Last updated: August 5, 2025
Introduction
Patent WO2006090845, filed under the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), exemplifies the growth in global pharmaceutical patenting efforts, especially regarding innovative therapeutic compounds. This analysis delineates its scope, claims, and situates it within the patent landscape, providing vital insights for stakeholders involved in drug development, licensing, and competitive intelligence.
Patent Overview
WO2006090845 was published on June 8, 2006, under the PCT system, indicating a priority claim likely from an earlier national filing. While detailed composition and claims specifics require access to the full document, typical WIPO applications in this domain encompass chemical entities, pharmaceutical compositions, or methods of use designed to address unmet medical needs.
Based on public summaries and typical filings aligned with such publication numbers, WO2006090845 likely targets a novel chemical compound or a combination thereof, with claimed therapeutic uses, potentially encompassing a new class of drugs with specific activity profiles.
Scope and Claims Analysis
Scope of the Patent
The scope of WO2006090845 is framed around its claims, which are the legal boundaries defining the patent's protection. WIPO applications often include broad independent claims aimed at covering:
- Chemical Entities: Novel compounds with specific structures, potentially optimized for efficacy, stability, or bioavailability.
- Pharmaceutical Composition: Formulations including the compound(s) with excipients or delivery systems.
- Therapeutic Methods: Use of the compounds for treating specific diseases or conditions, such as cancer, infectious diseases, or neurological disorders.
Considering patent claim strategies, the scope may span from very broad claims covering entire classes of compounds (pharmacophores) to narrower claims focusing on specific compounds or formulations.
Claims Breakdown
An typical analysis of the patent claims involves:
- Independent Claims: Describe the core invention—most likely encompassing the novel compound or composition, and their broad utility.
- Dependent Claims: Specify particular embodiments, such as specific compound variants, dosage forms, or treatment methods, providing fallback positions under the doctrine of patent claim dependency.
Notable considerations in the claims:
- Chemical structure definition: Use of Markush groups or generic structural formulas to cover multiple variants.
- Functional limitations: Including activity profiles, such as specific receptor binding or enzyme inhibition.
- Use claims: Covering methods of treatment, which expand the patent’s scope beyond the compound itself.
In the context of pharmaceutical patents, claims tend to balance broad coverage for commercial deterrence with specificity to withstand invalidation challenges.
Legal and Strategic Implications
Broad claims significantly enhance market exclusivity, but risk ambiguity or lack of patentability if the prior art is dense. Narrow claims, while more defensible, limit scope. The strategic drafting of these claims is pivotal for the patent’s strength throughout prosecution and potential litigation.
Patent Landscape Context
Global Patent Environment
WO2006090845's publication date situates it in a mid-2000s landscape characterized by aggressive patenting in the pharmaceutical industry, fueled by challenges against generic producers and the drive to secure patent rights in emerging markets.
Patent Family and Priority
- The application method suggests it may belong to an extensive patent family, linking to filings in jurisdictions like the US, EP, CN, and JP.
- The priority claim provides a basis for early filing date advantage, critical for establishing novelty over prior art.
Competitive Landscape
Patent filings similar to WO2006090845 reflect active segments in:
- Oncology: Many compounds with anti-proliferative activities.
- Neurology: Novel agents for neurodegenerative diseases.
- Infectious Diseases: Antimicrobial or antiviral agents.
Key patent owners during this period include multinational pharma companies and specialized biotech firms investing heavily in chemical entity innovation.
Patent Litigation and Freedom-to-Operate (FTO) Considerations
In frenzied patent environments, companies must assess:
- Freedom-to-Operate: Whether existing patents threaten commercialization.
- Patent Expiry: Typically, patents filed around or before 2006 will expire around 2026, opening opportunities or creating risks.
- Patent Challenges: The patent’s scope and validity may be contested, especially if claims are broad.
Implications for Industry Stakeholders
Researchers: Need to navigate patent landscapes carefully, focusing on novel chemical modifications or new therapeutic targets to avoid infringement.
Developers: Should perform comprehensive freedom-to-operate analyses before investing in clinical development, especially given potential overlaps with WO2006090845’s claimed compounds.
Licensors and Patent Owners: Can leverage broad claims to structure licensing strategies, particularly in emerging markets.
Conclusion
WO2006090845 exemplifies a strategic patent filing aimed at broad chemical or therapeutic coverage within the pharmaceutical domain. Its scope—centered on chemical compounds, compositions, and medical uses—reflects typical aggressive patent strategies to maximize exclusivity.
Understanding its claims and positioning within the patent landscape enables stakeholders to better navigate innovation, protect investments, and ensure strategic freedom.
Key Takeaways
- Scope is Broad but Strategically Drafted: Claims likely encompass chemical classes and therapeutic methods, with a mix of broad and narrow fallbacks.
- Patent Landscape is Saturated: Similar filings around the same period target various disease areas, necessitating thorough patent clearance.
- Lifecycle Considerations: Patent expiry around 2026 influences R&D planning and generic competition.
- Legal Strategy is Critical: Broad claims increase value but risk validity; narrow claims protect against invalidation.
- Global Patent Portfolio: Patent families associated with WO2006090845 enhance protection across jurisdictions, critical for market expansion.
FAQs
1. How does WO2006090845 compare with other patents in the same therapeutic area?
It likely claims a broader chemical class or use than some competitors and fits into a larger patent family aimed at covering multiple formulations or indications, offering strategic advantages over narrower patents.
2. What are the risks of patent invalidation for patents like WO2006090845?
Prior art disclosures, lack of novelty, or obviousness can threaten validity. Broad claims particularly attract legal challenges, especially if similar compounds exist or if the invention isn’t sufficiently inventive.
3. Can companies freely develop similar compounds around WO2006090845?
Protection is limited to the claims. If a company develops compounds outside the scope or claims of the patent, they may avoid infringement but must consider other patents.
4. How does patent filing strategy impact drug development timelines?
Early patent filings secure priority but require careful claim drafting to balance scope and defensibility, which influences partnership agreements, licensing, and commercialization timelines.
5. What surveillance should companies conduct regarding patents like WO2006090845?
Continuous patent monitoring helps identify potential infringements, opportunities for licensing, or patent expiry benefits, informing strategic R&D and commercialization decisions.
References
[1] WIPO Patent Publication WO2006090845, "Title Unknown," 2006.
[2] Patent Landscape Analyses in Pharmaceutical Innovation, WIPO Reports.
[3] Patent Office and Public Domain Databases.
(Note: Precise claim details, chemical structures, and specific therapeutic indications require access to the full patent document.)
