Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:26:38.846Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part II - Institutional Design: Country Overviews

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Edited by
Roger D. Blair  and
D. Daniel Sokol
Roger D. Blair
Affiliation:
University of Florida
D. Daniel Sokol
Affiliation:
University of Florida
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Antitrust, Intellectual Property, and High Tech , pp. 79 - 180
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Primary Sources

Allied Orthopedic Appliances Inc. v. Tyco Health Care Group LP., 592 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2010).Google Scholar
Asahi Glass Co. v. Pentech Pharm., Inc., 289 F. Supp. 2d 986 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (Posner, J.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bement v. National Harrow, 186 U.S. 70 (1902).Google Scholar
Brulotte v. Thys, 79 U.S. 29 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FTC v. Actavis, 133 S.Ct. 2223 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28 (2006).Google Scholar
In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, 18 F. Supp. 3d 560 (D. N.J. 2014).Google Scholar
In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation, 46 F. Supp. 3d 523 (D. N.J. 2014).Google Scholar
In re Niaspan Antitrust Litigation, 42 F. Supp. 3d 735 (E.D. Penn. 2014).Google Scholar
Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, 135 S.Ct. 2401 (2015).Google Scholar
New York v. Actavis, 787 F.3d 638 (2d Cir. 2015).Google Scholar
U.S. v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (1966).Google Scholar
U.S. v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001).Google Scholar

Secondary Sources

Almunia, J. speech, IP Summit 2013 (Paris), 9 December 2013.Google Scholar
Case T-184/01 R, Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, ECLI:EU:T:2001:259.Google Scholar
Case C-70/10, Scarlet Extended, ECLI:EU:C:2011:771.Google Scholar
Commission Decision 2001/463/EC of 20 April 2001, Case COMP D3/34.493 – DSD, [2001] OJL 166.Google Scholar
Commission Decision, Case AT.39226 – Lundbeck, C(2013) 3803 final (19.06.2013).Google Scholar
2004 Commission Notice – Guidelines on the application of Article 81 of the EC Treaty to technology transfer agreement, 2004/C 101/02.Google Scholar
Commission Regulation (EU) No. 316/2014 of 21 March 2014 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of technology transfer agreements, OJ L 93, 28.3.2014.Google Scholar
CJEU, Joined Cases 56 and 58/64, Etablissements Consten SARL and Grundig-Verkaufs-GmbH v. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1966:41.Google Scholar
CJEU, 24/67, Parke, Davis & Co. v. Probel, Reese, Beintema-Interpharm and Centrafarm, ECLI:EU:C:1968:11Google Scholar
CJEU, 78/70, Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft mbH v. Metro-SB-Großmärkte GmbH & Co. KG, ECLI:EU:C:1971:59.Google Scholar
CJEU, 40/70, Sirena v. EDA, ECLI:EU:C:1971:18, §9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CJEU, 86/75, EMI Records Limited v. CBS Grammofon A/S, ECLI:EU:C:1976:86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CJEU, 102/771, Hoffmann-La Roche v. Centrafarm, ECLI:EU:C:1978:108.Google Scholar
CJEU, 28/77, Tepea v. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1978:133.Google Scholar
CJEU, 144/81, Keurkoop v. Nancy Keane Gifts, ECLI:EU:C:1982:289.Google Scholar
CJEU, C-258/78, Nungesser v. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1982:211.Google Scholar
CJEU, 193/83, Windsurfing International v. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1986:75.Google Scholar
CJEU, 65/86, Bayer AG and Maschinenfabrik Hennecke GmbH v. Heinz Süllhöfer, ECLI:EU:C:1988:448.Google Scholar
CJEU, 238/87, AB Volvo v Erik Veng, ECLI:EU:C:1988:477, §9.Google Scholar
CJEU, 27/87, SPRL Louis Erauw-Jacquery v. La Hesbignonne SC., ECLI:EU:C:1988:183Google Scholar
CJEU, 382/87, Kai Ottung v. Klee & Weilbach A/S and Thomas Schmidt A/S, ECLI:EU:C:1989:195.Google Scholar
CJEU, C-62/86, AKZO v. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1991:286.Google Scholar
CJEU, C-241/91 and C-242/91, RTE and ITP Ltd v. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1995:98.Google Scholar
CJEU, C-7/97, Bronner v. Mediaprint, ECLI:EU:C:1998:569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CJEU, C-418/01 IMS Health, ECLI:EU:C:2004:257.Google Scholar
CJEU, C-468/06 to C-478/06, Sot. Lélos kai Sia EE and Others v. GlaxoSmithKline AEVE, ECLI:EU:C:2008:504Google Scholar
CJEU, C-385/07 P, Duales System Deutschland v. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2009:456.Google Scholar
CJEU, C-501/06 P, C-513/06 P, C-515/06 P and C-519/06 P, GSK v. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2009:610.Google Scholar
CJEU, C 403/08 and C 429/08, Football Association Premier League Ltd. (FAPL), ECLI:EU:C:2011:631.Google Scholar
CJEU, C-457/10, AstraZeneca v. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2012:770.Google Scholar
CJEU, C-170/13, Huawei v. ZTE, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2391.Google Scholar
GC, T-69/89, Radio Telefis Eireann v. Commission, ECLI:EU:T:1991:39.Google Scholar
GC, T-504/93, Tiercé Ladbroke SA v. Commission, ECLI:EU:T:1997:84.Google Scholar
GC, T-111/96, ITT Promedia NV v. Commission, ECLI:EU:T:1998:183.Google Scholar
GC, T-198/98, Micro Leader Business v. Commission, ECLI:EU:T:1999:341.Google Scholar
GC, T-342/99, Airtours, ECLI:EU:T:2002:146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GC, T-151/01, Duales System Deutschland v. Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2007:154.Google Scholar
GC, T-201/04, Microsoft v. Commission (Microsoft I), ECLI:EU:T:2007:289.Google Scholar
GC, T-167/08, Microsoft Corp. v. Commission (Microsoft II), ECLI:EU:T:2012:323.Google Scholar
GC, T-119/09, Protégé International Ltd v. European Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2012:421.Google Scholar
Opinion of Advocate General Gulmann in Joined cases C-241/91 P and C-242/91 P, Radio Telefis Eireann (RTE) and Independent Television Publications Ltd (ITP) v. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1994:210.Google Scholar
Webster v. Reproductive Health Servs., 492 U.S. 490 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×