| 1. |
- Lidgard, Hans Henrik, et al.
(författare)
-
Nordic law - A survey of commercial agency
- 1984
-
Ingår i: A Survey of Commercial Agency. ; , s. 206-206
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Despite the title the chapter focuses on on the situation in Sweden as a Nordic example before the harmonization of EU law.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Atik, Jeffery, et al.
(författare)
-
Embracing price discrimination: TRIPS and the suppression of parallel trade in pharmaceuticals
- 2006
-
Ingår i: University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law. - 1086-7872. ; 27:4, s. 1043-1076
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In December 2005, the WTO responded to the HIV/AIDS pharmaceutical crisis in the least developed world by voting to make the first permanent amendment to the WTO Agreements since their original negotiation during the Uruguay Round. New Article 31bis will amend the TRIPS Agreement to permit compulsory manufacturing licenses in order to facilitate supply of needed pharmaceuticals to those countries lacking the technological capacity to produce these drugs themselves. The amendment reflects a substantial shift in the essential TRIPS bargain, constituting a significant give-back to those developing countries that specialize in the generic production of pharmaceuticals. To date, however, there has been no significant utilization of this facility (which was provisionally established in August 2003). Rather, patent holders have determined - perhaps under the threat of these newly authorized compulsory licenses - to supply these markets directly with HIV/AIDS drugs at prices much lower than those prevailing in developed country markets. As a condition of doing so, both the pharmaceutical industry and those WTO members that champion their interests have sought and obtained limitations on the parallel trade of drugs subject to differential pricing. This shift away from TRIPS' prior neutrality on parallel trade may well spill-over into additional areas beyond the particular context in which the amendment developed. We make the following observations: 1. TRIPS was previously neutral on the permissibility of parallel trade. Until now, WTO members were free to either permit or prohibit the import and sale of intellectual property ("IP")-covered goods that had been placed into commerce in foreign markets. That is, IP-right holders may or may not be provided with an ancillary right to block the importation and sale of grey-market goods. 2. Parallel trade has not been a solution to assuring the supply of needed drugs to AIDS-stricken regions of the least developed world. Quite simply, there has not been an adequate source-of-supply at prices that the afflicted Least Developed Countries (LDCs) are capable of paying. 3. Compulsory licensing now has a clear legal basis as a result of the TRIPS amendment (and the provisional rule in place since August 2003), yet virtually no countries have resorted to compulsory licensing. 4. HIV/AIDS drug prices in LDC markets have fallen significantly, which suggests that pharmaceutical manufacturers have determined to supply LDC markets directly, instead of permitting LDC demand to be met by generic producers utilizing the amended TRIPS rules on compulsory licensing. Their determination to do so may have been motivated, at least in part, by the threat of compulsory licenses. 5. Both the WTO community and the pharmaceutical industry have embraced a policy of differential prices: high prices in developed markets and dramatically lower prices in LDC markets. There has also been significant differentiation in products supplied. 6. Effective controls on parallel trade are necessary to attain effective differential pricing. Without limits, low-priced drugs supplied to LDC markets would flow back, by operation of arbitrageurs, into high priced markets. This would undercut the economic returns in the high priced markets and starve LDCs of their supply. Thus, at least within the drug sector, TRIPS formal neutrality as applied to parallel trade cannot stand. 7. The European Union and the United States have non-IP restrictions that sharply reduce the likelihood of parallel trade in pharmaceuticals. The observed positional shift in TRIPS from neutrality on parallel trade to opposition may well spill-over from the HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals context into a larger rethinking of the appropriateness of IP-holders engaging in price discrimination.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Groussot, Xavier, et al.
(författare)
-
Are there general principles of community law affecting private law?
- 2008
-
Ingår i: General principles of EC law in a process of development.
