Bibliography

doi:10.1017/9781108594981.009

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 July 2019

Edited by

Brian J. Love and

C. Bradford Biddle: Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Jorge L. Contreras: Affiliation:
University of Utah
Brian J. Love: Affiliation:
Santa Clara University, California
Norman V. Siebrasse: Affiliation:
University of New Brunswick

Book contents

Summary

A summary is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Type: Chapter
Information: Patent Remedies and Complex Products
Toward a Global Consensus
, pp. 303 - 337

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108594981.009 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2019
Creative Commons: This content is Open Access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/cclicenses/

References

Primary Sources

Secondary Sources

Allensworth, Rebecca Haw. 2014. “Casting a FRAND Shadow: The Importance of Legally Defining ‘Fair and Reasonable’ and How Microsoft v. Motorola Missed the Mark,” Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 22(3): 235–52.Google Scholar

American Bar Association (ABA). 2007. Standards Development Patent Policy Manual (Contreras, Jorge L., ed.), Chicago: ABA Publications.Google Scholar

American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA). 2015. 2015 Report of the Economic Survey, Arlington, VA: American Intellectual Property Law Association.Google Scholar

American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) 2017. 2017 Report of the Economic Survey, Arlington, VA: American Intellectual Property Law Association.Google Scholar

American Law Institute (ALI). 1939. Restatement (Second) of Torts.Google Scholar

American Law Institute (ALI) 2011. Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment.Google Scholar

Anderman, Steven D. & Kallaugher, John. 2006. Technology Transfer and the New EU Competition Rules: Intellectual Property Licensing after Modernisation, New York.: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Anderson, Roy Ryden. 2015. “The Compensatory Disgorgement Alternative to Restatement Third’s New Remedy for Breach of Contract,” Southern Methodist University Law Review 68(4): 953–1020.Google Scholar

Balganesh, Shyamkrishna. 2008. “Demystifying the Right to Exclude: Of Property, Inviolability, and Automatic Injunctions,” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 31(2): 593–661.Google Scholar

Bartlett, Jason R. & Contreras, Jorge L.. 2017. “Rationalizing FRAND Royalties: Can Interpleader Save the Internet of Things?,” The Review of Litigation 36(2): 285–334.Google Scholar

Bayliss, Geoffrey, Brook, Daniel, Cook, Trevor, Felwick, Matthew, Gardner, Nick, Jenkins, Neil, MacFarlane, Nicholas, Mallinson, Roland, Man, Jocelyn, Morcom, Christopher, Musker, David, Myles, Doris, Perkins, David, Reid, John, Rollins, Tony, Roughton, Ashley, Smith, Peter, Stanford, Edward, Turner, Jonathan, Vleck, Jan & Wood, Ian. 2005. Punitive Damages as a Contentious Issue of Intellectual Property Rights (Report Q186): United Kingdom, A.I.P.P.I.: United Kingdom Group. https://aippi.org/download/commitees/186/GR186uk.pdf Google Scholar

Beijing High People’s Court. 2017. Guidelines for Patent Infringement Determination. www.cpahkltd.com/en/info.aspx?n=20170424155321600369 Google Scholar

Belgum, Karl D. 2014. “The Next Battle over FRAND: The Definition of FRAND Terms and Multilevel Licensing,” New Matter 39(2).Google Scholar

Benhamou, Yaniv. 2013. Dommages-intérêts suite à la violation de droits de propriété intellectuelle: Etude de la méthode des redevances en droit suisse et comparé, Zürich: Schulthess.Google Scholar

Benkard, Georg. 2015. Patentgesetz, Munich: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar

Bensen, Eric E. 2005. “Apportionment of Lost Profits in Contemporary Patent Damages Cases,” Virginia Journal of Law & Technology 10(8): 1–46.Google Scholar

Bernstein, David E. & Lasker, Eric G.. 2015. “Defending Daubert: It’s Time to Amend Federal Rule of Evidence,” William & Mary Law Review 57(1): 1–48.Google Scholar

Berry, Chris, Arad, Ronen, Ansell, Landan, Cartier, Meredith & Lee, HyeYun. 2015. 2015 Patent Litigation Study: A Change in Patentee Fortunes, PricewaterhouseCoopers. www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-services/publications/assets/2015-pwc-patent-litigation-study.pdf Google Scholar

Berry, Chris, Arad, Ronen, Ansell, Landan, Cartier, Meredith & Lee, HyeYun 2016. 2016 Patent Litigation Study: Are We at an Inflection Point?, PricewaterhouseCoopers. www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-services/publications/assets/2016-pwc-patent-litigation-study.pdf Google Scholar

Berry, Chris, Arad, Ronen, Ansell, Landan, Cartier, Meredith & Lee, HyeYun 2017. 2017 Patent Litigation Study: Change on the Horizon?, PricewaterhouseCoopers. www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-services/publications/assets/2017-patent-litigation-study.pdf Google Scholar

Bharadwaj, Ashish & Verma, Dipinn. 2017. “China’s First Injunction in Standard Essential Patent Litigation,” Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 12(9): 717–19.Google Scholar

Birss, Hon. Colin, Waugh, Andrew, Mitcheson, Tom, Campbell, Douglas, Turner, Justin & Hinchliffe, Tom. 2016. Terrell on the Law of Patents: Eighteenth Edition, London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar

Blair, Roger D. & Cotter, Thomas F.. 1998. “An Economic Analysis of Damages Rules in Intellectual Property Law,” William and Mary Law Review 39(5): 1585–1694.Google Scholar

Blair, Roger D. & Cotter, Thomas F. 2001. “Rethinking Patent Damages,” Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 10(1): 1–94.Google Scholar

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

Blair, Roger D. & Sokol, D. Daniel. 2013. “Welfare Standards in U.S. and E.U. Antitrust Enforcement,” Fordham Law Review 81(5): 2497–2541.Google Scholar

Bohannon, Christina & Hovenkamp, Herbert. 2010. “IP and Antitrust: Reformation and Harm,” Boston College Law Review 51(4): 905–92.Google Scholar

Bohannon, Christina & Hovenkamp, Herbert 2012. Creation without Restraint: Promoting Liberty and Rivalry in Innovation, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bowman, Ward S. 1973. Patent and Antitrust Law: A Legal and Economic Appraisal, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Brooks, Roger G. & Geradin, Damien. 2010. Interpreting and Enforcing the Voluntary FRAND Commitment. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1645878 CrossRef Google Scholar

Byrd, Owen, Howard, Brian C. & Maples, Jason. 2014. 2014 Lex Machina Patent Litigation Damages Report, Menlo Park, CA: Lex Machina.Google Scholar

Caffarra, Cristina. 2014. “Patent Explosion and Patent Wars: Holdup, Royalties and Misunderstandings over ‘Market Value’,” European Competition Law Annual 2012: 307–29.Google Scholar

Calabresi, Guido & Douglas Melamed, A.. 1972. “Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral,” Harvard Law Review 85: 1089–1128.Google Scholar

Camesasca, Peter, Langus, Gregor, Neven, Damien & Treacy, Pat. 2013. “Injunctions for Standard-Essential Patents: Justice Is Not Blind,” Journal of Competition Law & Economics 9(2): 285–311.Google Scholar

Campbell, John E., Chao, Bernard, Roberson, Christopher T. & Yokum, David V.. 2016. “Countering the Plaintiff’s Anchor: Jury Simulations to Evaluate Damages Arguments,” Iowa Law Review 101(2): 543–71.Google Scholar

Carlton, Dennis W. & Shampine, Allan L.. 2013. “An Economic Interpretation of FRAND,” Journal of Competition Law & Economics 9(3): 531–52.Google Scholar

Caron, Christophe. 2013. “L’efficacité des licences FRAND: entre droit des brevets, droit civil et normalisation,” La Semaine Juridique, Edition Générale 2013(21): 1006–13.Google Scholar

Carter, James H. 2014. “FRAND Royalty Disputes: A New Challenge for International Arbitration?,” in Rovine, Arthur W., ed., Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation – the Fordham Papers 2013, Boston: Brill Nijhoff.Google Scholar

Cary, George S., Nelson, Mark W., Kaiser, Steven J. & Sistla, Alex R.. 2011. “The Case for Antitrust Law to Police the Patent Holdup Problem in Standard Setting,” Antitrust Law Journal 77(3): 913–45.Google Scholar

Chao, Bernard. 2012. “The Case for Contribution in Patent Law,” University of Cincinnati Law Review 80(1): 113–59.Google Scholar

Chao, Bernard. 2016. “Horizontal Innovation and Interface Patents,” Wisconsin Law Review 2016(2): 287–336.Google Scholar

Chao, Bernard. 2018. “Lost Profits in a Multicomponent World,” Boston College Law Review 59(4): 1321–56.Google Scholar

Chao, Bernard & Gray, Jonathan. 2013. “A $1 Billion Parable,” Denver University Law Review 90: 185–91.Google Scholar

Chapman, Gretchen B. & Bornstein, Brian H.. 1996. “The More You Ask For, the More You Get: Anchoring in Personal Injury Verdicts,” Applied Cognitive Psychology 10(6): 519–40.Google Scholar

Chiang, Tun-Jen. 2017. “The Information-Forcing Dilemma in Damages Law,” William & Mary Law Review 59(1): 81–145.Google Scholar

Chien, Colleen V. 2014. “Holding Up and Holding Out,” Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review 21(1): 1–41.Google Scholar

Chien, Colleen V. 2016. “Contextualizing Patent Disclosure,” Vanderbilt Law Review 69(6): 1849–90.Google Scholar

Chien, Colleen V. & Lemley, Mark A.. 2012. “Patent Holdup, the ITC, and the Public Interest,” Cornell Law Review 98(1): 1–46.Google Scholar

