Access to medicine and the dangers of patent linkage: lessons from Bayer Corp v. Union of India

In February 2010, the Delhi High Court delivered its decision in Bayer Corp v Union of India in which Bayer had appealed against an August 2009 decision of the same court. Both decisions prevented Bayer from introducing the concept of patent linkage into India's drug regulatory regime. Bayer appealed to the Indian Supreme Court, the highest court in India, which agreed on 2 March 2010 to hear the appeal. Given that India is regarded as a global pharmaceutical manufacturer of generic medications, how its judiciary and government perceive their international obligations has a significant impact on the global access to medicines regime. In rejecting the application of patent linkage, the case provides an opportunity for India to further acknowledge its international human rights obligations.     

A trojan horse goes to court: Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp

In Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., the Supreme Court held that a statute prohibiting the mailing of unsolicited advertisements for contraceptives was unconstitutional as applied to Young's advertisements for condoms. The decision rested on a balancing of the first amendment's grant of free speech with the Government's interest in safeguarding an individual's privacy. The Court noted that the advertisements promoted the flow of information on contraception, and pertained to constitutionally protected private activity. This Case Comment argues that the Court's decision is sound and criticizes the view of the concurring opinion that shielding individuals from potentially offensive speech is a substantial governmental interest. The Comment concludes that the Court's decision expands upon precedent which established an individual's right of privacy regarding the use of contraceptives.     

Beshada v. Johns-Manville Products Corp.: the function of state of the art evidence in strict products liability

In Beshada v. Johns-Manville Products Corp., the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a state of the art defense is unavailable in cases brought under a theory of strict liability for failure to warn. The court indicated that asbestos producers may be held liable for their products' harms even if the health hazards of asbestos were unknown and not discoverable when the products were marketed. In a subsequent case, the New Jersey court held that state of the art evidence is relevant to whether a product is defective. This Case Comment examines these different uses of knowledge evidence in the disposition of products liability cases. It contends that manufacturers should not be held liable for unknowable risks. The Comment concludes that the state of the art defense establishes a logical limit on strict liability and promotes efficient resolution of products liability claims.     

Psychiatric injury and assault the immediate effect ofR. v.Ireland, R. v.Burstow

Conclusion R. v.Ireland marked the emergence of the psychic assault—an assault which does not involve fear of immediate force, where the harm becomes a feature of the assault. This explains why foresight ofsuch harm was required of the defendant by the Court of Appeal inIreland. However, the more recent discussions on assault, by the House of Lords inR. v.Burstow, R. v.Ireland and by the Court of Appeal inR. v.Constanza, have made no reference to the defendant's foresight or to the victim's psychiatric injury. Instead the decisions have focused on the victim's fear of immediate violence. To this extent they have halted the development of the psychiatric assault and preserved the traditional view of assault as the apprehension of immediate unlawful force.     

国家工作人员范围之界定

国家工作人员范围的界定涉及国家工作人员职务犯罪的准确定性与适当量刑以及对其预防遏制问题。要理解国家工作人员中的“委派”人员适格性之形式和实质要件和“委派”人员从事公务性的特殊涵义。     

U.S. Industries v. Director: "claim" versus "condition" in the analysis of workers' compensation cases

Under most workers' compensation statutes, an injury must "arise out of " and "in the course of" employment in order to qualify as a compensable disability. In U.S. Industries v. Director, the Supreme Court held that the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act must be strictly construed to avoid transforming the compensation system into a form of social insurance. In U.S. Industries, the Court denied a disability claim based on an arthritic condition which was manifested while the worker was at home in bed. This Note contends that the Supreme Court neglected to consider pertinent medical realities when analyzing the causation question. Thus, the decision undermines the overall rationale behind workers' compensation legislation. Nonetheless, the Note argues that the case does not relax the requirement of adequately scrutinizing the causative elements underlying any reasonable claim for disability benefits. An analysis adequately accommodating both medical and legal facts, instead of relying upon the vagaries of statutory interpretation, is necessary to improve the efficiency and fairness of workers' compensation disability determinations.     

软件专利权的域外效力——美国Microsoft Corporation v．AT＆T Corp案评介

对Microsoft Corporation v.AT&T Corp一案进行分析可知,美国最高法院认为,当软件以计算机可读的目标代码形式存在时才符合美国专利法第271条(f)款所说的“部件”;微软公司通过“黄金母盘”或电子传输的方式将母版Windows软件发送(dispatch)给国外的计算机生产商和授权的国外复制者的行为不构成美国专利法第271条(f)款所说的“提供”行为,不构成专利间接侵权。我国专利法第三次修订时应当对美国专利“间接侵权”相关立法予以借鉴。     

软件专利权的域外效力——美国Microsoft Corporation v.AT&T Corp案评介

对Microsoft Corporation v.AT&T Corp一案进行分析可知,美国最高法院认为,当软件以计算机可读的目标代码形式存在时才符合美国专利法第271条(f)款所说的"部件":微软公司通过"黄金母盘"或电子传输的方式将母版Windows软件发送(dispatch)给国外的计算机生产商和授权的国外复制者的行为不构成美国专利法第271条(f)款所说的"提供"行为,不构成专利间接侵权.我国专利法第三次修订时应当对美国专利"间接侵权"相关立法予以借鉴.     

从搭售构成到市场的关联性──对德先诉索尼案的思考

德先诉索尼案被认为是国内第一起以非法垄断为案由的案件,具有理论探讨的重要意义,此案在实体认定上并不能笼统地认为索尼公司实施了非法的搭售。因为索尼公司在数码相机的设备市场上并不具备市场支配地位,同时在产品的销售中不具备搭售的"单一产品"构成要件,因此在销售设备时不成立数码产品和电池的非法搭售。但是,由于设备市场和售后市场的关联性,设备市场的竞争在售后市场是专有市场时无法影响厂商对于售后产品的定价,从而构成对索尼产品的售后市场的垄断地位,并在售后市场上构成搭售。同时,在数码相机市场快速发展,设备产品未来销售的贴现价值偏小的激励下,厂商有足够的动力对售后产品制定高价格,扭曲竞争。因此,在这一意义上,索尼公司的行为构成反垄断法意义上的非法搭售。