!!Экзамен зачет 2023 год / Ворожевич. Монография пределы осуществления и защиты исключительного права патентообладателя

Список источников и литературы

135.Cohen W.M., Nelson R.R., Walsh J.P. Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not) // http://www.nber.org/papers/w7552.

136.Competitive European regions through research and innovation: Practical guide to EU Funding opportunities for research and innovation. REV 1 30/09/2008.

137.Consultation paper of Patent office «The UK implementation of the Directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (2004/48/EC)» // http://www.ipo.gov.uk/consult-enforcement.pdf.

138.Constantine S. The Pharmaceutical Sector, Intellectual Property Rights, and Competition Law in Europe // Intellectual Property and Competition Law – New Frontiers. Oxford, 2011.

139.Correa C. Implications of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health // Health economics and drugs. Geneva, 2002 // http://apps. who.int/medicinedocs/pdf/s2301e/s2301e.pdf.

140.Cortés E., Dawson A., Hatton C. EU substantive areas: IP and Antitrust // The European Antitrust Review 2014 // http://globalcompetitionreview.com/ reviews/53/the-european-antitrust-review-2014.

141.Cotropia C. Compulsory Licensing Under TRIPS and the Supreme Court of the United States’ Decision in eBay v. MercExchange // www.ssrn.com.

142.Cotter Th.F. Four Questionable Rationales for the Patent Misuse Doctrine // http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract_id=1616275.

143.Crane D.A. Patent Pools, RAND Commitments, and the Problematics of Price Discrimination // http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract_id=1120071.

144.Crowne E.A. Fishing TRIPS: A loot at the history of the agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property. Creighton International & Comparative Law Journal. 2011. Vol. 2 // https://dspace.creighton.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10504/38574/2CICLJ77.pdf?sequence=1.

145.Den Uyl D.J, Rasmussen D.B. Ethical individualism, natural law, and the primacy of natural rights // http://new.stjohns.edu/media/3/fd866cdb03c64bf390092c5bbb419503.pdf.

146.Discussion paper on standard essential patents and their availability on FRAND terms // Government of India Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion Ministry of Commerce & Industry // http://dipp.nic.in/English/ Discuss_paper/standardEssentialPaper_01March2016.pdf.

147.Dimitru S. Are Rawlsians Entitled to Monopoly Rights? // Intellectual property and theories of justice. London, 2008.

148.Drahos P. Developing Countries and International Intellectual Property Standard-setting // Commission on Intellectual Property Rights Study Paper

№8 // http://www.iprcommission.org/papers/pdfs/study_papers/sp8_drahos_study.pdf.

311

Список источников и литературы

149.Elias S., Stim R. Paten, Copyright and trademark: an intellectual property desk. Bercley, 2004.

150.In re Independent service organization antitrust litigation. Creative Copier Services v. Xerox Corp. United States District Court, D. Kansas. Feb. 16, 2000 // http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/Markman/pdfFiles /2000.02.16_In_ re_INDEPENDENT_SERVICE_ORGANIZATIONS_ANTITRUST_LITIGATI.pdf.

151.Feldman R.C. The Insufficiency of Antitrust Analysis for Patent Misuse // Hastings Law Journal. 2003. Vol. 55 (http://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/ files/event/266699/media/slspublic/Insufficiency%20pdf.pdf).

152.Ferrera G.R., Bird R. Aresty J.M. Cyber Law: text and cases. Mason (Texas), 2012.

153.Fisher W. Theories of intellectual property // New essays in the legal and political theory of property/ edited by R. Munzer. Cambridge, 2001.

154.Franck J.U., Purnhagen K. Homo Economicus, Behavioural Sciences, and Economic Regulation: On the Concept of Man in Internal Market Regulation and its Normative Basis // Law and economics in Europe. Foundation and application. By Klause Mathis. Dordrecht, 2014.

155.Francis W., Collins R. Cases and Materials on Patent Law: Including Trade Secrets-Copyrights – Trademarks. St. Paul, 1987.

156.Geller E. Copyright history and the future: what’s culture got to do with it // Copyright History and the Future.

157.German court grants Motorola injunction against Windows 7 and Xbox 300 (updated: Microsoft comments) // http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/02/ german-court-grants-motorola-injunction.

158.Gervais D.J. Intellectual property and human rights: learning to live together // Intellectual property. 2008.

159.Gosseries A. How (Un)fair is Intellectual Property? // Intellectual property and theories of justice. London, 2008.

160.Graef I. Tailoring the essential facility doctrine to the IT sector: compulsory licensing of intellectual property rights after Microsoft // www. ssrn.com.

161.Green T.H. Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation and Other Writings. London, 1931.

162.Grossman G., Helpman E. Quality Ladders in the Theory of Growth // Review of Economic Studies. 1991. Vol. 58. №. 1.

163.Helfer L.R. Human rights and intellectual property: conflict or coexistence // Minnesota intellectual property review. 2003. Vol. 5:1.

164.Halzer W. Effective Mechanisms for Challenging the Validity of Patents // http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/meetings/en/2006/scp_of_ge_06/presentations/scp_of_ge_06_holzer.pdf.

165.Harris J. Property and Justice. Oxford, 1996.

312

Список источников и литературы

166.Harhoff D. Economic Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Unified and Integrated European Patent Litigation System: Final Report. München, 2009.

167.Harguth A. Patents in Germany and Europe: Procurement, Enforcement and Defense: an International Handbook. New York, 2011.

168.Haugen M. H. Patent Rights and Human Rights: Exploring their Relationships // The Journal of World Intellectual Property. 2007. Vol. 10. № 2.

169.Heck P. The Jurisprudence of Interests // The Jurisprudence of Interests. Selected Writings of M. Rumelin. P. Heck, P. Oertmann, H. Stoll, J. Binder, H. Isay. 1948.

170.Homiller D.P. Patent Misuse in Patent Pool Licensing: From National Harrow to «The Nine No-Nos» to Not Likely // Duke Law & Technology Review. 2006. Vol. 5. No. 7 (доступно в Интернете по адресу: http://scholarship.law. duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1153&context=dltr).

171.Hotte D.A. Die kartellrechtliche Zwangslizenz im Patentrecht. Munster,

2010.

172.Hoppner T. Die Pflicht interne Produktionsmittel zu vermarkten – zugleich Anmerkung zum EuGHUrteil IMS. EuZW 2004.

173.Hovenkamp H. J. Antitrust and the Patent System: A Reexamination // Ohio State Law Journal.2015. Vol. 468 // https://ssrn.com/abstract=2486633 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2486633.

174.Hughes J. The Philosophy of IP // Georgetown Law Journal. 1988 // http://www.justinhughes.net/docs/a-ip01.pdf.

175.Huang Y., Wang E.X., Zhang R.X. Essential facilities doctrine and its application in intellectual property space under china’s anti-monopoly law // George Mason Law Review, 2015. Vol. 22:5.

176.Hughes J. The Philosophy of IP // Georgetown Law Journal. 1988 // http://www.justinhughes.net/docs/a-ip01.pdf.

177.Janutis R.M. The supreme court’s unremarkable decision in eBay Inc. v. Mercexchange LLC // http://www.lclark.edu/live/files/4810.

178.Jolly A. The Handbook of European Intellectual Property Management: Developing, Managing and Protecting Your Company’s Intellectual Property. 2007.

179.Kapczynski A. Four Hypotheses on Intellectual Property and Inequality // Working Paper Prepared for the SELA Conference June 11-14, 2015.

180.Kahneman D.A. Psychological Perspective on Economics // The American Economic Review. 2003. Vol. 93. № 2.

181.Keeling D.T. Intellectual property rights in EU Law Volume I: free Movement and competition law. Oxford, 2014.

182.Kennedy J.P., Watkins W.H. How to Invent and Protect Your Invention: A Guide to Patents for Scientists and Engineers. New Jersey, 2012.

183.Laakkonen A. Defences to patent infringement in a standards context // http://fordhamipconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Laakkonen.pdf.

313

Список источников и литературы

184.Lecture on natural law // http://www.radford.edu/~junnever/law/naturallaw.htm.

185.Lerner J., Tirole J., Strojwas M. Cooperative Marketing Agreements Between Competitors: Evidence from Patent Pools // http://www.nber.org/ papers/w9680.