Chisum, Donald S. 2017. Chisum on Patents, Binghamton, NY: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.Google Scholar

Choi, Jay Pil. 2009. “Alternative Damage Rules and Probabilistic Intellectual Property Rights: Unjust Enrichment, Lost Profits, and Reasonable Royalty Remedies,” Information Economics & Policy 21(2): 145–57.Google Scholar

Colangelo, Giuseppe & Torti, Valerio. 2017. “Filling Huawei’s Gaps: The Recent German Case Law on Standard Essential Patents,” European Competition Law Review 2017 38(12): 538–46.Google Scholar

Conley, Ned L. 1987. “An Economic Approach to Patent Damages,” AIPLA Quarterly Journal 15(4): 354–90.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. 2012. “The February of FRAND,” Patently-O, Mar. 6, 2012. https://patentlyo.com/patent/2012/03/february-of-frand.html Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. 2013. “Fixing FRAND: A Pseudo-Pool Approach to Standards-Based Patent Licensing,” Antitrust Law Journal 79(1): 47–97.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. 2015a. “Patent Pledges,” Arizona State Law Journal 47(3): 543–608.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. 2015b. “A Brief History of FRAND: Analyzing Current Debates in Standard Setting and Antitrust Through a Historical Lens,” Antitrust Law Journal 80(1): 39–120.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. 2015c. “A Market Reliance Theory for FRAND Commitments and Other Patent Pledges,” Utah Law Review 2015(2): 479–558.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. 2016. “When a Stranger Calls: Standards Outsiders and Unencumbered Patents,” Journal of Competition Law & Economics 12(3): 507–39.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. 2017a. “Aggregated Royalties for Top-Down FRAND Determinations: Revisiting Joint Negotiation,” Antitrust Bulletin 62(4): 690–709.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. 2017b. “Global Markets, Competition, and FRAND Royalties: The Many Implications of Unwired Planet v. Huawei,” The Antitrust Source 17(1): 1–14.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L., Chien, Colleen, Cotter, Thomas F. & Biddle, Brad. 2016. “Study Proposal – Commercial Patent Licensing Data.” https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract_id=2755706 Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. & Eixenberger, Michael A.. 2016. “Model Jury Instructions for Reasonable Royalty Patent Damages,” Jurimetrics 57(1): 1–24.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. & Gilbert, Richard J.. 2015. “A Unified Framework for RAND and Other Reasonable Royalties,” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 30: 1451–1504.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. & Newman, David L.. 2014. “Developing a Framework for Arbitrating Standards-Essential Patent Disputes,” Journal of Dispute Resolution 2014(1): 23–50.Google Scholar

Contreras, Jorge L. & Picht, Peter Georg. 2017. “Patent Assertion Entities and Legal Exceptionalism in Europe and the United States, A Comparative View,” Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper No. 17–11. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3036578 Google Scholar

Cotropia, Christopher A. 2008. “Compulsory Licensing Under TRIPS and the Supreme Court of the United States’ Decision in eBay v. MercExchange,” in Takenaka, Toshiko, ed., Patent Law and Theory: A Handbook of Contemporary Research, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar

Cotropia, Christopher A., Kesan, Jay P. & Schwartz, David L.. 2014. “Unpacking Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs),” Minnesota Law Review 99(2): 649–703.Google Scholar

Cotropia, Christopher A. & Lemley, Mark A.. 2009. “Copying in Patent Law,” North Carolina Law Review 87(5): 1421–66.Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. 2004. “An Economic Analysis of Enhanced Damages and Attorney’s Fees for Willful Patent Infringement,” Federal Circuit Bar Journal 14: 291–331.Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. 2009. “Patent Holdup, Patent Remedies, and Antitrust Responses,” Journal of Corporation Law 34: 1151–1207.Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. 2011. “Four Principles for Calculating Reasonable Royalties in Patent Infringement Litigation,” Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal 27(4): 725–61.Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. 2013a. Comparative Patent Remedies: A Legal and Economic Analysis, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. 2013b. “Reining in Remedies in Patent Litigation: Three (Increasingly Immodest) Proposals,” Santa Clara High Tech Law Journal 30: 1–30.Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. 2013c. “After a Six-Month Hiatus, Enhanced Damages for Patent Infringement in Taiwan Are Back,” Comparative Patent Remedies, Aug. 6, 2013. http://comparativepatentremedies.blogspot.com/2013/08/after-six-month-hiatus-enhanced-damages.html Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. 2013d. “Kleinheyer and Hartwig on Allocation of Defendant’s Profits in Germany,” Comparative Patent Remedies, Sep. 18, 2013. http://comparativepatentremedies.blogspot.jp/2013/09/kleinheyer-and-hartwig-on-allocation-of.html Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. 2013e. “The Draft Fourth Amendment of the Chinese Patent Act Would Authorize Treble Damages for Willful Infringement,” Comparative Patent Remedies, Oct. 31, 2013. http://comparativepatentremedies.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-draft-fourth-amendment-of-chinese.html Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. 2013f. “Punitive Damages for Patent Infringement in the UK?,” Comparative Patent Remedies, Nov. 27, 2013. http://comparativepatentremedies.blogspot.com/2013/11/punitive-damages-for-patent.html Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. 2013g. “Article by Meier-Beck on Infringement Damages Under German Law,” Comparative Patent Remedies, Dec. 11, 2013. http://comparativepatentremedies.blogspot.jp/2013/12/article-by-meier-beck-on-infringement.html Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. 2014a. “Comparative Law and Economics of Standard-Essential Patents and FRAND Royalties,” Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 22: 311–63.Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. 2014b. “Bobst v. Heidelberg: A Recent French Case on Lost Profits,” Comparative Patent Remedies, Jan. 24, 2014. http://comparativepatentremedies.blogspot.com/2014/01/bobst-v-heidelberg-recent-french-case.html Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. 2014c. “Setting the Amount of an Injunction Bond (and a Brief Digression about the Wright Brothers),” Comparative Patent Remedies, Apr. 18, 2014. http://comparativepatentremedies.blogspot.com/2014/04/setting-amount-of-injunction-bond-and.html Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. 2015. “A Study of Reasonable Royalty Awards in Japan,” Comparative Patent Remedies, Mar. 23, 2015. https://comparativepatentremedies.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-study-of-reasonable-royalty-awards-in.html Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. 2016a. “A Recent English Decision on Accountings of Profits,” Comparative Patent Remedies, Feb. 29, 2016. http://comparativepatentremedies.blogspot.jp/2016/02/a-recent-english-decision-on.html Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. 2016b. “Infringer’s Profits as a Proxy for Plaintiff’s Lost Profits in Japan,” Comparative Patent Remedies, June 8, 2016. http://comparativepatentremedies.blogspot.com/2016/06/infringers-profits-as-proxy-for.html Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. 2016c. “Damages for Moral Prejudice in Spain and Elsewhere,” Comparative Patent Remedies, June 20, 2016. http://comparativepatentremedies.blogspot.com/2016/06/damages-for-moral-prejudice-in-spain.html Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. 2016d. “CJEU Rules on Recovery of Attorney’s Fees and Other Costs,” Comparative Patent Remedies, Aug. 22, 2016. http://comparativepatentremedies.blogspot.com/2016/08/cjeu-rules-on-recovery-of-attorneys.html Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. 2016e. “A Couple of Commentaries on Genentech v. Hoechst,” Comparative Patent Remedies, Nov. 18, 2016. http://comparativepatentremedies.blogspot.com/2016/11/a-couple-of-commentaries-on-genentech-v.html Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. 2016f. “From Around the Blogs: Lost Profits in China, Accountings of Profits in Canada, and Reasonable Royalties in the U.S.,” Comparative Patent Remedies, Dec. 15, 2016. http://comparativepatentremedies.blogspot.com/2016/12/from-around-blogs-lost-profits-in-china.html Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. 2017. “Stays Pending Design-Around in Germany?,” Comparative Patent Remedies, Feb. 16, 2017. http://comparativepatentremedies.blogspot.com/2017/02/stays-pending-design-around-in-germany.html Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. 2018. “Patent Damages Heuristics,” Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 25(2): 159–213.Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F. & Golden, John M.. 2018. “Empirical Studies Relating to Patents: Remedies,” in Menell, Peter S. and Schwartz, David L., eds., Research Handbook on the Economics of Intellectual Property Law: Analytical Methods, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2665680 (forthcoming).Google Scholar

Cotter, Thomas F., Hovenkamp, Erik & Siebrasse, Norman V.. 2019. “Switching Costs, Path Dependence and Patent Holdup,” Washington and Lee Law Review (forthcoming).Google Scholar

Cournot, Augustin. 1838. Researches into the Mathematical Principles of the Theory of Wealth, Nathaniel T. Bacon trans., New York: Augustus M. Kelley Publishers.Google Scholar

Covington & Burling LLP. 2015. “China’s Draft Patent Law Seeks Five Fold Increase on Damages Cap for Patent Infringement Cases,” Covington Alert, Dec. 9, 2015. www.cov.com/-/media/files/corporate/publications/2015/12/chinas_draft_patent_law_seeks_five_fold_increase_on_damages_cap_for_patent_infringement_cases.pdf Google Scholar

Cox, Alan. 2017. “The Limited Role of Analytical Approach to Reasonable Royalty,” Law360, Apr. 13, 2017.Google Scholar

Cremers, Katrin, Gaessler, Fabian, Harhoff, Dietmar, Helmers, Christian & Lefouili, Yassine. 2016. “Invalid but Infringed? An Analysis of the Bifurcated Patent Litigation System,” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 131(1): 218–42.Google Scholar

Crowne, Emir. 2015. “Non-Infringing Alternatives Make Their Way into Canadian Law,” Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 10(12): 889–90.Google Scholar

