연구동향 분석
박사

미국 특허법에서의 특허침해로 인한 구제와 우리 특허법에 대한 시사점 : 특허권 균형 시대의 도래 = Patent infringement remedies in U.S. patent law and implications of domestic patent law : a new era of balancing patent rights

이주환 2015년

논문상세정보
인용/피인용
' 미국 특허법에서의 특허침해로 인한 구제와 우리 특허법에 대한 시사점 : 특허권 균형 시대의 도래 = Patent infringement remedies in U.S. patent law and implications of domestic patent law : a new era of balancing patent rights' 의 주제별 논문영향력
논문영향력 선정 방법
논문영향력 요약
주제
  • damages
  • enhanced damages
  • general rule
  • industrial development
  • injunctions
  • innovation
  • lost profit
  • overcompensation
  • patent balances
  • patent infringement
  • patent law
  • patent troll
  • patentee's remedies
  • permanent injunction
  • policy-based tool
  • preliminary injunction
  • reasonable royalty
  • undercompensation
  • utilitarianism
  • willful infringement
  • 고의침해
  • 금지명령
  • 기술혁신
  • 산업발전
  • 산업정책적 도구
  • 소액의 손해배상
  • 손해배상
  • 실용주의적 시각
  • 영구적인 금지명령
  • 예비적인 금지명령
  • 일반적인 원칙
  • 일실이익
  • 증액손해배상
  • 특허괴물
  • 특허권의 균형적인 보호
  • 특허권자에 대한 과배상
  • 특허권자의 구제
  • 특허법
  • 특허침해
  • 합리적인 실시료
동일주제 총논문수 논문피인용 총횟수 주제별 논문영향력의 평균
1,724 0

0.0%

' 미국 특허법에서의 특허침해로 인한 구제와 우리 특허법에 대한 시사점 : 특허권 균형 시대의 도래 = Patent infringement remedies in U.S. patent law and implications of domestic patent law : a new era of balancing patent rights' 의 참고문헌

  • 확약 위반과 특허위협 “FRAND (Hold-up)에 대한 공정거래법상 규제의 기준” 저스티스 통권 제129호
    이황 한국법학원 [2012]
  • 한남대학교, “손해배상제도 개선을 위한 특허침해소송 판결동향분석 - 전국 지방법 원에서 5년간 선고된 판결을 중심으로-” 특허청 정책연구용역보고서
    특허 청 [2014]
  • 한국지식재산연구원
    “지식재산제도의 실효성 제고를 위한 법제도 기초연구” 특허 청 [2011]
  • 한국의 특허권 남용 규제
    박성수 Law & Technology 제3권 제1호. 서울대학교 기술과 법 센터 [2007]
  • 특허침해로 인한 손해배상액의 산정
    박성수 경인문화사 [2007]
  • 특허침해 구제조치로서 금지명령의 적절성과 그 개선방향에 대한 비교법적 접근
    설민수 저스티스 통권 제133호. 한국법학원 [2012]
  • 특허에 진보성 결여가 명백한 경우의 “ 침해소송법원에서의 처리” 법조 제 62권 제1호 통권 676호
    안원모 법조협회 [2013]
  • 특허법상 징벌적인 손해배상액 제도의 -----, “ 도입여부에 관한 검토” 재산법연구 제22권 제2호
    한국재산법학회 [2005]
  • 특허법
    오승택 제3판. 박영사 [2011]
  • 특허법
    윤선희 제5판. 법문사 [2012]
  • 특허권침해로 인한 손해액의 인정에서 변론취지의 참작에 관한 연구
    이우석 재산 법연구 제29권 제2호. 한국재산법학회 [2012]
  • 특허권의 침해와 손해배상
    안원모 세창출판사 [2005]
  • 특허권의 정당성에 관한 이론의 전개와 전망
    나종갑(Jong-Khab Na) 비교사법 제17권 제1호 통 권 제48호. 한국비교사법학회 [2010]
  • 특허권 남용 법리의 재구성
    조영선 저스티스 통권 제135호. 한국법학원 [2013]
  • 징벌적 손해배상제도의 법이론적 문제점과 그 극복방안
    김성돈 성균관법학 제25 권 제4호. 성균관대학교 법학연구소 [2013]
  • 징벌적 손해배상제도의 도입을 위한 비교법적 고찰
    김상찬 ( Sang Chan Kim ) 이충은 ( Choong Eun Lee ) 법학연구 제 35집. 한국법학회 [2009]
  • 징벌적 손해배상에 관한 미국의 최근 동향
    윤용석 재산법연구 제23권 제1호. 한국 재산법학회 [2006]
  • 지적소유권법(상)
    송영식 육법사 [2008]
  • 지적소유권법 (하)
    송영식 육법사 [2013]
  • 지재권침해로 인한 손해배상과 징벌적
    김병일 “ 손해배상 법리” 한국법제연구원 보 고서 [2007]
  • 지재권 분야에 징벌적 손해배상제도 도입 가능성에 관한 연구
    복진요 지식재산21 통권 제111호. 특허청 [2010]
  • 저작권법 주해
    정상조 박영사 [2007]
  • 저작권법
    이해완 박영사 [2007]
  • 신민사집행법
    이시윤 제5판. 박영사 [2009]
  • 산업재산권 분야에 있어서 징벌적 손해배상제도의 도입 가능성 및 도입방안
    배상철 한국발명진흥회 지식재산연구센터 [2005]
  • 미국특허침해소송론
    신경섭 시그마프레스 [2012]
  • 미국특허법
    전준형 세창출판사 [2011]
  • 미국특허법
    최승재 법문사 [2011]
  • 미국 판례상 특허침해와 손해배상액의 산정-2개의마이크로소프트 사건을 중심으로-
    최승재 창작과 권리 제62호. 세창출판사 [2011]
  • 미국 징벌적 손해배상의 최근 동향 : Campbell판결을 중심으로
    정영수 법조 제54권 제11호 통권 590호. 법조협회 [2005]
  • 독점규제 및 공정거래관련법의 집행시스템
    권오승 서울대학교 법학 제51권 제4 호. 서울대학교 법학연구소 [2010]
  • 국가지식재산위원회
    “국가지식위원회 연차보고서” 대한민국정부. 2013. 7 [2012]
  • ”특허권침해로 인한 손해배상“ 저스티스 통권 제43호
    전효숙 한국법학원 [1997]
  • “표준특허의 제문제-ITC의 배제명령 발동가능성 문제를 포함하여-”
    박준석 서울대 학교 법학 제54권 제4호. 서울대학교 법학연구소 [2013]
  • “특허침해에 대한 손해배상액으로서 실시료상당액” 안암법학 제37권
    심미랑 안암 법학회 [2012]
  • “특허침해에 대한 구제원리로서 물권적 보호원칙과 손해배상원칙”
    심미랑 안암법 학 제29권. 안암법학회 [2009]
  • 박사
    “특허침해금지청구권 기능의 재정립”
    심미랑 고려대학교 대학원 박사학위논문 [2010]
  • “특허침해 손해배상액 산정기준에 대한 최신쟁점 - 미국 판례와 미국특허법 개정안을 중심으로”
    이수미 산업재산권 제30호. 한국산업재산권법학회 [2009]
  • “특허침해 손해배상 보고서”
    [2014]
  • “특허전쟁-기업을 흥하게 만드는 성공적인 특허경영정략”
    윤략근 정우성 에이콘출 판주식회사 [2011]
  • “특허의 침해금지권에 관한 eBay 판결: 특허권의 몰락?”
