Deceptive Conducts before the Patent Office Challenges for Patent Law and Competition Law

In an increasingly harmonized global patent landscape, few issues still distinguish the US patent system as much as its strict-and often criticized-duty of candor and its inequitable conduct doctrine. The EPO and most other countries around the world impose less burdensome disclosure duties upon pat...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Hoss, Eugenio (auth)
Format: Electronic Book Chapter
Language:English
Published: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG 2019
Series:Munich Intellectual Property Law Center - MIPLC
Subjects:
Online Access:DOAB: download the publication
DOAB: description of the publication
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

MARC

LEADER 00000naaaa2200000uu 4500
001 doab_20_500_12854_44600
005 20210211
003 oapen
006 m o d
007 cr|mn|---annan
008 20210211s2019 xx |||||o ||| 0|eng d
020 |a /doi.org/10.5771/9783748902577 
020 |a 9783748902577 
040 |a oapen  |c oapen 
024 7 |a https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748902577  |c doi 
041 0 |a eng 
042 |a dc 
100 1 |a Hoss, Eugenio  |4 auth 
245 1 0 |a Deceptive Conducts before the Patent Office  |b Challenges for Patent Law and Competition Law 
260 |b Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG  |c 2019 
300 |a 1 electronic resource (335 p.) 
336 |a text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a computer  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a online resource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
490 1 |a Munich Intellectual Property Law Center - MIPLC 
506 0 |a Open Access  |2 star  |f Unrestricted online access 
520 |a In an increasingly harmonized global patent landscape, few issues still distinguish the US patent system as much as its strict-and often criticized-duty of candor and its inequitable conduct doctrine. The EPO and most other countries around the world impose less burdensome disclosure duties upon patent applicants. What is there to learn from the experience in the US? Have these tools resulted in any benefit worth considering? Yet regardless of the disclosure duties imposed upon patent applicants, a deceptive conduct before the Patent Office could lead to unwarranted exclusive rights and have a negative impact on competition. Should antitrust law intervene? Is it a case of sham litigation? This work attempts to answer those questions through a comparative analysis, examining the law and case law in the US and in the EU from both a patent and a competition law perspective and seeking a workable theory of harm. 
540 |a Creative Commons  |f https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/  |2 cc  |4 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 
546 |a English 
653 |a pharmazeutischer Patient 
653 |a irreführendes Verhalten 
653 |a Wettbewerbsrecht 
653 |a Patentanmeldung 
653 |a Patentamt 
653 |a high court 
653 |a Supreme Court 
653 |a inequitable conduct 
653 |a Competition Law 
653 |a kristalline Form 
653 |a Patentrecht 
653 |a Apotex 
653 |a Walker Process 
653 |a tert-Butylaminsalz 
653 |a duty of candor 
653 |a Fraud before the Patent Office 
653 |a Perindopril 
653 |a Scheincharakter 
653 |a AstraZeneca 
653 |a Patent Office 
653 |a Servier 
653 |a LJ Jacob 
653 |a patent law 
856 4 0 |a www.oapen.org  |u https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/9783748902577/deceptive-conducts-before-the-patent-office  |7 0  |z DOAB: download the publication 
856 4 0 |a www.oapen.org  |u https://directory.doabooks.org/handle/20.500.12854/44600  |7 0  |z DOAB: description of the publication