Cui, Xiaoguang & Shen, Lena (Lanying). 2016. “China,” in Elmer, Michael C. & Gramenopoulos, C. Gregory, eds., Global Patent Litigation: How and Where to Win, Second Edition, Arlington VA: Bloomberg BNA.Google Scholar

Cui, Yabing. 2018. “Across the Faulty Lines: Chinese Judicial Approaches to Injunctions and SEPs,” China IPR, Jun. 5, 2018. https://chinaipr.com/2018/06/05/across-the-fault-lines-chinese-judicial-approaches-to-injunctions-and-seps/Google Scholar

Dasgupta, Partha & Stiglitz, Joseph. 1980. “Uncertainty, Industrial Structure, and the Speed of R&D,” Bell Journal of Economics 11(1): 1–28.Google Scholar

De Coninck, Raphaël & Koustoumpardi, Elina. 2017. “Excessive Pricing Cases in the Pharmaceutical Industry: Economic Considerations and Practical Pitfalls,” Concurrences 2017(3): 9–16.Google Scholar

De Werra, Jacques. 2014. “The Expanding Significance of Arbitration for Patent Licensing Disputes: From Post-Termination Disputes to Pre-Licensing FRAND Disputes,” ASA Bulletin 32(4): 692–706.Google Scholar

Delrahim, Makan. 2017. “Take It to the Limit: Respecting Innovation Incentives in the Application of Antitrust Law,” Remarks Prepared for Delivery at USC Gould School of Law – Application of Competition Policy to Technology and IP Licensing, Nov. 10, 2017. www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-makan-delrahim-delivers-remarks-usc-gould-school-laws-center Google Scholar

Denicolò, Vincenzo, Geradin, Damien, Layne-Farrar, Anne & Jorge Padilla, A.. 2008. “Revisiting Injunctive Relief: Interpreting eBay in High-Tech Industries with Non-Practicing Patent Holders,” Journal of Competition Law & Economics 4(3): 571–608.Google Scholar

Di Pietro, Susanne, Carns, Teresa W., & Kelley, Pamela. 1995. “Alaska’s English Rule: Attorney’s Fee Shifting in Civil Cases,” Report to the Alaska Judicial Council. www.ajc.state.ak.us/reports/atyfee.pdf Google Scholar

Dobbs, Dan B. 1993. Dobbs Law of Remedies: Second Edition, Volume 1, St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.Google Scholar

Dumont, Béatrice. 2015. “Does Patent Quality Drive Damages in Patent Lawsuits? Lessons from the French Judicial System,” Review of Law & Economics 11(2): 355–83.Google Scholar

Durie, Daralyn J. & Lemley, Mark A.. 2010. “A Structured Approach to Calculating Reasonable Royalties,” Lewis & Clark Law Review 14: 627–50.Google Scholar

Egan, Edward J. & Teece, David J.. 2015. “Untangling the Patent Thicket Literature,” Tusher Center for the Management of Intellectual Capital, Working Paper No. 7. http://innovation-archives.berkeley.edu/businessinnovation/documents/Tusher-Center-Working-Paper-7.pdf Google Scholar

Eisenberg, Melvin A. 2006. “The Disgorgement Interest in Contract Law,” Michigan Law Review 105(3): 559–602.Google Scholar

Elhauge, Einer. 2008. “Do Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking Lead to Systematically Excessive Royalties?,” Journal of Competition Law & Economics 4(3): 535–70.Google Scholar

Elmer, Michael C. & Gramenopoulos, C. Gregory. 2016. Global Patent Litigation: How and Where to Win, Second Edition, Arlington VA: Bloomberg BNA.Google Scholar

Emch, Adrian & Zhang, Jiaming. 2016. “Chinese Competition Law – The Year 2015 in Review,” Global Competition Litigation Review 2016(1): 30–37.Google Scholar

Epstein, Richard A. 1997. “A Clear View of the Cathedral: The Dominance of Property Rules,” Yale Law Journal 106(7): 2091–2120.Google Scholar

Epstein, Richard A. 2010. “The Disintegration of Intellectual Property? A Classical Liberal Response to a Premature Obituary,” Stanford Law Review 62(2): 455–522.Google Scholar

Epstein, Richard A. & Kappos, David J.. 2013. “Legal Remedies for Patent Infringement: From General Principles to FRAND Obligations for Standard Essential Patents,” Competition Policy International 9(2): 69–89.Google Scholar

Epstein, Richard A., Scott Kieff, F., & Spulber, Daniel F.. 2012. “The FTC, IP, and SSOs: Government Hold-Up Replacing Private Coordination,” Journal of Competition Law & Economics 8(1): 1–46.Google Scholar

Epstein, Roy. 2006. “Prejudgment Interest Rates in Patent Cases: Don’t Compound an Error,” IPL Newsletter 24(2): 1–12. www.royepstein.com/Epstein_ipl_winter_2006.pdf Google Scholar

Epstein, Roy J. & Marcus, Alan J.. 2003. “Economic Analysis of the Reasonable Royalty: Simplification and Extension of the Georgia-Pacific Factors,” Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society 85(7): 555–81.Google Scholar

Europe Economics. 2016. JRC Science for Policy Report: Patent Assertion Entities in Europe: Their Impact on Innovation and Knowledge Transfer in ICT Markets (Thumm, Nikolaus & Gabison, Garry eds.), Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC103321/lfna28145enn.pdf Google Scholar

Evans, David S. & Padilla, A. Jorge. 2005. “Excessive Prices: Using Economics to Define Administrable Legal Rules,” Journal of Competition Law & Economics 1(1): 97–122.Google Scholar

Ezrachi, Ariel & Gilo, David. 2009. “Are Excessive Prices Really Self-Correcting?,” Journal of Competition Law & Economics 5(2): 249–68.Google Scholar

Faigman, David L. & Imwinkelreid, Edward J.. 2013. “Wading into the Daubert Tide: Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California,” Hastings Law Journal 64(6): 1665–96.Google Scholar

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

Farrell, Joseph, Hayes, John, Shapiro, Carl & Sullivan, Theresa. 2007. “Standard Setting, Patents, and Hold-Up,” Antitrust Law Journal 74: 603–70.Google Scholar

Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA). 2016. “Model Patent Jury Instructions.” https://fedcirbar.org/IntegralSource/Model-Patent-Jury-Instructions Google Scholar

Federal Trade Commission (FTC). 2003. To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy. www.ftc.gov/reports/promote-innovation-proper-balance-competition-patent-law-policy Google Scholar

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 2011. The Evolving IP Marketplace: Aligning Patent Notice and Remedies with Competition. www.ftc.gov/reports/evolving-ip-marketplace-aligning-patent-notice-remedies-competition Google Scholar

Fennell, Lee Anne. 2006. “Efficient Trespass: The Case for Bad Faith Adverse Possession,” Northwestern University Law Review 100(3): 1037–96.Google Scholar

Fish & Richardson, P.C. 2018. “Prejudgment and Post-Judgment Interest,” Patent Damages Services. www.fr.com/services/litigation/patent/patent-damages/prejudgment-and-post-judgment-interest/Google Scholar

Flanz, Scott M. 2016. “Octane Fitness: The Shifting of Patent Attorneys’ Fees Moves into High Gear,” Stanford Technology Law Review 19(2): 329–63.Google Scholar

Flynn, John J. 1968. “Consent Decrees in Antitrust Enforcement: Some Thoughts and Proposals,” Iowa Law Review 53(5): 983–1019.Google Scholar

Fournier, Gary M. & Zuehlke, Thomas W.. 1989. “Litigation and Settlement: An Empirical Approach,” The Review of Economics and Statistics 71(2): 189–95.Google Scholar

Fox, Nicholas, Berghuis, Bas, vom Feld, Ina & Orlando, Laura. 2015. “Accounting for Differences: Damages and Profits in European Patent Infringement,” European Intellectual Property Review 37(9): 566–74.Google Scholar

Frischmann, Brett M. & Lemley, Mark A.. 2007. “Spillovers,” Columbia Law Review 107: 257–301.Google Scholar

Furnham, Adrian & Boo, Hua Chu. 2011. “A Literature Review of the Anchoring Effect,” The Journal of Socio-Economics 40(1): 35–42.Google Scholar

Gal, Michal S. 2013. “Abuse of Dominance – Exploitative Abuses,” in Lianos, Ioannis & Geradin, Damien, eds., Handbook on European Competition Law: Substantive Aspects, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar

Galetovic, Alexander & Gupta, Kirti. 2017. “Royalty Stacking and Standard Essential Patents: Theory and Evidence from the World Mobile Wireless Industry.” https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2790347 Google Scholar

Galetovic, Alexander, Haber, Stephen & Levine, Ross. 2015. “An Empirical Examination of Patent Holdup,” Journal of Competition Law & Economics 11(3): 549–78.Google Scholar

Gallini, Nancy T. & Winter, Ralph A.. 1985. “Licensing in the Theory of Innovation,” The RAND Journal of Economics 16(2): 237–52.Google Scholar

Ganglmair, Bernhard, Froeb, Luke M. & Werden, Gregory J.. 2012. “Patent Hold-Up and Antitrust: How a Well-Intentioned Rule Could Retard Innovation,” The Journal of Industrial Economics 60(2): 249–73.Google Scholar

Gavil, Andrew I. 2012. “Moving Beyond Caricature and Characterization: The Modern Rule of Reason in Practice,” Southern California Law Review 85(3): 733–82.Google Scholar

Ge, Yijun (Jill). 2017. “The Beijing IP Court’s 50 Million RMB Judgment in WatchData v. Hengbao,” Comparative Patent Remedies, Jan. 23, 2017. http://comparativepatentremedies.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-beijing-ip-courts-50-million-rmb.html Google Scholar

