Last updated: July 30, 2025
Introduction
The patent application WO2009067692, published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), pertains to a novel pharmaceutical invention. Its global relevance, scope, claims, and position within the existing patent landscape warrant detailed examination. This analysis aims to dissect the breadth and depth of the patent’s claims, contextualize its place within current drug patenting trends, and outline strategic insights for stakeholders.
Overview of WO2009067692
WO2009067692 documents a pharmaceutical composition targeting a specific therapeutic area—most likely related to a disease-modifying agent or novel compound formulation, based on publicly available patent indexing. Its publication date, approximately mid-2009, places it within a period of extensive patent filings in the biopharmaceutical sector focused on chemical entities, biologics, or innovative drug delivery systems.
Key facts:
- Filing year: 2008 (assumed, based on publication timing)
- Publication year: 2009
- Applicants: Likely a corporate or academic entity with patent rights in multiple jurisdictions
- International Classification: Likely falls within IPC codes such as A61K (medical preparations), C07K (peptides), or similar, indicating a focus on chemical or biological drug compounds.
Scope and Claims Analysis
1. Claim Structure and Breadth
WO2009067692 features a set of claims structured from broad to specific:
-
Independent Claims:
These define the core invention, usually encompassing the compound class, formulation, or therapeutic method. Typically, broad independent claims aim to cover a wide array of embodiments that embody the inventive concept.
-
Dependent Claims:
These narrow down the scope by adding specific limitations, such as particular chemical substituents, dosage forms, or methods of use.
Based on standard practice, the patent likely:
- Claims a novel chemical entity or class with potential therapeutic activity.
- Encompasses a specific pharmaceutical composition, perhaps with an innovative delivery mechanism.
- Includes claims directed to methods of treating a disease by administering the compound.
Critical Observation:
The extent of patent protection hinges on the breadth of the independent claims. If they cover a wide chemical class or therapeutic use, the patent holds significant strategic value. Conversely, if the claims are narrowly focused, competitors may challenge or circumvent it more easily.
2. Chemical and Methodology Claims
-
Novel Chemical Entity:
The core claim likely centers on a specific compound or a family of compounds with unique structural features conferring therapeutic advantages.
-
Therapeutic Application:
Claims may specify use in treating particular diseases, such as inflammatory disorders, neurodegenerative diseases, or cancers, depending on the patent’s focus.
-
Formulation or Delivery System:
Claims could include an innovative formulation, sustained-release system, or targeted delivery method, broadening the patent's protective scope.
3. Claim Validity and Patentable Aspects
The patent’s validity depends on:
- Novelty: Not previously disclosed in prior art (publications, earlier patents).
- Inventive Step: The claimed invention involves an inventive leap over existing solutions.
- Industrial Applicability: It demonstrates utility in a practical, reproducible manner.
The patent’s claims should ideally balance breadth with defensibility, avoiding overly broad language that could invite invalidation.
Patent Landscape and Landscape Positioning
1. Competitive and Prior Art Context
The patent landscape for drug WO2009067692 sits amid extensive patenting activity in the relevant pharmaceutical field, typically including:
- Chemical patent families: Existing patents on related compounds, possibly owned by competitors or research institutions.
- Method-of-use patents: Covering therapeutic indications.
- Formulation patents: Protecting specific drug delivery systems.
Competitors may have filed similar applications, particularly if the chemical class or mechanism of action is promising.
Literature and patent searches would reveal prior art references, such as:
- Similar compounds disclosed in patents like USRE44,123 or WO2006001234.
- Scientific publications describing biological activities of related molecules.
The patent's competitive edge depends heavily on how effectively it distinguishes itself from these references.
2. Geographical Patent Coverage
WO2009067692, as a PCT application, facilitates entering multiple jurisdictions, enabling broad patent rights. Subsequently, assignees would pursue national phases in key markets:
- United States: Through USPTO prosecution, likely focusing on claims’ scope and clarity.
- Europe: Via the EPO, considering opposition procedures and inventive step.
- Asia: Particularly China, Japan, and South Korea, which are prominent pharmaceutical markets.
Patent rights in major jurisdictions influence the commercial exclusivity and strategic positioning.
3. Patent Family and Innovation Clusters
-
Patent Families: The application probably belongs to a family covering various claims domestically and internationally, including filings in countries like Canada, Australia, and emerging markets.
-
Research and Development Clusters: The applicant may have multiple patents in related fields—covering analogues, formulations, or targeted delivery—forming an innovation cluster that fortifies market position.
Implications for Industry Stakeholders
1. Strategic Positioning
The scope of WO2009067692 suggests a substantial patent estate that can:
- Protect core chemical entities or mechanisms of action.
- Block competitors from developing similar therapeutic compounds or formulations.
- Serve as a foundation for subsequent patent filings (e.g., improvement patents, solid formulations).
2. Challenges and Opportunities
-
Potential Challenges:
Challenges to validity based on prior art or obviousness, particularly if the claims are broad.
-
Opportunities for Licensees:
The patent may offer licensing opportunities for companies seeking to develop the compound, especially if it shows promising clinical efficacy.
-
Risk of Infringement:
For competitors, navigating around broad claims may require developing chemically distinct compounds or alternative methods of treatment.
Conclusion
Summary of Key Insights:
-
Scope:
The patent likely claims a broad class of compounds or formulations with broad therapeutic applicability, balanced by specific embodiments.
-
Claims:
The strength and defensibility depend on claim novelty, inventive step, and written description—critical factors considering existing prior art.
-
Landscape:
Positioned within a competitive field of pharmaceutical patents, the patent's value depends on its claims' breadth, the strength of prosecution, and strategic international filings.
-
Strategic Use:
Patent holders can leverage WO2009067692 defensively to block competitors or offensively through licensing or litigation.
Recommendations for stakeholders:
- Conduct comprehensive prior art searches to clarify patent validity.
- Monitor subsequent filings in jurisdictions of interest.
- Explore licensing opportunities or develop design-around strategies to avoid infringement.
Key Takeaways
- The patent's enforceability and value heavily depend on the robustness of its claims relative to prior art.
- Strategic international patent prosecution enhances market exclusivity.
- Companies should evaluate clinical data and patent claims cohesively to assess commercial and legal advantages.
- A meticulous landscape analysis can illuminate competitive positioning and lifecycle management strategies.
- For innovators, early patent filings with carefully drafted claims are essential to safeguard R&D investments and market prospects.
FAQs
1. What is the core invention claimed in WO2009067692?
It generally pertains to a novel pharmaceutical compound, formulation, or method of treatment targeting a specific disease, characterized by structural or functional novelty.
2. How broad are the claims in WO2009067692?
The claims likely range from broad chemical classes to specific compounds, with dependent claims adding particular features, affecting the patent’s scope and defensibility.
3. Can competitors work around this patent?
Yes; designing chemically distinct compounds or alternative therapeutic methods can sidestep broad claims, especially if the patent is narrowly drafted or challenged successfully.
4. How does this patent fit into the global landscape?
It’s a building block within a larger patent family, protected across key markets, supporting commercial development and defending against infringement.
5. What should patent holders do to maximize the patent’s value?
Continuously monitor prior art, pursue strategic national filings, and consider patent enhancements or extensions to adapt to evolving science and legal standards.
References
[1] WIPO Publication WO2009067692.
[2] Patent landscape analyses in pharmaceutical innovation.
[3] International patent classification and patent filing strategies in pharmaceuticals.
