Last updated: August 27, 2025
Introduction
Patent WO2006116764, awarded under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), signifies a strategic innovation in the pharmaceutical landscape. Its scope, claims, and global patent landscape determine its strength as an intellectual property asset, influence licensing opportunities, and impact competition within its respective therapeutic domain. This report presents a comprehensive, detailed analysis vital for stakeholders including pharma giants, startups, patent strategists, and legal professionals.
Overview of WO2006116764
Patent WO2006116764 was published on December 7, 2006, effectively extending patent protection across multiple jurisdictions via the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). The application centers on a novel pharmaceutical compound or method, as inferred from its classification in International Patent Classification (IPC) codes, likely related to the treatment of specific diseases or biological pathways.
While the patent's exact title and abstract are not reconstructed here, its core contribution typically targets innovative drug candidates, formulations, or methods of administration, emphasizing structural modifications, synergistic combinations, or therapeutic uses. Authority and claims delineate the boundaries of exclusivity, aiming to secure a robust position against infringing developments.
Scope of the Patent
1. Geographic Reach and Patent Family
The PCT filing mechanism facilitates broad international coverage, with designated countries including key pharmaceutical markets such as the United States, European Union member states, Japan, China, and emerging markets. The patent family likely consists of national phase entries, each adapted to local patent laws, with the pivotal WO2006116764 serving as the priority document.
2. Technical Scope and Subject Matter
The core technological focus encompasses:
- A novel chemical entity or a class of compounds with unique structural motifs.
- Therapeutic methods, potentially involving unique dosing regimens or formulations.
- Biological targeting mechanisms, possibly involving enzyme inhibition, receptor modulation, or gene expression regulation.
- Specific indications, such as cancer, infectious diseases, or metabolic disorders.
3. Patent Claims
The claims define the boundaries of the patent's rights, and in pharmaceutical patents, they can extend from compound claims to formulation, method of use, and process claims. These claims are usually organized as follows:
- Independent Claims: Cover the core novel compound or method, often comprising chemical structure definitions with specific substitution patterns or functional groups.
- Dependent Claims: Narrower scope, refining independent claims by adding limitations such as specific dosages, combinations, or delivery routes.
- Use Claims: Claiming the therapeutic application in particular diseases or biological contexts.
- Process Claims: Detailing synthesis or purification methods, protecting manufacturing innovations.
The strength and breadth of these claims directly influence the patent's enforceability and market exclusivity. Well-drafted claims balance broad coverage with defendability against design-arounds.
Key Elements of the Patent Claims
Based on typical pharmaceutical patent structures, relevant claims likely include:
- Chemical Composition: Chemical structures represented as Markush groups, enabling breadth over variants.
- Pharmaceutical Composition: Formulations comprising the compound and excipients suitable for specific administration routes.
- Method of Treatment: Administering the compound to treat diseases or conditions, emphasizing therapeutic efficacy.
- Synthesis Processes: Novel methods overcoming prior art obstacles, potentially providing advantages in yield or purity.
Notably, the patent claims probably incorporate multiple dependent claims to protect various embodiments, making it a comprehensive patent bundle.
Patent Landscape and Prior Art
1. Threats from Prior Art
A pivotal aspect of the patent landscape involves analyzing prior art references. The landscape reveals:
- Similar chemical scaffolds disclosed in earlier patents, notably in chemical and medicinal chemistry databases.
- Prior publications describing different but structurally related compounds with similar therapeutic targets.
- Existing methods or uses that could challenge the novelty or inventive step claimed in WO2006116764.
An effective patent should demonstrate unexpected advantages or distinct structural features not disclosed earlier, reinforcing its novelty and inventive step.
2. Competitive Patent Filings
Other patent families filed before or after 2006 potentially cover:
- Alternative compounds targeting the same biological pathway.
- Drug delivery systems enhancing bioavailability.
- Combination therapies merging the patented compound with other agents.
The landscape's complexity necessitates frequent freedom-to-operate assessments for companies intending to develop competing products.
3. Patent Lifecycle and Expiry
Depending on the jurisdiction, the patent term typically extends 20 years from the earliest priority date, potentially expiring around 2026–2027, unless extensions or supplementary protections are granted. Monitoring terminal disclosures and third-party filings is essential for strategic planning.
Regulatory and Patent Strategy Implications
The scope and claims outlined in WO2006116764 directly influence:
- Market exclusivity: Broad claims can prevent generic entry for a significant period.
- Litigation risk: Narrow claims or overlapping prior art heighten infringement challenges.
- Development pathways: Use and formulation claims shape clinical development and patent strategies.
- Licensing opportunities: Proprietary rights could be licensed or litigated depending on the patent's strength.
A robust patent suite that covers synthesis, use, and formulation emanating from WO2006116764 enhances portfolio value, often with secondary patents extending protection.
Legal and Commercial Considerations
- Patent validity audits should be conducted to confirm patentability over the current prior art landscape.
- Surveillance of patent filings in emerging markets may identify potential third-party challenges or opportunities for licensing.
- Post-grant oppositions or patent invalidity actions should be anticipated if prior art limits claim scope.
- Freedom-to-operate (FTO) analyses are essential before commercialization to avoid infringing existing patents or to identify licensing routes.
Conclusion
Patent WO2006116764 exemplifies a strategic pharmaceutical patent, with a well-defined scope covering specific compounds/methods intended for therapeutic use. Its claims appear structured to maximize protection while maintaining defensibility, considering the complex patent landscape around drug development. Continuous monitoring, legal due diligence, and portfolio management are crucial to leverage its market potential fully.
Key Takeaways
- The patent covers a novel chemical entity/method with broad geographic scope, vital for exclusive market rights.
- Strategic claim drafting—encompassing compounds, uses, and processes—enhances patent life and enforceability.
- The patent landscape is crowded with prior art, emphasizing the need for robust inventive step arguments.
- Supplementary patents covering formulations and methods are essential for extending market exclusivity.
- Regular patent landscape analysis optimizes licensing, infringement mitigation, and development strategies.
FAQs
Q1: How can the breadth of patent claims affect pharmaceutical market exclusivity?
A1: Broader claims can prevent competitors from introducing similar products, extending exclusivity. However, overly broad claims risk invalidation if challenged by prior art.
Q2: What role does the patent family structure play in international patent protection?
A2: The patent family ensures that core claims are protected across multiple jurisdictions, enabling global enforcement and blocking competitors in key markets.
Q3: How does prior art influence the validity of WO2006116764?
A3: Prior art that discloses similar compounds or methods can challenge novelty or inventive step, potentially leading to patent invalidation or narrowing.
Q4: When should companies consider applying for supplementary protection or patent term extensions?
A4: When regulatory delays shorten effective commercial patent life, extensions can compensate by prolonging exclusivity.
Q5: How important are claims focused on therapeutic methods versus chemical compounds?
A5: Claims on compounds typically offer stronger structural protections, while method claims can capture specific therapeutic applications, both vital for comprehensive patent coverage.
References
- WIPO Patent Application WO2006116764.
- World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Patent Database.
- Patent Landscape Analysis Reports (various sources).
- Relevant patent law and guidelines (e.g., USPTO, EPO).
