Patent Trolls: een rechtsvergelijkende studie tussen de Verenigde Staten en Europa

Dennis Wollants
Persbericht

Patent Trolls: een rechtsvergelijkende studie tussen de Verenigde Staten en Europa

Europa, pas op voor de Trol!

Het voorbije decennium is het octrooirecht in de Verenigde Staten slachtoffer geworden van vrijbuiters. Zij misbruiken het octrooirecht om financieel voordeel te verkrijgen. Zij hanteren het recht zodanig dat dit indruist tegen haar oorspronkelijke doel. Dat sorteert negatieve economische gevolgen.

Europa bleef vooralsnog gespaard van dit fenomeen, maar de oprichting van het Europees octrooigerechtshof en de invoering van het Europees octrooi met unitaire werking vergroten de kans dat dit  verschijnsel naar Europa komt overgewaaid.   

Een octrooi geeft de eigenaar een exclusief recht op het gebruik van de geoctrooieerde technologie. Zo vermijdt men dat wanneer een partij hoge bedragen heeft geïnvesteerd in onderzoek en ontwikkeling, concurrenten dit zomaar kunnen kopiëren en zo haar een groot deel van de winst afhandig kunnen maken. 'Patent Trolls', zoals zij in de literatuur genoemd worden, hebben niet als doel om een product te ontwikkelen. Zij verkrijgen slechts octrooien, met als doel technologieën te ontdekken die mogelijks hun octrooi schenden. 'Patent Trolls' dagen producenten, nadat ze een succesvol product ontwikkeld hebben, voor de rechtbank en eisen een verkoopverbod voor deze producten. Bovendien vragen ze daarenboven vaak een zeer hoge schadevergoeding.

Vermits het in de hoogtechnologische industrie zeer moeilijk is om de exacte draagwijdte van een octrooi te bepalen en producten daarenboven door tientallen octrooien beschermd worden, is de ontwikkeling van een product een bijzonder precaire onderneming. Producenten durven daardoor vaak het risico op een verkoopverbod niet te nemen en wensen een minnelijke schikking te bekomen. Zo betaalde in 2006 het bedrijf achter Blackberry 612 miljoen dollar om een proces tegen een Patent Troll te vermijden. Waar in normale omstandigheden de exclusieve verkoop van afgewerkte producten voor de winstcreatie van het octrooi zorgt, zorgen de opbrengst van de hierboven genoemde schadevergoedingen of de opbrengst van minnelijke schikkkingen voor de winstcreatie bij Patent Trolls.

Wetenschappelijk onderzoekt heeft aangetoond  dat dit verschijnsel zorgt voor minder stimulansen tot onderzoek en ontwikkeling en negatieve economische effecten heeft. Zodoende leidt dit tot een tegenovergesteld resultaat dan wat octrooiwetgeving beoogt.         Vooral de Verenigde Staten hadden het afgelopen decennium te lijden onder dit fenomeen. Het Amerikaanse recht is immers uiterst toegeeflijk bij het toekennen van octrooien. Zo vindt het United States Patent & Trademark office, dat de Amerikaanse octrooien toekent, octrooiaanvragen minder snel vanzelfsprekend dan gelijkaardige Europese instanties. Hierdoor kennen de Verenigde Staten meer octrooien toe voor triviale nieuwigheden, zonder feitelijke toegevoegde waarde. Dit zorgt voor brede octrooien, waarvan het vaak onduidelijk is of het octrooi een welbepaalde technologie omhelst. Deze onzekerheid speelt in het voordeel van Patent Trolls.  Verder kenden Amerikaanse rechters  zeer snel een verkoopverbod toe. Daardoor beschikten Patent Trolls over een dominante positie in de onderhandelingen tot een minnelijke schikking. Ten slotte beschikt het Amerikaanse rechtssysteem over enkele inherentekenmerken die voor Patent Trolls voordelig zijn.

Een eerste kenmerk is de hoge kost van procesvoering. De verliezende partij draagt deze kosten niet in de Verenigde Staten. Zodoende worden producenten gestimuleerd om een minnelijke schikking te sluiten, vermits zij, zelfs als zij in het gelijk gesteld worden, zeer hoge proceskosten dienen te betalen. De advocaten van Patent Trolls werken in de Verenigde Staten voornamelijk met resultaatafhankelijke vergoedingen, waardoor zij slechts betaald worden indien zij de rechtszaak winnen of een degelijke minnelijke schikking kunnen bekomen. Hierdoor ondervinden Patent Trolls geen last van hoge proceskosten en worden zij niet financieel gehinderd om processen in te stellen. Ten tweede hoeven zij, als niet-producerende entiteit, in tegenstelling tot bij normale octrooiprocessen niet te vrezen voor tegenvorderingen. Sinds 2006 heeft het Amerikaanse Supreme Court, daarin gevolgd door de lagere rechtbanken, een aantal beslissingen genomen om deze negatieve gevolgen tegen te gaan.            

Europa bleef in het verleden grotendeels gevrijwaard van dit verschijnsel. Enerzijds omdat ons octrooirecht deels verschilt van het Amerikaanse. Zo kent Europa minder snel octrooien toe, hebben octrooihouders hier minder sterke rechten en kent men een andere procescultuur. Anderzijds, doordat het als productontwikkelaar moeilijker was om je rechten in Europa uit te oefenen. Zo bestond er geen octrooi dat exclusief en algemeen geldig was in heel de Europese Unie en diende men daarnaast in elke lidstaat afzonderlijk te procederen om de rechten van nationale octrooien uit te oefen. Recente ontwikkelingen in het Europese octrooirecht zullen echter leiden tot de creatie van een Europees octrooi met unitaire werking en de oprichting van een eengemaakt octrooigerecht. Dit maakt het de octrooihouder eenvoudiger om zijn rechten uit te oefenen over heel de Europese Unie. Hoewel deze vergroting van de markt bedoeld is om onderzoek en ontwikkeling te stimuleren, vergroot het tevens de onderhandelingsmacht van Patent Trolls. Zij zullen  immers kunnen schermen met grotere schadevergoedingen en een mogelijk toekomstig verkoopverbod voor heel de EU. Zodoende bestaat de kans dat het fenomeen van de Patent Trolls in de toekomst naar Europa komt overgewaaid. De rechters van het eengemaakt octrooigerecht krijgen de zware taak om de belangen van de rechtmatige octrooihouders te vrijwaren, zonder voldoende munitie te geven die door vrijbuiters misbruikt kan worden.            

In de Verenigde Staten, doorstonden Patent Trolls aanpassingen aan de wetgeving en rechtspraak en hebben ze hun plaats in de samenleving veroverd. Dit leidt tot perverse effecten waarvan vrijbuiters, in plaats van ter goeder trouwe ontwikkelaars, de vruchten plukken. Het is de vraag of Patent Trolls door de Europese veranderingen ook hier eenzelfde prominente rol zak spelen. Het antwoord zal in de rechtspraak van het nieuwe eengemaakte octrooigerechtshof liggen. 