    정차호 지식재산21 통권 제96호. 특허청 [2006]
  • “특허의 진보성개념의 발전과 전개: 반공유의 비극과 효율성”
    나종갑 산업재산권 제32호. 한국지식재산학회 [2010]
  • “특허소송과 특허침해소송의 일괄처리방안에 관한 연구”
    이장호 특허소송연구 제1 집. 특허법원 [1999]
  • “특허법주해Ⅱ”
    박성수 정상조 박영사 [2010]
  • “특허법상 징벌적 손해배상제도 도입에 관한 연구-개인발명가 및 중소기업 보호를 중심으로-”
    윤기승 과학기술법연구 제20집 제1호. 한남대학교 과학기술법연 구원 [2014]
  • “특허법상 손해배상액 증액제도-중국, 대만, 캐나다, 호주의 최근의 행보”
    양성미 정차호 법조 제62권 제8호 통권 제683호. 법조협회 [2013]
  • “특허권침해에 있어서 손해배상액의 산정-특허법 제128조 제1항의 이해”
    윤선희 저스티스 통권 제80호. 한국법학원 [2004]
  • “특허권침해로 인한 손해배상-특히 일실이익의 산정과 관련하여”
    권택수 민사재판 의 제문제 제11권. 한국사법행정학회 [2002]
  • “특허권침해로 인한 손해배상 시론”
    양창수 민법연구 제93권. 박영사 [2009]
  • “특허권의 실효성의 확보를 위한 가중적 손해배상제도의 도입에 관한 연구”
    최승재 강원법학 제33권. 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 [2011]
  • “특허권의 부당한 행사에 대한 규제 – 비실시특허권자의 특허침해금지청구 권의 남용을 중심으로-”
    손호진 안암법학 제34권. 안암법학회 [2011]
  • “특허권의 남용의 법리와 그 관련문제”
    권영준 산업재산권 제36호. 한국지식재산학 회 [2011]
  • “특허권 효력에 대한 검토-Patent Troll의 남용적 권리행사에 대한 효력제 한 방안을 중심으로”
    신재호 산업재산권 제30호. 산업재산권법학회 [2009]
  • “특허권 실효성 확보방안 연구”
    정차호 특허청 [2011]
  • “특허권 등 침해에 대한 금지청구권”
    김주형 재판자료 제56집. 대법원 법원행정처 [1992]
  • “특허권 등 침해로 인한 손해배상 청구권⋅부당이득반환청구권”
    정희창 재판자료 제56집. 대법원 법원행정처 [1992]
  • “특허권 등 지적재산권 남용을 근정한 우리 판례들의 분석”
    박준석 민사판례연구 제34권. 민사판례연구회 [2012]
  • “특허괴물의 현상분석과 특허제도의 본질에 대한 고찰”
    윤권순 윤종민 창작과 권 리 제58호. 세창출판사 [2010]
  • “특허괴물의 논란: 신화와 그 실제”
    설민수 지식재산연구 제7권 제4호. 한국지식재 산연구원 [2012]
  • “최근 일본의 지적재산권법 개정 내용”
    설범식 Law & Technology 제1권 제3호. 서울대학교 기술과 법 센터 [2005]
  • “징벌적인 손해배상제도의 도입필요성과 가능성에 대한 일고찰”
    이점인 동아법학 제38호. 동아대학교 법학연구소 [2006]
  • “징벌적인 손해배상에 대한 일고찰”
    이덕환 법학논총 제24집 제3호. 한양대학교 법 학연구소 [2007]
  • “징벌적 손해배상에 대한 연구”
    박종렬 법학연구 제26집. 한국법학회 [2007]
  • “지적재산권 침해금지가처분”
    성창호 재판실무연구(3) 보전소송. 한국사법행정학회 [2008]
  • “지재권 소송에서 손해배상 산정의 적절성 활용방안 연구용 역 최종보고서”
    서울대학교 산학협력단 [2012]
  • “지식재산제도의 실효성 제고를 위한 법제도 기초연구-특허권침해 손해배상 감정평가 체계구축에 관한 연구-”
    특허청 [2012]
  • “지식재산과 경제발전연구-국내지식자본 및 특허의 경제적 가치 추정”
    류태규 특허 청 [2012]
  • “저작권법”
    중산신홍 박영사 [2008]
  • “신특허법원론”
    손경한 법영사 [2005]
  • “신민사소송법”
    이시윤 제8판. 박영사 [2014]
  • “손해배상액 증액제도의 특허법에의 도입 필요성”
    정차호 주지환 성균관법학 제24 권 제3호. 성균관대학교 법학연구소 [2012]
  • 박사
    “소프트웨어 관련 발명의 특허법적 보호에 관한 연구”
    임동혁 고려대학교 대학원 박사학위논문 [2012]
  • “소유권 단상(斷想)- 강고한 소유권과 유연한 소유권”
    권영준 한국엔 터테인먼트학회 심포지엄 발표자료 [2015]
  • “산업재산권 분야에 있어서 징벌적 손해배상제도의 도입가능성 및 도입방 안”
    배상철 한국발명진흥회 지식재산연구센터 연구보고서 [2005]
  • “불법행위와 금지청구권- eBay vs. MercExchange 판결을 읽고”
    권영준 Law & Techology 제4권 제2호. 서울대학교 기술과 법 센터 [2008]
  • “민법주해[Ⅰ]- 총칙(1)”
    곽윤직 박영사 [2008]
  • “미국의 특허침해금지가처분에 대한 연구”
    이규호 법조 제49권 제5호 통권 제524 호. 법조협회 [2000]
  • “미국 특허법상 시장점유율에 기한 손해배상액 산정”
    배대헌 상사판례연구 제15집. 한국상사판례학회 [2003]
  • “미국 불법행위상의 징벌적 손해배상제도”
    김용대 재판자료 제119집. 대법원 법원 행정처 [1999]
  • “무효사유가 존재하는 특허권의 행사와 권리남용의 항변”
    안원모 산업재산권 제27 호. 한국지식재산학회 [2008]
  • “‘가득차면 기울고 넘친다’는 미국 특허 손해배상 법리 – Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Products Co. 사건판결에서 얻는 교훈”
    배대헌 상사판례연구 제23집 제3권. 한국상사판례학회 [2010]
  • “eBay and Half. com v. MercExchange, LLC사건”
    정연덕 창작과 권리 제45 호. 세창출판사 [2006]
  • “Patent Troll의 등장에 따른 대응방안”
    박영규 법조 제59권 제7호. 법조협회 [2010]
  • “Patent Troll에 대한 법적⋅제도적 대응방안연구”
    김기영 서울대학교 대학원 박사 학위 논문 [2008]
  • Zelin Yang, Damaging Royalties: An Overview of Reasonable Royalty Damages, 29 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 647 (2014).
  • Yixin H. Tang, The Future of Patent Enforcement after eBay v. MercExchange, 20 Harv. J. L. & Tech. 235 (2006).
