跨国并购的专利问题研究
|
摘要
从跨国并购的视角研究专利技术交易是一个较新尝试。跨国并购中的专利问题包括专利的审慎性调查与评估、专利交易模式、专利的反垄断审查等方面。本文旨在利用制度比较的方法,运用管理学、经济学以及法学的相关理论对跨国并购中所出现的专利交易问题进行系统研究,力图同时从理论与实证方面为相关问题提供有益的答案。除引言与结语外,本文共分为五章。
第一章对专利制度、技术进步与跨国并购的关系进行了研究。从专利制度变革、技术进步以及企业并购浪潮历史考察来看,本文认为专利制度的创新以及发展对于技术的进步起着重要的作用,专利制度的发展促进了技术的产生,增加了专利技术的价值,便利了专利技术在全球范围的流动,从而使专利技术成为各个时代重要的无形资产。专利制度的革新所引发的各个领域的技术进步使得技术之间的关联性与依赖性不断提升,技术之间的融合与整合成为必然,而并购正是技术整合的有效手段。在现今的网络时代、数字化时代,技术的跨国利用获得了极大的便利,技术整合不仅仅发生在一国的国内,跨国技术整合与利用成为企业的必然选择,这就是技术进步所引起的跨国并购问题。
从FDI跨国学派并购理论以及企业战略并购理论来看,技术因素都是跨国并购考量的核心因素。从实证分析来看,跨国并购与专利的国际申请波动以及趋势一致,跨国并购的活跃区必然是专利非居民申请较多的地区。因而可以认为专利制度、技术发展与跨国并购之间存在着一定的相关性。
第二章对跨国并购交易中的专利审慎性调查与评估进行了研究。一个完整的专利审慎性调查应该包括专利资产的确认,专利交易的相关风险与评估、风险的规避、与专利资产相关的利益协同以及对并购后专利资产的有效利用。专利审慎性调查步骤包括确立对于并购交易具有实质意义的专利技术、获取并审查与专利技术相关的材料、识别专利资产等。专利审慎性调查的具体内容包括专利所有权、有效性、效率性以及协同效应审查等。虽然专利审慎性调查的方法有所不同,但步骤一般包括专利相关信息收集与分析。专利评估是以专利法律制度为基础,以专利技术为支撑,对专利的经济属性进行定量研究的行为。专利的价值评估具有法律性、技术性、专有性、风险性以及不确定性等特征。实践中一般认为以技术为基础的评估方法包括行业标准法、经验法、定级法、现金流量贴现法、非传统的高级方法(包括蒙特卡罗估价法、实物期权以及其它方法)以及拍卖法等。这些专利评估方法可以分为以成本为基础的方法、以市场为基础的方法、以收入为基础的方法以及以变化风险为基础的方法。本文以为对专利进行定性分析的定级法以及实物期权法是可知较适宜用于评估专利的方法。佐治亚太平洋指标与CHI分析方法是定级法的具体运用,CHI指标过于从技术的角度探讨专利的价值,佐治亚太平洋指标虽然关注专利技术的市场情况,但是缺乏定量的分析,将这两者有机结合是评估专利技术的有效方法。
第三章对跨国并购中的专利交易进行了研究。本文认为专利制度趋同性表现为专利制度的程序与实体方面的趋同。程序趋同包括获权程序的趋同与维权程序的趋同。实体方面的趋同主要是受TRIPS协议的影响。虽然专利制度的趋同是发展趋势,但各国专利制度的差异性仍然较大,这表现在可授予专利主题及其例外、专利授予条件、专利权利的范围及权利解释、专利权例外以及专利侵权的损害赔偿标准等方面。各国专利制度的异同对跨国并购中专利价值的认定以及与专利相关的交易成本具有重要影响。
专利转移是跨国并购中专利交易的主要形式。跨国并购的专利转移主要包括专利所有权、使用权以及控制权的转移。专利转移的不同方式对各方来说既有优势也有劣势,采取何种方式取决于各方的意愿以及交易的具体情况。
专利依许可方对被许可方所受让技术的使用限制可分为独占许可协议、排他许可以及普通许可协议。按照专利许可是否存在明示的协议可将专利许可分为明示许可与默示许可。跨国许可与一般许可相比,除了许可方位于外国外,与一般的内国许可并无太大的区别。但许多国家对向外国公司许可专利技术规定了较多的限制条件。国际专利许可合同的准据法的确定,以“意思自治原则”为首要原则,当事人没有约定的,一般适用受让方营业所所在地国家的法律。
跨国并购中专利收购的类型主要包括采取资产收购或股权收购的方式以获取企业的全部相关专利权以及为对某种特定专利的定向收购。跨国收购战略、模式与风险与一般国内收购并无太大的差异,但在许多国家,跨国专利资产收购受到法律的更多控制,在法律适用的选择上受到较严格的限制。
税负也是跨国并购中的专利交易需要考虑的问题。对于跨国并购中专利技术转移,可能产生征税权争议,居住国与收入来源国的主要征税权竞争在于技术授权所得的征税方式的征税权扩张,因而需要关注各国税法的具体规定。同时跨国并购各方可通过某些特殊的制度设计达到节税的目的。
第四章对跨国并购中与专利相关的反垄断问题进行了研究。在专利权与反垄断的关系上,存在着垄断法优先、专利法优先以及专利法应与垄断法适当平衡三种观点。成本收益法为基础的分析方法可以协调反垄断与专利法之间的关系。效率是知识产权许可与合并反垄断审查的目标。
对于跨国并购中涉及的专利许可而言,一般情况下对专利许可行为应采取经济分析方法。专利许可的反垄断审查认定包括本身违法以及合理原则。跨国专利许可的反垄断审查各国并无特别法规制,一般都与国内专利许可的反垄断审查适用相同的制度。
反垄断法意义上的专利合并主要包括通过资产收购方式获取企业具有实质价值的专利资产以及通过股权并购的方式获取对企业的控制权从而获取专利资产的控制权。专利合并的反垄断审查与其它合并的反垄断审查一般采用相同的方式,但需考虑专利权的特殊性。从现今各国的实践来看,对并购一方为外国居民的专利合并的反垄断审查,一般都适用内国的反垄断审查标准,很少有国家对此建立特殊的标准。许多国家的反垄断法甚至具有域外效力,对纯粹发生在国外的跨国并购在某种情况下也具有管辖权,可以运用内国法对发生在国外的跨国专利合并予以规制。因而,对于跨国并购中的专利合并而言,不管专利合并发生于国内,还是国外,一般都适用内国专利合并的反垄断审查标准。
当一个拟议中交易的各方同意提供承诺或救济时,审批机构可能批准具有反垄断性质的交易。与专利相关的非结构性救济措施主要包括承诺不滥用专利权,承诺向第三方许可专利或转让特定专利。与专利相关的跨国并购,特别是具有巨大影响力的并购,必须从全球消费者福利的角度予以考虑,仅仅局限于一个或几个国家的反竞争分析可能得不出正确的结果。
第五章对外资并购以及中国企业海外并购中所遇到的专利相关问题进行了分析。本文认为外资并购中涉及的与专利相关的法律规范可以分为管制性规范与激励性规范。管制性规范是对专利技术的国内以及跨国交易做出约束性规定;而激励性规范是便利专利交易的法律规范。中国相关规范不适于技术的有效转移,需要对之进行改革。中国有必要建立统一的外商投资审查机构,统一外商投资政策适用,鼓励外国投资者通过并购方式转移其专利技术,同时对外国收购中国的专利技术加强反垄断、反不正当竞争以及国家安全审查。可以考虑建立外资审查的反垄断以及国家安全方面的审查指南,建立技术许可的反垄断审查指南以及建立并购的横向以及纵向指南并对专利技术合并中的反垄断问题作出规定。中国企业的海外并购受到外国的反垄断、国家经济安全、限制技术流出等方面的管制,但是外国多元的专利利用渠道也为专利价值最大化提供了方便。为应付国外的管制性规定,中国应赋予企业更多的市场主体地位,减少对企业经营的微观干涉。中国企业在海外并购专利技术时必须注意收购目标的选择,最好选择自己熟悉并与自己有长期往来的企业作为收购目标。在审慎性调查上,必须注意技术之间的协调效应以及并购后技术能否得到有效利用。在交易结构的设计上,注意外国的税法规定以及相关的节税安排。
To study the patent transaction from the perspective of cross-border merger & acquisition (M & A) is a somewhat new area. The patent-related transaction issues during cross-border M&A include due diligence and evaluation of patent, mode of patent transaction and anti-trust investigation. By introducing the method of comparative institution analyses, this dissertation is aimed to make a systematic research on the patent transaction during the cross-border M&A and is trying to propose some useful suggestions to the problems arising from theoretical and practical prospects. The relevant management, economics and legal theories are used in the analysis. Besides introduction and conclusion, this dissertation includes five chapters.
In chapter 1, the interrelation among patent system, technology development and cross-border M&A is analyzed. From the historical perspective, the creation and development of patent system is crucial to the technology progress. The developed patent system promotes the new technology to appear, adds more values to patents, facilitates the transaction of patent worldwide and hence makes the patent important intangible property of different ages. Innovation of patent system brings comprehensive progress in all technological fields, which makes technologies more interrelated and dependent, so the integration and concentration of different technologies is inevitable. And the M&A is one of the effective ways of integrating and concentrating technologies. In this internet and digital era, the cross-border use of technology is really convenient, so the integration of technologies happens not only in one country but also in different countries, which is so-called cross-border problems arising from technology progress. From the cross-border theory of FDI School and strategy M&A theory, technology is the core factor considered in M&A. From the practical perspective, cross-border M&A and the international application of patent share some common fluctuation waves. The active areas of cross-border M&A is in conformity with the active areas of non-residence applications of PCT. So patent system, technology progress and cross-border M&A must share some relevance.
In chapter 2, patent due diligence and evaluation for cross-borer M&A are studied. A complete patent due diligence shall include the identification of patent assets, relevant risks of patent transaction and evaluation, evasion of risks, synergies of different patents and the effective usage of post-M&A patent assets. The specific content of patent due diligence include identifying the substantially important patent technology of the M&A, accessing and reviewing all relevant materials of the identified patent, validity and sufficiency checking. The most commonly used method of patent due diligence is collecting and analyzing the patent related information. Based on the patent legal system, supported by patent technology, patent evaluation is aimed to provide a definite economic value for certain patent. The patent evaluation has some legal, exclusive, risky and uncertain characters. Generally, the often used patent evaluation methods include industry standards, rating method, rules of thumb, discounted cash flow method, advanced valuation methods (Monto Carlo and Real Options) and auctions. The above-mentioned methods can be classified as cost base methods, market based methods, income based methods and changing risks based methods. The ranking method and Real Options method are most appropriately methods used for evaluating patents because of their qualitative analysis advantages. Georgia Pacific Factors and CHI method are two kinds of applications of the ranking method. CHI method focuses on technological factor but neglects market development; while Georgia Pacific Factors pays more attention to market situations, but lack quantitative analysis. Mixing Georgia Pacific Factors and CHI method together may be a valid way of evaluating patents.
In chapter 3, Patent-related transactions during cross-borer M&A are studied. The patent systems of different countries share some procedural and substantive similarities due to signing of international patent treaties, such as Paris Convention, TRIPS agreement and PCT. Though some similarities exist, the difference is still large for the patent system. The difference and similarities of different patent regimes are sure to influence the value of patents and transaction cost for patent transfer during cross-border M&A.
The patent related transactions during cross-border M&A include patent licensing, ownership or controlling right transfer of patents. Whether mode is adopted depends on willingness of concerned parties, technology situation and transaction arrangement. Ownership or controlling right transfer and licensing both enjoy some advantages and disadvantages. The licensing agreement can be classified as exclusive license, sole license and simple license. Therefore the licensing agreement can also be classified as explicit licensing and implied licensing. Ownership or controlling right transfer of patent during cross-borer M&A can be done through patent asset and stock acquisitions. Cross-border licensing of patent has no difference from domestic licensing except that outflow of specific patent is restricted in some countries and the proper law needs to be considered. Cross-border and domestic patent-related asset and stock acquisitions also share some similarities, but patent-related asset and stock acquisitions is more controlled by national laws and the proper law generally is local law. Tax is a critical factor in technology transfer during cross-borer M&A. As for the transnational technology transfer, the different tax levying policy of different countries may bring double taxation burden for the transaction parties, so the relevant parties shall pay special attention to the tax laws of different countries. Therefore through some accurate and considerate arrangement of transaction structure, some tax burden may be reduced.
In chapter 4, the anti-monopoly problem of patent related issues during cross-borer M&A is studied. As for the relationship between patent and anti-trust law, three opinions exist. Some scholars think that patent law shall prioritize the antitrust law, and some scholars think antitrust law shall prevail. This dissertation thinks that the balanced relation between patent and antitrust law shall be the best choice. The triggering balance standard shall be cost and benefits analysis. Efficiency shall be the goal of antitrust review of patent licensing and convergence. As for the patent licensing during cross-borer M&A, the antitrust review shall be done through economic analysis. The rule for antitrust review of patent licensing shall include per se illegal and reasonable analysis. Cross-border and domestic patent licensing share similar antitrust view standards. And the antitrust view of patent concentration shall be no different from other properties, but the unique character of patent shall be considered. The patent concentration under antitrust law includes acquisition of substantially important patent assets or controlling stock of a company which boasts important patent assets. Cross-border and domestic patent concentration also apply similar antitrust review standards. The remedies for patent related transaction during cross-border M&A are used for some transaction having an antirust effect, which can be remedies by taking some special measures. The remedies methods comprise of structural and non-structural ways and more non-structural method is used for patent related antitrust analysis. For the patent related cross-border M&A which has global impact, the global consumer welfare shall be considered.
In chapter 5, the patent related problems during M&A of domestic enterprises by foreign investors and overseas M&A by Chinese investors are studied. This dissertation thinks that the legal norms related with patent transaction during foreign M&A can be classified as regulative and encouraging ones. The regulative norms are restrictive because its limitations on the domestic or overseas transfer of patents, while encouraging norms are used to facilitate the patent transfer. All those norms in China are not good to patent transactions and some reforms are needed. In China, a unified and authoritative reviewing organ for foreign investment shall be established; uniform application of foreign investment policy is needed. China shall encourage foreign investors to transfer its patent technology during M&A. China also needs to enhance its antitrust, anti-unfair and national securities review of patent transaction during M&A. China may write its own antitrust guidelines for licensing and concentration of patent, clarify its reviewing standards for national securities. The overseas utilizations of patent by Chinese investors may be blocked because of antitrust, national economic securities and other restrictive measures by foreign governments. The Chinese investors can make best use of the derivatives value of patent assets during overseas M&A. Chinese government shall confer more market status to its companies and reduce its micro-intervention of market in order that the Chinese companies can easily passed relevant regulating reviews. Therefore Chinese companies shall be cautious during overseas patent acquisitions; special attention shall be paid to due diligence, coordination of technologies and relevant tax arrangements.
第一章对专利制度、技术进步与跨国并购的关系进行了研究。从专利制度变革、技术进步以及企业并购浪潮历史考察来看,本文认为专利制度的创新以及发展对于技术的进步起着重要的作用,专利制度的发展促进了技术的产生,增加了专利技术的价值,便利了专利技术在全球范围的流动,从而使专利技术成为各个时代重要的无形资产。专利制度的革新所引发的各个领域的技术进步使得技术之间的关联性与依赖性不断提升,技术之间的融合与整合成为必然,而并购正是技术整合的有效手段。在现今的网络时代、数字化时代,技术的跨国利用获得了极大的便利,技术整合不仅仅发生在一国的国内,跨国技术整合与利用成为企业的必然选择,这就是技术进步所引起的跨国并购问题。
从FDI跨国学派并购理论以及企业战略并购理论来看,技术因素都是跨国并购考量的核心因素。从实证分析来看,跨国并购与专利的国际申请波动以及趋势一致,跨国并购的活跃区必然是专利非居民申请较多的地区。因而可以认为专利制度、技术发展与跨国并购之间存在着一定的相关性。
第二章对跨国并购交易中的专利审慎性调查与评估进行了研究。一个完整的专利审慎性调查应该包括专利资产的确认,专利交易的相关风险与评估、风险的规避、与专利资产相关的利益协同以及对并购后专利资产的有效利用。专利审慎性调查步骤包括确立对于并购交易具有实质意义的专利技术、获取并审查与专利技术相关的材料、识别专利资产等。专利审慎性调查的具体内容包括专利所有权、有效性、效率性以及协同效应审查等。虽然专利审慎性调查的方法有所不同,但步骤一般包括专利相关信息收集与分析。专利评估是以专利法律制度为基础,以专利技术为支撑,对专利的经济属性进行定量研究的行为。专利的价值评估具有法律性、技术性、专有性、风险性以及不确定性等特征。实践中一般认为以技术为基础的评估方法包括行业标准法、经验法、定级法、现金流量贴现法、非传统的高级方法(包括蒙特卡罗估价法、实物期权以及其它方法)以及拍卖法等。这些专利评估方法可以分为以成本为基础的方法、以市场为基础的方法、以收入为基础的方法以及以变化风险为基础的方法。本文以为对专利进行定性分析的定级法以及实物期权法是可知较适宜用于评估专利的方法。佐治亚太平洋指标与CHI分析方法是定级法的具体运用,CHI指标过于从技术的角度探讨专利的价值,佐治亚太平洋指标虽然关注专利技术的市场情况,但是缺乏定量的分析,将这两者有机结合是评估专利技术的有效方法。
第三章对跨国并购中的专利交易进行了研究。本文认为专利制度趋同性表现为专利制度的程序与实体方面的趋同。程序趋同包括获权程序的趋同与维权程序的趋同。实体方面的趋同主要是受TRIPS协议的影响。虽然专利制度的趋同是发展趋势,但各国专利制度的差异性仍然较大,这表现在可授予专利主题及其例外、专利授予条件、专利权利的范围及权利解释、专利权例外以及专利侵权的损害赔偿标准等方面。各国专利制度的异同对跨国并购中专利价值的认定以及与专利相关的交易成本具有重要影响。
专利转移是跨国并购中专利交易的主要形式。跨国并购的专利转移主要包括专利所有权、使用权以及控制权的转移。专利转移的不同方式对各方来说既有优势也有劣势,采取何种方式取决于各方的意愿以及交易的具体情况。
专利依许可方对被许可方所受让技术的使用限制可分为独占许可协议、排他许可以及普通许可协议。按照专利许可是否存在明示的协议可将专利许可分为明示许可与默示许可。跨国许可与一般许可相比,除了许可方位于外国外,与一般的内国许可并无太大的区别。但许多国家对向外国公司许可专利技术规定了较多的限制条件。国际专利许可合同的准据法的确定,以“意思自治原则”为首要原则,当事人没有约定的,一般适用受让方营业所所在地国家的法律。
跨国并购中专利收购的类型主要包括采取资产收购或股权收购的方式以获取企业的全部相关专利权以及为对某种特定专利的定向收购。跨国收购战略、模式与风险与一般国内收购并无太大的差异,但在许多国家,跨国专利资产收购受到法律的更多控制,在法律适用的选择上受到较严格的限制。
税负也是跨国并购中的专利交易需要考虑的问题。对于跨国并购中专利技术转移,可能产生征税权争议,居住国与收入来源国的主要征税权竞争在于技术授权所得的征税方式的征税权扩张,因而需要关注各国税法的具体规定。同时跨国并购各方可通过某些特殊的制度设计达到节税的目的。
第四章对跨国并购中与专利相关的反垄断问题进行了研究。在专利权与反垄断的关系上,存在着垄断法优先、专利法优先以及专利法应与垄断法适当平衡三种观点。成本收益法为基础的分析方法可以协调反垄断与专利法之间的关系。效率是知识产权许可与合并反垄断审查的目标。
对于跨国并购中涉及的专利许可而言,一般情况下对专利许可行为应采取经济分析方法。专利许可的反垄断审查认定包括本身违法以及合理原则。跨国专利许可的反垄断审查各国并无特别法规制,一般都与国内专利许可的反垄断审查适用相同的制度。
反垄断法意义上的专利合并主要包括通过资产收购方式获取企业具有实质价值的专利资产以及通过股权并购的方式获取对企业的控制权从而获取专利资产的控制权。专利合并的反垄断审查与其它合并的反垄断审查一般采用相同的方式,但需考虑专利权的特殊性。从现今各国的实践来看,对并购一方为外国居民的专利合并的反垄断审查,一般都适用内国的反垄断审查标准,很少有国家对此建立特殊的标准。许多国家的反垄断法甚至具有域外效力,对纯粹发生在国外的跨国并购在某种情况下也具有管辖权,可以运用内国法对发生在国外的跨国专利合并予以规制。因而,对于跨国并购中的专利合并而言,不管专利合并发生于国内,还是国外,一般都适用内国专利合并的反垄断审查标准。
当一个拟议中交易的各方同意提供承诺或救济时,审批机构可能批准具有反垄断性质的交易。与专利相关的非结构性救济措施主要包括承诺不滥用专利权,承诺向第三方许可专利或转让特定专利。与专利相关的跨国并购,特别是具有巨大影响力的并购,必须从全球消费者福利的角度予以考虑,仅仅局限于一个或几个国家的反竞争分析可能得不出正确的结果。
第五章对外资并购以及中国企业海外并购中所遇到的专利相关问题进行了分析。本文认为外资并购中涉及的与专利相关的法律规范可以分为管制性规范与激励性规范。管制性规范是对专利技术的国内以及跨国交易做出约束性规定;而激励性规范是便利专利交易的法律规范。中国相关规范不适于技术的有效转移,需要对之进行改革。中国有必要建立统一的外商投资审查机构,统一外商投资政策适用,鼓励外国投资者通过并购方式转移其专利技术,同时对外国收购中国的专利技术加强反垄断、反不正当竞争以及国家安全审查。可以考虑建立外资审查的反垄断以及国家安全方面的审查指南,建立技术许可的反垄断审查指南以及建立并购的横向以及纵向指南并对专利技术合并中的反垄断问题作出规定。中国企业的海外并购受到外国的反垄断、国家经济安全、限制技术流出等方面的管制,但是外国多元的专利利用渠道也为专利价值最大化提供了方便。为应付国外的管制性规定,中国应赋予企业更多的市场主体地位,减少对企业经营的微观干涉。中国企业在海外并购专利技术时必须注意收购目标的选择,最好选择自己熟悉并与自己有长期往来的企业作为收购目标。在审慎性调查上,必须注意技术之间的协调效应以及并购后技术能否得到有效利用。在交易结构的设计上,注意外国的税法规定以及相关的节税安排。
To study the patent transaction from the perspective of cross-border merger & acquisition (M & A) is a somewhat new area. The patent-related transaction issues during cross-border M&A include due diligence and evaluation of patent, mode of patent transaction and anti-trust investigation. By introducing the method of comparative institution analyses, this dissertation is aimed to make a systematic research on the patent transaction during the cross-border M&A and is trying to propose some useful suggestions to the problems arising from theoretical and practical prospects. The relevant management, economics and legal theories are used in the analysis. Besides introduction and conclusion, this dissertation includes five chapters.
