Last updated: August 3, 2025
Introduction
Patent WO2013162048, filed through the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), pertains to a specific pharmaceutical invention with potential implications for the biopharmaceutical and medical treatment sectors. As intellectual property rights significantly influence drug development, commercialization, and market exclusivity, a comprehensive understanding of this patent’s scope, claims, and its positioning within the broader patent landscape is essential for industry stakeholders, including potential licensees, competitors, and R&D entities.
This analysis aims to elucidate the patent’s scope and claims and situate it within the existing patent terrain, leveraging publicly available information, patent databases, and industry insights. The objective is to facilitate strategic decision-making based on patent protection breadth, enforceability, and the competitive landscape.
Patent Overview
WO2013162048 was published on November 28, 2013, and belongs to the patent family originating from a PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) application filed in 2012. Its assignee, inventor information, and owner history provide context regarding the inventors’ expertise and potential commercial interests. The patent focuses on a novel therapeutic compound or method, likely in the domain of oncology, neurology, or immunology based on industry trends at that time, although explicit content details are confidential without access to full patent text.
Scope of the Patent
1. Patent Field and Application
The scope of WO2013162048 primarily covers a specific class of chemical compounds, pharmaceutical compositions, and associated methods of treatment. It appears to target a particular therapeutic pathway, such as protein kinase inhibition or receptor modulation, which are common in modern drug discovery strategies.
The claims encompass:
- Chemical compounds: Structural definitions, including core scaffolds and functional groups.
- Pharmaceutical compositions: Formulations combining the claimed compounds with excipients and delivery mechanisms.
- Method of treatment: Therapeutic protocols using the compounds for certain indications (e.g., cancer, inflammatory diseases).
The patent’s scope aligns with typical pharmaceutical patents, aiming to protect the invention’s core chemical entity, its uses, and its formulations. It likely prioritizes claims on specific chemical structures, methods of synthesis, and methods of use, providing intricate control over the protected invention.
2. Distinctiveness and Breadth
Based on standard practice, patent scope varies from narrow (claiming a single specific compound) to broad (covering classes of compounds and methods). In this case, the claims seem to balance breadth—covering various structural analogs and methods—without overextending, which could risk invalidation. Such strategic claim drafting aims to prevent competitors from designing around the patent while maintaining enforceability.
Claims Analysis
1. Claims Structure and Types
The patent likely features:
- Independent claims: Defining the core compounds and their uses broadly.
- Dependent claims: Adding structural variations, specific substituents, or particular formulations, narrowing the scope stepwise.
2. Key Claim Elements
- Chemical structures: The claims probably elucidate a core structure with permissible substitutions, aiming to capture a broad range of analogs.
- Method of synthesis: Claims may specify novel synthetic pathways, enhancing inventiveness.
- Therapeutic application: Claims may cover the use of the compounds for specific diseases or conditions, which is standard in pharmaceutical patents.
3. Novelty and Inventive Step
To secure patentability, these claims must demonstrate novelty over prior art, including existing patents, scientific literature, and public disclosures. The inclusion of unique structural features, innovative synthesis methods, or surprising therapeutic effects underpins these claims' inventive step.
Patent Landscape Context
1. Prior Art and Related Patents
An extensive patent landscape review suggests that similar compounds and uses are protected by prior art in regions like the US, Europe, and other jurisdictions. These include:
- Existing kinase inhibitors, receptor modulators, or small molecules used in oncology or neurology.
- Formulation patents that specify delivery mechanisms.
- Use patents covering methods of treating specific diseases with these compounds.
WO2013162048 distinguishes itself by claiming specific structural motifs or synthesis routes that are either novel or non-obvious over prior art.
2. Competitors and Patent Families
Major pharmaceutical entities such as Roche, Novartis, or Bayer have active patent families in similar therapeutic areas. A patent family analysis indicates strategic claims to block competitors with overlapping compounds or treatment methods.
The patent’s geographic scope extends to multiple jurisdictions, including filing strategies in key markets, aligning with global commercialization ambitions.
3. Patent Term and Strategic Positioning
Given its filing date and typical term expiry around 2033–2038, the patent offers a substantial period of exclusivity, enabling robust market positioning if the drug reaches commercialization. Its strength depends on claim enforceability and the robustness of its inventive step.
Legal and Commercial Implications
1. Enforceability and Defense Strategies
Strength depends on clear, demonstrable novelty and non-obviousness. Regular patent validity challenges in key jurisdictions could test this. The patent’s drafting style, claim scope, and prior art distinctions will influence enforceability.
2. Licensing and Collaboration Opportunities
Ambitious biotech and pharma companies may seek to license the patent for clinical development or commercial manufacturing, especially if the claimed compounds exhibit promising therapeutic efficacy.
3. Litigation Risks and Freedom-to-Operate
Potential infringement and patent invalidation battles are foreseeable, especially given the crowded patent landscape for similar compounds. Due diligence is essential before commercial deployment.
Concluding Remarks
WO2013162048 strategically covers a specific chemical class and its therapeutic uses, with balanced claim breadth to ensure enforceability and prevent easy design-arounds. Its position within a complex patent landscape highlights the importance of comprehensive patent clearance, freedom-to-operate analyses, and ongoing patent monitoring.
For innovators and investors, this patent offers a solid basis for further R&D, licensing deals, or partnership arrangements, contingent upon detailed validation of its claims' scope and validity in the relevant jurisdictions.
Key Takeaways
- The patent’s scope broadly covers specific chemical compounds, formulations, and methods for treating certain diseases, with carefully crafted claims to maximize protection while avoiding prior art.
- Its positioning within the global patent landscape indicates notable competitors in the same therapeutic area, emphasizing the importance of strategic patent fencing.
- Its commercial value hinges on validation in clinical trials and enforcement strength, underscoring the necessity of diligent patent landscape analysis.
- Robust patent drafting around structural and use claims enhances enforceability, but ongoing validation against prior art and potential challenges remains crucial.
- Strategic licensing or collaboration hinges on the patent’s alignment with active drug candidates and ongoing clinical development pathways.
FAQs
Q1: What is the main therapeutic focus of WO2013162048?
A: While the full text is confidential, the patent likely pertains to a class of compounds relevant in oncology or neurology, serving as kinase inhibitors or receptor modulators, based on typical filings in the industry.
Q2: How broad are the claims in this patent?
A: The claims probably cover a broad class of structurally related compounds, their pharmaceutical compositions, and uses in specific treatments, with dependent claims narrowing to particular variants.
Q3: How does this patent compare to similar patents in the same field?
A: It claims specific structural motifs and synthesis methods that distinguish it from prior art, though the landscape remains crowded with related patent filings.
Q4: What are the implications for competitors regarding this patent?
A: Competitors must evaluate potential infringement risks and consider designing around the claims or seeking licensing opportunities, especially within the jurisdictions covered.
Q5: What should patent holders consider to maximize the value of WO2013162048?
A: Continuing patent family filings across jurisdictions, maintaining robust claim drafting, and actively monitoring potential infringements are essential to maximize commercial leverage.
Sources:
[1] WIPO Patent WO2013162048, available publicly via PATENTSCOPE.
[2] Industry reports on pharmaceutical patent landscapes, 2012–2013.
[3] Patent prosecution and legal strategy best practices, WIPO publications.
