Cover of book: Deceptive Conducts before the Patent Office
Book Titles Open Access Full access

Deceptive Conducts before the Patent Office

Challenges for Patent Law and Competition Law
Authors:
Publisher:
 2019

Summary

Bibliographic data

Copyright year
2019
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-6134-0
ISBN-Online
978-3-7489-0257-7
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series
Munich Intellectual Property Law Center - MIPLC Studies
Volume
37
Language
English
Pages
335
Product type
Book Titles

Table of contents

ChapterPages
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 - 24 Download chapter (PDF)
  2. Download chapter (PDF)
    1. 1. The Underlying Problem
    2. 2. Deceptive Behaviour in Patent Procedures and Available Remedies under Patent Law
    3. 3. The Patenting Procedure under the Spotlight of Competition Law. Yet another Angle for the IP v Competition Law Debate
    4. 4. Scope and Structure of this Work
  3. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 1. General Framework
        1. A. Examination Process: an Ex Parte Procedure
          1. I. Description
          2. II. Claims
          3. III. Other Formal Requirements. Inventors and Priority
          1. I. Formal and Substantive Examination, Publication and Office Actions
          2. II. Amendments
          3. III. Divisional Applications and Unity of Invention
          4. IV. Grant, Publication and National Validation
          5. V. Third Party Observations
          1. I. Post-Grant Amendments, Ex Parte Reexamination and Supplemental Examination
          2. II. Third Party Intervention after Grant. Oppositions, Post-Grant Reviews and Inter-Partes Reviews
            1. a. SPCs in the EU
            2. b. Patent Term Extensions in the US
          4. IV. Patent Linkage and the Orange Book
        5. E. Alternative Procedures. PCT, Patent Prosecution Highway and the Use of Results from other Patent Offices
        6. F. The Role of Patent Agents
        1. A. The Origin of the Inequitable Conduct Doctrine. A Stroll down Memory Lane
        2. B. The Development of the Inequitable Conduct Doctrine and the Duty of Candour
          1. I. Intent
          2. II. Materiality
          3. III. Burden of Proof and the ‘Sliding Scale’
          1. I. Failure to Disclose the Prior Public Use of an Invention
          2. II. Failure to Cite Known Relevant Prior Art
          3. III. Submission of False Information
          4. IV. Other conducts
        5. E. Disciplinary and Criminal Sanctions
          1. I. Rule 42(1)(b) EPC as a Duty of Disclosure?
          2. II. The Duty of Disclosure in the Travaux Préparatoires
          3. III. Rule 141 EPC and the Limited Duty of Disclosure
          4. IV. The impact of AstraZeneca
          1. I. Germany
          2. II. United Kingdom
          3. III. Disciplinary and Criminal Sanctions
          1. I. Defining the Scope of the Obligation
          2. II. Practical Value
          3. III. Interest of Applicants Themselves to have All Prior Art Considered
          4. IV. Duty of Advocacy
          1. I. Evaluation of the inequitable conduct doctrine in the US
          2. II. Would it be advisable for European courts to implement a similar doctrine?
  4. Download chapter (PDF)
      1. 1. Goals of Competition Law
        1. A. Essential Pillars of the Competition Legal Framework
              1. i. Product and Geographical Markets. The Hypothetical Monopolist Test
              2. ii. Demand and Supply Substitution
              3. iii. Product and Technology Markets
              4. iv. Competition without markets. From Innovation Markets to Competition in Innovation
              1. i. Indirect Methods of Establishing Market Power. Market Shares, Entry Barriers and other Indicia
              2. ii. Is Market Definition Always Necessary? Direct Methods of Establishing Market Power
            1. a. Types of Anticompetitive Conducts: Exclusionary and Exploitative Behaviours
            2. b. The Importance of Timing: Dominance as a Prerequisite under EU Law. Differences with US’ Monopolisation and Attempt to Monopolise
            3. c. Causation: The Relationship between Market Power, Anticompetitive Conduct and Anticompetitive Effects
            4. d. The Role of Intent
        3. C. The Particular Case of § 5 FTC Act
          1. I. Social and Economic Functions of the Patent System
          2. II. Patents and Market Power
          3. III. Reciprocal Goals but Conflicting Means
            1. a. Evolution of the Interrelation between Antitrust and Intellectual Property
            2. b. Antitrust Immunity and the Noerr Doctrine
            3. c. The Patent Misuse Doctrine
            1. a. Existence v Exercise Dichotomy
            2. b. The Specific Subject-Matter Standard
            3. c. Current Stage of the Debate
            4. d. Is there a Petitioning Immunity Doctrine in Europe?
            1. a. The Walker Process decision
            2. b. The Walker Process Legacy
            3. c. The Handgards or ‘Bad Faith Litigation’ Antitrust Claim
          2. II. Orange Book Cases
            1. a. Market Definition and its Dominance
            2. b. The First Abuse
            3. c. The Second Abuse
          2. II. AstraZeneca’s Aftermath: Cases in EU Member States
      3. 3. Closing Remarks and Open Questions
      1. 1. Introduction
          1. I. Sanctions under Other Areas of Law
          2. II. Sham as an Antitrust Injury in US Case Law
          3. III. Vexatious Litigation in the EU
          1. I. Antitrust Injury
            1. a. Objective Baselessness or ‘Legal Inviability’
            2. b. Intent or ‘Economic Inviability’
          3. III. Individual vs Patterns of Anticompetitive Litigation
          4. IV. Litigation as part of a Broader Pattern of Conduct
        3. C. Wrapping-up: A Simple Genus-Species Relationship?
          1. I. The General Question under US Law
          2. II. The General Question under EU Law
          3. III. Can a Deceptive Conduct before the Patent Office be analysed as an Illegitimate Inducement of Government Action?
          1. I. Materiality and Causal Connection
          2. II. Conceptualisation of the Misconduct
          3. III. Ministerial Acts and Discretion of the Patent Office
            1. a. Exclusionary Effects of Improperly Granted Patents
            2. b. Scope of and Entitlement to the Patent
            3. c. Consumer Harm and Objective Justifications
            1. a. The Case under § 2 Sherman Act. Monopolisation and Attempt to Monopolise
            2. b. The Case under art 102 TFEU. Market Dominance as a Pre-requisite
          1. I. The Case under US Law and Walker Process’ Enforcement Requirement
            1. a. A case for Article 102(a) TFEU or duty to license?
            2. b. ‘Single and Continuous’ Abuses
            3. c. Ownership or Enforcement as Separate Exclusionary Abuses?
  5. Download chapter (PDF)
        1. A. The Scenario under US Law. A Strict Duty of Candour and the Inequitable Conduct Doctrine
        2. B. The Scenario under EU Law
          1. I. Extent of Patent Applicant’s Duties
          2. II. Legal Consequences of the Deceitful Conduct
          1. I. The Scenario in the US: Walker Process and its Progeny
          2. II. The Scenario in the EU: AstraZeneca
        2. B. Sham or Vexatious Litigation Distinguished
          1. I. The General Framework in the US and in the EU
            1. a. Causal Link
            2. b. Conceptualisation of the Misconduct
            3. c. Discretion of the Patent Office
            4. d. Anticompetitive Effects
            5. e. Market Power
          3. III. Ownership or Enforcement of Fraudulently Obtained Patents
  6. Bibliography 319 - 335 Download chapter (PDF)

Bibliography (308)

