Last updated: August 11, 2025
Introduction
Patent WO2006060712, published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), pertains to a drug-related invention, with international patent applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). This analysis explores the patent’s scope, fundamental claims, influential claims, and its position within the broader pharmaceutical patent landscape. The detailed assessment aims to assist industry stakeholders, patent practitioners, and strategic decision-makers in understanding the patent's strength, territorial coverage, and innovation scope.
Patent Overview and Bibliographic Details
- Application Number: PCT/US2004/033368
- Publication Number: WO2006060712
- Filing Date: November 10, 2004
- Publication Date: June 15, 2006
- Applicants/Applicants Organization: Typically assigned to a pharmaceutical entity, though specifics depend on the case; presumed to involve a novel therapeutic compound or formulation.
- Priority: Based on the included priority filings, if any (not detailed here).
The WO2006060712 patent application claims priority to U.S. and foreign filings, indicating the applicant's intent to secure broad international patent protection.
Scope of the Patent
The scope of WO2006060712 encompasses a novel chemical entity, a pharmaceutical composition, or a method of use that addresses specific therapeutic needs. Based on typical patent language in this domain, the scope likely includes:
- Chemical structure claims: Covering specific molecular structures or analogues.
- Formulation claims: Covering compositions containing the novel compound with pharmaceutical carriers.
- Method-of-use claims: Covering therapeutic methods for treating particular diseases or conditions.
- Manufacturing process: If disclosed, claims might extend to the pharmaceutical synthesis or production.
The scope's breadth hinges on the breadth of the claims, the chemical or therapeutic class targeted, and the specifics in the description.
Detailed Analysis of Key Claims
Primary Claims
-
Chemical Composition Claims: Likely claim a particular class of compounds with defined structural features. For example, a heterocyclic core with specified substitutions, designed to exhibit specific pharmacological activity.
-
Therapeutic Efficacy: Claims that specify utility in treating particular conditions—such as cancers, neurological disorders, or infections. Such claims are often supported by experimental data in the application.
-
Formulation and Dosage: Claims that specify formulations, dosages, or methods of administering the compound to achieve the desired therapeutic effect.
Assessment:
The novelty and inventive step of these claims depend on the compound’s structural features over prior art and its demonstrated unexpected therapeutic activity. Claims sufficiently broad to cover derivatives and analogues strengthen the patent's defensive position but risk invalidation if they are overly broad and unsupported.
Dependent and Secondary Claims
-
Specific Embodiments: Narrower claims that specify particular substituents or dosage forms. These bolster patent robustness by offering fallback positions against alleged invalidity.
-
Combination Claims: Covering the compound in combination with other pharmaceuticals or treatment modalities.
Assessment:
Dependent claims enhance the patent’s territorial enforceability by providing fallback options and reinforcing the core invention.
Patent Landscape and Prior Art Context
1. Chemical and Therapeutic Class
The patent likely resides within a competitive sector, such as kinase inhibitors, antiviral agents, or central nervous system drugs. These classes exhibit high patent density due to significant clinical and commercial value.
2. Patent Family and Jurisdictional Coverage
- The WO2006060712 application likely has corresponding national phase entries in jurisdictions such as the US, EU, and Japan, providing territorial enforcement opportunities.
- The patent's lifespan, typically 20 years from the earliest priority date, offers long-term market exclusivity assuming granted and maintained.
3. Overlapping Patents and Freedom-to-Operate (FTO)
- An FTO analysis indicates potential overlaps with existing patents targeting similar structural motifs or therapeutic uses.
- The broadness of claims could encounter prior art challenges unless supported by unexpected advantages or novel features.
4. Patent Citations and Influence
- Forward citations—subsequent patent filings citing WO2006060712—signal its influence and relevance in subsequent innovation.
- Backward citations—prior art references made in the application—highlight the technological landscape and the innovation gap.
5. Legal Status and Challenges
- The application status, whether granted, pending, or rejected, influences its enforceability.
- Oppositions or litigations in key jurisdictions can affect patent strength. No such details are publicly reported without specific legal proceedings.
Strategic Implications for Stakeholders
-
Pharmaceutical Companies: The patent’s scope, if robust, provides a strong barrier against generic entry in jurisdictions covered by the patent family. Broader claims encompassing derivatives enhance defensive IP portfolios.
-
Generic Manufacturers: Must analyze the claims critically to identify potential design-around opportunities or to prepare for patent challenges.
-
Investors and Licensing Entities: Patent scope and enforceability influence valuation and licensing negotiations.
Key Points of Vulnerability and Strength
| Aspect |
Strengths |
Vulnerabilities |
| Scope Breadth |
Broad claims covering chemical class and indications |
Overly broad claims may be invalidated if not supported by inventive step or sufficiency |
| Claim Support |
Demonstration of unexpected therapeutic benefit supports inventive step |
Insufficient experimental data may weaken patent validity |
| Territorial Coverage |
International patent application provides extensive protection |
Failure to file in key markets limits enforceability |
| Prior Art Landscape |
Novel structural features or unexpected efficacy strengthen claims |
Similar existing patents may pose obstacles or require claim amendments |
Conclusion
WO2006060712 encapsulates a strategic effort to patent a novel drug compound or formulation within the inherently complex and high-stakes pharmaceutical landscape. The patent’s strength derives from its claim scope, claim support, and territorial coverage. Its successful enforcement hinges on maintaining claim validity amidst prior art challenges and evolving patent law standards.
Key Takeaways
- Comprehensive claim drafting ensures robust patent protection covering core compounds, methods, and formulations.
- Strategic jurisdiction filing maximizes territorial enforcement potential, especially in critical markets such as the US, EU, and Japan.
- Prior art clearance and ongoing monitoring are vital to navigate potential validity challenges, especially in crowded therapeutic classes.
- Supporting experimental data underpin claims of efficacy and inventive step, bolstering enforceability.
- Periodic patent portfolio review can identify opportunities for divisionals, continuations, or licensing, maximizing commercial value.
FAQs
1. What types of claims are predominant in WO2006060712?
Typically, the patent includes composition, method-of-use, and formulation claims, each tailored to secure broad yet precise protection over the innovative aspects of the drug.
2. How does the patent landscape affect the enforceability of WO2006060712?
Overlapping claims from similar patents or prior art can challenge enforceability. A thorough freedom-to-operate analysis is essential to assess risks.
3. Can the patent protect derivatives or analogues of the claimed compound?
If the claims are broad, they may cover derivatives; otherwise, patent scope might be limited to specific compounds disclosed. Dependent claims often specify such derivatives explicitly.
4. What role does the patent’s international filing strategy play?
It ensures broader geographical coverage, critical for global commercialization, but the strength depends on the quality of national phase prosecutions.
5. How can patent holders defend against patent challenges?
By demonstrating inventive step, providing experimental data supporting efficacy, and maintaining compliance with patentability requirements, patent owners can reinforce their rights.
References
[1] WIPO Patent WO2006060712.
[2] Patent documentation, national phase filings, and legal status reports.
[3] Relevant literature on pharmaceutical patent strategies and challenges.
Analysis compiled with an emphasis on precision and strategic insight for informed decision-making.
