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 ®Ö㤧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