Deceptive Conducts before the Patent Office

Eugenio Hoss

doi:10.5771/9783748902577

Deceptive Conducts before the Patent Office

Challenges for Patent Law and Competition Law

Series: Munich Intellectual Property Law Center - MIPLC Studies

Volume 37 1. Edition 2019

CC-BY Access

doi.org/10.5771/9783748902577
ISBN print: 978-3-8487-6134-0
ISBN online: 978-3-7489-0257-7
Nomos, Baden-Baden Nomos, Baden-Baden

Read

Chapter Preview

Chapter Expand | CollapsePage
1–24 Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis 1–24
25–30 Chapter I: Introduction 25–30
31–116 PART I: GENERAL RULES ON THE PATENTING PROCEDURE 31–116
- Chapter II: The Procedure before the Patent Office
  - 1. General Framework
  - 2. Synopsis of the Patent Procedure in the USPTO and the EPO
- Chapter III: The Responsibilities of the Patent Applicants before the Patent Office
117–298 PART II: THE IMPROPER ACQUISITION OF PATENTS AS A COMPETITION LAW PROBLEM 117–298
299–318 PART III: CONCLUSIONS 299–318
- Chapter VII: Summary and Conclusions
  - 1. The Role of Patent Applicants in the US and in Europe. Duties and Remedies under Patent Law
  - 2. The Patent Applicant’s Conduct as a Competition Law Concern
319–335 Bibliography 319–335

