Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/105607
|
| Title: | 生物相似性藥品之產業分析與法律評估: 以上市許可規範與智慧財產權為核心
The industry analysis and legal assessment of biosimilars: focusing on approval regulations and intellectual property rights |
| Authors: | 李昕彥
Li, Hsin Yen |
| Contributors: | 沈宗倫
Shen, Chung Lun
李昕彥
Li, Hsin Yen |
| Keywords: | 生物相似性藥品
生物藥品價格競爭與創新法
專利舞蹈
專利資訊交換機制
可互換性
自動替換
適應症外推
法定專屬權
Biosimilar
Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act
Patent dance
Patent information exchange mechanism
Interchangeability
Automatic substitution
Extrapolation
Statutory exclusivity |
| Date: | 2016 |
| Issue Date: | 2017-01-04 12:00:41 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 生物藥品是很多先前具致命性和難以治療的疾病領域，像是癌症、自體免疫疾病及神經系統疾病內最被看好的現行新穎療法。近年來，隨著探索出突破性小分子藥物愈趨困難，加上生物藥品在新藥研發過程中有較低的折損率與較高的成功產出率，使得越來越多藥廠紛紛轉向開發利潤豐厚的大分子生物產品。此外許多暢銷生物藥品專利期即將屆至，從而帶來對相對價廉、通常被稱為原廠生物藥品仿製版本之「生物相似性藥品」的龐大治療需求。然而，由於生物藥品和小分子藥物在分子大小及結構複雜程度方面存在截然不同的特性與本質差異，因此建立一套專屬於生物相似性藥品的上市許可規範勢在必行。
作為於2010年3月23日正式簽署公告之「患者保護及可負擔照護法案」中的一部分，美國國會通過了「生物藥品價格競爭與創新法」(BPCIA)。BPCIA的生效被視為製藥產業最重要的變革之一，旨在藉由競爭達到維護公眾健康、促進生物技術創新和控制醫療支出之目的，同時取得適當之三方利益平衡。BPCIA即以Hatch-Waxman法案下的化學學名藥核准途徑為模版，創建生物藥品簡易上市申請程序。
本論文的結構主要區分為兩大部分進行研究，其一提供了製藥產業概觀與全球生物藥品市場的發展趨勢，其二則聚焦在BPCIA新建立的核准前專利爭端解決程序下，生物相似性藥品面臨「專利舞蹈」時的法律評估及智慧財產權管理。
論文的第一部分係根據從各種市場研究報告收集、整理而成的統計數據，以系統性的方式深入介紹全球製藥產業，並分析生物相似性藥品的市場機會和潛在隱憂。另外此部分亦詳細說明了生物相似性藥品的生理活性、知識斷層與製程依賴性之間的關係、分析技術對生物產品做完整定性的不足以及生物相似性藥品的開發流程。
論文的第二部分則以討論BPCIA的重要條文規定為主，包括專利舞蹈制度和上市審查要求，諸如生物相似性之證明、可互換性之認定與適應症外推。其他相關議題，包含參考藥品的法定專屬權保護期長度、生物相似性藥品自動替換之立法化、專利資訊交換機制的可能濫用及原廠與生物相似藥廠達成反競爭協議之風險皆會予以進一步探討。除此之外，本部分也介紹了歐盟和台灣生物相似性藥品上市法規的沿革與現況。
本文試圖透過對生物相似性藥品的全方位綜合研究成果，提出可行的市場進入方案及善用專利和營業祕密優勢之智慧財產權保護佈局策略。
Biologics represent many of the most promising novel therapies for previously deadly and intractable disease areas like cancer, autoimmune disease and neurological disorders. As discovery of breakthrough small-molecule drugs becomes more difficult, together with lower attrition rate and higher productivity of biologics in the new drug research and development (R&D) process, pharmaceutical companies are increasingly turning to develop lucrative large-molecule biological products in recent years. In addition, the patents on numerous blockbuster biologics treatments will soon expire, bringing soaring demand for relatively inexpensive generic versions of originator biologics, generally known as “biosimilars.” However, due to contrasting characteristics and natural differences in terms of size and structural complexity between biologics and small-molecule drugs, it is necessary to create a regulatory pathway solely for biosimilars.
As part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which was officially signed into law on March 23, 2010, the U.S. Congress passed the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). The BPCIA is considered one of the more significant overhauls to the pharmaceutical industry, aiming to strike a proper balance among securing public interests, stimulating biotechnology innovation and controlling healthcare expenditure through competition. It established an abbreviated approval pathway for biosimilars modeled closely after the Hatch-Waxman Act’s approval process for generic chemical drugs.
The structure of this thesis is divided into two major parts, of which the first part provides an overview of pharmaceutical industry and trends in the global biologics market, whereas the second part focuses on the legal assessment and intellectual property management of biosimilars under BPCIA’s new pre-approval patent dispute resolution process, the “patent dance”.
The first part starts from the in-depth systematic introduction of global pharmaceutical industry based on statistics collected from various market research reports, then analyzes the market opportunities and potential concerns for biosimilars. Moreover, this part illustrates the physiological properties, the relationship between “knowledge gap”and manufacturing path-dependence, the insufficieny of analytical techniques in fully characterizing biological products, and the development process of biosimilars in details.
The second part discusses key provisions of the BPCIA, including the patent dance procedures and regulatory requirements, such as demonstrating biosimilarity, interchangeability and extrapolation. Other relevant issues include the length of statutory exclusivities granted to reference products, legislations on biosimilar automatic substitution, potential abuses of patent information exchange mechanism and risks of reaching anti-competitive agreements between pioneers and biosimilar manufacturers will be further discussed. Besides, this part describes the timeline and status quo of EU and Taiwan’s biosimilar approval regulations.
