Loyola University Chicago, School of Law: LAW eCommons
Not a member yet
4877 research outputs found
Sort by
Around the World: Children\u27s Lack of Access to Fundamental Rights in Nepal and the Effects the Nepalese Legal System Has on Poverty, Health, Education, Child Labor, Child Trafficking, and Child Marriage
No full text
The Right to Legal Assistance for Unaccompanied Immigrant Children under the Inter-American System of Human Rights
Full text link
Education Connection: Twitter Hacks, Football Field Prayers and Campus Speech Climate: Today\u27s First Amendment Issues in Education
No full textA Spotlight On: Advocating for the Stateless: The Work of Professor Katherine Kaufka Walts
Full text link
Helsinn v. Teva: A Big Blow to Small Pharma
No full textIn Helsinn v. Teva, the Supreme Court held that Congress did not alter the meaning of on sale when it enacted the LeahySmith America In vents Act and, therefore, an inventor\u27s sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential may qualify as prior art. The Court relied upon precedent which suggested that a sale or offer of sale need not make an invention available to the public to qualify as prior art. Instead, the on-sale bar only required that the invention be the subject of a commercial offer for sale and ready for patenting. Unfortunately, the Court\u27s nine-page opinion fell short of expectations. Not only was the Court\u27s decision at odds with the legislative history of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, it will undoubtedly create unnecessary confusion regarding the proper implementation of the on-sale bar. Further, this decision interferes with Congressional intent to harmonize the United States patent system with those of other countries. Most importantly, this decision will have a particularly detrimental effect on small and midsize pharmaceutical companies who frequently rely on partnerships with larger, more profitable entities in order to continue with their research and development of new drugs
Bringing Down the Average: The Case for a Less Sophisticated Reasonableness Standard in US and EU Consumer Law
Full text linkScouring Muddied Waters: Towards Clarifying the CFPB\u27S Abusive Practices
Full text linkWhile this Article was pending publication, several events unfolded altering the landscape of the abusive power. As a preliminary note, during the pendency of publication several dispositions changed-either by court order or agreement between the parties. Next, in June 2019, Director Kraninger kicked off the Bureau\u27s symposium series by holding an open forum over the abusive power. The symposium consisted of two panels: one focusing on policy, composed of law professors, and one focusing on practical application, comprised of practicing attorneys in private and government practice. Both panels were intellectually stimulating and presented diverging views. In the policy panel, major disagreement arose in two areas: (1) whether the abusive prong required consumer harm and (2) whether abusive contains a scienter requirement. Further, the practical panel debated on the issue of whether the abusive power needs clarification right now. The panel did not come to an agreement, however, it made one thing clear: there is widespread disagreement on whether rulemaking is necessary to clarify the abusive power. This Article will address that disagreement. Finally, on September 7, 2019, Kraninger brought her first abusive (with deceptive) action against Certified Forensic Loan Auditors, LLC. This case shows Kraninger\u27s willingness to use the abusive power. This action, though, leaves open the question of whether she should, as a practical matter, continue to allow abusive allegations without further clarification. Thus, the era of regulation by enforcement continues