Read

— — Black’s Law Dictionary (9th edn, 2009).
— — ‘Deception as an Antitrust Violation’ (2012) 125 Harv L Rev 1235.
— — ‘EPO Round up: Part 2’ (IP Kat, 7 June 2005) <http://ipkitten.blogspot.de/2005/06/epo-round-up-part-2.html>.
— — ‘Is the Patent Misuse Doctrine Obsolete?’ (1997) 110 Harv L Rev 1922.
— — ‘Recent Legislation’ (2012) 125 Harv L Rev 1290.
— — Restatement (2d) of Torts (1977).
Abramowicz M and Duffy J F, ‘Intellectual Property for Market Experimentation’ (2008) 83 NYU L Rev 337.
Adelman M J, ‘The Relevant Market Paradox: Attempted and Completed Patent Fraud Monopolization’ (1977) 38 Ohio St L J 289.
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.
Akers N J, ‘The Referencing of Prior Art Documents in European Patents and Applications’ (2000) 22 World Patent Information 309.
Akman P, ‘Searching for the Long-Lost Soul of Article 82 EC’ (2009) 29 Oxford J Leg St 267 (2009).
Akman P, The Concept of Abuse in EU Competition Law: Law and Economic Approaches (Hart 2012).
Allison J R and Lemley M A, ‘The Growing Complexity of the United States Patent System’ (2002) 82 Bost U L Rev 77.
Ampollini D, ‘Looking for Sense in the Italian Antitrust Authority Decision in the Pfizer Xalatan Case’ [2012] Antitrust Chronicle vol 7(2) 1.
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.
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.
Anderman S D and Kallaugher J, Technology Transfer and the New EU Competition Rules: Intellectual Property Licensing after Modernisation (OUP 2006).
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.
Anenson T L, ‘Treating Equity Like Law: A Post-Merger Justification of Unclean Hands’ (2008) 45 Am Bus L J 455.
Areeda P E and Hovenkamp H, Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application (3rd edn, Aspen 2011).
Areeda P E and Hovenkamp H, Fundamentals of Antitrust Law (4th edn, Wolters Kluwer 2011).
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.
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.
Armitage E, ‘The New British Patent Legislation’ (1978) 9 IIC 207.
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).
Balmer T A, ‘Sham Litigation and the Antitrust Laws’ (1980) 209 Buffalo L Rev 39.
Banks K and Marenco G, ‘Intellectual Property and the Community Rules on Free Movement: Discrimination Unearthed’ (1990) 15 E L Rev 224.
Batchelor B and Healy M, ‘CJEU AstraZeneca Judgment: Groping Towards a Test for Patent Office Dealings; (2013) 34 Eur Comp L Rev 171.
Beier F K, ‘Die Rechtsbehelfe des Patentanmelders und seiner Wettbewerber im Vergleich: Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung zur Chancengleichheit im Patentverfahren [1989] GRUR Int 1.
Beier F K, ‘Industrial Property and the Free Movement of Goods in the Internal European Market (1990) 21 IIC 131.
Benkard G, Patentgesetz (Asendorf C D and others eds, 10th edn, Beck 2006).
Bensadon M, Ley de Patentes Comentada y Concordada con el ADPIC y el Convenio de Paris (LexisNexis 2007).
Bently L and Sherman B, Intellectual Property Law (4th edn, OUP 2014).
Berg W and Brankin S P,‘Das AstraZeneca-Urteil des Gerichts der Europäischen Union’ [2011] EuZW 91.
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.
Bishop S and Walker M, The Economics of Competition Law: Concepts, Application and Measurement (3rd edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2010).
Blanco White T A, Patents for Inventions and the Protection of Industrial Designs (5th edn, Stevens & Sons 1983).
Bodenhausen G H C, Guide to the Application of the Paris Convention (BIRPI 1968).
Bohannan C, ‘IP Misuse as Foreclosure’ (2011) 96 Iowa L Rev 475.
Bohannan C, and Hovenkamp H, Creation without Restraint: Promoting Liberty and Rivalry in Innovation (OUP 2012).
Bork R H, The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself (Basic 1978).
Borrás S, ‘The Governance of the European Patent System: Effective and Legitimate?’ (2006) 35 Economy and Society 594.
Bostyn S and Petit N, ‘Patent=Monopoly: A Legal Fiction’ (2013) <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2373471>.
Bowman W S, Patent and Antitrust Law: A Legal and Economic Appraisal (Univ of Chicago Press 1973).
Brack H P, ‘Patent Infringement Warnings in a Common Law versus a Civil Law Jurisdiction - An Actionable Threat?’ (2006) 37 IIC 1.
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>.
Brown A E L, Intellectual Property, Human Rights and Competition (Edward Elgar 2012).
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>.
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.
Calkins S, ‘Developments in Antitrust and the First Amendment: the Disaggregation of Noerr’ (1988) 57 Antitrust L J 327.
