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

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.org/10.1038/471280a
  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
  3. Abramowicz, Michael/Duffy, John F., Intellectual Property for Market Experimentation, 83 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 337 (2008). Google Scholar öffnen
  4. Abramowicz, Michael/Duffy, John F., The Inducement Standard of Patentability, 120 Yale L.J. 1590 (2011). Google Scholar öffnen
  5. Agranat, Israel/Caner, Hava, Intellectual Property and Chirality of Drugs, 4 Drug Discov. Today 313 (1999). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1016/S1359-6446(99)01363-X
  6. Agranat, Israel/Wainschtein, Silvya R., The Strategy of Enantiomer Patents of Drugs, 15 Drug Discov. Today 163 (2010). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2010.01.007
  7. Alazraki, Melly, The 10 Biggest-Selling Drugs that are about to Lose Their Patents, DailyFinance, February 27, 2011. Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  9. Angell, Marcia, The Pharmaceutical Industry: To whom Is It Accountable?, 342 New Eng. J. Med. 1902 (2000). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200006223422509
  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
  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
  12. Anonymous, Bigger isn't Always Better, 418 Nature 353 (2002). Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  14. Anonymous, The Disclosure Function of the Patent System (or Lack Thereof), 118 Harv. L. Rev. 2007(2005). Google Scholar öffnen
  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.org/10.1136/bmj.3.5827.643
  16. Arbex, Danieli S. Costa, Essay on Incentives for Pharmaceutical Research: A Double Push-Pull Program, Ann Arbor: Proquest LLC (2009). Google Scholar öffnen
  17. Ariëns, Everhardus J./Wuis, Eveline W., Bias in Pharmacokinetics and Clinical Pharmacology, 42 Clin. Pharmacol. & Ther. 361 (1987). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1038/clpt.1987.163
  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
  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.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2007.11.004
  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.org/10.1515/9781400879762-024
  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
  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
  23. AstraZeneca, AstraZeneca Annual Report 2010, available at: http://www.astrazenecaannualreports.com/AZ_AR_100311_single.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen
  24. AstraZeneca, AstraZeneca Annual Report 2011, available at: http://www.astrazenecaannualreports.com/2011/documents/pdfs/annual_report_pdf_entire.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  26. Avorn, Jerry, Sending Pharma Better Signals, 309 Science 669 (2005). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1126/science.1117448
  27. Bacher/Melullis, in: Benkard, Georg, et al., Patentgesetz, Gebrauchsmustergesetz, 10th Ed. München: C. H. Beck (2006). Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  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.org/10.1002/9781118274408
  30. Bartfai, Tamas/Lees, Graham V., Drug Discovery: From Bedside to Wall Street, Burlington: Elsevier Academic Press (2006). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1016/B978-012369533-8/50031-3
  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.org/10.1089/blr.2008.9902
  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
  33. Beary, John F., Chirality and Drug Development, 339 Lancet 495 (1992). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(92)91104-G
  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
  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
  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
  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
  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.org/10.1257/089533002320950975
  39. Bernstein, Joel, Polymorphism in Molecular Crystals, New York: Oxford University Press (2002). Google Scholar öffnen
  40. Bessen, James/Maskin, Eric, Sequential Innovation, Patents and Imitation, Working Paper No 11/99, Massachusetts: MIT (1999). Google Scholar öffnen
  41. Bessen, James/Maskin, Eric, Sequential Innovation, Patents, and Imitation, 40 RAND J. Econ. 611 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2171.2009.00081.x
  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
  43. Blair, Roger D./Cotter, Thomas F., Rethinking Patent Damages, 10 Tex. Intell. Prop. L. J. 1 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.261357
  44. Blanco White, Thomas A., Patents for inventions and the protection of industrial designs, London: Stevens & Sons, 5th Ed. (1983). Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  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
  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
  48. Brandi-Dohrn, Matthias, Der zu weite Patentanspruch, GRUR Int 1995, 541. Google Scholar öffnen
  49. Brandt, Karsten, Die Schutzfrist des Patents, Munich: C.H. Beck (1996). Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  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
  52. Brown, Lucille J., The Markush Challenge, 31 J. Chem. Inf. Comp. Sci. 2 (1991). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1021/ci00001a001
  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
  54. Buhrow, Astrid/Nordemann, Jan B., Grenzen ausschließlicher Rechte geistigen Eigentums durch Kartellrecht (Q 187), GRUR Int 2005, 407. Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  56. Burk, Dan L./Lemley Mark A., Biotechnology's Uncertainty Principle, 54 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 691 (2003). Google Scholar öffnen
