Australian Full Federal Court clarifies best method disclosure obligation in Pfizer v Eli Lilly appeal

The Australian Full Federal Court has found that (i) a patentapplicant may amend the patent specification, until at leastthe date of grant, to include the best method known to the applicantat the date of filing and that (ii) there is no requirementthat new best methods discovered after the date of filing ofa complete patent specification be added by amendment.     

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.     

Thermal imaging and the fourth amendment:Kyllo v. U.S.

The Fourth Amendment protects persons from unreasonable searches and seizures. The extent to which the availability of new technology will impact this protection is an evolving area. One practice, police use of thermal imaging technology, has engendered substantial division in the courts. Recently, however, the United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in the case of Kyllo v. U.S. (2001). The Court determined that the pre-warrant use of thermal imaging machinery was a “search” under the Fourth Amendment and, thus, unconstitutional in nature. This paper traces the case development and examines the issues raised therein.     

Forum Shopping and the Cyber Pamphleteer: Banamex v. Rodriguez

The Internet promised to make everyone a publisher, subject and reader, simultaneously, connecting the lonely pamphleteer to the whole world through cyber- space. That new freedom also brought the liberty to cause harm all over the world, however. When that happens, where can a victim seek redress? The threat that one-person publishing endeavors could be haled into far-flung forums to mount costly defenses against libel threatens to chill the free speech that the Internet was to deliver. Banamex v. Rodriguez pitted two muckraking journalists against a powerful Mexican banker to help begin setting the rules about where cyber pamphleteers can be called to account for what they publish. This article examines the Banamex case and its ramifications for free expression.