题名

學名藥上市審查之專利連結制度：從美國經驗檢證其存立基礎與制度設計

并列篇名

Patent Linkage in Generic Pharmaceutical Marketing Approval System: A Critical Assessment of Experiences in the United States

DOI

10.6199/NTULJ.2010.39.04.07

作者

王立達(Richard Li-Dar Wang)；陳蔚奇(Wei-Chi Chen)

关键词

學名藥 ； 專利連結 ； Hatch-Waxman Act ； 藥品專利 ； 上市審查 ； generic drugs ； brand-name drugs ； Hatch-Waxman Act ； pharmaceutical patents ； marketing approval

期刊名称

臺大法學論叢

卷期/出版年月

39卷4期（2010 / 12 / 01）

页次

349 - 406

内容语文

繁體中文
中文摘要

作為世界上最具影響力之國家，美國不斷透過貿易協商與制裁之手段，希望延伸其制度理念至他國，藉以降低貿易障礙並保護本土產業。近年來該國亟欲引介「專利連結」制度進入台灣，即為一顯例。所謂專利連結制度，係指學名藥上市審查或政府之藥品定價與保險給付決定，與其是否侵害原廠藥品專利連結在一起。本文擬針對此一主題，探討美國專利連結制度所包含的多重複雜環節，依其至今實際施行狀況，是否具有充分的正當化基礎，可以解決現實問題並導引國內產業蓬勃發展。本文擬透過文獻研究，就美國專利連結之制度結構與配套措施，進行通盤檢討並評估其立法缺陷，同時援引世界貿易組織與美國實務案例加以印證，藉以釐清專利連結制度之真正核心要素，並且指出美國現制下包含過多保護原廠專利之週邊措施，所造成的可觀負面影響。
英文摘要

As one of the most powerful countries in the world, the United States has been constantly promoting its legislations to countries around the world through trade negotiation and threat to sanction, for the purposes of abating trade barriers and pursuing its own interest. In recent years, for instance, the United States has been trying zealously to introduce the ”patent linkage” system into Taiwan. ”Patent linkage” means that the marketing approval of generic drugs or the payment of medical insurance are ”linked” to the judgment of whether the generics infringe a valid patent held by a brand-name pharmaceutical company on the same type of drugs or not. Focusing on this issue, the authors firstly makes further discussion into the complexity of the patent linkage system in order to examine whether the system is fully justifiable, and try to evaluate whether it in reality resolves the problems it was set to settle and facilitates the development of domestic pharmaceutical industry. Secondly, this article evaluates thoroughly the pros and cons of the existing patent linkage system in the U.S. by means of literature review and case study. The authors find that most of the negative effects that the system now brings about result from its pro-brandname measures, which not only stifle generics competition and accessibility in the pharmaceutical market but also are not essential for the system to fulfill its mandate. Even if Taiwanese government finally chooses to adopt patent linkage, these injurious side measures should not be introduced altogether.
主题分类 社會科學 > 法律學
参考文献
  1. 台北市美國商會（2008）。《美國商會2008 年台灣白皮書產業議題與回應》，載於行政院經濟建設委員會網站http://www.cepd.gov.tw/m1.aspx?sNo=0010599（最後瀏覽日：01/02/2010）。（American Chamber of Commerce In Taipei [2008]. The 2008 Taiwan white paper concerned industrial issues and responses. Retrieved from http://www.cepd.gov.tw/m1.aspx?sNo=0010599）
  2. Federal Trade Commission(2003, March), FTC charges Bristol-Myers squibb with pattern of abusing government processes to stifle generic drug competition (Press release). Retrieved from http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/03/bms.shtm
  3. Office of the Attorney General (2003, July). Attorney General Darrell v. McGraw, Jr. urges consumers to file claims for prescription drug refunds in antitrust settlements (Press release). Retrieved from http://www.wvs.state.wv.us/wvag/press/2003/july/28.htm
  4. 台北市美國商會（2009）。《美國商會2009 年台灣白皮書產業議題與回應》，載於行政院經濟建設委員會網站：http://www.cepd.gov.tw/m1.aspx?sNo=0012121（最後瀏覽日：01/02/2010）。（American Chamber of Commerce In Taipei [2009]. The 2009 Taiwan white paper concerned industrial issues and responses. Retrieved from http://www.cepd.gov.tw/m1.aspx?sNo=0012121）
  5. 衛生署新聞稿（04/03/2008），衛生署與美國貿易代表署（USTR）就醫藥分業、藥品專利權與上市許可連結機制（patent linkage）進行台美視訊對談，http://drug.doh.gov.tw/news_cnt.php?type=pro&id=341http://consumer.doh.gov.tw/fdaciw/pages/public_content.jsp?typeSn=2&sn=2404&year=97&month=4&pageNo=10（最後瀏覽日：10/02/2010）。（Department of Health, Executive Yuan [2008]. DOH held a video conference with USTR discussing the separation of medicine and pharmacy, pharmaceutical patent, and the patent linkage system of marketing approval. Retrived from http://drug.doh.gov.tw/news_cnt.php?type=pro&id=341http://consumer.doh.gov.tw/fdaciw/pages/public_content.jsp?typeSn=2&sn=2404&year=97&month=4&pageNo=10）
  6. 《各國學名藥狀況》。載於中華民國學名藥協會網站http://www.tgpa.org.tw/Disc_2.html（最後瀏覽日：11/02/2010）。（The circumstances of Generic Drugs Industries development in different countries. [n.d.] Retrieved from http://www.tgpa.org.tw/Disc_2.html）
  7. Congressional Budget Office, The congress of the United States (1998). How increased competition from generic drugs has affected prices and returns in the pharmaceutical industry. Retrieved from http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=655&sequence=0&from=5
  8. Mylan Pharm. Inc. (2010, November). Petition (F.D.A. Docket No. 2004P-0075). Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/04/apr04/040204/04P-0075-emc00001.pdf
  9. Paragraph four explained (n.d.), ParagraphFour.com. Retrieved from http://www.paragraphfour.com/explained
  10. Harris, G., (2003, June 12). Bush to back measure on generic drug, New York Times, Retrieved from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E3DF1E39F931A25755C0A9659C8B63
  11. Patric Leahy (2010, October). Grassley, Leahy, Rockefeller request study on impact of "authorized" generics. (Press release). Retrieved from http://leahy.senate.gov/old_site/press/200505/051205b.html
  12. (2007).GPhA calls PhRMA's authorized generics study 'disingenuous'.Lab Business Week,799.
  13. 立法院公報=Legislative Yuan Gazette
  14. Food and Drug Administration (January 15, 2004). FDA sees rebound in approval of innovative drugs in 2003: New innovation initiative anticipated to speed approvals in years ahead. (Press release) Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2004/ucm108225.htm
  15. Becker, G. S.(2002).Get the FDA out of the way, and drug prices will drop.Business Week Magazine,3799,16-17.
  16. Berndt, E. R.,Mortimer R.,Parece A.(2007).,未出版
  17. Clinton, P.,Wechsler J.(2006).Whatever happened to critical path.Pharmaceutical Executive
  18. Federal Trade Commission(2002).,未出版
  19. Federal Trade Commisson(2002).,未出版
  20. Levin, R. C.,Klevorick, A. K.,Nelson, R. R.,Winter, S. G.(1987).Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development.Brookings Papers on Economic Activity,18,783-831.
  21. Mahn, T. G.(1999).The Hatch-Waxman Act during patent prosecution and beyond.Food and Drug Law Journal,54,233-236.
  22. McCabe, A. R.(2003).A precarious balancing act: The role of the FDA as protector of public health and industry wealth.Suffolk University Law Review,36(3),787-819.
  23. Pugatch, M. P.(2004).Intellectual property and pharmaceutical data exclusivity in the context of innovation and market access.symposium conducted at the Rockefeller Foundation's Bellagio Study and Conference,Italy:
  24. Rebman, J. M.(2009).Dr. Strange Drug, or: How I learned to stop worrying and love authorized generics.DePaul J. Health Care L,12,159-194.
  25. Strongin, R. J.(2002).,未出版
  26. Thomas, J. R.(2005).Pharmaceutical patent law.Washington, DC:Bureau of National Affairs.
  27. Understahl, B.(2005).Authorized generics: Careful balance undone.Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal,16,355-393.
  28. 王立達(2008)。限制競爭之專利侵害和解：尋求合適分析架構。全國律師，12(1)，51-62。
  29. 王立達(2009)。美國競爭法近期發展與政權移轉之可能影響：避免過度嚇阻、重視經濟學理到強化執法。月旦法學雜誌，174，230-240。
  30. 王立達(2009)。TRIPS 協定之例外條款：以概括型例外條款為中心。政大法學評論，107，83-127。
  31. 朱世霓(2003)。美國學名藥上市長路漫漫。科技法律透析，15(3)，20-25。
  32. 朱懷祖(2005)。由美國Hatch-Waxman法試驗免責安全港規定看藥業發展趨勢（下）。藥業市場雜誌，120，8-11。
  33. 林于令、侯春岑(2004)。新藥與學名藥的戰爭：淺談Hatch-Waxman法案及其最新修正。萬國法律，136，61-69。
  34. 林首愈(2008)。專利扣合機制之介紹以及引進我國法制之評估。藥技通訊，121，22-26。
  35. 孫小萍(2008)。處方藥產業的法律戰爭：專利侵權之學名藥實驗例外。台北=Taipei:元照=Angle。
  36. 陳昭華、鐘鏡湖、張乃文、鄭耀誠(2008)。學名藥試驗免責規範之探討。輔仁法學，35，225-273。
  37. 陳逸南(2006)。美國『專利聯接制度』簡介。藥技通訊，104，21-22。
  38. 陳蔚奇(2010)。Taiwan，國立交通大學科技法律研究所=Chiao-Tung University Institute of Technology Law。
  39. 陳鋕雄(2010)。人體試驗之受試者保護：簡評新修正醫療法。法學新論，19，89-115。
  40. 黃慧嫻(2004)。簡介美國學名藥競爭規範及新近鼓勵學名藥近用之措施（下）。技術尖兵，112，24-27。
  41. 黃慧嫻(2005)。專利、學名藥廠專利侵權訴訟可否私了。生技與醫療器材報導，76，24-25。
  42. 黃慧嫻(2006)。淺析美國藥品上市審查程式之專利連結機制及其對我國可能產生之影響（上）。科技法律透析，18(6)，2-7。
  43. 黃慧嫻(2006)。淺析美國藥品上市審查程式之專利連結機制及其對我國可能產生之影響（下）。科技法律透析，18(7)，2-8。
被引用次数
  1. (2012)。專利法對醫藥衍生發明之合理評價─以已知物質衍生物為中心。成大法學，23，35-82。
  2. (2015)。逆向給付爭議—競爭法與專利法之交錯。科技法學評論，12(2)，127-164。
  3. (2018)。簡評我國專利連結制度之相關立法─以藥事法之解釋適用為中心。月旦法學雜誌，278，165-177。
  4. (2019)。專利有效性判斷雙軌制下臺灣專利連結制度觀察及建議。交大法學評論，5，125-188。
  5. (2024)。西藥專利連結與競爭法的交會——以不實登載與逆向給付為中心。公平交易季刊，32(1)，123-178。
print cancel