Bibliografie

 BIBLIOGRAFIE VERENIGDE STATEN

WetgevingArtikel 35 United States CodeLeahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), 16 september 2011Artikel 28 United States Code Patent reform act of 2005, H.R.2795, To amend title 35, United States Code, relating to the procurement, enforcement, and validity of patentsRule 11 federal rules of civil procedureRechtspraak Supreme CourtMicrosoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership, 564 U. S. 10-290 (2011)Bilski v Kappos, 561 U.S 08-964(2010).MedImmune, Inc., v. Genetech, 549 U.S. 118 (2007).KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).eBay Inc v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S 388(2006) .Diamond v. Diehr 450 U.S. 175 (1981).Parker v. Flook 437 U.S. 584 (1978).Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972).William T. Graham et. Al. v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, et al, 383 U.S. 1 (1966).Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519 (1966). Federal Circuit Eon-Net LLP v Flagstar Bancorp , 2009-1308, (2011).Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Acceleron, LLC., 587 F.3d 1358 (2009).in re seagate v. C.A. Fed., 497 F.3d 1360 (2007).SanDisk Corp. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc.,.480 F.3d 1372 ( 2007).Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 447 F.Supp.2d 177 ( 2006).Brasseler, U.S.A. I, L.P. v.Stryker Sales Corp., 267 F.3d 1370 (2001).State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group, Inc, 149 F.3d 1368 (1998).VE Holding corporation v. Johnson Gas appliance company, 917 F. 2d 1574, (1990).Underwater Devices, Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 717 F.2d 1380, 1390-91, (1983).Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1540 , (1983).100andereHotel Security Checking Co. v. Lorraine Co, 160 F. 467; (2nd Cir. 1908) Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp.,318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)RechtsleerBoekenADELMAN, M., RADER, R., KLANCNIK, G., Patent law in a nutshell, St. Paul, Thomson West, 2008, 450 p. HALPERN, S., NARD, C., PORT, K., Fundamentals of the United States property law: copyright, patent, trademark, Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer law international, 2007, 419 p. KANE, M., Civil Procedure in a Nutshell, St. Paul, Thomson West, 2007, 311 p. MERRIL , S., LEVIN, R., MYERS, M., A patent system for the 21st century, Washington D.C., National academies press, 2004, 171 p. MUELLER, J., An introduction to Patent law, New York, Aspen Publishers, 2006, 485 p.. SCHECHTER, T., THOMAS, J., Principles of patent law, second edition, X, Thomson West, 2004, 460 p. SCHECHTER, T., THOMAS, J., Intellectual Property: the law of Patents and trademarks, St. Paul, Thomson West, 2003, 915 p. STIM, R., Patent, Copyright & Trademark: an intellectual property desk reference, X, NOLO, 2010, 640 p. TEPLY, L., WHITTEN, R., Civil procedure, New York, Foundation Press, 2004, 1072 p. WALSTON-DUNHAM, B., introduction to law, clifton park, Delmar, Cengage learning, 2009, 602 p. TijdschriftenABRIL, P., PLANT, R., “The patent holder’s dilemma: buy, sell or troll?”, communications of the ACM 2007, 36-44 ADDY, G., DOUGLAS, E., “Mind the gap: Economic costs and innovation perils in the space between patent and comptetion law, Davis Ward Philips & Vineberg LLP, 40 p., beschikbaar op http://ssrn.com , geconsulteerd op 13 februari 2013101ALLISON, J., HUNTER, S., “On the feasibility of improving patent quality one technology at a time: the case of business mathods”, Berkeley technology law journal 2006, 729-793 ALSUP, W., “A district judge’s proposal for Patent reform: Revisiting the clear and convincing standard and calibrating deference to the strength of the examination, Berkeley technology law journal 2009, 1647-1656 BALGANESH, S., “Demystifying the right to exclude: Of property, inviolability, and automatic injunctions”, Harvard Journal of law &public poli, 593-662 BARKER, D., “Troll or no Troll? Policing Patent usage with an open post-grant review”, duke law & technology review 2005 nummer 9, 16p BAIRD, K., “Business method patents: chaos at the USPTO or business as usual?”, university of illinois journal of law, technology & policy 2001, 347-364BERKOWITZ, L., “Supreme Court says you can license and sue”, Research Technology Management maart-april 2009, 9.BESSEN, J., FORD, J., MEURER, M., “The private and social costs of patent trolls”, Regulation Winter 2011, 26-36 Bessen, J., Meurer, M., “ What’s wrong with the Patent System? Fuzzy boundaries and the patent tax”, first Monday 4 juni 2007, beschikbaar op http://firstmonday.org , geconsulteerd op 4 april 2013 BESSEN, J., HUNT, R., “An empirical look at software patents”, journal of economics & management strategy 2007, 157-189 BIANCHI, A., CRATHERN, K;, ESLAVA, S., RIVERA , J., “An interactive investigation of the recent patent changes to the American Patent system”, 1 mei 2012, beschikbaar op: https://www.wpi.edu/ , geconsulteerd op 5 november 2012 BLAIR, R., COTTER, T., “Rethinking patent damages”, texas intellectual property law journal 2001-2002, 1-94 BOLTEN, C.“in re Seagate tech.,L.L.C.: Is the objective recklessness standard a practical change?”, jurimetrics J. 2008, 73-90 BROWN, C., “developments in intellectual property law”, Indiana law review 2012, 1266, 1243-1278 BRYAN, T., “The America Invents Act: Slaying Trolls, Limiting Joinder”, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 2012, 673-695 BUI, H., “Navigating the Leahy-Smith America Invents act including effective dates for patent reform”, J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 2011 , 441-475102BURK D., “From first to invent to first to file – changing lanes in U.S. Patent Procedure?” IIC 2011, 627-629 BURK, D., “Patent reform in the United States: lessons learned” regulation winter 2012-2013, 20-25 . CARRIER, M., “Post-grant opposition: a proposal and a comparison to the America Invents act”, University of calnifornia Davis law review 2011, 103-135 CAVANAGH, E., “developing standards under amended rule 11 of the federal rules of civil procedure”, hofstra Law review 1985-1986, 499-546 CHAN, J., FAWCETT M., “Footsteps of the patent troll”, Intell. Prop. Bull. 2005-2006, 1-12 CHAN, J., FAWCETT M., “ March of the trolls: footsteps getting louder” , Intell. Prop. Bull. 2008-2009, 1-20 CHAO, B., “After eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange: the changing landscape for patent remedies”, Minn. J.L. Sci. & tech. 2008, 543 - 572 CHIEN, C., “ of trolls, Davids, Goliaths, and Kings: Narratives and evidences in the litigation of High-Tech patents”, The North Carolina Law review 2008-2009, 1571-1616 CHUANG, A., “Fixing the failures of software patent protection: deterring patent trolling by applying industry specific patentability standards, southern california interdisciplinary law journal 2006-2007, 215-252 CONRAD, D., “Mining the patent thicket: the supreme Court’s rejection of the automatic rule in eBay v. MercExchange, the review of litigation 2007, 119-154 COOLEY, R. “Overview and statistical study of the law on patent damages”, J. Pat. & Trademark off. Soc’y 1993, 515-537 COTROPIA, C. “ The individual inventor motif in the age of the patent troll”, yale journal of law and technology 2009, 52-84 COURSEY, C., “Battling the Troll: Tips for defending patent infringement claims by non manufacturing patentees”, Am. J. Trial Advoc. 