scholarly journals The Curious Incident of the Supreme Court in Myriad Genetics

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Burk
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Laws Of Nature ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
Myriad Genetics ◽  
The Relationship

Often what is not said is as significant as what is said. In its recent Myriad Genetics decision, the United States Supreme Court is curiously silent about the relationship between its holding in that case and the holding in its immediately previous patent subject matter case, Mayo v. Prometheus. This reticence is all the more puzzling given that the Court initially remanded Myriad to the lower courts for reconsideration in light of the Mayo holding. The Court's silence regarding Mayo leaves uncertain the relationship between the "products of nature" doctrine that serves as the basis for the Myriad decision, and the "laws of nature" doctrine that has been the basis of nearly all of its other subject matter cases. In this paper I assemble the clues in the laws of nature cases to suggest what the Court might have said or might still say regarding products of nature.

The United States Supreme Court: Definitions of Obscenity

1972 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-67
Author(s):  
Marc Schnall
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Current Test ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Average Person ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
Definition Of

This article summarizes the activity of the United States Supreme Court in formulating and applying definitions of what constitutes obscenity. For almost ninety years, American courts applied a test of obscenity established by a British court in 1868. In 1957, after lower courts in the United States had expanded the British definition, the Supreme Court, in Roth v. United States, defined as obscene such material which, "to the average person, apply ing contemporary community standards," appealed to prurient interests and lacked redeeming social value. Between 1957 and 1966, the Court added several dimensions to its definition of obscenity. The current test of obscenity was framed in 1966 in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, which reworded the Roth definition and included a third standard—namely, that the material must also be "patently offensive." This article examines not only the Supreme Court's actual definitions of obscenity but also the trends in these definitions and the Court's continual efforts to define and redefine obscenity.

美國生物科技新專利適格性原則之研究

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (21) ◽  
pp. 97-160
Author(s):  
李順典 李順典
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Laws Of Nature ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Natural Phenomena ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Patent Applications ◽  
Global Strategies ◽  
The U.S

鑑於美國最高法院重新激活了專利適格性標的要件，其認為涉及發明的自然法則、自然現象或抽象概念，除非它們也包含「發明的概念」，否則不具專利適格性，因而引發了巨大爭議。因為新專利適格性原則不當削弱了美國在創新中的領導地位，而且它們已經給美國專利制度注入了巨大的法律不確定性，所以美國應重新思考生物技術產業創新的激勵措施生物技術公司的專利適格性在不同的國家面臨不斷的改變，故必須發展保護生物技術創新的全球策略，可行的發展策略應是根據國家的法律標準申請專利。In view of the United States Supreme Court has reinvigorated the patent-eligible subject matter requirement, holding that inventions directed to laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas are not eligible for patenting unless they also contain an ''inventive concept.'' As a result, the Supreme Court has sparked tremendous controversy. Since the new patent eligibility doctrine is undermining U.S. leadership in innovation, so the U.S. shall reconsider the incentives for innovation in the biotechnologyindustry. Biotech companies facing constant changes in patent eligibility in different countries have to develop global strategies for protecting biotechnology innovations, and a recommended strategy is to file patent applications tailored to the legal standards of the countries of interest.

scholarly journals Trump v. Hawaii

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Spiro
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
Trump Administration

In Trump v. Hawaii, the United States Supreme Court upheld admissions restrictions imposed by the Trump administration on nationals of certain countries for putative security reasons. In so doing, the Court's opinion reaffirmed judicial deference to the president on matters relating to immigration. Although the decision marked a Trump administration victory at the end of a protracted judicial clash, the lower courts are likely to continue operating as a check on aggressively restrictionist policies pursued by the administration on other fronts.

Act of State and Department of State: First National City Bank v. Banco Nacional De Cuba

1972 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
pp. 795-814 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas F. Lowenfeld
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Recent Issue ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Formal Communication

No recent issue has so divided lawyers and writers in the field of international law as the question whether courts of one nation should sit in judgment on the acts of other nations with respect to foreign held property—sometimes, always, or never. The United States Supreme Court in Banco Nacional de Cubav. Sabbatinosaid the answer was never—or at least hardly ever—thus upholding and reaffirming the “act of state doctrine”. The Congress in the Hickenlooper (or Sabbatino) Amendmentmade an effort to reverse that ruling, an effort that has proved largely unsuccessful. Now the State Department has taken its turn, arguing in a formal communication to the Supreme Court that when it perceives no objection to adjudication on foreign policy grounds, the courts should judge the validity of the foreign nation's acts under international law standards—at least as to counterclaims.

scholarly journals Double Jeopardy and Dual Sovereignty Doctrine: Gamble v. United States

2019 ◽  
pp. 225-242
Author(s):  
Javier Escobar
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Double Jeopardy ◽  
The Supreme Court

Abstract: In Gamble v. United States, the defendant questioned the constitutionality of the dual sovereignty doctrine under the double jeopardy clause. In its judgment, delivered on 17 June, 2019, the United States Supreme Court upheld the application of the dual sovereignty doctrine, according to which different sovereigns may prosecute an individual without violating the double jeopardy clause if the individual's act infringed the laws of each sovereignty. This comment aims to address the reasoning of the Supreme Court and the rationale of the dual sovereignty doctrine, suggesting the convenience and necessity of a further study on its limits and the possible safeguards against potential abuses. 

The Supreme Court and the Juvenile Court

1967 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 481-487
Author(s):  
Noah Weinstein ◽  
Corinne R. Goodman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Exact Effect ◽  
The Impact ◽  
First Time

For the first time in its 68-year history, the juvenile court has felt the impact of the United States Supreme Court. It would be impossible to predict the exact effect of the decisions, but unquestionably they will be of prime importance in their influ ence on juvenile court procedures.

Six Notions of ‘Political’ and the United States Supreme Court

1992 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Hodder-Williams
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political System ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Appellate Court ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court

Six different notions of ‘political’ are commonly used in discussions of the US Supreme Court. All six are familiar, but the distinctions among them are seldom carefully drawn. The six are: (1) purely definitional, in the sense that the Supreme Court, as an appellate court of last resort inevitably authoritatively allocates values; (2) empirical, in the sense that litigants use the Court to try to achieve their political purposes; (3) influence seeking, in the sense that the justices have a natural desire to prevail in arguments within the court; (4) prudential, in the sense that the justices frequently consider the probable consequences of their decisions; (5) policy-oriented, in the – usually pejorative – sense that justices are said to use the Court and the law as a cover for pursuing their own policy and other goals; and (6) systemic, in the sense that the Court's decisions frequently, as a matter of fact, have consequences for other parts of the American political system. These six notions are considered in the context of recent abortion decisions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document