|
Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2019. Issue 1 (43) |
||||||||||
| Title: | PROTECTION OF PATENT HOLDERS' RIGHTS UNDER A CONFLICT OF DRUG PATENTS |
|||||||||
| Authors: |
L. V. Sannikova, Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences |
 |
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. | |||||||
| ORCID: | 0000-0002-7250-5062 |
ResearcherID: | K-4636-2016 |
|||||||
| Articles of «Scopus» & «Web of Science»: | --- | |||||||||
|
Yu. S. Kharitonova, Lomonosov Moscow State University |
|
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. | ||||||||
| ORCID: | 0000-0001-7622-6215 |
ResearcherID: | K-7495-2016 | |||||||
| Articles of «Scopus» & «Web of Science»: | --- | |||||||||
| Requisites: | Sannikova L. V., Kharitonova Yu. S. Zashhita prav patentoobladateley pri kollizii patentov na lekarstvennye preparaty [Protection of Patent Holders' Rights under a Conflict of Drug Patents]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Juridicheskie nauki – Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2019. Issue 1. Pp. 121–145. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17072/1995-4190-2019-43-121-145 | |||||||||
| DOI: | 10.17072/1995-4190-2019-43-121-145 | |||||||||
| Annotation: |
Introduction: Recently, there have appeared new features in the confrontation between the interests of rights holders and society. Nowadays the discussions on whether it is possible to patent generic drugs and provide compulsory licensing in the pharmaceutical industry came to the fore in the field of intellectual property law. Purpose: to define methodological and dogmatic bases for limiting patent monopoly of the rights holder to the extent necessary for society and taking into account the principles of good faith of participants in civil relations and reasonable state intervention into private affairs. Methods: in course of research both general and specific scientific research methods were used, such as dialectical, comparative legal, historical, formal legal and linguistic ones. Results: the article considers problems arising in judicial practice when resolving conflicts of patent rights between a holder of the patent for the reference drug and a holder of the patent for a generic drug. Special attention is given to the concept ‘bioequivalence’ and its relation to the concept ‘equivalent features provided in the independent claim of the patent application’. Conclusions: Russian patent law allows for conflicts between patent rights in general, not only in respect of Eurasian and Russian patents or between patents on original and dependent inventions. At the same time, the mechanism for resolving conflicts of patent rights is only defined in respect of original and dependent inventions. In judicial practice, there has developed a common rule applied if there are two patents on the protected item, based solely on the detection of identical or equivalent features in the patents. A conflict between patent rights arises when the rights to reference and generic drugs have been registered. The presence of equivalent features stated in the independent claim of the patents on reference and generic pharmaceuticals is presumed, as the very fact of the official registration of a generic drug indicates its bioequivalence to the original (reference) drug. If there are two patents with different priority dates, the proper remedy for the exclusive right is to invalidate it under administrative (non-judicial) procedure. Compulsory licensing under Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is a market mechanism to provide balance between the rights holder and public interest in using the innovation, especially in the pharmaceutical industry, when so called patent monopoly does not encourage but impedes innovative development. The exhaustive list of conditions for the court to issue a compulsory license for the use of a dependent invention is set by the law. An unreasonable expansion of this list or a wider interpretation of such conditions prevents the application of compulsory licensing and promotes abuses by holders of patents for inventions which are used in dependent inventions. |
|||||||||
| Keywords: | conflict of patents; criteria of protectability of the invention; doctrine of equivalents; identity of patents; compulsory licenses; original (reference) and generic drugs; equivalent features of the invention; bioequivalence. |
|||||||||
 |
