University-industry consortium agreements Center for Process Analytical Chemistry: A case study

There is a surfeit of articles, books, and conferences on the subject of university-industry collaboration, but few of them address specific, pragmatic issues related to the development of an operable sponsorship agreement. This article focuses on the terms of the agreement negotiated with industry sponsors of the National Science Foundation (NSF) Industry-University Collaborative Research Center (IUCRC), established at the University of Washington in 1984 as the Center for Process Analytical Chemistry (CPAC). Over the past 11 years, CPAC has grown dramatically and achieved important successes, but some of the terms in the initial agreement have proven to be problematic, particularly those dealing with intellectual property rights. This article reviews the nature of the problems and explains the solutions negotiated by participants as part of a revised agreement implemented in 1992.     

体育赞助项目管理缔约问题研究

赞助项目的经营管理状况是赞助商参与体育赞助、有效开展市场营销的关键所在,赞助公司与项目管理公司在订立项目管理合同时应就赞助项目的经营和协调事宜,管理费用和成本,合同有效期、解除权和排他性条款,以及相关的知识产权、赔偿和保险、保密条款和新闻发布等具体事项,认真拟定各自的权利义务,消解潜在的法律风险,从而为赞助项目的成功运作奠定良好的法律基础。     

Bridging the Gender Gap In Bill Sponsorship

Under what circumstances do men sponsor issues that are traditionally regarded as salient primarily to women? By examining the sponsorship of legislation in the upper and lower chambers of 15 state legislatures in 2001, we explored the conditions under which men are likely to focus attention on policy areas involving women's issues and children's issues. We found little effect of institutional context (such as party control of the legislature or diversity within the legislature) on the sponsorship behavior of either men or women. Personal characteristics such as race, education, age, and family circumstances are associated with sponsorship by men, but not by women. Committee service is also strongly associated with sponsorship behavior, particularly for men. Differences in sponsorship are relatively marked in the sponsorship of legislation that focuses on reproduction or other health issues particularly relevant to women. We conclude that the boundaries of the set of issues traditionally defined as “women's issues” may be changing over time and that it is important to recognize that the influences on the sponsorship of women's issues can be different for men than they are for women.     

Minimizing employee benefits litigation through effective claims administration procedures

With the marked increase in employee benefits litigation, employers and benefit plan sponsors are searching for ways to avoid such lawsuits, minimize their exposure in such lawsuits, and maximize their ability of prevailing in such lawsuits. Benefit claim processing and administration have become fertile areas for lawsuits. Consequently, improving benefit claim processing and administration obviously becomes important, and an area where affirmative actions by the employer and plan sponsor will produce many litigation-related benefits. This article will discuss, in a very simple and straightforward manner, various actions an employer or plan sponsor can take which will decrease the number of lawsuits, minimize the potential exposure if a lawsuit is filed, and maximize the ability of prevailing if a lawsuit is filed.     

Ethics at Phase 0: Clarifying the Issues

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) recently issued documents encouraging sponsors to consider microdose testing before launching Phase I trials, and many commentators predict that such methodologies will be applied more routinely in drug development. However, exploratory testing has provoked several ethical criticisms. Skeptics question the value and validity of microdose trials, and whether they present a reasonable balance of risks and benefits for subjects. Another major criticism is that such studies serve mainly commercial ends. The present article explores these and other ethical concerns for studies conducted in the oncology setting. It concludes that microdosing is not inconsistent with prevailing practices in Phase I research, and that in principle, such studies could strengthen the ethical basis for Phase I trials by providing them better evidentiary justification.     

试论刑法中“公共安全”的涵义

“公共安全”是指不特定人的生命、健康和重大公私财产安全。这里的“不特定”应理解为无论犯罪行为是否具有针对性，最终会侵害到哪些人的生命、健康和重大公私财产安全，其事先是无法确定的，而且该行为所造成的危险状态或危害结果有随时转化或扩大的现实可能性。     

The Bush Doctrine Revisited: The 2006 National Security Strategy of the USA

In its 2006 National Security Strategy, the USA reaffirms thecontroversial doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence as crucialin the "war on terror" proclaimed after the attacks of 9/11.But it does not provide a detailed examination of pre-emption.The questions left open in the 2002 US National Security Strategyas to what will trigger pre-emptive action, when action againstnon-State actors will be permissible and what degree of forcewill be proportionate in pre-emptive action are still unresolved.The promise that "The reasons for our actions will be clear,the force measured and the cause just" does not offer much inthe way of specific guidance. It is very striking that in thiscontext, the US strategy makes no reference to internationallaw or to the role of the UN Security Council. The other mainfocus of the strategy is on the "promotion of democracy", butit does not go so far as to assert any legal right to use forcefor this purpose, and it makes only passing reference to humanitarianintervention. The EU 2003 Security Strategy provides a markedcontrast in that it does not adopt the doctrine of pre-emptiveself-defence, does not expressly identify "rogue States" anddoes profess respect for international law and for the roleof the UN. Other States have not generally shown themselveswilling to accept a Bush doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence.They agree that there are new threats facing the world frominternational terrorists and the danger of proliferation ofweapons of mass destruction, but the 2005 World Summit showedclearly that there is no general acceptance of pre-emptive action.Moreover, the International Court of Justice still follows acautious approach to self-defence. The 2006 National SecurityStrategy largely reaffirms the doctrines of the earlier 2002Strategy, but whereas the focus in the 2002 Strategy was onthe threat posed by Iraq and North Korea; attention has nowshifted to Iran and Syria, accused of being State sponsors ofterror by Hizbollah and Al-Qaida. The article ends with a discussionof the recent conflict in Lebanon: this raised the crucial questionwhether the war on terror gave Israel a wide right to use force,even a pre-emptive right. The conflict highlights dramaticallythe practical significance of the divisions on the scope ofthe law of self-defence with regard to action against non-Stateactors, pre-emption and proportionality.     

Sorting Out Mixtures of Property at Common Law

This article asks a simple question: when indistinguishable items of personal property owned by A and by B are mixed together, what rights do A and B have in relation to the resultant mass? It is argued that there is insufficient evidence in the positive law to provide any convincing answer to this question, and so it is asked which interpretation that can be drawn out from the law ought to be adopted. It will be shown that – both in relation to mixtures of goods and mixtures of cash – a rule of co‐ownership is to be preferred. The article's framework of analysis will be of interest to all those concerned by the relatively sparse case law that deals with foundational principles of personal property, and can help to guide a way forward in other contexts where the cases are silent, muddled, or fail to speak with one voice.     

《民法典》第157条(法律行为无效之法律后果)评注

本条中“民事法律行为”既包括财产行为也包括身份行为,既包括负担行为也包括处分行为;“确定不发生效力”既包括效力待定法律行为终未获追认、已成立终未获审批的情形,也包括法律行为未成立的情形。本条中“财产”包括一切可转让的利益,就权利移转型合同而言,财产返还请求权系物权性的回复原状请求权,它主要指有形财产的占有回复和权利簿册记载的回复。折价补偿请求权为特殊的不当得利请求权,在合同无效清算场合,应一般性禁用《民法典》第986条得利丧失抗辩规则。损害赔偿请求权是一种特殊的缔约过失赔偿请求权,可适用于双方明知或应知合同违法、背俗而无效的场合。本条并非宣示性条款,它规定了三项独立的请求权基础。在法律对建设工程合同等特殊合同以及其他法律行为无效另有特别规定时,应各依该特别规定处理。     

International Conference on Harmonisation; guidance on S2(R1) Genotoxicity Testing and Data Interpretation for Pharmaceuticals intended for Human Use; availability. Notice

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance entitled ``S2(R1) Genotoxicity Testing and Data Interpretation for Pharmaceuticals Intended for Human Use' (ICH S2(R1)). This guidance was prepared under the auspices of the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). The ICH S2(R1) combines and replaces two ICH guidances, "S2A Specific Aspects for Regulatory Genotoxicity Tests for Pharmaceuticals' and "S2B Genotoxicity: A Standard Battery for Genotoxicity Testing of Pharmaceuticals.' ICH S2(R1) provides guidance to drug sponsors on which tests should be performed to assess potential genotoxicity of pharmaceuticals. It also provides guidance on testing conditions, data interpretation, and followup strategies if a positive response is seen in in vitro assays. This guidance is intended to provide drug sponsors with recommendations to ensure that drugs are appropriately tested for potential to cause genetic damage and to ensure efficient development of new drugs.     

Judicial Review,Irrationality, and the Legitimacy of Merits-Review

The definition of the irrationality ground of judicial review recognises the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, in allowing for judicial control of the executive only very rarely. The author in a previous article in this study found that the courts, on occasions, had intervened in circumstances where administrative decisions arguably were not irrational. To this end, the purpose of this article is to assess the constitutionality of these seemingly low standards of irrationality. The author does so by reference either to the manner of review employed—the use of the proportionality principle, for example—or the context of the administrative decision under scrutiny, such as the infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights. The author finds that the cases from the previous article where low standards of irrationality were arguably adopted were, in fact, legitimate according to these chosen methods of evaluation. However, this is an interim conclusion because, for reasons of word length, the author is unable to complete a full assessment here. It is therefore proposed that a subsequent article will continue to examine the constitutionality of these cases. Furthermore, the author will also try and establish a zone of executive decision-making, for reasons of democracy, where the courts are excluded from irrationality review. If the author is unsuccessful in this regard, the final conclusion of this study will inevitably be that low standards of judicial intervention exist without limit—a clear assault on the constitutional principle stated above.

