Current Law Journal Content
Washington & Lee Law School
  Current Law Journal Content
                  an index to legal periodicals
 


  Bio-Science Law Review   (United Kingdom)
  Volume 9, Issue 6, 2006/2007
  homepage                   other issues
 

  • ARTICLES
  • DILIGENCE OBLIGATIONS IN TECHNOLOGY LICENCES
        VICKY CLARK
        p.219                                                                                      +cite        
        The terms of any licence agreement, whereby one party (the licensor) grants another party (the licensee) rights to use, develop and ultimately take to market the licensor's technology, are generally negotiated fiercely. Not least of which are provisions which the licensor may require which ensure that the licensee is obliged to actively develop and market the technology (so called "diligence obligations"). Without express provisions relating to diligence, it is by no means certain that an obligation to do anything with the technology will be implied into the agreement. This article explores this and other reasons for including diligence obligations in licence agreements, reviews the various ways in which diligence can be addressed and also highlights some of the other issues that may arise during the negotiation of such provisions.
  • MORE ON CONOR v ANGIOTECH: THE HOUSE OF LORDS CLARIFIES THE LAW ON INVENTIVE STEP
        DOMINIC ADAIR
        p.224                                                                                      +cite        
        In Conor v. Angiotech, the House of Lords has brought welcome clarity to the law on obviousness. It is clear that a back-to-basics approach is required when determining the inventive concept of a patent: the invention is that specified in the claims. The decision also provides clarity on the use of the "obvious to try" test, which is appropriate only where there is an expectation of success. Finally, the decision is of interest for raising the possibility of a separate test for obviousness in circumstances where there is no contribution to the art. This "no contribution to the art obviousness" test, requiring disclosure beyond the threshold of plausibility, was applied separately to the "conventional ohviousness" test in the subsequent case of Eli Lilly v HGS.
  • THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION PHARMACEUTICAL SECTOR INQUIRY: WHO'S NEXT
        PAUL LEONARD
        p.231                                                                                      +cite        
        The IP Institutes response to the EC's Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry.

  • CASE COMMENT
  • G2/06: WARF EPO UPHOLDS A POLICY OF REFUSING EUROPEAN PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS COVERING PRODUCTS THAT 'CAN ONLY BE OBTAINED' VIA THE DESTRUCTION OF HUMAN EMBRYOS
        DR MARTIN BURDA, DR MARTIN GRUND AND DR STACEY J. FARMER
        p.239                                                                                      +cite        

  • NEWS
  • EUROPEAN UNION - Community Patent Court suffer familiar setback - EUROPEAN COMMISSION - Pharmaceuticals Sector Inquiry - half time report - ECJ Marketing Authorisation Synthon BV v Licensing Authority of the Department of Health Case C-452/06 - EPO Stem Cells Case G2/06 WARF - ECHR Rules against the UK retention of DNA and fingerprint samples of innocent people S and Marper v. UK - UK Data Protection - House of Lords Commons Services Agency v. Scottish Information Commissioner
        p.243                                                                                      +cite    

  • BOOK REVIEWS
  • INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND BIOTECHNOLGY - BIOLOGICAL INVENTIONS
        MATTHEW RIMMER
        p.254                                                                                      +cite