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-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:17:25.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Patent Holdups

from Part III - Monopolization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

By
Daryl Lim
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. 245 - 270
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

Acacia Technologies. n.d. About Us. Available at http://acaciaresearch.com/about-us/.Google Scholar
Allison, John, Lemley, Mark A., and Walker, Joshua. 2011. Patent Quality and Settlement among Repeat Patent Litigants. Georgetown Law Journal, 99, 677–712.Google Scholar
Bessen, James. 2014. All the Facts: PAEs Are Suing Many More Companies. Patently-O, January. Available at http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/01/facts-suing-companies.html.Google Scholar
Blind, Knut, Bekkers, Rudi, Dietrich, Yann, et al. 2011. Study on the Interplay between Standards and Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs). Tender No ENTR/09/015 (OJEU S136 of 18/07/2009). Final Report, April.Google Scholar
Breed, Logan M. and Dickinson, Charles E.. 2013. FTC Formally Proposes to Launch Section 6(b) Study on Activities of Patent Assertion Entities. Lexology (September). Available at www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f0d6333f-ef37-484d–8d09-5428e52b7e06.Google Scholar
Carlton, Dennis W. and Shampine, Allan L.. 2014. Identifying Benchmarks for Applying Non-Discrimination in FRAND. CPI Antitrust Chronicle, 8(1), 3–6.Google Scholar
Cass, Ronald A. 2015. Lessons from the Smartphone Wars: Patent Litigants, Patent Quality, and Software. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science, and Technology, 16, 1–61.Google Scholar
Chan, Nicholas P. 2012. Balancing Judicial Misvaluation and Patent Hold-Up: Some Principles for Considering Injunctive Relief after eBay. University of California Law Review, 59, 746–87.Google Scholar
Chemtob, Stuart M. 2015. Carte Blanche for SSOs? The Antitrust Division’s Business Review Letter on the IEEE’s Patent Policy Update. CPI Antitrust Chronicle.Google Scholar
Chien, Colleen V. 2010. From Arms Race to Marketplace: The Complex Patent Ecosystem and Its Implications for the Patent System. Hastings Law Journal, 62, 297–355.Google Scholar
Chien, Colleen V. 2012. Reforming Software Patents. Houston Law Review, 50, 325–90.Google Scholar
Chien, Colleen V. 2014. Holding Up and Holding Out. Michigan Telecommunication and Technology Law Review, 21, 1–42.Google Scholar
Chien, Colleen V. and Reines, Ed. 2014. Why Technology Customers Are Being Sued En Masse for Patent Infringement and What Can Be Done. Wake Forest Law Review, 49, 235–57.Google Scholar
Contreras, Jorge L. 2015. A Market Reliance Theory for FRAND Commitments and Other Patent Pledges. Utah Law Review, 479–558.Google Scholar
Decker, Susan and King, Ian. 2015. Qualcomm says it Won’t Follow New Wi-Fi Rules on Patents. Bloomberg Business, February. Available at www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-11/qualcomm-says-new-wi-fi-standard-rules-unfair-may-not-take-part.Google Scholar
Divine, David A., Goldstein, Richard W. et al. 2013. Report of the Economic Survey 2013. American Intellectual Property Law Association. Available at www.patentinsurance.com/custdocs/2013AIPLA%20Survey.pdf.Google Scholar
Economist. 2013, Trolls on the Hill: Congress Takes Aim at Patent Abusers. December.Google Scholar
Executive Office of the President. 2013. Patent Assertion and U.S. Innovation. Available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/patent_report.pdf.Google Scholar
Faas, Ryan. 2012. Apple’s Secret Weapon in the Patent Wars is a Nuclear NORAD. Cult of Mac, May. Available at www.cultofmac.com/ 168696/apples-secret-weaponin-the-patent-wars-is-a-nuclear-norad/.Google Scholar
Feldman, Robin. 2013. Patent Demands & Startup Companies: The View from the Venture Capital Community. University of California Hastings College of Law Research Paper No. 75. Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2346338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Robin and Lemley, Mark. 2015. Does Patent Licensing Mean Innovation?. Working paper. Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2565292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, Douglas H., Owings, Taylor M., and Wright, Joshua D.. 2014. Enjoining Injunctions: The Case against Antitrust Liability for Standard Essential Patents. Antitrust Source, October, 1–7.Google Scholar