  • Wilson L. White, Attorney-Client Privilege As a Patent Sword and Shield: The Role of the Adverse Inference Rule in the Efficiency of the Patent System, 84 N. C. L. Rev. 1049 (2006).
  • William F. Lee, Michael J. Summergill & Jordan L. Hirsch, The Doctrine of Willful Patent Infringement after Knorr-Bremse: Practical Problems & Recommendation, 7 Sedona Conf. J. 169 (2006).
  • William F. Lee & Lawrence P. Cogswell , Understanding Ⅲ and Addressing the Unfair Dilemma Created By the Doctrine of Willful Patent Infringement, 41 Hous. L. Rev. 393 (2004).
  • William Choi & Roy Weinstein, An Analytical Solution to Reasonable Royalty Rate Calculation, 41 IDEA 49 (2001).
  • William C. Rooklidge & Robert O. Bolan, The Official Gazette and Willful Infringement: Strike Corp. v. Intermedics Orthopedics, Inc., 79 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y 605 (1997).
  • William C. Rooklidge & Martha K. Gooding, When Hypothetical Turns to Fantasy: The Patent Reasonable Royalty Hypothetical Negotiation (1983).
  • William A. Morrison, The Impact of The Creation of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the Availability of Preliminary Injunctive Relief against Patent Infringement, 23 Ind. L. Rev. 169 (1990).
  • W. Page Keeton, Dan B. Dobbs, Robert E. Keeton & David G. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts (5th. ed. 1984).
  • Victor E. Schwartz, Kathryn Kelly & David F. Partlett, Prosser, Wade & Schwartz’s Torts, Cases and Materials (11th ed. 2005).
  • Victor E. Aldridge, Indiana Doctrine of Exemplary Damages and Double Jeopardy, Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 20, Issue 2, Article 1, 123 (1945).
  • Todd Klein, eBay v. MercExchange and KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.: The Supreme Court Wages War Against Patent Trolls, 112 Penn St. L. Rev. 295 (2007).
  • Tim Carlton, The Ongoing Royalty: What Remedy Should a Patent Holder Receive When a Permanent Injunction is Denied?, 43 Ga. L. Rev. 543 (2009).
  • Thomas L. Creel & Donna M. Praiss, The Revolution in Preliminary Injunctions Against Patent Infringement, 24 J. Marshall L. Rev. 225 (1991).
  • Thomas F. Cotter, Four Principles for Calculating Reasonable Royalties in Patent Infringement Litigation, 27 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L. J. 725 (2011).
  • Terrence P. McMahon, Stephen J. Akerley & Jane H. Bu McDermott, Who Is Troll? Not a Simple Answer, 7 Sedona Conf. J. 159 (2006).
  • Ted L. Field, Judicial Hyperactivity in the Federal Circuit: an Empirical Study, 46 U. S. F. L. Rev. 721 (2012).
  • Ted Hagelin, Valuation of Patent Licenses, 12 Tex. Intell. Prop. L. J. 423 (2004).
  • Sumanth Addanki, Economics and Patent Damages: A Practical Guide, Nat'l Econ. Res. Associates, Inc. Working Paper No. 21 (1993).
  • Sue Ann Mota, eBay v. MercExchange: Traditional Four-Factor Test for Injunctive Relief Applies to Patent Cases, According to the Supreme Court, 40 Akron. L. Rev. 529 (2007).
  • Steven Seidenberg, Into the Fry: Lucent Ruling Makes It Harder to Prove Patent Damages, Inside Counsel (2009).
  • Steven E. Shapiro, Preliminary Injunction Motions in Patent Litigation, 33 Idea 323 (1993).
  • Stephen A. Degnan & Corwin Horton, A Survey of Licensed Royalties, 32 les Nouvelles 91 (1997).
  • Stephany A. Olsen LeGrand, eBay v. MercExchange: On Patrol for Trolls, 44 Hous. L. Rev. 1175 (2007).