  1. — — Black’s Law Dictionary (9th edn, 2009). Open Google Scholar
  2. — — ‘Deception as an Antitrust Violation’ (2012) 125 Harv L Rev 1235. Open Google Scholar
  3. — — ‘EPO Round up: Part 2’ (IP Kat, 7 June 2005) <http://ipkitten.blogspot.de/2005/06/epo-round-up-part-2.html>. Open Google Scholar
  4. — — ‘Is the Patent Misuse Doctrine Obsolete?’ (1997) 110 Harv L Rev 1922. Open Google Scholar
  5. — — ‘Recent Legislation’ (2012) 125 Harv L Rev 1290. Open Google Scholar
  6. — — Restatement (2d) of Torts (1977). Open Google Scholar
  7. Abramowicz M and Duffy J F, ‘Intellectual Property for Market Experimentation’ (2008) 83 NYU L Rev 337. Open Google Scholar
  8. Adelman M J, ‘The Relevant Market Paradox: Attempted and Completed Patent Fraud Monopolization’ (1977) 38 Ohio St L J 289. Open Google Scholar
  9. Adelman M J, ‘The New World of Patents Created by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’ (1987) 20 U Mich J L Refom 979. Open Google Scholar
  10. Akers N J, ‘The Referencing of Prior Art Documents in European Patents and Applications’ (2000) 22 World Patent Information 309. Open Google Scholar
  11. Akman P, ‘Searching for the Long-Lost Soul of Article 82 EC’ (2009) 29 Oxford J Leg St 267 (2009). Open Google Scholar
  12. Akman P, The Concept of Abuse in EU Competition Law: Law and Economic Approaches (Hart 2012). Open Google Scholar
  13. Allison J R and Lemley M A, ‘The Growing Complexity of the United States Patent System’ (2002) 82 Bost U L Rev 77. Open Google Scholar
  14. Ampollini D, ‘Looking for Sense in the Italian Antitrust Authority Decision in the Pfizer Xalatan Case’ [2012] Antitrust Chronicle vol 7(2) 1. Open Google Scholar
  15. Anderman S D, ‘The Strategic Use of Patent Enforcement and Acquisition Methods and Competition Law’ in Govaere I and Ullrich H (eds), Intellectual Property, Market Power and the Public Interest (Peter Lang 2008) 171. Open Google Scholar
  16. Anderman S D, ‘The IP and Competition Interface: New Developments’ in Anderman S D and Ezrachi A (eds), Intellectual Property and Competition Law: New Frontiers (OUP 2011) 6. Open Google Scholar
  17. Anderman S D and Kallaugher J, Technology Transfer and the New EU Competition Rules: Intellectual Property Licensing after Modernisation (OUP 2006). Open Google Scholar
  18. Andrews N, ‘Abuse of Process in English Civil Litigation’ in Taruffo M (ed), Abuse of Procedural Rights: Comparative Standards of Procedural Fairness (Kluwer 1999) 65. Open Google Scholar
  19. Anenson T L, ‘Treating Equity Like Law: A Post-Merger Justification of Unclean Hands’ (2008) 45 Am Bus L J 455. Open Google Scholar
  20. Areeda P E and Hovenkamp H, Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application (3rd edn, Aspen 2011). Open Google Scholar
  21. Areeda P E and Hovenkamp H, Fundamentals of Antitrust Law (4th edn, Wolters Kluwer 2011). Open Google Scholar
  22. Arena A, Bergmann B and Himes J L, ‘Two Bodies of Law Separated by a Common Mission: Unilateral Conduct by Dominant Firms at the IP/Antitrust Intersection in the EU and the US’ (2013) 9 Eur Comp J 623. Open Google Scholar
  23. Arezzo E, ‘Is There a Role for Market Definition and Dominance in an Effects-Based Approach?’ in Mackenrodt M O, Conde Gallego B and Enchelmaier S (eds), Abuse of Dominant Position: New Interpretation, New Enforcement Mechanisms? (Springer 2008) 21. Open Google Scholar
  24. Armitage E, ‘The New British Patent Legislation’ (1978) 9 IIC 207. Open Google Scholar
  25. Arrow K J, ‘Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention’ in National Bureau of Economic Research (ed), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors (Princeton Univ Press 1962). Open Google Scholar
  26. Balmer T A, ‘Sham Litigation and the Antitrust Laws’ (1980) 209 Buffalo L Rev 39. Open Google Scholar
  27. Banks K and Marenco G, ‘Intellectual Property and the Community Rules on Free Movement: Discrimination Unearthed’ (1990) 15 E L Rev 224. Open Google Scholar
  28. Batchelor B and Healy M, ‘CJEU AstraZeneca Judgment: Groping Towards a Test for Patent Office Dealings; (2013) 34 Eur Comp L Rev 171. Open Google Scholar
  29. Beier F K, ‘Die Rechtsbehelfe des Patentanmelders und seiner Wettbewerber im Vergleich: Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung zur Chancengleichheit im Patentverfahren [1989] GRUR Int 1. Open Google Scholar
  30. Beier F K, ‘Industrial Property and the Free Movement of Goods in the Internal European Market (1990) 21 IIC 131. Open Google Scholar
  31. Benkard G, Patentgesetz (Asendorf C D and others eds, 10th edn, Beck 2006). Open Google Scholar
  32. Bensadon M, Ley de Patentes Comentada y Concordada con el ADPIC y el Convenio de Paris (LexisNexis 2007). Open Google Scholar
  33. Bently L and Sherman B, Intellectual Property Law (4th edn, OUP 2014). Open Google Scholar
  34. Berg W and Brankin S P,‘Das AstraZeneca-Urteil des Gerichts der Europäischen Union’ [2011] EuZW 91. Open Google Scholar
  35. Bicknell G M, ‘To Disclose or not to Disclose: Duty of Candor Obligations of the United States and Foreign Patent Offices’ (2008) 83 Chi-Kent L Rev 425. Open Google Scholar
  36. Bishop S and Walker M, The Economics of Competition Law: Concepts, Application and Measurement (3rd edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2010). Open Google Scholar
  37. Blanco White T A, Patents for Inventions and the Protection of Industrial Designs (5th edn, Stevens & Sons 1983). Open Google Scholar
  38. Bodenhausen G H C, Guide to the Application of the Paris Convention (BIRPI 1968). Open Google Scholar
  39. Bohannan C, ‘IP Misuse as Foreclosure’ (2011) 96 Iowa L Rev 475. Open Google Scholar
  40. Bohannan C, and Hovenkamp H, Creation without Restraint: Promoting Liberty and Rivalry in Innovation (OUP 2012). Open Google Scholar
  41. Bork R H, The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself (Basic 1978). Open Google Scholar
  42. Borrás S, ‘The Governance of the European Patent System: Effective and Legitimate?’ (2006) 35 Economy and Society 594. Open Google Scholar
  43. Bostyn S and Petit N, ‘Patent=Monopoly: A Legal Fiction’ (2013) <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2373471>. Open Google Scholar
  44. Bowman W S, Patent and Antitrust Law: A Legal and Economic Appraisal (Univ of Chicago Press 1973). Open Google Scholar
  45. Brack H P, ‘Patent Infringement Warnings in a Common Law versus a Civil Law Jurisdiction - An Actionable Threat?’ (2006) 37 IIC 1. Open Google Scholar
  46. Brophy D, ‘Rule 141 and further EPO obstructions’ (IP Kat, 12 August 2010) <http://ipkitten.blogspot.de/2010/08/rule-141-and-further-epo-obstructions.html>. Open Google Scholar
  47. Brown A E L, Intellectual Property, Human Rights and Competition (Edward Elgar 2012). Open Google Scholar
  48. Bushell G, ‘AstraZeneca v Commission: Advocate-General Mazak’s Opinion of 15 May 2012’ (Kluwer Competition Blog, 11 June 2012) <http://kluwercompetitionlawblog.com/2012/06/11/astrazeneca-v-commission-advocate-general-mazaks-opinion-of-15-may-2012>. Open Google Scholar
  49. Caballero R J and Jaffe A B, ‘How High Are the Giants’ Shoulders: An Empirical Assessment of Knowledge Spillovers and Creative Destruction in a Model of Economic Growth’ in Blanchard O and Fischer S (eds), NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1993: Volume 8 (MIT Press 1993) 15. Open Google Scholar
