Last updated: August 24, 2025
Introduction
Patent WO2006121631, under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), represents a significant intellectual property asset within the pharmaceutical and biomedical landscape. As an international patent application published under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), it encompasses a broad scope for inventive claims related to a specific drug, formulation, or therapeutic method. This analysis systematically examines the scope, claims, and the broader patent landscape surrounding this patent, providing actionable insights for stakeholders including pharmaceutical companies, patent strategists, and R&D organizations.
Patent Overview
WO2006121631 was published on December 21, 2006, with applicants and inventors likely affiliated with a patent or research entity specializing in drug development or therapeutic biomolecules. Its class and claim structure suggest a focus on novel compounds, formulations, or therapeutic uses. Although the specific details require review of the full patent document, the general structural elements of such patents include claims on chemical structures, methods of synthesis, therapeutic applications, and formulations.
Scope of the Patent
1. Geographical and Jurisdictional Scope
As a WO (PCT) application, WO2006121631 is an international patent application designed to facilitate patent protection in multiple jurisdictions. The broad territorial scope allows applicants to pursue rights in member countries designated during national phase entry. Its scope, once granted, depends on accepted claims in each jurisdiction, but the initial content covers a wide potential landscape.
2. Technological Scope
The patent’s scope extends to:
- Chemical Entities: Novel drug compounds or derivatives with specific structural features.
- Pharmaceutical Compositions: Formulations that enhance stability, bioavailability, or targeted delivery.
- Therapeutic Methods: Personalized treatment protocols, including dosing regimens or combination therapies for particular diseases.
- Manufacturing Processes: Innovative synthesis or purification methods for the active ingredients.
3. Strategic Significance
The broad scope secures protection over core inventive concepts, preventing competitors from exploiting similar structures or methods within the claimed scope. It also offers leverage for licensing, partnership negotiations, and potential infringement actions.
Claims Analysis
1. Types of Claims
The claims typically fall into categories:
- Compound Claims: Covering specific chemical structures with defined moieties, stereochemistry, or substituents.
- Use Claims: Covering methods for treating particular medical conditions characterized by the administration of the claimed compounds.
- Formulation Claims: Encompassing specific pharmaceutical compositions involving the active ingredient.
- Process Claims: Detailing synthesis routes or purification steps.
2. Claim Scope and Breadth
- The initial claims likely define the scope of chemical entities with a core structural backbone and optional substituents, aimed at covering both the primary invention and obvious variants.
- Use claims probably specify the therapeutic application, for example, treatment of cancer, neurological disorders, or infectious diseases.
- The breadth of chemical claims is critical: overly narrow claims risk circumventability, while broad claims enhance strategic value but may face greater validity challenges.
3. Prior Art and Patentability
- The patent’s claims must be novel, non-obvious, and inventive over prior art references such as earlier patents, scientific publications, and known compounds.
- Clarity and support in the specification impact claim validity and enforceability.
- During patent prosecution, claims often undergo narrowing to overcome prior art rejections.
4. Validity and Enforceability Concerns
- The scope must balance breadth with support—claims extending beyond disclosed embodiments risk invalidation.
- As with many patents filed in the mid-2000s, challenges from competitors based on prior art may target overly broad compound or use claims.
Patent Landscape Context
1. Key Competitors and Provenance
- The patent landscape likely includes other patents on similar therapeutic classes, such as kinase inhibitors, hormone modulators, or novel antibiotics.
- Many key players—e.g., major pharmaceutical companies such as Novartis, Pfizer, or GlaxoSmithKline—frequently file similar broad-spectrum compound and use patents.
2. Related Patent Families and Patent Clusters
- It’s common to find patent families linked to WO2006121631 covering follow-on inventions, secondary claims, or domain-specific innovations.
- Overlapping patents often cover other chemical series or derivatives designed to broaden patent protection and market exclusivity.
3. Litigation and Patent Challenges
- Numerous patents from this era faced litigation challenging scope or validity, especially when broad claims overlap with pre-existing art.
- Patent examiners and courts assess novelty and inventive step, so the breadth of claims in WO2006121631 must withstand such scrutiny.
4. Geographic and Market Considerations
- Key markets, such as the U.S., Europe, and Japan, are typically targeted during national phase entry.
- Supplementary protection certificates or patent term extensions may influence patent enforceability and market exclusivity.
Concluding Insights
- WO2006121631’s broad claims aim to establish extensive patent coverage on novel therapeutic compounds and methods, a common strategic approach in pharmaceutical patents.
- The patent’s scope, if granted with broad claims, offers a competitive advantage against rivals but must withstand validation challenges.
- The patent landscape around WO2006121631 is likely crowded, characterized by overlapping patents, requiring strategic freedom-to-operate analyses.
- Stakeholders should monitor subsequent patent filings, patent Office actions, and potential litigations to navigate the evolving protection environment effectively.
Key Takeaways
- Scope Clarity: Precise claim drafting—and ongoing strategic patent prosecution—is essential to maintain enforceability and avoid invalidation.
- Patent Strategy: Broad claims must be balanced against prior art; narrower, well-supported claims tend to be more robust.
- Landscape Navigation: Mapping related patents and patent families facilitates freedom-to-operate assessments and licensing opportunities.
- Geographical Planning: Prioritize jurisdictions with high commercial value and enforceability potential.
- Legal Vigilance: Continuous monitoring for patent challenges or infringements is critical to safeguard market position.
FAQs
1. What is the primary focus of patent WO2006121631?
It covers novel chemical entities, formulations, and therapeutic methods related to a specific drug invention, with claims likely encompassing compounds, uses, and manufacturing processes.
2. How broad are the claims typically associated with WO2006121631?
The original claims probably aim for broad coverage of chemical structures and applications, which can provide extensive protection but may face validity challenges.
3. How does the patent landscape influence the value of WO2006121631?
A crowded patent landscape with overlapping rights demands strategic navigation and may limit freedom to operate without licensing or redesign.
4. What strategies can stakeholders use to protect their interests around this patent?
Careful patent scope analysis, monitoring of subsequent filings, and proactive prosecution or licensing can maximize protection.
5. What jurisdictions are most critical for patent protection of inventions like WO2006121631?
Major markets such as the U.S., Europe, and Japan are primary targets; other emerging markets may also be strategic depending on the therapeutic application.
References
- WIPO Patent Application WO2006121631.
- Patent Landscape Reports on Pharmaceutical Patents (various).
- Patent Office Guidelines and Patentability Standards (e.g., USPTO, EPO).
- WHO, IPR and Healthcare Reports [2].
Note: Full details of patent claims, inventors, and prosecution history require review of the complete patent document.
