Mitchell Hamline School of Law
Not a member yet
3445 research outputs found
Sort by
On the Rights of Sentient Beings: The Case for Expanding Due Process of Law to Non-Human Animals
Get PDFDisharmony in Patent Law: A Comparative Study of Patent Eligibility of Biological Subject Matters Between China and the United States
Get PDFDisharmonies in intellectual property rights have led countries, like China and the U.S., to implement patent laws tailored to their unique culture, values, and goals while complying with international treaties. China\u27s exclusion of treatment and diagnosis methods from patent protection prioritizes healthcare accessibility, whereas the U.S.\u27s allowance of patentability fosters medical innovation. Similarly, China\u27s exclusion of animal and plant patentability aligns with cultural and agricultural values, emphasizing resource accessibility and food security. Protecting genetic resources poses challenges, with China aligning its patent law proactively with the CBD principles and the U.S. prioritizing unrestricted access. China\u27s approach to human stem cell patentability reflects Confucian values, safeguarding human dignity, while the U.S. focuses on excluding judicial exceptions. As cultures evolve, China must continually assess its patent law to strike a balance between cultural values, societal needs, and technological progress. Compulsory licensing is proposed as a promising avenue to harmonize biological subject matter eligibility, encouraging innovation while preserving cultural heritage and fostering cooperation
Judicial Preferences and Aggrandizement Effects
Get PDFScholars increasingly portray the Supreme Court as power hungry and self-aggrandizing. This aggrandizement literature, though, lacks a robust causal theory. This essay argues that judicial aggrandizement is not the product of a power-maximizing agenda but a function of judicial preferences and legal background conditions. Aggrandizement occurs in cases where legal background conditions do not align with judicial policy preferences and the justices assert power to create their preferred policy outcomes. This theory has significant prescriptive and normative implications. For example, counterintuitively, this essay shows that more judicial aggrandizement could be a sign of a healthier institution under some conditions
