Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/81543


Title: 由學名藥侵權訴訟評估均等論在生物相似藥侵權訴訟的影響—以美國為例
A Study of the Doctrine of Equivalence on Biosimilars Based on the Patent Infringement in the context of Generics –From U.S. Perspectives
Authors: 沈雅慧
Shen, Yea Huei
Contributors: 馮震宇
Fong , Jerry G.
沈雅慧
Shen , Yea Huei
Keywords: 生物製劑價格競爭和創新法案
專利舞蹈
生物相似藥
均等論
方法界定產物
Biologics Price Competition and Innovation (BPCIA)
patent dance
biosimilars
doctrine of equivalence,
product-by-process
Date: 2016
Issue Date: 2016-03-01 10:44:09 (UTC+8)
Abstract: BPCIA在2010年三月生效後,生物相似藥廠商開始可以利用簡化的文件向美國食品和藥物管理局(FDA)申請藥品許可證,這個新醫療法賦予FDA決定如何落實法案的權力。基於不同生物製劑之間缺乏比較性這個已知的事實,加上公眾安全的考量,在還沒有累積大量經驗可以歸納出哪些是比較分析必要的資訊之前,FDA會保守的要求生物相似藥廠商以BPCIA提出申請時,必須提供臨床試驗資料來證明與參照藥品之間沒有臨床上有意義的差異。
雖然BPCIA給出了解決專利糾紛的框架,俗稱專利舞蹈(patent dance),依照目前聯邦巡迴上訴法院對BPCIA的解釋,認為BPCIA法案不強制生物相似藥申請者遵循其規定之專利糾紛解決程序,雖然就目前的最新發展來看,迴避專利舞蹈可以避免一些程序上的麻煩,但真正參照藥品廠商和生物相似藥公司的輸贏仍是在訴訟戰場上見真章。
美國FDA在2015年3月6日核准了的一個生物相似藥-Zarxio( filgrastim-sndz),目前尚不清楚均等論這種不確定性在生物相似藥上影響的程度,但藉由簡化新藥申請上市的小分子藥物所涉入的侵權訴訟做有限度的推論可以發現,小分子藥物的均等謬論案件是牽涉到外圍專利,當專利不再提供足夠的誘因去激勵專利權人時,學名藥廠商就會贏得均等論謬論案件。因為生物製劑是一種製程決定的產物,因此其專利通常是集中在製程。以BPCIA和專利法為框架來分析過去的相關侵權訴訟,可以預測生物相似藥廠商在轉化前步驟、轉化步驟、調劑、或包裝做改變,其成功的機會較大,而在細胞培養會純化步驟做改變,成功的機會最小。然而,最終還是要看法院將來如何解決生物相似藥的侵權問題,各方都要意識到科學與法律議題的複雜性,及妥適解決侵權訴訟的重要性。
台灣廠商要進入生物相似藥的領域,是困難重重的。生物相似藥的開發及法規成本,不如想像中低,鑒於蛋白質藥『產能』一直被看作是市場發展受阻的主要原因,藥廠委外合作(CRO、CMO或NRDO) 的模式能快速與國際藥廠接軌,逐步奠定台灣在藥物開發的供應鏈合作利基並提昇國際知名度。
The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation of 2009 was activated on March in 2010. Now the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can approve biosimilars and was empowered to how to practice. Given the known issues with lack of comparability between different biologics preparations, and the Agency’s strong interest in protecting public safety, it is probable that, until it has developed a body of experience with regards to the amount and kind of data needed to make comparability evaluations, the FDA will adopt a conservative approach and require at least some clinical studies before approving biologics under BPCIA.
Though BPCIA provide the frame for resolving patent issues, that is so-called patent dance, Federal Circuit said that parties were not compelled to dance. Thus the law uncertainty was shifted to patent infringement.
FDA approved the first biosimilar, Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz), on 6, March, 2015. It is unclear how biosimilar will be treated in court based on doctrine of equivalence. Based on the experience from generics, courts tends to adjust the scope of equivalents to improve the correspondence between patent scope and desired patent incentives. In contrast, biologics is path depended. That is to say process decided what biologics would be. Both the BPCIA and patent law guide the shape of infringement suits. Follow-on biologics companies will be most successful when they make a change in the pretransformation process, the transformation process, the formulation, or the packaging. They will be least successful when they make a change in the cell culture conditions or the purification process. It remains to be seen how courts will address issues of infringement for follow-on biologics, but all parties should be aware of the complexity of the scientific and legal issues and the importance of addressing them properly.
The cost for development and the complexity of regulation in biosimilars were tremendously high. Thus it is difficult for biopharmaceutical industries in Taiwan to enter this field. In the light of unmet production capacity in protein drug, pharmaceutical industries in Taiwan could apply the mode of CRO, CMO or NRDO to integrate into global biopharmaceutical community.
