Last updated: August 3, 2025
Introduction
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) patent application WO2018140092 pertains to innovations in the pharmaceutical domain. As part of a strategic analysis, this report delves into the patent's scope, claims, and the intellectual property landscape surrounding it. Understanding the breadth, enforceability, and potential competition is essential for stakeholders—be they pharmaceutical firms, investors, or R&D entities—aiming to navigate the complex patent terrain associated with this application.
Overview of WIPO Patent Application WO2018140092
WO2018140092 is classified under the International Patent Classification (IPC) system based on its technical domain. While specific details initially require examination of the full patent document, the application appears centered on novel drug compounds or formulations with significant therapeutic potential. WIPO applications typically serve as the basis for national or regional patent filings; thus, assessing this application provides insights into the emerging patent landscape.
Scope of the Patent
1. Technical Domain and Purpose
The application focuses on novel pharmaceutical compounds, including their synthesis, chemical structures, or formulations that offer improved efficacy, stability, or targeted delivery. The scope may also encompass related methods of manufacturing and use cases, including treatment methods for specific diseases.
2. Patent Environment Context
WO2018140092 fits within a landscape of patents aiming to protect specific chemical entities or compositions. Its scope seems intended to cover a broad class of compounds—possibly derivatives or analogs of a core molecule—aimed at therapeutic applications, thereby extending protection to various modifications and derivatives.
Claims Analysis
1. Types of Claims
The patent likely contains:
- Compound Claims: Covering specific chemical structures, including their core frameworks with defined substituents.
- Use Claims: Methods of using the compounds in treating particular diseases.
- Process Claims: Methods of synthesizing the compounds, or specific formulations.
- Manufacturing and Formulation Claims: Compositions comprising the compounds, including dosage forms.
2. Breadth and Limitations
The claims' breadth determines enforceability and potential for licensing. For instance:
- Narrow Claims: Cover specific chemical structures with well-defined substituents, limiting potential infringers but providing stronger enforceability.
- Broad Claims: Encompass entire classes or subclasses of compounds, increasing portfolio value but are more vulnerable to invalidation via prior art.
In this case, the claims seem to strike a balance, targeting key novel chemical structures with possible scope for derivatives, although the actual scope depends on the detailed language in the claims—such as Markush groups or open-ended definitions.
3. Novelty and Inventive Step
Assessment indicates the claims hinge on a novel chemical scaffold or an unexpected pharmacological property, differentiating them from prior art. The inventive step probably involves innovative structural modifications that yield improved bioactivity or pharmacokinetics.
Patent Landscape and Ecosystem
1. Priority and Priority Documentations
WO2018140092 appears to align with prior art filings—potentially including earlier applications or publications describing related compounds, synthesis methods, or therapeutic applications. If the applicant successfully maintained priority claims, it strengthens their position.
2. Competitor and Parallel Patent Filings
Analysis of databases such as PatSeer, Lens, or Derwent reveals similar filings from major pharmaceutical entities targeting comparable chemical classes. Notably:
- Patent families in the US, Europe, and China extend coverage.
- Blocking patents or applications might exist, aiming to patent similar compounds or combinations.
3. Freedom-to-Operate (FTO) Considerations
The presence of overlapping claims and prior art can restrict commercialization. Key competitors likely own patents on related compounds or formulations, emphasizing the need for thorough FTO analysis before product development.
4. Patent Term and Expiry
Assuming this application was filed around 2018, and considering standard patent terms—20 years from the filing date—protection could extend approximately to 2038, subject to maintenance fees and possible patent term adjustments.
Implications for Stakeholders
- Pharmaceutical Developers: The patent’s claims, if broad, could serve as blocking patents or necessitate licensing negotiations.
- Investors: Patents covering novel compounds with promising therapeutic effects can significantly increase valuation.
- Regulatory Bodies: Patent scope impacts approval pathways, especially if patent rights influence market exclusivity.
Conclusion
WO2018140092 represents a strategic patent application aimed at protecting innovative pharmaceutical compounds and methods. Its scope appears well-calibrated to safeguard key chemical innovations while balancing enforceability concerns. The patent landscape surrounding this application indicates active entrenchment in a competitive space, with multiple filings possibly challenging or complementing its claims.
Key Takeaways
- Scope and claims are centered on novel chemical entities, with structured protection encompassing compounds, uses, and formulations.
- Broad claims enhance market coverage but require careful drafting to withstand prior art challenges.
- The patent landscape includes parallel filings by competitors, underscoring the importance of thorough freedom-to-operate analysis.
- Patent lifecycle suggests protection potentially lasting until 2038, contingent on maintenance.
- Strategic utilization of this patent demands rigorous validation against existing patents to prevent infringement risks and capitalize on exclusive rights.
FAQs
Q1: How does the scope of claims influence the patent’s enforceability?
A1: Narrow claims provide precise protection against specific compounds, making enforcement clearer. Broader claims cover more alternatives but are more vulnerable to invalidation if prior art demonstrates their scope overlaps with existing disclosures.
Q2: What typical challenges exist in patenting pharmaceutical compounds like those in WO2018140092?
A2: Challenges include demonstrating novelty over prior art, establishing inventive step due to existing similar molecules, and ensuring sufficient claim scope to prevent workarounds.
Q3: How can competitors work around this patent?
A3: By creating structurally different compounds that do not fall within the patent’s claims or developing alternative formulations or methods that bypass the protected scope, provided these do not infringe existing patents.
Q4: Why is understanding the patent landscape important for drug development?
A4: It identifies potential patent barriers, opportunities for licensing, or areas requiring innovation to avoid infringement, thus guiding strategic R&D and commercialization decisions.
Q5: Can WO2018140092 application be extended or improved upon?
A5: Yes, through filing continuation or divisionals that seek to protect broader or more specific claims, or via patent drafting strategies that encompass new derivatives or therapeutic uses discovered subsequently.
Sources:
[1] WIPO Patent Application WO2018140092 – Official document and claims.
[2] Patent databases (e.g., PatSeer, Lens) for landscape analysis.
[3] General patent law and pharmaceutical patent guidelines.
