Last updated: August 2, 2025
Introduction
The patent application WO2004060355, published under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), pertains to innovative advancements in the pharmaceutical domain. This patent, filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), showcases significant scope in drug development, encompassing novel compounds, formulations, or therapeutic methods. The following analysis dissects its claims, scope, and the broader patent landscape, providing essential insights for stakeholders involved in drug innovation, patent strategy, and pharmaceutical licensing.
1. Overview and Basic Details of WO2004060355
WO2004060355 was published on July 8, 2004, with inventors and applicants primarily associated with biotech and pharmaceutical research entities. The application targets a specific class of compounds or therapeutic approaches, likely aimed at underserved or novel medical indications. While the exact chemical or molecular disclosures require detailed review of the specification, typical patent claims from WIPO applications in this area encompass compounds, formulations, and methods of use.
2. Scope of the Patent
2.1. Core Subject Matter
The scope of WO2004060355 is determined by its claims, which usually specify:
- Chemical entities or classes: The patent likely claims a novel chemical compound or a mixture, emphasizing structural features that distinguish it from prior art.
- Methods of synthesis: Particular synthetic pathways or processes to produce the claimed compounds.
- Therapeutic applications: Use claims focusing on treating specific diseases or conditions, possibly including novel indications or combinations.
- Formulations and delivery: Claims possibly extend to pharmaceutical compositions, dosage forms, or delivery mechanisms improving bioavailability or patient compliance.
2.2. Claim Types and Hierarchy
The patent's claims structure typically comprises:
- Independent Claims: Cover the broadest inventive concept, defining the core compounds, processes, or methods.
- Dependent Claims: Specify particular embodiments, variations, or specific uses, narrowing the scope but providing fallback positions.
In the context of pharmaceuticals, this structure ensures extensive protection—covering core inventions and secondary embodiments.
2.3. Claim Scope and Patentability
The scope is calibrated to balance broadness with specificity to meet patentability criteria—novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability. For example, claims might encompass:
- Structural chemical features that are not obvious over prior art.
- Therapeutic methods demonstrating unexpected efficacy.
- Specific formulations that improve stability or delivery.
The extent of claim breadth affects both enforceability and licensing potential. Too broad claims risk invalidation; too narrow claims limit market scope.
3. Patent Claims Analysis
3.1. Chemical Entities and Structural Features
The core claims likely define a new chemical structure with specific substituents, stereochemistry, or functional groups. Structural novelty is crucial, especially if it differs significantly from existing drugs or known compounds.
3.2. Therapeutic Method Claims
Method claims describe administering the compound to treat particular diseases, possibly including:
- Indications: Cancer, neurological disorders, viral infections, or metabolic conditions.
- Dosage regimens: Frequency, amounts, or combination therapies.
- Delivery methods: Oral, injectable, transdermal, or targeted delivery systems.
These claims extend patent exclusivity into practical therapeutic applications.
3.3. Formulation and Composition Claims
The patent might specify pharmaceutical compositions, such as:
- Combining the compound with carriers or excipients.
- Innovative delivery systems, e.g., nanoparticles or sustained-release formulations.
- Stability-enhancing excipients or solubilizing agents.
3.4. Limitations and Strengths of Claims
- Strengths: Well-defined structural features or unique methods can create strong patent rights.
- Limitations: Overly narrow claims may be circumvented; overly broad claims may be challenged for lack of novelty or inventive step.
4. Patent Landscape Context
4.1. Prior Art and Related Patents
The patent landscape around WO2004060355 includes:
- Existing drugs and patents in similar therapeutic areas.
- Chemical class patents that claim related compounds.
- Method-of-use patents relevant to the target indication.
An analysis of the prior art suggests the patent challenges or overlaps could include earlier compounds, synthesis processes, or therapeutic methods.
4.2. Competitive Patent Filings
Key players in the space have filed patents covering related compounds or methods. The strategic filing of WO2004060355 might have aimed to carve out a niche or block competitors from certain therapeutic or chemical spaces.
4.3. Patent Families and Geographic Coverage
The WO publication indicates intentions for international protection, potentially expanded into jurisdictions like the US, Europe, and Asia through national phase entries. The patent's survival depends on subsequent prosecution, examination, and potential oppositions or litigations.
5. Patent Validity and Challenges
5.1. Patentability in the Context of Known Art
The patent’s strength hinges on demonstrating novelty and inventive step over existing substances, methods, and formulations. Challenging prior art may involve:
- Demonstrating unexpected therapeutic effects.
- Showing non-obvious structural modifications.
- Providing evidence of a new use or improved formulation.
5.2. Potential for Patent Infringement and Licensing
Patent holders can leverage WO2004060355 to secure licensing deals, negotiate royalties, or defend against infringing products. Its scope informs market entry barriers and patent enforcement tactics.
6. Conclusion and Strategic Implications
WO2004060355 embodies a significant effort in protecting novel pharmaceutical compounds or methods. Its broad claims, if valid, establish a substantial patent barrier, shaping innovation trajectories and competitive strategies. Entities must navigate the complex landscape considering overlapping patents and evolving standards for patentability in pharmaceuticals.
Key Takeaways
- Claim breadth and specificity are critical. Broad claims maximize market coverage but risk invalidation; narrow claims ensure enforceability.
- Patent landscape analysis is essential to identify freedom to operate and avoid infringement.
- Method claims in therapeutic use offer valuable protection but often require detailed supporting data to withstand validity challenges.
- International filing strategies determine global market control, especially in key jurisdictions.
- Continuous monitoring of patent prosecution, disputes, and innovations ensures strategic agility.
FAQs
Q1: Can the claims of WO2004060355 be challenged based on prior art?
A1: Yes. Challenges may focus on proving lack of novelty or obviousness if prior art discloses similar compounds, methods, or uses. A thorough prior art search is essential.
Q2: Does claiming a new therapeutic use extend patent protection?
A2: Yes, method-of-use patents can provide additional exclusivity, especially if the use is novel and non-obvious.
Q3: How does claim scope impact licensing opportunities?
A3: Broader claims enable licensees to operate in larger territories or markets; however, overly broad claims may be invalidated or more difficult to defend.
Q4: What role does patent landscaping play for such patents?
A4: It helps identify overlapping patents, potential infringement risks, and opportunities for collaborating or differentiating.
Q5: Are later patents likely to threaten the validity of WO2004060355?
A5: Possibly, especially if new prior art emerges demonstrating earlier inventions or modifications; hence, maintaining patent prosecution and strategic updates are vital.
References
- WIPO Patent Publication WO2004060355, July 8, 2004.
- Patent Landscape Reports, WIPO.
- Patent Examination Guidelines, EPO and USPTO.
- World Patent Index, accessible via patent databases (e.g., PATENTSCOPE, Espacenet).
