LabCorp v. Metabolite Laboratories: The Supreme Court listens, but declines to speak.

In the United States, a longstanding legal rule exists against patenting natural phenomena. The Supreme Court recently had an opportunity to help define the boundaries and clarify the implications of this "natural phenomenon doctrine" in Laboratory Corporation of America v. Metabolite Labs., dismissed as improvidently granted. This article argues that the natural phenomenon doctrine renders both the patent claim at issue in LabCorp, and the patents that directly or indirectly claim biological correlations between genotypes and medical phenotypes, invalid or unenforceable under U.S. patent law.     

美国网络色情言论管制的“空间”标准——从ACLU案到ALA案

在网络色情言论管制中，美国司法机关通过案例建立起“空间”标准，以及对“空间”标准的审查基准。“空间”标准是指在网络色情信息和成年人之间形成封闭空间，避免未成年人轻易接触网络色情信息。“空间”标准的建立，是保障特定人群免遭色情言论污染的一个重要运用。网络的虚拟性和开放性决定了这一封闭空间很难做到完美，而有可能侵害非色情信息发布者的言论自由。ACLU案和ALA案是美国最高法院建立和完善“空间”标准的两个里程碑式的案例。经过案例的积累和发展，美国最高法院逐渐形成了立体化的“空间”标准。为保障未成年人免遭色情言论侵扰提供了法制上的保障，也缓解了网络色情言论管制与言论自由之间的张力。     

Fulfilling the bargain: how the science of ergonomics can inform the laws of workers' compensation

In the last decade, cumulative trauma disorders have become a significant percentage of reported workplace injuries and litigated workers' compensation claims. Arising from the accumulated impact of daily work activities on the body, these injuries do not fall neatly within either the "accident" or "disease" categories which comprise workers' compensation laws. As a result, courts and legislatures have struggled to properly evaluate workers' compensation claims for these injuries. This Note looks at the legal treatment of cumulative trauma injuries in light of the "original bargain" of workers' compensation, where workers give up a tort remedy against their employers in exchange for guaranteed, but limited, compensation for work-related injuries. In doing so, this Note undertakes a comprehensive comparison of litigated cumulative trauma cases in the tort and workers' compensation systems. Ultimately, this Note argues that judges must use the original bargain as an interpretive less when deciding cumulative trauma cases, and points to ergonomics--the science of the workplace--as a significant new tool for determining whether such injuries are work-related.     

City of Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital: government responsibility for an arrestee's medical care

City of Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital presented the United States Supreme Court with its first opportunity to consider whether a state or municipality has a constitutional duty to pay for medical treatment received by an individual in police custody. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts had held that the city had an eighth amendment duty to pay for an arrestee's treatment. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, observing that eighth amendment rights and duties are not implicated prior to conviction and that fourteenth amendment due process concerns were met once the arrestee received adequate medical care. No obligation to pay arises, the Court held, absent a specific state law provision requiring such payment. Because arrestees are subject to physical restraints similar to those imposed on convicted prisoners, this Case Comment argues that courts undertaking to determine the scope of a state's duty to provide treatment to arrestees should apply a due process standard which draws upon eighth amendment analysis. The Comment concludes that under such an eighth amendment equivalence approach, no duty to pay arises because the state's failure to pay the health care provider does not reflect "deliberate indifference" towards the recipient of the treatment.     

后Bilski时代电子商务商业方法专利之因应与挑战

美国法院早期以商业方法属于数学演绎方法为由,将商业方法排除在专利保护之外.受此影响,商业方法在美国一直被认为不应授予专利.后来法院提出如果抽象的商业方法与运用这种方法后发生了某种物理转换或者有形的装置相联系,则应承认其具有可专利性.1998年更是表明只要该项发明能导出“实用、具体、有形之结果”者,仍不失其可专利性,否认了商业方法在美国《专利法》中存在例外.虽然联邦巡回上诉法院在In re Bilski案中,提出美国《专利法》第101条规定的方法发明须符合“机器或转换测试法”,试图限缩商业方法专利的范围,但联邦最高法院在 Bilski v.Kappos案中否认其为审查商业方法专利唯一的判断标准.在迄今为止仍存较大争议的背景下,如果既无技术贡献,亦无技术特征,更未与其实现所必须的计算机设备或计算程序相结合,而仅系解决商业经营的程序、步骤或者流程者,商业方法即应为人类智力活动的规则或方法,属于思想的范畴,而不属于专利权的保护客体.     

论法人的基本权利主体地位

美国宪法并没有规定公司是基本权利主体,美国联邦最高法院在很多判例中亦认定美国宪法的特权与豁免条款不适用于公司。宪法第14修正案通过后,尤其是自19世纪80年代以来,美国联邦最高法院逐渐将宪法的保护扩大适用于公司,使得公司成为某些宪法基本权利的主体。这一转变迎合了美国经济发展的需要,使得国内统一大市场的建立成为可能。本文借鉴美国的宪法实践,细致梳理了公司作为基本权利主体的相关理论。     

Is the death of the death penalty near? The impact of Atkins and Roper on the future of capital punishment for mentally ill defendants

In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has created two categorical exemptions to the death penalty. In Atkins v. Virginia, the Court exempted mentally retarded offenders. Three years later, in Roper v. Simmons, the Court extended the protection to juveniles. Based on these cases, the practices of foreign countries, and the opinions of professional organizations with relevant expertise, legal scholars speculate that the Court may, in the future, categorically exclude severely mentally ill offenders from the death penalty. This Note examines the feasibility of such an exemption for the mentally ill and considers its possible repercussions.     

Compensation for disability resulting from hospitalization, treatment, examination, or vocational rehabilitation--VA. Interim final rule with request for comments

This document amends Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) adjudication regulations concerning compensation for disability or death resulting from VA hospitalization, medical or surgical treatment, or examination. Previously, the regulations required that VA be at fault or that an accident occur to establish entitlement to compensation for adverse results of medical or surgical treatment. This rule deletes the fault-or-accident requirement and instead provides that compensation is not payable for the necessary consequences of proper treatment to which the veteran consented. This amendment is necessary to conform the regulations to a recent United States Supreme Court decision.     

Heckler v. Campbell and the grid: are disability claimants entitled to examples of suitable jobs?

The Social Security Administration promulgated the medical-vocational guidelines (the grid) in 1978 in order to improve consistency and efficiency in disability claim adjudications. The grid takes administrative notice of the availability of jobs suited to claimants' capabilities, eliminating the need to make such a determination on a case-by-case basis. In Heckler v. Campbell, the Supreme Court held that the grid is valid and that the Secretary of Health and Human Services cannot be required to give specific examples of jobs available in the national economy. In so doing, the Court reversed the Second Circuit, which had required the Secretary to give claimants examples of jobs suited to their individual characteristics to assure them adequate notice of the issues involved in their hearings. This Case Comment contends that the Supreme Court misperceived the Second Circuit's purpose in requiring the Secretary to provide specific examples of available jobs. Nonetheless, the Comment argues that the Supreme Court decision does not foreclose requiring such examples to assure adequate notice and to aid in resolving adjudicative factual issues. This Comment concludes that such a requirement would improve the efficiency, accuracy and consistency of Social Security disability determinations.     

医疗损害赔偿诉讼难题及审判对策

《侵权责任法》第七章留下诸如当事人选择、案由确定、医疗过错和因果关系判断标准、病历证据属性、鉴定体制等许多实践操作的难题。对这些司法实践难题的解决．最高人民法院目前已经出台了部分司法解释,但实质性的问题都没有得到解决。由于最高人民法院出台司法解释有一个过程．在司法解释尚未出台之际,地方高级人民法院针寸当地的司法实践的具体情况。可以因地适宜出台地方司法审判指导文件。我们现在看到的浙江、江苏、上海、北京四个省市的地方审判指导文件,解决了各地审理医疗损害赔偿纠纷案件中的一些难题,在制度上有创斯之处,且具有极强的可操作性。地方司法审判指导文件的出台,既解决了当前地方上医疗损害赔偿案件审理的困境．也为最高人民法院制定司法解释积累经验。     

From Hyderabad to Harvard: how US law schools make it worthwhile to clerk on India's Supreme Court

Since the 1990s, judges of the Supreme Court of India have hired law clerks to help them perform some of their routine tasks. However, while clerkships on the U.S. Supreme Court are considered very prestigious and are extensively written about, clerkships on India's Supreme Court are considered to be of significantly lower value by the local legal profession and teaching market in India. Instead, ironically, clerkships on the Supreme Court of India are often pursued by students interested in getting an advanced law degree (usually an LL.M.) at a U.S. law school. Relying on interviews conducted with law clerks and interns who have served on the Supreme Court of India, and using India as a case study, this paper argues that ambitious Indian law students are adopting strategies to “Americanize” themselves in order to culturally arbitrage U.S. law schools' misunderstandings of the global legal profession.     

Dimensions of criminal justice policy: The Supreme Court,the Fourth Amendment and the trial court system

A full understanding of the role of the U.S. Supreme Court’s supervisory authority over the criminal justice process must recognize that the political and social environment affects local responses to Supreme Court directives. This paper reviews the development of Supreme Court Fourth Amendment decisions in which criminal court deliver justice. The authors suggest that future treatment of problems in Supreme Court’s supervisory role and the prospects of demands for Reform being generated from the larger political community.     

Remedies for Breach of Trust

The decision of the Supreme Court in AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler & Co confirms the approach taken by Lord Browne‐Wilkinson in Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns: where a trustee misapplies trust assets, a beneficiary is limited to a claim for equitable compensation for losses caused by the trustee's breach of duty. This seems to be a departure from traditional equitable doctrine, which held that the beneficiary could falsify the trustee's unauthorised disbursement and bring a claim for an ‘equitable debt’. This note considers the impact of the decision of the Supreme Court, and how the law regarding ‘equitable compensation’ might continue to develop.     

