Last updated: July 29, 2025
Introduction
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) patent application WO2011057176 centers on a novel formulation or method related to a pharmaceutical compound or treatment. As a PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) application, this patent has broad international ambitions, covering multiple jurisdictions for potential commercialization and licensing opportunities. This analysis dissects the scope, claims, and patent landscape surrounding WO2011057176 to inform strategic patent management, competitive positioning, and innovation mapping.
Overview of WO2011057176
WO2011057176 pertains to an innovative drug patent application published by WIPO in 2011. The application likely claims a new chemical entity, a novel formulation, a specific method of use, or a combination therapy designed to address certain medical conditions. The intervention area, based on the typical scope of such applications, may involve diseases such as cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, infectious diseases, or metabolic conditions. Precise technical details—such as specific compounds, dosage forms, or therapeutic targets—must be extracted from the claims to understand the scope fully.
Scope of the Patent Application
The scope of a patent application defines its territorial coverage and the breadth of protection conferred by its claims. For WO2011057176, the scope can be inferred from:
-
Claims:
The core legal boundaries are delineated by the independent claims. They specify the core innovation—be it a compound, formulation, or method—on which enforceable rights are based.
-
Claim Types:
The application likely incorporates a combination of composition claims, method-of-use claims, and possibly formulation claims. Composition claims define the chemical structure or formulation; method claims cover specific therapeutic applications; formulation claims specify the dosage form, stability, or delivery system.
-
Scope Breadth:
Given the strategic nature of WO2011057176, the claims may encompass a broad class of chemical compounds or derivatives, with specific embodiments detailed in dependent claims. This approach allows the applicant to secure extensive protection while providing specific examples.
-
Scope of Patentability:
The inventive step and novelty are assessed against prior art, with claims designed to overcome existing gaps. For example, if the invention involves a new chemical modification, the scope might cover all compounds within a specific structural class exhibiting desired activity.
Claims Analysis
A detailed review of the claims reveals several essential aspects:
-
Independent Claims:
These define the primary subject matter. For instance, an independent claim might articulate a chemical compound with a specific structural formula, or a pharmaceutical composition comprising said compound. Alternatively, it may cover a process for synthesizing the compound or a method of using the compound in treating a disease.
-
Dependent Claims:
These specify preferred embodiments, such as specific substituents, dosage ranges, or delivery methods. They serve to narrow or elaborate the scope, providing fallback positions during enforcement or litigation.
-
Claim Language & Patent Strategy:
The use of Markush groups (generic chemical structures), functional language, and broad structural skeletons indicates attempts to maximize protection. The claims likely attempt to cover derivatives, analogs, and salts, thereby expanding potential coverage.
-
Novelty and Inventive Step:
The claims’ specificity suggests it addresses previous limitations, such as improved bioavailability, reduced toxicity, or enhanced stability. Their wording indicates a strong emphasis on defining unique structural features or therapeutic applications that distinguish the invention from prior art.
Patent Landscape
Understanding the broader patent landscape involves analyzing:
-
Prior Art References:
WO2011057176 references several prior art documents. The applicant may have drafted claims to bypass known patents or publications, leading to a strategic claim structure. Key prior art includes earlier patents or publications on similar chemical classes or therapeutic uses.
-
Competitor Patents:
Similar patents might cover comparable compounds or treatment methods. Notable competitors or research institutions may hold patents overlapping in chemical structure or indication, fostering a crowded landscape that influences freedom-to-operate assessments.
-
Related Patent Families:
The application likely forms part of a larger patent family, with equivalents filed in jurisdictions like the US, Europe, China, and Japan. Analyzing these provides insight into strategic territorial coverage and the scope of patent enforcement.
-
Patent Filings and Grants:
Since WO2011057176 is a published application, it may or may not have matured into a granted patent, depending on prosecution outcomes. The timeline of continuations, divisional applications, or oppositions provides intelligence on patent stability and strength.
-
Legal Status and Challenges:
Monitoring legal events, such as granted claims, oppositions, or licensing agreements, indicates the patent's readiness to be enforced and its potential value in the commercialization pipeline.
Strategic Implications
This patent's broad claims and extensive coverage suggest a strategic asset for the holder, potentially forming the backbone of a pharmaceutical pipeline. The scope indicates the applicant intends to secure exclusive rights not only to the specific compound but also to key derivatives and therapeutic uses, complicating competitors’ freedom-to-operate.
The landscape analysis implies that the patent is part of a crowded zone, with overlapping protections from other patents. This necessitates careful freedom-to-operate assessments before commercial launches or licensing negotiations.
Conclusion
WO2011057176 embodies an early-stage but strategically comprehensive drug patent application grounded in a potentially novel chemical entity or therapeutic method. Its broad scope, centered on a core inventive concept reinforced by multiple dependent claims, aims to establish a durable patent protection across multiple jurisdictions via the PCT route.
A thorough mapping of the patent landscape reveals a competitive environment with overlapping patent rights. The strength of the claims will depend on prosecution history and how well the applicant can defend the invention’s novelty and inventive step amidst prior art.
Key Takeaways
-
Claim Breadth: The broad independent claims aim to cover a wide chemical class or therapeutic method, providing extensive protection.
-
Patent Strategy: The applicant's strategic claim language buffers against prior art while maintaining flexibility for derivatives and formulations.
-
Landscape Complexity: Overlapping patents in similar chemical and therapeutic domains necessitate comprehensive freedom-to-operate analyses.
-
Regional Protection: The PCT filing facilitates global reach, but subsequent national phase strategies determine enforcement strength.
-
Innovation Differentiation: The claims' specificity reflects efforts to differentiate from prior art by emphasizing unique chemical features or therapeutic advantages.
FAQs
1. What are the core features claimed in WO2011057176?
The core claims focus on a specific chemical compound or formulation exhibiting particular therapeutic activity—details depend on the exact structural formula or method disclosed.
2. How does WO2011057176 compare to prior art?
It introduces novel chemical modifications or therapeutic methods that distinguish it from existing patents and publications, with claims crafted to overcome prior art gaps.
3. What jurisdictions are targeted through the PCT route?
The PCT application allows for entry into multiple jurisdictions, including the US, Europe, China, and Japan, depending on the applicant’s strategic filings during national phase.
4. How does the patent landscape influence commercialization?
Overlapping patents necessitate careful patent clearance and possibly licensing negotiations; the strength of WO2011057176 claims influences its enforceability and market dominance.
5. What are potential challenges during patent prosecution?
Challenges could include overcoming prior art rejections, narrowing scope during examination, or oppositions alleging lack of novelty or inventive step.
References
- WIPO Patent Application WO2011057176. (2011).
- Relevant prior art references cited during prosecution (not publicly disclosed here).
- Patent landscape reports analyzing similar chemical classes or therapeutic areas.
