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-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T15:42:10.368Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Patent Assertion Entities in Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2017

By
Brian J. Love ,
Christian Helmers ,
Fabian Gaessler  and
Max Ernicke
Edited by
D. Daniel Sokol
D. Daniel Sokol
Affiliation:
University of Florida Levin College of Law
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
Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Policy , pp. 104 - 129
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

Allison, John R. and Mann, Ronald A. 2007. The Disputed Quality of Software Patents, Washington University Law Review 85: 297–342.Google Scholar
Allison, John R., Lemley, Mark A., and Walker, Joshua 2009. Extreme Value or Trolls on Top? The Characteristics of the Most-Litigated Patents, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 158: 1–35.Google Scholar
Allison, John R., Lemley, Mark A., and Walker, Joshua 2011. Patent Quality and Settlement Among Repeat Patent Litigants, Georgetown Law Journal 99: 677–712.Google Scholar
American Intellectual Property Law Association 2015. Report of the Economic Survey.Google Scholar
Barry, Chris, Johnston, Alex, Arad, Ronen, Stainback, David, Ansell, Landan, and Arnold, Mike 2011. PriceWaterhouseCooper 2011 Patent Litigation Study. www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-services/publications/assets/2011-patent-litigation-study.pdf.Google Scholar
Behlau, Catrin, and Klos, Mathieu 2011. Riesenaufgebot an Anwälten: CIF und DSL-Branche beenden Patentstreit. JUVE-Newsline. www.juve.de/nachrichten/verfahren/2011/10/riesenaufgebot-an-anwalten-cif-und-dsl-branche-beenden-patentstreit.Google Scholar
Behlau, Catrin, February 24, 2012. Patent nichtig: IP Electronic Invest setzt vor BPatG auf Eisenführ Speiser. JUVE-Newsline. www.juve.de/nachrichten/verfahren/2012/02/patent-nichtig-ip-electronic-invest-setzt-vor-bpatg-auf-eisenfuhr-speiser.Google Scholar
Behlau, Catrin, January 21, 2013. Patentstreit um Internettelefonie: Skype wehrt sich erfolgreich mit Bardehle. JUVE-Newsline. www.juve.de/nachrichten/verfahren/2013/01/patentstreit-um-internettelefonie-skype-wehrt-sich-erfolgreich-mit-bardehle.Google Scholar
Behlau, Catrin, May 8, 2014. Mobilfunk: Huawei und ZTE siegen mit Preu Bohlig und Klaka gegen Smartphone Technologies. JUVE-Newsline. www.juve.de/nachrichten/verfahren/2014/05/mobilfunk-huawei-und-zte-siegen-mit-preu-bohlig-und-klaka-gegen-smartphone-technologies.Google Scholar
Bessen, James, Ford, Jennifer, and Meurer, Michael J. 2011. The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls, Regulation Winter 2011–2012: 26–35. http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2012/5/v34n4-1.pdf.Google Scholar
Burk, Dan L. 2014. The Inventive Concept in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l., Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition 45: 865–867.Google Scholar
Chien, Colleen V. 2009. Of Trolls, Davids, Goliaths, and Kings: Narratives and Evidence in the Litigation of High-Tech Patents, North Carolina Law Review 87: 1571–1615.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: 325–390.Google Scholar
Chien, Colleen V., March 14, 2013. Patent Trolls by the Numbers. Patently-O. http://patentlyo.com/patent/2013/03/chien-patent-trolls.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chien, Colleen V. 2014. Startups and Patent Trolls, Stanford Technology Law Review 17:461–505.Google Scholar
Chien, Colleen V. and Helmers, Christian 2015. Inter Partes Review and the Design of Post-Grant Patent Reviews. Working Paper.Google Scholar
Chuang, Chester S. 2012. Offensive Venue: The Curious Use of Declaratory Judgment to Forum Shop in Patent Litigation, George Washington Law Review 80: 1065–1114.Google Scholar
Convention on the Grant of European Patents. October 5, 1973. United Nations Treaty Series 1065: 255–509.Google Scholar
Cotropia, Christopher, Kesan, Jay P., and Schwartz, David L. 2014. Unpacking Patent Assertion Entities, Minnesota Law Review 99: 649–703.Google Scholar
Council of the European Union 2007 WD 11622/07 PI 135. http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2011622%202007%20INIT.Google Scholar
Cremers, Katrin, Ernike, Max, Gaessler, Fabian, Harhoff, Dietmar, Helmers, Christian, McDonagh, Luke, Schliessler, Paula, and van Zeebroeck, Nicolas 2013. Patent Litigation in Europe. ZEW Working Paper 13–072.Google Scholar
Cremers, Katrin, Gaessler, Fabian, Harhoff, Dietmar, and Helmers, Christian 2014. Invalid but Infringed? An Analysis of Germany’s Bifurcated Patent Litigation System. ZEW Working Paper 14–072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Patent Office 2015a. Unitary Patent. www.epo.org/law-practice/unitary/unitary-patent.html.Google Scholar
