Description
Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property (QMJIP)As an extension of the Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute's reputation as one of the foremost centres for intellectual property research and education, QMJIP has become an important forum for quality scholarship in this field, publishing full-length articles as well as analysis pieces and case reports, on a quarterly basis. QMJIP is overseen by consulting editors, Professor Johanna Gibson (Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property Law and Director of QMIPRI) and Lord Hoffmann (former judge of the House of Lords and Honorary Professor of Intellectual Property Law, Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary University of London), who will focus always on providing a journal that assembles significant and timely contributions to this important field of law. The outstanding quality of the editorial team and distinguished international advisory board ensures that this journal makes an important contribution to expanding critical and intellectual debate in the scholarship of intellectual property law, policy and development.
•Professor Martin J. Adelman, Theodore and James Pedas Family Professor of Intellectual Property and Technology Law, George Washington University, USA
•Professor Michael Blakeney, The University of Western Australia, Australia
•Professor Kathy Bowrey, University of New South Wales, Australia
•Professor Carlos Correa, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina
•Professor Manuel Desantes, Professor of Private International Law, University of Alicante, Spain
•Professor Graeme Dinwoodie, Professor of Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law, University of Oxford, UK
•Professor Abraham Drassinower, Chair in the Legal, Ethical and Cultural Implications of Technological Innovation, University of Toronto, Canada
•Professor Rochelle Dreyfuss, Pauline Newman Professor of Law, New York University, USA
•Professor Susy Frankel, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
•Professor Christophe Geiger, CEIPI, University of Strasbourg, France
•Professor Gustavo Ghidini, University of Milan and Luiss Guido Carli University, Rome, Italy
•Professor Frederik Willem Grosheide, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands
•Professor Sheldon Halpern, The Honorable Harold R. Tyler Jr. Chair in Law and Technology, Albany Law School, USA
•Professor Hugh Hansen, Fordham University, USA
•Professor Chris Huang, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan
•The Rt Hon Professor Sir Robin Jacob, Sir Hugh Laddie Professor of Intellectual Property Law, University College, London, UK
•Professor Hector MacQueen, Professor of Private Law, University of Edinburgh, UK
•Professor Vytautas Mizaras, Vilnius University, Lithuania
•Professor Sam Ricketson, University of Melbourne, Australia
•Professor Janis Rozenfelds, University of Latvia
•Professor Brad Sherman, Griffith University, Australia
Following an invitation by the general editor of QMJIP, Marc Mimler, I review articles that have been proposed for publication in QMJIP. This journal applies a true peer reviewing process that involves a selected number of internatinally known experts in the relevant fields.
Period | 1 Mar 2013 |
---|---|
Type of journal | Journal |
ISSN | 2045-9807 |
Keywords
- Intellectual Property Law, peer review
Documents & Links
Related content
-
Research output
-
Standing on shaky ground- US patent-eligibility of isolated DNA and genetic diagnostics after AMP v. USPTO - Part I (Legal context & outcome)
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
-
Standing on shaky ground- US patent-eligibility of isolated DNA and genetic diagnostics after AMP v. USPTO - Part III (unsolved questions & subsequent case law)
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
-
The US Supreme Court in Mayo v. Prometheus - Taking the fire from or to biotechnology and personalized medicine? Supreme Court of the United States, Mayo Collaborative Services, dba Mayo Medical Laboratories, et al., Petitioners v Prometheus Laboratories, Inc ., 132 S.Ct. 1289
Research output: Contribution to journal › Review › peer-review
-
Standing on shaky ground- US patent-eligibility of isolated DNA and genetic diagnostics after AMP v. USPTO - Part IV
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
-
Standing on shaky ground- US patent-eligibility of isolated DNA and genetic diagnostics after AMP v. USPTO - Part II (practical implications & chances for Supreme Court Review)
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
-
Myriad reloaded and ready for the next round?
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review