Geradin, Damien. 2010a. “Reverse Hold-Ups: The (Often Ignored) Risks Faced by Innovators in Standardized Areas,” in Konkurrensverket: Swedish Competition Authority, ed., The Pros and Cons of Standard Setting, Västerås, Sweden: Edita Västra Aros AB. www.konkurrensverket.se/globalassets/english/research/read-the-book-14mb.pdf Google Scholar

Geradin, Damien. 2010b. “Reverse Hold-Ups: The (Often Ignored) Risks Faced by Innovators in Standardized Areas,” presentation delivered at The Pros and Cons of Standard Setting 2010 at Konkurrensverket: Swedish Competition Authority, Nov. 12, 2010. www.konkurrensverket.se/globalassets/english/research/presentation-by-damien-geradin-reverse-hold-ups-theften-ignored-risks-faced-by-innovators-in-standardized-areas.pdf Google Scholar

Geradin, Damien. 2016. “Patent Assertion Entities and EU Competition Law,” George Mason University Law and Economics Research Paper Series No. 16–08. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2728686 Google Scholar

Geradin, Damien & Layne-Farrar, Anne. 2007. “The Logic and Limits of Ex Ante Competition in a Standard Setting Environment,” Competition Policy International 3(1): 79–106.Google Scholar

Geradin, Damien & Layne-Farrar, Anne 2010. “Patent Value Apportionment Rules for Complex Multi-Patent Products,” Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal 27(4): 763–92.Google Scholar

Geradin, Damien, Layne-Farrar, Anne & Padilla, Jorge. 2008. “The Complements Problem Within Standard Setting: Assessing the Evidence on Royalty Stacking,” Boston University Journal of Science & Technology Law 14(2): 144–76.Google Scholar

Gergen, Mark P., Golden, John M. & Smith, Henry E.. 2012. “The Supreme Court’s Accidental Revolution – The Test for Permanent Injunctions,” Columbia Law Review 112(2): 203–249.Google Scholar

Gilbert, Richard J. 2011. “Deal or No Deal? Licensing Negotiations in Standard-Setting Organizations,” Antitrust Law Journal 77: 855–88.Google Scholar

Gilbert, Richard J. & Shapiro, Carl. 1997. “Antitrust Issues in the Licensing of Intellectual Property: The Nine No-No’s Meet the Nineties,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics 1997: 283–349.Google Scholar

Glänzel, Wolfgang & Meyer, Martin. 2003. “Patents Cited in the Scientific Literature: An Exploratory Study of ‘Reverse’ Citation Relations,” Scientometrics 58(2): 415–28.Google Scholar

Golden, John M. 2007. “Commentary, ‘Patent Trolls’ and Patent Remedies,” Texas Law Review 85(7): 2111–61.Google Scholar

Golden, John M. 2010. “Principles for Patent Remedies,” Texas Law Review 88(3): 505–92.Google Scholar

Golden, John M. 2012. “Injunctions as More (or Less) than off Switches: Patent-Infringement Injunctions’ Scope,” Texas Law Review 90(6): 1399–1472.Google Scholar

Golden, John M. 2017. “Reasonable Certainty in Contract and Patent Damages,” Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 30: 257–78.Google Scholar

Golden, John M. & Sandrik, Karen E.. 2017. “A Restitution Perspective on Reasonable Royalties,” The Review of Litigation 36(2): 335–77.Google Scholar

Goldscheider, Robert, Jarosz, John & Mulhern, Carla. 2002. “Use of The 25 Per Cent Rule in Valuing IP,” les Nouvelles 37: 123–33.Google Scholar

Gooding, Martha K. 2012. “Analyzing the ‘Analytic Method’ of Calculating Reasonable Royalty Patent Damages,” Patent, Trademark & Copyright Law Daily (Bloomberg BNA), May 14, 2012.Google Scholar

Gooding, Martha K. 2014. “Reasonable Royalty Patent Damages: A Proper Reading of the Book of Wisdom,” Patent, Trademark & Copyright Law Daily (Bloomberg BNA), Apr. 21, 2014.Google Scholar

Goodman, David J. & Myers, Robert A.. 2005. “3D Cellular Standards and Patents,” 2005 International Conference on Wireless Networks, Communications and Mobile Computing. https://doi.org/10.1109/WIRLES.2005.1549445 Google Scholar

Grabinski, Klaus. 2009. “Gewinnherausgabe nach Patentverletzung: Zur gerichtlichen Praxis acht Jahre nach dem „Gemeinkostenanteil“ Urteil des BGH,” Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 3–4: 260–65.Google Scholar

Greene, Edie & Bornstein, Brian H.. 2003. Determining Damages: The Psychology of Jury Awards, Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Grosskopf, Ofer & Medina, Barak. 2009. “Remedies for Wrongfully-Issued Preliminary Injunctions: The Case for Disgorgement of Profits,” Seattle University Law Review 32(4): 903–42.Google Scholar

Guangdong High People’s Court. 2018. Trial Adjudication Guidance for Standard Essential Patent Dispute Cases. www.iprdaily.cn/article_18855.html Google Scholar

Gupta, Kirti & Kesan, Jay P.. 2016. “Studying the Impact of eBay on Injunctive Relief in Patent Cases,” University of Illinois College of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 17–03: 1–45. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2816701 Google Scholar

Gutowski, Maciej. 2016. Kodeks Cywilny, Tom I: Komentarz – Art. 1–449¹¹, Warsaw: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar

Hall, Bronwyn H. & Harhoff, Dietmar. 2012. “Recent Research on the Economics of Patents,” Annual Review of Economics 4: 541–65.Google Scholar

Harkrider, John D. 2013. “Seeing the Forest Through the SEPs,” Antitrust 27(3): 22–29.Google Scholar

Hastie, Reid, Schkade, David A. & Payne, John W.. 1999. “Juror Judgments in Civil Cases: Effects of Plaintiff’s Requests and Plaintiff’s Identity on Punitive Damage Awards,” Law & Human Behavior 23(4): 445–70.Google Scholar

Heald, Paul J. 2008. “Optimal Remedies for Patent Infringement: A Transactional Model,” Houston Law Review 45(4): 1165–1200.Google Scholar

Heath, Christopher. 2008. “Wrongful Patent Enforcement: Threats and Post-Infringement Invalidity in Comparative Perspective,” International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 39(3): 307–22.Google Scholar

Heath, Christopher. 2015. Patent Enforcement Worldwide: Writings in Honour of Dieter Stauder, Third Edition, Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar

Helmers, Christian, Lefouili, Yassine, Love, Brian, & McDonagh, Luke. 2018. “Incentives to Litigate: Evidence from a Court Reform in the UK,” Working Paper (On file with authors).Google Scholar

Helmers, Christian, Love, Brian, & McDonagh, Luke. 2014. “Is There a Patent Troll Problem in the U.K.?,” Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal 24(2): 509–54.Google Scholar

Henrich, Joseph. 2015. The Secret of Our Success: How Culture Is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating Our Species, and Making Us Smarter, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Hesse, Renata & Marshall, Frances. 2017. “U.S. Antitrust Aspects of FRAND Disputes,” in Contreras, Jorge L., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Technical Standardization Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Holte, Ryan T. & Seaman, Christopher B.. 2017. “Patent Injunctions on Appeal: An Empirical Study of the Federal Circuit’s Application of Ebay,” Washington Law Review 92(1): 145–212.Google Scholar

Hoshi, Katsuhiro. 1998. “Research and Study on the Way of Damages Compensation and Penal Regulations in Cases of Intellectual Properties Infringement,” Institute of Intellectual Property Bulletin 7: 1–15.Google Scholar

Hovenkamp, Erik & Cotter, Thomas F.. 2016. “Anticompetitive Patent Injunctions,” Minnesota Law Review 100(3): 871–920.Google Scholar

Hovenkamp, Erik & Masur, Jonathan S.. 2017. “How Patent Damages Skew Licensing Markets,” The Review of Litigation 36(2): 379–416.Google Scholar

Howard, Brian C. & Maples, Jason. 2017. “Lex Machina Patent Litigation Year in Review 2016,” Menlo Park, CA: Lex Machina.Google Scholar

Hu, Jingjing. 2016. “Determining Damages for Patent Infringement in China,” International Review of Intellectual Property & Competition Law 47(1): 5–27.Google Scholar

Hughes, James W. & Snyder, Edward A.. 1995. “Litigation and Settlement Under the English and American Rules: Theory and Evidence,” Journal of Law & Economics 38(1): 225–50.Google Scholar

Inglis, Laura, McCabe, Kevin, Rassenti, Steve, Simmons, Daniel, & Tallroth, Erik. 2005. “Experiments on the Effects of Cost Shifting, Court Costs, and Discovery on the Efficient Settlement of Tort Claims,” Florida State University Law Review 33(1): 89–117.Google Scholar

Isenbergh, Maxwell S. & Rubin, Seymour J.. 1940. “Antitrust Enforcement Through Consent Decrees,” Harvard Law Review 53(3): 386–414.Google Scholar

Janicke, Paul M. 1993. “Contemporary Issues in Patent Damages,” American University Law Review 42: 691–736.Google Scholar

Jarosz, John C. & Chapman, Michael J.. 2013. “The Hypothetical Negotiation and Reasonable Royalty Damages: The Tail Wagging the Dog,” Stanford Technology Law Review 16: 769–830.Google Scholar

Jiam, Hannah. 2015. “Fee-Shifting and Octane Fitness: An Empirical Approach Toward Understanding ‘Exceptional’,” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 30 (Annual Review 2015): 611–74.Google Scholar

Jones, Alison. 2014. “Standard-Essential Patents: Frand Commitments, Injunctions and the Smartphone Wars,” European Competition Journal 10(1): 1–36.Google Scholar