2009-2010, 237-249 CRESWELL, J.,“So small a town, so many patent suits”, The New York Times 24 september 2006, 2 beschikbaar op http://www.immagic.com/ geconsulteerd op 4 december 2012 DAVIS, A., JESIEN, K., “ The Balance of Power in Patent Law: Moving towards effectiveness I addressing Patent Troll concerns”, Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & entertainment Law Journal” , 2011, 835-852 DAVIS, K.,The international view of attorney fees in civil suits: Why is the United States the odd man out in how it pays its lawyers, Arizona journal of international and comparative law1031999, 361-436 DAVIS, R., “Failed attemps to dwarf the patent trolls: Permanent injunctions in patent infringement cases under the proposed patent reform act of 2005 and eBay v. MercExchange”, Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 2007-2008, 431-452 DETKIN, P., “Leveling the patent playing field”, the John Marshall review of intellectual propertylaw 2006-2007, 636-644 DEVLIN, A., “revisiting the presumption of patent validity”, Southwestern university law review 2008, 323 -369 DE WITTE, B., “Direct effect, primacy, and the nature of the legal order” in CRAIG, P., DE BÚRCA, G., the evolution of EU law, Oxford, Oxford university press, 2011, 323-362 DHADIALLA, K., “Patent trolls under the patent reform act”, Berkeley tech. L.J.BOLT, 15 oktober 2011 en http://btlj.org/ (29 februari 2012) DIAL, A., NEAL, B., “Proving Patent damages is getting harder, but establishing patent invalidity may be getting easier: how i4i, L.P. v. Microsoft Corp. may change the landscape of patent litigation”, north Carolina Journal of law & technology 2011, 119-154 D’INCELLI, G., “Has eBay spelled the end of Patent Troll abuses? Paying the toll: the rise (and fall?) of the Patent Troll, University of Miami Business law review, 2009, 343-364 DOVER, M., “contingent percentage fees: an economic analysis”, Journal of air law and commerce 1985-1986, 531-566 FARRAND, J., SHAPIRO, V., e.a., “judicial reform of patent litigation in the USA, journal of intellectual property law & practice 2011, 381-395 FARRAND, J., WEISBERG, S., KILLWORTH R., SHAPIRO, V., “Reform arises in Patent enforcement: The Big picture”, Idea 2011, 357-451 FARREL, J., MERGES, R.,“incentives to challenge and defend patents: why litigation won’t reliably fix patent office errors and why administrative patent review might help”, Berkeley technology law journal 2004, 943-970 FERRIL, E., Patent investment trusts: let’s build a PIT to catch the Patent Troll”, North Carolina journal of law & technology 2005, 367-394 FEDERIKO, P. “Operation of the Patent act of 1790”, Pat. & trademark off. Soc’y 1990, 373-385 FORSBERG, H., “Diminishing the attractiveness of Trolling: The Impacts of Recent Judicial Activity on Non-practicing entities”, Pittsburg Journal of Technology Law & Policy 2011 -2012 FRANK, T., “There Is a Role for Congress in Patent Litigation Reform”, Am. Enterprise inst.104For pub. Pol’y RES-AEI outlook series, beschikbaar op http://www.aei.org , geconsulteerd op 4 december 2012 FRANKLIN, B., “mandatory joinder: an indirect method for improving patent quality”, southern Calnifornia law review 2003-2004, 683-704 FREEDMAN, C., “Software and computerrelated business-method inventions: must Europe adopt American Patent culture?”, international journal of law and ininformation technology 2000, 285-309 GIBBY, D., “Congress stopped short in Amending the Law of venue in Patent infringement cases: VE holding Corp. V. Johnson Gas Appliance Co”, Bringham young university law review 1992, 1229-1245 GOLDEN, J., “Patent trolls and Patent remedies”, Texas. Law. Review. 2006-2007, 2111-2161 GOLDEN, J., “ The Supreme court as “prime percolator”: A prescription for appelate review of questions in patent law”, UCLA law review 2008-2009, 657-724 GOSH, S., KESAN, J., “What do patents purchase? In search of optimal ignorance in the patent office”, Houston law review 2003-2004, 1219-1264 GRAMENOPOULOS, G., “ The America Invents act: New challenges for Patent applicants and litigants”, IRDI 2012, 21-27 GREENBAUM, D.,“ In re seagate: did it really fix the waiver issue? A short review and analysis of waiver resulting from the use of a counsel’s opinion letter as a defense to willful infringement”, Marquette intellectual property law review 2008, 155-196 Griswold, G., Ubel, A., “Prior user rights – a necessarypart of a first-to-file system”, John Marshall law review 1993, 567-592 HALL, B., HARHOFF, D., “Post-grant reviews in the U.S. Patent System- design choices and expected impact, Berkeley Technology law journal 2004, 989-1015 HARRISON, R., HATCHER, J., “Bilski and the US software Patent Threat”, computers and law 2010, 16-21 beschikbaar op http://papers.ssrn.com , geconsulteerd op 6april 2013. HARKINS, C., “ Fending off paper patents and patent trolls: a novel cold fusion defense because changing times demand it”, Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 2007, 407-479 HARVEY, D., “Reinventing the U.S Patent system: a discussion of patent reform through an analysis of the proposed Patent Reform Act of 2005”, Texas Tech Law review 2005-2006, 1133-1178. HERRINGTON, D. ILAN, D., JEDREY, N., PRUNELLA, M., “Congress makes substantial changes to Patent law with the America Invents Act”, intellectual property & technology law journal December 2011, 3-8105HOLBROOK, T., “The return of the Supreme Court to patent law”, Akron intellectual property journal 2007,1-25 HOLMAN, C., “Biotechnology’s prescription for Patent Reform” The John Marshall review of intellectual property law, 2005-2006, 318-347 HOMER, A., “Whatever it is… You can get in on eBay…unless you want an injunction- how the supreme court and patent reform are shifting licensing negotiations from the conference room to the courtroom”, South Texas Law review 2007-2008, 235-276 HOUSTON, A., “KSR International Co. v. Teleflex inc.: The Supreme Court declines the opportunity to finally set the record straight and articulate one clear standard for determing obviousness in patent cases” Journal of business & technology law 2009, 219-236 HRICIK, D., “Legal Ethics and Non-practing entities: being on the receiving End matters too”, Santa Clara Computer & High Technology law journal 2010-2011, 793-804 HSU, H., “neutralizing actual controversy: how patent holders can reduce the risk of declaratory judgement in Patent Disputes”; Washington Journal of law, technology & arts najaar 2010, 93-110 IANCU, A., NICHOLS, W. “Balancing the four factors in permanent injunction decisions: A review of post-eBay Case law”, J. Pat. &Trademark off. Soc’y 2007, 395-404IANCU, A. CHUNG, J., “Real reasons the eastern District Court of Texas draws Patent Cases-Beyond Lore and Anecdote, SMU Science and technology law