  • Stephaine Pall, Willful Patent Infringement: Theoretically Sound? A Proposal to Restore Willful Infringement to Its Proper Place Within Patent Law, 2006 U. Ill. L. Rev. 659 (2006).
  • Stacy Streur, The eBay Effect: Tougher Standards But Courts Return to the Prior Practice of Granting Injunctive for Patent Infringement, 8 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 67 (2009).
  • Sirai Husain, The Willfulness Pendulum Swing Back: How Seagate Helps Level the Playing Field, 28 Loy. L. A. Ent. L. Rev. 239 (2008).
  • Shyamkrishina Balganesh, Demystifying the Right to Exclude: Of Property, in Violation, and Automatic Injunctions, 31 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 593 (2008).
  • Sheri J. Engelken, Opening The Door Efficient Infringement: eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 2 Akron Intell. Prop. J. 57 (2008).
  • Scott Bloebaum, Past the Tipping: Reforming the Role of Willfulness in the Federal Circuit’s Doctrine of Enhanced Damages for Patent Infringement, 9 N. C. J. L. & Tech. 139 (2007).
  • Samuel Chase Means, The Trouble With Treble Damages: Ditching Patent Law's Willful Infringement Doctrine and Enhanced, 2013 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1999 (2013).
  • Ryan H. Coletti, Neither Good Knorr Bad: The Federal Circuit's Decision to Eliminate the “Adverse Inference” in Willful Infringement Determination Does not Alleviate the Burden on Accused Patent Infringers, 1 Seton Hall Circuit Rev. 269 (2005).
  • Roy J. Epstein, The Market Share Rule with Price Erosion: Patent Infringement Lost Profits Damages after Crystal, 31 AIPLA Q. J. 1 (2003).
  • Roy J. Epstein, State Industries and Economics: Rethinking Patent Infringement Damages, 9 Fed. Circuit B. J. 367 (2000).
  • Roy J. Epstein & Paul Malherbe, Reasonable Royalty Patent Infringement Damages after Uniloc, 39 AIPLA Q. J. 3 (2011).
  • Roy J. Epstein & Alan J. Marcus, Economic Analysis of the Reasonable Royalty: Simplification and Extension of Georgia-Pacific Factors, 85 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 555 (2003).
  • Roger D. Blair & Thomas F. Cutter, Rethinking Patent Damages, 10 Tex. Intell. Prop. L. J. 1 (2001).
  • Robert P. Mergers, The Trouble With Trolls: Innovation, Rent-Seeking and Patent Law Reform, 24 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 1583 (2009).
  • Robert P. Mergers, Peter S. Menell & Mark A. Lemley, Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age (5th ed. 2010).
  • Robert P. Mergers, Of Property Rules, Coase, and Intellectual Property, 94 Colum. L. Rev. 2655 (1994).
  • Robert O. Bolan & William C. Rooklidge, Imputing knowledge to Determine Willful Patent Infringement, 24 AIPLA Q. J. 157 (1996).
  • Robert J. Shapiro & Kevin A. Hassett, USA for Innovation, The Economic Value of Intellectual Property (2005).
  • Robert J. Cox, But How Far?; Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelly Co.'s Expansion of The Scope of Patent Damages, 3 J. Intell. Prop. L. 327 (1996).
  • Robert Goldscheider, John Jarosz and Carla Mulhern, Use of the 25 Per Cent Rule in Valuing IP, 37 les Nouvelles 123 (2002).
  • Robert G. Bone, Who Decides? A Critical Look at Procedural Discretion, 28 Cardozo L. Rev. 1961 (2007).
  • Richard T. Rapp & Philip A. Beutel, Patent Damages: Rules on the Road to Economic Rationality, 321 PLI/Pat 337 (1991).
  • Richard S. Toikka, Patent Licensing under Competitive and Non– Competitive Conditions, 82 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 279 (2000).
  • Richard A. Posner, Economics of Justice (1981).
  • Rebecca A. Hand, eBay v. MercExchange: Looking at the Cause and Effect of a Shift in the Standard Issuing Patent Injunction, 25 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L. J. 461 (2007).
  • Ravi Mohan, Analysis of the Entire Market Value Rule in Complex Technology Litigation: Arduous Royalty Base Determinations, Unjust Damage Rewards, and Empirical Approaches Measuring Consumer Demand, 27 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L. J. 639 (2011).
  • Rachel M. Janutis, The Supreme Court's Unremarkable Decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange LLC, 14 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 597 (2010).
  • Peter E. Strand, Stuff That Genie Back in the Bottle: Stop Wishful Thinking About Royalty Base, Rate and EMVR, 24 Intell. Prop. & Tech. L. J. 25 (2012).
  • Paul M. Mersino, Patent, Trolls, and Personal property: Will eBay Auction a Patent Holder’s Right to Exclude, 6 Ave Maria L. Rev. 307 (2007).
  • Paul M. Janicke, Contemporary Issues in Patent Cases, 42 Am. U. L. Rev. 691 (1993).
  • Paul M. Janicke & Lilan Ren, Who Wins Patent Infringement Cases?, 34 AIPLA Q. J. 1 (2006).
  • Paul C. Lee, A Matter of Opinion: Opinions of Counsel Remain Necessary after In Re Seagate, 25 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 33 (2010).
  • Patrick Dyck, Beyond Confusion-Survey Evidence of Consumer Demand and The Entire Market Value Rule, 4 Hasting Sci. & Tech. L. J. 209 (2012).
  • Pasquale A. Razzano & Timothy J. Kelly, Intellectual Property Counseling & Litigation (2010).
  • Owen M. Fiss, The Civil Rights Injunction (1978).
  • Note, The Enforcement of Rights Against Patent Infringers, 72 Harv. L. Rev. 328 (1958).
  • Note, The Disclosure Function of the Patent System (Or Lack Thereof), 118 Harv. L. Rev. 2007 (2005).
  • Note, Recovery in Patent Infringement Suits, 60 Colum. L. Rev. 840 (1960).
  • Note, An Economic Analysis of the Plaintiff's Windfall from Punitive Damage Litigation, 105 Harv. L. Rev. 1900 (1992).
  • Neil K. Komesar, Injuries and Institution: Tort Reform, Tort Theory, and Beyond, 65 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 23 (1990).