  57. Burk, Dan L./Lemley Mark A., Is Patent Law Technology-Specific?, 17 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1155 (2002). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.349761
  58. Burk, Dan L./Lemley Mark A., Policy Levers in Patent Law, 89 Va. L. Rev. 1575 (2003). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2307/3202360
  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
  60. Caira, Mino R., Crystalline Polymorphism of Organic Compound, in: Weber, Edwin, Design of Organic Solids, Berlin: Springer (1998). Google Scholar öffnen
  61. Caldwell, John, Do Single Enantiomers Have Something Special to Offer?, 16 Hum. Psychopharm. S67 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1002/hup.339
  62. Carmichael, Begley S., Desperately Seeking Cures, News Wk. May 15, 2010, available at: http://www.newsweek.com/id/238078. Google Scholar öffnen
  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.org/10.1021/jm00182a013
  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.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.3.494
  65. Chang, Howard F., Patent Scope, Antitrust Policy, and Cumulative Innovation, 26 RAND J. Econ. 34 (1995). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2307/2556034
  66. Chisum, Donald S., Chisum on Patents, Newark: LexisNexis (2012). Google Scholar öffnen
  67. Chisum, Donald S., Comment: Anticipation, Enablement and Obviousness: An Eternal Glden Braid, 15 AIPLA Q. J. 57 (1987). Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  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.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060812
  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
  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
  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.org/10.3386/w7552
  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.org/10.2307/2550516
  74. Cornelli, Francesca/Schankerman, Mark, Patent renewals and R&D Incentives, 30 RAND J. Econ. 197 (1999). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2307/2556077
  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
  76. Correa, Carlos M., Public Health and Patent Legislation in Developing Countries, 3 Tul. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 1 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  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
  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
  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.org/10.2139/ssrn.1095810
  81. Dam, Kenneth W., The Economic Underpinnings of Patent Law, 23 J. Legal Stud. 247 (1994). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1086/467923
  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.org/10.1177/009286159703100303
  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
  84. Darrow, Jonathan J., The Patentability of Enantiomers: Implications for the Pharmaceutical Industry, 2 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 1 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen
  85. Dasgupta, Partha, Patents, Priority and Imitation or the Economics of Races and Waiting Games, 98 Econ. J. 66 (1988). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2307/2233511
  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.org/10.3386/w8547
  87. den Exter, André, The Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry:‘Hamlet’ in a Nutshell, 17 Eur. J. Health L. 125 (2010). Google Scholar öffnen
  88. Denicolò, Vincenzo, Patent Races and Optimal Patent Policy, 44 J. Ind. Econ. 249 (1996). Google Scholar öffnen
  89. Denicolò, Vincenzo, Two-Stage Patent Races and Patent Policy, 31 RAND J. Econ. 488 (2000). Google Scholar öffnen
  90. Denicolò, Vincenzo/Zanchettin, Piercarlo, How should forward patent protection be provided?, 20 Int'l. J. Indus. Org. 801 (2002). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7187(01)00080-7
  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
  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
  93. Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt, Jahresbericht 2007, München: DPMA (2008). Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  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.org/10.1038/nrd1382
  96. Dickson, Michael/Gagnon, Jean Paul, The Cost of New Drug Discovery and Development, 4 Discov. Med. 172 (2004). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1038/nrd1382
  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.org/10.1016/0167-6296(91)90001-4
  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.org/10.1016/S0167-6296(02)00126-1
  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
  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
  101. Domeij, Bengt, Pharmaceutical patents in Europe, Hague: Kluwer Law International (2000). Google Scholar öffnen
  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.org/10.1056/NEJMsa070502
  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
  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
  105. Duffy, John F., Rethinking the Prospect Theory of Patents, 71 U. Chi. L. Rev. 439 (2004). Google Scholar öffnen
  106. Duffy, John F., Rules and Standards on the Forefront of Patentability, 51 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 609 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen
  107. Durham, Alan L., Patent Law Essentials: A Concise Guide, Westport: Praeger (1999). Google Scholar öffnen
  108. Dutfield, Graham, Intellectual Property Rights and the Life Science Industries, London: World Scientific Publishing Co., 2nd Ed. (2009). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1142/6917
  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
  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
