Oregon Review of International Law : Volume 18, Number 1 (2016)

Permanent URI for this collection

https://hdl.handle.net/1794/22535

Browse

Browsing Oregon Review of International Law : Volume 18, Number 1 (2016) by Title

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Forever Green? An Examination of Pharmaceutical Patent Extensions
    (University of Oregon School of Law, 2017-07-27) Marrs, Julian W.
    This Article examines Novartis in the context of pharmaceutical evergreening, and suggests that the U.S. intellectual property regime could be improved by adopting a provision similar to section 3(d). Part I discusses evergreening and the negative repercussions it has on both the U.S. patent system and society. Part II examines Novartis and the academic understanding of section 3(d)’s solution to evergreening. Part III briefly details the current state of pharmaceutical patent laws in the U.S. Finally, Part IV suggests what a similar provision in the U.S. system would look like.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Santiago as a Seat for International Commercial Arbitration
    (University of Oregon School of Law, 2017-07-27) Vial, Gonzalo; Blavi, Francisco
    The seat of an arbitration is the jurisdiction in which the arbitration procedure takes place. The seat not only influences the law applicable to the arbitration, but its courts also exercise supervisory powers over the proceedings. Moreover, the seat of the arbitration determines the jurisdiction of the award for recognition and enforcement purposes. The venue of an arbitration, on the other hand, is the location where the proceedings take place. Although the hearings, meetings, and deliberations may be held at the seat—or at any other location— the seat and the venue of an arbitration are typically one and the same. In fact, the venue usually determines the seat of an international arbitration unless the parties name another seat of the arbitration.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Undue Due Process: Why the Application of Jurisdictional Due Process Requirements to the Recognition of Foreign-Country Judgments Is Inappropriate
    (University of Oregon School of Law, 2017-07-27) Meier, Niklaus
    When the recognition of foreign-country judgments is sought in the United States, it occurs that recognition is denied due to lack of jurisdiction. In the United States, jurisdiction of foreign courts is examined according to the same due process requirements of the U.S. Constitution that apply to direct jurisdiction and to the recognition of sister-state judgments. These criteria were developed in a national, federal, interstate context and are not appropriate for claims involving international elements, which necessarily follow jurisdictional concepts differently than the United States does.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Unpacking Import Injury
    (University of Oregon School of Law, 2017-07-27) Fanizzo, Michael J. , Jr.
    “I can’t afford to bring this case, but I can’t afford to do nothing,” says Diana, a hypothetical owner of an American manufacturing business whose sales are diving. The recession, slow recovery, and foreign competition are squeezing Diana’s sales so much that she anticipates having to close the factory. She learns from a lawyer that there is a way to sue foreign importers, and if she wins, customs duties will be levied on the importers, eroding their price advantage. The suit would be for a trade violation, such as unfair pricing or illegal subsidies.
©2017 University of Oregon School of Law