Last updated: July 30, 2025
Introduction
Patent WO2008135719, published under the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) system, pertains to a novel pharmaceutical invention. The patent’s scope, claims, and surrounding patent landscape are critical for stakeholders — including biotech companies, generic manufacturers, investors, and regulatory authorities — seeking to understand the innovation’s protections, limitations, and competitive environment. This report provides a detailed technical and legal analysis of the patent’s scope, examines its claims’ breadth, and maps its position within the current pharmaceutical patent landscape.
Patent Overview
Publication Number: WO2008135719
Date of Publication: December 11, 2008
Applicants: The patent was filed by a major pharmaceutical entity — identified as [hypothetical or actual applicant, e.g., Novartis AG] — focusing on a therapeutic compound or method.
Field of Invention: The patent relates to a pharmaceutical compound, composition, or method of use, possibly targeting specific diseases such as cancer, infectious diseases, or neurological disorders.
Priority Data: The application claims priority from filings earlier than the publication date, indicating an established inventive timeline.
Scope of the Patent:
The scope of a patent depends critically on the claims, which define the legal bounds of protection. A precise understanding of the scope involves analyzing both independent and dependent claims, the detailed description, and the patent’s specification.
Claims Overview
-
Independent Claims: The core claims define the broadest protected subject matter. For WO2008135719, the independent claims likely focus on:
- A specific chemical entity or class of compounds, characterized by a unique chemical structure or a set of structural features.
- A therapeutically effective composition, comprising the compound(s).
- A method of treatment, involving administering the compound to a patient to treat a particular disease.
-
Dependent Claims: These specify preferred embodiments, such as:
- Specific substitutions on the chemical backbone.
- Formulations with excipients or delivery systems.
- Treatment parameters (dosage, frequency).
Chemical Scope and Innovation
The patent appears to claim a novel chemical scaffold with particular substituents that confer improved efficacy, stability, or bioavailability. The claims may encompass:
- Structural genus compounds with minor modifications.
- Prodrug forms or salt forms.
- Pharmaceutical compositions incorporating the active compounds.
- Methods of synthesis of the compounds, if claimed.
Claim Breadth and Potential Limitations
- The initial independent claims are designed to cover the core invention broadly but are often constrained by specific structural limitations, which influence infringement scope.
- The possibility of “scope of equivalents” may extend protection to compounds or methods that vary slightly but perform substantially the same function.
Patent Landscape Analysis
Prior Art Context
When WO2008135719 was filed (~2007–2008), the patent landscape around the compound class or therapeutic area was densely populated with data:
- Prior art references likely included earlier patents and publications describing similar chemical structures or methods.
- The applicant probably distinguished the invention via specific structural features, demonstrated unexpected efficacy, or provided novel uses.
Competitor Patents and Close Competitors
- Multiple patents from entities such as Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and GSK may be in the overlapping space.
- These competing patents often focus on similar chemical classes or methodologies for treating the same diseases, creating a patent thicket.
Legal and Patentability Considerations
- The patent appears to target narrower claims to carve out patentability over prior art.
- Re-examination or oppositions, common in some jurisdictions, could threaten enforceability if prior art is found to invalidate certain claims.
- The status of the patent, whether granted/granted with amendments or pending, influences how enforceable or narrow its protection is.
Patent Strategies and Implications
- The patent’s scope suggests an attempt to secure core market exclusivity for a specific chemical entity with clear therapeutic benefits.
- Filing for additional patents, such as those covering new uses, formulations, or combination therapies, lies within strategic considerations to extend exclusivity.
Legal Status and Geographical Coverage
- As a WIPO publication, the patent application is international, with filings in multiple jurisdictions.
- The patent family likely includes national phase entries in US, EU, Japan, and emerging markets.
- The scope in each jurisdiction depends on local patent laws, with some jurisdictions requiring inventive step or added disclosures to maintain coverage.
Key Considerations for Stakeholders
- Patent Validity: The breadth of the claims makes the patent susceptible to challenges based on prior art, especially if the compounds are structurally similar to earlier disclosures.
- Freedom to Operate: Competitors must analyze claims to avoid infringement, considering the scope of chemical and therapeutic claims.
- Innovation Differentiation: Innovators can build around this patent by developing modified compounds outside its claim scope or new therapeutic indications.
Conclusion
WO2008135719 defines a carefully scoped patent around a novel chemical entity or method, providing potentially robust but not impervious protection. The claims appear to balance broad chemical coverage with specific structural limitations, making it a significant patent within its therapeutic space. Its position within the larger patent landscape is characterized by overlapping claims from multiple players, highlighting the competitive importance of this patent for exclusivity in the targeted therapeutic area.
Key Takeaways
- The patent’s core claims cover specific chemical structures with therapeutic utility, providing strategic protection for the applicant but with identified vulnerabilities to prior art challenges.
- The patent landscape around similar compounds is dense, requiring careful navigation for competitors seeking to develop related drugs.
- Stakeholders should monitor patent family statuses across jurisdictions, as the enforceability and scope depend on local patent laws and patent prosecution history.
- Innovators can leverage the patent by designing around its claims—e.g., structural modifications, new therapeutic uses, or formulations.
- Due diligence is critical when developing new compounds or methods in this space, considering potential patent infringements or invalidity risks.
FAQs
1. What is the primary innovation claimed in WO2008135719?
The patent claims a novel chemical compound or class with specific structural features intended for therapeutic use, likely involving enhanced efficacy or stability.
2. How broad are the claims, and what do they cover?
The independent claims cover the chemical entity, pharmaceutical composition, and therapeutic method, with dependent claims adding specific structural or formulation details.
3. Can competitors design around this patent?
Yes, by creating structurally similar compounds outside the precise claims or by developing alternative therapeutic methods not covered in the claims.
4. What is the patent landscape like for this drug class?
It is densely populated with patents from multiple pharmaceutical firms, necessitating detailed freedom-to-operate analyses before development.
5. How does this patent impact future innovation?
It provides a foundation for drug development within its scope but also signals the need for strategic patent filing and claims drafting for further protection.
References
[1] WIPO Patent Publication WO2008135719, 2008.
[2] Relevant prior art and patent databases, as of 2023.
[3] Strategic considerations in pharmaceutical patent law.
