Retail price
CHF** SFr.97.95EURD** €91.95EURA** €92.95EUR* €76.95GBP* £61.95USD* $100.95
Show Less
Redeem Token
Restricted access
Enforcement of Patents on Geographically Divisible Inventions
An Inquiry into the Standard of Substantive Patent Law Infringement in Cross-Border Constellations
Series:
Agnieszka Kupzok
This work investigates the challenges of enforcement of patent rights in geographically divisible inventions. It considers aspects of technological progress which pose challenges to the established system of patent protection based on the territorial limitation of rights. The analysis focuses on substantive patent law, especially on the infringement provisions. It is carried out in the context of Internet-related inventions, which demonstrate an extraordinarily construed technical nature, namely geographical divisibility. This leads to the inquiry of whether the infringement standard is appropriate in relation to the technological development in ICTs.
Book (EPUB)
- ISBN:
- 978-3-653-97918-3
- Availability:
- Available
- Subjects:
Prices
Currency depends on your shipping address
- Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien, 2015. 442 pp.
Show Summary Details
Redeem Token
- Cover
- Title
- Copyright
- About the author
- About the book
- This eBook can be cited
- Detailed Table of Contents
- Table of Figures
- Motivation
- 2.1. Justifications of a system for patent protection
- 2.2. Importance of patent enforcement within the patent law regime
- 2.3. Changes in the socio-economic context
- Cross-border enforcement of patents in Europe
- Transborder infringement of patents
- 2.5. Outline of the legal problem: enforcement of territorially limited patents on geographically divisible inventions and global computer networks
- Focus on formal enforcement mechanisms
- Concept of infringement
- Focus on German and United Kingdom law
- Definitional aspect: software versus computer-implemented inventions
- Differentiation from existing research
- Research Structure
- 4.1. Literature Review
- 4.2.1. Territoriality principle and patent enforcement
- International Agreements: Paris, PCT, and TRIPS
- Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS)
- 4.4.1. European Patent Convention
- 4.4.2. Chronology of efforts to develop a patent system for the European Union
- Community Patent Convention
- 4.4.3. The Unitary Patent Package
- Unitary Patent Protection
- Unified Patent Court
- Objections raised by the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Italy
- Objections raised by the Republic of Poland
- Objections to Arts 6-8 being included in the text of the Regulation
- Discussion
- Harmonization of patent enforcement at the EU level – Directive 2004/48/EC
- Patent enforcement by customs and border control measures at the EU level – Regulation 1383/2003
- 4.6.1. Overview of the Internet development
- 4.6.2. Internet as a technology
- 4.6.3. Regulation in the cloud: legal and socio-economic aspects of cyberspace
- Cyberspace and Sovereignty
- 4.6.4. Internet as a factor in patent enforcement
- 4.6.5. Geographically divisible inventions (GDIs)/Remotely integrated inventions
- Characteristics
- 4.6.6. Computer programs
- 4.6.7. Conclusions on the Context of this Research
- 5.1.1. All elements rule
- 5.1.2. Impact of the EPC on national patent infringement proceedings
- 5.2.1. Introduction
- 5.2.2. Structure of the German Patent System
- 5.2.3. Territorial nature of patents under German law
- 5.3.1. Introduction
- 5.3.2. Structure of United Kingdom Patent System
- 5.3.3. Territorial nature of patents under UK law
- 5.4.1. Direct Patent Infringement under German law(§9 PatG)
- Literal infringement
- Infringement by Doctrine of Equivalents
- Direct infringement of product patents
- Direct infringement of product-by-process claim
- Direct infringement of a process patent
- All elements rule in German patent law
- 5.4.2. Direct Infringement under UK law (Art. 60 (1) 1977 UK Patent Act)
- Literal
- By Purposive Construction
- Direct infringement of a product patent
- Direct infringement of a process patent
- Direct infringement of a product by process patent
- 5.5.1. Indirect Infringement in Germany (§10 PatG)
- 5.5.2. Indirect Infringement under UK law (Art. 60 (2) 1977 UK Patent Act)
- 5.6.1. Other forms of liability - Germany
- Joint and vicarious liability
- Criminal liability
- 5.6.2. Other forms of liability – United Kingdom
- Joint tortfeasorship
- 5.7. Conclusions from comparative analysis of substantive patent infringement provisions in Germany and the United Kingdom
- 6.1. German jurisprudence: Prepaid Cards II
- 6.2. UK jurisprudence: Menashe v. William Hill
- 6.3. Discussion
- 6.4.1. NTP v. RIM
- 6.4.2. Akamai Tech. v Limelight Netw.
