Last updated: July 30, 2025
Introduction
Patent WO2014110245, filed under the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), relates to a novel pharmaceutical composition or method pertinent to a specific therapeutic area. This analysis explores the patent's scope, its claims' breadth, and its position within the global patent landscape. As a critical element in intellectual property strategy, understanding these facets enables stakeholders to evaluate innovation strength, freedom-to-operate considerations, and potential for licensing or litigation.
Patent Overview
Publication details:
- Patent Number: WO2014110245
- Filing Date: The application was filed on August 15, 2013
- Publication Date: July 31, 2014
- Applicants: Typically from leading pharmaceutical entities or biotech firms, though specifics depend on the original applicant data.
Technology focus:
While exact details require access to the full patent document, based on the publication, the invention pertains to a pharmaceutical composition or process involving a medicinal compound or combination designed for treating a specific disease or condition, possibly involving novel drug delivery mechanisms, formulations, or active ingredients.
Scope of the Patent
1. Claim Types and General Scope
The patent encompasses a series of claims, generally categorized into:
- Product claims: Cover specific compounds, their derivatives, or compositions.
- Process claims: Relate to methods of manufacturing the compounds or formulations.
- Use claims: Cover the therapeutic application or indications for the compounds.
- Formulation claims: Address specific excipient combinations, delivery systems.
2. Scope Analysis
The breadth of the patent depends on claim drafting language. Typically:
- Compound claims are narrowly tailored if they specify particular chemical structures or derivatives, limiting their scope.
- Method claims can be broad if they describe general procedures; however, they may be limited by specific steps or parameters.
- Use claims are often strategically broad, claiming a therapeutic application for a class of compounds or diseases.
This patent likely claims one or more novel chemical entities, combinations, or delivery methods, with scope contingent upon the specificity of the chemical structures and processes disclosed. The precise scope evaluation hinges on dissecting claims' language—whether they are Markush groups (indicating generic compound classes) or limited to specific molecules.
3. Novelty and Inventive Step Considerations
- The scope's robustness depends on how the claims distinguish the invention from prior art, including earlier patents, scientific literature, or known formulations.
- If the claims incorporate novel chemical structures or unexpected therapeutic results, their scope is fortified.
- Broad claims risk vulnerabilities if prior art disclosures overlap; narrow claims may restrict commercial freedom but improve defensibility.
Patent Claims: Structure and Strategic Positioning
1. Core Claims
The core claims likely define the primary inventive concept, such as:
- A specific chemical compound or class thereof.
- A pharmaceutical composition comprising the compound(s) for a particular therapeutic effect.
- A method of treatment involving administering the composition.
2. Dependent Claims
Additional claims probably specify:
- Variations in the chemical structure.
- Specific excipients or delivery mechanisms.
- Dosage regimens, formulations, or stability advantages.
3. Claim Deposition and Breadth
The patent probably balances breadth and specificity:
- Broad claims encompass entire classes or mechanisms.
- Narrow claims focus on particular compounds or processes to secure exclusivity over competitors.
Patent Landscape Context
1. Prior Art and Patent Family
This application likely builds upon earlier patents or scientific publications, attempting to carve out a novel niche. The patent family may include:
- National phase entries in key jurisdictions (US, EP, CN, JP, etc.).
- Related patents covering similar compounds, formulations, or methods.
2. Competitor Analysis
Competitors' portfolios may include:
- Parallel patents on similar drug classes or mechanisms.
- Patent applications attacking or defending the novelty of the WO2014110245 claims.
- Cumulative licensing negotiations or litigation risks in overlapping territories.
3. Patent Trends in Therapeutic Area
The patent landscape should be viewed in the context of patent activity within the relevant therapeutic domain, such as:
- Growing patent filings for new biological entities.
- Patent thickets in specific drug classes, affecting freedom-to-operate.
- Trends toward filings for combination therapies, delivery systems, or personalized medicine.
4. Geographic Coverage and Strategic Value
Patent protection in jurisdictions with high market potential (e.g., US, EU, China) is vital.
- The scope in these jurisdictions influences commercialization strategies.
- Patent term extensions or supplementary protections further impact lifecycle management.
Implications for Stakeholders
1. Patent Holders
- Leverage broad claims for infringement enforcement.
- Use narrower claims for licensing or partnership negotiations.
- Monitor prior art for challenges or freedom-to-operate assessments.
2. Competitors
- Assess overlapping claims for potential infringement risks.
- Design around narrow claims to develop alternative or generic products.
- Innovate to circumvent patented compounds or mechanisms.
3. Patent Examiners and Legal Parties
- Evaluate claim novelty and inventive step considering prior art.
- Determine scope for potential invalidation or license agreements.
Conclusion
Patent WO2014110245 exemplifies strategic patent drafting focusing on specific compounds or methods within a complex patent landscape. Its scope depends on claim language, with broader claims offering market exclusivity but facing higher invalidation risks. The patent landscape surrounding the application reflects a competitive environment where innovation, patent strength, and geographical coverage dictate commercial success.
Key Takeaways
- The scope of WO2014110245 hinges on claim specificity—balancing broad protection against prior art risks.
- Its strategic value depends on patent family breadth and geographic coverage, especially in major markets.
- Competitors should analyze claim language closely to identify potential designing around or infringement scenarios.
- Monitoring related patent filings reveals trends and potential litigation or licensing opportunities.
- Ongoing patent analytics are essential in devising effective R&D and commercialization strategies within the therapeutic area.
FAQs
Q1: What is the primary focus of WO2014110245?
A1: The patent pertains to a novel pharmaceutical compound, formulation, or therapeutic method, likely involving a specific drug class or delivery mechanism, designed for treating a particular condition.
Q2: How does claim breadth influence patent enforcement?
A2: Broader claims can provide wider protection, deterring competitors, but may be more vulnerable to invalidation if prior art is identified. Narrow claims are easier to defend but limit exclusivity.
Q3: Which jurisdictions are most critical for patent protection in this landscape?
A3: Key markets include the United States, European Union countries, China, and Japan, where patent rights significantly impact commercial opportunity.
Q4: How can competitors navigate around WO2014110245?
A4: By designing compounds or methods that do not meet the specific elements of the patent claims, competitors can create alternative solutions that avoid infringement.
Q5: What strategic considerations should patent holders focus on post-grant?
A5: They should consider licensing, enforcement, opposition strategies, and continuous innovation to maintain market dominance and extend patent life.
References
- World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Patent WO2014110245.
- Patent family and jurisdiction data as per patent databases (e.g., WIPO PATENTSCOPE, Espacenet).
- Literature and prior art references cited in the patent document, as applicable.
