19 C.F.R. § 210.10(2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 C.F.R. § 210.8 (2013).Google Scholar

28 C.F.R. § 50.6(8) (2014).Google Scholar

118 Stat. 661, 108th Cong., H.R. 1086, 2004.Google Scholar

9 U.S.C. §§ 1–14 (2006).Google Scholar

11 U.S.C. § 363 (2006).Google Scholar

11 U.S.C. § 365 (2006).Google Scholar

15 U.S.C. § 1 (2012).Google Scholar

15 U.S.C. § 13 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 U.S.C. § 2 (2012).Google Scholar

15 U.S.C. § 29 (2012).Google Scholar

15 U.S.C. § 4301 (2014).Google Scholar

15 U.S.C. § 4302 (2014).Google Scholar

15 U.S.C. § 4303 (2014).Google Scholar

15 U.S.C. § 4304 (2014).Google Scholar

15 U.S.C. § 4305 (2014).Google Scholar

15 U.S.C. § 45 (2006).Google Scholar

19 U.S.C. § 1337 (2012).Google Scholar

35 U.S.C. § 121 (2006).Google Scholar

35 U.S.C. § 154 (2016).Google Scholar

35 U.S.C. § 261 (2012).Google Scholar

35 U.S.C. § 271 (2012)Google Scholar

35 U.S.C. § 283 (2012).Google Scholar

35 U.S.C. § 284 (2012).Google Scholar

35 U.S.C. § 294 (2012).Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice (DOJ). 1997–MPEG-2 Letter. Letter from Joel I. Klein, Acting Assistant Att’y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Garrard R. Beeney, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (June 26, 1997).Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice (DOJ). 1998–DVD3C Letter. Letter from Joel I. Klein, Assistant Att’y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Garrard R. Beeney, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (December 16, 1998) www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/busreview/2121.pdf.Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice (DOJ). 1999–DVD6C Letter. Letter from Joel I. Klein, Assistant Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Carey R. Ramos, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (June 10, 1999).Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice (DOJ). 2002–3GPP Letter. Letter from Charles A. James, Assistant Att’y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Ky P. Ewing, Vinson & Elkins LLP (November 12, 2002).Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice (DOJ). 2006–VITA Letter. Letter from Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Robert A. Skitol, Esq., Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP (October 30, 2006).Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice (DOJ). 2007a –IEEE-SA Letter. Letter from Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Michael A. Lindsay, Esq., Dorsey & Whitney LLP (April 30, 2007).Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice (DOJ). 2007b. Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Competition.Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice (DOJ). 2008–RFID Letter. Letter from Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Att’y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to William F. Dolan & Geoffrey Oliver, Jones Day (October 21, 2008).Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice (DOJ). 2011a. CPTN Holdings LLC and Novell Inc. Change Deal in Order to Address Department of Justice’s Open Source Concerns (April 20, 2011).Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice (DOJ). 2011b. Introduction to Antitrust Division Business Reviews.Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice (DOJ). 2012. Statement of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division on Its Decision to Close Its Investigations of Google Inc.’s Acquisition of Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. and the Acquisitions of Certain Patents by Apple Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Research in Motion Ltd., (February 13, 2012).Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice (DOJ). 2013–IPXI Letter. Letter from William J. Baer, Assistant Att’y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Garrard R. Beeney, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (March 26, 2013).Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice (DOJ). 2014. Statement of the Department of Justice Antitrust Division on Its Decision to Close Its Investigation of Samsung’s Use of Its Standards-Essential Patents (February 7, 2014).Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice (DOJ). 2015–IEEE-SA Letter. Letter from Renata B. Hesse, Acting Assistant Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Michael A. Lindsay, Esq., Dorsey & Whitney LLP (February 2, 2015).Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice and Patent & Trademark Office (DOJ-PTO). 2013. Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments. www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/290994.pdf.Google Scholar

Dep’t of Justice & Fed. Trade Comm’n (DOJ-FTC). 1995. Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property.Google Scholar

Dep’t of Justice & Fed. Trade Comm’n (DOJ-FTC). 2007. Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Competition.Google Scholar

Dep’t of Justice & Fed. Trade Comm’n (DOJ-FTC). 2010. Horizontal Merger Guidelines.Google Scholar

Fed. Reg. 39,121 (July 5, 2011).70 Fed. Reg. 43, 251 (July 21, 2005).Google Scholar

Fed. Reg. 4299–4300 (January 26, 2016).Google Scholar

U.S. Federal Trade Comm’n & Dep’t of Justice (FTC-DOJ). 2000. Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors.Google Scholar

U.S. Federal Trade Comm’n (FTC). 1983. Policy Statement on Deception,Google Scholar

U.S. Federal Trade Comm’n (FTC). 2003. To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy.Google Scholar

U.S. Federal Trade Comm’n (FTC). 2011. FTC Patent Standards Workshop.Google Scholar

U.S. Federal Trade Comm’n (FTC). 2012. Third Party U.S. Fed. Trade Comm’n’s Statement on the Public Interest, Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music And Data Processing Devices, Computers and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-745 (I.T.C. June 6, 2012),Google Scholar

U.S. Federal Trade Comm’n (FTC). 2015. Statement of Enforcement Principles Regarding “Unfair Methods of Competition” Under Section 5 of the FTC Act.Google Scholar

U.S. Federal Trade Comm’n (FTC). 2016. Report: Patent Assertion Entity Activity.Google Scholar

U.S. Federal Trade Comm’n (FTC). 2017. The Antitrust Laws.Google Scholar

Int’l Trade Comm’n (ITC) 2017. Mission Statement.Google Scholar

Rules of Adjudication and Enforcement, 76 Fed. Reg. 64,803 (Nov. 18, 2011).Google Scholar

Sen. Doc. No. 173, 75th Cong., 3d Sess. (1938); 83 Cong. Rec. 5992, 5995 (1938).Google Scholar

Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2–305(1) (2008).Google Scholar

U.S. Trade Rep. 2013. Letter from Michael B. G. Froman, United States Trade Rep., to Irving A. Williamson, Chairman, USITC (August 3, 2013).Google Scholar

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). 2017a. USPTO Disclosures made under §294 after 2008 can be accessed through the USPTO’s online FOIA Reading Room under “Notices of Suit Filed with U.S. District Courts.”Google Scholar

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). 2017b. USPTO Earlier disclosures are available in individual patent file histories stored at the USPTO and available online through the USPTO’s Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) website. http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair.Google Scholar

Ministry of Commerce People’s Republic of China. 2012. Public Announcement No. 25 Concerning Anti-Monopoly Review Decisions on Conditional Approval of Google’s Acquisition of Motorola Mobility.Google Scholar

Standardization Law (promulgated by the Standing Comm. Nat’l People’s Cong., December 29, 1988, effective Apr. 1, 1989) P.R.C. Laws.Google Scholar

中华人民共和国反垄断法 [The Antimonopoly Law of the People’s Republic of China] (promulgated by the Standing Comm. Nat’l People’s Cong., August 30, 2007, effective August 1, 2008), 2007 Standing Comm. Nat’l People’s Cong. Gaz. 517 (China).Google Scholar

中华人民共和国国家发展和改革委员会行政处罚决定书 [Administrative Decision of National Development and Reform Commission], February 9, 2015.Google Scholar

中华人民共和国标准化法 [The Standardization Law of the People’s Republic of China] (promulgated by the Standing Comm. Nat’l People’s Cong., December 29, 1988, effective April 1, 2009).Google Scholar

关于滥用知识产权的反垄断执法指南 (国家工商总局第七稿) [Antimonopoly Enforcement Guidelines on Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights (SAIC Seventh Draft)], February 4, 2016.Google Scholar

关于滥用知识产权的反垄断指南》 (征求意见稿) [Guidelines on Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights under the AML (Draft for Comments)], NDRC, December 31, 2015.Google Scholar

国家工商行政管理总局关于禁止滥用知识产权排除、限制竞争行为的规定 [SAIC Rules on the Prohibition of Abuses of Intellectual Property Rights for Purposes of Eliminating or Restricting Competition], SAIC Order No. 74, April 7, 2015Google Scholar

国家标准涉及专利的管理规定 (暂行) (征求意见稿) [Regulation on the Administration of National Standards Involving Patents (Interim) (Draft for Public Comments)] (December 19, 2012).Google Scholar

国家标准涉及专利的管理规定 (暂行) [Regulation on the Administration of National Standards Involving Patents (Interim) (Draft for Public Comments)] (December 19, 2012).Google Scholar

国家标准涉及专利的规定 (暂行) (征求意见稿) [Regulation on Issues Related to Patents in National Standards (Interim) (Draft for Public Comments, March 19, 2004)].Google Scholar

涉及专利的国家标准制修订管理规定 (暂行) (征求意见稿) [Regulation on the Administration of Formulating and Revising National Standards Involving Patents (Interim) (Draft for Public Comments)] (November 2, 2009).Google Scholar

Council Regulation 1215/2012, on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Recast 2002) O.J. (L 12) (EC), art. 1(2)(d).Google Scholar

Council Regulation 1215/2012, on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Recast 2002) O.J. (L 12) (EC), art. 27.Google Scholar

Court of Justice European Union. 2012. Recommendation to national courts and tribunals in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings, (2012/C 338/01).Google Scholar

Directive 2004/48 of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights [2004] OJ L 157/45, as corrected at [2004] OJ L 195/16.Google Scholar

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 47 – Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial.Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 1987. Green Paper on the Development of the Common Market for Telecommunications Services and Equipment. COM (87) 290 final.Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 1992. COM (92) 445 final, Communication on Intellectual Property Rights and Standardization.Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2000. Guide to the implementation of directives based on the new approach and the global approach.Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2003. COM(2003)46, Commission proposal which led to Directive 2004/48 (January 30, 2003).Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2007a. Press Release – Commission confirms sending a Statement of Objections to Rambus, MEMO/07/330, August 23, 2007.Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2007b. Press Release – Commission initiates formal proceedings against Qualcomm, MEMO/07/389, October 1, 2007.Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2009 Commission closes formal proceedings against Qualcomm, MEMO/09/516, November 24, 2009.Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2009a. Commission welcomes IPCom’s public FRAND declaration, December 12, 2009; MEMO/09/549.Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2009b. Press Release – Commission accepts commitments from Rambus lowering memory chip royalty rates, IP/09/1897, December 9, 2009.Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2011. OJ C 11, Guidelines on the applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to horizontal co-operation agreements.Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2011. Proposal for a Regulation Of The European Parliament And Of The Council On Entrusting The Office For Harmonisation In The Internal Market (Trade Marks And Designs) With Certain Tasks Related To The Protection Of Intellectual Property Rights, Including The Assembling Of Public And Private Sector Representatives As A European Observatory On Counterfeiting And Piracy. COM(2011) 288 final.Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2012a. Press Release – European Comm’n, Samsung – Enforcement of ETSI Standards Essential Patents (SEPs) (December 21, 2012).Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2012b Press Release –Commission opens proceedings against Samsung, IP/12/89, January 31, 2012.Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2014–Motorola. Press Release –Commission Finds That Motorola Mobility Infringed EU Competition Rules by Misusing Standard Essential Patents (April 29, 2014),Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2014–Samsung. Press Release–Commission Accepts Legally Binding Commitments by Samsung Electronics on Standard Essential Patent Injunctions (April 29, 2014).Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2014. Guidelines on the application of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to technology transfer agreements, OJ C89, March 28, 2014.Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2016. COM(2016) 176 final, ICT Standardisation Priorities for the Digital Single Market (April 19, 2016).Google Scholar

Treaty of Rome (1957).Google Scholar

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (Consolidated version 2016) – OJ C 202, 2016.Google Scholar

Code de la propriété intellectuelle.Google Scholar

Loi n° 2007-1544 du 29 octobre 2007 de lutte contre la contrefaçon, JORF 2007.17775.Google Scholar

Gesetz zur Verbesserung der Durchsetzung von Rechten des Geistigen Eigentums, BGBl. 2008.I.1191. Patent Act (Patentgesetz, BGBl. 1981.I.1).Google Scholar

Code of Civil Procedure, Order 39, Code Civ. Proc. (India).Google Scholar

Competition Act, 2002, No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 2003 (India).Google Scholar

Patents Act, No. 39 of 1970, India Code (1970).Google Scholar

Art. 2 (1) (xiv), Unfair Competition Prevention Act of Japan (UCPA, Act No. 47 of May 19, 1993 amended by the Act No. 12 of March 31, 2012) (Art. 2 (1) (xv), UCPA amended by the Act No 54 of July 10, 2015).Google Scholar

Japan Fair Trade Comm’n. 1982. Designation of Unfair Trade Practices (FTC Public Notice No. 15 of June 18, 1982, revised by JFTC Public Notice No. 18 of October 28, 2009) pursuant to Article 2 (9) (vi) of AMA.Google Scholar