- Infringement constellations for further consideration
- Approaches developed by the Courts
- 7.1. Introduction
- Unitary patent protection
- Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
- 7.3. Alternatives to patent-based protection of inventions
- 7.4.1. Assessment framework
- 7.4.2. Criteria
- Patent theory – theoretical underpinnings
- Objectives of patent enforcement
- International Obligations
- Economic considerations
- Lemley et al. – divided infringement
- Teter – perspective claims
- Wasserman – extension of extraterritoriality
- Robins – Institutional solution
- Dreyfuss – full harmonization of substantive patent law
- Haupt – key element test
- 7.6. Discussion
- Amendment proposal
- Amendment evaluation
- 7.8. Final Considerations
- 8. Conclusion
- Zusammenfassung der Dissertation
- Literature
- Case law
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- Germany
- Federal Supreme Court of Germany (Bundesgerichtshof)
- German Federal Patent Court
- Appeals Courts (Oberlandesgerichte)
- District Courts (Landesgerichte)
- United Kingdom
- House of Lords / Supreme Court (since Oct. 2009)
- Court of Appeals of England and Wales
- High Court of Justice of England and Wales
- United States
- United States Court of Claims
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- United States International Trade Commission
- Legal documents
- International Agreements
- European Union Documents
- Directives
- Regulations
- National Legal Texts
- Draft Legal Texts
- Abbreviations
- Annex 1 National patent laws
- Annex 2 Unitary patent: infringement provisions
- Cover
- Title
- Copyright
- About the author
- About the book
- This eBook can be cited
- Detailed Table of Contents
- Table of Figures
- Motivation
- 2.1. Justifications of a system for patent protection
- 2.2. Importance of patent enforcement within the patent law regime
- 2.3. Changes in the socio-economic context
- Cross-border enforcement of patents in Europe
- Transborder infringement of patents
- 2.5. Outline of the legal problem: enforcement of territorially limited patents on geographically divisible inventions and global computer networks
- Focus on formal enforcement mechanisms
- Concept of infringement
- Focus on German and United Kingdom law
- Definitional aspect: software versus computer-implemented inventions
- Differentiation from existing research
- Research Structure
- 4.1. Literature Review
- 4.2.1. Territoriality principle and patent enforcement
- International Agreements: Paris, PCT, and TRIPS
- Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS)
- 4.4.1. European Patent Convention
- 4.4.2. Chronology of efforts to develop a patent system for the European Union
- Community Patent Convention
- 4.4.3. The Unitary Patent Package
- Unitary Patent Protection
- Unified Patent Court
- Objections raised by the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Italy
- Objections raised by the Republic of Poland
- Objections to Arts 6-8 being included in the text of the Regulation
- Discussion
- Harmonization of patent enforcement at the EU level – Directive 2004/48/EC
- Patent enforcement by customs and border control measures at the EU level – Regulation 1383/2003
- 4.6.1. Overview of the Internet development
- 4.6.2. Internet as a technology
- 4.6.3. Regulation in the cloud: legal and socio-economic aspects of cyberspace
- Cyberspace and Sovereignty
- 4.6.4. Internet as a factor in patent enforcement
- 4.6.5. Geographically divisible inventions (GDIs)/Remotely integrated inventions
- Characteristics
- 4.6.6. Computer programs
- 4.6.7. Conclusions on the Context of this Research
- 5.1.1. All elements rule
- 5.1.2. Impact of the EPC on national patent infringement proceedings
- 5.2.1. Introduction
- 5.2.2. Structure of the German Patent System
- 5.2.3. Territorial nature of patents under German law
- 5.3.1. Introduction
- 5.3.2. Structure of United Kingdom Patent System
- 5.3.3. Territorial nature of patents under UK law
- 5.4.1. Direct Patent Infringement under German law(§9 PatG)
- Literal infringement
- Infringement by Doctrine of Equivalents
- Direct infringement of product patents
- Direct infringement of product-by-process claim
- Direct infringement of a process patent
- All elements rule in German patent law
- 5.4.2. Direct Infringement under UK law (Art. 60 (1) 1977 UK Patent Act)
- Literal
- By Purposive Construction
- Direct infringement of a product patent
- Direct infringement of a process patent
- Direct infringement of a product by process patent
- 5.5.1. Indirect Infringement in Germany (§10 PatG)
- 5.5.2. Indirect Infringement under UK law (Art. 60 (2) 1977 UK Patent Act)
- 5.6.1. Other forms of liability - Germany
- Joint and vicarious liability
- Criminal liability
- 5.6.2. Other forms of liability – United Kingdom
- Joint tortfeasorship
- 5.7. Conclusions from comparative analysis of substantive patent infringement provisions in Germany and the United Kingdom
- 6.1. German jurisprudence: Prepaid Cards II
- 6.2. UK jurisprudence: Menashe v. William Hill
- 6.3. Discussion
- 6.4.1. NTP v. RIM
- 6.4.2. Akamai Tech. v Limelight Netw.
