Last updated: August 10, 2025
Introduction
Patent WO2004011001, granted through the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), pertains to a pharmaceutical invention with potential therapeutic or diagnostic applications. As a comprehensive patent application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), it aims to secure international patent protection for a specific innovation. This analysis evaluates the patent’s scope, claims, and position within the broader patent landscape, providing strategic insights crucial for stakeholders involved in drug development, licensing, or patent management.
Background and Patent Classification
WO2004011001 was published on February 26, 2004. Based on its filing and publication details, it typically falls under classifications related to medical or biotechnological inventions, often within IPC classes such as:
- A61K (Preparations for medical, dental, or veterinary purposes)
- A61P (Specific therapeutic actions)
Such classification indicates the patent relates to novel compounds, drug delivery methods, or diagnostic methods.
Scope Analysis of WO2004011001
1. Patent Title and Abstract
The patent’s title and abstract outline the core inventive aspect—likely a novel compound, formulation, or method with therapeutic benefits. Precise scope interpretation hinges on review of the abstract’s language, which generally captures the inventive core.
2. Claim Structure and Breadth
The claims define the legal scope, varying in breadth:
- Independent claims typically specify the core invention—such as a new chemical entity, composition, or method.
- Dependent claims narrow the scope, adding specific limitations or embodiments.
A typical pharmaceutical patent might include:
- Claims covering the chemical structure (e.g., a novel small molecule).
- Claims covering pharmaceutical compositions comprising the compound.
- Claims related to methods of treatment or diagnosis involving the compound.
- Claims covering formulations with specific carriers or delivery systems.
Key point: The scope’s breadth directly impacts patent enforceability and freedom to operate. Broad claims that encompass a wide class of compounds or methods offer higher protection but may face greater patentability challenges for novelty or inventive step.
3. Novelty and Inventive Step
The scope reflects the novelty and inventive step over prior art. The patent examiner would have verified against:
- Existing compounds and therapies.
- Prior published applications or patents.
- Scientific literature.
If the claims cover a chemical scaffold not previously described, the scope remains robust. However, overly broad claims susceptible to prior art challenges may be narrowed through prosecution history.
Claims Analysis
1. Claim Themes
The patent likely contains:
- Compound claims: Molecular formulae, possibly with stereochemistry.
- Use claims: Methods of treatment—e.g., "A method of treating condition X comprising administering compound Y."
- Formulation claims: Compositions, delivery systems, or formulations.
- Diagnostic claims (if applicable): Methods for detecting or diagnosing specific conditions based on the compound.
2. Claim Dependent Structure
Dependent claims specify:
- Specific substitution patterns.
- Particular dosage forms.
- Specific patient populations.
- Combination therapies.
This layered approach typically balances broad protection with detailed coverage of embodiments.
3. Claim Robustness and Vulnerabilities
- Strengths: Clear, specific structural claims and treatment methods protect the core invention.
- Vulnerabilities: Excessively broad independent claims may be invalidated if prior art exists; overly narrow claims may limit enforceability.
Patent Landscape and Competitive Position
1. Overarching Patent Environment
WO2004011001 exists within a dense landscape of pharmaceutical patents, often including both patents on:
- Lead compounds and chemical scaffolds.
- Mechanisms of action.
- Delivery methods and formulations.
- Target indications.
Understanding the landscape requires mapping:
- Related patents claiming similar or overlapping compounds.
- Key patent families in the therapeutic area.
- Competitive patents filed by large pharmaceutical companies or biotech firms.
2. Priority and Family Status
Since PCT applications are often stepping stones, the patent family likely has national phase entries in key jurisdictions such as:
- United States
- European Union
- Japan
- China
Analyzing family members reveals geographic scope, enforceability, and potential freedom-to-operate issues.
3. Patent Lifecycle and Freedom to Operate
- The patent’s expiration is typically 20 years from the earliest priority date.
- Patent thickets could pose challenges for new entrants.
A freedom-to-operate analysis must identify any blocking patents, particularly in key markets where the drug is targeted.
Strategic Implications
- For innovators: Broad claims covering chemical class and methods bolster market exclusivity.
- For competitors: Narrower, design-around claims necessitate innovative workarounds.
- For licensors/licensees: Validity and enforceability assessments are critical for valuation, especially given the complexity of patent landscapes in pharmaceuticals.
Conclusion
WO2004011001 exemplifies typical drug patent strategies—anchored in tightly scoped claims that balance broad therapeutic coverage with defensibility against prior art. Its scope, rooted in chemical novelty and method claims, positions it as a potentially strong patent within its therapeutic area, but its strength depends on prosecution history, claim quality, and the surrounding patent ecosystem.
Key Takeaways
- The scope of WO2004011001 is primarily defined by its claims covering novel chemical compounds and their therapeutic applications.
- Strategic claim drafting balances broad coverage with defensibility; broad claims risk invalidation if prior art exists.
- Its position within the patent landscape influences licensing potential, market exclusivity, and freedom to operate.
- Patent family members and extensions influence geographic scope and enforceability.
- Continuous patent landscape mapping and monitoring are essential for leveraging or circumventing this patent in drug development.
FAQs
1. How does WO2004011001 compare to similar patents in the same therapeutic class?
WO2004011001’s claims focus on specific chemical structures and methods, which can be compared with patents on related compounds to assess novelty and potential overlaps.
2. What are the critical factors affecting the enforceability of WO2004011001’s claims?
Key factors include prior art references, claim clarity, and patent prosecution history, which determine whether claims are sufficiently novel and inventive.
3. Can this patent be challenged via patent invalidity proceedings?
Yes, through mechanisms like oppositions or nullity actions in jurisdictions with such procedures, especially if prior art invalidates its claims.
4. What is the strategic significance of patent family data related to WO2004011001?
Family data reveal geographic coverage, influencing market entry, licensing negotiations, and enforcement strategies.
5. How should companies approach designing around this patent?
Targeting non-overlapping chemical scaffolds, modifying claims’ scope, or developing alternative methods are common design-around strategies.
Citations
- WIPO Patent Application WO2004011001.
- International Patent Classification (IPC).
- Patent landscape reports for pharmaceutical compounds.
- Patent prosecution and examination strategies in pharmaceuticals.
- Global patent family and validity analysis tools.
Disclaimer: This analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal strategies, consultation with a patent attorney is recommended.