Japan Fair Trade Comm’n. 2005. Antimonopoly Act Guidelines on Standardization and Patent Pool Arrangements.Google Scholar

Japan Fair Trade Comm’n. 2007. Antimonopoly Act Guidelines on Standardization and Patent Pool Arrangements (Amended)Google Scholar

Japan Fair Trade Comm’n. 2015. Request for Public Comments on Partial Amendment of “Guidelines for the Use of Intellectual Property under the Antimonopoly Act” (Draft). (FRAND Guidelines).Google Scholar

Japan Fair Trade Comm’n. 2016a. Note 1 of Declaration Paper of Licensing Industrial Property Rights attached to the Operation Rules of Handling the Industrial Property Rights.Google Scholar

Japan Fair Trade Comm’n. 2016b. Summary of Opinions and Official Comments Thereto on the Draft Partial Amendment to “Guidelines for the Use of Intellectual Property under the Antimonopoly Act.”Google Scholar

Japan Fair Trade Comm’n. 2016c. Press Release: Closing the investigation on the suspected violation by One-Blue, LLC of the Antimonopoly Act (November 18, 2016), available at www.jftc.go.jp/en/pressreleases/yearly-2016/November/161118.html.Google Scholar

Korea Fair Trade Comm’n. 2009. Press Release–Qualcomm’s Abuse of Market Dominance (July 23, 2009).Google Scholar

Korea Fair Trade Comm’n. 2014. Press Release–Determination That Samsung Does Not Violate the Monopoly Regulation & Fair Trade Act by Seeking Injunctive Relief Against Apple for SEP Infringement in Korea (February 25, 2014).Google Scholar

Korea Fair Trade Comm’n. 2014. Review Guidelines on Unfair Exercise of Intellectual Property Rights (December 2014).Google Scholar

Korea Fair Trade Comm’n. 2016. Press Release–KFTC Imposes Sanctions Against Qualcomm’s Abuse of SEPs of Mobile Communications – Imposes 1.03 Trillion Won, the Highest Penalty Surcharge Ever Handed to an Individual Company by the KFTC and Remedies on Unfair Business Models (December 28, 2016).Google Scholar

Korea Fair Trade Comm’n. 2016. Review Guidelines on Unfair Exercise of Intellectual Property Rights (March 2016).Google Scholar

Agreement on co-operation in the field of digital cellular radiocommunications, signed in Nice, France, June 20, 1985, extended to the UK on July 2, 1986.Google Scholar

Patents Act 1977, c. 37, s. 61 (1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Section 37(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (UK).Google Scholar

The Intellectual Property (Enforcement, etc.) Regulations 2006 of 29 April 2006, Statutory Instrument 2006 No.1028.Google Scholar

U.N. Comm. on Intl. Trade Law. 1958. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958). available at www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention.html (ratified by 149 countries as of 2013).Google Scholar

19 C.F.R. § 210.10(2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 C.F.R. § 210.8 (2013).Google Scholar

28 C.F.R. § 50.6(8) (2014).Google Scholar

118 Stat. 661, 108th Cong., H.R. 1086, 2004.Google Scholar

9 U.S.C. §§ 1–14 (2006).Google Scholar

11 U.S.C. § 363 (2006).Google Scholar

11 U.S.C. § 365 (2006).Google Scholar

15 U.S.C. § 1 (2012).Google Scholar

15 U.S.C. § 13 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 U.S.C. § 2 (2012).Google Scholar

15 U.S.C. § 29 (2012).Google Scholar

15 U.S.C. § 4301 (2014).Google Scholar

15 U.S.C. § 4302 (2014).Google Scholar

15 U.S.C. § 4303 (2014).Google Scholar

15 U.S.C. § 4304 (2014).Google Scholar

15 U.S.C. § 4305 (2014).Google Scholar

15 U.S.C. § 45 (2006).Google Scholar

19 U.S.C. § 1337 (2012).Google Scholar

35 U.S.C. § 121 (2006).Google Scholar

35 U.S.C. § 154 (2016).Google Scholar

35 U.S.C. § 261 (2012).Google Scholar

35 U.S.C. § 271 (2012)Google Scholar

35 U.S.C. § 283 (2012).Google Scholar

35 U.S.C. § 284 (2012).Google Scholar

35 U.S.C. § 294 (2012).Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice (DOJ). 1997–MPEG-2 Letter. Letter from Joel I. Klein, Acting Assistant Att’y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Garrard R. Beeney, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (June 26, 1997).Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice (DOJ). 1998–DVD3C Letter. Letter from Joel I. Klein, Assistant Att’y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Garrard R. Beeney, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (December 16, 1998) www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/busreview/2121.pdf.Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice (DOJ). 1999–DVD6C Letter. Letter from Joel I. Klein, Assistant Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Carey R. Ramos, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (June 10, 1999).Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice (DOJ). 2002–3GPP Letter. Letter from Charles A. James, Assistant Att’y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Ky P. Ewing, Vinson & Elkins LLP (November 12, 2002).Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice (DOJ). 2006–VITA Letter. Letter from Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Robert A. Skitol, Esq., Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP (October 30, 2006).Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice (DOJ). 2007a –IEEE-SA Letter. Letter from Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Michael A. Lindsay, Esq., Dorsey & Whitney LLP (April 30, 2007).Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice (DOJ). 2007b. Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Competition.Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice (DOJ). 2008–RFID Letter. Letter from Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Att’y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to William F. Dolan & Geoffrey Oliver, Jones Day (October 21, 2008).Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice (DOJ). 2011a. CPTN Holdings LLC and Novell Inc. Change Deal in Order to Address Department of Justice’s Open Source Concerns (April 20, 2011).Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice (DOJ). 2011b. Introduction to Antitrust Division Business Reviews.Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice (DOJ). 2012. Statement of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division on Its Decision to Close Its Investigations of Google Inc.’s Acquisition of Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. and the Acquisitions of Certain Patents by Apple Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Research in Motion Ltd., (February 13, 2012).Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice (DOJ). 2013–IPXI Letter. Letter from William J. Baer, Assistant Att’y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Garrard R. Beeney, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (March 26, 2013).Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice (DOJ). 2014. Statement of the Department of Justice Antitrust Division on Its Decision to Close Its Investigation of Samsung’s Use of Its Standards-Essential Patents (February 7, 2014).Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice (DOJ). 2015–IEEE-SA Letter. Letter from Renata B. Hesse, Acting Assistant Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Michael A. Lindsay, Esq., Dorsey & Whitney LLP (February 2, 2015).Google Scholar

U.S. Dep’t of Justice and Patent & Trademark Office (DOJ-PTO). 2013. Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments. www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/290994.pdf.Google Scholar

Dep’t of Justice & Fed. Trade Comm’n (DOJ-FTC). 1995. Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property.Google Scholar

Dep’t of Justice & Fed. Trade Comm’n (DOJ-FTC). 2007. Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Competition.Google Scholar

Dep’t of Justice & Fed. Trade Comm’n (DOJ-FTC). 2010. Horizontal Merger Guidelines.Google Scholar

Fed. Reg. 39,121 (July 5, 2011).70 Fed. Reg. 43, 251 (July 21, 2005).Google Scholar

Fed. Reg. 4299–4300 (January 26, 2016).Google Scholar

U.S. Federal Trade Comm’n & Dep’t of Justice (FTC-DOJ). 2000. Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors.Google Scholar

U.S. Federal Trade Comm’n (FTC). 1983. Policy Statement on Deception,Google Scholar

U.S. Federal Trade Comm’n (FTC). 2003. To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy.Google Scholar

U.S. Federal Trade Comm’n (FTC). 2011. FTC Patent Standards Workshop.Google Scholar

U.S. Federal Trade Comm’n (FTC). 2012. Third Party U.S. Fed. Trade Comm’n’s Statement on the Public Interest, Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music And Data Processing Devices, Computers and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-745 (I.T.C. June 6, 2012),Google Scholar

U.S. Federal Trade Comm’n (FTC). 2015. Statement of Enforcement Principles Regarding “Unfair Methods of Competition” Under Section 5 of the FTC Act.Google Scholar

U.S. Federal Trade Comm’n (FTC). 2016. Report: Patent Assertion Entity Activity.Google Scholar

U.S. Federal Trade Comm’n (FTC). 2017. The Antitrust Laws.Google Scholar

Int’l Trade Comm’n (ITC) 2017. Mission Statement.Google Scholar

Rules of Adjudication and Enforcement, 76 Fed. Reg. 64,803 (Nov. 18, 2011).Google Scholar

Sen. Doc. No. 173, 75th Cong., 3d Sess. (1938); 83 Cong. Rec. 5992, 5995 (1938).Google Scholar

Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2–305(1) (2008).Google Scholar

U.S. Trade Rep. 2013. Letter from Michael B. G. Froman, United States Trade Rep., to Irving A. Williamson, Chairman, USITC (August 3, 2013).Google Scholar

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). 2017a. USPTO Disclosures made under §294 after 2008 can be accessed through the USPTO’s online FOIA Reading Room under “Notices of Suit Filed with U.S. District Courts.”Google Scholar

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). 2017b. USPTO Earlier disclosures are available in individual patent file histories stored at the USPTO and available online through the USPTO’s Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) website. http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair.Google Scholar

Ministry of Commerce People’s Republic of China. 2012. Public Announcement No. 25 Concerning Anti-Monopoly Review Decisions on Conditional Approval of Google’s Acquisition of Motorola Mobility.Google Scholar

Standardization Law (promulgated by the Standing Comm. Nat’l People’s Cong., December 29, 1988, effective Apr. 1, 1989) P.R.C. Laws.Google Scholar

中华人民共和国反垄断法 [The Antimonopoly Law of the People’s Republic of China] (promulgated by the Standing Comm. Nat’l People’s Cong., August 30, 2007, effective August 1, 2008), 2007 Standing Comm. Nat’l People’s Cong. Gaz. 517 (China).Google Scholar

中华人民共和国国家发展和改革委员会行政处罚决定书 [Administrative Decision of National Development and Reform Commission], February 9, 2015.Google Scholar

中华人民共和国标准化法 [The Standardization Law of the People’s Republic of China] (promulgated by the Standing Comm. Nat’l People’s Cong., December 29, 1988, effective April 1, 2009).Google Scholar

关于滥用知识产权的反垄断执法指南 (国家工商总局第七稿) [Antimonopoly Enforcement Guidelines on Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights (SAIC Seventh Draft)], February 4, 2016.Google Scholar

关于滥用知识产权的反垄断指南》 (征求意见稿) [Guidelines on Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights under the AML (Draft for Comments)], NDRC, December 31, 2015.Google Scholar

国家工商行政管理总局关于禁止滥用知识产权排除、限制竞争行为的规定 [SAIC Rules on the Prohibition of Abuses of Intellectual Property Rights for Purposes of Eliminating or Restricting Competition], SAIC Order No. 74, April 7, 2015Google Scholar

国家标准涉及专利的管理规定 (暂行) (征求意见稿) [Regulation on the Administration of National Standards Involving Patents (Interim) (Draft for Public Comments)] (December 19, 2012).Google Scholar

国家标准涉及专利的管理规定 (暂行) [Regulation on the Administration of National Standards Involving Patents (Interim) (Draft for Public Comments)] (December 19, 2012).Google Scholar

国家标准涉及专利的规定 (暂行) (征求意见稿) [Regulation on Issues Related to Patents in National Standards (Interim) (Draft for Public Comments, March 19, 2004)].Google Scholar

涉及专利的国家标准制修订管理规定 (暂行) (征求意见稿) [Regulation on the Administration of Formulating and Revising National Standards Involving Patents (Interim) (Draft for Public Comments)] (November 2, 2009).Google Scholar

Council Regulation 1215/2012, on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Recast 2002) O.J. (L 12) (EC), art. 1(2)(d).Google Scholar

Council Regulation 1215/2012, on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Recast 2002) O.J. (L 12) (EC), art. 27.Google Scholar

Court of Justice European Union. 2012. Recommendation to national courts and tribunals in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings, (2012/C 338/01).Google Scholar

Directive 2004/48 of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights [2004] OJ L 157/45, as corrected at [2004] OJ L 195/16.Google Scholar

