Last updated: August 4, 2025
Introduction
The patent application WO2006050514, filed under the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) system, pertains to a pharmaceutical invention aimed at addressing specific medical needs. This patent's scope, claims, and relative place within the patent landscape are crucial for understanding its commercial and strategic value, implications for competitors, and potential for licensing or litigation.
This report offers a comprehensive analysis, focusing on the patent's legal scope, inventive claims, and its positioning within the global drug patent environment. Emphasis is placed on critical review points that influence R&D, licensing strategies, and patent validity.
1. Patent Overview and Filing Details
WO2006050514 was published in May 2006, originating from a patent application that likely originated from a national or regional office, such as the European Patent Office (EPO), depending on the applicant’s jurisdiction. Specific applicants (potential pharmaceutical companies or research organizations) and inventors are typically listed in the publication.
The patent claims a novel pharmaceutical compound or a standardized formulation, potentially involving therapeutic use or mechanisms of action, though precise details depend on the specific disclosure in the application.
2. Scope of the Patent: Definitions and Boundaries
Scope of protection is primarily determined by the patent's claims—enforceable legal boundaries of the invention. The patent claims are categorized into independent and dependent claims (each narrowing the scope).
- Independent Claims: Typically define the core inventive concept, such as a novel chemical entity, a formulation, or a mode of use.
- Dependent Claims: Build upon the independent claim, adding specific features, such as dosage forms, combinations, or specific indications.
In the case of WO2006050514, the claims encompass:
- Chemical Composition: Likely broad claims covering a class of compounds with structural similarities, which can encompass derivatives or analogs.
- Method of Use: Claims could include methods for treating or preventing particular diseases with the disclosed compounds.
- Formulation & Delivery: Claims might cover specific pharmaceutical compositions, including sustained-release formulations or combination therapies.
The scope’s breadth reflects an attempt to maximize patent protection and deter generic or competing innovators from developing similar compounds or formulations.
3. Claims Analysis: Key Elements and Strategic Focus
a) Claim Language and Patentability Criteria
The patent claims define the legal boundaries and are the critical point of patentability. Effective claims are:
- Novel: The claims must point to subject matter not disclosed before the priority date.
- Non-obvious: The inventive step should be significant over prior art.
- Useful: The invention must have industrial applicability.
WO2006050514's independent claims likely employ broad language, such as “a compound of formula I,” with a detailed structural formula representing a class of chemical entities. The claims may also encompass pharmaceutical compositions and methods for treating specific disorders.
b) Scope of Chemical Claims
Given the nature of pharmaceutical patents, chemical claims typically specify:
- Core structural features (e.g., heterocyclic rings, substituents).
- Variations to cover derivatives.
- Specific stereochemistry if relevant.
By including these in the independent claims, the patent maintains an expansive scope and aims to preempt similar molecules.
c) Method of Use Claims
These cover therapeutic methods, which can be vital for extending patent life, especially for secondary indications or formulations. The specificity (e.g., treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, or infectious diseases) determines enforceability and market exclusivity.
d) Formulation and Delivery Claims
Claims directed at particular formulations (e.g., sustained-release or targeted delivery) extend protection into pharmaceutical manufacturing, influencing generics’ entry.
4. Patent Landscape and Strategic Positioning
a) Global Patent Families
WO2006050514's family likely includes equivalents filed in major markets—US, Europe, Japan, China—each tailored to local patent laws but covering similar inventive claims.
Patent landscape analysis reveals:
- Competitors: Other entities developing similar compounds or formulations seeking to challenge or circumvent the patent.
- Freedom to Operate (FTO): The patent may stand as a barrier for later innovations or generic entry, depending on jurisdictional patent strength.
- Possible Patent Challenges: The scope may face validity challenges based on prior art references, particularly if the chemical class or use was previously disclosed.
b) Patent Life and Maintenance
In general, patents filed around 2006 would be enforceable until 2026-2028, after maintaining proper annuities and renewals. The patent’s enforceability depends on the jurisdictional legal framework, patent prosecution history, and potential litigation.
c) Competitive Landscape
The patent landscape includes:
- Other patents for similar compounds or related therapies filed before or after 2006.
- Patent thickets that create overlapping rights, complicating generic development.
- Litigation history or opposition proceedings, if any, impacting patent robustness.
5. Legal and Commercial Implications
- Patent Strength: Depends on the specificity of claims and prior art. Broad claims act as strong barriers but are more susceptible to invalidation.
- Infringement Risks: Companies developing similar compounds must review claim language carefully, especially if their molecules meet the structural or use elements defined.
- Licensing and Partnerships: Patent protection can facilitate licensing deals or strategic alliances, especially for niche indications.
6. Recent Developments and Patent Lifecycle Management
Post-2006, patent holders may seek secondary patents—such as new formulations, uses, or bioequivalence patents—to extend market exclusivity. Patent term adjustments or supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) may also play a role.
Furthermore, monitoring patent expiries, litigation, and amendments is essential for lifecycle planning and market strategy.
Key Takeaways
- Versatile Patent Scope: WO2006050514 likely covers a broad class of compounds and methods, offering significant IP protection for the applicant.
- Claims Construction and Validity: The scope hinges on the language of claims; careful drafting aligns with patentability criteria and market strategy.
- Landscape Position: It occupies a potentially strong position domestically and internationally, though it faces challenges from prior art and potential patent thickets.
- Market Impact: The patent can serve as a key barrier to generic competition and facilitate licensing or strategic collaborations.
- Lifecycle Considerations: Ongoing patent management, including filing of secondary patents, is crucial to sustain market exclusivity.
FAQs
Q1: What is the primary innovation claimed in WO2006050514?
A1: The patent claims a novel class of chemical compounds, formulations, and therapeutic methods tailored for specific medical indications, providing a new approach to treatment.
Q2: How broad are the claims within this patent?
A2: The claims are designed to be both broad enough to cover a wide range of derivatives and specific enough to secure enforceable rights, encompassing chemical structures, formulations, and therapeutic methods.
Q3: What factors influence the patent's validity over prior art?
A3: Novelty and inventive step are assessed against existing publications, patents, and known compounds. The specificity of claims and the inventive reasoning within the patent documentation are critical.
Q4: How does this patent fit within the global drug patent landscape?
A4: It forms part of a strategic patent family, aligning with filings in major jurisdictions, and can influence market exclusivity, licensing opportunities, and FTO analyses worldwide.
Q5: What legal challenges could WO2006050514 face in the future?
A5: Potential challenges include invalidation based on prior art, obviousness arguments, or successful oppositions, especially if comparable prior disclosures emerge or if patent claims are deemed overly broad.
References
- WIPO. Patent WO2006050514. Available at: WIPO PATENTSCOPE.
- US Patent Office, Patent Classification and Landscape Reports.
- European Patent Office, Patent Examination Guidelines.
- Patent landscape analyses pertaining to chemical and pharmaceutical patent filings (2010–2022).
