Patent-Drug Approval Linkage in Korea under Korea-U.S. FTA - Based on Comparative Study on U.S. Hatch-Waxman Act and Canadian Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
As the Korea-U.S. FTA went into effect on March 15, 2012, the “Patent-Drug Approval linkage” system has been introduced to Korea. The Patent-Drug approval linkage refers to the system or process by which a country links drug marketing approval to the status of patent(s) of an original drug product. Apparently, the objectives of these two areas of regulation are completely different from each other – the patent system aims to reward people for discovery or development of new inventions whereas the drug approval regulation pursues to ensure the efficacy and safety of drugs for public health. Under this linkage mechanism, through the communication between the Patent Office and the Drug Approval Authorization, a generic marketing approval relying on the safety and efficacy data of the original drug product is not allowed until the patent covering the original drug expires. Before the introduction of this linkage system in Korea, regardless of the existence of a patent right covering the original drug product, generic companies were freely allowed to apply and obtain a marketing approval from the Korea Food and Drug Administration, since the Korean drug approval authority did not take into account the patent status in the marketing approval process. Upon the market approval, the typical procedure was that the original drug company and/or the patentee sue the generic company for patent infringement, which is then followed by a separate invalidation action against the original drug patent by the generic company, whereby the two procedures are separately carried out according to the so-called bifurcation system. Only when a court or a tribunal board confirmed that the drug covered by the marketing approval infringes a patent, the marketing approval for the generic drug could be ex post facto cancelled. Now, upon the introduction of the Patent-Drug approval linkage system, a generic company cannot market its product without obtaining consent of a patent owner before the expiration of relevant patent rights listed by the Korea Food and Drug Administration. Specifically, under Article 18.9.5 of the Korea-U.S. FTA, the Korean government is obligated to notify the patent owner of the identity of any other person requesting the marketing approval based on the safety or efficacy data submitted by the patent owner, i.e., original drug maker, before the marketing approval of the generic drug. Further, this Article obligates the Korean government to implement measures in the marketing approval process, to prevent the other person, i.e., generic drug maker, from marketing a drug without the consent or acquiescence of the patent owner whose patent(s) covering the drug is valid and in force. The Patent-Drug approval linkage system was firstly introduced in the U.S. as a part of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, which is popularly known as the “Hatch-Waxman Act,” immediately following the 1984 Federal Circuit opinion in Roche v. Bolar case. In 1993, Canada also adopted this system under the North American Free Trade Agreement and implemented the Canadian Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations. However, both countries have amended their systems a couple of times after having experienced unexpected results such as listing of improper patents, misuse of automatic stays, multiple filings of generic application, settlement for delay of generics entry, and so on. Therefore, it appears necessary to discuss any potential problems which might occur after the introduction of the Patent-Drug approval linkage system in Korea, as well as solutions therefor, in light of the experiences of the U.S. and Canada. Hence, this paper aims, in the light of the lessons obtained from the experiences of the U.S. and Canada with regard to the Patent-Drug approval linkage system, to discuss and propose adequate measures and legislations, by which original drug companies as well as generic companies can be benefited in a balanced way under the newly introduced Patent-Drug approval linkage system.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».