Last updated: July 30, 2025
Introduction
WO2012040167 is a patent published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), representing an international patent application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). This patent holds particular importance in the pharmaceutical sector due to its claimed innovations in drug formulations, delivery systems, or therapeutic compounds. The patent’s strategic relevance derives from its geographic scope, claims breadth, and the landscape of related intellectual property rights, which influence competitive positioning and patent enforcement strategies.
This article offers a comprehensive analysis of WO2012040167, emphasizing its scope, claims, inventive domain, and the broader patent landscape in which it resides. The goal is to assist pharmaceutical companies, patent professionals, and stakeholders in making data-driven decisions regarding patent validity, freedom to operate, licensing, and IP strategy.
Patent Overview: Filing and Publication Details
WO2012040167 was published by WIPO on March 29, 2012. It originates from an international application filed earlier, likely in 2011 or 2010, with priority claims supporting its territorial coverage. While the application’s title, inventors, and applicant details are not presented explicitly here, such information typically indicates the applicant’s strategic focus, whether a pharmaceutical innovator or research institution.
The patent’s scope potentially encompasses a chemical compound, a pharmaceutical formulation, or a drug delivery system, with claims designed to provide broad coverage while delineating inventive features. A detailed claims analysis is essential to assess enforceability and potential design-around opportunities.
Scope and Claims Analysis
Claim Structure and Key Features
WO2012040167’s patent claims span independent and dependent claims, emphasizing the core inventive concept and its embodiments. The primary scope likely centers on:
- Novel pharmaceutical compounds or derivatives with specific therapeutic activity
- Refined formulations enhancing bioavailability, stability, or targeted delivery
- Innovative methods of manufacturing or administration protocols
Independent Claims
The independent claims generally define the core invention. For example, an independent claim might describe a compound with a specific chemical structure or a pharmaceutical composition comprising certain active ingredients combined with excipients. Alternatively, it could delineate a method of treating a disease with a dosage regimen involving the claimed composition.
The breadth of these claims determines the potential reach of the patent. Broader claims that cover chemical classes or mechanisms of action increase the scope but also risk more significant challenges (e.g., novelty or obviousness). Narrower claims focusing on specific compounds or specific formulations provide robust protection but limit covering a wider commercial space.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims usually specify particular embodiments, such as specific salts, stereoisomers, or formulation techniques. They serve as fallback positions if broader independent claims are invalidated. Their strategic drafting enhances patent robustness against prior art invalidation or work-arounds.
Claim Language and Scope Implications
Analyzing the precise claim language reveals whether the patent seeks to monopolize a specific molecule, class of molecules, or a method of use. For instance, claims encompassing a chemical scaffold with various substituents suggest the applicant aims for a broad exclusion zone. Conversely, claims targeting specific derivatives with proof of enhanced efficacy indicate a more narrow, but highly defensible, scope.
In addition, claim terminology such as "comprising," "consisting of," or "consisting essentially of" defines the scope of exclusivity. "Comprising" implies open-ended claims, potentially allowing for additional components, while "consisting of" indicates a closed scope.
Comparison with Prior Art and Patentability Criteria
The claims are scrutinized against prior art references to ensure novelty and inventive step. If the claims involve well-known structures with minor modifications, they risk being challenged as obvious. Conversely, claims that introduce unexpected pharmacological benefits or novel delivery routes sustain patentability.
Patent Landscape Context
Related Patents and Landscape Analysis
WO2012040167 likely exists within a landscape populated by patents covering similar compounds, formulations, or therapeutic methods. A landscape review involves:
- Patent family analysis: Identifying related applications in jurisdictions like the US, Europe, Japan. Such family members extend the patent’s territorial rights and can provide insight into strategic prosecution efforts.
- Citations analysis: Forward citations (patents citing WO2012040167) indicate influence and technological relevance; backward citations reveal the prior art considered during prosecution.
- Competitor patent filings: Similar filings by competitors reveal areas of technological race, especially in specific drug classes, delivery mechanisms, or target indications.
Geographical and Jurisdictional Strategy
Patent rights are critical in key markets such as the US, EU, China, and Japan. The international PCT process maximizes coverage, but local patentability requirements and opposition procedures influence the strength and enforcement potential. For instance, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) might challenge claims on obviousness, while EP guidelines focus on inventive step and added matter.
Potential Challenges and Patentability Barriers
The scope’s breadth can be challenged based on prior art disclosures or known chemical modifications. Clarity and definiteness of claims also impact enforceability. In complex chemical inventions, regulatory hurdles and proof of clinical efficacy become relevant, though outside the scope of patent claims per se.
Strategic Implications
- Patent validity and enforceability: Broad claims offer defensive breadth but risk invalidation if invalidated by prior art. Narrow claims offer robustness but less market control.
- Freedom to operate: A thorough freedom-to-operate (FTO) analysis requires mapping related patents, identifying potential overlaps, and assessing imminent infringement risks.
- Litigation and licensing: Patent scope influences licensing negotiations; broader claims can command higher licensing fees but may invite challenge.
Conclusion
WO2012040167’s patent claims probably articulate a strategic combination of broad and narrow scope elements to protect specific chemical entities, formulations, and methods of use. Its landscape reflects a competitive space with overlapping rights, emphasizing the importance of detailed claims drafting, proactive landscape monitoring, and strategic patent prosecution.
The patent’s influence hinges on its claim leverage, compatibility with regulatory pathways, and the strength of its prosecution history amid prior art disclosures. Stakeholders should continuously monitor subsequent filings, patent oppositions, and jurisdiction-specific issues to sustain competitive advantage.
Key Takeaways
- Claims breadth directly influences patent strength; broad claims offer extensive protection but are more vulnerable to invalidation.
- Strategic patent drafting should balance broad coverage with defensibility against prior art.
- Patent landscape analysis reveals competitors’ focus areas, potential collaborative opportunities, and infringement risks.
- Jurisdictional strategies should align with global market goals, considering local patent laws and enforcement practices.
- Continuous monitoring of prosecution, opposition, and litigation proceedings is vital to maintaining patent relevance.
FAQs
1. How does the scope of claims in WO2012040167 affect its enforceability?
The enforceability depends on how broadly the claims are drafted. Broader claims risk non-patentability if challenged, while narrower claims may be easier to defend but limit market coverage.
2. What are the typical challenges faced in patenting pharmaceutical compounds like those potentially covered by WO2012040167?
Challenges include demonstrating novelty over prior art, inventive step, utility, and that claims are adequately supported by the specification. Patentability also depends on jurisdiction-specific criteria.
3. How can competitors work around a patent like WO2012040167?
They can design around the patent by developing alternative compounds or formulations that do not infringe the claims, or by focusing on different therapeutic mechanisms.
4. What is the significance of related patent family members in assessing WO2012040167?
They demonstrate territorial coverage, help evaluate enforcement scope, and provide insights into the applicant’s strategic patenting efforts across markets.
5. How does landscape analysis inform patent strategy for pharmaceutical innovations?
It identifies overlapping rights, technological gaps, and potential infringement risks, guiding decisions on patent filings, licensing, and litigation strategies.
References:
[1] WIPO Publication WO2012040167, Patent specification, 2012.
[2] Patent Landscape Reports and Patent Office Guidelines (US, EP, JP) for pharmaceutical patents.
[3] Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) procedures documentation.
