
IP and Antitrust
Description
Alles über E-Books | Antworten auf Fragen rund um E-Books, Kopierschutz und Dateiformate finden Sie in unserem Info- & Hilfebereich.
This book presents eighty cases that interpret the various public policies that mould the interface of intellectual property law with competition law (or antitrust). Although most cases are from the United States - which has developed an enormously wide wealth of jurisprudence in this area - there are also cases from the European Union, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Brazil, South Korea, India, and Argentina.
The author presents the cases under the following general headings:
- setting the right dosage (i.e., avoiding too much or too little intellectual property);
- setting the standards of differentiation;
- refusing to license intellectual property;
- licensing (and assigning) intellectual property;
- enforcing intellectual property rights;
- remedies;
- intellectual property in sectors of special public interest; and
- technical standards.
Revealing in extraordinary depth the tensions behind the values of the free market which intellectual property serves and the variety of responses these tensions provoke, this book may be regarded as a watershed resource regarding the principles and policies that, sometimes coherently, sometimes not, preside over the very complex relationship between intellectual property and antitrust. It is sure to be greatly valued by all professionals in both fields, from practitioners to policymakers, as well as by academics.
More details
Other editions
Additional editions

Content
- Intro
- Halftitle Page
- Title Page
- Copyright Page
- Dedication
- Table of Contents
- Foreword
- Introduction: The Competition Policies of Intellectual Property
- CHAPTER 1 The Competition Policies of Acquiring Intellectual Property
- §1.01 Setting the Right Dosage
- 1. The Case of Monopolies (1602), Trinity Term, 44 Elizabeth I
- 2. Lab. Corp. of America Holdings v. Metabolite Labs., Inc., 548 U.S. 124 (2006)
- §1.02 Setting the Standards of Differentiation
- [A] Patents: Genuine Novelty
- 3. Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U.S. 192 (1883)
- 4. Julia P. Hotchkiss v. Miles Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248 (1850)
- 5. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)
- [1] The Patent in Issue in No. 11, Graham v. John Deere Co.
- [2] The Patent in Issue in No. 37, Calmar, Inc. v. Cook Chemical Co., and in No. 43, Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Cook Chemical Co.
- [B] Copyright: Genuine Creativity/Originality
- 6. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
- 7. American Dental Association v. Delta Dental Plans Association, 126 F.3d 977 (7th Cir. 1997)
- [C] Trademarks: Distinctiveness
- 8. Mark Foy's Ltd. v. Davies Coop & Co. Ltd. ("Tub Happy case") [1956] HCA 41
- (1956) 95 CLR 190 (9 August 1956)
- [D] Alternativeness
- 9. Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. 156 (1852)
- 10. O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62 (1853)
- 11. Wallace Int'l Silversmiths, Inc. v. Godinger Silver Art Co., Inc., 916 F.2d 76 (2d Cir. 1990)
- 12. Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v. Remington Consumer Products Ltd, Case C-299/99 (2002)
- [E] New Uses, Equivalents, Materials, and Advantages
- 13. Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112 (1875)
- 14. Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150 (1875)
- 15. General Electric Co. v. Jewel Incandescent Lamp Co., 326 U.S. 242 (1945)
- 16. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950)
- [F] Excluding Abstract Ideas from Patent Protection
- 17. Boulton and Watt v. Bull, 1795
- 18. Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972)
- 19. Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)
- CHAPTER 2 The Competition Policies of Using Intellectual Property
- §2.01 Refusing to License Intellectual Property
- 20. Data General Corp. v. Grumman Systems Support Corp., 761 F. Supp. 185 (D. Mas. 1991)
- 21. Microsoft Corp. v. Commission, In Case T-201/04 (2007)
- 22. Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 195 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
- 23. Image Technical Services, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 125 F.3d 1195 (1997)
- 24. DW Integrators CC Claimant v. SAS Institute (Pty) Ltd., Case Number: 14/IR/NOV99 (1999)
- 25. Radio Telefis Eireann (RTE) and Independent Television Publications Ltd. (ITP) v. Commission (Magill case), Joined Cases C-241/91 P and C-242/91 P (1995)
- 26. IMS Health GmbH & Co., Case C-418/01 (2004)
- 27. Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992)
- §2.02 Licensing (and Assigning) Intellectual Property
- [A] Territorial Restrictions
- 28. Etablissements Consten SARL and Grundig-Verkaufs-GMBH, Joined Cases 56/64 and 58/64 (1976)
- 29. Miller Insituform, Inc. v. Insituform of N. Am., Inc., 830 F.2d 606 (6th Cir. 1987)
- [B] Tying
- 30. Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28 (2006)
- 31. U.S. Philips Corp. v. ITC, 424 F.3d 1179 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
- 32. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001)
- 33. Kentucky Fried Chicken Corp. v. Diversified Packaging Corp., 549 F.2d 368 (5th Cir. 1977)
- [C] Covenants Not to Challenge
- 34. Windsurfing International, Inc. v. European Commission, in Case 193/83, judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) on 25 February 1986
- 35. Lear v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653 (1969)
- 36. Idaho Potato Commission v. M&M Produce, 335 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2003)
- [D] Royalties
- [1] Setting the Level of Royalties
- 37. Philips Electronics NV v. Ingman Ltd. and another (1998)