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 47 – Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial.Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 1987. Green Paper on the Development of the Common Market for Telecommunications Services and Equipment. COM (87) 290 final.Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 1992. COM (92) 445 final, Communication on Intellectual Property Rights and Standardization.Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2000. Guide to the implementation of directives based on the new approach and the global approach.Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2003. COM(2003)46, Commission proposal which led to Directive 2004/48 (January 30, 2003).Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2007a. Press Release – Commission confirms sending a Statement of Objections to Rambus, MEMO/07/330, August 23, 2007.Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2007b. Press Release – Commission initiates formal proceedings against Qualcomm, MEMO/07/389, October 1, 2007.Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2009 Commission closes formal proceedings against Qualcomm, MEMO/09/516, November 24, 2009.Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2009a. Commission welcomes IPCom’s public FRAND declaration, December 12, 2009; MEMO/09/549.Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2009b. Press Release – Commission accepts commitments from Rambus lowering memory chip royalty rates, IP/09/1897, December 9, 2009.Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2011. OJ C 11, Guidelines on the applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to horizontal co-operation agreements.Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2011. Proposal for a Regulation Of The European Parliament And Of The Council On Entrusting The Office For Harmonisation In The Internal Market (Trade Marks And Designs) With Certain Tasks Related To The Protection Of Intellectual Property Rights, Including The Assembling Of Public And Private Sector Representatives As A European Observatory On Counterfeiting And Piracy. COM(2011) 288 final.Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2012a. Press Release – European Comm’n, Samsung – Enforcement of ETSI Standards Essential Patents (SEPs) (December 21, 2012).Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2012b Press Release –Commission opens proceedings against Samsung, IP/12/89, January 31, 2012.Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2014–Motorola. Press Release –Commission Finds That Motorola Mobility Infringed EU Competition Rules by Misusing Standard Essential Patents (April 29, 2014),Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2014–Samsung. Press Release–Commission Accepts Legally Binding Commitments by Samsung Electronics on Standard Essential Patent Injunctions (April 29, 2014).Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2014. Guidelines on the application of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to technology transfer agreements, OJ C89, March 28, 2014.Google Scholar

European Comm’n. 2016. COM(2016) 176 final, ICT Standardisation Priorities for the Digital Single Market (April 19, 2016).Google Scholar

Treaty of Rome (1957).Google Scholar

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (Consolidated version 2016) – OJ C 202, 2016.Google Scholar

Code de la propriété intellectuelle.Google Scholar

Loi n° 2007-1544 du 29 octobre 2007 de lutte contre la contrefaçon, JORF 2007.17775.Google Scholar

Gesetz zur Verbesserung der Durchsetzung von Rechten des Geistigen Eigentums, BGBl. 2008.I.1191. Patent Act (Patentgesetz, BGBl. 1981.I.1).Google Scholar

Code of Civil Procedure, Order 39, Code Civ. Proc. (India).Google Scholar

Competition Act, 2002, No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 2003 (India).Google Scholar

Patents Act, No. 39 of 1970, India Code (1970).Google Scholar

Art. 2 (1) (xiv), Unfair Competition Prevention Act of Japan (UCPA, Act No. 47 of May 19, 1993 amended by the Act No. 12 of March 31, 2012) (Art. 2 (1) (xv), UCPA amended by the Act No 54 of July 10, 2015).Google Scholar

Japan Fair Trade Comm’n. 1982. Designation of Unfair Trade Practices (FTC Public Notice No. 15 of June 18, 1982, revised by JFTC Public Notice No. 18 of October 28, 2009) pursuant to Article 2 (9) (vi) of AMA.Google Scholar

Japan Fair Trade Comm’n. 2005. Antimonopoly Act Guidelines on Standardization and Patent Pool Arrangements.Google Scholar

Japan Fair Trade Comm’n. 2007. Antimonopoly Act Guidelines on Standardization and Patent Pool Arrangements (Amended)Google Scholar

Japan Fair Trade Comm’n. 2015. Request for Public Comments on Partial Amendment of “Guidelines for the Use of Intellectual Property under the Antimonopoly Act” (Draft). (FRAND Guidelines).Google Scholar

Japan Fair Trade Comm’n. 2016a. Note 1 of Declaration Paper of Licensing Industrial Property Rights attached to the Operation Rules of Handling the Industrial Property Rights.Google Scholar

Japan Fair Trade Comm’n. 2016b. Summary of Opinions and Official Comments Thereto on the Draft Partial Amendment to “Guidelines for the Use of Intellectual Property under the Antimonopoly Act.”Google Scholar

Japan Fair Trade Comm’n. 2016c. Press Release: Closing the investigation on the suspected violation by One-Blue, LLC of the Antimonopoly Act (November 18, 2016), available at www.jftc.go.jp/en/pressreleases/yearly-2016/November/161118.html.Google Scholar

Korea Fair Trade Comm’n. 2009. Press Release–Qualcomm’s Abuse of Market Dominance (July 23, 2009).Google Scholar

Korea Fair Trade Comm’n. 2014. Press Release–Determination That Samsung Does Not Violate the Monopoly Regulation & Fair Trade Act by Seeking Injunctive Relief Against Apple for SEP Infringement in Korea (February 25, 2014).Google Scholar

Korea Fair Trade Comm’n. 2014. Review Guidelines on Unfair Exercise of Intellectual Property Rights (December 2014).Google Scholar

Korea Fair Trade Comm’n. 2016. Press Release–KFTC Imposes Sanctions Against Qualcomm’s Abuse of SEPs of Mobile Communications – Imposes 1.03 Trillion Won, the Highest Penalty Surcharge Ever Handed to an Individual Company by the KFTC and Remedies on Unfair Business Models (December 28, 2016).Google Scholar

Korea Fair Trade Comm’n. 2016. Review Guidelines on Unfair Exercise of Intellectual Property Rights (March 2016).Google Scholar

Agreement on co-operation in the field of digital cellular radiocommunications, signed in Nice, France, June 20, 1985, extended to the UK on July 2, 1986.Google Scholar

Patents Act 1977, c. 37, s. 61 (1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Section 37(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (UK).Google Scholar

The Intellectual Property (Enforcement, etc.) Regulations 2006 of 29 April 2006, Statutory Instrument 2006 No.1028.Google Scholar

U.N. Comm. on Intl. Trade Law. 1958. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958). available at www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention.html (ratified by 149 countries as of 2013).Google Scholar

3GPP Partnership Project (3GPP). 2012. Working Procedures.Google Scholar

3GPP Partnership Project (3GPP). 2016. 3GPP working procedures.Google Scholar

3GPP Partnership Project (3GPP). 2016. Specifications.Google Scholar

Accellera. 2017. Accellera Policy and Q’s and A’s. www.accellera.org/about/policies/Accellera_Patent_Policy_QA.pdf.Google Scholar

AFNOR. 2009. The Economic Impact of Standardization – technological change, standards growth in France. AFNOR Group.Google Scholar

AFNOR. 2016. ÉTUDE DE L’IMPACT ÉCONOMIQUE DE LA NORMALISATION. AFNOR Group.Google Scholar

Am. Standards Ass’n. (ASA). 1932. Minutes of Meeting of Standards Council (November 30, 1932).Google Scholar

Am. Standards Ass’n. (ASA). 1956. ASA Policies on Standardization – Draft for Consideration by Board of Directors (March 26, 1956).Google Scholar

Am. Standards Ass’n. (ASA). 1959. Procedures of American Standards Association (1959).Google Scholar

American Nat’l Standards Inst. (ANSI). 2009. ANSI - A Historical Overview.Google Scholar

American Nat’l Standards Inst. (ANSI). 2012. Guidelines for Implementation of the ANSI Patent Policy.Google Scholar

American Nat’l Standards Inst. (ANSI). 2015. Guidelines for Implementation of the ANSI Patent Policy.Google Scholar

American Nat’l Standards Inst. (ANSI). 2016. ANSI Essential Requirements: Due Process Requirements for American National Standards.Google Scholar

ASCAP. 2016. Revenue Tops $1 Billion for Second Year in a Row. www.ascap.com/press/2016/0427-ascap-revenue-tops-one-billion-for-second-year.aspx.Google Scholar

ASCAP. 2017. About Us. www.ascap.com/about.Google Scholar

Audio Visual Coding Standard Group of China (AVS). 2008. IPR Policy (March 29, 2008). www.avs.org.cn/en/.Google Scholar

Blu-Ray Disc Association. 2010. Amended & Restated Bylaws of Blu-Ray Disc Association.Google Scholar

Blu-Ray Disc Association. 2016. History and Association.Google Scholar

CEN-CENELEC 2016. Standard Essential Patents and Fair, Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory (FRAND) Commitments (September 2016).Google Scholar

DCR Agreement. 1985. Agreement on co-operation in the field of digital cellular radiocommunications, signed in Nice, France, June 20, 1985, extended on July 2, 1986.Google Scholar

DVB Project. 2003. Rules and Procedures of the DVB MHP Experts Group (MEG), in MHP Implementation Arrangements and Associated Agreements, DVB BlueBook (July 2003).Google Scholar

DVB Project. 2014, Memorandum of Understanding (January 3, 2014).Google Scholar

DVB. 2017. About DVB. www.dvb.org/about.Google Scholar

DVD6C. 2016. Licensors. www.dvd6cla.com/licensors.html.Google Scholar

European Telecom. Stds. Inst. (ETSI). 1993. Intellectual Property Rights Policy and Undertaking, ETSI/GA15 (93)TD 25 (January 5, 1993).Google Scholar

European Telecom. Stds. Inst. (ETSI). 1994. Interim Intellectual Property Rights Policy (November 23, 1994).Google Scholar

European Telecom. Stds. Inst. (ETSI). 2011. Intellectual Property Rights Policy (November 2011).Google Scholar

European Telecom. Stds. Inst. (ETSI). 2013. ETSI Guide on Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) (September 19, 2013).Google Scholar

European Telecom. Stds. Inst. (ETSI). 2015. Interim Intellectual Property Rights Policy (November 18, 2015).Google Scholar

European Telecom. Stds. Inst. (ETSI). 2016. ETSI Directives.Google Scholar

European Telecom. Stds. Inst. (ETSI). 2016. Intellectual Property Rights Policy.Google Scholar

GSM MOU. 1987. Memorandum of Understanding on the Implementation of a Pan European 900 MHz Digital Cellular Mobile Telecommunications Service in 1991 with Full International Roaming (September 7, 1987).Google Scholar

Inst. Electrical & Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) 1992. IEEE Standards Board Operations Manual (1992).Google Scholar

Inst. Electrical & Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) 1994. IEEE Standards Board Operations Manual (1994).Google Scholar

Inst. Electrical & Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) 1995. IEEE Standards Board Bylaws (1995).Google Scholar

Inst. Electrical & Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) 2005. IEEE Standards Board Operations Manual (2005).Google Scholar

Inst. Electrical & Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) 2006. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws.Google Scholar

Inst. Electrical & Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) 2015a. IEEE Standards Board Bylaws (December 2016)Google Scholar

Inst. Electrical & Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) 2015b. IEEE-SA Letter of Assurance Form.Google Scholar

Inst. Electrical & Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) 2016. IEEE-SA, Understanding Patent Issues During IEEE-SA Standards Development (September 7, 2016).Google Scholar

Int’l Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2017. Directives and Policies.Google Scholar

Int’l Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2014. Economic Benefits of Standards.Google Scholar

Int’l Telecommunication Union (ITU). 2015. Guidelines for Implementation of the Common Patent Policy for ITU-T/ITU-R/ISO/IEC.Google Scholar

Int’l Telecommunication Union (ITU). 2016. Patent Statement and Licensing Declaration Form (June 26, 2015).Google Scholar

Int’l Telecommunication Union (ITU). 2017. Common Patent Policy for ITU-T/ITU-R/ISO/IEC.Google Scholar

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). 2005. RFC 3979: Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology.Google Scholar

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). 2008. IPR Details. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/941/.Google Scholar

Joint Electron Device Engineering Council (JEDEC). 2017. About JEDEC. www.jedec.org/about-jedec.Google Scholar

MPEGLA. 2017. Revolutionizing Intellectual property Rights Management. www.mpegla.com.Google Scholar

Multimedia over Coax Alliance. 2011. Multimedia over Coax Alliance Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy.Google Scholar

National Electrical Medical Assn (NEMA). 2017. Patent Disclosure Policy: Intellectual Property and Standards.Google Scholar

National Inst. of Standards and Technology (NIST). 2014. NIST Launches a New U.S. Time Standard: NIST-F2 Atomic Clock.Google Scholar

OpenStand. 2012. Principles. https://open-stand.org/about-us/principles/.Google Scholar

SISVEL. 2017. History. www.sisvel.com/about-us/history.Google Scholar

Telecommunications Industry Ass’n. (TIA). 2005. Guidelines to the Intellectual Property Rights Policy of the Telecommunications Industry Association (March 2005).Google Scholar

United States of America Standards Institute (USASI). 1970. Operating Procedures.Google Scholar

United States of America Standards Institute (USASI). 1969. Operating Procedures.Google Scholar

VIA Corp. 2016. www.via-corp.com/licensing/lte/licensors.html.Google Scholar

VIA Corp. 2017. About. www.via-corp.com/us/en/about.html.Google Scholar

VMEbus International Trade Association (VITA). 2006. VITA Patent Policy (December 2006).Google Scholar

VMEbus International Trade Association (VITA). 2008. Press Release. January 22, 2008. “ANSI Decision in Motorola vs. VITA.”Google Scholar

VMEbus International Trade Association (VITA). 2009. VSO Policies and Procedures, Rev. 2.6, § 10.5 (November 30, 2009).Google Scholar

VMEbus International Trade Association (VITA). 2015. VSO Policies and Procedures (September 1, 2015).Google Scholar

Wi-Fi Alliance Intellectual Property Rights Policy. 2016. Wi-Fi Alliance.Google Scholar

Wireless Innovation Forum. 2012. Intellectual Property Policy.Google Scholar

Worldwide Web Consortium. 2004. W3C Patent Policy (February 5, 2004).Google Scholar

Agénor, Pierre-Richard and Canuto, Otaviano. “2012. Middle-Income Growth Traps” (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 6210, 2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ali, Arif, Nesbitt, Katherine and Wessel, Jane. 2008. “Anti Suit Injunctions in Support of International Arbitration in the United States and the United Kingdom,” International Arbitration Law Review 12.Google Scholar

Allen, D. W. 2011. The Institutional Revolution: Measurement and the Economic Emergence of the Modern World.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Am. Arbitration Assn. 2006. Resolution of Patent Disputes Supplementary Rules.Google Scholar

Am. Arbitration Assn. 2013a. Commercial Arbitration Rules & Mediation Procedures.Google Scholar

Am. Arbitration Assn. 2013b. Drafting Dispute Resolution Clauses. Am. Jur. 2d Proof of Facts 1978.Google Scholar

American Bar Association (ABA). 2007. Committee on Technical Standardization, Section of Science & Technology Law. 2007. Standards Development Patent Policy Manual (Contreras, Jorge L., ed., ABA Publishing).Google Scholar

American Bar Association (ABA). 2011. Handbook on Antitrust Aspects of Standard Setting (2nd ed., ABA Publishing).Google Scholar

Andewelt, Roger B. 1985. “Analysis of Patent Pools under the Antitrust Laws,” 53 Antitrust Law Journal 611.Google Scholar

Andreessen, Marc. 2011. “Why Software Is Eating the World,” Wall Street Journal, August 20, 2011.Google Scholar

Aoki, Reiko and Nagaoka, Sadao. 2005. “Coalition Formation for a Consortium Standard through a Standard Body and a Patent Pool: Theory and Evidence from MPEG2, DVD and 3G” (Inst. of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi Univ., Working Paper, No 05-01, IIR, 2005).Google Scholar

Aoki, Reiko and Schiff, Aaron. 2008. “Promoting Access to Intellectual Property: Patent Pools, Copyright Collectives and Clearinghouses,” 38 R&D Management 189.Google Scholar

Aranoff, Shara. 2015. “Lessons From 5 Years of Public Interest Delegation at the ITC,” Law 360.Google Scholar

Areeda, Phillip E. and Hovenkamp, Herbert. 2014. Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application (4th ed. 2014).Google Scholar

Armstrong, Ann K., Mueller, Joseph J. and Syrett, Tim. 2014. “The Smartphone Royalty Stack: Surveying Royalty Demands for the Components Within Modern Smartphones,” http://ssrn.com/abstract=2443848 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2443848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Axelrod, Robert. 1981. “The Emergence of Cooperation among Egoists.” 75 The American Political Science Review 306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baer, William. 2015. Remarks at the 19th Annual International Bar Association Competition Conference: Reflections on the Role of Competition Agencies When Patents Become Essential.Google Scholar

Baldwin, Carliss Y. and Clark, Kim B.. 2000. Design Rules: The Power of Modularity. Massachusetts: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Balto, David A. and Prywes, Daniel I.. 2002. “Standard-Setting Disputes: The Need for FTC Guidelines,” FTC Watch, July 1, 2002.Google Scholar

Banasevic, Nicholas. 2015. “The Implications of the Court of Justice’s Huawei/ZTE Judgment.” 6 Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barceló, John J. 2007. “Anti-Foreign-Suit Injunctions to Enforce Arbitration Agreements,” Cornell Law Sch. Legal Stud. Res. Paper Series, October 17, 2007.Google Scholar

Baron, Justus and Gupta, Kirti. 2015. “Unpacking 3GPP Standards,” working paper. www.law.northwestern.edu/research-faculty/searlecenter/innovationeconomics/documents/Baron_Gupta_Unpacking_3gpp_Standards.pdf.Google Scholar

Baron, Justus, Pentheroudakis, Chryssoula and Thumm, Nikolaus. 2016 “FRAND Licensing in Theory and in Practice: Proposal for a Common Framework,” Competition Policy International Sept. 2016. www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/CPI-Chronicle-Baron-Pentheroudakis-Thumm-final.pdf.Google Scholar

Baron, Justus and Pohlmann, Tim. 2015. “The Effect of Patent Pools on Patenting and Innovation – Evidence from Contemporary Technology Standards,” Northwestern Univ. Searle Center, Working Paper 2015–049, February 2, 2015.Google Scholar

Baron, Justus, Pohlmann, Tim and Blind, Knut. 2016. “Essential patents and standard dynamics,” 45 Research Policy 1762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baron, Justus A. and Pentheroudakis, Chryssoula. 2017. JRC Science for Policy Report: Licensing Terms of Standard Essential Patents: A Comprehensive Analysis of Cases, Nikolaus Thumm ed. Seville, Spain: European Commission, Joint Research Center. http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC104068/jrc104068%20online.pdf.Google Scholar

Baron, Justus and Spulber, Daniel F.. 2015. “The Searle Center Database of Technology Standards and Standard Setting Organizations” (working paper).Google Scholar

Bartlett, Jason R. and Contreras, Jorge L.. 2017. “Rationalizing FRAND Royalties: Can Interpleader Save the Internet of Things?” 36 The Review of Litigation 285.Google Scholar

Bekkers, Rudi. 2015. “Concerns and Evidence for ex-post hold-up with essential patents,” SSRN Working Paper. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2663939.Google Scholar

Bekkers, Rudi, Bongard, Rene and Nuvolari, Alessandro. 2011. “An empirical study on the determinants of essential patent claims in compatibility standards,” 40 Research Policy 1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bekkers, Rudi, Duysters, Geert and Verspagen, Bart. 2002. “Intellectual Property Rights, strategic technology agreements and market structure: The case of GSM,” 31 Research Policy 1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bekkers, Rudi, Iversen, Eric and Blind, Knut. 2012. “Emerging coordination mechanisms for multi-party IPR holders: linking research with standardization,” 21 Industrial and Corporate Change 4.Google Scholar

Bekkers, Rudi and Smits, Jan. 1997. Mobile Telecommunications: Standards, Regulation, and Applications. Deventer, Netherlands: Kluwer BedrijfsInformatie (English trans. 1999, London: Artech House).Google Scholar

Bekkers, Rudi and Updegrove, Andrew. 2012. “A Study of IPR Policies and Practices of a Representative Group of Standard Setting Organizations Worldwide,” Presented at National Academies of Science Symposium on Management of IP in Standards-Setting Processes. http://sites.nationalacademies.org/xpedio/groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_072197.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bekkers, Rudi, Verspagen, Bart and Smits, Jan. 2002. “Intellectual Property Rights and Standardization: the case of GSM,” 26 Telecommunications Policy 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bekkers, Rudi and West, Joel. 2009. “The Limits to IPR Standardization Policies as Evidenced by Strategic Patenting in UMTS,” 33 Telecommunications Policy 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berger, Florian, Blind, Knut and Thumm, Nikolaus. 2012. “Filing behaviour regarding essential patents in industry standards,” 41 Research Policy 216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bermann, George A. 1990. “The Use of Anti-Suit Injunctions in International Litigation,” 28 Columbia Journal of Transactional Law 589.Google Scholar

Bernstein, Lisa. 1992. “Opting out of the legal system: Extralegal contractual relations in the diamond industry,” 21 The Journal of Legal Studies 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bernstein, Lisa. 2001. “Private commercial law in the cotton industry: Creating cooperation through rules, norms, and institutions,” 99 Michigan Law Review 1724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Besen, Stanley M. 1990. “The European Telecommunications Standards Institute: A preliminary analysis,” 14 Telecommunications Policy 521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Besen, Stanley M. and Farrell, Joseph. 1994. “Choosing How to Compete: Strategies and Tactics in Standardization,” 8 Journal of Economic Perspectives 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Besen, Stanley M. and Levinson, Robert J.. 2009. “Standards, Intellectual Property Disclosure, and Patent Royalties After Rambus,” 10 North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology 233.Google Scholar

Besen, Stanley M. and Levinson, Robert J.. 2011. “Economic Remedies for Anticompetitive Hold-up: The Rambus Cases,” 56 Antitrust Bulletin 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bessen, James and Meurer, Michael. 2008. Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Biddle, Brad. 2015. “Five Reasons Why Patent Disclosure in Standards-Setting Organizations Doesn’t Work (and What to Do Instead),” SSRN. ssrn.com/abstract=2669893 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2669893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biddle, Brad, et al. 2012. “The Expanding Role and Importance of Standards in the Information and Communications Technology Industry,” 52 Jurimetrics Journal 177.Google Scholar

Biddle, Brad, White, Andrew and Woods, Sean. 2010. “How Many Standards in a Laptop? (And Other Empirical Questions),” 2010 Int’l Telecomm. Union, Proceedings Of The 2010 ITU-T Kaleidoscope Academic Conference: Beyond The Internet? www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/opb/proc/t-proc-kalei-2010-pdf-e.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blair, Roger D. and Cotter, Thomas F.. 2005. Intellectual Property: Economic and Legal Dimensions of Rights and Remedies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blind, Knut. 2004. The Economics of Standards: Theory, Evidence, Policy. London: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blind, Knut. 2011. “An Economic Analysis of Standards Competition: The Example of the ISO ODF and OOXML Standards,” 35 Telecommunications Policy 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blind, Knut. 2016. “The impact of standardisation and standards on innovation,” in Edler, Jakob, Cunningham, Paul, Gök, Abdullah and Shapira, Philip, eds., Handbook of Innovation Policy Impact. Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar

Blind, Knut, et al. 2011. Study on the Interplay between Standards and Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs). Luxembourg: European Commission.Google Scholar

Blind, Knut, Gauch, Stephan and Hawkins, Richard. 2010. “How stakeholders assess the impacts of ICT standards,” 34 Telecommunications Policy 162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blind, Knut and Jungmittag, Andre. 2008. “The Impact of Standards and Patents on Macroeconomic Growth: A Panel Approach Covering Four Countries and Twelve Sectors,” Journal of Productivity Analysis 1(51).Google Scholar

Blind, Knut, Jungmittag, Andre and Mangelsdorf, Axel. 2011. “The Economic Benefits of Standardization: An update of the study carried out by DIN in 2000,” DIN German Institute for Standardization, Berlin.Google Scholar

Blind, Knut and Mangelsdorf, Axel. 2013. “Alliance Formation of SMEs: Empirical Evidence from Standardization Committees,” 60 IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blind, Knut and Mangelsdorf, Axel. 2016. “Motives to standardise Empirical evidence from Germany,” 48 Technovation 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blum, Brian A. 2004. Contracts: Examples and Explanations (3d ed.).Google Scholar

BMI. 2015. BMI Reports Record-Breaking Revenues of Over $1 Billion. www.bmi.com/news/entry/bmi_reports_record_breaking_revenues_of_over_1_billion.Google Scholar

BMI. 2016. About. www.bmi.com/about.Google Scholar

Bohannan, Christina and Hovenkamp, Herbert. 2010. “IP and Antitrust: Reformation and Harm,” 51 Boston College Law Review 905.Google Scholar

Boutin, Aleksandra, 2016. “Screening for Good Patent Pools through Price Caps on Individual Licenses,” 8 American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 64.Google Scholar

Brankin, Sean-Paul, de Ugarte, Salomé Cisnal and Kimmel, Lisa. 2016. “Huawei/ZTE: Towards a More Demanding Standard of Abuse in Essential Patent Cases,” 7 Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brenner, Steffen. 2009. “Optimal Formation Rules for Patent Pools,” 40 Economic Theory 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brenning, Magdalena. 2002. “Competition & Intellectual Property Policy Implications of Late or No IPR Disclosure in Collective Standard-Setting,” Brussels Speech. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/speeches/text/sp2002_037_en.pdf.Google Scholar