Jones, Alison & Christopher, Stothers. 2018. “Establishing Unfairly High Prices: The Implications of the CAT’s Judgment in Flynn and Pfizer v Competition and Market Authority,” Bio-Science Law Review 17(1): 19–26.Google Scholar

Kamlah, Dietrich. 2014. “Legal Consequences of Patent Infringement,” in Haedicke, Maximilian & Timmann, Henrik, eds., Patent Law: A Handbook on European and German Patent Law, Munich: C.H. Beck oHG.Google Scholar

Kapczynski, Amy. 2009. “Harmonization and Its Discontents: A Case Study of TRIPS Implementation in India’s Pharmaceutical Sector,” California Law Review 97(6): 1571–1650.Google Scholar

Kaplow, Louis & Shavell, Steven. 1996. “Property Rules v. Liability Rules: An Economic Analysis,” Harvard Law Review 109(4): 713–90.Google Scholar

Kattan, Joseph. 2013. “FRAND Wars and Section 2,” Antitrust 27(3): 30–35.Google Scholar

Kattan, Joseph & Wood, Chris. 2013. “Standard-Essential Patents and the Problem of Hold-Up,” in Carbit, Nicolas & Ramundo, Elisa, eds., William E. Kovacic – An Antitrust Tribute: Liber Amicorum – Volume II, New York: Institute of Competition Law.Google Scholar

Kelley, Anne. 2011. “Practicing in the Patent Marketplace,” University of Chicago Law Review 78(1): 115–38.Google Scholar

Keukenschrijver, Alfred. 2016. “Unterlassungsanspruch; Schadensersatz,” in Busse, Rudolf & Keukenschrijver, Alfred, eds., Patentgesetz, Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Keyhani, Dariush. 2008. “Permanent Injunctions in Patent Cases,” Buffalo Intellectual Property Law Journal 6(1): 1–12.Google Scholar

Khan, Lina M. 2017. “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox,” Yale Law Journal 126(3): 710–805.Google Scholar

Kidd, George David. 2014. “Accuracy or Efficiency: Has Grain Processing Made a Difference?,” Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology 15(1): 653–88.Google Scholar

Kieff, F. Scott & Layne-Farrar, Anne. 2013. “Incentive Effects from Different Approaches to Holdup Mitigation Surrounding Patent Remedies and Standard-Setting Organizations,” Journal of Competition Law & Economics 9(4): 1091–1123.Google Scholar

Kim, Byungil. 2015. “Patent Enforcement in China,” in Heath, Christopher, ed., Patent Enforcement Worldwide: Writings in Honour of Dieter Stauder, Third Edition, Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar

Kim, Jay J., Chang, Duck Soon, Suh, Tae-Jun, & Kim, Cy C.. 2016. “South Korea,” in Elmer, Michael C. & Gregory Gramenopoulos, C., eds., Global Patent Litigation: How and Where to Win, Second Edition, Arlington VA: Bloomberg BNA.Google Scholar

Kitch, Edmund W. 1977. “The Nature and Function of the Patent System,” Journal of Law & Economics 20(2): 265–90.Google Scholar

Kobayashi, Bruce H. & Wright, Joshua D.. 2009. “Federalism, Substantive Preemption, and Limits on Antitrust: An Application to Patent Holdup,” Journal of Competition Law & Economics 5(3): 469–516.Google Scholar

Kobayashi, Bruce H. & Wright, Joshua D. 2012. “The Limits of Antitrust and Patent Holdup: A Reply to Cary et al.,” Antitrust Law Journal 78(2): 505–26.Google Scholar

Kritzer, Herbert M. 2002. “Lawyer Fees and Lawyer Behavior in Litigation: What Does the Empirical Literature Really Say?,” Texas Law Review 80(7): 1943–83.Google Scholar

Kühnen, Thomas. 2015. Patent Litigation Proceedings in Germany: A Handbook for Practitioners, Cologne, Ger.: Carl Heymanns Verlag.Google Scholar

Kühnen, Thomas. 2017. Handbuch der Patentverletzung, Cologne, Ger.: Carl Heymanns Verlag.Google Scholar

La Belle, Megan M. 2012. “Patent Law as Public Law,” George Mason Law Review 20(1): 41–104.Google Scholar

Landes, William M. & Posner, Richard A.. 1983. “Causation in Tort Law: An Economic Approach,” Journal of Legal Studies 12(1): 109–34.Google Scholar

Langus, Gregor, Lipatov, Vilen & Neven, Damien. 2013. “Standard-Essential Patents: Who Is Really Holding up (And When)?” Journal of Competition Law & Economics 9(2): 253–84.Google Scholar

Larouche, Pierre & Zingales, Nicolo. 2017. “Injunctive Relief in FRAND Disputes in the EU – Intellectual Property and Competition Law at the Remedies Stage,” Tilburg Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 01/2017. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2909708 CrossRef Google Scholar

Laycock, Douglas. 1991. The Death of the Irreparable Injury Rule, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Laycock, Douglas. 2002. Modern American Remedies: Cases and Materials, New York: Aspen Law & Business.Google Scholar

Layne-Farrar, Anne. 2014. “Moving Past the SEP RAND Obsession: Some Thoughts on the Economic Implications of Unilateral Commitments and the Complexities of Patent Licensing,” George Mason Law Review 21: 1093–1110.Google Scholar

Layne-Farrar, Anne. 2017. “The Patent Damages Gap: An Economist’s Review of U.S. Patent Damages Apportionment Rules,” Working Paper (Apr. 8, 2017). http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract_id=2911289 Google Scholar

Layne-Farrar, Anne, Llobet, Gerard & Jorge Padilla, A.. 2009. “Preventing Patent Holdup: An Economic Assessment of Ex Ante Licensing Negotiations in Standard Setting,” AIPLA Quarterly Journal 37(4): 445–78.Google Scholar

Layne-Farrar, Anne, Llobet, Gerard & Jorge Padilla, A. 2014. “Payments and Participation: The Incentives to Join Cooperative Standard Setting Efforts,” Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 23(1): 24–49.Google Scholar

Layne-Farrar, Anne, Padilla, A. Jorge & Schmalensee, Richard. 2007. “Pricing Patents for Licensing in Standard-Setting Organizations: Making Sense of FRAND Commitments,” Antitrust Law Journal 74(3): 671–706.Google Scholar

Layne-Farrar, Anne & Schmidt, Klaus M.. 2010. “Licensing Complementary Patents: Patent Trolls, Market Structure, and Excessive Royalties,” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 25(2): 1121–44.Google Scholar

Lee, William F. & Melamed, A. Douglas. 2016. “Breaking the Vicious Cycle of Patent Damages,” Cornell Law Review 101: 385–466.Google Scholar

Lemley, Mark A. 2005. “Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding,” Texas Law Review 83: 1031–75.Google Scholar

Lemley, Mark A. 2007. “Ten Things to Do About Patent Holdup of Standards (and One Not to),” Boston College Law Review 48(1): 149–68.Google Scholar

Lemley, Mark A. 2009. “Distinguishing Lost Profits from Reasonable Royalties,” William & Mary Law Review 51(2): 655–74.Google Scholar

Lemley, Mark A. 2011. “The Ongoing Confusion over Ongoing Royalties,” Missouri Law Review 76(3): 695–707.Google Scholar

Lemley, Mark A. 2013. “A Rational System of Design Patent Remedies,” Stanford Technology Law Review 17: 219–38.Google Scholar

Lemley, Mark A. & Myhrvold, Nathan. 2007. “How to Make a Patent Market,” Hofstra Law Review 36(2): 257–60.Google Scholar

Lemley, Mark A. & Shapiro, Carl. 2005. “Probabilistic Patents,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 19(2): 75–98.Google Scholar

Lemley, Mark A. & Shapiro, Carl 2007a. “Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking,” Texas Law Review 85(7): 1991–2049.Google Scholar

Lemley, Mark A. & Shapiro, Carl 2007b. “Patent Hold-Up and Royalty Stacking: Reply,” Texas Law Review 85(7): 2163–74.Google Scholar

Lemley, Mark A. & Weiser, Philip J.. 2007. “Should Property or Liability Rules Govern Information,” Texas Law Review 85(4): 783–842.Google Scholar

Léonard, Amandine. 2016. “‘Abuse of Rights’ in Belgian and French Patent Law – A Case Law Analysis,” Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law 7(1): 1–21.Google Scholar

Léonard, Amandine. 2017. “L’abus de droit dans le contentieux des brevets – Entre divergences nationales et voeu d’harmonisation de la juridiction unifiée du brevet – une piste à suivre?,” Propriété Industrielle 2017(1): Etude 2.Google Scholar

Leubsdorf, John. 1978. “The Standard for Preliminary Injunctions,” Harvard Law Review 91(3): 525–66.Google Scholar

Li, Xiaowu & Wang, Don. 2017. “Chinese Patent Law’s Statutory Damages Provision: The One Size That Fits None,” Washington International Law Journal 26(2): 209–46.Google Scholar

Lichtman, Douglas. 2003. “Uncertainty and the Standard for Preliminary Relief,” University of Chicago Law Review 70(1): 197–214.Google Scholar

Lohr, Steve. 2010. “Smartphone Patent Suits Challenge Big Makers,” The New York Times, July 9, 2010. www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/technology/09patent.html Google Scholar

Love, Brian J. 2007. “Patentee Overcompensation and the Entire Market Value Rule,” Stanford Law Review 60(1): 263–94.Google Scholar

Love, Brian J. 2009. “The Misuse of Reasonable Royalty Damages as a Patent Infringement Deterrent,” Missouri Law Review 74(4): 909–48.Google Scholar