review 2010-2011, 299-320 IANCU, A., HABER, B., “Post-issuance proceedings in the America Invents act”, J. Pat. & trademark off. Soc’y 2011, 476-490 JACKMAN, J., “Adoption of a first-to-file patent system: a proposal”, University of Baltimore law review 1996-1997, 67-87 JAESCHKE, W., LU, Z., CRAWFORD, P., “Comparison of Chinese and U.S. patent reform legislation: which, if either got it right?”, The John Marshall review of intellectual property law 2011-2012, 567-600 JANICKE, P., “Implementing the adequate remedy at law for ongoing patent infringement after eBay v MercExchange”, Idea 2011, 163 JANICKE, P., “contemporary issues in patent damages”, the American university law review 1993, 691-736 JERUSS, S., FELDMAN, R., WALKER, J., “The America invents act 500: effects of patent monetization entities on US litigation”, duke law & technology review 2012, 357-389106JONES, M. “Permanent Injunction, a remedy by any other name is patently not the same: How eBay v. Mercexchange affects the patent right of non-practicing entities, George Mason Law review 2006-2007, 1035-1070 KESAN, J., GALLO, A., “Why “bad” Patets survive in the market and How should we change? – The private and social costs of patents”, Emory law journal 2006, 61-140 KING, P., ROBERTS, R., MOSHIRNIA, A., “the confluence of European activism and American minimalism: Patentable subject matter after Bilski”, Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 2010-2011, 247-298 KLEIN, T. “eBay v. MercExchange and KSR int’l Co. v. Teleflex, inc.: The supreme Court wages war against Patent Trolls, Penn. State law review 2007-2008, 295-314 KORN, R., “Is legislation the answer? An analysis for the proposed legislation for business method patents”, Florida State University law review 2002, 1367-1388 LEE, P., “Patent law and the two cultures” the yale law journal 2010-2011, 2-82 LEYCHKIS,Y., “Of fire ants and claims construction: An empirical study of the meteoric rise of the eastern district of Texas as a preeminent forum for patent litigation”, IPLR 2008, 139-179 LIANG, M. “the aftermath of TS Tech: the end of forumshopping in Patent Litigation and implications for non-practicing entities”, texas intellectual property law journal 2010-2011, 29-77 LIU, Y., “Patenting Business methods”, IIC 2011, 395-416 LOGAN, C.,“Patent Reform 2005: HR 2795 and the road to post-grant oppositions, UMKC L. Review 2005-2006, 975-997LOVE, N.,“Nominal reasonable royalties for patent infringement”, the university of Chicago law review 2008, 1749-1772 LUMAN, J., DODSON, C., “ No longer a myth, the emergence of the patent troll: stifling innovation, increasing litigation, and extorting billions”, Intel. Prop. Tech. L.J. mei 2006, 12-16 LUXARDO, V., “towards a solution to the problem of illegitimate patent enforcement practices in the United States: an equitable affirmative defense of “fair use” in patent”, emory international law review 2006, 791-831107MACEDO, C., “First-to-file and first-to-invent priority: An American historical perspective”, Journal of intellectual property law & practice 2013, 1-2 MACHIN, N., “Prospective Utility: a new interpretation of the utility requirement of section 101 of the patent act” Calnifornia Law Review 1999, 421-456 MACDONALD, M. “Beware of the troll”, the lawyer September 26, 2005, beschikbaar op http://www.thelawyer.com , geconsulteerd op5 april 2013 MANDEL, G. “the Non-obvious problem: how the indeterminate nonobviousness standard produces excessive patent grants, university of calnifornia Davis law review 2008-2009, 57-128 MARQUIS, H., “Improving the quality control for patents”, Minnesota law review 1974-1975, 68-107 MAROULIS, V., DUCHEMIN, J.,“Patent reform implemented: what changed?” the licensing journal 2012, 1-9. MARSNIK, S., “Will The America Invents Act Post-Grant Review Improve The Quality Of Patents? A Comparison with the European Patent Office Opposition” , UST research online, September 2012, 41p. beschikbaar op http://ir.stthomas.edu/ , geconsulteerd op 7 december 2012 Matal, J., “A guide to the legislative history of the America Invents act: Part I of II, beschikbaar op http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/guide-to-aia-p1.pdf , geconsulteerd op 5 november 2012 MAZZOLENI, R., NELSON, R. , “The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate”, Research policy 1998, 273-284 MCCURDY, D., “Patent Trolls erode the foundation of the U.S. Patent system”, science progress, fall-winter, 2008-2009, beschikbaar op beschikbaar op http://scienceprogress.org , geconsulteerd op 1 oktober 2012 MCDONOUGH, J., “The myth of the Patent troll: an alternative view of the function of patent dealers in an idea economy”, Emory Law Journal 2006, 189-228 MCEWEN, J., “IS the Cure worse than the disease? An overview of the Patent Reform Act of 2005”, John Marshall revue of intellectual property law 2005-2006, 55-77 MELARTI, C., “State street bank & trust co. v. signature financial group, inc: ought the mathematical algorithm and business method exceptions return to business as usual?”,108journalof intellectual property law 1998-1999, 359-393 MELLO, J., “technology licensing and patent trolls”, Boston university journal of science & technology law 2006, 388-398 MERGES, R., “The trouble with Trolls: innovation, rent-seeking, and patent law reform”, BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 2009, 1583 – 1614 MERGES, R., “As many as six impossible patents before breakfast: property rights for business concepts and patent systemreform”, Berkeley technology law journal 1999, 577-615 MOJIBI, A., “An empiciral study of the effect of KSR V. Teleflex on the Federal Circuit’s Patent Validity Jurisprudence”, Albany law journal of science & technology 2010, 559-596 MOORE, S., KNIGHT BROWN, D.,“Winning the battle but losing the war: Does ease in obtaining declaratory judgement jurisdiction after Hewlett-Packard Company v. acceleron, LLC benefit anyone?”, the metropolitan corporate counsel februari 2010, beschikbaar op http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com , geconsulteerd op 8 december 2012 MOTA, S., “MedImmune, Microsoft, and KSR: The United States Supreme Court in 2007 tips the balance in favor of innovation in Patent Cases, and Thrice Reverses the Federal Circuit ”, Marquerette intellectual property law review 2008, 89-105 MYERS, D., “Reeling in the Patent Troll: was Ebay v. Mercexchange enough”, J. Intell. Prop. L. 2006-2007, 333-356 NELKEN, M., “Sanctions Under Amended Federal Rule 11-Some "Chilling" Problems in the Struggle Between Compensation and Punishment” , Georgetown Law Journal 1985-1986, 1313-1369 NELSON, P., CONOVER, P., “One year after the Supreme Court’s MedImmune decision: Preemptive Patent Lawsuits Resurgent?”, The computer & internet lawyer juni 2008, 25-30 NGUYEN, T., “Lowering the fare: reducing the Patent Troll’s ability to tax the patent system”, federal circuit bar journal 2012, 101-133 NIELSEN, M., “Subduing the troll”, intellectual property magazine 2013, 83-85 OHLY, C.,“The America invents act of 2011”, intellectual property & technology law journal juni 2011, 3-9 OPDERBECK, D., “Patent damages reform and the shape of patent law”, Boston university law review 2009, 127-187109PARADISE, J., Lessons from the European Union: The need for a post-grant mechanism for third party challenge to U.S. Patents, Minnesota Journal of law, science & technology. 