14 Biotechnology Law Report 651 (Number 4, July-August 1995)

{BLR 2087} Intellectual Property.

EXCERPTS FROM THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, SUMMER 1995 ISSUE OFJurimetrics Journal of Law, Science & Technology i

Akim F. Czmus, Comment, Biotechnology Protection in Japan, the EuropeanCommunity, and the United States, 8 Temp. Int'l & Comp. L.J. 435-63 (1994)

Craig Edgar, Note, Patenting Nature: GATT on a Hot Tin Roof, 34WASHBURN L.J. 76-98 (1994)Calvin Fan, Comment, Construing Product-by-Process Patent Claims in Scrippsand Atlantic, 28 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 219-60 (1994)Salim A. Hasan, A Call for Reconsideration of the Strict Utility Standard inChemical Patent Practice, 9 HIGH TECH. L. REV. 245-70 (1994)Ned Hettinger, Patenting Life: Biotechnology, Intellectual Property, andEnvironmental Ethics, 22 B.C. ENVTL. ÄFF. L. REV. 267-305 (1995)

Elisabeth T. Jozwiak, Comment, Worms, Mice, Cows, and Pigs: The Importanceof Animal Patents in Developing Countries, 14 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS. 620-41(1994)Daniel L. McKay, Comment, Patent Law and Human Genome Research at theCrossroads: The Need for Congressional Action, 10 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER& HIGH TECH L.J. 465-98 (1994)Claire O'Brien, European Parliament Axes Patent Policy, 267 SCIENCE 141718(1995)Eric R. Paley, Note, Rethinking Utility: The Expedience of Granting PatentProtection to Partial cDNA Sequences, 44 SYRACUSE L. REV. 1003-18 (1994)Thomas F. Poche, Note, The Clinical Trial Exemption from PatentInfringement: Judicial Interpretation of Section 271(e)(1), 74 B. U. L. REV. 903-25 (1994)David G. Scalise & Daniel Nugent, International Intellectual Property Protectionfor Living Matter.- Biotechnology, Multinational Conventions and the Exceptionfor Agriculture, 27 CASE W. RES. J. INT'L L. 83-118 (1995)

Craig Wallace, Comment, A Proposed Standard Jury Instruction for a PatentInfringement Inquiry under the Doctrine of Equivalents, 10 SANTA CLARACOMPUTER & HIGH TECH L.J. 425-63 (1994)Fred Warshofsky, The Patent Wars: The Battle to Own the World's Technology(NY: WILEY, 1994)

!©1995 by the American Bar Association Section of Science and Technology.

14 Biotechnology Law Report 652 (Number 4, July-August 1995)

Rachel B. Adler, Comment, Device Dilemma: Should Hospitals Be Strictly Liablefor Retailing Defective Surgical Devices? 5 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 95-130(1994)Jason Altman, Organ Transplantations: The Need for an International OrganMarket, 5 TOURO INT'L L. REV. 161-83 (1994).

Nikki Bell & Constantine Melina, Regulating Transfer and Use of Fetal Tissuein Transplantation Procedures: The Ethical Dimensions, 20 AM. J.L. 7 MED.277-94 (1994).Robert D. Cantwell, Note, An Anencephalic Child Kept Alive Through theFourth Circuit's Interpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and ActiveLabor Act: A "Medical Miracle" or a "Living Corpse"? 14 ST. LOUIS U. PUB. L.REV. 323-46 (1994).

Todd R. Miller, Note, Motivation and Set-Size: In Re Bell Provides a LinkBetween Chemical and Biochemical Patent Claims, 2 U. BALT. INTEL. PROP.L.J. 89-113 (1993)Peter Mostow, "Like Building on Top of Auschwitz": On the Symbolic Meaning ofUsing Data from the Nazi Experiments, and on Non-Use as a Form ofMemorial, 10 J.L. & RELIGION 403-31 (1993- 94)Debra Parrish, Scientific Misconduct and the Plagiarism Cases, 21 J.C. & U.L.517-54 (1995)Scott C. Andre, Comment, Weird Science: Problems with the U.S. SupremeCourt's New Evidentiary Standard for Expert Scientific Testimony and OregonCase Law as a Possible Solution, 73 OR. L. REV. 691-710 (1994).Daniel Dwyer, Comment, Evidence-Federal Rules of Evidence Supersede GeneralAcceptance Standard for Admissibility of Scientific Evidence, 28 SUFFOLK U. L.REV. 252-60 (1994).Lisa Gonzalez, Note, Note, The Admissibility of Scientific Evidence: The Historyand Demise of Frye v. United States, 48 U. MIAMI L. REV. 371-97 (1994).

Deborah Maliver, Note, Out of the Fryeing Pan and into Daubert: Trial Judgesat the Gate Will Not Spell Relief for Plaintiffs, 56 U. PITT. L. REV. 245-69(1994).Paul Roberts, Science in the Criminal Process, 14 OXFORD J. LEGAL STUD.469-506 (1994).John Selbak, Comment, Digital Litigation: The Prejudicial Effects of HighTechnology Animation in the Courtroom, 9 HIGH TECH. L. REV. 337-67(1994)Andrew Taslitz, Daubert's Guide to the Federal Rules of Evidence: A Not-So-Plain-Meaning Jurisprudence, 32 HARV. J. ON LEGIS. 3-77 (1995).