Last updated: April 24, 2026
What is WO2011089623 and what does it cover?
WO2011089623 (published 21 July 2011; “WO 2011/089623”) is a WIPO PCT patent family disclosure centered on small-molecule drug candidates and their pharmaceutical use, with claim scope directed to specific chemical structures and their pharmaceutical compositions for treating defined disease indications described in the application. The legal scope is determined by (i) the independent claim categories (compound, composition, use/indication, and/or method), (ii) the definition of substituents and structural formulae, and (iii) explicit exclusions or preferred embodiments embedded in the dependent claims and specification.
How to read the claim boundary in practice
- Core breadth comes from the Markush-style variable definitions in the compound claims (the latitude of substituents permitted).
- Depth comes from the dependent claims that narrow to specific radicals, ring substitutions, stereochemistry, and salt/forms.
- Enforceability in jurisdictions hinges on whether the national-phase claim set keeps the same structural definitions and whether later amendments introduce limiting features.
What claim categories does WO2011089623 use?
WO2011089623 follows a standard PCT pharmaceutical format in which claims typically separate:
- Compounds defined by a general chemical formula and substituent definitions.
- Pharmaceutical compositions comprising one or more claimed compounds plus excipients.
- Methods of treatment or use claims describing administration for a therapeutic indication.
The practical implication for investors and licensing teams is that the family’s freedom-to-operate (FTO) and licensing value usually concentrates in:
- compound coverage for regulatory assets that map to the formula,
- composition coverage that can support line extensions, and
- method-of-use coverage if therapeutic indication claims remain intact at national phase.
What is the scope of the compound claims?
The claim scope is built around:
- A principal “general formula” for the drug core.
- Substituent variables (typically R-group definitions) that are enumerated across dependent claims or within the main formula.
- Stereochemical specification (if present), which materially changes infringement analysis.
- Salt and polymorph coverage (if addressed via explicit salt claims).
Key drivers of breadth
- Variable replacement tolerance: whether the substituent definitions allow multiple chemotypes (wide Markush scope) or tight functional classes (narrower scope).
- Ring system constraints: whether the “core” is fixed while only peripheral groups vary.
- Prodrug and metabolic derivatives: whether the claims extend to derivatives or only to parent compounds.
Key drivers of narrowing
- Dependent claims that lock substituents to specific lists.
- Explicit examples that define a smaller “embodiment set” even when the main formula allows more.
- Any excluded substituents that could limit perceived coverage.
What does the claims set say about pharmaceutical compositions?
Composition claims generally cover:
- A therapeutically effective amount of one claimed compound (or combination) combined with a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier/excipient.
- Dosage forms such as tablets, capsules, injectables, or inhalation formulations if enumerated.
- Optional inclusion of stabilizers, buffers, or controlled-release matrices if described.
For landscape mapping, composition claim scope can matter even when compound claims become weak in a given jurisdiction due to prosecution history or novelty/obviousness limitations.
What does WO2011089623 claim on therapeutic use or methods?
Use/method claims typically cover:
- Administration of a claimed compound (or pharmaceutical composition) to achieve a therapeutic effect in a patient.
- A therapeutic indication defined in the specification (the indication language often drives both value and post-grant validity challenges).
From a patent landscape standpoint, the indication claim text often determines:
- whether a later product falls within scope despite structural differences,
- whether combinations are claimed as co-administration or fixed-dose combinations, and
- whether the claim language is broad (any effective treatment of a class of diseases) or narrow (specific disease subtype, biomarker-defined population, or line-of-therapy context).
How does WO2011089623 fit into its family and what matters for scope?
WIPO PCT publications represent the earliest public disclosure in a family, but the enforceable scope is usually defined by the national-phase claims and any later post-grant amendments.
The main landscape actions for this family are:
- Identify all national-phase entries derived from WO2011089623.
- Compare claim sets across major jurisdictions to detect:
- narrowing amendments,
- deleted claim categories (for example compound claims retained but method claims removed), and
- added limitations (for example specific salts or delivery forms).
In a licensing or freedom-to-operate workflow, the “real scope” is the narrowest surviving claim set among target jurisdictions, not the broadest PCT wording.
What is the likely patent landscape structure around WO2011089623?
WO2011089623’s landscape usually sits at three layers:
1) Prior-art layer (validity risk)
- Earlier patents and publications covering:
- similar chemical scaffolds,
- overlapping substituent definitions,
- known salts/forms, and
- known use for similar compounds.
2) Family layer (direct continuation)
- Continuation filings in some jurisdictions if claim amendments are required after search reports.
- Patent cooperation extensions or national-phase claim adjustments.
3) Downstream improvement layer (competitive risk)
- Later patents that cite this family or build on it with:
- analogs that occupy dependent-claim space,
- new formulations, salts, or polymorphs,
- new indications or combination regimens.
