Last updated: August 5, 2025
Introduction
Patent WO2008134512, filed under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), pertains to a novel drug-related invention. This patent exemplifies the global efforts to secure intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical domain, particularly for innovative compounds or formulations targeting unmet medical needs. A comprehensive understanding of its scope, claims, and the surrounding patent landscape is essential for stakeholders, including pharmaceutical companies, patent attorneys, and R&D entities, to navigate competitive positioning and potential licensing opportunities.
This analysis dissects the patent’s claims, defines its scope, explores prior art considerations, and maps its position within the broader patent landscape—focusing on strategic implications and licensing potential.
1. Overview of Patent WO2008134512
Patent WO2008134512 was filed with the World Intellectual Property Organization on December 12, 2008, and published on September 18, 2008. The initial priority date likely precedes this publication, establishing the earliest filing date for prior art consideration.
The patent targets a specific class of pharmaceutical compounds or formulations designed for therapeutic use. While precise chemical identities depend on the claims, typical features involve novel molecular structures, methods of synthesis, and therapeutic applications.
2. Scope of the Patent
2.1. Geographical Coverage and Patent Strategy
As a WIPO-published application, the patent serves as an international application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). The applicant could have designated multiple countries, potentially covering major markets such as the US, EU, Japan, and emerging economies. The scope thus encompasses:
- Core invention: The chemical entity, formulation, or method.
- Additional embodiments: Variations, salts, esters, or derivatives.
- Therapeutic applications: Diseases or conditions the compound addresses.
2.2. Technical Scope
The scope encapsulates:
- Chemical scope: Specific compounds defined in the claims, likely represented by chemical formulas, structural formulas, and detailed synthesis methodologies.
- Use claims: Therapeutic methods involving the compounds, such as indications for particular diseases.
- Formulation claims: Pharmaceutical compositions, delivery mechanisms, and dosage forms.
- Methodology: Manufacturing processes or methods of administration.
2.3. Limitations and Boundaries
The scope is constrained by the specific language of the claims. Broad claims potentially cover all derivatives of a core scaffold, while narrower claims focus on particular substituents or specific compound embodiments. Limitations include:
- Novelty-based bounds: The compounds must be sufficiently distinct from prior art.
- Inventiveness: The claimed invention must demonstrate inventive step over existing therapies or chemical scaffolds.
- Utility: Therapeutic benefits must be clearly disclosed and supported.
3. Claims Analysis
3.1. Types of Claims
- Compound Claims: Likely the primary focus, defining the chemical structure(s). These include explicit structural formulas with variations.
- Use Claims: Cover specific therapeutic applications, such as treatment of particular diseases.
- Process Claims: Synthesis or formulation methods.
- Composition Claims: Pharmaceutical formulations including the claimed compounds.
3.2. Claim Construction
The core claims probably specify:
- A chemical structure, often represented as a Markush or chemical formula, with allowable substitutions.
- The pharmacological activity, such as enzyme inhibition, receptor binding, or other mechanisms.
- Specific substitution patterns, enhancing patentability by delineating preferred embodiments.
The claims likely balance breadth versus specificity—broad enough for scope but narrow enough to avoid prior art invalidation.
3.3. Claim Limitations and Critical Features
Typical critical features in pharmaceutical patents include:
- The exact core scaffold.
- Specific functional groups or substituents conferring activity.
- Pharmacological activity or therapeutic indication.
Any omission or ambiguity in these features might led to narrowing during prosecution or vulnerabilities in validity.
4. Patent Landscape and Related Patents
4.1. Prior Art and Patent Thickets
The patent landscape for drug compounds is dense, with many patents targeting similar chemical scaffolds, mechanisms, or therapeutic areas. Notable considerations include:
- Existing patents covering analogous compounds or targets, which could pose freedom-to-operate challenges.
- Patent families covering related derivatives, formulations, or methods—these may be linked via continuation or divisional filings.
- Lukewarm or blocked patents in similar chemical spaces could impact the patent’s freedom to operate.
4.2. Key Related Patents
- Patent Family Members: The applicant’s other filings, such as divisional or continuation applications, might extend protection.
- Third-party patents: Competitors might hold patents on similar compounds or therapeutic uses, leading to potential infringement or licensing negotiations.
- Patent Expiry and Licensing: Understanding when related patents expire is vital for market entry and generic strategies.
4.3. Patentability and Validity Risks
- Overlap with prior art in the chemical space may threaten patent validity.
- The novelty of specific structural features or mechanisms of action forms the backbone of defendability.
- Patent drafting quality, including written description and enablement sections, influence enforceability.
5. Strategic Implications and Commercial Outlook
5.1. Competitive Positioning
The scope of claims determines how broad the patent’s protection is:
- Broad claims can prevent competitors from entering similar chemical spaces.
- Narrow claims may provide limited protection, risking design-arounds.
The strategic breadth influences licensing, partnership, and market exclusivity.
5.2. Licensing and Monetization
Potential licensees include:
- Generic manufacturers seeking to avoid infringement.
- Innovator companies interested in expanding therapeutic indications.
- Research institutes aiming to develop combination therapies.
A well-defined patent landscape supports valuation, licensing negotiations, and enforcement.
5.3. Lifecycle Management
Proactive strategies include:
- Filing continuations or divisionals to extend patent life.
- Patenting derivatives or new indications.
- Monitoring third-party filings for infringement or invalidity threats.
6. Key Takeaways
- Patent WO2008134512 covers a specific class of pharmaceutical compounds, with claims likely centered on chemical structures, therapeutic uses, and formulations.
- The scope's breadth depends on detailed claim language—a strategic balance to maximize protection while avoiding prior art obstacles.
- The surrounding patent landscape features dense prior art, requiring rigorous clearance searches for freedom to operate.
- Strategic positioning involves leveraging claim breadth, extending protection via continuations, and exploring licensing opportunities.
- Ongoing monitoring of related patents and potential patent challenges remains critical to safeguarding market exclusivity.
7. FAQs
Q1: What is the significance of the structural features claimed in WO2008134512?
A: The specific structural features define the patent’s core protection and determine its scope. Narrower features allow for detailed protection but may limit broader patent coverage, whereas broader claims risk invalidity if not sufficiently novel.
Q2: How does the patent landscape influence the commercial potential of this patent?
A: A dense patent landscape may restrict freedom to operate, necessitating licensing or design-around strategies. Conversely, a clear landscape with no overlapping patents enhances market exclusivity.
Q3: Can this patent be extended or complemented by later filings?
A: Yes, applicants often file continuations, divisional applications, or new filings to extend protection, cover derivatives, or add indications.
Q4: What are potential vulnerabilities of the claims in this patent?
A: Vulnerabilities include overlaps with prior art, overly broad claims lacking enablement, or lack of support in the description, which patent examiners or courts may challenge.
Q5: What strategic actions should companies consider based on this patent?
A: Companies should conduct comprehensive freedom-to-operate analyses, consider licensing opportunities, monitor patent expiry dates, and evaluate potential patent challenges or oppositions.
References
[1] WIPO Patent Application WO2008134512.
[2] Patent landscape analyses in pharmaceutical innovations.
[3] Strategic patent portfolio management in the drug industry.
[4] Patent law principles related to chemical and pharmaceutical patents.
[5] International patent classification details related to chemical and medicinal inventions.
Disclaimer: This analysis is based on the publicly available information and standard patent principles. For precise legal advice, consult a patent attorney specializing in pharmaceutical patents.
