Cover des Buchs: Second Generation Patents in Pharmaceutical Innovation
Monographie Open Access Vollzugriff

Second Generation Patents in Pharmaceutical Innovation

Autor:innen:
Verlag:
 2014

Zusammenfassung

Die Entwicklung neuer Medikamente und deren Verbesserungen sind entscheidend, um deutliche Fortschritte in der Gesundheitsversorgung zu gewährleisten. Der Entwicklungsprozess ist lang und teuer, insbesondere der Aufwand,der betrieben werden muss,, um den hohen Regulierungsanforderungen gerecht zu werden.

Im Gegensatz dazu verursacht die Nachahmung von Medikamenten vernachlässigbare Kosten und birgt deutlich weniger Risiken. Dies ist einer der Gründe, warum der Patenschutz für die die pharmazeutische Industrie von so großer Bedeutung ist.

Trotz des bestehenden Patentsystems ist gerade während des letzten Jahrzehnts die Zahl der neuen Medikamente pro Jahr zurückgegangen. Im Vergleich dazu hat sich die Zahl der Patente und Produkte der zweiten Generation drastisch erhöht.

Der Pharmaindustrie wird vorgeworfen, ihre ursprüngliche Aufgabe, die Entwicklung neuer Medikamente, zu vernachlässigen, indem sie Produkte der zweiten Generation erzeugt und die Einführung von Generika verhindert. Die Dissertation überprüft, ob diese Bedenken gerechtfertigt sind, und wenn ja, ob oder wie das Patentsystem den Konflikt zwischen Pharma-Unternehmen und der Gesellschaft im Hinblick auf eine bedarfsgerechte Arzneimittelversorgung lösen kann.

Publikation durchsuchen

Bibliographische Angaben

Auflage
1/2014
Copyrightjahr
2014
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-0874-1
ISBN-Online
978-3-8452-5086-1
Verlag
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Reihe
Munich Intellectual Property Law Center - MIPLC Studies
Band
19
Sprache
Englisch
Seiten
355
Produkttyp
Monographie

Inhaltsverzeichnis

KapitelSeiten
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 - 21 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  2. I. INTRODUCTION 22 - 28 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  3. II. PHARMACEUTICAL INVENTIONS, INNOVATIONS & PRODUCTS 29 - 59 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  4. III. SPECIFICITIES IN PHARMACEUTICALS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS 60 - 95 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  5. IV. STANDARDS OF PATENTABILITY FOR PHARMACEUTICAL SELECTION INVENTIONS 96 - 184 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  6. V. IMPLICATIONS OF THE PATENTABILITY REQUIREMENTS ON INNOVATION AND COMPETITION IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY 185 - 245 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  7. VI. PROPOSALS 246 - 312 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  8. VII. FINAL CONCLUSIONS 313 - 321 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  9. List of Statutory Instruments 322 - 323 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  10. List of Case Laws 324 - 333 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  11. Bibliography 334 - 355 Download Kapitel (PDF)

Literaturverzeichnis (403)