With comprehensive study on multiple aspects of biosimilars, this article tries to propose feasible market access plans and robust intellectual property protection strategies capitalizing upon patents and trade secrets. |
| Reference: | 一、 中文資料
(一) 書籍
1. 王旻、譚樹華，生物製藥技術，2004年7月。
2. 忻凌偉，先導化合物最佳化：組合式化學簡介，特定標的之新藥開發，教育部顧問室生物技術科技人才培育先導型計畫醫藥基因生物技術教學資源中心，2005年。
3. 張靜，營業秘密法及相關智權問題，2007年2月，2版。
4. 劉國讚，專利法之理論與實用，2014年1月，2版。
5. 謝銘洋，智慧財產權法，2016年3月，6版。
6. 饒秀珍，生醫新視野：生技產業投資停看聽，2014年5月。
(二) 期刊論文
1. 李素華，專利權讓與之給付義務與權利瑕疵擔保-臺灣高等法院九十五年度上字第一○三二號民事判決，月旦裁判時報，第11期，2011年11月。
2. 李素華，醫藥發明之專利個案探討：以我國長青樹藥品專利為例，臺大法學論叢，第41卷第2期，2012年6月。
3. 沈宗倫，由專利法教示因果關係論專利進步性：以組合專利與類似組合專利為中心，臺大法學論叢，第42卷第2期，2013年6月。
4. 沈宗倫，專利法之基本用語與法律體系概述，月旦法學教室，第141期，2014年7月。
5. 林宗緯，Hatch-Waxman法案及我國既有法規之比較-對我國引進專利連結制度之建議，萬國法律，第201期，2015年6月。
6. 夏禾、陳鋕雄，資料專屬權與專利保護制度之競合：以美國藥品上市法制為中心，智慧財產評論，第12卷第1期，2014年5月。
7. 張哲倫、李素華，專利法之經濟結構-經濟分析理論對於臺灣專利制度運作之啟發，月旦法學雜誌，第234期，2014年11月。
8. 許曉芬，從歐洲醫藥產業看競爭法對智慧財產權之限制，萬國法律，第203期，2015年10月。
9. 陳文吟，由美國法制探討生物藥品專利，月旦民商法雜誌，第4期，2004年6月。
10. 陳文吟，從美國核准動物專利之影響評估動物專利之利與弊，台大法學論叢，26卷4期，1997年7月。
11. 陳文吟，論兼採專利制度與資料專屬權鼓勵醫藥品研發之必要性，專利師，第21期，2015年4月。
12. 陳桂恒、吳東哲，TPP下的「特定藥品上市之相關措施」-以美國「專利連結」、「專利舞蹈」為例，萬國法律，第206期，2016年4月。
13. 傅冬卿、陳鋕雄，論生物相似藥品上市審查規範：以美國生物相似藥品價格競爭與創新法為師或為鑑?，智慧財產評論，11卷2期，2013年10月。
14. 馮震宇，藥品專利與競爭法之互動-從學名藥逆向付款爭議談起，專利師，第10期，2012年7月。
15. 黃千惠等，紅血球生成素引起之抗體導致的純紅血球再生不良：一病例報告，台灣內科學誌，第20卷第1期，2009年2月。
16. 黃珮珍、王立達，專利法對醫藥衍生發明之合理評價-以已知物質衍生物為中心，成大法學，第23期，2012年6月。
17. 黃慧嫺，專利連結(Patent Linkage)-藥品研發與競爭之阻力或助力？談藥品查驗登記程序與專利權利狀態連結之發展(下)，科技法律透析，21卷3期，2009年2月。
18. 黃慧嫺，談製藥技術研發成果之特別保護機制(下)-以美國藥物法規為例，科技法律透析，第19卷第9期，2007年9月。
19. 楊崇森，美國法上之營業秘密保護，中興法學，第23期，1986年11月。
(三) 學位論文
1. 何孟璁，論生物相似性藥品之上市規範與智慧財產保護，國立臺灣大學科際整合法律學研究所碩士論文， 2009年6月。
2. 沈雅慧，由學名藥侵權訴訟評估均等論在生物相似藥侵權訴訟的影響-以美國為例，國立政治大學法學院在職專班碩士論文，2016年3月。
3. 楊子弘，論生物相似性藥品之上市規範-以美國、臺灣及中國大陸為核心，國立清華大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，2012年4月。
4. 楊馥璟，醫藥品上市審查規範與專利權保護之研究-從學名藥到生物相似藥品之演進，國立政治大學法律科際整合研究所碩士論文，2014年6月。
(四) 法規命令
1. 生技新藥產業發展條例 (2007年7月4日)
2. 生物相似性單株抗體藥品查驗登記基準 (2015年12月4日)
3. 專利法 (2014年1月22日)
4. 營業秘密法 (2013年1月30日)
5. 醫師法 (2012年12月19日)
6. 藥事法 (2015年12月2日)
7. 藥品查驗登記審查準則-生物相似性藥品 (2008年11月21日)
8. 藥師法 (2014年7月16日)
(五) 研究報告
1. 勤業眾信聯合會計師事務所，生物相似性藥品商機觀察從全球發展看台灣機會，2016年。
二、外文資料
(一) 書籍
1. Beers, Donald O.&Karst, Kurt R., Generic and Innovator Drugs: A Guide to FDA Approval Requirements (8th.ed. 2013).
2. Blass, Benjamin E., Basic Principles of Drug Discovery and Development (2015).
3. Branden, C.&Tooze,J., Introduction to Protein Structure (2d. ed. 1999).
4. Culyer, Anthony J., Encyclopedia of Health Economics (2014).
5. Golan, David E., M.D. et al., Principles of Pharmacology: The Pathophysiologic Basis of Drug Therapy (2d.ed. 2007).
6. Grubb, Philip W.&Thomsen, Peter R., Patents for Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology: Fundamentals of Global Law, Practice and Strategy (5th ed. 2010).
7. Lednicer, D., The Organic Chemistry of Drug Stnthesis (2008).
8. Stokes, Donald E., Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation (1997).
9. Upadhye, S., Generic Pharmaceutical Patent and FDA Law (2010).
(二) 期刊論文
1. Ahmed, I. et al., Biosimilars: impact of biologic product life cycle and European experience on the regulatory trajectory in the United States. Clin. Ther. 2012 Feb;34(2): 400.
2. Alten, R.&Cronstein, B.N., Clinical trial development for biosimilars. Semin. Arthritis Rheum. 2015 Jun;44(6 Suppl): S2.
American Pharmacists Association, The biosimilar pathway: Where will it lead us? Pharmacy Today, 67 (2011).
3. Arrow, Kenneth J., Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention, in The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, 609 (Universities-National Bureau ed., 1962).
4. Bajorath, J., Integration of virtual and high-throughput screening. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2002 Nov;1(11): 882.
5. Baker, Brook K., Ending Drug Registration Apartheid: Taming Data Exclusivity and Patent / Registration Linkage, 34 AM. J.L. & MED. 303 (2008).
6. Beck, A., Biosimilar, Biobetter and next Generation Therapeutic Antibodies. MAbs. 2011 Mar-Apr; 3(2): 107.
7. Bennett, Charles L. et al., Regulatory and clinical considerations for biosimilar oncology drugs. Lancet Oncol. 2014 December; 15(13): 594.
8. Berkowitz, Steven A. et al., Analytical Tools for Characterizing Biopharmaceuticals and theImplications for Biosimilars. 11 Nat. Rev. Drug. Discov. 527 (2012).
9. Berlec, A.&Strukelj, B., Current state and recent advances in biopharmaceutical production in Escherichia coli, yeasts and mammalian cells. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2013 Apr;40 (3-4):257.
10. Blackstone, E.&Fuhr, J., Innovation and competition: Will biosimilars succeed? Biotechnol.Healthcare 2012;9(1):24.
11. Blackstone, Erwin A.&Fuhr, Joseph P., Jr., The Future of Competition in the Biologics Market, 31 TEMP. J. SCI. TECH. & ENVTL. L. 1, 23 (2012).
12. Boven, K. et al., The increased incidence of pure red cell aplasia with an Eprex formulation in uncoated rubber stopper syringes. Kidney Int. 2005;67(6): 2346.
13. Browne, S.M.&Al-Rubeai, M., Selection methods for high-producing mammalian cell lines. Cell Line Dev. 425 (2007).
14. Bui, L.A. et al., Key considerations in the preclinical development of biosimilars. Drug Discov. Today. 2015 May;20 Suppl 1: 3.
15. Butler, M.&Spearman, M., The choice of mammalian cell host and possibilities for glycosylation engineering. 30 Current Opinion in Biotechnology 107 (2014).
16. Butler, M., Animal Cell Cultures: Recent Achievements and Perspectives in the Production of Biopharmaceuticals, 68 Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 283 (2005).
17. Calo-Fernandez, B.&Martinez-Hurtado, J., Biosimilars: Company strategies to capture value from the biologics market, Pharmaceuticals 2012:5(12), 1393.
18. Calvo, B.&Zuniga, L., The U.S. approach to biosimilars: The long awaited FDA approval pathway. Biodrugs 2012;26(6): 357.
19. Carver, Krista H. et al., An Unofficial Legislative History of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, 65 FOOD & DRUG L.J. 671 (2010).
20. Chakravarthy, R. et al., Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development. Public and private sector contributions to the research & development of the most transformational drugs of the last 25 years. (2015).
21. Cockburn, Iain M., The Changing Structure of the Pharmaceutical Industry, Health Affairs. vol. 23 no.1 10 (2004).
22. Cohen, Wesley M. et al., Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not), National Bureau of Economic Research; NBER Working Paper No. 7552 (2000).
23. Cohen, Wesley M.&Levinthal, Daniel A., Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation, 35 ADMIN. SCI. Q. 128 (1990).
24. Courage, N.&Parsons, A., The Comparability Conundrum: Biosimilars in the United States, Europe and Canada, 66 FOOD & DRUG L.J. 203 (2011).
25. Daller, J., Biosimilars: A consideration of the regulations in the United States and European union. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2016 Apr; 76: 199.
26. Davis, C., Note: Take Two and Call Congress in the Morning: How the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act May Fail to Prevent Systemic Abuses in the Follow-on Biologics Approval Process, 81 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1255 (2013).
27. Declerck, P. et al., Biosimilarity Versus Manufacturing Change: Two Distinct Concepts. Pharm. Res. 2016 Feb;33(2): 261.
28. Declerck, P.J., Biologicals and Biosimilars: A Review of the Science and Its Implications, Generics and Biosimilars Initiative Journal 2012;1(1): 13.
29. Dieppe, P.A. et al., Lessons from withdrawal of rofecoxib, BMJ. 2004 Oct 16; 329(7471): 867.
30. DiMasi, J.A. et al., Cost of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry, Journal of Health Economics 10 (2), 107 (1991).
31. DiMasi, J.A. et al., Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: New estimates of R&D costs. J. Health. Econ. 47: 20 (2016).
32. DiMasi, J.A. et al., Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: new estimates of R&D costs. Briefing: Cost of Developing a New Drug, Tufts University, Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, (2014).
33. DiMasi, J.A.&Faden, L.B., Competitiveness in follow-on drug R&D: a race or imitation? Nat. Rev. Drug. Discov. 10, 23 (2011).
34. DiMasi, J.A.&Grabowski, H.G., The cost of biopharmaceutical R&D: is biotech different? Managerial & Decision Economics 28 (4–5), 469 (2007).
35. DiMasi, J.A.&Grabowski, H.G., The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. Journal of Health Economics 22 (2), 151 (2003).
36. Dorey, E., Awards bridge “valley of death” Nature Biotechnology 27, 678 (2009).
37. Dörner, T. et al., The changing landscape of biosimilars in rheumatology. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2016 Jun;75(6): 974.
38. Eisenberg, Rebecca S., Patents and the Progress of Science: Exclusive Rights and Experimental Use, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1017 (1989).
39. Eisenberg, Rebecca S., The Problem of New Uses, 5 YALE J. HEALTH POL`Y L. & ETHICS 717 (2005).
40. Engelberg, Alfred B. et al., Balancing Innovation, Access and Profits: Market Exclusivity for Biologics, 361 N. Engl. J. Med. 1917 (2009).
41. Falit, Benjamin P. et al., Biosimilar Competition in the United States: Statutory Incentives, Payers, and Pharmacy Benefit Managers, 34 Health Affairs. 294 (2015).
42. Feagan, Brian G. et al., The challenge of indication extrapolation for infliximab biosimilars. Biologicals. 2014 Jul;42(4):177.
43. Flodmark, Carl-Erik et al., Switching From Originator to Biosimilar Human Growth Hormone Using Dialogue Teamwork: Single-Center Experience From Sweden, Biologics in Therapy (2013) 3: 35.
44. Freilich, J., Patent Infringement in the Context of Follow-On Biologics, 16 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 9 (2012).
45. Fromer, Jeanne C.&Lemley, Mark A., The Audience in Intellectual Property Infringement, 112 Mich. L. Rev. 1251 (2014).
46. Gassmann, O.&Reepmeyer, G., Organizing Pharmaceutical Innovation: From Science-based Knowledge Creators to Drug-oriented Knowledge Brokers, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, 233 (2005).
47. Gawer, Annabelle&Cusumano, Michael A., How Companies Become Platform Leaders, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 49 Issue 2, 27 (2008).
48. Getz K.A. et al., Variability in protocol design complexity by phase and therapeutic area. Drug Inf. J. 2011;45(4): 413.
49. Gitter, Donna M., Innovators and Imitators: An Analysis of Proposed Legislation Implementing an Abbreviated Approval Pathway for Follow-on Biologics in the United States, 35 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 555 (2008).
50. Goldstein, Joseph L., Creation and revelation: two different routes to advancement in the biomedical sciences, Nat Med. 2007 Oct;13(10): 1151.
51. Gorman, Shawn P. et al., The Biosimilars Act: The United States’ Entry into Regulating Biosimilars and its Implications, 12 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 322 (2013).
52. Grabowski, H.G. et al., Biosimilar competition: lessons from Europe. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2014;13(2): 99.
53. Grabowski, H.G. et al., Entry and competition in generic biologics. MDE Manage Decis. Econ. 2007;28: 439.
54. Grabowski, H.G. et al., Implementation of the Biosimilar Pathway: Economic and Policy Issues, 41 SETON HALL L. REV. 511 (2011).
55. Grabowski, H.G. et al., Regulatory and cost barriers are likely to limit biosimilar development and expected savings in the near future. Health Affairs. 2014 Jun;33(6): 1048.
56. Grabowski, H.G. et al., Returns on research and development for 1990s new drug introductions, Pharmacoeconomics. 20 (Suppl 3): 11 (2002).
57. Grabowski, H.G. et al., The Roles of Patents and Research and Development Incentives in Biopharmaceutical Innovation, Health Affairs 34, no.2 (2015):302.
58. Grabowski, H.G., Data exclusivity for biologics, Nat. Rev. Drug. Discov. 10, 15 (2011).
59. Grabowski, H.G., Follow-on biologics: data exclusivity and the balance between innovation and competition, Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2008 Jun;7(6):479.
60. Hay, M. et al., Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. Nature Biotechnology 32, 40 (2014).
61. Hefti, Franz F., Requirements for a Lead Compound to Become a Clinical Candidate. BMC Neuroscience 9. Suppl 3 (2008): S7. PMC. Web. 19 July 2016.
62. Heled, Y., Patents vs. Statutory Exclusivities in Biological Pharmaceuticals-Do We Really Need Both? 18 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 419 (2012).
63. Hemphill, Scott C., An Aggregate Approach to Antitrust: Using New Data and Rulemaking to Preserve Drug Competition, 109 COLUM. L. REV. 629 (2009).
64. Hemphill, Scott C., Paying for Delay: Pharmaceutical Patent Settlement as a Regulatory Design Problem, 81 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1553 (2006).
65. Hoffman, J.M. et al., Projecting future drug expenditures-2012. Am. J. Health. Syst. Pharm. 2012;69(5): 405.
66. Jackisch, C. et al., Subcutaneous Trastuzumab for HER2-Positive Breast Cancer-Evidence and Practical Experience in 7 German Centers. Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde 75.6 (2015): 566.
67. Jefferis, R., Glycosylation as a strategy to improve antibody-based therapeutics. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2009 Mar;8(3): 226.
68. Kadin, D., NOTES& COMMENTS Taking Biosimilars to The Next Level: Why Federalizing the Substitution of Biosimilars Promotes Innovation, Competition and Patient Safety, 45 Southwestern Law Review 405 (2015).
69. Kadura, S., Is an Absolute Ban on Reverse Payments the Appropriate Way to Prevent Anticompetitive Agreements Between Branded-and Generic-Pharmaceutical Companies? 86 Texas Law Review, 647 (2008).
70. Katarzyna, S. et al., Trends in clinical success rates. Nat. Rev. Drug. Discov. 15, 379 (2016).
71. Kellermann, S.&Green, L., Antibody discovery: The use of transgenic mice to generate human monoclonal antibodies for therapeutics. 13 Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 593 (2002).
72. Kesselheim, A.S.&Avorn, J., The most transformative drugs of the past 25 years: a survey of physicians. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2013; 12(6): 425.
73. Kesselheim, Aaron S. et al., “Pay for Delay” Settlements of Disputes over Pharmaceutical Patents, N. Engl. J. Med. 2011; 365: 1439.
74. Kitch, Edmund W., The Nature and Function of the Patent System, 20 Journal of Law & Economics 265 (1977).
75. Kneller, R., The importance of new companies for drug discovery: origins of a decade of new drugs. Nat. Rev. Drug. Discov. 2010; 9(11): 867.
76. Kozlowski, S. et al., Developing the nation’s biosimilars program. N. Engl. J. Med. 2011;365(5): 385.
77. Laakmann, Anna B., The Hatch-Waxman Act`s Side Effects: Precautions For Biosimilars, 47 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 917 (2014).
78. Lammers, P. et al., Barriers to the Use of Trastuzumab for HER2+ Breast Cancer and the Potential Impact of Biosimilars: A Physician Survey in the United States and Emerging Markets, Pharmaceuticals. Sep 2014; 7(9): 943.
79. Lanthier, M. et al., An improved approach to measuring drug innovation finds steady rates of first-in-class pharmaceuticals,1987-2011. Health Affairs. 2013 Aug;32(8): 1433.
80. Lee, J.F. et al., Comparability and biosimilarity: considerations for the healthcare provider. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 2012 Jun;28(6): 1053.
81. Lemley, Mark A., The Economics of Improvement in Intellectual Property Law, 75 Tex. L. Rev. 989 (1997).
82. Li, H.&d`Anjou, M., Pharmacological Significance of Glycosylation in Therapeutic Proteins, 20 Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 678 (2009).
83. Liang, Bryan A.&Mackey, T., Public-Private Partnerships to Promote Biosimilar Access, Affordability, and Patient Safety in Emerging Markets, Stanford Journal of Law, Science and Policy, 1 (2014).
84. Lichtenberg, Frank R.&Waldfogel, J., Does Misery Love Company? Evidence from Pharmaceutical Markets Before and After the Orphan Drug Act, 15 Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 335 (2009).
85. Lipinski, Christopher A. et al., Experimental and Computational Approaches to Estimate Solubility and Permeability in Drug Discovery and Development Settings, 23 Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 3, 3 (1997).
86. Litchenberg, Frank R.&Philipson, Tomas J., The Dual Effects of Intellectual Property Regulations: Within-and Between-Patent Competition in The US Pharmaceuticals Industry, 45 Journal of Law & Economics, 643 (2002).
87. Locatelli, F.&Roger, S., Comparative testing and pharmacovigilance of biosimilars. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2006, 21, v13.
88. Louët, S., Lessons from Eprex for Biogeneric Firms, 21 Nature Biotechnology 956 (2003).
89. Mansfield, E., Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study, 32 Management Science 173 (1986).
90. Margolis, S., Note: Destined for Failure? An Analysis of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, 2013 COLUM. BUS. L. REV. 209 (2013).
91. Mariz, S. et al., Worldwide collaboration for orphan drug designation, Nat. Rev. Drug. Discov. 15, 440 (2016).
92. Markel, H., M.D., Ph.D., Patents, Profits, and the American People-The Bayh–Dole Act of 1980. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013; 369: 794.
93. Mayden, K.D. et al., Biosimilars in the United States: Considerations for Oncology Advanced Practitioners. J Adv. Pract. Oncol. 2015 Mar-Apr;6(2):108.
94. McCamish, M.&Woollett, G., The State of the Art in the Development of Biosimilars. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (2012); 91 3, 405.
95. McCamish, M.&Woollett, G., Worldwide experience with biosimilar development. MAbs. 2011 Mar- Apr;3(2): 209.
96. McGlaughlin, M.S., An emerging answer to the downstream bottleneck. BioProcess Int. 2010, 10, 58.
97. Mellstedt, H., Clinical considerations for biosimilar antibodies, 11 European Journal of Cancer Supplements 3, 1 (2013).
98. Meng, Xuan-Yu et al., Molecular Docking: A Powerful Approach for Structure-Based Drug Discovery. Current computer-aided drug design 2011 Jun;7(2): 146.
99. Merges, Robert P., Commercial Success and Patent Standards: Economic Perspectives on Innovation, 76 Cal. L. Rev. 803 (1988).
100. Nelson, Richard R., The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research, 67 J. POL. ECON. 297 (1959).
101. Niwa, R.&Satoh, M., The current status and prospects of antibody engineering for therapeutic use: focus on glycoengineering technology. J Pharm Sci. 2015 Mar;104(3): 930.
102. Olech, E., Biosimilars: Rationale and current regulatory landscape. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2016 Apr;45(5 Suppl): S1.
103. Paradise, J., The Legal and Regulatory Status of Biosimilars: How Product Naming and State Substitution Laws May Impact the United States Healthcare System, 41 American Journal of Law & Medicine, 49 (2015).
104. Pardoll, Drew M., The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy, Nature Reviews Cancer 12, 252 (2012).
105. Powers, John H., Antimicrobial drug development-the past, the present, and the future, Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2004 Nov;10 Suppl 4: 23.
106. Praditpornsilpa, K. et al., Biosimilar recombinant human erythropoietin induces the production of neutralizing antibodies. Kidney Int. 2011 Jul;80(1): 88.
107. Price, W. N.&Rai, Arti K., Manufacturing Barriers to Biologics Competition and Innovation, 101 Iowa L. Rev. 1023 (2016).
108. Price, W. N., Making Do in Making Drugs: Innovation Policy and Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, 55 B.C. L. REV. 491 (2014).
109. Rai, Arti K. et al., Pathways Across the Valley of Death: Novel Intellectual Property Strategies for Accelerated Drug Discovery, 8 Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics,1, 53 (2008).
110. Ratner, M., Genentech`s glyco-engineered antibody to succeed Rituxan. Nature Biotechnology 32, 6 (2014).
111. Reichert, J.M.&Milne, C.P., Public and private sector contributions to the discovery and development of “impact” drugs. American Journal of Therapeutics. 2002; 9(6): 543.
112. Reinisch, W.&Smolen, J., Biosimilar safety factors in clinical practice. Semin. Arthritis Rheum. 2015 Jun;44(6 Suppl): S9.
113. Reinke, T., Biosimilars might not measure up to health plan expectations. Manag. Care 2012;21(10): 12.
114. Sampat, B.N.&Lichtenberg, F.R., What are the respective roles of the public and private sectors in pharmaceutical innovation? Health affairs. 2011; 30(2): 332.
115. Schellekens, H., Commentary, How Similar Do ‘Biosimilars` Need to Be? 22 Nature Biotechnology 1357 (2004).
116. Scherer, Frederic M., Pharmaceutical Innovation, in Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, Volume 1, Ch. 12, 539 (Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg eds., 2010).
117. Schmidt, B., Proof of Principle studies. Epilepsy Res. 2006 Jan; 68(1): 48.
118. Seamon, Matthew J., Antitrust and the Biopharmaceutical Industry: Lessons from Hatch-Waxman and an Early Evaluation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, 34 NOVA L. REV. 629 (2010).
119. Seymore, Sean B., The Teaching Function of Patents, 85 Notre Dame L. Rev. 621 (2010).
120. Sharma, P.&Allison, J.P., The future of immune checkpoint therapy, Science 2015 Apr 3;348 (6230): 56.
121. Shellenkens, H., When biotech proteins go off-patent, Trends Biotechnol. 22(8), 406 (2004).
122. Shrank, William H. et al., State Generic Substitution Laws Can Lower Drug Outlays Under Medicaid, 29 Health Affairs. 1383 (2010).
123. Shukla, A.&Thömmes, J., Recent advances in large-scale production of monoclonal antibodies and related proteins. Trends Biotechnol. 28, 253 (2010).
124. Sieczkowska, J. et al., Switching Between Infliximab Originator and Biosimilar in Paediatric Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Preliminary Observations, J Crohn’s Colitis. 2016 Feb;10(2): 127.
125. Simoens, S. et al., Biosimilars and market access: A question of comparability and costs? Targ. Oncol. 2012;7(4): 227.
126. Simoens, S., Biosimilar medicines and cost-effectiveness. Clinico-economic Outcomes Res. 2011;3: 29.
127. Stergiopoulas, S.&Getz, K.A., Mapping and characterizing the development pathway from non-clinical through early clinical development. Pharmaceutical Medicine 26(5), 297 (2012).
128. Stevens, A.J. et al., The role of public-sector research in the discov¬ery of drugs and vaccines. N. Engl. J. Med. 2011; 364(6): 535.
129. Stevenson, F.K.&Stevenson, G.T., Follicular lymphoma and the immune system: from pathogenesis to antibody therapy. Blood. 2012 Apr 19;119(16): 3659.
130. Tan, S.Y.&Tatsumura, Y., Alexander Fleming (1881–1955): Discoverer of penicillin, Singapore Med J. 2015 Jul; 56(7): 366.
131. Timmis, R., The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act: Potential Problems in the Biologic-Drug Regulatory Scheme, 13 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 215 (2015).
132. Tresemer, Parker M., Interests in the Balance: FDA Regulations Under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, 16 UCLA Journal of Law and Technology 1, 1 (2012).
133. Tu, Y., The discovery of artemisinin (qinghaosu) and gifts from Chinese medicine, Nat Med. 2011 Oct 11;17(10): 1217.
134. Tung, An-Chi, Taiwan’s Integrated Circuit Industry, in Global Production and Trade in East Asia, Ch.17, 305 (Leonard K. Cheng, Henryk Kierzkowski, eds., 2001).
135. Usdin, S., The heparin story. Int. J. Risk Safety Med. 2009, 21, 93.
136. Vernon, John A. et al., Exploration of Potential Economics of Follow-On Biologics and Implications for Data Exclusivity Periods for Biologics, 16 B.U. J. Sci. & Tech. L. 55 (2010).
137. Wang, J.&Chow, S., On the regulatory approval pathway of biosimilar products. Pharmaceuticals 2012 Apr; 5(4): 353.
138. Zheng, R., The game changer. BioProcess Int. 2010, 8, 4.
139. Zycher, B. et al., Private sector contributions to pharmaceutical science: thirty-five summary case histo¬ries. American Journal of Therapeutics. 2010; 17(1): 101.
(三) 法院判決
1. Amgen v. Apotex, No. 2016-1308 (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2016).
2. Amgen, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 794 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
3. Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Biovail Corp., 276F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
4. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013).
5. F.T.C. v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223-2229 (2013).
6. Hospia, Inc. v. Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-07049 (S.D.N.Y. December 1, 2014).
7. Parke-Davis v. H.K. Mulford 189 F 95 (S.D.N.Y. 1911).
8. Sigma-Tau Pharms v. Schwetz 288 F3d 141 (CA 4th Cir. 2002).
(四) 研究報告、法規命令與其他資料
1. Allied Market Research, Global Biosimilars/ Follow-on Biologics Market. (2014).
2. Biotechnology Industry Organization. Venture Funding of Therapeutic Innovation: A Comprehensive Look at a Decade of Venture Funding of Drug R&D. (2015).
3. BioTrends Research Group, Global Biosimilars Pathway and Clinical Development Activity: Where are the Biosimilar Hotspots? (2014).
4. Brenda Sandburg, Waiting for Biosimilars: From Manufacturing to Litigation, Stakeholders Prepare for United States Market, THE PINK SHEET (2014).
5. CHMP/437/04
6. CHMP/BWP/247713/2012
7. Commission Regulation 1901/2006, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on Medicinal Products for Paediatric Use and Amending Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.
8. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, European Medicines Agency. Inflectra: assessment report. EMA/CHMP/589422/2013.
9. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, European Medicines Agency. Inflectra summary of opinion (initial authorization). EMA/CHMP/364710/2013.
10. Deloitte Consulting, In the face of uncertainty: A challenging future for biopharmaceutical innovation (2014).
11. Deloitte, The Economist Intelligence Unit Industry Report (2014).
12. Deloitte, Winning with biosimilars: Opportunities in global markets (2015).
13. Directive 2001/83/EC
14. EMEA/CHMP/BMWP/42832/2005
15. EvaluatePharma, World Preview 2015, Outlook to 2020 (2015).
16. FDASIA, Pub. L. No. 112-144, title VII, 126 Stat. 993, 1077 (2012).
17. Federal Trade Commission. Emerging health care issues: follow-on biologic drug competition. Washington (DC): FTC (2009).
18. Food and Drug Administration, Generic enoxaparin questions and answers, Silver Spring (MD) (2011).
19. Fritz Machlup, An Economic Review of the Patent System, U.S. Government Printing Office (1958).
20. Genia Long, Justin Works, Innovation in the Biopharmaceutical Pipeline: A Multidimensional View, Analysis Group (2013).
21. Guidance for Industry on Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies Submitted in NDAs or INDs-General Considerations, Food and Drug Administration (2014).
22. Guidance for Industry on Biosimilars: Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of the BPCI Act of 2009: Questions and Answers Part II, Food and Drug Administration (2015).
23. Guidance for Industry on Scientific Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Product, Food and Drug Administration (2015).
24. H.R.5573-PRICED Act.
25. IMS Health, Shaping the biosimilar opportunity: a global perspective on the evolving biosimilars landscape (2011).
26. IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics. Delivering on the Potential of Biosimilar Medicines: The Role of Functioning Competitive Market (2016).
27. IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics. Global medicines use in 2020: outlook and implications (2015).
28. James Love, et al., Protection of Pharmaceutical Test Data: A Policy Proposal, KEI Research Paper (2006).
29. Laurence J. Kotlikoff, Stimulating Innovation in the Biologics Industry: A Balanced Approach to Marketing Exclusivity, Teva USA Government Affairs (2008).
30. Leah Christl, Ph.D. FDA’s Overview of the Regulatory Guidance for the Development and Approval of Biosimilar Products in the US. (2015).
31. Malik A. Biosimilars by Sandoz: capturing the future opportunity. Holzkirchen, Germany: Novartis. (2012).
32. National Science Foundation, Business Research, Development, and Innovation Survey (BRDIS) 2011, 2014.
33. National Venture Capital Association and PwC. 2015 MoneyTree Report (2016).
34. Norris J. et al., Trends in healthcare investments and exits. (2016).
35. Pham ND；NDP Analytics. IP-intensive manufacturing industries: driving US economic growth. (2015).
36. PhRMA, Annual Membership Survey, 1995-2015. Washington, DC (2016).
37. PhRMA, Medicines in development for neurological disorders. (2013).
38. PhRMA, Medicines in development: Alzheimer’s disease. (2013).
39. PhRMA, Pharmaceutical Industry Profile (2003).
40. PhRMA, Pharmaceutical Industry Profile (2016).
41. Pub. L. No 105-115.
42. Pub. L. No 111-148.
43. Pub. L. No 75-717.
44. Pub. L. No 78-410
45. Pub. L. No 97-414.
46. Pub. L. No 98-417.
47. Suzanne M. Kirchhoff, Specialty Drugs: Background and Policy Concerns. Congressional Research Service R44132.
48. Technical report, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA, (2009).
49. The Economist: The first venture capitalists, Fin-tech, Jan 2nd, (2016).
50. The Potential Need for Measurement Standards to Facilitate the Research and Development of Biologic Drugs: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Tech. & Innovation of the H. Comm. on Sci. & Tech., 111th Cong. 68-70 (2009).
51. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Novel drugs 2015.
52. U.S. Patent Act
三、網路資料
1. AbbVie: Humira’s patent maze will keep US biosimilar away until at least 2022, November 3, 2015, retrived from http://www.biopharma-reporter.com/Markets-Regulations/AbbVie-Humira-s-patent-maze-to-keep-US-biosimilars-at-bay-until-2022 (最後瀏覽日:2016/7/24)。
2. Amgen Biosimilars, The Power of Biologics, retrived from http://www.amgenbiosimilars.com/the-basics/the-power-of-biologics/ (最後瀏覽日: 2016/07/31)。
3. Amgen Biosimilars, What Are Biosimilars, retrived from http://www.amgenbiosimilars.com/the-basics/what-are-biosimilars/ (最後瀏覽日: 2016/08/4)。
4. Amgen drug appears `highly similar` to Humira: FDA staff, July 8, 2016, retrived from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-amgen-humira-biosimilar-idUSKCN0ZO1B8 (最後瀏覽日:2016/7/24)。
5. Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., retrived from http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/amgen-inc-v-sandoz-inc/ (最後瀏覽日: 2016/09/07)。
6. Amgen v. Apotex: Analysis of The Fed. Cir. Opinio, July 6, 2016, retrived from http://www.bigmoleculewatch.com/2016/07/06/amgen-v-apotex-analysis-of-the-fed-cir-opinion/ (最後瀏覽日: 2016/09/07)。
7. Analysis: Federal Circuit Split Decision in Amgen v. Sandoz, July 21, 2015, retrived from http://www.bigmoleculewatch.com/2015/07/21/analysis-federal-circuit-split-decision-in-amgen-v-sandoz/ (最後瀏覽日: 2016/09/06)。
8. As EpiPen prices rocket up, lawmakers demand answers, August 23, 2016, retrived from http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/as-epipen-prices-rocket-up-lawmakers-demand-answers/ (最後瀏覽日:2016/10/10)。
9. Baraclude patent invalidation does not spell doom for lead optimization, Feb 19, 2013, retrived from http://www.datamonitorhealthcare.com/baraclude-patent-invalidation-does-not-spell-doom-for-lead-optimization/ (最後瀏覽日:2016/10/20)。
10. Biogen wins U.S. approval of long acting multiple sclerosis drug, August 15, 2014, retrived from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-biogen-idec-ms-idUSKBN0GF22W20140815 (最後瀏覽日:2016/07/27)。
11. Biotech offers big opportunities for Korean economy, Feb 15,2016, retrived from http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=3015042 (最後瀏覽日:2016/7/22)。
12. Biotech`s Paradox: A Robustly Valued, Highly Active And Seemingly Terrible IPO Market, July 14, 2016, retrived from http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucebooth/2016/07/14/biotechs-paradox-a-robustly-valued-highly-active-and-seemingly-terrible-ipo-market/#26742922bc49 (最後瀏覽日: 2016/10/1)。
13. BPCIA Litigation Summary Chart, August 19, 2016, retrived from http://www.bigmoleculewatch.com/bpcia-litigation-summary-chart/ (最後瀏覽日: 2016/09/05)。
14. Choosing Between Patent and Trade Secret Protection In A Biosimilar World, January 13, 2016, retrived from http://www.biosimilardevelopment.com/doc/choosing-between-patent-and-trade-secret-protection-in-a-biosimilar-world-0001 (最後瀏覽日: 2016/09/25)。
15. Corporate Equity Investing In Biotech: Enriching For Success, March 10, 2016, retrived from https://lifescivc.com/2016/03/corporate-equity-investing-biotech-enriching-success/ (最後瀏覽日: 2016/07/18)。
16. Curses, EpiPen! Another would-be rival falls flat at FDA, leaving Mylan`s med unchallenged, June 9, 2016, retrived from http://www.fiercepharma.com/marketing/still-no-epipen-challenge-sight-for-mylan-as-another-competitor-hits-a-snag (最後瀏覽日:2016/10/10)。
17. Data exclusivity for medicinal products in Europe, retrived from https://united-kingdom.taylorwessing.com/synapse/regulatory_dataexclusivity.html (最後瀏覽日:2016/10/22)。
18. Don`t Blame Patents for High Drug Prices, December 29, 2015, retrived from https://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2015/12/29/dont-blame-patents-for-high-drug-prices/ (最後瀏覽日:2016/10/5)。
19. Drug Formulary: What do the different tiers mean? retrived from http://www.wecareforwisconsin.com/members/formulary/tiers (最後瀏覽日:2016/07/27)。
20. Drugs to Which FDA has Granted Pediatric Exclusivity for Pediatric Studies under Section 505A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, retrived from http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/ucm050005.htm (最後瀏覽日:2016/10/17)。
21. Enoxaparin-Top U.S. Generic Blockbusters, retrived from http://www.fiercepharma.com/special-report/enoxaparin-top-u-s-generic-blockbusters (最後瀏覽日:2016/7/26)。
22. Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, Accelerated Approval, Priority Review, retrived from http://www.fda.gov/forpatients/approvals/fast/ucm20041766.htm (最後瀏覽日: 2016/07/14)。
23. FDA Approved Drug Products-Inflectra, April 5, 2016, retrived from http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/index.cfm?fuseaction=Search.DrugDetails (最後瀏覽日: 2016/08/10)。
24. FDA approves first biosimilar product Zarxio, March 6, 2015, retrived from http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm436648.htm (最後瀏覽日:2016/7/24)。
25. FDA approves Inflectra, a biosimilar to Remicade, April 5, 2016, retrived from http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm494227.htm (最後瀏覽日:2016/7/24)。
26. FDA Guidances for Biosimilars, retrived from http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm290967.htm (最後瀏覽日:2016/7/25)。
27. FDA Public Health Advisory: Safety of Vioxx, September 30, 2004, retrived from http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/postmarketdrugsafetyinformationforpatientsandproviders/ucm106274.htm (最後瀏覽日:2016/07/20)。
28. FDA swats down Teva`s EpiPen copy, putting Mylan in cruise control, Mar 1, 2016, retrived from http://www.fiercepharma.com/sales-and-marketing/fda-swats-down-teva-s-epipen-copy-putting-mylan-cruise-control (最後瀏覽日:2016/10/10)。
29. Formulary Lookup, retrived from https://lookup.decisionresourcesgroup.com/ (最後瀏覽日:2016/07/27)。
30. France to allow biosimilars substitution, Feb 21, 2014, retrived from http://gabionline.net/Policies-Legislation/France-to-allow-biosimilars-substitution (最後瀏覽日:2016/07/27)。
31. France`s Biosimilar Law May Set Trend Inside The EU, Feb 18, 2014, retrived from http://www.law360.com/articles/507058/france-s-biosimilar-law-may-set-trend-inside-the-eu (最後瀏覽日: 2016/08/28)。
32. Freeze Drying Protein Formulations: Common challenges and key considerations when developing a freeze-drying cycle for protein pharmaceuticals, May 02, 2014, retrived from http://www.pharmtech.com/freeze-drying-protein-formulations(最後瀏覽日: 2016/07/31)。
33. Galien Foundation, Prix Galien USA award, retrived from http://galienfoundation.org/index/index/val/310556b3b7ca8bc16 (最後瀏覽日:2016/10/3)。
34. Global sales of Sovaldi/Harvoni, retrived from http://www.pmlive.com/top_pharma_list/pharmaceutical_products/sovaldiharvoni (最後瀏覽日:2016/10/3)。
35. Government is to blame for the skyrocketing price of EpiPens, not patents, August 29, 2016, retrived from http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/08/29/government-blame-price-epipens-patents/id=72412/ (最後瀏覽日:2016/10/10)。
36. Health Canada, Summary basis of decision-INFLECTRA, March 4,2014, retrived from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/sbd-smd/drug-med/sbd_smd_2014_inflectra_159493-eng.php (最後瀏覽日: 2016/08/10)。
37. High EpiPen Replacement Costs Add to Pricing Concerns, September 30, 2016, retrived from http://time.com/money/4513829/epipen-replacement-costs/ (最後瀏覽日:2016/10/10)。
38. Important Considerations When Dispensing Epinephrine Auto-Injector Devices, September 22, 2010, retrived from http://www.pharmacytimes.com/p2p/p2pepinephrine-0910 (最後瀏覽日:2016/10/10)。
39. Legislations on biosimilar interchangeability in the US and EU- developments far from visibility, January 6, 2015, retrived from http://www.gabionline.net/Sponsored-Articles/Legislations-on-biosimilar-interchangeability-in-the-US-and-EU-developments-far-from-visibility (最後瀏覽日: 2016/08/26)。
40. Medicare Part B-Medical Insurance, July 25, 2016, retrived from https://medicare.com/about-medicare/medicare-part-b/ (最後瀏覽日:2016/7/25)。
41. Multidisciplinary: biosimilar, EMA, retrived from http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/general/general_content_000408.jsp (最後瀏覽日: 2016/09/19)。
42. Mylan CEO`s Pay Rose Over 600 Percent as EpiPen Price Rose 400 Percent, August23, 2016, retrived from http://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/mylan-execs-gave-themselves-raises-they-hiked-epipen-prices-n636591?cid=sm_fb (最後瀏覽日:2016/10/10)。
43. Naming and Biological Products, August 27, 2015, retrived from http://blogs.fda.gov/fdavoice/index.php/tag/cder/ (最後瀏覽日:2016/10/18)。
44. National Institutes of Health, Office of Budget, retrived from https://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/br2016.html. (最後瀏覽日: 2016/7/21)。
45. National Institutes of Health, Office of Technology Transfer, retrived from https://www.ott.nih.gov/about-nih-ott. (最後瀏覽日: 2016/07/21)。
46. New FDA task force will support innovation in antibacterial drug development, September 24, 2012, retrived from http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm320643.htm (最後瀏覽日:2016/10/18)。
47. Novartis copy of Amgen arthritis drug highly similar: FDA staff, July 11, 2016, retrived from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-biosimilar-novartis-fda-idUSKCN0ZR1E1(最後瀏覽日:2016/7/24)。
48. Novartis launches first U.S. `biosimilar` drug at 15 percent discount, September 3, 2015, retrived from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-novartis-drug-idUSKCN0R30C220150903 (最後瀏覽日:2016/7/25)。
49. Orange Book Preface, retrived from http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/ucm079068.htm (最後瀏覽日:2016/7/25)。
50. Pay for Delay, retrived from https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/mergers-competition/pay-delay (最後瀏覽日: 2016/09/08)。
51. Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), retrived from http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/ (最後瀏覽日: 2016/07/14)。
52. Sandoz Fights Amgen Enbrel Patent, June 26, 2013, retrived from http://www.law360.com/articles/453103/sandoz-fights-amgen-enbrel-patent (最後瀏覽日:2016/7/24)。
53. The Lack of EpiPen Competitors is the FDA’s Fault, August 24, 2016, retrived from http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/the-lack-of-epipen-competitors-is-the-fdas-fault (最後瀏覽日:2016/10/10)。
54. UPDATED: Sanofi US Issues Voluntary Nationwide Recall of All Auvi-Q® Due to Potential Inaccurate Dosage Delivery, October 30, 2015, retrived from http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm469980.htm (最後瀏覽日:2016/10/10)。
55. US 7794432 B2, Automatic injector with kickback attenuation, retrived from https://www.google.com/patents/US7794432 (最後瀏覽日:2016/10/10)。
56. What is Genotropin? retrived from http://www.genotropin.com/what-is-genotropin (最後瀏覽日:2016/7/25)。
57. Will The New Hepatitis C Drugs Trigger a Battle Over Cost? November 11, 2013, retrived from http://www.forbes.com/sites/edsilverman/2013/11/11/will-the-new-hepatitis-c-drugs-trigger-a-battle-over-cost/ (最後瀏覽日: 2016/10/3)。
58. Worldwide revenue of Pfizer`s Lipitor from 2003 to 2015 (in million U.S. dollars), retrived from http://www.statista.com/statistics/254341/pfizers-worldwide-viagra-revenues-since-2003/ (最後瀏覽日: 2016/07/14)。
59. 中裕新藥股份有限公司，TMB-355，檢自: http://www.taimedbiologics.com.tw/info/TMB355.aspx (最後瀏覽日: 2016/07/14)。
60. 永昕生物醫藥股份有限公司，Pipeline研究時程，檢自: http://www.mycenax.com.tw/tw/goods.php?no=6 (最後瀏覽日:2016/07/28)。
61. 財訊，希拉蕊追砍，美國生技股難再膨風，2016年9月17日，檢自: http://finance.technews.tw/2016/09/17/biotechnology-stock-usa-hillary/ (最後瀏覽日:2016/10/10)。
62. 財訊新聞，興櫃：美國相似藥法規大門開啟，F-泰福白血球生長激素TX01最快年底進三期，2016年6月16日，檢自: http://money-link.com.tw/RealtimeNews/NewsContent.aspx?sn=911709002&pu=News_0002_2 (最後瀏覽日:2016/07/28)。
63. 張淼，急救藥EpiPen在美國9年漲價17次，CEO出席國會聽證會遭一致譴責，2016年9月23日，檢自: https://theinitium.com/article/20160922-dailynews-Mylan-Epipan/ (最後瀏覽日:2016/10/10)。
64. 喜康生技股份有限公司，生產能力介紹，檢自: http://www.jhlbiotech.com/tw/capabilities.php (最後瀏覽日:2016/07/28)。
65. 智擎生技製藥股份有限公司，關於智擎-沿革與里程碑，檢自: http://www.pharmaengine.com/ch/aboutUs_historyAndMilestion.aspx (最後瀏覽日: 2016/07/14)。
66. 聯合生物製藥股份有限公司，公司簡介，檢自: http://www.unitedbiopharma.com/index.html (最後瀏覽日:2016/07/28)。
67. 藍弋丰，炒作舊藥殃及病患，弓形蟲症藥物暴漲後在輿論壓力下降價，2015年9月29日，檢自: http://finance.technews.tw/2015/09/29/drug-goes-from-13-50-a-tablet-to-750-overnight/ (最後瀏覽日:2016/10/5)。
68. 藍弋丰，執行長垮台，圖靈製藥裁員縮編並尋求接班人選，2015年12月24日，檢自: http://finance.technews.tw/2015/12/24/drugmaker-founded-by-shkreli-to-cut-jobs-seek-permanent-ceo/ (最後瀏覽日:2016/10/5)。 |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
法律科際整合研究所
102652022 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1026520221 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [法律科際整合研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 022101.pdf | 4286Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 183 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
