 |
|

Legal news from Friday, August 17, 2012 |
 |
|


Moscow court upholds 100-year city ban on gay pride marches
Dan Taglioli on August 17, 2012 2:58 PM ET

[JURIST] A city court in Moscow on Friday refused to overturn the municipal government's ban on gay pride marches for the next century. The court affirmed the Moscow municipal government ruling that any public gatherings that could be classified as gay pride marches are prohibited from March 2012 until May 2112. Russia's best-known gay rights campaigner Nikolay Alexeyev challenged the ban in court [BBC report] after he was refused a license for a parade. The city government argues that a gay pride parade would risk causing public disorder and that most Muscovites do not support such an event. Alexeyev has stated that he never actually expected to be granted a license, but needed the refusal to serve as the basis for a cause of action in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website]. The ECHR has already ordered Russia to pay Alexeyev [JURIST report] an award of 12,000 euros for non-pecuniary damages plus 17,510 euros for costs and attorneys fees (USD $41,090 total) for rejecting his license application. The ECHR stated that Russia had discriminated against the activist on the basis of his sexual orientation. Alexeyev stated he intends to appeal to ECHR again as he continues his judicial fight against the ban.
Russia has long struggled with the acceptance of homosexuality. In March St. Petersburg announced that the city's governor had signed into law a bill that would impose fines against people convicted of promoting homosexuality, including gays or lesbians who are open about their sexuality—individuals convicted under the law would be subject to fines between 3,000 and 5,000 rubles (US $100-160) [Moscow Times report], while organizations could be fined up to 50,000 rubles for "promoting" homosexuality. In December Senior Lecturer of Sociology at the University of Surrey Paul Johnson [university profile] wrote that the latest ban by Russian authorities on the promotion of homosexuality to minors is only the most recent violation of the ECHR ruling [JURIST comment] on the subject. Internationally the UN has attempted to pass resolutions aimed at ending sexuality discrimination worldwide, but has faced difficulty passing resolutions on gay rights issues. Last year UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] passed the "Human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity" resolution [text, PDF], which is the first resolution to call for an end to sexuality discrimination worldwide [JURIST report]. In 2010 UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon [official website] called for countries around the world to abolish laws discriminating against gay and lesbian individuals [JURIST report].


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Federal appeals court again validates cancer gene patents
Dan Taglioli on August 17, 2012 12:32 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) [official website] on Thursday ruled [opinion, PDF] for the second time in Association for Molecular Pathology v. US Patent and Trademark Office (AMP) that a Utah company does have valid patents on two genes associated with breast and ovarian cancers. AMP concerned Myriad Genetics [official website] patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2 [NCI backgrounder], isolated human genes that differ from native genes in that the process of extracting them results in changes in their molecular structure, although not in their genetic code. Arguing that the process of isolating genetic material from a human DNA molecule does not make the isolated genetic material (cDNA) a patentable invention, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) [advocacy websites; press release] in 2009 filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) [official website], which then invalidated all of Myriad's patents [JURIST report]. Last year in a 2-1 ruling the Federal Circuit reversed in part [opinion, PDF; JURIST report], rejecting Myriad's method patent but holding the gene patents themselves valid as "the difference between knowledge of nature and reducing a portion of nature to concrete form, the latter activity being what the patent laws seek to encourage and protect." This year the same CAFC three-judge panel reheard the case on remand from the US Supreme Court [official website] based on the Court's March decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories [opinion, PDF; JURIST report], in which it ruled that in order for something to be patentable it must add enough to a natural phenomena to make it different than anything found in nature. The ACLU and PUBPAT argued that Mayo "gave new vigor" to the principles used in determining whether a product of nature has been "transformed" enough to make it patentable, and that it supports the conclusion that cDNA is not patentable material. The CAFC, however, again ruled against the advocacy groups [ACLU press release], renewing its decision to "reverse the district court's decision that Myriad's composition claims to 'isolated' DNA molecules cover patent-ineligible products of nature under §101 because each of the claimed molecules represents a nonnaturally occurring composition of matter." The CAFC also again rejected one of Myriad's method patents for analyzing DNA sequences but upheld its patent for cancer screening.
The ACLU and PUPAT were concerned that these types of patents limit the amount of research that can be done and the availability of diagnostic tests associated with these genes to women in need. They filed a petition for certiorari [JURIST report] in the Supreme Court in 2011 after the Federal Circuit ruling that the patents were valid. The CAFC decisions run contrary to the position of the Obama administration, which in 2010 filed an amicus curiae brief [JURIST report] in support of the ACLU and PUBPAT. JURIST Guest Columnist Doreen Hogle [official profile] argued that the Mayo decision raised questions as to what innovations are subject to patent law protection and may result in stifled investment in technology [JURIST comment].