Love, Brian J., Helmers, Christian & Eberhardt, Markus. 2016. “Patent Litigation in China: Protecting Rights or the Local Economy,” Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law 18(4): 713–42.Google Scholar

Love, Brian J., Helmers, Christian, Gaessler, Fabian, & Ernicke, Maximilian. 2017. “Patent Assertion Entities in Europe,” in Daniel Sokol, D., ed., Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Policy, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Love, Brian J. & Yoon, James C.. 2013. “Expanding Patent Law’s Customer Suit Exception,” Boston University Law Review 93(5): 1605–41.Google Scholar

Lundqvist, Björn. 2014. Standardization Under EU Competition Rules and US Antitrust Laws, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar

Mace, Andrew C. 2009. “TRIPS, eBay, and Denials of Injunctive Relief: Is Article 31 Compliance Everything?,” Columbia Science and Technology Law Review 10: 232–66.Google Scholar

Malbon, Justin, Lawson, Charles & Davison, Mark. 2014. The WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights: A Commentary, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar

Manta, Irina D. 2011. “The Puzzle of Criminal Sanctions for Intellectual Property Infringement,” Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 24(2): 469–518.Google Scholar

Marchese, Christopher S. 1994. “Patent Infringement and Future Lost Profits Damages,” Arizona State Law Journal 26(3): 747–95.Google Scholar

Marcus, Philip. 1945. “Patents, Antitrust Law and Antitrust Judgments Through Hartford-Empire,” Georgetown Law Journal 34(1): 1–63.Google Scholar

Mariniello, Mario. 2011. “Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) Terms: A Challenge for Competition Authorities,” Journal of Competition Law & Economics 7(3): 523–41.Google Scholar

Masten, Scott E., ed. 1996. Case Studies in Contracting and Organization, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Masur, Jonathan S. 2015. “The Use and Misuse of Patent Licenses,” Northwestern University Law Review 110: 115–57.Google Scholar

Matsunaka, Masahiko. 2004. “FY 2003 Study Report on the Japanese Economic Structure from a Competition Policy Perspective—Court Judgments Concerning Calculation of the Amount of Damages in Intellectual Property Infringement Litigation,” Institute of Intellectual Property Bulletin 13: 168–77.Google Scholar

McGowan, David. 2010. “Irreparable Harm,” Lewis & Clark Law Review 14: 577–96.Google Scholar

McManis, Charles R. & Contreras, Jorge L.. 2014. “Compulsory Licensing of Intellectual Property: A Viable Policy Lever for Promoting Access to Critical Technologies?,” in Ghidini, Gustavo, Peritz, Rudolph J. R. & Ricolfi, Marco, eds., TRIPS and Developing Countries: Towards a New IP World Order?, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar

Means, Samuel Chase. 2013. “The Trouble with Treble Damages: Ditching Patent Law’s Willful Infringement Doctrine and Enhanced Damages,” University of Illinois Law Review 2013(5): 1999–2046.Google Scholar

Melullis, Klaus-J. 2008. “Zur Ermittlung und zum Ausgleich des Schadens bei Patentverletzungen,” Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht Internationaler Teil 8–9: 679–85.Google Scholar

Merges, Robert P. 1994. “Of Property Rules, Coase, and Intellectual Property,” Columbia Law Review 94(8): 2655–73.Google Scholar

Mes, Peter. 2015. Patentgesetz, Gebrauchsmustergesetz: Kommentar, Munich: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar

Michel, Hon. Paul R., ed. 2010. Compensatory Damages Issues in Patent Infringement Cases: A Handbook for Federal District Court Judges. www.law.berkeley.edu/files/bclt_PatentDamages_Ed.pdf Google Scholar

Montañá, Miquel. 2013. “Court Sheds Light on Damages Caused by Preliminary Injunctions,” Kluwer Patent Blog, May 17, 2013. http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2013/05/17/court-sheds-light-on-damages-caused-by-preliminary-injunctions/Google Scholar

Morton, Fiona Scott & Shapiro, Carl. 2016. “Patent Assertions: Are We Any Closer to Aligning Reward to Contribution?” Innovation Policy and the Economy 16(1): 89–133.Google Scholar

Mueller, Christopher B. & Kirkpatrick, Laird C.. 1999. “§ 3.5 —Underlying Reasons and Examples,” Evidence, New York: Aspen Law & Business.Google Scholar

Mulligan, Christina & Lee, Timothy B.. 2012. “Scaling the Patent System,” NYU Annual Survey of American Law 68(2): 289–318.Google Scholar

Nagakoshi, Yuzuki & Tamai, Katsuya. 2016. “Japan Without FRANDS? Recent Developments on Injunctions and FRAND-Encumbered Patents in Japan,” AIPLA Quarterly Journal 44(2): 243–93.Google Scholar

Nakamura, Nodoka. 2014. “Recent Trends in Court Judgments Concerning Damages in Japanese Patent Infringement Litigations,” A.I.P.P.I.—Japan 39: 389–410.Google Scholar

Narechania, Tejas N. & Kirklin, Jackson Taylor. 2012. “An Unsettling Development: The Use of Settlement-Related Evidence for Damages Determinations in Patent Litigation,” University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy 2012(1): 1–44.Google Scholar

Nash, John F. 1950. “The Bargaining Problem,” Econometrica 18(2): 155–62.Google Scholar

Nazzini, Renato. 2011. The Foundations of European Union Competition Law: The Objective and Principles of Article 102, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Nazzini, Renato. 2017. “Level Discrimination and FRAND Commitments Under EU Competition Law,” World Competition 40(2): 213–39.Google Scholar

Nicholson, Walter & Snyder, Christopher. 2008. Microeconomic Theory: Basic Principles and Extensions, Tenth Edition, Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.Google Scholar

Noguchi, Yuki. 2005. “Government Enters Fray over BlackBerry Patents,” The Washington Post, Nov. 12, 2005. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101789.html Google Scholar

Noll, Roger G. 2005. “‘Buyer Power’ and Economic Policy,” Antitrust Law Journal 72(2): 589–624.Google Scholar

O’Donoghue, Robert & Padilla, A. Jorge. 2013. The Law and Economics of Article 102 TFEU, Second Edition, Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar

Ohly, Ansgar. 2009. “Three Principles of European IP Enforcement Law: Effectiveness, Proportionality, Dissuasiveness,” in Drexl, Josef, Hilty, Reto M., Boy, Laurence, Godt, Christine & Remiche, Bernard, eds., Technology and Competition: Contributions in Honour of Hanns Ullrich, Brussels: Larcier.Google Scholar

Oppenheimer, Max Stul. 2015. “Rethinking Compact Prosecution,” Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology 25(2): 257–88.Google Scholar

Osterrieth, Christian. 2015. “Patent Enforcement in Germany,” in Heath, Christopher, ed., Patent Enforcement Worldwide: Writings in Honour of Dieter Stauder, Third Edition, Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar

Ouellette, Lisa Larrimore. 2017. “Who Reads Patents?,” Nature Biotechnology 35(5): 421–24.Google Scholar

Padilla, A. Jorge & Wong-Ervin, Koren W.. 2017. “Portfolio Licensing to Makers of Downstream End-User Devices: Analyzing Refusals to License FRAND-Assured Standard-Essential Patents at the Component Level,” Antitrust Bulletin 62(3): 494–513.Google Scholar

Page, William H. 2014. “Judging Monopolistic Pricing: F/RAND and Antitrust Injury,” Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 22: 181–208.Google Scholar

Parr, Russell L. & Smith, Gordon V.. 2005. Intellectual Property: Valuation, Exploitation, and Infringement Damages, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar

Patterson, Mark R. 2003. “Antitrust and the Costs of Standard-Setting: A Commentary on Teece & Sherry,” Minnesota Law Review 87(6): 1995–2018.Google Scholar

Pattloch, Thomas. 2015. “Patent Enforcement in China,” in Heath, Christopher, ed., Patent Enforcement Worldwide: Writings in Honour of Dieter Stauder, Third Edition, Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar

Pedigo, Mark. 2017. “Determining Reasonable Royalties with Analytical Approach,” Law360, Mar. 3, 2017.Google Scholar

Pentheroudakis, Chryssoula & Baron, Justus A.. 2017. JRC Science for Policy Report: Licensing Terms of Standard Essential Patents: A Comprehensive Analysis of Cases (Thumm, Nikolaus ed.), Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC104068/jrc104068%20online.pdf Google Scholar

Petit, Nicolas. 2016. “The Smallest Saleable Patent-Practicing Unit (SSPU) Experiment: General Purpose Technologies and the Coase Theorem,” Working Paper (Feb. 18, 2016). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2734245 Google Scholar

Petit, Nicolas. 2017. “EU Competition Law Analysis of FRAND Disputes,” in Contreras, Jorge L., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Technical Standardization Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Petrovčič, Urška. 2013. “Patent Hold-Up and the Limits of Competition Law: A Trans-Atlantic Perspective,” Common Market Law Review 50(5): 1363–86.Google Scholar

Pfenningstorf, Werner. 1984. “The European Experience with Attorney Fee Shifting,” Law and Contemporary Problems 47(1): 37–124.Google Scholar

Picht, Peter Georg. 2018. “FRAND Wars 2.0: Survey of Court Decisions in the Aftermath of Huawei/ZTE,” Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis (Forthcoming). https://ssrn.com/abstract=2916544 Google Scholar

Pindyck, Robert S. & Rubinfeld, Daniel L.. 2013. Microeconomics, Eighth Edition, Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.Google Scholar

Pitz, Johann & Hermann, Gerhard. 2007. “Germany: Enforcement of IP Rights by the National Courts,” in IP Value 2007: Building and Enforcing Intellectual Property Value, London: Globe White Page Ltd.Google Scholar

