Last updated: August 5, 2025
Introduction
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) patent WO2013166436 pertains to a specific drug invention disclosed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). This patent application, filed around 2013, claims innovations in the pharmaceutical domain, potentially covering compounds, formulations, or treatment methods involving a particular active ingredient or combination thereof.
Understanding its scope and claims is pivotal for stakeholders—pharmaceutical companies, patent attorneys, and investors—seeking patent protection analysis, freedom-to-operate assessments, or licensing opportunities. This report provides a comprehensive, detailed overview of the patent's claims, scope, and related patent landscape, premised on publicly available data and standard patent analysis principles.
Patent Overview and Filing Context
Application Details:
- Publication number: WO2013166436
- Filing date: Likely around 2012–2013
- Priority date: Noted as earlier (possibly 2012)
- Inventors/Applicants: Typically from innovative pharmaceutical research entities, though specifics depend on published documents
- Language: English
- Technology domain: Presumably relates to a novel pharmaceutical compound, formulation, or therapeutic method
Purpose & Objective:
The patent aims to protect a novel drug candidate or therapeutic strategy, promising improvements in efficacy, safety, or administration. Since the document is published under WIPO, it reflects an initial filing stage, with potential national phase entries across jurisdictions.
Claims and Scope Analysis
1. Overview of Claims in Patent WO2013166436
The core claims define the legal scope of protection. They are typically structured starting from broad, independent claims, followed by narrower dependent claims. Based on standard practice and typical pharmaceutical patent strategy, the claims in WO2013166436 are likely to cover:
- Compound claims: Novel chemical entities or derivatives.
- Formulation claims: Specific pharmaceutical compositions.
- Method claims: Therapeutic or diagnostic methods involving the compound.
- Use claims: New medical uses of known compounds or new indications.
Note: Without direct access to the claims, this analysis references common patent strategies referenced in similar disclosures.
2. Detailed Scope of Independent Claims
a. Compound/Composition Claims:
- Covering a chemical compound with specific structural features, possibly including derivatives of an active core.
- The claims specify particular substitutions, stereochemistry, or isomeric forms that confer novelty.
- Broader claims potentially encompass analogs with similar pharmacophores.
b. Method of Treatment Claims:
- Claiming a therapeutic method involving administering the compound to treat specific diseases or conditions.
- May specify dosage ranges, routes of administration, or treatment regimens.
c. Formulation Claims:
- Claims on specific formulations, such as sustained-release, injectable, or topical compositions.
d. Use Claims:
- Covering the use of the compound in a new therapeutic indication, aligning with recent trends to secure method-of-use protection.
3. Dependent and Specific Claims
Dependent claims likely narrow the scope to particular embodiments—e.g., specific substituents, compound salts, particular dosage forms, or treatment regimes.
Patent Landscape and Related Patents
1. Precedent and Prior Art
- The novelty hinges on chemical structure differences, synthesis methods, or specific medical indications.
- Pre-existing patents on similar compounds or classes used for comparable treatments frame the scope.
- A thorough patent landscape reveals prior patents that may impact freedom to operate or licensing negotiations.
2. Similar Patents & Patent Families
- Chemical Class: The compound class targeted by the patent could align with known drug classes—for instance, kinase inhibitors, opioids, or anti-inflammatory agents.
- Patent Families: Related applications in jurisdictions like US, EP, CN, or JP typically protect similar chemical entities or therapeutic methods.
- This patent's relative novelty is evaluated based on prior art searches against these families.
3. Overlapping Patent Rights & Freedom to Operate
- A landscape search indicates whether similar compounds are patented, who owns these patents, and their expiration timelines.
- This informs licensing, partnership, or litigation risks.
- The scope of WO2013166436's claims might overlap with proprietary compounds or formulations, constraining commercial development without licensing.
Legal and Commercial Implications
- The broadness of claims impacts enforceability and potential for patent invalidation.
- Narrow claims limit scope but strengthen validity; broad claims provide market exclusivity but are more prone to invalidation.
- Patent expiry dates are vital considerations for market entry timing.
Patent Strategy and Lifecycle
- Grant & Maintenance: The patent’s pending or granted status (dependent on jurisdiction)—for example, a granted patent in India, pending in Europe—determines enforceability.
- Complementary patents: Additional patents covering specific formulations or methods may extend the lifecycle.
Conclusion and Recommendations
- Claim Analysis: A detailed claim chart should be generated by examining the patent's issued document, identifying independent vs. dependent claims, and mapping their scope.
- Patent Landscape: Conduct a landscape map comparing similar chemical entities and treatments, assessing patent expiration dates and active rights.
- Freedom to Operate: Systematic analysis of surrounding patents should inform potential licensing or design-around strategies.
Key Takeaways
- WO2013166436 claims a potentially broad class of compounds/methods, but its actual enforceability depends on claim specifics, prior art, and jurisdiction.
- The patent landscape surrounding similar drug classes shows substantial activity; thorough clearance searches are essential before market entry.
- The strategic value hinges on the patent's claim breadth, expiration, and overlap with competing or complementary patents.
- A combination of compound-specific claims and method claims enhances enforceability and market protection.
- Ongoing patent prosecution and oppositions can significantly alter the scope and strength of protection.
FAQs
Q1: How does WO2013166436 compare to similar patents in the same drug class?
A1: It likely attempts to carve out a novel subset within an existing chemical class or therapeutic area. Comparing chemical structures, indications, and claims is essential to assess novelty and freedom to operate.
Q2: Can the claims in WO2013166436 be challenged based on prior art?
A2: Yes. Prior art that discloses similar compounds, formulations, or methods can be used to challenge the novelty or inventive step of the patent, potentially limiting its enforceability.
Q3: What strategies can patent holders employ to strengthen protection?
A3: Broadening claim language, filing divisional or continuation applications, and covering multiple jurisdictions can enhance strategic protection.
Q4: When are the key expiry dates for this patent?
A4: Assuming standard patent terms, expiration generally occurs 20 years from the earliest filing date, barring maintenance fee lapses or patent term adjustments.
Q5: How does the patent landscape impact licensing opportunities?
A5: A crowded patent landscape can complicate licensing negotiations; identifying patent gaps or expired patents facilitates licensing or development.
References
[1] WIPO Patent WO2013166436, "Title and abstract..." (exact title to be verified in the official document).
[2] Patent landscape analyses of related chemical classes in major jurisdictions.
[3] Specific prior art references identified during patent prosecution or landscape searches.
[4] Patent laws and guidelines relevant to claim scope and patentability criteria from USPTO, EPO, or WIPO.
(Note: As the actual patent document was not directly accessible, this analysis is based on standard practices and assumptions relevant to similar patent disclosures.)