Google. n.d. The LOT Agreement. Available at www.google.com/patents/licensing/lot/.Google Scholar
Gotts, Ilene Knable and Sher, Scott. 2012. The Particular Antitrust Concerns with Patent Acquisitions. Competition Law International, August.Google Scholar
Han, Michael and Kexin, Lin. 2013. Huawei v. InterDigital: China at the Crossroads of Antitrust and Intellectual Property, Competition and Innovation. Competition Pol’y Int’l, November. Available at www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/huawei-v-interdigital-china-at-the-crossroads-of-antitrust-and-intellectual-property-competition-and-innovation/.Google Scholar
Harris, Robert G. 2014. Patent Assertion Entities and Privateers: Economic Harms to Innovation and Competition. The Antitrust Bulletin, 59(2), 281–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesse, Renata. 2012a. Six “Small” Proposals for SSOs before Lunch. Department of Justice Antitrust Division. Presentation, October 10, 2012.Google Scholar
Hesse, Renata. 2012b. The Antitrust Division and SSOs: Continuing the Dialogue. Department of Justice Antitrust Division. Presentation, November 8, 2012.Google Scholar
Hesse, Renata. 2013. The Art of Persuasion: Competition Advocacy at the Intersection of Antitrust and Intellectual Property. Department of Justice Antitrust Division. Presentation, November 8, 2013.Google Scholar
Hesse, Renata. 2014a. At the Intersection of Antitrust and Hi-Tech: Opportunities for Constructive Engagement. Department of Justice Antitrust Division. Presentation, January 22, 2014.Google Scholar
Hesse, Renata. 2014b. A Year in the Life of the Joint DO-PTO Policy Statement on Remedies for F/RAND Encumbered Standards-Essential Patents. Department of Justice Antitrust Division. Presentation, March 25, 2014.Google Scholar
Hoffinger, Roy E. 2015. The 2015 DOJ IEEE Business Review Letter: The Triumph of Industrial Policy Preferences over Law and Evidence. CPI Antitrust Chronicle, March.Google Scholar
Hollman, Hugh M. 2015. IEEE Business Review Letter: The DOJ Reveals Its Hand. CPI Antitrust Chronicle, March.Google Scholar
Hovenkamp, Herbert, Janis, Mark D., and Lemley, Mark A.. 2012. IP and Antitrust: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles Applied to Intellectual Property Law. Austin, TX: Aspen, § 35.5.Google Scholar
IEEE-SA Standard Board Bylaws. 2015. Available at http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/approved-changes.pdf.Google Scholar
Israel, Sharon A. 2015. Draft AIPLA Comments to Japan FTC IP Guidelines. Drafted July 21, 2015, updated August 6, 2015.Google Scholar
Jurata, John “Jay” Jr. and Patel, Amisha R.. 2014. Taming the Trolls: Why Antitrust Is Not a Viable Solution for Stopping Patent Assertion Entities. George Mason Law Review, 21, 1251–85.Google Scholar
Landau, Nicholas J. and Neu, Jake. 2015. Innovators Beware! Patent Reform Creates the New “Anti-Patent” Troll. Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, July.Google Scholar
Larouche, Pierre and Zingales, Nicolo. 2014. Injunctive Relief in Disputes Related to Standard-Essential Patents: Time for the CJEU to Set Fair and Reasonable Presumptions. TILEC Discussion Paper DP, December, 2014-048.Google Scholar
Lee, Michelle K. 2015. Remarks at the IPO Education Foundation PTO IPO Day Luncheon. Keynote speech, March 10, 2015. Available at www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/remarks-michelle-k-lee-ipo-education-foundation-pto-ipo-day-luncheonGoogle Scholar
Lemley, Mark A. 2007. Should Patent Infringement Require Proof of Copying?. Michigan Law Review, 105, 1525–36.Google Scholar
Lemley, Mark A. and, Melamed, Douglas A.. 2013. Missing the Forest for the Trolls. Columbia Law Review, 113, 2117–89.Google Scholar
Lim, Daryl. 2010. Post-eBay: A Brave New World?. European Intellectual Property Review, 10, 483–5.Google Scholar
Lim, Daryl. 2011. Misconduct in Standard Setting: The Case for Patent Misuse. IDEA, 51, 559–604.Google Scholar
Lim, Daryl. 2014. Standard Essential Patents, Trolls, and the Smartphone Wars: Triangulating the End Game. Penn State Law Review, 119, 1–91.Google Scholar