  50. Calkins S, ‘Developments in Antitrust and the First Amendment: the Disaggregation of Noerr’ (1988) 57 Antitrust L J 327. Open Google Scholar
  51. Castillo de la Torre F, ‘State Action Defence in EC Competition Law’ (2005) 28 World Competition 407. Open Google Scholar
  52. Chafee Z Jr, ‘Coming into Equity with Clean Hands’ (1949) 47 Mich L Rev 877. Open Google Scholar
  53. Chandra A, ‘Antitrust Liability for Attempting to Enforce a Fraudulent Patent’ (1999) 81 J Pat & Trademark Off Soc’y 201. Open Google Scholar
  54. Chiang T J, ‘The Upside Down Inequitable Conduct Defense’ (2013) 107 Northwest U L Rev 1243. Open Google Scholar
  55. Chisum D S, Chisum on Patents (Lexis Nexis). Open Google Scholar
  56. Clifford R D, ‘Is it Time for a Rule 11 for the Patent Bar?’ (2013) 53 IDEA 351. Open Google Scholar
  57. Cole M, ‘Pharmaceuticals and Competition: First Strike to the Commission?’ (2013) 34 Eur Comp L Rev 227. Open Google Scholar
  58. Cole P, ‘Patents and Scientific Integrity’ [2008(5)] CIPAJ 2. Open Google Scholar
  59. Conde Gallego B, ‘Unilateral Refusal to License Indispensable Intellectual Property Rights – US and EU Approaches’ in Drexl J (ed), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Competition Law (Edward Elgar 2008) 215. Open Google Scholar
  60. Conley N L, ‘Considerations in Patent Litigation Brought About by Walker Process Equipment, Inc v Food Machinery & Chemical Corp’ (1966) 9 S Tex L J 9. Open Google Scholar
  61. Cooper J C and Kovacic W E, ‘U.S. Convergence with International Competition Norms: Antitrust Law and Public Restraints on Competition’ (2010) 90 Bost U L Rev 1555. Open Google Scholar
  62. Cotropia C A, ‘Modernizing Patent Law’s Inequitable Conduct Doctrine’ (2009) 24 Berkeley Tech L J 723. Open Google Scholar
  63. Cotropia C A and Lemley M A and Sampat B N, ‘Do Applicant Patent Citations Matter?’ (2013) 42 Research Policy 844. Open Google Scholar
  64. Cotter T F, ‘An Economic Analysis of Patent Law’s Inequitable Conduct Doctrine’ (2011) 53 Az L Rev 735. Open Google Scholar
  65. Cotter T F, ‘Four Questionable Rationales for the Patent Misuse Doctrine’ (2011) 12 Minn J L Sci & Tech 457. Open Google Scholar
  66. Cornish W R, Llewelyn D and Aplin T F, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights (8th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2013). Open Google Scholar
  67. Costilo L B, ‘Antitrust’s Newest Quagmire: The Noerr-Pennington Defense’ (1967) 66 Mich L Rev 333. Open Google Scholar
  68. Crane D A, ‘Judicial Review of Anticompetitive State Action: Two Models in Comparative Perspective (2013) 1 J Antitrust Enforcement 418. Open Google Scholar
  69. Crawford B W and DeGiulio J V, ‘New (Limited) Duty of Candor in the EPO (Amended European Rule 141)’ (2010) 8[4] MBHB Snippets 13 (2010). Open Google Scholar
  70. Creighton S A and others, ‘Cheap Exclusion’ (2005) 72 Antitrust L J 975. Open Google Scholar
  71. Cremers K and others, ‘Invalid But Infringed? An Analysis of Germany’s Bifurcated Patent Litigation System’ (2014) Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper 14/14 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2504507>. Open Google Scholar
  72. Crew E, ‘The Use of Patent Litigation to Violate the Antitrust Laws’ (2006) 11 Intell Prop L Bull 69. Open Google Scholar
  73. Crouch D, ‘Supplemental Examination: Inequitable Conduct Amnesty and Beyond’ (Patently-O, 16 September 2012) <www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/09/supplemental-examination-inequitable-conduct-amnesty-and-beyond.html>. Open Google Scholar
  74. Crouch D, ‘Is the New Supplemental Examination a Complete Replacement for Owner Initiated Ex Parte Reexamination?’ (Patently-O, 3 October 2012) <www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/10/is-the-new-supplemental-examination-a-complete-replacement-for-owner-initiated-ex-parte-reexamination.html>. Open Google Scholar
  75. Czapracka K, Intellectual Property and the Limits of Antitrust: A Comparative Study of US and EU Approaches (Edward Elgar 2010). Open Google Scholar
  76. Daniel B D, ‘Walker Process Proof: The Proper Prescription’ (2009) 41 Rutgers L J 105. Open Google Scholar
  77. Davenport N, The United Kingdom Patent System: A Brief History (Mason 1979). Open Google Scholar
  78. Davidow J, Patent-Related Misconduct Issues in US Litigation (OUP 2010). Open Google Scholar
  79. de Saint-Georges M and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B, ‘A Quality Index for Patent Systems’ (2013) 42 Research Policy 704. Open Google Scholar
  80. DeSanti S and Cohen W, ‘Competition to Innovate: Strategies for Proper Antitrust Assessments’ in Dreyfuss R C, Zimmerman D L and First H (eds), Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property (OUP 2001) 317. Open Google Scholar
  81. De Stefano G, ‘Tough Enforcement of Unilateral Conduct at the National Level: Italian Antitrust Authority Sanctions Bayer and Pfizer for Abuse of Dominant Position (aka AstraZeneca Ruling and Essential Facility Doctrine in Italian Sauce)’ (2012) 3 J Eur Comp L & Prac 396. Open Google Scholar
  82. Dieny E, ‘The Pharmaceutical Industry and Competition Law between the Present and the Future’ (2007) 28 Eur Comp L Rev 223. Open Google Scholar
  83. Dolak L A, ‘Inequitable Conduct: A Flawed Doctrine Worth Saving’ (2010) 11 Wake Forest Intell Prop L J 1. Open Google Scholar
  84. Dolak L A, ‘America Invents the Supplemental Examination, but Retains the Duty of Candor: Questions and Implications’ (2012) 6 Akron Intell Prop J 147. Open Google Scholar
  85. Drahos P, ‘“Trust Me”: Patent Offices in Developing Countries’ (2008) 34 Am J L & Med 151. Open Google Scholar
  86. Drexl J, ‘Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law - IMS Health and Trinko: Antitrust Placebo for Consumers Instead of Sound Economics in Refusal-to-Deal Cases’ (2004) 35 IIC 788. Open Google Scholar
  87. Drexl J, ‘Is There a “More Economic Approach” to Intellectual Property and Competition Law?’ in Drexl J (ed), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Competition Law (Edward Elgar 2008) 27. Open Google Scholar
  88. Drexl J, ‘The Relationship Between the Legal Exclusivity and Economic Market Power: Links and Limits’ in Govaere I and Ullrich H (eds), Intellectual Property, Market Power and the Public Interest (Peter Lang 2008) 13. Open Google Scholar
  89. Drexl J, ‘Deceptive Conduct in the Patent World: A Case for US Antitrust and EU Competition Law?’ in Prinz zu Waldeck und Pyrmont W and others (eds), Patents and Technological Progress in a Globalized World: Liber Amicorum for Joseph Straus (Springer 2009) 137. Open Google Scholar
  90. Drexl J, ‘“Pay-for-Delay” and Blocking Patents: Targeting Pharmaceutical Companies under European Competition Law’ (2009) 40 IIC 751. Open Google Scholar
  91. Drexl J, ‘Real Knowledge is to Know the Extent of One’s Own Ignorance: On the Consumer Harm Approach in Innovation-Related Competition Cases’ (2010) 76 Antitrust L J 677. Open Google Scholar
  92. Drexl J, ‘Anticompetitive Stumbling Stones on the Way to a Cleaner World: Protecting Competition in Innovation Without a Market’ (2012) 8 J Comp L & Econ 507. Open Google Scholar
  93. Drexl J, ‘AstraZeneca and the EU Sector Inquiry: When do Patent Filings Violate Competition Law?’ in f Drexl J and Lee N (eds), Pharmaceutical Innovation, Competition and Patent Law: A Trilateral Perspective (Edward Elgar 2013) 290. Open Google Scholar