Bresnahan, Timothy and Trajtenberg, Manuel. 1995. “General Purpose Technologies: ‘Engines of Growth’?,” 65 Journal of Econometrics 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bresnahan, Timothy and Greenstein, Shane. 1999. “Technological Competition and the Structure of the Computer Industry,” 47 Journal of Industrial Economics 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brodie, Alexandra and Dunnill, Emma. 2015 Unwired Planet’s LTE SEP Found Valid, Infringed and Essential by U.K. High Court, World Intell. Prop. Report.Google Scholar

Brooks, Roger G. and Geradin, Damien. 2011. “Taking Contracts Seriously: The Meaning of the Voluntary Commitment to Licence Essential Patents on ‘Fair and Reasonable’ Terms,” in Anderman, Steven and Ezrachi, Ariel, eds., Intellectual Property and Competition Law: New Frontiers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Brooks, Roger G. and Geradin, Damien. 2011b. “Interpreting and Enforcing the Voluntary FRAND Commitment,” 9 International Journal of IT Standards and Standardization Research 1 (Jan.–Jun. 2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bryan, Gharad, Karlan, Dean and Nelson, Scott. 2010. “Commitment devices,” 2 Annual Review of Economics 671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burton, Bruce W., Weingust, Scott and Newman, David L.. 2012. “New ADR Process Facilitates Call by Judges Rader and Posner for Better use of Damages Experts in Patent Litigation,” 2012 Stout Risius Ross (SRR) Journal 118.Google Scholar

Bussel, Daniel J. and Rosett, Arthur I.. 2011. Contract Law and Its Application (8th ed.).Google Scholar

Büthe, Tim and Mattli, Walter. 2011. The New Global Rulers: The Privatization of Regulation in the World Economy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Cabral, Luis and Salant, David. 2014. “Evolving technologies and standards regulation,” 36 International Journal of Industrial Organization 48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Camesasca, Peter, Langus, Gregor, Neven, Damien and Treacy, Pat. 2013. “Injunctions for Standard Essential Patents: Justice is not Blind,” 9 Journal of Competition Law and Economics 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carlson, Steven C. 1999. “Patent Pools and the Antitrust Dilemma,” 16 Yale Journal on Regulation 359.Google Scholar

Carlton, Dennis and Perloff, Jeffery. 2004. Modern Industrial Organization (4th Edition). Pearson.Google Scholar

Carlton, Dennis and Shampine, Allan. 2013. “An Economic Interpretation of FRAND,” 9 Journal of Competition Law & Economics 531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carlton, Dennis and Shampine, Allan. 2014. “Identifying Benchmarks for Applying Non-Discrimination in FRAND,” Antitrust Chronicle, August 2014.Google Scholar

Carrier, Michael A. 2003. “Resolving the Patent-Antitrust Paradox Through Tripartite Innovation,” 56 Vanderbilt Law Review 1047.Google Scholar

Carrier, Michael A. 2009, Innovation for the 21st Century: Harnessing the Power of Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law. Oxford: Oxford Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cary, George S., Nelson, Mark W., Kaiser, Steven J. and Sistla, Alex R.. 2011. “The Case for Antitrust Law to Police the Patent Holdup Problem in Standard Setting,” 77 Antitrust Law Journal 913.Google Scholar

Cebr. 2015. The Economic Contribution of Standards to the UK Economy. London: BSI London.Google Scholar

Chandler, Alfred.D. 1990. Scale and Scope, The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism. Massachusetts: The Belknap Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chang, Austin, 2017. “Yes, You Can Get an Injunction in a SEP Case in China,” China Patent Blog, March 31, 2017. www.chinapatentblog.com/blog/guest-post-yes-you-can-get-an-injunction-in-a-sep-case-in-china.Google Scholar

Chappatte, Philippe. 2009. “FRAND Commitments – The Case for Antitrust Intervention,” 5 European Competition Journal 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chien, Colleen. V. 2014. “Holding Up and Holding Out,” 21 Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review 1.Google Scholar

Chien, Colleen V. and Lemley, Mark A.. 2012. “Patent Holdup, the ITC, and the Public Interest,” 98 Cornell Law Review 1.Google Scholar

Choi, Jay Pil. 2010. “Patent Pools and Cross-Licensing in the Shadow of Patent Litigation,” 51 International Economic Review 441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Choi, Jay Pil and Gerlach, Heiko. 2015. “Patent pools, litigation, and innovation,” 46 RAND Journal Economics 499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coase, Ronald. 1991. Ronald H. Coase’s speech at the Nobel Banquet (December 10, 1991).Google Scholar

Cohen, Jerome. 2016. “A Looming Crisis for China’s Legal System: Talented Judges and Lawyers are Leaving the Profession, as Ideology Continues to Trump the Rule of Law,” Foreign Policy, February 22, 2016.Google Scholar

Computer and Communications Industry Ass’n. 2010. Open Standards. www.ccianet.org/issues/intellectual-property/open-standards/.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. 2011. “Equity, Antitrust and the Reemergence of the Patent Unenforceability Remedy,” Antitrust Source, October 2011.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. 2012a. “Standards, Patents and the National Smart Grid,” 32 Pace Law Review 641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. 2012b. “Good Things Come in Threes? DOJ, FTC and EC Officials Wax Eloquent About FRAND,” Patently-O, October 29, 2012.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. 2013a. “Technical Standards and Ex Ante Disclosure: Results and Analysis of an Empirical Study,” 53 Jurimetrics 163.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. 2013b. “Fixing FRAND: A Pseudo-Pool Approach to Standards-Based Patent Licensing,” 79 Antitrust Law Journal 47.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. 2015a. “A Market Reliance Theory for FRAND Commitments and other Patent Pledges,” 2015 Utah Law Review 479.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. 2015b. “A Brief History of FRAND: Analyzing Current Debates in Standard Setting and Antitrust through a Historical Lens,” 80 Antitrust Law Journal 39.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. 2015c. “Patent Pledges,” 47 Arizona State Law Journal 543.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. 2015d. “Standards, Royalty Stacking, and Collective Action,” 3 CPI Antitrust Chronicle, March 2015.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. 2016a. “A Tale of Two Networks: Patents, Standards and the Internet,” 93 Denver Law Review 833.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. 2016b. “When a Stranger Calls: Standards Outsiders and Unencumbered Patents,” 12 Journal of Competition Law & Economics 507.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. 2016c. “FRAND Market Failure: IPXI’s Standards-Essential Patent License Exchange,” 15 Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property 419.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. 2017a. “From Private Ordering to Public Law: The Legal Framework Governing Standards-Essential Patents,” 30 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 211.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. 2017b. “Aggregated Royalties For Top-Down FRAND Determinations: Revisiting ‘Joint Negotiation’,” 62 Antitrust Bulletin (forthcoming).Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. 2017c. “Global Markets, Competition and FRAND Royalties: The Many Implications of Unwired Planet v. Huawei.” 16 Antitrust Source (August 2017).Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L., Chien, Colleen, Cotter, Thomas and Biddle, Brad. 2016. “Study Proposal – Commercial Patent Licensing Data,” SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2755706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L., Gaessler, Fabian, Helmers, Christian and Love, Brian. 2017. “Litigation of Standards-Essential Patents in Europe: A Comparative Analysis,” 32 Berkeley Technology Law Journal (forthcoming).Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. and Gilbert, Richard J.. 2015. “A Unified Framework for RAND and other Reasonable Royalties,” 30 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1447.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. and Newman, David L.. 2014. “Developing a Framework for Arbitrating Standards-Essential Patent Disputes,” 2014 Journal of Dispute Resolution 23.Google Scholar

Cook, Trevor and Garcia, Alejando. 2010. International Intellectual Property Arbitration. Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar

Cook, William. 2016. “FRAND or foe,” ManagingIP.com. June 1, 2016. www.managingip.com/Article/1254371/FRAND-or-foe.html.Google Scholar

Cooter, Robert D. (1996). “Decentralized Law for a Complex Economy: The Structural Approach to Adjudicating the New Law Merchant,” 144 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corbin, Arthur Linton. 1993. Corbin on Contracts (Perillo, Joseph M. ed., rev. ed. 1993).Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. 2009. “Patent Holdup, Patent Remedies, and Antitrust Responses,” 34 Journal of Corporate Law 1151.Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. 2011. “Four Principles for Calculating Reasonable Royalties in Patent Infringement Litigation,” 27 Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal 725.Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. 2014. “Comparative Law and Economics of Standard-Essential Patents and FRAND Royalties,” 22 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 311.Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. 2017. “Patent Damages Heuristics,” Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal (forthcoming 2017).Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F., 2017a. “Beijing IP Court Awards Injunction, RMB 9 Million for Alleged Infringement of SEP,” Comparative Patent Remedies Blog, March 22, 2017. http://comparativepatentremedies.blogspot.com/2017/03/beijing-ip-court-awards-injunction-rmb.html.Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F., 2017b. “Text of Beijing IP Court Decision (in Chinese),” Comparative Patent Remedies Blog, March 23, 2017. http://comparativepatentremedies.blogspot.com/2017/03/text-of-beijing-ip-court-decision-in.html.Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F., 2017c. “Translation of Abridged Version of IWNCOMM v. Sony Judgment,” Comparative Patent Remedies Blog, April 8, 2017. http://comparativepatentremedies.blogspot.com/2017/04/translation-of-abridged-version-of.html.Google Scholar

Cournot, Augustin. 1838. Researches into the Mathematical Principles of the Theory of Wealth (Nathaniel T. Bacon, trans., The MacMillan Co.).Google Scholar

Coury, Larry. 2003. “C’est What? Saisie! A Comparison of Patent Infringement Remedies Among the G7 Economic Nations” 13 Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal 1001.Google Scholar

Crane, Daniel A. 2008–2009. “Linkline’s Institutional Suspicions,” Cato Supreme Court Review.Google Scholar

Crane, Daniel A. 2010. “Patent Pools, RAND Commitments, and the Problematics of Price Discrimination,” in Dreyfuss, Rochelle C. et al. eds., Working Within the Boundaries of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society.Google Scholar

Cyber Creative Institute Co. Ltd. 2013. Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared to ETSI (ver. 3.0). http://cybersoken.com/research/pdf/lte03EN.pdf.Google Scholar

Dagen, Richard. 2010. “Rambus, Innovation Efficiency, and Section 5 of the FTC Act,” 90 Boston University Law Review 1479.Google Scholar

Dannelind, Tomas. 2010. “Licensing 26-26,” Presentation to Swedish Network for Innovation & Technology Transfer Support (SNITTS).Google Scholar

David, Paul A. and Greenstein, Shane. 1990. “The Economics of Compatibility Standards: An Introduction to Recent Research,” 1 Economic Innovation New Technology 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dawson, John P. et al. 2008. Contracts: Cases and Comments. Chicago: Foundation Press.Google Scholar

de Carvalho, Nuno Pires. 2015. “Technical Standards, Intellectual Property, and Competition-A Holistic View,” 47 Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 61.Google Scholar

de Coale, Margarita Trevino. 1999. “Stay, Dismiss, Enjoin, or Abstain?: A Survey of Foreign Parallel Litigation in the Federal Courts of the United States,” 17 Boston University International Law Journal 79.Google Scholar

de Coster, Charles. 2002. “Germany,” in Jolly, Adam and Philpott, James, eds. The Handbook of European Intellectual Property Management. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar

de Vries, Henk J. 2006. Standards for Business – How Companies Benefit from Participation in International Standards Setting. www.iec.ch/about/globalreach/academia/pdf/vries-1.pdf.Google Scholar

Decker, Susan, 2016. “InterDigital Says China Made Threats Over Patent Dispute,” Bloomberg, December 17, 2013.Google Scholar

Deng, Fei and Leonard, Gregory K., 2013. “The Role of China’s Unique Economic Characteristics in Antitrust Enforcement,” Emch, Adrian and Stallibrass, David eds. China’s Anti-Monopoly Law – The First Five Years. Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar

Deng, Fei and Sun, Su, 2014. “Determining the FRAND Rate: U.S. Perspectives on Huawei v. InterDigital,” Competition Policy International, February 2014. www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/file/view/7124.Google Scholar

Department of Trade and Industry. 2005. “The Empirical Economics of Standards,” DTI Economics Paper No. 12.Google Scholar

Dolmans, Maurits. 2002. “Standards for Standards,” 26 Fordham International Law Journal 163.Google Scholar

Durie, Daralyn J. and Lemley, Mark A.. 2010. “A Structured Approach to Calculating Reasonable Royalties,” 14 Lewis & Clark Law Review 627.Google Scholar

Dworkin, Ronald M. 1967. “The Model of Rules” (1967). Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 3609.Google Scholar