  111. Eisenberg, Rebecca S., Analyze This: A Law and Economics Agenda for the Patent System, 53 Vand. L. Rev. 2081 (2000). Google Scholar öffnen
  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.org/10.1628/093245604773861168
  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.org/10.2307/1599761
  114. Eisenberg, Rebecca S., The Problem of New Uses, 5 Yale J. Health Pol’y L. & Ethics 717 (2005). Google Scholar öffnen
  115. Eisenberg, Rebecca S., The Role of the FDA in Innovation Policy, 13 Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 345 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  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
  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.org/10.1056/NEJMp0908496
  119. Eswaran, Mukesh/Gallini, Nancy, Patent Policy and the Direction of Technological Change, 27 RAND J. Econ. 722 (1996). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2307/2555879
  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
  121. EvaluatePharma, World Preview 2014, (2009) available at: http://www.evaluatepharma.com/pdf/EvaluatePharma%20World%20Preview%202014.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen
  122. FDA, FY 2011 Innovative Drug Approvals, (2011), available at: http://www.fda.gov/ downloads/aboutfda/reportsmanualsforms/reports/ucm278358.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  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
  125. Fitt, Robert, Selection Patents and Markush Claims in Europe, 20 Biotechnol. Law Rep. 17 (2010). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1089/blr.2010.9990
  126. Frank, Richard G., Behavioral Economics and Health Economics, NBER Working Paper No. 10881. Cambridge: NBER (2004). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.3386/w10881
  127. Frank, Richard. G., Editorial: New Estimates of Drug Development Costs, 22 J. Health Econ. 325 (2003). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6296(03)00002-X
  128. von der Freien, Klaus Roth, Von Vollmilch bis Bitter, edelste Polymorphie, 39 Chemie in Unserer Zeit 416 (2005). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1002/ciuz.200590084
  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
  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.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050001
  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
  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.org/10.1080/07341510701810922
  133. Gaudry, Kate S, Evergreening: a Common Practice to Protect New Drugs, 29 Nature Biotech. 876 (2011). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1993
  134. Germinario, Claudio, Double Patenting in the Practice of the European Patent Office, IIC 2011, 387. Google Scholar öffnen
  135. Gervais, Daniel, The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis, London: Sweet & Maxwell, 4th Ed. (2012). Google Scholar öffnen
  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.org/10.1038/nrd2030
  137. Gilbert, Richard/Shapiro, Carl, Opimal patent length and breadth, 21 RAND J. Econ. 106 (1990). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2307/2555497
  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.org/10.1136/qshc.2004.012781
  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
  140. Giron, Danielle, Chracterisation of Salts of Drug Substances, 73 J. Thermal Analysis & Calorimetry 441 (2003). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1023/A:1025461625782
  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
  142. GlaxoSmithKlein, GSK's Position on Evergreening, 2011 available at: http:// www.gsk.com/policies/GSK-and-evergreening.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen
  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.org/10.2307/796826
  144. Grabowski, Henry G./Kyle, Margaret, Generic Competition and Market Exclusivity Periods in Pharmaceuticals, 28 Manage. Decis. Econ. 491 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1002/mde.1356
  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
  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.org/10.1086/467257
  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.org/10.2165/00019053-199600102-00017
  148. Grady, Mark F./Alexander, Jay I., Patent Law and Rent Dissipation, 78 Va. L. Rev. 305 (1992). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2307/1073310
  149. Green, Jerry R./Scotchmer, Suzanne, On the division of Profit in Sequential Innovation, 26 RAND J. Econ. 20 (1995). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2307/2556033
  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
  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
  152. Gugler, Klaus/Yurtoglu, B. Burcin (eds.), The Economics of Corporate Governance and Mergers, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (2008). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.4337/9781848443921.00006
  153. Hall, Bronwyn H./Rosenberg, Nathan (eds.), Handbook of The Economics of Innovation, Oxford: Elsevier B.V. (2010). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7218(10)01001-4
  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
  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
  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
  157. Haracoglou, Irina, Competition Law and Patents: a Follow-on Innovation Perspective in the Biopharmaceutical Industry,Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (2008). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.4337/9781848440111
  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
  159. Harmon, Robert L./Homan, Cynthia A./McMahon, Charles M., Patents and the Federal Crcuit, Arlington: BNA Books, 10th Ed. (2010). Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  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
