Issue 5 of Life Sciences Law & Business, the bimonthly published by Legalease, has just been published. Each issue typically contains seven articles: coverage includes intellectual property, regulatory and commercial issues and the writers are drawn from the ranks of practitioners on both sides of the Atlantic. This issue includes, among other items, the following:
* A review by Penny Gilbert (Bristows) of the recent House of Lords decision in Kirin-Amgen v Transkaryotic Therapies.

* Paul Ranson (PharmaLaw, Stringer Saul) writing on the legal dimension to outsourcing in the pharmaceutical industries.

* A lively piece on "reach-through royalties" and patented research tools by Foley Hoag's Donald Ware (the IPKat reckons this can be a real growth area for litigation until the key points are resolved by legislation or, more likely, judicial rulings).
The IPKat commends this excellent and readable publication to anyone interested in the life sciences/law interface. The articles are short, well-focused and topical and the price (£315) looks pretty fair for a specialist legal publication in this day and age.
LIFE SCIENCES LAW & BUSINESS LIFE SCIENCES LAW & BUSINESS Reviewed by Jeremy on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. You have to try business phone equipment uk for FREE marketing and advertising. Keep up the interesting work in this blog.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.