- Email: [email protected]
Literature listing
World Patent Information 27 (2005) 277–282 www.elsevier.com/locate/worpatin
Literature listing 1. Books
Fingerman, Susan. Online, March/April 2005, 29 (2), 36–8.
Reviews are available as follows:
So much choice ... tools for patent searching. Cookson, Barbara. Patent World, March 2005, (170), 26–9.
A handbook of intellectual property management. Jolly, Adam and Philpott, Jeremy. Kogan Page, 2004. Reviewed by Tibor Gold in The CIPA Journal, January 2005, 34 (1), 62 and in ideas21 at http://www. ideas21.co.uk/423. The inventive spirit of African Americans. Sluby, Patricia. Praeger Publishers, 2004. Reviewed by Maura Regan in Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, January 2005, 87 (1), 81–3.
2.1.2. Analysis and statistics Mapping inventive activity and technological change through patent analysis: a case study of India and China. Bhattacharya, Sujit. Scientometrics, November– December 2004, 61 (3), 361–84.
Famous and well-known marks: an international analysis (2nd ed.). Frederick W Mostert. Reviewed in European Intellectual Property Review, December 2004, 26 (12), 560–7.
A systematic approach for identifying technology opportunities: Keyword-based morphology analysis. Boon, B., Park, Y. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2005, 72 (2), 145–60.
Hammond Suddards Edge E-Commerce: a guide to the law of electronic business. Butterworths, 2002. Reviewed in European Intellectual Property Review, December 2004, 26 (12), 561.
A comparative study of patenting activity in U.S. and Brazilian scientific institutions. Pinheiro-Machado, Rita and Oliveira, P L. Scientometrics, November–December 2004, 61 (3), 323–39.
Exploitation of research tools in plant biotechnology: access through application of the experimental use exception (part 1). Faye, David J.––Reviewed in BioScience Law Review, 6 (5), 2003/2004, 179–88.
2.2. Patents
2. Journals The listing in this issue includes entries found using Scopusä, Elsevier’s abstract and indexing database which gives access to 14,000 peer-reviewed titles from more than 4000 international publishers. 2.1. Search techniques, databases and analysis: classification: searcher certification 2.1.1. Search techniques, databases A semi-supervised active learning algorithm for information extraction from textual data. Wu, T and Pottenger, WM. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2005, 56(3), 258–71. Scopus: Profusion and confusion. doi:10.1016/j.wpi.2005.04.005
2.2.1. Relating to life sciences and pharmaceuticals Exploitation of research tools in plant biotechnology: access through application of the experimental use exception (part 1). Faye, David J. Bio-Science Law Review, 2003/2004, 6 (5), 179–88. The TRIPs Council decision of August 30, 2003 on the import of pharmaceuticals under compulsory licences. Tuosto, Caterina. European Intellectual Property Review, December 2004, 26 (12), 542–47. Ethics and patentability in biotechnology. Witek, R. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2005, 11 (1), 105–11. A defensible decision [Invalidation of Viagra patent in China]. Hu, Yitai and Ma, Gary. Patent World, November 2004, 167, 10–1. The Liechtenstein debate [marketing authorisation of pharmaceuticals in EU].
278
Literature listing / World Patent Information 27 (2005) 277–282
Campolini, Manuel. Patent World, November 2004, 167, 14–5. A world united? The US approach to the protection of regulatory data. Brazell, Lorna. Patent World, December 2004/January 2005, 168, 23–5. Creating a better world. Will the European Union fail the innovative pharma industry? Campolini, Manuel. Patent World, December 2004/ January 2005, 168, 26–9. Which generic drug would you want to use? The Federal Circuit’s interpretation of ‘‘Active ingredient’’, ‘‘Active moiety’’ and ‘‘Approved product’’. Burgess, Paul and Lucus, John. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, January 2005, 87 (1), 11– 26. Re-importation: in whose interest? [personal drug importation into US.] Scott-Williams, Lynda, Pharma Patent Bulletin, December 2004/ January 2005, 7 (6), 8–10.
Nurton, James. Managing Intellectual Property, November 2004, (144), 12–4. 2.2.2. Relating to software A measure to protect computer-implemented inventions in Europe. Erdos, Ist van. Journal of Information, Law & Technology, 2004 (3) at www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/ jilt/2004_3/erdos. A practical approach to the problem of open source and software patents. Va¨lima¨ki, Mikko. European Intellectual Property Review, December 2004, 26 (12), 523–7. A $92 million caffine headache [Kodak v Sun Microsystems]. Rizzi, Steven J. Patent World, December 2004/January 2005, 168, 12–3. Growth of software related patents in different countries. McQueen, DH. Technovation, 2005, 25 (6), 657–71.
Can drug patents be morally justified? Sterckx, S. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2005, 11 (1), 81–92.
IBM plan to open software patents seeds IP debate. Merritt, R and Wilson, R. Electronic Engineering Times, 2005, (1354), 1+65–6.
Patenting inventions arising from biological research. Latimer, MT. Genome Biology, 2005, 6 (1), 203– 4.
Explaining the propensity to patent computer software. Chabchoub, N and Niosi, J. Technovation, 2005, 25 (9), 971–8.
At last––conclusion to the UK EPO dispute. Godar, George. Pharma Patent Bulletin, December 2004/January 2005, 7 (6), 4–6. Does international research and development increase patent output? An analysis of Japanese pharmaceutical firms. Penner-Hahn, J., Shaver, J.M. Strategic Management Journal, 2005, 26 (2), 121–40. Property rights and genetic engineering: developing nations at risk. Shrader-Frechette, K. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2005, 11 (1), 137–49.