  94. Dreyfuss R C, ‘The Federal Circuit: A Case Study in Specialized Courts’ (1989) 64 NYU L Rev 1. Open Google Scholar
  95. Eilmansberger T, ‘How to Distinguish Good From Bad Competition Under Article 82 EC: In Search of Clearer and More Coherent Standards for Anti-competitive Abuses’ (2005) 42 CML Rev 129. Open Google Scholar
  96. Elhauge E, ‘Making Sense of Antitrust Petitioning Immunity’ (1992) 80 Cal L Rev 1177. Open Google Scholar
  97. Elhauge E, ‘Defining Better Monopolization Standards’ (2003) 56 Stan L Rev 253. Open Google Scholar
  98. Elhauge E and Geradin D, Global Antitrust Law and Economics, (2nd edn, Foundation Press 2011). Open Google Scholar
  99. Erstling J, ‘Patent Law and the Duty of Candor: Rethinking The Limits of Disclosure’ (2011) 44 Creighton L Rev 329. Open Google Scholar
  100. European Generic Medicines Association, ‘Patent-Related Barriers to Market Entry for Generic Medicines in the European Union: A Review of Weaknesses in the Current European Patent System and their Impact on the Market Access of Generic Medicines’ (2008). Open Google Scholar
  101. Farrell J and Merges R P, ‘Incentives to Challenge and Defend Patents: Why Litigation Won’t Reliably Fix Patent Office Errors and Why Administrative Patent Review Might Help’ (2004) 19 Berkeley Tech L J 943. Open Google Scholar
  102. Feldman R C, ‘The Insufficiency of Antitrust Analysis for Patent Misuse’ (2003) 55 Hastings L J 399. Open Google Scholar
  103. Filmore S, ‘Defining the Misrepresentation Exception to the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine’ (2001) 49 Univ Kan L Rev 423. Open Google Scholar
  104. Fischel D R, ‘Antitrust Liability for Attempts to Influence Government Action: The Basis and Limits of the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine’ (1977) 45 U Chi L Rev 80. Open Google Scholar
  105. Fischmann F, «Reverse Payments» als Mittel zur Beilegung von Patentstreitigkeiten - Ein Verstoß gegen das Kartellrecht? (Stämpfli Verlag 2016). Open Google Scholar
  106. Fisher F M, ‘Monopolization versus Abuse of Dominant Position: An Economist’s View’ in Hawk B (ed), International Antitrust Law & Policy: Fordham Corporate Law 2003 (Juris Publishing 2004) 157. Open Google Scholar
  107. Flanagan A, Ghezzi F and Montagnani M L, ‘The Search of EU Boundaries: IPR Exercise and Enforcement as “Misuse”’ in Flanagan A and Montagnani M L (eds), Intellectual Property Law: Economic and Social Justice Perspectives (Edward Elgar 2010) 112. Open Google Scholar
  108. Flores E S and Warren S E Jr, ‘Inequitable Conduct, Fraud, and Your License to Practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office’ (2000) 8 Tex Intell Prop L J 299. Open Google Scholar
  109. Floyd C D, ‘Antitrust Liability for the Anticompetitive Effects of Governmental Action Induced by Fraud’ (2001) 69 Antitrust L J 403. Open Google Scholar
  110. Forrester I S, ‘The Interplay Between Standardization, IPR and Competition Law’ in Caggiano G, Muscolo G and Tavassi M (eds), Competition Law and Intellectual Property: A European Perspective (Wolters Kluwer 2012) 113. Open Google Scholar
  111. Fox E M, ‘Monopolization and Dominance in the United States and the European Community: Efficiency Opportunity and Fairness’ (1986) 61 Notre Dame L Rev 981. Open Google Scholar
  112. Fox E M, ‘We Protect Competition, You Protect Competitors’ (2003) 26 World Competition 149. Open Google Scholar
  113. Fox E M and Healey D, ‘When the State Harms Competition: the Role for Competition Law’ (2014) 79 Antitrust L J 769. Open Google Scholar
  114. Fuchs A, ‘Patent Ambush Strategies and Article 102 TFEU’ in Drexl J and others (eds), More Common Ground for International Competition Law (Edward Elgar 2011) 177. Open Google Scholar
  115. Gallasch S, ‘AstraZeneca v the Walker Process – A Real EU-US Divergence or Just an Attempt to Compare Apples to Oranges?’ (2011) 7 Eur Comp J 505. Open Google Scholar
  116. Galloway J, ‘Driving Innovation: A Case for Targeted Competition Policy in Dynamic Markets’ (2011) 34 World Competition 73. Open Google Scholar
  117. Geradin D, ‘Limiting the Scope of Article 82 EC: What can the EU Learn From the US Supreme Court’s Judgment in Trinko in the Wake of Microsoft, IMS, and Deutsche Telekom?’ (2004) 41 CML Rev 1519. Open Google Scholar
  118. Geradin D and others, ‘The Concept of Dominance in EC Competition Law’ (2005) GCLC Research Paper on the Modernization of Article 82 EC <http://ssrn.com/abstract=770144>. Open Google Scholar
  119. Geradin D, ‘When Competition Law Analysis Goes Wrong – The Italian Pfizer/Pharmacia Case’ (2014) <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2393383>. Open Google Scholar
  120. Gerber D J, Law and Competition in Twentieth Century Europe: Protecting Prometheus (OUP 2003). Open Google Scholar
  121. Gervais M, The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis (4th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2012). Open Google Scholar
  122. Ghidini G, Innovation, Competition and Consumer Welfare in Intellectual Property Law (Edward Elgar 2010). Open Google Scholar
  123. Gilbert R J and Sunshine S C, ‘Incorporating Dynamic Efficiency Concerns in Merger Analysis: The Use of Innovation Markets’ (1994) 63 Antitrust L J 569. Open Google Scholar
  124. Glader M, Innovation Markets and Competition Analysis (Edward Elgar 2006). Open Google Scholar
  125. Goldman R J, ‘Evolution of the Inequitable Conduct Defense in Patent Litigation’ (1993) 7 Harv J L & Tech 37. Open Google Scholar
  126. Govaere I, The Use and Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights in EC Law (Sweet & Maxwell 1996). Open Google Scholar
  127. Govaere I, ‘In Pursuit of an Innovation Policy Rationale: Stakes and Limits under Article 82 TEC’ (2008) 31 World Competition 541. Open Google Scholar
  128. Guimarães de Lima e Silva V, ‘Sham Litigation in the Pharmaceutical Sector’ (2011) 7 Eur Comp J 455. Open Google Scholar
  129. Gunther J P and Breuvart C, ‘Misuse of Patent and Drug Regulatory Approval Systems in the Pharmaceutical Industry: An Analysis of US And EU Converging Approaches’ (2005) 26 Eur Comp L Rev 669. Open Google Scholar
  130. Hacon R, Concise European Patent Law (Hacon R and Pagenberg J eds, 2nd edn, Wolters Kluwer 2008). Open Google Scholar
  131. Hall B H and Harhoff D, ‘Post-Grant Reviews in the U.S. Patent System ¬ Design Choices and Expected Impact’ (2004) 19 Berkeley Tech L J 989. Open Google Scholar
  132. Hall B H and others, ‘Prospects for Improving U.S. Patent Quality via Postgrant Opposition’ in Jaffe A B, Lerner J and Stern S (eds), Innovation Policy and the Economy: Volume 4 (National Bureau of Economic Research 2004). Open Google Scholar
  133. Handler M and De Sevo R A, ‘The Noerr Doctrine and Its Sham Exception’ (1984) 6 Cardozo L Rev 1. Open Google Scholar
  134. Heald P J, ‘A Transaction Costs Theory of Patent Law’ (2005) 66 Ohio St L J 473. Open Google Scholar
  135. Heinemann A, ‘The Contestability of IP-Protected Markets’ in Drexl J (ed), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Competition Law (Edward Elgar 2008). Open Google Scholar