2005, 315-326 PRATTI, D., “in re Seagate technology LLC: a clean slate for willfulness”, Berkeley technology law journal 2008, 47-74 QUINN, G., “Troll turning point? Federal Circuit breathes life into Rule 11, IP Watchdog 9 december 2012, beschikbaar op http://www.ipwatchdog.com , geconsulteerd op 2 april 2013 REICH, E “US legislation aims to simplify rules for inventors, nature 2011, 149 REIN, F., CRYSTAL, J., “The America invents act: post-grant review and paragraph IV certifications”, journal of generic medicines 2012, 5-8 SAIONZ, J., “Declaratory judgement actions in Patent Cases: the federal Circuit’s response to MedImmune v. Genentech”, Berkeley Technology Law Journal 2008, 161-192 SANDBURG, B., “You may not have a choice, trolling for dollars”, the recorder 30 juli 2001 SCHAAFSMA, P., “the case for financial product patents: What the Supreme Court got right and wrong in Bilski v. Kappos, and a suggestion for a reasonable line on business patents”, journal of the patent & trademark office society 2010, 398-433 SCHACHT, W., THOMAS, J.,“Patent Reform: innovation issues”, CSR report for Congress 15juli 2005, 40 p. beschikbaar op http://webpages.cs.luc.edu geconsulteerd op 2 april 2013 SCHECKTER, J., “Eon-net v. flagstar: a new standard for sanctioning “Patent Trolls” and their counsel?”, the legal IP browser, herfst 2011, 7-9 SEAMAN, C. “Reconsidering the Georgia-pacific standard for reasonable Royalty Patent Damages”, Brigham young university law review 2010, 1661-1728 SEAMAN, C., “Willful patent infringement and enhanced damages after in re Seagate: an empirical study”, Iowa Law review 2012, 419 SHAPIRO, C., “Patent system reform: economic analysis and critiqye”, Berkeley technology law journal 2004, 1017-1047 SHAPIRO, R., PHAM, N., “economic effects of intellectual property manufacturing in the united states”, juli 2007, 30 p. beschikbaar op http://www.docs.piausa.org/ , geconsulteerd op 17110november 2012 SRISIRI-SISSON, W., “An extraordinary decade: the Supreme Court takes charge of reshaping patent law, Charleston law review 2009-2010, 887-917 SUBRAMANIAN, S., “Different rules for different owners – does a non-competing patentee have a right to exclude? A study of post-eBay cases”, IIC 2008, 419-451 SUN, H. , Post-grant patent invalidation in China and in the United States, Europe, Japan: a comparative study, Fordham intellectual property, media & entertainment law journal 2004-2005, 273-332 SWARD, E., PAGE, R., “The federal Courts improvement act: a practiotioner’s perspective, The American University law review 1983-1984, 385-416 TANDON, R., “Moving forward: patentability of software and business method patents”, intellectual property law bulletin 2001, 1-8 TAKENAKA, T., “Harmony with the rest of the world? The America Invents act”, journal of intellectual property law & practice 2012, 4-7 TAYLOR, D., “Patent Misjoinder”, new york university law review forthcoming, 85 p., http://ssrn.com ( 12 februari 2013) TAYLOR, K., “Patent harmonization treaty negotiations on hold: the “first to file” debate continues”, journal of contemporary law 1994, 521-545 TESKA, K. “Patent Trolls: even those who make and sell nothing are devising new ways to make money from U.S. patent laws., Mechanical engineering 2011, 35-38 THOMAS, J., “Statutory subject matter in context: lessons in patent governance from Bilski v. Kappos, Lewis & Clark law review 2011, 133-151 THOMAS, N., “Secondary considerations in nonobvious analysis: the use of objective indicia following KSR V. Teleflex, New York University Law review 2011, 2070-2111 THOMAS, R., “Vanquishing copyrights Pirates and Patent Trolls: the divergent evolution of copyright and patent laws”, American Business law journal 2006, vol43, nr.4, 689, beschikbaar op: http://law.bepress.com/ , geconsulteerd op 4 oktober 2012 VROUNTAS, C., Loftus, R., Palmer, C., “Patent Trolls: who, what, where and how to defend against them”, New Hampshire bar journal herfst 2011, 40.111WANG, A., “Rise of the Patent intermediaries”, Berkeley Tech. L.J .2010, 159-200 WANETICK, D., “How Sun Tzu would outflank Patent trolls”, the licensing journal mart 2010, 20-26 WILLIAMS, E., “Patent reform: the pharmaceutical industry prescription for post-grant opposition and remedies”, journal of the patent & trademark office society 2008, 354-377 WILLIAMS, J., CAMPAGNA, M., MARBUTT, O., “Strategies for combating Patent Trolls”, intell. Prop. L. 2009-2010, 367-376 V. WINTERS, “Federal Circuit kills 25 percent rule”, intellectual property & technology law journal mei 2011, 23-27 X, “Leahy Smith America Invents Act revises U.S. Patent Law regime” Harvard Law Review 2011-2012, 1290-1297 X, “Putting teeth to the tiger, IP Wise 10 december 2012, beschikbaar op http://ipwise.wordpress.com , geconsulteerd op 2 april 2013 X, “Smith introduces Patent Reform Bill”, 8 juni 2005, beschikbaar op http://lamarsmith.house.gov , geconsulteerd op 12 november 2012 overige To promote innovation: The proper balance of competition and patent law and policy, federal trade commission 2003, 1-45, beschikbaar op http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/10/innovationrpt.pdf , geconsulteerd op7 december 2012 PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP, patent litigation study 2011, 34 p. Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 72 Fed. Reg. 57526 (2007), beschikbaar op http://www.uspto.gov/ , geconsulteerd op 19 maart 2013EUROPA WetgevingEuropean Patent Convention 1973European patent convention 2010,14e editie Richtlijn 2004/48/EG Van het Europees parlement en de raad van 29 april 2004 betreffende de handhaving van intellectuele-eigendomsrechten.VERORDENING (EU) Nr. 1257/2012 VAN HET EUROPEES PARLEMENT EN DE RAAD van 17 december 2012 tot het uitvoering geven aan nauwere samenwerking op het gebied van de instelling van eenheidsoctrooibescherming.Raad van de Europese Unie, draft agreement on a unified patent court, 11533/11 Artikel 267 TFEU Wet 28 maart 1984 op de uitvindingsoctrooien, BS, 9 maart 1985 Wet van 21 april 2007 houdende diverse bepalingen betreffende de procedure inzake indiening van Europese octrooiaanvragen en de gevolgen van deze aanvragen en van de Europese octrooien in de België, BS, 4 september 2007, gewijzigd 24 juli 2008, BS, 7 augustus 2008Artikel 446 ter gerechtelijk wetboek, ingevoegd bij artikel 4 wet 21 juni 2006, BS, 20 juli 2006Artikel 57,2 Nederlandse rijksoctrooiwet RechtspraakAdv. HvJ nr. 1/09, 8 maart 2011, http://curia.europa.eu (29 februari 2012) , sew 2011, 243-244HvJ, 16 april 2013, C-274/11, Spanje/Raad (OJEU 2011 C 219, 12) en C-295/11, Italië/Raad (OJEU 2011, C 232, 21).HvJ, 3 Dec. 1974, Case 33/74, van Binsbergen v. Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid [1974] ECR 1299HvJ, 14 Dec. 2000, Case C-110/99, Emsland-Stärke GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas[2000] ECR I-1569HvJ, 5 Jul. 2007, Case C-321/05, Hans Markus Kofoed v. Skatteministeriet [2007] ECR I-5795HvJ, 19 jan. 2010, Case C-555/07 , Seda Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co. KG113HvJ, 22 nov. 2005, Case C-144/04, Werner Mangold V Rüdiger HelmCass. 11 mei 2001, Art Research & Contact t. B.S.EPOR: T208/84 [1987] 2 EPOR 74 Vicom/Computer-related inventionEPOR: T26/86 1988, 2 EPOR 72 Koch & Sterzel/X-Ray apparatus, RechtsleerBoeken ANN, C., “Patent Trolls: menace or myth?” in PRINZ ZU WALDECK UND PYRMONT, W., ADELMAN, M., BRAUNEIS, R., DREXL, J., NACK, R. (eds.), Liber amicorum Joseph Straus: Patents and technological progress in a globalized world, X, Springer, 2009, 355-364 BENTLY, L. SHERMAN, B., Intellectual Property Law, New York, Oxford University Press, 2001, 1051 p. BERESFORD, K., Patenting Software under the European Patent convention, Londen , Sweet&Maxwell, 2000, 249 p. BRAINBRIDGE, D., Legal protection of computer software, Haywards Heath, tottel publishing, 2008, 439 p. COLSTON, C., GALLOWAY, J., Modern intellectual property law, Londen, Routledge, 2010, 831 p. CORNISH, W., LLEWELYN, D., APPLIN, T., intellectual property: Patents, Copyright, trademarks, and allied rights, London, Sweet&Maxwell , 2010, 974 p. DE RANITZ, R., dwanglicenties: verlenen, heden en toekomst, intellectuele eigendom en reclamerecht 1992, 42-47 p. DE VUYST, B., Handboek Octrooien, Brugge, Die Keure, 2006, 266 p. DIRIX, E., STEENNOT, E., VANHEES, H., handels- en economisch recht in hoofdlijnen, Antwerpen-Cambridge, Intersentia, 2011, 520 p. GIELEN, C., ALKEMA, A., GEERTS, P., GROENENBOOM, M., HERMANS, R., KLOS, S., VAN OERLE, R., kort begrip van intellectuele eigendomsrecht, Deventer, Kluwer, 2007, 683 p.114GIELEN, C., Intellectuele eigendom: tekst en commentaar, Deventer, Kluwer, 2005, 763 p. GOTZEN, F., JANSSENS, M., Wegwijs in het intellectueel eigendomsrecht, Brugge, Vanden Broele, 2012, 357 p. HARHOFF, D.,“the battle for patent rights” in C. PEETERS, B. VAN POTTELSBERGHE DE LA POTTERIE, Economics and management perspectives on intellectual property rights, s.l., Palgrave Macmillan, 266 p. KEELING, D., “intellectual property rights in EU law - Free movement and competition law, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003, 410 p. KLETT, A., SONNTAG, M., WILSKE, S., Intellectual property law in Germany – Protection, enforcement and dispute resolution, Munchen, Beck, 2008, 628 p. MACLAREN, T., licensing law handbook: licensing in Europe, New York, Clark Boardman Callaghan, 1992, 567 p. MACQUEEN, H., WAELDE, C., LAURIE, G., contemporary intellectual property: law and policy, X, Oxford University Press, 960 p. METAXAS-MARANGHIDIS, G., Intellectual property laws in Europe, Chichester, Wiley, 1995, 643 p. MUIR, I., BRANDY-DOHRN, M., GRUBER, S., European Patent law: law and procedure under the EPC and PCT, New York, Oxford University Press”, 1999, 316 p. NEVILLE BROWN, L., “Is there a general principle of abuse of rights in European community law?” in CURTIN, D., HEUKELS, T., (ed.), institutional dynamics of European integration: essays in honour of Henry G. Schermers, Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff publishers, 1994, 511-525 PATERSON, G., The European Patent system: the law and practice of the European patent convention, London, Sweet and Maxwell 2001, 948 p. POLLAUD-DULIAN, F., La propriété intellectuelle – La propriété industrielle, Parijs, Economica, 2011, 1447 p. REMICHE, B., CASSIERS, V., Droit des brevets d’invention et du savoir-faire: créer, protéger et partager les inventions au XXIe siècle, Brussel, Larcier, 2010, 742 p. ROUGHTON, A., COOK, T., SPENCE, M., The Modern law of Patents, Londen,115Butterworths,2005, 1818 p. ROWLAND, D., KOHL, U., CHARLESWORTH, A., Information technology law, Londen, Routledge, 2012, 531 p. SCHOVSBO, J., “Constructing an efficiënt and balanced European Patent system: muddling through” in GEIGER, C., constructing European intellectual property, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2013, 215-230 SINGER, R., Das neue Europäische Patentsystem, Baden Baden, Nomos Verlagsgesellshaft, 1979, 206 p. STEVENHAGEN, A., DEN HARTOG, J., octrooien in de praktijk, Den Haag, Boom Juridische uitgevers, 2001, 101 p. THORLEY, S., MILLER, R., e.a. Terrel on the law of patents, Londen, Sweet & Maxwell, 2006, 1235 p. TRITTON, G., e.a. , Intellectual Property in Europe, Londen, Sweet & Maxwell, 2008, 1275 p. ULLRICH, H., “Harmonizing patent law: the untameable union Patent” in JANSSENS, M., VAN OVERWALLE G., Harmonisation of European IP law, from European rules to Belgian law and practice, contributions in honour of Frank Gotzen, Brussel, Bruylant &Larcier, 2012, 243-293. VAN COUTER, Y., VANBRABANT, B.,“handboek licentieovereenkomsten”, Brussel, Larcier, 2007, 392 p. VAN DER KOOIJ, P., MULDER, S., Hoofdzaken intellectuele eigendom, Deventer, Kluwer, 2010, 53 p. VAN EMPEL, M., The granting of European Patents, Leiden, A.W. Sijthoff, 1975, 435 p. VAN ZIMMEREN, E., “Recente ontwikkelingen in het octrooirecht” in X, recht in beweging: 19e VRG-alumnidag 2012, Antwerpen-Apeldoorn, Maklu, 2012, 175-203 p.VIVANT, M., la protection du logiciel en Europe, Parijs, Litec, 1989, 185 p.116 ArtikelsBARRIONUEVO-GARCIA, A., “software patents in Europe after the European parliament’s rejection, UPGRADE-the European journal for the informatics professional februari 2006, 67-74 BEKE, M., “review of the belgian rotating presidency: from political to administrative leadership”, ARI 16/2001, 7 p. BENATHEN, S., “Germany and Patents: All that glitter isn’t gold”, Illinois business law journal 17 april 2012, beschikbaar op http://www.law.illinois.edu/ (26 maart 2013) BIDDINGER, “limiting the business method patent: a comparison and proposed alignment of European, Japanese and United States Patent law”, Fordham law review 2000-2001, 2523-2554 BONITATIBUS, K., “ The community Patent system proposal and patent infringement proceedings: an eye towards greater harmonization in European intellectual property law”, pace law review 2001-2002, 201-237BRAY, R. “the European Union “software patents” directive: what is it? Why is it? Where are we now?, duke law & technology review 2005, nr 11, 15p, beschikbaar op http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/ , geconsulteerd op 15 maart 2013 CALLENS, P., “Het unitair octrooi en octrooigerecht: op een zucht van de finish, IRDI 2012, 6-20 CHOUDHARY, V. “The patentability of software under intellectual property rights: an analysis of US, European and Indian intellectual property rights”, European intellectual property law review 2011, 435-446 CORNISH, W., LLEWELYN, D., APLIN, T., “Intellectual property: Patents, copyright, trade marks and allied rights”, Londen, Sweet & Maxwell, 2010, 974 DE BACKERE, C., DE LATHAUWER, N., “Contingent fees: beyond the intuitive threat”, jura falconis 2012-2013, 101-126 DE BRUYCKER, P., “ Setting up a Common European Asylum System: Report on the application of existing instruments and proposals for the new system”, European Parliament Directorate-General for Internal Policies 2010, 