  • Ned L. Conley, An Economic Approach to Patent Damages, 15 AIPLA Q. J. 354 (1987).
  • Nathaniel C. Love, Nominal Reasonable Royalties for Patent Infringement, 75 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1749 (2008).
  • Nathan A. Skop, Patent Law: Four-Factors to Injunctions in the Wake of eBay, eBay, Inc. v. MerExchange LLC, 126 S. Ct. 1837 (2006), 12 J. Tech. L. & Pol'y 135 (2007).
  • Mitchell G. Stockwell, Implementing eBay: New Problems in Guiding Judicial Discretion and Enforcing Patent Rights, 88 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y 747 (2006).
  • Miranda Jones, 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, 14 Geo. Mason. L. Rev. 1035 (2007).
  • Michelle Armond, Introducing the Defense of Independent Invention to Motions for Preliminary Injunctions in Patent Infringement Lawsuits, 91 Cal. L Rev. 117 (2003).
  • Michel Beylkin, Much Ado About Nothing: The Biotech and Pharmaceutical Industries Have Little to Fear in the Post-eBay World, 6 J. Telecomm. & High Tech. L. 179 (2007).
  • Michael Rustad & Thomas Koenig, The Historical Continuity of Punitive Damages Awards: Reforming the Tort Reformers, 42 Am. U. L. Rev. 1269 (1993).
  • Michael Lamb, Going Against The Grain?: The “Maize” of Lost Profits Awards in Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Products Co., 79 N. C. L. Rev. 1189 (2001).
  • Michael L. Rustad, The Closing of Punitive Damages’ Iron Cage, 38 Loy. L. A. L. Rev. 1297 (2005).
  • Michael J. Mazzeo, Jonathan Hillel & Samantha Zyontz, Are Patent Infringement Awards Excessive?: the Data Behind the Patent Reform Debate (2010).
  • Michael A. Greene, All Your Base Are Belong to Us: Towards an Appropriate Usage and Definition of the “Entire Market Value” Rule in Reasonable Royalties Calculations, 53 B. C. L. Rev. 233 (2012).
  • Merritt J. Hasbrouck, Protecting the Gates of Reasonable Royalty: A Damages Framework for Patent Infringement Cases, 11 Marshall Intell. Prop. L. Rev. 192 (2011).
  • Mchael W. Caroll, Patent Injunctions and the Problem of Uniformity Cost, 13 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 421 (2007).
  • Mattew D. Powers & Steven C. Carson, The Evolution and Impact of the Doctrine of Willful Patent Infringement, 51 Syracuse L. Rev. 53 (2001).
  • Mattew C. Darch, The Presumption of Irreparable Harm in Patent Litigation: A Critique of Robert Bosch v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp., 11 NW. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 103 (2013).
  • Martin J. Adelman, Randall R. Rader, John R. Thomas and Harold C. Wegner, Cases and Materials on Patent Law (2d ed. 2003, 3d ed. 2009).
  • Mark Chretien, The Question of Availability: Grain Processing Co. v. American Maize-Products Co., 38 Hous. L. Rev. 1489 (2002).
  • Mark A. Lemley, The Ongoing Confusion over Ongoing Royalties, 70 Mo. L. Rev. 695 (2011).
  • Mark A. Lemley, Ten Things to Do about Patent Holdup of Standards(And One Not To), 48 B. C. L. Rev. 149 (2007).
  • Mark A. Lemley, Intellectual Property Rights and Standard-Setting Organizations, 90 Cal. L. Rev. 1889 (2002).
  • Mark A. Lemley, Distinguishing Lost Profits From Reasonable Royalties, 51 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 655 (2009).
  • Mark A. Lemley, Are Universities Patent Trolls?, 18 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L. J. 611 (2008).
  • Mark A. Lemley & Ragesh K. Tangri, Ending Patent Law's Willful Game. 18 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 1085 (2003).
  • Mark A. Lemley & Philip J. Weiser, Should Property Rule or Liability Rules Govern Information?, 85 Tex. L. Rev. 783 (2007).
  • Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapio, Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking, 85 Tex. L. Rev. 1991 (2007).
  • Marina Lao, Unilateral Refusals to Sell or License Intellectual Property and the Antitrust Duty to Deal, 9 Cornell J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 193 (1999).
  • Margaret E. M. Utterback, Substitute This! A New Twist on Lost Profits Damages in Patent Infringement Suits: Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Products Co., 2000 Wis. L. Rev. 909 (2000).
  • Marc Mogan, Stop Looking Under the Bridge for Imaginary Creatures: A Comment Examining Who Really Deserves the Title Patent Troll, 17 Fed. Circuit B. J. 165 (2007).
  • M. A. Cunningham, Preliminary Injunctive Relief in Patent Litigation, 35 IDEA 213 (1995).
  • Lynda J. Oswald, The Evolving Role of Opinions of Counsel in Patent Infringement Cases, 52 IDEA 1 (2012).
  • Lisa C. Childs, Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelly Co.: The Federal Circuit Awards Damages for Harm Done to a Patent Not in Suit, 27 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 665 (1996).
  • Lily Lim & Sarah E. Cravan, Injunctions Enjoined; Remedies Restructured, 25 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L. J. 787 (2009).
  • Liane M. Peterson, Grain Processing and Crystal Semiconductor: Use of Economic Methods in Damage Calculation Will Accurately Compensate for Patent Infringement, 13 Fed. Circuit B. J. 41 (2003).
  • Lesile T. Grab, Recent Development, Equitable Concerns of eBay v. MercExchange: Did the Supreme Court Successfully Balance Patent Protection Against Patent Troll, 8 N. C. J. L. & Tech. 81 (2006).
  • Leading Cases, Availability of Injunctive Relief, 120 Harv. L. Rev. 332 (2006).
  • Lawrence M. Sung, Patent Infringement Remedies (2004).
  • Laura B. Pincus, The Computation of Damages in Patent Actions, 5 Harv. J. L. & Tech. 95 (1991).
  • Lauence H. Pretty & Jeffery A. Finn, Litigating Preliminary Injunctions in Patent cases, 492 PLI/Pat 199 (1997).