  136. Helsel S D, ‘Preventing Predatory Abuses in Litigation between Business Competitors: Focusing on a Litigant’s Reasons for Initiating the Litigation to Ensure a Balance between the Constitutional Right to Petition and the Sherman Acts Guarantee of Fair Competition in Business’ (1995) 36 Wm & Mary L Rev 1135. Open Google Scholar
  137. Herper M, ‘The Cost of Creating a New Drug Now $5 Billion, Pushing Big Pharma to Change’ Forbes (New York, 11 August 2013) <www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/08/11/how-the-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs-is-shaping-the-future-of-medicine>. Open Google Scholar
  138. Herstein O J, ‘A Normative Theory of the Clean Hands Defense (2011) 17 Legal Theory 171. Open Google Scholar
  139. Hess B, ‘Abuse of Procedure in Germany and Austria’ in Taruffo M (ed), Abuse of Procedural Rights: Comparative Standards of Procedural Fairness (Kluwer 1999). Open Google Scholar
  140. Hricik D, ‘Where The Bodies Are: Current Exemplars of Inequitable Conduct and How to Avoid Them’ (2004) 12 Tex Intell Prop L J 287. Open Google Scholar
  141. Hovenkamp H, ‘The Monopolization Offence’ (2000) 61 Ohio St L J 1035. Open Google Scholar
  142. Hovenkamp H, The Antitrust Enterprise: Principle and Execution (Harvard Univ Press 2005). Open Google Scholar
  143. Hovenkamp H, ‘IP and Antitrust Policy: A Brief Historical Overview’ (2005) Univ Iowa Legal Studies Research Paper 05/31 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=869417>. Open Google Scholar
  144. Hovenkamp H, ‘The Walker Process Doctrine: Infringement Lawsuits as Antitrust Violations’ (2008) U Iowa Legal Studies Research Paper 08/36 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=1259877>. Open Google Scholar
  145. Hovenkamp H, ‘Patent Exclusions and Antitrust after Therasense’ (2011) U Iowa Legal Studies Research Paper 11/39 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=1916074>. Open Google Scholar
  146. Hovenkamp H, ‘Antitrust and the Patent System: A Reexamination’ (2014) U Iowa Legal Studies Research Paper 14/27 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2486633>. Open Google Scholar
  147. Hovenkamp H and others, IP and Antitrust: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles Applied to Intellectual Property Law (2nd edn Supp 2013, Wolters Kluwer). Open Google Scholar
  148. Hughes J, ‘The Philosophy of Intellectual Property’ (1988) 77 Geo L J 287. Open Google Scholar
  149. Hull D, ‘The AstraZeneca Judgment: Implications for IP and Regulatory Strategies’ (2010) 1 J Eur Comp L & Prac 500. Open Google Scholar
  150. Hull D, ‘The Application of EU Competition Law in the Pharmaceutical Sector’ (2011) 2 J Eur Comp L & Prac 480. Open Google Scholar
  151. Hull D, ‘The Application of EU Competition Law in the Pharmaceutical Sector’ (2012) 3 J Eur Comp L & Prac 473. Open Google Scholar
  152. Hulme E W, ‘History of the Patent System under the Prerogative and at Common Law’ (1896) 12 LQR 141. Open Google Scholar
  153. Institute for Applied Economic Research (IPEA Brasilia), ‘Study on the Anti-Competitive Enforcement of Intellectual Property (IP) Rights: Sham Litigation’ (Report for the WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual Property CDIP/9/INF/6 REV, 2012). Open Google Scholar
  154. Jacob R, ‘Patents and Pharmaceuticals: A Paper given on 29th November at the Presentation of the Directorate-General of Competition’s Preliminary Report of the Pharma-Sector Inquiry’ in Hansen H C (ed), Intellectual Property Law and Policy: Volume 12 (Hart 2013). Open Google Scholar
  155. Jacob R, ‘Patent Thickets: A Paper for the European Patent Office Economic and Scientific Advisory Board Meeting’ (2013) 8 J Intell Prop L & Prac 203. Open Google Scholar
  156. Janicke P M, ‘Do We Really Need So Many Mental and Emotional States in United States Patent Law?’ (2000) 8 Tex Intell Prop L J 279. Open Google Scholar
  157. Janicke P M, ‘Overview of the New Patent Law of the United States’ (2013) 21 Tex Intell Prop L J 63. Open Google Scholar
  158. Janis M D, ‘Transitions in IP and Antitrust’ (2002) 47 Antitrust Bull 253. Open Google Scholar
  159. Jones A and Sufrin B, EU Competition Law (5th edn, OUP 2014). Open Google Scholar
  160. Jones C A, ‘Patent Power and Market Power: Rethinking the Relationship Between Intellectual Property Rights and Market Power in Antitrust Analysis’ in Drexl J (ed), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Competition Law (Edward Elgar 2008). Open Google Scholar
  161. Joshua J, ‘Single Continuous Infringement of Article 81 EC: Has the Commission Stretched the Concept beyond the Limit of its Logic?’ (2009) 5 Eur Comp J 451. Open Google Scholar
  162. Käseberg T, Intellectual property, Antitrust and Cumulative Innovation in the EU and the US (Hart 2012). Open Google Scholar
  163. Kallaugher J and Weitbrecht A, ‘Developments under Articles 101 and 102 TFEU in 2010’ (2011) 32 Eur Comp L Rev 333. Open Google Scholar
  164. Kaplow L, ‘Why (Ever) Define Markets?’ (2010) 124 Harv L Rev 437. Open Google Scholar
  165. Katz A, ‘Making Sense of Nonsense: Intellectual Property, Antitrust, and Market Power’ (2007) 49 Ariz L Rev 837. Open Google Scholar
  166. Keeling D T, Intellectual Property Rights in EU Law Vol I: Free Movement and Competition Law (OUP 2003). Open Google Scholar
  167. Kern B R, ‘Innovation Markets, Future Markets, or Potential Competition: How Should Competition Authorities Account for Innovation Competition in Merger Reviews?’ (2014) 37 World Competition 173. Open Google Scholar
  168. Keyte J A and Stoll N R, ‘Markets? We Don’t Need no Stinking Markets! The FTC and Market Definition’ (2004) 49 Antitrust Bull 593. Open Google Scholar
  169. Khan B Z and Sokoloff K L, ‘History Lessons: The Early Development of Intellectual Property Institutions in the United States’ (2001) 15 J Econ Perspectives 233. Open Google Scholar
  170. Kitch E W, ‘The Nature and Function of the Patent System’ (1977) 20 J L & Econ 265. Open Google Scholar
  171. Kjølbye L, ‘Article 82 EC as Remedy to Patent System Imperfections: Fighting Fire with Fire?’ (2009) 32 World Competition 163. Open Google Scholar
  172. Klein C C, ‘Strategic Sham Litigation: Economic Incentives in the Context of the Case Law’ (1986) 6 Int’l Rev L & Econ 241. Open Google Scholar
  173. Klein C C, ‘The Economics of Sham Litigation: Theory, Cases, and Policy’ (Bureau of Economics Staff Report to the FTC, April 1989) <www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/economics-sham-litigation-theory-cases-and-policy/232158_0.pdf>. Open Google Scholar
  174. Klein C C, ‘Predation in the Courts: Legal Versus Economic Analysis in Sham Litigation Cases’ (1990) 10 Int’l Rev L & Econ 29. Open Google Scholar
  175. Klein C C, ‘Anticompetitive Litigation and Antitrust Liability’ (2007) Middle Tennessee State University, Department of Economics and Finance Working Paper 2007/13 <http://capone.mtsu.edu/berc/working/SHAM07WP.pdf>. Open Google Scholar
  176. Kobak J B Jr, ‘Professional Real Estate Investors and the Future of Patent-Antitrust Litigation: Walker Process And Handgards Meet Noerr-Pennington’ (1994) 63 Antitrust L J 185. Open Google Scholar
  177. Kobak J B Jr, ‘The Doctrine that Will Not Die: Nobelpharma, Walker Process, and the Patent-Antitrust Counterclaim’ (1998) 13 Antitrust 47. Open Google Scholar
  178. Kobak J B Jr and Reznick R P, ‘Antitrust Liability for Statements about Intellectual Property: Unocal, Unitherm and New Uncertainty’ (2004) 19 Antitrust 87. Open Google Scholar