  162. Heilman RD, Drug development history, "overview," and what are GCPs?, 4 Quality Assurance, 75 (1995). Google Scholar öffnen
  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.org/10.2307/1342203
  164. Heller, Michael A./Eisenberg, Rebecca S., Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in biomedical Research, 280 Science 698 (1998). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1126/science.280.5364.698
  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.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2012.01.004
  166. Hemphill, C. Scott/Sampat, Bhaven N., Drug Patents at the Supreme Court, 339 Science 1386 (2013). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1126/science.1235857
  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.org/10.2307/2555791
  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
  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
  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.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2005.04.004
  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.org/10.1126/science.1176116
  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
  173. von Hippel, Eric, The Sources of Innovation, New York: Oxford University Press (1988). Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  175. Holbrook, Timothy R., Possession in Patent Law, 59 SMU L. Rev. 123 (2006). Google Scholar öffnen
  176. Holmes, David, Skies Darken over Drug Companies, 379 Lancet 1863 (2012). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60793-4
  177. Hopenhayn, Hugo A./Mitchell, matthew F., Innovation Variety and Patent Breadth, 32 RAND J. Econ. 152 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2307/2696402
  178. Hopkins, Andrew L./Groom, Colin R., The Druggable Genome, 1 Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 727 (2002). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1038/nrd892
  179. Horton, Richard, Vioxx, the implosion of Merck, and aftershocks at the FDA, 364 Lancet 1995 (2004). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17523-5
  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
  181. Howard, Leighton, Use of Patents in Drug Lifecycle Management, 4 J. Generic Med 231 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jgm.4950065
  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
  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
  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
  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
  186. Ionescu, Corina/Caira, Mino R., Drug Metabolism - Current Concepts, Dordrecht: Springer (2005). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4142-X
  187. Jack, Andrew, Drugs Groups Forced to Put Squeeze on R&D, Fin. Times, October 17, 2011. Google Scholar öffnen
  188. Jackson, Richard T., A Lockean Approach to the Compulsory Patent Licensing Controversy, 9 J. TECH. L. & POL’Y, 117 (2004). Google Scholar öffnen
  189. Jacob, Robin, Novelty of Use Claims, IIC 1996, 170. Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  191. Jacob, Robin, Some Recent Cases of Significance in the UK, IIC 1997, 880. Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  193. Jaffe, Adam B., Lerner Josh, and Stern, Scott (eds), Innovation Policy and Economics, volume 7, Cambridge: MIT press (2006). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1086/ipe.7.25056187
  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.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00088-8
  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
  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
  197. Janis, Mark D., Second Tier Patent Protection, 40 Harv. Int'l L. J. 151 (1999). Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  199. Johnson-Laird, Andrew, Software Reverse Engineering in the Real World, 19 U. Dayton L. Rev. 843 (1994). Google Scholar öffnen
  200. Julian-Arnold, Gianna, International Compulsory Licensing: The Rationales and the Reality, 33 IDEA 349 (1993). Google Scholar öffnen
  201. Karmien, Morton I./Schwartz, Nancy L., Market Structure and Innovation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1982). Google Scholar öffnen
  202. Kash, Don E/Kingston, William, Patents in a world of complex technologies, 28 Sci. & Pub. Pol’y 11 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.3152/147154301781781660
  203. Katzenberger, Paul, Mannheim Conference on fundamental Questions of Patent Protection for Chemical Inventions, IIC 1972, 357. Google Scholar öffnen
  204. Keeling, David T., Intellectual Property Rights in Eu Law: Free Movement and Competition Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press (2003). Google Scholar öffnen
  205. Kefauver, Estes, In a few hands : Monopoly power in America, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books (1966). Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  207. Kieff, Scott F., Property Rights and Property Rules for Commercializing Inventions, 85 Minn. L. Rev. 697 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  209. Kieff, Scott F./Schwartz, Herbert F./Newman, Pauline, Principle of Patent Law, New York: Foundation Press, 5th Ed. (2011). Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  211. Kitch, Edmund W., Graham v. John Deere Co.: New Standards for Patents, 1966 Sup. Ct. Rev. 293 (1966). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1086/scr.1966.3108745
  212. Kitch, Edmund W., The Nature and Function of the Patent System, 20 J. Law Econ. 265 (1977). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1086/466903
  213. Klemperer, Paul, How Broad should the Scope of Patent Protection Be?, 21 Rand J. Econ. 113 (1990). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2307/2555498
