15 July 2005
Welcome to the July edition of Life Sciences Insights. In our regulatory section we look at what is in store for complementary medicines, clinical trials and scheduling laws. With the preparations for the new trans-Tasman agency underway, industry regulation is changing.
Our features this month examine the High Court's decision on liability for deep vein thrombosis, and the implications for product bundling of the Baxter decision.
Protecting innovation is always a major issue for the biotech industry, and in our patents section we'll see the latest developments in patent law and whether they help or hinder life sciences patents.
By Julieann Ahern.
By Jocelyn Kellam.
Deep vein thrombosis is a recognised complication of air travel, and can disable or kill sufferers. Are the airlines responsible for it, and can sufferers sue? Jocelyn Kellam examines the complexities of the latest case, in which the High Court indicated that the answer could be "no".
By Bruce Lloyd.
Bundling is an attractive way to package goods and services to consumers, but as a recent decision involving health care products shows, it can also lead to trade practices problems. Bruce Lloyd looks at the implications of the Baxter case.
By Nicholas Tyacke.
By Nicholas Tyacke and Rohan Higgins.
Both the High Court and House of Lords have made important patent decisions recently, but how do they affect pharmaceutical patents? Nick Tyacke and Rohan Higgins discuss the Federal Court's first application of the cases.
By Nicholas Tyacke and Jacqueline McStay.
The Federal Court has recently held that all compounds falling within a class disclosed in a patent, even if not specifically identified, are sufficiently disclosed for the purpose of extending the term of such a patent on the basis of any one of those compounds, say Nick Tyacke and Jacqui McStay.
By Nicholas Tyacke.
