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


  Bio-Science Law Review   (United Kingdom)
  Volume 7, Issue 5, 2004/2005
  homepage                   other issues
 

  • ARTICLES
  • ΒIOPROSPECΤΙΝG POLICY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND HEALTH IMPROVEMENT
        LUCAS BERGKAMP
        p.179                                                                                      +cite        
        This article discusses how law and policy con help to provide appropriate incentives for 'bioprospecting' in developing countries for innovation to serve the interests of all stakeholders. Biοprospecting involves the use of biological resources, traditional medicine and/or knowledge for developing innovative technologies and products. To encourage innovation, the law should protect intellectual property in such technologies and products. The benefits of this policy will accrue to inventors and people in developing countries alike. Better and cheaper medicines, for instance, will mean better health care for larger groups. Accordingly, sound bioprospecting policy can create a win-win situation.
  • SHARING THE RESULTS OF RESEARCH: IS JOINT OWNERSHIP THE ANSWER?
        VICKY CLARK
        p.186                                                                                      +cite        
        Have you ever been a party to an agreement that provides for the joint ownership of the results of research? If so, are you confident that you understand all the implications of such provisions? This article addresses the meaning and consequences of joint ownership, considers a number of recent cases that illustrate the problems that can arise with joint ownership and sets out the steps that can be taken to avoid such problems.
  • MUSINGS ON THE NEW COMPULSORY EXPLOITATION RIGHT: A CASE OF DIVIDED LOYALTIES?
        MARGARET LLEWELYN
        p.190                                                                                      +cite        
        In 2004 the European Commission revised Article 29 of the Community Regulation on Plant Variety Rights (the Regulation) to bring it into line with Article 12 of the Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions (the Directive). The reason for the change was to ensure that both pieces of EU legislation fully complied with Article 31(1) of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). This article muses whether this change introduces a more patent-centric notion of compulsory licensing into plant variety rights and whether this could compromise, or conflict with, the principle enshrined within UPOV that compulsory licences should be granted for reasons of 'public interest' - a concept which is, arguably, broader than that operated within patent law.

  • NEWS
  • AUSTRALIA - Proposed Amendments to the Australian Therapeutic Goods Legislation - EUROPEAN COMMISSION - The Commission's Christmas Messages - Article 82 and Private Enforcement - EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE - Case G001/04 - EPO takes a permissive approach to the Patentability of Diagnostic Methods - EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE - Patents - SPCs: Extending the duration of formulation patents? Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Case 431.04 AG Leger's Opinion
        p.199                                                                                      +cite