In chapter 1, the interrelation among patent system, technology development and cross-border M&A is analyzed. From the historical perspective, the creation and development of patent system is crucial to the technology progress. The developed patent system promotes the new technology to appear, adds more values to patents, facilitates the transaction of patent worldwide and hence makes the patent important intangible property of different ages. Innovation of patent system brings comprehensive progress in all technological fields, which makes technologies more interrelated and dependent, so the integration and concentration of different technologies is inevitable. And the M&A is one of the effective ways of integrating and concentrating technologies. In this internet and digital era, the cross-border use of technology is really convenient, so the integration of technologies happens not only in one country but also in different countries, which is so-called cross-border problems arising from technology progress. From the cross-border theory of FDI School and strategy M&A theory, technology is the core factor considered in M&A. From the practical perspective, cross-border M&A and the international application of patent share some common fluctuation waves. The active areas of cross-border M&A is in conformity with the active areas of non-residence applications of PCT. So patent system, technology progress and cross-border M&A must share some relevance.
In chapter 2, patent due diligence and evaluation for cross-borer M&A are studied. A complete patent due diligence shall include the identification of patent assets, relevant risks of patent transaction and evaluation, evasion of risks, synergies of different patents and the effective usage of post-M&A patent assets. The specific content of patent due diligence include identifying the substantially important patent technology of the M&A, accessing and reviewing all relevant materials of the identified patent, validity and sufficiency checking. The most commonly used method of patent due diligence is collecting and analyzing the patent related information. Based on the patent legal system, supported by patent technology, patent evaluation is aimed to provide a definite economic value for certain patent. The patent evaluation has some legal, exclusive, risky and uncertain characters. Generally, the often used patent evaluation methods include industry standards, rating method, rules of thumb, discounted cash flow method, advanced valuation methods (Monto Carlo and Real Options) and auctions. The above-mentioned methods can be classified as cost base methods, market based methods, income based methods and changing risks based methods. The ranking method and Real Options method are most appropriately methods used for evaluating patents because of their qualitative analysis advantages. Georgia Pacific Factors and CHI method are two kinds of applications of the ranking method. CHI method focuses on technological factor but neglects market development; while Georgia Pacific Factors pays more attention to market situations, but lack quantitative analysis. Mixing Georgia Pacific Factors and CHI method together may be a valid way of evaluating patents.
In chapter 3, Patent-related transactions during cross-borer M&A are studied. The patent systems of different countries share some procedural and substantive similarities due to signing of international patent treaties, such as Paris Convention, TRIPS agreement and PCT. Though some similarities exist, the difference is still large for the patent system. The difference and similarities of different patent regimes are sure to influence the value of patents and transaction cost for patent transfer during cross-border M&A.
The patent related transactions during cross-border M&A include patent licensing, ownership or controlling right transfer of patents. Whether mode is adopted depends on willingness of concerned parties, technology situation and transaction arrangement. Ownership or controlling right transfer and licensing both enjoy some advantages and disadvantages. The licensing agreement can be classified as exclusive license, sole license and simple license. Therefore the licensing agreement can also be classified as explicit licensing and implied licensing. Ownership or controlling right transfer of patent during cross-borer M&A can be done through patent asset and stock acquisitions. Cross-border licensing of patent has no difference from domestic licensing except that outflow of specific patent is restricted in some countries and the proper law needs to be considered. Cross-border and domestic patent-related asset and stock acquisitions also share some similarities, but patent-related asset and stock acquisitions is more controlled by national laws and the proper law generally is local law. Tax is a critical factor in technology transfer during cross-borer M&A. As for the transnational technology transfer, the different tax levying policy of different countries may bring double taxation burden for the transaction parties, so the relevant parties shall pay special attention to the tax laws of different countries. Therefore through some accurate and considerate arrangement of transaction structure, some tax burden may be reduced.
In chapter 4, the anti-monopoly problem of patent related issues during cross-borer M&A is studied. As for the relationship between patent and anti-trust law, three opinions exist. Some scholars think that patent law shall prioritize the antitrust law, and some scholars think antitrust law shall prevail. This dissertation thinks that the balanced relation between patent and antitrust law shall be the best choice. The triggering balance standard shall be cost and benefits analysis. Efficiency shall be the goal of antitrust review of patent licensing and convergence. As for the patent licensing during cross-borer M&A, the antitrust review shall be done through economic analysis. The rule for antitrust review of patent licensing shall include per se illegal and reasonable analysis. Cross-border and domestic patent licensing share similar antitrust view standards. And the antitrust view of patent concentration shall be no different from other properties, but the unique character of patent shall be considered. The patent concentration under antitrust law includes acquisition of substantially important patent assets or controlling stock of a company which boasts important patent assets. Cross-border and domestic patent concentration also apply similar antitrust review standards. The remedies for patent related transaction during cross-border M&A are used for some transaction having an antirust effect, which can be remedies by taking some special measures. The remedies methods comprise of structural and non-structural ways and more non-structural method is used for patent related antitrust analysis. For the patent related cross-border M&A which has global impact, the global consumer welfare shall be considered.
In chapter 5, the patent related problems during M&A of domestic enterprises by foreign investors and overseas M&A by Chinese investors are studied. This dissertation thinks that the legal norms related with patent transaction during foreign M&A can be classified as regulative and encouraging ones. The regulative norms are restrictive because its limitations on the domestic or overseas transfer of patents, while encouraging norms are used to facilitate the patent transfer. All those norms in China are not good to patent transactions and some reforms are needed. In China, a unified and authoritative reviewing organ for foreign investment shall be established; uniform application of foreign investment policy is needed. China shall encourage foreign investors to transfer its patent technology during M&A. China also needs to enhance its antitrust, anti-unfair and national securities review of patent transaction during M&A. China may write its own antitrust guidelines for licensing and concentration of patent, clarify its reviewing standards for national securities. The overseas utilizations of patent by Chinese investors may be blocked because of antitrust, national economic securities and other restrictive measures by foreign governments. The Chinese investors can make best use of the derivatives value of patent assets during overseas M&A. Chinese government shall confer more market status to its companies and reduce its micro-intervention of market in order that the Chinese companies can easily passed relevant regulating reviews. Therefore Chinese companies shall be cautious during overseas patent acquisitions; special attention shall be paid to due diligence, coordination of technologies and relevant tax arrangements.
引文
[1]张乃根.国际贸易的知识产权法(第二版)[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007.
[2]吴汉东.知识产权国际保护制度研究[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2007;古祖雪.国际知识产权法[M].北京:法律出版社,2002;唐广良,董炳和.知识产权的国际保护(修订版)[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2006;向欣,朱雪忠.我国知识产权保护的国际环境分析[M].北京:中国计划出版社,2007.
[3]陈容,张卫.企业并购中知识产权律师职责[J].中国专利与商标,2006,2.
[4]郑成思.知识产权论[M].北京:法律出版社,1998;郑成思.知识产权价值评估中的法律问题[M].北京:法律出版社,1999;魏衍亮.知识产权价值评估问题研究[J].电子知识产权,2006,12.
[5]张乃根.专利许可、标准化与反垄断的三角关系[J].WTO经济导刊,2007,7;张乃根.论与知识产权有关的反垄断法[J].中国工商管理研究,2000,4;王先林.知识产权与反垄断法(知识产权滥用的反垄断问题研究)[M].北京:法律出版社,1998.
[6]郭德忠.专利许可的反垄断规制[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2006.
[7]尹新天.专利权的保护(第二版)[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2005.
[8]吴宏宜.企业并购之智慧财产权相关法律问题研究[D].台湾:东吴大学硕士论文,2005.
[9]张乃根.美国专利法判例选析[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1995;李明德.美国知识产权法[M].北京:法律出版社,2003;王承守,邓颖懋.美国专利诉讼功防策略运用[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006;罗伯特.P.墨杰斯等.新技术时代的知识产权法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003年版;冈田全启.专利商标侵权攻防策略[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2006;张玉敏主编.中国欧盟知识产权法比较研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2005;胡开忠.知识产权法比较研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004.
[10]袁雯卿.专利交易的尽职调查[J].电子知识产权,2007,9.
[11]冯晓青.企业知识产权战略[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2005.
[12]张建军.中美技术出口管理法律制度的比较研究[D].西安:西北大学硕士论文,2004.
[13]Keith Maskus,the Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Encouraging Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Transfer,Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law,1998(9).
[14]Beata Smarzynska,Foreign Direct Investment,Technology and Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Transition Economies,PhD Dissertation of Yale University,1999.
[15]David Klein,Intellectual Property in Mergers and Acquisitions,West Group,2006.
[16]Lanning Bryer,Melvin Seminsky:Intellectual Property Assets in Mergers and Acquisitions,Wiley,2001.
[17]Gary M.Hoffman,et al,Handling Intellectual Property Issues in Business Transactions 2005,Practicing Law Institute,2005.
[18]Richard Razgaitis,Valuation and Pricing of Technology-Based Intellectual Property,Wiley,2002;Gordon V.Smith,Russell L.Parr:Valuation of Intellectual Property and Intangible Assets,John Wiley & Sons,2004.
[19]Howard Knopf,Security Interests in Intellectual Property,Carswell Legal Pubns,2002.
[20]Richard J.Gallafent,Nigel A Eastaway,Victor Dauppe,Intellectual Property Law and Taxation,Sweet&Maxell,2004
[1]彼得.德鲁克.从国际贸易到国际投资[J].世界经济译丛,1988,1.
[2]小岛清.对外贸易论[M].北京:南开大学出版社,1987:423.
[3]吴勤学.中国海外直接投资理论与实务[M].北京:首都经济贸易大学出版社,2006:22.
[4]宋军.跨国并购与经济发展[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2004;6.
[5]曾广胜.跨国并购的新制度经济学分析[M].北京:经济科学出版社,2006:32.
[6]叶军.外资并购中国企业的法律问题[M].北京:法律出版社,2004:116.
[7]UNCTAD:World Investment Report 2000.
[8]UNCTAD:World Investment Report 2005.
[9]World Trade Report 2007[EB/OL].:http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/world_trade_report07_e.pdf
[10]商务部、国家统计局联合发布的《2005年度中国对外直接投资统计公报》
[11]商务部、国家统计局、国家外汇局发布的《2006年度中国对外直接投资统计公报》
[12]普华永道:今年前11个月中国并购交易持续强劲增长[EB/OL].:http://news.xinhuanet.com/newscenter/2007-12/19/content_7281174.htm
[13]罗伯特.P.墨杰斯.新技术时代的知识产权法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[14]OECD:Competition Policy and Intellectual Property Rights,1998.
[15]《1999年世界投资报告》中指出,跨国公司已成为全球经济的核心,在推动经济全球化和世界对外直接投资的高速发展上起到了主导作用。
[16]Bruce Berman(ed.),From Ideas to Assets,John Wiley & Sons,Inc.,2002,pp499-500.
[17]Bin Xu,Eric P.Chiang.Trade,Patents and International Technology Diffusion,Journal of International Trade & Economic Development,2005 Vol.14.
[18]国家知识产权局局长:99%国内企业没申请专利。[EB/OL].:http://news.xinhuanet.com /egal/2006-04/27/content_4479757.htm
[1]诺思·托马斯.西方世界的兴起[M].北京:华夏出版社,1999:8.
[2]诺思·托马斯.西方世界的兴起[M].北京:华夏出版社,1999:191.
[3]Paul M.Romer,Increasing Returns and Long-run Growth,Journal of Political Economy,94(5)1986,pp1002-1037.
[4]曾海帆编著.专利制度发展简史[M].湖南:湖南省科技情报研究所,1985:50.
[5]富田彻男.市场竞争中的知识产权[M].北京:商务印书馆,2000:128.
[6]富田彻男.市场竞争中的知识产权[M].北京:商务印书馆,2000:67.
[7]55 U.S.248(1850)
[8]Donald S.Chisum,et al,Principle of Patent Law,Foundation Press(2004),p532.
[9]本案为美国专利法103条(103条是关于专利必须满足非显而易见性的要求)历史演进的起点,在此案中,最高法院第一次明确只有发明才能获得专利,要构成发明,新技术必须超越一个熟练技工的日常努力。见Martin J.Adelman,etc.,Patent Law,West,2003,p311.
[10]曾海帆编著.专利制度发展简史[M].湖南:湖南省科技情报研究所,1985.
[11]赵桥梁.知识经济与国际关系[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,1999:9.
[12]富田彻男.市场竞争中的知识产权[M].北京:商务印书馆,2000:80.
[13]福田切男.市场竞争中的知识产权[M].北京:商务印书馆,2000:107.
[14]340 U.S.147(1950)
[15]P.J.Federico,Commentary on the New Patent Act,Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society 75,1993,pp183-84.
[16]Graver Tank Mfg.Co.v.Linde Air Products Co.,339 USPQ 328(1950).
[17]曾广胜.跨国并购的新制度经济学分析[M].北京:经济科学出版社,2006:20.
[18]Global Competition:the New Reality,U.S.Government Printing Office.
[19]王晋刚,张铁军.专利化生存[M].北京:知识产权出版社出版,2005:46.
[20]专利战只相信专利[EB/OL].:http://www.cnipr.com/zgzl/zldt/t20080122_96138.htm.
[21]曾广胜.跨国并购的新制度经济学分析[M].北京:经济科学出版社,2006:27.
[22]张乃根.TRIPS协定:理论与实践[M].上海:上海人民出版社2004:260.
[23]甘古力.知识产权:释放知识经济的能量[M].北京:知识产权出版社出版,2004:80.
[24]见WIPO《2007年专利报告》.
[25]刘华.知识产权的理性与绩效分析[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004:154.
[26]杰夫里.弗兰克.经济全球化[A].见约瑟夫·S·奈,约翰·D·唐纳胡主编.全球化世界的治理[M].北京:世界知识出版社,2003:40.
[27]张宇燕.对当今国际格局的几点思考[N].文汇报,2004,3(28):6.
[28]张乃根.TRIPS协定:理论与实践[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2004:8.张乃根教授在文中没有提到国际投资。但本文以为,国际投资与技术进步也存在着必然的连接。没有技术进步所带来的交通、通讯以及其他影响投资的外在因素的飞速进步,导致国际投资的便利,就不可能由近年来国际投资的陡然增长。另外,国际投资所导致的技术扩散效应促进了技术的进一步发展。
[29]Robert A.Mundell,International Trade and Factor Mobility,International Economics,1968,p85-99.
[30]Vernon,Raymond,International Investment and International Trade in the Product Cycle, Quarterly Journal of Economics 80(2)(1966),pp190-207.
[31]Hymer,The International Operations of Firms:A Study of Direct Investment,MIT(1976),P1-41,P167-191.
[32]孔淑红,梁明.国际投资学[M].北京:对外经济贸易大学出版社,2001:82-87.
[33]曾广胜.跨国并购的新制度经济学分析[M].北京:经济科学出版社,2006:75.
[34]John Dunning,The Eclectic Paradigm of International Production:A Restatement and Some Possible Extensions,Journal of International Business Studies,14(1)(1988),pp1-31.
[35]包群等.外商直接投资、吸收能力与经济增[M].上海:上海三联书店,2006:12.
[36]叶学峰,魏江.基于核心竞争能力的购并整合[J].科研管理,2002,03.
[37]候汉波.中国企业战略并购熵决策理论与应用研究[M].北京:知识产权出版社出版,2007:12.
[38]W.Carl Kester,Today's options for tomrrow's Growth,Harvard Business Review,Mar 1984.
[39]美国商务部在1998、1999年分别发布了《浮现中的数字经济》,《新兴的数字经济》报告。
[40]宋丙洛.全球化和知识化时代的经济学[M].北京:商务印书馆,2003:90.
[41]斯泰尔等编.技术创新与经济绩效[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2005:30.
[42]甘古力.知识产权:释放知识经济的能量[M].北京:知识产权出版社出版,2004:15.
[43]日、美企业专利谋略:佳能连续第10年进入三甲[EB/OL].:http://tech.sina.com.cn/roll/2003-06-03/1453194090.shtml
[44]专利许可收入占三分之一:高通业务模式遭质疑[EB/OL].:http://tech.tom.com/2007-01-29/04BC/09364628.html
[45]胡倬.初探专利制度对世界经济发展的贡献[J].知识产权,2002,05.
[46]Alain Pompidou,Patent protection "key to Europe's knowledge economy[EB/OL].:http://www.alphagalileo.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=readreIease&releaseid=515768&ez_search=1
[47]Lanning Bryer,Melvin Seminsky,Intellectual Property Assets in Mergers and Acquisitions,Wiley,2001,p2.3.
[48]世界经济论坛发布的(2007-2008年度全球竞争力报告》认为中国的创新能力位于世界第38位。
[49]见《2006年世界投资报告(中文版)》,第35页。
[50]聂莹.兼并收购Vs知识产权-从联想购并IBM PC业务看知识产权兼并与收购,[N].中国知识产权报,2005,3(21).
[51]植草益.微观规制经济学[M].北京:中国发展出版社,1992:2.
[52]丹尼尔.史普博.管制与市场[M].上海:上海三联书店,上海人民出版社年版,1999:45.
[53]见《中国禁止进口限制进口技术目录》中的参考原则。
[1]Peter Howson,Due Diligence:The Critical Stage in Mergers and Acquisitions,Gower Publishing Company,2003,p4.
[2]郑翘楚编著.企业专利战略[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2006:216.
[3]波特五力分析与专利情报收集[EB/OL].:http://cdnet.stpi.org.tw/techroom/pclass/pclass_A021.htm
[4]波特五力分析与专利情报收集[EB/OL].:http://cdnet.stpi.org.tw/techroom/pclass/pclass_A021.htm
[5]见《英国专利法》第三十九条的规定
[6]法国、俄罗斯和意大利则采取雇员发明的原始权利属于雇主的制度,在美国,获得专利的原始权利属于发明人,无论该发明是否属于职务发明,但该获得专利的权利是否由雇主继受,则由雇用合同规定,或者通过各州的法律来调整,事实上,在美国大多数职务发明通过雇佣合同方式转移给雇主。见JPO发布《雇员发明制度改进报告》,[EB/OL].:http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo/xwdt/gwzscqxx/2004/200608/t20060804_106177.htm
[7]见《中华人民共和国专利法》第六条的规定
[8]Donald S.Chisum,et al,Principle of Patent Law,Foundation Press,2004,p532.
[9]Martin J.Adelman,et al,Cases and Materials on Patent Law,West Group,2003,p308.
[10]该案例的具体情况见,Klaus Jennewein.Intellectual Property Management:the Role of Technology-Brands in the Appropriation of Technological Innovation,Physica-Vedag Heidelberg,2005:pp28-66.
[11]见《美国专利法》第二百五十一条的规定
[12]美国专利文献[EB/OL].:http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo/wxfw/zlwxyxxzsyd/gzlwxjs/200608/P020060802523525582019.doc
[13]550 U.S.___,127 S.Ct.1727.
[14]In Re Zieger,992 F.2d 1197,26 USPQ2d 1600(Fed.Cir.1993).
[15]Robert C.Faber,Landis on Mechanics of Patent Claim Drafting,Practising Law Institute,2005,pp3-76.
[16]Graver Tank & Mfg.Co.v.Linde Air Prods.Co.,339 U.S.605(1950).
[17]Streamfeeder,LLC v.Sure-Feed Systems,Inc.,175 F.3d 974(Fed.Cir.1999)
[18]Festo Corp.v.Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.,535 U.S.722,741(2002).
[19]见《美国专利法》第二百七十一条(c)款的规定
[20]见《美国专利法》第二百七十一条(b)款的规定
[21]Festo Corp.v.Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.,535 U.S.722,731(2002).
[22]Festo Corp.v.Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.,535 U.S.722,731(2002).
[23]R.Polk Wagner & Lee Petherbridge,Is the Federal Circuit Succeeding?An Empirical Assessment of Judicial Performance,152 University of Pennsylvania Law Review,2004,p1105.
[24]John R.Allison & Mark A.Lemley,Empirical Evidence on the Validity of Litigated Patents,26 AIPLA Q.J.1998,p185,208.
[25]Anatole Krattiger,et al(eds),Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation:A Handbook of Best Practices,Volume 1,MIHR & PIPRA(2007),p 811.
[26]Richard Razgaitis,Valuation and Pricing of Technology-Based Intellectual Property,Wiley,2003,pp316-317.
[27]Anatole Krattiger,et al(eds),Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation:A Handbook of Best Practices,Volume 1,MIHR & PIPRA(2007),pp 821-830.
[28]Anatole Krattiger,et al(eds),Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation:A Handbook of Best Practices.Volume 1,MIHR & PIPRA(2007),pp833-838.
[29]Georgia-Pacific Corp.,v.U.S.Plywood Corp.,318 E Supp.1116,1120(S.D.N.Y.1970),modified,446 E 2d 295(2d Cir.),cert.denied,404 U.S.870(1970)
[30]Anatole Krattiger,et al(eds),Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation:A Handbook of Best Practices.Volume 1,MIHR & PIPRA(2007),pp830-833.
[31]Derek Bosworth,Elizabeth Webster(eds),The Management of Intellectual Property,Edward Elgar Pub,2006,p273.
[32]Richard Razgaitis,Valuation and Pricing of Technology-Based Intellectual Property,Wiley (2003),p223.
[33]Anatole Krattiger,et al(eds),Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation:A Handbook of Best Practices.Volume 1,MIHR&PIPRA(2007),pp852-854.
[34]郭洁.实物期权理论在专利权价值评估中的应用[J].财会月刊,2007,04.
[35]Am.Intellectual Property Law Ass'n,Report of the 2005 Economic Survey 22(2005).
[36]Robert P.Merges,Commercial Success and Patent Standards:Economic Perspective on Innovation,76 CAL.L.Rev.803,867 & n.260,868,1988.
[37]见中国《企业会计准则-无形资产》
[38]张爱珠.知识产权会计[M].北京:中国物资出版社,2005:65.
[39]J Jay Dratler,Jr.,,知识产权许可(上)[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2003:287.
[40]379 U.S.29,33
[41]Georgia-Pacific Corp.,v.U.S.Plywood Corp.,318 F.Supp.1116,1120(S.D.N.Y.1970),modified,446 F.2d 295(2d Cir.),cert.denied,404 U.S.870(1970)
[42]35 U.S.C 284(1994)
[43]716 F.2d 1550,1562,219 USPQ 377,386(Fed.Cir.1983)
[44]Hanson v.Alpine Valley Ski Area,Inc.,718 F.2d 1075,1078(Fed.Cir.1983)
[45]Panduit Corp.v.Stahlin Bros.Fibre Works,Inc.,575 F.2d 1152,116 n.11(6th Cir.1978)
[46]Deere & Co.V.International Harvester Co.,218 U.S.P.Q.403,407(C.D.Ill.1982).联邦巡回法院最后认同了下级法院的主张。Deere & Co.V.International Harvester Co.,710 F.2d 1551,218 USPQ 403(Fed.Cir.1983)
[47]OECD,Patent Manual(1994),p51.
[1]美日欧三局签署《专利申请谅解备忘录》[EB/OL].:http://www.sjpo.gov.cn/sipo/xwdt/gwzscqxx/2007/200711/t20071126_220932.htm
[2]张乃根.国际贸易的知识产权法(第二版)[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007:62.
[3]文希凯.《专利法条约》将在10国生效[EB/OL].:http://www.sipo.gov.cn/Sipo/xwdt/gwzscqxx/2005/200608/t20060804_105804.htm.
[4]Keith E.Maskus,Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy,Institute for International Economics,2000.
[5]Lee Branstetter,Raymond Fisman,and Fritz Foley,Do Stronger Intellectual Property Rights Increase International Technology Transfer? Empirical Evidence from U.S.Firm-Level Panel Data,World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No.3305,2004.
[6]Carlos M.Correa,Can the TRIPS agreement Foster Technology Transfer to Developing Countries? In International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology Under a Globalized Intellectual Property Regime,Keith E.Maskus & Jerome H.Reichman eds.,Cambridge University Press,2005,p254.
[7]Intellectual Property Rights:Implications for Development,UNCTAD-ICTSD Policy Discussion Paper,2003.
[8]Fredrick M.Abbott,Toward a New Era of Objective Assessment in the Field of TRIPS and Variable Geometry for the Preservation of Multilateralism,Journal of International Economic Law,2005 8(1),pp77-100.
[9]本文以为各国程序方面的最大差异可能就是先中请制与先发明制之间的差异,然而美国2007年《专利改革法案》对专利中请的先发明制度进行了改革,以先中请制取代先发明制,预计这样的差别不久就能消失。
[10]Diamond.v.Chakrabarty,447 U.S.303(1980).
[11]87 U.S.498(1874) 87 U.S.498.
[12]USPTO:Manual of Patent Examining Procedure.
[13]罗伯特.P.墨杰斯.新技术时代的知识产权法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:119.
[14]47 U.S.P.Q 2d 1596.(Fed Cir.1998).
[15]Hotel Security Checking Co.V Lorraine Co 106 F,467(2nd Cir.1908).
[16]见《欧洲专利条约》第五十二条第二款的规定
[17]见《欧洲专利条约》第五十三条的规定
[18]颜上咏,陈帝利.欧洲与美国商业方法专利学理之研究[J].东海大学法学研究,2004,12:276.
[19]张乃根.美国专利法判例选析[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1995:64.
[20]见《美国专利法》第一百零二条(a)款规定
[21]见《欧洲专利条约》第五十四条第二款规定
[22]KSR INTERNATIONAL CO.v.TELEFLEX INC.ETAL.550 U.S.___(2007)
[23]对于此标准,CAFC认为大多数发明源丁已有要素的组合,每一个已有要素都能存在丁现有技术中。然而,在发明中识别出现有技术并不能有效的反驳作为组合发明作为整体的可专利性。Rouffett,149 F.3d.对于由已知要素组合而成的发明来说,要驳斥其专利的非显而易见性,审查员或法院必须清楚指明其做出显而易见结论的基础。实践中,这要求审查员或法院解释该领域的普通技术人员会受剑明确清晰的教导或启示米选择这样的参考(references)从而将他们组合起来。
[24]有律师认为,美国联邦法院在Teleflex案的判决,增加了判断专利权利要求具有非显而易见性的难度,尤其对商业方法、软什专利的影响非常明显。见美国专利司法审判出现四大新动向[EB/OL].:http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo/xwdt/gwzscqxx/2007/200711/t20071129_222038.htm.
[25]罗伯特.P.墨杰斯.新技术时代的知识产权法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:136.
[26]Guy Tritton,Intellectual Property in Europe,Sweet & Maxwell,2002,p103.
[27]李明德.美国知识产权法[M].北京:法律出版社,2003:54.
[28]Guy Tritton,Intellectual Property in Europe,Sweet & Maxwell,2002,p 142.
[29]C-35/87 Thetford v.Fiamma[1988]E.C.R.3585.
[30]见《英国专利法》第六十条的规定
[31]见《德国专利法》第九条的规定
[32]WT/DS114/R
[33]Donald S.Chisum,Common and Civil Law Approaches to Patent Claim Interpretation:'Fence Posts'and 'Sign Posts',In Intellectual Property in the New MillenniumEssays in Honour of William R.Cornish,David Vaver & Lionel Bently Donald S.Chisum(eds),Cambridge University Press,2004.
[34]董涛.专利权利要求[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:189.
[35]闫文军.专利权的保护范围:权利要求解释和等同原则适用[M].北京:法律出版社,2007:168.
[36]闫文军.专利权的保护范围:权利要求解释和等同原则适用[M].北京:法律出版社,2007:436.
[37]Daniel Slottje,Economic Damages in Intellectual Property:A Hands-On Guide to Litigation,Wiley.2006,p95.
[38]在德国经商过程中的知识产权风险,[EB/OL].:http://china.ahk.de/ch/germany/business-regulations /ip-risk/
[39]Article 45 of TRIPS
[40]Ashley Roughton,Trevor Cook and Michael Spence,the Modern Law of Patents,Lexisnexis Butterworths,2005,p112.
[41]格拉茨尔.商务专利战略[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2001:218.
[42]威廉 M 兰德斯,理查德 A 波斯纳.知识产权法的经济结构[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005:426.
[43]Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss,the Federal Circuit:A Case Study in Specialized Courts,New York University Review 1,26,1989,64.
[44]威廉M兰德斯,理查德A波斯纳.知识产权法的经济结构[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005:446.
[45]吴欣望.专利经济学[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2005:73.
[46]独占被许可人可以通过强制要求专利权人作为共同原告提起共同诉讼,从而在实际效果上拥有提起侵权之诉的权利。Jay Drafter,Jr.,.知识产权许可(下)[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2003:775.
[47]见《日本专利法》第一百条的规定
[48]Wang Lab.,Inc.v.Mitsubishi Elecs.Am.,Inc.,103 F.3d 1571,1580,41 USPQ2d 1263,1271(Fed.Cir.1997).
[49]Medeco Security Locks,Inc.v.Lock Technology Corp.,199 U.S.P.Q.(BNA)519,524(S.D.N.Y.1976)
[50]彼德·高赫.理性人:瑞士债法中的人像[A].见:民商法论丛第35卷[C].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[51]De Forest Radio Telephone Co.v.United States,273 U.S.241(1927)
[52]Wang Lab.,Inc.v.Mitsubishi Elecs.Am.,Inc.,103 F.3d 1581.
[53]A.C.Aukerman Co.v.R.L.Chaides Constr.Co.,960 F.2d 1020,1042-43,22 USPQ 2d 1321,1335-36(Fed.Cir.1992)(en banc).
[54]Untied States v.General Elec.Co.,272 U.S.476,489-90(1926)
[55]Security Materials Co.v.Mixermobile Co.,72 E Supp.450,456,75 USPQ 58,63(S.D.Cal.1947)
[56]Dunkley Co.v.California Packing Corporation,277.F.996(C.C.A.2d Cir.1921).
[57]389 F.2d 448,156 USPQ 647(Ct.Cl),cert.denied,391 U.S.964(1968).
[58]帕拉等著.技术许可战略:企业经营战略的利剑[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2006:118.
[59]参见《中华人民共和国专利法实施细则》第十五条的规定。
[60]PaulMcGubbess,Intellectual Property Commercialization - a Business Manager's Companion,LexisNexis Butterworths Australian,2003,p227.
[61]按照布莱克法律词典的含义,转让(assignment)其含义为转移(transfer or making over)任何动产(personal)或不动产(real),占有(in possession)的或诉讼中(in action)或财产(estate)以及其中的权利财产的全部。Black's Law Dictionary 119(6th ed.1990)。但是就专利领域而言,转让具有特定的含义,在Waterman v.MacKenzie案(138 U.S.252(1891))中美国最高法院认为转让下列三种利益构成专利的转让:转移整个专利的行为,包括在美国独占的制造、使用以及出售专利的权利;二为独占权的不可分割部分;三为在美国以及指定区域的专利的独占权。根据最高法院的要求,专利的转移必须是书面的,最高法院认为在第一、三种情况下受让人可以单独起诉侵权人,而第二种情形下与转让人一起可以起诉侵权人。缺乏上述特征的专利移转不构成专利的转让,受让人不能对专利不享有所有权(title),更不能以其自己的名义起诉侵权人。
[62]Eickmeyer v.C.I.R.,580 F.2d 395,398,199 USPQ 77,80(10th Cir.1978);26 U.S.C 1235(2000).
[63]朱榄叶,刘晓红.知识产权法律冲突与解决问题研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2004:225.
[64]不管是普通法系国家。还是大陆法系国家,专利权一般只能在权利创造的地点获得保护。 Marta Sender,Cross-border Enforcement of Patent Rights,Oxford University Press,2002,p24.
[65]见《中华人民共和国专利法》第十条的规定
[66]富兰克.H.奈特.风险、不确定与利润[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:216.
[67]富兰克.H.奈特.风险、不确定与利润[M].北京:中国人民人学出版社,2005:231.
[68]布莱恩,R.柴芬斯.公司法:理论、结构和运作[M].北京:法律出版社,2001:64.
[69]刘剑文.国际所得税法研究[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000:250.
[70]J.Clifton Fleming,Jr.,Domestic Section 351 Transfers of Intellectual Property:The:Law as It is vs.The Law as the Commisssioner would prefer it to be,16 J.Corp.Tax n.99,1989,
[71]30 Del.Code §1902(b)(8)
[72]437 S.E.2nd(S.C.1993)
[73]Dennis S.Fernandez,Esq;Inna S.Shestul,Effective International Intellectual Property Strategies to Mitegate U.S.Taxes[EB/OL].:www.iploft.com/Tax-Article.pdf.
[74]马忠法.国际技术转让法律制度理论与实务研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2007:93.
[75]马忠法.国际技术转让法律制度理论与实务研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2007:93.
[76]Jay Dratler,Jr.,.知识产权许可(上)[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2003:174.
[77]见TRIPS协议第四十条的规定
[78]如印度《1970年专利法》第一百四十条规定,禁止供方限制受方从除供方或其制定的供应商以外的其他渠道引进技术或购买所需的产品和设备或专利方法,或限制受方购买或租用专利产品,或从供方获取生产或使用专利产品的许可。2002年印度修改专利法时,增加了排他性回授,阻止质疑专利有效性和强迫性“一揽子”许可等内容。台湾地区专利法第六十条规定,发明专利权之让与或授权,契约约定有禁止或限制受让人使用某项物品或非出让人、授权人所供给之方法,或要求受让人购买术受专利保障之出品或原料,致生不公平竞争者,其约定无效。
[1]W.K Tom and J.A Newberg,Antitrust and Intellectual Property:from Separate Spheres to Unified Field,1997,66 Antitrust Law Journal,p167,172.
[2]Zenith Radio Corp.v.Hazeltine Research,395 U.S.100,130(1969).
[3]United States v.Masonite Corp.,316 US.265,280(1942).
[4]United States v Loew's,371 US 38(1960)
[5]In re Independent Service Organizations Antitrust Litigation,203 E3d 1322(Fed.Cir.2000)
[6]E.Bement & Sons v.National Harrow Co.,186 US 70,91(1902).
[7]Nancy T.Gallini and Michael J.Trebilcock,Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Policy:A Framework for Analysis of Economic and Legal Issues,in Robert D.Anderson and Nancy T.Gallini(eds),Competition Policy and Intellectual Property Rights in the Knowledge-Based Economics,pp17-64,the Industry Canada Research Series,Calgary:University of Calgary Press.
[8]杨明.知识产权请求权研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005:94-99.
[9]美国1995年《知识产权许可的反托拉斯指南》指出,适用于有形或无形资产的相同的一般反垄断的原则应该适用于与知识产权的相关行为。
[10]Ilkka Rahnasto,Intellectual Property Rights,External Effects and Anti-Trust Law:Leveraging IPRs in the Communications Industry,Oxford University Press(2003),p60.
[11]Antitrust Enforcement and IP Rights:Promoting Innovation and Competition(FTC/USDOC)April 2007
[12]Case 78/70 Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft v.Metro-SB-Grossmarkte[1971]C.M.L.R.631
[13]Baxter,Legal Restrictions on Exploitation of the Patent Monopoly:An Economic Analysis,76YALELJ.267,1966.
[14]如中国新近制定的反垄断法在第一条就强调了反垄断提高经济运行效率的目的。有学者指出:竞争政策以追求经济效率为目标,在这一点上意见基本一致。见吴小丁.反垄断与经济发展-日本竞争政策研究[M].北京:商务印书馆,2006:46.
[15]辜海笑.美国反托拉斯理论与政策[M].北京:中国经济出版社,2005:56.
[16]美国《知识产权许可的反托拉斯指南》第四条第二款
[17]美国《知识产权许可的反托拉斯指南》第五条第七款
[18]董红霞.美国欧盟横向并购指南研究[M].北京:中国经济出版社,2007:255.
[19]对于许可的商业利益见Jay Dratler,Jr.,.知识产权许可(上)[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2003:13-23.
[20]见Jay Dratler,Jr.,.知识产权许可(上)[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2003:24-30.
[21]伊利奇.考夫.专利经济学[M].北京:北京大学出版,2005:30.
[22]李玉剑.专利联盟:战略联盟研究的新领域[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2006:121.
[23]Carl Shapiro,Navigating the Patent Thicket:Cross Licenses,Patent Pools,and Standard-Setting,[EB/OL].:http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/shapiro/thicket.pdf
[24]Heller,M.A,The Tragedy of the Anticommons.Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets,Harvard Law Review,1998,111.
[25]美国《知识产权许可的反托拉斯指南》第二条第一款
[26]Steven D.Anderman & John Kallaugher,Technology Transfer and the New EU Competition Rules:Intellectual Property Licensing after Modernization,Oxford University Press,2006,p39.
[27]所谓表面的反竞争性是指一般处于本身违法的限制,一直或几乎一直倾向于减低产量或提高价格的其他限制。
[28]《关于适用欧盟条约八十一条关丁技术转移协议指南的通知》第一百三十一段
[29]《关于适用欧盟条约八十一条关于技术转移协议指南的通知》第二十五段
[30]谓技术市场问的竞争是指使用竞争技术的企业间的竞争。
[31]所谓技术市场内的竞争是指使用相同技术的企业之间的竞争。
[32]Image Technical Services,Inc.v.Eastman Kodak Co.,125 F.3d 1195(9th Cir.1997)
[33]In Re Independent Service Organizations Antitrust Litigation,203 E3d 1322(Fed C 2000).
[34]Robert C.Lind,Anya V.Kleymenova,Marie Miauton and Paul Muysert.Report on Multiparty Licensing,Prepared for the European Commission(EC) by Charles River Associates (CRA) to assist the Directorate General for Competition in its Review of the Application of Article 81(1) and(3) to Patent Pools and Cross Licensing of Intellectual Property,p48-49.转引自张平.专利联营之反垄断规制分析[J].现代法学,2007,03.
[35]Federal Trade Commission Staff Report,Anticipating the 21st Century:Competition Policy in the New High-Tech Global Marketplace,1996,p14.
[36]专利权滥用原则与反垄断法有复杂的关系,其原因专利滥用原则的目的与反垄断法的目的存在相似之处,而反垄断法规制的行为和专利权滥用行为很多是相同的。专利权滥用执行的是反垄断政策,但美国最高法院和联邦巡同上诉法院都指出,构成专利滥刚并不一定达到垄断的程度。这就是说,专利滥用的标准低于垄断的标准。提出反垄断指控者必须证明,所指控的行为已经或可能产生损害竞争的后果,但提出专利滥用抗辩的人不必提出类似证据。有学者认为,专利权滥用与违反反垄断法的行为存在以下三个方面的区别:第一,与反垄断诉求不同,专利权滥用是盾而不是矛。它使得被控侵权人免于因其侵权行为受到法律制裁,但是它不能为被控侵权人提供要求金钱或禁令救济的基础;第二,虽然违反反垄断法的行为一般足以构成专利滥用,但专利权滥用并不必然违反反垄断法;法院已经发现在专利权滥用情形下并不存在违反反垄断法的行为;第三,与违反反垄断法的行为不同,专利权滥用 可以得到矫正。参见:Jay Dratler,JL,.知识产权许可(上)[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2003:488页.See also Mark A.Lemley,The Economic Irrationality of the Patent Misuse Doctrine,78 Calif.L.Rev.1599,1990.
[37]这意味着此时知识产权许可的“安全区制度”对知识产权的转让的并购分析不适用。所谓安全区是指:若不特殊情况,主管机关将不会对知识产权许可安排中的限制提出质疑,如果(1)该限制不具有明显的反竞争性以及(2)在受该限制实质性影响的相关市场上,许可人和被许可人的合计市场份额不超过20%。
[38]卫新江.欧盟美国企业合并反垄断规制比较研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005:35.
[39]欧盟先前采用支配地位标准,随着执法实践和经济理论研究的深入,2004年欧盟部长理事会通过了修改的《理事会关于企业之间集中控制条例》,对1989年条例进行了大幅度修改。欧盟修改后的标准采用严重妨碍有效竞争标准(significantly impedes effective competition)代替以往的支配地位标准,并注重效率问题,在一定程度上表现出与美国并购规制分析框架和标准的趋同。见董红霞.美国欧盟横向并购指南研究[M].北京:中国经济出版社,2007:212.
[40]《中华人民共和国反垄断法》第五十五条规定:经营者滥用知识产权,排除、限制竞争的行为,适用本法。
[41]Commission Notice on the Concept of undertaking concerned,OJ 1998 C 66/14
[42]Jochen Burdchter,Hengeler Miiller,Intellectual Property and Merger Control(Germany/EU)[EB/OL].:http://www.eui.eu/RSCAS/Research/Competition/2005/200510-CompDurand.pdf
[43]王晓晔.滥用知识产权限制竞争的法律问题[J].中国社会科学,2007,04.
[44]李慧颖.论与知识产权有关的经营者集中[J].电子知识产权,2007,07.
[45]《欧共体竞争法中界定相关市场的通告》第七条
[46]Queen City Pizza,.Inc.v.Domino's Pizza,Inc.,124 F.3d 430(3d Cir.1997).
[47]Queen City Pizza,Inc.v.Domino's Pizza,Inc.,124 E3d 430(3d.Cir.1997)
[48]Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Mozelle W.Thompson FTC File No.021-0026[EB/OL].:http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/01/thompsongenzymestmt.pdf
[49]Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Mozelle W.Thompson FTC File No.021-0026[EB/OL].:http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/01/thompsongenzymestmt.pdf.
[50]该指南2007年9月28日由日本公平贸易委员会发布。日本公平贸易委员会为日本的竞争执法机构。该指南的全文见[EB/OL].:http://www.jflc.go.jp/e-page/pressreleases/2007/September/070928_IP_Guideline.pdf
[51]《欧共体竞争法中界定相关市场的通告》第八条
[52]Simon Bishop,Mike Walker.Economics of EC Competition Law,Sweet&Maxwell,1999,p.65.
[53]Case IV/M 269,[1994]O I L 332/48;[1996]4 C.M.L.R.469.
[54]HHI指数是依据市场中所有公司的市场占有率平方加总得出。
[55]罗伯特.P.墨杰斯.新技术时代的知识产权法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:902.
[56]罗伯特.P.墨杰斯新技术时代的知识产权法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:903.
[57]Silicon Graphics,C-3626(FRC Consent Order Nov.14,1995).
[58]Commission Notice Guidelines on the Application of Art.81 of the EC Treaty to Technology Transfer Agreements,OJ 2004,C 101/2-42.
[59]见吴小丁.反垄断与经济发展-日本竞争政策研究[M].北京:商务印书馆,2006:46.日本垄断法下的知识产权利用指南也明确指出在根据垄断法评价对技术使用限制时,作为一般规则,需要考虑其影响了那些交易,然后对限制进行考量以决定是否在交易发生的市场竞争受到了减损。竞争是否受到减损需要从实质性的对竞争的限制以及不公平的贸易做法两个方面进行审查。
[60]Cephalon,Inc./Cima Labs,Inc.,FTC Docket No.C-4121.
[61]Commission Notice on restrictions directly related and necessary to concentrations(2005/C 56/03).
[62]Francois Leveque,Howard Shelanski(eds),Merger Remedies in American and European Union Competition Law,Edward Elgar Publishing,2004,p108.
[63]Francois Leveque,Howard Shelanski(eds),Merger Remedies in American and European Union Competition Law,Edward Elgar Publishing,2004,p163.
[64]Chapter 8 of the FTC Report Anticipating the 21st Century:Competition Policy in the New High-Tech,Global Marketplace.
[65]Besser Mfg.Co.v.United States,343 U.S.444,447(1952)
[66]Laura D'Andrea Tyson,"McBoeing" Should Be Cleared for Takeoff,Wall St.J.,July 22,1997,pA10.
[67]Eleanor M.Fox,Extraterritoriality and the Merger Law:Can All Nations Rule the World,Antitrust Rep.,Dec.1999,p2.
[68]WTO,Report(2000) of the Working Group on the Interaction between Trade and Competition Policy to the General Council,para.58,WT/WGTCP/4,30 November 2000.
[69]Josef Drexl,International Competition Law -A Missing Link between TRIPs and Transfer of Technology,[EB/OL].:http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/meetings /2003/wipo_wto/presentations/doc/drexl.doc
[70]这方面的具体介绍,请参阅张乃根.国际贸易与知识产权法(第二版)[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007. 产权的、国有企业以知识产权许可外国公司、企业、其他经济组织或个人使用,市场没有参照价格的等必须进行评估,而非国有单位合并涉及知识产权的,可以参照国有企业进行资产评估。
[4]国家税务总局关于北京松下彩色显像管有限公司支付技术提成费征免进口环节增值税问题的函
[5]国税发[2005]45号
[6]国税发[2000]119号
[7]国税函[2002]165号
[8]国税函[2004]279号
[9]袁晓东.激励技术创新的法律制度研究[M].武汉:华中科技大学出版社,2007:228.
[10]见台湾地区所得税法第四条第一项第二十一款
[11]姚君,朱雪忠.现行税制不利于知识产权发展的表现及对策[J]..经济研究参考,2006,06
[12]在上海电气集团的上海人造扳机器厂的收购案中,上海人造板机器厂最初答应世界最大的人造板机器制造商辛北尔康普收购,但收购的前提是其必须转移相关的迮续压机的技术,因为上海人造板机器厂在此项目上投入的研发将近10年,但进展不大。但辛北尔康普公司拒绝向合资企业转移相关技术,此收购案最终告吹。最后,上海人造板机器厂与一家德国公司合资,因为其答应向其转移连续压机的核心技术。
[13]商务部牵头“听证”徐工三天连遇数十问,[EB/OL].:http://news.xinhuanet.com/fortune/2006-07/28/content_4886452.htm
[14]朱宏文.现代反垄断法的发展与我国的反垄断立法-企业合并控制为中心.社会科学研究[J].2001,(3).
[15]制造业:技术落后是最大不安全,[EB/OL].:http://www.eis.org.cn/pub/readMsg.jsp?msgID=11268
[16]《禁止进口限制进口技术管理办法》第八条
[17]《中华人民共和国技术进出口管理条例》第七条
[18]发改工业[2007]2515号
[19]《进口贴息资金管理暂行办法》,财企[2007]205号
[20]《进口贴息资金管理暂行办法》,财企[2007]205号
[21]国税发[2005]45号
[22]六国“国家安全审查”制度,[EB/OL].:http://www.caijjng.com.cn/newcn/aml/tgtg/2007-08-30/28568.shtml
[23]杨雪婷,于伟敏等.盘点2005年中国企业海外并购:联想一波三折[N].北京现代商报,2005,12(27).
[24]《克莱顿法》第七条
[25]Council Regulation(EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings(the EC Merger Regulation)
[26]《欧盟并购条例》(the EC Merger Regulation)第一条,全称为《理事会关于企业之间集中控制条例》(Council Regulation(EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the Control of Concentrations between Undertakings)
[27]Rachel Brandenburger & Thomas Jassens,European Merger Control:Do the Checks and Balances Need to be Re-set,Speech before Fordham Corporate Law Instititute's 28th Annual Conference.
[28]Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines,[EB/OL].:http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/2614.pdf
[29]Guidelines on the assessment of non-horizontal mergers under the Council Regulationon the control of concentrations between undertakings
[30]张建军.中美技术出口管理法律制度的比较研究[D].西安:西北大学硕士论文,2004.
[31]冯震宇.高科技产业之法律策略与规划[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005:85
[32]这些免税的具体情况见冯震宇.高科技产业之法律策略与规划[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005:85-87.
[33]胡果威.美国公司法.法律出版社[M].北京:法律出版社,199:88-89.
[34]赵旭东主编.新公司法制度设计.[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:279.
[35]Ronald Cuming Q.C..加拿大及美国的知识产权担保法发展概述[J].中国发明与专利,2006.11.
[36]In re Peregrine Entertainment,Ltd.,116 Bankr.194.16 U.S.P.Q 2d 1017
[37]City Bank & Trust Co.v.Otto Fabric Inc.,83 Bankr.780,U.S.P.Q 2d 1719
[38]Howard Knopf,Security Interests in Intellectual Property,Carswell Legal Pubns,2002,p64.
[39]柳传志:联想并购IBM初步成功获三样成果[EB/OL]:http://www.techweb.com.cn/people/2007-12-11/279036.shtml
[1]陈容,张卫.企业并购中知识产权律师职责[J].中国专利与商标,2006,02.
[2]陈伟,于丽艳.企业国际化经营知识产权战略系统耦合研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2007,12.
[3]曹阳.国际知识产权制度:冲突、规范与非国家行为体[J].知识产权,2007,02.
[4]曹阳.专利的非显而易见性判断－对美国最高法院在Teleflex案判决的解析[J].北方法学,2008,02.
[5]董新凯.我国股东以专利投资的相关法律问题[J].学术论坛,2007,11.
[6]郭洁.实物期权理论在专利权价值评估中的应用[J].财会月刊,2007,04.
[7]胡倬.初探专利制度对世界经济发展的贡献[J].知识产权,2002,05.
[8]焦洪涛,林小爱.知识产权资产证券化[J].科技与法律2004,01.
[9]李慧颖.论与知识产权有关的经营者集中[J].电子知识产权,2007,07.
[10]马忠法.知识产权制度设立之目的知识产权制度设立之目的--由我国技术转化率低引发的思考[J].电子知识产权,2006,11.
[11]马忠法.试论我国向外转让专利权制度的完善[J].复旦学报,2007,05.
[12]魏衍亮.知识产权评估问题研究[J].电子知识产权,2006,12.
[13]吴汉东.知识产权本质的多维度解读[J].中国法学,2006,05.
[14]吴汉东.关于知识产权私权属性的再认识--兼评“知识产权公权化”理论.社会科学[J].2005,10.
[15]王晓晔.滥用知识产权限制竞争的法律问题[J].中国社会科学,2007,04.
[16]王岩.知识产权的财务应用--兼谈知识资产的资本化与证券化[J].知识产权,2007,05.
[17]姚君.促进我国知识产权发展的税制改革研究[J].经济师,2006,11.
[28]姚君,朱雪忠.现行税制不利于知识产权发展的表现及对策[J].经济研究参考,2006,06.
[18]姚君,朱雪忠.促进我国知识产权发展的税制改革研究[J].经济师,2006,11.
[19]袁雯卿.专利交易的尽职调查[J].电子知识产权,2007,9.
[20]叶学峰,魏江.基于核心竞争能力的购并整合[J].科研管理,2002,03.
[21]杨春鹏,伍海华.实物期权在专利权价值评估中的应用[J].系统工程理论与实践,2002,06.
[22]余振刚,邱菀华,余振华.我国知识产权证券化理论与发展策略研究[J].科学学研究,2007,06.
[23]颜上咏,陈帝利.欧洲与美国商业方法专利学理之研究[J].东海大学法学研究,2004,12.
[24]赵晨.专利价值评估的方法与实务[J].电子知识产权,2006,11.
[25]张乃根.国际经济关系的技术因素及其法律影响[J].复旦学报,2001,01.
[26]张乃根.专利许可、标准化与反垄断的三角关系[J].WTO经济导刊,2007,07
[27]张乃根.论与知识产权有关的反垄断法[J].中国工商管理研究,2000,4.
[28]张乃根.TRIPS专利条款比较研究[J].研究与发展管理,1996,04.
[29]张平.专利联营之反垄断规制分析[J].现代法学,2007,03.
[30]Ronald Cuming Q.C..加拿大及美国的知识产权担保法发展概述[J].中国发明与专利.2006.11.
[1]布莱恩,R.柴芬斯.公司法:理论、结构和运作[M].北京:法律出版社,2001.
[2]包群等.外商直接投资、吸收能力与经济增[M].上海:上海三联书店,2006.
[3]陈昌柏.知识产权战略--知识产权在经济增长中的优化配置[M].北京:科学出版社,1999.
[4]程永顺.中国专利诉讼[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2005.
[5]蔡四青.国际技术贸易与知识产权[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2007.
[6]董涛.专利权利要求[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[7]董红霞.美国欧盟横向并购指南研究[M].北京:中国经济出版社,2007.
[8]丹尼尔.史普博.管制与市场[M].上海:上海三联书店,上海人民出版社年版,1999.
[9]大卫·D·弗里德曼著.经济学语境下的法律规则[M].北京:法律出版社,2004.
[10]冯晓青.企业知识产权战略[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2005.
[11]冯晓青.知识产权法利益平衡理论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2006.
[12]冯震宇.高科技产业之法律策略与规划[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[13]富兰克.H.奈特.风险、不确定与利润[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[14]干春晖.并购经济学[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2004.
[15]辜海笑.美国反托拉斯理论与政策[M].北京:中国经济出版社,2005.
[16]富田彻男.市场竞争中的知识产权[M].北京:商务印书馆,2000.
[17]甘古力.知识产权:释放知识经济的能量[M].北京:知识产权出版社出版,2004.
[18]古祖雪.国际知识产权法[M].北京:法律出版社,2002
[19]高山行等.企业专利竞赛理论与策略[M].北京:科学出版社,2005.
[20]郭德忠.专利许可的反垄断规制[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2006.
[21]冈田全启.专利商标侵权攻防策略[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2006.
[22]格拉茨尔.商务专利战略[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2001.
[23]候汉波.中国企业战略并购熵决策理论与应用研究[M].北京:知识产权出版社出版,2007.
[24]胡果威.美国公司法.法律出版社[M].北京:法律出版社,2003.
[25]胡开忠.知识产权法比较研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004.
[26]胡峰.跨国并购政策协调-欧盟经验、嬗变趋势与中国的选择上海:上海交通大学出版社,2007.
黄茂荣.法学方法与现代民法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1995.2001.
[27]Jay Dratler,Jr.,.知识产权许可(上)[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2003.
[28]李明德.美国知识产权法[M].北京:法律出版社,2003.
[29]李玉剑.专利联盟:战略联盟研究的新领域[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2006.
[30]刘华.知识产权的理性与绩效分析[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004.
[31]罗伯特.P.墨杰斯等.新技术时代的知识产权法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[32]罗肇鸿主编.跨国并购:特点、影响和对策[M].北京:中国经济出版社,2006.
[33]赖利,施韦斯主编.商业价值评估与知识产权分析手册[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2006.
[34]马忠法.国际技术转让法律制度理论与实务研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.
[35]马一德.中国企业知识产权战略学[M].北京:商务印书馆,2006.
[36]诺思 托马斯.西方世界的兴起[M].北京:华夏出版社,1999.
[37]帕拉等著.技术许可战略:企业经营战略的利剑[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2006.
[38]宋军.跨国并购与经济发展[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2004.
[39]宋丙洛.全球化和知识化时代的经济学[M].北京:商务印书馆,2003.
[40]斯泰尔等编.技术创新与经济绩效[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2005.
[41]Shapiro C,Varian H,.信息规则[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2000.
[42]孙涛.公司并购决策及有效性分析[M].北京:经济管理出版社,2006.
[43]苏达斯纳.并购创造价值[M].北京:经济管理出版社,2006.
[44]萨缪尔.韦弗等著.兼并与收购[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2003.
[45]唐广良,董炳和.知识产权的国际保护(修订版)[M].北京:知识产权出版社, 2006.
[46]陶鑫良,袁真富.知识产权法总论[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2005.
[47]王先林.知识产权与反垄断法(知识产权滥用的反垄断问题研究)[M].北京:法律出版社,1998.
[48]王承守,邓颖懋.美国专利诉讼功防策略运用[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[49]王冰.知识产权战略制定与战术执行[M].武汉.武汉大学出版社,2007.
[50]王晋刚,张铁军.专利化生存[M].北京:知识产权出版社出版,2005.
[51]吴小丁.反垄断与经济发展－日本竞争政策研究[M].北京:商务印书馆,2006.
[52]吴欣望.专利经济学[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2005.
[53]吴欣望.知识产权－经济、规则与政策.北京:经济科学出版社,2007.
[54]吴汉东等.知识产权基本问题研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[55]威廉M兰德斯,理查德A波斯纳.知识产权法的经济结构[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[56]卫新江.欧盟美国企业合并反垄断规制比较研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005:35.
[57]徐红菊.专利许可法律问题研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.
[58]许秀芳.国际技术转让所得课税法律问题[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2007.
[59]漆彤.跨国并购的法律规制[M].武汉.武汉大学出版社,2006.
[60]徐棣枫.专利权的扩张与限制[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2007.
[61]闫文军.专利权的保护范围:权利要求解释和等同原则适用[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.
[62]叶军.外资并购中国企业的法律问题[M].北京:法律出版社,2004.
[63]杨明.知识产权请求权研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[64]伊利奇.考夫.专利经济学[M].北京:北京大学出版,2005
[65]袁晓东.激励技术创新的法律制度研究[M].武汉:华中科技大学出版社,2007.
[66]尹新天.专利权的保护(第二版)[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2005.
[67]张乃根.国际贸易的知识产权法(第二版)[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007.
[68]张乃根.美国专利法判例选析[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1995.
[69]张乃根.法经济学--经济学视野里的法律现象[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[70]张乃根、陈乃蔚.知识创新与技术转移[M].上海:上海交通大学出版社,2005.
[71]张乃根、陈乃蔚.技术转移的法律理论与实务[M].上海:上海交通大学出版社,2006.
[72]张乃根、陈乃蔚.技术转移与公平竞争[M].上海:上海交通大学出版社,2008.
[73]张乃根.TRIPS协定:理论与实践[M].上海:上海人民出版社2004.
[74]郑成思.知识产权论[M].北京:法律出版社,1998.
[75]郑成思.知识产权法[M].北京:法律出版社,2004.
[76]郑成思.知识产权价值评估中的法律问题[M].北京:法律出版社,1999.
[77]张玉敏主编.中国欧盟知识产权法比较研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2005.
[78]张爱珠.知识产权会计[M].北京:中国物资出版社,2005.
[79]张晓都.专利实质条件[M].北京:法律出版社,2002.
[80]张海涛.知识型企业并购的风险管理[M].上海:上海社会科学文献出版社,2007.
[81]赵桥梁.知识经济与国际关系[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,1999.
[82]赵旭东主编.新公司法制度设计.[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[83]赵江林.东亚技术供给、知识产权保护与经济增长.北京:经济科学出版社,2007.
[84]曾广胜.跨国并购的新制度经济学分析[M].北京:经济科学出版社,2006.
[85]曾海帆编著.专利制度发展简史[M].湖南:湖南省科技情报研究所,1985.
[86]曾陈明汝.两岸暨欧美专利法[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[87]郑翘楚编著.企业专利战略[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2006.
[88]植草益.微观规制经济学[M].北京:中国发展出版社,1992.
[89]朱家贤.反垄断立法与政府管制[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2007.
[90]朱榄叶,刘晓红.知识产权法律冲突与解决问题研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2004.
[1]杰夫里.弗兰克.经济全球化[A].见:约瑟夫·S·奈,约翰·D·唐纳胡主编.全球化世界的治理[M].北京:世界知识出版社,2003.
[2]曹阳.TRIPS与发展中国家的知识产权[A].见:知识产权理论与实务－2006年知识产权征文获奖论文集[C].北京:知识产权出版社,2006.
[3]彼德·高赫.理性人:瑞士债法中的人像[A].见:民商法论丛第35卷[C].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[1]吴宏宜.企业并购之智慧财产权相关法律问题研究[D].台湾:东吴大学硕士论文,2005.
[2]张斌.新经济下的网络兼并研究[D].杭州:浙江大学,2005.
[3]张建军.中美技术出口管理法律制度的比较研究[D].西安:西北大学硕士论文,2004.
[1]聂莹.兼并收购Vs知识产权-从联想购并IBM PC业务看知识产权兼并与收购,[N].中国知识产权报,2005,3(21).
[2]张宇燕.对当今国际格局的几点思考[N].文汇报,2004,3(28):6.
[3]杨雪婷 于伟敏等.盘点2005年中国企业海外并购:联想一波三折[N].北京现代商报,2005,12(27).
[1]普华永道:今年前11个月中国并购交易持续强劲增长[EB/OL].:http://news.xinhuanet.com/newscenter/2007-12/19/content_7281174.htm
[2]国家知识产权局局长:99%国内企业没申请专利[EB/OL].:http://news.xinhuanet.com/legal/2006-04/27/content_4479757.htm
[3]专利战只相信专利,http://www.cnipr.com/zgzl/zldt/t20080122_96138.htm.
[4]日、美企业专利谋略佳能连续第10年进入三甲[EB/OL].:http://tech.sina.com.cn/roll/2003-06-03/1453194090.shtml
[5]专利许可收入占三分之一:高通业务模式遭质疑[EB/OL].:http://tech.tom.com/2007-01-29/04BC/09364628.html
[6]商务部牵头“听证”徐工三天连遇数十问[EB/OL].:http://news.xinhuanet.com/fortune/2006-07/28/content_4886452.htm
[7]制造业:技术落后是最大不安全[EB/OL].:http://www.eis.org.cn/pub/readMsg.jsp?msgID=11268
[8]六国“国家安全审查”制度[EB/OL].:http://www.caijing.com.cn/newcn/aml/tgtg/2007-08-30/28568.shtml
[9]柳传志:联想并购IBM初步成功,获三样成果[EB/OL].:http://www.techweb.com.cn/people/2007-12-11/279036.shtml
[10]张杰斌.公司法、合同法与知识产权法互动背景下技术出资的权利类型问题研究[EB/OL].:http://article.chinalawinfo.com/article/user/article_display.asp?ArticlelD=30909
[11]美日欧三局签署《专利申请谅解备忘录》[EB/OL].:http://www.sipo.gov.cn /sipo/xwdt/gwzscqxx/2007/200711/t20071126_220932.htm
[12]见美国专利司法审判出现四大新动向[EB/OL].:http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo/ xwdt/gwzscqxx/2007/200711/t20071129_222038.htm.
[13]James Love,药品专利强制许可制度在各国法律实践中的新发展[EB/OL].:http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo/xwdt/mtjj/2007/200706/t20070621_175720.htm
[14]在德国经商过程中的知识产权风险,[EB/OL].:http://china.ahk.de/ch/gennany/business-regulations/ip-risk/
[15]文希凯.《专利法条约》将在10国生效[EB/OL].:http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo/xwdt/gwzscqxx/2005/200608/t20060804_105804.htm.
[16]波特五力分析与专利情报收集[EB/OL].:http://cdnet.stpi.org.tw/techroom/pdass/pclass_A021.htm
[17]JPO发布《雇员发明制度改进报告》[EB/OL].:http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo/xwdt/gwzscqxx/2004/200608/t20060804_106177,htm
[18]美国专利文献[EB/OL].:http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo/wxfw/zlwxyxxzsyd/ggzlwxjs/200608/P020060802523525582019.doc
[19]World Trade Report 2007[EB/OL].:http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/world_trade_report07_e.pdf
[20]Alain Pompidou,Patent protection "key to Europe's knowledge economy [EB/OL].:http://www.alphagalileo.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=readrelease&releaseid=515768&ez search=1
[21]Dennis S.Fernandez,Esq;Inna S.Shestul,Effective International Intellectual Property Strategies to Mitegate USTaxes[EB/OL]..:www.iploft.com/Tax-Article.pdf.
[22]Josef Drexl,International Competition Law - A Missing Link between TRIPs and Transfer of Technology[EB/OL].:http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/meetings/2003/wipo_wto/presentations/doc/drexl.doc
[23]A.Douglas Melamed,Promoting Sound Antitrust Enforcement in the Global Economy,Speech before the Fordham Corporate Law Institute 27th Annual Conference on International Antitrust Law and Policy,[EB/OL].:http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/speeches/6785.htm.
[24]Jochen Burrichter,Hengeler Miiller,Intellectual Property and Merger Control (Germany/EU)[EB/OL].:http://www.eui.eu/RSCAS/Research/Competition/2005/200510-CompDurand.pdf
[25]Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines[EB/OL].:http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/2614.pdf
[26]Henry R.Hertzfeld,Albert N.Link and Nicholsa S.Vonortas,Intellectual Property Protection Mechanisms and Research Partnerships,[EB/OL].:http:// www.gwu.edu/～cistp/research/publications/Intellectual_Property_Protection_Mechani sms.pdf.
[27] Carl Shapiro, Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard-Setting [EB/OL].:http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/shapiro/thicket.pdf.
[1] Alistair Lindsay, The EC Merger Regulation: Substantive Issues, Sweet & Maxwell, 2003.
[2] Anatole Krattiger,et al (eds), Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices, Volume 1 &2 ,MIHR & PIPRA,2007
[3] Ashley Roughton, Trevor Cook and Michael Spence, the Modern Law of Patents, Lexisnexis Butterworths, 2005.
[4] Baxter, Legal Restrictions on Exploitation of the Patent Monopoly: An Economic Analysis, 76 YALE LJ. 267,1966.
[5] Bin Xu, Eric P. Chiang.Trade, Patents and International Technology Diffusion, Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 2005 Vol.14.
[6] Brian G. Brunsvold, Dennis P. O'Reilley. Drafting Patent License Agreements, BNABooks,2004.
[7] Bruce Berman (editor), From Ideas to Assets: Investing In Intellectual Property, JohnWiley & Sons, Inc,2002.
[8] Claas Junghans, Adam Levy, Intellectual Property Management, Wiley VCH, 2006.
[9] Carlos M. Correa, Can the TRIPS Agreement Foster Technology Transfer to Developing Countries? In International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology Under a Globalized Intellectual Property Regime, Keith E. Maskus & Jerome H. Reichman eds.,Cambridge University Press , 2005.
[10] Daniel Slottje, Economic Damages in Intellectual Property: A Hands-On Guide to Litigation, Wiley, 2006.
[11] David Klein, Intellectual Property in Mergers and Acquisitions, West Group, 2006.
[12] David Keeling, Intellectual Property Rights in EU Law, Oxford University Press, 2003.
[13] Derek Bosworth, Elizabeth Webster(eds), The Management of Intellectual Property,Edward Elgar Pub,2006.
[14]Dina Kallay,The Law and Economics of Antitrust and Intellectual Property,Edward Elgar,2004.
[15]DOC/FTC:Antirust Enforcement and IP Rights:Promoting Innovation and Competition,April,2007.
[16]Donald S.Chisum,et al,Principle of Patent Law,Foundation Press,2004.
[17]Donald S.Chisum,Common and Civil Law Approaches to Patent Claim Interpretation:'Fence Posts'and 'Sign Posts',In Intellectual Property in the New Millennium,Essays in Honor of William R.Cornish,David Vaver & Lionel Bently Donald S.Chisum(eds),Cambridge University Press,2004.
[18]Eleanor M.Fox,Extraterritoriality and the Merger Law:Can All Nations Rule the WorM,Antitrust Rep.,Dec.1999.
[19]Farrel and Saloner,Standardization,Compatibility and Innovation,Rand Journal of Economics,1985.
[20]F.D.Prager.The Early Growth and Influence of Intellectual Property,J,Pat,Off.Soc'y 106,114,n,17(1952) 34.
[21]Federal Trade Commission Staff Report,Anticipating the 2lst Century:Competition Policy in the New High-Tech Global Marketplace,1996.
[22]Francois Leveque,Howard Shelanski(eds),Merger Remedies in American and European Union Competition Law,Edward Elgar Publishing,2004.
[23]Francois Leveque,Howard Shelanski,Antitrust,Patents and Copyright:EU and US Perspectives,Edward Elgar,2005.
[24]Fredrick M.Abbott,Toward a New Era of Objective Assessment in the Field of TRIPS and Variable Geometry for the Preservation of Multilateralism,Journal of International Economic Law,2005 8(1).
[25]Gary M.Hoffman,et al,Handling Intellectual Property Issues in Business Transactions 2005,Practicing Law Institute,2005.
[26]Gordon Smith,Russel Parr,Intellectual Property Licensing and JV Profit Strategies,John Wiley & Sons,Inc,2003.
[27]Gordon V.Smith,Russell L.Parr,Valuation of Intellectual Property and Intangible Assets,John Wiley & Sons,2004.
[28]Guy Tritton,Intellectual Property In Europe,Sweet & Maxwell,2002.
[29]Heller,M.A.The Tragedy of the Anti-commons Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets,Harvard Law Review,1998.
[30]Howard Knopf,Security Interests in Intellectual Property,Carswell Legal Pubns,2002.
[31]Ilkka Rahnasto,Intellectual Property Rights,External Effects and Anti-Trust Law:Leveraging IPRs in the Communications Industry,Oxford University Press,2003.
[32]Intellectual Property Rights:Implications for Development,UNCTAD-ICTSD Policy Discussion Paper,2003.
[33]Janice M.Mueller,An Introduction to Patent Law,CITIC Publishing House,2003.
[34]Joseph Wilson,Globalization and the Limits of National Merger Control Laws,Kluwer Law International,2003.
[35]John R.Allison & Mark A.Lemley,Empirical Evidence on the Validity of Litigated Patents,26 AIPLA Q.J.1998,p185,208.
[36]John Cantwell(eds),The Economics of Patents,Volume Ⅰ & Ⅱ,Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,2006.
[37]John Adams,Julian Hickey and Guy Tritton,Merchandising Intellectual Property,Tottel Publishing,2007.
[38]J.Clifton Fleming,Jr.,Domestic Section 351 Transfers of Intellectual Property:The Law as It is vs.The Law as the Commisssioner would prefer it to be,16 J.Corp.Tax n.99,1989.
[39]Katz,Michael,Shapiro,Network Externalities,Competition and Compatibility,American Economic Review,1985.
[40]Keith Maskus,Regulatory Standards in the WTO:Comparing Intellectual Property Rights with Competition Policy,Environmental Protection,and Core Labor Standards,World Trade Review,2002,1.
[41]Keith E.Maskus,Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy,Institute for International Economics,2000.
[42]Keith Maskus & Jerome Reichman,International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology under a Globalized Intellectual Property Regime,Cambridge University Press,2005.
[43]Klaus Jennewein,Intellectual Property Management:the Role of Technology-Brands in the Appropriation of Technological Innovation,Physica-Verlag Heidelberg,2005.
[44]Lanning Bryer,Melvin Seminsky,Intellectual Property Assets in Mergers and Acquisitions,Wiley,2001.
[45]Laura D'Andrea Tyson,"McBoeing" Should Be Cleared for Takeoff,Wall St.J.,July 22,1997,at A10.
[46]Lee Branstetter,Raymond Fisman,and Fritz Foley,Do Stronger Intellectual Property Rights Increase International Technology Transfer? Empirical Evidence from U.S.Firm-Level Panel Data,World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No.3305,2004.
[47]Martin J.Adelman,et al,Cases and Materials on Patent Law,West Group,2003.
[48]Meir Perez Pugatch,The International Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights,Edward Elgar,2004.
[49]Richard Gordon,Antitrust Abuse in the New Economy,Edward Elgar,2003.
[50]Alexandra George,Globalization and Intellectual Property,Shgate Publishing Limited,2006.
[51]Robert C.Faber,Landis on Mechanics of Patent Claim Drafting,Practising Law Institute,2005.
[52]Maskus Keith and Mohan Penubarti,How Trade-RelatedAre Intellectual Property Rights? Journal of International Economics,Vol.39,1995,.
[53]Mark A.Lemley,The Economic Irrationality of the Patent Misuse Doctrine,78Calif.L.Rev.,1990.
[54]Mark Anderson,et al,Technology Transfer:Law,Practice and Precedents,Butterworths LexisNexis,2003.
[55]Marta Sender,Cross-border Enforcement of Patent Rights,Oxford University Press,2002.
[56]Mikhaelle Schiappacasse,Intellectual Property Rights in China:Technology Transfer and Economic Development,Buffalo IP Law Journal,Summer,2004.
[57]Nancy T.Gallini and Michael J.Trebilcock,Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Policy:A Framework for Analysis of Economic and Legal Issues,in Robert D.Anderson and Nancy T.Gallini(eds),Competition Policy and Intellectual Property Rights in the Knowledge-Based Economics,the Industry Canada Research Series,Calgary,University of Calgary Press.
[58]OECD:Competition Policy and Intellectual Property Rights,1998.
[59]Ove Granstrand,the Economics and Management of Intellectual Property,Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,1999.
[60]PaulMcGubbess,Intellectual Property Commercialization - a Business Manager's Companion,LexisNexis Butterworths Australian,2003.
[61]Peter Howson,Due Diligence:The Critical Stage in Mergers and Acquisitions,Gower Publishing Company,2003.
[62]Phillip McCalman,National Patents,Innovation and InternationaI Agreements,Journal of International Trade & Economic Development,2002,11.
[63]P.J.Federico,Commentary on the New Patent Act,Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society 75,1993.
[64]Richard Razgaitis,Valuation and Pricing of Technology-Based Intellectual Property,Wiley,2002.
[65]Richard J.Gallafent,Nigel A Eastaway,Victor Dauppe,Intellectual Property Law and Taxation,Sweet & Maxell,2004.
[66]Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss,The Federal Circuit:A Case Study in Specialized Courts,New York University Review 1,26,1989.
[67]R.Polk Wagner & Lee Petherbridge,Is the Federal Circuit Succeeding?An EmpiricalAssessment of Judicial Performance,152 University of Pennsylvania Law Review,2004.
[68]Robert P.Merges,Commercial Success and Patent Standards:Economic Perspective on Innovation,76 CAL.L.Rev.803,867 & n.260,868,1988.
[69]Russel Parr,Royalty Rates for Licensing Intellectual Property,John Wiley &Sons,Inc.,2007.
[70]Steven D.Anderman & John Kallaugher,Technology Transfer and the New EU Competition Rules:Intellectual Property Licensing after Modernization,Oxford University Press,2006.
[71]UNCTAD:World Investment Report 200,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006.
[72]USPTO:Manual of Patent Examining Procedure.
[73]W.Carl Kester,Today's options for tomorrow's Growth,Harvard Business Review,Mar 1984.
[74]William Cornish,Cases and Materials on Intellectual Property,Sweet &Maxwell,2003.
[75]W.K Tom and J.A Newberg,.Antitrust and Intellectual Property:From Separate Spheres to Unified Field,Antitrust Law Journal,1997,66.
[76]Yusaf Akbar,Global Antitrust:Trade and Competition Linkages,Shgate Publishing Limited,2003.
[2]吴汉东.知识产权国际保护制度研究[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2007;古祖雪.国际知识产权法[M].北京:法律出版社,2002;唐广良,董炳和.知识产权的国际保护(修订版)[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2006;向欣,朱雪忠.我国知识产权保护的国际环境分析[M].北京:中国计划出版社,2007.
[3]陈容,张卫.企业并购中知识产权律师职责[J].中国专利与商标,2006,2.
[4]郑成思.知识产权论[M].北京:法律出版社,1998;郑成思.知识产权价值评估中的法律问题[M].北京:法律出版社,1999;魏衍亮.知识产权价值评估问题研究[J].电子知识产权,2006,12.
[5]张乃根.专利许可、标准化与反垄断的三角关系[J].WTO经济导刊,2007,7;张乃根.论与知识产权有关的反垄断法[J].中国工商管理研究,2000,4;王先林.知识产权与反垄断法(知识产权滥用的反垄断问题研究)[M].北京:法律出版社,1998.
[6]郭德忠.专利许可的反垄断规制[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2006.
[7]尹新天.专利权的保护(第二版)[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2005.
[8]吴宏宜.企业并购之智慧财产权相关法律问题研究[D].台湾:东吴大学硕士论文,2005.
[9]张乃根.美国专利法判例选析[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1995;李明德.美国知识产权法[M].北京:法律出版社,2003;王承守,邓颖懋.美国专利诉讼功防策略运用[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006;罗伯特.P.墨杰斯等.新技术时代的知识产权法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003年版;冈田全启.专利商标侵权攻防策略[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2006;张玉敏主编.中国欧盟知识产权法比较研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2005;胡开忠.知识产权法比较研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004.
[10]袁雯卿.专利交易的尽职调查[J].电子知识产权,2007,9.
[11]冯晓青.企业知识产权战略[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2005.
[12]张建军.中美技术出口管理法律制度的比较研究[D].西安:西北大学硕士论文,2004.
[13]Keith Maskus,the Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Encouraging Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Transfer,Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law,1998(9).
[14]Beata Smarzynska,Foreign Direct Investment,Technology and Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Transition Economies,PhD Dissertation of Yale University,1999.
[15]David Klein,Intellectual Property in Mergers and Acquisitions,West Group,2006.
[16]Lanning Bryer,Melvin Seminsky:Intellectual Property Assets in Mergers and Acquisitions,Wiley,2001.
[17]Gary M.Hoffman,et al,Handling Intellectual Property Issues in Business Transactions 2005,Practicing Law Institute,2005.
[18]Richard Razgaitis,Valuation and Pricing of Technology-Based Intellectual Property,Wiley,2002;Gordon V.Smith,Russell L.Parr:Valuation of Intellectual Property and Intangible Assets,John Wiley & Sons,2004.
[19]Howard Knopf,Security Interests in Intellectual Property,Carswell Legal Pubns,2002.
[20]Richard J.Gallafent,Nigel A Eastaway,Victor Dauppe,Intellectual Property Law and Taxation,Sweet&Maxell,2004
[1]彼得.德鲁克.从国际贸易到国际投资[J].世界经济译丛,1988,1.
[2]小岛清.对外贸易论[M].北京:南开大学出版社,1987:423.
[3]吴勤学.中国海外直接投资理论与实务[M].北京:首都经济贸易大学出版社,2006:22.
[4]宋军.跨国并购与经济发展[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2004;6.
[5]曾广胜.跨国并购的新制度经济学分析[M].北京:经济科学出版社,2006:32.
[6]叶军.外资并购中国企业的法律问题[M].北京:法律出版社,2004:116.
[7]UNCTAD:World Investment Report 2000.
[8]UNCTAD:World Investment Report 2005.
[9]World Trade Report 2007[EB/OL].:http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/world_trade_report07_e.pdf
[10]商务部、国家统计局联合发布的《2005年度中国对外直接投资统计公报》
[11]商务部、国家统计局、国家外汇局发布的《2006年度中国对外直接投资统计公报》
[12]普华永道:今年前11个月中国并购交易持续强劲增长[EB/OL].:http://news.xinhuanet.com/newscenter/2007-12/19/content_7281174.htm
[13]罗伯特.P.墨杰斯.新技术时代的知识产权法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[14]OECD:Competition Policy and Intellectual Property Rights,1998.
[15]《1999年世界投资报告》中指出,跨国公司已成为全球经济的核心,在推动经济全球化和世界对外直接投资的高速发展上起到了主导作用。
[16]Bruce Berman(ed.),From Ideas to Assets,John Wiley & Sons,Inc.,2002,pp499-500.
[17]Bin Xu,Eric P.Chiang.Trade,Patents and International Technology Diffusion,Journal of International Trade & Economic Development,2005 Vol.14.
[18]国家知识产权局局长:99%国内企业没申请专利。[EB/OL].:http://news.xinhuanet.com /egal/2006-04/27/content_4479757.htm
[1]诺思·托马斯.西方世界的兴起[M].北京:华夏出版社,1999:8.
[2]诺思·托马斯.西方世界的兴起[M].北京:华夏出版社,1999:191.
[3]Paul M.Romer,Increasing Returns and Long-run Growth,Journal of Political Economy,94(5)1986,pp1002-1037.
[4]曾海帆编著.专利制度发展简史[M].湖南:湖南省科技情报研究所,1985:50.
[5]富田彻男.市场竞争中的知识产权[M].北京:商务印书馆,2000:128.
[6]富田彻男.市场竞争中的知识产权[M].北京:商务印书馆,2000:67.
[7]55 U.S.248(1850)
[8]Donald S.Chisum,et al,Principle of Patent Law,Foundation Press(2004),p532.
[9]本案为美国专利法103条(103条是关于专利必须满足非显而易见性的要求)历史演进的起点,在此案中,最高法院第一次明确只有发明才能获得专利,要构成发明,新技术必须超越一个熟练技工的日常努力。见Martin J.Adelman,etc.,Patent Law,West,2003,p311.
[10]曾海帆编著.专利制度发展简史[M].湖南:湖南省科技情报研究所,1985.
[11]赵桥梁.知识经济与国际关系[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,1999:9.
[12]富田彻男.市场竞争中的知识产权[M].北京:商务印书馆,2000:80.
[13]福田切男.市场竞争中的知识产权[M].北京:商务印书馆,2000:107.
[14]340 U.S.147(1950)
[15]P.J.Federico,Commentary on the New Patent Act,Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society 75,1993,pp183-84.
[16]Graver Tank Mfg.Co.v.Linde Air Products Co.,339 USPQ 328(1950).
[17]曾广胜.跨国并购的新制度经济学分析[M].北京:经济科学出版社,2006:20.
[18]Global Competition:the New Reality,U.S.Government Printing Office.
[19]王晋刚,张铁军.专利化生存[M].北京:知识产权出版社出版,2005:46.
[20]专利战只相信专利[EB/OL].:http://www.cnipr.com/zgzl/zldt/t20080122_96138.htm.
[21]曾广胜.跨国并购的新制度经济学分析[M].北京:经济科学出版社,2006:27.
[22]张乃根.TRIPS协定:理论与实践[M].上海:上海人民出版社2004:260.
[23]甘古力.知识产权:释放知识经济的能量[M].北京:知识产权出版社出版,2004:80.
[24]见WIPO《2007年专利报告》.
[25]刘华.知识产权的理性与绩效分析[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004:154.
[26]杰夫里.弗兰克.经济全球化[A].见约瑟夫·S·奈,约翰·D·唐纳胡主编.全球化世界的治理[M].北京:世界知识出版社,2003:40.
[27]张宇燕.对当今国际格局的几点思考[N].文汇报,2004,3(28):6.
[28]张乃根.TRIPS协定:理论与实践[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2004:8.张乃根教授在文中没有提到国际投资。但本文以为,国际投资与技术进步也存在着必然的连接。没有技术进步所带来的交通、通讯以及其他影响投资的外在因素的飞速进步,导致国际投资的便利,就不可能由近年来国际投资的陡然增长。另外,国际投资所导致的技术扩散效应促进了技术的进一步发展。
[29]Robert A.Mundell,International Trade and Factor Mobility,International Economics,1968,p85-99.
[30]Vernon,Raymond,International Investment and International Trade in the Product Cycle, Quarterly Journal of Economics 80(2)(1966),pp190-207.
[31]Hymer,The International Operations of Firms:A Study of Direct Investment,MIT(1976),P1-41,P167-191.
[32]孔淑红,梁明.国际投资学[M].北京:对外经济贸易大学出版社,2001:82-87.
[33]曾广胜.跨国并购的新制度经济学分析[M].北京:经济科学出版社,2006:75.
[34]John Dunning,The Eclectic Paradigm of International Production:A Restatement and Some Possible Extensions,Journal of International Business Studies,14(1)(1988),pp1-31.
[35]包群等.外商直接投资、吸收能力与经济增[M].上海:上海三联书店,2006:12.
[36]叶学峰,魏江.基于核心竞争能力的购并整合[J].科研管理,2002,03.
[37]候汉波.中国企业战略并购熵决策理论与应用研究[M].北京:知识产权出版社出版,2007:12.
[38]W.Carl Kester,Today's options for tomrrow's Growth,Harvard Business Review,Mar 1984.
[39]美国商务部在1998、1999年分别发布了《浮现中的数字经济》,《新兴的数字经济》报告。
[40]宋丙洛.全球化和知识化时代的经济学[M].北京:商务印书馆,2003:90.
[41]斯泰尔等编.技术创新与经济绩效[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2005:30.
[42]甘古力.知识产权:释放知识经济的能量[M].北京:知识产权出版社出版,2004:15.
[43]日、美企业专利谋略:佳能连续第10年进入三甲[EB/OL].:http://tech.sina.com.cn/roll/2003-06-03/1453194090.shtml
[44]专利许可收入占三分之一:高通业务模式遭质疑[EB/OL].:http://tech.tom.com/2007-01-29/04BC/09364628.html
[45]胡倬.初探专利制度对世界经济发展的贡献[J].知识产权,2002,05.
[46]Alain Pompidou,Patent protection "key to Europe's knowledge economy[EB/OL].:http://www.alphagalileo.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=readreIease&releaseid=515768&ez_search=1
[47]Lanning Bryer,Melvin Seminsky,Intellectual Property Assets in Mergers and Acquisitions,Wiley,2001,p2.3.
[48]世界经济论坛发布的(2007-2008年度全球竞争力报告》认为中国的创新能力位于世界第38位。
[49]见《2006年世界投资报告(中文版)》,第35页。
[50]聂莹.兼并收购Vs知识产权-从联想购并IBM PC业务看知识产权兼并与收购,[N].中国知识产权报,2005,3(21).
[51]植草益.微观规制经济学[M].北京:中国发展出版社,1992:2.
[52]丹尼尔.史普博.管制与市场[M].上海:上海三联书店,上海人民出版社年版,1999:45.
[53]见《中国禁止进口限制进口技术目录》中的参考原则。
[1]Peter Howson,Due Diligence:The Critical Stage in Mergers and Acquisitions,Gower Publishing Company,2003,p4.
[2]郑翘楚编著.企业专利战略[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2006:216.
[3]波特五力分析与专利情报收集[EB/OL].:http://cdnet.stpi.org.tw/techroom/pclass/pclass_A021.htm
[4]波特五力分析与专利情报收集[EB/OL].:http://cdnet.stpi.org.tw/techroom/pclass/pclass_A021.htm
[5]见《英国专利法》第三十九条的规定
[6]法国、俄罗斯和意大利则采取雇员发明的原始权利属于雇主的制度,在美国,获得专利的原始权利属于发明人,无论该发明是否属于职务发明,但该获得专利的权利是否由雇主继受,则由雇用合同规定,或者通过各州的法律来调整,事实上,在美国大多数职务发明通过雇佣合同方式转移给雇主。见JPO发布《雇员发明制度改进报告》,[EB/OL].:http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo/xwdt/gwzscqxx/2004/200608/t20060804_106177.htm
[7]见《中华人民共和国专利法》第六条的规定
[8]Donald S.Chisum,et al,Principle of Patent Law,Foundation Press,2004,p532.
[9]Martin J.Adelman,et al,Cases and Materials on Patent Law,West Group,2003,p308.
[10]该案例的具体情况见,Klaus Jennewein.Intellectual Property Management:the Role of Technology-Brands in the Appropriation of Technological Innovation,Physica-Vedag Heidelberg,2005:pp28-66.
[11]见《美国专利法》第二百五十一条的规定
[12]美国专利文献[EB/OL].:http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo/wxfw/zlwxyxxzsyd/gzlwxjs/200608/P020060802523525582019.doc
[13]550 U.S.___,127 S.Ct.1727.
[14]In Re Zieger,992 F.2d 1197,26 USPQ2d 1600(Fed.Cir.1993).
[15]Robert C.Faber,Landis on Mechanics of Patent Claim Drafting,Practising Law Institute,2005,pp3-76.
[16]Graver Tank & Mfg.Co.v.Linde Air Prods.Co.,339 U.S.605(1950).
[17]Streamfeeder,LLC v.Sure-Feed Systems,Inc.,175 F.3d 974(Fed.Cir.1999)
[18]Festo Corp.v.Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.,535 U.S.722,741(2002).
[19]见《美国专利法》第二百七十一条(c)款的规定
[20]见《美国专利法》第二百七十一条(b)款的规定
[21]Festo Corp.v.Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.,535 U.S.722,731(2002).
[22]Festo Corp.v.Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.,535 U.S.722,731(2002).
[23]R.Polk Wagner & Lee Petherbridge,Is the Federal Circuit Succeeding?An Empirical Assessment of Judicial Performance,152 University of Pennsylvania Law Review,2004,p1105.
[24]John R.Allison & Mark A.Lemley,Empirical Evidence on the Validity of Litigated Patents,26 AIPLA Q.J.1998,p185,208.
[25]Anatole Krattiger,et al(eds),Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation:A Handbook of Best Practices,Volume 1,MIHR & PIPRA(2007),p 811.
[26]Richard Razgaitis,Valuation and Pricing of Technology-Based Intellectual Property,Wiley,2003,pp316-317.
[27]Anatole Krattiger,et al(eds),Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation:A Handbook of Best Practices,Volume 1,MIHR & PIPRA(2007),pp 821-830.
[28]Anatole Krattiger,et al(eds),Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation:A Handbook of Best Practices.Volume 1,MIHR & PIPRA(2007),pp833-838.
[29]Georgia-Pacific Corp.,v.U.S.Plywood Corp.,318 E Supp.1116,1120(S.D.N.Y.1970),modified,446 E 2d 295(2d Cir.),cert.denied,404 U.S.870(1970)
[30]Anatole Krattiger,et al(eds),Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation:A Handbook of Best Practices.Volume 1,MIHR & PIPRA(2007),pp830-833.
[31]Derek Bosworth,Elizabeth Webster(eds),The Management of Intellectual Property,Edward Elgar Pub,2006,p273.
[32]Richard Razgaitis,Valuation and Pricing of Technology-Based Intellectual Property,Wiley (2003),p223.
[33]Anatole Krattiger,et al(eds),Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation:A Handbook of Best Practices.Volume 1,MIHR&PIPRA(2007),pp852-854.
[34]郭洁.实物期权理论在专利权价值评估中的应用[J].财会月刊,2007,04.
[35]Am.Intellectual Property Law Ass'n,Report of the 2005 Economic Survey 22(2005).
[36]Robert P.Merges,Commercial Success and Patent Standards:Economic Perspective on Innovation,76 CAL.L.Rev.803,867 & n.260,868,1988.
[37]见中国《企业会计准则-无形资产》
[38]张爱珠.知识产权会计[M].北京:中国物资出版社,2005:65.
[39]J Jay Dratler,Jr.,,知识产权许可(上)[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2003:287.
[40]379 U.S.29,33
[41]Georgia-Pacific Corp.,v.U.S.Plywood Corp.,318 F.Supp.1116,1120(S.D.N.Y.1970),modified,446 F.2d 295(2d Cir.),cert.denied,404 U.S.870(1970)
[42]35 U.S.C 284(1994)
[43]716 F.2d 1550,1562,219 USPQ 377,386(Fed.Cir.1983)
[44]Hanson v.Alpine Valley Ski Area,Inc.,718 F.2d 1075,1078(Fed.Cir.1983)
[45]Panduit Corp.v.Stahlin Bros.Fibre Works,Inc.,575 F.2d 1152,116 n.11(6th Cir.1978)
[46]Deere & Co.V.International Harvester Co.,218 U.S.P.Q.403,407(C.D.Ill.1982).联邦巡回法院最后认同了下级法院的主张。Deere & Co.V.International Harvester Co.,710 F.2d 1551,218 USPQ 403(Fed.Cir.1983)
[47]OECD,Patent Manual(1994),p51.
[1]美日欧三局签署《专利申请谅解备忘录》[EB/OL].:http://www.sjpo.gov.cn/sipo/xwdt/gwzscqxx/2007/200711/t20071126_220932.htm
[2]张乃根.国际贸易的知识产权法(第二版)[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007:62.
[3]文希凯.《专利法条约》将在10国生效[EB/OL].:http://www.sipo.gov.cn/Sipo/xwdt/gwzscqxx/2005/200608/t20060804_105804.htm.
[4]Keith E.Maskus,Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy,Institute for International Economics,2000.
[5]Lee Branstetter,Raymond Fisman,and Fritz Foley,Do Stronger Intellectual Property Rights Increase International Technology Transfer? Empirical Evidence from U.S.Firm-Level Panel Data,World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No.3305,2004.
[6]Carlos M.Correa,Can the TRIPS agreement Foster Technology Transfer to Developing Countries? In International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology Under a Globalized Intellectual Property Regime,Keith E.Maskus & Jerome H.Reichman eds.,Cambridge University Press,2005,p254.
[7]Intellectual Property Rights:Implications for Development,UNCTAD-ICTSD Policy Discussion Paper,2003.
[8]Fredrick M.Abbott,Toward a New Era of Objective Assessment in the Field of TRIPS and Variable Geometry for the Preservation of Multilateralism,Journal of International Economic Law,2005 8(1),pp77-100.
[9]本文以为各国程序方面的最大差异可能就是先中请制与先发明制之间的差异,然而美国2007年《专利改革法案》对专利中请的先发明制度进行了改革,以先中请制取代先发明制,预计这样的差别不久就能消失。
[10]Diamond.v.Chakrabarty,447 U.S.303(1980).
[11]87 U.S.498(1874) 87 U.S.498.
[12]USPTO:Manual of Patent Examining Procedure.
[13]罗伯特.P.墨杰斯.新技术时代的知识产权法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:119.
[14]47 U.S.P.Q 2d 1596.(Fed Cir.1998).
[15]Hotel Security Checking Co.V Lorraine Co 106 F,467(2nd Cir.1908).
[16]见《欧洲专利条约》第五十二条第二款的规定
[17]见《欧洲专利条约》第五十三条的规定
[18]颜上咏,陈帝利.欧洲与美国商业方法专利学理之研究[J].东海大学法学研究,2004,12:276.
[19]张乃根.美国专利法判例选析[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1995:64.
[20]见《美国专利法》第一百零二条(a)款规定
[21]见《欧洲专利条约》第五十四条第二款规定
[22]KSR INTERNATIONAL CO.v.TELEFLEX INC.ETAL.550 U.S.___(2007)
[23]对于此标准,CAFC认为大多数发明源丁已有要素的组合,每一个已有要素都能存在丁现有技术中。然而,在发明中识别出现有技术并不能有效的反驳作为组合发明作为整体的可专利性。Rouffett,149 F.3d.对于由已知要素组合而成的发明来说,要驳斥其专利的非显而易见性,审查员或法院必须清楚指明其做出显而易见结论的基础。实践中,这要求审查员或法院解释该领域的普通技术人员会受剑明确清晰的教导或启示米选择这样的参考(references)从而将他们组合起来。
[24]有律师认为,美国联邦法院在Teleflex案的判决,增加了判断专利权利要求具有非显而易见性的难度,尤其对商业方法、软什专利的影响非常明显。见美国专利司法审判出现四大新动向[EB/OL].:http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo/xwdt/gwzscqxx/2007/200711/t20071129_222038.htm.
[25]罗伯特.P.墨杰斯.新技术时代的知识产权法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:136.
[26]Guy Tritton,Intellectual Property in Europe,Sweet & Maxwell,2002,p103.
[27]李明德.美国知识产权法[M].北京:法律出版社,2003:54.
[28]Guy Tritton,Intellectual Property in Europe,Sweet & Maxwell,2002,p 142.
[29]C-35/87 Thetford v.Fiamma[1988]E.C.R.3585.
[30]见《英国专利法》第六十条的规定
[31]见《德国专利法》第九条的规定
[32]WT/DS114/R
[33]Donald S.Chisum,Common and Civil Law Approaches to Patent Claim Interpretation:'Fence Posts'and 'Sign Posts',In Intellectual Property in the New MillenniumEssays in Honour of William R.Cornish,David Vaver & Lionel Bently Donald S.Chisum(eds),Cambridge University Press,2004.
[34]董涛.专利权利要求[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:189.
[35]闫文军.专利权的保护范围:权利要求解释和等同原则适用[M].北京:法律出版社,2007:168.
[36]闫文军.专利权的保护范围:权利要求解释和等同原则适用[M].北京:法律出版社,2007:436.
[37]Daniel Slottje,Economic Damages in Intellectual Property:A Hands-On Guide to Litigation,Wiley.2006,p95.
[38]在德国经商过程中的知识产权风险,[EB/OL].:http://china.ahk.de/ch/germany/business-regulations /ip-risk/
[39]Article 45 of TRIPS
[40]Ashley Roughton,Trevor Cook and Michael Spence,the Modern Law of Patents,Lexisnexis Butterworths,2005,p112.
[41]格拉茨尔.商务专利战略[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2001:218.
[42]威廉 M 兰德斯,理查德 A 波斯纳.知识产权法的经济结构[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005:426.
[43]Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss,the Federal Circuit:A Case Study in Specialized Courts,New York University Review 1,26,1989,64.
[44]威廉M兰德斯,理查德A波斯纳.知识产权法的经济结构[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005:446.
[45]吴欣望.专利经济学[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2005:73.
[46]独占被许可人可以通过强制要求专利权人作为共同原告提起共同诉讼,从而在实际效果上拥有提起侵权之诉的权利。Jay Drafter,Jr.,.知识产权许可(下)[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2003:775.
[47]见《日本专利法》第一百条的规定
[48]Wang Lab.,Inc.v.Mitsubishi Elecs.Am.,Inc.,103 F.3d 1571,1580,41 USPQ2d 1263,1271(Fed.Cir.1997).
[49]Medeco Security Locks,Inc.v.Lock Technology Corp.,199 U.S.P.Q.(BNA)519,524(S.D.N.Y.1976)
[50]彼德·高赫.理性人:瑞士债法中的人像[A].见:民商法论丛第35卷[C].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[51]De Forest Radio Telephone Co.v.United States,273 U.S.241(1927)
[52]Wang Lab.,Inc.v.Mitsubishi Elecs.Am.,Inc.,103 F.3d 1581.
[53]A.C.Aukerman Co.v.R.L.Chaides Constr.Co.,960 F.2d 1020,1042-43,22 USPQ 2d 1321,1335-36(Fed.Cir.1992)(en banc).
[54]Untied States v.General Elec.Co.,272 U.S.476,489-90(1926)
[55]Security Materials Co.v.Mixermobile Co.,72 E Supp.450,456,75 USPQ 58,63(S.D.Cal.1947)
[56]Dunkley Co.v.California Packing Corporation,277.F.996(C.C.A.2d Cir.1921).
[57]389 F.2d 448,156 USPQ 647(Ct.Cl),cert.denied,391 U.S.964(1968).
[58]帕拉等著.技术许可战略:企业经营战略的利剑[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2006:118.
[59]参见《中华人民共和国专利法实施细则》第十五条的规定。
[60]PaulMcGubbess,Intellectual Property Commercialization - a Business Manager's Companion,LexisNexis Butterworths Australian,2003,p227.
[61]按照布莱克法律词典的含义,转让(assignment)其含义为转移(transfer or making over)任何动产(personal)或不动产(real),占有(in possession)的或诉讼中(in action)或财产(estate)以及其中的权利财产的全部。Black's Law Dictionary 119(6th ed.1990)。但是就专利领域而言,转让具有特定的含义,在Waterman v.MacKenzie案(138 U.S.252(1891))中美国最高法院认为转让下列三种利益构成专利的转让:转移整个专利的行为,包括在美国独占的制造、使用以及出售专利的权利;二为独占权的不可分割部分;三为在美国以及指定区域的专利的独占权。根据最高法院的要求,专利的转移必须是书面的,最高法院认为在第一、三种情况下受让人可以单独起诉侵权人,而第二种情形下与转让人一起可以起诉侵权人。缺乏上述特征的专利移转不构成专利的转让,受让人不能对专利不享有所有权(title),更不能以其自己的名义起诉侵权人。
[62]Eickmeyer v.C.I.R.,580 F.2d 395,398,199 USPQ 77,80(10th Cir.1978);26 U.S.C 1235(2000).
[63]朱榄叶,刘晓红.知识产权法律冲突与解决问题研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2004:225.
[64]不管是普通法系国家。还是大陆法系国家,专利权一般只能在权利创造的地点获得保护。 Marta Sender,Cross-border Enforcement of Patent Rights,Oxford University Press,2002,p24.
[65]见《中华人民共和国专利法》第十条的规定
[66]富兰克.H.奈特.风险、不确定与利润[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:216.
[67]富兰克.H.奈特.风险、不确定与利润[M].北京:中国人民人学出版社,2005:231.
[68]布莱恩,R.柴芬斯.公司法:理论、结构和运作[M].北京:法律出版社,2001:64.
[69]刘剑文.国际所得税法研究[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000:250.
[70]J.Clifton Fleming,Jr.,Domestic Section 351 Transfers of Intellectual Property:The:Law as It is vs.The Law as the Commisssioner would prefer it to be,16 J.Corp.Tax n.99,1989,
[71]30 Del.Code §1902(b)(8)
[72]437 S.E.2nd(S.C.1993)
[73]Dennis S.Fernandez,Esq;Inna S.Shestul,Effective International Intellectual Property Strategies to Mitegate U.S.Taxes[EB/OL].:www.iploft.com/Tax-Article.pdf.
[74]马忠法.国际技术转让法律制度理论与实务研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2007:93.
[75]马忠法.国际技术转让法律制度理论与实务研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2007:93.
[76]Jay Dratler,Jr.,.知识产权许可(上)[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2003:174.
[77]见TRIPS协议第四十条的规定
[78]如印度《1970年专利法》第一百四十条规定,禁止供方限制受方从除供方或其制定的供应商以外的其他渠道引进技术或购买所需的产品和设备或专利方法,或限制受方购买或租用专利产品,或从供方获取生产或使用专利产品的许可。2002年印度修改专利法时,增加了排他性回授,阻止质疑专利有效性和强迫性“一揽子”许可等内容。台湾地区专利法第六十条规定,发明专利权之让与或授权,契约约定有禁止或限制受让人使用某项物品或非出让人、授权人所供给之方法,或要求受让人购买术受专利保障之出品或原料,致生不公平竞争者,其约定无效。
[1]W.K Tom and J.A Newberg,Antitrust and Intellectual Property:from Separate Spheres to Unified Field,1997,66 Antitrust Law Journal,p167,172.
[2]Zenith Radio Corp.v.Hazeltine Research,395 U.S.100,130(1969).
[3]United States v.Masonite Corp.,316 US.265,280(1942).
[4]United States v Loew's,371 US 38(1960)
[5]In re Independent Service Organizations Antitrust Litigation,203 E3d 1322(Fed.Cir.2000)
[6]E.Bement & Sons v.National Harrow Co.,186 US 70,91(1902).
[7]Nancy T.Gallini and Michael J.Trebilcock,Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Policy:A Framework for Analysis of Economic and Legal Issues,in Robert D.Anderson and Nancy T.Gallini(eds),Competition Policy and Intellectual Property Rights in the Knowledge-Based Economics,pp17-64,the Industry Canada Research Series,Calgary:University of Calgary Press.
[8]杨明.知识产权请求权研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005:94-99.
[9]美国1995年《知识产权许可的反托拉斯指南》指出,适用于有形或无形资产的相同的一般反垄断的原则应该适用于与知识产权的相关行为。
[10]Ilkka Rahnasto,Intellectual Property Rights,External Effects and Anti-Trust Law:Leveraging IPRs in the Communications Industry,Oxford University Press(2003),p60.
[11]Antitrust Enforcement and IP Rights:Promoting Innovation and Competition(FTC/USDOC)April 2007
[12]Case 78/70 Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft v.Metro-SB-Grossmarkte[1971]C.M.L.R.631
[13]Baxter,Legal Restrictions on Exploitation of the Patent Monopoly:An Economic Analysis,76YALELJ.267,1966.
[14]如中国新近制定的反垄断法在第一条就强调了反垄断提高经济运行效率的目的。有学者指出:竞争政策以追求经济效率为目标,在这一点上意见基本一致。见吴小丁.反垄断与经济发展-日本竞争政策研究[M].北京:商务印书馆,2006:46.
[15]辜海笑.美国反托拉斯理论与政策[M].北京:中国经济出版社,2005:56.
[16]美国《知识产权许可的反托拉斯指南》第四条第二款
[17]美国《知识产权许可的反托拉斯指南》第五条第七款
[18]董红霞.美国欧盟横向并购指南研究[M].北京:中国经济出版社,2007:255.
[19]对于许可的商业利益见Jay Dratler,Jr.,.知识产权许可(上)[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2003:13-23.
[20]见Jay Dratler,Jr.,.知识产权许可(上)[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2003:24-30.
[21]伊利奇.考夫.专利经济学[M].北京:北京大学出版,2005:30.
[22]李玉剑.专利联盟:战略联盟研究的新领域[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2006:121.
[23]Carl Shapiro,Navigating the Patent Thicket:Cross Licenses,Patent Pools,and Standard-Setting,[EB/OL].:http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/shapiro/thicket.pdf
[24]Heller,M.A,The Tragedy of the Anticommons.Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets,Harvard Law Review,1998,111.
[25]美国《知识产权许可的反托拉斯指南》第二条第一款
[26]Steven D.Anderman & John Kallaugher,Technology Transfer and the New EU Competition Rules:Intellectual Property Licensing after Modernization,Oxford University Press,2006,p39.
[27]所谓表面的反竞争性是指一般处于本身违法的限制,一直或几乎一直倾向于减低产量或提高价格的其他限制。
[28]《关于适用欧盟条约八十一条关丁技术转移协议指南的通知》第一百三十一段
[29]《关于适用欧盟条约八十一条关于技术转移协议指南的通知》第二十五段
[30]谓技术市场问的竞争是指使用竞争技术的企业间的竞争。
[31]所谓技术市场内的竞争是指使用相同技术的企业之间的竞争。
[32]Image Technical Services,Inc.v.Eastman Kodak Co.,125 F.3d 1195(9th Cir.1997)
[33]In Re Independent Service Organizations Antitrust Litigation,203 E3d 1322(Fed C 2000).
[34]Robert C.Lind,Anya V.Kleymenova,Marie Miauton and Paul Muysert.Report on Multiparty Licensing,Prepared for the European Commission(EC) by Charles River Associates (CRA) to assist the Directorate General for Competition in its Review of the Application of Article 81(1) and(3) to Patent Pools and Cross Licensing of Intellectual Property,p48-49.转引自张平.专利联营之反垄断规制分析[J].现代法学,2007,03.
[35]Federal Trade Commission Staff Report,Anticipating the 21st Century:Competition Policy in the New High-Tech Global Marketplace,1996,p14.
[36]专利权滥用原则与反垄断法有复杂的关系,其原因专利滥用原则的目的与反垄断法的目的存在相似之处,而反垄断法规制的行为和专利权滥用行为很多是相同的。专利权滥用执行的是反垄断政策,但美国最高法院和联邦巡同上诉法院都指出,构成专利滥刚并不一定达到垄断的程度。这就是说,专利滥用的标准低于垄断的标准。提出反垄断指控者必须证明,所指控的行为已经或可能产生损害竞争的后果,但提出专利滥用抗辩的人不必提出类似证据。有学者认为,专利权滥用与违反反垄断法的行为存在以下三个方面的区别:第一,与反垄断诉求不同,专利权滥用是盾而不是矛。它使得被控侵权人免于因其侵权行为受到法律制裁,但是它不能为被控侵权人提供要求金钱或禁令救济的基础;第二,虽然违反反垄断法的行为一般足以构成专利滥用,但专利权滥用并不必然违反反垄断法;法院已经发现在专利权滥用情形下并不存在违反反垄断法的行为;第三,与违反反垄断法的行为不同,专利权滥用 可以得到矫正。参见:Jay Dratler,JL,.知识产权许可(上)[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2003:488页.See also Mark A.Lemley,The Economic Irrationality of the Patent Misuse Doctrine,78 Calif.L.Rev.1599,1990.
[37]这意味着此时知识产权许可的“安全区制度”对知识产权的转让的并购分析不适用。所谓安全区是指:若不特殊情况,主管机关将不会对知识产权许可安排中的限制提出质疑,如果(1)该限制不具有明显的反竞争性以及(2)在受该限制实质性影响的相关市场上,许可人和被许可人的合计市场份额不超过20%。
[38]卫新江.欧盟美国企业合并反垄断规制比较研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005:35.
[39]欧盟先前采用支配地位标准,随着执法实践和经济理论研究的深入,2004年欧盟部长理事会通过了修改的《理事会关于企业之间集中控制条例》,对1989年条例进行了大幅度修改。欧盟修改后的标准采用严重妨碍有效竞争标准(significantly impedes effective competition)代替以往的支配地位标准,并注重效率问题,在一定程度上表现出与美国并购规制分析框架和标准的趋同。见董红霞.美国欧盟横向并购指南研究[M].北京:中国经济出版社,2007:212.
[40]《中华人民共和国反垄断法》第五十五条规定:经营者滥用知识产权,排除、限制竞争的行为,适用本法。
[41]Commission Notice on the Concept of undertaking concerned,OJ 1998 C 66/14
[42]Jochen Burdchter,Hengeler Miiller,Intellectual Property and Merger Control(Germany/EU)[EB/OL].:http://www.eui.eu/RSCAS/Research/Competition/2005/200510-CompDurand.pdf
[43]王晓晔.滥用知识产权限制竞争的法律问题[J].中国社会科学,2007,04.
[44]李慧颖.论与知识产权有关的经营者集中[J].电子知识产权,2007,07.
[45]《欧共体竞争法中界定相关市场的通告》第七条
[46]Queen City Pizza,.Inc.v.Domino's Pizza,Inc.,124 F.3d 430(3d Cir.1997).
[47]Queen City Pizza,Inc.v.Domino's Pizza,Inc.,124 E3d 430(3d.Cir.1997)
[48]Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Mozelle W.Thompson FTC File No.021-0026[EB/OL].:http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/01/thompsongenzymestmt.pdf
[49]Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Mozelle W.Thompson FTC File No.021-0026[EB/OL].:http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/01/thompsongenzymestmt.pdf.
[50]该指南2007年9月28日由日本公平贸易委员会发布。日本公平贸易委员会为日本的竞争执法机构。该指南的全文见[EB/OL].:http://www.jflc.go.jp/e-page/pressreleases/2007/September/070928_IP_Guideline.pdf
[51]《欧共体竞争法中界定相关市场的通告》第八条
[52]Simon Bishop,Mike Walker.Economics of EC Competition Law,Sweet&Maxwell,1999,p.65.
[53]Case IV/M 269,[1994]O I L 332/48;[1996]4 C.M.L.R.469.
[54]HHI指数是依据市场中所有公司的市场占有率平方加总得出。
[55]罗伯特.P.墨杰斯.新技术时代的知识产权法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:902.
[56]罗伯特.P.墨杰斯新技术时代的知识产权法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:903.
[57]Silicon Graphics,C-3626(FRC Consent Order Nov.14,1995).
[58]Commission Notice Guidelines on the Application of Art.81 of the EC Treaty to Technology Transfer Agreements,OJ 2004,C 101/2-42.
[59]见吴小丁.反垄断与经济发展-日本竞争政策研究[M].北京:商务印书馆,2006:46.日本垄断法下的知识产权利用指南也明确指出在根据垄断法评价对技术使用限制时,作为一般规则,需要考虑其影响了那些交易,然后对限制进行考量以决定是否在交易发生的市场竞争受到了减损。竞争是否受到减损需要从实质性的对竞争的限制以及不公平的贸易做法两个方面进行审查。
[60]Cephalon,Inc./Cima Labs,Inc.,FTC Docket No.C-4121.
[61]Commission Notice on restrictions directly related and necessary to concentrations(2005/C 56/03).
[62]Francois Leveque,Howard Shelanski(eds),Merger Remedies in American and European Union Competition Law,Edward Elgar Publishing,2004,p108.
[63]Francois Leveque,Howard Shelanski(eds),Merger Remedies in American and European Union Competition Law,Edward Elgar Publishing,2004,p163.
[64]Chapter 8 of the FTC Report Anticipating the 21st Century:Competition Policy in the New High-Tech,Global Marketplace.
[65]Besser Mfg.Co.v.United States,343 U.S.444,447(1952)
[66]Laura D'Andrea Tyson,"McBoeing" Should Be Cleared for Takeoff,Wall St.J.,July 22,1997,pA10.
[67]Eleanor M.Fox,Extraterritoriality and the Merger Law:Can All Nations Rule the World,Antitrust Rep.,Dec.1999,p2.
[68]WTO,Report(2000) of the Working Group on the Interaction between Trade and Competition Policy to the General Council,para.58,WT/WGTCP/4,30 November 2000.
[69]Josef Drexl,International Competition Law -A Missing Link between TRIPs and Transfer of Technology,[EB/OL].:http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/meetings /2003/wipo_wto/presentations/doc/drexl.doc
[70]这方面的具体介绍,请参阅张乃根.国际贸易与知识产权法(第二版)[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007. 产权的、国有企业以知识产权许可外国公司、企业、其他经济组织或个人使用,市场没有参照价格的等必须进行评估,而非国有单位合并涉及知识产权的,可以参照国有企业进行资产评估。
[4]国家税务总局关于北京松下彩色显像管有限公司支付技术提成费征免进口环节增值税问题的函
[5]国税发[2005]45号
[6]国税发[2000]119号
[7]国税函[2002]165号
[8]国税函[2004]279号
[9]袁晓东.激励技术创新的法律制度研究[M].武汉:华中科技大学出版社,2007:228.
[10]见台湾地区所得税法第四条第一项第二十一款
[11]姚君,朱雪忠.现行税制不利于知识产权发展的表现及对策[J]..经济研究参考,2006,06
[12]在上海电气集团的上海人造扳机器厂的收购案中,上海人造板机器厂最初答应世界最大的人造板机器制造商辛北尔康普收购,但收购的前提是其必须转移相关的迮续压机的技术,因为上海人造板机器厂在此项目上投入的研发将近10年,但进展不大。但辛北尔康普公司拒绝向合资企业转移相关技术,此收购案最终告吹。最后,上海人造板机器厂与一家德国公司合资,因为其答应向其转移连续压机的核心技术。
[13]商务部牵头“听证”徐工三天连遇数十问,[EB/OL].:http://news.xinhuanet.com/fortune/2006-07/28/content_4886452.htm
[14]朱宏文.现代反垄断法的发展与我国的反垄断立法-企业合并控制为中心.社会科学研究[J].2001,(3).
[15]制造业:技术落后是最大不安全,[EB/OL].:http://www.eis.org.cn/pub/readMsg.jsp?msgID=11268
[16]《禁止进口限制进口技术管理办法》第八条
[17]《中华人民共和国技术进出口管理条例》第七条
[18]发改工业[2007]2515号
[19]《进口贴息资金管理暂行办法》,财企[2007]205号
[20]《进口贴息资金管理暂行办法》,财企[2007]205号
[21]国税发[2005]45号
[22]六国“国家安全审查”制度,[EB/OL].:http://www.caijjng.com.cn/newcn/aml/tgtg/2007-08-30/28568.shtml
[23]杨雪婷,于伟敏等.盘点2005年中国企业海外并购:联想一波三折[N].北京现代商报,2005,12(27).
[24]《克莱顿法》第七条
[25]Council Regulation(EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings(the EC Merger Regulation)
[26]《欧盟并购条例》(the EC Merger Regulation)第一条,全称为《理事会关于企业之间集中控制条例》(Council Regulation(EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the Control of Concentrations between Undertakings)
[27]Rachel Brandenburger & Thomas Jassens,European Merger Control:Do the Checks and Balances Need to be Re-set,Speech before Fordham Corporate Law Instititute's 28th Annual Conference.
[28]Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines,[EB/OL].:http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/2614.pdf
[29]Guidelines on the assessment of non-horizontal mergers under the Council Regulationon the control of concentrations between undertakings
[30]张建军.中美技术出口管理法律制度的比较研究[D].西安:西北大学硕士论文,2004.
[31]冯震宇.高科技产业之法律策略与规划[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005:85
[32]这些免税的具体情况见冯震宇.高科技产业之法律策略与规划[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005:85-87.
[33]胡果威.美国公司法.法律出版社[M].北京:法律出版社,199:88-89.
[34]赵旭东主编.新公司法制度设计.[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:279.
[35]Ronald Cuming Q.C..加拿大及美国的知识产权担保法发展概述[J].中国发明与专利,2006.11.
[36]In re Peregrine Entertainment,Ltd.,116 Bankr.194.16 U.S.P.Q 2d 1017
[37]City Bank & Trust Co.v.Otto Fabric Inc.,83 Bankr.780,U.S.P.Q 2d 1719
[38]Howard Knopf,Security Interests in Intellectual Property,Carswell Legal Pubns,2002,p64.
[39]柳传志:联想并购IBM初步成功获三样成果[EB/OL]:http://www.techweb.com.cn/people/2007-12-11/279036.shtml
[1]陈容,张卫.企业并购中知识产权律师职责[J].中国专利与商标,2006,02.
[2]陈伟,于丽艳.企业国际化经营知识产权战略系统耦合研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2007,12.
[3]曹阳.国际知识产权制度:冲突、规范与非国家行为体[J].知识产权,2007,02.
[4]曹阳.专利的非显而易见性判断－对美国最高法院在Teleflex案判决的解析[J].北方法学,2008,02.
[5]董新凯.我国股东以专利投资的相关法律问题[J].学术论坛,2007,11.
[6]郭洁.实物期权理论在专利权价值评估中的应用[J].财会月刊,2007,04.
[7]胡倬.初探专利制度对世界经济发展的贡献[J].知识产权,2002,05.
[8]焦洪涛,林小爱.知识产权资产证券化[J].科技与法律2004,01.
[9]李慧颖.论与知识产权有关的经营者集中[J].电子知识产权,2007,07.
[10]马忠法.知识产权制度设立之目的知识产权制度设立之目的--由我国技术转化率低引发的思考[J].电子知识产权,2006,11.
[11]马忠法.试论我国向外转让专利权制度的完善[J].复旦学报,2007,05.
[12]魏衍亮.知识产权评估问题研究[J].电子知识产权,2006,12.
[13]吴汉东.知识产权本质的多维度解读[J].中国法学,2006,05.
[14]吴汉东.关于知识产权私权属性的再认识--兼评“知识产权公权化”理论.社会科学[J].2005,10.
[15]王晓晔.滥用知识产权限制竞争的法律问题[J].中国社会科学,2007,04.
[16]王岩.知识产权的财务应用--兼谈知识资产的资本化与证券化[J].知识产权,2007,05.
[17]姚君.促进我国知识产权发展的税制改革研究[J].经济师,2006,11.
[28]姚君,朱雪忠.现行税制不利于知识产权发展的表现及对策[J].经济研究参考,2006,06.
[18]姚君,朱雪忠.促进我国知识产权发展的税制改革研究[J].经济师,2006,11.
[19]袁雯卿.专利交易的尽职调查[J].电子知识产权,2007,9.
[20]叶学峰,魏江.基于核心竞争能力的购并整合[J].科研管理,2002,03.
[21]杨春鹏,伍海华.实物期权在专利权价值评估中的应用[J].系统工程理论与实践,2002,06.
[22]余振刚,邱菀华,余振华.我国知识产权证券化理论与发展策略研究[J].科学学研究,2007,06.
[23]颜上咏,陈帝利.欧洲与美国商业方法专利学理之研究[J].东海大学法学研究,2004,12.
[24]赵晨.专利价值评估的方法与实务[J].电子知识产权,2006,11.
[25]张乃根.国际经济关系的技术因素及其法律影响[J].复旦学报,2001,01.
[26]张乃根.专利许可、标准化与反垄断的三角关系[J].WTO经济导刊,2007,07
[27]张乃根.论与知识产权有关的反垄断法[J].中国工商管理研究,2000,4.
[28]张乃根.TRIPS专利条款比较研究[J].研究与发展管理,1996,04.
[29]张平.专利联营之反垄断规制分析[J].现代法学,2007,03.
[30]Ronald Cuming Q.C..加拿大及美国的知识产权担保法发展概述[J].中国发明与专利.2006.11.
[1]布莱恩,R.柴芬斯.公司法:理论、结构和运作[M].北京:法律出版社,2001.
[2]包群等.外商直接投资、吸收能力与经济增[M].上海:上海三联书店,2006.
[3]陈昌柏.知识产权战略--知识产权在经济增长中的优化配置[M].北京:科学出版社,1999.
[4]程永顺.中国专利诉讼[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2005.
[5]蔡四青.国际技术贸易与知识产权[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2007.
[6]董涛.专利权利要求[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[7]董红霞.美国欧盟横向并购指南研究[M].北京:中国经济出版社,2007.
[8]丹尼尔.史普博.管制与市场[M].上海:上海三联书店,上海人民出版社年版,1999.
[9]大卫·D·弗里德曼著.经济学语境下的法律规则[M].北京:法律出版社,2004.
[10]冯晓青.企业知识产权战略[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2005.
[11]冯晓青.知识产权法利益平衡理论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2006.
[12]冯震宇.高科技产业之法律策略与规划[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[13]富兰克.H.奈特.风险、不确定与利润[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[14]干春晖.并购经济学[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2004.
[15]辜海笑.美国反托拉斯理论与政策[M].北京:中国经济出版社,2005.
[16]富田彻男.市场竞争中的知识产权[M].北京:商务印书馆,2000.
[17]甘古力.知识产权:释放知识经济的能量[M].北京:知识产权出版社出版,2004.
[18]古祖雪.国际知识产权法[M].北京:法律出版社,2002
[19]高山行等.企业专利竞赛理论与策略[M].北京:科学出版社,2005.
[20]郭德忠.专利许可的反垄断规制[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2006.
[21]冈田全启.专利商标侵权攻防策略[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2006.
[22]格拉茨尔.商务专利战略[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2001.
[23]候汉波.中国企业战略并购熵决策理论与应用研究[M].北京:知识产权出版社出版,2007.
[24]胡果威.美国公司法.法律出版社[M].北京:法律出版社,2003.
[25]胡开忠.知识产权法比较研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004.
[26]胡峰.跨国并购政策协调-欧盟经验、嬗变趋势与中国的选择上海:上海交通大学出版社,2007.
黄茂荣.法学方法与现代民法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1995.2001.
[27]Jay Dratler,Jr.,.知识产权许可(上)[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2003.
[28]李明德.美国知识产权法[M].北京:法律出版社,2003.
[29]李玉剑.专利联盟:战略联盟研究的新领域[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2006.
[30]刘华.知识产权的理性与绩效分析[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004.
[31]罗伯特.P.墨杰斯等.新技术时代的知识产权法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[32]罗肇鸿主编.跨国并购:特点、影响和对策[M].北京:中国经济出版社,2006.
[33]赖利,施韦斯主编.商业价值评估与知识产权分析手册[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2006.
[34]马忠法.国际技术转让法律制度理论与实务研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.
[35]马一德.中国企业知识产权战略学[M].北京:商务印书馆,2006.
[36]诺思 托马斯.西方世界的兴起[M].北京:华夏出版社,1999.
[37]帕拉等著.技术许可战略:企业经营战略的利剑[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2006.
[38]宋军.跨国并购与经济发展[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2004.
[39]宋丙洛.全球化和知识化时代的经济学[M].北京:商务印书馆,2003.
[40]斯泰尔等编.技术创新与经济绩效[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2005.
[41]Shapiro C,Varian H,.信息规则[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2000.
[42]孙涛.公司并购决策及有效性分析[M].北京:经济管理出版社,2006.
[43]苏达斯纳.并购创造价值[M].北京:经济管理出版社,2006.
[44]萨缪尔.韦弗等著.兼并与收购[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2003.
[45]唐广良,董炳和.知识产权的国际保护(修订版)[M].北京:知识产权出版社, 2006.
[46]陶鑫良,袁真富.知识产权法总论[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2005.
[47]王先林.知识产权与反垄断法(知识产权滥用的反垄断问题研究)[M].北京:法律出版社,1998.
[48]王承守,邓颖懋.美国专利诉讼功防策略运用[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[49]王冰.知识产权战略制定与战术执行[M].武汉.武汉大学出版社,2007.
[50]王晋刚,张铁军.专利化生存[M].北京:知识产权出版社出版,2005.
[51]吴小丁.反垄断与经济发展－日本竞争政策研究[M].北京:商务印书馆,2006.
[52]吴欣望.专利经济学[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2005.
[53]吴欣望.知识产权－经济、规则与政策.北京:经济科学出版社,2007.
[54]吴汉东等.知识产权基本问题研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[55]威廉M兰德斯,理查德A波斯纳.知识产权法的经济结构[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[56]卫新江.欧盟美国企业合并反垄断规制比较研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005:35.
[57]徐红菊.专利许可法律问题研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.
[58]许秀芳.国际技术转让所得课税法律问题[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2007.
[59]漆彤.跨国并购的法律规制[M].武汉.武汉大学出版社,2006.
[60]徐棣枫.专利权的扩张与限制[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2007.
[61]闫文军.专利权的保护范围:权利要求解释和等同原则适用[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.
[62]叶军.外资并购中国企业的法律问题[M].北京:法律出版社,2004.
[63]杨明.知识产权请求权研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[64]伊利奇.考夫.专利经济学[M].北京:北京大学出版,2005
[65]袁晓东.激励技术创新的法律制度研究[M].武汉:华中科技大学出版社,2007.
[66]尹新天.专利权的保护(第二版)[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2005.
[67]张乃根.国际贸易的知识产权法(第二版)[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007.
[68]张乃根.美国专利法判例选析[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1995.
[69]张乃根.法经济学--经济学视野里的法律现象[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[70]张乃根、陈乃蔚.知识创新与技术转移[M].上海:上海交通大学出版社,2005.
[71]张乃根、陈乃蔚.技术转移的法律理论与实务[M].上海:上海交通大学出版社,2006.
[72]张乃根、陈乃蔚.技术转移与公平竞争[M].上海:上海交通大学出版社,2008.
[73]张乃根.TRIPS协定:理论与实践[M].上海:上海人民出版社2004.
[74]郑成思.知识产权论[M].北京:法律出版社,1998.
[75]郑成思.知识产权法[M].北京:法律出版社,2004.
[76]郑成思.知识产权价值评估中的法律问题[M].北京:法律出版社,1999.
[77]张玉敏主编.中国欧盟知识产权法比较研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2005.
[78]张爱珠.知识产权会计[M].北京:中国物资出版社,2005.
[79]张晓都.专利实质条件[M].北京:法律出版社,2002.
[80]张海涛.知识型企业并购的风险管理[M].上海:上海社会科学文献出版社,2007.
[81]赵桥梁.知识经济与国际关系[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,1999.
[82]赵旭东主编.新公司法制度设计.[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[83]赵江林.东亚技术供给、知识产权保护与经济增长.北京:经济科学出版社,2007.
[84]曾广胜.跨国并购的新制度经济学分析[M].北京:经济科学出版社,2006.
[85]曾海帆编著.专利制度发展简史[M].湖南:湖南省科技情报研究所,1985.
[86]曾陈明汝.两岸暨欧美专利法[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[87]郑翘楚编著.企业专利战略[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2006.
[88]植草益.微观规制经济学[M].北京:中国发展出版社,1992.
[89]朱家贤.反垄断立法与政府管制[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2007.
[90]朱榄叶,刘晓红.知识产权法律冲突与解决问题研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2004.
[1]杰夫里.弗兰克.经济全球化[A].见:约瑟夫·S·奈,约翰·D·唐纳胡主编.全球化世界的治理[M].北京:世界知识出版社,2003.
[2]曹阳.TRIPS与发展中国家的知识产权[A].见:知识产权理论与实务－2006年知识产权征文获奖论文集[C].北京:知识产权出版社,2006.
[3]彼德·高赫.理性人:瑞士债法中的人像[A].见:民商法论丛第35卷[C].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[1]吴宏宜.企业并购之智慧财产权相关法律问题研究[D].台湾:东吴大学硕士论文,2005.
[2]张斌.新经济下的网络兼并研究[D].杭州:浙江大学,2005.
[3]张建军.中美技术出口管理法律制度的比较研究[D].西安:西北大学硕士论文,2004.
[1]聂莹.兼并收购Vs知识产权-从联想购并IBM PC业务看知识产权兼并与收购,[N].中国知识产权报,2005,3(21).
[2]张宇燕.对当今国际格局的几点思考[N].文汇报,2004,3(28):6.
[3]杨雪婷 于伟敏等.盘点2005年中国企业海外并购:联想一波三折[N].北京现代商报,2005,12(27).
[1]普华永道:今年前11个月中国并购交易持续强劲增长[EB/OL].:http://news.xinhuanet.com/newscenter/2007-12/19/content_7281174.htm
[2]国家知识产权局局长:99%国内企业没申请专利[EB/OL].:http://news.xinhuanet.com/legal/2006-04/27/content_4479757.htm
[3]专利战只相信专利,http://www.cnipr.com/zgzl/zldt/t20080122_96138.htm.
[4]日、美企业专利谋略佳能连续第10年进入三甲[EB/OL].:http://tech.sina.com.cn/roll/2003-06-03/1453194090.shtml
[5]专利许可收入占三分之一:高通业务模式遭质疑[EB/OL].:http://tech.tom.com/2007-01-29/04BC/09364628.html
[6]商务部牵头“听证”徐工三天连遇数十问[EB/OL].:http://news.xinhuanet.com/fortune/2006-07/28/content_4886452.htm
[7]制造业:技术落后是最大不安全[EB/OL].:http://www.eis.org.cn/pub/readMsg.jsp?msgID=11268
[8]六国“国家安全审查”制度[EB/OL].:http://www.caijing.com.cn/newcn/aml/tgtg/2007-08-30/28568.shtml
[9]柳传志:联想并购IBM初步成功,获三样成果[EB/OL].:http://www.techweb.com.cn/people/2007-12-11/279036.shtml
[10]张杰斌.公司法、合同法与知识产权法互动背景下技术出资的权利类型问题研究[EB/OL].:http://article.chinalawinfo.com/article/user/article_display.asp?ArticlelD=30909
[11]美日欧三局签署《专利申请谅解备忘录》[EB/OL].:http://www.sipo.gov.cn /sipo/xwdt/gwzscqxx/2007/200711/t20071126_220932.htm
[12]见美国专利司法审判出现四大新动向[EB/OL].:http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo/ xwdt/gwzscqxx/2007/200711/t20071129_222038.htm.
[13]James Love,药品专利强制许可制度在各国法律实践中的新发展[EB/OL].:http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo/xwdt/mtjj/2007/200706/t20070621_175720.htm
[14]在德国经商过程中的知识产权风险,[EB/OL].:http://china.ahk.de/ch/gennany/business-regulations/ip-risk/
[15]文希凯.《专利法条约》将在10国生效[EB/OL].:http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo/xwdt/gwzscqxx/2005/200608/t20060804_105804.htm.
[16]波特五力分析与专利情报收集[EB/OL].:http://cdnet.stpi.org.tw/techroom/pdass/pclass_A021.htm
[17]JPO发布《雇员发明制度改进报告》[EB/OL].:http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo/xwdt/gwzscqxx/2004/200608/t20060804_106177,htm
[18]美国专利文献[EB/OL].:http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo/wxfw/zlwxyxxzsyd/ggzlwxjs/200608/P020060802523525582019.doc
[19]World Trade Report 2007[EB/OL].:http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/world_trade_report07_e.pdf
[20]Alain Pompidou,Patent protection "key to Europe's knowledge economy [EB/OL].:http://www.alphagalileo.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=readrelease&releaseid=515768&ez search=1
[21]Dennis S.Fernandez,Esq;Inna S.Shestul,Effective International Intellectual Property Strategies to Mitegate USTaxes[EB/OL]..:www.iploft.com/Tax-Article.pdf.
[22]Josef Drexl,International Competition Law - A Missing Link between TRIPs and Transfer of Technology[EB/OL].:http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/meetings/2003/wipo_wto/presentations/doc/drexl.doc
[23]A.Douglas Melamed,Promoting Sound Antitrust Enforcement in the Global Economy,Speech before the Fordham Corporate Law Institute 27th Annual Conference on International Antitrust Law and Policy,[EB/OL].:http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/speeches/6785.htm.
[24]Jochen Burrichter,Hengeler Miiller,Intellectual Property and Merger Control (Germany/EU)[EB/OL].:http://www.eui.eu/RSCAS/Research/Competition/2005/200510-CompDurand.pdf
[25]Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines[EB/OL].:http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/2614.pdf
[26]Henry R.Hertzfeld,Albert N.Link and Nicholsa S.Vonortas,Intellectual Property Protection Mechanisms and Research Partnerships,[EB/OL].:http:// www.gwu.edu/～cistp/research/publications/Intellectual_Property_Protection_Mechani sms.pdf.
[27] Carl Shapiro, Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard-Setting [EB/OL].:http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/shapiro/thicket.pdf.
[1] Alistair Lindsay, The EC Merger Regulation: Substantive Issues, Sweet & Maxwell, 2003.
[2] Anatole Krattiger,et al (eds), Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices, Volume 1 &2 ,MIHR & PIPRA,2007
[3] Ashley Roughton, Trevor Cook and Michael Spence, the Modern Law of Patents, Lexisnexis Butterworths, 2005.
[4] Baxter, Legal Restrictions on Exploitation of the Patent Monopoly: An Economic Analysis, 76 YALE LJ. 267,1966.
[5] Bin Xu, Eric P. Chiang.Trade, Patents and International Technology Diffusion, Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 2005 Vol.14.
[6] Brian G. Brunsvold, Dennis P. O'Reilley. Drafting Patent License Agreements, BNABooks,2004.
[7] Bruce Berman (editor), From Ideas to Assets: Investing In Intellectual Property, JohnWiley & Sons, Inc,2002.
[8] Claas Junghans, Adam Levy, Intellectual Property Management, Wiley VCH, 2006.
[9] Carlos M. Correa, Can the TRIPS Agreement Foster Technology Transfer to Developing Countries? In International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology Under a Globalized Intellectual Property Regime, Keith E. Maskus & Jerome H. Reichman eds.,Cambridge University Press , 2005.
[10] Daniel Slottje, Economic Damages in Intellectual Property: A Hands-On Guide to Litigation, Wiley, 2006.
[11] David Klein, Intellectual Property in Mergers and Acquisitions, West Group, 2006.
[12] David Keeling, Intellectual Property Rights in EU Law, Oxford University Press, 2003.
[13] Derek Bosworth, Elizabeth Webster(eds), The Management of Intellectual Property,Edward Elgar Pub,2006.
[14]Dina Kallay,The Law and Economics of Antitrust and Intellectual Property,Edward Elgar,2004.
[15]DOC/FTC:Antirust Enforcement and IP Rights:Promoting Innovation and Competition,April,2007.
[16]Donald S.Chisum,et al,Principle of Patent Law,Foundation Press,2004.
[17]Donald S.Chisum,Common and Civil Law Approaches to Patent Claim Interpretation:'Fence Posts'and 'Sign Posts',In Intellectual Property in the New Millennium,Essays in Honor of William R.Cornish,David Vaver & Lionel Bently Donald S.Chisum(eds),Cambridge University Press,2004.
[18]Eleanor M.Fox,Extraterritoriality and the Merger Law:Can All Nations Rule the WorM,Antitrust Rep.,Dec.1999.
[19]Farrel and Saloner,Standardization,Compatibility and Innovation,Rand Journal of Economics,1985.
[20]F.D.Prager.The Early Growth and Influence of Intellectual Property,J,Pat,Off.Soc'y 106,114,n,17(1952) 34.
[21]Federal Trade Commission Staff Report,Anticipating the 2lst Century:Competition Policy in the New High-Tech Global Marketplace,1996.
[22]Francois Leveque,Howard Shelanski(eds),Merger Remedies in American and European Union Competition Law,Edward Elgar Publishing,2004.
[23]Francois Leveque,Howard Shelanski,Antitrust,Patents and Copyright:EU and US Perspectives,Edward Elgar,2005.
[24]Fredrick M.Abbott,Toward a New Era of Objective Assessment in the Field of TRIPS and Variable Geometry for the Preservation of Multilateralism,Journal of International Economic Law,2005 8(1).
[25]Gary M.Hoffman,et al,Handling Intellectual Property Issues in Business Transactions 2005,Practicing Law Institute,2005.
[26]Gordon Smith,Russel Parr,Intellectual Property Licensing and JV Profit Strategies,John Wiley & Sons,Inc,2003.
[27]Gordon V.Smith,Russell L.Parr,Valuation of Intellectual Property and Intangible Assets,John Wiley & Sons,2004.
[28]Guy Tritton,Intellectual Property In Europe,Sweet & Maxwell,2002.
[29]Heller,M.A.The Tragedy of the Anti-commons Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets,Harvard Law Review,1998.
[30]Howard Knopf,Security Interests in Intellectual Property,Carswell Legal Pubns,2002.
[31]Ilkka Rahnasto,Intellectual Property Rights,External Effects and Anti-Trust Law:Leveraging IPRs in the Communications Industry,Oxford University Press,2003.
[32]Intellectual Property Rights:Implications for Development,UNCTAD-ICTSD Policy Discussion Paper,2003.
[33]Janice M.Mueller,An Introduction to Patent Law,CITIC Publishing House,2003.
[34]Joseph Wilson,Globalization and the Limits of National Merger Control Laws,Kluwer Law International,2003.
[35]John R.Allison & Mark A.Lemley,Empirical Evidence on the Validity of Litigated Patents,26 AIPLA Q.J.1998,p185,208.
[36]John Cantwell(eds),The Economics of Patents,Volume Ⅰ & Ⅱ,Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,2006.
[37]John Adams,Julian Hickey and Guy Tritton,Merchandising Intellectual Property,Tottel Publishing,2007.
[38]J.Clifton Fleming,Jr.,Domestic Section 351 Transfers of Intellectual Property:The Law as It is vs.The Law as the Commisssioner would prefer it to be,16 J.Corp.Tax n.99,1989.
[39]Katz,Michael,Shapiro,Network Externalities,Competition and Compatibility,American Economic Review,1985.
[40]Keith Maskus,Regulatory Standards in the WTO:Comparing Intellectual Property Rights with Competition Policy,Environmental Protection,and Core Labor Standards,World Trade Review,2002,1.
[41]Keith E.Maskus,Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy,Institute for International Economics,2000.
[42]Keith Maskus & Jerome Reichman,International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology under a Globalized Intellectual Property Regime,Cambridge University Press,2005.
[43]Klaus Jennewein,Intellectual Property Management:the Role of Technology-Brands in the Appropriation of Technological Innovation,Physica-Verlag Heidelberg,2005.
[44]Lanning Bryer,Melvin Seminsky,Intellectual Property Assets in Mergers and Acquisitions,Wiley,2001.
[45]Laura D'Andrea Tyson,"McBoeing" Should Be Cleared for Takeoff,Wall St.J.,July 22,1997,at A10.
[46]Lee Branstetter,Raymond Fisman,and Fritz Foley,Do Stronger Intellectual Property Rights Increase International Technology Transfer? Empirical Evidence from U.S.Firm-Level Panel Data,World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No.3305,2004.
[47]Martin J.Adelman,et al,Cases and Materials on Patent Law,West Group,2003.
[48]Meir Perez Pugatch,The International Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights,Edward Elgar,2004.
[49]Richard Gordon,Antitrust Abuse in the New Economy,Edward Elgar,2003.
[50]Alexandra George,Globalization and Intellectual Property,Shgate Publishing Limited,2006.
[51]Robert C.Faber,Landis on Mechanics of Patent Claim Drafting,Practising Law Institute,2005.
[52]Maskus Keith and Mohan Penubarti,How Trade-RelatedAre Intellectual Property Rights? Journal of International Economics,Vol.39,1995,.
[53]Mark A.Lemley,The Economic Irrationality of the Patent Misuse Doctrine,78Calif.L.Rev.,1990.
[54]Mark Anderson,et al,Technology Transfer:Law,Practice and Precedents,Butterworths LexisNexis,2003.
[55]Marta Sender,Cross-border Enforcement of Patent Rights,Oxford University Press,2002.
[56]Mikhaelle Schiappacasse,Intellectual Property Rights in China:Technology Transfer and Economic Development,Buffalo IP Law Journal,Summer,2004.
[57]Nancy T.Gallini and Michael J.Trebilcock,Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Policy:A Framework for Analysis of Economic and Legal Issues,in Robert D.Anderson and Nancy T.Gallini(eds),Competition Policy and Intellectual Property Rights in the Knowledge-Based Economics,the Industry Canada Research Series,Calgary,University of Calgary Press.
[58]OECD:Competition Policy and Intellectual Property Rights,1998.
[59]Ove Granstrand,the Economics and Management of Intellectual Property,Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,1999.
[60]PaulMcGubbess,Intellectual Property Commercialization - a Business Manager's Companion,LexisNexis Butterworths Australian,2003.
[61]Peter Howson,Due Diligence:The Critical Stage in Mergers and Acquisitions,Gower Publishing Company,2003.
[62]Phillip McCalman,National Patents,Innovation and InternationaI Agreements,Journal of International Trade & Economic Development,2002,11.
[63]P.J.Federico,Commentary on the New Patent Act,Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society 75,1993.
[64]Richard Razgaitis,Valuation and Pricing of Technology-Based Intellectual Property,Wiley,2002.
[65]Richard J.Gallafent,Nigel A Eastaway,Victor Dauppe,Intellectual Property Law and Taxation,Sweet & Maxell,2004.
[66]Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss,The Federal Circuit:A Case Study in Specialized Courts,New York University Review 1,26,1989.
[67]R.Polk Wagner & Lee Petherbridge,Is the Federal Circuit Succeeding?An EmpiricalAssessment of Judicial Performance,152 University of Pennsylvania Law Review,2004.
[68]Robert P.Merges,Commercial Success and Patent Standards:Economic Perspective on Innovation,76 CAL.L.Rev.803,867 & n.260,868,1988.
[69]Russel Parr,Royalty Rates for Licensing Intellectual Property,John Wiley &Sons,Inc.,2007.
[70]Steven D.Anderman & John Kallaugher,Technology Transfer and the New EU Competition Rules:Intellectual Property Licensing after Modernization,Oxford University Press,2006.
[71]UNCTAD:World Investment Report 200,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006.
[72]USPTO:Manual of Patent Examining Procedure.
[73]W.Carl Kester,Today's options for tomorrow's Growth,Harvard Business Review,Mar 1984.
[74]William Cornish,Cases and Materials on Intellectual Property,Sweet &Maxwell,2003.
[75]W.K Tom and J.A Newberg,.Antitrust and Intellectual Property:From Separate Spheres to Unified Field,Antitrust Law Journal,1997,66.
[76]Yusaf Akbar,Global Antitrust:Trade and Competition Linkages,Shgate Publishing Limited,2003.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |