Bibliographic record
Abstract
【Drug approval-patent linkage is the practice of linking drug marketing approval to the patent status of the originator's product and not allowing the grant of marketing approval to any third party prior to the expiration of the patent term unless by consent of the patent owner. Article 18.9.5 of Korea-US Free Trade Agreement requires that Korea introduce the linkage system in drug marketing approval. However, Korea is unfamiliar with the linkage system. In addition, there have been lots of arguments over the impacts of this system on Korean pharmaceutical industry and pharmaceutical market in the future. This report investigated the linkage systems of the US and Canada. The US and Canada have implemented drug approval-patent linkage system since 1984 and 1993, respectively. Both countries have patent lists for drug approvalpatent linkage on which originators are required to list patents on substance, product, and use of their drugs. Generic or follow-on drug applicants must contain a certification regarding each patent listed that relates to the referenced drug. If the patent holder files suit for patent infringement within 45 days of notice of application, drug approval is not allowed for several months - 30 months in the US and 24 months in Canada. Both countries have amended their systems after having experienced unexpected results such as listing improper and additional patents, multiple patent litigations and delayed generic entries. After reviewing the US and Canada's experiences, we suggested three principles needed in implementing the system: protecting patent holder's right; promoting generic drug development and marketing; monitoring the process and the effect of the system.】
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.012 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".