从苏丹情势分析国际刑事法院管辖权的补充性原则

联合国安理会向国际刑事法院的检察官提交的苏丹达尔富尔地区发生的情势,引发了非缔约国对国际刑事法院管辖权补充性的质疑。将达尔富尔的情势提交国际刑事法院,应由独立的机构判断苏丹政府“不愿意”和“不能”行使管辖权的客观证据。这样做,一方面为了充分支持安理会向检察官提交情势的行为;另一方面为了国际刑事法院审判工作的独立性和有效性吸引诸如中国和美国等司法制度健全的非缔约国批准《罗马规约》。中国虽然是非缔约国,但始终支持国际刑事法院的建立及其工作,并对国际刑事法院的审判活动采取一种审视态度。有理由相信,通过国际刑事法院建立的良好工作模式,如对达尔富尔公正有效的处理,以及在我国法律条件成熟的情况下,中国会成为《罗马规约》的缔约国。     

The interplay between IP rights and competition law in the context of standardization

Legal context: This article attempts to analyse the patent ambush scenarioin the context of both competition law and IP rights under USand EC law. The regulators such as the US FTC and European Commissionattempt to combat the abuses, however the legal tools availablerequire a very difficult balancing act between patent law (whichprotects innovation) and competition law (which attempts tohamper abuse of the free market rules). Key points: The patent ambush scenario employed within a standard-settingorganization poses an important threat of jeopardizing the goalsof achieving a common standard. The response to the problemconcentrates on ensuring that the rules applicable to standard-settingorganizations' members prevent abuse and/or reaching reasonableand non-discriminatory licensing terms to stop deriving unduebenefits from proprietary technologies embedded in the standard. Practical significance: As the information exchange technologies become increasinglypopular, the need to ensure interoperability between productsof different manufacturers employing these technologies becomescrucial for market success. This consequently increases thedanger of malignant abuse of co-operation within the standardsetting-organizations. The law may need to step in to securetechnological progress free of risks such as the patent ambush.     

泰国的涉外民商事管辖权制度

在泰国,对不涉及不动产或与此相关的权利和利益的诉讼,由被告住所地或诉因发生地能行使地域管辖权的法院管辖;有关不动产或其他与不动产有关的权利的诉讼,由有地域管辖权的被告住所地法院或不动产所在地法院管辖.外国国家不能成为泰国法院的当事人;当事人不能自主地选择管辖法院;在外国法院待审的案件还可向有管辖权的泰国法院提交;泰国法律制度中没有不方便法院这一概念.     

物业管理合同履行中不当抗辩行为的限制

在物业管理纠纷发生时，物业管理企业经常以停水断电或拒绝提供其他涉及业主重大利益的物业服务威胁业主，业主也动辄以拒绝缴纳或长期拖欠物业费对抗物业管理企业，这些行为违背诚实信用原则、损害社区公共利益，属于滥用抗辩权的不当抗辩行为。应当从立法和司法角度对这些不当抗辩行为进行限制，在我国现有立法没有相应规定的情况下，法院应援用诚实信用、公共利益和禁止权利滥用原则在司法审判实践中对不当抗辩行为进行限制。在限制不当抗辩行为时，应当允许当事人对无损他人利益的抗辩方式进行约定，也不能否定当事人行使正当的履行抗辩权。     

法学发展的“十字现象”——以物权行为制度与《合同法》第51条为说明主体

由于我国法学发展忽略“十字现象”,民法典不采物权行为制度似已成定论,并决定采用意思主义辅之以交付、登记制度;惟此一制度确有窒碍难行之处,是否即应采用,兹事体大,仍值再予辨证。本文论述不限于理论,并提出数例说明;此外《合同法》第51条规定之误,亦一并叙之。文中分别介绍不采物权行为制度的主要见解,及本文对其之评释;并分举数例以说明不同制度的优劣;同时探讨意思主义下的物权变动模式,其内容涉及法国民法模式、日本民法模式,与我国学者所创设的模式;最后并以法律经济分析法,探究是否应采用物权行为制度与《合同法》第51条规定的交易成本辨析,以为我国民法典立法应采用物权行为制度之佐证。     

International Law and the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict: Actual Problems and Challenges

Cultural property may be under serious threat in the event of armed conflict. In the twentieth century, there were clear developments in international law aimed at preventing and punishing war crimes against cultural property. Despite this, the destruction of cultural property during armed conflict has continued. This article questions whether the existing international law standards with regard to the protection of cultural property during armed conflict are satisfactory, and whether or not a new instrument could be valuable. Although considerable shortcomings remain, instead of pleading for a new instrument, this article advocates raising ratification rates, the enhancement of the implementation of existing instruments, and monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms.     

Improving federal technology commercialization: Some recommendations from a field study

This study identified three distinct roles of the federal technology-transfer process in the Huntsville, Alabama region: sponsors, developers, and adopters. The basic structure of transfer barriers and measures during the prospecting and developing of the federal technology-transfer process is also discussed. Sponsors attributed transfer problems to adopters' lack of awareness, while developers cited long development and payback times. Adopters admitted their lack of transfer expertise and their resistance to technologies with long paybacks. None of the role-players were measuring technology transfer very well. While sponsors agreed with adopters that long-term outcome measures were important, sponsors relied on measures of input effort and intermediate results. Developers with the most transfer experience reported the lowest use of measures. Recommendations are made for each role to help improve federal technology transfer.