Browse the archives

Browse the articles in this issue.

• COMPETITION
  In patent infringement suit by Intel against Taiwanese maker of computer CPUs and chipsets, English Court of Appeal (Civil Division) holds that lower court had erred in granting summary judgment to Intel on defendant’s claims that Intel’s licensing agreements were violating competition provisions of EC Treaty
• COMPETITION
  In private antitrust dispute over international vitamin sales, District of Columbia Circuit holds that where defendant’s anti-competitive conduct causes requisite harm to United States commerce, FTAIA permits suits by foreign plaintiffs who are injured solely by that conduct’s effect on foreign commerce.
• CRIMINAL LAW
  As matter of first impression, Eleventh Circuit holds that “final action” under 18 U.S.C. Section 3292 which can toll limitations period for crimes while government is requesting information from abroad under Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty means objectively complete obedience to request
• CRIMINAL LAW
  Reviewing conviction of U.S. citizen for murdering his wife in Haiti, Fifth Circuit upholds Foreign Murder Statute provision that grants Attorney General unreviewable power to find that Haiti lacked lawful ability to secure defendant’s return from U.S. despite existence of U.S.-Haiti extradition treaty
• PATENT LAW
  In 5 to 4 split, Canadian Supreme Court concludes that “transgenic animals” produced by Harvard researchers for use in cancer investigations are not patentable “compositions of matter” within Canadian Patent Act though U.S., U.K., and fourteen other nations have issued patents on Harvard’s “oncomouse”
• WAR CRIMES
  In twenty-eight actions by former World War II slave laborers for Germany and Japan, Ninth Circuit concludes that 1999 California statute providing for cause of action for such claims unconstitutionally interferes with federal government’s foreign affairs powers
• WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
  WTO Appellate Body upholds Panel findings that U.S.’s Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 is inconsistent with WTO trading rules as specific action against dumping or subsidy