| dc.contributor | 科智所 | |
| dc.creator (作者) | 陳秉訓 | zh_TW |
| dc.creator (作者) | Chen, Ping-Hsun | |
| dc.date (日期) | 2011-01 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 15-May-2017 15:48:40 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 15-May-2017 15:48:40 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 15-May-2017 15:48:40 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/109600 | - |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | In Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., both parties once intended to end the war. Maybe because the market of Plavix® is less competitive, both parties tried to avoid the expensive trial. Apotex was not worried about losing the exclusivity period, while Bristol-Myers Squibb thought of maintaining the monopoly. The antitrust law intervened to stop the scenario, which resulted in the indictment of the former vice president of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Though Apotex went on to fight against the patent as what the Act expected, Apotex finally lost. The drug market remained the same, and there have been no upcoming generic drug companies which want to challenge the patent at dispute. Definitely, the Act seems to underestimate the strength of brand-name drug patents and other negative impacts unnecessary patent litigation might give. | |
| dc.format.extent | 123 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | text/html | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology, Vol.21, No.1, pp.125-152. | |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Abbreviated New Drug Application; antitrust; patent; generic drug | |
| dc.title (題名) | Destroying a Pharmaceutical Patent for Saving Lives? A Case Study of Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc. | |
| dc.type (資料類型) | article | |
