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

DSpace/Manakin Repository

dc.contributor.advisor	Hutt, Peter Barton	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Halstead, David P.	en_US
dc.date.accessioned	2012-06-07T20:38:09Z
dc.date.issued	2002	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	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 Third Year Paper)	en
dc.identifier.uri	http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:8852178
dc.description.abstract	The doctrine of equivalents as applied to chemical patents is compared to the FDAâ€™s findings of bioequivalence in reviewing suitability petitions for filing Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs). The doctrine of equivalents provides the greatest flexibility early in the drug-development process, gradually diminishing as the product refinements become increasingly minor. Determinations of bioequivalence, however, exhibit the reverse trend as applied to analogous situations in the context of suitability petitions.	en
dc.language.iso	en_US	en
dash.license	LAA	en_US
dc.subject	Food and Drug Law	en
dc.subject	doctrine of equivalents	en
dc.subject	suitability petition	en
dc.subject	ANDA	en
dc.title	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	en
dc.type	Paper (for course/seminar/workshop)	en_US
dc.date.available	2012-06-07T20:38:09Z