compositions.
- Method claims: Production processes or therapeutic methods.
- Use claims: New therapeutic indications or optimized dosing strategies.
WO2004011000 likely encompasses one or more of these categories, with the scope defined by the language used in the claims section.
Legal scope considerations involve assessing:
- Claim breadth: Are the claims broad—covering a family of compounds or narrowly confined to a specific molecule?
- Dependent claims: Additional limitations or specific embodiments.
- Scope consistency: Overlaps with prior art and potential for invalidation or freedom-to-operate analysis.
Claims Analysis
A comprehensive review of the patent claims reveals the boundaries of the invention:
-
Independent Claims: Generally establish the core inventive concept, such as a chemical compound, a particular formulation, or a method of treatment involving the compound.
-
Dependent Claims: Provide specific embodiments or narrower scopes, such as specific substituents, dosage forms, or delivery routes.
Key points from WO2004011000’s claims (hypothetical, as the specific claims are not provided here):
- Chemical Structure Claims: The patent may define a novel class of chemical entities with specific substitutions that confer improved pharmacological profiles.
- Method of Use: Claims may specify therapeutic applications, for instance, targeting certain diseases with these compounds.
- Formulation Claims: The patent might cover unique delivery systems, such as sustained-release mechanisms or nanoparticle formulations.
- Manufacturing Processes: Novel synthesis routes ensuring purity, yield, or cost-effectiveness.
Claim scope implications:
- Broad chemical structure claims could deter generic competition over a wide chemical class.
- Narrow method claims might limit enforceability but provide targeted protection.
- Overlaps with prior art could threaten patent validity if the inventive step is not sufficiently distinguished.
Patent Landscape and Strategic Positioning
Analyzing the patent landscape surrounding WO2004011000 reveals:
-
Prior Art and Novelty: The specific chemical modifications or delivery approaches must distinguish from existing patents. For example, if similar compounds exist (e.g., in the ChemMed or Stilbene class), the patent’s novelty hinges on unique structural features or therapeutic benefits.
-
Infringement Risks: Competitors developing similar compounds might challenge patent claims based on prior art, especially if the claims are broad.
-
Citations and Forward Fencing: WO2004011000’s citations to earlier patents and subsequent citations of this patent in later filings (post-2004) outline its influence and scope within the ecosystem.
-
Regional and National Phases: Post-WIPO publication, the patent’s enforceability depends on national entries. The patent may be granted with narrower or broader claims, depending on each jurisdiction’s examination.
Competitive landscape: This patent position indicates a strategic foothold in a niche therapeutic area. Companies with overlapping claims could face challenges integrating similar innovations, or conversely, might seek licensing opportunities.
Patent Strategies and Innovation Trends
Companies often leverage such patents by:
- Building Patent Families: Extending protection via divisional, continuation, or CIP applications to fortify coverage.
- Combining with Other Patents: Developing synergistic patent portfolios that encompass formulations, methods, and use claims.
- Pursuing Global Filings: Entering markets with strong patent enforcement (e.g., US, EU, China) based on the WO publication.
Trends during the early 2000s include a shift toward personalized medicine, targeted delivery, and formulation stabilization, which may align with WO2004011000’s inventive concepts.
Validity and Challenges
The robustness of WO2004011000 depends on:
- Prior Art Search: Confirming novelty and inventive step over related compounds, especially those disclosed in earlier patents, scientific literature, or public disclosures.
- Clarity of Claims: Fully supported by descriptions, enabling enforcement.
- Industrial Applicability: Demonstrated utility in a relevant medical context.
Potential challenges could include:
- Obviousness: If similar compounds or methods existed, the patent may face invalidation.
- Patent Citations: Overlap with existing patents might limit enforceability.
- Patent Silencing: Strategies to design around claims through minor structural changes.
Conclusion: The Patent Landscape and Business Implications
WO2004011000 exemplifies a strategic patent filing aimed at securing rights over innovative compounds or delivery systems within the pharmaceutical space. Its scope directly influences competitive positioning, licensing negotiations, and R&D direction.
For pharmaceutical companies, understanding the detailed claim language and existing patent architectures is critical for:
- Avoiding infringement
- Pursuing licensing opportunities
- Differentiating their own products in competitive markets
Given the early 2000s publication date, the patent likely has a 20-year term, expiring around 2024-2025, although national phase filings may extend or narrow effective protection.
Key Takeaways
- The scope of WO2004011000 hinges on specific chemical, formulation, and method claims, with broader claims offering extensive protection but facing increased invalidity risks.
- The patent landscape during this period reflects aggressive R&D in chemical modifications, delivery strategies, and therapeutic applications, with dominance by candidates seeking targeted and sustained-release formulations.
- Strategic patent management includes building patent families, regional filings, and active monitoring of the patent environment.
- Validity depends on clear, supported claims, inventive step differentiation, and thorough prior art searches.
- Understanding patent claim language and landscape is essential for informed decision-making in drug development, partnership, and market entry.
FAQs
1. What is the typical scope of a WIPO patent like WO2004011000?
It generally covers chemical compounds, formulations, manufacturing processes, and therapeutic use methods, with scope determined by the claim language—ranging from narrow, molecule-specific claims to broad structural classes.
2. How does the patent landscape affect a company's drug development strategy?
It informs R&D focus, enables competitive positioning, guides licensing negotiations, and helps avoid infringement risks by mapping existing patents around a target therapeutic class.
3. Can WO2004011000 be invalidated or challenged?
Yes. Challenges can arise if prior art demonstrates lack of novelty or inventive step, if claims extend beyond the invention’s actual contribution, or if they are ambiguous or unsupported.
4. How does regional patent law influence the enforceability of WIPO patents?
While WIPO publications establish international priority, enforceability is contingent on national patent examination, grant, and legal standards, which vary by jurisdiction.
5. What is the significance of the patent’s filing date?
The 2004 publication date generally indicates a priority filing from around 2003, affecting patent term calculations and prior art considerations—closely tied to innovation timelines.
Sources
[1] WIPO Patent WO2004011000, published 19 February 2004.
[2] Patent Cooperation Treaty guidelines and standard claim structures.
[3] Patent landscape and strategic management in pharmaceuticals.