496 p. DE CORTE, F., TRIDICO, A., IRVING, T., LEWIS, S., GERVASI, C., “AIA Post-Grant review & European oppositons, will they work in tandem, or rather pass like ships in the night?, North117Carolina Journal of law & technology 2012, 93-143 DEENE, J., “Intellectuele rechten kroniek 2005” NjW 2006, 530-550 DE MOL, M., “Kücükdeveci: Mangold revisited – Horizontal direct effect of a general principle of EU law: Court of Justice of the European Union (grand chamber) judgement of 19 january 2010, Case C555/07, Seda Kücükdeveci v. Swedex GmbH & Co. KG”, 293-308 DESCHAMPS, C. “Patenting computer-related inventions in the US and in Europe: the need for domestic and international legal harmony”, European Intellectual property Review 2011, 103-114 DE WIT, S., “The Case eBay Inc. vs. MercExchange LLC, it’s impact on NPE and Patent enforcement”, 13 p. http://papers.ssrn.com (12 maart 2013), DUFFUS, A. “The proposal for a directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions”, international review of law computers & technology 2002, 331-338 EVERS, M., DE GRAAF, A., “limiting benefit shopping- EC case la won its use and abuse”, 26p., beschikbaar op http://papers.ssrn.com/ , geconsultueerd op 8 april 2013 FORD, L., “Alchemy and patentability: technology, ‘useful arts,” and the chimerical mind-machine, california western law review 2005,49-119 FOREST, D., “faut-il craindre les chasseurs de brevets en Europe?, recueil dalloz 2006, 2473 FOX, N., REES, A., “A European Perspective on Business Method Patents”, Landslide juli/augustus 2010, 30-35 GRAHAM, S., HARHOFF, D., “Can post-grant reviews improve patent-system design? A twin study of US and European Patents”, GESY discussion paper No. 38 april 2006 ,6 beschikbaar op http://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de , geconsulteerd op 11 april 2013 GROSCHE, A., “Software Patents – Boon or bane for Europe”, international journal of law and information technology 2006, 257-309 HAFT, K., e.a., “injunctions in cases of infringement of IPRs”, AIPPI 10 mei 2011, beschikbaar op https://www.aippi.org (6 april 2013) HARHOFF, D., “economic cost-benefit analysis of a unified and integrated European patent litigation system”, final report 26 februari 2009, 1-84, beschikbaar op http://convenzioni.confindustria.it/ , geconsulteerd op 5 april 2013118HART, R., “Business method patents: Europe”, international intellectual property law & policy 2002, 12.1 – 12.10 HELMERS, C., MCDONAGH, L., “Trolls at the high court”, LSE Law, society and economy working papers 13/2012, 10, beschikbaar op http://papers.ssrn.com , geconsulteerd op 4 maart 2013 HESS-BLUMER, A., “ Patent Trolls – eine analyse nach Schweizer Recht“, Zeitschrift für Immaterialgüter-, Informations-und Wettbewerbsrecht, 12/2009, 851-865 HILTI, C., “The future European community patent system and its effects on non-EEC member states”, AIPLA quarterly journal, 1990, 289-331 HILTY, R., GEIGER, C, “Patenting software? A judicial and socio-economic analysis”, IIC 2005, 615-647 HOFFMANN, T., “the phenomenon of consumer insolvency tourism” and its challenges to European legislation, journal of consumer policy 2012, 461-475 JAEGER, T., “All back to square one? An assessment of the latest proposals for a patent and court agreement for the internal market and possible alternatives”, international review of intellectual property & competition law 2012, 286-308 LENAERTS, A., “The general principle of the prohibition of abuse of rights: a critical position on its role in a codified European contract law”, European review of private law 2010, 1121-1154 MAYERGOYZ, A., “Lessons from Europe on how to tame US Patent Trolls”, Cornell int’l L.J. 2009, 241-270 MARSNIK, S., THOMAS, R., “drawing a line in the patent subject- matter sands: does Europe provide a solution to the software and business method patent problem?, Boston College International and ComparativeLaw Review lente 2011, 228-327 MEIJBOOM, A., “Europees Parlement wijzigt de conceptrichtlijn voor softwaregerelateerde octrooien wezenlijk”, computerr. 2003, 375-376 MEIJBOOM, A., “Bang voor softwareoctrooien”, computerr. 2002, 66 OHLY, A., “Patenttrolle” oder: Der patentrechtliche Unterlassungsanspruch unter Verhältnismäßigkeitsvorbehalt? – Aktuelle Entwicklungen im US-Patentrecht und ihre Bedeutung für das deutsche und europäische Patentsystem“, GRUR Int, 2008, 787-798.119OSTERRIETH, C., “Patent-Trolls in Europa – braucht das Patentrecht neue Grenzen?”, GRUR 2009, 540-545 PÉNIN, J., “Le problème des patent trolls: comment limiter la speculation sur la propriété intellectuelle dans une économie fondée sur les connaisances?”, innovations 2010/2, 35-53 PETROSOVITCH, K., “abuse under the merger directive”, European taxation 2010, 558-567 PIRSON, J., “Le régime des licenses obligatoires en Belgique”, Revue de droit intellectual L’ingenieur-conseil 1986, 257-268 PIJETLOVIC, K., NYMAN-METCALF, K., “Liberalising the service market for satellite transmission: interplay between intellectual property rights, specificity of sports and TFEU economic provisions in Murphy”, International sports law journal 2013, 15p PILA, J.“dispute over the meaning of invention in article 52(2) EPC, : Patentability of computer-implemented inventions in Europe”, IIC 2006, 173-191 PINXTEN, J., “De octrooieerbaarheid van software: auteursrecht en/of octrooirecht?”, jura falconis 2009-2010, 635-662 REMICHE, B., BERTHOLD, N., “Tendances récentes en droit Européen des brevets“ in Annales d’études Européennes de l’université catholique de Louvain- La XIIe présidence belge du conseil de l’Union européenne: Bilans et perspectives, 2011, 129-148 SCHAMMO, P., “arbitrage and abuse of rights in the EC legal system”, European law journal 2008, 351-376 SCHICKEDANZ, W., “Patentverletzung durch Einsatz von geschützten Bauteilen in komplexen Vorrichtungen und die Rolle der Patent-Trolle”, GRUR int 2009, 901-907 SMIT, R., “Eu-octrooi is geen wondermiddel”, financieel dagblad 12 maart 2013, beschikbaar op http://fd.nl/entrepreneur/ , geconsulteerd op 13 maart 2013 SPAVENTA, E.,“opening pandora’s box: some reflections on the constitutional effects of the decision in pupino, 5-24 TAKIS, T., “abuse of rights in EU law: some reflections with particular reference to financial law”, queen mary university of London, school of law legal studies research paper No. 27/2009, 7, beschikbaar op http://papers.ssrn.com/ , geconsulteerd op 7 april 2013 THOMAS, R. DIMATTEO, L., “Harmonizing the international law of business method and120software patents: following Europe’s lead”, Texas intellectual property law journal 2007-2008, 1-46 TILLMAN, W. “Moving towards completing the European Patent System: an overview of the draft agreement on a Unified Patent Court, Springer 2012, 87-101, beschikbaar op: http://download.springer.com/ , geconsulteerd 4 maart 2013 ULLRICH, H., select from within the system: the European patent with unitary effect, Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Research Paper No. 12-11, 46p http://papers.ssrn.com , geconsulteerd op 1 maart 2013 ULLRICH, H., “National, European and community Patent Protection: time for reconsideration”, EUI Working Paper law, No2006/41, 4 beschikbaar op: http://cadmus.eui.eu/ , geconsulteerd op 2 maart 2013URBANCHUK, G., TUMBRIDGE, J., “Patent Damages: the European landscape”, journal of intellectual property law & practice 2008, 576-579 VAN LITH, H., “The Dutch collective settlements act and private international law, WODC ministerie van justitie 2010, 151 p. VAN OVERWALLE, G., “TRIPs en het octrooirecht”, IRDI 1997, 222-244 WAGNER, S. “business method patents in Europe and their strategic use-evidence from franking device manufacturers”, econ. Innov. New techn. 