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The purpose of conference of the Swedish Network for European Legal Studies in Stockholm on March 22 and 23 was to detect and evaluate general principles of European community law. The conference was a follow up to the 1999 Malmö conference on the subject and the question was if there had been any new development. In 1999 general principles of Community law was discussed from the perspective of human rights and administrative law. This time the purpose was broadened and included consequences of the enlargement of the Union and if general principles were emerging, which could impact the sphere of private law. The discussion on general principles has primarily been driven by lawyers specialized in Constitutional and European law. The fact that this time “less experienced” (in the field!) private law lawyers and lawyers from new Member States participated, added new dimensions, perspectives and questions: What is a general principle, how does it develop and what impact does it have. This article argues that the question of general principles is not just a question of detecting important principles of Community law, but that the development signifies an ongoing convergence of interpretation of the law, which will harmonize understanding between civil and common law countries. First of all, the article will define the general principles in private law. Secondly, it will analyze the impact of the general principles on private law within the European Court of Justice (ECJ) case-law.
|
|
| 6. |
-
Intellectual property & competition law
- 2010
-
Samlingsverk (redaktörskap) (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Swedish researchers with specific interests in European Market law – IPR, competition and marketing law – join forces to review recent Swedish legislative enactments and case-law developments of particular European interest in national Swedish Courts or the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”). This volume also includes comments on general EU developments from a Swedish perspective.
|
|
| 7. |
- Ledendal, Jonas, et al.
(författare)
-
Swedish Copyright Law Ends the Pirate Bay
- 2011
-
Ingår i: National Developments in the Intersection of IPR and Competition Law from Maglite to Pirate Bay. - 9781841139449 ; 3, s. 205-217
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 8. |
- Lidgard, Hans Henrik
(författare)
-
Application of Article 82 EC to abusive exclusionary conduct – Refusal to supply or to license
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Europarättslig tidskrift. - 1403-8722. ; 4, s. 694-712
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Departing from fundamental concepts, this paper briefly recaps the case-law development with respect to refusal to deal on both sides of the Atlantic; revisits the EU Guidelines and recent U.S. development, and finally considers refusal to license. All with the purpose to understand whether the 2009 Guidelines actually restate the law as it stands today.
|
|
| 9. |
- Lidgard, Hans Henrik, et al.
(författare)
-
Are European patents obstacles to Swedish cancer research?
- 2002
-
Ingår i: Gene technology and economy. - 9189116259 ; , s. 52-71
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Professor Håkan Olsson, Lund has addressed the problems caused by patenting in the field of biotechnology. His article was triggered by patent protection acquired by the American company Myriad Genetics. According to HO, Myriad requires that analyses of blood to trace the occurrence of these genes should be carried out in the company’s American laboratories, at a significant cost. Profit is infringing on the freedom of academic research and HO therefore asks: • Is it reasonable to patent “inventions” in gene technology? • Can patent protection be allowed to impede urgent, serious and non-commercial research? • Can patent protection be circumvented by coercive measures? • Should patentees be able to monopolize analytical work in medical care? In this article I examine the system from a legal perspective. Are there solutions to the problems encountered by a researching physician, or must the rules be changed?
|
|
| 10. |
- Lidgard, Hans Henrik, et al.
(författare)
-
Assessing reporting obligations under TRIPS Article 66.2
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Sustainable technology transfer.
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The reporting obligations under the TRIPS Agreement should provide a basis for discovering how the developed countries provide incentives to enterprises and institutions in their territories for the purpose of promoting and encouraging technology transfer and if these activities lead to concrete and helpful best industry practices. The obligations must be seen in their context. Other international activities also address technology transfer from developed to developing countries. UNCTAD has such activities on its agenda and the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change contain fairly far reaching language indicating that technology transfer is also a priority in fields unconnected to trade in goods. The CBD is still, more than 15 years after its execution, at a formation stage with some way to go before it can generate substantial technology transfer. The situation is similar for the environmental development under the Framework Convention. In any event, TRIPS is a good measuring tool as reporting has not been limited to intellectual property rights activities. Member countries in their Article 66.2 TRIPS reporting cover exchanges in any area or sector including health, biodiversity, climate and energy alike. This Chapter summarizes the concrete results achieved in relation to technology transfer in the narrow sense, searching for best practices of how a developed country can provide incentives to its private industry to actively participate in transferring catch up, state-of-the-art technology. It is a descriptive empirical account, evaluating if reported technology transfer activities are substantial and sustainable or if they are merely reporting on technical assistance or even general development aid.
|
|