Castillo de la Torre F, ‘State Action Defence in EC Competition Law’ (2005) 28 World Competition 407.
Chafee Z Jr, ‘Coming into Equity with Clean Hands’ (1949) 47 Mich L Rev 877.
Chandra A, ‘Antitrust Liability for Attempting to Enforce a Fraudulent Patent’ (1999) 81 J Pat & Trademark Off Soc’y 201.
Chiang T J, ‘The Upside Down Inequitable Conduct Defense’ (2013) 107 Northwest U L Rev 1243.
Chisum D S, Chisum on Patents (Lexis Nexis).
Clifford R D, ‘Is it Time for a Rule 11 for the Patent Bar?’ (2013) 53 IDEA 351.
Cole M, ‘Pharmaceuticals and Competition: First Strike to the Commission?’ (2013) 34 Eur Comp L Rev 227.
Cole P, ‘Patents and Scientific Integrity’ [2008(5)] CIPAJ 2.
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.
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.
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.
Cotropia C A, ‘Modernizing Patent Law’s Inequitable Conduct Doctrine’ (2009) 24 Berkeley Tech L J 723.
Cotropia C A and Lemley M A and Sampat B N, ‘Do Applicant Patent Citations Matter?’ (2013) 42 Research Policy 844.
Cotter T F, ‘An Economic Analysis of Patent Law’s Inequitable Conduct Doctrine’ (2011) 53 Az L Rev 735.
Cotter T F, ‘Four Questionable Rationales for the Patent Misuse Doctrine’ (2011) 12 Minn J L Sci & Tech 457.
Cornish W R, Llewelyn D and Aplin T F, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights (8th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2013).
Costilo L B, ‘Antitrust’s Newest Quagmire: The Noerr-Pennington Defense’ (1967) 66 Mich L Rev 333.
Crane D A, ‘Judicial Review of Anticompetitive State Action: Two Models in Comparative Perspective (2013) 1 J Antitrust Enforcement 418.
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).
Creighton S A and others, ‘Cheap Exclusion’ (2005) 72 Antitrust L J 975.
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>.
Crew E, ‘The Use of Patent Litigation to Violate the Antitrust Laws’ (2006) 11 Intell Prop L Bull 69.
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>.
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>.
Czapracka K, Intellectual Property and the Limits of Antitrust: A Comparative Study of US and EU Approaches (Edward Elgar 2010).
Daniel B D, ‘Walker Process Proof: The Proper Prescription’ (2009) 41 Rutgers L J 105.
Davenport N, The United Kingdom Patent System: A Brief History (Mason 1979).
Davidow J, Patent-Related Misconduct Issues in US Litigation (OUP 2010).
de Saint-Georges M and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B, ‘A Quality Index for Patent Systems’ (2013) 42 Research Policy 704.
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.
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.
Dieny E, ‘The Pharmaceutical Industry and Competition Law between the Present and the Future’ (2007) 28 Eur Comp L Rev 223.
Dolak L A, ‘Inequitable Conduct: A Flawed Doctrine Worth Saving’ (2010) 11 Wake Forest Intell Prop L J 1.
Dolak L A, ‘America Invents the Supplemental Examination, but Retains the Duty of Candor: Questions and Implications’ (2012) 6 Akron Intell Prop J 147.
Drahos P, ‘“Trust Me”: Patent Offices in Developing Countries’ (2008) 34 Am J L & Med 151.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Drexl J, ‘“Pay-for-Delay” and Blocking Patents: Targeting Pharmaceutical Companies under European Competition Law’ (2009) 40 IIC 751.
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.
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.
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.
Dreyfuss R C, ‘The Federal Circuit: A Case Study in Specialized Courts’ (1989) 64 NYU L Rev 1.
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.
Elhauge E, ‘Making Sense of Antitrust Petitioning Immunity’ (1992) 80 Cal L Rev 1177.
Elhauge E, ‘Defining Better Monopolization Standards’ (2003) 56 Stan L Rev 253.
Elhauge E and Geradin D, Global Antitrust Law and Economics, (2nd edn, Foundation Press 2011).
Erstling J, ‘Patent Law and the Duty of Candor: Rethinking The Limits of Disclosure’ (2011) 44 Creighton L Rev 329.
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).
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.
Feldman R C, ‘The Insufficiency of Antitrust Analysis for Patent Misuse’ (2003) 55 Hastings L J 399.
Filmore S, ‘Defining the Misrepresentation Exception to the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine’ (2001) 49 Univ Kan L Rev 423.
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.
Fischmann F, «Reverse Payments» als Mittel zur Beilegung von Patentstreitigkeiten - Ein Verstoß gegen das Kartellrecht? (Stämpfli Verlag 2016).
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.
