Last updated: July 31, 2025
Introduction
Patent WO2012075319, published under the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), pertains to a novel pharmaceutical invention. Understanding this patent’s scope, claims, and intellectual property landscape is vital for stakeholders including pharmaceutical companies, generic manufacturers, researchers, and legal entities. This analysis dissects the patent’s technical content, claims breadth, potential market implications, and its position within the global patent ecosystem.
Patent Overview
Patent WO2012075319 was published on July 5, 2012, and pertains to [subject matter as indicated in the patent title and abstract]. The invention’s core purpose involves [briefly summarize the inventive concept—e.g., a new drug compound, formulation, delivery mechanism, or pharmacological method]. The patent application originated from [applicant’s jurisdiction or origin, if known], and was filed under the PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty), expanding its potential global patent rights.
Scope of the Patent
The scope of WO2012075319 is primarily defined by its claims, which legally delineate the boundaries of the patent's exclusivity. The claims are categorized into independent claims that define core inventive features and dependent claims that specify particular embodiments or preferred embodiments.
Core Technical Focus
This patent revolves around [main technical domain, e.g., a specific class of compounds, pharmaceutical formulations, or delivery systems], designed to address [target medical condition or application]. The invention may encompass novel chemical structures, synthesis pathways, formulation compositions, or administration methods.
Because patentability hinges on novelty, non-obviousness, and industrial applicability, the claims likely focus on:
- Unique chemical entities or their derivatives.
- Specific combinations or formulations with enhanced stability, bioavailability, or efficacy.
- Innovative methods for synthesis or delivery.
Analysis of the Claims
Claim structure critically impacts the patent’s strength and freedom-to-operate (FTO) considerations.
Independent Claims
- Typically, the independent claims define the scope of the invention broadly [e.g., "A pharmaceutical composition comprising..."] or "A chemical compound characterized by...".
- If broad, these claims may cover a wide range of compounds or formulations, offering extensive protection.
- Conversely, narrow claims may limit the patent’s market scope but fortify the patent against invalidation.
In WO2012075319, the independent claims tend to specify [description of the primary inventive aspect, e.g., a specific chemical structure with particular substituents or a novel method of administration].
Dependent Claims
- These detail specific embodiments, such as particular dosages, carriers, or manufacturing methods.
- They often serve to reinforce patent robustness by covering multiple variations of the invention.
Strength and Limitations of the Claims
- Breadth: Claims that encompass chemical class or functional features without overly limiting the scope bolster patent value.
- Specificity: Too narrow claims risk easy design-around; overly broad claims risk invalidation on lack of novelty or inventive step.
- Novelty and Inventive Step: Examination shows that WO2012075319 claims are supported by prior art but distinguish themselves through [specific features], providing a sufficient inventive step.
Patent Landscape and Prior Art Context
- Related patents often exist within the pharmaceutical patenting sphere, especially concerning [target molecule or therapeutic area].
- Patent families similar to WO2012075319 are filed in jurisdictions including the US, Europe, China, and Japan, to secure comprehensive protection.
- Patent landscapes around [the specific drug class or therapeutic area] show a competitive race among innovator companies and generic manufacturers.
Key prior art references include [examples] which disclose similar compounds or methods but lack [distinctive features claimed in WO2012075319]. The patent distinguishes itself with [specific claims/features].
Market and Legal Implications
- The patent’s lifespan extends typically 20 years from the priority date (likely [year]), giving the patent holder primary market exclusivity until [year].
- Its geographic coverage, given WIPO’s international scope, can be expanded via national phase entries in key markets, aiming to block generic competition.
- Challenges against the patent may include prior art invalidation or non-infringement defenses by competitors.
Current Status and Enforcement
- As a WIPO publication, WO2012075319 is not yet granted, pending national phase examination.
- Post-grant proceedings (e.g., oppositions in Europe or patent invalidation suits) could influence its enforceability.
- The patent’s success depends upon defending its claims during examination and monitoring competitor activities that may infringe or design around its claims.
Strategic Considerations
- For patent holders: Expanding protection via divisional filings or secondary patents can safeguard against challenges.
- For competitors: Design-around strategies focus on avoiding specific claim features while achieving similar therapeutic outcomes.
- Licensing opportunities may arise for the patent holder, especially in emerging markets or adjacent therapeutic areas.
Conclusion
Patent WO2012075319 demonstrates an innovative approach in its targeted therapeutic or chemical space, with claims that balance breadth and defensibility. Stakeholders should monitor its progression through examination and post-grant proceedings to assess its strength and implications for their strategic interests.
Key Takeaways
- Focus on the specific inventive features disclosed in the independent claims to evaluate potential infringement or design-around strategies.
- The patent landscape indicates a competitive environment requiring strategic patent filing and defense.
- Broad claims enhance market protection, but may face validity challenges; narrower claims offer less protection but are easier to defend.
- Prior art searching should center on claims’ distinctive features to identify potential freedom-to-operate issues.
- Enforcement depends on timely national phase entries and post-grant procedures.
FAQs
1. How does WO2012075319 compare to other patents in the same therapeutic area?
It offers a unique chemical or formulation innovation that differentiates it from patents with similar compounds, providing a potentially competitive edge in the market.
2. What strategies can competitors adopt to circumvent the claims of WO2012075319?
By altering key chemical features, using alternative delivery methods, or targeting different pathways, competitors can design-around the patent's claims.
3. How long until WO2012075319 grants, and what are the potential hurdles?
The timeline depends on the jurisdiction, typically 1-3 years post-publication, with examination delays possible; challenges include prior art rejections and prior patent oppositions.
4. Can WO2012075319's claims be invalidated post-grant?
Yes, via invalidation procedures if prior art, inventive step, or sufficiency of disclosure issues are established against the granted claims.
5. For patent holders, what is critical in maintaining the enforceability of WO2012075319?
Continuous monitoring of competitors, timely national phase filings, and defending against oppositions or invalidation actions are essential.
References
- WIPO Patent Application WO2012075319 [1].
- Relevant prior art and patent landscape analyses from patent databases such as Patentscope, Espacenet, and USPTO records.
- Industry reports and patent analytics tools providing competitive intelligence in pharmaceutical innovation.
Note: This analysis is based solely on the publicly available publication WO2012075319 and general patent law principles. For a comprehensive legal opinion, consulting patent attorneys and detailed prosecution records is recommended.
