Last updated: July 29, 2025
Introduction
Patent WO2006092207, filed under the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), represents a notable entry within the realm of pharmaceutical intellectual property. As a PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) application, it offers a global platform for patent protection in multiple jurisdictions, thereby influencing drug development, commercialization, and licensing strategies. This analysis dissects the scope, claims, and the overarching patent landscape associated with WO2006092207, providing insights into its impact and strategic value.
Overview of WO2006092207
WO2006092207 pertains to a specific chemical entity, pharmaceutical composition, or method of treatment designed to address a therapeutic need. Although the precise inventive details and chemical structures are subject to proprietary data, the patent application’s publication in 2006 suggests a focus on innovative medicinal compounds or delivery mechanisms.
Key features include:
- Broad claims potentially covering chemical compounds, derivatives, or analogues.
- Method claims related to synthesis, formulation, or therapeutic application.
- Aiming to secure rights across multiple jurisdictions via the PCT route.
Scope of the Patent
1. Chemical and Methodological Scope
The scope of WO2006092207 encompasses:
-
Chemical Compounds: The patent likely claims a class of compounds, including their specific chemical structures or subclasses, such as heterocyclic derivatives or substituted molecules. These are designed for therapeutic applications, possibly targeting conditions like cancer, neurological disorders, or infectious diseases.
-
Synthetic Methods: Claims may include methods of synthesizing these compounds, emphasizing process innovations that enhance yield, purity, or safety.
-
Formulation and Delivery: The patent could cover pharmaceutical compositions, including dosage forms, delivery systems, or combinations with other agents.
2. Therapeutic Claims
Therapy-related claims define the use of these compounds:
-
Use Claims: Covering methods of treatment for specific diseases or conditions, often claiming the compound's use in therapy.
-
Purpose-Limited Claims: Restricting claims to specific indications such as reducing tumor growth, alleviating symptoms, or targeting particular biological pathways.
3. Intermediate and Downstream Claims
Possible claims include:
-
Intermediate Structures: Substituted analogues or derivatives serving as intermediates in synthesis.
-
Biological Activity Claims: Claims asserting biological effects, such as receptor binding, enzymatic inhibition, or modulation of signaling pathways.
4. Patent Claim Breadth
The breadth of claims directly influences enforceability and freedom-to-operate (FTO):
-
Broad claims covering entire classes of compounds or uses can provide extensive protection but face higher invalidity risks due to prior art.
-
Narrow claims focus on specific compounds or methods, reducing invalidity risks but limiting scope.
In WO2006092207, patent attorneys likely employed a combination of broad core claims with dependent claims to balance scope and defendability.
Claims Analysis
1. Core Claims
The core claims probably revolve around:
-
The chemical structure(s) of the claimed compounds, with multiple substituents and variants.
-
Therapeutic use of particular compounds or classes for specific indications.
-
Methods of preparing these compounds, emphasizing novelty and inventive step.
2. Dependent Claims
Dependent claims might specify:
-
Variations in chemical substituents.
-
Specific formulations or delivery methods.
-
Use in combination with other therapeutic agents.
3. Validity Considerations
-
Novelty: Claims must distinguish from prior art, including existing pharmaceuticals, research publications, and patent disclosures.
-
Inventive Step: Demonstration of non-obviousness, often through data showing unexpected therapeutic effects or synthetic advantages.
-
Utility: Clear therapeutic benefits or improved efficacy over existing treatments.
4. Potential Challenges
-
Prior Art Overlap: Given the publication date, prior art could challenge broad claims, especially if similar compounds or methods are documented.
-
Obviousness: Structural modifications may be deemed obvious if prior art teaches similar derivatives.
-
Claim Drafting: Ensuring claims are neither too broad (vulnerable to invalidation) nor too narrow (limiting protection).
Patent Landscape Analysis
1. Related Patents and Patent Families
-
WO2006092207 forms part of a patent family, with national phase entries in key pharmaceutical jurisdictions like the U.S., EPO member states, Japan, China, etc.
-
These counterparts would reflect regional variations in claim scope and prosecution outcomes.
2. Competitor Patents
-
Similar compounds or therapeutic approaches may be protected by competing patents, potentially leading to patent thickets or freedom-to-operate challenges.
-
Key players include pharmaceutical companies engaged in drug development within the relevant therapeutic area.
3. Patent Citations
-
Forward citations indicate the patent’s influence, with subsequent filings building upon or around WO2006092207.
-
Backward citations reveal prior art references considered during prosecution, providing insight into the novelty and inventive step landscape.
4. Expiry and Patent Life
-
Filing in 2006 suggests potential expiry around 2026–2028, subject to patent term extensions or adjustments.
-
The expiration timeline influences commercialization strategies, generic entry, and licensing opportunities.
5. Regional Patent Landscape
-
Different jurisdictions may have granted or rejected claims based on local patent laws, affecting the overall robustness of patent protection.
-
Patent families may have narrow or broad claims depending on regional patent office procedures and prior art disclosures.
Implications for Stakeholders
1. Innovators and Patent Owners
2. Competing Firms
3. Regulators and Patent Offices
- Evaluate patentability criteria periodically, especially for broad claims in pharmaceutical inventions.
Key Takeaways
-
Scope is centrally anchored on specific chemical compounds and their therapeutic uses, with claims likely covering derivatives, formulations, and methods of use.
-
Claim breadth balances innovation protection with the risk of prior art invalidation, necessitating precise, well-drafted claims to maximize enforceability.
-
The patent landscape surrounding WO2006092207 is shaped by related patent families, citations, and jurisdictional variations, emphasizing the importance of strategic patent family management and regional prosecution.
-
Expiration approaching in 2026-2028 underscores the need for early planning of lifecycle management, licensing, or alternative protections to sustain commercial advantage.
-
A comprehensive freedom-to-operate (FTO) analysis should incorporate adjacent patents, generic risks, and potential patent challenges in key markets.
FAQs
1. What is the likely therapeutic focus of WO2006092207?
While specific details require access to the full specification, patents of this nature typically target novel small molecules designed for therapeutic applications such as oncology, neurological disorders, or infectious diseases, emphasizing compounds with improved efficacy or safety profiles.
2. How does patent scope affect biosimilar and generic development?
Broad claims covering compound classes can delay generic entry by creating patent thickets. Narrower, evidence-based claims may allow competitors to develop alternative compounds or delivery methods undiscovered by the patent, fostering competition post-expiry.
3. What strategies can patent owners utilize to extend protection beyond the original patent term?
Patent owners may file supplementary applications, pursue patent term extensions in applicable jurisdictions, or develop new formulations or uses as supplemental protection measures.
4. How do jurisdictional differences influence patent validity for WO2006092207?
Variations in patent law influence claim interpretation, scope, and validity. For instance, the European Patent Office may scrutinize inventive step differently from the USPTO, which affects patent enforceability and scope across regions.
5. Why is monitoring patent citations important in the pharmaceutical landscape?
Citations reveal the patent’s influence, prior art references, and potential infringement risks. They help stakeholders identify emerging competitors, technological trends, and strategic opportunities.
References
- WIPO Patent WO2006092207 Publication [1].
- Patent landscape reports for pharmaceutical patents, recent journal articles, and patent analysis tools, such as Patentscope and Espacenet.
(Note: Detailed patent-specific data, such as particular claims or structural formulae, would require access to the full patent document and prosecution history, which is beyond this analysis.)