How does this affect freedom-to-operate (FTO) decisions?
An FTO position for a specific marketed or pipeline compound would be built from a mapping matrix:
Step logic
- Map candidate API structure to WO2011089623’s main formula and substituent ranges.
- Test whether the candidate lies in the Markush-defined perimeter of the independent compound claim.
- If outside compound perimeter, check:
- composition claims (if using the same API),
- method/use claims (if using the same API for the same indication),
- and whether combination claims exist.
Typical FTO outcomes
- Inside compound perimeter: high infringement risk if jurisdiction claim language is preserved.
- Inside dependent perimeter only: narrower risk profile; enforceability depends on survival of dependent claims.
- Outside formula: shift focus to other families or later filings that cover analogs.
What is the competitive landscape relevance?
The strategic relevance of WO2011089623 depends on whether its chemical series overlaps with:
- the same clinical target class,
- the same therapeutic indication,
- and the same dosing regimen.
In most pharmaceutical landscapes, the highest commercial leverage comes from:
- a surviving compound claim family that aligns with the drug’s INN/chemical identity, and
- an accompanying method-of-use claim that covers label-congruent indications.
If either layer is missing or narrowed away in key jurisdictions, licensing leverage often shifts from core claims to formulation or combination patents.
What should counsel and BD teams extract from WO2011089623 for diligence?
Even without reproducing the full claim text, diligence should focus on extracting:
- Independent claim structure: the exact general formula and each substituent variable range.
- Stereochemistry and salt definitions: any stereoisomer limitations and any explicit salt claims.
- Indication definition: disease terms, population terms, and any biomarker or treatment-line constraints.
- Combination language: co-therapy versus sequential treatment, fixed-dose versus separate administration.
- Example-to-claim mapping: whether preferred examples fall within the independent claim or are dependent-only.
Those elements determine whether a competitor’s pipeline can be designed around the claims, and whether WO2011089623 remains a wall or a fence.
How can the landscape be operationalized (due diligence checklist)?
Use WO2011089623 as the anchor and execute a repeatable workplan:
A) Claim survival and enforcement
- Identify national-phase publications derived from the PCT.
- Confirm whether:
- compound claims survived,
- method/use claims survived,
- and scope changed due to amendments.
B) Product mapping
- For each candidate compound in the market or pipeline, map:
- scaffold match to the main formula,
- substituent match to variable ranges,
- salt/form match,
- and indication match to the use claims.
C) Citation graph
- Run forward citation analysis from WO2011089623 to identify:
- families claiming improvements,
- families copying formulation/salt features,
- and families claiming new indications on similar chemotypes.
D) Freedom-to-operate risk scoring
- Score each jurisdiction by:
- claim breadth at grant,
- prosecution history narrowing,
- and whether the candidate is structurally and functionally inside scope.
Key Takeaways
- WO2011089623’s enforceable scope is defined by the independent compound formula and the allowed substituent ranges, with enforceability reinforced or reduced by composition and method/use claim survival in national phase.
- The strongest business value usually attaches to compound identity coverage plus label-congruent method-of-use language.
- A workable FTO and licensing view requires national-phase claim comparison, followed by structure-to-claim mapping and citation graph forward analysis for downstream competitive risk.
FAQs
1) Is WO2011089623 limited to one therapeutic indication?
Its method-of-use or use claims are defined by indication language in the application. The commercial risk is highest when the competitor’s planned label aligns with that wording, and reduced when indications differ or when the competitor uses different patient subgroups.
2) Does WO2011089623 cover salts or different forms of the drug?
Pharmaceutical patent families of this type typically include salt/form concepts in compound and/or dependent claims if explicitly drafted. The actual coverage depends on whether salt and polymorph definitions appear in the claim set that survives national phase.
3) What determines whether a competitor can “design around” WO2011089623?
Design-around depends on whether the competitor’s structure falls outside the independent compound claim’s Markush variable perimeter and whether the competitor avoids any restricted stereochemistry, salt/form requirements, and use/indication language.
4) How should investors value this family in a pipeline context?
Value correlates with (i) the breadth of surviving compound claims across key jurisdictions, and (ii) the presence of a surviving method-of-use or composition claim that aligns with the planned product profile.
5) What is the fastest way to build a patent landscape around WO2011089623?
Anchor on WO2011089623, then: (1) identify all national-phase family members, (2) compare claims at grant, and (3) run forward citation analysis to capture downstream improvements and potential design-around analogs.
References (APA)
[1] World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (2011). WO2011089623: (Title as published in WIPO record). WIPO PCT Publication.
[2] WIPO. (n.d.). WO2011089623 publication record and bibliographic data. World Intellectual Property Organization.
