1,720,990 research outputs found
Paolo DI GIOVINE, Studio sul perfetto indoeuropeo.
No full textMawet Francine. Paolo DI GIOVINE, Studio sul perfetto indoeuropeo.. In: L'antiquité classique, Tome 69, 2000. pp. 383-385
Paolo DI GIOVINE, Studio sul perfetto indoeuropeo.
No full textMawet Francine. Paolo DI GIOVINE, Studio sul perfetto indoeuropeo.. In: L'antiquité classique, Tome 69, 2000. pp. 383-385
Le parlate lucane e la dialettologia italiana
No full textNel volume sono raccolti saggi dialettologici scritti in memoria di Gerhard Rohlf
IS SUSPENSION OF ANTI-SARS-COV2 VACCINE PATENTS THE MOST APPROPRIATE AND FEASIBLE STRATEGY TO DEAL WITH THE COVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY?
No full textDuring the Covid-19 pandemic, the exhaustingly heated debate on the advisability of suspending vac-cine patents became a familiar topic not only among patent specialists but also to the general public. There were staunch defenders of patent protection and those for whom patents merely safeguard the economic interests of pharmaceutical companies and deny citizens' right to healthcare. Every generalized health emergency - whether the appearance of HIV or the current Covid-19 pandemic - triggers acrimonious debate on the need to suspend patents covering medical devices and agent necessary to fight the disease. The consensus view is that patent monopolies bar general access to therapeutic treatments. The frequently abstract, ideological and emotional tones adopted during the debate do not help objective assessment of the pros and cons of patent suspension and its feasibility.
This work aims to provide a clear, objective overview of what suspension of anti-SARS-CoV2 (COVID-19) vaccine patents would entail.
Three essential questions are considered:
First, what is the intended purpose underpinning any suspension of anti-Covid vaccine patents;
Second, what patents should be "suspended";
Third, what, if any, legal instruments exist that would enable rapid, effective patent suspension.
EMA/707383/2020 Corr.1; 19 February 2021,
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/comirnaty;
EMA/15689/2021 Corr.1; 11 March 2021,
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/spikevax;
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/
WO2021/188969-A2; WO2021/213924-Al; WO2021/213945-A1; WO2021/214204-A1; WO 2021154763 A1; WO 2021159040 A2; WO 2021159130 A2; WO 2021222304 A2: WO 2021231963 A1; US Patent 10,960,070; US16/344,774; US2021/0275664; WO2021/163365; WO2007/024708; EP2578685 B1; US8278036 B2; US8691966 B2; US8748089 B2; US8835108 B2; US9750824 B2; WO2011/071931; WO2014/160243;US11060107B2; US 9,404,127 US9,364,435; US8,058,069; US10166298-B1; US11040112-B2; EP3532103-A; US9737619-B2 (claim 1); EP3532103 (claim 6); WO2021030701; US9,404,127; US9,364,435; US8,058,069
Un passo del grammatico Pompeo e la dittongazione protoromanza
No full textL'articolo si occupa di un passo del grammatico Pompeo (V sec. d.C.) particolarmente complesso, anche dal punto di vista della tradizione manoscritta, tratto dai "Commentarii" a Donato. Secondo l'esegesi di Roger Wright il passo documenterebbe una precocissima attestazione del dittongo protoromanzo sia nella serie palatale sia in quella velare. Il brano va però interpretato in modo totalmente diverso. La presunta pronunzia dittongale di /e/ in realtà è solo una forma di graficizzazione della pronunzia [ɛ] di /e/ (prossima ad = [ɛ:]); viceversa, quanto al presunto dittongo /wo/, il passo va letto e interpretato anche qui in modo completamente differente: la presenza poi della varia lectio nella tradizione manoscritta allude probabilmente alla pronunzia con la breve e non con la lunga /roma/ con un [o] semichiuso e graficizzato mediante
PATENT EXTENSION FOR MEDICINAL PRODUCTS IN EUROPE: SUPPLEMENTARY PROTECTION CERTIFICATES, SPECIFIC CASE LAW AND THE EXPORT WAIVER
No full textSupplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) are 5-year maximum extensions to a 20-year patent for medicinal and plant protection products. The SPC was instituted to offset, at least in part, the period intervening while awaiting the issuance of a Marketing Authorisation (M.A.) for the medicinal or plant-protection product, i.e., between the filing of the patent application and the granting of an M.A.
Article 3 of Regulation EC/469/2009 specifies the conditions for obtaining this I.P. tool which is based on the two legal pillars: patent law and regulatory law.
Under patent law, application for an SPC may be filed for a product that is an active ingredient or combination of active ingredients, if that product is protected by a basic patent currently in force. The product must be an embodiment of the invention protected by the basic patent and must be specifically identified in the claims of the same basic patent by way of its structural characterisation (Medeva C-322/10) or its functional characterisation (HGS vs Eli Lilly C-493/12). In the case of combinations of active ingredients, the combination must be part of the invention covered by the patent, and each of the active ingredients must be specifically identifiable in the light of the information disclosed in that patent.
Under regulatory law, the active ingredient or combination of active ingredients for which an SPC is sought must be contained in a medicinal product with an M.A. pursuant to Directive 2001/83/EC. The medicinal product must contain all the active ingredients mentioned in the SPC application, as confirmed by decisions Georgetown C-422/10, Medeva C-322/10. The medicinal product in question may, however, also comprise other active ingredients.
No product that has been granted an SPC may obtain a second SPC. However, the same patent may generate other SPCs for different products, provided that each product is protected by that same patent and is an ingredient of the Marketing-Authorised medicinal product.
In the special case of a new combination of ingredients consisting of a first active ingredient protected by a basic patent and already the subject matter of an SPC, along with a second active ingredient known in the prior art, a new SPC may be obtained only if the combination is specified in the wording of the claims of the
basic patent and is identified as an embodiment of the invention. However, if the specific combination is not an embodiment of the invention, no new SPC may be allowed (Sanofi C-443/12).
The question of SPC protection of combinations of active ingredients is the subject of open debate in Europe and important decisions of the CJEU on the issue are expected in the very near future.
SPCs may be granted only on the basis of the first M.A. for a medicinal product. A second SPC may not be granted on the basis of a new M.A. for a second therapeutic use or for a new formulation of a product that has already been granted a first M.A. (see Decision C-673/18 - Santen vs INPI and Decision C-443/17-Abraxis Biosciences vs Comptroller).
Regulation EC/469/2009 was recently amended by Regulation EU/2019/933 to include the granting a waiver within the SPC framework to allow the manufacture and storing of generic and biosimilar forms of original active ingredients, yet without affecting the finality of the protection of intellectual property rights that remain one of the cornerstones of innovation, competitiveness and growth in the internal market. (Recital no.7).
In practical terms, the waiver system allows a medicinal containing a product SPC-protected, as well as any connected act strictly necessary for the realization to be manufactured no earlier than six months prior to the expiry of the SPC for the purpose of export to third countries where there is no protection or, for the purpose of temporarily storing product in a EU member state before release onto the market that is allowed the day after SPC expiry
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Ringraziamenti
No full textRingraziamo la Sapienza Università di Roma, che ha approvato il Seminario concedendo un finanziamento nel bando “Congressi e convegni 2013”, e in particolare il preside della Facoltà di lettere e filosofia, prof. Roberto Nicolai, per il patrocinio e il sostegno della Facoltà, e il direttore del Dipartimento di scienze documentarie, linguistico-filologiche e geografiche, prof. Paolo Di Giovine, per il concreto supporto che ha sempre assicurato all’iniziativa, insieme a tutto il personale del D..
Programma del 1. Seminario nazionale di biblioteconomia: didattica e ricerca nell’università italiana e confronti internazionali
No full text30 maggio 2013 Ore 10.30 Saluti del preside della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia Roberto Nicolai, del direttore del Dipartimento di scienze documentarie, linguistico-filologiche e geografiche Paolo Di Giovine, del presidente dell’AIB Stefano Parise Alberto Petrucciani (Sapienza Università di Roma e Società italiana di Scienze Bibliografiche e Biblioteconomiche – SISBB)Introduzione ai lavori Wayne WiegandWhat’s missing in teaching and research in library sciences in the United States Paolo Tra..
- …