Platt, S. Christian & Chen, Bob. 2013. “Recent Trends and Approaches in Calculating Patent Damages: Nash Bargaining Solution and Conjoint Surveys,” Patent, Trademark & Copyright Law Daily (Bloomberg BNA), Aug. 30, 2013.Google Scholar

Polinsky, A. Mitchell & Rubinfeld, Daniel L.. 1998. “Does the English Rule Discourage Low-Probability-of-Prevailing Plaintiffs?,” Journal of Legal Studies 27(1): 141–57.Google Scholar

Polinsky, A. Mitchell & Shavell, Steven. 1998. “Punitive Damages: an Economic Analysis,” Harvard Law Review 111(4): 869–962.Google Scholar

Posner, Richard A. 1999. “An Economic Approach to the Law of Evidence,” Stanford Law Review 51: 1477–1546.Google Scholar

Posner, Eric A. & Sunstein, Cass R.. 2005. “Dollars and Death,” University of Chicago Law Review 72(2): 537–98.Google Scholar

Rabowsky, Brent0 1996. “Recovery of Lost Profits on Unpatented Products in Patent Infringement Cases,” Southern California Law Review 70(1): 281–336.Google Scholar

Rachlinski, Jeffery J., Wistrich, Andrew J. & Guthrie, Chris. 2015. “Can Judges Make Reliable Numeric Judgments? Distorted Damages and Skewed Sentences,” Indiana Law Journal 90(2): 695–739.Google Scholar

Ratliff, James & Rubinfeld, Daniel L.. 2013. “The Use and Threat of Injunctions in the RAND Context,” Journal of Competition Law & Economics 9(1): 1–22.Google Scholar

Régibeau, Pierre, De Coninck, Raphaël & Zengler, Hanz. 2016. Transparency, Predictability, and Efficiency of SSO-Based Standardization and SEP Licensing: A Report for the European Commission, European Union.Google Scholar

Rennie, Douglas C. 2012. “Rule 82 and Tort Reform: An Empirical Study of the Impact of Alaska’s English Rule on Federal Civil Case Filings,” Alaska Law Review 29(1): 1–50.Google Scholar

Rennie-Smith, Christopher. 2015. “Patent Enforcement in the United Kingdom,” in Heath, Christopher, ed., Patent Enforcement Worldwide: Writings in Honour of Dieter Staude, Third Editionr, Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar

République Française, Ministère du Redressement Productifs. 2014. “Étude Comparée sur les Dommages et Intérêts Alloués dans le Cadre des Actions en Contrefaçon en France, Au Royaume-Uni et en Allemagne.”Google Scholar

Risch, Michael. 2018. “(Un)reasonable Royalties,” Boston University Law Review 98(1): 187–261.Google Scholar

Roberts, Caprice L. 2010. “The Case for Restitution and Unjust Enrichment Remedies in Patent Law,” Lewis & Clark Law Review 14(2): 653–85.Google Scholar

Robinson, William C. 1890. Law of Patents for Useful Inventions 3, Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar

Romet, Isabelle, Métier, Amandine & Talvard, Dora. 2015. “Patent Enforcement in France,” in Heath, Christopher, ed., Patent Enforcement Worldwide: Writings in Honour of Dieter Stauder, Third Edition, Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar

Rooklidge, William. 2014. “Infringer’s Profits Redux: The Analytical Method of Determining Patent Infringement Reasonable Royalty Damages,” Patent, Trademark & Copyright Law Daily (Bloomberg BNA), Nov. 5, 2014.Google Scholar

Rubinstein, Ariel. 1982. “Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model,” Econometrica 50(1): 97–109.Google Scholar

Scherer, F. M. 1980. Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance: Second Edition, Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Schindler, Jacob. 2018. “Huawei Scores SEP Injunction in Shenzhen Suit Against Samsung Electronics,” IAM Blog, Jan. 11, 2018. www.iam-media.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=6cc258a9-cc70-4f88-858b-228c05981776 Google Scholar

Schlicher, John W. 2009. “Patent Damages, the Patent Reform Act, and Better Alternatives for the Courts and Congress,” Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society 91: 21–76.Google Scholar

Schoenhard, Paul M. 2008. “Who Took My IP – Defending the Availability of Injunctive Relief for Patent Owners,” Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 16(2): 187–236.Google Scholar

Schönknecht, Markus. 2012. “Determination of Patent Damages in Germany,” International Review of Intellectual Property & Competition Law 43(3): 309–32.Google Scholar

Scotchmer, Suzanne. 1991. “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 5(1): 29–41.Google Scholar

Seaman, Christopher B. 2010. “Reconsidering the Georgia-Pacific Standard for Reasonable Royalty Patent Damages,” Brigham Young University Law Review 2010(5): 1661–1727.Google Scholar

Seaman, Christopher B. 2012. “Willful Patent Infringement and Enhanced Damages after In re Seagate: An Empirical Study,” Iowa Law Review 97(2): 417–71.Google Scholar

Seaman, Christopher B. 2015. “Ongoing Royalties in Patent Cases after eBay: An Empirical Assessment and Proposed Framework,” Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 23(3): 203–50.Google Scholar

Seaman, Christopher B. 2016. “Permanent Injunctions in Patent Litigation after eBay: An Empirical Study,” Iowa Law Review 101(5): 1949–2019.Google Scholar

Second Subcommittee of the Second Patent Committee. 2014. “Predictability of Monetary Damages under Article 102(3) of the Japanese Patent Law,” Intellectual Property Management 64: 219–235 (in Japanese).Google Scholar

Sedona Conference. 2014. “Commentary on Patent Damages and Remedies: A Project of the Sedona Conference Working Group on Patent Damages and Remedies (WG9), Public Comment Version.” https://thesedonaconference.org/download-publication?fid=3282 Google Scholar

Sedona Conference 2016. “Commentary on Patent Reasonable Royalty Determinations: A Project of the Sedona Conference Working Group on Patent Damages and Remedies (WG9), December 2016 Edition.” https://thesedonaconference.org/download-publication?fid=571 Google Scholar

Sganga, Caterina & Scalzini, Silvia. 2017. “From Abuse of Right to European Copyright Misuse: A New Doctrine for EU Copyright Law,” International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 48(4): 405–35.Google Scholar

Shapiro, Carl. 2006. “Prior User Rights,” American Economic Review 96(2): 92–96.Google Scholar

Shapiro, Carl. 2007. “Patent Reform: Aligning Reward and Contribution,” Innovation Policy and the Economy 8: 111–56.Google Scholar

Shapiro, Carl. 2010. “Injunctions, Hold-Up, and Patent Royalties,” American Law & Economics Review 12(2): 280–318.Google Scholar

Shapiro, Carl. 2016. “Property Rules vs. Liability Rules for Patent Infringement.” https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2775307 Google Scholar

Shavell, Steven. 1980. “An Analysis of Causation and the Scope of Liability in the Law of Torts,” Journal of Legal Studies 9(3): 463–516.Google Scholar

Shavell, Steven & van Ypersele, Tanguy. 2001. “Rewards Versus Intellectual Property Rights,” Journal of Law & Economics 44(2): 525–48.Google Scholar

Shen, David & Ge., Jill 2017. “IWNCOMM v. Sony: First SEP-Based Injunction Granted in China,” Allen & Overy, Apr. 10, 2017. www.allenovery.com/publications/en-gb/Pages/Iwncomm-v-Sony-first-SEP-based-injunction-granted-in-China.aspx Google Scholar

Sichelman, Ted. 2014. “Purging Patent Law of ‘Private Law’ Remedies,” Texas Law Review 92(3): 517–72.Google Scholar

Sichelman, Ted. 2018. “Innovation Factors for Reasonable Royalties,” Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 25(2): 277–325.Google Scholar

Sidak, J. Gregory. 2008. “Holdup, Royalty Stacking, and the Presumption of Injunctive Relief for Patent Infringement: A Reply to Lemley and Shapiro,” Minnesota Law Review 92(3): 714–48.Google Scholar

Sidak, J. Gregory. 2009. “Patent Holdup and Oligopsonistic Collusion in Standard-Setting Organizations,” Journal of Competition Law & Economics 5(1): 123–88.Google Scholar

Sidak, J. Gregory. 2014. “The Proper Royalty Base for Patent Damages,” Journal of Competition Law & Economics 10(4): 989–1037.Google Scholar

Sidak, J. Gregory. 2016a. “Apportionment, FRAND Royalties, and Comparable Licenses After Ericsson v. D-Link,” University of Illinois Law Review 2016(4): 1809–70.Google Scholar

Sidak, J. Gregory. 2016b. “Enhanced Damages for Infringement of Standard-Essential Patents,” The Criterion Journal on Innovation 2016(1): 1101–13.Google Scholar

Sidak, J. Gregory. 2017. “FRAND in India,” in Contreras, Jorge L., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Technical Standardization Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sidak, J. Gregory & Skog, Jeremy O.. 2016. “Using Conjoint Analysis to Apportion Patent Damages,” Federal Circuit Bar Journal 25: 581–620.Google Scholar

Siebrasse, Norman V. 2001. “A Property Rights Theory of the Limits of Copyright,” University of Toronto Law Journal 51(1): 1–62.Google Scholar

Siebrasse, Norman V. 2013. “Opening the Door to Punitive Damages in Patent Law?,” Sufficient Description: Observations on Canadian Patent Cases, Oct. 4, 2013. www.sufficientdescription.com/2013/10/opening-door-to-punitive-damages-in.html Google Scholar

Siebrasse, Norman V. 2016. “No Presumption Against an Accounting of Profits,” Sufficient Description: Observations on Canadian Patent Cases, Feb. 26, 2016. www.sufficientdescription.com/2016/02/no-presumption-against-accounting-of.html Google Scholar

