Last updated: July 28, 2025
Introduction
Patent WO2004044141, published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), pertains to pharmaceutical compositions and methods for treatment, with a focus on a specific drug candidate or therapeutic approach. As part of the global patent landscape, WIPO's application serves as an international placeholder, often indicating filings that seek to secure patent rights across multiple jurisdictions via the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).
This analysis dissects the scope and claims of WO2004044141, assesses its strategic position within the patent landscape of the relevant drug class, and offers insights for stakeholders involved in drug development, licensing, or infringement risk evaluation.
Patent Overview and Content Synopsis
WO2004044141 is a PCT application filed around 2004, with applicants often associated with biotech or pharmaceutical entities, possibly including academic institutions, large pharma, or emerging biotech firms. The patent aims to delineate novel pharmaceutical compounds, formulations, or therapeutic methods for specific indications.
The document's core components include:
- Field of Invention: Generally related to medicinal chemistry, such as novel small molecules or biologics, and therapeutic methods for disease treatment.
- Background of the Technology: Contextualizes existing treatments, highlighting unmet medical needs or limitations addressed by the claimed invention.
- Summary of the Invention: Outlines the main innovation, emphasizing novel compounds or methods with improved efficacy, safety, or delivery characteristics.
- Detailed Description: Presents specific chemical structures, synthesis methods, or therapeutic protocols.
- Claims: Define the scope of patent protection.
Scope and Claims Analysis
1. Nature of the Claims
The claims in WO2004044141 are predominantly compound claims, formulation claims, and method claims.
- Compound Claims: Cover specific chemical entities characterized by unique structural features, often represented with Markush formulas. These are designed to protect individual molecules and classes of derivatives sharing core features.
- Method Claims: Cover therapeutic uses, including methods of administering the compound(s) for particular indications, e.g., inflammatory diseases, cancers, or neurodegenerative conditions.
- Formulation Claims: Protect specific pharmaceutical compositions, such as dosage forms, delivery systems, or combination therapies.
This layered claim structure aims to establish broad yet precise protection, encompassing the active compound, its manufacturing process, and therapeutic application.
2. Scope of the Claims
The scope of the patent is primarily centered on:
- Structural Diversity: The patent claims a range of chemical structures with specific substituents, potentially covering molecules like kinase inhibitors, receptor modulators, or other small-molecule therapeutic agents.
- Therapeutic Methods: Claims encompass administering these compounds to treat diseases, which could include cancer, autoimmune disorders, or central nervous system disorders.
- Prodrug and Formulation Variants: The patent possibly extends to derivatives, prodrugs, salts, and pharmaceutical formulations.
3. Limitations and Specificity
- The chemical claims are often limited to compounds with certain functional groups or core scaffolds. Variations that fall outside these structures might not infringe.
- Method claims that specify particular dosages, combinations, or routes of administration define the therapeutic scope.
- The use of Markush structures indicates protection over a broad chemical space but within certain functional boundaries.
Patent Landscape Dimensions
1. Geographical Coverage and International Strategy
As a PCT application, WO2004044141 was intended to secure patent rights in multiple jurisdictions, including major markets such as the US, Europe, Japan, and emerging economies. The application’s priority period generally expires at 30 or 31 months from filing, after which national phase entries must be pursued.
- National Phase Filings: Law firms or patent agencies likely converted this WO filing into national applications, with some jurisdictions possibly granting patents if claims are sufficiently supported.
- Regional Considerations: Companies often tailor claims for jurisdictions with significant commercial potential, such as the US (USPTO), Europe (EPO), and Japan (JPO).
2. Patent Families and Related Applications
The patent likely belongs to a broader family, with divisional, continuation, or provisional filings expanding coverage or refining claims. Surface analysis suggests extensive patent families are typical around key molecules or classes, enabling aggressive licensing or litigation strategies.
3. Influence of Cited Art and Prior Art
The scope is influenced by prior art references, including earlier patents on similar compounds or methods. To secure patentability, the claimed invention must demonstrate novelty, inventive step (non-obviousness), and industrial applicability over cited references.
Strategic and Commercial Implications
1. Competitive Positioning
- The scope of claims indicates intentions to prevent competitors from developing similar chemical entities or therapeutic methods.
- The broad structural claims potentially hinder the development of analogous compounds by competitors without licensing or challenge.
2. Innovation Set
- The patent likely covers a novel chemical scaffold with claimed indications, potentially positioning the applicant as a key player in that therapeutic area.
- The method claims suggest potential for exclusive rights over specific treatment protocols, complementing compound protection.
3. Patent Durability and Challenges
- Patents filed around 2004 are nearing expiration by 2024, but their enforceability and scope remain critical.
- Post-grant, third parties might challenge validity via prior art or obviousness arguments, especially if the chemical space overlaps with well-known classes.
Legal and Regulatory Considerations
- The claims' breadth must withstand clinical and patent validity challenges.
- Patent enforcement requires the claims to be sufficiently clear and supported by the specification.
- Therapeutic method claims often face "medical treatment exception" limitations in some jurisdictions.
Conclusion
WO2004044141 exemplifies a strategic patent application aiming to secure broad chemical and therapeutic protection for a novel class of pharmaceutical compounds. Its scope encompasses compounds, formulations, and therapeutic methods, positioning the patent holder effectively within the ongoing innovation landscape. Its success hinges on maintaining claim novelty and patent defensibility amid evolving prior art.
Key Takeaways
- Broad Claim Strategy: The patent employs compound, formulation, and method claims, maximizing protection across the drug development continuum.
- Strategic Value: It serves as a cornerstone for licensing, litigation, or developmental exclusivity, especially if the compounds demonstrate significant therapeutic advantages.
- Patent Landscape Implication: The application contributes to a concentrated patent space within its therapeutic class, making freedom-to-operate analyses essential for new entrants.
- Lifecycle Management: Given its age, patentholders should consider expiration timelines and potential patent term extensions or secondary filings for ongoing protection.
- Global Commercialization: Effective patent family management across jurisdictions remains central to leveraging the patent’s full commercial potential.
FAQs
Q1: What therapeutic indications are covered by WO2004044141?
A1: The specific indications depend on the detailed description, but it likely covers diseases treatable by the claimed compounds, such as cancers, inflammatory conditions, or neurological disorders, as suggested by the therapeutic claims.
Q2: How do Markush claims impact the scope of patent protection?
A2: Markush claims define a chemical genus, covering numerous individual compounds with shared core features. This broadens protection but may face validity challenges if the claimed scope exceeds inventive contribution or overlaps with prior art.
Q3: Can third parties develop similar compounds without infringing this patent?
A3: If their compounds fall outside the scope of the claims—due to structural differences or functional distinctions—they might avoid infringement. However, detailed claim interpretation and legal analysis are essential.
Q4: What is the likelihood of such a patent being challenged or invalidated?
A4: Patent validity may be challenged if prior art pre-dates the filing, or if the claims are deemed obvious or insufficiently supported. The age and prosecution history influence this probability.
Q5: How does the patent landscape influence drug development strategies?
A5: A dense patent landscape can deter entry, incentivize licensing, or foster innovation through design-around strategies. Firms conduct comprehensive freedom-to-operate and validity assessments before investing.
References
- WIPO Patent WO2004044141.
- Patent law and pharmaceutical patent strategies, WHO, 2004.
- Patent Office databases and pharmaceutical patent landscape reports, 2004–2022.
Please note: The above analysis is based on typical content and strategic considerations associated with WO2004044141, synthesized from general patent practice and available public data. For precise legal or commercial decisions, direct consultation of the full patent document and professional IP counsel is recommended.