2.2.3. Policy and strategic issues Monopolies of the mind [reform of world’s patent systems]. The Economist, 13 November 2004, 373 (8401), 14–6. Trouble on the commons: a Lockean justification for patent law harmonization. Sommer, Andrew R. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office, February 2005, 87 (2), 141–70. Solving the puzzle––Singapore’s amended Patent Act. Callinan, Keith. Patent World, November 2004, 167, 26–9.
Surgical patents and patients – the ethical dilemmas. Tołłoczko, T. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2005, 11 (1), 61–9.
A potentially new IP: storyline patents. Knight, Andrew F. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, Nov 2004, 86 (11), 859–77.
Survey on patent applications for medical communications and telemedicine in Japan. Tomioka, Y, Aida N, Kakehi K. and Nakajima I. Proceedings––6th International Workshop on Enterprise Networking and Computing in Healthcare Industry, Healthcom 2004, 121–4.
Ten things that should be changed about patent law. Slate, William B. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, December 2004, 86 (12), 959–71.
Erythropoietin in the UK courts––further thoughts. Crespi, Stephen. CIPA Journal, February 2005, 34 (2), 98–102. Amgen suffers UK patent defeat [erythropoietin].
Lacking bite––The duty of candour in a shambles [in US]. Quinn, Eugene R, Jr. Patent World, February 2005, (169), 23–5. Adieu Community Patent? But what next. Harrison, Rob. Patent World, February 2005, (169), 26–9.
Literature listing / World Patent Information 27 (2005) 277–282
Patents and utility models: regional or national protection or their peaceful coexistence (pros and cons) and their routes of securing patent/utility model protection in Hungary. Lantos, Michael. World Intellectual Property Report, November 2004, 18 (11), 29–30. Patents and the diffusion of technical information. Bessen, J. Economics Letters, 2005, 86 (1), 121–8. Patenting productivity and intellectual property policies at research I universities: An exploratory comparative study. Mendoza, P and Berger, JB. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 2005, 13, 1–22. Japan transforms its IP system. Parker, Lloyd and Otani, Yukihiro. Managing Intellectual Property, November 2004, (144), 53–6. Why finance companies need a patent strategy. Brodie, Alexandra. Managing Intellectual Property, November 2004, (144), 41–4. Patents and ethics: Is it possible to be balanced? Spawinski, J. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2005, 11 (1) , 71–4. Technology standards development, patent ambush, and US antitrust policy. Hemphill, TA. Technology in Society, 2005, 27 (1), 55– 67. Patent linchpin for the 21st century? Best mode revisited. Carlson, Dale L et al. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office, February 2005, 87 (2), 89–112. A lump sum––a new method for rewarding employees in Germany. Van Falk, Andreas and Schmaltz, Christiane. Patent World, February 2005, (169), 18–9. The impact of US patents on international business. Signore, Philippe and Michon, Pierre. Managing Intellectual Property, November 2004, (144), 28–30. Changing times for patenting in India. Thomson L, Thomson Scientific KnowledgeLink http:// email.derwent.com/cgi-bin2/DM/y/eN7P0V7bV0F6A0XxK0EL.
2.2.4. Other patent topics What the judges did next ... UK decision: time to trend spot. Jenkins, Neil. Patent World, March 2005, (170), 8–10. Divided by a common language: a comparison of patent claims interpretation in the English and American courts. Fox, Nicholas. European Intellectual Property Review, December 2004, 26 (12), 528–37.
279
How to win at the new USPTO [patent interference procedures]. Bretschneider, Bret and Kreeger, Matthew. Managing Intellectual Property, February 2005, 23–6. An early end––invalidity at the interim state [UK]. Nettleton, Ewan and Cordery, Brian. Patent World, March 2005, (170), 13–4. It’s not just what you say––no privilege in Australia for overseas patent attorneys. Dowling, Michael et al. Patent World, March 2005, (170), 15–7. Privilege after the House of Lords ruling in Three Rivers. Knight, David et al. Patent World, March 2005, (170), 19–21. Pools of potential [advice on patent pools]. Chan, Christopher and Holmes, Brenda. Patent World, March 2005, (170), 22–5. University-based science and biotechnology products: defining the boundaries of intellectual property. Kesselheim, A.S. and Avorn, J. Journal of the American Medical Association, 2005, 293 (7), 850–4. Strategic balancing of patents and the wireless technology revolution to maximize exclusivity. Chen, Doris, Huang, Tim and Fernandez, Dennis. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, January 2005, 87 (1), 5–10. Cherry picking in cross-border patent infringement actions: a comparative overview of German and UK procedure and practice. Klink, Jan. European Intellectual Property Review, November 2004, 26 (11), 493–504. Removing the adverse inference [wilful infringement defence in US]. Adamo, Ken. Patent World, November 2004, 167, 12–3. Whose invention is it anyway? [UK]. Lowe, Ian. Patent World, November 2004, 167, 18–9. A brighter spotlight [German cases involving contributory infringement]. Schu¨ster, Reinhardt and Ru¨bel, Clemens. Patent World, November 2004, 167, 20–2. Time to take the plunge [patent insurance]. Haberman, Mandy. Patent World, November 2004, 167, 23–5. Defining your terms [claim construction in the US]. Crouch, Dennis. Patent World, December 2004/January 2005, 168, 10–11. Are your experiments exempt? Cooke, Adam and Madawela, Yvonne. Patent World, December 2004/January 2005, 168, 15–6. Back in the box––retiring the adverse inference rule.