2008, 173, beschikbaar op http://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de , geconsulteerd op 18 maart 2013 WEBER, D., “Abuseof law: European Court of Justice, 14 december 2000, Case C-110/99, Emsland-Stärke, legal issues of economic integration 2004, 43-55 WOUTERS, J., COPPENS, D., GERAETS, D., “The influence of general principles of law”, Leuven centre for global studies: Working paper No. 70 juli 2011, 31p beschikbaar op https://ghum.kuleuven.be , geconsulteerd op 8 april 2013 X, “the EU’s unitary patent: yes, ja, oui, no, no, after 40 years of trying, Europe has a unified Patent System. Sort of”, the economist15 december 2012, beschikbaar op http://www.economist.com , geconsulteerd op 13 maart 2013 X, “24 EU countries sign unified Patent Court agreement”, RTT news 19 februari 2013, beschikbaar op http://www.rttnews.com/ (2 april 2013) YOSICK, J., “Compulsory licensing for efficiënt use of inventions, university of Illinois law review 2001, 1275-1304121ZONNEKEYN, G., “ De directe werking van de TRIPS overeenkomst, een stand van zaken, instituut voor internationaal recht – working paper nr. 28, - augustus 2002, beschikbaar op http://www.law.kuleuven.be/iirr , geconsulteerd op 23 maart 2013 Overige Ericcson, “brief aan Europese parlementsleden” ,10 december 2012, http://www.unitary-patent.eu/sites/www.unitary-patent.eu/files/ericsson… (13 maart 2013) Nokia and BAE Systems gezamelijke brief aan de Europese parlementsleden”, 10 december 2012, http://www.unitary-patent.eu/sites/www.unitary-patent.eu/files/nokia_an… (13 maart 2013).Internationaal –Multinationaal – AlgemeenWetgeving Convention for the protection of industrial property, Parijs 1883, gewijzigd Stockholm, 1970 Agreement on trade related aspects of intellectual property rights, 1994 Patent cooperation treaty, Washington 19 juni 1970, van kracht 1 april 2002 Rechtsleer Boeken BAKELS, R.“A new paradigm in Patent law: the vertical concept of technology” in GROSHEIDE, F., BRINKHOF J., (ed.), Intellectual property law, articles on crossing border between traditional and actual, Antwerpen-Oxford, Intersentia, 2004, 349-365 BUSCHE, J., TRIMBORN, M., FABRY B., Patent infringement worldwide, Keulen, Heymanns, 2010, 664 p. BUYDENS, M;, La propriété intellectuelle: evolution historique et philosophique, Brussel, Bruylant, 2012, 490 p. VAN OVERWALLE, G., VAN ZIMMEREN, E., “Functions and limits of patent law” in CLAES, E., DEVROE, W., KEIRSBILCK, B., Facing the limits of the law, Berlijn, Springer, 2009, 415-442 CORREA, C., YUSUF, A., Intellectual property and international trade: the TRIPS agreement, Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer Law International, 2008, 499 p.122DE VISSCHER, F., “brevets et savoir-faire” in D.KAESMACHER, Les droits intellectuels, Brussel, Larcier, 2007, 257-287 DE CRUZ, P., Comparative law in a changing world, Abingdon en New York, Routledge Cavendish, 2007, 532 p. DRAHOS, P., Death of Patents, Oxfordshire, Lawtext Publishing Limited, 2005, 256 p. DUTFIELD, G., SUTHERSANEN, U., global intellectual property law, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar,, 2008, 369 p. GIELEN C. (ed.), ea., Kort begrip van het Intellectuele eigendomsrecht, Deventer, Kluwer, 2007, 683 p. GUTTERMAN, A., ANDERSON, B., intellectual property in global markets, a guide for foreign lawyers and managers, Den Haag, Kluwer Law International, 1997, 483p. MACQUEEN, H., WAELDE, C., LAURIE, G., BROWN, A. contemporary intellectual property: Law and policy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010, 1058 p. MERGES, R., Justifying intellectual property, Cambridge en Londen, Harvard University Press, 2011, 405 p. PARK, C., “Challenging pharmaceutical patents: the case of india” in WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, intellectual property and access to medicines: papers and perspectives, Indië, WHO Publications, 2010, 107-116 TRIMBLE, M., “Global Patents: limits of transnational enforcement”, Oxford , Oxford University Press, 2012, 233 p. VAN GERVEN, W. “Komt het de rechter toe rechten te ontnemen of de uitoefening ervan in te korten?” in X, recht in beweging: 19e VRG-alumnidag 2012, Antwerpen-Apeldoorn, Maklu, 2012, 103-112 VAN ZIMMEREN, E., “Towards a new patent paradigm in the biomedical sector”, LEUVEN, X, 2011, 707 Artikels AERTS, R. “The legitimacy of patent law-making in Europe and the U.S. – a tentative comparison” IIC 2007, 165-182123BARDEHLE, H., “A new approach to worldwide harmonization of patent law”, journal of the patent and trademark office society 1999, 303-310 BARTON, J., “Issues posed by a world patent system”, journal of international economic law 2004, 341-357 BARTON, J., “Reforming the patent system”, science 2000, 1933-1934 BELLEFLAMME, P., SLITS, L., “les développement du marché des brevets et la problematique des patent trolls”, regards economique December 2010, 1-12 en http://www.core.ucl.ac.be/~pbel/RE083.pdf (6 maart 2012) BRENNAN, J., HSUEH, H., SAHASHI M., OHKUMA, Y., “Patent Trolls in the U.S., Japan, Taiwan and Europe”, CASRIP, lente/zomer 2006, volume 2, http://www.law.washington.edu/ , geconsulteerd op 1 oktober 2012CAMPBELL, R., “Global Patent law harmonization: benefits and implementation”, Indiana International & comparative law review 2002-2003, 605-638 CUENOT, K., “Perilous Potholoes in the path toward patent law harmonization”, university of florida journal of law & public policy1999-2000, 102-119 EIMER, T., “Decoding divergence in software regulation: Paradigms, Power structures, and institutions and the European Union” governance 2008, 275-296 GERARDIN, D., LAYNE-FARRAR, A., PADILLA, A. J., “Elves or trolls? The role of non patent owners in the innovation economy, Industrial and corporate change 2011, 73-94 MOSSINGHOFF, G., KUO, V., “World Patent system circa 20XX, A.D.”, journal of the patent & trademark office society 1998, 523-560 RADEMACHER, C., “Patent enforcement – preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in Germany, Japan and the U.S”, research project abstract beschikbaar op http://www.law.stanford.edu , geconsulteerd op 26 maart 2013 REITZIG M., HENKEL,J., “Patent Trolls, the Sustainability of ‘Locking-in-to-extort’ Strategies,and Implications for Innovating Firms”, Technische Universität München (TUM) working paper series 2010, 1-45 SIEW KUAN NG, E., “Patent Trolling: innovation at risk”, European intellectual property review 2009, 593-608

Universiteit of Hogeschool
Master in de rechten
Publicatiejaar
2013
Kernwoorden
Share this on: