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
- 5 Antitrust and Intellectual Property: A Brief Introduction
- 6 The Antitrust and Intellectual Property Intersection in European Union Law
- 7 The IP–Antitrust Interface in China: Uncharted Territory
- 8 Intellectual Property and Antitrust in Japan
- 9 Competition Law and Intellectual Property in Korea
- Part III Monopolization
- Part IV Competitor Collaboration
- Part V Vertical Relations
- Part VI Mergers in High Technology
- Index
- References
5 - Antitrust and Intellectual Property: A Brief Introduction
from Part II - Institutional Design: Country Overviews
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
- 5 Antitrust and Intellectual Property: A Brief Introduction
- 6 The Antitrust and Intellectual Property Intersection in European Union Law
- 7 The IP–Antitrust Interface in China: Uncharted Territory
- 8 Intellectual Property and Antitrust in Japan
- 9 Competition Law and Intellectual Property in Korea
- Part III Monopolization
- 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
References
Baxter, William F. 1966. Legal Restrictions on Exploitation of the Patent Monopoly: An Economic Analysis. Yale Law Journal, 76, 267.Google Scholar
Bowman, Ward S. 1973. Patent and Antitrust Law: A Legal and Economic Appraisal. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carrier, Michael A. 2002. Unraveling the Patent-Antitrust Paradox. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 150, 761.Google Scholar
Carrier, Michael A. 2010. A Real-World Analysis of Pharmaceutical Settlements: The Missing Dimension of Product Hopping. Florida Law Review, 62, 1016–20.Google Scholar
Cass, Ronald A. and Hylton, Keith N.. 2013. Laws of Creation: Property Rights in the World of Ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hylton, Keith N. 2003. Antitrust Law: Economic Theory and Common Law Evolution. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kaplow, Louis. 1984. The Patent-Antitrust Intersection: A Reappraisal. Harvard Law Journal, 97, 1813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allied Orthopedic Appliances Inc. v. Tyco Health Care Group LP., 592 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2010).Google Scholar
Asahi Glass Co. v. Pentech Pharm., Inc., 289 F. Supp. 2d 986 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (Posner, J.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bement v. National Harrow, 186 U.S. 70 (1902).Google Scholar
Brulotte v. Thys, 79 U.S. 29 (1964).Google Scholar
FTC v. Actavis, 133 S.Ct. 2223 (2013).Google Scholar
Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28 (2006).Google Scholar
In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, 18 F. Supp. 3d 560 (D. N.J. 2014).Google Scholar
In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation, 46 F. Supp. 3d 523 (D. N.J. 2014).Google Scholar
In re Niaspan Antitrust Litigation, 42 F. Supp. 3d 735 (E.D. Penn. 2014).Google Scholar
Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, 135 S.Ct. 2401 (2015).Google Scholar
New York v. Actavis, 787 F.3d 638 (2d Cir. 2015).Google Scholar
U.S. v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (1966).Google Scholar
U.S. v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001).Google Scholar
Allied Orthopedic Appliances Inc. v. Tyco Health Care Group LP., 592 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2010).Google Scholar
Asahi Glass Co. v. Pentech Pharm., Inc., 289 F. Supp. 2d 986 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (Posner, J.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bement v. National Harrow, 186 U.S. 70 (1902).Google Scholar
Brulotte v. Thys, 79 U.S. 29 (1964).Google Scholar
FTC v. Actavis, 133 S.Ct. 2223 (2013).Google Scholar
Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28 (2006).Google Scholar
In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, 18 F. Supp. 3d 560 (D. N.J. 2014).Google Scholar
In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation, 46 F. Supp. 3d 523 (D. N.J. 2014).Google Scholar
In re Niaspan Antitrust Litigation, 42 F. Supp. 3d 735 (E.D. Penn. 2014).Google Scholar
Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, 135 S.Ct. 2401 (2015).Google Scholar
New York v. Actavis, 787 F.3d 638 (2d Cir. 2015).Google Scholar
U.S. v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (1966).Google Scholar
U.S. v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001).Google Scholar
Cases Cited
Allied Orthopedic Appliances Inc. v. Tyco Health Care Group LP., 592 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2010).Google Scholar
Asahi Glass Co. v. Pentech Pharm., Inc., 289 F. Supp. 2d 986 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (Posner, J.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bement v. National Harrow, 186 U.S. 70 (1902).Google Scholar
Brulotte v. Thys, 79 U.S. 29 (1964).Google Scholar
FTC v. Actavis, 133 S.Ct. 2223 (2013).Google Scholar
Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28 (2006).Google Scholar
In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, 18 F. Supp. 3d 560 (D. N.J. 2014).Google Scholar
In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation, 46 F. Supp. 3d 523 (D. N.J. 2014).Google Scholar
In re Niaspan Antitrust Litigation, 42 F. Supp. 3d 735 (E.D. Penn. 2014).Google Scholar
Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, 135 S.Ct. 2401 (2015).Google Scholar
New York v. Actavis, 787 F.3d 638 (2d Cir. 2015).Google Scholar
U.S. v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (1966).Google Scholar
U.S. v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001).Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by