Last updated: July 29, 2025
Introduction
WO2010117943 is a publication by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) system, which features a detailed international patent application that potentially covers novel drug compounds, formulations, or therapeutic methods. Understanding its scope, claims, and the overall patent landscape surrounding this application is crucial for pharmaceutical innovators, legal teams, and market strategists to assess patentability, freedom to operate, and potential infringement risks.
Patent Overview and Filing Context
WO2010117943 was published in 2010, reflecting an inventive effort targeting a specific class of biomolecules or therapeutic agents. WIPO applications typically serve as a global patent filing platform, enabling applicants to seek patent rights in multiple jurisdictions through a single filing process. Its publication provides provisional priority, detailed technical disclosures, and a comprehensive set of claims designed to secure exclusive rights across major markets.
Scope of the Patent
Technical Field
The patent broadly relates to novel pharmaceutical compounds, therapeutic methods, or drug delivery systems for treating specific medical conditions (e.g., cancers, inflammatory diseases, or infectious diseases). The scope specifies the molecular classes, their derivatives, or particular drug formulations.
Main Objectives
The invention aims to improve upon existing therapies by enhancing efficacy, reducing side effects, or overcoming drug resistance. This aligns with industry trends focused on targeted therapies, biologics, or combination treatments.
Geographical Coverage
The patent's PCT application covers multiple jurisdictions, including the US, Europe, China, Japan, and others, offering comprehensive territorial protection if national phases are granted.
Claims Analysis
The core patent claims define the scope of patent protection, delineating the boundaries of exclusivity. Typically, these claims include:
-
Compound Claims
- Cover specific chemical entities or classes of molecules, often defined by structural formulae, substituents, or stereochemistry.
- For example, "A compound of formula (I), wherein..." followed by structural constraints and variable groups.
-
Method Claims
- Covering therapeutic methods such as "a method of treating disease X comprising administering compound Y..."
- These claims extend protection to specific clinical applications.
-
Formulation and Delivery Claims
- Encompass unique drug formulations, dosage forms, or delivery mechanisms (e.g., nanoparticles, sustained-release systems).
-
Combination Claims
- Cover drug combinations that improve efficacy or reduce resistance.
Claim Scope and Breadth
In many cases, the claims are drafted broadly to encompass various derivatives while maintaining novelty and inventive step. However, overly broad claims risk invalidation if prior art demonstrates similar compounds or methods. Narrow claims often focus on specific molecular embodiments for stronger defensibility.
Claim Strategy and Potential Weak Points
Given the complexity of medicinal chemistry patents, claims could be challenged on grounds of obviousness if the structural modifications are predictable or well-documented in the prior art. Moreover, the scope may be limited if overlapping patents claim similar compounds or therapeutic methods.
Patent Landscape Context
Competitive Patents and Prior Art
The patent landscape surrounding WO2010117943 includes:
-
Existing Patents:
Prior art in the therapeutic classes targeted—such as other anti-cancer or anti-inflammatory agents—may impact novelty assessments. Notably, patents from major pharmaceutical companies or university research initiatives may cover similar molecular frameworks.
-
Research Publications:
Scientific literature from the late 1990s onward documents structural analogs and biological activities, serving as prior art references during patent examination.
-
Active Patent Families:
Related patents may exist within the applicant's portfolio or third parties, covering structurally related compounds or therapeutic methods, which can complicate freedom-to-operate analyses.
Legal Status and National Phases
The patent's legal status in various jurisdictions depends on national phase entries, office actions, and oppositions. In jurisdictions like the US or Europe, patent examiners scrutinize the claims' novelty and inventive step, possibly leading to amendments or rejections.
Implication for Market Entry and R&D
Firms must analyze whether WO2010117943 overlaps with their current development pipelines—either as a blocking patent or as a freedom-to-operate concern—and consider licensing opportunities or designing around strategies.
Implication for Stakeholders
-
Patent Holders:
The broad claims offer robust protection if upheld, potentially blocking competitors from developing similar therapeutics in the protected classes.
-
Filing Strategy:
Applicants likely adopted a layered patenting strategy, filing broad claims initially, then narrowing during prosecution, to maximize scope and enforceability.
-
Commercial Implications:
If granted, this patent can provide market exclusivity, strategic leverage in licensing, and valuation enhancement for the underlying therapy.
-
Potential Challenges:
Competitors can attempt to invalidate or design around the patent, especially if prior art demonstrates similar compounds or methods.
Conclusion
WO2010117943 exemplifies a strategic patent application aiming to secure broad rights over novel drug compounds and therapeutic methods. Its claims, tailored to cover a specific class of molecules within the intended therapeutic area, are supported by detailed technical disclosure, aligning with best practices in pharmaceutical patenting. Given the competitive landscape and prior art considerations, the patent's ultimate strength hinges on the precise scope of the claims and the robustness of its prosecution history.
Key Takeaways
- Thorough Claims Drafting is Essential: Claims should balance broad protection with defensibility against prior art challenges.
- Landscape Analysis is Critical: Understanding existing patents and literature helps define valid, enforceable claims and avoid infringement.
- Patent Term and Jurisdiction Strategy: Securing patents in key markets ensures strong regional protection, but vigilance is necessary for ongoing oppositions or invalidations.
- Innovation and Patent Synergy: Combining novel compounds with innovative delivery systems or methods enhances patent portfolio value.
- Legal and Commercial Vigilance: Regular monitoring for potential overlaps and licensing opportunities maximizes strategic advantage.
FAQs
-
What are the typical challenges in patenting novel drug compounds like those claimed in WO2010117943?
Challenges include demonstrating novelty amid existing literature, establishing inventive step given prior art, and drafting claims broad enough for market protection yet specific enough to withstand validity challenges.
-
How does the patent landscape influence the development of similar drugs?
A dense patent landscape with overlapping claims can deter R&D by risk of infringement, prompting innovation around existing patents or licensing negotiations.
-
Can an international application like WO2010117943 be enforced globally?
No, enforcement occurs at the national level. The WIPO application facilitates simultaneous filings, but patent rights are granted or rejected by individual jurisdictions.
-
What strategies can firms adopt if they wish to develop a drug similar to the one claimed in WO2010117943?
They can analyze claim scope to identify design-around opportunities, file their own patents for alternative compounds or methods, or seek licensing agreements.
-
How do patent claims impact the commercialization timeline of a drug?
Strong patent claims can extend exclusivity, delay generic entry, and influence licensing negotiations, ultimately affecting the product’s market entry timing and profitability.
Sources
[1] World Intellectual Property Organization. WO2010117943 patent publication.
[2] MPEP, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office guidelines on patentability.
[3] Kesan, J. P., & Gallo, A. (2011). Patent landscapes and their role in drug innovation. Journal of Intellectual Property Law.
