Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Antitrust, Intellectual Property, and High Tech
- The Cambridge Handbook of Antitrust, Intellectual Property, and High Tech
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Economics of Antitrust-IP
- Part II Institutional Design: Country Overviews
- Part III Monopolization
- 10 Is Pepsi Really a Substitute for Coke? Market Definition in Antitrust and IP
- 11 Monopoly Power and Intellectual Property
- 12 Exploitative Abuses of Intellectual Property Rights
- 13 Patent Holdups
- 14 Walker Process and Sham Litigation
- 15 Does Antitrust Have a Role to Play in Regulating Big Data?
- Part IV Competitor Collaboration
- Part V Vertical Relations
- Part VI Mergers in High Technology
- Index
- References
14 - Walker Process and Sham Litigation
from Part III - Monopolization
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2017
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Antitrust, Intellectual Property, and High Tech
- The Cambridge Handbook of Antitrust, Intellectual Property, and High Tech
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Economics of Antitrust-IP
- Part II Institutional Design: Country Overviews
- Part III Monopolization
- 10 Is Pepsi Really a Substitute for Coke? Market Definition in Antitrust and IP
- 11 Monopoly Power and Intellectual Property
- 12 Exploitative Abuses of Intellectual Property Rights
- 13 Patent Holdups
- 14 Walker Process and Sham Litigation
- 15 Does Antitrust Have a Role to Play in Regulating Big Data?
- Part IV Competitor Collaboration
- Part V Vertical Relations
- Part VI Mergers in High Technology
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Areeda, Phillip and Hovenkamp, Herbert. 1997. Antitrust Law. New York: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
Daniel, B. D. 2009. Walker Process Proof: The Proper Prescription. Rutgers Law Journal, 41, 105–61.Google Scholar
FTC staff Report. 2006. Ohlhausen, Maureen K. et al. 2006. Enforcement Perspectives on the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine: An FTC Staff Report.Google Scholar
Himes, Jay. 2009. When Caught with Your Hand in the Cookie Jar … Argue Standing. Rutgers Law Journal, 41, 187–228.Google Scholar
Hovenkamp, Herbert, Janis, Mark, Lemley, Mark, and Leslie, Christopher. 2014. IP and Antitrust: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles Applied to Intellectual Property Law. 2nd. edn. New York: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
Leslie, Christopher. 2006. The Anticompetitive Effects of Unenforced Invalid Patents. Minnesota Law Review, 91, 101–83.Google Scholar
Leslie, Christopher. 2007. The Role of Consumers in Walker Process Litigation. Southwestern Journal of Law & Trade in the Americas, 13, 281–312.Google Scholar
Meyer, David and Thayamballi, Fabien. 2014. Do First Amendment Principles Limit the Antitrust Agencies’ Ability to Prohibit Enforcement of Standards-Essential Patents? Competition: Journal of the Antitrust and Unfair Competition law Section of the State Bar of California, 23, 142–55.Google Scholar
Steinman, David and Fitzpatrick, Danielle. 2002. Antitrust Counterclaims in Patent Infringement Cases: A Guide to Walker Process and Sham-Litigation Claims. Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal, 10, 95–109.Google Scholar
Tokic, Stijepko. 2012. Enforcing the Duty of Disclosure After Therasense: Antitrust Implications. American Intellectual Property Law Association Quarterly Journal, 40, 221–65.Google Scholar