Reference: 壹、 中文期刊
1. 李素華,醫藥發明之專利個案探討:以我國長青樹藥品專利為例,台大法學論叢,第41卷 第2期,2012年6月。
2. 沈宗倫,由專利法教示因果關係論專利進步性:以組合專利與類似組合專利為中心,台大法學論叢,第42卷 第2期,2013年6月。
3. 傅冬卿,論生物相似性藥品上市審查規範- 以美國生物藥品價格競爭與創新法為師或為鑒,智慧財產評論,第11卷 第2期,2013年10月。
4. 陳志杰,論均等論之比對方式 ⎯⎯逐項測試法之優缺點探討,科技法學評論,第1卷 第2期,2004年9月。
5. 劉依蓁,2014 台灣各產業景氣趨勢調查報告--生技醫藥,台灣經濟研究院 生物科技產業研究中心,2014年1月。
貳、 中文碩士論文
1. 王選雄,由學名藥法規之發展看生物相似性藥品之法律規範-以美國為例,國立成 功大學科技法律研究所碩士論文,2011年1月。
參、 英文期刊
1. Aggarwal S, (2012). What’s fueling the biotech engine-2011-2012, Nature biotechnology, 30, 1191-1197.
2. Ahmed I,(2012). Biosimilars: Impact of Biological Product Life Cycle and European Experience on the Regulatory Trajectory in the United States, Clin Therapeu,34, 400-405.
3. Arti K. Rai, Jerome, (2008). Pathways Across the Valley of Death: Novel Intellectual Property Strategies for Accelerating Drug Discovery, Yale J. Health L., POL’Y, & Ethics, 8, 55-89.
4. Blackstone EA, Fuhr Jr. JP, (2007). Generic Biopharmaceutical Drugs: An Economic and Policy Analysis, Biotechnol. Health, 4, 43-48.
5. Blackstone EA, Fuhr JP, (2012). The future of competition in the biologics market, Temple J Sci Technol Environ Law, 31, 1-30.
6. Childs DW, (2005). The World Health Organization’s Prequalification Program and Its Potential Effect on Data Exclusivity Laws, FOOD & DRUG L.J,60, 79, 79 n.4.
7. Eisenberg RS, (2007). The Role of the FDA in Innovation Policy, MICH. TELECOMM. & TECH. L. REV,13, 345-356.
8. Emerton DA, (2013). Profitability in the biosimilars market: can you translate scientific excellence into a healthy commercial return? BioProcess Int, 11(6 suppl), 6-23
9. Fellmeth AX, (2004). Secrecy, Monopoly, and Access to Pharmaceuticals in International Trade Law: Protection of Marketing Approval Data under the TRIPS Agreement, 45 HARV. INT’L L. J.,45, 443, 469-70.
10. Freilich J, (2013). The paradox of Legal Equivalents and Scientific Equivalence: Reconciling Patent Law’s Doctrine of Equivalence with the FDA’s Bioequivalence Requirement, S.M.U.L. Rev ,60, 1-59.
11. Glasgow LJ, (2001). Stretching the Limits of Intellectual Property Rights: Has the Pharmaceutical Industry Gone Too Far? IDEA, 41, 227.
12. Grabowski H, Long G, (2011). Data Exclusivity for Biologics, Nature Rev. Drug Discov, 10,15-16.
13. Grabowski H, Long G, (2011). Implementation of the Biosimilar Pathway: Economic and Policy Issues, 41 Seton Hall L. Rev,41, 515
14. Grabowski HR, Salgado GM, (2014). Regulatory And Cost Barriers Are Likely To Limit Biosimilar Development And Expected Savings In The Near Future, Health Aff, 33, 1048-1057.
15. Gupta D, (2013). A CMO Perspective on Quality Challenges for Biopharmaceuticals, Bioprocess Int, 11, 20- 23.
16. Hughes SS, (2001). Making Dollars out of DNA, 1974-1980, ISIS,92, 541-542.
17. Kaplow L,(1984). The Patent-Antitrust Intersection: A Reappraisal, HARV. L. REV, 97,1813-1889.
18. Kitch ED, (1997). The Nature and Function of the Patent System, J.L. & ECON, 20, 265-268.
19. Lee JF, Litten JB, (2012). Comparability and biosimilarity: considerations for the healthcare provider, Curr Med Res Opin, 28,1053–1058.
20. Lee P, (2010). Patent Law and the Two Cultures, YALE L J, 120, 2-7.
21. Lewis RM, Cosenza ME, (2010). Summary of DIA Workshop: Comparability Challenges: Regulatory and Scientific Issues in the Assessment of Biopharmaceuticals. Drug Inf J, 44,485–504.
