Rethinking Fairness: The Scope of Assignor Estoppel Doctrine After Minerva

Assignor estoppel, a common-law doc- trine, may prevent the former employee, as the patent assignor, from asserting the patent invalidity defense. The doctrine prevents unfair practices where, after assigning all the patent rights, the assignor claims the invalidity of the assigned patent such that she may exploit the invention without infringement. This article discerns the breadth of assignor estoppel doctrine and its implications after a recent Supreme Court case Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 2298 (2021).

The criminal liability of the medical team considering the recent orientation of the Italian Court of Cassation

This article aims to analyze the thematic of medical team liability considering the recent Italian Supreme Court case-law, highlighting the various problems linked to the identification of the responsibility of each member of the team. The participation of several subjects in the execution of medical treatment makes the question of criminal liability very complex, especially when it comes to inauspicious events, such as injuries or death, occurring during medical treatment. The question concerns the exact identification of the duty of care and vigilance of the medical team and whether this duty is in line with the principle of individual criminal responsibility guaranteed by Article 27 of the Italian Constitution. In this regard, the case-law has elaborated the so-called “principle of reasonable confidence”, according to which the division of labour that belongs to each member should involve a delimitation of his responsibility, limited only to what is within his competence, except in case of the person who organizes, directs, and controls the team. Precisely, based on this principle, the Italian Supreme Court in 2018 reasserted that in the medical team is necessary to identify the role played by each member, thus avoiding resorting to objective responsibility.

“The Basic Minimal Skills”

This chapter looks at the impact of segregated housing and schools on the performance of Black children on tests of academic skills, finding them lagging far behind White children. It shows that majority-Black school districts receive significantly less funding for education than majority-White districts. It then discusses in detail the 1973 Supreme Court case of San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, brought by Demetrio Rodriguez and other Hispanic parents of children in the Edgewood district of San Antonio, Texas, whose schools received less funding than majority-White districts because of state laws that based school funding largely on property taxes. Statistics showed that poor and largely Hispanic and Black districts with low property values could not match the funding of affluent White districts. The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 against this challenge, with Justice Lewis Powell writing for the majority in stating that Texas (and other states) need provide minority students only with “the basic minimal skills” to participate in civic affairs, with a passionate dissent by Justice Thurgood Marshall. The chapter then returns to Detroit, where Black students came in last in the nation in test scores; more than two-thirds could not even grasp fundamental skills in reading and arithmetic. This barrier to advanced education and good jobs stems from the systemic racism that places Black children far behind Whites in school readiness, raising the question: How can Blacks catch up with Whites when they start so far behind?

To Rest in Peace: a Proprietary Analysis of the Treatment of Human Bodies after Death

<p>This paper deals with the issue of recognising a property right in the human body after death. It advocates that such a right is appropriate given the need for family members to have increased control over the treatment of their loved one's remains. Thus a property right over human corpses is proposed, in favour of the next of kin, for the purposes of ensuring proper burial. This conclusion was reached after consideration of the recent New Zealand Supreme Court case Takamore v Clarke, the Gravatt family experience and Toi Moko. Themes present in this paper include the primacy of the wishes of the surviving over those of the dead and the significance of communal decision-making in matters concerning death and grief.</p>

To Rest in Peace: a Proprietary Analysis of the Treatment of Human Bodies after Death

<p>This paper deals with the issue of recognising a property right in the human body after death. It advocates that such a right is appropriate given the need for family members to have increased control over the treatment of their loved one's remains. Thus a property right over human corpses is proposed, in favour of the next of kin, for the purposes of ensuring proper burial. This conclusion was reached after consideration of the recent New Zealand Supreme Court case Takamore v Clarke, the Gravatt family experience and Toi Moko. Themes present in this paper include the primacy of the wishes of the surviving over those of the dead and the significance of communal decision-making in matters concerning death and grief.</p>

Menstruation Discrimination and the Problem of Shadow Precedents

The burgeoning menstrual justice movement highlights that women, girls, transgender men and boys, and non-binary persons may face discrimination or harassment due to their menstruation in workplaces, schools, prisons, and many other aspects of life. In recent years, a few courts have suggested such discrimination may violate Title VII, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in employment. Their analysis focuses on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), an amendment to Title VII passed in response to a Supreme Court case holding that pregnancy discrimination was not sex discrimination. The PDA overrode the decision by explicitly defining sex as including “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” The menstruation discrimination cases thus implicate more general questions of how statutory overrides should be interpreted, a subject I’ve explored extensively in prior work. My research suggests that this nascent litigation campaign may face two distinct challenges. The first is that courts will simply deny the claims, reasoning that menstruation is not directly addressed by the text of the PDA and therefore should not be recognized as sex discrimination. The second—which is more subtle, and also perhaps more likely—is that courts could find such discrimination to be actionable, but do so relying solely on the PDA’s explicit reference to “medical conditions” related to pregnancy. While that would be helpful for addressing discrimination in workplaces, it could open the door to arguments that menstruation is outside the ambit of sex discrimination laws that were not amended in a manner analogous to how Title VII was amended. To avoid these potential risks, theorists and advocates should seek to establish that menstruation discrimination is discrimination on the basis of “sex” itself, in that it is a condition linked to female reproductive organs and associated with stereotypes about women’s inferiority. That reasoning, which suggests that the PDA is properly interpreted as signaling Congress’s disapproval with the Supreme Court’s unduly narrow understanding of what constitutes sex discrimination in the earlier pregnancy case, should apply not only to Title VII, but also to the interpretation of statutory and regulatory prohibitions on sex discrimination in non-employment contexts.

Oxymoronic Legalism in the Ghanaian Supreme Court? Case Comment on Attorney-General V Faroe Atlantic Co Ltd.

In 2005, the Supreme Court of Ghana in Attorney-General v Faroe Atlantic Co Ltd rendered its decision on the interpretation of Article 181(5) of the 1992 Constitution. The Court’s decision influenced its subsequent decisions in 2011 and 2012 on the scope and application of Article 181(5). This Case Comment reveals that the Court’s interpretation in relation to the PPA in question was oxymoronic in that it simultaneously held the PPA as both valid and void. The author argues that the Court would have rendered a clearer and fairer decision if it had wholly interpreted Article 181. Its partial interpretation, needless bureaucratic judicial process, and the Government’s lack of due diligence are disincentives to private investment in Ghana’s power sector. Keywords: Ghana, PPA, investment dispute, interpretation, illegal contract, power crisis, power sector investment.

A Tale of Seven Cases – Faculty Unions in the United States – From Yeshiva To Elon: Is It Time to Review Yeshiva and the Positions of Church-Sponsored Colleges and Universities As Well?

This article is a summary discussion of the main issues faced by faculty at private, often church-sponsored, universities who sought to be represented by a union in collective bargaining with their employers. The discussion begins by tracing the origins of the rule that faculty at private universities are managers and not employees under the aegis of the National Relations Act in the Supreme Court case of Yeshiva University. The summary then follows developments over the years up to the most recent decision of the National Labor Relations Board that sanctioned the efforts of adjunct professors at Elon University to seek union representation. In examining these two book-end cases, the article discusses issues relating to the effect of the religion clauses of the First Amendment in the context of the National Labor Relations Board’s shifting views on the topic. Last, the authors discuss unionization in the context of church-sponsored colleges and universities. Is it now time for the Supreme Court to review its seminal decision in Yeshiva University and for church-sponsored colleges and universities to rethink their positions as well?