美国知识产权反垄断诉讼中专利范围测试规则的适用及启示——基于“Schering V.S. Upsher”案实证分析被引量：13

“Scope of the Patent” Test in the U.S. and its Enlightenment to China: Based on the Empirical Analysis of "Schering V.S. Upsher Case"

下载PDF

导出

摘要知识产权制度是一把双刃剑,它既能激励创新,亦可能因滥用垄断权而限制自由竞争,这在医药行业尤为显著。专利药企业若滥用其专利权妨碍、限制仿制药上市,将直接影响社会公众健康福利。以美国专利反向支付协议反垄断诉讼判定规则——专利范围测试规则为研究对象,通过剖析其适用现状及最新动向,为完善我国知识产权反垄断制度提出可行性建议。 Intellectual property policy is a double-edged sword which can not only stimulate innovation, but also restrict free competition when being abused. Its negative effect is particularly significant in pharmaceutical industry, because the public health will be affected when pharmaceutical companies abuse their patent rights to prevent and restrict the release of imitation medicine. This paper focuses on ＂scope of the patent＂ test which is used as the rules in U.S. Patent reverse payment antitrust litigation. Through analyzing the application of ＂scope of the patent＂ test in U.S., we will provide feasible suggestions to improve the judicial creativity criteria of the systerm of the IPB anti-trust in our country.

作者丁锦希邵美令孟立立

机构地区中国药科大学医药知识产权研究所中国药科大学国际医药商学院

出处《知识产权》 CSSCI 北大核心 2013年第6期91-95,共5页 Intellectual Property

基金国家社会科学基金项目<创新药物研发科技投入与激励法律制度研究>(10cFX055) 国家知识产权局软课题项目名称<创新药物研发的知识产权激励和保护政策研究>(ss09-A-26) 国家知识产权局软课题<知识产权投融资机制及政策研究>(SS11-A-21)阶段性研究成果

关键词知识产权反垄断诉讼专利范围测试规则 intellectual property antitrust litigation scope of patent test

分类号 D971.2 [政治法律—法学] DD913 [政治法律]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献15

1李顺德.知识产权保护与防止滥用[J].知识产权,2012,22(9):3-11. 被引量：19
2Hatch-Waxman ,VLPub. L.No.98-417, 98 Stat.1585 (1984).
3罗蓉蓉.美国医药专利诉讼中“反向支付”的反垄断规制及其启示[J].政治与法律,2012(12):141-149. 被引量：21
4See 21 U.S.C. 355(j)(5)(B)(iv).
5See Pub. L. No. 108-173, 117 Stat. 2066 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 21 U.S.C.).
6See Lisa Barons. The lealitv of reverse oavment settlements in Param'aoh IV disoutes. CITE AS: Intellectual Asset Mana,ement.2012.7/8.
7See FTC, Generic Drug Entry Prior to Patent Expiration: An FTC Study, 24, 25 & nn.2-3(2002), available at , http://www.flc.gov/os/2002/07/ generiedrugstudy.pdf.
8,N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. United States, 356 U.S.1, 5 (1958).
9See In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litig., 466 F.3d 187, 193 (2d Cir. 2006).
10See Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property, Issued by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission.1995,4.