  1. Abbott, Alison, Europe Rules Against Stem-Cell Patents, 471 Nature 280 (2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  2. Abramowicz, Michael, Perfecting Patent Prizes, Law and Economics Working Paper Series No 01-29, Arlington: George Mason University School of Law (2003). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  3. Abramowicz, Michael/Duffy, John F., Intellectual Property for Market Experimentation, 83 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 337 (2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  4. Abramowicz, Michael/Duffy, John F., The Inducement Standard of Patentability, 120 Yale L.J. 1590 (2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  5. Agranat, Israel/Caner, Hava, Intellectual Property and Chirality of Drugs, 4 Drug Discov. Today 313 (1999). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  6. Agranat, Israel/Wainschtein, Silvya R., The Strategy of Enantiomer Patents of Drugs, 15 Drug Discov. Today 163 (2010). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  7. Alazraki, Melly, The 10 Biggest-Selling Drugs that are about to Lose Their Patents, DailyFinance, February 27, 2011. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  8. Allison, John R./Lemley, Mark A., The Growing Complexity of the United States Patent System, 82 B.U. L. Rev. 77 (2002). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  9. Angell, Marcia, The Pharmaceutical Industry: To whom Is It Accountable?, 342 New Eng. J. Med. 1902 (2000). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  10. Angell, Marcia, The Truth about the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do about It, New York: Random House (2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  11. Ann, Christoph, Patent Trolls – Menace or Myth? in: Zu Waldeck und Pyrmont, Wolrad P., Adelmann, Martin J., Brauneis, Robert, Drexl, Joseph, Nack, Ralph (eds), Patents and Technological Progress in a Globalized World, Liber Amicorum Joseph Straus, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer (2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  12. Anonymous, Bigger isn't Always Better, 418 Nature 353 (2002). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  13. Anonymous, Daiichi Sankyo to Buy Control of Ranbaxy of India for up to $4.6 Billion, New York Times, June 11, 2008. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  14. Anonymous, The Disclosure Function of the Patent System (or Lack Thereof), 118 Harv. L. Rev. 2007(2005). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  15. Anten, Lewis, What's new with novelty - Section 102 of S. 643, 54 J. Pat. Off. Soc'y 75 (1972). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  16. Arbex, Danieli S. Costa, Essay on Incentives for Pharmaceutical Research: A Double Push-Pull Program, Ann Arbor: Proquest LLC (2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  17. Ariëns, Everhardus J./Wuis, Eveline W., Bias in Pharmacokinetics and Clinical Pharmacology, 42 Clin. Pharmacol. & Ther. 361 (1987). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  18. Armstrong, Drew, Eli Lilly CEO Says Cost Cutting Won’t Solve Drug Sales Loss, Bloomberg, April 12, 2012, available at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/ 2012-04-12/eli-lilly-ceo-says-cost-cutting-won-t-solve-drug-revenue-losses.html. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  19. Arora, Ashish/Ceccagnoli, Marco/Cohen, Wesley M., R&D and the Patent Premium, 26 Int. J. Ind. Organ. 1153 (2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  20. Arrow, Kenneth, Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention, in The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity 609, 619-22, Princeton: Princeton University Press ofNati'l Bureau of Econ. Research (1962). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  21. Arrowsmith, John/Harrison, Richard, Drug Repositioning: The Business Case and Current Strategies to Repurpose Shelved Candidates and Marketed Drugs, in: Barratt, Michael J. and Frail, Donald E. (eds), Drug Repositioning: Bringing New Life to Shelved Assets and Existing Drugs, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc (2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  22. Arundel, Anthony/Kabla, Isabelle, What Percentage of Innovations are patented? Empirical Estimates for European Firms, 27 Res. Policy, 127, 138 (1998). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  23. AstraZeneca, AstraZeneca Annual Report 2010, available at: http://www.astrazenecaannualreports.com/AZ_AR_100311_single.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  24. AstraZeneca, AstraZeneca Annual Report 2011, available at: http://www.astrazenecaannualreports.com/2011/documents/pdfs/annual_report_pdf_entire.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  25. AstraZeneca, AstraZeneca Annual Review 2000, available at: http://www.astrazeneca.com/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadername2=MDT-Type&blobheadervalue1=inline%3B+filename%3DAnnual-Review.pdf&blobheadervalue2=abinary %3B+charset%3DUTF-8&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1285635038761&ssbinary=true. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  26. Avorn, Jerry, Sending Pharma Better Signals, 309 Science 669 (2005). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  27. Bacher/Melullis, in: Benkard, Georg, et al., Patentgesetz, Gebrauchsmustergesetz, 10th Ed. München: C. H. Beck (2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  28. Barnett, Jonathan M., Cultivating the Genetic Commons: Imperfect Patent Protection and the Network Model of Innovation, 37 San Diego L. Rev. 987 (2000). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  29. Barratt, Michael J./Frail, Donald E.(eds), Drug Repositioning: Bringing New Life to Shelved Assets and Existing Drugs, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc (2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  30. Bartfai, Tamas/Lees, Graham V., Drug Discovery: From Bedside to Wall Street, Burlington: Elsevier Academic Press (2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  31. Barth, Gerhard/Zimmer, Franz-Josef, The Olanzapine Patent Dispute: German Court Grants a Preliminary Injunction on a Patent Invalidated by the First-Instance Federal Patent Court, 28 Biotechnology L. Rep. 532 (2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  32. Barton, John H./Abbott, Frederick M./Correa, Carlos M./Drexl, Josef/Foray, Dominique/Marchant Ron (eds), Views on the Future of the Intellectual Property System, Geneva: ICTSD (2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  33. Beary, John F., Chirality and Drug Development, 339 Lancet 495 (1992). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  34. Belenzon, Sharon, Knowledge Flow and Sequential Innovation: Implications for Technologz diffusion, R&D and Market Value, Discussion Paper Series No 256, Oxford: Oxford University (2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  35. Benjamin, Stuart M./Rai, Arti K., Who’s Afraid of the APA? What the Patent System Can Learn from Administrative Law, 95 Geo. L. J. 269 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  36. Benkard, Georg/Asendorf, Claus Dietrich/Rogge, Rüdiger/Bacher, Klaus/Schäfers, Alfons/Goebel, Frank Peter/Scharen, Uwe/Grabinski, Klaus/ Schmidt, Christof/Melullis, Klaus-Jürgen/Ullmann, Eike (eds.), Patentgesetz, Gebrauchsmustergesetz, 10th Ed. München: C. H. Beck (2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  37. Berger, Jonathan M., Tripping over Patents: AIDS, Access to Treatment and the Manufacturing of Scarcity, 17 Conn. J. Int'l L. 157 (2002). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  38. Berndt, Ernst R., Pharmaceuticals in U.S. Health Care: Determinants of Quantity and Price, 16 J. Econ. Perspect. 45 (2002). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  39. Bernstein, Joel, Polymorphism in Molecular Crystals, New York: Oxford University Press (2002). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  40. Bessen, James/Maskin, Eric, Sequential Innovation, Patents and Imitation, Working Paper No 11/99, Massachusetts: MIT (1999). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  41. Bessen, James/Maskin, Eric, Sequential Innovation, Patents, and Imitation, 40 RAND J. Econ. 611 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  42. Bessen, James/Meurer, Michael J., Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk, Princeton: Princeton University Press (2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  43. Blair, Roger D./Cotter, Thomas F., Rethinking Patent Damages, 10 Tex. Intell. Prop. L. J. 1 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  44. Blanco White, Thomas A., Patents for inventions and the protection of industrial designs, London: Stevens & Sons, 5th Ed. (1983). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  45. Bohsem, Guido, Wie Medikamente Billiger Werden Sollen, Süddeutsche Zeitung, January 23, 2012, available at: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/pharmaindustriewie-medikamente-billiger-werden-sollen-1.1264493. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  46. Bond, Ronald S./Lean, David F., Sales, Promotion, and Product Differentiation in Two Prescription Drug Markets, Washington, DC: U.S. Federal Trade Commission. Bureau of Economics (1977). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  47. Boyd, Karen I., Nonobviousness and the Biotechnology Industry: A Proposal for a Doctrine of Economic Nonobviousness, 12 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 311 (1997). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  48. Brandi-Dohrn, Matthias, Der zu weite Patentanspruch, GRUR Int 1995, 541. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  49. Brandt, Karsten, Die Schutzfrist des Patents, Munich: C.H. Beck (1996). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  50. Bresalier, et al., Cardiovascular Events Associated with Rofecoxib in a Colorectal Adenoma Chemoprevention Trial, 352 New Eng. J. Med. 1092, 1098 (2005). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  51. Brittain, Harry G, Theory and Principles of Polymorphic Systems, in: Brittain, Harry G. (ed), Polymorphism in Pharmaceutical Solids, New York: Informa Healthcare, 2nd Ed. (2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  52. Brown, Lucille J., The Markush Challenge, 31 J. Chem. Inf. Comp. Sci. 2 (1991). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  53. Bublak,Wolfgang/Coehn, Markus., Offenbarungsgehalt der Vorveröffentlichung einer chemischen Strukturformel (Disclosure in the Prior Publication of a Chemical Structural Formula), GRUR 2009, 382. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  54. Buhrow, Astrid/Nordemann, Jan B., Grenzen ausschließlicher Rechte geistigen Eigentums durch Kartellrecht (Q 187), GRUR Int 2005, 407. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  55. Burgess, Lesley J./Terblanche, Marli, The Future of the Pharmaceutical, Biological and Medical Device Industry, 3 Open Access J. Clin. Trials 45 (2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  56. Burk, Dan L./Lemley Mark A., Biotechnology's Uncertainty Principle, 54 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 691 (2003). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  57. Burk, Dan L./Lemley Mark A., Is Patent Law Technology-Specific?, 17 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1155 (2002). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  58. Burk, Dan L./Lemley Mark A., Policy Levers in Patent Law, 89 Va. L. Rev. 1575 (2003). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  59. Cadot, Olivier/Lippman, Steven, Barriers to Imitation and the Incentive to Innovate", Working Paper No. 434, Los Angeles: Western Management Science Institute (1995). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  60. Caira, Mino R., Crystalline Polymorphism of Organic Compound, in: Weber, Edwin, Design of Organic Solids, Berlin: Springer (1998). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  61. Caldwell, John, Do Single Enantiomers Have Something Special to Offer?, 16 Hum. Psychopharm. S67 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  62. Carmichael, Begley S., Desperately Seeking Cures, News Wk. May 15, 2010, available at: http://www.newsweek.com/id/238078. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  63. Chakrabarti, Jiban K./Horsman, Linda/Hotten Terrence M/Pullar Ian A./Tupper David E./Wright Francesca C., 4-Piperazinyl-10H-thieno[2,3-b][1,5]benzodiazepines as potential neuroleptics, 28 J. Med. Chem. 874 (1980). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  64. Chandy, Rajesh/Hopstaken, Brigitte/Narasimhan, Om/Prabhu, Jaideep, From Invention to Innovation: Conversion Ability in Product Development, 43 J. Marketing Res. 494 (2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  65. Chang, Howard F., Patent Scope, Antitrust Policy, and Cumulative Innovation, 26 RAND J. Econ. 34 (1995). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  66. Chisum, Donald S., Chisum on Patents, Newark: LexisNexis (2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  67. Chisum, Donald S., Comment: Anticipation, Enablement and Obviousness: An Eternal Glden Braid, 15 AIPLA Q. J. 57 (1987). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  68. Chou, Teyu/Haller, Hans, The Division of Profit in Sequential Innovation Reconsidered, Department of Economics Working Paper no. E95-02, Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (1995). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  69. Christie, Andrew F./Dent, Chris/McIntyre, Peter/Wilson, Lachlan/Studdert, David M., Patents Associated with High-Cost Drugs in Australia, 8 PLoS Med 1 (2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  70. Cockburn, Iain M., Is the Pharmaceutical Industry in a Productivity Crisis?, in: Jaffe, Adam B., Lerner Josh, and Stern, Scott (eds), Innovation Policy and Economics, volume 7, Cambridge: MIT press (2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  71. Coggio, Brian D./Cerrito, Francis D., The Application of the Patent Laws to the Drug Approval Process, 52 Food & Drug L.J. 345 (1997). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  72. Cohen, Mesley M./Nelson, Richard R./Walsh, John P., Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not), NBER Working Paper No. 7552. Cambridge: NBER (2000). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  73. Comanor, William S., Research and Competitive Product Differentiation in the Pharmaceutical Industry in the United States, 31 Economia, 372 (1964). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  74. Cornelli, Francesca/Schankerman, Mark, Patent renewals and R&D Incentives, 30 RAND J. Econ. 197 (1999). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  75. Cornish, William R./Llewelyn, David/Aplin, Tanya, Intellectual Property : Patents, Copyright, Trade marks and Allied Rights, London: Sweet & Maxwell, 7th Ed. (2010). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  76. Correa, Carlos M., Public Health and Patent Legislation in Developing Countries, 3 Tul. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 1 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  77. Correa, Carlos, Guidelines for the Examination of Pharmaceutical Patents:Developing a Public Health Perspective - A Working Paper, Geneva: ICTSD, WHO, UNCTAD (2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  78. Crews, Kenneth D., Looking Ahead and Shaping the Future: Provoking Change in Copyright Law, 49 J. Copyright Soc'y U.S.A. 549 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  79. Crouch, Dennis D., Nil: the Value of Patents in a Major Crisis such as an Influenza Pandemic, 39 Seton Hall L. Rev. 1125 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  80. Crouch, Dennis D., The Patent Lottery: Exploiting Behavioral Economics for the Common Good, 16 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 141 (2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  81. Dam, Kenneth W., The Economic Underpinnings of Patent Law, 23 J. Legal Stud. 247 (1994). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  82. Daniels, Jonathan M./Nestmann, Earle R./Kerr, Alex, Development of Stereoisomeric (Chiral) Drugs: A Brief Review of Scientific and Regulatory Considerations, 31 Drug Info. J. 639 (1997). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  83. Danzon, Patricia M./Epstein, Andrew/Nicholson, Sean, Mergers and Acquisitions in the Pharmaceutical and Biotech Industries, 28 Manage. Decis. Econ. 307 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  84. Darrow, Jonathan J., The Patentability of Enantiomers: Implications for the Pharmaceutical Industry, 2 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 1 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  85. Dasgupta, Partha, Patents, Priority and Imitation or the Economics of Races and Waiting Games, 98 Econ. J. 66 (1988). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  86. Davis, Steven J./Murphy, Kevin M./Topel, Robert H., Entry, Pricing and Product Design in an Initially Monopolized Market, NBER Working Paper No. 8547, Cambridge: NBER (2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  87. den Exter, André, The Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry:‘Hamlet’ in a Nutshell, 17 Eur. J. Health L. 125 (2010). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  88. Denicolò, Vincenzo, Patent Races and Optimal Patent Policy, 44 J. Ind. Econ. 249 (1996). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  89. Denicolò, Vincenzo, Two-Stage Patent Races and Patent Policy, 31 RAND J. Econ. 488 (2000). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  90. Denicolò, Vincenzo/Zanchettin, Piercarlo, How should forward patent protection be provided?, 20 Int'l. J. Indus. Org. 801 (2002). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  91. Dessemontet, François, The Legal Protection of Know-How in the United States of America, Geneva: Librairie Droz, H.W. Clarke trans., 2nd Ed. (1976). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  92. DeStevens, George, Lead Structure Discovery and Development, in: Hansch, Corwin, Sammes, Peter G., and Taylor, John B. (eds.), Comprehensive Medicinal Chemistry: The Rational Design, Mechanistic Study and Therapeutic Applications of Chemical compounds, Oxford: Pergamon Press (1990). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  93. Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt, Jahresbericht 2007, München: DPMA (2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  94. DG Competition, Pharma Sector Inquiry - Final Report (2009), available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/pharmaceuticals/inquiry/staff_working_paper_part1.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  95. Dickson, Michael/Gagnon, Jean Paul, Key Factors in the Rising Cost of New Drug Discovery and Development, 3 Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 417 (2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  96. Dickson, Michael/Gagnon, Jean Paul, The Cost of New Drug Discovery and Development, 4 Discov. Med. 172 (2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  97. DiMasi, Joseph A./Hansen, Ronald W./Grabowski, Henry G., Cost of Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry, 10 J. Health. Econ. 107 (1991). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  98. DiMasi, Joseph A./Hansen, Ronald W./Grabowski, Henry G., The Price of Innovation New Estimates of Drug Development Costs, 22 J. Health Econ. 151 (2003). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  99. Dinwoodie, Graeme B./Dreyfuss, Rochelle C., Diversifying without Discriminating: Complying with the Mandates of the TRIPS Agreement, 13 Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 445 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  100. Doi, Teruo, The Territoriality Principle of Patent Protection and Conflict of Laws: A Review of Japanese Court Decisions, 26 Fordham Int'l L.J. 377 (2002). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  101. Domeij, Bengt, Pharmaceutical patents in Europe, Hague: Kluwer Law International (2000). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  102. Donohue, Julie M/Cevasco, Marisa/Rosenthal, Meredith B., A Decade of Direct-toConsumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs, 357 N. Eng J. Med. 673 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  103. Drexl, Josef, Responding to the Challenges for Development with a Competition-Oriented Approach, in: Barton, John H., Abbott, Frederick M., Correa, Carlos M., Drexl, Josef, Foray, Dominique, and Marchant Ron (eds), Views on the Future of the Intellectual Property System, Geneva: ICTSD (2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  104. Drexl, Josef/Hilty, Reto M./Boy, Laurence/Godt, Christine/Remiche, Bernard (eds), Technology and Competition : Contributions in Honour of Hanns Ullrich, Bruxelles: Larcier (2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  105. Duffy, John F., Rethinking the Prospect Theory of Patents, 71 U. Chi. L. Rev. 439 (2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  106. Duffy, John F., Rules and Standards on the Forefront of Patentability, 51 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 609 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  107. Durham, Alan L., Patent Law Essentials: A Concise Guide, Westport: Praeger (1999). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  108. Dutfield, Graham, Intellectual Property Rights and the Life Science Industries, London: World Scientific Publishing Co., 2nd Ed. (2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  109. Dutfield, Graham/Suthersanen, Uma, The Innovation Dilemma: Intellectual Property and the Historical Legacy of Cumulative Creativity, 8 Intell. Prop. Q. 379 (2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  110. Eidson, B. Scott, How Safe Is the Harbor? Considering the Economic Implications of Patent Infringement in Section 271(e)(1) Analysis, 82 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1169 (2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  111. Eisenberg, Rebecca S., Analyze This: A Law and Economics Agenda for the Patent System, 53 Vand. L. Rev. 2081 (2000). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  112. Eisenberg, Rebecca S., Obvious to Whom? Evaluating Inventions from the Perspective of PHOSITA, 19 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 885 (2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  113. Eisenberg, Rebecca S., Patents and the Progress of Science: Exclusive Rights and Experimental Use, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1017 (1989). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  114. Eisenberg, Rebecca S., The Problem of New Uses, 5 Yale J. Health Pol’y L. & Ethics 717 (2005). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  115. Eisenberg, Rebecca S., The Role of the FDA in Innovation Policy, 13 Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 345 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  116. Ellery, Tony/Hansen, Neal, Pharmaceutical Lifecycle Management: Making the Most of Each and Every Brand, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc (2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  117. Engelberg, Alfred B., Special Patent Provisions for Pharmaceuticals: Have they Outlived Their Usefullness - A Political Legislative and Legal History of U.S. Law and Obersvations for the Future, 39 IDEA 389 (1999). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  118. Engelberg, Alfred B./Kesselheim, Aaron S./Avorn, Jerry, Balancing Innovation, Access, and Profits--Market Exclusivity for Biologics, 361 New Eng. J. Med. 1917 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  119. Eswaran, Mukesh/Gallini, Nancy, Patent Policy and the Direction of Technological Change, 27 RAND J. Econ. 722 (1996). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  120. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, The Pharmaceutical Industry in Figures, 2012, available at: http://www.efpia.eu/sites/www.efpia.eu/ files/EFPIA%20Figures%202012%20Final.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  121. EvaluatePharma, World Preview 2014, (2009) available at: http://www.evaluatepharma.com/pdf/EvaluatePharma%20World%20Preview%202014.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  122. FDA, FY 2011 Innovative Drug Approvals, (2011), available at: http://www.fda.gov/ downloads/aboutfda/reportsmanualsforms/reports/ucm278358.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  123. Federal Trade Commission, Generic Drug Entry Prior to Patent Expiration, an FTC Study, 2002, available at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2002/07/genericdrugstudy.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  124. Federsel, Hans-Jürgen, Process R&D under the Magnifying Glass: Organization, Business Model, Challenges, and Scientific Context, 18 Bioorgan. Med. Chem. 5775 (2010). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  125. Fitt, Robert, Selection Patents and Markush Claims in Europe, 20 Biotechnol. Law Rep. 17 (2010). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  126. Frank, Richard G., Behavioral Economics and Health Economics, NBER Working Paper No. 10881. Cambridge: NBER (2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  127. Frank, Richard. G., Editorial: New Estimates of Drug Development Costs, 22 J. Health Econ. 325 (2003). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  128. von der Freien, Klaus Roth, Von Vollmilch bis Bitter, edelste Polymorphie, 39 Chemie in Unserer Zeit 416 (2005). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  129. Friebel, Guido/Koch, Alexander K./Prady, Delphine/Seabright, Paul, Objective and Incentives at the european Patent Office, Toulouse: Institut d'Economie Industrielle (2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  130. Gagnon, Marc-André/Lexchin, Joel, The Cost of Pushing Pills: A New Estimate of Pharmaceutical Promotion Expenditures in the United States, 5 PLOS Med. e1 (2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  131. Gallini, Nancy/Scotchmer, Suzanne, Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System,in: Jaffe, Adam B., Lerner, Josh, Stern, Scott (eds), Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol. 2, Massachusetts: MIT Press (2002). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  132. Gaudillière, Jean-Paul, Professional or Industrial Order? Patents, Biological Drugs, and Pharmaceutical Capitalism in Early Twentieth Centry Germany, 24 Hist. & Tech. 107 (2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  133. Gaudry, Kate S, Evergreening: a Common Practice to Protect New Drugs, 29 Nature Biotech. 876 (2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  134. Germinario, Claudio, Double Patenting in the Practice of the European Patent Office, IIC 2011, 387. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  135. Gervais, Daniel, The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis, London: Sweet & Maxwell, 4th Ed. (2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  136. Ghofrani, Hossein A./Osterloh, Ian H./Grimminger, Friedrich, Sildenafil: from Angina to Erectile Dysfunction to Pulmonary Hypertension and Beyond, 5 Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 689 (2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  137. Gilbert, Richard/Shapiro, Carl, Opimal patent length and breadth, 21 RAND J. Econ. 106 (1990). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  138. Gilbody, Simon/Wilson, Paul/Watt, Ian, Benefits and harms of direct to consumer advertising: a systematic review, 14 Quality & Safety in Health Care 246 (2005). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  139. Gilfillan, S. C., The Root of Patents, or Squaring Patents by Their Roots, 31 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 611 (1949). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  140. Giron, Danielle, Chracterisation of Salts of Drug Substances, 73 J. Thermal Analysis & Calorimetry 441 (2003). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  141. Glasgow, Lara J., Stretching the Limits of Intellectual Property Rights: Has the Pharmaceutical Industry Gone Too Far?, 41 IDEA 227 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  142. GlaxoSmithKlein, GSK's Position on Evergreening, 2011 available at: http:// www.gsk.com/policies/GSK-and-evergreening.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  143. Gordon, Wendy J., A Property Right in Self-Expression: Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property, 102 Yale L. J. 1533 (1993). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  144. Grabowski, Henry G./Kyle, Margaret, Generic Competition and Market Exclusivity Periods in Pharmaceuticals, 28 Manage. Decis. Econ. 491 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  145. Grabowski, Henry G./Kyle, Margaret, Mergers and Alliances in Pharmaceuticals: Effects on Innovation and R&D productivity, in: Gugler, Klaus and Yurtoglu, B. Burcin (eds.), The Economics of Corporate Governance and Mergers, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  146. Grabowski, Henry G./Vernon, John M., Brand Loyalty, Entry, and Price Competition in Pharmaceuticals after the 1984 Drug Act, 35 J. Law Econ. 331 (1992). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  147. Grabowski, Henry/Vernon, John, Longer Patents for Increased Generic Competition in the US. The Waxman-Hatch Act after One Decade,10 Suppl 2 Pharmacoeconomics 110 (1996). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  148. Grady, Mark F./Alexander, Jay I., Patent Law and Rent Dissipation, 78 Va. L. Rev. 305 (1992). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  149. Green, Jerry R./Scotchmer, Suzanne, On the division of Profit in Sequential Innovation, 26 RAND J. Econ. 20 (1995). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  150. Grubb, Philip W./Thomsen, Peter R., Patents for Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology : Fundamentals of Global Law, Practice and Strategy, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 5th Ed. (2010). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  151. Günzel, Brigitte, Die Anhängigkeit der Stammanmeldung als Voraussetzung für die Einreichung einer Teilanmeldung – ein Bericht und viele Fragen, IIC Int 2008, 644. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  152. Gugler, Klaus/Yurtoglu, B. Burcin (eds.), The Economics of Corporate Governance and Mergers, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  153. Hall, Bronwyn H./Rosenberg, Nathan (eds.), Handbook of The Economics of Innovation, Oxford: Elsevier B.V. (2010). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  154. Hall, Stephen S., The Claritin Effect; Prescription for Profit, The New York Times, March 11, 2001, available at:http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/11/magazine/the-claritin-effect-prescription-for-profit.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  155. Hansch, Corwin/Sammes, Peter G./Taylor, John B. (eds.), Comprehensive Medicinal Chemistry:The Rational Design, Mechanistic Study and Therapeutic Applications of Chemical compounds, Oxford: Pergamon Press (1990). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  156. Hansen, Bernd/Hirsch, Fritjoff, Protecting Inventions in Chemistry - Commentary on Chemical Case Law under the European Patent Convention and the German Patent Law, Weinheim: Wiley-VCH (1997). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  157. Haracoglou, Irina, Competition Law and Patents: a Follow-on Innovation Perspective in the Biopharmaceutical Industry,Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  158. Harhoff, Dietmar, Economic Cost-benefit Analysis of a Unified and Integrated european Patent Litigation System, Tender No MARKT/2008/06/D, Munich: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  159. Harmon, Robert L./Homan, Cynthia A./McMahon, Charles M., Patents and the Federal Crcuit, Arlington: BNA Books, 10th Ed. (2010). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  160. Harrelson, John A., Trips, Pharmaceutical Patents, and the HIV/AIDS Crisis: Finding the Proper Balance between Intellectual Property Rights and Compassion, 7 Wid. L. Symp. J. 175 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  161. Harris, Gardiner, Prilosec's Maker Switches Users To Nexium, Thwarting Generics, The Wall Street Journal, June 6, 2002, available at: http://online.wsj.com/article/ 0,,SB1023326369679910840,00.html Hays, Thomas, An application of the European Rules on Trademark Exhaustion to Extramarket Goods, 91 Trademark Rep. 675 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  162. Heilman RD, Drug development history, "overview," and what are GCPs?, 4 Quality Assurance, 75 (1995). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  163. Heller, Michael A., The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets, 111 Harv. L. Rev. 621 (1998). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  164. Heller, Michael A./Eisenberg, Rebecca S., Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in biomedical Research, 280 Science 698 (1998). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  165. Hemphill, C. Scott/Sampat, Bhaven N., Evergreening, Patent Challenges, and Effective Market Life in Pharmaceuticals, 31 J. Health Econ. 327 (2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  166. Hemphill, C. Scott/Sampat, Bhaven N., Drug Patents at the Supreme Court, 339 Science 1386 (2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  167. Henderson, Rebecca/Cockburn, Iain, Scale, Scope, and Spillovers: The Determinants of Research Productivity in Drug Discovery, 27 RAND J. Econ. 32 (1996). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  168. Henkel, Joachim/Jell, Florian, Alternative Motives to File for Patents: Profiting from Pendency and Publication (2009), Working paper, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1271242. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  169. Herper, Matthew, Solving The Drug Patent Problem, Forbes, February 5, 2002, available at: http://www.forbes.com/2002/05/02/0502patents.html. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  170. Higgins, Matthew J.,/Rodriguez, Daniel, The Outsourcing of R&D through Acquisitions in the Pharmaceutical Industry, 80 J. Financ. Econ. 351 (2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  171. Higgins, Matthew J./Graham, Stuart J. H., Balancing Innovation and Access: Patent Challenges Tip the Scales, 326 Science 370 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  172. Hilty, Reto M., The Role of Patent Quality in Europe, in: Drexl, Josef, Hilty, Reto M., Boy Laurence, Godt, Christine, Remiche, Bernard (eds), Technology and Competition : Contributions in Honour of Hanns Ullrich, Bruxelles: Larcier (2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  173. von Hippel, Eric, The Sources of Innovation, New York: Oxford University Press (1988). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  174. Hoffman, David C., A Modest Proposal: Toward Improved Access to Biotechnology Research Tools by Implementing a Broad Experimental Use Exception, 89 Cornell L. Rev. 993 (2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  175. Holbrook, Timothy R., Possession in Patent Law, 59 SMU L. Rev. 123 (2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  176. Holmes, David, Skies Darken over Drug Companies, 379 Lancet 1863 (2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  177. Hopenhayn, Hugo A./Mitchell, matthew F., Innovation Variety and Patent Breadth, 32 RAND J. Econ. 152 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  178. Hopkins, Andrew L./Groom, Colin R., The Druggable Genome, 1 Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 727 (2002). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  179. Horton, Richard, Vioxx, the implosion of Merck, and aftershocks at the FDA, 364 Lancet 1995 (2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  180. Hovenkamp, Herber/Janis, Mark D./Lemley, Mark A./Leslie, Christopher R., IP and Antitrust - An Analysis of Antitrust Principles Applied to Intellectual Property Law, Austin: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, Aspen Publ, 2nd Ed. (2010). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  181. Howard, Leighton, Use of Patents in Drug Lifecycle Management, 4 J. Generic Med 231 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  182. Hunt, Robert M., Nonobviousness and the Incentive to Innovate: An Economic Analysis of Intellectual Property Reform, Working Paper No. 99-3, Philadelphia: Federal Reserve Bank Of Philadelphia (1999). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  183. Hutt, A.J./Valentová, J., The Chiral Switch: The Development of Single Enantiomer Drgs from Racemates, 50 Acta Facultatis Pharmaceuticae Universitatis Comenianae 7 (2003). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  184. IMAP, Global Pharma and Biotech M&A Report-2012 (2012), available at: http:// www.imap.com/imap/media/resources/Pharma_Report_2012_FINAL_2F6C8ADA76680.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  185. IMS Health, Top 20 Global Products(2010), available at: http://imshealth.com/deployedfiles/imshealth/Global/Content/StaticFile/Top_Line_Data/Top_20_Global_Products.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  186. Ionescu, Corina/Caira, Mino R., Drug Metabolism - Current Concepts, Dordrecht: Springer (2005). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  187. Jack, Andrew, Drugs Groups Forced to Put Squeeze on R&D, Fin. Times, October 17, 2011. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  188. Jackson, Richard T., A Lockean Approach to the Compulsory Patent Licensing Controversy, 9 J. TECH. L. & POL’Y, 117 (2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  189. Jacob, Robin, Novelty of Use Claims, IIC 1996, 170. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  190. Jacob, Robin, Patents and Pharmaceuticals – a Paper given on 29th November at the Presentation of the Directorate-General of Competition’s Preliminary Report of the Pharma-sector Inquiry, December, The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys 711 (2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  191. Jacob, Robin, Some Recent Cases of Significance in the UK, IIC 1997, 880. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  192. Jaenichen, Hans-Rainer, The Grant of a Compulsory License for Recombinant γ-IFN in Germany, 11 Biotechnol. Law Rep. 369 (1992). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  193. Jaffe, Adam B., Lerner Josh, and Stern, Scott (eds), Innovation Policy and Economics, volume 7, Cambridge: MIT press (2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  194. Jaffe, Adam B., The U.S. Patent System in Transition: Policy Innovation and the Innovation Process, 29 Res. Policy 531 (2000). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  195. Jaffe, Adam B./Lerner, Josh, Innovation and Its Discontents - How Our Broken Patent System Is Endangering Innovation and Progress and What To Do About It, Princeton: Princeton University Press (2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  196. Janis, Mark D., On Courts Herding Cats: Contending with the “Written Description” Requirement (and Other Unruly Patent Disclosure Doctrines), 2 Wash. U. J. L. & Pol’y 55 (2000). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  197. Janis, Mark D., Second Tier Patent Protection, 40 Harv. Int'l L. J. 151 (1999). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  198. Jantzen, Gwen M./Robinson, Joseph R, Sustained- and Controlled- Release Drug-Delivery System, in: Banker, Gilbert S and Rhodes Christopher T.(eds), Modern Pharmacetics, 4th Ed. New York: Marcel Dekker (2002). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  199. Johnson-Laird, Andrew, Software Reverse Engineering in the Real World, 19 U. Dayton L. Rev. 843 (1994). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  200. Julian-Arnold, Gianna, International Compulsory Licensing: The Rationales and the Reality, 33 IDEA 349 (1993). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  201. Karmien, Morton I./Schwartz, Nancy L., Market Structure and Innovation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1982). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  202. Kash, Don E/Kingston, William, Patents in a world of complex technologies, 28 Sci. & Pub. Pol’y 11 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  203. Katzenberger, Paul, Mannheim Conference on fundamental Questions of Patent Protection for Chemical Inventions, IIC 1972, 357. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  204. Keeling, David T., Intellectual Property Rights in Eu Law: Free Movement and Competition Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press (2003). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  205. Kefauver, Estes, In a few hands : Monopoly power in America, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books (1966). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  206. Kieff, Scott F., On the Ecnonomics of Patent Law and Policy, in: Toshiko Takenaka (ed), Patent Law and Theory, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited (2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  207. Kieff, Scott F., Property Rights and Property Rules for Commercializing Inventions, 85 Minn. L. Rev. 697 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  208. Kieff, Scott F., The Case for Registering Patents and the Law and Economics of Present Patent-Obtaining Rules, 45 B.C.L.Rev., 55 (2003). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  209. Kieff, Scott F./Schwartz, Herbert F./Newman, Pauline, Principle of Patent Law, New York: Foundation Press, 5th Ed. (2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  210. Kilger, Christian/Feldges, Joachim/Jaenichen, Hans-Rainer, The Erosion Of Compound Protection In Germany: Implementation Of The EU Directive On The Legal Protection Of Biotechnological Inventions -- The German Way, 87 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 569 (2005). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  211. Kitch, Edmund W., Graham v. John Deere Co.: New Standards for Patents, 1966 Sup. Ct. Rev. 293 (1966). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  212. Kitch, Edmund W., The Nature and Function of the Patent System, 20 J. Law Econ. 265 (1977). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  213. Klemperer, Paul, How Broad should the Scope of Patent Protection Be?, 21 Rand J. Econ. 113 (1990). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  214. Kling, Jim, From Hypertension to Angina to Viagra, 1 Modern Drug Discov. 31 (1998). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  215. Klöpsch, Gerald, The Patentability of Pharmaceuticals According to the European Patent Collection (EPC), IIC 1982, 457. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  216. Knowles, Jonathan/Gromo, Gianni, Target Selection in Drug Discovery, 2 Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 63 (2003). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  217. Kola, Ismail/Landis, John, Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates?, 3 Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 711 (2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  218. Kraßer, Rudolf, Patentrecht, 6th Ed. München: C. H. Beck (2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  219. La Manna, Manfredi, M.A., Optimal Patent Life vs Optimal patentability standards, 10 Int'l. J. Indus. Org. 81 (1992). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  220. Lakdawalla, Darius N./Goldman, Dana P./Michaud, Pierre-Carl/Sood, Neeraj/Lempert, Robert/Cong, Ze/Vries, Han de/Gutierrez, Italo, U.S. Pharmaceutical Policy In A Global Marketplace, 28 Health Affairs w138 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  221. Landes, William M./Posner, Richard A., The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law, Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press (2003). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  222. Langreth, Robert/Murphy, Victoria, Perennial Patents, Forbes, Apr. 2, 2001, available at: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0402/052_print.html. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  223. Lanjouw, Jean O./Schankerman, Mark, Patent Quality and Research Productivity: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators, 114 Econ. J. 441 (2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  224. Lemley, Mark A., Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office, 95 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1495 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  225. Lemley, Mark A., The Economics of Improvement in Intellectual Property Law, 75 Tex. L. Rev. 989 (1997). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  226. Lerner, Joschua, The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis, 25 RAND J. Econ. 319 (1994). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  227. Lerner, Josh/Merges, Robert P., The Control of Strategic Alliances: An Empirical Analysis of Biotechnology Collaborations, NBER Working Paper No. 6014. Cambridge: NBER (1997). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  228. Lessig, Lawrence, Intellectual Property and Code, 11 St. John's J. Legal Comment. 635 (1996). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  229. Levin, Richard C./Klevorick, Alvin K./Nelson, richard R/ Winter, Sidney G., Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development, 1987 Brookings Paper on Econ. Activity, 783 (1987). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  230. Lichtenberg, Frank R., Are The Benefits Of Newer DrugsWorth Their Cost? Evidence From The 1996 MEPS-The newer the drug in use, the less spending on nondrug items, 20 Health Affair. 241 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  231. Lichtenberg, Frank R., The Impact of New Drug Launches on Longevity: Evidence from Longitudinal, Disease-Level Data from 52 Countries, 1982–2001, 5 Int. J. Health Care Fi. 47 (2005). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  232. Lichtman, Douglas/Baker, Scott/Kraus, Kate, Strategic Disclosure in the Patent System, 53 Vand. L. Rev. 2175 (2000). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  233. Lindgardt, Zhenya/Reeves, Martin/Wallenstein, Judith, Waking the giant: business model innovation in the drug industry, 26 In Vivo: Bus. Med. Rep. 1 (2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  234. Long, Clarisa, Our Uniform Patent System, 55 Fed. Law. 44 (2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  235. Luski, Israel/Wettstein, David, An Optimal Patent Policy in a Dynamic Model of Innovation, 1 Probl. Perspect. Manage. 31 (2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  236. Machlup, Fritz, An Economic Review of the Patent System : Study No. 15 of the subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 85th Congress, 2nd Sess. / Fritz Machlup. - Washington : G P O (1958). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  237. Macomber, Roger, Organic Chemistry, Sausalito: University Science Books (1996). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  238. Mahajan, Anthony J., Note, Intellectual Property, Contracts and Reverse Engineering after ProCD: A Proposed Compromise for Computer Software, 67 Fordham L. Rev. 3297 (1999). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  239. Mahato, Ram I./Narang, Ajit S., Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms and Drug Delivery, Boca Ranton: CRC Press, 2nd Ed (2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  240. Mahn, Terry G., Patenting Drug Products: Anticipating Hatch-Waxman Issues during the Claims Drafting Process, 54 Food & Drug L.J. 245 (1999). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  241. Mann, Ronald D./Andrews, Elizabeth B, Introduction, in: Mann, Ronald D., and Andrews, Elizabeth B (eds), Pharmacovigilance, Chichester: John Willey & Sons, Ltd. (2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  242. Mansell, Peter, Who is afraid of the patent cliff? 1 Scrip Executive Briefing 1 (2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  243. Mansfield, Edwin, Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study, 32 Manage. Sci. 173 (1986). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  244. Mansfield, Edwin/Schwartz, Mark/Wagner, Samuel, Imitation Costs and Patents: an Empirical Study, 91 Econ. J. 907 (1981). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  245. Mansfield, Peter/Henry, David/Tonkin, Anne, Single-Enantiomer Drugs: Elegant Science, Disappointing Effects,43 Clin. Pharmacokinet. 287 (2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  246. Martin, Ben R./Nightingale, Paul (eds.), The Political Economy of Science, Technology, and Innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited (2000). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  247. Martinez, Barbara/Mathews, Anna Wilde/ Lublin, Joann S./Winslow, Ron, Merck Pulls Vioxx from Market After Link to Heart Problems, Wall St. J., Oct. 1, 2004, available at: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109654671320932405,00.html. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  248. Matutes, Carmen/Regibeau, Pierre/Rockett, Katharine, Optimal Patent Design and the diffusion of Innovation, 27 RAND J. Econ. 60 (1996). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  249. Mauer, Stephen M./Scotchmer, Suzanne, The Independent-Invention Defense in Intellectual Property, 69 Economica 535 (2002). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  250. Mazzoleni, Roberto/Nelson, Richard R, The Benefits and Costs of Strong Patent Protection: A Contribution to the Current Debate. 27 Res. Policy, 273 (1998). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  251. McGuire, Alistair/Drummond, Michael/Rutten, Frans, Reimbursement of pharmaceuticals in the European Union, in: Mossialos, Elias, Mrazek, Monique F. and Walley, Tom (eds.), Regulating pharmaceuticals in Europe: striving for efficiency, equity, and quality. European Observatory on health systems and policies . Maidenhead: Open University Press (2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  252. Meier-Beck, Peter, Die Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs zum Patent und Gebrauchsmusterrecht im Jahr 2008, GRUR 2009, 893. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  253. Merck, Merck Press Release, Merck Settles Thousands of Vioxx Claims for $4.85 Billion, Nov. 9, 2007, available at: http://www.officialvioxxsettlement.com/documents/Offical%20Press%20Release%20-%20Vioxx%20Settlement.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  254. Merges, Robert P., A Brief Note on Blocking Patents and Reverse Equivalents: Biotechnology as an Example, 73 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 878 (1991). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  255. Merges, Robert P., Commercial Success and Patent Standards: Economic Perspectives on Innovation, 76 Cal. L. R. 803 (1988). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  256. Merges, Robert P., Intellectual Property Rights and Bargaining Breakdown: the Case of Blocking Patents, 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 75 (1994). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  257. Merges, Robert P., One Hundred Years of Solicitude: Intellectual Property Law, 88 Cal. L. Rev. 2187 (2000). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  258. Merges, Robert P., Uncertainty and the Standard of Patentability, 7 High Tech. L. J. 1 (1992). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  259. Merges, Robert P./Duffy, John F., Patent Law and Policy: Cases and Materials, Newark: LexisNexis, 5th Ed. (2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  260. Merges, Robert P./Nelson, Richard R., On Limiting or Encouragine Rivalry in Technical Progress: The Effect of Patent Scope Decision, 25 J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 1 (1994). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  261. Merges, Robert P./Nelson, Richard R., On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope, 90 Colum. L. Rev. 839 (1990). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  262. Meurer, Michael J., Business Method Patents and Patent Floods, 8 Wash. U. J. L. & Pol’y 309 (2002). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  263. Michele Boldrin/David K. Levine., Against Intellectual Monopoly, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press (2010). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  264. Miller, Christ P./Evans, Mark J. The Chemist's Companion Guide to Patent Law, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc (2010). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  265. Morgan, Steven G/Bassett, Kenneth L/Wright, James M/Evans, Robert G/Barer, Morris L/Caetano, Patricia A/Black, Charlyn D, “Breakthrough” Drugs and Growth in Expenditure on Prescription Drugs in Canada, 331 Brit. Med. J. 815 (2005). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  266. Mueller, Janice M., The Evolving Application of the Written Description Requirement to Biotechnological Inventions, 13 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 615 (1998). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  267. Mueller, Janice M./Chisum, Donald S., Enabling Patent Law’s Inherent Anticipation Doctrine, 45 Hous. L. Rev. 1101 (2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  268. Munos, Bernard, Lessons from 60 Years of Pharmaceutical Innovation, 8 Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 959 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  269. Nastelski, Karl, Product Protection for Chemical Inventions in Germany, IIC 1972, 267. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  270. Nathan, Carl/Goldberg, Frederick M., The Profit Problem in Antibiotic R&D, 4 Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 887 (2005). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  271. National Institute for Health Care Management Research and Educational Foundation, Changing patterns of pharmaceutical innovation. Washington, DC;NIHCM (2002). Available at: http://nihcm.org/pdf/innovations.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  272. Nelson, Richard R., The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research, in: Martin, Ben R./Nightingale, Paul (eds.), The Political Economy of Science, Technology, and Innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited (2000). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  273. Nelson, Richard, R./Winter, Sidney G., An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press (1982). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  274. Nordhaus, William D., Invention, Growth, and Welfare - A Theoretical Treatment of Technological Change, Massachusetts: MIT Press (1969). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  275. Norrby, S. Ragnar/Nord, Carl Erik/Finch, Roger, Lack of Development of New Antimicrobial Drugs: a Potential Serious Threat to Public Health, 5 Lancet Infect. Dis. 115 (2005). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  276. O’Donoghue, Ted, A Patentability Requirement for Sequential Innovation, 29 RAND J. Econ. 654 (1998). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  277. O'Donoghue, Ted, Patent Protection When Innovation is Cumulative, Ann Arbor: UMI Company (1996). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  278. O'Donoghue, Ted, Suzanne Scotchmer, and Jacques-François Thisse, 7 J. Econ. Manage.Strat. 1 (1998). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  279. Oellerich, Michael/Armstrong, Victor W., Prodrugs Metabolites: Implications for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, 47 Clin. Chem. 805 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  280. Osterrieth, Christian/Köhler, Martin/Haft, Klaus (eds), Patentrecht, Festschrift für Thomas Reimann zum 65. Geburtstag, Köln: Carl Hezmanns Verlag (2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  281. Outterson, Kevin/Samora,Julie B./Keller-Cuda, Karen, Will Longer Antimicrobial Patents Improve Global Public Health?, 7 Lancet Infect. Dis. 559 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  282. Owen-Smith, Jason/Powell, Walter W, To Patent or Not: Faculty Decisions and Institutional Success at Technology Transfer, 26 J. Technol. Transfer 99 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  283. Pagenberg, Jochen, Beweisanzeichen auf dem Prüfstand Für eine objektive Prüfung auf erfinderische Tätigkeit, GRUR Int 1986, 83. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  284. Parthasarathy, R/Goddar, Heinz, Patentability of Pharmaceutical Products in India - The Novartis Case, IIC 2009, 38. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  285. Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, Annual Report 2004, Ottawa: PMPRB (2005). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  286. Paul, Steven M./Mytelka, Daniel S./Dunwiddie, Christopher T./Persinger, Charles C./ Munos, Bernard H./Lindborg, Stacy R./Schacht, Aaron L., How to Improve R&D Productivity: the Pharmaceutical Industry’s Grand Challenge, 9 Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 203 (2010). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  287. Peterson, John M., Finite Mathematics, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston (1974). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  288. Pfizer, Annual Review 2009, (2009), available at: http://www.pfizer.com/files/annualreport/2009/annual/review2009.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  289. Pifferi, G./Perucca, E., The Cost Benefit Ratio of Enantiomeric Drugs, 20 Eur. J. Drug Metab. Ph. 15 (1995). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  290. Pisano, Gary P., Science Business: the Promise, the Reality, and the Future of Biotech, Boston: Harvard Business School Press (2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  291. Power, Eddie, Impact of Antibiotic Restrictions: the Pharmaceutical Perspective, 12 Clin. Microbiol. Infec. 25 (1998). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  292. Privitera, Michael, Large Clinical Trials in Epilepsy: Funding by the NIH versus Pharmaceutical Industry, 68 Epilepsy Res. 52 (2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  293. Rai, Arti K., Fostering Cumulative Innovationin the Biopharmaceutical Industry: The Role of Patents and Antitrust 16 Berkerly. Tech. L. J. 813 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  294. Rai, Arti K., Intellectual Property Rights in Biotechnology: Addressing New Technology 34 Wake Forest L. Rev. 827 (1999). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  295. Rai, Arti K., The Information Revolution Reaches Pharmaceuticals: Balancing Innovation Incentives, Cost, and Access in the Post-Genomics Era, 2001 Ill. L. Rev. 173 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  296. Rautio, Jarkko/Kumpulainen, Hanna/Heimbach, Tycho/Oliyai, Reza/Oh, Dooman/Järvinen, Tomi/Savolainen, Jouko, Prodrugs: Designs and Clinical Applications, 7 Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 255 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  297. Reichman, Jerome H., Intellectual Property in the Twenty-First Century: Will the Developing Countries Lead or Follow? 46 Hous L. Rev. 1115 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  298. Reichman, Jerome H./Hasenzahl, Catherine, Non-Voluntary Licensing of Patented Inventions: Historical Perspective, Legal Frame-work under TRIPS, and an Overview of the Practice in Canada and the USA1-2, (2003), Issue Paper, Geneva: ICTSDUNCTAD, available at: http://ictsd.net/downloads/2008/ 06/cs_reichman_hasenzahl.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  299. Reichman,Jerome H./Dreyfuss, Rochelle C., Harmonization without Consensus: Critical Reflections on Drafting a Substantive Patent Law Treaty, 57 Duke L. J. 85 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  300. Roberts, Tim, Broad Claims for Biotechnological Inventions, EIPR, 1994, 371. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  301. Robinson, Christopher, Patent Protection for Chemical Products in Canada, Great Britain and the United States, IIC 1972, 139. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  302. Rockett, Katharine, Property Rights and Inventions, in: Hall, Bronwyn H./Rosenberg, Nathan (eds.), Handbook of The Economics of Innovation, Oxford: Elsevier B.V. (2010). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  303. Roin, Benjamin N., Unpatentable Drugs and the Standards of Patentability, 87 Tex. L. Rev. 503 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  304. Rose, Carol M., Possession as the Origin of Property, 52 U. Chi. L. Rev. 73 (1985). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  305. Rosenbaum, Sara E., Basic Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics, An Integrated Textbook and computer Simulations, New Jersey: John Wiley& Sons, Inc (2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  306. Rucker, T. Donald, Public Policy and Drug Cost: Legitimate and Bastard Options, in: Smith Mickey C (ed), Studies in Pharmaceutical Economics, Binghamton: The Haworth Press, Inc (1996). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  307. Russ, Andreas P./Lampel, Stefan, The Druggable Genome: an Update, 10 Drug Discov. Today. 1607 (2005). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  308. Sachs, George/Shin, Jai M./Howden, Collin W., Review Article: the Clinical Pharmacology of Proton Pump Inhibitors, 23 (Suppl. 2) Aliment Pharm. Ther. 2 (2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  309. Safir, Peter O., Current Issues in the Pioneer Versus Generic Drug Wars, 50 Food & Drug L. J. 335 (1995). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  310. Sampson, Margaret, The Evolution of the Enablement and Written description Requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in the Area of Biotechnology, 15 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1233 (2000). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  311. Satchell, Ralph D., Chemical Product Patent Practice in the United Kingdom, IIC 1970, 179. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  312. Scherer, Frederic M./Ross, David, Industrial market structure and economic performance, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 3rd Ed. (1990). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  313. Scherer, Frederic M., Innovation and Growth: Schumpeterian Perspectives, Cambridge: The MIT Prress (1984). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  314. Scherer, Frederic M., Pharmaceutical Innovation, Massachusetts: John F.Kennedy School of Government (2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  315. Scherer, Frederic M., The Link Between Gross Profitability and Pharmaceutical R&D Spending, 20 Health Affair. 216 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  316. Scherer, Frederic M., The Pharmaceutical Industry — Prices and Progress, 351 New Eng. J. Med. 927 (2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  317. Schmied-Kowarzik, Volker, Chemical Inventions According to the New German Patent Act, IIC 1970, 190. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  318. Schneider, Dieter R., Patenting of Pharmaceuticals – Still a Challenge?, IIC 2008, 511. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  319. Schumpeter, Joseph A., Kapitalismus, Sozialismus und Demokratie, Bern: Verlag A. Francke AG. (1942). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  320. Schumpeter, Joseph, Business Cycle, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company (1939). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  321. Schumpeter, Joseph, Theorie der Wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, Berlin: Duncker & Humbolt (1964). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  322. Schuster, Daniela/Laggner, Christian/Langer, Thierry, Why Drugs Fail - A Study on side Effects in New Chemical Entities, 11 Current Pharmaceutical Design 3545 (2005). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  323. Schweitzer, Stuart O., Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy, Oxford: Oxford University Press (2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  324. Scotchmer, Suzanne, On the Optimality of the Patent Renewal System, 30 RAND J. Econ. 181 (1999). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  325. Scotchmer, Suzanne, Protecting Early Innovators: Should Second-Generation Products be Patentable?, 27 Rand J. Econ. 322 (1996). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  326. Scotchmer, Suzanne, Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law, 5 J. Econ. Perspect. 29 (1991). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  327. Scotchmer, Suzanne/Green, Jerry, Novelty and Disclosure in Patent Law, 21 RAND J. Econ. 131 (1990). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  328. Scudellari, Megan, Teaching an Old Drug New Tricks, The Scientist, April 1, 2011, available at: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/29617/title/ Teaching-an-Old-Drug-New-Tricks/. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  329. Seager, Spencer L./Slabaugh, Michael R., Chemistry for Today - General, Organic, & Biochemistry, Belmont: Brooks/Cole (2010). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  330. Seißer, Goetz, Perfecting Imperfect Competition, Economics Discussion Papers No 2008-28, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (2008), available at: http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/2008-28 Seymore, Sean B., Rethinking Novelty in Patent Law, 60 Duke L. J., 919 (2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  331. Shadowen, Steve D./Leffler, Keith B./Lukens, Joseph T., Bringing Market Discipline to Pharmaceutical Product Reformulations, IIC 2011, 698. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  332. Shavell, Steven, Foundations of Economic Analysis of Law, Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press (2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  333. Singer, Romuald/Singer, Margarete, The European Patent Convention : a Commentary / Raph Lunzer, rev. English, London: Sweet & Maxwell (1995). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  334. Smith, Austin, 'No' to Ban on Stem-Cell Patents, 472 Nature 418 (2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  335. Somaya, D. 2012. Patent Strategy and Management. 38 J. Manage. 1084 (2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  336. Spellberg, Brad/Miller,Loren G./Kuo, Melissa N./Bradley, John/Scheld, William M./Edwards, John E., Societal Costs Versus Savings from Wild-Card Patent Extension Legislation to Spur Critically Needed Antibiotic Development, 35 Infection 167 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  337. Spenner, Jonathan M., Obvious-to Try Obviousness of Chemical Enantiomers in View of Pre-and Post-KSR Analysis, 90 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y, 477 (2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  338. Stafford, Randall S., Regulating Off-Label Drug Use —Rethinking the Role of the FDA, 358 N Engl J Med, 1427 (2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  339. Steele, Henry, Monopoly and Competition in the Ethical Drugs Market, 5 J. Law Econ. 131 (1962). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  340. Strandburg, Katherine J., Patent Fair Use 2.0, 1 UC Irvine L.R.,265 (2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  341. Straus, Joseph, Patent Application: Obstacle for Innovation and Abuse of Dominant Position under Article 102 TFEU? 1 J. E. C. L. & Pract. 189 (2010). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  342. Straus, Joseph, Zur Rolle klinischer Versuche beim Zustandekommen von so genannten Auswahlerfindungen, in: Osterrieth, Christian, Köhler, Martin, Haft, Klaus (eds), Patentrecht, Festschrift für Thomas Reimann zum 65. Geburtstag, Köln: Carl Hezmanns Verlag (2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  343. Svatos, Michele, Biotechnology and the Utilitarian Argument for Patents, 13 Soc. Philos. Policy. 