  214. Kling, Jim, From Hypertension to Angina to Viagra, 1 Modern Drug Discov. 31 (1998). Google Scholar öffnen
  215. Klöpsch, Gerald, The Patentability of Pharmaceuticals According to the European Patent Collection (EPC), IIC 1982, 457. Google Scholar öffnen
  216. Knowles, Jonathan/Gromo, Gianni, Target Selection in Drug Discovery, 2 Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 63 (2003). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1038/nrd986
  217. Kola, Ismail/Landis, John, Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates?, 3 Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 711 (2004). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1038/nrd1470
  218. Kraßer, Rudolf, Patentrecht, 6th Ed. München: C. H. Beck (2009). Google Scholar öffnen
  219. La Manna, Manfredi, M.A., Optimal Patent Life vs Optimal patentability standards, 10 Int'l. J. Indus. Org. 81 (1992). Google Scholar öffnen
  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.org/10.7249/RP1380
  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
  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.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.41781
  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.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2004.00216.x
  224. Lemley, Mark A., Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office, 95 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1495 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.261400
  225. Lemley, Mark A., The Economics of Improvement in Intellectual Property Law, 75 Tex. L. Rev. 989 (1997). Google Scholar öffnen
  226. Lerner, Joschua, The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis, 25 RAND J. Econ. 319 (1994). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2307/2555833
  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.org/10.3386/w6014
  228. Lessig, Lawrence, Intellectual Property and Code, 11 St. John's J. Legal Comment. 635 (1996). Google Scholar öffnen
  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.org/10.2307/2534454
  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.org/10.3386/w8147
  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
  232. Lichtman, Douglas/Baker, Scott/Kraus, Kate, Strategic Disclosure in the Patent System, 53 Vand. L. Rev. 2175 (2000). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.243414
  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
  234. Long, Clarisa, Our Uniform Patent System, 55 Fed. Law. 44 (2008). Google Scholar öffnen
  235. Luski, Israel/Wettstein, David, An Optimal Patent Policy in a Dynamic Model of Innovation, 1 Probl. Perspect. Manage. 31 (2004). Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  237. Macomber, Roger, Organic Chemistry, Sausalito: University Science Books (1996). Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  239. Mahato, Ram I./Narang, Ajit S., Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms and Drug Delivery, Boca Ranton: CRC Press, 2nd Ed (2012). Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  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
  242. Mansell, Peter, Who is afraid of the patent cliff? 1 Scrip Executive Briefing 1 (2008). Google Scholar öffnen
  243. Mansfield, Edwin, Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study, 32 Manage. Sci. 173 (1986). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.2.173
  244. Mansfield, Edwin/Schwartz, Mark/Wagner, Samuel, Imitation Costs and Patents: an Empirical Study, 91 Econ. J. 907 (1981). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2307/2232499
  245. Mansfield, Peter/Henry, David/Tonkin, Anne, Single-Enantiomer Drugs: Elegant Science, Disappointing Effects,43 Clin. Pharmacokinet. 287 (2004). Google Scholar öffnen
  246. Martin, Ben R./Nightingale, Paul (eds.), The Political Economy of Science, Technology, and Innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited (2000). Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  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.org/10.2307/2555792
  249. Mauer, Stephen M./Scotchmer, Suzanne, The Independent-Invention Defense in Intellectual Property, 69 Economica 535 (2002). Google Scholar öffnen
  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.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00048-1
  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
  252. Meier-Beck, Peter, Die Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs zum Patent und Gebrauchsmusterrecht im Jahr 2008, GRUR 2009, 893. Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  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
  255. Merges, Robert P., Commercial Success and Patent Standards: Economic Perspectives on Innovation, 76 Cal. L. R. 803 (1988). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2307/3480538
  256. Merges, Robert P., Intellectual Property Rights and Bargaining Breakdown: the Case of Blocking Patents, 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 75 (1994). Google Scholar öffnen
  257. Merges, Robert P., One Hundred Years of Solicitude: Intellectual Property Law, 88 Cal. L. Rev. 2187 (2000). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2307/3481215
  258. Merges, Robert P., Uncertainty and the Standard of Patentability, 7 High Tech. L. J. 1 (1992). Google Scholar öffnen
  259. Merges, Robert P./Duffy, John F., Patent Law and Policy: Cases and Materials, Newark: LexisNexis, 5th Ed. (2011). Google Scholar öffnen
  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.org/10.1016/0167-2681(94)90083-3
  261. Merges, Robert P./Nelson, Richard R., On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope, 90 Colum. L. Rev. 839 (1990). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2307/1122920
  262. Meurer, Michael J., Business Method Patents and Patent Floods, 8 Wash. U. J. L. & Pol’y 309 (2002). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.311087
  263. Michele Boldrin/David K. Levine., Against Intellectual Monopoly, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press (2010). Google Scholar öffnen
  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.org/10.1002/9780470636916
  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.org/10.1136/bmj.38582.703866.AE
  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
  267. Mueller, Janice M./Chisum, Donald S., Enabling Patent Law’s Inherent Anticipation Doctrine, 45 Hous. L. Rev. 1101 (2008). Google Scholar öffnen
  268. Munos, Bernard, Lessons from 60 Years of Pharmaceutical Innovation, 8 Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 959 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1038/nrd2961
  269. Nastelski, Karl, Product Protection for Chemical Inventions in Germany, IIC 1972, 267. Google Scholar öffnen
  270. Nathan, Carl/Goldberg, Frederick M., The Profit Problem in Antibiotic R&D, 4 Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 887 (2005). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1038/nrd1878
  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
  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
  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
  274. Nordhaus, William D., Invention, Growth, and Welfare - A Theoretical Treatment of Technological Change, Massachusetts: MIT Press (1969). Google Scholar öffnen
  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.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(05)70086-4
  276. O’Donoghue, Ted, A Patentability Requirement for Sequential Innovation, 29 RAND J. Econ. 654 (1998). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2307/2556088
  277. O'Donoghue, Ted, Patent Protection When Innovation is Cumulative, Ann Arbor: UMI Company (1996). Google Scholar öffnen
  278. O'Donoghue, Ted, Suzanne Scotchmer, and Jacques-François Thisse, 7 J. Econ. Manage.Strat. 1 (1998). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1162/105864098567317
  279. Oellerich, Michael/Armstrong, Victor W., Prodrugs Metabolites: Implications for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, 47 Clin. Chem. 805 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen
  280. Osterrieth, Christian/Köhler, Martin/Haft, Klaus (eds), Patentrecht, Festschrift für Thomas Reimann zum 65. Geburtstag, Köln: Carl Hezmanns Verlag (2009). Google Scholar öffnen
  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.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(07)70188-3
  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.org/10.1023/A:1007892413701
  283. Pagenberg, Jochen, Beweisanzeichen auf dem Prüfstand Für eine objektive Prüfung auf erfinderische Tätigkeit, GRUR Int 1986, 83. Google Scholar öffnen
  284. Parthasarathy, R/Goddar, Heinz, Patentability of Pharmaceutical Products in India - The Novartis Case, IIC 2009, 38. Google Scholar öffnen
  285. Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, Annual Report 2004, Ottawa: PMPRB (2005). Google Scholar öffnen
  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.org/10.1038/nrd3078
  287. Peterson, John M., Finite Mathematics, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston (1974). Google Scholar öffnen
  288. Pfizer, Annual Review 2009, (2009), available at: http://www.pfizer.com/files/annualreport/2009/annual/review2009.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen
  289. Pifferi, G./Perucca, E., The Cost Benefit Ratio of Enantiomeric Drugs, 20 Eur. J. Drug Metab. Ph. 15 (1995). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1007/BF03192284
  290. Pisano, Gary P., Science Business: the Promise, the Reality, and the Future of Biotech, Boston: Harvard Business School Press (2006). Google Scholar öffnen
  291. Power, Eddie, Impact of Antibiotic Restrictions: the Pharmaceutical Perspective, 12 Clin. Microbiol. Infec. 25 (1998). Google Scholar öffnen
  292. Privitera, Michael, Large Clinical Trials in Epilepsy: Funding by the NIH versus Pharmaceutical Industry, 68 Epilepsy Res. 52 (2006). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2005.09.020
  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
  294. Rai, Arti K., Intellectual Property Rights in Biotechnology: Addressing New Technology 34 Wake Forest L. Rev. 827 (1999). Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  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
  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
  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
  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
  300. Roberts, Tim, Broad Claims for Biotechnological Inventions, EIPR, 1994, 371. Google Scholar öffnen
  301. Robinson, Christopher, Patent Protection for Chemical Products in Canada, Great Britain and the United States, IIC 1972, 139. Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  303. Roin, Benjamin N., Unpatentable Drugs and the Standards of Patentability, 87 Tex. L. Rev. 503 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen
  304. Rose, Carol M., Possession as the Origin of Property, 52 U. Chi. L. Rev. 73 (1985). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2307/1599571
  305. Rosenbaum, Sara E., Basic Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics, An Integrated Textbook and computer Simulations, New Jersey: John Wiley& Sons, Inc (2011). Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  307. Russ, Andreas P./Lampel, Stefan, The Druggable Genome: an Update, 10 Drug Discov. Today. 1607 (2005). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1016/S1359-6446(05)03666-4
  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.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.02943.x
