Published between 2000-2005
The best intellectual property book collection on the web!
Andrews Publications (Firm). (2004). Andrews litigation reporter. Patent. Wayne, PA, Andrews Publications: v.
Association of Patent Law Firms. (2004). The patent lawyer: the magazine of global patent law issues. Washington, D.C., Association of Patent Law Firms: v.
Baldwin, V. A. (2004). Patent and trademark information: uses and perspectives. Binghamton, NY, Haworth Information Press.
Brunsvold, B. G. and D. P. O'Reilley (2004). Drafting patent license agreements. Washington, D.C., Bureau of National Affairs.
Bucknell, D. G. (2004). Australian patent law. Chatswood, NSW
New York, LexisNexis Butterworths;
Chisum, D. S. (2004). Principles of patent law: cases and materials. New York, N.Y., Foundation Press.
DeMatteis, B. (2004). From patent to profit. New York, Square One Publishers.
Dreyfuss, R. C. and R. R. Kwall (2004). Intellectual property: trademark, copyright, and patent law: cases and materials. New York, Foundation Press.
Durham, A. L. (2004). Patent law essentials: a concise guide. Westport, Conn., Praeger.
Elias, S. and R. Stim (2004). Patent, copyright & trademark. Berkeley, CA, Nolo.
Glazier, S. C. (2004). Technology deals: case studies for officers, directors, investors and general counsels about IPOs, mergers, acquisitions, venture capital, licensing, litigation, settlements, due diligence, and patent strategies: companion volume to Patent strategies for business, third edition, and e-Patent strategies. Washington, D.C., (LBI) Law and Business Institute.
Goldstein, P. (2004). Copyright, patent, trademark, and related state doctrines: cases and materials on the law of intellectual property. New York, N.Y., Foundation Press.
Hall, B. H. and National Bureau of Economic Research. (2004). "Exploring the patent explosion." from http://papers.nber.org/papers/W10605.
"This paper looks more closely at the sources of patent growth in the United States since 1984. It confirms that the increase is largely due to US patenters, with an earlier surge in Asia, and some increase in Europe. Growth has taken place in all technologies, but not in all industries, being concentrated in the electrical, electronics, computing, and scientific instruments industries. It then examines whether these patents are valued by the market. We know from survey evidence that patents in these industries are not usually considered important for appropriability, but are sometimes considered necessary to secure financing for entering the industry. I compare the market value of patents held by entrant firms to those held by incumbents (controlling for R&D). Using data on publicly traded firms 1980-1989, I find that in industries based on electrical and mechanical technologies the market value of entrants' patents is positive in the post-1984 period (after the patenting surge), but not before, when patents were relatively unimportant in these industries. Also, the value of patent rights in complex product industries (where each product relies on many patents held by a number of other firms) is much higher for entrants than incumbents in the post-1984 period. For discrete product industries (where each product relies on only a few patents, and where the importance of patents for appropriability has traditionally been higher), there is no difference between incumbents and entrants"--National Bureau of Economic Research web site.
Hassan, M. (2004). The lost patent. Ottawa, ON, Common Redpoll books.
Hawes, J. E. (2004). Patent application practice. [Eagan, MN], Thomson/West.
Hunter, P. S. (2004). Overcoming patent opportunists: key strategies for dealing with alleged patent infringements & extortion. Boston, MA, Aspatore Books.
Jaffe, A. B. and J. Lerner (2004). Innovation and its discontents: how our broken patent system is endangering innovation and progress, and what to do about it. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press.
Jensen, R., M. Thursby, et al. (2004). "Patent licensing and the research university." from http://papers.nber.org/papers/W10758.
