지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The reverse payment settlement partly induced by a unique drug approval-patent linkage scheme under the Hatch-Waxman Act (1984) has been a hotly debated topic in the American antitrust jurisprudence. Both the Korea Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court recently rendered a decision on criteria for evaluating the legality of a reverse payment settlement under their competition law regime. The United States Supreme Court in Actavis made it clear that the rule of reason, not the scope-of-the-patent test, is the proper standard to review reverse payment settlements under the United States antitrust law. The Korea Supreme Court seemed to be influenced by Actavis and also adopted a similar approach to the reverse payment settlement between GSK and Dong-Ah Pharmaceutical Company.
Those decisions can provide a useful guidance with regard not only to law enforcement against reverse payment settlements but also to broader issue of the interplay between the intellectual property right and the competition law. Also, in light of the fact that a drug approval-patent linkage system is scheduled to be put in force in 2015 in accordance with the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement, a great amount of care should be given to the policy rationale underlying the decisions in designing the system.
Lastly, the section 59 of the Korea Monopoly Regulation Act should be on a careful review to be deleted, since it causes unnecessary ambiguity in the course of competition law enforcement against anti-competitive practices involving intellectual property rights including patents.
#역지불합의
#해치왁스만법
#지식재산권과 경쟁법
#의약품 허가-특허연계제
#복제약경쟁
#Actavis 판결
#공정거래법 제59조
#지식재산권의 정당한 행사
#reverse payment settlement
#Hatch-Waxman Act
#intellectual property right and competition law
#drug approval-patent linkage
#generic drug competition
#Actavis decision
#Section 59 of the Monopoly Regulation Act
#just exercise of intellectual property rights
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌 (33)
참고문헌 신청
/ 2009 / Brief for the United States in Response to the Court’s Invitation, In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation (July 6, 2009)
/ 2010 / Testimony delivered by FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary (July 27, 2010)
/ 2011 / Amicus brief before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit / In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation (May 18, 2011)
/ 2013 / Testimony delivered by FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez before the U.S. Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition and Consumer Rights (July 23, 2013)
ABA Section of Antitrust / 2012 / Antitrust Law Developments
/ 2010 / Testimony delivered by FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary (July 27, 2010)
/ 2011 / Amicus brief before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit / In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation (May 18, 2011)
/ 2013 / Testimony delivered by FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez before the U.S. Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition and Consumer Rights (July 23, 2013)
ABA Section of Antitrust / 2012 / Antitrust Law Developments
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0