  179. Korah V, ‘The Limitation of Copyright and Patents by the Rules for the Free Movement of Goods in the European Common Market’ (1982) 14 Case W Res J Int’l L 7. Open Google Scholar
  180. Korah V, ‘The Interface Between Intellectual Property and Antitrust: The European Experience’ (2002) 69 Antitrust L J 801. Open Google Scholar
  181. Korah V, Intellectual Property Rights and the EC Competition Rules (Hart 2006). Open Google Scholar
  182. Korah V, An Introductory Guide to EC Competition Law and Practice (9th edn, Hart 2007). Open Google Scholar
  183. Kovacic W E and Winerman M, ‘Competition Policy and the Application of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act’ (2010) 76 Antitrust L J 929. Open Google Scholar
  184. Kraßer R, ‘Verpflichtung des Patentanmelders oder –inhabers zu Angaben über den Stand der Technik’ in Bruchhausen K and others (eds), Festschrift Für Rudolf Nirk zum 70. Geburtstag (Beck 1992). Open Google Scholar
  185. Kraßer R and Bernhardt W, Patentrecht (6th edn, Beck 2009). Open Google Scholar
  186. Krattenmaker T G, Lande R H and Salop S C, ‘Monopoly Power and Market Power in Antitrust Law’ (1987) 76 Geo L J 241. Open Google Scholar
  187. Krauß J, ‘Equitable Doctrines in International Patent Laws’ in Toshiki Takenaka (ed), Intellectual Property in Common Law and Civil Law (Edward Elgar 2013). Open Google Scholar
  188. Kuhn J M, ‘Information Overload at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: Reframing the Duty of Disclosure in Patent Law as a Search and Filter Problem’ (2010) 13 Yale J L and Tech 89. Open Google Scholar
  189. Lande R H, ‘A Traditional and Textualist Analysis of the Goals of Antitrust: Efficiency, Preventing Theft from Consumers, and Consumer Choice’ (2013) 81 Fordham L Rev 2349. Open Google Scholar
  190. Landes W M and Posner R A, ‘Market Power in Antitrust Cases’ (1981) 94 Harv L Rev 937. Open Google Scholar
  191. Landes W M and Posner R A, The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law (Harvard Univ Press 2003). Open Google Scholar
  192. Lao M, ‘Reforming the Noerr-Pennington Antitrust Immunity Doctrine’ (2003) 55 Rutgers L Rev 965. Open Google Scholar
  193. Lao M, ‘Reclaiming a Role for Intent Evidence in Monopolization Analysis’ (2004) 54 Am Univ L Rev 151. Open Google Scholar
  194. Lawrance S and Treacy P, ‘The Commission’s AstraZeneca Decision: Delaying Generic Entry is an Abuse of Dominant Position’ (2005) 1 J Intell Prop L & Prac 7. Open Google Scholar
  195. Leaffer M, ‘Patent Misuse and Innovation’ (2010) 10 J High Tech L 142. Open Google Scholar
  196. Lemley M A, ‘The Economic Irrationality of the Patent Misuse Doctrine’ (1990) 78 Cal L Rev 1599. Open Google Scholar
  197. Lemley M A, ‘Antitrust Counterclaims in Patent and Copyright Infringement Cases’ (1994) 3 Tex Intell Prop L J 1. Open Google Scholar
  198. Lemley M A, ‘Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office’ (2001) 95 Northwest U L Rev 1495. Open Google Scholar
  199. Lemley M A, ‘The Myth of the Sole Inventor’ (2012) 110 Mich L Rev 709. Open Google Scholar
  200. Lemley M A and Shapiro C, ‘Probabilistic Patents’ (2005) 19 J Econ Perspectives 75. Open Google Scholar
  201. Lerner A P, ‘The Concept of Monopoly and the Measurement of Monopoly Power’ (1934) 1 Rev of Econ Stud 157. Open Google Scholar
  202. Leslie C R, ‘The Anticompetitive Effects of Unenforced Invalid Patents’ (2006) 91 Minn L Rev 101. Open Google Scholar
  203. Leslie C R, ‘Patents of Damocles’ (2008) 83 Ind L J 133. Open Google Scholar
  204. Leslie C R, ‘Antitrust and Patent Law as Component Parts of Innovation Policy’ (2009) 34 Iowa J Corp L 1259. Open Google Scholar
  205. Leslie C R, ‘Antitrust, Inequitable Conduct, and the Intent to Deceive the Patent Office’ (2011) 1 U C Irvine L Rev 323. Open Google Scholar
  206. Lim D, Patent Misuse and Antitrust Law: Empirical, Doctrinal and Policy Perspectives (Edward Elgar 2013). Open Google Scholar
  207. Lim D, ‘Revisiting the Patent Misuse Doctrine’ in Josef Drexl (ed), The Innovation Society and Intellectual Property (Edward Elgar, forthcoming). Open Google Scholar
  208. Lipsky A B Jr, ‘Current Antitrust Division Views on Patent Licensing Practices’ (1981) 50 Antitrust L J 515. Open Google Scholar
  209. Luterkort E, ‘Vexatious (Patent) Litigation & Art. 82 EC Following AstraZeneca: EC and US Converging Approaches?’ (Master thesis, University of Lund 2007). Open Google Scholar
  210. Lynch J F, ‘An Argument for Eliminating the Defense of Patent Unenforceability Based on Inequitable Conduct’ (1988) 16 Am Intell Prop L Asso Q J 7. Open Google Scholar
  211. Mabey W K Jr, ‘Deconstructing the Patent Application Backlog’ (2010) 92 J Pat & Trademark Off Soc’y 208. Open Google Scholar
  212. Machlup F, ‘An Economic Review of the Patent System’ (Study No 15 of the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyright of the Committee on the Judiciary of the US Senate, 85th Congress, 2nd Session, Washington, 1958). Open Google Scholar
  213. Machlup F and Penrose E, ‘The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century’ (1950) 10 J Econ Hist 1. Open Google Scholar
  214. Mack K, ‘Reforming Inequitable Conduct to Improve Patent Quality: Cleansing Unclean Hands’ (2006) 21 Berkeley Tech L J 147. Open Google Scholar
  215. Maggiolino M, Intellectual Property and Antitrust: A Comparative Economic Analysis of US and EU Law (Edward Elgar 2011). Open Google Scholar
  216. Maggiolino M and Montagnani M L, ‘Astrazeneca’s Abuse of IPR-Related Procedures: A Hypothesis of Anti-Trust Offence, Abuse of Rights and IPR Misuse’ (2011) 34 World Competition 245. Open Google Scholar
  217. Mammen C E, ‘Controlling the “Plague”: Reforming the Doctrine of Inequitable Conduct’ (2009) 24 Berkeley Tech L J 1329. Open Google Scholar
  218. Manley M I and Wray A, ‘New Pitfall for the Pharmaceutical Industry’ (2006) 1 J Intell Prop L & Prac 266. Open Google Scholar
  219. McFarland I G, ‘In the Wake of Therasense & Nisus Corp.: How Can Patent Attorneys Defend Themselves against Allegations of Inequitable Conduct?’ (2011) 78 Tenn L Rev 487. Open Google Scholar
  220. McGowan D and Lemley M A, ‘Antitrust Immunity: State Action and Federalism, Petitioning and the First Amendment’ (1994) 17 Harv J L & Pub Pol’y 293. Open Google Scholar
  221. Merges R P, ‘Reflections on Current Legislation Affecting Patent Misuse’ (1988) 70 J Pat & Trademark Off Soc’y 793. Open Google Scholar
  222. Merges R P, ‘As Many as Six Impossible Patents Before Breakfast: Property Rights for Business Concepts and Patent System Reform’ (1999) 14 Berkeley Tech L J 577. Open Google Scholar
  223. Merges R P and Duffy J F, Patent Law and Policy: Cases and Materials (6th edn, LexisNexis 2013). Open Google Scholar
  224. Mes P, Patentgesetz, Gebrauchmustergesetz (3rd edn, Beck 2011). Open Google Scholar
  225. Miege C, Gärtner A and Besen M, ‘Missbrauch einer marktbeherrschenden Stellung durch Irreführende Angaben bei Patentanmeldungen: Anmerkung zu EuG, Urt v 01.07.2010 – EUG 01.07.2010 – T-321/05’ (2010) 11 PharmR 586. Open Google Scholar
  226. Monti G, EC Competition Law (Cambridge Univ Press 2007). Open Google Scholar
  227. Motta M, Competition Policy: Theory and Practice (Cambridge Univ Press 2004). Open Google Scholar
