Institutional Design: Country Overviews

Part II - Institutional Design: Country Overviews

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2017

Edited by

Roger D. Blair and

D. Daniel Sokol

Show author details

Roger D. Blair: Affiliation:
University of Florida
D. Daniel Sokol: Affiliation:
University of Florida

Book contents

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

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316671313 [Opens in a new window]

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.).Google Scholar

Bement v. National Harrow, 186 U.S. 70 (1902).Google Scholar

Brulotte v. Thys, 79 U.S. 29 (1964).Google Scholar

FTC v. Actavis, 133 S.Ct. 2223 (2013).Google 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.Google Scholar

CJEU, 86/75, EMI Records Limited v. CBS Grammofon A/S, ECLI:EU:C:1976:86.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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).Google Scholar