首页> 外文OA文献 >Healthcare Innovation and Patent Law’s ‘Pharmaceutical Privilege’: Is there a pharmaceutical privilege? And if so, should we remove it?
【2h】

Healthcare Innovation and Patent Law’s ‘Pharmaceutical Privilege’: Is there a pharmaceutical privilege? And if so, should we remove it?

机译:医疗保健创新和专利法的“药品特权”:是否有药品特权?如果是这样,我们应该删除它吗?

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

This article reviews current trends in patent claims regarding personalised, stratified and precision medicine. These trends are not particularly well understood by policymakers, even less by the public, and are quite recent. Consequently, their implications for the public interest have hardly been thought out. Some see personalised and other secondary drug patent claims as promoting better targeted treatment. Others are inclined to see them as manifestations of ‘evergreening’ whereby companies are, in some cases quite cynically, trying to extend market monopolies in old products or creating new monopolies based on supposedly improved versions of such earlier drugs. The article claims that the relaxation of ‘novelty’ is a privilege unavailable to inventions in other fields and that on balance the patent system does privilege this industry and that no adequate case has yet been made thus far to prove the public benefits overall.
机译:本文回顾了有关个性化,分层和精密医学的专利权利要求的最新趋势。决策者对这些趋势了解得不是特别好,公众也很少了解这些趋势,而且这些趋势是最近才出现的。因此,几乎没有考虑过它们对公共利益的影响。一些人认为个性化和其他二级药物专利主张促进了更好的靶向治疗。其他人则倾向于将它们视为“常绿”的体现,在这种情况下,公司在某些情况下非常愤世嫉俗地试图扩大旧产品的市场垄断地位,或者根据据称对这些较早药物的改进版本来建立新的垄断地位。文章声称,“新颖性”的放松是其他领域的发明所没有的特权,总的说来,专利制度确实使该行业享有特权,并且迄今为止,还没有充分的证据证明总体公共利益。

著录项

  • 作者

    Dutfield, GM;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2017
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 en
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号