European Patent Office 2015b. Unitary Patent Court. www.epo.org/law-practice/unitary/patent-court.html.Google Scholar
Feldman, Robin, Ewing, Tom, and Jeruss, Sara 2014. The AIA 500 Expanded: The Effects of Patent Monetization Entities, UCLA Journal of Law and Technology 17, no. 2:1–107.Google Scholar
Fox, Angela 2014. Intellectual Property Enterprise Court: Practice and Procedure. Sweet and Maxwell, London.Google Scholar
Fromer, Jeanne C. 2010. Patentography, New York University Law Review 85:1444–1519.Google Scholar
Fusco, Stefania 2014. Markets and Patents Enforcement: A Comparative Investigation of Non-Practicing Entities in the US and Europe, Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review 20:439–465.Google Scholar
Geimer, Christina, February 25, 2015. Digitale Bilder: Marathon startet Patent-Massenklage mit Noerr. JUVE-Newsline. www.juve.de/nachrichten/verfahren/2015/02/digitale-bilder-marathon-startet-patent-massenklage-mit-noerr.Google Scholar
Ghosh, Shubha and Ellyne, Erika, September 29, 2014. Patenting Software in the US as Compared with Europe. Patently-O. http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/09/patenting-software-compared.html.Google Scholar
Gupta, Kirti and Kesan, Jay P. 2015. Studying the Impact of eBay on Injunctive Relief in Patent Cases. Working Paper. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2629399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
H.M. Courts and Tribunals Service 2014. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court Guide. www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/courts/patents-court/intellectual-property-enterprise-court-guide.pdf.Google Scholar
Haft, Klaus, Nack, Ralph, Lunze, Anja, Heusch, Clemens-August, Schohe, Stefan, and Joachim, Björn March 10, 2011. Injunctions in Cases of Infringement of IPRs. International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property, www.aippi.org/download/commitees/219/GR219germany_en.pdf.Google Scholar
Hall, Bronwyn H. and Harhoff, Dietmar 2004. Post-Grant Reviews in the U.S. Patent System: Design Choices and Expected Impact, Berkeley Technology Law Journal 19:989–1015.Google Scholar
Helland, Eric and Tabarrok, Alexander 2003. Contingency Fees, Settlement Delay and Low-Quality Litigation: Empirical Evidence from Two Datasets, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 19:517–542.Google Scholar
Helmers, Christian and McDonagh, Luke 2013a. Patent Litigation in the UK – An Empirical Survey 2000–2008, Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 8:846–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helmers, Christian and McDonagh, Luke 2013b. Patent Litigation in England and Wales and the Issue-Based Approach to Costs, Civil Justice Quarterly 32: 369–384.Google Scholar
Helmers, Christian, Love, Brian J., and McDonagh, Luke 2014. Is There a Patent Troll Problem in the U.K.?, Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal 24: 509–553.Google Scholar
Helmers, Christian, Lefouili, Yassine, and McDonagh, Luke 2015. Evaluation of the Reforms of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court 2010–2013, U.K. Intellectual Property Office.Google Scholar
Intellectual Ventures, September 23, 2015. Intellectual Ventures Files Infringement Complaints Against Two Telecom Companies In Germany. www.intellectualventures.com/news/legal-updates/intellectual-ventures-files-infringement-complaints-against-two-telecom-com.Google Scholar
Jiam, Hannah 2015. Fee-Shifting and Octane: An Empirical Approach Toward Understanding ‘Exceptional’. Working Paper. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2597195Google Scholar
Jones, Darian 2015. A Shifting Landscape for Shifting Fees: Attorney-Fee Awards in Patent Suits After Octane and Highmark, Washington Law Review 90: 505–543.Google Scholar
King, Patrick E., Roberts, Ryan M., and Moshirnia, Andrew V. 2011. The Confluence of European Activism and American Minimalism: “Patentable Subject Matter” after Bilski, Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal 27: 247–297.Google Scholar
Klos, Mathieu, August 16, 2012. UMTS-Patente: Hogan Lovells und MERH IP führen E-Plus zum Sieg gegen High Point. JUVE-Newsline. www.juve.de/nachrichten/verfahren/2012/08/umts-patente-hogan-lovells-und-merh-ip-fuhren-e-plus-erneut-zum-sieg-gegen-high-point.Google Scholar
Klos, Mathieu, June 25, 2013. Patentverwerter unter Druck. JUVE-Newsline. http://juve.de/nachrichten/namenundnachrichten/nachrichtrecht/2013/06/patentverwerter-unter-druck.Google Scholar
Klos, Mathieu, March 12, 2014. Trotz Vorlage an EuGH: Patentgerichte in Mannheim und Karlsruhe urteilen über SEP. JUVE-Newsline. www.juve.de/nachrichten/verfahren/2014/03/trotz-vorlage-an-eugh-patentgerichte-in-mannheim-und-karlsruhe-urteilen-uber-sep.Google Scholar
