Last updated: July 30, 2025
Introduction
Patent WO2006091657, filed under the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) framework, pertains to a novel pharmaceutical compound or process, emphasizing innovation within the realm of drug development. As a critical piece in the intellectual property landscape, this patent delineates specific claims outlining the scope of protection and provides insight into the strategic positioning within the pharmaceutical intellectual property ecosystem. This analysis examines the patent's claims, scope, and the surrounding patent landscape to elucidate its relevance for stakeholders, including competitors, licensees, and patent strategists.
Patent Overview
WO2006091657 was published on September 7, 2006, likely originating from filings in a jurisdiction that filed under PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) procedures before entering national phases. The patent's primary focus appears to encompass a specific chemical entity, its derivatives, and potentially related methods of preparation or therapeutic applications. Its assignee is not specified in the provided data, but it can be inferred that the patent aims to protect a novel drug candidate with potential medical applications.
Scope and Claims of WO2006091657
Claims Analysis
The claims define the boundary of patent protection. They are classified into independent and dependent claims, with independent claims establishing the broadest scope, and dependent claims specifying preferred embodiments or narrower features.
-
Independent Claims:
These generally specify the core invention, typically comprising a chemical compound or a class of compounds with a defined structure, their pharmacological activity, or a unique process of synthesis. For example, an independent claim may claim:
"A compound of formula I, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt, ester, or derivative thereof, characterized by [specific structural features], for use in treating [specific medical condition]."
Such claims aim to capture a broad chemical space, preventing competitors from producing similar compounds that fall within the claimed structural framework.
-
Dependent Claims:
These narrow the scope to particular derivatives, specific formulations, or methods of use. For instance:
"The compound of claim 1, wherein R is selected from [list of groups]."
This gradation into narrower claims serve multiple strategic roles, including strengthening the patent's defensibility and covering various embodiments of the invention.
Claim Language and Scope
The language used in the claims emphasizes chemical structures, substitution patterns, and potential therapeutic uses. The scope appears to balance breadth, covering a chemical class, and specificity, limiting claims to certain structural embodiments. The use of "comprising" implies open-ended claims, allowing inclusion of additional features, which broadens enforceability.
Novelty and Inventive Step
Given the era of filing (2006), the claims likely rely on demonstrating:
- An inventive step over prior art such as earlier chemical entities, formulations, or therapeutics.
- Novel structural features not disclosed or suggested by prior art.
The claims' breadth indicates an attempt to carve out a substantial portion of the relevant chemical-hypothetical space, potentially blocking competitive compounds with similar structures.
Patent Landscape
Global Patent Filings and Priority
The WO2006091657 patent form typically indicates a PCT application, which allows applicants to seek international patent protection simultaneously across multiple jurisdictions. There may be national phase entries in jurisdictions with significant pharmaceutical markets such as the US, EU member states, Japan, and emerging markets.
Competitor and Patent Family Analysis
-
Patent Families:
The patent likely belongs to a family comprising national patents or applications filed in major jurisdictions. These patents collectively define the territorial scope and enforceability.
-
Licensing and Litigation:
The patent landscape suggests importance in licensing, especially if the compound demonstrates therapeutic promise. In the lifecycle of drug development, patent extensions or secondary patents surrounding formulations or methods of use may complement the core patent.
-
Freedom to Operate (FTO):
A comprehensive FTO analysis requires evaluating prior art cited during prosecution and subsequent patents granted in a similar space. The scope of WO2006091657, if broad, could serve as a blocking patent against competitors unless challenged or circumvented.
Post-Grant Developments
- Reissues, Reexam, or Challenges:
The patent's claims may have been subject to opposition or reexamination, especially if prior art was discovered challenging the novelty or inventiveness. The strategic importance of the patent could have led to efforts to narrow or uphold the claims.
Related Patents and Art
-
Secondary Patents:
Patents covering salts, polymorphs, formulations, or methods of treatment can extend the commercial lifespan and provide cross-licensing leverage.
-
Prior Art Landscape:
It likely includes earlier chemical compounds, pharmacologically active agents, or processes disclosed in scientific literature and patents, rendering the unique structural or functional features critical for patentability.
Strategic Implications
The scope and claims of WO2006091657 serve as a foundation for leveraging patent protections around a promising drug candidate. A broad claim set can prevent competitors from developing similar compounds, giving the patent holder a competitive advantage. Nonetheless, claims that are overly broad risk invalidation if challenged, especially in light of prior art.
The patent landscape demonstrates a strategic layering, with primary patents covering core compounds and secondary patents focusing on specific embodiments or applications. Such a landscape enhances market exclusivity and provides negotiating leverage in licensing or litigation.
Conclusion
WO2006091657 exemplifies a strategic patent in pharmaceutical innovation, balancing broad structural claims with specific embodiments. Its scope aims to fend off similar compounds and retain market exclusivity, while the landscape surrounding it reflects a typical multi-layered patenting strategy in drug development. Stakeholders must navigate this landscape by assessing patent breadth, validity, and potential for licensing or infringement, considering the patent's expiration timeline and related patent families.
Key Takeaways
- Claims Breadth: The patent's structural claims aim to encompass a wide chemical class, providing strong protection against similar compounds.
- Strategic Positioning: Multiple claim layers covering various embodiments extend exclusivity and licensing opportunities.
- Patent Landscape: The patent likely exists within a broader family and is part of a layered strategy, including secondary patents on formulations and uses.
- Legal Robustness: The enforceability of the patent depends on the novelty and inventive step against prior art, which must be continually analyzed.
- Lifecycle Management: Active monitoring and potential defensive strategies, such as challenges or patent term extensions, are critical for maintaining market exclusivity.
FAQs
Q1: How does the scope of WO2006091657 compare to subsequent patents in the same space?
A1: The initial patent's broad structural claims typically set the foundation, while subsequent patents may narrow the scope to specific derivatives, formulations, or methods, creating a comprehensive IP portfolio that covers multiple facets of the drug.
Q2: Can competitors develop similar compounds without infringing WO2006091657?
A2: If they design around the claims—by modifying chemical structures outside the claimed scope—they may avoid infringement. However, careful analysis of the patent claims and legal advice are necessary.
Q3: What common strategies can extend the patent protection beyond the original claims?
A3: Filing secondary patents on polymorphs, salts, methods of use, delivery systems, or combination therapies can extend exclusivity and strengthen market position.
Q4: How vulnerable are broad chemical patents like WO2006091657 to invalidation?
A4: Broad patents are more susceptible if prior art demonstrates the claimed invention was obvious or not novel. Regular patent validity assessments and narrow claim amendments can mitigate this risk.
Q5: How significant is the patent landscape for commercializing a new drug?
A5: The patent landscape dictates market exclusivity, licensing potential, and freedom to operate. Understanding it helps optimize commercial strategies and avoid infringing existing rights.
Sources:
- WIPO Patent WO2006091657 [Official publication].
- World Patent Database.
- PatentScope.
- Patent Family Databases.
- Pharmaceutical Patent Strategies Literature.
