In Clean Tech Intellectual Property: Eco-marks, Green Patents, and Green Innovation, Eric Lane takes the position that clean tech intellectual property (IP), or green IP, differs from IP in other industries because green IP is characterized by several unique features of clean tech. These, according to Lane, include a diversity of technologies, the fact that clean tech borrows from and builds on prior periods of green technology R&D and technologies from other industries such as computers and semiconductors, and clean tech's promise of solutions to mitigate climate change and benefit the environment.

Biotechnology is one of the great innovations of our time. While Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) present an advance in food safety and other fields, GMOs also pose risks to human health and biodiversity that are still subject to scientific uncertainty. Given the scientific uncertainty about the risks to people and the environment, the precautionary principle acquires a central role in the debate on these organisms. At the same time, the existence of an adequate regulatory framework that allows the management of those risks becomes critical.

Billions of Euros of turnover are generated every year from games of chance. The legal framework conditions regulating this branch of the economy vary significantly within the European Union. Whilst in many countries such as Germany the state has a dominating monopoly position, other Member States, such as Denmark, France and Italy, have made moves towards a consistent partial liberalisation. These different framework conditions lead to problems, increasingly so as the European internal market is otherwise growing closer together. This is especially evident in the area of online gambling which, due to the structure of this medium, is not restricted by national boundaries, but must nevertheless not constitute a legal no man's land.

Against this background, it appears logical for the European Court of Justice (ECJ), on the occasion of the submission of cases by Member State courts pursuant to Art. 267 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (previously Art. 234 EC), to repeatedly have called for the examination of national gambling regulations with regard to their compliance with Union law, as the ECJ's standing jurisdiction acknowledges that a (national) state monopoly for cross-border issues represents a violation of the freedom of establishment as set out in Art. 56 TFEU (previously Art. 49 EC) or the freedom of establishment as set out in Art. 49 TFEU (previously Art. 43 EC) respectively. Such restrictions of gambling activities may, however, be justified by matters of overriding general interest.

On 17 January 2011, the European Commission launched , a monitoring exercise of patent settlements in the pharmaceutical sector for the second time after the Pharmaceutical sector inquiry of 2009. As was the case for the first monitoring exercise launched in January 2010, a number of pharmaceutical companies were asked to submit copies of their patent settlement agreements concluded in the European Economic Area (EEA), together with any relevant annex, amendment or related agreement.

The rationale for the monitoring exercise derives from some of the findings of the Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry, which had highlighted the possibility that some of the agreements reached by originators and generics to settle IP-related disputes (generally believed to be efficiency-enhancing tools to save money on litigation costs), may in fact turn out to have anticompetitive effects on the market. This is particularly the case for so-called “reverse payment agreements”. These are settlements that involve a payment (in direct or indirect form) flowing in a direction that intuitively appears “reverse”, as money is paid by the patent holder (the originator) to the alleged infringer – a generic firm.

A ‘clair-obscur’ normativity. In French, Historians of art use it when they refer to an abrupt association of zones made out of very dark shadows together with dazzling lights, like da Caravaggio used to paint. It applies successfully to nanotechnologies, which points out to this set of technologies that are being developed at a billionth of a meter. At this scale, matter shows new and unexpected properties, which could potentially lead the way to numerous applications but how do we regulate it? Lacour's edited volume should be of interest to lawyers and regulators interested in this subject. It borrows this formula of the clair-obscur to characterize a fluctuating normative environment which surrounds nanotechnologies’ development.

This book, coordinated and supervised by Prof. Vincenzo Salvatore, is part of the output of the workshop organized by the Università dell’Insubria in Varese in November 2010 which gathered legal and economic scholars and experts of EU Institutions with the aim of presenting and discussing present problems and future challenges of the EU agencies. The diverse set of perspectives contained in the book contributes significantly to rethink the role and nature of the EU agency institutional model, by pointing out some of the most relevant legal issues such as the delegation of powers and the lack of homogeneity of the model, which reflect features and peculiarities of the EU integration process.

A vast body of scholarly articles and books has been devoted to the precautionary principle, making it one of the most studied principles of our time. This wealth of attention can be explained by the fact that the question of how to manage man-made risks remains an extremely divisive issue for contemporary societies and the precautionary principle is the only principle idiosyncratic to the field of risk law. The book by Zander contributes to this scholarship by presenting a rich comparative legal analysis that gives a clear illustration of how the principle is applied at the international and European level as well as the national level, where the Swedish, UK, and US legal frameworks are discussed. The central parts of the book (chapter 3 to 7) are devoted to these comparisons. For this comparison, Zander chooses two case studies: pesticide regulation and the regulation of base stations.

Good regulation is essential, to protect employees, consumers and the public, as well as the environment. To argue that the market should be allowed to be the determinant of working conditions, together with a bit of exhortation to employers to behave decently, is to accept the Victorian approach that allowed children to work in coal mines.

The massive problems in the finance sector recently also show only too well the impact of weak regulation and de-regulation.

That said, Governments do not always get it right when they do regulate and there is undoubtedly some regulation that is no longer necessary, or is out of date, or is over-complicated or hard to enforce. Neither have Governments showed themselves to be very good at assessing public risk or balancing public health and environment protection with innovation and growth. As the former Risk and Regulation Advisory Council suggested, risk is often assessed through the prism of media sensationalism, political point scoring, civil service attachment to legislation and “risk mongers” such as insurance companies that have a vested interest in talking up risk.

On 14 April 2010 the Icelandic volcano, Eyjafjallajökull, erupted resulting in a volcanic ash cloud across European airspace. The ash cloud caused a moratorium on flying and concerns over health effects to vulnerable populations. Not even a year since the volcanic ash cloud; on 11 March 2011 a massive 9.0-magnitude earthquake occurred near the northeastern coast of Japan, creating extremely destructive tsunami waves which hit Japan just minutes after the earthquake, triggering evacuations and warnings across the Pacific Ocean. The disaster also led to concerns over nuclear power plant meltdowns in the affected areas and risk of radiation. High perceived risks associated with the Japanese tsunami and volcanic ash crisis are examples of scenarios where accurate and timely health and safety communications are vital for effective emergency response. However, communications immediately following such events face unique challenges. This report describes the challenges faced in terms of crisis communication immediately following high perceived risk events and positions the example case studies in the context of an existing crisis communication paradigm.

In the recent Grand River Enterprises case, United States public health regulations on protection from tobacco products successfully withstood a challenge by Canadian Native American investors under NAFTA chapter 11 arbitration. The arbitrators carefully weighed the investors’ rights and the regulatory freedom of the host state under the NAFTA rules. The treatment of other norms of international law on the protection of indigenous peoples, however, merits some criticism.

Case T-29/05, Deltafina SpA v. Commission and Alliance One International, Inc., formerly Standard Commercial Corp. and Others v. Commission

The General Court partially annuls the Commission's decision on Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 and reduces the amount of the fine imposed by the Commission on Deltafina SpA from EUR 1 188 000 to EUR 6 120 000 (author's headnote).

Article 30(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive [USD]) is to be interpreted as obliging the national regulatory authority to take account of the costs incurred by mobile telephone network operators in implementing the number portability service when it assesses whether the direct charge to subscribers for the use of that service is a disincentive. However, it retains the power to fix the maximum amount of that charge levied by operators at a level below the costs incurred by them, when a charge calculated only on the basis of those costs is liable to dissuade users from making use of the portability facility (official headnote).