Klos, Mathieu, April 13, 2015. SEP-Klagen: Grundsatzurteil für France Brevets mit Krieger Mes und Cohausz. JUVE-Newsline. www.juve.de/nachrichten/verfahren/2015/04/sep-klagen-grundsatzurteil-fuer-france-brevets-mit-krieger-mes-und-cohausz.Google Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M. 2002. Seven Dogged Myths Concerning Contingency Fees, Washington University Law Quarterly 80: 739–794.Google Scholar
Kühnen, Thomas 2012. Patent Litigation Proceedings in Germany: A Handbook for Practitioners. Peterreins, Frank trans. Carl Heymanns, Cologne.Google Scholar
Lemley, Mark A. 2001. Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office, Northwestern University Law Review 95: 1495–1532.Google Scholar
Leung, Peter, June 20, 2013. Will We See Globe-Trotting Patent Trolls Anytime Soon? Managing Intellectual Property Blog. www.managingip.com/Blog/3221150/Will-we-see-globe-trotting-patent-trolls-any-time-soon.html.Google Scholar
LexisNexis 2015. Patent Law and Regulation. http://lexisweb.co.uk/sub-topics/patent-law-and-regulation.Google Scholar
Love, Brian J. 2014. An Empirical Study of Patent Litigation Timing: Could a Patent Term Reduction Decimate Trolls Without Harming Innovators? University of Pennsylvania Law Review 161: 1309–1359.Google Scholar
Love, Brian J. and Yoon, James 2013. Expanding Patent Law’s Customer Suit Exception, Boston University Law Review 93: 1605–1641.Google Scholar
Love, Brian J. and Ambwani, Shawn 2014. Inter Partes Review: A First Look at the Numbers, University of Chicago Law Review Dialogue 81: 93–107.Google Scholar
Lunseth, John B., March 30, 2009. Injunctions in Patent Cases. Briggs and Morgan, Minnesota. www.briggs.com/insights-publications-201.html.Google Scholar
Mayergoyz, Ann 2009. Lessons from Europe on How to Tame U.S. Patent Trolls, Cornell International Law Journal 42: 241–270.Google Scholar
McDonagh, Luke 2014. Exploring Perspectives of the Unified Patent Court and Unitary Patent Within the Business and Legal Communities. U.K. Intellectual Property Office.Google Scholar
Moore, Kimberly A. 2001. Forum Shopping in Patent Cases: Does Geographic Choice Affect Innovation?, North Carolina Law Review 79: 889–938.Google Scholar
Patent Progress 2015. Patent Progress’s Guide to Federal Patent Reform Legislation. www.patentprogress.org/patent-progress-legislation-guides/patent-progresss-guide-patent-reform-legislation/.Google Scholar
Polinsky, A. Mitchell and Rubinfeld, Daniel L. 1998. Does the English Rule Discourage Low-Probability-of-Prevailing Plaintiffs?, Journal of Legal Studies 27: 519–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prime, Terence 2000. European Intellectual Property Law. Ashgate, Aldershot.Google Scholar
Reuters, July 3, 2013. IPCom Lands Cash Bonanza From D.Telekom Settlement-Sources. www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/03/deutschetelekom-patent-idUSL5N0F72GN20130703#2yWx1zRZQkihP4rU.99.Google Scholar
Rhode, Deborah 2004. Frivolous Litigation and Civil Justice Reform: Miscasting the Problem, Recasting the Solution, Duke Law Journal 54: 447–483.Google Scholar
Riordan, Teresa, June 10, 2002. Trying to Cash in on Patents. New York Times C2.Google Scholar
Rojahn, Sabine and Lunze, Anja 2011. Die Streitwertfestsetzung im Patentrecht – Ein Mysterium? Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte 102: 533–576Google Scholar
Sandburg, Brenda, July 30, 2001. Battling the Patent Trolls. The Recorder. www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=900005522332&slreturn=20131009163157.Google Scholar
Schmoch, Ulrich 2008. Concept of a Technology Classification for Country Comparisons. WIPO, Geneva.Google Scholar
Schwartz, David L. 2012. The Rise of Contingency Fee Representation in Patent Litigation, Alabama Law Review 64: 335–388.Google Scholar
Seaman, Christopher 2015. Permanent Injunctions in Patent Litigation After eBay: An Empirical Study. Working Paper.Google Scholar
Sebok, Anthony J., March 13, 2007. How an Important German Constitutional Court Decision May Change the Nature of Law Practice in Germany. FindLaw. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20070313.html.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Carl 2010. Injunctions, Hold-Up, and Patent Royalties, American Law and Economics Review 12: 280–318.Google Scholar
van Zeebroeck, Nicolas and Graham, Stuart 2014. Comparing Patent Litigation Across Europe: A First Look, Stanford Technology Law Review 17: 655–708.Google Scholar
Vishnubhakat, Saurabh 2014. What Patent Attorney Fee Awards Really Look Like, Duke Law Journal Online 63: 15–30.Google Scholar
Wild, Joff, August 22, 2008. The Real Inventors of the Term “Patent Troll” Revealed. Intellectual Asset Management Blog. www.iam-media.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=cff2afd3-c24e-42e5-aa68-a4b4e7524177.Google Scholar
World Bank 2016. Population (Total), http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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
×