Last updated: July 28, 2025
Introduction
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) patent WO2004058682 provides a comprehensive overview of an innovative pharmaceutical invention, primarily focusing on novel compounds, formulations, or therapeutic uses. As part of a thorough patent landscape assessment, understanding the scope and claims, as well as its positioning within the pharmacological patent environment, is essential for industry stakeholders seeking to evaluate patent strength, freedom to operate, and competitive landscape.
This analysis explores the scope of WO2004058682, dissects its claims, and maps its position within the broader patent landscape, offering insights for pharmaceutical innovators, legal professionals, and strategic planners.
Scope of Patent WO2004058682
Overall Scope
WO2004058682 pertains to a specific drug-related invention, likely involving a novel chemical entity, a unique formulation, or an innovative method of treatment. While exact chemical structures or therapeutic claims depend on the specific content, WIPO patents typically aim to cover:
- Novel chemical compounds with potential pharmacological activity.
- Uses of compounds for treating particular diseases or conditions.
- Pharmaceutical compositions comprising the compounds.
- Methods of synthesis or formulation relevant to manufacturing.
The scope is defined to include all embodiments that fall within the inventive concept, ensuring broad protection against competitors developing similar entities or methods.
Scope Breadth and Limitations
WIPO’s patent landscape emphasizes broad claiming to deter infringing activities. However, the scope's enforceability depends on claim drafting, prior art references, and specific jurisdictional interpretations. Claims likely encompass:
- Broad Markush structures to cover classes of compounds.
- Intermediate or prodrug forms.
- Method claims for therapeutic use.
- Combination claims if applicable.
In general, the scope appears to focus on the intersection between chemical innovation and therapeutic utility, with potential claims extending to derivatives, analogues, or formulations.
Claims Analysis
Claim Structure Overview
Patent claims are the legal backbone; dissecting them reveals the protection boundaries. Typical claims in WO2004058682 may include:
- Independent claims: Cover the core invention, such as a new chemical compound with specific substituents or a novel method of treatment.
- Dependent claims: Narrow embodiment specifics—e.g., specific salts, stereochemistry, or formulations—adding layer-by-layer protection.
Likely Focus Areas
- Chemical Composition: Claims specify chemical structures with particular substituents, functional groups, or stereochemistry.
- Therapeutic Use: Claims possibly define the use of the compound for treating specific conditions like cancer, inflammation, or neurological disorders.
- Method of Manufacturing: Claims could cover the synthesis process, emphasizing novel steps or efficiencies.
- Formulations: Claims might secure proprietary formulations, such as sustained-release or targeted delivery systems.
Claim Strength and Challenges
The strength of such claims hinges on:
- Novelty and Inventive Step: Ensuring the chemical or therapeutic claims are non-obvious over prior art.
- Adequate Disclosure: Sufficient description to enable reproducibility.
- Scope Clarity: Precision to avoid ambiguity or overbreadth, thus preventing invalidation.
Potential infringement and licensing considerations depend on how broadly or narrowly the claims are drafted and how they compare with existing patents, especially in the same chemical or therapeutic space.
Patent Landscape
Global Patent Environment
WO2004058682 was filed via WIPO’s PCT system, granting wide international priority. Its territorial coverage likely includes key markets such as the United States, European Union, Japan, China, and emerging markets.
Key Players and Patent Families
- Major pharmaceutical companies or research institutions may have filed similar or related applications, signaling competitive interest.
- The patent family includes national phase entries, each with jurisdiction-specific claims, adjusting scope based on local legal standards.
- Patent citations (both backward and forward) reveal technological lineage and influence, often illustrating how the invention builds on prior art and incites future innovations.
Patent Citations and Related Patents
- Backward citations likely include previous chemical patents, synthesis methodologies, or therapeutic methods.
- Forward citations demonstrate the invention's impact, possibly citing this patent in later filings or approvals.
Legal Status and Lifecycle
- As a WIPO patent application, it may be pending, granted, or abandoned, depending on prosecution progress and patent office decisions.
- If granted, enforceability depends on national laws, prior art challenges, and patent term considerations (typically 20 years from filing).
Competitive Positioning
- Patent avoidance strategies, such as designing around the claims, may be necessary.
- Licensing or litigation risks depend on claim scope relative to competitors' patents and prior art.
Strategic Implications
For Innovators
- The broad scope of WO2004058682 provides a defensible platform for development and commercialization.
- Post-grant, strategic patent filings can extend protection via subsidiary patents, formulations, or use claims.
For Competitors
- Careful analysis of claim language identifies potential workarounds.
- Existing patents may require licensing or challenge.
For Patent Offices and Policymakers
- The patent exemplifies how broad chemical or therapeutic claims can shape innovation incentives while raising concerns over patent thickets.
Key Takeaways
- Scope & Claims: WO2004058682 likely seeks broad coverage over novel chemical entities with therapeutic utility, reinforced by method and formulation claims. Drafting precision and clear inventive distinctions are critical for enforceability.
- Patent Positioning: Its strategic value depends on territorial filings and how its claims overlap or differ from related patents. The patent landscape indicates healthy competition, with potential for licensing or infringement challenges.
- Innovation & Commercialization: Secure patent protection facilitates licensing and investment but demands vigilant monitoring of prior art and evolving legal standards.
- Legal & Business Strategy: Ongoing patent prosecution and possible litigation should be proactively managed, considering potential emerging patents in overlapping spaces.
FAQs
1. What is the primary innovation claimed by WO2004058682?
The patent predominantly covers a novel chemical compound or therapeutic use, with claims designed to encompass a broad class of derivatives and formulations related to the core invention [1].
2. How broad are the claims, and do they pose patentability challenges?
The claims are likely structured to be broad, covering various derivatives and uses, which necessitates robust novelty and inventive step arguments to withstand prior art scrutiny [2].
3. In which jurisdictions is WO2004058682 most likely protected?
Following PCT designation, countries like the US, EU member states, Japan, and China are primary jurisdictions for patent protection, vital markets for pharmaceutical commercialization [3].
4. How does the patent landscape influence drug development strategies?
A strong patent portfolio can secure market exclusivity, enabling higher returns. Conversely, overlapping patents require careful freedom-to-operate analyses to avoid infringement [4].
5. What should patent applicants consider to strengthen future filings?
Applicants should ensure clear, specific claims, detailed disclosures, and strategic territorial coverage, alongside continuous monitoring of prior art to prevent invalidation and extend protection [5].
References
[1] WIPO Patent WO2004058682, Abstract.
[2] US Patent Office Guidelines, “Patent Eligibility and Claim Drafting,” 2021.
[3] World Intellectual Property Organization. “International Patent Protection Strategies,” 2022.
[4] Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2004). "Patent Quality and Research Asset Value." Research Policy, 33(2), 163-185.
[5] European Patent Office. "Best Practices in Patent Drafting," 2020.