280
Literature listing / World Patent Information 27 (2005) 277–282
McCabe, Michael E Jr. Patent World, December 2004/ January 2005, 168, 20–2. Where do we go from here? A critical examination of existing claim construction doctrine. Connor, Michael S and Wasleff, John A. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, November 2004, 86 (11), 878–910. Understanding the Federal Circuit’s internal debate and its decision to rehear Philips v. AWH Corp. En Banc [Patent claim construction]. Molenda, John Josef. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, November 2004, 86 (11), 911–30. The ‘‘Doctrine of prosecution disclaimer’’ in construing patent claims. Miller, Todd R. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, November 2004, 86 (11), 931–54.
Cheney, Edwin. Patent World, February 2005, (169), 12–3. Just good friends? The relationship between tax and intellectual property [in the UK]. Noble, Andrew. Patent World, February 2005, (169), 20–2. Honeywell Int’l v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp: The Federal Circuit goes to the extreme in its latest attack on the doctrine of equivalents. Stemer, Werner H. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, January 2005, 87 (1), 71–8. Kirin-Amgen Erythropoietin in the House of Lords–– first impressions of an impartial observer [UK]. Crespi, Stephen. The CIPA Journal, December 2004, 33 (12), 693–5. What will a fool pay for your IP? [tax issues.] Verlinden, Isabel et al. Managing Intellectual Property, November 2004, (144), 48–52.
The rule against recapture in reissues: an interpretation of Ex Parte Eggert. Poplin, Justin. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, December 2004, 86 (12), 972–80.
Eight is enough? New US fee regime forces re-thinking claim strategies. Palermo, Christopher J. The CIPA Journal, December 2004, 33 (12), 702–4.
SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex: experimental use as applied to claim scope. Pierce, Scott. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, December 2004, 86 (12), 981–90.
A global assessment of claim construction. Nettleton, Ewan et al. Managing Intellectual Property, February 2005, 71–4.
What is the state of the European patent profession? Boff, Jim. CIPA Journal, February 2005, 34 (2), 105– 11. Revisiting a reasonable royalty as a measure of damages for patent infringement. Barnhardt, John J, III. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, December 2004, 86 (12), 991– 1009. The experimental use defense: post-Madey v. Duke and Integra Life Sciences I Ltd. v. Merck KgaA. Caltrider, Stephen P and Davis Paula. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, December 2004, 86 (12), 1011–37. A critique of the new rules and the new standing order in contested case/interference practice. Gholz, Charles L. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, January 2005, 87 (1), 62–71. Re-thinking Patent Bar admission: which bag of tools rules? Carlson, Dale L et al. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office, February 2005, 87 (2), 113–40. Claim construction after Amgen [UK House of Lords decision]. Beattie, Kate and Forsyth, Chris. Patent World, February 2005, (169), 9–10. One invention or two? [Sabaf v MFI Furniture Centres Ltd. and Meneghetti Spa. UK House of Lords.]
Maximizing protection in Vietnam. Treutler, Thomas. Managing Intellectual Property, February 2005, 75–8. The patent law wilfulness game and damage awards. Schuster M. IIC International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2005, 36 (1), 126–32. Case comment: determining patent entitlement and inventorship. Marken Technologies v Zipher Ltd. Harrold Lucy and Morgan, Gareth. The CIPA Journal, November 2004, 33 (11), 642–8. Claim interpretation under the EPC––House of Lords decision in Kirin-Amgen v Hoechst Marion Roussel. Cole, Paul. The CIPA Journal, November 2004, 33 (11), 659–61. How to be a patent attorney. Mounteney, S. Physics World, 2005, 18 (1), 58–59. People, politics and patents––2005 Patent Focus Report [on 2004]. Wild J, Editor IAM Magazine, KnowledgeLink http:// email.derwent.com/cgi-bin2/DM/y/eN7P0V7bV0F6A0XxI0EJ. 2.3. Trademarks and Domain Names 2.3.1. Trademarks The ‘‘Toblerone’’ chocolate case in Belgium. Janssens, Marie-Christine. European Intellectual Property Review. December 2004, 26 (12), 554–9.
Literature listing / World Patent Information 27 (2005) 277–282
The ironies of Arsenal v Reed. Kilbey, Ian. European Intellectual Property Review, November 2004, 26 (11), 479–82. A year in the life of a trademark [decisions of the European Court of Justice]. Swaine, Kate and Jones, Cerryg. ITMA Review, January 2005, (319), 1 + 11–5. Functional marks blunted. [Philips and Remington shaver marks dispute.] Chapman, Simon and Martin, James. Trademark World, December 2004/January 2005, (173), 14–5. Trademarks in bad shape [shape marks]. Irvine, Jacqui and de Andria, Ce´line. Trademark World, December 2004/January 2005, (173), 16–7. The unfair case for fair use. [US Supreme Court trademark ruling.] Moskin, Jonathan. Managing Intellectual Property, February 2005, 79–80. The Madrid lottery. Gambling on the Madrid system in Africa. Smith, Alan. Trademark World, December 2004/January 2005, (173), 30–3. Imitators beware! The ‘‘likelihood of confusion’’ standard is expanded in Japan. Goto, Ryota Charles. Trademark World, December 2004/Jan 2005, (173), 34–7. The retreat from Baby-Dry. Did we throw the Baby-Dry out with the bath water? Jones, Cerryg and Trimmer, Bonita. Trademark World, December 2004/January 2005, (173), 38–41. Beer brands tripped up? [Anheuser-Busch v Budvar.] Stephens, Katherine and Irvine, Jacqueline. Trademark World, December 2004/January 2005, (173), 10– 2. Divergent views. [Henkel shape mark.] McLeod, Chris and Wood, Aaron. Trademark World, December 2004/January 2005, (173), 13–4. From small acorns––large trademark owners grow [small business strategy]. Schmittzehe, Naazneen. Trademark World, December 2004/January 2005, (173), 17–20. Nine months later. Has Europe seen the birth of a truly harmonised system? Jelley, Emma. Trademark World, December 2004/January 2005, (173), 21–7. So, what difference does it make? The likely effect of the IP Enforcement Directive on English Law. Steward, Geoff and Sharma, Seema. Trademark World, December 2004/January 2005, (173), 28–31. The sharpest tool. The Directive of Intellectual Property Rights and its implementation into German law.
