Ureteroscopic treatment of larger renal calculi (\u3e2 cm).

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the current status of ureteroscopic lithotripsy (UL) for treating renal calculi of \u3e2 cm, as advances in flexible ureteroscope design, accessory instrumentation and lithotrites have revolutionised the treatment of urinary calculi. While previously reserved for ureteric and small renal calculi, UL has gained an increasing role in the selective management of larger renal stone burdens. METHODS: We searched the available databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus, for relevant reports in English, and the article bibliographies to identify additional relevant articles. Keywords included ureteroscopy, lithotripsy, renal calculi, and calculi \u3e2 cm. Retrieved articles were reviewed to consider the number of patients, mean stone size, success rates, indications and complications. RESULTS: In all, nine studies (417 patients) were eligible for inclusion. After one, two or three procedures the mean (range) success rates were 68.2 (23-84)%, 87.1 (79-91)% and 94.4 (90.1-96.7)%, respectively. Overall, the success rate was \u3e90% with a mean of 1.2-2.3 procedures per patient. The overall complication rate was 10.3%, including six (1.4%) intraoperative and 37 (8.9%) postoperative complications, most of which were minor. The most common indications for UL were a failed previous treatment (46%), comorbidities (18.2%), and technical and anatomical factors (12.3%). CONCLUSIONS: UL is safe and effective for treating large renal calculi. While several procedures might be required for total stone clearance, UL should be considered a standard approach in the urologist\u27s options treating renal calculi of \u3e2 cm

A. Bagley to Dear Mr. Meredith (Undated)

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/mercorr_pro/1776/thumbnail.jp

Legal Movements in Intellectual Property: TRIPs, Unilateral Action, Bilateral Agreements, and HIV/AIDS

This Article begins with an overview of the relationship between the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement ) and the HIV/AIDS pandemic which created the need for the Doha Declaration. It then discusses two trade-related movements, unilateral action and TRIPS-plus bilateral agreements, that call into question the long-term effectiveness of the TRIPS Agreement process, generally, and the benefits of the Doha Declaration, in particular, in addressing multiple facets of the access to essential medicines problem. This Article concludes that a consideration of these issues should be included in the development of any further TRIPS-related solutions to the HIV/AIDS pandemic

The Need for Speed (and Grace): Issues in a First-Inventor-to-File World

“One is the loneliest number that you’ll ever do.” This lyric applies to the United States which, since 1998, stands alone among the world’s patent systems in awarding patents to the first person to invent a claimed invention (first to invent, or “FTI”) as opposed to the first inventor to file an application claiming the invention (“FITF”). But its lonely days may soon be over: a provision in pending patent reform legislation will (if passed) move the United States from FTI to FITF and end its solitary stance. Some argue that the U.S. already has a de facto FITF system, since the first filer usually wins disputes regarding the priority of an invention. Additionally, many U.S. inventors who file for patent protection in other countries with FITF systems have already conformed their practices accordingly. If a de facto FITF regime is already in place, and if many inventors are already adapting their practices to comply with such a system, the U.S. may have little to lose and much to gain from making the switch to FITF. But then again, maybe not. Much has been written about a U.S. move from FTI to FITF and its potential costs and benefits. However, since this Essay accompanies a symposium on intellectual property and entrepreneurship, it considers how a FITF regime change may impact small-entity inventors, particularly those from academic enterprises. The patent system holds both promise and peril for this group of inventors, and their inventive efforts are becoming increasingly important to this country. Part II of this Essay surveys certain costs and benefits associated with both FTI and FITF systems, and the impact each may have on small entity inventors. Part III focuses on the one-year grace period for filing patent applications in the U.S. after public disclosure of an invention. This grace period, a device useful to both large and small entities, is especially important to independent and academic inventors but, unfortunately, is unavailable in most other countries. Additionally, Part III discusses why a move to FITF by the U.S. significantly challenges the usefulness of a grace period for small entity inventors. Part IV of the Essay concludes that in light of these challenges, U.S. adoption of FITF should only proceed in conjunction with the adoption of a one-year grace period by the other major patent-granting countries

The Fallacy of Defensive Protection for Traditional Knowledge

Proponents of databases as defensive protection posit that having sources of traditional knowledge easily accessible to, and searchable by, examiners during the prosecution process should minimize the grant of patents covering traditional knowledge, and avoid the problems such erroneously granted patents may produce. Some countries, such as India, which support an international sui generis positive protection instrument, also support the use of traditional knowledge databases, as the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. India\u27s CSIR, which created and maintains the TKDL, asserts that the database has thwarted the grant of scores of patents in IP offices across the globe, although commentators have cast considerable doubt on the veracity of several of the ICSIR\u27s claims. Such defensive protection sounds like a win-win scenario for both patent offices, which do not wish to grant bad patents, and traditional knowledge-holding communities, who do not want to have to challenge bad patents once they have issued. As noted by an EPO official: We take this seriously. Countries with rich traditional and holistic knowledge often have to spend lots of money on opposition procedures. The database could prevent that by helping the EPO to grant properly scoped patents. But is the protection real or illusory? What protection is a defensive traditional knowledge database actually providing to the knowledge it contains? At least eight countries have begun employing such databases (and others are considering such a move), which promise possible benefits, but also latent dangers and unintended consequences for the indigenous peoples and local communities who hold traditional knowledge within their borders. This Essay aims to address these questions and illuminate subtle, yet important concerns involved with initiatives that embrace defensive protection for traditional knowledge without concomitant positive protection. Part II of the Essay briefly describes and deconstructs the mechanisms of defensive protection as exemplified by the Indian TKDL. It then explores the risks of relying on such databases in isolation as protection mechanisms for traditional knowledge in Part III. Part IV describes a superior approach of integrating positive legal protection with databases, illustrated in South Africa\u27s planned indigenous knowledge protection framework. The Essay concludes that databases can be helpful in bringing traditional knowledge to light, but that providing true protection for that knowledge is a different matter

Academic Discourse and Proprietary Rights: Putting Patents in Their Proper Place

This Article provides a fresh perspective on the Bayh-Dole debate by focusing on the impact of patent novelty rules on academic discourse. The Article proposes that to begin to reverse an observed deterioration in disclosure norms, flexibilities must be built into the patent system so that patents can be facilitators of the academic knowledge dissemination enterprise. In particular, the Article advocates creation of an opt-in extended grace period that would provide more time for academic researchers to publish and present early-stage research before having to file a patent application. Such an extension, coupled with early application publication, would both address third-party needs for notice of proprietary claims and allow researchers lo engage in traditional academic discourse while they retain the ability to obtain proprietary rights useful for commercialization of their inventions

Innovator Ecosystem Diversity As A Global Competitiveness Imperative

Non

Using Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to Block Materially Different Gray Market Goods in the Common Control Context: Are Reports of Its Death Greatly Exaggerated?

This Comment examines the primary reasons for trademark owners within the common control exception to revisit section 337 when faced with materially different gray market goods. Part One discusses the issues in and history of the gray market goods controversy, and the common control exception. Part Two focuses on section 337: how it works, its use in gray market goods cases, and how it has changed as a result of amendments in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 and in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994. Part Three traces the changes in the gray market landscape favorable to a return of action by trademark owners under section 337, particularly in light of the Lever III decision, and outlines the benefits of section 337 over other statutory provisions used to combat materially different gray market goods. This Comment concludes with the argument that, on balance, the benefits associated with successfully reviving the use of section 337 for materially different gray market goods sufficiently outweigh the potential risks, so as to make this statute a viable alternative for embattled U.S. trademark owners