186.Leslie C.R. Antitrust law and intellectual property rights. Oxford,

2011.

187.Lee J.Y. Mansfield E. Intellectual Property Protection and U.S. Foreign Direct Investment // The Review of Economics and Statistics. 1996. Vol. 78. Issue 2.

188.Lemley M.L. Intellectual Property Rights and Standard-Setting Organizations // California law review. 2002. // http://scholarship.law.berkeley. edu/californialawreview/vol90/iss6/3.

189.Machlup F. An economic review of the patent system: study of the subcommittee on patents, trademarks, and copyrights of the committee on the judiciary // https://mises.org/etexts/patentsystem.pdf.

190.Mackaay E. Law and economics for civil law system. Cheltenham, Northampton, 2013.

191.McPherson C.B. (ed.), John Locke Second Treatise of Government. Cambridge, 1980.

192.Maister F. German courts sees first signs of European patent troll // http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202424954133.

193.Magliocca G. Blackberries and Barnyards: Patent Trolls and the Perils of Innovation // Notre Dame Law Review. June 2007.

194.Mann R. J. Do Patents Facilitate Financing in the Software Industry? // Texas Law Review. 2005. Vol. 83 // http://ssrn.com/abstract=510103.

195.Masur J. Patent Inflation // Yale Law Journal. 2011. Vol. 121 (доступно

вИнтернете по адресу: http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract_id=1623929).

196.Maume P. Compulsory licensing in Germany // http://papers.ssrn.

com.

197.McDonough III J.F. The myth of the patent troll: an alternative view of the function of patent dealers in an idea economy // http://papers.ssrn.com/ abstract=959945.

198.Menell P. Intellectual property: general theories // http://encyclo. findlaw.com/1600book.pdf.

199.Mergers R.P., Kuhn J.M. An Estoppel Doctrine for Patented Standards // http:/ssrn.com/abstract=1134000.

200.Merges R., Nelson R. On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope, 90 Colum. L. Rev. 839, 880–81 (1990) // cyber.law.harvard.edu›IPCoop/ 90merg2.html.

201.Miller C.G. Magill: Time to Abondon the «Specific Subject-matter Concept» // E.I.P.R. 1994. № 10.

314

Список источников и литературы

202.Miller J.I. (2011) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(A) and the unconstitutional taking of patents // Yale Journal of Law and Technology. 2011. Vol. 13: Iss. 1 // http:// digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjolt/vol13/iss1/1.

203.Moore A. Intellectual property and information control. Philosophic foundation and contemporary issues. New Jersey, 2001.

204.Mossof A. Who cares what Thomas Jefferson thought about patents: reevaluating the patent «privilege» in historical context // http://papers.ssrn. com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=892062.

205.Myrick R. Will the intellectual property still be viable in a unitary market // E.I.P.R. 1992. № 14 (9).

206.Murphy J. Toyota Builds Thicket of Patents Around Hybrid To Block Competitors // The Wall Street Journal. 2009. July 1 (доступно в Интернете по адресу: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB124640553503576637).

207.Nordhaus W. Invention, Growth and Welfare: A Theoretical Trea. Cambridge, 1969.

208.Nourse V., Shaffer G. Varieties of new legal realism can a new world order prompt a new legal theory? // Legal Studies Research Paper Series Research Paper. Minnesota, 2009. № 09-17.

209.Nozick R. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York, 1974.

210.O’Donoghue R., Padilla J. The Law and Economics of Article 82 EC. Oxford, 2006.

211.Olson M. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, 1965.

212.Olson D. Taking the Utilitarian Basis for Patent Law Seriously: The Case for Restricting Patentable Subject Matter // Temple Law Review. Vol. 82. N. 1, 2009. Boston College Law School Legal Studies Research Paper N. 172.

213.Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm / H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, J. West (eds.). Oxford, 2006.

214.Osterrieth C. Patent-Trolls in Europa – braucht das Patentrecht neue Grenzen // GRUR. 2009. № 6.

215.Overwalle G. Human Rights Limitations in Patent Law // Intellectual Property and Human Rights: a paradox. Oxford, 2010.

216.Patent nullity proceedings and costs for patent litigation in Germany: overview of proceedings and costs estimates of court fees and representative fees // http://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp13072.pdf.

