Amgen, TKT and the erythropoietin patents – patent privileges in preference to competition
Author(s)
Lawson, Charles
Griffith University Author(s)
Year published
2005
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
The United States Court of Appeals (Federal Circuit) decision in Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Inc 314 F 3d 1313 (2003) poses significant concerns for promoting competition in the biotechnology sector. The decision is, in effect, a win for old technology and "Big Pharma" at the expense of new and substitute technology that might have been expected to introduce new entrants and competition into the sector. This article reviews the key outcomes of that decision and places the consequences into a competition discourse concluding that the Court of Appeals' preference for favouring a construction and written description ...
View more >The United States Court of Appeals (Federal Circuit) decision in Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Inc 314 F 3d 1313 (2003) poses significant concerns for promoting competition in the biotechnology sector. The decision is, in effect, a win for old technology and "Big Pharma" at the expense of new and substitute technology that might have been expected to introduce new entrants and competition into the sector. This article reviews the key outcomes of that decision and places the consequences into a competition discourse concluding that the Court of Appeals' preference for favouring a construction and written description that confounds new market entrants may not be desirable for competition.
View less >
View more >The United States Court of Appeals (Federal Circuit) decision in Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Inc 314 F 3d 1313 (2003) poses significant concerns for promoting competition in the biotechnology sector. The decision is, in effect, a win for old technology and "Big Pharma" at the expense of new and substitute technology that might have been expected to introduce new entrants and competition into the sector. This article reviews the key outcomes of that decision and places the consequences into a competition discourse concluding that the Court of Appeals' preference for favouring a construction and written description that confounds new market entrants may not be desirable for competition.
View less >
Journal Title
Australian Intellectual Property Journal
Volume
16
Issue
3
Publisher URI
Subject
Law not elsewhere classified
Law