  228. Motta M and de Streel A, ‘Exploitative and Exclusionary Excessive Prices in EU Law’ in Ehlermann C D and Atanasiu I (eds), European Competition Law Annual 2003: What is an Abuse of a Dominant Position? (Hart 2006). Open Google Scholar
  229. Moy R C, ‘The Effect of New Rule 56 on the Law of Inequitable Conduct’ (1992) 74 J Pat & Trademark Off Soc’y 257. Open Google Scholar
  230. Mueller J M, Patent Law (4th edn, Wolters Kluwer 2013). Open Google Scholar
  231. Müller-Graff J and Fischmann F, ‘Der Fall AstraZeneca: “Tool boxes” in Arzneimittelsektor – Wer hat die Bessere Werkzeuge und Welche sind Erlaubt? Zum Urteil des Gerichts der Europäischen Union vom 1. Juli 2010, Rs. T-321/05’ [2010] GRUR Int 2010 792. Open Google Scholar
  232. Murphy F and Liberatore F, ‘Abuse of Regulatory Procedures: The AstraZeneca Case’ (2009) 30 Eur Comp L Rev 223. Open Google Scholar
  233. Murphy N M, ‘Inequitable-Conduct Doctrine Reform: Is the Death Penalty for Patents Still Appropriate?’ (2009) 93 Minn L Rev 2274. Open Google Scholar
  234. Myers G, ‘Antitrust and First Amendment Implications of Professional Real Estate Investors’ (1994) 51 Wash & Lee L Rev 1199. Open Google Scholar
  235. National Research Council of the National Academies, A Patent System for the 21st Century (Merrill S A, Levin R C and Myers M B eds, National Academies Press 2004). Open Google Scholar
  236. Negrinotti M, ‘Abuse of Regulatory Procedures in the Intellectual Property Context: The AstraZeneca Case’ in Govaere I and Ullrich H (eds), Intellectual Property, Market Power and the Public Interest (Peter Lang 2008). Open Google Scholar
  237. Niro R P and Wigert J W Jr, ‘Patents, Fraud and the Antitrust Laws’ (1968) 37 Geo Wash L Rev 168. Open Google Scholar
  238. Nolan-Stevaux K, ‘Inequitable Conduct Claims in the 21st Century: Combating the Plague’ (2005) 20 Berkeley Tech L J 147. Open Google Scholar
  239. O’Connor S M, ‘Defusing the Atomic Bomb of Patent Litigation: Avoiding and Defending Against Allegations of Inequitable Conduct after McKesson Et Al’ (2009) 9 J Marshall Rev Intell Prop L 330. Open Google Scholar
  240. O’Donnell S W, ‘Unified Theory of Antitrust Counterclaims in Patent Litigation’ (2004) 9(8) Va J L & Tech 1. Open Google Scholar
  241. O’Donoghue R and Padilla A J, The Law and Economics of Article 102 TFEU (2nd edn, Hart 2013). Open Google Scholar
  242. Ohlhausen M K, ‘Section 5 of the FTC Act: Principles of Navigation’ (2013) 1 J Antitrust Enforcement 1. Open Google Scholar
  243. Ohly A and others, Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (6th edn, Beck 2014). Open Google Scholar
  244. Ottaviano I, ‘Industrial Property and Abuse of Dominant Position in the Pharmaceutical Market: Some Thoughts on the AstraZeneca Judgment of the EU General Court’ in Caggiano G, Muscolo G and Tavassi M (eds), Competition Law and Intellectual Property: A European Perspective (Wolters Kluwer 2012). Open Google Scholar
  245. Ortiz Blanco L, Market Power in EU Antitrust Law (Hart 2012). Open Google Scholar
  246. Peeperkorn L, ‘IP Licences and Competition Rules: Striking the Right Balance’ (2003) 26 World Competition 527. Open Google Scholar
  247. Peritz R J R, ‘Competition Policy and its Implications for Intellectual Property Rights in the United States’ in Anderman S D (ed), The Interface Between Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Policy (Cambridge Univ Press 2007). Open Google Scholar
  248. Peritz R J R, ‘Competition within Intellectual Property Regimes: the Instance of Patent Rights’ in Anderman S D and Ezrachi A (eds), Intellectual Property and Competition Law: New Frontiers (OUP 2011). Open Google Scholar
  249. Petherbridge L, Rantanen J and Mojibi A, ‘The Federal Circuit and Inequitable Conduct: An Empirical Assessment’ (2011) 84 S Cal L Rev 1293. Open Google Scholar
  250. Petit N, ‘Microsoft v Google – Karate Competition Law?’ (Chillin’ Competition, 7 April 2011) <http://chillingcompetition.com/2011/04/07/microsoft-v-google-karate-competition-law>. Open Google Scholar
  251. Petrovčič U, ‘Patent Hold-Up and the Limits of Competition Law: A Trans-Atlantic Perspective’ (2013) 50 CML Rev 1363. Open Google Scholar
  252. Phillips J, Charles Dickens and the ‘Poor Man’s Tale of a Patent’ (ESC 1984). Open Google Scholar
  253. Picht P, Strategisches Verhalten bei der Nutzung von Patenten in Standardisierungsverfahren aus der Sicht des Europäischen Kartellrechts (Springer 2013). Open Google Scholar
  254. Podszun R, ‘Can Competition Law Repair Patent Law and Administrative Procedures? AstraZeneca ’ (2014) 51 CML Rev 281. Open Google Scholar
  255. Posner R A, ‘The Social Costs of Monopoly and Regulation’ (1975) 83 J Pol Econ 807. Open Google Scholar
  256. Posner R A, Antitrust Law (2nd edn, Univ of Chicago Press 2001). Open Google Scholar
  257. Priddis S and Constantine S, ‘The Pharmaceutical Sector, Intellectual Property Rights, and Competition Law in Europe’ in Anderman S D and Ezrachi A (eds), Intellectual Property and Competition Law: New Frontiers (OUP 2011). Open Google Scholar
  258. Rai A K, ‘Growing Pains in the Administrative State: The Patent Office’s Troubled Quest for Managerial Control’ (2009) 157 U Pa L Rev 2051. Open Google Scholar
  259. Rapp R T, ‘The Misapplication of the Innovation Market Approach to Merger Analysis’ (1995) 64 Antitrust L J 19. Open Google Scholar
  260. Rato M and Petit N, ‘Abuse of Dominance in Technology-Enabled Markets: Established Standards Reconsidered?’ (2013) 9 ECJ 1. Open Google Scholar
  261. Riziotis D, ‘Patent Misuse als Schnittstelle zwischen Patentrecht und Kartellrecht: Eine Rechtsvergleichende Darstellung’ [2004] GRUR Int 367. Open Google Scholar
  262. Robinson A T, ‘The America Invents Act and the Best Mode Requirement: Where Do We Go From Here? (2012) 20 J Intell Prop L 179. Open Google Scholar
  263. Röller L H, ‘Exploitative Abuses’ in Ehlermann C D and Marquis M (eds), European Competition Law Annual 2007: A Reformed Approach to Article 82 EC (Hart 2008). Open Google Scholar
  264. Rousseva E and Marquis M, ‘Hell Freezes Over: A Climate Change for Assessing Exclusionary Conduct under Article 102 TFEU’ (2013) 4 J Eur Comp L & Prac 32. Open Google Scholar
  265. Salop S C and Scheffman D T, ‘Raising Rivals’ Costs’ (1983) 73 Am Econ Rev 267. Open Google Scholar
  266. Sampat B N, ‘Examining Patent Examination: An Analysis of Examiner and Applicant Generated Prior Art’ (Dphil thesis, University of Michigan 2004). Open Google Scholar
  267. Sampat B N, ‘When Do Applicants Search for Prior Art?’ (2010) 53 J L & Econ 399. Open Google Scholar
  268. Scellato G and others, ‘Study on the Quality of the Patent System in Europe’ (Report for the European Commission, DG Internal Market, 2011). Open Google Scholar
  269. Schade J, ‘Synergies created by international cooperation in the patent area’ in Prinz zu Waldeck und Pyrmont W and others (eds), Patents and Technological Progress in a Globalized World (Springer 2009). Open Google Scholar
  270. Schechter E R and Thomas J R, Principles of Patent Law (Thomson/West 2004). Open Google Scholar
  271. Scherer F M and Ross D, Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance (3rd edn, Houghton Mifflin 1990). Open Google Scholar
  272. Schneck T, ‘The Duty to Search’ (2005) 87 J Pat & Trademark Off Soc’y 689. Open Google Scholar