217.Parr R., Smith G. Intellectual property: valuation, exploitation and infringement damages. New Jersey, 2005.

218.Pound R. Jurisprudence. St. Paul, 1959. Vol. 3.

219.Petit N. Injunctions for FRAND – Pledged SEPS: the question for an appropriate test of abuse under article 102 TFEU.

220.Ping Z. Analysis on Antitrust Regulation of Patent Pools // http://leonardo.chiariglione.org/conferences/dmsd/ipdm06/papers/Antitrust Regulation of Patent Pools.doc.

315

Список источников и литературы

221.Posner R.A., Landes W.A. The economic structure of intellectual property law. England, Harvard university press, 2003.

222.Pottelsberghe B. van. Lost property: The European patent system and why it doesn’t work (Bruegel Blueprint Series. Vol. IX). Brussels, 2009. (доступно

вИнтернете по адресу: http://aei.pitt.edu/11263/1/patents_BP_050609.pdf).

223.Putting knowledge into practice: A broad-based innovation strategy for the EU: communication from the commission to the council, European Parliament, the European economic and social committee and committee of the region. – Brussels, commission of the European communities, 13.9.2006, COM (2006) 502 final.

224.Radin M. Reinterpreting Property. Chicago, 1993.

225.Radcliffe J., Worm U. Current Patent Litigation Trends: UK and Germany // World intellectual property report. 2012. Vol. 26. № 7 // http://www. mayerbrown.com/files/News/992b99d8-d097-43f2-b86b-a231cd90e078/Pre- sentation/NewsAttachment/07854be0-c232-4f17-957c-a392b07806ea/Patent- Litigation-Trends_sept12.pdf.

226.Rambus: An overview of the issues in the case and future lessons for SSOs when designing IPR products // http://www.whitecase.com/files/ Publication/8a08ec44-5c06-4094-a1e7-f1678976886b/Presentation.

227.Ramello G.B. Access to vs. Exclusion from Knowledge: Intellectual Property, Efficiency and Social Justice // Intellectual property and theories of justice. London, 2008.

228.Rahnasto I. Intellectual Property Rights, External Effects, and Anti-Trust Law. Oxford, 2003.

229.Rassenfosse G. de. Quality versus quantity: Strategic interactions and the patent inflation // www.epip.eu/conferences/epip04/files/DERASSENFOSSE_Gaetan_2.pdf.

230.Reamer A., Lcerman L., Youtie J. Technology transfer and commercialization: Their role in economic development. USA, 2003.

231.Research Service, Patent Ownership and Federal Research and Development (R&D): A Discussion on the Bayh-Dole Act and the StevensonWydler Act, by Schacht, Wendy H., CRS Report for Congress RL30320, 11 Dec. 2000.

232.Rowley C.K. Wealth Maximization in Normative Law and Economics.

233.Robinson J. Science as Intellectual Property. New York, 1984.

234.Royall S., Tessar A., Vincenzo A. Deterring «PatentAmbush» in Standard Setting: Lessons from Rambus and Qualcomm // http://www.gibsondunn. com/publications/Documents/Royal-Tessar-DiVincenzo-DeterringPatant Ambush.pdf.

235.Radcliffe J., Worm U. Current Patent Litigation Trends: UK and Germany // World intellectual property report. 2012. Vol. 26. № 7 // http://www. mayerbrown.com/files/News/992b99d8-d097-43f2-b86b-a231cd90e078/Pre-

316

Список источников и литературы

sentation/NewsAttachment/07854be0-c232-4f17-957c-a392b07806ea/Patent- Litigation-Trends_sept12.pdf.

236.Rysman M, Simcoe T. Patents and the Performance of Voluntary Standard Setting Organizations // Management Science № 54. 2009.

237.Samuelson P.A. The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure // The Review of Economics and Statistics, 36. 1954.

238.Seaman C. Permanent injunction in patent litigation after Ebay: an empirical study // Iowa law review. Vol. 101:1949.

239.Schneider C. Fences and competition in patent races // Centre for Economic and Business Research (CEBR) and University of Southern Denmark at Odense. 2005.