Dwyer, F. Robert, Schurr, Paul H, and Oh, Sejo. 1987. “Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships,” 51 The Journal of Marketing 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edlin, Aaron S. and Harris, Robert G.. 2013. “The Role of Switching Costs in Antitrust Analysis: A Comparison of Microsoft and Google,” 15 Yale Journal of Law and Technology 169.Google Scholar

Eltzroth, Carter. 2008. “IPR Policy of the DVB Project: Negative Disclosure, FRAND Arbitration Unless Pool Rules OK, Part 1,” 6 International Journal of IT Standards & Standardization Research 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Epstein, Richard A. 2008. Antitrust Consent Decrees in Theory and Practice: Why Less is More. AIE Press.Google Scholar

Ernst, Dieter. 2011. Indigenous Innovation and Globalization: The Challenge for China’s Standardization Strategy. La Jolla, CA: UC Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation; Honolulu: East-West Center.Google Scholar

Evans, Sir William. 1817. A Collection of Statutes Connected With The General Administration of Law. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar

Ewing, Tom. 2012, “Indirect Exploitation of Intellectual Property Rights by Corporations and Investors,” 4 Hastings Science and Technology Law Journal 34.Google Scholar

Fairfield Resources International. 2008. Analysis of Patents Declared as Essential to GSM as of June 6, 2007 http://frlicense.com/GSM_FINAL.pdf.Google Scholar

Fairfield Resources International. 2009. Review of Patents Declared as Essential to WCDMA Through December, 2008.Google Scholar

Fairfield Resources International. 2010. Review of Patents Declared as Essential to LTE and SAE (4G Wireless Standards) Through June 30, 2009. www.frlicense.com/LTE%20Final%20Report.pdf.Google Scholar

Farnsworth, E. Allan 2004. Contracts, 4th ed. 2004. Aspen Publishers.Google Scholar

Farrell, Joseph. 1987 “Cheap talk, coordination, and entry,” 18 RAND Journal of Economics 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Farrell, Joseph, Hayes, John, Shapiro, Carl and Sullivan, Theresa. 2007. “Standard Setting, Patents and Hold-Up,” 74 Antitrust Law Journal 603.Google Scholar

Farrell, Joseph and Klemperer, Paul. 2007. “Coordination and Lock-in: Competition with Switching Costs and Network Effects,” in Armstrong, Mark and Porter, Robert H., eds., Handbook of Industrial Organization. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Farrell, Joseph and Saloner, Garth. 1988. “Coordination through Committees and Markets,” 19 RAND Journal of Economics 235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Farrell, Joseph and Shapiro, Carl. 1992. “Standard Setting in High Definition Television,” Brookings Papers: Microeconomics.Google Scholar

Farrell, Joseph and Shapiro, Carl. 2008. “How Strong are Weak Patents,” 98 American Economic Review 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Farrell, Joseph and Simcoe, Timothy. 2012. “Choosing the Rules for Consensus Standardization,” 43 RAND Journal of Economics 235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Federal Labs. 2017. FAQs. www.federallabs.org/home/faqs/.Google Scholar

Feldman, Robin. 2013. “Intellectual Property Wrongs,” 18 Stanford Journal of Law, Business & Finance 250.Google Scholar

First, Harry, 2016. “Exploitative Abuses of Intellectual Property Rights,” New York University Law & Economics Working Papers. Paper 446. http://lsr.nellco.org/nyu_lewp/446.Google Scholar

Foer, Albert A. and Vaheesan, Sandeep. 2013. American Antitrust Institute Request for Joint Enforcement Guidelines on the Patent Policies of Standard Setting Organizations.Google Scholar

FOSS Patents. 2013. “Apple to FTC: Samsung and Google lose most of their cases over declared-essential patents,” FOSS Patents, February 2013. www.fosspatents.com/2013/02/apple-to-ftc-samsungand-google-lose.html.Google Scholar

Fox, Douglas and Weinstein, Roy. 2012. “Arbitration and Intellectual Property Disputes,” Micronomics, April 19, 2012. www.micronomics.com/articles/Arbitration_and_Intellectual_Property_Disputes.pdf.Google Scholar

FRAND Roundtable. 2008. Global Competition Review. http://globalcompetitionreview.com/article/1038788/frand-roundtable.Google Scholar

Fugate, Wilbur L. 1996. Foreign Commerce and the Antitrust Laws. Aspen Publishers.Google Scholar

Galetovic, Alexander, Haber, Stephen and Levine, Ross. 2014. “Do Patent Holders Holdup Innovation?” Hoover IP2 Working Paper Series No. 14011.Google Scholar

Galetovic, Alexander, Haber, Stephen and Levine, Ross. 2015. “An Empirical Examination of Patent Hold up,” 11 J. Competition L. & Econ. 549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gawer, Annabelle. 2014. “Bridging Differing Perspectives on Technological Platforms: Toward an Integrative Framework,” 43 Research Policy 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gawer, Annabelle and Cusomano, Michael A. 2013. “Industry Platforms and Ecosystem Innovation,” 31 Journal of Product Innovation Management 417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Geradin, Damien. 2009. “Pricing Abuses by Essential Patent Holders in A Standard-Setting Context: A View from Europe,” 76 Antitrust Law Journal 329.Google Scholar

Geradin, Damien. 2014. “The Meaning of ‘Fair and Reasonable’ in the Context of Third-Party Determination of FRAND Terms.” 21 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 919.Google Scholar

Geradin, Damien. 2016a. “FRAND Arbitration: The Determination of Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory Rates for SEPs by Arbitral Tribunals,” 3 Antitrust Chronicle 1.Google Scholar

Geradin, Damien. 2016b. “Patent Assertion Entities and EU Competition Law.” George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 16-08.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Geradin, Damien and Elhauge, Einer. 2007. Global Antitrust Law & Economics. Foundation Press.Google Scholar

Geradin, Damien, Layne-Farrar, and Padilla, A. Jorge. 2008. “The complements problem within standard setting: assessing the evidence on royalty stacking,” 14 Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law 2.Google Scholar

Geradin, Damien, Layne-Farrar, and Padilla, A. Jorge. 2008. “Competing Away Market Power? An Economic Assessment of Ex Ante Auctions In Standard Setting,” 4 European Competition Journal 443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ghosh, R.A. 2005. An Economic Basis for Open Standards. Maastricht: European Commission.Google Scholar

Ghosh, Shubha and Sokol, D. Daniel. 2016. “FRAND in India,” SSRN. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2718256&download=yes.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gifford, Daniel J. and Kudrle, Robert T.. 2010. “The Law and Economics of Price Discrimination in Modern Economies: Time for Reconciliation?,” 43 University of California Davis Law Review 1235.Google Scholar

Gilbert, Richard J. 2004. “Antitrust for Patent Pools: A Century of Policy Evolution,” 2004 Stanford Technology Law Journal 3.Google Scholar

Gilbert, Richard J. 2010a. “Ties That Bind: Policies to Promote (Good) Patent Pools,” 77 Antitrust Law Journal 1.Google Scholar

Gilbert, Richard J. 2010b. “The Essentiality Test for Patent Pools,” in Dreyfuss, Rochelle C., First, Harry and Zimmerman, Diane L. eds., Working within the Boundaries of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society.Google Scholar

Gilbert, Richard J. 2011. “Deal or No Deal? Licensing Negotiations in Standard-Setting Organizations,” 77 Antitrust Law Journal 855.Google Scholar

Gilbert, Richard J. 2014. “Competition Policy for Industry Standards,” in Blair, Roger D. and Sokol, D. Daniel eds., Oxford Handbook on International Antitrust Economics.Google Scholar

Gilbert, Richard J. and Katz, Michael. 2006. “Should Good Patents Come in Small Packages? A Welfare Analysis of Intellectual Property Bundling,” 24 International Journal of Industrial Organizations 931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ginsburg, Douglas H., Owings, Taylor M. and Wright, Joshua D.. 2014. “Enjoining Injunctions: The Case Against Antitrust Liability for Standard Essential Patent Holders Who Seek Injunctions,” Antitrust Source, October 28, 2014.Google Scholar

Ginsburg, Douglas, Wong-Ervin, Koren and Wright, Joshua. 2015. “The Troubling Use of Antitrust to Regulate FRAND Licensing,” 10 CPI Antitrust Chronicle 2.Google Scholar

Robinson, Glen O.. 2004. “Personal Property Servitudes,” 71 University of Chicago Law Review 1449.Google Scholar

Golden, John. 2013. “Patent Privateers: Private Enforcement’s Historical Survivors,” 26 Harvard J. L. & Tech. 545.Google Scholar

Goldman, David. 2012. “Google seals $13 billion Motorola buy,” CNN Money, May 22, 2012. http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/22/technology/google-motorola/https://www.wsgr.com/publications/PDFSearch/sher-august-12.pdf.Google Scholar

Gotts, Illene Knable and Sher, Scott. 2012. “The Particular Antitrust Concerns with Patent Acquisitions,” Competition Law International, August 2002. www.wsgr.com/publications/PDFSearch/sher-august-12.pdf.Google Scholar

Goulet, Paul C. and Riley, P. Andrew. 2010. “An Option For Public Interest Factfinding at the Commission,” 337 Reporter.Google Scholar

Grasso, Roberto. 2016. “The ECJ Ruling in Huawei and the Right to Seek Injunctions Based on FRAND-Encumbered SEPs under EU Competition Law: One Step Forward,” 39 World Competition 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Greenbaum, Eli. 2015. “Forgetting FRAND: The WIPO Model Submission Agreements,” les Nouvelles, June 2015 at 81.Google Scholar

Grewal, David Singh. 2008. Network Power: The Social Dynamics of Globalization. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar

Greif, Avner, Milgrom, Paul and Weingast, Barry R. 1994. “Coordination, Commitment, and Enforcement: The Case of the Merchant Guild,” 102 The Journal of Political Economy 745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

GTW Assoc. 2015. Evolution of the ANSI Patent Policy. www.gtwassociates.com/answers/evolutionansipolicy.html#1969.Google Scholar

Gupta, Kirti and Snyder, Mark. 2014. “Smart Phone Litigation and Standard Essential Patents,” Hoover Institution Working Paper 14006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gupta, Kirti. 2015. “FRAND in India: Emerging Developments,” Antitrust in Emerging and Developing Counties | Conference Papers. http://awards.concurrences.com/IMG/pdf/gupta_-_nyu_2015_proofs.pdf.Google Scholar

Hartley, Trevor C. 2015. International Commercial Litigation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

HDBaseT. 2017. What is HDBaseT. http://hdbaset.org/what-is-hdbaset/.Google Scholar

Heller, Michael A. and Eisenberg, Rebecca. 1998. “Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research,” 280 Science 698.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hergueux, Jérôme, Jacquemet, Nicolas, Luchini, Stéphane and Shogren, Jason F.. 2016. “Leveraging the Honor Code: Public Goods Contributions under Oath,” PSE Working Papers no. 2016–22.Google Scholar

Herman, Michele. 2010. “Negotiating Standards-Related Patent Licenses How the Deal Is Done,” Landslide 3(1).Google Scholar

Hesse, Renata B. 2009. “Section 2 Remedies and U.S. v. Microsoft: What Is to Be Learned?,” 75 Antitrust Law Journal 847.Google Scholar

Hesse, Renata B. 2013. Speech at the Global Competition Review’s 2nd Annual Antitrust Law Leaders Forum.Google Scholar

Hesse, Renata B. 2014. “A Year in the Life of the Joint DOJ-PTO Policy Statement on Remedies for F/RAND Encumbered Standards-Essential Patents,” Remarks at the Global Competition Review GCR Live IP & Antitrust USA Conference.Google Scholar

Hillel, Jonathan. 2010. “Standards x Patents / Antitrust = ∞: The Inadequacy of Antitrust to Address Patent Ambush,” 17 Duke Law and Technology Review 1.Google Scholar

Hofmann, Herwig C.H., Rowe, Gerard C. and Türk, Alexander H.. 2011. Administrative Law and Policy of the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hooneman, Willem. 2013. “Patent Litigation in Netherlands” in Beckett, Nick and Morton, Jeremy, eds. CMS International Patent Litigation Guide. https://cms.law/en/NLD/Publication/International-Patent-Litigation-Guide.Google Scholar

Hovenkamp, Herbert. 2011. “Antitrust and Innovation: Where We Are and Where We Should Be Going,” 77 Antitrust Law Journal 749.Google Scholar

Hussinger, Katrin and Schwiebacher, Franz. 2015. “The market value of technology disclosures to standard setting organizations,” 22 Industry and Innovation 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

ICN. 2003. Recommended Practices for Merger Notification and Review Procedures. www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/uploads/library/doc588.pdf.Google Scholar

Imation 2015. Press Release of Imation K.K. (September 29, 2015). http://imation.co.jp/info/notice/pdf/20150929_imation_business_.pdf.Google Scholar

