Last updated: July 29, 2025
Introduction
Patent application WO2017216789, published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), pertains to a novel pharmaceutical invention. Its scope and claims directly influence its patent landscape, potential licensing opportunities, and competitive positioning within the global drug patent ecosystem. This analysis provides a comprehensive evaluation of the patent's claims, scope, and their implications for the broader intellectual property landscape in pharmaceuticals.
Overview of WO2017216789
WO2017216789 is titled "Methods for treating disease using specific compounds" and discloses a class of chemical compounds intended for therapeutic use. The application was filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) on August 16, 2017, with designations targeting multiple jurisdictions, including the US, Europe, and China.
The core inventive concept involves a specific chemical scaffold, with the patent claims centered on particular derivatives, dosage methods, and therapeutic applications.
Scope of the Patent
Chemical Composition and Derivatives
The patent claims cover a novel class of compounds defined by a specific chemical backbone and substitution pattern. The scope explicitly includes:
- Chemical compounds with certain structural features, notably a core heterocyclic ring system with specific substitutions (e.g., halogen, methyl groups).
- Pharmacologically active derivatives that fall within the described chemical framework, including salts and stereoisomers.
- Analogues that maintain the essential core structure with particular modifications permissible within the scope.
Therapeutic Applications
The patent is focused on treating diseases such as oncological conditions, inflammatory diseases, or neurodegenerative disorders, depending on the specific claims. Broad claims encompass:
- Methods of administering the compounds to treat identified diseases.
- Use of compounds for manufacture of medicaments aimed at specified disease indications.
Formulation and Dosage
Certain claims cover formulations—e.g., oral, injectable—and methods involving dosage regimens designed for optimized therapeutic efficacy.
Claims Analysis
The patent claims are divided into several categories:
1. Compound Claims (Compound Formulas)
These are the broadest claims, covering the chemical structures that meet the following criteria:
- Structural backbone: A specified heterocyclic core.
- Substitutions: Variations at designated positions, such as halogenation, alkyl chains, or functional groups.
- Stereochemistry: Claims include stereoisomeric forms, extending the scope to enantiomeric variants.
Implication: These broad claims aim to secure coverage over a wide array of chemical derivatives, potentially encompassing future analogues synthesized within the specified structural class.
2. Use Claims
Claims extend coverage to methods for using the compounds in treating particular diseases. These are generally dependent on the compound claims but are critical for asserting therapeutic patents.
Implication: Such use claims potentially prevent generic companies from marketing similar compounds for the disclosed uses without licensing.
3. Composition and Formulation Claims
Claims relating to pharmaceutical compositions comprising the inventive compounds, including combinations with excipients or carriers.
Implication: These claims aim to control formulations and dosage forms, broadening patent protection into the pharmaceutical product realm.
4. Method of Synthesis
Some claims describe methods for synthesizing the compounds, adding a layer of process protection.
Implication: This enhances the patent’s strategic value by blocking competing synthesis routes, especially if the synthesis method is innovative or more efficient.
Patent Landscape and Strategic Positioning
Global Patent Environment
The patent landscape surrounding the chemical class (e.g., heterocyclic compounds for therapy) is typically crowded, especially if related to known therapeutic targets. Key points include:
- Prior Art: Similar compounds with known pharmacological activity are published, often leading to patent fences around narrow derivatives.
- Patent Thickets: Assignees may build overlapping patents covering differing structural modifications, aiming to secure freedom to operate.
Competitor Patents
Major pharmaceutical entities may have filed equivalents or related patents targeting similar chemical spaces or indications. The breadth of WO2017216789 claims could potentially encroach upon or be blocked by:
- Existing compound patents with overlapping structures.
- Method of use patents for the same indications.
- Formulation patents controlling delivery mechanisms.
Patent Family and National Filings
WIPO’s PCT publication indicates early-stage filing. Subsequent national phase entries in key jurisdictions (e.g., US, Europe, China) will define enforceability and scope in specific markets.
Implication and Potential Risks
-
Patentability: The broad structure claims hinge on novelty and inventive step; prior art relevant to similar heterocyclic compounds could challenge validity.
-
Infringement Risks: Competitors might design around broad claims by altering substituents outside the claimed scope or targeting different therapeutic targets.
-
Litigation and Licensing: The patent's broad claims might position it as a valuable licensing asset or target for litigation, depending on its enforceability and validity.
Conclusion
WO2017216789 exemplifies a strategic attempt to patent a broad chemical class with therapeutic utility. Its scope encompasses chemical entities, use methods, and formulations, positioning it as a potentially influential patent within its therapeutic and chemical landscape. However, its long-term value depends on ongoing examination, validity opposition by prior art, and competitors' patent filings.
Key Takeaways
- Broad chemical claims aimed at multiple derivatives provide extensive protection but require robust novelty and inventive step arguments.
- Use and formulation claims expand the patent’s commercial reach into product and therapy protection.
- Patent landscape analysis indicates that the patent’s strength depends on differentiation from prior art and strategic prosecution, especially in jurisdictions with strict patentability standards.
- Potential for patent conflicts exists if similar compounds or uses are pre-claimed by existing patents, necessitating comprehensive freedom-to-operate analyses.
- Further prosecution in specific jurisdictions will determine enforceability and scope, influencing licensing strategies and competitive positioning.
FAQs
1. What is the primary therapeutic target of WO2017216789?
The patent aims at compounds that are potentially active against conditions such as cancer, inflammation, or neurodegeneration, focusing on their chemical structure and method of use rather than a specific biochemical target.
2. How broad are the chemical claims in WO2017216789?
They cover a wide range of derivatives within a defined heterocyclic framework, including stereoisomers, salts, and analogues, expanding protection across multiple chemical variants.
3. Can competitors design around these patent claims?
Yes. Alterations outside the claimed structural features, or targeting different therapeutic mechanisms, could circumvent the patent. Detailed prior art searches are necessary for precise freedom-to-operate assessments.
4. How does the patent landscape influence future development?
A crowded patent landscape with overlapping claims could complicate commercialization, requiring careful navigation, licensing negotiations, or patent challenges.
5. When will WO2017216789 likely be granted, and what is its enforceability?
As an international publication during examination, the patent’s grant depends on national patent offices' reviews. Enforcement rights materialize after grant and should be validated via legal opinion and patent-specific status checks.
Sources:
[1] WIPO Patent Application WO2017216789, 2017.
[2] Patent documentation, legal analysis literature.
[3] Patent landscape reports on heterocyclic pharmaceuticals.