240.Schuermann S. Is Germany’s system of litigating disputes over patents bad for business? // http://business-tech.findtechnologynews.com/ german-courts-at-center-of-tech-rivals-patent-fights/.

241.Siebrasse N., Cotter T. Judicially Determined FRAND Royalties // University of Minnesota Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series Research Paper No. 16-01 // https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2712837.

242.Simon W.H. Destabilization Rights: How Public Law Litigation Succeeds // Harvard law review. № 117. 2004.

243.Shapiro C. Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard-Setting // Innovation Policy and the Economy (Jaffe, Adam B. et al., eds). Vol. 1. 2001.

244.Shiffrin S.V. The Incentives Argument for Intellectual Property Protection // Intellectual property and theories of justice. London, 2008.

245.Shindler A., Devies R. Changes to the technology transfer block exemption // http://www.sjberwin.com/insights/2013/07/26/changes-to-the-technology- transfer-block-exemption.

246.Smith H. Intellectual Property as Property: Delineating Entitlements in Information // Yale Law journal. 2007. 116:1742 // http://www.yalelawjournal. org/images/pdfs/567.pdf.

247.Sople V.V. Managing Intellectual Property: The Strategic Imperative. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., 2010.

248.Spinello R.A., Tavani H.T. Intellectual Property Rights in a Networked World: Theory and Practice. Hershey, 2005.

249.Show M.N. International law. Cambridge, 2008.

250.Spence M. Intellectual property. Oxford, 2007.

251.Spinello R.A., Tavani H.T. Intellectual Property Rights in a Networked World: Theory and Practice. Hershey, 2005.

252.Sipe M. Patents, Antitrust, and Preemption (March 7, 2016) // https:// ssrn.com/abstract=2743701

253.Stack A.J. International Patent law: Cooperation, harmonization and institutional analysis of WPO. Cheltenham, 2011.

317

Список источников и литературы

254.Stiglitz J.E. Making globalization work // The economic and social review. Vol. 39. № 3.

255.Stieger W. Das recht aus dem patent und seine schranken: dissertation. Zürich, 2001.

256.Synopsis of Policy Options for Creating a Supportive Environment for Innovative Development. ECE/CECI/2008/3, 24 September 2008 // http:// www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/ceci/documents/2008/session3/ECE_ CECI_2008_3.pdf.

257.Strauss L. Natural Right and History. Chicago, 1953.

258.Takenaka T. Patent law and theory: a hand book of contemporary research. Northampton (Massachusetts), 2008.

259.Tamanaha B. Balanced Realism on Judging: Beyond the FormalistRealist Divide. Ch. 3. 2009.

260.Testimony of Elizabeth Janeway, Copyright Law Revision: Hearings

on H.R. 4347, 5680, 6831, 6835 Before Subcomm. No. 3 of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965), reprinted in George S. Grossman, Omnibus Copyright Revision Legislative History. Vol. 5 (1976).

261.Titiriga R. The “Jurisprudence of Interests” (Interessenjurisprudenz) from Germany: History, Accomplishments, Evaluation // International journal of law, language and discourse. 2013. Vol. 3.1.

262.The Evolving IP Marketplace: Aligning patent notice and remedies with competition // Federal Trade Commission, 2011 // www.ftc.gov/ os/2011/03/110307patentreport.pdf.

263.The Essential facilities doctrine // Organization for economic co-oper- ation and development. Paris, 1996.

264.UNCTAD-ICTSD/ Resource Book on TRIPS and Development. Cambridge, 2004.

265.Vermeule A. Judging Under Uncertainty: An Institutional Theory of Legal Interpretation. Harvard, 2006.

266.Vaver D. Intellectual property rights. Critical concept in law. New-York,

2006.

267.Waldron J. The Right to Private Property Oxford,1988.

268.Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest // http://infojustice.org/washington-declaration-html.

269.Waterstone M. A New Vision of Public Enforcement // Minnesota law review. № 92. 2007.

270.Webb J.M., Locke L.A. Intellectual Property Misuse: Developments in the Misuse Doctrine // Harvard Journal of Law & Technology. 1991. Vol. 4. P. 257, 264 // http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v04/04HarvJL Tech257.pdf.

271.Westermann P. Festschrift fur Karlheinz Quack zum. Berlin, 1991.

318