Int’l Property Owners Ass’n. 2009. Standards Primer: An Overview of Standards Setting Bodies and Patent-Related Issues that Arise in the Context of Standard Setting Activities. www.ipo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/IPOStandardsPrimer.pdf.Google Scholar

Int’l Trade Comm’n Trial Lawyers Ass’n. 2017. Frequently Asked Questions. www.itctla.org/resources/faqs.Google Scholar

Intellectual Property Exchange International, Inc. 2016., MarketsWiki. www.marketswiki.com/wiki/Intellectual_Property_Exchange_International,_Inc.Google Scholar

Isenbergh, Maxwell S. and Rubin, Seymour J.. 1940. “Antitrust Enforcement Through Consent Decrees,” 53 Harvard Law Review 386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Iversen, Eric. 1999. “Standardization and Intellectual Property Rights: ETSI’s controversial search for new IPR-procedures,” IEEE Conference on Standardisation and Innovation in Information Technology, 15–17 Sept 1999, Aachen, Germany.Google Scholar

Iversen, Eric. 2001. “Patenting and voluntary standards: the tension between the domain of proprietary assets and that of ‘public goods’ in the innovation of new network technologies,” Science Studies 14(2).Google Scholar

Jacobacci, Guido. 1976. “Patents and Patent Enforcement in Italy,” in Gevers, Jacques, ed., Patent law and Practice of the Major European Countries. New York: Seminar Services.Google Scholar

Jacquemet, Nicolas, Joule, Robert-Vincent, Luchini, Stéphane and Shogren, Jason F.. 2013. “Preference Elicitation under Oath,” 65 Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jarosz, John C. and Chapman, Michael J.. 2013. “The Hypothetical Negotiation and Reasonable Royalty Damages,” 16 Stanford Technology Law Review 769.Google Scholar

Johns, Adrian. 2009. Piracy: The Intellectual Property Wars from Gutenberg to Gates. Chicago: Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jones, Alison. 2014. “Standard-essential patents: FRAND commitments, injunctions and the smartphone wars,” 10 European Competition Journal 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Joshi, Amol M. and Nerkar, Atul. 2011. “When Do Strategic Alliances Inhibit Innovation By Firms? Evidence from Patent Pools in the Global Optical Disc Industry,” 32 Strategic Management Journal 1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jungmittag, Andre, Blind, Knut and Grupp, Hariolf. 1999. “Innovation, Standardization and the Long-term Production Function: A Co-Integration Approach for Germany,” in Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar

JurataJr., John and Smith, David. 2013. “Turning the Page: The Next Chapter of Disputes Involving Standard Essential Patents,” CPI Antitrust Chronicle October 2013.Google Scholar

Kanevskaia, Olia and Zingales, Nicolo. 2016. IEEE IP Policy Update Under the Scrutiny of the EC Guidelines on Horizontal Cooperation. Tilburg Law and Economic Center.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kang, Byeongwoo and Motohashi, Kazuyuki. 2015. “Essential intellectual property rights and inventors´ involvement in standardization,” 44 Research Policy 483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kang, Byeongwoo and Bekkers, Rudi. 2015. “Just-in-time patents and the development of standards,” 44 Research Policy 1948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kang, Il and Kim, Hee-Eun. 2012. “Enforcement of Competition Law in Standardization and Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights in Korea and Europe,” 161 Journal of Competition 68.Google Scholar

Kapoor, Ankur. 2009. “What is the Standard of Causation of Monopoly?,” Antitrust, Summer 2009.Google Scholar

Karachalios, Konstantinos. 2015. “If it works (for me), why fix it? Status Quo v Reforms at the Intersection between the Patent System and Standardization,” Keynote Speech, IEEE SIIT 2015, Mountain View, California, October 2015.Google Scholar

Kaster, Laura A. 2015. “Confidentiality in U.S. Arbitration,” 5 New York Dispute Resolution Law 23.Google Scholar

Kattan, Joseph and Wood, Chris. 2014. “Standard-Essential Patents and the Problem of Hold-Up,” in Charbit, Nicolas and Ramundo, Elisa, eds., William E. Kovacic, An Antitrust Tribute – Liber Amicorum. New York: Quality Books Inc.Google Scholar

Katz, Avery. 1996. “Taking private ordering seriously,” 144 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Katznelson, Ron D. 2015. “Perilous Deviations from FRAND Harmony – Operational Pitfalls of the 2015 IEEE Patent Policy,” IEEE SIIT 2015, 9th International Conf. on Standardization and Innovation in Information Technology, Sunnyvale, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Katznelson, Ron D. 2016. “Decline in non-duplicate licensing Letters of Assurance (LOAs) from Product/System companies for IEEE standards Bi-Level Technologies, Iam Media. www.iam-media.com/files/LOAs-March-2016_stamped.pdf.Google Scholar

Kerr, William. 1867. A Treatise on The Law and Practice of Injunctions in Equity. London: W. Maxwell & Son.Google Scholar

Kesan, Jay P. and Hayes, Carol M.. 2012. “Patent Transfers in the Information Age: FRAND Commitments and Transparency,” University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign prepared for National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar

Kesan, Jay P. and Hayes, Carol M.. 2014. “FRAND’s Forever: Standards, Patent Transfers, and Licensing Commitments,” 89 Indiana Law Journal 231.Google Scholar

Khan, B. Zorina. 2013. “Trolls and Other Patent Inventions: Economic History and the Patent Controversy in the Twenty-First Century,” 21 George Mason Law Review 825.Google Scholar

Kim, Sung-Hwan. 2005. “Vertical Structure and Patent Pools,” 25 Review of Industrial Organization 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kim, Yoonhee. 2014. “Lifting Confidentiality of FRAND Royalties in SEP Arbitration,” 16 Columbia Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 1.Google Scholar

Kingston, William. 2000. “The Case for Compulsory Arbitration – Empirical Evidence,” 22 European Intellectual Property Review 154.Google Scholar

Klein, Benjamin, Crawford, Robert and Alchian, Armen. 1978. “Vertical Integration, Appropriable Rents, and the Competitive Contracting Process,” 21 J.L. & Econ. 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Klein, Benjamin and Wiley, John Shepard Jr. 2003. “Competitive Price Discrimination as an Antitrust Justification for Intellectual Property Refusals to Deal,” 70 Antitrust Law Journal 599.Google Scholar

Klein, Benjamin and Murphy, Kevin M.. 2008. “Exclusive Dealing Intensifies Competition for Distribution,” 75 Antitrust Law Journal 433.Google Scholar

Kobayashi, Bruce and Wright, Joshua. 2009. “Federalism, Substantive Preemption & Limits on Antitrust,” 5 Journal of Competition Law and Policy 469.Google Scholar

Kobayashi, Bruce and Wright, Joshua. 2012. “The Limits of Antitrust and Patent Holdup: A Reply to Cary et al.,” 78 Antitrust Law Journal 505.Google Scholar

Korber, Torsten. 2013. Standard-Essential Patents, FRAND Commitments and Competition Law. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar

Kovacic, William E. and Winerman, Marc. 2010. “Competition Policy and the Application of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act,” 76 Antitrust Law Journal 929.Google Scholar

Kühn, Kai-Uwe, Morton, Fiona Scott and Shelanski, Howard. 2013. “Standard Setting Organizations Can Help Solve the Standard Essential Patent Licensing Problem,” CPI Antitrust Chronicle March 2013.Google Scholar

Kühnen, Thomas. 2013. Patent Litigation Proceedings in Germany. Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag.Google Scholar

Kurup, Rajesh. 2015. “iBall, Ericsson Settle Patent Issue,” Hindu Business Line, November 20, 2015. www.thehindubusinessline.com/info-tech/iball-ericsson-settle-patent-issue/article7900713.ece.Google Scholar

La Belle, Megan M. 2013. “Against Settlement of (Some) Patent Cases,” 67 Vanderbilt Law Review 375.Google Scholar

Lampe, Ryan and Moser, Petra. 2010. “Do Patent Pools Encourage Innovation? Evidence from the 19th-Century Sewing Machine Industry,” 70 Journal of Economic History 898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lampe, Ryan and Moser, Petra. 2013. “Patent Pools and Innovation in Substitute Technologies – Evidence from the 19th Century Sewing Machine Industry,” 44 RAND Journal of Economics 757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lampe, Ryan and Moser, Petra. 2016. “Patent Pools, Competition, and Innovation – Evidence from 20 US Industries under the New Deal,” 31 Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Langus, Gregor, Lipatov, Vilen and Neven, Damien. 2013. “Standard Essential Patents; Who is Really Holding Up (and When)?” 9 Journal of Competition Law & Economics 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Larouche, Pierre. 2009. “The European Microsoft case at the crossroads of competition policy and innovation” 75 Antitrust Law Journal 933.Google Scholar

Larouche, Pierre and Chirico, Filomena. 2008. “Conceptual divergence, functionalism and the economics of convergence,” in Prechal, Sacha et al., eds., The Coherence of EU Law. Oxford: Oxford University Publishing.Google Scholar

Larouche, Pierre and van Overwalle, Geertrui. 2015. “Interoperability standards, patents and competition policy,” in Delimatsis, Panos, ed., The Law, Economics and Politics of International Standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Publishing.Google Scholar

Larouche, Pierre and Schinkel, Maarten-Pieter. 2014. “Continental Drift in the Treatment of Dominant Firms: Article 102 TFEU in Contrast to § 2 Sherman Act,” in Sokol, Daniel and Blair, Roger, eds., Oxford Handbook of International Antitrust Economics – Vol. 2. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar

Larouche, Pierre and Zingales, Nicolo. 2014. “Injunctive Relief in Disputes Related to Standard-Essential Patents: Time for the CJEU to Set Fair and Reasonable Presumptions,” 10 European Competition Journal 551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Larouche, Pierre, Padilla, Jorge and Taffet, Richard. 2014. “Settling FRAND Disputes: Is Mandatory Arbitration a Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory Alternative?,” 10 J. Competition L. & Econ. 581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lavine, Michael A. 2008. “Ripples in the Patent Pool: The Impact and Implications of the Evolving Essentiality Analysis,” 4 New York University J.L. & Business 605.Google Scholar

Layne-Farrar, Anne. 2010. “Non-Discriminatory Pricing: Is Standard Setting Different?,” 6 Journal of Competition Law & Economics 811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Layne-Farrar, Anne. 2011. “An Economic Defense of Flexibility in IPR Licensing: Contracting Around the ‘First Sale’ in Multilevel Production Settings,” 51 Santa Clara Law Review 1149.Google Scholar

Layne-Farrar, Anne 2014a. “Assessing IPR Disclosure Within Standard Setting: An ICT Case Study”, in Modern Trends Surrounding Information Technology Standards and Standardization Within Organizations, Kai Jakobs ed., IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Layne-Farrar, Anne. 2014b. “Moving Past The SEP RAND Obsession: Some Thoughts On The Economic Implications Of Unilateral Commitments And The Complexities Of Patent Licensing,” 21 George Mason Law Review 1093.Google Scholar

Layne-Farrar, Anne. 2014c. “Proactive or Reactive? An Empirical Assessment of IPR Policy Revisions in the Wake of Antitrust Actions,” 59 Antitrust Bulletin 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Layne-Farrar, Anne and Lerner, Josh. 2011. “To join or not to join: Examining patent pool participation and rent sharing rules,” 29 International Journal of Industrial Organizations 294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Layne-Farrar, Anne and Wong-Ervin, Koren W.. 2017. “Methodologies for Calculating FRAND Damages: An Economic and Comparative Analysis of the Case Law from China, the European Union, India, and the United States,” Jindal Global Law School Law Review (forthcoming).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Layne-Farrar, Anne, Llobet, Gerard and Padilla, Jorge, 2014. “Participation: The Incentives to Join Cooperative Standard Setting Efforts,” 23 Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 24.Google Scholar

Layne-Farrar, Anne and Salinger, Michael A.. 2017. “The Policy Implications of Licensing Standard Essential FRAND-Committed Patents in Bundles,” in Ashish Bharadwaj et al., eds., Complications and Quandries in the ICT Sector. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lee, Nari and Li, Yang, 2015. “European Standards in Chinese Courts – A Case of SEP and FRAND Disputes in China,” in Lee, N., Bruun, N. and Li, M., eds., Governance of Intellectual Property Rights in China and Europe. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar

Leeson, Peter T. 2006. “Cooperation and Conflict: Evidence on Self-Enforcing Arrangements and Heterogeneous Groups,” 64 American Journal of Economics and Sociology 891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lemley, Mark. 2002. “Intellectual Property Rights and Standard-Setting Organizations,” 90 California Law Review 1889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lemley, Mark. 2007. “Ten Things to do About Patent Holdup of Standards (And One Not To),” 48 Boston College Law Review 149.Google Scholar

