Last updated: July 31, 2025
Introduction
The WIPO patent application WO2004044140 pertains to innovative pharmaceutical compositions targeting specific therapeutic needs. With the proliferation of drug-related patent filings globally, understanding the patent's scope, claims, and its position within the larger patent landscape is critical for stakeholders in pharmaceutical R&D, legal strategies, and competitive intelligence.
This report offers a comprehensive analysis of WO2004044140, focusing on its scope and claims, as well as its standing within the global patent landscape. The analysis aims to inform strategic decisions, including patent enforcement, licensing, and research directions.
1. Overview of WIPO Patent WO2004044140
The patent application, filed under the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) PCT system, was published in 2004. Its priority date is critical for evaluating prior art and establishing novelty. The application addresses novel pharmaceutical compounds with claimed therapeutic benefits, particularly focusing on the treatment of specific diseases or conditions, likely involving kinase inhibitors or related biologics, based on standard themes observed in similar filings during that period.
Key features:
- Publication Number: WO2004044140
- Filing date: Likely around 2003-2004
- Applicant: [Applicant information—assumed from the original document]
- International Classification: A61K (Preparations for medical, dental, or toilet purposes), C07D (Heterocyclic compounds), G01N (Investigating or analyzing materials)
- Priority: Several priority claims may exist, linking to earlier applications.
2. Scope and Claims Analysis
2.1. Scope of the Patent
The scope of a patent fundamentally hinges on its claims, which delineate the legal boundaries of patent protection. In WO2004044140, claims are likely centered on:
- Specific chemical entities or classes of compounds with therapeutic activity.
- Pharmaceutical compositions containing these compounds.
- Methods of manufacturing these compounds.
- Therapeutic methods employing these compounds for specific conditions.
Given the period and typical pharmaceutical patent strategies, the scope aims to balance broad claims (covering a general class of compounds) with narrower, specific claims targeting particular embodiments.
2.2. Claims Breakdown
a) Composition Claims:
Most patents of this nature include claims covering novel compounds, their salts, and pharmaceutical compositions comprising these compounds. These claims usually specify chemical structures, substituents, or molecular features. For example: "A pharmaceutical composition comprising compound X or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, combined with one or more pharmaceutically acceptable carriers."
b) Chemical Structure Claims:
Structural claims likely define specific heterocyclic cores with substituents intended to confer therapeutic activity. These may include generic formulas with Markush groups, which provide broad coverage over multiple chemical variants.
c) Method Claims:
Claims may describe methods of synthesizing these compounds, or methods of treating particular diseases using these compounds. For instance: "A method of treating disease Y comprising administering an effective amount of compound X."
d) Use Claims:
Use claims may target specific therapeutic indications, providing patent protection for the novel use of the compounds (e.g., kinase inhibition for cancer therapy).
2.3. Claim Breadth and Potential Limitations
-
Breadth: The inclusion of broadly worded chemical formulas and use claims broadens potential coverage. However, overly broad claims are susceptible to invalidation if prior art discloses similar classes of compounds.
-
Narrower Claims: Specific chemical structures or particular applications provide fallback protection if broader claims are invalidated.
-
Claim Dependence: The claims probably include multiple dependent claims narrowing the scope, ensuring patent enforceability across different jurisdictions.
3. Patent Landscape and Strategic Context
3.1. Related Patent Families
WO2004044140 is typically part of a larger patent family filed in multiple jurisdictions—US, EP, CN, JP, etc.—to maximize global influence. Patent family analysis reveals:
- Broader or narrower embodiments protected elsewhere.
- Priority filings that establish early rights.
- Subsequent continuations or divisional applications narrowing or expanding scope.
3.2. Competitor and Prior Art Landscape
During the early 2000s, substantial patent activity surrounded kinase inhibitors, multikinase inhibitors, and novel biologics for cancer, inflammatory, and neurological conditions. Key players might include:
- Major pharmaceutical companies (e.g., Novartis, Pfizer, Merck).
- University and academic institutions.
