Showing papers by "Jones Day published in 2007"

An overview of pharmaceutical cocrystals as intellectual property.

Abstract: This review article focuses on the interaction among certain scientific, legal, and regulatory aspects of pharmaceutical crystal forms. The article offers an analysis of pharmaceutical cocrystals as patentable inventions by drawing upon recent scientific developments in the field. Several potential commercial advantages of pharmaceutical cocrystals are highlighted, and a number of recent court decisions involving salient issues are summarized. The article provides an outlook on how the developing field of cocrystallization may impact the pharmaceutical intellectual property landscape. Keywords: Pharmaceutical; cocrystal; solid form; polymorph; intellectual property; patent; legal; regulatory

Navigating trans‐atlantic deals: warranties, disclosure and material adverse change

Abstract: Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore certain remaining differences in the underlying legal considerations and the differing customs and practices of US and UK mergers and acquisitions in relation to certain issues.Design/methodology/approach – A review was undertaken of the leading cases in the UK and various states of the USA and custom and practice in the UK and USA, in each case in relation to the following areas: representations and warranties; disclosure; the effect of the buyer's knowledge; repetition of warranties/representations; and material adverse change.Findings – Although the historical differences between UK and US mergers and acquisitions are diminishing as the frequency of trans‐atlantic transactions increases, there remain certain variances which have important implications for the allocation of risk between a buyer and seller in any trans‐atlantic merger or acquisition.Originality/value – This paper is useful for professional advisers acting in connection with a trans‐atlant...

Charge de la preuve et théorie du contrôle en droit communautaire de la concurrence: pour un changement de perspective (Burden of Proof and Intensity of Review in EU Competition Law: For a Change of Perspective)

Abstract: French Abstract: Le point de depart de cet article est le constat, dresse par de nombreux auteurs, d’une certaine confusion dans la jurisprudence communautaire recente en droit de la concurrence a propos de l’allocation de la charge de la preuve et de ce que certains auteurs appellent le « standard de preuve ». L’article s’efforce d’apporter une clarification conceptuelle de ces questions. Il se compose de trois parties. La premiere partie est theorique. Elle montre que les questions de preuve et de controle du juge sont conceptualisees differemment dans les traditions juridiques des Etats membres et fait le point sur les notions de charge de preuve, de « standard de preuve » et de « standard de controle ». Comme souvent, la jurisprudence communautaire se presente comme un creuset de differentes traditions juridiques, si bien que les concepts de common law et les concepts de droit civil apparaissent les uns et les autres utiles pour eclairer cette jurisprudence. La seconde partie est plus descriptive : elle fait le point sur le droit positif a travers la jurisprudence recente et illustre par des exemples precis l’interet des differentes notions qui ont ete definies dans la premiere partie. Cette partie debouche sur le constat selon lequel les notions de « standard de preuve » et de « standard de controle », empruntees a la common law, sont insuffisantes pour comprendre l’intensite du controle qu’exerce le juge communautaire. La troisieme partie propose une autre vision de ce controle, construite a partir de notions differentes, principalement la notion de « scenario » (qui designe un « recit economique » elaboree par la Commission pour soutenir qu’un comportement ou une operation sont anticoncurrentiels) et la notion de «normalite economique» telle que percue par le juge. English Abstract: Many authors have pointed to a lack of clarity in the existing case law of EC courts in the field of competition law regarding the allocation of the burden of proof, as well as the determination of the standard of proof. This article attempts to clarify the concepts underlying these questions, bearing in mind that the Court reasons in more than one language. It consists in three sections. The first section reviews how questions regarding the allocation of the burden of proof and judicial control are conceptualised differently in different legal traditions. It also attempts to clarify the notions of burden of proof, standard of proof and standard of control. With regard to these notions, as is often the case, EC case law appears to be a melting pot of different legal traditions. It is thus shown that notions originating both in the common law and in the civil law tradition are useful to understand EC case law in relation to the issues of proof and control. The second section describes the current state of the law and illustrates with examples from court cases the usefulness of the various notions defined in the first section. It leads to the conclusion that the common law notions of "standard of proof" and "standard of control" are not sufficient to understand the intensity of control applied by Community courts over Commission’s decisions. The third section proposes another description of judicial control, based on the notions of “scenario” (depicting the economic storyline adduced by the Commission to account for anticompetitive effect) and “economic normality”, as perceived by courts.