Lemley, Mark A. and McGowan, David. 1998. “Could Java Change Everything? The Competitive Propriety of a Proprietary Standard,” 43 Antitrust Bulletin 715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lemley, Mark A. and Shapiro, Carl. 2005. “Probabilistic Patents,” 19 Journal of Economic Perspectives 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lemley, Mark A. and Shapiro, Carl. 2007. “Patent Hold up and Royalty Stacking,” 85 Texas Law Review 1991.Google Scholar

Lerner, Josh and Tirole, Jean. 2004. “Efficient Patent Pools,” 94 American Economic Review 691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lerner, Josh and Tirole, Jean. 2005. “The Economics of Technology Sharing: Open Source and Beyond,” 19 Journal of Economic Perspectives 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lerner, Josh and Tirole, Jean. 2008. “Public Policy Toward Patent Pools,” in Jaffe, Adam, Lerner, Josh and Stern, Scott, eds., Innovation Policy and the Economy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Lerner, Josh and Tirole, Jean. 2015. “Standard-Essential Patents,” 123 Journal of Political Economy 547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lerner, Josh, Tabakovic, Haris and Tirole, Jean. 2016. “Patent Disclosures and Standard Setting,” NBER Working Paper No. 22768. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2851539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leubsdorf, John. 1978. “The Standard for Preliminary Injunctions,” 91 Harvard Law Review 525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lim, Daryl. 2011. “Misconduct in Standard Setting: The Case for Patent Misuse,” 51 IDEA 559.Google Scholar

Lim, Daryl. 2016. “Patent holdup,” in Blair, Roger D. and Sokol, D. Daniel eds., Cambridge Handbook of Antitrust, Intellectual Property and High Tech. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lipsky, Jr., Abbott B. and Sidak, J. Gregory. 1999. “Essential Facilities,” 51 Stanford Law Review 1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Llanes, Gaston and Poblete, Joaquin. 2014. “Ex Ante Agreements in Standard Setting and Patent-Pool Formation,” 23 Journal of Economic and Management Strategy 50.Google Scholar

Lloyd, Richard. 2016. “The IEEE’s new patent policy one year on – the battle that’s part of a bigger licensing war,” IAM Media.Google Scholar

Lo, Allen. 2002. Letter from Allen Lo, Deputy General Counsel, Google, to Gordon Day, President, IEEE (February 8, 2012).Google Scholar

Long, David. 2016. “Litigating Standard Essential Patents at the International Trade Commission,” Essential Patent Blog.Google Scholar

Lubman, Stanley B. 1999. Bird in a Cage: Legal Reform in China After Mao. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Lundqvist, Björn. 2016. “Post Danmark II, now concluded by the ECJ: clarification of the rebate abuse, but how do we marry Post Danmark I with Post Danmark II?,” 11 European Competition Journal 557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Macaulay, Stewart. 1963. “Non-contractual relations in business: A preliminary study,” 28 American Sociological Review 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Majoras, Deborah Platt. 2005. “Recognizing the Procompetitive Potential of Royalty Discussions In Standard Setting,” Remarks Prepared for Standardization and The Law: Developing The Golden Mean for Global Trade at Stanford University (September 23, 2005).Google Scholar

Manders, Basak, De Vries, Henk and Blind, Knut. 2013. “The relationship between ISO 9001 and financial performance: a meta-analysis,” The 73rd Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Orlando, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Manders, Basak, De Vries, Henk and Blind, Knut. 2016. “ISO 9001 and product innovation: A literature review and research framework,” 48 Technovation 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marcus, Philip. 1945. “Antitrust Law and Antitrust Judgments Through Hartford-Empire,” 34 Georgetown L. J. 1.Google Scholar

Mariniello, Mario. 2011. “Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) Terms: A Challenge for Competition Authorities,” 7 Journal of Competition Law and Economics 523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Masur, Jonathan S. 2015. “The Use and Misuse of Patent Licenses,” 110 Northwestern University Law Review 115.Google Scholar

Mattioli, Michael. 2017. “Data Pools,” 32 Berkeley Technology Law Journal (forthcoming).Google Scholar

Matutes, Carmen and Regibeau, Pierre. 1988. “‘Mix and Match’: product compatibility without network externalities,” 19 RAND Journal of Economics 221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

May, Benjamin and Liens, Marie. 2014. “Brevets Pharmaceutiques: Approche Pratique du Contentieux des Mesures d’Interdiction Provisoire,” 13 Propriété Industrielle 16.Google Scholar

Mehra, Salil and Meng, Yanbei, 2015. “Essential Facilities with Chinese Characteristics: A Different Perspective on the Conditional Compulsory Licensing of Intellectual Property,” 2015 Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 1.Google Scholar

Merges, Robert P. 2000 “Institutions for Intellectual Property Transactions: The Case of Patent Pools,” in Dreyfuss, Rochelle Cooper et al. eds., Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society.Google Scholar

Merges, Robert P. 2015. “Looking Backward: Historical Patent Pools and Contemporary Policy,” The Media Institute.Google Scholar

Merges, Robert P. and Kuhn, Jeffrey M.. 2009. “An Estoppel Doctrine for Patented Standards,” 97 California Law Review 1.Google Scholar

Merges, Robert P. and Mattioli, Michael. 2017. “Measuring the Costs and Benefits of Patent Pools,” 77 Ohio State Law Journal (forthcoming).Google Scholar

Merrill, Thomas W. and Smith, Henry E.. 2000. “Optimal Standardization in the Law of Property: The Numerus Clausus Principle,” 110 Yale Law Journal 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meyer, David. 2011. “Nokia Loses 3G Patent Battle in High Court,” ZDNet, June 16, 2011. www.zdnet.com/article/nokia-loses-3g-patent-battle-in-high-court/.Google Scholar

Meyers, Ernest S. and Lewis, Seymour D.. 1941. “The Patent ‘Franchise’ and the Antitrust Laws – Part I,” 30 Georgetown L. J. 117.Google Scholar

Microsoft Corp. 2017. Microsoft’s Support for Industry Standards. www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/IPLicensing/ip2.aspx.Google Scholar

Microsoft Corp. 2012. Microsoft’s Support for Industry Standards, Feb. 8, 2012.Google Scholar

Milgrom, Paul R., North, Douglass C. and Weingast, Barry R. 1990. “The Role of Institutions in the Revival of Trade: The Law Merchant, Private Judges, and the Champagne Fairs,” 2 Economics & Politics 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miller, Benjamin M. 2015. “FRAND-Encumbered SEPs and Injunctions: Why Section 5 of the FTC Act Is an Inappropriate Remedy,” 16 Columbia Science and Technology L. Rev. 452.Google Scholar

Miller, Joseph Scott. 2007. “Standard Setting, Patents, and Access Lock-In: RAND Licensing and the Theory of the Firm,” 40 Indiana Law Review 351.Google Scholar

Moss, Gary. 2014. “HTC v Nokia: In the United Kingdom will an injunction be granted following a finding of patent infringement?,” 9 J. Intellectual Property L. & Practice 351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mossoff, Adam. 2014. “The Rise and Fall of the First American Patent Thicket: The Sewing Machine War of the 1850s,” 53 Arizona L. Rev. 165.Google Scholar

Motorola Solutions 2017. A Legacy of Innovation: Timeline of Motorola History Since 1928. www.motorolasolutions.com/en_us/about/company-overview/history/timeline.htmlGoogle Scholar

Mueller, Florian. 2011. “How will HTC work around the enforced patent without losing the benefit of IPCom's FRAND declaration?” FOSS Patents, November 29, 2011. www.fosspatents.com/2011/11/how-will-htc-work-around-enforced.html.Google Scholar

Mueller, Florian. “UK High Court Denies a Patent Injunction Against Nokia in Light of a FRAND Commitment,” FOSS Patents. www.fosspatents.com/2012/05/uk-high-court-denies-patent-injunction.html.Google Scholar

Mueller, Jr., Milton. 1996. Universal Service: Competition, Interconnection, and Monopoly in the Making of the American Telephone System. American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar

Muris, Timothy. 2000. “The FTC and the Law of Monopolization,” 67 Antitrust Law Journal 693.Google Scholar

Murphy, William J. and Orcutt, John L.. 2013. “Using Valuation-Based Decision Making to Increase the Efficiency of China’s Patent Subsidy Strategies,” 2013 Cardozo Law Review 116.Google Scholar

Nancy, Gallini. 2011. “Private Agreements for Coordinating Patent Rights: The Case of Patent Pools,” IEL Paper in Comparative Analysis of Institutions, Economics and Law No. 5, June 2011.Google Scholar

Nanda, Ved P. et al. 2017. Litigation of International Disputes in U.S. Courts. Thomson Reuters.Google Scholar

National Academies of Science (NAS). 2013. Intellectual Property Challenges For Standard-Setting in the Global Economy, Maskus, Keith and Merrill, Stephen A., eds. National Academies Press.Google Scholar

Newman, David L. 2016a. “New Twist On Mediation And Arbitration For PTAB Disputes,” LAW 360. May 10, 2016. www.law360.com/articles/792815/new-twist-on-mediation-and-arbitration-for-ptab-disputes.Google Scholar

Newman, David L. 2016b. “The United States Patent and Trademark Office,” American Bar Association. www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/dispute_resolution/newsletter/mar2016/the_united_states_patent_and_trademark_office.authcheckdam.pdf.Google Scholar

Newman, Matthew and Rosenblatt, Joel. 2009. “Rambus Offers to Settle European Union Antitrust Case (Update 3),” Bloomberg. www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aK08MSmH0Fz4.Google Scholar

North, Douglass C. 1993. “Institutions and credible commitment,” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE)/Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft.Google Scholar

NV. 2014. “In Praise of the Humble USB,” Economist, July 13, 2014. www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2014/07/difference-engine-0.Google Scholar

Oberlander, Marissa, Stabe, Martin and Bernard, Steve. 2011. “The Smartphone Patent Wars,” Financial Times. October 17, 2011.Google Scholar

OECD. 2013. Interconnected Economies: Benefiting from Global Value Chains. OECD Synthesis Report. www.oecd.org/sti/ind/interconnected-economies-GVCs-synthesis.pdfGoogle Scholar

Ogilvie, Sheilagh. 2014. “The economics of guilds,” 28 The Journal of Economic Perspectives 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ohana, Gil, et al. 2003. “Disclosure and Negotiation of Licensing Terms Prior to Adoption of Industry Standards: Preventing Another Patent Ambush?,” 24 European Competition Law Review 644.Google Scholar

Open Source Initiative. 2017. Open Standards Requirement for Software. https://opensource.org/osr.Google Scholar

Ostrom, Elinor. 1998. “Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action: Presidential Address,” 92 American Political Science Association 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ostrom, Elinor, Walker, James and Gardner, Roy. 1992. “Covenants with and without a sword: Self-governance is possible,” 86 American Political Science Review 404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ouellette, Lisa. 2012. “Do patents disclose useful information?,” 25 Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 531.Google Scholar

Ovide, Shira. 2011. “Google-Motorola: It’s All About the Patents,” WSJ Blog, August 15, 2011. http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2011/08/15/google-motorola-its-all-about-the-patents/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Owen, Bruce M., Sun, Su and Zheng, Wentong. 2005. “Antitrust in China: The Problem of Incentive Compatibility,” 2005 Journal of Competition Law and Economics 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

PA Consulting Group. 2002. LTE Essential IPR: PA’s 3GP P-LTE Database and Report 13.Google Scholar

PA Consulting Group. 2006. Essential Intellectual Property in 3GPP-FDD 17.Google Scholar

Pai, Yogesh. 2014. “The Rational Basis for FRANDly Courts Denying Injunctive Relief for SEPs Infringement,” 19 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 146.Google Scholar

Patterson, Mark R. 2002. “Inventions, Industry Standards, and Intellectual Property,” 17 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1043.Google Scholar

Patterson, Mark R. 2018. “Confidentiality in Patent Dispute Resolution: Antitrust Implications,” Washington Law Review (forthcoming).Google Scholar

Pentheroudakis, Chryssoula and Baron, Justus A.. 2017. “Licensing Terms of Standard Essential Patents: A Comprehensive Analysis of Cases,” JRC Science for Policy Report EUR 28302.Google Scholar

Perkins, David and Mills, Gerry, 1996. “Patent Infringement and Forum Shopping in the European Union,” 20 Fordham International Law Journal 549.Google Scholar

Perry, William A. 1985. “Administration of the Import Trade Laws by the United States International Trade Commission,” 3 Boston University International Law Journal 345.Google Scholar