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
10 - Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Law in Japan
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. 162 - 176Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Primary Sources
Judgment of 6 April 1995, Joined cases C-241/91 P and C-242/91 P, Radio Telefis Eireann (RTE) and Independent Television Publications Ltd (ITP) v Commission, EU:C:1995:98.Google Scholar
CASE AT.39985 - Motorola Mobility, Commission Decision, April 29, 2014.Google Scholar
Secondary Sources
Snow Brand Milk Products. 1956. Japan Fair Trade Commission, Showa 29 (han) 4, July 28, 1956.Google Scholar
Toshiba Elevator Technos v. Kosei Denki. 1993. Osaka High Court, Heisei 2 (ne) 1660, July 30, 1993.Google Scholar
Healthcare Food Association. 1996. Japan Fair Trade Commission, Heisei 8 (kan) 14, May 8, 1996.Google Scholar
Nihon Yugiki Tokkyo Unei Renmei (Japan Association of Pachinko Patents Management). 1997. Japan Fair Trade Commission, Heisei 9 (kan) 5, August 6, 1997.Google Scholar
Japan Fair Trade Commission. 1999. Guidelines Concerning Patent and Know-how Licensing Agreements under the Antimonopoly Act (“Patent and Know-how Guidelines”).Google Scholar
Mitsubishi Electric Building Techno-Service. 2002. Japan Fair Trade Commission, Heisei 14 (kan) 7, July 26, 2002.Google Scholar
Tokyu Parking Systems. 2004. Japan Fair Trade Commission, Heisei 16 (kan) 1, April 12, 2004.Google Scholar
Roppou Sangyo v. Hinode Suido Kiki. 2006. Intellectual Property High Court, Heisei 18 (ne) 10015, July 20, 2006.Google Scholar
Japan Fair Trade Commission. 2009. Guidelines for the Use of Intellectual Property under the Antimonopoly Act.Google Scholar
Fuji Setsubi Kogyo v. Fujio Food System. 2010. Osaka District Court, Heisei 20 (wa) 4464, May 25, 2010.Google Scholar
Japan Fair Trade Commission. 2010. Guidelines Concerning Abuse of Superior Bargaining Position under the Antimonopoly Act.Google Scholar
Taishin Kogyo v. Air Water Tansan. 2011. Tokyo District Court, Heisei 22 (yo) 20125, March 30, 2011.Google Scholar
Hain v. Hitachi Building Systems. 2011. Tokyo High Court, Heisei 23 (ne) 1761, September 6, 2011.Google Scholar
Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO). 2012. Japan Fair Trade Commission, Caution, June 22, 2012.Google Scholar
Samsung Denshi v. Apple Japan. 2014. Intellectual Property High Court, Heisei 25 (ne) 10043, May 16, 2014.Google Scholar
Softbank v. Nippon Telegraph and Telephone East (NTT East), Tokyo District Court, Heisei 23 (wa) 32660, June 19, 2014.Google Scholar
Imation v. One-Blue. 2015. Tokyo District Court, Heisei 25 (wa) 21383, February 18, 2015.Google Scholar
Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 630 F.2d 920 (2d Cir. 1980).Google Scholar
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (1992).Google Scholar
Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 195 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999).Google Scholar
Ishiguro, Kazunori 1990. Joho Tsushin Chiteki Zaisanken heno Kokusaiteki Shiten (International Perspectives over Information, Telecommunication & Intellectual Property Rights) Tokyo, Kokusai Shoin, 145–182.Google Scholar
Nakayama, Nobuhiro 1986. Software no Hoteki Hogo (Legal Protection of Software) Tokyo, Yuhikaku, 1–213.Google Scholar
Rosch, J. Thomas 2008. Patent Trolls: Broad Brush Definitions and Law Enforcement Ideas (available at: www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_statements/patent-trolls-broad-brush-definitions-and-law-enforcement-ideas/080531roschlecg.pdf).Google Scholar
Shiraishi, Tadashi 1994. Gijutsu to Kyoso no Hoteki Kozo (The Legal Structure of Intellectual Property and Competition Policy) Tokyo, Yuhikaku, 1–205.Google Scholar
Shiraishi, Tadashi 2013. A Baseline for Analyzing Exploitative Abuse of a Dominant/Superior Position, UT Soft Law Review 5: 1–7.Google Scholar
Shiraishi, Tadashi 2016. Commitment decisions in the Japanese context, Note for the 125th meeting of OECD Competition Committee, DAF/COMP/WD(2016)54: 1–12 (available at: one.oecd.org/document/DAF/COMP/WD(2016)54/en/pdf).Google Scholar
Suzuki, Rokuya 1958. Zaisanho ni okeru Kenriranyo Riron no Kino (The Function of Abuse Theory in Property Law), Horitsu Jiho 30: 1148–1154.Google Scholar