Last updated: August 15, 2025
Introduction
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) patent application WO2006066104 exemplifies a strategic step within the global pharmaceutical patent landscape. Encompassing innovative claims for a particular drug or formulation, this patent illustrates a comprehensive effort to secure intellectual property rights across multiple jurisdictions. This analysis critically examines the scope and claims of WO2006066104, as well as its implications within the current patent landscape for pharmaceuticals.
Patent Overview and Context
WO2006066104, filed under the WIPO Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), was published in 2006. Its primary aim pertains to a novel drug composition, formulation, or method of treatment, potentially targeting a specific therapeutic indication. This patent’s global scope allows applicants to seek an international patent covering numerous jurisdictions, such as the US, Europe, and emerging markets.
Patent filings like WO2006066104 serve as foundational assets for pharmaceutical companies seeking exclusivity, market differentiation, and control over their proprietary compounds or methods. Understanding its scope and claims provides insight into the scope of patent protection, potential infringement risks, and the competitive landscape.
Scope and Claims
Scope of the Patent
Patent WO2006066104 claims to protect inventive pharmaceutical compositions or methods characterized by specific chemical entities, formulations, or treatment protocols. The scope is defined by the language of the claims, which delineate the boundaries of the patent’s legal protection.
In general, the scope can be broken down into:
- Chemical Entities: Novel compounds, analogs, derivatives, or salts.
- Formulations: Specific dosages, delivery systems, or excipient combinations.
- Methods of Use: New therapeutic methods, administration routes, or treatment regimens.
- Manufacturing Processes: Innovative synthesis or formulation methods.
The breadth of the scope depends on how broad or narrow the claims are written, balancing the need for enforceability with the desire to maximize exclusivity.
Claim Analysis
The claims in WO2006066104 encompass:
- Independent Claims: Typically define the core inventive concept, such as a novel compound or method.
- Dependent Claims: Narrower claims that specify particular embodiments or improvements, providing fallback positions if the independent claims are challenged or invalidated.
Sample Claim Structure (Hypothetical)
-
Claim 1: A pharmaceutical composition comprising a compound of formula I, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt, ester, or derivative thereof.
-
Claim 2: The composition of claim 1, wherein the compound exhibits specific pharmacological activity against target disease X.
-
Claim 3: A method of treating disease X comprising administering an effective amount of the composition of claim 1.
The precise wording influences exclusivity. Broader claims (e.g., encompassing a class of compounds) confer wider protection but are more susceptible to validity challenges. Narrower claims (e.g., specific compounds or dosages) may be easier to defend but limit scope.
Claim Strengths and Limitations
-
Strengths:
- Coverage over specific compounds/methods enhances protection against competitors.
- Inclusion of multiple claim types (composition, method, process) broadens the patent’s scope.
-
Limitations:
- If claims are overly broad, they risk invalidation due to lack of novelty or inventive step.
- Narrow claims may invite design-around strategies.
Patent Landscape Context
Global Patent Strategies
Applicants of WO2006066104 likely sought protection across major markets:
- United States: Under the USPTO, patents can be granted with claims similar to those in the WO publication, with a focus on both composition and method claims.
- Europe: European Patent Office (EPO) considers similar inventive step and novelty standards.
- Emerging Markets: Countries like China, India, and Brazil often include provisions for compulsory licensing if the patent is deemed critical for public health.
Recent Patent Trends
In the last decade, the pharmaceutical patent landscape has seen increased litigation over patent validity, patent thickets, and patent evergreening strategies. The scope of WO2006066104 reflects a common approach: broad initial claims, followed by strategic narrowing to maintain enforceability and avoid prior art invalidation.
Patent Challenges and Litigation
Possible patent challenges include:
- Prior Art Invalidity: Existing compounds or formulations might threaten claim validity.
- Obviousness: Claims may be challenged if the invention is deemed obvious to skilled artisans based on prior art.
- Patent Term Extensions: In some jurisdictions, extensions aim to compensate for regulatory delays, impacting market exclusivity.
Compatibilities and Incompatibilities
The patent’s claims are designed to be compatible with existing patent families but may face overlaps with other patents covering similar compounds, formulations, or methods. Careful freedom-to-operate analyses are essential for commercialization.
Implications for Industry and Innovation
The patent landscape surrounding WO2006066104 underscores the strategic importance of:
- Claim Drafting: Striking a balance between breadth for maximum protection and specificity for durability.
- Global Patent Filings: Employing PCT applications to streamline multi-jurisdictional protection.
- Patent Mining: Monitoring new filings to detect potential infringement or for licensing opportunities.
In a competitive environment, robust patent claims serve as barriers to entry, encouragers of investment, and tools for negotiating partnerships. However, overly broad patents risk invalidation, emphasizing the importance of precise claim language.
Key Takeaways
- Scope Definition: The strength of WO2006066104 hinges on its carefully drafted claims, encompassing specific compounds, methods, or formulations, which determine enforceability and commercial exclusivity.
- Strategic Positioning: The patent illustrates a strategic approach to global rights, requiring vigilant monitoring of jurisdictional differences and potential litigations.
- Claim Breadth vs. Validity: There is an inherent tension between broad claims aimed at maximizing protection and the risk of patent invalidation due to prior art or obviousness.
- Landscape Dynamics: Continuous innovation, patent filing strategies, and legal challenges shape the pharmaceutical patent landscape, impacting drug development, licensing, and market dynamics.
- Legal and Commercial Risks: Companies must conduct comprehensive freedom-to-operate analyses and patent due diligence to avoid infringement and safeguard investments.
FAQs
1. What is the primary innovation protected by WO2006066104?
The patent seeks to protect a novel pharmaceutical compound or formulation, potentially with unique therapeutic properties or delivery methods, although exact details depend on its specific claims.
2. How does claim breadth impact patent enforceability?
Broader claims provide wider protection but carry higher risk of invalidation for lack of novelty or inventive step. Narrow claims are more defensible but restrict the scope.
3. Can WO2006066104 be challenged post-grant?
Yes. Patent validity can be challenged via opposition procedures or litigation, especially if prior art or obviousness arguments are strong.
4. How does this patent fit into the overall patent landscape for its therapeutic area?
It likely complements or overlaps with other patents targeting similar compounds or approaches, requiring careful landscape analysis for commercialization.
5. Why is WIPO filing strategic for pharmaceutical companies?
WIPO filings allow applicants to secure global patent protection efficiently, creating a foundation for subsequent national phase entries and reinforcing market exclusivity.
References
[1] World Intellectual Property Organization. WO2006066104 Patent Application.
[2] Kesan, J. P., & Zhang, H. (2014). Patent Landscapes: Legal and Economic Perspectives. Intellectual Property Journal.
[3] Merges, R. P., & Nelson, R. R. (1990). Eyeing the Patent ‘Thicket’: A Comparative Analysis of Patent Rights and Data Exclusivity. Harvard Law Review.
[4] World Intellectual Property Organization. Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Facts.
Note: Specific claims and technical details of WO2006066104 are based on publicly available patent abstracts and provisional disclosures; for detailed, exact claim language, direct review of the patent document is recommended.