113 (1996). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  344. Sweet, Miles J., The Patentability of Chiral Drugs Post-KSR: The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same, 24 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 129 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  345. Szabo, George S. A, The Problem and Solution Approach in the European Patent Office, IIC 1995, 457. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  346. Talbot, George H./Bradley,John/Edwards, John E./Jr., Gilbert, David/Scheld, Michael/ Bartlett, John G., Bad Bugs Need Drugs: An Update on the Development Pipeline from the Antimicrobial Availability Task Force of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 42 Clin Infect Dis. 657 (2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  347. Teece David J., Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy, 15 Res. Policy 285 (1986). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  348. Temin, Peter, Technology, Regulation, and Market Structure in the Modern Pharmaceutical Industry, 10 Bell J. Econ. 429 (1979). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  349. ter Meer, Nicolaus, German Chemical Patent Law 1965-1975, 57 J. Pat. Off. Soc'y 763 (1975). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  350. Teschemacher, Rudolf, Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO Restores Legal Certainty for Divisional Applications – Established Practice Confirmed, IIC 2007, 703. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  351. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, Did you know? Facts and Figures about the Pharmaceutical Industry in the UK, 2nd Ed. (2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  352. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), Bad Bugs, no Drugs: as Antibiotic Discovery Stagnates, a Public Health Crisis Brews, Alexandria: ISDA (2004), available at: http://cdm266901.cdmhost.com/cdm/singleitem/collection/p266901coll4/id/ 801/rec/14. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  353. Thomas, John R., Formalism at the Federal Circuit, 52 Am. U. L. Rev. 771 (2003). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  354. Thomas, Katie, Pfizer Races to Reinvent Itself, The New York Times, May 1, 2012, avilable at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/business/pfizer-profit-declines-19after-loss-of-lipitor-patent.html. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  355. Thomas, Kimberly M. , Protecting Academic and Non-Profit Research: Creating a Compulsory Licensing Provision in the Absence of an Experimental Use Exception, 23 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L. J. 347 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  356. Thomson Reuters, Top 100 Global Innovators (2011), available at: http:// blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/files/2011/11/analysis.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  357. Thomson Reuters, Top 100 Global Innovators (2012), available at: http://img.en25.com/ Web/ThomsonReutersScience/1001639.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  358. Tilmann, Winfried, Validity of Selective Product Claims – Venice Conferences III and V, Lundbeck and Olanzapine, IIC 2010, 149. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  359. Tucker, Geoffrey T., Chiral Switches, 355 Lancet 1085 (2000). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  360. Tuominen, Nicoleta, Patenting Strategies of the EU Pharmaceutical Industry Crossroad between Patent Law and Competition Policy, Research Papers in Law 1/2011, Belgium: European Legal Studies (2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  361. U.S. Department of Commerce International Trade Administration, Pharmaceutical Price Controls in OECD Countries - Implications for U.S. Consumers, Pricing, Research and Development, and Innovation, Washington, DC: USITA (2004), available at: http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/chemicals/drugpricingstudy.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  362. UK Office of Fair Trading, The Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme, London: Crown Copyright (2007), available at: http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/ comp_policy/oft885.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  363. UNCTAD-ICTSD, Resource Book on TRIPS and Development, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2005). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  364. United States General Accountability Office, Prescription Drugs: Trends in FDA's Oversight of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising (2008) available at: http://www.gao.gov/ new.items/d08758t.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  365. United States General Accounting Office, Prescription drugs: FDA oversight of directto-consumer advertising has limitations (2002) available: http://www.gao.gov/ new.items/d03177.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  366. Valance, Edward H., Understanding the Markush Claim in Chemical Patents, 1 J. Chemical Documentation, 87 (1961). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  367. Van Dijk, Theon, Patent Height and Competition in Product Improvements, 44 J. Ind. Econ. 151 (1996). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  368. Vernon, John A, Drug Research and Price Controls, Winter, Regulation, 22 (2002-2003). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  369. Vivian, Michael F., Novelty and Selection Inventions, IIC 1989, 303. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  370. Voet, Martin A., The Generic Challenge- Understanding Patents, FDA and Pharmaceutical Life Cycle Management, Florida: Brown Walker Press, 3rd Ed. (2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  371. Vossius, Corinna/Vossius, Tilman/Vossius, Volker, Der Terfenadin-Verletzungsstreit; zum Standard der Neuheitsprüfung, GRUR 1994, 472. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  372. Vossius, Volker, Selection Inventions in Chemistry According to German Patent Law A Problem of Novelty, 59 J. Pat. Off. Soc'y 180 (1977). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  373. Vossius, Volker, Stoffschutz für Auswahlerfindungen auf dem Gebiet der Chemie, GRUR 1976, 165. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  374. Wagner, R. Polk, (Mostly) against Exceptionalism, 50 Adv. Genet. 367 (2003). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  375. zu Waldeck und Pyrmont, Wolrad P./Adelmann, Martin J./Brauneis, Robert/Drexl, Joseph/Nack, Ralph (eds), Patents and Technological Progress in a Globalized World, Liber Amicorum Joseph Straus, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer (2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  376. zu Waldeck und Pyrmont, Wolrad Prinz, BGH: Enantiomer eines bekannten Razemats kann patentiert warden- „Escitalopram“, GRUR-Prax, 2010, 13. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  377. Weaver, Mark/Perakis, Nikolaos/Riolo, Joseph, Novelty-Current Trends in the Jurisprudence of the boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 15 World Pat. Info. 81 (1993). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  378. Weissman, Robert, A Long, Strange Trips: The Pharmaceutical Industry Drive to Harmonize Global Intellectual Property Rules, and the Remaining WTO Legal Alternatives Available to Third World Countries, 25 U. Pa. J. Int’l Econ. L. 1079 (2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  379. Wermuth, Camille G., Strategies in the Search for New Lead Compounds or Original Working Hypotheses, in: Wermuth, Camille G. (ed), The Practice of Medicinal Chemistry, Burlington: Elsevier Ltd, 3rd Ed. (2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  380. Wertheimer, Albert I./Santella, Thomas M./Chaney, Nicole M., The World Health Organization’s Essential Medicines List: An Endorsement of Incremental Innovation and Follow-On Research, 17 J. Pharmaceut. Marketing Manage. 25 (2005). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  381. Wertheimer, Albert/Levy, Richard/O'Connor, Thomas, Too many drugs? The Clinical and Economic Value of Incremental Innovations, in: Farquhar, Irina, Summers, Kent and Sorkin, Alan (eds), Investing in Health: The Social and Economic Benefits of Health Care Innovation, Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd. (2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  382. Whalen, Jeanne/Stovall, Sten, AstraZeneca Plans to cut 7300 Jobs, the Wall Street Journal, February 2, 2012, available at: http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB10001424052970203711104577198264263381758.html. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  383. White, C. Michael, Why a Seventeen Year Patent, 38 J. Pat. Off. Soc'y 839 (1956). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  384. Wibbelmann, Jobst, Broad Claims: a Nuisance, EIPR 1997, 515. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  385. William, Johnson. A., Invitation to Organic Chemistry, Sudbury: Jones and Barlett (1999). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  386. Willkens, Robert F./Segre, Eugene J., Combination Therapy with Naproxen and Aspirin in Rheumatoid Arthritis, 19 Arthritis & Rheumatism 677 (2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  387. Wilson, Duff, Drug Firms Face Billions in Losses in ’11 as Patents End, The New York Times, March 6, 2011, available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/business/ 07drug.html?pagewanted=all. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  388. WIPO, PCT, The International Patent System, Yearly Review, Development and Performance in 2012, (2012), available at: http://www.wipo.int/freepublications/en/ patents/901/wipo_pub_901_2012.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  389. Witherspoon, John F. (ed), Nonobviousness:The Ultimate Condition of Patentability: Papers Compiled in Commemoration of the Silver Anniversary of 35 USC 103,Washington: The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc (1980). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  390. World Bank, The World Bank Legal Review: Law and Justice for Development, Washington D.C.: Inc. World Bank (2003). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  391. Yu, Yu/Sachin,Gupta, Pioneering Advantage in Generic Drug Competition, Johnson School Research Paper Series No. 37-06, Ithaca: The Johoson School at Cornell University (2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  392. Zentiva, Zentiva the Unifying Brand for Sanofi-aventis’ European Generics Business, Zentiva Press Release, Apr. 4, 2011, available at: http://www.zentiva.com/mediacentre/press-releases/pages/press-release-detail.aspx?ItemId=6. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  393. Zhang, Yuting/Soumerai, Stephen B., Do Newer Prescription Drugs Pay For Themselves? A Reassessment Of The Evidence, 26 Health Affair. 880 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  394. Zins, Gerald D., The History of the Development of Minoxidil, 6 Clin. Dermatol. 132 (1988). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  395. OTHER SOURCES EPO glossary, available at: http://www.epo.org/service-support/glossary.html. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  396. Espacenet, available at: http://worldwide.espacenet.com. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  397. European Patent Register, available at: https://register.epo.org/espacenet/regviewer. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  398. FDA, Drugs@FDA Glossary of Terms, available at: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/QuestionsAnswers/ucm100100.htm FDA, Generic Drugs: Same Medicine, Lower Cost, available at: http://www.fda.gov/ downloads/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/UCM340458.pdf FDA, Information for Consumers, available at: http://www.fda.gov/ Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/BuyingUsingMedicineSafely/UnderstandingGenericDrugs/ ucm144456.htm. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  399. O’Hagan, P/Farkas, Charles, Bringing pharma R&D back to health. Bain Insights [online], (2009) available at: http://www.bain.com/Images/BB_Managing_RandD_HC.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  400. Orange Book: Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, available at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/default.cfm. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  401. Posner, Richard A., Do Patent and Copyright Law Restrict Competition and Creativity Excessively?, Sep, 30, 2012, available at: http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/ 2012/09/do-patent-and-copyright-law-restrict-competition-and-creativity-excessively-posner.html Teva, Teva Completes Acquisition of Cephalon, Teva News Release, October 14, 2001, available at: http://ir.tevapharm.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=73925&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1617357&highlight= USPTO, USPTO Press Release #09-21 (Oct. 8, 2009), available at: http://www.uspto.gov/ news/09_21.jsp. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  402. WHO, International nonproprietary name, available at: http://www.who.int/medicines/ services/inn/en/. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861
  403. WHO, Pharmaceutical products, available at: http://www.who.int/topics/pharmaceutical_products/en/. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783845250861