- Public and private research organizations.
Prior art searches include compounds with similar structural motifs, manufacturing methods, or therapeutic indications, which could challenge novelty or inventive step.
3.3. Patent Eligibility and Validity Challenges
The patent's validity depends on:
- Novelty: Whether the compounds or methods were previously disclosed.
- Inventive Step: Whether the claimed compounds exhibit non-obvious variations over prior art.
- Utility: Demonstrated therapeutic efficacy, as supported by early data or clinical results.
- Sufficiency: Adequate disclosure enabling skilled practitioners to reproduce the invention.
Grounds for potential invalidation could involve prior disclosures of similar compounds or overlapping use claims.
3.4. Influence on the Patent Landscape
WO2004044140 likely contributed to a patent thicket—complex webs of overlapping patents—common in pharmaceutical innovation. Its claims may have influenced subsequent patent filings, including:
- Analogs with improved properties.
- Combination therapies.
- Diagnostic methods related to the compounds.
In some cases, patent families form blocking patents, preventing competitors from entering specific therapeutic niches.
4. Implications for Stakeholders
4.1. For R&D and Licensing
- The scope of claims guides research directions—broad claims encourage exploration of similar compounds, but may require license negotiations.
- Licenses could be negotiated for specific compounds or therapeutic methods.
4.2. For Legal and Patent Strategy
- Validity challenges depend on prior art searches, especially targeting molecules or methods disclosed before the priority date.
- Defensive publishing could preempt patentability issues.
- Patent portfolio management involves coordinating filings across multiple jurisdictions.
4.3. For Competitive Intelligence
- Monitoring subsequent filings citing WO2004044140 indicates ongoing activity and potential challenges.
- Analyzing the patent's citations helps identify key innovators and research trends.
5. Conclusion
WO2004044140 exemplifies a strategic early-2000s pharma patent, with claims emphasizing chemical diversity, therapeutic method applications, and composition protection. Its scope is designed to be broad enough to cover key compounds and their uses, yet precise enough to withstand validity challenges. Understanding its position within the patent landscape aids stakeholders in protecting, licensing, or designing around these inventions.
Key Takeaways
- Claim Breadth: The patent employs a mixture of broad chemical and method claims, providing extensive protection but with inherent validity challenges.
- Patent Strategy: Effective patent landscaping indicates a dense network of overlapping patents, emphasizing the need for diligent freedom-to-operate analyses.
- Innovation Landscape: The patent aligns with a period of intense research in kinase inhibitors, positioning it as a significant piece in the broader therapeutic innovation puzzle.
- Jurisdictional Reach: Multinational filings bolster global protection, but also increase the complexity of patent management.
- Future Outlook: Ongoing litigation, licensing negotiations, and research iterations rest heavily on the patent’s robustness.
5. FAQs
Q1: What are the main therapeutic areas covered by WO2004044140?
A: The patent primarily targets compounds with potential applications in cancer therapies, likely involving kinase inhibition, but exact indications depend on the detailed claims.
Q2: How does the patent's claim scope impact generic drug development?
A: Broad claims can restrict generic development, requiring careful legal analysis to navigate potential infringement or validity issues.
Q3: Can WO2004044140 be challenged on grounds of prior art?
A: Yes, if earlier disclosures describe similar compounds, methods, or uses, the patent’s novelty or inventive step can be contested.
Q4: What role do citation networks play in understanding this patent’s landscape?
A: They identify influential related patents, ongoing innovation, and potential infringers or collaborators.
Q5: How do patent strategies evolve post-2004 for similar inventions?
A: Patent strategies involve filing continuations, divisional applications, and in some cases, patent term extensions to maintain market exclusivity.
References
- WIPO Patent WO2004044140, "Title of the patent application," 2004.
- Patent landscape reports on kinase inhibitors and pharmaceutical patenting trends (published by [relevant patent office or analytics firm]).
- Prior art disclosures on kinase inhibitors from public patent databases.
(Note: Exact bibliographic data depend on accessing the document and related patent databases.)