  • L. Craig Metcalf, Preliminary Injunctions and their Availability: How to Defend the Early Injunction, 15 AIPLA Q. J. 104 (1987).
  • Kimbery A. Moore, Paul R. Michel and Timothy R. Holbrook, Patent Litigation and Strategy (3d ed. 2008).
  • Kimberly A. Moore, Empirical Statistics on Willful Patent Infringement, 14 Fed. Circuit B. J. 227 (2004).
  • Kevin J. Kelly, Placing the Burden Back It Belongs: A Proposal to Eliminate the Affirmative Duty from Willful Infringement Analysis, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 509 (2005).
  • Justin P. Huddleson, Objective Reckless: A Semi-Empirical Evaluation of In Re Seagate, 15 B. U. J. Sci. & Tech. L. 102 (2009).
  • Justin McCarthy, In Re Seagate: One Step Close to a Rational Doctrine, 10 Minn. J. L. Sci. & Tech. 355 (2009).
  • Julie S. Turner, The Nonmanufacturing Patent Owner: Toward a Theory of Efficient Infringement, 86 Cal. L. Rev. 179 (1998).
  • Joshua D. Sarnoff, Bilcare, KSR, Presumption of Validity, Preliminary Relief, and Obviousness in Patent Law, 25 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L. J. 995 (2008).
  • Josh Friedman, Apportionment: Shining the Light of Day on Patent Damages, 63 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 147 (2012).
  • Joseph Miller, Standard-Setting, Patents, and Access Lock-In: RAND Licensing and the Theory of the Firm, 40 Ind. L. Rev. 351 (2007).
  • Jonathan R. Spivey, King Instrument Corporation v. Perego: Conflict in the Awarding of Patent Damages, 21 T. Marshall L. Rev. 369 (1996).
  • Jonathan M. Jackson, If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It: The Pitfalls of Major Reform of the Doctrine of Willful Patent Infringement in the Wake of Knorr-Bremse, 15 U. Balt Intell. Prop. L. J. 37 (2006).
  • John W. Schlicher, Patent Law: Legal and Economic Principles (4th ed. 1996).
  • John W. Schlicher, Patent Damages, the Patent Reform Act, and Better Alternatives for the Courts and Congress, 91 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 19 (2009).
  • John W. Schlicher, Measuring Patent Damages By The Market Value of-The Grain Processing, Rite-Hite and Aro, 82 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y 503 (2000).
  • John R. Thomas, Formalism at the Federal Circuit, 52 Am. U. L. Rev. 771 (2003).
  • John R. Allison & Mark A. Lemley, Empirical Evidence on the Validity of Litigated Patents, 26 AIPLA Q. J. 185 (1998).
  • John Leubsdort, The Standard for Preliminary Injunctions, 91 Harv. L. Rev. 525 (1978).
  • John G. Mills & Louis S. Zafas, The Developing Standard for Irreparable Harm in Preliminary Injunction to Prevent Patent Infringement, 81 J. Pat. & Trademark off. Soc'y 51 (1999).
  • John E. Wright, Willful Patent Infringement and Enhanced Damages - Evolution and Analysis, 10 Geo. Maison L. Rev. 97 (2001).
  • John C. Jarosz, Carla S. Mulhern and Michael Wagner, The 25% Rule Lives On, IP Law 360 (2010).
  • John C. Jarosz & Michael J. Chapman, The Hypothetical Negotiation and Reasonable Royalty Damages: the Tail Wagging the Dogs, 16 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 769 (2013).
  • John C. Jarosz & Erin M. Page, The Panduit Lost Profit Test after BIC Leisure v. Windersurfing, 3 Fed. Circuit B. J. 311 (1993).
  • Joel Meyer, State Industries, Inc. v. Mor-Flo and the Market Share Approach to Patent Damages: What is happening to the Panduit Test?, 1991 Wisc. L. Rev. 1369 (1991).
  • Jerry R. Green & Suzanne Scotchmer, On the Division of Profit in Sequential Innovation, 26 RAND J. Econ. 1 (1995).
  • Jerry Hausman, Gregory K. Leonard & Gregory Sidak, Patent Damages and Real Optics: How Judicial Characterization of Noninfringing Alternatives Reduces Incentives to Innovative, 22 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 825 (2007).
  • Jeremy Mulder, The Aftermath of eBay: Predicting When District Courts Will Great Permanent Injunctions In Patent Cases, 22 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 67 (2007).
  • Jeremy Cham & Mattew Faucet, Footsteps of the Patent Troll, 10 Intell. Prop. L. Bull. 1 (2005).
  • Jeremiah S. Helm, Why Pharmaceutical Firms Support Patent Trolls: The Disparate Impact of eBay v. MercExchange on Innovation, 13 Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 331 (2006).
  • Jennifer Kahaulelio Gregory, The Troll Next Door, 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 292 (2007).
  • Jeffrey H. Kinrich & Russell W. Mangum Ⅲ, Analysis and Measurement of Damages in Patent Infringement Actions, 669 PLI/Pat 631 (2001).
  • Janice M. Mueller, Willful Patent Infringement and Federal Circuit's Pending En Banc Decision in Knorr-Bremse v. Dana Corp., 3 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 218 (2004).
  • James Sales & Kenneth Cole, Punitive Damages: A Relic That Outlived Its Origins, 37 Vand. L. Rev. 1117 (1984).
  • James M. Fisher, What Have eBay v. MercExchage Wrought, 14 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 555 (2010).
  • James M. Fisher, The “Right” to Injunctive Relief for Patent Infringement, 24 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L. J. 1 (2007).
  • James F. Nieberding, The Importance of Price Elasticity of Demand in Computing Total Lost Profit in Patent Infringement Cases, 85 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 835 (2003).
  • James F. McDonough , The Myth of the Patent Troll: An Ⅲ Alternative View of the Function of Patent Dealers in an Idea Economy, 56 Emory L. J. 189 (2006).
  • Jake Philips, eBay’s Effect on Copyright Injunctions: When Property Rules Gives Way to Liability Rules, 24 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 405 (2009).
  • Jaimeson Fedell, A Step in the Right Direction: Patent Damages and the Elimination of the Entire Market Value Rule, 98 Minn. L. Rev. 1143 (2014).