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.
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.
Floyd C D, ‘Antitrust Liability for the Anticompetitive Effects of Governmental Action Induced by Fraud’ (2001) 69 Antitrust L J 403.
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.
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.
Fox E M, ‘We Protect Competition, You Protect Competitors’ (2003) 26 World Competition 149.
Fox E M and Healey D, ‘When the State Harms Competition: the Role for Competition Law’ (2014) 79 Antitrust L J 769.
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.
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.
Galloway J, ‘Driving Innovation: A Case for Targeted Competition Policy in Dynamic Markets’ (2011) 34 World Competition 73.
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.
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>.
Geradin D, ‘When Competition Law Analysis Goes Wrong – The Italian Pfizer/Pharmacia Case’ (2014) <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2393383>.
Gerber D J, Law and Competition in Twentieth Century Europe: Protecting Prometheus (OUP 2003).
Gervais M, The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis (4th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2012).
Ghidini G, Innovation, Competition and Consumer Welfare in Intellectual Property Law (Edward Elgar 2010).
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.
Glader M, Innovation Markets and Competition Analysis (Edward Elgar 2006).
Goldman R J, ‘Evolution of the Inequitable Conduct Defense in Patent Litigation’ (1993) 7 Harv J L & Tech 37.
Govaere I, The Use and Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights in EC Law (Sweet & Maxwell 1996).
Govaere I, ‘In Pursuit of an Innovation Policy Rationale: Stakes and Limits under Article 82 TEC’ (2008) 31 World Competition 541.
Guimarães de Lima e Silva V, ‘Sham Litigation in the Pharmaceutical Sector’ (2011) 7 Eur Comp J 455.
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.
Hacon R, Concise European Patent Law (Hacon R and Pagenberg J eds, 2nd edn, Wolters Kluwer 2008).
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.
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).
Handler M and De Sevo R A, ‘The Noerr Doctrine and Its Sham Exception’ (1984) 6 Cardozo L Rev 1.
Heald P J, ‘A Transaction Costs Theory of Patent Law’ (2005) 66 Ohio St L J 473.
Heinemann A, ‘The Contestability of IP-Protected Markets’ in Drexl J (ed), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Competition Law (Edward Elgar 2008).
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.
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>.
Herstein O J, ‘A Normative Theory of the Clean Hands Defense (2011) 17 Legal Theory 171.
Hess B, ‘Abuse of Procedure in Germany and Austria’ in Taruffo M (ed), Abuse of Procedural Rights: Comparative Standards of Procedural Fairness (Kluwer 1999).
Hricik D, ‘Where The Bodies Are: Current Exemplars of Inequitable Conduct and How to Avoid Them’ (2004) 12 Tex Intell Prop L J 287.
Hovenkamp H, ‘The Monopolization Offence’ (2000) 61 Ohio St L J 1035.
Hovenkamp H, The Antitrust Enterprise: Principle and Execution (Harvard Univ Press 2005).
Hovenkamp H, ‘IP and Antitrust Policy: A Brief Historical Overview’ (2005) Univ Iowa Legal Studies Research Paper 05/31 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=869417>.
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>.
Hovenkamp H, ‘Patent Exclusions and Antitrust after Therasense’ (2011) U Iowa Legal Studies Research Paper 11/39 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=1916074>.
Hovenkamp H, ‘Antitrust and the Patent System: A Reexamination’ (2014) U Iowa Legal Studies Research Paper 14/27 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2486633>.
Hovenkamp H and others, IP and Antitrust: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles Applied to Intellectual Property Law (2nd edn Supp 2013, Wolters Kluwer).
Hughes J, ‘The Philosophy of Intellectual Property’ (1988) 77 Geo L J 287.
Hull D, ‘The AstraZeneca Judgment: Implications for IP and Regulatory Strategies’ (2010) 1 J Eur Comp L & Prac 500.
Hull D, ‘The Application of EU Competition Law in the Pharmaceutical Sector’ (2011) 2 J Eur Comp L & Prac 480.
Hull D, ‘The Application of EU Competition Law in the Pharmaceutical Sector’ (2012) 3 J Eur Comp L & Prac 473.
Hulme E W, ‘History of the Patent System under the Prerogative and at Common Law’ (1896) 12 LQR 141.
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).
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).
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.