"We construct a dynamic model of university research that allows us to examine recent concerns that financial incentives associated with university patent licensing are detrimental to the traditional mission of US research universities. We assume a principal-agent framework in which the university administration is the principal and a faculty researcher is the agent. Whether or not the researcher remains in the university, and if so her choice of the amount of time to spend on basic and applied research, is complicated by the fact that she earns license income and prestige both inside and outside the university. Thus in contrast to usual principal agent models the participation constraint is endogenous. This, plus the fact that current research affects future knowledge stocks, allows us to show that it is far from obvious that licensing will damage basic research and education"--National Bureau of Economic Research web site.
Jester, M. H. (2004). Patents and trademarks plain & simple. Franklin Lakes, NJ, Career Press.
Keayla, B. K. and Centre for Study of Global Trade System and Development (New Delhi India) (2004). Important components of patent system--India's position: implications of the new regime. New Delhi, Centre for Study of Global Trade System and Development.
Kesan, J. P. (2004). A comparative appraisal of patent invalidation processes in Japan. T*oky*o, Chiteki Zaisan Kenky*ujo.
Maurer, S. M., S. Scotchmer, et al. (2004). "Profit neutrality in licensing
The boundary between antitrust law and patent law." from http://papers.nber.org/papers/w10546.
"For over a century, courts and commentators have struggled to find principles that reconcile patent and antitrust law, especially as to patent licensing. We interpret case law and commentary to arrive at three unifying principles for acceptable terms of license. Profit neutrality' holds that patent rewards should not depend on the rightholder's ability to work the patent himself. Derived reward' holds that the patent holder's profits should be earned, if at all, from the social value created by the invention. Minimalism' holds that licensing contracts should not contain more restrictions than are necessary to achieve neutrality. We argue that these principles largely rationalize important decisions of the twentieth century. They also justify the Supreme Court's controversial General Electric decision, which holds that patentholders can set prices charged by their licensees"--National Bureau of Economic Research web site.
Merges, R. P. and J. C. Ginsberg (2004). Foundations of intellectual property. New York, NY, Foundation Press.
This book is meant to provide a. collection of commentaries on the topic of intellectual property. [The] goal has been to bring together. influential writings on patent, copyright, trademark and design protection, beginning with early material from the seventeenth century and continuing into the contemporary law review literature. -Pref.
Merrill, S. A., R. C. Levin, et al. (2004). A patent system for the 21st century. Washington, D.C., National Academies Press.
Mills, J. G., D. C. Reiley, et al. (2004). Patent law fundamentals. [St. Paul, Minn.], Thomson/West.
Neal, S. R. (2004). Calendar of patent rolls 31 Elizabeth I (1587-1588) [sic] C 66/1322-1336. Kew, Surrey, List and Index Society.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2004). Patents, innovation and economic performance: [OECD conference proceedings]. [Paris], Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Pettitt, C. (2004). Patent inventions--intellectual property and the Victorian novel. Oxford; New York, Oxford University Press.
Pienkos, J. T. (2004). The patent guidebook. Chicago, IL, American Bar Association, Section of Business Law.
Schechter, R. E. and J. R. Thomas (2004). Principles of patent law. St. Paul, MN, Thomson/West.
Singh, S. S. (2004). The law of intellectual property rights: introductory, WTO, patent laws, copyright law, commercial domain. New Delhi, Deep & Deep Publications.
In the Indian context; papers presented at the Seminar on the IPR held on August 2-3, 2003 in the Dept. of Law, University of Burdwan.
Slaughter, S. and G. Rhoades (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.
Stim, R. and D. Pressman (2004). Patent pending in 24 hours. Berkeley, CA, Nolo.
Sung, L. M. (2004). Patent infringement remedies. Washington, D.C., Bureau of National Affairs.
Taplin, R. (2004). Valuing intellectual property in Japan, Britain, and the USA. London; New York, RoutledgeCurzon.
United States. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Courts the Internet and Intellectual Property. (2004). Patent quality improvement: post-grant opposition: hearing before Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eighth Congress, second session, June 24, 2004. Washington, U.S. G.P.O.: For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O.
White, J. M. and Practising Law Institute. (2004). Prior art 2004: understanding patent law section 102. New York, NY, Practising Law Institute.