281
Eckhartt, Claus. Trademark World, December 2004/ January 2005, (173), 32–5. Distinctive brand cues and memory for product consumption experiences. Warlop L., Ratneshwar S. and van Osselaer S.M.J. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 2005, 22 (1), 27–44. The last word? [US ruling on KP Permanent Make-Up.] Fonoroff, Alex and Davis Ted. Trademark World, December 2004/January 2005, (173), 36–9. By the book. Putting a value on trademarks and brands. Haigh, David. Trademark World, December 2004/ January 2005, (173), 40–4. Exhausted yet? [European Court of Justice decision on parallel imports]. Heath, Guy and Poole, Karen. Trademark World, Mar 2005, (175), 18–9. A dark future for search engines? [French decision on Google infringement]. Taylor, David. Trademark World, March 2005, (175), 22–3. Go, Stop, Lite speed ahead––an overview of Community and National laws in Mercosur [South America]. Piera, Alejandro. Trademark World, March 2005, (175), 24–9. Face of a nation–– resident Mandela wins injunction to prevent use of his name and image on coins. May, Elizabeth. Trademark World, March 2005, (175), 30–1. Eyes open, worldwide––translation, transliteration and phonetic rendering in trademarks. Gillard-Jones, Rachel. Trademark World, March 2005, (175), 32–6. Look before you leap––how to obtain an invalid Canadian trademark registration without really trying. Bereskin, David. Trademark World, March 2005, (175), 38–43.
2.3.2. Domain Names Impartiality and independence of panellists under the UDRP [Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy]. Baker, Ian. World Intellectual Property Report, November 2004, 18 (11), 20–4. The scandal of the .eu regulations. Willoughby, Tony. Managing Intellectual Property, November 2004, (144), 20–4. How to win domain name cases [UDRP]. Partridge, Mark. Managing Intellectual Property, February 2005, 68–70.
282
Literature listing / World Patent Information 27 (2005) 277–282
2.4. Designs Not such a crafty corkscrew?: Sheldon v. Metrokane and the state of industrial designs as ‘‘works of artistic craftsmanship’’ under Australian law. Thompson, Campbell and Wilkinson, Genevieve. European Intellectual Property Review, December 2004, 26 (12), 548–54. Dyson v Qualtex: a cyclone hits spare parts manufacturers ... Mr Justice Mann tries to clear up the mess [UK]. Carboni, Anna. CIPA Journal, February 2005, 34 (2), 90–7. 2.5. Other IP; General IP Issues 2.5.1. Policy and strategic issues Apples and oranges (and wine): why the international conversation regarding geographic indications is at a standstill. Torsen, Molly. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, January 2005, 87 (1), 31–61.
Why Alicante’s court can help CTM and CD owners. Miazzzetto, Fabrizio. Managing Intellectual Property, February 2005, 27–30. France adopts measures to discourage counterfeiters: Is 2004 the beginning of a new trend? Corman, Gre´goire. World Intellectual Property Report, November 2004, 18 (11), 27–9. Developing an effective strategy for managing intellectual assets. Tao, John et al. Research-Technology Management. January–February 2005, 50–8. International arbitration and Russian courts. Varanese, James. World Intellectual Property Report, November 2004, 18 (11), 23–6. The role of the judiciary in the enforcement of intellectual property rights: intellectual property litigation under the common law system with special emphasis on the experience in South Africa. Harms, L.T.C. European Intellectual Property Review, November 2004, 26 (11), 483–92.
Establishing IP institutions in the least developed countries (LDCs). WIPO Magazine. July–August 2004, 8–11.
Needle and threat: what you can and can’t say to competitors [UK]. Cook, William. The CIPA Journal, December 2004, 33 (12), 698–701.
The economics of ideas and intellectual property. Boldrin, M., Levine, D.K. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2005, 102 (4), 1252–6.
Chinese judicial interpretation provides new criminal liability standard for IP crimes. Simone, Joseph. World Intellectual Property Report, February 2005, (19) 2, 25–28.
The growing complexity of international policy in intellectual property. Gurry, F. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2005, 11 (1), 13–20.
Intellectual Property: Concepts of Webster A. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2004, 7612–15.
Intellectual Property Rights: Ethical Aspects. Straus J. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2004, 7621–24.
2.6. Historical
2.5.2. Other IP Issues Review of US Intellectual Property developments in 2004 and outlook for 2005. Mazumdar, Anandashankar. World Intellectual Property Report, February 2005, (19) 2, 29–32.
Underrated entrepreneur. [An overview of business skills of Thomas Edison.] McCormick, B. Israel, P. IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, 2005, 3 (1), 76–9. David Newton Associate Editor
Literature listing 1. Books
Fingerman, Susan. Online, March/April 2005, 29 (2), 36–8.
Reviews are available as follows:
So much choice ... tools for patent searching. Cookson, Barbara. Patent World, March 2005, (170), 26–9.
A handbook of intellectual property management. Jolly, Adam and Philpott, Jeremy. Kogan Page, 2004. Reviewed by Tibor Gold in The CIPA Journal, January 2005, 34 (1), 62 and in ideas21 at http://www. ideas21.co.uk/423. The inventive spirit of African Americans. Sluby, Patricia. Praeger Publishers, 2004. Reviewed by Maura Regan in Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, January 2005, 87 (1), 81–3.
2.1.2. Analysis and statistics Mapping inventive activity and technological change through patent analysis: a case study of India and China. Bhattacharya, Sujit. Scientometrics, November– December 2004, 61 (3), 361–84.
Famous and well-known marks: an international analysis (2nd ed.). Frederick W Mostert. Reviewed in European Intellectual Property Review, December 2004, 26 (12), 560–7.
A systematic approach for identifying technology opportunities: Keyword-based morphology analysis. Boon, B., Park, Y. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2005, 72 (2), 145–60.
Hammond Suddards Edge E-Commerce: a guide to the law of electronic business. Butterworths, 2002. Reviewed in European Intellectual Property Review, December 2004, 26 (12), 561.
A comparative study of patenting activity in U.S. and Brazilian scientific institutions. Pinheiro-Machado, Rita and Oliveira, P L. Scientometrics, November–December 2004, 61 (3), 323–39.
Exploitation of research tools in plant biotechnology: access through application of the experimental use exception (part 1). Faye, David J.––Reviewed in BioScience Law Review, 6 (5), 2003/2004, 179–88.
2.2. Patents
2. Journals The listing in this issue includes entries found using Scopusä, Elsevier’s abstract and indexing database which gives access to 14,000 peer-reviewed titles from more than 4000 international publishers. 2.1. Search techniques, databases and analysis: classification: searcher certification 2.1.1. Search techniques, databases A semi-supervised active learning algorithm for information extraction from textual data. Wu, T and Pottenger, WM. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2005, 56(3), 258–71. Scopus: Profusion and confusion. doi:10.1016/j.wpi.2005.04.005
2.2.1. Relating to life sciences and pharmaceuticals Exploitation of research tools in plant biotechnology: access through application of the experimental use exception (part 1). Faye, David J. Bio-Science Law Review, 2003/2004, 6 (5), 179–88. The TRIPs Council decision of August 30, 2003 on the import of pharmaceuticals under compulsory licences. Tuosto, Caterina. European Intellectual Property Review, December 2004, 26 (12), 542–47. Ethics and patentability in biotechnology. Witek, R. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2005, 11 (1), 105–11. A defensible decision [Invalidation of Viagra patent in China]. Hu, Yitai and Ma, Gary. Patent World, November 2004, 167, 10–1. The Liechtenstein debate [marketing authorisation of pharmaceuticals in EU].
278
Literature listing / World Patent Information 27 (2005) 277–282
Campolini, Manuel. Patent World, November 2004, 167, 14–5. A world united? The US approach to the protection of regulatory data. Brazell, Lorna. Patent World, December 2004/January 2005, 168, 23–5. Creating a better world. Will the European Union fail the innovative pharma industry? Campolini, Manuel. Patent World, December 2004/ January 2005, 168, 26–9. Which generic drug would you want to use? The Federal Circuit’s interpretation of ‘‘Active ingredient’’, ‘‘Active moiety’’ and ‘‘Approved product’’. Burgess, Paul and Lucus, John. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, January 2005, 87 (1), 11– 26. Re-importation: in whose interest? [personal drug importation into US.] Scott-Williams, Lynda, Pharma Patent Bulletin, December 2004/ January 2005, 7 (6), 8–10.
Nurton, James. Managing Intellectual Property, November 2004, (144), 12–4. 2.2.2. Relating to software A measure to protect computer-implemented inventions in Europe. Erdos, Ist van. Journal of Information, Law & Technology, 2004 (3) at www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/ jilt/2004_3/erdos. A practical approach to the problem of open source and software patents. Va¨lima¨ki, Mikko. European Intellectual Property Review, December 2004, 26 (12), 523–7. A $92 million caffine headache [Kodak v Sun Microsystems]. Rizzi, Steven J. Patent World, December 2004/January 2005, 168, 12–3. Growth of software related patents in different countries. McQueen, DH. Technovation, 2005, 25 (6), 657–71.
Can drug patents be morally justified? Sterckx, S. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2005, 11 (1), 81–92.
IBM plan to open software patents seeds IP debate. Merritt, R and Wilson, R. Electronic Engineering Times, 2005, (1354), 1+65–6.
Patenting inventions arising from biological research. Latimer, MT. Genome Biology, 2005, 6 (1), 203– 4.
Explaining the propensity to patent computer software. Chabchoub, N and Niosi, J. Technovation, 2005, 25 (9), 971–8.
At last––conclusion to the UK EPO dispute. Godar, George. Pharma Patent Bulletin, December 2004/January 2005, 7 (6), 4–6. Does international research and development increase patent output? An analysis of Japanese pharmaceutical firms. Penner-Hahn, J., Shaver, J.M. Strategic Management Journal, 2005, 26 (2), 121–40. Property rights and genetic engineering: developing nations at risk. Shrader-Frechette, K. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2005, 11 (1), 137–49.