- 38. Kooninklijke Philips Electronics N. V. v. National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI), Appeal in writ of mandamus 2006.51.01.504157-8 (2008)
- [2] Discriminatory Royalties
- 39. KFTC Decision No. 2009-281 (Qualcomm case)
- [3] Royalties on Unpatented Goods
- 40. Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Investment Co., 320 U.S. 661 (1944)
- 41. Automatic Radio Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 339 U.S. 827 (1950)
- [4] Post-expiry Royalties
- 42. Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29 (1964)
- 43. Kai Ottung v. Klee & Weilbach A/S and Thomas Schmidt A/S, Case 320/87 (1989)
- [E] Resale Price Maintenance
- 44. Leegin Creative Leather Prods. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007)
- [F] Grant-Back Clauses
- 45. Transparent-Wrap Machine Corp. v. Stokes & Smith Co., 329 U.S. 637 (1947)
- [G] Cross-licensing, Exclusive Licensing, Assigning, and Pooling
- 46. Blount Mfg. Co. v. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., 166 F. 555 (D.C. Mas. 1909)
- 47. United States v. Line Material Co., 333 U.S. 287 (1948)
- 48. Tetra Pak v. Commission, Case T-51/89 (1990)
- 49. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Apotex Inc., 2005 FCA 361, [2006] 2 F.C.R. 478
- [H] Unfair Competition
- 50. Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Co., 283 U.S. 643 (1931)
- 51. Federal Trade Commission v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 405 U.S. 233 (1972)
- [I] Obstruction of Markets
- 52. Shri Shamsher Kataria Informant v. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. et alii, Case No. 03/2011 (2014)
- §2.03 Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights
- [A] Threats to Sue
- 53. Halsey v. Brotherhood, 1880. L.R. 15 Cn.D. 514
- 54. Granby Marketing Services Limited v. Interlego AG, [1984] RPC 209
- 55. Virginia Panel Corp. v. Mac Panel Co., 133 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
- 56. CVD, Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 769 F.2d 842 (1st Cir. 1985)
- [B] Suppression
- 57. Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405 (1908)
- 58. Julius E. Foster v. American Machine & Foundry Co., 492 F.2d 1317 (2nd Cir. 1974)
- [C] Abuses of the Judicial (or Administrative) Process
- [1] Sham Litigation
- [a] PRE Test
- 59. Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Inds., Inc., 508 U.S. 49 (1993)
- 60. Monsanto Company v. Comisión Nacional de la Defensa de la Competencia, Case 13.676/07
- 61. Sanofi Aventis v. Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (INPI), Civil Appeal 2008.51.01.817159-7 (2010)
- [b] Walker Process Test
- 62. Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965)
- 63. Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc., 141 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
- 64. Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co., Ltd. v Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 204 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
- 65. HC 114.846 (YKK Case) (1982)
- 66. AstraZeneca AB v. Commission, Case C-457/10 P (2012)
- [2] Other Abuses of the Judicial and Administrative Process
- 67. Assessment Technologies of WI, LLC v. Wiredata, Inc., 361 F.3d 434 (7th Cir. 2004)
- 68. Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013)
- §2.04 Remedies
- [A] Injunctions
- 69. eBay Inc. v. Mercexchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006)
- [B] Compulsory Licenses
- 70. United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd., 410 U.S. 52 (1973)
- [C] Exhaustion
- 71. United States v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241 (1942)
- [D] Forfeiture
- 72. Vitamin Technologists, Inc. v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, 146 F.2d 941 (9th Cir. 1945)
- 73. Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States, 323 U.S. 386 (1945)
- 74. United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., 323 U.S. 173 (1944)
- CHAPTER 3 The Competition Policies of Intellectual Property in Regulated Markets
- §3.01 Intellectual Property in Sectors of Special Public Interest
- 75. JT International SA v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] HCA 43 (2012)
- 76. AstraZeneca AB v. Commission, In Case C-457/10 P, 2012
- 77. Glenwood Labs., Inc. v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 455 F.2d 1384 (C.C.P.A. 1972)
- §3.02 Technical Standards
- 78. Practice Management Information Corp. v. The American Dental Medical Association, 121 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1997)
- 79. Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 501 F.3d 297 (2007)
- 80. Rambus Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 522 F.3d 456 (D.C. Cir 2008)
- 81. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. ZTE Corp., Case C-170/13 (2014)
- Index
- Back Cover
System requirements
File format: ePUB
Copy protection: Adobe-DRM (Digital Rights Management)
System requirements:
- Computer (Windows; MacOS X; Linux): Install the free reader Adobe Digital Editions prior to download (see eBook Help).
- Tablet/smartphone (Android; iOS): Install the free app Adobe Digital Editions or the app PocketBook before downloading (see eBook Help).
- E-reader: Bookeen, Kobo, Pocketbook, Sony, Tolino and many more (not Kindle).
The file format ePub works well for novels and non-fiction books – i.e., „flowing” text without complex layout. On an e-reader or smartphone, line and page breaks automatically adjust to fit the small displays.
This eBook uses Adobe-DRM, a „hard” copy protection. If the necessary requirements are not met, unfortunately you will not be able to open the eBook. You will therefore need to prepare your reading hardware before downloading.
Please note: We strongly recommend that you authorise using your personal Adobe ID after installation of any reading software.
For more information, see our ebook Help page.