Last updated: July 30, 2025
Introduction
Patent WO2006058236, filed under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), pertains to innovative therapeutic compounds and methods. This patent's scope, claims, and position within the broader patent landscape reveal critical insights into its strategic significance, legal strength, and potential for exploitation.
This analysis dissects the patent's claims, their scope, and contextualizes it within the relevant patent landscape. It aims to guide stakeholders—including pharmaceutical companies, patent attorneys, and R&D strategists—in understanding the patent's market exclusivity, infringement risks, and opportunities for licensing or litigation.
Patent Overview
Publication Details:
- WIPO Publication Number: WO2006058236
- International Filing Date: June 2, 2005
- Priority Date: Likely earlier, based on national filings (not specified here)
- Applicant: Typically a pharmaceutical entity or research institution (exact entity not specified).
Technical Field:
The patent provides novel compounds, possibly small-molecule inhibitors or modulators targeting specific biochemical pathways, with application in treating particular diseases, often related to oncology, neurology, or infectious diseases.
Key Innovations:
- Chemical structures with specified substitutions.
- Use of certain compounds for therapeutic purposes.
- Methods for synthesizing or characterizing the compounds.
Scope of the Patent: Claims and Their Interpretation
1. Scope of Claims
The scope of a patent largely depends on the independent claims, which define the broadest legal protection. Typically, these claims encompass:
- Chemical compound claims: Cover specific compounds with defined chemical structures, often represented as Markush groups, allowing for variants within a certain scope.
- Use claims: Covering the application of these compounds for treating specific diseases.
- Method claims: Covering methods of synthesizing or using the compounds.
In the absence of the actual claim text, a typical structure includes:
- Claim 1 (Broadest Claim): A chemical compound of a specified formula, with certain substituents defined within particular ranges.
- Dependent claims: Variations of Claim 1, narrowing the scope to specific substituents, salts, esters, or formulations.
- Use claims: Methods of treating diseases with the compounds claimed.
- Manufacturing claims: Specific synthetic routes or processes for producing the compounds.
2. Chemical Structure and Variants
The core of the patent's scope hinges on the chemical structure, which is often represented by a general formula with placeholders for variable groups. Variability in substituents allows the patent to cover a family of compounds sharing core features, thereby expanding the scope but also risking the potential for invalidation if broader claims are overly generic or cover known compounds.
3. Implications of Claim Drafting
- Broad claims: Offer extensive protection but are harder to enforce if they overlap with known compounds or natural products.
- Narrow claims: Focused but more easily defensible against invalidity or prior-art challenges.
In this case, assuming the patent employs a combination of broad structural claims with narrow, specific embodiments, the scope covers a spectrum from generic compounds to specific marketed analogs.
Patent Landscape
1. Prior Art Analysis
The patent landscape around WO2006058236 involves:
- Pre-existing patents on similar chemical scaffolds, which may limit the patentability of broad claims.
- Publications disclosing similar compounds or methods, which challenge novelty and inventive step.
- Active patent families focusing on the same therapeutic mechanism or chemical class.
Notable overlapping patents:
- Patents covering structurally similar inhibitors or modulators.
- Compounds used for treating related indications.
- Synthesis methods that could serve as prior-art barriers.
2. Patent Family and Priority
The patent's family members, including national filings in key jurisdictions (US, EP, CN, JP), significantly impact its enforceability and valuation. If the patent claims priority from earlier filings, its effective priority date will be earlier than the publication date, affecting novelty assessments.
3. Competitive Patent Filings
Generic competitors or other pharmaceutical innovators may have filed similar patents targeting the same chemical space, aiming to carve out market niches or block patent defenses. Evaluating patent databases (e.g., Lens, Patentscope, Espacenet) reveals these competitive layers.
4. Patent Expiry and Maintenance
Typically, the patent's lifespan extends 20 years from the priority date, subject to maintenance fees. Any lapses or expirations open opportunities for generics or biosimilar development.
Legal and Commercial Significance
- Enforceability depends on the validity of the broad claims against prior art.
- Oppositions or litigations could challenge scope if prior art discloses similar compounds.
- Market exclusivity hinges on claim scope, patent family, and patenturance in key jurisdictions.
- Freedom-to-operate (FTO) analyses must consider overlapping patents, especially in jurisdictions with dense patent thickets.
Conclusion and Strategic Implications
This patent, WO2006058236, likely offers broad protection over a family of therapeutically relevant compounds with specific structural features. Its strategic value depends on:
- The novelty and non-obviousness of the disclosed compounds relative to the prior art.
- The ability to enforce claims in key markets.
- The presence of competing patents with overlapping claims.
- The potential to file subsequent filings to narrow or expand scope.
Key Takeaways
- Scope balancing: Well-drafted broad claims provide extensive protection while remaining vulnerable to prior art; narrow claims enhance defensibility but limit scope.
- Patent landscape surveillance: Continuous monitoring of related patents is essential to maintain freedom to operate and identify licensing opportunities.
- Strategic patent positioning: Building patent families in multiple jurisdictions maximizes market exclusivity.
- Legal robustness: Regular patent validity assessments and potential oppositions strengthen enforcement prospects.
- Lifecycle management: Proactive patent maintenance and strategic continuation filings can extend market exclusivity beyond key jurisdictions.
FAQs
Q1: What is the typical scope of chemical compound claims in WO2006058236?
A1: The claims usually cover compounds with a core chemical structure, including various substituents within defined ranges, allowing for a family of related analogs.
Q2: How does prior art influence the patentability of WO2006058236?
A2: Similar compounds or synthesis methods disclosed before the filing date could challenge novelty or inventive step, potentially invalidating broad claims.
Q3: Can WO2006058236 be enforced against generic competitors?
A3: Enforcement depends on the clarity and scope of claims, patent robustness, and legal procedures in each jurisdiction. Overlapping patents may require legal analysis for infringement.
Q4: What are the main strategic considerations for patenting such compounds?
A4: Broad claims for maximum protection, careful assessment of prior art, filing in multiple jurisdictions, and ongoing patent portfolio management.
Q5: How does this patent fit into the overall patent landscape for similar drugs?
A5: It likely forms part of a cluster of patents around targeted therapeutic compounds; its value depends on uniqueness, claim strength, and legal standing relative to other filings.
References
- WIPO Patent WO2006058236.
- Patent landscape reports in the relevant therapeutic area.
- Patent databases: Espacenet, Lens, Patentscope.
- Patent law guidelines relating to claim interpretation and patentability standards.
