'Tangential Relation' criterion clears way for infringement of amended patent claim under doctrine of equivalents

Prosecution history estoppel generally bars patent infringementunder the doctrine of equivalents when a claim is narrowed byamendment during examination, but the ‘tangential relation’criterion preserves that doctrine when the claim is narrowedin a manner unrelated to the particular equivalent which, itis alleged, infringes the patent.     

论我国刑事简易程序的效益与公正机制

效益与公正是刑事简易程序的两大价值目标 ,两者有一致性 ,也有冲突性。协调效益与公正的关系 ,应从刑事简易程序的设置初衷和本质入手 ,寻找两者的最佳平衡点 --效益优先 ,兼顾公正。为完善我国刑事简易程序的效益、公正机制 ,应扩大刑事简易程序的适用范围 ,并设置多样化的简易程序 ,同时在立法中规定最低公正标准 ,使刑事简易程序最低公正价值得以实现。     

现代教育技术在“音像”专业教育中的应用

现代教育技术的应用,极大地拓展了“音像”专业的教学手段,优化了教学过程,提高了教学质量。     

论医疗损害赔偿原则体系

我国《医疗事故处理条例》对医疗损害赔偿实行单一的限额赔偿原则,且赔偿范围规定不全面,使得该条例不能有效和合理地处理所有的医疗损害赔偿,并使得该条例在医疗损害赔偿诉讼中日益边缘化。鉴于此,本文提出一种适应全部医疗损害赔偿的赔偿原则体系,该原则体系由全面赔偿原则、限额赔偿原则、惩罚性赔偿原则和衡平赔偿原则构成。     

Reforming Chinese arbitration law and practices in the global economy

In the last 50 years Chinese arbitration law and practices has made significant contributions to the international commercial arbitration and strides to manage the rapidly increasing caseload associated with a period of amazing growth in economic interactions between Chinese and non-Chinese parties. In the global economy there are rooms for further improvement. The paper proposed some ideas on reforming the Chinese arbitration law and practices on the arbitration system regarding the ad hoc arbitration, panel system and tribunal jurisdiction, interim measures of protection, as well as standards for the judicial review on the arbitral awards.     

Seeing the improvement of the criminal trial structure from China’s criminal courtroom arrangements (tribunal design)

The setting of criminal court has become an important representation of the criminal trial structure due to its visual and vivid reflection of the legal position and relations among the three parties of litigation, i.e. the prosecuting party, the advocating party and the judge. As a result of the influence of ancient “inquest” centered trial mode, lack of the defendant’s right to silence and incomplete revolution of the criminal trial mode, the existing criminal court setting features an umbrella shaped structure. To reform the criminal trial structure in China, we should eliminate the air of “inquest” from the existing court interrogation mode, strengthen the hearing of evidence and set up a equiangular triangle shaped trial structure of neutral trial, equality between the prosecuting and advocating parties and litigant oriented. __________ Translated from the Jurist Review, 2005, (2) (in Chinese)     

The recovery of finger marks from soot-covered glass fire debris.

This study aimed to expand the scope of previous research by assessing the effectiveness of soot-removal techniques on glass from petrol-bomb debris using methods of 1% and 2% sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solutions, ultrasonic bath and vacuum suction. Of particular interest were the 1% and 2% NaOH solutions applied to the soot-covered surfaces. Petrol bombs containing petrol or a 50:50 mix of petrol and motor oil were exploded and the debris was collected for analysis. Favourable results were found to varying degrees using each of the soot-removal methods with the 1% and 2% NaOH wash solutions, being the most useful. The 2% NaOH solution also proved successful as a soak to loosen and remove heavy contamination of soot and accelerants without damaging the finger mark beneath. This study also found that recovery of finger marks in blood from beneath soot using the 2% NaOH solution was possible. Finger marks were also applied to glass bottles with plastic adhesive labels, and providing the fire damage is not too great marks were also retrievable. Results from this study lead to the conclusion that the NaOH wash solution is ideally suited for soot removal to reveal latent and blood-contaminated marks both within the laboratory and at crime scenes.     

论阐明权的界限

规范阐明权的核心问题之一就是明确阐明权在民事诉讼中的适用范围,在我国阐明权的界限应当如下第一,对于大部分民商事案件,都应当适用阐明权;但是,对有关身份关系的诉讼、有关公益的诉讼、特别程序案件不适用阐明权。第二,阐明权适用的诉讼事项主要应是实体事项或者可以决定实体权利归属的程序事项。第三,阐明权适用于当事人,当事人的诉讼代理人,特殊情形下的案外人,以及有权启动再审程序的人。第四,阐明权的基准时通常应当是言词辩论终结时。