Definiteness of Means/Steps-Plus-Function Clams—A Cases Study of Taiwan’s Courts Decisions
|關鍵字:||學名藥;逆向付款;推定違法;合理原則;專利權利範圍法;eneric Drug;Reverse Payment;Pay for Delay;Rule of Reason;Presumptively Illegal|
Institute of Technology Law
In Europe and in the United States, the reverse payment settlements reached between pharmaceutical manufacturers have been heard over and over again. Reverse payment settlement refers to the payment made to the ge-neric drug manufacturers in exchange for delaying generic drug’s entrance into market. Interestingly, Europe and the United States provide different an-swers as to construing the reverse payment settlement as a matter presumptive-ly illegal or as a matter to be judged based on rule of reason when it comes to ruling whether or not a reverse payment settlement is in violation of anti-competition law. In recent years, EU Commission ruled most cases related to reverse payment settlement presumptively illegal. In 2013, however, the Su-preme Court of the United States used rule of reason in Actavis. Both of them concurrently abandoned the “Scope of the Patent” test. With the discussions stated above, this paper focused on the difference between Europe and the United States regarding reverse payment settlements for the reference of Tai-wan.
Technology Law Review
|Appears in Collections:||Technology Law Review|
Files in This Item:
If it is a zip file, please download the file and unzip it, then open index.html in a browser to view the full text content.