The ANDA Patent Certification Requirement and Thirty-Month Stay Provision: Is it Necessary?

DSpace/Manakin Repository

dc.contributor.advisor	Hutt, Peter Barton	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Range, Brian	en_US
dc.date.accessioned	2012-06-07T20:34:05Z
dc.date.issued	2001	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	The ANDA Patent Certification Requirement and Thirty-Month Stay Provision: Is it Necessary? (2001 Third Year Paper)	en
dc.identifier.uri	http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:8852164
dc.description.abstract	Patent law and the Federal drug approval laws are both rather arcane and complex. The intersection of these two areas in the Hatch-Waxman Act is particularly complicated, and this perhaps explains the failure of the Act to consistently comply with core philosophical principles for supporting the modern intellectual property regime. The following paper addresses the problems arising from the thirty-month stay provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act, evaluates the legitimacy of the provision under accepted philosophical justifications for intellectual property, and suggests possible alternatives for addressing the failures of this provision.	en
dc.language.iso	en_US	en
dash.license	LAA	en_US
dc.subject	Food and Drug Law	en
dc.subject	ANDA	en
dc.subject	thirty-month stay	en
dc.subject	hatch-waxman	en
dc.subject	FDA	en
dc.subject	drug approval	en
dc.title	The ANDA Patent Certification Requirement and Thirty-Month Stay Provision: Is it Necessary?	en
dc.type	Paper (for course/seminar/workshop)	en_US
dc.date.available	2012-06-07T20:34:05Z