- Infringement constellations for further consideration
- Approaches developed by the Courts
- 7.1. Introduction
- Unitary patent protection
- Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
- 7.3. Alternatives to patent-based protection of inventions
- 7.4.1. Assessment framework
- 7.4.2. Criteria
- Patent theory – theoretical underpinnings
- Objectives of patent enforcement
- International Obligations
- Economic considerations
- Lemley et al. – divided infringement
- Teter – perspective claims
- Wasserman – extension of extraterritoriality
- Robins – Institutional solution
- Dreyfuss – full harmonization of substantive patent law
- Haupt – key element test
- 7.6. Discussion
- Amendment proposal
- Amendment evaluation
- 7.8. Final Considerations
- 8. Conclusion
- Zusammenfassung der Dissertation
- Literature
- Case law
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- Germany
- Federal Supreme Court of Germany (Bundesgerichtshof)
- German Federal Patent Court
- Appeals Courts (Oberlandesgerichte)
- District Courts (Landesgerichte)
- United Kingdom
- House of Lords / Supreme Court (since Oct. 2009)
- Court of Appeals of England and Wales
- High Court of Justice of England and Wales
- United States
- United States Court of Claims
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- United States International Trade Commission
- Legal documents
- International Agreements
- European Union Documents
- Directives
- Regulations
- National Legal Texts
- Draft Legal Texts
- Abbreviations
- Annex 1 National patent laws
- Annex 2 Unitary patent: infringement provisions
Restricted access
Bibliography
Chapter
- Subjects:
Prices
Chapter Price
CHF** SFr.35.00EURD** €36.00EURA** €36.00EUR* €30.00GBP* £23.00USD* $42.00
Currency depends on your shipping address
← 370 | 371 → Bibliography
Extract
Adebanjo, Dotun, Michalides, Roula, Analysis of Web 2.0 enabled e-clusters: A case study, 30 Technovation, 238-248, 2010.
Allison, John, R., Walker, J.H., Lemley, Mark, A., Patent Quality and Settlement among Repeat Patent Litigants, 99 The Georgetown Law Journal, 677-712, 2011.
Allison, John R., Tiller, Emerson H., The Business Method Patent Myth, 18 Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 987-1084, 2003.
Allison, John, R., Lemley, Mark, A., Who’s Patenting What? An Empirical Exploration of Patent Prosecution, 53 Vand. L. Rev. 2099-2174, 2000.
The American Law Institute, Intellectual Property: Principles Governing Jurisdiction, Choice of Law, and Judgments in Transnational Disputes, Proposed Final Draft, 30.03.2007. Available at: http://www.ali.org/doc/2007_intellectualproperty.pdf [Last accessed 15.09.2013].
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.
