Book contents
- Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Policy
- Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Policy
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Missing the Forest for the Trolls
- 3 Empirical Evidence on the Behavior and Impact of Patent Trolls
- 4 Assertion of Standard Essential Patents by Non-Practicing Entities
- 5 Patent Privateering
- 6 Regulating Patent Assertions
- 7 Patent Assertion Entities in Europe
- 8 Treatment of Patent Assertion Entities under Korean Antitrust Law
- 9 Patent Assertion Entities Issues in China
- 10 Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Law in Japan
- 11 Patent Assertion Entities in Merger Review in Taiwan
- Index
- References
1 - Introduction
Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Policy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 March 2017
Edited by
Book contents
- Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Policy
- Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Policy
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Missing the Forest for the Trolls
- 3 Empirical Evidence on the Behavior and Impact of Patent Trolls
- 4 Assertion of Standard Essential Patents by Non-Practicing Entities
- 5 Patent Privateering
- 6 Regulating Patent Assertions
- 7 Patent Assertion Entities in Europe
- 8 Treatment of Patent Assertion Entities under Korean Antitrust Law
- 9 Patent Assertion Entities Issues in China
- 10 Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Law in Japan
- 11 Patent Assertion Entities in Merger Review in Taiwan
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Policy , pp. 1 - 8Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
References
Allison, John R., Lemley, Mark A., and Walker, Joshua 2011. Patent Quality and Settlement Among Repeat Patent Litigants, Georgetown Law Journal 99: 677–712.Google Scholar
Bessen, James and Meurer, Michael J. 2014. The Direct Costs from NPE Disputes, Cornell Law Review 99: 387–424.Google Scholar
Bessen, James, Ford, Jennifer, and Meurer, Michael J. 2011. The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls, Regulation 34(4): 26–35.Google Scholar
Bhagat, Sanjai and Romano, Roberta 2002. Event Studies and the Law: Part I: Technique and Corporate Litigation, American Law and Economics Review 4(1): 141–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chien, Colleen 2014. Startups and Patent Trolls, Stanford Technology Law Review 2014: 461–505.Google Scholar
Chien, Colleen 2013. Patent Assertion and Startup Innovation. New America Foundation, Report from the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute (OTI).Google Scholar
Chien, Colleen 2010. From Arms Race to Marketplace: The Complex Patent Ecosystem and Its Implications for the Patent System, Hastings Law Journal 62: 2978–3056.Google Scholar
Ewing, Tom and Feldman, Robin 2012. The Giants Among Us, Stanford Technology Law Review 2012: 1–61.Google Scholar
Executive Office of the President 2014. Patent Assertion and U.S. Innovation (2014) available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/patent_report.pdf.Google Scholar
Federal Trade Commission 2011. The Evolving IP Marketplace: Aligning Patent Notice and Remedies with Competition available at www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/evolving-ip-marketplace-aligning-patent-notice-and-remedies-competition-report-federal-trade/110307patentreport.pdf.Google Scholar
Fudenberg, Drew and Tirole, Jean 1986. A ‘Signal Jamming’ Theory of Predation, Rand Journal of Economics 17: 366–376.Google Scholar
Gotts, Ilene K. and Sher, Scott K. 2012. Antitrust Concerns of Patent Acquisition, CPI Antitrust Chronicle (September 2012).Google Scholar
Lichtman, Doug and Lemley, Mark A., 2007. Rethinking Patent Law's Presumption of Validity, Stanford Law Review 60: 45–72.Google Scholar
Love, Brian J. 2013. An Empirical Study of Patent Litigation Timing: Could a Patent Term Reduction Decimate Trolls without Harming Innovators, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 161: 1309–1359.Google Scholar
Merges, Robert P. 2009. The Trouble with Trolls: Innovation, Rent-Seeking, and Patent Law Reform, Berkeley Technology Law Journal 24(4): 1583–1614.Google Scholar
Milgrom, Paul and Roberts, John 1982. Limit Pricing and Entry Under Incomplete Information: An Equilibrium Analysis, Econometrica 50(2): 443–459.Google Scholar
Miller, Sean P. 2013. Where’s the Innovation? An Analysis of the Quantity and Qualities of Anticipated and Obvious Patents, Virginia Journal of Law and Technology 18(1): 1–58.Google Scholar
Scott Morton, Fiona and Shapiro, Carl 2014. Strategic Patent Portfolio Acquisitions: an Economic Analysis, Antitrust Law Journal 79(2): 463–499.Google Scholar
Sokol, D. Daniel 2012. Strategic Use of Public and Private Litigation in Antitrust as Business Strategy, Southern California Law Review 85: 689–732.Google Scholar
Cases
America Invents Act of 2011, H.R. 1249 (2011).
MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, Decision and Order, FTC File No. 142 3003 (March 13, 2015); FTC Comment Request, 79 Fed. Reg. 28,715 (May 19, 2014).
Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920 (2015).
SCM Corp. v. Xerox Corp., 645 F.2d 1195 (2d Cir. 1981).