標準必要專利「禁訴令」是標準必要專利禁制令、FRAND權利金等實體爭議之上，爭奪管轄權的程序法策略。
本論文借助美國PACER卷證與各國裁判第一手資料，完整分析全球十年多來近三十起禁訴令演進。自2012年Microsoft v. Motorola案開啟的禁訴令戰爭，隨著Nokia v. Continental案與InterDigital v. Xiaomi案的反禁訴令策略創新，進一步歸納為三個階段：（一）純禁訴令、（二）禁訴令與反禁訴令之交錯，與（三）預防性反禁訴令。
這樣的分類基礎上，本論文提出當事人訴訟策略快速迭代，「奔向法院」標的從實體判決，轉變為程序法（反）禁訴令主張，進而發展出預防性反禁訴令。此外，德國慕尼黑在專利forum shopping的全球試錯中，成功「逐底競賽」，取代美國第九巡迴法院地區與中國深圳、武漢中院之熱門法院地位，更事實上解決了反X禁訴令無止盡的反制循環。
這波禁訴令競賽看似與台灣關係有限，然而台灣科技業從未缺席於標準必要專利授權談判中。司法實務借鑑外國法制，思考我們的立場與論理依據之餘，應同時注意強制執行怠金過低、難以每日處罰，以及欠缺爭議底層標準必要專利訴訟，不利台灣維護自身管轄權的現實挑戰。

Anti-suit injunction (ASI) is a procedural strategy employed in jurisdictional competition concerning substantive issues of standard essential patent (SEP), specifically injunctive relief (Unterlassungsanspruch) and FRAND rate setting.
This thesis presents a comprehensive analysis of approximately 30 ASI cases worldwide over the past decade, drawing from the PACER dockets and documents in the United States and corresponding sources in other countries. The evolution of the ASI wars can be categorized into three stages. The first stage, known as “pure ASI”, originated with the groundbreaking SEP ASI in Microsoft v. Motorola in 2012. The second stage witnessed “conflicts between ASI and AASI”, exemplified by the leading case Nokia v. Continental. Finally, the third stage introduced the concept of “pre-emptive AASI”, inspired by InterDigital v. Xiaomi.
The study argues that litigation strategies undergo rapid iterations, leading to a shift in the focus of the “race to the courthouse” from SEP substantive judgments to procedural ASI/AASI tactics, ultimately giving rise to the emergence of pre-emptive AASI. Moreover, Munich (Germany) successfully excels in the “race to the bottom,” a trial-and-error learning in patent forum shopping, outperforming prominent venues such as the Ninth Circuit in the United States and Chinese courts in Shenzhen and Wuhan. Munich I Regional Court effectively provides a de facto solution to the persistent challenge of indefinite countermeasures against AXSI.
Despite the perception that the ASI wars may have limited relevance to Taiwan, it is worth noting that Taiwanese multinational technology companies have consistently maintained an active and enduring role within SEP licensing negotiations. To define Taiwan’s position and legal basis regarding ASI/AASI, it is crucial to consider foreign practices. Furthermore, addressing practical issues related to jurisdictional competition, including inadequate enforcement fines, challenges with daily penalties, and a scarcity of SEP litigations, becomes imperative for Taiwan’s effective engagement in this arena.

中文專書
1. 許士宦（2021），強制執行法，第三版，台北：新學林。
2. 陳聰富（2018），侵權行為法原理，修訂二版，台北：元照。
3. 劉孔中（2015），解構智財法及其與競爭法的衝突與調和，台北：新學林。
4. 歐福永（2007），國際民事訴訟中的禁訴令，北京：北京大學出版社。
二、 中文期刊
1. 孔祥俊（2021），論知識產權的公共政策性，上海交通大學學報（哲學社會科學版），2021年3期，頁19-29。
2. 孔祥俊（2022），我國涉標準必要專利的司法實踐及思考，中國市場監管研究，2022年10期，頁39-44。
3. 方嘉麟（2019），自2018年公司法修正看台灣資本制度之變革，月旦會計實務研究，13期，頁44-60。
4. 王立達（2018），標準必要專利權行使之國際規範發展與比較分析－FRAND承諾法律性質、禁制令、權利金與競爭法規制，月旦法學雜誌，275期，頁87-110。
5. 王立達（2022），從專利制度之結構特性，看中國擁有5G行動通訊標準必要專利是否影響國家安全，收於：制度觀點下的專利法與國際智慧財產權，頁3-11，台北：元照。
6. 王洪亮（2009），妨害排除與損害賠償，法學研究，2009年2期，頁57-70。
7. 王泰升（2011），台灣社會中律師的角色：鬥士乎；生意人乎？，台灣法學雜誌，186期，頁6-16。
8. 仲春（2018），專利國際訴訟中反禁令的司法應對，知識產權，2018年4期，頁88-96。
9. 吳漢東、劉鑫（2018），改革開放四十年的中國知識產權法，山東大學學報（哲學社會科學版），2018年3期，頁16-28。
10. 吳靜怡（2016），美國專利侵權合理權利金之計算方式及發展趨勢，科技法學評論，13卷2期，頁187-264。
11. 宋建立（2023），我國標準必要專利訴訟中禁訴令制度的構建，中國法律評論，2023年1期，頁216-26。
12. 宋皇志（2003），WTO／TRIPS架構下專利侵權的新態樣：為販賣之要約，月旦法學雜誌，99期，頁134-51。
13. 宋曉（2021），涉外標準必要專利糾紛禁訴令的司法方法，法學，2021年11期，頁176-92。
14. 李宗輝（2022），標準必要專利跨國訴訟中禁訴令的適用標準研究，法商研究，2022年4期，頁187-200。
15. 李素華（2008），專利權行使與公平交易法－以近用技術標準之關鍵專利為中心，公平交易季刊，16卷2期，頁85-122。
16. 李素華（2009），歐洲聯盟專利法之發展－建立共同體專利之困難與挑戰，月旦法學雜誌，174期，頁30-46。
17. 李素華（2014），智慧財產法院運作之觀察與檢討－以專利侵權訴訟為中心，全國律師，18卷10期，頁18-42。
18. 李素華（2017），除去或防止侵害請求權與競爭法規範－從德國Spundfass及橘皮書案談技術標準專利權之行使，公平交易季刊，25卷1期，頁37-79。
19. 李素華（2018），公平會高通公司處分案之簡評與省思，月旦法學雜誌，275期，頁111-21。
20. 李素華（2019），專利侵權訴訟之不當得利請求權與合理權利金，萬國法律，224期，頁85-93。
21. 李素華（2019），臺灣專利侵權訴訟之實務現況：崩壞與亟待重生的智慧財產生態系統（Ecosystem），月旦法學雜誌，289期，頁124-46。
22. 李素華（2020），No pain, no gain－專利資產與產業競爭力，月旦法學教室，207期，頁60-69。
23. 李素華（2021），再論智慧財產權侵害之「損害」概念－評最高法院107年度台上字第2359號民事判決，月旦法學雜誌，317期，頁169-80。
24. 李素華（2021），從設計專利「維修免責條款」立法提案談專利制度之功能與我國之智慧財產權政策方向，臺灣科技法學叢刊，4期，頁39-71。
25. 李素華（2021），設計專利權保護與權利行使－從維修免責條款之立法提案與新近訴訟案談起，專利師，44期，頁96-121。
26. 李素華（2023），從德國新近之專利法修正談除去及防止侵害請求權對於實現專利權價值之重要性，月旦法學雜誌，334期，頁165-91。
27. 李素華（2023），創新研發與智慧財產權之生態系統（Ecosystem），當代法律，13期，頁108-16。
28. 李素華、張哲倫（2013），專利審查品質與專利訴訟的實證考察－臺灣智慧財產法院成立五年的數據回顧，裁判時報，24期，頁94-112。
29. 李素華、張哲倫（2014），專利之制度目的及權利本質－法院在其中之關鍵角色及功能，月旦法學雜誌，232期，頁191-222。
30. 李復甸、蔡惟鈞（2017），國際仲裁制度回顧與展望，月旦法學雜誌，269期，頁5-22。
31. 李貴英（2021），論世界貿易組織上訴機構之改革：美國立場與歐洲聯盟應對方案之評析，問題與研究，60卷1期，頁1-36。
32. 沈宗倫（2017），標準必要專利之法定授權與專利權濫用－以誠實信用原則為中心，政大法學評論，149期，頁1-83。
33. 沈宗倫（2018），新興科技發展下專利法制之反省與因應：以專利權侵害為中心，萬國法律，220期，頁16-31。
34. 沈宗倫（2021），專利權侵害所生不當得利之本質與延伸問題探索，月旦法學雜誌，309期，頁80-95。
35. 沈冠伶（2004），我國假處分制度之過去與未來－以定暫時狀態之假處分如何衡平保障兩造當事人之利益為中心，月旦法學雜誌，109期，頁52-72。
36. 沈紅雨（2020），我國法的域外適用法律體系構建與涉外民商事訴訟管轄權制度的改革－兼論不方便法院原則和禁訴令機制的構建，中國應用法學，2020年5期，頁114-28。
37. 卓家立（2023），BVI信託契約與臺灣信託契約之比較探討，月旦律評，12期，頁103-12。
38. 周延鵬（2003），智慧資本投資保障的完整性，智慧財產評論，1卷1期，頁25-50。
39. 林金榮（2015），專利授權教戰守則：授權誠信條款F/RAND介紹－Microsoft v. Motorola專利訴訟判決談起，月旦法學雜誌，238期，頁223-43。
40. 林洲富（2018），標準必要專利與公平交易法之管制，收於：智慧財產法院編，智慧財產法院十週年紀念：智慧財產論文集，頁191-214，台北：智慧財產法院。
41. 林恩瑋（2015），國際私法上選購法院（forum shopping）問題之研究，東海大學法學研究，47期，頁237-68。
42. 姚建軍（2011），英美法系國家（地區）的禁訴令制度及對我國的借鑒，人民司法，2011年1期，頁102-06。
43. 姜啟波、丁文嚴、張蕾蕾（2022），涉外知識產權糾紛法律問題研究，中國法律評論，2022年6期，頁177-91。
44. 胡君弘（2023），禁訴令與反禁訴令之交錯－以Nokia v. Continental案為中心，專利師，52期，頁53-76。
45. 胡志光、祝建軍（2020），標準必要專利禁令訴訟中的幾個程序性問題－以華為、三星互訴案爲例，中國專利與商標，2020年4期，頁3-8。
46. 孫益武（2022），《TRIPS協定》下的禁訴令措施－歐盟訴中國知識產權執法措施案探討，武大國際法評論，2022年4期，頁123-40。
47. 徐偉功、賈赫（2022），標準必要專利糾紛視角下我國禁訴令制度的構建，社會科學家，2022年10期，頁130-38。
48. 祝建軍（2020），我國應建立處理標準必要專利爭議的禁訴令制度，知識產權，2020年6期，頁25-33。
49. 祝建軍（2020），標準必要專利全球許可費率司法裁判問題研究，知識產權，2020年10期，頁3-12。
50. 祝建軍（2021），標準必要專利禁訴令與反禁訴令頒發的衝突及應對，知識產權，2021年6期，頁14-24。
51. 張先砉、殷越（2021），知識產權國際競爭背景下禁訴令制度探索與構建，法律適用，2021年4期，頁41-52。
52. 張利民（2007），國際民訴中禁訴令的運用及我國禁訴令制度的構建，法學，2007年3期，頁122-30。
53. 張春波（2020），羅東川代表建議 制定知識產權訴訟特別審理法，中國審判，2020年10期，https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/jSKvfAhwghqJFhQgUREQcA [https://perma.cc/BWA3-2LQP]。
54. 張哲倫（2017），對智慧財產法院成立10年專利審判實務之總體觀察及建議，專利師，30期，頁1-33。
55. 張哲倫（2019），法學院學生對就業市場應有之認識及準備，月旦法學教室，200期，頁95-101。
56. 張哲倫（2021），專利貢獻度對損害賠償界定之影響－兼評最高法院106年度台上字第2467號判決，月旦裁判時報，110期，頁81-98。
57. 張哲倫、李素華（2014），專利法之經濟結構－經濟分析理論對於臺灣專利制度運作之啟發，月旦法學雜誌，234期，頁229-62。
58. 張廣良（2021），行為保全在知識產權國際平行訴訟中的適用－兼評華為與康文森行為保全案，中國專利與商標，2021年2期，頁3-8。
59. 張衛平（2022），我國禁訴令的建構與實施，中國法律評論，2022年2期，頁173-85。
60. 曹志勛（2018），停止侵害判決及其強制執行－以規制重覆侵權的解釋論為核心，中外法學，2018年4期，頁1070-100。
61. 習近平（2021），全面加強知識產權保護工作 激發創新活力推動構建新發展格局，求是，2021年3期，http://www.qstheory.cn/dukan/qs/2021-01/31/c_1127044345.htm [https://perma.cc/L8K7-C4KX]。
62. 莊弘鈺（2020），論飛利浦光碟案之前世今生，公平交易季刊，28卷1期，頁39-78。
63. 莊弘鈺、王偉霖（2021），從損害賠償與專利貢獻度論智財法院判決的趨勢：以飛利浦光碟案為中心，全國律師，2021年9期，頁38-49。
64. 莊弘鈺、林艾萱（2019），標準必要專利競爭法管制之分與合：兼論我國高通案處分，公平交易季刊，27卷1期，頁1-50。
65. 莊弘鈺、鍾京洲（2019），專利貢獻度與不當得利：最高法院 106 年度台上字 2467 號判決評析，萬國法律，223期，頁12-20。
66. 莊弘鈺、鍾京洲、劉尚志（2019），標準必要專利FRAND權利金計算－兼論智慧財產法院105年度民專上字第24號判決，交大法學評論，5期，頁19-81。
67. 許士宦（2008），金錢及物交付執行之間接強制，臺大法學論叢，37卷2期，頁151-88。
68. 許士宦（2022），命繼續僱用定暫時狀態處分之強制執行，月旦法學雜誌，324期，頁62-76。
69. 許宗力（2018），大法官的司法積極主義如何形塑臺灣的自由民主憲政秩序，司法周刊，1923期，頁16-33。
70. 陳在方（2020），5G標準必要專利之趨勢、規範與授權－以國家安全疑慮為中心，台灣國際法學刊，16卷1期，頁125-31。
71. 陳良榕（2015），獵殺叛將，天下雜誌，565期，頁108-17。
72. 陳忠五（2022），民事法裁判精選，月旦實務選評，2卷11期，頁3-26。
73. 陳忠五（2022），裁判閱讀與法學素養，月旦法學教室，240期，頁61-64。
74. 陳秉訓（2020），論不當得利返還請求權做為專利權侵害行為之救濟手段，華岡法粹，68期，頁135-98。
75. 陳皓芸（2017），標準必要專利權之行使、權利濫用與獨占地位濫用，公平交易季刊，25卷1期，頁81-130。
76. 陳皓芸（2023），專利權的排除侵害請求權－以日本法之發展為中心，月旦法學雜誌，336期，頁152-68。
77. 陳隆修（2011），由歐盟經驗論中國式國際私法之建立，高大法學論叢，6卷2期，頁1-101。
78. 陳聰富（2019），中國大陸民法侵權責任編評析，月旦民商法雜誌，64期，頁154-69。
79. 最高人民法院知識產權審判庭（2021），為創新驅動發展提供有力司法保障，求是，2021卷3期，http://www.qstheory.cn/dukan/qs/2021-02/01/c_1127044190.htm [https://perma.cc/CM9T-WPTS]。
80. 彭奕（2012），我國內地適用禁訴令制度探析，武漢大學學報（哲學社會科學版），2012年5期，頁57-62。
81. 馮震宇（2004），從美國司法實務看台灣專利案件之假處分救濟，月旦法學雜誌，109期，頁9-35。
82. 馮震宇（2008），從珠海炬力訴SigmaTel案看大陸訴前禁令制度與發展趨勢，法令月刊，29卷2期，頁25-42。
83. 馮震宇（2011），宏達電與蘋果專利爭訟凸顯智財與併購結合之趨勢，月旦法學雜誌，198期，頁250-52。
84. 馮震宇（2013），專利核戰二部曲：使用者經驗的設計專利掀起全球訴訟大戰，能力雜誌，684期，頁106-14。
85. 馮震宇（2017），台灣如何突破高通專利金鐘罩？，能力雜誌，742期，頁110-16。
86. 馮震宇（2019），5G元年，中、美、歐追逐賽開跑，能力雜誌，756期，頁106-12。
87. 馮震宇（2019），從專利到營業秘密－智財保護新趨勢顯現，月旦會計實務研究，15期，頁72-79。
88. 馮震宇（2021），BMW得拿掉資通專利濾鏡：德國關上專利流氓敲詐大門，能力雜誌，787期，頁96-103。
89. 黃立（1988），論侵權行為，東海大學法學研究，4期，頁61-114。
90. 黃惠敏（2016），標準必要專利之戰爭－禁制令行不行？，月旦財經法雜誌，39期，頁157-80。
91. 黃惠敏（2016），標準必要專利與競爭法之管制－以違反FRAND/RAND承諾為中心，中原財經法學，36期，頁171-243。
92. 黃惠敏（2017），標準必要專利與中國反壟斷法管制，萬國法律，213期，頁15-29。
93. 黃惠敏（2019），論誠實信用原則與專利權實施之限制－以最高法院106年度台上字第2467號民事判決為中心，萬國法律，223期，頁21-30。
94. 黃惠敏（2020），F/RAND授權聲明之性質，萬國法律，234期，頁54-72。
95. 黃銘傑（2008），技術標準與專利聯盟（Patent Pool）中獨占地位之取得及其濫用時之救濟措施初探－美國聯邦交易委員會In the Matter of Rambus, Inc.案之啟示，全國律師，12卷1期，頁27-39。
96. 黃銘傑（2021），專利權侵害與不當得利－以最高法院106年度臺上字第2467號民事判決為具體分析對象，政大法學評論，167期，頁257-308。
97. 楊光華（2021），重振世貿組織立法功能之捷徑：多邊架構內之複邊選項，收於：楊光華編，第21屆國際經貿法學發展學術研討會，頁11-98，台北：國立政治大學國際經貿組織暨法律研究中心。
98. 楊宏暉（2015），標準關鍵專利之濫用與限制競爭，公平交易季刊，23卷4期，頁35-86。
99. 楊宏暉（2016），德國競爭法上強制授權抗辯之發展與省思，公平交易季刊，24卷3期，頁81-134。
100. 楊智傑（2018），高通行動通訊標準必要專利授權與競爭法：大陸、南韓、歐盟、美國、臺灣裁罰案之比較，公平交易季刊，26卷2期，頁1-54。
101. 葉雲卿（2013），自願性承諾對於標準專利人權利限制法理之形成－FRAND條款承諾之法效力，萬國法律，192期，頁81-92。
102. 葉雲卿（2015），美國Microsoft案後續發展及其對計算標準專利合理權利金之影響，智慧財產評論，13卷1期，頁1-53。
103. 寧立志、龔濤（2021），禁訴令大戰的理論意蘊與實踐應對，政法論叢，2021年6期，頁28-38。
104. 廖繼博（2021），禁訴令制度的中國探索，中國專利與商標，2021年2期，頁16-20。
105. 熊誦梅（2012），分久必合，合久必分－臺灣智慧財產訴訟新制之檢討與展望，月旦民商法雜誌，38期，頁23-39。
106. 熊誦梅（2020），十年一覺板橋夢－談台灣智慧財產法院之成與敗及商業法院之未來，收於：當公法遇上私法 III－法律科技創新之智慧財產權，頁5-7，台北：元照。
107. 賓岳成（2021），禁訴令性質的行為保全裁定之考量因素及保障措施－我國知識產權訴訟首例禁訴令裁定解讀，法律適用，2021年4期，頁90-100。
108. 趙千喜（2021），標準必要專利之訴中的禁訴令，人民司法，2021年13期，頁18-23。
109. 劉孔中（2010），我的學思歷程，人文與社會科學簡訊，11卷4期，頁51-55。
110. 劉孔中（2016），論標準必要專利FRAND承諾、權利金計算模式及專利法與公平法應如何因應，收於：司法院行政訴訟及懲戒廳編，智慧財產訴訟制度相關論文彙編第5輯，頁1-34，台北：司法院。
111. 劉孔中（2019），論標準必要專利公平合理無歧視許可的亞洲標準，知識產權，2019年11期，頁3-16。
112. 劉孔中（2020），從沒有準備處理、不能處理到不願處理標準必要專利FRAND授權問題，月旦法學雜誌，296期，頁173-88。
113. 劉孔中、鄭淑鳳（2020），亞洲知識產權法－美麗新世界，清華知識產權評論，2020年1期，頁1-15。
114. 歐福永、袁江平（2022），國際專利訴訟中的禁訴令制度，湖南大學學報（社會科學版），2022年2期，頁136-46。
115. 蔡岳勳（2009），聯合技術標準制定、 專利權揭露與競爭法－對2008年Rambus, Inc. v. FTC案之初步評析，科技法學評論，6卷1期，頁241-75。
116. 蔡昌憲（2017），自阿里巴巴跨國上市案談我國複數表決權股之規範方向－一個法域競爭的觀點，收於：台灣企業法律學會編，財經法制論文輯（卷一），頁1-11，台北：新學林。
117. 蔡明誠（2004），從比較法觀察我國專利法的國際諧和、修正及未來，全國律師，8卷12期，頁4-20。
118. 蔡聖偉（2010），論排他互斥的犯罪構成要件，東吳法律學報，21卷4期，頁87-117。
119. 盧憶（2020），綑綁行為的法律與經濟分析－以美國高通案為例，公平交易季刊，28卷1期，頁145-70。
120. 韓佳盈（2022），歐盟循WTO爭端解決機制以解決中國大陸法院頻發禁訴令情形，科技法律透析，34卷7期，頁4-5。
121. 韓佳盈（2023），談標準必要專利訴訟之「禁訴令」與「反禁訴令」現象，科技法律透析，35卷2期，頁30-37。
122. 顏雅倫（2018），市場界定、市場力量與智慧財產權授權－我國執法趨勢與挑戰，月旦法學雜誌，279期，頁155-73。
123. 顏雅倫（2019），標準必要專利侵害、合理權利金與不當得利於我國民事訴訟之糾葛與未決問題，萬國法律，224期，頁61-73。
124. 蘇永欽（2021），法學的想像－大陸法系突破困境的議程設定，燕大法學教室，2期，頁8-33。
三、 中文裁判、卷證
1. 公平交易委員會第1396次委員會議通過決議之和解筆錄內容。
2. 司法院大法官釋字第604號解釋。
3. 原最高行政法院98年11月份年度第2次庭長法官聯席會議決議。
4. 最高人民法院（2019）最高法知民終732、733、734號之一民事裁定書。
5. 最高人民法院（2019）最高法知民終732、733、734號之二民事裁定書。
6. 最高人民法院（2019）最高法知民轄終517號民事裁定書。
7. 最高行政法院107年度判字第546號行政判決。
8. 最高法院98年度台抗字第713號民事裁定。
9. 最高法院105年度台抗字第531號民事裁定。
10. 最高法院107年度台抗字第358號民事裁定。
11. 最高法院109年度台抗字第1170號民事裁定。
12. 最高法院110年度台抗字第836號民事裁定。
13. 最高法院111年度台抗字第21號民事裁定。
14. 智慧財產法院105年度民商訴字第36號民事判決。
15. 智慧財產法院109年度民專訴字第52號民事判決。
16. 湖北省武漢市中級人民法院（2020）鄂01知民初169號之一民事裁定書，http://www.ipeconomy.cn/index.php/mobile/news/magazine_details/id/1576.html [https://perma.cc/57FE-FZYT]。
17. 湖北省武漢市中級人民法院（2020）鄂01知民初169號之二民事裁定書，https://www.ipeconomy.cn/index.php/mobile/news/magazine_details/id/2049.html [https://perma.cc/X4TG-BRN8]。
18. 湖北省武漢市中級人民法院（2020）鄂01知民初743號行為保全申請書。
19. 湖北省武漢市中級人民法院（2020）鄂01知民初743號暫緩送達申請書。
20. 湖北省武漢市中級人民法院（2020）鄂01知民初743號Henrik Timmann博士的聲明意見。
21. 湖北省武漢市中級人民法院（2020）鄂01知民初743號三星關於行為保全申請的補充說明。
22. 湖北省武漢市中級人民法院（2020）鄂01知民初743號民事裁定書。
23. 湖北省武漢市中級人民法院（2020）鄂01知民初743號之一民事裁定書，https://www.ipeconomy.cn/index.php/mobile/news/magazine_details/id/2465.html [https://perma.cc/LQ3R-4F8Y]。
24. 廣東省深圳市中級人民法院（2016）粵03民初816號民事判決書。
25. 廣東省深圳市中級人民法院（2016）粵03民初840號民事判決書。
26. 廣東省深圳市中級人民法院（2020）粵03民初5105號民事裁定書，https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-1820.html [https://perma.cc/UG8U-EHXV]。
四、 中文學位論文
1. 王薏瑄（2021年），標準必要專利中禁制令之比較法研究，國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文。
2. 劉法正（2016年），全球專利訴訟管理，國立臺灣大學管理學院碩士在職專班國際企業管理組碩士論文。
五、 中文網路資料
1. 2023臺歐標準必要專利研討會，EBRC歐盟在台商業與法規合作計畫，https://www.ebrctw.org/chi/events/events_content_20230425.aspx [https://perma.cc/Q2DZ-A8XJ]（最後瀏覽日：2023年6月3日）。
2. 市場，Avanci，https://www.avanci.com/cn/marketplace [https://perma.cc/2DPS-V58R]（最後瀏覽日：2022年5月13日）。
3. 【線上研討會】兩岸最前線、專利新熱點―標準必要專利（SEP）之專利訴訟實務及B2B產業之法院取證程序，理律法律事務所，https://www.leeandli.com/TW/ActivityHistory/110 [https://perma.cc/Y5U3-H2NE]（最後瀏覽日：2023年3月28日）。
4. （2020年10月8日），請監察院調查台中地院及司法院為何不公開判決，工商時報 名家評論，https://view.ctee.com.tw/tax/23681.html [https://perma.cc/KWY7-Q4S9]（最後瀏覽日：2023年2月16日）。
5. （2021年2月26日 21:52:54），最高人民法院知識產權法庭裁判要旨（2020）摘要，中國人民共和國最高人民法院，https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun-xiangqing-288131.html [https://perma.cc/974X-FNG9]（最後瀏覽日：2023年3月6日）。
6. （2021年4月22日 11:11:51），2020年度廣東省知識產權審判十大案件，廣東法院網，https://www.gdcourts.gov.cn/index.php?v=show&cid=170&id=56124 [https://perma.cc/M25F-CAGA]（最後瀏覽日：2023年2月19日）。
7. （2021年4月22日 15:52:47），2020年中國法院10大知識產權案件和50件典型知識產權案例，中國人民共和國最高人民法院，https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun-xiangqing-297991.html [https://perma.cc/923D-FES5]（最後瀏覽日：2022年3月22日）。
8. （2021年11月12日），銜接憲法訴訟新制 大法官公開受理聲請解釋案件書狀新聞稿，司法院，https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/cp-1887-532908-36a80-1.html [https://perma.cc/4GS8-AW9X]（最後瀏覽日：2022年10月17日）。
9. （2023年2月20日），Avanci推出售後市場許可項目，Avanci，https://www.avanci.com/cn/2023/02/20/avanci-推出售后市场许可项目/ [https://perma.cc/XCZ5-FGAD]（最後瀏覽日：2023年3月26日）。
10. （2023年3月7日），Avanci廣播電視ATSC 3.0一站式許可平台正式推出，Avanci，https://www.avanci.com/cn/2023/03/07/avanci广播电视atsc-3-0一站式许可平台正式推出/ [https://perma.cc/25TF-EBRT]（最後瀏覽日：2023年3月26日）。
11. 4iP Council在歐洲聯盟法院華為訴中興通信案判決後所做成的判例，https://caselaw.4ipcouncil.com/cn [https://perma.cc/X48M-XLGN]（最後瀏覽日：2023年2月13日）。
12. 中國裁判文書網，https://wenshu.court.gov.cn [https://perma.cc/P55M-FAYH]（最後瀏覽日：2022年5月31日）。
13. 中華民國中央銀行國際收支，國際收支與國際投資部位，https://www.cbc.gov.tw/tw/lp-538-1.html [https://perma.cc/YLW8-9ZD3]（最後瀏覽日：2023年4月11日）。
14. 公平交易委員會本會與高通公司訴訟和解案有關「台灣產業方案」各項計畫之金額及內容，（最後更新日：2023年2月28日），https://www.ftc.gov.tw/upload/acb26caf-b87e-4c54-9a5a-a2eeb9e119a8.pdf [https://perma.cc/YJ8N-QG6J]（最後瀏覽日：2023年4月14日）。
15. 市場監管總局（2022年6月27日），市場監管總局關於公開徵求《禁止濫用知識產權排除、限制競爭行為規定（徵求意見稿）》意見的通知，中華人民共和國司法院，http://www.moj.gov.cn/pub/sfbgw/lfyjzj/lflfyjzj/202206/t20220627_458548.html [https://perma.cc/3NLG-W6FS]（最後瀏覽日：2022年7月17日）。
16. 李淑蓮（2015年8月12日），專訪周延鵬：錯誤的政策讓台灣智財發展空轉30年 未來該怎麼走？，北美智權報，http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Industry_Economy/publish-405.htm [https://perma.cc/S8Z9-C4HG]（最後瀏覽日：2023年4月18日）。
17. 周強（2021年10月23日 20:56:14），最高人民法院關於人民法院知識產權審判工作情況的報告，中國人民共和國最高人民法院，https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun-xiangqing-328091.html [https://perma.cc/R9FL-XTTB]（最後瀏覽日：2023年3月9日）。
18. 知產財經，https://www.ipeconomy.cn [https://perma.cc/5N4Y-XL8R]（最後瀏覽日：2022年5月31日）。
19. 胡華勝（2022年7月20日），賓士案敗訴，車燈龍頭喊出走？帝寶許敘銘：法規無法保護我，遠見，https://www.gvm.com.tw/article/92097 [https://perma.cc/Z3VQ-SA3U]（最後瀏覽日：2023年4月28日）。
20. 祝建軍（2021年5月14日），標準必要專利國際平行訴訟禁執令頒發的條件－評中興訴康文森標準必要專利使用費糾紛案，中國知識產權資訊網，http://www.iprchn.com/cipnews/news_content.aspx?newsId=129182 [https://perma.cc/2K6S-EXWG]（最後瀏覽日：2022年4月20日）。
21. 張哲倫（2021年8月4日），【線上研討會】兩岸最前線、專利新熱點－標準必要專利（SEP）之專利訴訟實務及B2B產業之法院取證程序，YouTube，https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA9YrKjBIog [https://perma.cc/ZFF2-BA6L]（最後瀏覽日：2022年3月22日）。
22. 張瑋容（2014年2月17日），從產業實務面探討台灣智財戰略 – 台積電、聯發科的回應，北美智權報，http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Industry_Economy/publish-189.htm [https://perma.cc/86Y7-XCRR]（最後瀏覽日：2022年5月8日）。
23. 陳家駿、方修忠、王立達、江國泉、沈宗倫、盧佳德、莊弘鈺（2022年1月27日），從SEP標準必要專利訴訟－談國際間新反禁訴令法律大戰，月旦品評家，http://www.angle.com.tw/media/GroupDetail.aspx?iMG=3910 [https://perma.cc/M4E3-DL5E]（最後瀏覽日：2022年3月22日）。
24. 楊智傑（2021年2月3日），美國與中國法院搶奪標準必要專利FRAND話語權？美國德州東區法院Ericsson v. Samsung Electronics案初步禁制令，北美智權報，http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Infringement_Case/IPNC_210203_0502.htm [https://perma.cc/UP68-CDYD]（最後瀏覽日：2022年3月22日）。
25. 賓岳成（2021年2月26日），中國知識產權審判發出的首例禁訴令－詳解康文森與華為專利許可糾紛案，最高人民法院知識產權法庭，https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/mP7XeAj_GRmwVueS_rsQFg [https://perma.cc/6EDL-9663]（最後瀏覽日：2023年3月9日）。
26. 劉志原（2021年11月19日 12:56），【獨家】【商業法院無案審】司改大挫敗　新法院上路4個月竟無案可審，鏡傳媒（最後更新日：2023年3月19日）。
27. Carew, Sinead and Alexei Oreskovic. (Aug. 15, 2011 7:40 PM). Google to buy Motorola Mobility in biggest deal ever. REUTERS, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-motorolamobility-google-idUSTRE77E1XF20110815 [https://perma.cc/7S3M-6FZR].
六、 英文專書
1. Bessen, James and Michael J. Meurer. (2009). Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
2. Bradford, Anu. (2020). The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Elmer, Michael C., C. Gregory Gramenopoulos and Stacy Lewis. Global Patent Litigation: How and Where to Win. Bloomberg BNA. (last visited: May 15, 2023).
4. Fellas, John. (2022). Transnational Litigation: A Practitioner’s Guide. Westlaw.
5. Holmes, Oliver Wendell. (2009). The Common Law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
6. LoPucki, Lynn M. (2010). Courting Failure: How Competition for Big Cases is Corrupting the Bankruptcy Courts. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
7. Miller, Chris. (2022). Chip War: The Fight for the World’s Most Critical Technology. New York: Simon and Schuster.
8. Minto, Barbara. (2009). The Pyramid Principle: Logic in Writing and Thinking. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
9. Panico, Paolo. (2017). International Trust Laws. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Raphael, Thomas. (2019). The Anti-Suit Injunction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Rosenberg, Gerald N. (2008). The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12. Ryngaert, Cedric. (2015). Jurisdiction in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13. Siilasmaa, Risto. (2018). Transforming NOKIA: The Power of Paranoid Optimism to Lead Through Colossal Change. New York: McGraw Hill.
14. Stewart, Thomas A. (1998). Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations. London: Nicholas Brealey.
15. Wu, Tim. (2017). The Attention Merchants: The Epic Scramble to Get Inside Our Heads. New York: Vintage.
七、 英文報告
1. Clarivate. (2023). Top 100 Global Innovators 2023. https://clarivate.com/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2023/02/XBU975564118_Top-100-Innovators_Report_V7.2_singlepages.pdf [https://perma.cc/LZS4-JLHN].
2. Federal Trade Commission. (2016). Patent Assertion Entity Activity: An FTC Study. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/patent-assertion-entity-activity-ftc-study/p131203_patent_assertion_entity_activity_an_ftc_study_0.pdf [https://perma.cc/64EM-529Y].
3. Intellectual Asset Management. (2021). Special Report 2021 Q2: A New Dance.
4. Office of the United States Trade Representative. (2021). 2021 Special 301 Report. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/reports/2021/2021%20Special%20301%20Report%20(final).pdf [https://perma.cc/39BS-TDVW].
5. Office of the United States Trade Representative. (2022). 2022 Special 301 Report. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/IssueAreas/IP/2022%20Special%20301%20Report.pdf [https://perma.cc/NU3Q-S7MD].
6. Office of the United States Trade Representative. (2023). 2023 Special 301 Report. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/2023%20Special%20301%20Report.pdf [https://perma.cc/VQW2-FPZA].
7. RPX. (2023). 2022 Q4 in Review. https://www.rpxcorp.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2023/01/RPX-Q4-in-Review-January-2023.pdf [https://perma.cc/ANH4-U849].
8. Vary, Richard. (2021). Global – why anti-anti-suit injunctions are a dead end. In Intell. Asset Mgmt. Ed., Special Report 2021 Q2: A New Dance 45-49
八、 英文期刊
1. Note. (1990). Forum Shopping Reconsidered. Harvard Law Review, 103:1677-96.
2. Anderson, J. Jonas. (2014). Court Competition for Patent Cases. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 163:631-98.
3. Anderson, J. Jonas and Paul R. Gugliuzza. (2021). Federal Judge Seeks Patent Cases. Duke Law Journal, 71:419-98.
4. Areou, Guillaume and Christophe Arfan. (2021). The Use of Arbitration in FRAND Disputes. International Business Law Journal, 2021:327-51.
5. Arnold, Richard. (2021). SEPs, FRAND and Mandatory Global Arbitration. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, FS Meier-Beck:123-27.
6. Arya, Sunil. (2020). The Value of Standardized Technology to Connected Cars. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht International, 69:365-79.
7. Beukel, Karin and Minyuan Zhao. (2018). IP litigation is local, but those who litigate are global. Journal of International Business Policy, 1:53-70.
8. Bowen, Glenn A. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9:27-40.
9. Bradley, Curtis A. (1996). Territorial Intellectual Property Rights in an Age of Globalism. Virginia Journal of International Law, 37:505-86.
10. Bull, Samuel T. (maintained). Preliminary Injunctive Relief: Initial Considerations (Federal). Thomson Reuters Practical Law (last visited: May 9, 2022).
11. Bull, Samuel T. (maintained). Preliminary Injunctive Relief: Procedure for Obtaining Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Federal). Thomson Reuters Practical Law (last visited: April 18, 2022).
12. Callister, Paul Douglas. (2021). Perma.cc and Web Archival Dissonance with Copyright Law. Legal Reference Services Quarterly, 40:1-57.
13. Cary, William L. (1974). Federalism and Corporate Law: Reflections upon Delaware. The Yale Law Journal, 83:663-705.
14. Casino, Joseph M. and Michael J. Kasdan. (maintained). Patent Litigation Mapping a Global Strategy. Thomson Reuters Practical Law (last visited: May 19, 2022).
15. Cohen, Connor. Note. (2022). Foreign Antisuit Injunctions and the Settlement Effect. Northwestern University Law Review, 116:1577-660.
16. Cohen, Mark. (forthcoming 2023). China’s Practice of Anti-Suit Injunctions in SEP Litigation: Transplant or False Friend? In Jonathan Barnett and Sean M. O’Connor Eds., 5G and Beyond: Intellectual Property and Competition Policy in the Internet of Things 1-24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4124618 [https://perma.cc/VG49-GGZ8].
17. Contreras, Jorge L. (2017). Assertion of Standard Essential Patents by Non-Practicing Entities. In D. Daniel Sokol Ed., Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Policy 50-71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
18. Contreras, Jorge L. (2017). Global Markets, Competition and FRAND Royalties: The Many Implications of Unwired Planet v. Huawei. Antitrust Source, 17:1-14.
19. Contreras, Jorge L. (2019). The New Extraterritoriality: FRAND Royalties, Anti-Suit Injunctions and the Global Race to the Bottom in Disputes over Standards-Essential Patents. Boston University Journal of Science & Technology Law, 25:251-90.
20. Contreras, Jorge L. (2021). Anti-Suit Injunctions and Jurisdictional Competition in Global FRAND Litigation: The Case for Judicial Restraint. The New York University Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law, 11:171-84.
21. Contreras, Jorge L. and Michael Eixenberger. (2017). The Anti-Suit Injunction – A Transnational Remedy for Multi-jurisdictional SEP Litigation. In Jorge L. Contreras Ed., Cambridge Handbook of Technical Standardization Law: Patent, Antitrust and Competition Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
22. Contreras, Jorge L., Peter K. Yu and Yang Yu. (2022). Transplanting Anti-Suit Injunctions. American University Law Review, 71:1537-618.
23. Cotter, Thomas F. (forthcoming 2023). Like Ships That Pass in the Night: U.S. and German Approaches to FRAND Disputes. In Peter George Picht, Erik Habich and Thomas F. Cotter Eds., FRAND: German Case Law and Global Perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4160170 [https://perma.cc/GB65-9MZ4].
24. Dahl, Robert A. (1957). Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker. Journal of Public Law, 6:279-95.
25. Ewing, Tom and Robin Feldman. (2012). The Giants among Us. Stanford Technology Law Review, 2012:1-61.
26. Fleischer, Victor. (2010). Regulatory Arbitrage. Texas Law Review, 89:227-90.
27. Futamata, Toshifumi and Kaname Matsumoto. (2023). International Dispute over ASI of Standard Essential Patents (“Jin-Su-Ling”禁诉令) —Background and Implications for the Future of Multiple ASIs in China. les Nouvelles, 58:1-13.
28. Geradin, Damien and Dimitrios Katsifis. (2022). The Use and Abuse of Anti-Suit Injunctions in SEP Litigation: Is There a Way Forward? Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht International, 71:603-17.
29. Gilson, Ronald J. (1984). Value Creation by Business Lawyers: Legal Skills and Asset Pricing. The Yale Law Journal, 94:239-314.
30. Gilson, Ronald J. (1999). The Legal Infrastructure of High Technology Industrial Districts: Silicon Valley, Route 128, and Covenants Not To Compete. New York University Law Review, 74:575-629.
31. Haedicke, Maximilian. (2022). Anti-Suit Injunctions, FRAND Policies and the Conflict between Overlapping Jurisdictions. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht International, 71:101-12.
32. Hartley, Trevor C. (2010). ‘Libel Tourism’ and Conflict of Laws. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 59:25-38.
33. Hess, Felix K. (2022). US anti-suit injunctions and German anti-anti-suit injunctions in SEP disputes. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 25:536-55.
34. Hines, James R. and Eric M. Rice. (1994). Fiscal Paradise: Foreign Tax Havens and American Business. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109:149-82.
35. Jovanovic, Mina. (2020). Conference Report: Zurich IP Retreat 2019 – Nationalism vs. Globalization in IP. GRUR International, 69:270-77.
36. Kaltner, Jonathan A. (2012). USA – International patent dispute: U.S. District Court grants Microsoft temporary protection against enforcement of any injunction a German court may order in favor of Motorola. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht International, 61:600.
37. Kaltner, Jonathan A. (2012a). Microsoft v. Motorola Recent Development – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Affirms an Anti-Suit Injunction Against a German Patent Infrigement Decision. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht International, 61:1078-86.
38. Kamp, Claudy Op den and Dan Hunter. (2019). Introduction: of People, Places, and Parlance. In Claudy Op den Kamp and Dan Hunter Eds., A History of Intellectual Property in 50 Objects 1-7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
39. Klerman, Daniel and Greg Reilly. (2015). Forum Selling. Southern California Law Review, 89:241-316.
40. Koeninger, Samantha and Richard Bales. (2013). When a U.S. Domestic Court Can Enjoin a Foreign Court Proceeding. Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, 22:473-96.
41. Layne-Farrar, Anne and Richard J. Stark. (2020). License to All or Access to All? A Law and Economic Assessment of Standard Development Organizations’ Licensing Rules. George Washington Law Review, 88:1307-49.
42. Lemley, Mark A. (2015). IP in a World without Scarcity. New York University Law Review, 90:460-515.
43. Lemley, Mark A. and Carl Shapiro. (2006). Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking. Texas Law Review, 85:1991-2050.
44. Lemley, Mark A. and Samantha Zyontz. (2021). Does Alice Target Patent Trolls? Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 18:47-89.
45. Lieberman, Marvin B. and David B. Montgomery. (1988). First-Mover Advantages. Strategic Management Journal, 9:41-58.
46. Liu, Kung-Chung. (2021). Arbitration by SSOs as a Preferred Solution for Solving the FRAND Licensing of SEPs? IIC International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 52:673-76.
47. Martinez, Juan. (2019). FRAND as Access to All versus License to All. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht International, 68:633-40.
48. Merbecks, Aurelia. (2021). Conference Report on ‘Patents and Standards – Online FRAND-Forum’. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht International, 70:963-68.
49. Moore, Kimberly A. (2001). Forum Shopping in Patent Cases: Does Geographic Choice Affect Innovation. North Carolina Law Review, 79:889-938.
50. Nikolic, Igor. (2022). Global Standard Essential Patent Litigation: Anti-Suit and Anti-Anti-Suit Injunctions Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. 2022/10:1-22. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4071708 [https://perma.cc/MSW3-FMTL].
51. Nikolic, Igor and Niccolò Galli. (2022). Patent pools in 5G: The principles for facilitating pool licensing. Telecommunications Policy, 46:1-14.
52. Porta, Rafael La, Florencio Lopez‐de‐Silanes, Andrei Shleifer and Robert W. Vishny. (1998). Law and Finance. Journal of Political Economy, 106:1113-55.
53. Raushenbush, Richard W. Note. (1985). Antisuit Injunctions and International Comity. Virginia Law Review, 71:1039-70.
54. Reichman, J. H. (1995). Universal Minimum Standards of Intellectual Property Protection under the TRIPS Component of the WTO Agreement Symposium: Uruguay Round - GATT/WTO. International Lawyer, 29:345-88.
55. Schimek, Michael David. Comment. (1993). Anti-Suit and Anti-Anti-Suit Injunctions: A Proposed Texas Approach. Baylor Law Review, 45:499-534.
56. Schönbohm, Julia and Natalie Ackermann-Blome. (2020). Products, Patents, Proportionality – How German Patent Law Responds to 21st Century Challenges. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht International, 69:578-84.
57. Shrestha, Sannu K. Note. (2010). Trolls or Market-Makers - An Empirical Analysis of Nonpracticing Entities. Columbia Law Review, 110:114-60.
58. Sosna, Marc, Rosa Nelly Trevinyo-Rodríguez and S. Ramakrishna Velamuri. (2010). Business Model Innovation through Trial-and-Error Learning: The Naturhouse Case. Long Range Planning, 43:383-407.
59. Tørsløv, Thomas, Ludvig Wier and Gabriel Zucman. (2022). The Missing Profits of Nations. The Review of Economic Studies:1-36.
60. Tsang, Dicky King Fung and Jyh-An Lee. (2022). The Ping-Pong Olympics of Antisuit Injunction in FRAND Litigation. Michigan Technology Law Review, 28:305-84.
61. Wizon, Sam V. Note. (2022). Anti-Suit Injunctions and FRAND: The Law of What Land? Notes. Boston College Law Review, 63:2821-66.
九、 德文期刊
1. Deichfuß, Hermann. Nochmals: Die Prüfung des Rechtsbestands des Patents im einstweiligen Rechtsschutz Besprechung zu EuGH „Phoenix Contact/Harting“. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 2022, 800.
2. Ehlgen, Bolko. Anti Anti-Suit Injunctions – Wie viel Vorverlagerung darf sein? Bestandsaufnahme nach OLG Düsseldorf „Ausländisches Prozessführungsverbot“. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 2022, 537.
3. Hess/Müller-Stoy/Wintermeier. Sind Patente nur „Papiertiger“? Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte 2014, 439.
4. Kühnen, Thomas. FRAND-Lizenz in der Verwertungskette. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 2019, 665.
5. Ohly, Ansgar. Acht Thesen zur Verhältnismäßigkeit im Patentrecht. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 2021, 304.
6. Ohly, Ansgar and Martin Stierle. Unverhältnismäßigkeit, Injunction Gap und Geheimnisschutz im Prozess. Das Zweite Patentrechtsmodernisierungsgesetz im Überblick. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 2021, 1229.
7. Stierle, Martin. Der quasi-automatische Unterlassungsanspruch im deutschen Patentrecht. Ein Beitrag im Lichte der Reformdiskussion des § 139 I PatG. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 2019, 873.
8. Tilmann, Winfried. Lizenzgebühr zu FRAND-Konditionen – Microsoft Corporation v. Motorola Inc. Zeitschrift für Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht 2015, 39.
9. Vissel, Horst and Christian Kau. Rumble in the Jungle – Ein Weg aus dem (Anti)n-Suit-Injunction Dickicht? Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 2023, 451.
10. Wagner, Gerhard. NeinNeinNeinNeinNein. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 2021, 779.
十、 外文判決、卷證
1. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006).
2. WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 138 S. Ct. 2129 (2018).
3. Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int’l, Inc., 600 U.S. ___ (2023).
4. Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, 27 F.4th 326 (5th Cir. 2022).
5. E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Andina Licores S.A., 446 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2006).
6. Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 696 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2012).
7. Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 795 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2015).
8. Reply Brief of Defendants-Appellants, Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 12-35352 (9th Cir. July 16, 2012), 2012 WL 4793647.
9. Defendants-Appellants’ Motion for Further Expedition of Appeal of Preliminary Injunction, by Waiving Oral Argument and Requesting Immediate Submission for Disposition on the Merits, Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 12-35352 (9th Cir. July 25, 2012), ECF No. 32.
10. Order, Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 12-35352 (9th Cir. July 31, 2012), ECF No. 33.
11. Brief of Plaintiff-Appellee, Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 12-35352 (9th Cir. June 27, 2012), 2012 WL 4793646.
12. Opening Brief of Defendants-Appellants, Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 12-35352 (9th Cir. May 30, 2012), 2012 WL 2132503.
13. Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
14. BGH 1993 NJW 1993, 1076.
15. BGH 2016 GRUR 2016, 1031 – Wärmetauscher.
16. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings, Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, No. 8:14-cv-00341-JVS-DFM, 2017 WL 6611635 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2017).
17. Injunction Following Granting, in Part, of TCL’s Motion for Anti-Suit Injunction, TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings, Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, No. 8:14-cv-00341-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal. July 10, 2017), ECF No. 284.
18. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings, Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, No. 8:14-cv-00341-JVS-DFM, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191512 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2015).
19. CA Paris, pôle 5-16, 3 mars 2020, RG n°19/21426, IPcom c. Lenovo.
20. Judgement of 16 July 2015, Huawei Technologies, C-170/13, EU:C:2015:477.
21. Judgement of 27 April 2004, Turner, C-159/02, ECLI:EU:C:2004:228.
22. Judgement of 28 April 2022, Phoenix Contact, C-44/21, EU:C:2022:309.
23. Order of 24 June 2021, Nokia Technologies, C-182/21, EU:C:2021:575.
24. Defendant Nanostring Technologies, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims, 10X Genomics, Inc. v. NanoString Technologies, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00261-MFK (D. Del. Apr. 27, 2023), ECF No. 110.
25. NanoString Technologies, Inc.’s Brief in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, 10X Genomics, Inc. v. NanoString Technologies, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00261-MFK (D. Del. Apr. 27, 2023a), ECF No. 112.
26. Motion for Expedited Briefing, 10X Genomics, Inc. v. NanoString Technologies, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00261-MFK (D. Del. Apr. 27, 2023b), ECF No. 114.
27. Defendant NanoString Technologies, Inc.’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, 10X Genomics, Inc. v. NanoString Technologies, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00261-MFK (D. Del. Arp. 27, 2023), ECF No. 111.
28. TQ Delta’s Response in Opposition to Zyxel’s Motion for Expedited Consideration of a Preliminary Injunction, TQ Delta, LLC v. ZyXEL Communications, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-02013-RGA (D. Del. Dec. 8, 2017), ECF No. 412.
29. Complaint and Jury Demand, Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd., No. 1:20-cv-01707-CFC (D. Del. Dec. 17, 2020), ECF No. 1.
30. Complaint and Jury Demand, Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Telit Wireless Solutions, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-01708-CFC (D. Del. Dec. 17, 2020a), ECF No. 1.
31. Complaint and Jury Demand, Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Thales DIS AIS USA LLC, No. 1:20-cv-01709-CFC (D. Del. Dec. 17, 2020b), ECF No. 1.
32. Complaint and Jury Demand, Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd., No. 1:20-cv-01710-CFC (D. Del. Dec. 17, 2020c), ECF No. 1.
33. Complaint and Jury Demand, Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Telit Wireless Solutions, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-01711-CFC (D. Del. Dec. 17, 2020d), ECF No. 1.
34. Complaint and Jury Demand, Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Thales DIS AIS USA LLC, No. 1:20-cv-01713-CFC (D. Del. Dec. 17, 2020e), ECF No. 1.
35. Complaint, 10X Genomics, Inc. v. NanoString Technologies, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00261-MFK (D. Del. Feb. 28, 2022), ECF No. 1.
36. Order, TQ Delta, LLC v. ZyXEL Communications, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-02013-RGA (D. Del. June 12, 2018), ECF No. 538.
37. TQ Delta, LLC v. ZyXEL Communications, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-02013-RGA, 2018 WL 2932728 (D. Del. June 12, 2018).
38. Defendant Thales DIS AIS Deutschland GmbH’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Thales DIS AIS USA LLC, No. 1:20-cv-01713-CFC (D. Del. Mar. 5, 2021), ECF No. 20.
39. Defendants’ Motion for Expedited Consideration of a Preliminary Injunction, TQ Delta, LLC v. ZyXEL Communications, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-02013-RGA (D. Del. Nov. 20, 2017), ECF No. 390.
40. Defendants’ Opening Brief in Support of Their Motion for Expedited Consideration of a Preliminary Injunction, TQ Delta, LLC v. ZyXEL Communications, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-02013-RGA (D. Del. Nov. 20, 2017a), ECF No. 391.
41. Universal Ent. Corp. v. Aruze Gaming Am., Inc., No. 2:18-cv-00585-RFB-NJK, 2020 WL 1258428 (D. Nev. Mar. 16, 2020).
42. Laker Airways Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines, 731 F.2d 909 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
43. Optis Wireless Tech., LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co., No. 2:17-Cv-00123-JRG-RSP, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81561 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 24, 2018).
44. Complaint, Apple Inc. v. Ericsson Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00460-JRG (E.D. Tex. Dec. 17, 2021), ECF No. 4.
45. Apple’s Motion to Dismiss Ericsson’s Complaint, Ericsson Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00376-JRG (E.D. Tex. Dec. 17, 2021), ECF No. 9.
46. Emergency Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Anti-interference Injunction Related to Samsung’s Lawsuit Filed in the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court of China, Ericsson Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:20-cv-00380-JRG (E.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2020), ECF No. 11.
47. Order Granting Emergency Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Anti-interference Injunction Related to Samsung’s Lawsuit Filed in the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court of China, Ericsson Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:20-cv-00380-JRG (E.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2020a), ECF No. 14.
48. Exhibt 8, Ericsson Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:20-cv-00380-JRG (E.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2020b), ECF No. 11-9.
49. Samsung’s Opposition to Ericsson’s Application for Anti-Interference Injunction Relating to Samsung’s Lawsuit in China, Ericsson Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:20-cv-00380-JRG (E.D. Tex. Jan. 1, 2021), ECF No. 26, 2021 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 124064.
50. Exhibit 10, Ericsson Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:20-cv-00380-JRG (E.D. Tex. Jan. 1, 2021a), ECF No. 26-11.
51. Ericsson’s Reply in Support of Anti-Interference Injunction Related to Samsung’s Lawsuit Filed in the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court of China, Ericsson Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:20-cv-00380-JRG (E.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2021), ECF No. 30, 2021 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 51860.
52. Exhibit 11, Ericsson Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:20-cv-00380-JRG (E.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2021a), ECF No. 30-2.
53. Exhibit 12, Ericsson Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:20-cv-00380-JRG (E.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2021b), ECF No. 30-3.
54. Exhibit 13, Ericsson Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:20-cv-00380-JRG (E.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2021c), ECF No. 30-4.
55. Brief of Amicus Curiae the Honorable Paul R. Michel (ret.) in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion, Ericsson Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:20-cv-00380-JRG (E.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2021d), ECF No. 29.
56. Samsung’s Surreply in Opposition to Ericsson’s Application for Anti-Interference Injunction re: Samsung’s Lawsuit in China, Ericsson Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:20-cv-00380-JRG (E.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2021), ECF No. 37, 2021 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 71696.
57. Ericsson Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:20-CV-00380-JRG, 2021 WL 89980 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2021).
58. Apple’s Emergency Motion for Relief Against Ericsson’s Attempt to Use Secret, Ex Parte Actions in Bogota, Colombia to Subvert Proceedings in this Court, Ericsson Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00376-JRG (E.D. Tex. July 8, 2022), ECF No. 116.
59. Exhibit 1, Ericsson Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00376-JRG (E.D. Tex. July 8, 2022a), ECF No. 116-1.
60. Ericsson’s Notice of Proposed Briefing Schedule on Apple’s Emergency Motion (Dkt. 116), Ericsson Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00376-JRG (E.D. Tex. July 10, 2022), ECF No. 117.
61. Apple’s Response to Ericsson’s Notice of Proposed Briefing Schedule on Apple’s Emergency Motion, Ericsson Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00376-JRG (E.D. Tex. July 11, 2022), ECF No. 118.
62. Ericsson’s Response to Apple’s Notice Regarding Potential Hearing on Apple’s Emergency Motion (Dkt. 116), Ericsson Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00376-JRG (E.D. Tex. July 11, 2022a), ECF No. 119.
63. Order, Ericsson Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00376-JRG (E.D. Tex. July 11, 2022b), ECF No. 120.
64. Ericsson’s Response in Opposition to Apple’s Emergency Motion for Relief, Ericsson Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00376-JRG (E.D. Tex. July 15, 2022), ECF No. 125.
65. Order, Ericsson Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00376-JRG (E.D. Tex. July 28, 2022), ECF No. 141.
66. Order, Apple Inc. v. Ericsson Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00460-JRG (E.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2022), ECF No. 37.
67. Optis Wireless Tech., LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co., No. 2:17-Cv-00123-JRG-RSP, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81129 (E.D. Tex. May 14, 2018).
68. Original Complaint, Ericsson Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00376-JRG (E.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2021), ECF No. 1, 2021 WL 4768342.
69. Defendants Huawei Device USA Inc. and Huawei Device Co., Ltd.’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for an Antisuit Injunction, Optis Wireless Tech., LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co., No. 2:17-Cv-00123-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2017), ECF No. 88.
70. Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Antisuit Injunction and Request for Expedited Briefing, Optis Wireless Tech., LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co., No. 2:17-Cv-00123-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2017), ECF No. 76.
71. Order, Optis Wireless Tech., LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co., No. 2:17-Cv-00123-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2017), ECF No. 83.
72. SAS Inst., Inc. v World Programming Ltd. [2019] EWHC 2481 (Comm).
73. Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v Huawei Techs. Co. [2018] EWHC 2549 (Ch).
74. IBM United Kingdom Ltd. v LzLabs GmbH [2022] EWHC 2094 (TCC).
75. Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors v Lenovo Group Ltd [2023] EWHC 539 (Pat).
76. IPCom GmbH & Co. KG v Lenovo Tech. (U.K.) Ltd. [2019] EWHC (Pat) 2980.
77. IPCom GmbH & Co. KG v Lenovo Tech. (U.K.) Ltd. [2019] EWHC (Pat) 3030.
78. Nokia Technologies Oy v Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 947.
79. Interim Injunction, Koninklijke Philips NV v Xiaomi Inc [2020] EWHC (Pat), Claim No. HP-2020-000037 (Oct. 26, 2020).
80. Koninklijke Philips NV v Xiaomi Inc [2021] EWHC 2170 (Pat).
81. Koninklijke Philips NV v Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd [2022] EWHC 1703 (Pat).
82. TQ Delta LLC v ZyXEL Communications UK Ltd [2019] EWHC 353 (Pat).
83. Unwired Planet Int’l Ltd. v Huawei Techs. Co. [2017] EWHC 711 (Pat).
84. Unwired Planet Int’l Ltd. v Huawei Techs. Co. [2017] EWHC 2831 (Pat).
85. Corrected Non-Confidential Opening Brief of Appellants, Huawei Techs. Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 18-1979 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2018).
86. Order, Ericsson Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 21-1565 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 12, 2021), ECF No. 14.
87. Appellants’ Opening Brief, Ericsson Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 21-1565 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2021), 2021 WL 734838.
88. Order, Huawei Techs. Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 18-1979 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 27, 2019), ECF No. 72.
89. Appellants’ Motion to Expedite Briefing and Oral Argument, Ericsson Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 21-1565 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 26, 2021), ECF No. 4-1.
90. Emergency Motion to Expedite Appeal, Huawei Techs. Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 18-1979 (Fed. Cir. July 12, 2018), ECF No. 22.
91. Order, Huawei Techs. Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 18-1979 (Fed. Cir. July 20, 2018), ECF No. 27.
92. Order, Huawei Techs. Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 18-1979 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2019), ECF No. 74.
93. Order, Ericsson Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 21-1565 (Fed. Cir. May 19, 2021), ECF No. 72.
94. Judgment, InterDigital Tech. Corp. v. Xiaomi Corp., I.A. 8772/2020 in CS(COMM) 295/2020 (May 3, 2021).
95. Order, InterDigital Tech. Corp. v. Xiaomi Corp., I.A. 8772/2020 in CS(COMM) 295/2020 (Oct. 6, 2020).
96. Order, InterDigital Tech. Corp. v. Xiaomi Corp., I.A. 8772/2020 in CS(COMM) 295/2020 (Oct. 9, 2020).
97. Order, InterDigital Tech. Corp. v. Xiaomi Corp., I.A. 8772/2020 in CS(COMM) 295/2020 (Sept. 30, 2020).
98. Juzgado 43 Civil del Circuito de Bogotá, Solicitud de Medidas Cautelares Anticipadas, Ericsson y. Apple Inc., Expediente No. 11001 31 03 043 2022 00018 00.
99. Juzgado 43 Civil del Circuito de Bogotá, Resuelve, 6 julio 2022, Ericsson y. Apple Inc., Expediente No. 11001 31 03 043 2022 00018 00.
100. Juzgado 43 Civil del Circuito de Bogotá, Auto, 6 julio 2022a, Ericsson y. Apple Inc., Expediente No. 11001 31 03 043 2022 00018 00.
101. Juzgado 43 Civil del Circuito de Bogotá, Auto, 28 abril 2022, Ericsson y. Apple Inc., Expediente No. 11001 31 03 043 2022 00018 00.
102. Juzgado 43 Civil del Circuito de Bogotá, Recurso de reposición y subsidio apelación presentado por Apple Colombia contra el auto de 28 de abril de 2022 del Juzgado 43, , Ericsson y. Apple Inc., Expediente No. 11001 31 03 043 2022 00018 00.
103. LG Düsseldorf Urt. v. 15.7.2021 – 4c O 75/20, BeckRS 2021, 44966.
104. LG Düsseldorf Urt. v. 15.7.2021 – 4c O 74/20, BeckRS 2021, 46267.
105. LG Düsseldorf Urt. v. 29.6.2021 – 4c O 73/20, BeckRS 2021, 36218.
106. LG Mannheim Urt. v. 2.5.2012 – 2 O 240/11, BeckRS 2012, 11804.
107. LG Mannheim Urt. v. 2.5.2012 – 2 O 376/11, BeckRS 2012, 11805.
108. LG Mannheim Urt. v. 9.12.2011 – 7 O 122/11, BeckRS 2011, 29013.
109. LG Mannheim Urt. v. 18.8.2020 – 2 O 34/19, GRUR-RS 2020, 20358 – Lizenz in Wertschöpfungskette.
110. LG Mannheim Urt. v. 28.9.2018 – 7 O 165/16, GRUR-RS 2018, 31743.
111. LG München I Beschl. v. 11.7.2019 – 21 O 9333/19.
112. LG München I Beschl. v. 16.10.2020 – 7 O 13508/20.
113. LG München I Urt. v. 2.10.2019 – 21 O 9333/19, BeckRS 2019, 25536.
114. LG München I Urt. v. 5.8.2022 – 21 O 8879/21, GRUR-RS 2022, 34498.
115. LG München I Urt. v. 10.9.2020 – 7 O 8818/19, GRUR-RS 2020, 22577 – LTE-Standard.
116. LG München I Urt. v. 20.10.2022 – 7 O 13016/21, GRUR-RS 2022, 34108 – Steuerkanalsignalisierung.
117. LG München I Urt. v. 23.10.2020 – 21 O 11384/19, GRUR-RS 2020, 50637 – Lizenzverhandlung.
118. LG München I Urt. v. 24.6.2021 – 7 O 36/21, GRUR-RS 2021, 17662 – Smartphone.
119. LG München I Urt. v. 25.2.2021 – 7 O 14276/20, GRUR-RS 2021, 3995 – FRAND-Lizenzwilligkeit.
120. LG München I Urt. v. 25.11.2022 – 21 O 12142/21, GRUR-RS 2022, 42030.
121. LG München I Urt. v. 30.10.2020 – 21 O 3891/19, GRUR-RS 2020, 54658 – Connected Cars.
122. Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., 872 F. Supp. 2d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2012).
123. Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. LSI Corp., 946 F. Supp. 2d 998 (N.D. Cal. 2013).
124. Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Qualcomm Inc., 411 F. Supp. 3d 658 (N.D. Cal. 2019).
125. Huawei Techs. Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 3:16-cv-02787-WHO, 2018 WL 1784065 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2018).
126. Continental’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Anti-Suit Injunction, Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2019), ECF No. 128, 2019 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 133694.
127. Lenovo (U.S.) Inc. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG, No. 5:19-cv-01389-EJD, 2019 WL 6771784 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2019).
128. Samsung’s Motion to Enjoin Huawei from Enforcing the Injunction Issued by the Intermediate People’s Court of Shenzhen, Huawei Techs. Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 3:16-cv-02787-WHO (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2018), ECF No. 235, 2018 WL 2187773.
129. Huawei’s Opposition to Samsung’s Motion to Enjoin Huawei from Enforcing the Injunction Issued by the Intermediate People’s Court of Shenzhen, Huawei Techs. Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 3:16-cv-02787-WHO (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2018), ECF No. 240-3.
130. Notice of Motion and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support thereof, Lenovo (U.S.) Inc. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG, No. 5:19-cv-01389-EJD (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2019), ECF No. 18.
131. Nokia’s Notice of Letter to Court, Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2019), ECF No. 89.
132. Exhibit A, Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2019a), ECF No. 89-1.
133. Continental’s Notice of Letter to Court, Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2019), ECF No. 95.
134. Attachment A, Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2019a), ECF No. 95-1.
135. Exhibit A, Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2019b), ECF No. 95-1.
136. First Amended Complaint for Breach of FRAND Commitments and Violations of Antitrust and Unfair Competition Laws, Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2019), ECF No. 97, 2019 WL 11813685.
137. Certain Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff Continental Automotive Systems, Inc.’s Motion for Anti-Suit Injunction, Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2019), ECF No. 102, 2019 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 14440.
138. Complaint for Injunctive and Equitable Relief and to Compel Arbitration, InterDigital Tech. Corp. v. Pegatron Corp., No. 15-CV-02584-LHK (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2015), ECF No. 1.
139. Continental’s Motion for Anti-Suit Injunction, Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2019), ECF No. 32, 2019 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 14415.
140. [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Anti-Suit Injunction, Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2019a), ECF No. 32-1.
141. Motion to Enlarge Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Anti-Suit Injunction, Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2019), ECF No. 45.
142. Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Enlarge Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Anti-Suit Motion, Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2019), ECF No. 56.
143. Clerk’s Notice, Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2019), ECF No. 58.
144. Order re Consolidation of Briefing, Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2019), ECF No. 76.
145. InterDigital Tech. Corp. v. Pegatron Corp., No. 15-CV-02584-LHK, 2015 WL 3958257 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2015).
146. Complaint for Breach of FRAND Commitments and Violations of Antitrust and Unfair Competition Laws, Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2019), ECF No. 1.
147. Notice of Partial Withdrawal of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Anti-Suit Injunction (Dkt. 40) Only as to French Proceedings Regarding European Patent No. 1, 841, 268 B2; and Request for Same, Lenovo (U.S.) Inc. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG, No. 5:19-cv-01389-EJD (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2019), ECF No. 58.
148. Exhibit 1, Lenovo (U.S.) Inc. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG, No. 5:19-cv-01389-EJD (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2019a), ECF No. 58-1.
149. Continental’s Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why an Anti-Suit Injunction Should Not Issue against Defendants, Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2019), ECF No. 185.
150. [Proposed] Order Granting Continental’s Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue, Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2019a), ECF No. 185-2.
151. Continental’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Its Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue, Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2019b), ECF No. 185-3.
152. Order Denying Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause, Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2019c), ECF No. 187.
153. Defendant IPCom Gmbh & Co. KG’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Anti-Suit Injunction, Lenovo (U.S.) Inc. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG, No. 5:19-cv-01389-EJD (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2019), ECF No. 43.
154. Statement of Interest of the United States, Lenovo (U.S.) Inc. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG, No. 5:19-cv-01389-EJD (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2019), ECF No. 46.
155. Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for Anti-Suit Injunction, Lenovo (U.S.) Inc. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG, No. 5:19-cv-01389-EJD (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2019), ECF No. 48.
156. Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion Pursuant to L.R. 6-3 to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Anti-Suit Injunction (Dkt. 40), Lenovo (U.S.) Inc. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG, No. 5:19-cv-01389-EJD (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2019a), ECF No. 49.
157. Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to Alter Briefing Schedule on Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Anti-suit Injunction (Dkt. 49), Lenovo (U.S.) Inc. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG, No. 5:19-cv-01389-EJD (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2019b), ECF No. 50.
158. Defendant IPCom’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to Alter Briefing-Schedule on Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Anti-Suit Injunction, Lenovo (U.S.) Inc. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG, No. 5:19-cv-01389-EJD (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2019), ECF No. 51.
159. Motion to Compel Arbitration and for Preliminary Injunction, Apple Inc. v. BYD Company Limited et al, No. 3:15-cv-04985-RS (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2015), ECF No. 3, 2015 WL 9437334.
160. Order Denying Motion to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Anti-Suit Injunction, Lenovo (U.S.) Inc. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG, No. 5:19-cv-01389-EJD (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2019), ECF No. 52.
161. Order Denying Ex Parte Application to Alter Briefing Schedule, Lenovo (U.S.) Inc. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG, No. 5:19-cv-01389-EJD (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2019a), ECF No. 53.
162. Notice of Partial Withdrawal of Plaintiff’s Motion for Anti-Suit Injunction (Dkt. 32), and Request for Same, Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2019), ECF No. 166, 2019 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 105926.
163. ASUS Computer Int’l v. InterDigital, Inc., No. 15-CV-01716-BLF, 2015 WL 5186462 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2015).
164. Defendant Sharp Corporation’s Notice of Letter to Court, Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2019), ECF No. 172.
165. Exhibit A, Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2019a), ECF No. 172-1.
166. Order Denying without Prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion for Anti-Suit Injunction, Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2019), ECF No. 173.
167. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Anti-Suit Injunction, Lenovo (U.S.) Inc. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG, No. 5:19-cv-01389-EJD (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2019), ECF No. 40.
168. Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., No. C 10-03561 WHA, 2016 WL 5393938 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2016).
169. Cont’l Auto. Sys. v. Avanci, 485 F. Supp. 3d 712 (N.D. Tex. 2020).
170. OLG Düsseldorf 2022 GRUR 2022, 318 – Ausländisches Prozessführungsverbot.
171. OLG Düsseldorf Urt. v. 7.2.2022 – I-2 U 25/21, GRUR-RS 2022, 1209.
172. OLG Düsseldorf Urt. v. 7.2.2022a – I-2 U 27/21, GRUR-RS 2022, 1375 – Ausländisches Prozessführungsverbot II.
173. OLG Karlsruhe Beschl. v. 12.2.2021 – 6 U 130/20, GRUR-RS 2021, 9325 – Wurzelsequenzordnung.
174. OLG Karlsruhe Beschl. v. 23. 1. 2012 – 6 U 136/11, GRUR-RR 2012, 124 – GPRS-Zwangslizenz.
175. OLG Karlsruhe Beschl. v. 27. 2. 2012 – 6 U 136/11, GRUR 2012, 736 – GPRS-Zwangslizenz II.
176. OLG München 2019 GRUR 2020, 379 – Anti-suit injunction.
177. OLG München Beschl. v. 22.9.2021 – 11 W 1179/21, BeckRS 2021, 27162.
178. OLG München Urt. v. 12.12.2019 – 6 U 5042/19, GRUR-RS 2019, 33196.
179. Request for the establishment of a panel by the European Union, China – Enforcement of intellectual property rights, WTO.Doc. WT/DS611/5 (Dec. 9, 2022).
180. Request for Consultations by the European Union, China – Enforcement of intellectual property rights, WTO.Doc. WT/DS611/1 (Feb. 22, 2022).
181. Rechtbank Den Haag 4 oktober 2021, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:15544.
182. Rechtbank Den Haag 16 december 2021, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:13881.
183. Rechtbank Den Haag 18 oktober 2021, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:11312.
184. Response to the European Union’s Request for Information pursuant to Article 63.3 of the TRIPS Agreement, WTO.Doc. IP/C/W/683 (Sept. 7, 2021).
185. First Amended Complaint, Apple Inc. v. Motorola Mobility, LLC, No. 3:12-cv-00355-JLS-BLM (S.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2012), ECF No. 31, 2012 WL 2578171.
186. Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Apple Inc. v. Motorola Mobility, LLC, No. 3:12-cv-00355-JLS-BLM (S.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2012), ECF No. 1, 2012 WL 419835.
187. Redacted Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Qualcomm Incorporated’s Motion for Anti-Suit Injunction, Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD (S.D. Cal. July 14, 2017), ECF No. 92-1, 2017 WL 10403514.
188. Declaration of Vanessa A. Lavely in Support of Qualcomm Incorporated’s Motion For Anti-Suit Injunction, Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD (S.D. Cal. July 14, 2017a), ECF No. 92-2.
189. Joint MOTION to Dismiss Without Prejudice, Apple Inc. v. Motorola Mobility, LLC, No. 3:12-cv-00355-JLS-BLM (S.D. Cal. May 16, 2014), ECF No. 277.
190. Order Granting Joint Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice, Apple Inc. v. Motorola Mobility, LLC, No. 3:12-cv-00355-JLS-BLM (S.D. Cal. May 19, 2014), ECF No. 278.
191. Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD, 2017 WL 3966944 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2017).
192. Vringo, Inc. v. ZTE Corp., No. 14-CV-4988 (LAK), 2015 WL 3498634 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2015).
193. Sony Corp. v. Fujifilm Holdings Corp., No. 16 Civ. 5988 (PGG), 2017 WL 4342126 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2017).
194. TGI Paris, 8 nov. 2019, RG n° 19/59311, IPCom c. Lenovo.
195. Tribunal Superior de Bogotá, Resuelve, 8 agosto 2022, Ericsson y. Apple Inc., Expediente No. 110012203 000 2022 01593 00 (01).
196. Tribunal Superior del Distrito Judicial, Resuelve, 15 noviembre 2022, Ericsson y. Apple Inc.
197. Certain Mobile Devices, Associated Software, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-744 (Oct. 1, 2010) (Violation).
198. Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, Computers and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-745 (Oct. 6, 2010) (Violation).
199. Certain Gaming and Entertainment Consoles, Related Software, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-752 (Oct. 22, 2010) (Violation).
200. Complaint, AMD v. Polaris Innovations Ltd., No. 1:23-cv-00304-DAE (W.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2023), ECF No. 1.
201. Plaintiff’s Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Anti-Suit Injunction, AMD v. Polaris Innovations Ltd., No. 1:23-cv-00304-DAE (W.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2023a), ECF No. 4.
202. Notice Regarding Plaintiff’s Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Anti-Suit Injunction, AMD v. Polaris Innovations Ltd., No. 1:23-cv-00304-DAE (W.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2023), ECF No. 12.
203. Notice Regarding Plaintiff Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.’s Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Anti-Suit Injunction, AMD v. Polaris Innovations Ltd., No. 1:23-cv-00304-DAE (W.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2023), ECF No. 15.
204. Notice Regarding Defendant Polaris Innovations Limited’s German Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction, AMD v. Polaris Innovations Ltd., No. 1:23-cv-00304-DAE (W.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2023), ECF No. 20.
205. Exhibit 2, AMD v. Polaris Innovations Ltd., No. 1:23-cv-00304-DAE (W.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2023a), ECF No. 20-2.
206. Exhibit 4, AMD v. Polaris Innovations Ltd., No. 1:23-cv-00304-DAE (W.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2023b), ECF No. 20-4.
207. Notice of Withdrawal of Plaintiff’s Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Anti-Suit Injunction (D.I. 4) and Request for Same, AMD v. Polaris Innovations Ltd., No. 1:23-cv-00304-DAE (W.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2023), ECF No. 23.
208. Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 1089 (W.D. Wash. 2012).
209. Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 854 F. Supp. 2d 993 (W.D. Wash. 2012a).
210. Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 864 F. Supp. 2d 1023 (W.D. Wash. 2012b).
211. Defendants’ Opposition to Microsoft’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-01823-JLR (W.D. Wash. Apr. 6, 2012), ECF No. 244, 2012 WL 1207414.
212. Microsoft’s Reply in Support of its Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-01823-JLR (W.D. Wash. Apr. 9, 2012), ECF No. 257, 2021 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 117218.
213. Order, Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-01823-JLR (W.D. Wash. Apr. 12, 2012), ECF No. 261, 2012 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 102953.
214. Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-01823-JLR, 2013 WL 2111217 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 25, 2013).
215. Jr. Letter from Arthur W. Harrigan, Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-01823-JLR (W.D. Wash. Aug. 8, 2013), ECF No. 840.
216. Joint Motion to Stay All Patent-Infringement Related Cases and Claims between the Plaintiff Microsoft and Defendants Motorola, et al., Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-01823-JLR (W.D. Wash. July 10, 2012), ECF No. 355.
217. Defenses Defendants’ Answer, and Counterclaims to Plaintiff’s Amended and Supplemental Complaint, Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-01823-JLR (W.D. Wash. June 15, 2011), ECF No. 68.
218. Microsoft’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-01823-JLR (W.D. Wash. Mar. 28, 2012), ECF No. 210, 2012 WL 1207413.
219. (Proposed) Order Granting Microsoft’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-01823-JLR (W.D. Wash. Mar. 28, 2012a), ECF No. 210-1.
220. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) Judgment, Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-01823-JLR (W.D. Wash. Nov. 12, 2013), ECF No. 932.
221. Verdict Form, Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-01823-JLR (W.D. Wash. Sept. 4, 2013), ECF No. 909.
222. Minute Order, Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-01823-JLR (W.D. Wash. Sept. 10, 2013), ECF No. 913.
223. Microsoft’s Response to the Court’s September 10, 2013 Order Concerning Motorola’s Litigation Efforts in Germany (Dkt No. 913), Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-01823-JLR (W.D. Wash. Sept. 16, 2013), ECF No. 919.
224. Motorola’s Response to Microsoft’s Response to the Court’s September 10, 2013 Order Concerning Litigation in Germany (Dkt. No. 913), Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-01823-JLR (W.D. Wash. Sept. 23, 2013), ECF No. 924.
十一、 外文網路資料
1. Hinweise zur Handhabung des kartellrechtlichen Zwangslizenzeinwandes nach Huawei v. ZTE innerhalb des Münchner Verfahrens in Patentstreitsachen. LANDGERICHT MÜNCHEN I, https://www.justiz.bayern.de/media/images/behoerden-und-gerichte/landgerichte/muenchen1/hinweise_frand_und_m%C3%BCnchner_verfahren__stand_februar_2020_.pdf [https://perma.cc/89TE-42NC] (last updated Februar 2020).
2. Regional Court of Munich I Ref.: 7 O 14276/20. ARNOLD RUESS, https://www.arnold-ruess.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/InterDigitalvsXiaomiAASI25Feb2021EN.pdf [https://perma.cc/C928-V6LH] (last visited Mar. 13, 2023).
3. Standards Board Bylaws – Clause 6 – 8. IEEE STANDARD ASSOCIATION, https://standards.ieee.org/about/policies/bylaws/sect6-7/ [https://perma.cc/2UCF-G5J3] (last visited Mar. 8, 2023).
4. (Dec 9, 2022 13:30). Ericsson and Apple sign global patent license agreement. ERICSSON, https://www.ericsson.com/en/press-releases/2022/12/ericsson-and-apple-sign-global-patent-license-agreement [https://perma.cc/5EHC-X86P].
5. (Feb. 1, 2022). Daimler embarks on a new era as Mercedes-Benz Group. MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP, https://group.mercedes-benz.com/company/news/daimler-becomes-mercedes-benz-group.html [https://perma.cc/Q2SF-YLAM].
6. CONSULTA DE PROCESOS NACIONAL UNIFICADA, https://consultaprocesos.ramajudicial.gov.co/Procesos/Index [https://perma.cc/QU2G-HV3P] (last visited: Feb. 7, 2023).
7. Venue by district—Study summary. BANKRUPTCY RESEARCH DATABASE, https://lopucki.law.ufl.edu/design_a_study.php?OutputVariable=DistFiled [https://perma.cc/6JJA-7887] (last visited: July 26, 2023).
8. (June 4, 2019). Auftakt im Verfahrenskomplex “Connected Cars”. LANDGERICHT MÜNCHEN I, https://www.justiz.bayern.de/gerichte-und-behoerden/landgericht/muenchen-1/presse/2019/7.php [https://perma.cc/W25G-36Y3].
9. (Mar. 10, 2022). Tillis, Coons, Cotton, Hirono, and Scott Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Prevent the Chinese Communist Party from Stealing American Intellectual Property. THOM TILLS, https://www.tillis.senate.gov/2022/3/tillis-coons-cotton-hirono-and-scott-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-prevent-the-chinese-communist-party-from-stealing-american-intellectual-property [https://perma.cc/K3WS-FRBH].
10. (May 7, 2021 06:00). Ericsson and Samsung sign global patent license agreement. ERICSSON, https://www.ericsson.com/en/press-releases/2021/5/ericsson-and-samsung-sign-global-patent-license-agreement [https://perma.cc/3T2L-YX3Z].
11. PUBLIC ACCESS TO COURT ELECTRONICS RECORDS (PACER), https://pacer.uscourts.gov [https://perma.cc/J4BZ-RBFD] (last visited: May 23, 2022).
12. INTELLECTUAL ASSET MANAGEMENT, https://www.iam-media.com [https://perma.cc/2BMQ-7SR4] (last visited: May 31, 2022).
13. (May 31, 2022). Avanci Announces Patent License Agreement with Ford. AVANCI, https://www.avanci.com/2022/05/31/avanci-announces-patent-license-agreement-with-ford/ [https://perma.cc/QJP9-CSXQ].
14. (Oct. 21, 2020). China Enters the Realm of Anti-Suit Injunctions in Standard Essential Patent (SEP) Cases. SPICYIP, https://spicyip.com/2020/10/china-enters-the-realm-of-anti-suit-injunctions-in-standard-essential-patent-sep-cases.html [https://perma.cc/W9PS-KCM3].
15. (Sept. 21, 2022). Avanci Expands 4G Coverage to Over 80 Auto Brands. AVANCI, https://www.avanci.com/2022/09/21/avanci-expands-4g-coverage-to-over-80-auto-brands/ [https://perma.cc/29KN-3D5N].
16. Agudelo, Alexander. (Aug. 20, 2022). From SEPs to Discovery, Colombia is Getting More Patent Friendly. IPWATCHDOG, https://ipwatchdog.com/2022/08/20/from-seps-to-discovery-colombia-is-getting-more-patent-friendly/id=150957/ [https://perma.cc/R8MH-FVAV].
17. Angwenyi, Vincent, Roberto Dini and Mario Franzosi. (June 22, 2023). Unified Patent Court Advantages Leave US Trailing Behind. LAW360, https://www.law360.com/articles/1690339/unified-patent-court-advantages-leave-us-trailing-behind [https://perma.cc/KN3X-JCJA].
18. Bailey, Chris, Douglas Clark, Mark Cohen and Aria Tian. (17 Nov., 2021). Chinese patent litigation data: what it tells us and what it doesn’t. INTELLECTUAL ASSET MANAGEMENT, https://www.iam-media.com/article/chinese-patent-litigation-data-what-it-tells-us-and-what-it-doesnt [https://perma.cc/7X2R-QBWF].
19. Bounds, Andy. (Feb. 18, 2022). EU accuses China of ‘power grab’ over smartphone technology licensing. FINANCIAL TIMES, https://www.ft.com/content/d08f7480-5d19-497b-ac8b-bb68d780eae4 [https://perma.cc/KZM9-8BVG].
20. Chang, Roger. (Sept. 18, 2017). Patent Law in Taiwan. ASIA BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL, https://law.asia/taiwan-patent-law/?ihc_success_login=true [https://perma.cc/T9MR-JAZU].
21. Cheng, Ting-Fang and Lauly Li. (Feb. 18, 2022). Chip talent war: Taiwan faces critical staffing shortage. NIKKEI ASIA, https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Business-Spotlight/Chip-talent-war-Taiwan-faces-critical-staffing-shortage [https://perma.cc/4RBY-P26Q].
22. Conlon, Ed. (Mar. 6, 2020). Managing IP EMEA Awards 2020: winners revealed. MANAGING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, https://www.managingip.com/article/2a5cwaewu2cdq7tm2mlfk/managing-ip-emea-awards-2020-winners-revealed [https://perma.cc/5XFQ-MF7C].
23. Dini, Roberto, Mario Franzosi and Jing He. (Feb. 23, 2022). Anti-suit injunctions are a race to the bottom – and arbitration is the answer. INTELLECTUAL ASSET MANAGEMENT, https://www.iam-media.com/frand/anti-suit-injunctions-are-race-the-bottom-and-arbitration-the-answer [https://perma.cc/HX3L-DNPT].
24. Hakoranta, Eeva. (Jan. 4, 2023). International Arbitration – the Best Practice for Resolving Global Licensing Issues. INTERDIGITAL, https://www.interdigital.com/post/international-arbitration--the-best-practice-for-resolving-global-licensing-issues [https://perma.cc/H7N6-LV66].
25. Holt, Joshua. Highest Paid Lawyer Types: Which Field is Best? BIGLAW INVESTOR, https://www.biglawinvestor.com/highest-paid-lawyers/ [https://perma.cc/LV5W-BC8F] (last updated Mar. 12, 2023).
26. Houldsworth, Adam. (Apr. 4, 2023). Nokia’s Oppo/Vivo lawsuits were a false start for Indonesian SEP/FRAND litigation. INTELLECTUAL ASSET MANAGEMENT, https://www.iam-media.com/article/nokias-oppovivo-lawsuits-were-false-start-indonesian-sepfrand-litigation [https://perma.cc/7ET3-SYJ4].
27. Houldsworth, Adam. (Feb. 8, 2022). Why Dutch courts are becoming a central element in cross-border patent disputes. INTELLECTUAL ASSET MANAGEMENT, https://www.iam-media.com/article/why-dutch-courts-are-becoming-central-element-in-cross-border-patent-disputes [https://perma.cc/H597-F28A].
28. Houldsworth, Adam. (Feb. 16, 2022). Dusseldorf appeal court AASI rejection could see more SEP suits go to Munich. INTELLECTUAL ASSET MANAGEMENT, https://www.iam-media.com/frand/dusseldorf-appeal-court-aasi-rejection-could-see-more-sep-suits-go-munich [https://perma.cc/L6NC-C5KM].
29. Houldsworth, Adam. (Feb. 27, 2023). Oppo rejects Nokia’s arbitration proposal. INTELLECTUAL ASSET MANAGEMENT, https://www.iam-media.com/article/oppo-rejects-nokias-arbitration-proposal [https://perma.cc/L56B-UMAQ].
30. Houldsworth, Adam. (Jan. 12, 2023). Apple extends in-house patent team to Europe, reflecting region’s rising importance. INTELLECTUAL ASSET MANAGEMENT, https://www.iam-media.com/article/apple-extends-in-house-patent-team-europe-reflecting-regions-rising-importance [https://perma.cc/9VVJ-PPUH].
31. Houldsworth, Adam. (Sept. 27, 2022). Why France is an increasingly favourable jurisdiction for patent owners. INTELLECTUAL ASSET MANAGEMENT, https://www.iam-media.com/article/why-france-increasingly-favourable-jurisdiction-patent-owners [https://perma.cc/X3MB-VG5K].
32. Jiang, Sijia and Rama Venkat. (Feb. 27, 2019). Huawei, Samsung agree to settle patent dispute in U.S. court. REUTERS, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-huawei-tech-samsung-elec-litigation-idUSKCN1QG10Y [https://perma.cc/WCH8-FGFH].
33. Kappos, David J., Paul R. Michel, Corey A. Salsberg and Matthew J. Dowd. (Sept. 7, 2022). Why the United States urgently needs patent subject-matter eligibility reform. INTELLECTUAL ASSET MANAGEMENT, https://www.iam-media.com/article/making-the-case-us-patent-subject-matter-eligibility-reform [https://perma.cc/YQ58-KLNR].
34. Kauranen, Anne and Foo Yun Chee. (Aug. 18, 2020 7:54 PM). Nokia wins second round of legal fight against Daimler on patent fees. REUTERS, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nokia-daimler-patents-idUSKCN25E1J1 [https://perma.cc/AZ8N-8F3U].
35. Klos, Mathieu. (Aug. 17, 2022). “One year since the new German patent law, the injunction remains the same”. JUVE PAT., https://www.juve-patent.com/legal-commentary/one-year-since-the-new-german-patent-law-the-injunction-remains-the-same/ [https://perma.cc/K5CF-B5XD].
36. Klos, Mathieu. (Feb. 26, 2021). Munich court confirms AAAASI in SEP battle between InterDigital and Xiaomi. JUVE PATENT, https://www.juve-patent.com/cases/munich-court-confirms-aaaasi-in-sep-battle-between-interdigital-and-xiaomi/ [https://perma.cc/9BMZ-K9YB].
37. Klos, Mathieu. (Jan. 29, 2021). China wakes up in global SEP litigation. JUVE PATENT, https://www.juve-patent.com/legal-commentary/china-wakes-up-in-global-sep-litigation/ [https://perma.cc/GQ3P-9N2S].
38. Klos, Mathieu. (Mar. 25, 2021). “Anti-suit injunctions are a road to nowhere”. JUVE PATENT, https://www.juve-patent.com/legal-commentary/anti-suit-injunctions-are-a-road-to-nowhere/ [https://perma.cc/2H4Q-6L7H].
39. Korea, Ken. (Aug. 3, 2022). Anti-suit injunctions – a new global trade war with China? MANAGING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, https://www.managingip.com/article/2afz8grsj5i3uyxp19ji8/anti-suit-injunctions-a-new-global-trade-war-with-china [https://perma.cc/9PKR-GXCB].
40. Levine, Dan. (May 17, 2014 8:51 AM). Apple, Google settle smartphone patent litigation. REUTERS, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-google-settlement-idUSBREA4F0S020140517 [https://perma.cc/P4JZ-5ENR].
41. Miller, Joe. (June 1, 2021). Daimler settles tech licence dispute with Nokia. FINANCIAL TIMES, https://www.ft.com/content/e0f5344d-bb53-4950-bc4c-5654e8141864 [https://perma.cc/2D7N-CEXB].
42. Morris, Angela. (Feb. 22, 2023). Exclusive: Vidal on discretionary denials, director review changes and Section 101 action. INTELLECTUAL ASSET MANAGEMENT, https://www.iam-media.com/article/exclusive-vidal-discretionary-denials-director-review-changes-and-section-101-action [https://perma.cc/DGD4-YEHE].
43. Morris, Angela. (Feb. 23, 2023). Vidal reveals perspective on UPC, SEPs and competition with China. INTELLECTUAL ASSET MANAGEMENT, https://www.iam-media.com/article/vidal-reveals-perspective-upc-seps-and-competition-china [https://perma.cc/HPL6-K75N].
44. Morris, Angela. (Sept. 20, 2022). Samsung takes licence to settle US 5G patent suit. INTELLECTUAL ASSET MANAGEMENT, https://www.iam-media.com/article/samsung-takes-licence-in-us-npe-suit-asserting-5g-assets [https://perma.cc/9MQV-KRFB].
45. Müller, Florian. (Apr. 2, 2012). Patent abuse hurts the German economy: Microsoft has to relocate its European logistics center. FOSS PATENTS, http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/04/patent-abuse-hurts-german-economy.html [https://perma.cc/V3KV-CLKS].
46. Müller, Florian. (Apr. 6, 2023). Unified Patent Court presumably can’t order anti-antisuit injunctions, but can national courts bar defendants from seeking antisuit injunctions against UPC enforcement? FOSS PATENTS, http://www.fosspatents.com/2023/04/unified-patent-court-presumably-cant.html [https://perma.cc/6L9B-98MK].
47. Müller, Florian. (Apr. 28, 2012). List of 50+ Apple-Samsung lawsuits in 10 countries. FOSS PATENTS, http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/04/list-of-50-apple-samsung-lawsuits-in-10.html [https://perma.cc/DD6H-QC7R].
48. Müller, Florian. (Dec. 2, 2022). BATTLEMAP: 17 months after Nokia sued OPPO, litigation is pending in 20 venues around the globe--either party has won some and lost some. FOSS PATENTS, http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/12/battlemap-17-months-after-nokia-sued.html [https://perma.cc/U8GF-QMB5].
49. Müller, Florian. (Dec. 15, 2020). Munich appeals court overrules lower court’s shameless approach to security amounts: Conversant v. Daimler. FOSS PATENTS, http://www.fosspatents.com/2020/12/munich-appeals-court-overrules-lower.html [https://perma.cc/J46U-EWSN].
50. Müller, Florian. (Dec. 22, 2021). Daimler takes Avanci patent license--all major German car makers now Avanci-licensed, but Volkswagen only up to 3G. FOSS PATENTS, http://www.fosspatents.com/2021/12/daimler-takes-avanci-patent-license-all.html [https://perma.cc/E43L-JDTE].
51. Müller, Florian. (Feb. 3, 2012). Apple TEMPORARILY removed products from German online store due to Motorola injunction based on FRAND patent. FOSS PATENTS, http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/02/apple-removed-products-from-german.html [https://perma.cc/47KX-8JJK].
52. Müller, Florian. (Feb. 14, 2023). Non-practicing entities have easy access to patent injunctions in Munich: court provides guidance on insufficient proportionality defenses and implications of antisuit injunctions for licensee’s (un)willingness. FOSS PATENTS, http://www.fosspatents.com/2023/02/non-practicing-entities-have-easy.html [https://perma.cc/UZM4-G9VR].
53. Müller, Florian. (Jan. 12, 2020). BREAKING NEWS: Nokia makes antitrust mediation with Daimler and automotive suppliers over standard-essential patent licensing fail. FOSS PATENTS, http://www.fosspatents.com/2020/01/breaking-news-nokia-makes-antitrust.html [https://perma.cc/QF5G-7RJE].
54. Müller, Florian. (July 15, 2021). Immediate and unconditional surrender is the only safe harbor for anti-antisuit defendants in Munich: IP Bridge v. Huawei decision published. FOSS PATENTS, http://www.fosspatents.com/2021/07/immediate-and-unconditional-surrender.html [https://perma.cc/377H-PKH8].
55. Müller, Florian. (July 22, 2022). Fifth Circuit denies Continental’s SECOND petition for rehearing en banc of its failed ‘antitrust’ case against Avanci, Nokia, others over automotive patent licensing. FOSS PATENTS, http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/07/fifth-circuit-denies-continentals.html [https://perma.cc/3J5S-Y3LZ].
56. Müller, Florian. (July 31, 2019). Avanci, Nokia trying to escape Judge Koh’s jurisdiction over Continental case: motion to transfer venue from San Jose to Dallas. FOSS PATENTS, http://www.fosspatents.com/2019/07/avanci-nokia-trying-to-escape-judge.html [https://perma.cc/64HY-8BQP].
57. Müller, Florian. (June 1, 2022). Longhorn IP suing Fiat Chrysler (Stellantis) and Nissan in Munich over standard-essential patents: Longhorn was one of seven Avanci licensors suing Ford. FOSS PATENTS, http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/06/longhorn-ip-suing-fiat-chrysler.html [https://perma.cc/PF2X-5CJW].
58. Müller, Florian. (June 17, 2021). Munich may become the circuit with the most consistent patent case law in Germany if Judge Zigann is promoted and Judge Werner succeeds him. FOSS PATENTS, http://www.fosspatents.com/2021/06/munich-may-become-circuit-with-most.html [https://perma.cc/TT5B-5YLM].
59. Müller, Florian. (Mar. 10, 2021). Anti-anti-anti-antisuit injunctions (no kidding) widely available now in Munich: InterDigital v. Xiaomi decision lays out criteria. FOSS PATENTS, http://www.fosspatents.com/2021/03/anti-anti-anti-antisuit-injunctions-no.html [https://perma.cc/6VXL-CLXW].
60. Müller, Florian. (Mar. 12, 2021). Antisuit follow-up: deference to foreign jurisdictions ranges from ‘never’ to ‘always’; and what role could standard-setting organizations play? FOSS PATENTS, http://www.fosspatents.com/2021/03/antisuit-follow-up-deference-to-foreign.html [https://perma.cc/Y8L2-L76A].
61. Müller, Florian. (Mar. 15, 2022). ‘Defending American Courts Act’ presently looks more like PR stunt than serious and well-thought-out legislative proposal to combat foreign interference in U.S. patent enforcement. FOSS PATENTS, http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/03/defending-american-courts-act-presently.html [https://perma.cc/AMD8-WWPK].
62. Müller, Florian. (May 17, 2022). Dutch network operator KPN becomes 7th Avanci licensor to sue Ford Motor Company over 4G standard-essential patents: Munich court schedules first hearing for September. FOSS PATENTS, http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/05/dutch-network-operator-kpn-becomes-7th.html [https://perma.cc/A392-ZLQ6].
63. Müller, Florian. (May 19, 2022). Huawei, Nokia settle antitrust dispute over component-level licensing of automotive suppliers: Dusseldorf case over standard-essential patent license withdrawn. FOSS PATENTS, http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/05/huawei-nokia-settle-antitrust-dispute.html [https://perma.cc/G8J5-CU96].
64. Müller, Florian. (Nov. 3, 2022). Continental gives up antitrust battle against Avanci patent pool--no cert petition filed--but keeps pursuing long-shot case against Nokia in Delaware Chancery Court. FOSS PATENTS, http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/11/continental-gives-up-antitrust-battle.html [https://perma.cc/YG5H-ZAZZ].
65. Müller, Florian. (Oct. 19, 2021). Nokia tries to drown OPPO in patent infringement lawsuits, makes Germany (15 patents-in-suit and anti-antisuit injunction) center of gravity of multijurisdictional enforcement campaign. FOSS PATENTS, http://www.fosspatents.com/2021/10/nokia-tries-to-drown-oppo-in-patent.html [https://perma.cc/PF68-R7B4].
66. Müller, Florian. (Sept. 10, 2019). Automotive supplier Continental gets penalized for its lawyers’ low-quality work as Judge Koh denies (without prejudice) motion for antisuit injunction. FOSS PATENTS, http://www.fosspatents.com/2019/09/automotive-supplier-continental-gets.html [https://perma.cc/F7L5-8D79].
67. Müller, Florian. (Sept. 21, 2022). Mission accomplished for Avanci: virtually entire automotive industry licensed to 4G standard-essential patent portfolios of 51 licensors--now on to 5G. FOSS PATENTS, http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/09/mission-accomplished-for-avanci.html [https://perma.cc/UD4X-NHRY].
68. Müller-Stoy, Tilman, Tobias Wuttke, Axel Berger, Nadine Westermeyer, Martin Drews and Kerstin Galler. (May 17, 2023). BARDEHLE PAGENBERG paves way to successful infringement proceedings for 10x Genomics with anti-anti-suit-injunction. BARDEHLE PAGENBERG, https://www.bardehle.com/en/ip-news-knowledge/firm-news/news-detail/bardehle-pagenberg-paves-way-to-successful-infringement-proceedings-for-10x-genomics-with-anti-anti-suit-injunction [https://perma.cc/ZUN2-2Y57].
69. Müller-Stoy, Tilman, Tobias Wuttke, Martin Drews, Kerstin Galler and Monika Harten. (Aug. 2, 2023). BARDEHLE PAGENBERG achieves another victory for 10x Genomics against NanoString. BARDEHLE PAGENBERG, https://www.bardehle.com/en/ip-news-knowledge/firm-news/news-detail/bardehle-pagenberg-achieves-another-victory-for-10x-genomics-against-nanostring [https://perma.cc/Q7Z9-9VW2].
70. New, William. (Sept. 29, 2022). Senator Coons’ co-sponsorship of Tillis bill potential breakthrough for patent eligibility. INTELLECTUAL ASSET MANAGEMENT, [https://perma.cc/YD7B-6S8Q].
71. Page, Larry. (Aug. 15, 2011). Supercharging Android: Google to Acquire Motorola Mobility. GOOGLE OFFICAL BLOG, https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/supercharging-android-google-to-acquire.html [https://perma.cc/AX6B-ED3C].
72. Page, Larry. (Jan 29, 2014). Lenovo to acquire Motorola Mobility. GOOGLE, https://blog.google/inside-google/company-announcements/lenovo-to-acquire-motorola-mobility/ [https://perma.cc/7M7J-E56C].
73. Rauwald, Christoph. (Oct. 7, 2020 1:38 PM). Daimler Settles Mobile-Device Patents Dispute With Sharp (1). BLOOMBERG LAW, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/daimler-settles-mobile-device-patents-dispute-with-sharp-1 [https://perma.cc/F7Q9-X6A8].
74. Richter, Konstanze. (June 22, 2022). Germany’s top three patent courts show greatest growth in case numbers. JUVE PATENT, https://www.juve-patent.com/people-and-business/germanys-top-three-patent-courts-show-greatest-growth-in-case-numbers/ [https://perma.cc/J7LP-HHTU].
75. Richter, Konstanze. (June 26, 2020). Patent cases in Germany fall, but Munich bucks the trend. JUVE PATENT, https://www.juve-patent.com/people-and-business/patent-cases-in-germany-fall-but-munich-bucks-the-trend/ [https://perma.cc/9JJX-XWDU].
76. Richter, Konstanze. (Oct. 22, 2020). “Munich should be the go-to location for patent disputes” – an interview with Andrea Schmidt. JUVE PATENT, https://www.juve-patent.com/news-and-stories/people-and-business/munich-should-be-the-go-to-location-for-patent-disputes-an-interview-with-andrea-schmidt [https://perma.cc/R992-NSQY].
77. Rozen, Miriam. (June 16, 2022). Magic Circle firms poach IP lawyers from US peers. FINANCIAL TIMES, https://www.ft.com/content/3a944d10-35cd-4073-8bbc-86a26050d99d [https://perma.cc/7CXF-BLKN].
78. Schindler, Jacob. (Feb. 4, 2022). €1.5 billion in IP licensing revenue buoys Nokia profits for 2021. INTELLECTUAL ASSET MANAGEMENT, https://www.iam-media.com/article/ip-licensing-business-contributes-more-40-of-nokia-profits-2021 [https://perma.cc/PPQ2-MD6D].
79. Schindler, Jacob. (Jan. 20, 2022). For Taiwan firms, the time is now for patent monetization. INTELLECTUAL ASSET MANAGEMENT, https://www.iam-media.com/taiwan-firms-the-time-now-patent-monetisation [https://perma.cc/8D6A-LGK8].
80. Stanzione, Melissa Heelan. (Nov. 16, 2018, 2:08 AM). IP Power Fish & Richardson to Open Office in Shenzhen, China. BLOOMBERG LAW, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/ip-power-fish-richardson-to-open-office-in-shenzhen-china [https://perma.cc/4VFP-ERY6].
81. Tsai, CF, Yu-Li Tsai and Lu-Fa Tsai. (Nov. 20, 2020). Patents – try Taiwan for high quality and low cost. INTELLECTUAL ASSET MANAGEMENT, https://www.iam-media.com/global-guide/innovation-invention-yearbook/2021/article/patents-try-taiwan-high-quality-and-low-cost [https://perma.cc/YCP8-V6WH].
82. Walters, Max. (Mar. 15, 2021). New UK judge: FRAND anti-anti-suits could create ‘total mess’. MANAGING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, https://www.managingip.com/article/b1qz7fqptgxky5/new-uk-judge-frand-anti-anti-suits-could-create-total-mess [https://perma.cc/VUN2-R7DK].
83. Waters, Richard. (Oct. 1, 2015). Google and Microsoft settle patent dispute. FINANCIAL TIMES, https://www.ft.com/content/7ecab5c6-67be-11e5-97d0-1456a776a4f5 [https://perma.cc/UZ2X-B4ZJ].
84. White, Edward. (June 16, 2022). Chinese courts flex intellectual property muscle across borders. FINANCIAL TIMES, https://www.ft.com/content/d4b4e41b-d303-474e-a084-717b948cf2f8 [https://perma.cc/N5YX-DAJ2].
85. Wild, Joff. (Mar. 2, 2023). A comeback for injunctions would help to revive US patent leadership. INTELLECTUAL ASSET MANAGEMENT, https://www.iam-media.com/article/jw-column-2nd-march-2023-us-patent-leadership-sacrificed [https://perma.cc/7T66-86LX].
86. Zhao, Bing. (July 8, 2021). Nokia launches patent litigation against Oppo across Europe and Asia. INTELLECTUAL ASSET MANAGEMENT, https://www.iam-media.com/article/nokia-launches-patent-litigation-against-oppo [https://perma.cc/3HTM-HQRH].
87. Zhao, Bing. (Mar. 25, 2022). New details on MediaTek-NXP dispute show changing mentality of Taiwan IP owners. INTELLECTUAL ASSET MANAGEMENT, https://www.iam-media.com/article/new-details-mediatek-nxp-dispute-show-changing-mentality-of-taiwan-ip-owners [https://perma.cc/4U74-97R7].
88. Zumbrun, Josh. (Sept. 26, 2021 7:01 AM). China Wields New Legal Weapon to Fight Claims of Intellectual Property Theft. THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-wields-new-legal-weapon-to-fight-claims-of-intellectual-property-theft-11632654001 [https://perma.cc/GAB4-5RRB].
十二、 註釋書、字典
1. Black’s Law Dictionary. 2019.
2. Lexikon GewR 2022. 1. Aufl., Anti-Suit Injunction.
3. Busse/Keukenschrijver. 2020. 9. Aufl., Vor § 139.
4. MüKoBGB/Grothe. 2021. 9. Aufl., BGB § 227.
5. Haedicke/Timmann. 2020. 2. Aufl., PatR-HdB § 15. Die Patentstreitsache.
6. Staudinger/Hager. (2017) Vorbemerkung zu BGB §§ 823 ff.
7. MüKoZPO/Häublein/Müller. 2020. 6. Aufl., ZPO § 166.
8. Geimer/Schütze Int. Rechtsverkehr/Paulus. 2022. 64. Aufl., VO (EG) Nr. 1215/2012 Vorb. Art. 4 ff.
9. MüKoBGB/Raff. 2020. 8. Aufl., BGB § 1004.
10. Staudinger/Thole. (2019) BGB § 1004.
11. MüKoBGB/Wagner. 2020. 8. Aufl., BGB vor § 823.