The meaning of frand, part II: Injunctions

Journal of Competition Law and Economics

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 201-269

  Gregory Sidak, J ^a  

^a LLC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925305935     PISSN: 17446414     EISSN: 17446422     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/joclec/nhv005     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. J. Gregory Sidak, The Meaning of FRAND, Part I: Royalties, 9 J. COMPETITION L. & ECON. 931 (2013).
2. John M. Golden, "Patent Trolls" and Patent Remedies, 85 TEX. L.REV. 2111 (2007).
3. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking, 85 TEX. L. REV. 1991, 1991-92 (2007).
4. J. Gregory Sidak & David J. Teece, Dynamic Competition in Antitrust Law, 5 J. COMPETITION L. & ECON. 581 (2009).
5. James Ratliff & Daniel L. Rubinfeld, The Use and Threat of Injunctions in the RAND Context, 9 J. COMPETITION L. & ECON. 1, 9 (2013).
6. Jorge L. Contreras, Fixing FRAND: A Pseudo-Pool Approach to Standards-Based Patent Licensing, 79 ANTITRUST L.J. 47 (2013).
7. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-403_en.htm.
8. Steven J. Burton, More on Good Faith Performance of a Contract: A Reply to Professor Summers, 69 IOWA L. REV. 497 (1984).
9. Richard A. Posner, Let Us Never Blame a Contract Breaker, 107 MICH. L. REV. 1349, 1360 (2009).
10. Roger G. Brooks, Patent "Hold-Up," Standards-Setting Organizations and the FTC's Campaign Against Innovators, 39 AIPLA Q.J. 435, 446-49 (2011).
11. Damien Geradin, Reverse Hold-Ups: The (Often Ignored) Risks Faced by Innovators in Standardized Areas, in THE PROS AND CONS OF STANDARD SETTING 101 (Konkurrensverket 2010).
12. S. Chase Means, The Trouble with Treble Damages: Ditching Patent Law's Willful Infringement Doctrine and Enhanced Damages, 2013 U. ILL. L.REV. 1999, 2010-11.
13. Robert Cooter, Stephen Marks & Robert Mnookin, Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: A Testable Model of Strategic Behavior, 11 J. LEGAL STUD. 225, 225 (1982).
14. Douglas H. Ginsburg, Taylor M. Owings & Joshua D. Wright, Enjoining Injunctions: The Case Against Antitrust Liability for Standard Essential Patent Holders Who Seek Injunctions, ANTITRUST SOURCE (Oct. 2014).
15. Peter Camesasca, Gregor Langus, Damien Neven & Pat Treacy, Injunctions for Standard-Essential Patents: Justice Is Not Blind, 9 J. COMPETITION L. & ECON. 285 (2013).
16. William E. Kovacic & Marc Winerman, Competition Policy and the Application of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 76 ANTITRUST L.J. 929, 930 (2010).
17. Doris Johnson Hines & J. Preston Long, The Continuing (R)evolution of Injunctive Relief in the District Courts and the International Trade Commission, IP LITIGATOR (2013), http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=3aad1da2-08a9-4f14-a147-611b1e39ff75.
18. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, Probabilistic Patents, 19 J. ECON. PERSP. 75, 82 (2005).
19. http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/wp-content/uploads/EN-Translation-BGH-Orange-Book-Standard-eng.pdf.