104¦~4¤ë¸¹ ¹D ªk ªk °T (276)

DEEP & FAR

 

 

 

 

ANDA-½×¤ÎÃľDzզXª«»P²Ä¤K±øÁn©ú

~Fed. Cir.2012 (¤Q¤­)

 

 

³¯ºaºÖ ±M§Q¥N²z¤H

¡E¤¤°êÂåÃľǰ|ÃľǨt¾Ç¤h

¡E¤é¥»ºÖ©£¤j¾Ç¥ÍÃľǩҺӤh

¡E¶§©ú¤j¾ÇÂå¾ÇÃIJz©Ò³Õ¤h

 

¦b¥»®×¡Aªü´µ§Q±¶§Q±d¡A¤£¶È¨Ï¾Ö¦³±M§QªÌ¡A±q¨Æ¸Óªk©Ò´M¨D¹ªÀy¤§ºë½T³Ð·s¬¡°Ê¡A¥B¸Ó±M§QÅvªÌ¡XÁnºÙÀò±o¬ü°ê FDA ®Ö­ã¤§ÂåÀø¥Î³~¤w¸g¼ô±x©ó¥«³õ¡X¤]­±Á{着¤ñWarner-Lambert©Ò¥D±i¥¼¸g®Ö­ã³\¥i¤§ÃĪ«¥Î³~±M§QÅv¡A§óºò­¢¤§«IÅv­·ÀI(not only has the patent holder engaged in precisely the type of innovative activity that the Act sought to encourage, but such patentees¡Xclaiming FDA-approved therapeutic applications already familiar in the market¡Xalso face more compelling infringement risks than a patentee claiming unapproved uses for a drug as in Warner-Lambert.)¡Cªü´µ§Q±¶§Q±d¦]¦¹ÅGºÙ¤£À³¤ñ·ÓWarner-Lambert®×¡A¦Ó¤£·|±j­¢¥»°|­n±Æ°£¤@¤Á¡A®Ú¾Ú¡± 271(e)(2) ¥Î³~±M§Q¤èªk¤§½Ð¨D¡A¥B¨äANDA¨Ã¥¼©ú½T¦a±Ô­z±M§Q¤§¤èªk(Warner-Lambert is inapposite and does not compel us to preclude all ¡± 271(e)(2) claims based on method of use patents where the ANDA does not expressly recite a patented method.)¡C