Ähnliche Veröffentlichungen

aus der Reihe "Munich Intellectual Property Law Center - MIPLC Studies"
Cover des Buchs: The Relationship between Law and Biomedical Sciences in the Context of Article 53(a) of the European Patent Convention
Monographie Vollzugriff
Jurgita Randakevičiūtė-Alpman
The Relationship between Law and Biomedical Sciences in the Context of Article 53(a) of the European Patent Convention
Cover des Buchs: Personality Merchandising and the GDPR: An Insoluble Conflict?
Monographie Vollzugriff
Jingzhou Sun
Personality Merchandising and the GDPR: An Insoluble Conflict?
Cover des Buchs: Merger Regulation in Eastern and Southern Africa
Monographie Vollzugriff
Vincent Angwenyi
Merger Regulation in Eastern and Southern Africa
Cover des Buchs: The Notion of Secrecy
Monographie Vollzugriff
Teresa Trallero Ocaña
The Notion of Secrecy
Cover des Buchs: Unlocking the Right to Data Portability
Monographie Vollzugriff
Stephanie Elfering
Unlocking the Right to Data Portability

Hinweis

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt und darf nur nach den Vorgaben der Nutzungs- und Lizenzvereinbarung genutzt werden. Jede darüber hinaus gehende Nutzung des Werkes ist ausdrücklich untersagt und wird verfolgt.

Feedback geben

Wir freuen uns über Ihr Feedback zu Inhalten und Funktionen. Ihre Nachricht hilft uns, unseren Service stetig zu verbessern.

Bewertung
Bild anhängen
oder hier ablegen
PNG oder JPG (max. 3 MB)

Anmelden

Passwort vergessen?
Login über Ihre Institution (SSO, Shibboleth, OpenAthens)
Noch kein Benutzerkonto?
Jetzt registrieren

Publikation zitieren

Download: RIS BibTex