02627nam 2200577z- 450 99654035340331620231214133456.0(CKB)4920000000095310(oapen)https://directory.doabooks.org/handle/20.500.12854/44600(EXLCZ)99492000000009531020202102d2019 |y 0engurmn|---annantxtrdacontentcrdamediacrrdacarrierDeceptive Conducts before the Patent OfficeChallenges for Patent Law and Competition LawNomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG20191 electronic resource (335 p.)Munich Intellectual Property Law Center – MIPLC3-8487-6134-3 3-7489-0257-3 In an increasingly harmonized global patent landscape, few issues still distinguish the US patent system as much as its strict–and often criticized–duty of candor and its inequitable conduct doctrine. The EPO and most other countries around the world impose less burdensome disclosure duties upon patent applicants. What is there to learn from the experience in the US? Have these tools resulted in any benefit worth considering? Yet regardless of the disclosure duties imposed upon patent applicants, a deceptive conduct before the Patent Office could lead to unwarranted exclusive rights and have a negative impact on competition. Should antitrust law intervene? Is it a case of sham litigation? This work attempts to answer those questions through a comparative analysis, examining the law and case law in the US and in the EU from both a patent and a competition law perspective and seeking a workable theory of harm.pharmazeutischer Patientirreführendes VerhaltenWettbewerbsrechtPatentanmeldungPatentamthigh courtSupreme Courtinequitable conductCompetition Lawkristalline FormPatentrechtApotexWalker Processtert-Butylaminsalzduty of candorFraud before the Patent OfficePerindoprilScheincharakterAstraZenecaPatent OfficeServierLJ Jacobpatent lawHoss Eugenioauth1287687BOOK996540353403316Deceptive Conducts before the Patent Office3020297UNISA