Book contents
- Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Policy
- Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Policy
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Missing the Forest for the Trolls
- 3 Empirical Evidence on the Behavior and Impact of Patent Trolls
- 4 Assertion of Standard Essential Patents by Non-Practicing Entities
- 5 Patent Privateering
- 6 Regulating Patent Assertions
- 7 Patent Assertion Entities in Europe
- 8 Treatment of Patent Assertion Entities under Korean Antitrust Law
- 9 Patent Assertion Entities Issues in China
- 10 Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Law in Japan
- 11 Patent Assertion Entities in Merger Review in Taiwan
- Index
- References
6 - Regulating Patent Assertions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 March 2017
Edited by
Book contents
- Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Policy
- Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Policy
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Missing the Forest for the Trolls
- 3 Empirical Evidence on the Behavior and Impact of Patent Trolls
- 4 Assertion of Standard Essential Patents by Non-Practicing Entities
- 5 Patent Privateering
- 6 Regulating Patent Assertions
- 7 Patent Assertion Entities in Europe
- 8 Treatment of Patent Assertion Entities under Korean Antitrust Law
- 9 Patent Assertion Entities Issues in China
- 10 Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Law in Japan
- 11 Patent Assertion Entities in Merger Review in Taiwan
- 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
- Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Policy , pp. 85 - 103Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
A.B. Farquhar Co. v. National Harrow Co., 102 F. 714, 715 (3d Cir. 1900).Google Scholar
Activision TV, Inc. v. Bruning, No. 8:13-CV-215 (D. Neb. Sep. 2, 2014).Google Scholar
Adriance, Platt & Co. v. National Harrow Co., 121 F. 827 (2d Cir. 1903).Google Scholar
Anderson, Jonas 2014. Congress as a Catalyst of Patent Reform at the Federal Circuit, American University Law Review 63: 961–1018.Google Scholar
Bicks, Mark S. 1977. Threatening to Sue for Patent Infringement: Unfair Competition and Antitrust Consequences, Journal of the Patent Office Society 59: 302–320.Google Scholar
Biotechnology Industry Org. v. District of Columbia, 496 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007).Google Scholar
Burk, Dan L., and Lemley, Mark A. 2009. Fence Posts or Sign Posts? Rethinking Patent Claim Construction, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 157: 1743–1799.Google Scholar
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972).Google Scholar
Chien, Colleen, and Reines, Edward 2014. Why Technology Customers are being Sued En Masse for Patent Infringement and What can be Done, Wake Forest Law Review 49: 235–260.Google Scholar
Consent Order, In the Matter of MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, No. 142 3003 (F.T.C. Nov. 6, 2014).Google Scholar
Cotropia, Christopher A., Kesan, Jay P., and Schwartz, David L. 2014. Unpacking Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs), Minnesota Law Review 99: 649–703.Google Scholar
Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961).Google Scholar
Electronic Frontier Foundation. 2016. Triple7Vaping.com, LLC v. Shipping & Transit LLC. www.eff.org/cases/triple7vapingcom-llc-et-al-v-shipping-transit-llc.Google Scholar
Emack v. Kane, 34 F. 46 (C.C.N.D. Ill. 1888).Google Scholar
Federal Trade Commission 2016. Patent Assertion Entity Activity: An FTC Study. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/patent-assertion-entity-activity-ftc-study/p131203_patent_assertion_entity_activity_an_ftc_study.pdfGoogle Scholar
Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Group, Inc., 362 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004).Google Scholar
Gugliuzza, Paul R. 2012. The New Federal Circuit Mandamus, Indiana Law Review 45: 343–411.Google Scholar
Gugliuzza, Paul R. 2013. The Federal Circuit as a Federal Court, William and Mary Law Review 54: 1791–1864.Google Scholar
Gugliuzza, Paul R. 2015. Patent Trolls and Preemption, Virginia Law Review 101: 1579–1647.Google Scholar
Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016).Google Scholar
Hills, Roderick M. Jr. 1998. The Political Economy of Cooperative Federalism: Why State Autonomy Makes Sense and “Dual Sovereignty” Doesn’t, Michigan Law Review 96: 813–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. Harmonic Design, Inc., 153 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1998).Google Scholar
In re Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC Patent Litigation, 921 F. Supp. 2d 903 (N.D. Ill. 2013).Google Scholar
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).Google Scholar
Johnson, David Lee 2014. Facing Down the Trolls: States Stumble on the Bridge to Patent-Assertion Regulation, Washington and Lee Law Review 71: 2023–2075.Google Scholar
La Belle, Megan M. 2010. Patent Litigation, Personal Jurisdiction, and the Public Good, George Mason Law Review 18: 43–98.Google Scholar
Lemley, Mark A., and Melamed, A. Douglas 2013. Missing the Forest for the Trolls, Columbia Law Review 113: 2117–2189.Google Scholar
Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009).Google Scholar
Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011).Google Scholar
Nard, Craig Allen, and Duffy, John F. 2007. Rethinking Patent Law’s Uniformity Principle, Northwestern University Law Review 101: 1619–1675.Google Scholar
Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014).Google Scholar
Ouellette, Lisa Larrimore 2015. Patent Experimentalism, Virginia Law Review 101: 65–128.Google Scholar
Patent Progress 2016. Patent Progress’s Guide to State Patent Legislation. www.patentprogress.org/patent-progress-legislation-guides/patent-progresss-guide-state-patent-legislation.Google Scholar
Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U.S. 49 (1993).Google Scholar
Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship Act of 2015, S. 1137, 114th Cong.Google Scholar
Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc., 148 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998).Google Scholar
Seidenberg, Steven 2014. Infringe Benefits: Patent Trolls Getting First Amendment Protection, American Bar Association Journal May: 18–19.Google Scholar
Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters Act of 2015, H.R. 2045, 114th Cong.Google Scholar
In re TC Heartland LLC, 821 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016).Google Scholar
In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008).Google Scholar
Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011).Google Scholar
United Kingdom Law Commission 2014. Patents, Trade Marks and Design Rights: Groundless Threats. www.lawcom.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/lc360_patents_unjustified_threats.pdf.Google Scholar
United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965).Google Scholar
United States v. Besser Manufacturing Co., 96 F. Supp. 304 (E.D. Mich. 1951).Google Scholar
Venue Equity and Non-Uniformity Elimination Act of 2016, S. 2733, 114th Cong.Google Scholar
Vermont v. MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, No. 2:13-CV-170, 2014 WL 1494009 (D. Vt. Apr. 15, 2014).Google Scholar