Reach-through claims for drug target patents: Rx for pharmaceutical policy

Nature Biotechnology

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 55-56

  Bohrer, Robert A ^a  

^a CALIFORNIA WESTERN SCHOOL OF LAW   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG MANUFACTURE; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG TARGETING; PATENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SHORT SURVEY;

DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEMS; DRUG INDUSTRY; LEGISLATION, DRUG; PATENTS AS TOPIC; PUBLIC POLICY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 38049077036     PISSN: 10870156     EISSN: 15461696     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nbt0108-55     Document Type: Short Survey

References (7)

1. University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., 358 F.3d 916 (Fed. Cir.), reh'g en banc denied, 375 F.3d 1303, cert. denied, 160 L. Ed. 2d 484 (2004).
2. The Trilateral Co-operation. Mutual understanding in search and examination: comparative study on biotechnology patent practices (Trilateral Project B3b) (The Trilateral Co-operation, 2001).〈http://www.trilateral. net/projects/biotechnology/reach_through_claims/〉
3. Avorn, J. Powerful Medicines: The Benefits, Risks, and Costs of Prescription Drugs (Knopf, New York, 2004).
4. Marcia Angell. The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What To Do About It (Random House, New York, 2004).
5. American Hospital Formulary Service. Antilipemic agents 24:06, HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Bethesda, MD, USA, 2002).
6. Congressional Budget Office. How increased competition from generic drugs has affected prices and returns in the pharmaceutical industry (US Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, 1998).
7. Bohrer, R.A. N. Engl. J. Med. 343, 1416 (2000).