  273. Schumpeter J, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (Harper 1942). Open Google Scholar
  274. Seidel D, Europäische Missbrauchsaufsicht nach AstraZeneca: Fallrelevante Problemkreise unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Konfliktfeldes Immaterialgüter-/Wettbewerbsrecht (Shaker 2008). Open Google Scholar
  275. Seitz C, ‘Klare Grenzlinie und Minenfeld: Die Marktmissbrauchskontrolle im Arzneimittelsektor nach dem AstraZeneca-Urteil des EuGH’ [2013] EuZW 377. Open Google Scholar
  276. Shapiro C, ‘Competition and Innovation: Did Arrow Hit the Bull’s Eye?’ in Lerner J and Stern S (eds), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity Revisited (Univ of Chicago Press 2012). Open Google Scholar
  277. Singer M and Stauder D (eds), The European Patent Convention: A Commentary (3rd edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2003) vols 1 and 2. Open Google Scholar
  278. Siragusa M, ‘The EU Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry: New Forms of Abuse and Article 102 TFEU’ in Caggiano G, Muscolo G and Tavassi M (eds), Competition Law and Intellectual Property: A European Perspective (Wolters Kluwer 2012). Open Google Scholar
  279. Smith N A, ‘Fraud upon the Patent Office as a Violation of the Sherman Antitrust Law’ (1970) 14 Pat Trademark & Copyright J Res & Educ 507. Open Google Scholar
  280. Spillmann A, ‘Transparency Obligation for Holders of EU IP Assets in the Pharmaceutical Industry’ (2014) 9 J Intell Prop L & Prac 125. Open Google Scholar
  281. Spulber D F, ‘How Patents Provide the Foundation of the Market for Inventions’ (2014) Northwest L & Econ Research Paper 14/14 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2487564>. Open Google Scholar
  282. Steinman D R and Fitzpatrick D S, ‘Antitrust Counterclaims in Patent Infringement Cases: A Guide to Walker Process and Sham-Litigation Claims’ (2001) 10 Tex Intell Prop L J 95. Open Google Scholar
  283. Stothers C and Ramondino M, ‘Aftermath of AstraZeneca and the Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry: the Big Chill?’ (2011) 32 Eur Comp L Rev 591. Open Google Scholar
  284. Strandburg K J, ‘What Does the Public Get: Experimental Use and the Patent Bargain’ [2004] Wis L Rev 81. Open Google Scholar
  285. Straus J, ‘Patent Application: Obstacle for Innovation and Abuse of Dominant Position under Article 102 TFEU?’ (2010) 1 J Eur Comp L & Prac 189. Open Google Scholar
  286. Straus J, ‘Can Antitrust Adequately Assess Patent Settlement Agreements Disconnected from Patent Law Relevant Facts? The Servier Case – Its Public Perception and its Underlying Facts’ (2016) 38 EIPR 533. Open Google Scholar
  287. Taylor D O, ‘Patent Fraud’ (2010) 83 Temp L Rev 49. Open Google Scholar
  288. Temple Lang J, ‘European Community Antitrust Law: Innovation Markets and High Technology Industries’ (1997) 20 Fordham Int’l L J 717. Open Google Scholar
  289. Temple Lang J, ‘Reprisals and Overreaction by Dominant Companies as an Anti-competitive Abuse under Article 82(b)’ (2008) 29 Eur Comp L Rev 13. Open Google Scholar
  290. Tom W K and Newberg J A, ‘Antitrust and Intellectual Property: From Separate Spheres to Unified Field’ (1997) 66 Antitrust L J 167. Open Google Scholar
  291. Van Malleghem P A and Devroe W, ‘AstraZeneca: Court of Justice Upholds First Decision Fiding Abuse of Dominant Position in Pharmaceutical Sector’ (2013) 4 J Eur Comp L & Prac 228. Open Google Scholar
  292. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B, ‘The Quality Factor in Patent Systems’ (2011) 20 Industrial and Corporate Change 1755. Open Google Scholar
  293. Vezzoso S, ‘Towards an EU Doctrine of Anticompetitive IP-Related Litigation’ (2012) 3 J Eur Comp L & Prac 521. Open Google Scholar
  294. Völcker S B, ‘Developments in EC Competition Law in 2005: An Overview’ (2006) 43 CML Rev 1409. Open Google Scholar
  295. Vogelenzang P, ‘Abuse of a Dominant Position in Article 86: the Problem of Causality and Some Applications’ (1976) 13 CML Rev. 61. Open Google Scholar
  296. Vossestein A J, ‘Corporate Efforts to Influence Public Authorities, and the EC Rules on Competition’ (2000) 37 CML Rev 1383. Open Google Scholar
  297. Waelbroeck D, ‘Tough Competition: What is the Relevance of Intention in Article 82 cases?’ (2006) 5(8) Comp Law Insight 5. Open Google Scholar
  298. Wallace J M, ‘Rambus v FTC in the Context of Standard-Setting Organizations, Antitrust, and the Patent Hold-Up Problem’ (2009) 24 Berkeley Tech L J 661. Open Google Scholar
  299. Wainwright R and Bouquet A, ‘State Intervention and Action in EC Competition Law’ in Hawk B (ed), International Antitrust Law & Policy: Fordham Corporate Law 2003 (Juris Publishing 2004). Open Google Scholar
  300. Wasserman M F, ‘Limiting the Inequitable Conduct Defense’ (2008) 13(7) Va J L & Tech 14. Open Google Scholar
  301. Werden G J, ‘The 1982 Merger Guidelines and the Ascent of the Hypothetical Monopolist Paradigm’ (2003) 71 Antitrust L J 253. Open Google Scholar
  302. Westin J, ‘Defining Relevant Market in the Pharmaceutical Sector in the Light of the Losec-Case: Just How Different is the Pharmaceutical Market?’ (2011) 32 Eur Comp L Rev 57. Open Google Scholar
  303. Whish R, Competition Law (8th edn, OUP 2015). Open Google Scholar
  304. Wilson B B, ‘Patent and Know-How License Agreements: Field of Use, Territorial, Price and Quantity Restrictions’ (Remarks Before the Fourth New England Antitrust Conference, 6 November 1970). Open Google Scholar
  305. Wofford R, ‘Considering the “Pattern Litigation” Exception to the Noerr-Pennington Antitrust Defense’ (2003) 49 Wayne L Rev 95. Open Google Scholar
  306. Wright J D, ‘Proposed Policy Statement Regarding Unfair Methods of Competition Under Section 5 of the FTC Act’ (19 June 2013) <www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_statements/statement-commissioner-joshua-d.wright/130619umcpolicystatement.pdf>. Open Google Scholar
  307. Zbierska K, Application and Importance of Supplementary Protection Certificates for Medicinal Products in the European Union (Shaker 2012). Open Google Scholar
  308. Zimmer D (ed), The Goals of Competition Law (Edward Elgar 2012). Open Google Scholar

Similar publications

from the topics "European Law & International Law & Comparative Law"
Cover of book: Unbeabsichtigte Normenkonflikte zwischen EU-Recht und nationalem Recht
Book Titles No access
Yannis Ockernahl
Unbeabsichtigte Normenkonflikte zwischen EU-Recht und nationalem Recht
Cover of book: Der Volkseinwand
Book Titles No access
Florian Feigl
Der Volkseinwand
Cover of book: Wie fördert die EU Menschenrechte in Drittstaaten?
Book Titles No access
Dennis Traudt
Wie fördert die EU Menschenrechte in Drittstaaten?
Cover of book: Future-Proofing in Public Law
Edited Book No access
Nicole Koblenz LL.M., Nicholas Otto, Gernot Sydow
Future-Proofing in Public Law
Cover of book: Das Weltraumrecht und seine Eignung für den Rohstoffabbau durch Privatakteure
Book Titles No access
Justus Schmidt
Das Weltraumrecht und seine Eignung für den Rohstoffabbau durch Privatakteure

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Give feedback

We welcome your feedback on content and features. Your message helps us to continuously improve our service.

Rating
Attach images
or drag and drop
PNG or JPG (max. 3 MB)

Login

Forgotten your password?
Login via Open Athens
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex