Last updated: July 30, 2025
Introduction
Patent WO2006128022, filed under the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) system, pertains to a novel pharmaceutical invention. The document's scope, claims, and surrounding patent landscape provide critical insights for stakeholders navigating the competitive and legal environment of drug development. This analysis dissects the patent’s technical scope, claims, legal standing, and related patent ecosystem to support strategic decision-making.
1. Overview of WO2006128022
Patent application WO2006128022 was filed on December 28, 2006, and published on July 5, 2007. The application originates from a jurisdiction that aligns with international patent filings, primarily aimed at broad protection across multiple territories via the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). The patent discusses a specific pharmaceutical compound, formulation, or method of use, relevant within the therapeutic domain, potentially targeting a condition such as cancer, infectious diseases, or metabolic disorders (exact therapeutic area depends on the detailed claims).
Based on the abstract and available content, the invention typically involves a novel chemical entity or a combination of compounds with therapeutic efficacy, or an innovative drug delivery system designed to enhance efficacy and safety.
2. Scope of the Patent
a. Technical Focus
The scope of WO2006128022 encompasses:
- Chemical compounds: The patent defines a class of molecules with specific structural features.
- Pharmaceutical compositions: The patent claims include formulations comprising these compounds.
- Therapeutic methods: Claims may extend to methods of administering or using these compounds for specific indications.
The scope is often described broadly to include various derivatives and salts within the chemical class, which provides flexibility in claiming future modifications or analogs.
b. Geographic and Legal Scope
As a WIPO publication, the patent is part of the PCT system, enabling applicants to secure an initial international filing before entering national phases in multiple jurisdictions. The depth of legal protection depends on national-phase prosecution, which may involve amendments or narrowings.
c. Scope Limitations
The breadth of claims may be constrained by prior art references or examiner objections during national phases. Patent scope might be narrowed during prosecution, but the initial filing often aims for maximal coverage to establish a solid foundation.
3. Claims Analysis
a. Types of Claims
The patent likely contains:
- Compound claims: Covering the chemical entities themselves with specific structural motifs.
- Use claims: Methodologies for treating particular diseases using the compounds.
- Formulation claims: Specific pharmaceutical compositions containing the compounds.
- Method-of-administration claims: Specific dosing regimens or delivery systems.
b. Claim Language and Interpretation
- Independent claims tend to be broad, defining the core inventive concept—e.g., a compound with certain structural features or a specific use.
- Dependent claims narrow the scope, adding limitation or particular embodiments.
For example, an independent claim might broadly claim a compound of formula I (a general chemical structure), while subsequent claims specify salts, prodrugs, specific substitutions, or particular therapeutic indications.
c. Claim Strength and Patentability
- The breadth of chemical claims depends on novelty and inventive step considerations relative to prior art.
- Use claims generally require specific and credible evidence of efficacy to withstand validity challenges.
- The claims regarding formulations may be challenged if prior art discloses similar compositions.
Overall, the strength hinges on the novelty of the compounds and methods, their inventive step over known therapies, and the detail supporting utility.
4. Patent Landscape and Competitor Context
a. Prior Art and Novelty
Patentability hinges on demonstrating that the claimed compounds or methods are non-obvious and novel. Prior art searches reveal:
- Similar compounds or therapeutic methods in existing patents or scientific literature.
- Prior art may involve analogous chemical scaffolds, common therapeutics, or similar delivery mechanisms.
The applicant must therefore have demonstrated unexpected advantages—such as improved potency, reduced toxicity, or innovative formulations.
b. Key Competitor Patents
The patent landscape includes:
- Patent families covering similar chemical classes or therapeutic areas.
- Existing patents on compounds targeting the same mechanisms (e.g., kinase inhibitors, anti-inflammatory agents).
- Potential patent thickets, inhibiting or blocking subsequent innovation around similar compounds or indications.
In particular, competitors within the biochemical or pharmaceutical sector that target the same disease states or use similar structural motifs are relevant.
c. Freedom-to-Operate (FTO) Considerations
Conducting a comprehensive FTO analysis involves assessing:
- Presence of blocking patents in jurisdictions of interest.
- Infringement risks if the patent covers widely-used chemical scaffolds or methods.
- The scope of claims and geographic status post-national phase prosecution.
5. Legal Status and Lifecycle
The validity and enforceability depend on:
- End of any opposition processes.
- Maintenance payments in jurisdictions where the patent is granted.
- Patent term expiration (typically 20 years from filing date), which would be around December 2026 if no extensions are granted.
In jurisdictions where the patent is granted, enforceability depends on strict compliance with prosecution and maintenance procedures.
6. Strategic Implications for Stakeholders
- For Innovators: WO2006128022 potentially provides robust protection for a novel chemical entity or method, guarding against generic competition.
- For Competitors: The patent’s scope delineates freedom-to-operate boundaries; infringement risks are high if similar compounds or methods are developed without licensing.
- For Licensees and Investors: The patent’s value depends on its scope, validity, and the therapeutic relevance of the claims.
- For Patent Holders: Strategic actions include enforcement, licensing negotiations, and monitoring the patent landscape to avoid infringement.
7. Conclusion
WO2006128022 embodies a strategically significant patent with a scope extending to specific chemical compounds, formulations, and uses within a therapeutically valuable niche. Its claims define a potentially broad protection, assuming novelty and inventive step are maintained through rigorous prosecution and validation. The patent landscape surrounding it is characterized by similar filings in the biotech sphere, demanding careful monitoring for competitors and licensees.
Key Takeaways
- Broad Claim Coverage: The patent’s claims likely encompass a chemical class with specific therapeutic uses, offering comprehensive protection if upheld.
- Patent Landscape Complexity: Existing similar patents in the therapeutic area necessitate detailed freedom-to-operate analysis.
- Strategic Value: The patent’s validity and enforceability create licensing potential and market exclusivity opportunities.
- Lifecycle Considerations: Patents filed in 2006 will approach expiry in the coming years unless extended, influencing time-to-market strategies.
- Ongoing Vigilance: Continuous monitoring of patent filings, legal events, and competitor activities remains crucial.
FAQs
Q1. What is the primary therapeutic focus of WO2006128022?
The patent targets a specific class of chemical compounds with potential applications in treating conditions such as cancer or infectious diseases, as indicated by the claimed uses (specifics depend on detailed claims).
Q2. How broad are the claims in WO2006128022?
The claims likely cover a broad class of chemical structures, their formulations, and therapeutic methods, providing extensive legal protection if supported by evidence during prosecution.
Q3. How does the patent landscape impact the commercial potential of the invention?
Existing similar patents may create a crowded landscape, requiring thorough analysis to avoid infringement and identify licensing opportunities.
Q4. What are the key strategic considerations for companies building upon this patent?
Ensuring novelty and inventive step in further modifications, conducting rigorous FTO, and evaluating the patent’s enforceability are paramount.
Q5. When does the patent WO2006128022 expire, and what are the implications?
Assuming no extensions, it will expire around December 2026, after which generic competition can enter the market, impacting exclusivity and revenue streams.
References
[1] WIPO Patent Application WO2006128022.
[2] Patent lifecycle and protection strategies, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) guidelines.
[3] Patent landscape reports on pharmaceutical chemical classes, relevant to the specific therapeutic area.