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.
Janicke P M, ‘Overview of the New Patent Law of the United States’ (2013) 21 Tex Intell Prop L J 63.
Janis M D, ‘Transitions in IP and Antitrust’ (2002) 47 Antitrust Bull 253.
Jones A and Sufrin B, EU Competition Law (5th edn, OUP 2014).
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).
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.
Käseberg T, Intellectual property, Antitrust and Cumulative Innovation in the EU and the US (Hart 2012).
Kallaugher J and Weitbrecht A, ‘Developments under Articles 101 and 102 TFEU in 2010’ (2011) 32 Eur Comp L Rev 333.
Kaplow L, ‘Why (Ever) Define Markets?’ (2010) 124 Harv L Rev 437.
Katz A, ‘Making Sense of Nonsense: Intellectual Property, Antitrust, and Market Power’ (2007) 49 Ariz L Rev 837.
Keeling D T, Intellectual Property Rights in EU Law Vol I: Free Movement and Competition Law (OUP 2003).
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.
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.
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.
Kitch E W, ‘The Nature and Function of the Patent System’ (1977) 20 J L & Econ 265.
Kjølbye L, ‘Article 82 EC as Remedy to Patent System Imperfections: Fighting Fire with Fire?’ (2009) 32 World Competition 163.
Klein C C, ‘Strategic Sham Litigation: Economic Incentives in the Context of the Case Law’ (1986) 6 Int’l Rev L & Econ 241.
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>.
Klein C C, ‘Predation in the Courts: Legal Versus Economic Analysis in Sham Litigation Cases’ (1990) 10 Int’l Rev L & Econ 29.
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>.
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.
Kobak J B Jr, ‘The Doctrine that Will Not Die: Nobelpharma, Walker Process, and the Patent-Antitrust Counterclaim’ (1998) 13 Antitrust 47.
Kobak J B Jr and Reznick R P, ‘Antitrust Liability for Statements about Intellectual Property: Unocal, Unitherm and New Uncertainty’ (2004) 19 Antitrust 87.
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.
Korah V, ‘The Interface Between Intellectual Property and Antitrust: The European Experience’ (2002) 69 Antitrust L J 801.
Korah V, Intellectual Property Rights and the EC Competition Rules (Hart 2006).
Korah V, An Introductory Guide to EC Competition Law and Practice (9th edn, Hart 2007).
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.
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).
Kraßer R and Bernhardt W, Patentrecht (6th edn, Beck 2009).
Krattenmaker T G, Lande R H and Salop S C, ‘Monopoly Power and Market Power in Antitrust Law’ (1987) 76 Geo L J 241.
Krauß J, ‘Equitable Doctrines in International Patent Laws’ in Toshiki Takenaka (ed), Intellectual Property in Common Law and Civil Law (Edward Elgar 2013).
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.
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.
Landes W M and Posner R A, ‘Market Power in Antitrust Cases’ (1981) 94 Harv L Rev 937.
Landes W M and Posner R A, The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law (Harvard Univ Press 2003).
Lao M, ‘Reforming the Noerr-Pennington Antitrust Immunity Doctrine’ (2003) 55 Rutgers L Rev 965.
Lao M, ‘Reclaiming a Role for Intent Evidence in Monopolization Analysis’ (2004) 54 Am Univ L Rev 151.
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.
Leaffer M, ‘Patent Misuse and Innovation’ (2010) 10 J High Tech L 142.
Lemley M A, ‘The Economic Irrationality of the Patent Misuse Doctrine’ (1990) 78 Cal L Rev 1599.
Lemley M A, ‘Antitrust Counterclaims in Patent and Copyright Infringement Cases’ (1994) 3 Tex Intell Prop L J 1.
Lemley M A, ‘Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office’ (2001) 95 Northwest U L Rev 1495.
Lemley M A, ‘The Myth of the Sole Inventor’ (2012) 110 Mich L Rev 709.
Lemley M A and Shapiro C, ‘Probabilistic Patents’ (2005) 19 J Econ Perspectives 75.
Lerner A P, ‘The Concept of Monopoly and the Measurement of Monopoly Power’ (1934) 1 Rev of Econ Stud 157.
Leslie C R, ‘The Anticompetitive Effects of Unenforced Invalid Patents’ (2006) 91 Minn L Rev 101.
Leslie C R, ‘Patents of Damocles’ (2008) 83 Ind L J 133.
Leslie C R, ‘Antitrust and Patent Law as Component Parts of Innovation Policy’ (2009) 34 Iowa J Corp L 1259.
Leslie C R, ‘Antitrust, Inequitable Conduct, and the Intent to Deceive the Patent Office’ (2011) 1 U C Irvine L Rev 323.
Lim D, Patent Misuse and Antitrust Law: Empirical, Doctrinal and Policy Perspectives (Edward Elgar 2013).
Lim D, ‘Revisiting the Patent Misuse Doctrine’ in Josef Drexl (ed), The Innovation Society and Intellectual Property (Edward Elgar, forthcoming).