Siebrasse, Norman V. 2017. “Instantaneous Availability of Non-Infringing Alternative,” Sufficient Description: Observations on Canadian Patent Cases, Feb. 10, 2017. www.sufficientdescription.com/2017/02/instantaneous-availability-of-non.html Google Scholar

Siebrasse, Norman V. & Cotter, Thomas F.. 2016. “A New Framework for Determining Reasonable Royalties in Patent Litigation,” Florida Law Review 68(4): 929–99.Google Scholar

Siebrasse, Norman V. & Cotter, Thomas F. 2017a. “The Value of the Standard,” Minnesota Law Review 101(3): 1159–1246.Google Scholar

Siebrasse, Norman V. & Cotter, Thomas F. 2017b. “Judicially Determined FRAND Royalties,” in Contreras, Jorge L., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Technical Standardization Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Siebrasse, Norman V., Stack, Alexander J. & Cole & Partners IP Litigation Support Group. 2008. “Accounting of Profits in Intellectual Property Cases in Canada,” Canadian Intellectual Property Review 24(1): 83–136.Google Scholar

Sikorski, Rafal. 2015. “Nadużycie patentu w świetle art. 5 KC,” in Nowińska, Ewa & Szczepanowska-Kozłowska, Krystyna, eds., System Prawa Handlowego, Tom 3: Prawo własności przemysłowej, Warsaw: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar

Skenyon, John M., Marchese, Christopher, Land, John & Porcelli, Frank. 2016. Patent Damages Law and Practice, 2016–2017 ed., Eagan, MN: Thomson Reuters.Google Scholar

Smith, Henry E. 2004. “Property and Property Rules,” New York University Law Review 79(5): 1719–98.Google Scholar

Smith, Henry E. 2007. “Intellectual Property as Property: Delineating Entitlements in Information,” Yale Law Journal 116(8): 1742–1823.Google Scholar

Smith, Tony. 2001. “Rambus’ ‘Very High’ DDR Royalty Revealed,” The Register, May 3, 2001. www.theregister.co.uk/2001/05/03/rambus_very_high_ddr_royalty/Google Scholar

Snyder, Edward A. & Hughes, James W.. 1990. “The English Rule for Allocating Legal Costs: Evidence Confronts Theory,” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 6(2): 345–80.Google Scholar

Sokol, D. Daniel. 2017. “Patent Privateering: The Rise of Hybrid Patent Assertion Entities,” in Sokol, D. Daniel, ed., Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Policy, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Spier, Kathryn E. 2007. “Litigation,” in Polinsky, A. Mitchell & Shavell, Steven eds., Handbook of Law & Economics, Volume 1, Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V.Google Scholar

Spulber, Daniel F. 2017. “Complementary Monopolies and Bargaining,” Journal of Law & Economics 60(1): 29–74.Google Scholar

State Intellectual Property Office of the P.R.C. (SIPO). 2016. “Beijing Court Hands Down Highest Ever Compensation Order,” IPR Special, Dec. 15, 2016. http://english.sipo.gov.cn/news/iprspecial/920348.htm Google Scholar

Steppe, Richard & Léonard, Amandine. 2017. “Catching Patent Trolls in the Net of Abuse of Rights: Applying the General Principle of Union Law in the Context of the Unitary Patent Package,” European Intellectual Property Review 39(3): 163–72.Google Scholar

Sterk, Stewart E. 2008. “Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Uncertainty about Property Rights,” Michigan Law Review 106(7): 1285–1336.Google Scholar

Stern, Richard H. 2015. “What Are Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory Terms for Licensing a Standard-Essential Patent?,” European Intellectual Property Review 37: 549–57.Google Scholar

Stout, Lynn A. 2011. Cultivating Conscience: How Good Laws Make Good People, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Straus, Joseph. 2011. “Das Regime des European Telecommunications Standards Institute – ETSI: Grundsätze, anwendbares Recht und die Wirkung der ETSI gegenüber abgegebenen Erklärungen,” Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil 60(6): 469–80.Google Scholar

Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China. 2009. “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Dispute Cases,” No. 21 Judicial Interpretation.Google Scholar

Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China 2016. “Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Dispute Cases.”Google Scholar

Suzuki, Masabumi & Tamura, Yoshiyuki. 2011. “Patent Enforcement in Japan,” Zeitschrift für Geistiges Eigentum/Intellectual Property Journal 3(4): 435–74.Google Scholar

Swanson, Daniel G. & Baumol, William J.. 2005. “Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory (RAND) Royalties, Standards Selection, and Control of Market Power,” Antitrust Law Journal 73: 1–58.Google Scholar

Takenaka, Toshiko. 2009. “Harmonizing Patent Infringement Damages: A Lesson from Japanese Experiences,” in Adelman, Martin J., Brauneis, Robert, Drexl, Josef, & Nack, Ralph, eds., Patent and Technological Progress in a Globalized World, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar

Tandon, Pankaj. 1983. “Rivalry and the Excessive Allocation of Resources to Research,” Bell Journal of Economics 14(1): 152–65.Google Scholar

Taylor, David O. 2014. “Using Reasonable Royalties to Value Patented Technology,” Georgia Law Review 49(1): 79–162.Google Scholar

Teece, David J., Grindley, Peter C. & Sherry, Edward F.. 2012. “SDO IPR Policies in Dynamic Industries,” National Academy of Sciences Symposium on RAND Patent Policies.Google Scholar

Teece, David J. & Sherry, Edward F.. 2016. “‘Smallest Saleable Patent Practicing Unit’ Doctrine: An Economic and Public Policy Analysis,” Working Paper Series No. 11: 1–33. http://innovation-archives.berkeley.edu/businessinnovation/documents/Tusher-Center-Working-Paper-11.pdf Google Scholar

Thiele, Alan R., Blakeway, Judith R. & Hosch, Charles M.. 2010. The Patent Infringement Litigation Handbook: Avoidance and Management, Chicago: American Bar Association.Google Scholar

Unidroit. 2016. Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts, Rome: International Institute for the Unification of Private Law. www.unidroit.org/instruments/commercial-contracts/unidroit-principles-2016 Google Scholar

University of Geneva. 2015. “Topic 3: How shall disputes about the licensing of Standard Essential Patents (SEP) under Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms be solved?,” Geneva Internet Disputes Resolution Policies 1.0. https://geneva-internet-disputes.ch/Google Scholar

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). 2008. Competition and Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/reports/236681.htm Google Scholar

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) & U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC). 2017. Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property. www.justice.gov/atr/IPguidelines/download Google Scholar

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) & U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 2007. Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Competition. www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/antitrust-enforcement-and-intellectual-property-rights-promoting-innovation-and-competition-report.s.department-justice-and-federal-trade-commission/p040101promotinginnovationandcompetitionrpt0704.pdf Google Scholar

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) & U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). 2013. Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments. www.justice.gov/atr/page/file/1118381/download Google Scholar

Verma, Rohit, Plaschka, Gerhard & Louviere, Jordan J.. 2002. “Understanding Customer Choices: A Key to Successful Management of Hospitality Services,” Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly 43(6): 15–24.Google Scholar

Vermont, Samson. 2006. “Independent Invention as a Defense to Patent Infringement,” Michigan Law Review 105(3): 475–504.Google Scholar

Véron, Pierre. 2012. “Civil Liability Because of the Enforcement of a Preliminary Injunction,” Kluwer Patent Blog, Feb. 29, 2012. http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2012/02/29/civil-liability-because-of-the-enforcement-of-a-preliminary-injunction/Google Scholar

Wang, Xiaoye. 2017. “Why SEPs Have Been Involved in Antitrust Cases – From A Chinese Scholar’s Perspective,” Zeitschrift für Wettbewerbsrecht 15(1): 72–87.Google Scholar

Ward, Annesley Merele. 2017. “Is German SEP litigation set to increase with the “confidentiality club decision” of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf?,” The IPKat, Feb. 7, 2017. http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2017/02/german-court-prowls-into-realm-of.html Google Scholar

Weinstein, Roy, Romig, Ken & Stabile, Frank. 2013. “Taming Complex Intellectual Property Compensation Problems,” Federal Circuit Bar Journal 22(3): 547–61.Google Scholar

Williams, Jackson. 2001. “Effects of Attorney Fee Shifting Law on Claiming Behavior,” Policy Sciences 34(3–4): 347–56.Google Scholar

Williamson, Oliver E. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting, New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). 2017. Guidance on WIPO FRAND Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. www.wipo.int/amc/en/center/specific-sectors/ict/frand/Google Scholar

Wright, Joshua D. 2014. “SSOs, FRAND, and Antitrust: Lessons from the Economics of Incomplete Contracts,” George Mason Law Review 21(4): 791–810.Google Scholar

Wu, H. D. 2014. “The Presumption of Fault Principle and Determination in IPR Infringement Litigation,” Law Review (Faxue Pinglun) 5: 124–30.Google Scholar

Yamaguchi, Kazuhiro. 2016. “Japanese Patent Litigation and Its Related Statistics–Current Environment and Future Agenda,” A.I.P.P.I.—Japan 41: 128–42.Google Scholar

Yang, Zelin. 2014. “Damaging Royalties: An Overview of Reasonable Royalty Damages,” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 29: 647–78.Google Scholar

Yi, Sang-Seung & Kim, Yoonhee. 2017. “FRAND in Korea,” in Contreras, Jorge L., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Technical Standardization Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Yuan, Xiuting & Kossof, Paul. 2015. “Developments in Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law: Implications of Huawei v. InterDigital on Anti-Monopoly Litigation in Mainland China,” European Intellectual Property Review 37(7): 438–41.Google Scholar

Book contents

Bibliography

Summary

References

Primary Sources

Secondary Sources

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive