عنوان مقاله [English]
According to the nature of inventions, they are easily exposed to various illegal usages which should be recognized and tackled. One of the illegal usages that is considered in the United States is Patent Trolls. These institutions are unproductive and they purchase minor inventions without trying to commercialize them and they want to gain profit from the producers who unknowingly make use of innovations belonging to patent trolls and as a result they deprive the society of the innovations’ outcomes. Patent Trolls consequences on businesses, public welfare and issues like this generates legislative, judicial and doctrinal repercussions and responses throughout the Unites States. As a result, in order to diminish the activity of the patent trolls, some new laws are passed and the methods of compensation have been altered since most lawyers consider the existence of these institutions to be destructive for innovation. With regards to new founding of patent troll in intellectual property arena, this paper examine the response of law system to the trolls as a controversial issue of patents area.
ایزدی، سمیه (1390). دستور موقت در دعاوی حقوق مالکیت فکری، پایاننامه کارشناسی ارشد رشته حقوق مالکیت فکری، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
جعفرزاده، قاسم و اصغر محمودی (1384). شرایط ماهوی حمایت ازحق اختراع از نگاه رویه قضایی و اداره ثبت اختراعات، مجله تحقیقات حقوقی، شماره 42: 69-148.
Coker Coursey, Caroline, Caroline. )2009(. Battling the Patent Troll: Tips for Defending Patent Infringement Claims by Non-Manufacturing Patentees,American journal of trial advocacy, vol.33.
E.Millard, Elizabeth).2008 .(Injunctive relief in patent infringement cases: should courts apply a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm after ebay inc. v.mercexchange?,Saint Louis university law journal, vol.52.
F.Duffy, John.(2007). Ksr v.teleflex: predictable reform of patent substance and procedure in the judiciary, Michigan Law Review First Impressions, vol.106.
Forsberg, Holly.(2011). Diminishing the Attractiveness of Trolling: The Impacts of Recent Judicial Activity on Non-Practicing Entities, Pittsburg Journal of Technology Law & Policy, vol.12.
Gregory, Mandel.(2008).Another Missed Opportunity: The Supreme Court's Failure to Define Nonobviousness or Combat Hindsight Bias in KSR v. Teleflex, Lewis & Clark Law Review.
H.Diessel, Benjamin.(2007). Trolling for Trolls: The Pitfalls of the Emerging Market Competition Requirement for Permanent Injunctions in Patent Cases Post-eBay, Michigan Law Review, vol.106.
Keyhani, Dariush.(2008).Permanent Injunctions in Patent Cases, Buffalo intellectual property law journal, volume6.
K.Shrestha, Sannu.(2010). Trolls or market-makers? An empirical analysis of nonpracticing entites, Columbia law review, Vol.110.
L.Bryant, Tracie.(2012). The America Invent Act: slaying trolls, limiting joinder, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, Vol. 25.
M.Mueller, Janice.(2005).Slaying the Patent Trolls: Proposed Cure Much Worse Than the Disease.
M.Davis, Robin.(2008). Failed attempts to aware the patent trolls: permanent injunctions in patent infringement cases under the proposed patent reform act of 2005 and ebay v.mercexchange, Cornel journal of law and public policy, vol.17.
M.Fischer, James.(2010). What hath ebay v.mercexchage wrought?, Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vol.14.
Mello,J.P.(2006). Technology licensing and patent trolls, Boston university Journal Of Science & Technology Law, Vol.12.