首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
Legal context: There exists, in some countries, a patent attorney privilege.This privilege allows an actual or potential holder of patentrights to withhold from a court communications that it has hadwith its patent attorney. The privilege is not recognized inall jurisdictions and there is variation in the extent of theprivilege in those countries where it does exist. Key points: This article explores the rationale for the privilege in orderto see if there is a sound basis upon which to found it. Througha consideration of the justifications for other legal privileges,the article finds that patent attorney privilege is a justifiableprotection for communications between clients and their patentattorneys. If there was a possibility that the communicationswould have to be revealed in court, this may impact the fulland frank nature of the communications. Such communicationsassist patent attorneys, as professionals with expertise ina specialized field, to provide clients with appropriate andeffective advice. That advice goes directly to the maintenanceand benefit of the patent system and the overall economy. Practical significance: As a result of the variation in the extent of the privilegearound the world, there are moves afoot to reform its operation.This article reveals strong public policy reasons for the recognitionof a patent attorney privilege. These grounds also reinforcethe need to ensure that privilege is not unduly limited in itsoperation in any jurisdiction.  相似文献   

2.
Where a public interest defence is raised, for example by anewspaper, to rebut an assertion by a claimant alleging breachof confidence, and the defence is not purely speculative, theclaimant has to give disclosure in relation to the defence,subject to the search for documents not being disproportionate.  相似文献   

3.
4.
Speculative uses for a protein are not sufficient to fulfilthe requirement for industrial application since a patent isnot a ‘hunting licence’ to find a use for an invention.  相似文献   

5.
6.
The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. Key points
  • This article explains why the recent TransparencyDirective led to an unintended change in law in the United Kingdomrelating to liability for annual and other reports by listedcompanies. The change was the result of a misunderstanding ofthe fact that the expressed or implied purpose of disclosurecan act as a trigger for liability in negligence. The articleargues that new disclosure requirements should always be reviewedin the light of the liability that will be imposed on thoseresponsible for the disclosure, so that costs and benefits canbe correctly balanced and prompt, reliable and relevant disclosurewill be encouraged.
  • The new liability regime for reports inthe United Kingdom is considered and it is argued that the regimeshould logically be extended beyond company reports to the fullrange of disclosures required of companies that are admittedto regulated markets.
  • The article concludes by . . . [Full Text of this Article]
 
   1. Introduction    2. Reports under the Transparency Obligations Directive    3. Liability for disclosure under English law    4. What went wrong?    5. Making the logical connections    6. Achieving the right threshold for liability    7. The importance of consistency in liability for market disclosures