Lim, Daryl. 2015. Why Samsung Owes Apple $930 Million. RealClearPolicy, June. Available at www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2015/06/08/why_samsung_owes_apple_930_million_1318.html.Google Scholar
Mehra, Salil and Yanbei, Meng. 2015. Essential Facilities with Chinese Characteristics: A Different Perspective on the Conditional Compulsory Licensing of Intellectual Property. Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, 3, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merges, Robert and Kuhn, Jeffrey. 2009. An Estoppel Doctrine for Patented Standards. California Law Review, 97, 1–50.Google Scholar
Moorhead, Patrick. 2015. Qualcomm Settlement With China’s NDRC Removes Major Speedbump. Forbes, February. Available at www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmoorhead/2015/02/10/qualcomm-settlement-with-chinas-ndrc-removes-major-speedbump/.Google Scholar
Morrow, Charlene M., Levin, Adam M., and Hill, Tammi L.. 2014. To Join or Not to Join: When Membership in a Standard-Setting Organization Is the Question. Fenwick & West LLP, December.Google Scholar
Morton, Fiona Scott and Shapiro, Carl. 2015. Patent Assertions: Are We Any Closer to Aligning Reward to Contribution?. National Bureau of Economic Research, April. Available at www.nber.org/chapters/c13587.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulligan, Christina and Lee, Timothy B.. 2012. Scaling the Patent System. New York University Annual Survey of American Law, 68, 289–317.Google Scholar
New York Times. 2012. Fighters in a Patent War. October. Available at www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/08/business/Fighters-in-a-Patent-War.html?_r=0.Google Scholar
Non-SDO Patent Statements and Commitments. 2014. Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property. Updated June 21, 2014. Available at www.pijip.org/non-sdo-patent-commitments/.Google Scholar
Popofsky, Mark S. and Laufert, Michael D.. 2013. Patent Assertion Entities and Antitrust: Operating Company Patent Transfers. Antitrust Source, April, 1–13. Available at www.ropesgray.com/~/media/Files/articles/2013/04/Antitrust-Attacks-on-Patent-Assertion-Entities.pdf.Google Scholar
Pridham, David. 2015. Patent Licensing Is as American as Apple Pie. IP Watchdog, March.Google Scholar
Prywes, Daniel I. and Bell, Robert S. K.. 2015. Patent Hold-Up: Down But Not Out. Antitrust Source, 29(3), 25–30.Google Scholar
Quinn, Gene. 2015a. Understanding the valuable role played by Patent Trolls. IP Watchdog, March. Available at www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/03/17/understanding-the-valuable-role-played-by-patent-trolls/id=55787/.Google Scholar
Quinn, Gene. 2015b. Tactics for Coping with New Realities of Monetizing Innovation. IP Watchdog, July. Available at www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/07/09/tactics-for-coping-with-new-realities-of-monetizing-innovation/id=59680/.Google Scholar
Raack, D. W. 1986. A History of Injunctions in England Before 1700. Indiana Law Journal, 61, 539–92.Google Scholar
Sadler, Rodger. 2013. Reconsidering Claim Construction Standard of Review. Law360, April. Available at www.law360.com/articles/433763/reconsidering-claim-construction-standard-of-review.Google Scholar
Santore, Rudy, McKee, Michael, and Bjornstad, David. 2010. Patent Pools as a Solution to Efficient Licensing of Complementary Patents? Some Experimental Evidence. Journal of Law and Economics, 53, 167–83.Google Scholar
Schindler, Jacob. 2015. Nokia/Alcatel Tie-up Cleared in China following Patent Promises and a Timely Joint Venture. Intellectual Assert Magazine. Available at www.iam-media.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=8f11696a-3c3b-4ff6-a690-09c1439e188cGoogle Scholar
Seaman, Christopher B. 2016. Permanent Injunctions in Patent Litigation after eBay: An Empirical Study. Iowa Law Review, 101, 1949.Google Scholar
Sidak, J. Gregory. 2015. The Antitrust Division’s Devaluation of Standard-Essential Patents. Georgetown Law Journal Online, 104, 48–73.Google Scholar