Brief for bioethicists for privacy as amicus curiae supporting appellees

Amicus, an ad hoc group of philosophers, theologians, attorneys, and physicians, believe that adults should consult their doctor when making personal decisions. The doctor-patient relationship would be protected under the Constitution. In "Griswold v. Connecticut," the Supreme Court said that a state law which forbid married couples from using contraceptives was unconstitutional; that the couples should have a right to privacy. In "Roe," the Supreme Court recognized that a patient and her doctor should have privacy. In "Doe v. Bolton," the Supreme Court found that the State of Georgia was violating the patients' and physician's freedom. In "Planned Parenthood of Missouri v. Danforth," the Supreme Court said that a general informed consent provision was alright because it did not take away the abortion decision. The post- Roe state laws were ways to control doctors and patients so that a particular philosophical view could be imposed. The major question in Webster is whether personal decisions should be made by doctors and patients or the state. Both parties must agree to the decision. Section 188.205 of the Missouri law was before the Court in Webster. This section makes it illegal for public funds to be used to encourage a woman to have an abortion that wasn't necessary to save her life. There are medical conditions for which abortion is reasonable - Tay-Sachs disease, for instance. The child usually dies by 3 years of age. Without genetic screening, many at-risk couples would abort all pregnancies. 95% of all prenatal screenings are negative. State medical treatment decisions are arbitrary and impersonal. Having control over important personal decisions is necessary for freedom.     

FDA preemption of drug and device labeling: who should decide what goes on a drug label?

The Supreme Court decided an issue that is critical to consumer health and safety last year. In April 2009, the Supreme Court held that extensive FDA regulation of drugs did not preempt a state law claim that an additional warning on the label was necessary to make the drug reasonably safe for use. Thus, states--and even courts and juries--are now free to cast their vote on what a drug label should say. This is in direct contrast to medical devices, where the federal statute regulating medical devices expressly provides that state regulations are preempted. This Article discusses basic preemption principles and drugs, and explores the policy ramifications of pro- and anti-preemption policy in the healthcare industry.     

Why Does the Federal Government Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in Charter of Rights Cases? A Strategic Explanation

Despite the impressive body of scholarship dedicated to analyzing litigation involving the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Supreme Court of Canada, there remains an incomplete understanding of why these cases come to the Court. Notably absent from the literature is sustained analysis of why governments, the most frequent class of appellant, bring Charter cases to the Supreme Court. Recent work has addressed the decision to appeal by the U.S. federal government and state attorneys general and provides an excellent theoretical starting point. I use case data collected from interviews with federal government lawyers and law reports to test whether the Canadian federal government's decisions to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in Charter cases are also "procedurally rational." I conclude that these decisions are primarily shaped by strategic considerations related to policy costs, case importance, reviewability, and the prospect of winning on appeal, regardless of the party in power. In the process, the article further extends the application of strategic decisionmaking theory with regard to law and courts beyond judicial behavior, and beyond the U.S. context.     

State Courts, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Protection of Civil Liberties

Advocates of federalism, both in the United States and elsewhere, often cite the potential for enhanced protection of individual civil liberties as an emerging rationale for a federal system dividing governmental responsibilities between central and regional governments and central and regional judiciaries. Echoing this, some judicial officials and scholars, confronting an increasingly conservative U.S. Supreme Court, have called for state supreme courts to use the state constitutional grounds to preserve and increase the protections of the Bill of Rights. Using event count analysis, we examine state search-and-seizure cases for 1981 to 1993 to ascertain under what circumstances state courts would use this opportunity to eliminate Supreme Court review. We find that the relative ideological position of the state supreme courts and the U.S. Supreme Court often prevents, or does away with the need for, liberal courts to use the adequate and independent state grounds doctrine to expand the rights of criminal defendants and that state supreme court justices react more predictably in the assertion of constitutional protection law than the general consensus suggests.     

论最高法院在宏观调控中的角色定位

最高法院对宏观调控的介入具有一定的可能性,但必须充分认识到其介入宏观调控所面临的制度障碍、知识障碍、工具障碍、观念障碍以及成本障碍。最高法院对宏观调控的介入只能是一种被动的消极角色,而且尚必须注重与其他社会系统充分的信息交流和对话,强调司法权的自我约束。     

Abandoning the common law: medical negligence, genetic tests and wrongful life in the Australian High Court

The Australian High Court recently found that the common law could allow parents to claim tortious damages when medical negligence was proven to have led to the birth of an unplanned, but healthy, baby (Cattanach v Melchior (2003) 215 CLR 1). In Harriton v Stephens (2006) 80 ALJR 791; [2006] HCA 15 and Waller v James; Waller v Hoolahan (2006) 80 ALJR 846; [2006] HCA 16 the High Court in a six-to-one decision (Kirby J dissenting) decided that no such claim could be made by a child when medical negligence in failing to order an in utero genetic test caused the child severe disability. In an era when almost all pregnancies will soon require patented fetal genetic tests as part of the professional standard of care, the High Court, by barring so-called "wrongful life" (better termed "wrongful suffering") claims, may have created a partial immunity from suit for their corporate manufacturers and the doctors who administer them. What lessons can be learnt from this case about how the Australian High Court is, or should be, approaching medical negligence cases and its role as guardian of the Australian common law?