2.2.3. Policy and strategic issues Monopolies of the mind [reform of world’s patent systems]. The Economist, 13 November 2004, 373 (8401), 14–6. Trouble on the commons: a Lockean justification for patent law harmonization. Sommer, Andrew R. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office, February 2005, 87 (2), 141–70. Solving the puzzle––Singapore’s amended Patent Act. Callinan, Keith. Patent World, November 2004, 167, 26–9.
Surgical patents and patients – the ethical dilemmas. Tołłoczko, T. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2005, 11 (1), 61–9.
A potentially new IP: storyline patents. Knight, Andrew F. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, Nov 2004, 86 (11), 859–77.
Survey on patent applications for medical communications and telemedicine in Japan. Tomioka, Y, Aida N, Kakehi K. and Nakajima I. Proceedings––6th International Workshop on Enterprise Networking and Computing in Healthcare Industry, Healthcom 2004, 121–4.
Ten things that should be changed about patent law. Slate, William B. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, December 2004, 86 (12), 959–71.
Erythropoietin in the UK courts––further thoughts. Crespi, Stephen. CIPA Journal, February 2005, 34 (2), 98–102. Amgen suffers UK patent defeat [erythropoietin].
Lacking bite––The duty of candour in a shambles [in US]. Quinn, Eugene R, Jr. Patent World, February 2005, (169), 23–5. Adieu Community Patent? But what next. Harrison, Rob. Patent World, February 2005, (169), 26–9.
Literature listing / World Patent Information 27 (2005) 277–282
Patents and utility models: regional or national protection or their peaceful coexistence (pros and cons) and their routes of securing patent/utility model protection in Hungary. Lantos, Michael. World Intellectual Property Report, November 2004, 18 (11), 29–30. Patents and the diffusion of technical information. Bessen, J. Economics Letters, 2005, 86 (1), 121–8. Patenting productivity and intellectual property policies at research I universities: An exploratory comparative study. Mendoza, P and Berger, JB. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 2005, 13, 1–22. Japan transforms its IP system. Parker, Lloyd and Otani, Yukihiro. Managing Intellectual Property, November 2004, (144), 53–6. Why finance companies need a patent strategy. Brodie, Alexandra. Managing Intellectual Property, November 2004, (144), 41–4. Patents and ethics: Is it possible to be balanced? Spawinski, J. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2005, 11 (1) , 71–4. Technology standards development, patent ambush, and US antitrust policy. Hemphill, TA. Technology in Society, 2005, 27 (1), 55– 67. Patent linchpin for the 21st century? Best mode revisited. Carlson, Dale L et al. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office, February 2005, 87 (2), 89–112. A lump sum––a new method for rewarding employees in Germany. Van Falk, Andreas and Schmaltz, Christiane. Patent World, February 2005, (169), 18–9. The impact of US patents on international business. Signore, Philippe and Michon, Pierre. Managing Intellectual Property, November 2004, (144), 28–30. Changing times for patenting in India. Thomson L, Thomson Scientific KnowledgeLink http:// email.derwent.com/cgi-bin2/DM/y/eN7P0V7bV0F6A0XxK0EL.
2.2.4. Other patent topics What the judges did next ... UK decision: time to trend spot. Jenkins, Neil. Patent World, March 2005, (170), 8–10. Divided by a common language: a comparison of patent claims interpretation in the English and American courts. Fox, Nicholas. European Intellectual Property Review, December 2004, 26 (12), 528–37.
279
How to win at the new USPTO [patent interference procedures]. Bretschneider, Bret and Kreeger, Matthew. Managing Intellectual Property, February 2005, 23–6. An early end––invalidity at the interim state [UK]. Nettleton, Ewan and Cordery, Brian. Patent World, March 2005, (170), 13–4. It’s not just what you say––no privilege in Australia for overseas patent attorneys. Dowling, Michael et al. Patent World, March 2005, (170), 15–7. Privilege after the House of Lords ruling in Three Rivers. Knight, David et al. Patent World, March 2005, (170), 19–21. Pools of potential [advice on patent pools]. Chan, Christopher and Holmes, Brenda. Patent World, March 2005, (170), 22–5. University-based science and biotechnology products: defining the boundaries of intellectual property. Kesselheim, A.S. and Avorn, J. Journal of the American Medical Association, 2005, 293 (7), 850–4. Strategic balancing of patents and the wireless technology revolution to maximize exclusivity. Chen, Doris, Huang, Tim and Fernandez, Dennis. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, January 2005, 87 (1), 5–10. Cherry picking in cross-border patent infringement actions: a comparative overview of German and UK procedure and practice. Klink, Jan. European Intellectual Property Review, November 2004, 26 (11), 493–504. Removing the adverse inference [wilful infringement defence in US]. Adamo, Ken. Patent World, November 2004, 167, 12–3. Whose invention is it anyway? [UK]. Lowe, Ian. Patent World, November 2004, 167, 18–9. A brighter spotlight [German cases involving contributory infringement]. Schu¨ster, Reinhardt and Ru¨bel, Clemens. Patent World, November 2004, 167, 20–2. Time to take the plunge [patent insurance]. Haberman, Mandy. Patent World, November 2004, 167, 23–5. Defining your terms [claim construction in the US]. Crouch, Dennis. Patent World, December 2004/January 2005, 168, 10–11. Are your experiments exempt? Cooke, Adam and Madawela, Yvonne. Patent World, December 2004/January 2005, 168, 15–6. Back in the box––retiring the adverse inference rule.
