{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021822849807445442, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005134788189987163, 'mean_word_length': 4.777777777777778, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Patents and Property in the Biotechnology Sector: Some Clarifications

illuminating judgements of the Canadian Supreme Court in Bazley . . . and Jacobi.”24 Nevertheless, in English law either the test of close connection is satisfied, or it is not. That is, no questions of compromise of interests or social imperatives will be considered openly. According to their Lordships, examining the policy reasons for the principle of vicarious liability is not instructive when it comes to determining the criteria for its application25. Decided without open reference to the need to balance the interests of the injured person on the one hand and the employer on the other against the background of wider social concerns, Lister brings to mind the words of B. Markesinis and S. Deakin: