标题: | 专利有效性判断双轨制下台湾专利连结制度观察及建议 Observations and Suggestions on Taiwan's Patent Linkage System in Bifurcated Patent Litigation System |
作者: | 李秉燊 Pin-Shen Lee |
关键字: | 专利連结;公私法二元与双轨制;药品专利登载;拟制侵权;暂停核发药物许可证;销售专属期间;Patent Linkage;Bifurcated Patent Litigation System;Drug Patent Listing;Artificial Act of Infringement;Automatic Stay;Market Exclusivity |
公开日期: | 15-九月-2019 |
出版社: | 交通大学科技法律学院(原名称:交通大学科技法律研究所) NCTU School of Law |
摘要: | 美国法院判决专利无效,即拘束其后所有诉讼当事人;是以,在专利連结制度下,当有学名药厂取得专利无效判决,美国食品药品监督管理局(USFDA)于另一学名药厂申请上市时,不再启动暂停核发许可证。台湾专利有效性判断则采双轨制,虽然民事法院得自为判断专利有效性,惟仅生个案拘束力;因此,专利連结在台湾施行后,即使系争专利曾经民事法院认定无效,只要未经举发撤销,台湾卫生福利部食品药物管理署(TFDA)在另一学名药厂申请上市时仍于法定期间暂停核发许可证。由此可知,同样的专利連结制度,适用台湾专利法制后产生有别美国的法律效果,系争专利将继续启动暂停核发许可证的法定效力,递延第二、三家学名药厂进入市场的时间,进而影响药品价格与制药产业发展。鉴于上述问题,本文研究美国修法歷程与韩国立法例,在台湾公私法二元与双轨制的结构下提出专利連结制度的规范配套建议,调和现行台湾专利連结制度在专利有效性判断双轨制下可能形塑的市场壁壘。此外,台湾有别美国,尚未允许学名药厂主动提起确认系争专利应撤销或未侵权之诉,于诉讼启动完全处于被动;甚至在专利連结下拟制侵权诉讼中对原开发药厂诉讼理由有重大影响的专利资讯有疑义时,得否争执亦未可知。本文建议台湾未來在专利法增订专利連结下拟制侵权态样时,应确保配套规定学名药厂得于原开发药厂未于法定期间起诉时,提起确认专利未侵权之诉;并基于专利资讯为该拟制侵权的重要基础,规定学名药厂得于专利連结诉讼中提请法院审酌专利资讯适格与正确性,以平衡现行制度下学名药厂的弱势地位。 In the U.S., once a patent owner’s patent(s) is declared as invalid, he cannotbring an infringement suit against other implementers any more. Therefore, when ageneric drug company successfully challenges patent(s) validity in a Hatch-Waxman litigation, the US FDA will not grant other 30-month stays of regulatoryapproval to brand-name drug company because the patent(s) corresponding to newdrugs is invalid. However, patent law in Taiwan follows the bifurcation system.Accordingly, although Taiwan civil courts are allowed to decide the validity of patentright at issue, its opinion binds only the parties in suits. For that reason, afterthe patent linkage system is implemented in Taiwan, the statutory 12-months stayswill be triggered automatically if the patent(s) corresponding to new drugs have notbeen revoked, even the civil courts had decided the patent(s) is invalid based on themerit of the case. Obviously, patent linkage system in Taiwan’s bifurcated patentlitigation system will delay the latecomer generic drug companies who sell thesame drug entering the market. The generic pharmaceutical industry and the right to access medicine in Taiwan will subsequently be jeopardized. Furthermore, Taiwancivil courts are not allowed to invalidate a patent or decide whether patent(s)corresponding to new drugs is infringed by a counterclaim or declaratory judgement.On top of that, it is still unknown that whether the generic drug companycould question the patent information in the Hatch-Waxman litigation if it seemsinappropriate. As a result, this article digs into U.S. Statute law revision and suggestsTaiwan civil courts should shoulder the burden of verifying the informationafter requested by the generic drug company in the litigation with the objective ofstriking a balance between brand-name and generic drug company. |
URI: | http://dx.doi.org/10.3966/252302982019090005004 https://lawreview.nctu.edu.tw/issues/ http://hdl.handle.net/11536/154805 |
ISSN: | 2523-0298 |
DOI: | 10.3966/252302982019090005004 |
期刊: | 交大法学评论(原名称:科技法学评论) NCTU Law Review |
Issue: | 5 |
起始页: | 125 |
结束页: | 188 |
显示于类别: | Technology Law Review |
文件中的档案:
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.