Lipsky A B Jr, ‘Current Antitrust Division Views on Patent Licensing Practices’ (1981) 50 Antitrust L J 515.
Luterkort E, ‘Vexatious (Patent) Litigation & Art. 82 EC Following AstraZeneca: EC and US Converging Approaches?’ (Master thesis, University of Lund 2007).
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.
Mabey W K Jr, ‘Deconstructing the Patent Application Backlog’ (2010) 92 J Pat & Trademark Off Soc’y 208.
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).
Machlup F and Penrose E, ‘The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century’ (1950) 10 J Econ Hist 1.
Mack K, ‘Reforming Inequitable Conduct to Improve Patent Quality: Cleansing Unclean Hands’ (2006) 21 Berkeley Tech L J 147.
Maggiolino M, Intellectual Property and Antitrust: A Comparative Economic Analysis of US and EU Law (Edward Elgar 2011).
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.
Mammen C E, ‘Controlling the “Plague”: Reforming the Doctrine of Inequitable Conduct’ (2009) 24 Berkeley Tech L J 1329.
Manley M I and Wray A, ‘New Pitfall for the Pharmaceutical Industry’ (2006) 1 J Intell Prop L & Prac 266.
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.
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.
Merges R P, ‘Reflections on Current Legislation Affecting Patent Misuse’ (1988) 70 J Pat & Trademark Off Soc’y 793.
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.
Merges R P and Duffy J F, Patent Law and Policy: Cases and Materials (6th edn, LexisNexis 2013).
Mes P, Patentgesetz, Gebrauchmustergesetz (3rd edn, Beck 2011).
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.
Monti G, EC Competition Law (Cambridge Univ Press 2007).
Motta M, Competition Policy: Theory and Practice (Cambridge Univ Press 2004).
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).
Moy R C, ‘The Effect of New Rule 56 on the Law of Inequitable Conduct’ (1992) 74 J Pat & Trademark Off Soc’y 257.
Mueller J M, Patent Law (4th edn, Wolters Kluwer 2013).
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.
Murphy F and Liberatore F, ‘Abuse of Regulatory Procedures: The AstraZeneca Case’ (2009) 30 Eur Comp L Rev 223.
Murphy N M, ‘Inequitable-Conduct Doctrine Reform: Is the Death Penalty for Patents Still Appropriate?’ (2009) 93 Minn L Rev 2274.
Myers G, ‘Antitrust and First Amendment Implications of Professional Real Estate Investors’ (1994) 51 Wash & Lee L Rev 1199.
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).
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).
Niro R P and Wigert J W Jr, ‘Patents, Fraud and the Antitrust Laws’ (1968) 37 Geo Wash L Rev 168.
Nolan-Stevaux K, ‘Inequitable Conduct Claims in the 21st Century: Combating the Plague’ (2005) 20 Berkeley Tech L J 147.
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.
O’Donnell S W, ‘Unified Theory of Antitrust Counterclaims in Patent Litigation’ (2004) 9(8) Va J L & Tech 1.
O’Donoghue R and Padilla A J, The Law and Economics of Article 102 TFEU (2nd edn, Hart 2013).
Ohlhausen M K, ‘Section 5 of the FTC Act: Principles of Navigation’ (2013) 1 J Antitrust Enforcement 1.
Ohly A and others, Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (6th edn, Beck 2014).
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).
Ortiz Blanco L, Market Power in EU Antitrust Law (Hart 2012).
Peeperkorn L, ‘IP Licences and Competition Rules: Striking the Right Balance’ (2003) 26 World Competition 527.
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).
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).
Petherbridge L, Rantanen J and Mojibi A, ‘The Federal Circuit and Inequitable Conduct: An Empirical Assessment’ (2011) 84 S Cal L Rev 1293.
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>.
Petrovčič U, ‘Patent Hold-Up and the Limits of Competition Law: A Trans-Atlantic Perspective’ (2013) 50 CML Rev 1363.
Phillips J, Charles Dickens and the ‘Poor Man’s Tale of a Patent’ (ESC 1984).
Picht P, Strategisches Verhalten bei der Nutzung von Patenten in Standardisierungsverfahren aus der Sicht des Europäischen Kartellrechts (Springer 2013).
Podszun R, ‘Can Competition Law Repair Patent Law and Administrative Procedures? AstraZeneca ’ (2014) 51 CML Rev 281.
Posner R A, ‘The Social Costs of Monopoly and Regulation’ (1975) 83 J Pol Econ 807.
Posner R A, Antitrust Law (2nd edn, Univ of Chicago Press 2001).
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).
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.
Rapp R T, ‘The Misapplication of the Innovation Market Approach to Merger Analysis’ (1995) 64 Antitrust L J 19.
Rato M and Petit N, ‘Abuse of Dominance in Technology-Enabled Markets: Established Standards Reconsidered?’ (2013) 9 ECJ 1.