download the full-version article | |||||||||
| References: | 1. Аkhmetov А. E. Mirovoj opyt regulirovaniya tsen na farmatsevticheskuyu produktsiyu (na primere stran Evropy) [The International Experience of Pharmaceutical Products Price Regulation (a Case Study of European Countries)]. Vestnik Rossijskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Ekonomika – Bulletin of Peoples' Friendship University of Russia. Series Economics. 2012. Issue 2. Pp. 39–46. (In Russ.). 2. Vorozhevich А. S. Vtorichnye patenty na lekarstvennye preparaty: nuzhno li ogranichit' ikh vydachu? [Secondary Patents on Drugs: Is It Necessary to Restrict Their Granting?]. Zakon –ZAKON. 2016. Issue 9. Pp. 117–130. (In Russ.). 3. Vorozhevich А. S. Predely osushhestvleniya i zashhity isklyuchitel'nogo prava patentoobladatelya [Limits of Exercise and Protection of the Exclusive Right of the Patentee]. Moscow, 2018. 320 p. (In Russ.). 4. Gavrilov E. P. Isklyuchitel'noe pravo, prinadlezhashhee neskol'kim litsam [Exclusive Right Belonging to Several Persons]. Khozyajstvo i pravo – Business and Law. 2009. Issue 3. Pp. 58–74. (In Russ.). 5. Gavrilov E. P. Zavisimye izobreteniya i «stolk¬noveniya» patentnykh zayavok [Dependent Inventions and "Collisions" of Patent Ap¬plications]. Patenty i litsenzii. Intellektu¬al'nye prava – Patents and Licenses. Intellectu¬al Rights. 2008. Issue 3. Pp. 22–25. (In Russ.). 6. Gavrilov E. P. Pravovaya okhrana lekar¬st-vennykh sredstv: chto neobkhodimo izmenit'? [Legal Protection of Medicines: What Needs to Be Changed?]. Patenty i litsenzii. Intellektual'nye prava – Patents and Licenses. Intellectual Rights. 2018. Issue 4. Pp. 15–19. (In Russ.). 7. Grazhdanskij kodeks Rossijskoj Federatsii: Patentnoe pravo. Pravo na selektsionnye dostizheniya. Postatejnyj kommentarij k glavam 72 i 73 / pod red. P. V. Krasheninnikova [The Civil Code of the Russian Federation: Patent Law. The Right to Selection Achievements. Article by Article Commentary on Chapters 72 and 73; ed. by P. V. Krasheninnikov]. Moscow, 2015. 444 p. (In Russ.). 8. Dedkov E., Dzhermakyan V. Kolliziya patentnykh prav: obosnovan li novyj podkhod Vysshego Аrbitrazhnogo Suda RF? [Conflict of Patent Rights: is the New Approach of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation Justified?]. Patenty i litsenzii. Intellektual'nye prava – Patents and Licenses. Intellectual Rights. 2008. Issue 9. Pp. 2–8. (In Russ.). 9. Dement'ev V. N., Rybakov V. M., Khristoforov А. А. Novyj (?) podkhod k pravilu ob ekvivalentnykh priznakakh [A New (?) Approach to the Rule on Equivalent Features]. Patentnyj poverennyj – Patent Attorney. 2016. Issue 3. Pp. 20–33. (In Russ.). 10. Dzhermakyan V. Yu. Kakie priznaki schitat' ekvivalentnymi? [What Features are Considered Equivalent?]. Patentnyj poverennyj – Patent Attorney. 2006. Issue 4. Pp. 21–28. (In Russ.). 11. Dozortsev V. А. Ponyatie isklyuchitel'nogo prava [The Concept of Exclusive Right]. Problemy sovremennogo grazhdanskogo prava: Sbornik statej [Problems of Modern Civil Law: Collection of Articles]. Moscow, 2000. Pp. 112–143. (In Russ.). 12. Eliseev V. I. Pravovaya okhrana zavisimykh ob»ektov patentnykh prav [Legal Protection of Dependent Objects of Patent Rights]. Leningradskij yuridicheskij zhurnal – Leningradskiy Juridical Journal. 2017. Issue 1. Pp. 91–101. (In Russ.). 13. Kutishenko N. P., Martsevich S.Y u., Tolpygina S. N., Lukina Yu. V. Vybor dzhenerika s tochki zreniya ekonomicheskoj tselesoobraznosti [Economic Reasons for Generic Choice]. Ratsional'naya farmakoterapiya v kardiologii – Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology. 2008. Vol. 4. Issue 4. Pp. 36–39. (In Russ.). 14. Nauchno-prakticheskij kommentarij sudebnoj praktiki v sfere zashhity intellektual'nykh prav / V. O. Kalyatin, D. V. Murzin, L. А. Novoselova i dr.; pod obshh. red. L. А. Novoselovoj [Scientific and Practical Commentary on Judicial Practice in the Field of Protection of Intellectual Property Rights; V. O. Kalyatin, D. V. Murzin, L. A. Novoselova et al.; ed. by L. A. Novoselova]. Moscow, 2014. 480 p. (In Russ.). 15. Pilenko А. А. Pravo izobretatelya. Istoriko-dogmaticheskoe issledovanie [Inventor's Right. Historical and Dogmatic Research]. Vol. 1. Pravo izobretatelya (privilegii na izobreteniya i ikh zashhita v russkom i mezhdunarodnom prave) [Inventor's Right (Privileges to Inventions and Their Protection in Russian and International Law)]. St. Petersburg, 1902. Pp. 514–516. (In Russ.). 16. Pilicheva А. V. Lekarstvennye sredstva kak ob"¬ekty patentnykh prav [Medicines as Objects of Pa¬tent Rights]. Moscow, 2016. 184 p. (In Russ.). 17. Pirogova V. V. Prinuditel'nye litsenzii v Soglashenii o torgovykh aspektakh prav intellektual'noj sobstvennosti (st. st. 28, 30, 31 TRIPS) [Compulsory Licenses in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Articles 28, 30, 31 of TRIPS Agreement)]. 2012. Access from the legal reference system "ConsultantPlus". (In Russ.). 18. Piskunov Ya. Sozdanie spetsializirovannykh sudov po intellektual'nym sporam - obshhemirovaya tendentsiya (Interv'yu s L.А. Novoselovoj) [Establishment of Specialized IP Courts is a Global Trend (Interview with L.A. Novoselova)]. Zakon – ZAKON. 2015. Issue 11. Pp. 6–19. (In Russ.). 19. Pravo intellektual'noj sobstvennosti. Obshhie polozheniya / Pod obshh. red. L. А. Novoselovoj [Intellectual Property Right. General Provisions; ed. by L. A. Novoselova]. Moscow, 2017. Vol. 1. 512 p. (In Russ.). 20. Tolkacheva D. G., Torgov А. V., Margazo¬¬- va А. S. Obzor zarubezhnykh podkhodov k gosudarstvennomu regulirovaniyu tsen na vosproizvedennye lekarstvennye preparaty [International Approaches to the Government Price Control over Generics and Biosimilars: a Review]. Fаrmаkoekonomikа. Sovremennaya farmakoekonomika i farmakoepidemiologiya – Pharmacoeconomics. Modern Phar¬ma¬co-economics and Pharmacoepidemiology. 2017. Issue 10 (4). Pp. 15–42. (In Russ.). 21. Usol'tseva S. V. Rol' sudebnykh reshenij v gra¬zh¬dansko-pravovom regulirovanii otnoshenij intellektual'noj sobstvennosti [Judicial Decision's Role in the Legal Regulation of the Intellectual Property]. Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika – Laws of Russia: Experience, Analysis, Practice. 2012. Issue 1. Pp. 50–54. (In Russ.). 22. Ustinova E. Otsenka ekvivalentnosti: voprosy terminologii i metodologii [Equivalence Assessment: Terminology and Methodology Issues]. IS. Promyshlennaya sobstvennost' – IP. Industrial Property. 2016. Issue 6. Pp. 43–52. (In Russ.). 23. Shugurov M. V. VTO: prava intellektual'noj sobstvennosti i pravo cheloveka na dostup k lekarstvennym sredstvam [WTO: Intellectual Property Rights and the Human Right to Access to Medicines]. Pravo VTO – WTO Law. 2014. Issue 2. Pp. 5–12. (In Russ.). 24. Aronson J. K., Ferner R. E., Hughes D. A. Defining Rewardable Innovation in Drug Therapy. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. 2012. Vol. 11. Issue 4. P. 253. (In Eng.). 25. Feldman J. Compulsory Licenses: the Dangers behind the Current Practice. Journal of International Business and Law. 2009. Vol. 8. P. 137. (In Eng.). 26. Freilich J. The Paradox of Legal Equivalents and Scientific Equivalence: Reconciling Patent Law's Doctrine of Equivalents with the FDA's Bioequivalence Requirement. SMU Law Review. 2013. Vol. 66. Issue 1. P. 60. (In Eng.). 27. Halstead D. One of These Things is not Quite the Same: A Comparison of the Patent Doctrine of Equivalents with Suitability for Filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application. 2002. (In Eng.). 28. Hollis A. An Efficient Reward System for Pharmaceutical Innovation. Manuscript. 2005. Available at: http://www. econ. ucalgary. ca/fac-files/ah/drugprizes. (In Eng.). 29. Holzer W. Effective Mechanisms for Challenging the Validity of Patents. 2006. Available at: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ meet-ings/en/2006/scp_of_ge_06/presentations/ scp_of_ge_06_holzer. (In Eng.). 30. Mansfield E. Intellectual Property Protection, Direct Investment, and Technology Transfer: IFC Discussion Paper. 1995. Issue 27. (In Eng.). 31. Patodia D., Jain S., Shukla U. Doctrine of Equivalents: Scope & Limitations. 2007. (In Eng.). 32. Tauchner P. The Principles of the Doctrine of Equivalence in Germany. Available at: http://www.vossiusandpartner.com/pdf/pdf_34. (In Eng.). |
|||||||||
| Received: | 19.09.2018 | |||||||||
| Financing: | --- | |||||||||
614068, Perm, street Bukireva, 15 (Faculty of Law), +7 (342) 2 396 275
vesturn@yandex.ru
ISSN 1995-4190 ISSN (eng.) 2618-8104
ISSN (online) 2658-7106
DOI 10.17072/1995-4190
The certificate on registration of mass media ПИ № ФС77-33087 from September, 5th, 2008
The certificate on reregistration of mass media ПИ № ФС77-53189 from Marth, 14th, 2013
The magazine is included in List ВАК and in the Russian index of scientific citing
The founder & Publisher: the State educational institution of the higher training
“The Perm State University”.
Publishing 4 times a year