280
Literature listing / World Patent Information 27 (2005) 277–282
McCabe, Michael E Jr. Patent World, December 2004/ January 2005, 168, 20–2. Where do we go from here? A critical examination of existing claim construction doctrine. Connor, Michael S and Wasleff, John A. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, November 2004, 86 (11), 878–910. Understanding the Federal Circuit’s internal debate and its decision to rehear Philips v. AWH Corp. En Banc [Patent claim construction]. Molenda, John Josef. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, November 2004, 86 (11), 911–30. The ‘‘Doctrine of prosecution disclaimer’’ in construing patent claims. Miller, Todd R. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, November 2004, 86 (11), 931–54.
Cheney, Edwin. Patent World, February 2005, (169), 12–3. Just good friends? The relationship between tax and intellectual property [in the UK]. Noble, Andrew. Patent World, February 2005, (169), 20–2. Honeywell Int’l v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp: The Federal Circuit goes to the extreme in its latest attack on the doctrine of equivalents. Stemer, Werner H. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, January 2005, 87 (1), 71–8. Kirin-Amgen Erythropoietin in the House of Lords–– first impressions of an impartial observer [UK]. Crespi, Stephen. The CIPA Journal, December 2004, 33 (12), 693–5. What will a fool pay for your IP? [tax issues.] Verlinden, Isabel et al. Managing Intellectual Property, November 2004, (144), 48–52.
The rule against recapture in reissues: an interpretation of Ex Parte Eggert. Poplin, Justin. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, December 2004, 86 (12), 972–80.
Eight is enough? New US fee regime forces re-thinking claim strategies. Palermo, Christopher J. The CIPA Journal, December 2004, 33 (12), 702–4.
SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex: experimental use as applied to claim scope. Pierce, Scott. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, December 2004, 86 (12), 981–90.
A global assessment of claim construction. Nettleton, Ewan et al. Managing Intellectual Property, February 2005, 71–4.
What is the state of the European patent profession? Boff, Jim. CIPA Journal, February 2005, 34 (2), 105– 11. Revisiting a reasonable royalty as a measure of damages for patent infringement. Barnhardt, John J, III. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, December 2004, 86 (12), 991– 1009. The experimental use defense: post-Madey v. Duke and Integra Life Sciences I Ltd. v. Merck KgaA. Caltrider, Stephen P and Davis Paula. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, December 2004, 86 (12), 1011–37. A critique of the new rules and the new standing order in contested case/interference practice. Gholz, Charles L. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, January 2005, 87 (1), 62–71. Re-thinking Patent Bar admission: which bag of tools rules? Carlson, Dale L et al. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office, February 2005, 87 (2), 113–40. Claim construction after Amgen [UK House of Lords decision]. Beattie, Kate and Forsyth, Chris. Patent World, February 2005, (169), 9–10. One invention or two? [Sabaf v MFI Furniture Centres Ltd. and Meneghetti Spa. UK House of Lords.]
Maximizing protection in Vietnam. Treutler, Thomas. Managing Intellectual Property, February 2005, 75–8. The patent law wilfulness game and damage awards. Schuster M. IIC International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2005, 36 (1), 126–32. Case comment: determining patent entitlement and inventorship. Marken Technologies v Zipher Ltd. Harrold Lucy and Morgan, Gareth. The CIPA Journal, November 2004, 33 (11), 642–8. Claim interpretation under the EPC––House of Lords decision in Kirin-Amgen v Hoechst Marion Roussel. Cole, Paul. The CIPA Journal, November 2004, 33 (11), 659–61. How to be a patent attorney. Mounteney, S. Physics World, 2005, 18 (1), 58–59. People, politics and patents––2005 Patent Focus Report [on 2004]. Wild J, Editor IAM Magazine, KnowledgeLink http:// email.derwent.com/cgi-bin2/DM/y/eN7P0V7bV0F6A0XxI0EJ. 2.3. Trademarks and Domain Names 2.3.1. Trademarks The ‘‘Toblerone’’ chocolate case in Belgium. Janssens, Marie-Christine. European Intellectual Property Review. December 2004, 26 (12), 554–9.
Literature listing / World Patent Information 27 (2005) 277–282
The ironies of Arsenal v Reed. Kilbey, Ian. European Intellectual Property Review, November 2004, 26 (11), 479–82. A year in the life of a trademark [decisions of the European Court of Justice]. Swaine, Kate and Jones, Cerryg. ITMA Review, January 2005, (319), 1 + 11–5. Functional marks blunted. [Philips and Remington shaver marks dispute.] Chapman, Simon and Martin, James. Trademark World, December 2004/January 2005, (173), 14–5. Trademarks in bad shape [shape marks]. Irvine, Jacqui and de Andria, Ce´line. Trademark World, December 2004/January 2005, (173), 16–7. The unfair case for fair use. [US Supreme Court trademark ruling.] Moskin, Jonathan. Managing Intellectual Property, February 2005, 79–80. The Madrid lottery. Gambling on the Madrid system in Africa. Smith, Alan. Trademark World, December 2004/January 2005, (173), 30–3. Imitators beware! The ‘‘likelihood of confusion’’ standard is expanded in Japan. Goto, Ryota Charles. Trademark World, December 2004/Jan 2005, (173), 34–7. The retreat from Baby-Dry. Did we throw the Baby-Dry out with the bath water? Jones, Cerryg and Trimmer, Bonita. Trademark World, December 2004/January 2005, (173), 38–41. Beer brands tripped up? [Anheuser-Busch v Budvar.] Stephens, Katherine and Irvine, Jacqueline. Trademark World, December 2004/January 2005, (173), 10– 2. Divergent views. [Henkel shape mark.] McLeod, Chris and Wood, Aaron. Trademark World, December 2004/January 2005, (173), 13–4. From small acorns––large trademark owners grow [small business strategy]. Schmittzehe, Naazneen. Trademark World, December 2004/January 2005, (173), 17–20. Nine months later. Has Europe seen the birth of a truly harmonised system? Jelley, Emma. Trademark World, December 2004/January 2005, (173), 21–7. So, what difference does it make? The likely effect of the IP Enforcement Directive on English Law. Steward, Geoff and Sharma, Seema. Trademark World, December 2004/January 2005, (173), 28–31. The sharpest tool. The Directive of Intellectual Property Rights and its implementation into German law.