  309. Safir, Peter O., Current Issues in the Pioneer Versus Generic Drug Wars, 50 Food & Drug L. J. 335 (1995). Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  311. Satchell, Ralph D., Chemical Product Patent Practice in the United Kingdom, IIC 1970, 179. Google Scholar öffnen
  312. Scherer, Frederic M./Ross, David, Industrial market structure and economic performance, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 3rd Ed. (1990). Google Scholar öffnen
  313. Scherer, Frederic M., Innovation and Growth: Schumpeterian Perspectives, Cambridge: The MIT Prress (1984). Google Scholar öffnen
  314. Scherer, Frederic M., Pharmaceutical Innovation, Massachusetts: John F.Kennedy School of Government (2007). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.902395
  315. Scherer, Frederic M., The Link Between Gross Profitability and Pharmaceutical R&D Spending, 20 Health Affair. 216 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.20.5.216
  316. Scherer, Frederic M., The Pharmaceutical Industry — Prices and Progress, 351 New Eng. J. Med. 927 (2004). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1056/NEJMhpr040117
  317. Schmied-Kowarzik, Volker, Chemical Inventions According to the New German Patent Act, IIC 1970, 190. Google Scholar öffnen
  318. Schneider, Dieter R., Patenting of Pharmaceuticals – Still a Challenge?, IIC 2008, 511. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2174/138920108786786394
  319. Schumpeter, Joseph A., Kapitalismus, Sozialismus und Demokratie, Bern: Verlag A. Francke AG. (1942). Google Scholar öffnen
  320. Schumpeter, Joseph, Business Cycle, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company (1939). Google Scholar öffnen
  321. Schumpeter, Joseph, Theorie der Wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, Berlin: Duncker & Humbolt (1964). Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  323. Schweitzer, Stuart O., Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy, Oxford: Oxford University Press (2007). Google Scholar öffnen
  324. Scotchmer, Suzanne, On the Optimality of the Patent Renewal System, 30 RAND J. Econ. 181 (1999). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2307/2556076
  325. Scotchmer, Suzanne, Protecting Early Innovators: Should Second-Generation Products be Patentable?, 27 Rand J. Econ. 322 (1996). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2307/2555929
  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.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.29
  327. Scotchmer, Suzanne/Green, Jerry, Novelty and Disclosure in Patent Law, 21 RAND J. Econ. 131 (1990). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2307/2555499
  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.org/10.1038/nm0311-234a
  329. Seager, Spencer L./Slabaugh, Michael R., Chemistry for Today - General, Organic, & Biochemistry, Belmont: Brooks/Cole (2010). Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  331. Shadowen, Steve D./Leffler, Keith B./Lukens, Joseph T., Bringing Market Discipline to Pharmaceutical Product Reformulations, IIC 2011, 698. Google Scholar öffnen
  332. Shavell, Steven, Foundations of Economic Analysis of Law, Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press (2004). Google Scholar öffnen
  333. Singer, Romuald/Singer, Margarete, The European Patent Convention : a Commentary / Raph Lunzer, rev. English, London: Sweet & Maxwell (1995). Google Scholar öffnen
  334. Smith, Austin, 'No' to Ban on Stem-Cell Patents, 472 Nature 418 (2011). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1038/472418a
  335. Somaya, D. 2012. Patent Strategy and Management. 38 J. Manage. 1084 (2012). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1177/0149206312444447
  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.org/10.1007/s15010-007-6269-7
  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
  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.org/10.1056/NEJMp0802107
  339. Steele, Henry, Monopoly and Competition in the Ethical Drugs Market, 5 J. Law Econ. 131 (1962). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1086/466587
  340. Strandburg, Katherine J., Patent Fair Use 2.0, 1 UC Irvine L.R.,265 (2011). Google Scholar öffnen
  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.org/10.1093/jeclap/lpq011
  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
  343. Svatos, Michele, Biotechnology and the Utilitarian Argument for Patents, 13 Soc. Philos. Policy. 113 (1996). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1017/S0265052500003484
  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
  345. Szabo, George S. A, The Problem and Solution Approach in the European Patent Office, IIC 1995, 457. Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  347. Teece David J., Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy, 15 Res. Policy 285 (1986). Google Scholar öffnen
  348. Temin, Peter, Technology, Regulation, and Market Structure in the Modern Pharmaceutical Industry, 10 Bell J. Econ. 429 (1979). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2307/3003345
  349. ter Meer, Nicolaus, German Chemical Patent Law 1965-1975, 57 J. Pat. Off. Soc'y 763 (1975). Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  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
  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
  353. Thomas, John R., Formalism at the Federal Circuit, 52 Am. U. L. Rev. 771 (2003). Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  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
  356. Thomson Reuters, Top 100 Global Innovators (2011), available at: http:// blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/files/2011/11/analysis.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen
  357. Thomson Reuters, Top 100 Global Innovators (2012), available at: http://img.en25.com/ Web/ThomsonReutersScience/1001639.pdf. Google Scholar öffnen
  358. Tilmann, Winfried, Validity of Selective Product Claims – Venice Conferences III and V, Lundbeck and Olanzapine, IIC 2010, 149. Google Scholar öffnen
  359. Tucker, Geoffrey T., Chiral Switches, 355 Lancet 1085 (2000). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02047-X
  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
  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
  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
  363. UNCTAD-ICTSD, Resource Book on TRIPS and Development, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2005). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511511363.016
  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
  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
  366. Valance, Edward H., Understanding the Markush Claim in Chemical Patents, 1 J. Chemical Documentation, 87 (1961). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1021/c160002a022
  367. Van Dijk, Theon, Patent Height and Competition in Product Improvements, 44 J. Ind. Econ. 151 (1996). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2307/2950643
  368. Vernon, John A, Drug Research and Price Controls, Winter, Regulation, 22 (2002-2003). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1007/BF03257365
  369. Vivian, Michael F., Novelty and Selection Inventions, IIC 1989, 303. Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  371. Vossius, Corinna/Vossius, Tilman/Vossius, Volker, Der Terfenadin-Verletzungsstreit; zum Standard der Neuheitsprüfung, GRUR 1994, 472. Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  373. Vossius, Volker, Stoffschutz für Auswahlerfindungen auf dem Gebiet der Chemie, GRUR 1976, 165. Google Scholar öffnen
  374. Wagner, R. Polk, (Mostly) against Exceptionalism, 50 Adv. Genet. 367 (2003). Google Scholar öffnen
  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.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88743-0
  376. zu Waldeck und Pyrmont, Wolrad Prinz, BGH: Enantiomer eines bekannten Razemats kann patentiert warden- „Escitalopram“, GRUR-Prax, 2010, 13. Google Scholar öffnen
  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.org/10.1016/0172-2190(93)90162-P
  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
  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
  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.org/10.3109/J058v17n02_04
  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
  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
  383. White, C. Michael, Why a Seventeen Year Patent, 38 J. Pat. Off. Soc'y 839 (1956). Google Scholar öffnen
  384. Wibbelmann, Jobst, Broad Claims: a Nuisance, EIPR 1997, 515. Google Scholar öffnen
  385. William, Johnson. A., Invitation to Organic Chemistry, Sudbury: Jones and Barlett (1999). Google Scholar öffnen
  386. Willkens, Robert F./Segre, Eugene J., Combination Therapy with Naproxen and Aspirin in Rheumatoid Arthritis, 19 Arthritis & Rheumatism 677 (2006). Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  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
  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
  390. World Bank, The World Bank Legal Review: Law and Justice for Development, Washington D.C.: Inc. World Bank (2003). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1596/0-8213-5064-1
  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.org/10.2139/ssrn.925346
  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
  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.org/10.1377/hlthaff.26.3.880
  394. Zins, Gerald D., The History of the Development of Minoxidil, 6 Clin. Dermatol. 132 (1988). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1016/0738-081X(88)90078-8
  395. OTHER SOURCES EPO glossary, available at: http://www.epo.org/service-support/glossary.html. Google Scholar öffnen
  396. Espacenet, available at: http://worldwide.espacenet.com. Google Scholar öffnen
  397. European Patent Register, available at: https://register.epo.org/espacenet/regviewer. Google Scholar öffnen
  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
  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
  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
  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
  402. WHO, International nonproprietary name, available at: http://www.who.int/medicines/ services/inn/en/. Google Scholar öffnen
  403. WHO, Pharmaceutical products, available at: http://www.who.int/topics/pharmaceutical_products/en/. Google Scholar öffnen

Ähnliche Veröffentlichungen

aus dem Schwerpunkt "Urheberrecht & Medienrecht"
Cover des Buchs: Der Verbraucherschadensersatzanspruch gemäß § 9 Absatz 2 UWG
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Fabian Göllner
Der Verbraucherschadensersatzanspruch gemäß § 9 Absatz 2 UWG
Cover des Buchs: Die Beurteilung von Faktenchecks nach dem Äußerungsrecht
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Alexander Heimann
Die Beurteilung von Faktenchecks nach dem Äußerungsrecht
Cover des Buchs: Fake News und Meinungsfreiheit
Sammelband Kein Zugriff
Gerhard Benn-Ibler, Peter Lewisch
Fake News und Meinungsfreiheit
Cover des Buchs: Der Wandel des Urheberrechts
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Nele Klostermeyer
Der Wandel des Urheberrechts
Cover des Buchs: Der Schutz der Meinungsfreiheit auf Online-Plattformen
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Lennard Lehmann
Der Schutz der Meinungsfreiheit auf Online-Plattformen

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 via Open Athens
Noch kein Benutzerkonto?
Jetzt registrieren

Publikation zitieren

Download: RIS BibTex