Kaufhold & Dix Patent Law’s Post

Grateful and excited to share my latest research titled “Deciphering Sixth Schedule, Its Binding Forces, And Constitutional Debate: Analyzing Its Veracity And Experience” published in the International Journal of Law and Policy Review (IJLPR), ISSN (O): 2278-3156, Vol. 12, July 2023. In this paper, I explore the legal and constitutional aspects of the Sixth Schedule, highlighting its implications and real-world experiences. You can read the paper here: https://lnkd.in/gjbZixht

Join us for this new episode in our series of talks on #science in #court #europeanlaw #riskregulation #dataprotection #complexity #uncertainty

Guidance From Professor John Bell (Former Editor-in-Chief of the Cambridge University Law Journal) The function of an article is to propose a point of view that advances the scholarly research in the field. In particular, it develops an argument based on principle or policy, which integrates a presentation of relevant and salient details of the law. A search for principle in the law will inevitably engage with the scholarly literature and explain how far the authors agree with or challenge the existing literature.

I am happy to announce that I am co-editing a special issue of the journal Dispute Resolution Review: 'Bridging Polarised Discourse' -- An exploration of how we can open dialogue when discourse is polarised and mutual disdain and mistrust prevail. Guest editors: Tim Pilbrow (Social Context) and Pascale Taplin (ANU) We seek papers from diverse disciplinary perspectives that offer practical insights for navigating difference and persisting with difficult conversations. Authors are encouraged to consider the limitations of their disciplinary method and practice, and the challenges and rewards of collaborative engagement across disciplinary and practice boundaries. We live in increasingly polarized societies, which we experience as a contracting public sphere where open and inclusive discourse and debate are beset by our mutual construction of ‘difficult’ (yet often ‘close’) others within a politics of disdain and mistrust. Meeting these challenges requires practical and methodologically grounded approaches to fostering dialogue that bridges polarities. Contributors are invited to reflect boldly on the difficulties we encounter in identifying and overcoming biases and assumptions when communicating with such ‘close’ or ‘difficult’ others. We particularly welcome contributions that question our assumptions about how our fields of disciplinary expertise or practice provide the means to bridge cultural and ideological divides. We welcome contributions that illuminate a specific conflict setting or type of conflict, and contributions that interrogate particular methods and forms of practice. A critical challenge is how to re-establish mutual respect in encounters where silence (refusal to speak) and silencing (refusal to listen) prevail, or where ‘others’ are construed as beyond redemption. We therefore will particularly value contributions that offer practical insights for building dialogue with ‘close’ or ‘difficult’ others. Submissions are due by 30 June 2024. Details on submission requirements are in the attached document.

Call for Submissions | NLUJ Law Review [Volume X, Issue II] | Extension: Dear all, In light of multiple requests the deadline for submissions for NLUJ Law Review [Volume X Issue II] has been extended till March 08, 2024. For more details, click here https://lnkd.in/dJdNQPw5 To submit the manuscript, click here https://lnkd.in/ddAMftK2 We look forward to receiving your manuscripts! #law #academicwriting #lawreview #callforpapers #callforsubmissions

Ever wondered why certain 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐩𝐚𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬 get far more citations than others, or why some 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 are significantly more populated? It’s all about 𝐙𝐢𝐩𝐟'𝐬 𝐋𝐚𝐰 (also known as Pareto distribution)! Our newest scientific paper dives deep into this fascinating principle, shedding light on this century-old mystery and 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 its surprising ubiquity across various domains. Understanding Zipf's Law can unlock new perspectives on patterns in data. Check out our latest research to see why this law is everywhere! A huge thanks to the other authors André Timpanaro, Giacomo Livan and Giacomo Guarnieri.

📢 On March 21 in the European House of Authors in Brussels, CSD, together with our partners from Università degli Studi di Torino, University of Luxembourg, University of Maribor Faculty of Law and ReadLab, have the pleasure of hosting a plethora of legal experts from around the EU at the forum Mutual Recognition of Freezing and Confiscation Orders in the EU: Quo Vadis? 🔦 Today, we direct the spot light on the first discussion panel, dedicated to the specifics and sometimes peculiarities of the applicable national legal frameworks and various approaches in the field. More information and registration link 👉🏼 https://lnkd.in/e_f2eXfm

Happy to see the special section on truth in law (no less!) out in this new issue of the European Journal of Legal Studies - based on a workshop co-created with Helga Molbæk-Steensig at the European University Institute in 2022. My contribution "Overcoming Temptation?" draws on work co-authored with Mikael Rask Madsen on the on the alleged empirical turn in (international) law. Using our taxonomy to assess the contributions, I tentatively submit that IL-scholarship may be experiencing some measure of empirical fatigue. (Incidentally, the reader gets two special sections for the price of one, and the other is a book symposium on my iCourts-colleague Jan Komàrek ’s excellent edited volume "European Constitutional Imaginaries: Between Ideology and Utopia" (OUP 2023)). What's not to like? https://lnkd.in/du-kFakQ

Interested in amicus briefs? 📜📜 I have a new post post on Empirical SCOTUS looking at the justices' citations to these briefs over the past two terms. One of the goals of the post is to show where there is value for SCOTUS amicus filings and potential strategies to leverage. The article contains details about: 💡 Which cases saw the most citations and which justices cited amicus in those cases 💡 Which justices cited these briefs most and least frequently 💡 Which areas of law saw the most amicus cites 💡 Which types of opinions these citations came up in the most 💡 Which justices cited these briefs in the various opinion types 💡 Who cited the United States as an amicus most often Here is the post if you would like to explore the findings: https://lnkd.in/e7zza7ke