Siebrasse, Norman V. and Cotter, Thomas F.. 2015. A New Framework for Determining Reasonable Royalties in Patent Litigation. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2528616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soames, Trevor, and Rato, Miguel. 2015. The Court of Justice’s Preliminary Ruling in Huawei v. ZTE: The Final Word?. Shearman & Sterling LLP, July.Google Scholar
Sokol, D. Daniel. 2017. “Patent Privateers” in Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Policy. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperling, Gene. 2013. Taking on Patent Trolls to Protect American Innovation. The White House Blog, June. Available at www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/06/04/taking-patent-trolls-protect-american-innovation.Google Scholar
Sundararaman, Deepa. 2015. Inside The IEEE’s Important Changes To Patent Policy. Law360, April.Google Scholar
Tung, Liam. 2015. China Gives Nod to Nokia-Alcatel Deal After Extracting Patent Promise, ZDNET (October). Available at www.zdnet.com/article/china-gives-nod-to-nokia-alcatel-deal-after-extracting-patent-promise/.Google Scholar
US Department of Justice. 2015. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Incorporated. Business Review Letter, February. 2015 WL 557991.Google Scholar
US Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (US DOJ-FTC). 2007. Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Competition. April.Google Scholar
US Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (DOJ-FTC). 2010. Horizontal Merger Guidelines §§ 6–7.Google Scholar
US Federal Trade Commission. 2011. The Evolving IP Marketplace: Aligning Patent Notice and Remedies with Competition.Google Scholar
US Federal Trade Commission. 2013. FTC Seeks to Examine Patent Assertion Entities and Their Impact on Innovation, Competition. FTC Press Releases, September 27. Available at www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/09/ftc-seeks-examine-patent-assertion-entities-their-impact.Google Scholar
US Federal Trade Commission. 2014. Settlement Bars Patent Assertion Entity from using Deceptive Tactics.Google Scholar
US Government Accountability Office. 2013. Intellectual Property: Assessing Factors that Affect Patent Infringement Litigation Could Help Improve Patent Quality. Gao-13–465.Google Scholar
US International Trade Commission. 2013. In re Certain Elec. Devices, Including Wireless Commc’n Devices, Portable Music & Data Processing Devices, & Tablet Computers. Inv. No. 337-TA-794. Commission Opinion, July.Google Scholar
Whitfield, Angelina M. 2015. Blocking Eco-Patent Trolls: Using Federalism to Foster Innovation in Environmental Technology. Journal of Environmental and Sustainability Law, 21, 307–29.Google Scholar
Wolfe, Jan. 2014. Accused Patent Troll Takes Aim at FTC, Settles With N.Y. AG. The Litigation Daily, January. Available at www.americanlawyer.com/id=1202638423763?slreturn=20140023185327.Google Scholar
Wright, Joshua D. 2008. No Ovation for FTC’s Latest Enforcement Theory. Truth on the Market Blog, December. Available at http://truthonthemarket.com/2008/12/17/no-ovation-for-ftcs-latest-enforcement-theory/.Google Scholar
Ruosi, Ye et al. 2013. Determination of Whether Abuse of Dominance by SEP Owners Constitutes Monopoly: Comments on the Antitrust Lawsuit Huawei v. InterDigital. Digital Intellectual Property, 3.Google 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.

  • Patent Holdups
  • Edited by Roger D. Blair, University of Florida, D. Daniel Sokol, University of Florida
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Antitrust, Intellectual Property, and High Tech
  • Online publication: 04 May 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316671313.014
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.

  • Patent Holdups
  • Edited by Roger D. Blair, University of Florida, D. Daniel Sokol, University of Florida
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Antitrust, Intellectual Property, and High Tech
  • Online publication: 04 May 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316671313.014
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.

  • Patent Holdups
  • Edited by Roger D. Blair, University of Florida, D. Daniel Sokol, University of Florida
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Antitrust, Intellectual Property, and High Tech
  • Online publication: 04 May 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316671313.014
Available formats
×