Video Upload Options

References

1. International Enclopedia of Comparative Law. BRILL. 1976. p. U-42. "A particular feature of the legal protection of inventions in the USSR is that legislation establishes two means of protection: the author's certificate and the patent. The author of an invention may by his own choice require either only the recognition of his authorship or the recognition of his authorship and the grant to him of the exclusive right to the invention." 
2. Ladas, Stephen Pericles (1975). Patents, trademarks, and related rights: national and international protection, Volume 1. Harvard University Press. p. 380. ISBN 0-674-65775-6. "In the Soviet Union and in a number of Socialist countries, there is another kind of grant for an invention called Author's or Inventor's Certificate" 
3. EPO Board of Appeal decision T 1727/12 of 1 February 2016, point 1.2. http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t121727eu1.html
4. Bucknell, Duncan (2011). Pharmaceutical, Biotechnology and Chemical Inventions: World Protection and Exploitation. Oxford University Press. p. 274. ISBN 9780199289011. 
5. Section 5(1) of the German Utility Model Act
6. "Sun, EBay, Rock & Republic, Troyer: Intellectual Property". https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&refer=conews&tkr=1149L:US&sid=aI70xRS4IR9w. Retrieved April 17, 2015. 
7. Article 4(1)(ii) PCT and Article 2(xiii) PCT. http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/a4.htm
8. Article 31(4)(a) PCT and Article 2(xiv) PCT. http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/a31.htm
9. Generics (UK) Ltd v Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co Ltd & Anor [2008] EWHC 2413 (Pat) (October 15, 2008), items 36–37. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2008/2413.html
10. Generics (UK) Ltd v Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co Ltd & Anor [2008] EWHC 2413 (Pat) (October 15, 2008), item 40.
11. EPO Board of Appeal decision T 0412/09 of 9 May 2012, point 2.1.3, referring to decision T 890/02, OJ EPO 2005, 497, point 2 of the reasons. http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t090412eu1.pdf
12. Decision T 0412/09 of 9 May 2012, point 2.1.3, referring to "T 890/02, point 2, and "Case Law of the Boards of Appeal" EPO, 6th edition, 2010, chapter I, section C.1.5 and last paragraph of section C.3.2.6" and "decisions T 151/05, points 3.4.1, 4.1 and 4.3 of the reasons, and T 452/05, point 2.4.1, paragraph (b)(ii)".
13. Mark A. Lemley, Kimberly A. Moore, Ending Abuse of Patent Continuations, Boalt Working Papers in Public Law (University of California, Berkeley), Year 2003, Paper 20 http://repositories.cdlib.org/boaltwp/20/
14. European Patent Office Enlarged Board of Appeal opinion G 3/08 of May 12, 2010, Reasons 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, 10.7.
15. Opinion G 3/08 (May 12, 2010), Reasons 10.6.
16. Lemley, Mark A., Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office (February 2001). Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 95, No. 4, 2001. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=261400 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.261400 https://doi.org/10.2139%2Fssrn.261400
17. Ruth Simon; Angus Loten (May 21, 2014). "States Revise Laws to Curb 'Patent Trolls'". The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304422704579574293500331028. Retrieved 27 May 2014. 
18. Article 31 PCT http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/a31.htm
19. See for example Rule 43(4) EPC https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/r43.html
20. Article 2(xiii) PCT http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/a2.htm
21. Decision G 2/10 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office, August 30, 2011, Reasons for the decision, point 2.1. http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/C777CFB3654BB240C12578FE00485B6C/$File/g2_10.pdf
22. "... the term "disclaimer" is used in the decision as meaning an amendment to a claim resulting in the incorporation therein of a "negative" technical feature, typically excluding from a general feature specific embodiments or areas" in Decision G 2/10, August 30, 2011, Reasons for the decision, point 2.2.
23. Article 2(xiv) PCT http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/a2.htm
24. Decision G 2/10 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office, August 30, 2011, Reasons for the decision, point 2.3. http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/C777CFB3654BB240C12578FE00485B6C/$File/g2_10.pdf
25. "International Exhaustion and Parallel Importation". WIPO. http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/ip_business/export/international_exhaustion.htm. Retrieved 23 May 2015. 
26. USPTO § 1.10 Filing of correspondence by "Express Mail." – Appendix R Patent Rules http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxr_1_10.htm
27. EPO Board of Appeal decision T 1408/04 of 17 November 2006, reasons 1, third paragraph. http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t041408eu1.html
28. See also Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, section h-v, 3.2.1 : "Intermediate generalisations", and Template:EPO Case law book: "Intermediate generalisation - undisclosed combination of selected features" https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/h_v_3_2_1.htm
29. Article 2(vii) PCT http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/a2.htm
30. McKesson v. Bridge Medical http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1517.pdf
31. Marlow Industries, Inc. v. Igloo Products Corp., 2002 WL 485698 (N.D. Tex. 2002)
32. "Telecom standards face patent ambush threat". ZDNet. 2005-06-15. http://news.zdnet.co.uk/itmanagement/0,1000000308,39203931,00.htm. Retrieved 2007-08-30. 
33. "Antitrust: Commission confirms sending a Statement of Objections to Rambus". European Commission. 2007-08-23. http://www.europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/07/330. Retrieved 2007-08-30. 
34. Patent Act of 1836
35. Carl Shapiro, Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard-Setting, 2001, Innovation Policy and the Economy (Vol. I) (Jaffe, E. et al., eds), pp. 119–150, MIT Press. http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/shapiro/thicket.pdf
36. Mark J. Thronson, Joel M. Grossman, Gabrielle S. Roth, Jon D. Grossman, Intellectual Property Legal Opinions (Loose Leaf), Aspen Publishers, 2008 Supplement, page 1-12. ISBN:978-0-7355-6194-6.
37. Something rotten, The Economist, August 6, 2009. Consulted on August 7, 2009. http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14172627
38. "Notice from the European Patent Office dated 8 March 2017 concerning the processing by the EPO as International Searching Authority of informal comments on earlier search results ("PCT Direct")". Official Journal of the European Patent Office (European Patent Office) (March 2017). March 31, 2017. http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/official-journal/2017/03/a21.html. Retrieved March 31, 2017. 
39. "1120-". http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/1100_1120.htm. Retrieved April 17, 2015. 
40. European Commission, Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry, Preliminary Report (DG Competition Staff Working Paper), November 28, 2008, page 98, footnote 116 (pdf, 1.95 MB). (See copyright notice in page 1: "Reproduction of parts of this report that are based on the Commission's own research is authorised, provided that the source is acknowledged. For material quoted in this report that is derived from other sources, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holder.") http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/pharmaceuticals/inquiry/preliminary_report.pdf
41. James, Peter (November 3–6, 1999). "Regional Patent Systems in Africa". Open Forum Monte Carlo 1999. Monte Carlo: FICPI. http://www.ficpi.org/library/montecarlo99/patentsafrica.html. Retrieved March 3, 2012. "An apparently unique feature of OAPI is that the OAPI patent is a single patent which extends to each member country." 
42. "History of the Eurasian patent organization". Eurasian Patent Organization. http://www.eapo.org/eng/ea/patsys/history.html. Retrieved 2 July 2012. 
43. Peter James. "Regional patent systems in Africa". http://www.ficpi.org/library/montecarlo99/patentsafrica.html. 
44. "706-". http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0700_706_01.htm. Retrieved April 17, 2015. 
45. "Ex Parte NAGY et al - Page 1". http://law.onecle.com/board-of-patent-appeals/2003/fd012095001.html. Retrieved April 17, 2015. 
46. Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, section g-vi, 8 : "Selection inventions" (Novelty), Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, section g-vii, 12 : "Selection inventions" (Inventive step). https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_vi_8.htm
47. Jochen E. Bühling, Dariusz Szleper, Thierry Calame, Nicolai Lindgreen, Nicola Dagg, Shoichi Okuyama,Working Guidelines, Question Q209, Selection Inventions – the Inventive Step Requirement, other Patentability Criteria and Scope of Protection, AIPPI. Consulted on March 29, 2009. "A selection patent is a patent granted for making an inventive selection from a field that is already known. Selection inventions may involve the selection of individual elements, sub-sets, or sub-ranges, which have not been explicitly disclosed previously, within a larger known set or range." https://www.aippi.org/download/comitees/209/WG209English.pdf
48. 35 U.S.C. 41 (h)(1), 37 C.F.R. 1.27
49. "509-". http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s509.html#d0e30961. Retrieved April 17, 2015. 
50. Federal Register, page 75033-75034, 37 CFR 1.29 http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/77fr75019.pdf
51. December 19, 2012, Federal Register page 75034, left column