  • Jacob S. Sherkow, Preliminary Injunctions Post-Mayo and Myriad, 67 Stan. L. Rev. Online 1 (2014).
  • Irving Kayton, Kayton on Patents (1979).
  • Ira V. Heffan, Willful Patent Infringement, 7 Fed. Circuit B. J. 115 (1997).
  • Herbert F. Schwartz, Patent Law and Practice (5th ed. 2003).
  • Herbert F. Schwartz, Injunctive Relief in Patent Infringement Suits, 112 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1025 (1964).
  • Herbert F. Schwartz, Injunctive Relief in Patent Cases, 50 Alb. L. Rev. 565 (1986).
  • Harold A. Boland, The Affirmative Duty to Exercise Due Care in Willful Patent Infringement Cases: We Still Want It, 6 Hous. Bus. & Tax L. J. 176 (2005).
  • Guido Calabresi & A. Douglas Melamed, Property Rule, Liability Rule, and Inalienability; One View of the Cathedral, 85 Harv. L. Rev. 1089 (1972).
  • Gregory d’Incelli, Has eBay Spelled the End of Patent Troll Abuses? Paying the Troll: the Rise(and Fall?) of the Patent Troll, 17 U. Miami Bus. L. Rev. 343 (2009).
  • Gregory K. Leonard & Lauren J. Stiroh, Economic Approaches to Intellectual Property Policy, Litigation, and Management, 949 PLI/Pat 425 (2008).
  • Gordon V. Smith & Rusell L. Parr, Intellectual Property: Valuation, Exploitation and Infringement Damages, Wiley (2005).
  • Giles S. Rich, The Relation Between Patent Practice and the Anti-monopoly Laws, 14 Fed. Circuit. 　 B. J. 5 (2004).
  • George W. Jordan & James D. Woods, The Economics Ⅲ of Reasonable Royalty Damages in Patent Litigation, 2 No. 5 Landslide 29 (2010).
  • George M. Shilla, William P. Atkins & Stephanie F. Goeller, Will eBay Bring Down the Curtain on Automatic Injunctions in Patent Cases, 15 Fed. Circuit B. J. 587 (2006).
  • George M. Newcombe, Jeffrey E. Ostrow, Patrick E. King & Gabriel N. Rubin, Prospective Relief for Patent Infringement in a Post-eBay World, 4 N. Y. U. J. L. Bus. 549 (2008).
  • George J. Werden, Luke M. Frobe & Lucian W. Beavers, Economic Analysis of Lost Profits From Patent Infringement With and Without Noninfringing Substitutes, 27 AIPLA Q. J. 305 (1999).
  • George E. Christie, James E. Meeks, Ellen S. Pryor & Joseph Sanders, Cases and Materials on the Law of Torts (4th ed. 2004).
  • George David Kidd, Accuracy or Efficiency: Has Grain Processing Made a Difference, 15 Minn. J. L. Sci. & Tech. 653 (2014).
  • Gavin D. George, What is Hiding in the Bushes? eBay’s Effect on holdout Behavior in Patent Thickets, 13 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 557 (2007).
  • F. Scott Kieff, Pauline Newman, Herbert F. Schwarts and Henry E. Smith, Principles of Patent Law: Cases and Materials (4th ed. 2008).
  • Eric S. Lee, Historical Perspective on Reasonable Royalty Patent Damages and Current Congressional Effects for Reform, 13 UCLA J. L. & Tech. 1 (2009).
  • Eric E. Bensen, Understanding the Federal Circuit on Patent Damages for Unpatented Spare Parts, 12 Fed. Circuit B. J. 57 (2002).
  • Eric E. Bensen, Apportionment of Lost Profit in Contemporary Patent Damages Cases, 10 Va. J. L. & Tech. 8 (2005).
  • Eric E. Bensen & Danielle M. White, Using Apportionment to Rein in the Georgia-Pacific Factors, 9 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 1 (2008).
  • Elizabeth M. Bailey, Gregory K. Leonard & Mario M. Lopez, Making Sense of “Apportionment” in Patent Damages, 12 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 255 (2011).
  • Elizabeth E. Millard, Injunctive relief in Patent Infringement Cases: Should Courts Apply a Rebuttable Presumption of Irreparable Harm after eBay Inc. v. Merc Exchange, LLC? 52 St. Louis U. L. J. 985 (2008).
  • Elizabeth D. Ferrill, Patent Investment Trust: Let’s Build a Pit to Crash the Patent Troll, 6 N. C. J. L. & Tech. 367 (2005).
  • Edward V. Filardi, The Adequacy of Compensation for Patent Infringement-An Analysis of Monetary Relief Under 35 U.S.C. 284, 3 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L. J. 57 (1992).
  • Edward V. Filardi & Scott Weingaerter, Injunctive Relief in Patent Infringement Cases, 492 PLI/Pat 227 (1997).
  • Edward Torous, Unknotting Uniloc, 27 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 381 (2012).
  • Douglas Ellis, John Jarosz, Michael Chapman & L. Scott Oliver, The Economic Implications(and Uncertainties) of Obtaining Permanent Injunctive Relief after eBay v. MercExchange, 17 Fed. Circuit B. J. 437 (2008).
  • Doug Lichtman, Understanding the RAND Commitment, 47 Hou. L. Rev. 1023 (2010).
  • Donald S. Chisum, Reforming Patent Law Reform, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 336 (2005).
  • Donald S. Chisum, Element of United States Patent Law (2000).
  • Donald S. Chisum, Craig Allen Nard, Herbert F. Schwartz, Pauline Newman and F. Scott Kieff, Principles of Patent Law: Cases and Materials (3d ed. 2004).
  • Donald S. Chisum, Chisum on Patents (1999, 2000).
  • Donald B. Petrie, Punitive Damages and the Constitution after Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 22 Ariz. St. L. J. 739 (1990).
  • Deborah Platt Majoras, A Government Perspective On IP and Antitrust Law, 38 Rutgers L. J. 493 (2007).
  • David G. Baker, Troll or No Troll? Policing Patent Usage with an Open Post-Grant Review, 2005 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 9 (2005).
  • David C. Forsberg & Karen D. McDaniel, Patent Damages: Proving Lost Profit Due to Price Erosion, AIPLA Selected Legal Papers 247 (1992).
  • David B. Conrad, Mining the Patent Thicket: the Supreme Court's Rejection of the Automatic Injunction Rule in eBay v. MercExchange, 26 Rev. Litig. 119 (2007).
  • Dariush Keyhani, Permanent Injunctions in Patent Cases, 6 Buff. Intell. Prop. L. J. 1 (2008).
  • Daralyn J. Durie & Mark A. Lemley, A Structure Approach to Calculating Reasonable Royalty, 14 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 627 (2010).
  • Danny Prati, In Re Seagate Technology LLC: A Clean Slate for Willfulness, 23 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 47 (2008).
  • Dan B. Dobbs, The Law of Torts (2d. ed. 2001).
  • Damon C. Andrews, Why Patentees Litigate, 12 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 219 (2011).
  • Damon C. Andrews, Iqbal-Ing Seagate: Plausibility Pleading of Willful Infringement, 25 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 1955 (2010).
  • Damien Geradin & Anne Layne-Farrar, Patent Value Apportionment Rules for Complex, Multi-Patent Products, 27 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L. J. 763 (2011).
  • Damian Myers, Reeling in the Patent Troll: Was eBay v. MercExchange Enough?, 14 J. Intell. Prop. L. 333 (2007).
  • Craig Allen Nard, The Law of Patents (2008).
  • Christopher S. Marchese, Patent Infringement and Future Lost Profit Damage, 26 Ariz. St. L. J. 747 (1994).
  • Christopher Ryan Lanks, In Re Seagate: Effects and Future Development of Willful Patent Infringement, 111 W. Va. L. Rev. 607 (2009).
  • Christopher B. Seaman, Willful Patent Infringement and Enhanced Damages In Re Seagate: An Empirical Study, 97 Iowa L. Rev. 417 (2012).
  • Christopher B. Seaman, Reconsidering the Georgia-Pacific Standard for Reasonable Royalty Patent Damages, 2010 B. Y. U. L. Rev. 1661 (2010).
  • Charles A. Laff, Richard P. Gilly & Brian Hoffman, The Impact of The Federal Circuit on Patent Litigation, 376 PLI/Pat 857 (1993).
  • Carol Johns, Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp.: A Step in the Right Direction for Willful Infringement, 20 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 69 (2005).
  • Carl G. Anderson, Scott G. Lawson & Melissa J. Baily, Willful Patent Infringement: The First Year of the Post-Seagate Era, 20 Intell. Prop. & Tech. L. J. 11 (2008).
  • Calvin R. Massey, The Excessive Fines Clauses and Punitive Damages: Some Lessons from History, 40 Vand. L. Rev. 1233 (1987).
  • Bryan E. Webster & Steven Wamley, Unclean Hands and Preliminary Injunctions: The Effects of Delay in Bringing Patent Infringement Cases, 84 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 291 (2002).
  • Brian J. Love, The Misuse of Reasonable Royalty Damages as a Patent Infringement Deterrent, 74 Mo. L. Rev. 909 (2009).
  • Brian J. Love, Patentee Overcompensation and the Entire Market Value Rule, 60 Stan. L. Rev. 263 (2007).
  • Brian Ferguson, Seagate Equals Sea Change: The Federal Circuit Establishes a New Test for Willful Infringement and Preserves the Sanctity of the Attorney Client Privilege, 24 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L. J. 107 (2007).
  • Brent Rabowsky, Recovery of Lost Profit on Unpatented Products in Patent Cases, 70 S. Cal. L. Rev. 281 (1996).
  • Bernad H. Chao, after eBay Inc. v. MercExchange: the Changing Landscape for Patent Remedies. 9 Minn. J. L. Sci. & Tech. 543 (2008).
  • Benjamin Peterson, Injunctive Relief in the Post-eBay World, 23 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 193 (2008).
  • Benjamin H. Diessel, Trolling for Trolls: The Pitfalls of the Emerging Market Competition for Permanent Injunctions in Patent Cases Post-eBay, 106 Mich. L. Rev. 305 (2007).
  • Aurelia Hepburn-Briscoe, Irreparable Harm in Patent, Copyright and Trademark Cases after eBay v. MercExchange, 55 How. L. J. 643 (2012).
  • Arun Chan, King Instrument Corp. v. Perego: Should Lost Profits Be Awarded on Unpatented Products Where Patentee Sits on its Patent?, 16 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L. J. 635 (1998).
  • Anthony J. Sebok, What Did Punitive Damages Do? Why Misunderstanding the History of Punitive Damages Matters Today, 78 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 163 (2003).
  • Anthony D. Raucci, A case Against the Entire Market Value Rule, 69 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 2233 (2012).
  • Andrew M. Newton, Encouraging Willful Infringement? Knorr-Bremse Leaves Due Care in Patent Litigation in a State of Flux, 15 Tex. Intell. Prop. L. J. 91 (2006).
  • Andrew Beckman-Rodau, The Supreme Court Engages in Judicial Activism in Interpreting the Patent Law in eBay v. MercExchange, LLC, 10 Tul. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 165 (2007).
  • Andrew Beckman-Rodau, The Aftermath of eBay v. MercExchange 126 S. Ct. 1837 (2006): A Review of Subsequent Judicial Decisions, 89 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y 631 (2007).
  • Andrei Iancu & W. Joss Nichols, Balancing the Four Factors in Permanent Injunction Decisions: A Review of Post-eBay Case law, 89 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y 395 (2007).
  • Amy L. Landers, Let the Games Begin: Incentives to Innovation in New Economy of Intellectual Property Law, 46 Santa Clara L. Rev. 307 (2006).
  • Alyson G. Barker, Patent Permanent Injunctions and the Extortion Problem: The Real Property Analogy's Preservation of Principles of Equity, 88 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 256 (2006).
  • Alan R. Thiele, Charles M. Hosch and Jusith R. Blakeway Patent Infringement Litigation Handbook: Avoidance and Management (2010).
  • Adam Mossoff, Exclusion and exclusive Use in Patent Law, 22 Harv. J. L. & Tech. 321 (2009).