22. Li H,,d’Anjou M, (2009). Pharmacological significance of glycosylation in therapeutic proteins, Curr Opin Biotechnol, 20, 678-684.
23. Lichtman D, Lemley MA, (2008). Rethinking Patent Law’s Presumption of Validity, STAN L REV , 60, 5- 56.
24. Lissy M, (2011). Comparison of the Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Profiles of One US-Marketed and Two European-Marketed Epoetin Alfas, Drugs R. D, 11,61- 62
25. McCamish M, and Woolett G, (2011). Worldwide experience with biosimilar development, mAbs, 3(2), 209-217.
26. Megerlin F, (2013). Biosimilars and the European Experience: Implications for the States, Health Aff, 32,1803-1806.
27. Mullard A, (2014). 2013 FDA drug approvals, Nature reviews drug discovery, 13,85-89.
28. Parchomovsky G ,Wagner RP, (2005). Patent Portfolios, U.PENN. L. REV. 154, 1-77.
29. Park S, K. Patel, (2006). Analytical comparisons of erythropoietin products from Korea and Amgen’s Epogen (epoetin alfa), Nephrol dial. Transplant,21, iv14.
30. Schellekens H,(2009). Biosimilar Therapeutics—What Do We Need To Consider, 2 Neurol Dial Transplant,2, i30.
31. Sharma B, (2007). Immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins. Part 3: Impact of manufacturing changes, Biotechnol. Adv,25,325-331.
32. White DA, (2011). The Doctrine of Equivalents: Fairness and Uncertainty in an Era of Biologic Pharmaceuticals, 60 EMORY L.J, 60,762-763.
肆、 其他英文參考文獻
1. Abbott v. baxter 660 F. Supp. 882 (N.D.Ill. 2009) and 2005 WL 2347221 (N.D.Ill. 2005), Retrieved September 20 2015, from https://casetext.com/case/abbott-laboratories-v-baxter-healthcare-corp
2. Acorda v. Apotex, 2011 WL 4074116 (D.N.J. 2011), Retrieved October 20 2015, from http://www.pharmacompliancemonitor.com/substantial-non-infringing-use-a-viable-defense-to-inducement/5228/.
3. Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283, 1287-89 (Fed. Cir. 2010), Retrieved October 15 2015, from http://www.patentdocs.org/2010/08/adams-respiratory-therapeutics-inc-v-perrigo-co-fed-cir-2010.html.
4. Amgen Inc., Amgen Manufacturing Limited, v. Sandoz Inc., Fed Circ. 2015-1499, Retrieved September 20 2015, from http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/s15-1499.pdf.
5. Amgen Inc. v. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1381, Retrieved October 15 2015, from http://bannerwitcoff.com/_docs/library/articles/amgen%20v%20roche%202009.pdf.
6. Aris R. Biosimilars 2012—what does the current landscape look like? pharmaphorum. March 8, 2012, Retrieved September 20 2015, from http://ic.ucsc.edu/~drsmith/metx270/html/Biosimilars%202012.pdf.
7. Aventis v. Lupin Nos. 2006-1530, 2006-1555, Retrieved October 01 2015, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1462885.html.
8. Bio Technolog., 325 F.3d, Retrieved October20 2015, from http://openjurist.org/325/f3d/1356/bio-technology-general-corp-v-duramed-pharmaceuticals-inc
9. Biosimilars: The Similarity Challenge, BIOLOGICS, FISH & RICHARDSON, PC 1 (Winter 2010), Retrieved September 20 2015, from http://www.fr.com/files/uploads/Documents/biologics/ bioLOGICsWinter2010.pdf.
10. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, v. Schering-Plough, 320 F.3d 1339, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2003), Retrieved October 15 2015, from https://casetext.com/case/boehringer-ingelheim-v-schering-plough.
11. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 288 F. Supp. 2d 562 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), Retrieved September 20 2015, from http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/288/562/2509447/.
12. Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc., 55 F. Supp. 2d 1024 (N.D. Cal. 1999), Retrieved October 15 2015, from http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/55/1024/2376264/.
13. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Hoffman-La Roche Inc., 541 F.3d 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2008), Retrieved October 15 2015, from https://casetext.com/case/carnegie-mellon-v-hoffmann-la.
14. Chiron v. source cf 431 f. supp. 2d 1019 (n.d.cal. 2006), Retrieved September 20 2015, from http://www.leagle.com/decision/20061450431FSupp2d1019_11346/CHIRON%20CORP.%20v.%20SOURCECF%20INC.
15. Copley C. Analysis: Roche stays a step ahead of copycat drugmakers. Reuters. March 25, 2013, Retrieved September 20 2015, from www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/25/us-roche-biosimilars-idUSBRE92O0EH2013032
16. Emma Hitt, Efalizumab Withdrawn from US Market, MEDSCAPE MEDICAL NEWS (Apr. 9, 2009), Retrieved September 20 2015, from http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/590862.
17. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., 14 F. Supp. 2d 536 (D. Del. 1998), Retrieved October 15 2015, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1277601.html.
18. Gen-Probe v. Vysis No. 99-CV-2667 H(AJB), 2002 WL 34413199 (S.D. Cal. 2002), Retrieved October 15 2015, from https://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/docs/newsltr/Winter2006Spring2007/Gen-Probe.pdf.
19. Genentech Inc. v. Wellcome Found., 29 F.3d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1994), Retrieved October 15 2015, from http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/29/1555/480653/
20. Genentech, Inc. v. Boehringer Mannheim GmbH, 47 F. Supp. 2d 91 (D. Mass. 1999), Retrieved October 15 2015, from http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/47/91/2527857/.
21. Glaxo v. Pharmadyne, 32 F.Supp. 2d 265 (D.Md. 1998), Retrieved September 20 2015, from https://casetext.com/case/glaxo-wellcome-v-pharmadyne-corp.
22. Grant Thornton India. Bio-dynamism: insights into the biosimilars market: an overall perspective. 2013, Retrieved September 20 2015, from http://www.pharmacytimes.com/publications/issue/2013/april2013/report-offers-insight-into-global-biosimilars-market.
23. Hernandez R. Implications of biosimilar use: a market perspective. Spec Pharm Times, Retrieved September 20 2015, from www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/opinion/sunday/do-clinical-trials-work.html?pagewanted =all&r=0.
24. How biosimilars win the battle? Retrieved December 10 2015, from http://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20150327000076-260202.
25. IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, Retrieved September 30 2015, from http://static.correofarmaceutico.com/docs/2013/05/20/usareport. pdf,
26. Interim Definition and Elimination of Lot-by-Lot Release for Well-Characterized Therapeutic Recombinant DNA-Derived and Monoclonal Antibody Biotechnology Products, 60 Fed. Reg. 63,048, (Dec. 8, 1995).
27. M. McCamish, Global Health Biopharm and Oncology Injectables Development, Sandoz, Presentation to the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee, 7 January 2015, Retrieved September 20 2105, from http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/OncologicDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM431119.pdf,.
28. Mead Johnson & Company v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 38 F. Supp. 2d 289 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), Retrieved October 01 2015, from http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/38/289/2311434/.
29. PR Newswire. The road ahead for biosimilars in Europe, says Frost & Sullivan: huge market opportunity from impending patent expiry of blockbuster biologics. Press release. March 21, 2012, Retrieved November. 20 2015, from http://www.dnaindia.com/press-releases/press-release-the-road-ahead-for-biosimilars-in-europe-says-frost-sullivan-1665487.
30. Regents of University of California v. Monsanto Co., No. C 04-0634 PJH, 2005 WL 3454107 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2005), Retrieved October 15 2015, from http://www.kilpatricktownsend.com/~/media/Files/articles/92008%20IPL%20Newsletter.ashx.
31. Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Dako N. Am., Inc., 615 F. Supp. 2d 1087 (N.D. Cal. 2009), Retrieved October 15 2015, from https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2482708/regents-of-univ-of-california-v-dako-north-am/.
32. Sandoz Inc., v. Amgen Inc. and Hoffmann-LA Roche Inc., Fed Circ. 2014-1693, , Retrieved September 1 2015, from http://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=FCA&flNm=14-1693_1.
33. SmithKline Beecham v. Apotex 2005 WL 94167, Retrieved September 20 2015, from http://www.finnegan.com/zh-CHT/publications/federalcircuit/FCCDetail.aspx?pub=9fbb2532-4fcc-4185-b1b2-b9b2f6b283b0.
34. The gate of biosimilar has been opened? Retrieved December 15 2015, from http://www.pharm-sh.com.cn/gtb/index.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pharm-sh.com.cn%2Fart%2F2015%2F5%2F18%2Fart_21_5037.html.
35. Todd Wallack, FDA Rejects Genzyme Request for Myozyme, BOS. GLOBE, Apr. 22, 2008, at 1F, Retrieved December 5 2015, from http://www.ispeboston.org/newsletter/index.php?id=13&do=cat&showAll=1.
36. U.S. Department of Health and Human Service et al.., Guidance for Industry Scientific Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Product ( Draft Guidance), (February 2012)
37. U.S. Department of Health and Human Service et al.., Guidance for Industry Quality Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Product ( Draft Guidance), (February 2012).
Description: 碩士
國立政治大學
法學院碩士在職專班
100961007
Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100961007
Data Type: thesis
Appears in Collections:[法學院碩士在職專班] 學位論文

Files in This Item:

File SizeFormat
100701.pdf1584KbAdobe PDF431View/Open


All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


社群 sharing