281
Eckhartt, Claus. Trademark World, December 2004/ January 2005, (173), 32–5. Distinctive brand cues and memory for product consumption experiences. Warlop L., Ratneshwar S. and van Osselaer S.M.J. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 2005, 22 (1), 27–44. The last word? [US ruling on KP Permanent Make-Up.] Fonoroff, Alex and Davis Ted. Trademark World, December 2004/January 2005, (173), 36–9. By the book. Putting a value on trademarks and brands. Haigh, David. Trademark World, December 2004/ January 2005, (173), 40–4. Exhausted yet? [European Court of Justice decision on parallel imports]. Heath, Guy and Poole, Karen. Trademark World, Mar 2005, (175), 18–9. A dark future for search engines? [French decision on Google infringement]. Taylor, David. Trademark World, March 2005, (175), 22–3. Go, Stop, Lite speed ahead––an overview of Community and National laws in Mercosur [South America]. Piera, Alejandro. Trademark World, March 2005, (175), 24–9. Face of a nation–– resident Mandela wins injunction to prevent use of his name and image on coins. May, Elizabeth. Trademark World, March 2005, (175), 30–1. Eyes open, worldwide––translation, transliteration and phonetic rendering in trademarks. Gillard-Jones, Rachel. Trademark World, March 2005, (175), 32–6. Look before you leap––how to obtain an invalid Canadian trademark registration without really trying. Bereskin, David. Trademark World, March 2005, (175), 38–43.
2.3.2. Domain Names Impartiality and independence of panellists under the UDRP [Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy]. Baker, Ian. World Intellectual Property Report, November 2004, 18 (11), 20–4. The scandal of the .eu regulations. Willoughby, Tony. Managing Intellectual Property, November 2004, (144), 20–4. How to win domain name cases [UDRP]. Partridge, Mark. Managing Intellectual Property, February 2005, 68–70.
282
Literature listing / World Patent Information 27 (2005) 277–282
2.4. Designs Not such a crafty corkscrew?: Sheldon v. Metrokane and the state of industrial designs as ‘‘works of artistic craftsmanship’’ under Australian law. Thompson, Campbell and Wilkinson, Genevieve. European Intellectual Property Review, December 2004, 26 (12), 548–54. Dyson v Qualtex: a cyclone hits spare parts manufacturers ... Mr Justice Mann tries to clear up the mess [UK]. Carboni, Anna. CIPA Journal, February 2005, 34 (2), 90–7. 2.5. Other IP; General IP Issues 2.5.1. Policy and strategic issues Apples and oranges (and wine): why the international conversation regarding geographic indications is at a standstill. Torsen, Molly. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, January 2005, 87 (1), 31–61.
Why Alicante’s court can help CTM and CD owners. Miazzzetto, Fabrizio. Managing Intellectual Property, February 2005, 27–30. France adopts measures to discourage counterfeiters: Is 2004 the beginning of a new trend? Corman, Gre´goire. World Intellectual Property Report, November 2004, 18 (11), 27–9. Developing an effective strategy for managing intellectual assets. Tao, John et al. Research-Technology Management. January–February 2005, 50–8. International arbitration and Russian courts. Varanese, James. World Intellectual Property Report, November 2004, 18 (11), 23–6. The role of the judiciary in the enforcement of intellectual property rights: intellectual property litigation under the common law system with special emphasis on the experience in South Africa. Harms, L.T.C. European Intellectual Property Review, November 2004, 26 (11), 483–92.
Establishing IP institutions in the least developed countries (LDCs). WIPO Magazine. July–August 2004, 8–11.
Needle and threat: what you can and can’t say to competitors [UK]. Cook, William. The CIPA Journal, December 2004, 33 (12), 698–701.
The economics of ideas and intellectual property. Boldrin, M., Levine, D.K. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2005, 102 (4), 1252–6.
Chinese judicial interpretation provides new criminal liability standard for IP crimes. Simone, Joseph. World Intellectual Property Report, February 2005, (19) 2, 25–28.
The growing complexity of international policy in intellectual property. Gurry, F. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2005, 11 (1), 13–20.
Intellectual Property: Concepts of Webster A. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2004, 7612–15.
Intellectual Property Rights: Ethical Aspects. Straus J. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2004, 7621–24.
2.6. Historical
2.5.2. Other IP Issues Review of US Intellectual Property developments in 2004 and outlook for 2005. Mazumdar, Anandashankar. World Intellectual Property Report, February 2005, (19) 2, 29–32.
Underrated entrepreneur. [An overview of business skills of Thomas Edison.] McCormick, B. Israel, P. IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, 2005, 3 (1), 76–9. David Newton Associate Editor