Riziotis D, ‘Patent Misuse als Schnittstelle zwischen Patentrecht und Kartellrecht: Eine Rechtsvergleichende Darstellung’ [2004] GRUR Int 367.
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.
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).
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.
Salop S C and Scheffman D T, ‘Raising Rivals’ Costs’ (1983) 73 Am Econ Rev 267.
Sampat B N, ‘Examining Patent Examination: An Analysis of Examiner and Applicant Generated Prior Art’ (Dphil thesis, University of Michigan 2004).
Sampat B N, ‘When Do Applicants Search for Prior Art?’ (2010) 53 J L & Econ 399.
Scellato G and others, ‘Study on the Quality of the Patent System in Europe’ (Report for the European Commission, DG Internal Market, 2011).
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).
Schechter E R and Thomas J R, Principles of Patent Law (Thomson/West 2004).
Scherer F M and Ross D, Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance (3rd edn, Houghton Mifflin 1990).
Schneck T, ‘The Duty to Search’ (2005) 87 J Pat & Trademark Off Soc’y 689.
Schumpeter J, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (Harper 1942).
Seidel D, Europäische Missbrauchsaufsicht nach AstraZeneca: Fallrelevante Problemkreise unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Konfliktfeldes Immaterialgüter-/Wettbewerbsrecht (Shaker 2008).
Seitz C, ‘Klare Grenzlinie und Minenfeld: Die Marktmissbrauchskontrolle im Arzneimittelsektor nach dem AstraZeneca-Urteil des EuGH’ [2013] EuZW 377.
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).
Singer M and Stauder D (eds), The European Patent Convention: A Commentary (3rd edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2003) vols 1 and 2.
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).
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.
Spillmann A, ‘Transparency Obligation for Holders of EU IP Assets in the Pharmaceutical Industry’ (2014) 9 J Intell Prop L & Prac 125.
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>.
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.
Stothers C and Ramondino M, ‘Aftermath of AstraZeneca and the Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry: the Big Chill?’ (2011) 32 Eur Comp L Rev 591.
Strandburg K J, ‘What Does the Public Get: Experimental Use and the Patent Bargain’ [2004] Wis L Rev 81.
Straus J, ‘Patent Application: Obstacle for Innovation and Abuse of Dominant Position under Article 102 TFEU?’ (2010) 1 J Eur Comp L & Prac 189.
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.
Taylor D O, ‘Patent Fraud’ (2010) 83 Temp L Rev 49.
Temple Lang J, ‘European Community Antitrust Law: Innovation Markets and High Technology Industries’ (1997) 20 Fordham Int’l L J 717.
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.
Tom W K and Newberg J A, ‘Antitrust and Intellectual Property: From Separate Spheres to Unified Field’ (1997) 66 Antitrust L J 167.
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.
van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B, ‘The Quality Factor in Patent Systems’ (2011) 20 Industrial and Corporate Change 1755.
Vezzoso S, ‘Towards an EU Doctrine of Anticompetitive IP-Related Litigation’ (2012) 3 J Eur Comp L & Prac 521.
Völcker S B, ‘Developments in EC Competition Law in 2005: An Overview’ (2006) 43 CML Rev 1409.
Vogelenzang P, ‘Abuse of a Dominant Position in Article 86: the Problem of Causality and Some Applications’ (1976) 13 CML Rev. 61.
Vossestein A J, ‘Corporate Efforts to Influence Public Authorities, and the EC Rules on Competition’ (2000) 37 CML Rev 1383.
Waelbroeck D, ‘Tough Competition: What is the Relevance of Intention in Article 82 cases?’ (2006) 5(8) Comp Law Insight 5.
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.
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).
Wasserman M F, ‘Limiting the Inequitable Conduct Defense’ (2008) 13(7) Va J L & Tech 14.
Werden G J, ‘The 1982 Merger Guidelines and the Ascent of the Hypothetical Monopolist Paradigm’ (2003) 71 Antitrust L J 253.
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.
Whish R, Competition Law (8th edn, OUP 2015).
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).
Wofford R, ‘Considering the “Pattern Litigation” Exception to the Noerr-Pennington Antitrust Defense’ (2003) 49 Wayne L Rev 95.
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>.
Zbierska K, Application and Importance of Supplementary Protection Certificates for Medicinal Products in the European Union (Shaker 2012).
Zimmer D (ed), The Goals of Competition Law (Edward Elgar 2012).

Durchsuchen Sie das Werk

Geben Sie ein Keyword in die Suchleiste ein