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

UN to end Syria observer mission
Sarah Paulsworth on August 17, 2012 8:06 AM ET

[JURIST] The United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS) [official website] will cease its work [official statement, PDF] on Sunday at midnight, UN Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations Edmund Mulet announced a press briefing on Thursday. According to Mulet, the mission must cease its work because the two conditions required by the UN Security Council to renew UNSMIS' mandate, the cessation of the use of heavy weapons and the reduction in violence from all sides, do not exist. In meantime, the UN will be working with the Department of Public Affairs to establish a liaison office in Damascus, Mulet said. The mission's mandate was most recently extended on July 20 for 30 days [JURIST report]. UNSMIS, approved in April, sent up to 300 unarmed military observers and other humanitarian aid [JURIST report] to supervise the implementation of a peace plan, however most of the monitoring was suspended in June due to increased risk from rising violence.
On Monday head of UNSMIS Lieutenant General Babacar Gayee expressed concern [JURIST report] about the growing number of civilian casualties in violent clashes between government forces and armed opposition groups. In July UN Chief Military Observer in Syria Major-General Robert Mood stated that Syrian authorities were committed to implementing the six-point peace agreement [JURIST reports] that was reached a week earlier. In June a UN commission stated that Syrian forces "may have been responsible" [JURIST report] for the killing of more than 100 civilians in Al-Houla in May. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad [JURIST news archive] had denied [JURIST report] the allegations stating that "not even monsters" would carry out the attacks.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

New Zealand high court denies US appeal to limit evidence disclosure in copyright case
Dan Taglioli on August 17, 2012 7:17 AM ET

[JURIST] The Supreme Court of New Zealand [official website] declined [judgment, PDF] Wednesday to overturn a lower court decision holding that US authorities must turn over a large amount of evidence in order to secure the extradition of Megaupload.com founder Kim Dotcom, who is accused of orchestrating the largest copyright infringement in the country's history. Justice Helen Winkelmann rejected the US appeal to limit the amount of information requested, which the US claims is unprecedented in quantity [Bloomberg report] anywhere for extradition cases, and includes all records connected to covert operations undertaken by agents involved in the investigation. Dotcom, 38, was indicted in the US on charges that his file-sharing service has generated more than $175 million in criminal proceeds from the exchange of pirated film, music, book and software files. The US is currently seeking extradition from New Zealand for a trial in Virginia. Dotcom faces as long as 20 years in prison for each of the racketeering and money-laundering charges in the indictment.
Internet media piracy is a global issue. Last month the European Parliament [official website] overwhelmingly voted to reject [press release] the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) [text, PDF], which is designed to curb intellectual property theft such as production of counterfeit goods and medicine, as well as digital file-sharing of pirated media. The International Trade Committee (INTA) [official website] of the European Parliament rejected the ACTA [JURIST report] in June after concluding that its vague language and disproportional fines could infringe upon individuals' right to free expression. In February the European Commission announced [JURIST report] that it would seek guidance from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) before ratifying the ACTA to ease protesters' concerns with the ACTA's possible censorship of free expression. Hearings on a similar bill in the US were postponed [JURIST report] in January by Representative Darrell Issa [official website] of California. The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) [text, PDF] would have effectively blocked foreign websites that are suspected to infringe copyrights and give the US Department of Justice (DOJ) increased authority in counterfeiting copyright infringement.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|
| For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...
|
|
|