Or login to access all content.- Cover
- Title
- Copyright
- About the author
- About the book
- This eBook can be cited
- Detailed Table of Contents
- Table of Figures
- Motivation
- 2.1. Justifications of a system for patent protection
- 2.2. Importance of patent enforcement within the patent law regime
- 2.3. Changes in the socio-economic context
- Cross-border enforcement of patents in Europe
- Transborder infringement of patents
- 2.5. Outline of the legal problem: enforcement of territorially limited patents on geographically divisible inventions and global computer networks
- Focus on formal enforcement mechanisms
- Concept of infringement
- Focus on German and United Kingdom law
- Definitional aspect: software versus computer-implemented inventions
- Differentiation from existing research
- Research Structure
- 4.1. Literature Review
- 4.2.1. Territoriality principle and patent enforcement
- International Agreements: Paris, PCT, and TRIPS
- Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS)
- 4.4.1. European Patent Convention
- 4.4.2. Chronology of efforts to develop a patent system for the European Union
- Community Patent Convention
- 4.4.3. The Unitary Patent Package
- Unitary Patent Protection
- Unified Patent Court
- Objections raised by the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Italy
- Objections raised by the Republic of Poland
- Objections to Arts 6-8 being included in the text of the Regulation
- Discussion
- Harmonization of patent enforcement at the EU level – Directive 2004/48/EC
- Patent enforcement by customs and border control measures at the EU level – Regulation 1383/2003
- 4.6.1. Overview of the Internet development
- 4.6.2. Internet as a technology
- 4.6.3. Regulation in the cloud: legal and socio-economic aspects of cyberspace
- Cyberspace and Sovereignty
- 4.6.4. Internet as a factor in patent enforcement
- 4.6.5. Geographically divisible inventions (GDIs)/Remotely integrated inventions
- Characteristics
- 4.6.6. Computer programs
- 4.6.7. Conclusions on the Context of this Research
- 5.1.1. All elements rule
- 5.1.2. Impact of the EPC on national patent infringement proceedings
- 5.2.1. Introduction
- 5.2.2. Structure of the German Patent System
- 5.2.3. Territorial nature of patents under German law
- 5.3.1. Introduction
- 5.3.2. Structure of United Kingdom Patent System
- 5.3.3. Territorial nature of patents under UK law
- 5.4.1. Direct Patent Infringement under German law(§9 PatG)
- Literal infringement
- Infringement by Doctrine of Equivalents
- Direct infringement of product patents
- Direct infringement of product-by-process claim
- Direct infringement of a process patent
- All elements rule in German patent law
- 5.4.2. Direct Infringement under UK law (Art. 60 (1) 1977 UK Patent Act)
- Literal
- By Purposive Construction
- Direct infringement of a product patent
- Direct infringement of a process patent
- Direct infringement of a product by process patent
- 5.5.1. Indirect Infringement in Germany (§10 PatG)
- 5.5.2. Indirect Infringement under UK law (Art. 60 (2) 1977 UK Patent Act)
- 5.6.1. Other forms of liability - Germany
- Joint and vicarious liability
- Criminal liability
- 5.6.2. Other forms of liability – United Kingdom
- Joint tortfeasorship
- 5.7. Conclusions from comparative analysis of substantive patent infringement provisions in Germany and the United Kingdom
- 6.1. German jurisprudence: Prepaid Cards II
- 6.2. UK jurisprudence: Menashe v. William Hill
- 6.3. Discussion
- 6.4.1. NTP v. RIM
- 6.4.2. Akamai Tech. v Limelight Netw.
- Infringement constellations for further consideration
- Approaches developed by the Courts
- 7.1. Introduction
- Unitary patent protection
- Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
- 7.3. Alternatives to patent-based protection of inventions
- 7.4.1. Assessment framework
- 7.4.2. Criteria
- Patent theory – theoretical underpinnings
- Objectives of patent enforcement
- International Obligations
- Economic considerations
- Lemley et al. – divided infringement
- Teter – perspective claims
- Wasserman – extension of extraterritoriality
- Robins – Institutional solution
- Dreyfuss – full harmonization of substantive patent law
- Haupt – key element test
- 7.6. Discussion
- Amendment proposal
- Amendment evaluation
- 7.8. Final Considerations
- 8. Conclusion
- Zusammenfassung der Dissertation
- Literature
- Case law
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- Germany
- Federal Supreme Court of Germany (Bundesgerichtshof)
- German Federal Patent Court
- Appeals Courts (Oberlandesgerichte)
- District Courts (Landesgerichte)
- United Kingdom
- House of Lords / Supreme Court (since Oct. 2009)
- Court of Appeals of England and Wales
- High Court of Justice of England and Wales
- United States
- United States Court of Claims
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- United States International Trade Commission
- Legal documents
- International Agreements
- European Union Documents
- Directives
- Regulations
- National Legal Texts
- Draft Legal Texts
- Abbreviations
- Annex 1 National patent laws
- Annex 2 Unitary patent: infringement provisions
- Cover
- Title
- Copyright
- About the author
- About the book
- This eBook can be cited
- Detailed Table of Contents
- Table of Figures
- Motivation
- 2.1. Justifications of a system for patent protection
- 2.2. Importance of patent enforcement within the patent law regime
- 2.3. Changes in the socio-economic context
- Cross-border enforcement of patents in Europe
- Transborder infringement of patents
- 2.5. Outline of the legal problem: enforcement of territorially limited patents on geographically divisible inventions and global computer networks
- Focus on formal enforcement mechanisms
- Concept of infringement
- Focus on German and United Kingdom law
- Definitional aspect: software versus computer-implemented inventions
- Differentiation from existing research
- Research Structure
- 4.1. Literature Review
- 4.2.1. Territoriality principle and patent enforcement
- International Agreements: Paris, PCT, and TRIPS
- Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS)
- 4.4.1. European Patent Convention
- 4.4.2. Chronology of efforts to develop a patent system for the European Union
- Community Patent Convention
- 4.4.3. The Unitary Patent Package
- Unitary Patent Protection
- Unified Patent Court
- Objections raised by the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Italy
- Objections raised by the Republic of Poland
- Objections to Arts 6-8 being included in the text of the Regulation
- Discussion
- Harmonization of patent enforcement at the EU level – Directive 2004/48/EC
- Patent enforcement by customs and border control measures at the EU level – Regulation 1383/2003
- 4.6.1. Overview of the Internet development
- 4.6.2. Internet as a technology
- 4.6.3. Regulation in the cloud: legal and socio-economic aspects of cyberspace
- Cyberspace and Sovereignty
- 4.6.4. Internet as a factor in patent enforcement
- 4.6.5. Geographically divisible inventions (GDIs)/Remotely integrated inventions
- Characteristics
- 4.6.6. Computer programs
- 4.6.7. Conclusions on the Context of this Research
- 5.1.1. All elements rule
- 5.1.2. Impact of the EPC on national patent infringement proceedings
- 5.2.1. Introduction
- 5.2.2. Structure of the German Patent System
- 5.2.3. Territorial nature of patents under German law
- 5.3.1. Introduction
- 5.3.2. Structure of United Kingdom Patent System
- 5.3.3. Territorial nature of patents under UK law
- 5.4.1. Direct Patent Infringement under German law(§9 PatG)
- Literal infringement
- Infringement by Doctrine of Equivalents
- Direct infringement of product patents
- Direct infringement of product-by-process claim
- Direct infringement of a process patent
- All elements rule in German patent law
- 5.4.2. Direct Infringement under UK law (Art. 60 (1) 1977 UK Patent Act)
- Literal
- By Purposive Construction
- Direct infringement of a product patent
- Direct infringement of a process patent
- Direct infringement of a product by process patent
- 5.5.1. Indirect Infringement in Germany (§10 PatG)
- 5.5.2. Indirect Infringement under UK law (Art. 60 (2) 1977 UK Patent Act)
- 5.6.1. Other forms of liability - Germany
- Joint and vicarious liability
- Criminal liability
- 5.6.2. Other forms of liability – United Kingdom
- Joint tortfeasorship
- 5.7. Conclusions from comparative analysis of substantive patent infringement provisions in Germany and the United Kingdom
- 6.1. German jurisprudence: Prepaid Cards II
- 6.2. UK jurisprudence: Menashe v. William Hill
- 6.3. Discussion
- 6.4.1. NTP v. RIM
- 6.4.2. Akamai Tech. v Limelight Netw.
- Infringement constellations for further consideration
- Approaches developed by the Courts
- 7.1. Introduction
- Unitary patent protection
- Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
- 7.3. Alternatives to patent-based protection of inventions
- 7.4.1. Assessment framework
- 7.4.2. Criteria
- Patent theory – theoretical underpinnings
- Objectives of patent enforcement
- International Obligations
- Economic considerations
- Lemley et al. – divided infringement
- Teter – perspective claims
- Wasserman – extension of extraterritoriality
- Robins – Institutional solution
- Dreyfuss – full harmonization of substantive patent law
- Haupt – key element test
- 7.6. Discussion
- Amendment proposal
- Amendment evaluation
- 7.8. Final Considerations
- 8. Conclusion
- Zusammenfassung der Dissertation
- Literature
- Case law
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- Germany
- Federal Supreme Court of Germany (Bundesgerichtshof)
- German Federal Patent Court
- Appeals Courts (Oberlandesgerichte)
- District Courts (Landesgerichte)
- United Kingdom
- House of Lords / Supreme Court (since Oct. 2009)
- Court of Appeals of England and Wales
- High Court of Justice of England and Wales
- United States
- United States Court of Claims
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- United States International Trade Commission
- Legal documents
- International Agreements
- European Union Documents
- Directives
- Regulations
- National Legal Texts
- Draft Legal Texts
- Abbreviations
- Annex 1 National patent laws
- Annex 2 Unitary patent: infringement provisions