تأملی بر ابطال گواهی ثبت اختراع در پرتو عناصر متشکله سلب مالکیت غیرمستقیم در حقوق سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی

الف- فارسی

کتاب‌

-         دالزر، رودلف و شروئر، کیریستف، اصول حقوق بین‌الملل سرمایه‌گذاری، ترجمه سید قاسم زمانی و به‌آذین حسیبی‌، چاپ سوم (تهران: موسسه مطالعات و پژوهش‌های حقوقی شهر دانش، 1393).

مقاله‌ها

-         جنیدی، لعیا و همکاران، «سلب مالکیت غیرمستقیم سرمایه‌گذاران خارجی؛ جستاری در حقوق ایران و بین‌الملل»، فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق خصوصی، سال ششم، شماره 24، (1397).

-         صادقی، محمود و امینی، مهدی، «موجبات و آثار ابطال گواهینامه حق اختراع»، مجله مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی، بهار و تابستان، دوره 3، شماره 1، (1391).

Reference

Books

-          Bücheler, Gebhard, Proportionality in Investor-state Arbitration, First Edition (Oxford: United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2015).

  -          Dolzer, Rudolf and Stevens, Margrete, Bilateral Investment Treaties (Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995).

 -          Paulsson, Jan and Douglas, Zachary, Indirect Expropriation in Investment Treaty Arbitration, In N. Horn and S. Kroll (eds.), Arbitrating Foreign Investment Disputes (Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2004).

 -          Vanhonnaeker, Lukas, Intellectual Property Rights as Foreign Direct Investments: From Collision to Collaboration (UK: Elgar International Investment Law, 2015).

 -          Wadlow, Christopher, Utility and Industrial Applicability in T. Takenaka (ed.), Patent Law and Theory: A Handbook of Contemporary Research, Research Handbooks in Intellectual Property Cheltenham (UK: Edward Elgar, 2008).

Articles

-          Baker, B. K. and  Geddes , K, ˮThe Incredible Shrinking Victory: Eli Lilly v. Canadaˮ, Success, Judicial Reversal, and Continuing Threats from Pharmaceutical ISDS, Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, Vol 49, Issue 2, (2017).  

 -          Correa, C. M., ”Investment Protection in Bilateral and Free Trade Agreements: Implications for the Granting of Compulsory Licenses”, Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, Issue 1, (2004).

 -          Diependaele L., Cockbain, J. and Sterckx S., ”Eli Lilly v Canada: The Uncomfortable Liaison between Intellectual Property and International Investment Law”, Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, Vol. 7, Issue 3, (2017).

 -          Isakoff, P. D., ”Defining the Scope of Indirect Expropriation for International Investments”, Global Business Law Review, Vol. 3, Issue 2, (2013).

 -          Kriebaum ,Ursula, Regulatory Takings: ”Balancing the Interests of the Investor and the State”, Journal of World Investment & Trade, Volume 8, Issue 5 (2007).

 -          OECD,” Indirect Expropriation and the Right to Regulate in International Investment Law”, OECD Working Papers on International Investment, 2004/04, OECD Publishing., http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/780155872321 (2004).

 -          UNCTAD, “Taking of Property”,  UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements, (2000).

 -          Weiner, A. S., “Indirect Expropriations: The Need for a Taxonomy of Legitimate Regulatory Purposes”, International Law FORUM du droit international, Vol 5, Issue 3 (2003).

Regulation & Treaties

-          ASEAN–Australia–New Zealand FTA (2009).

-          Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), ‘Patent Office Manual of Patent Office Practice (MOPOP) (1998 Edition, Revised June 2016; November 2017).

 -          Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement between India – Singapore (2005).

 -          Energy Charter Treaty, Dec. 17, 1994, 2080 U.N.T.S. 100.

 -          Korea –Singapore Free Trade Agreement (2006) North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), 17 December 1992, 32 ILM 296.

 -          U.S BIT Model (2012).

 -          US – Singapore Free Trade Agreement (2003).

 -          Patent Cooperation Treaty (1970) 9 ILM 978 (PCT).

 -          Patent Act RSC 1985 c. P-4 (Canada), available at: https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/text/207521.

Cases

-          Archer Daniels Midland Company and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/04/5, (2007).

 -          Biloune and Marine Drive Complex Ltd. v. Ghana Investments Centre and the Government of Ghana, (Investment Agreement), Award, 27 October 1989, 95 ILR 183.

 -          Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic, (France-Argentine BIT), Award20 August 2007, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3.

 -          Eli Lilly and Company v. The Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, ICSID Case No.UNCT/14/2; Award:16 March 2017.

 -          Generation Ukraine Inc. v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/9, Award (Sep. 16, 2003).

 -          IUSCT, Phelps Dodge Corp., et al. v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No. 217-99-2 (19 March 1986), 10 IUSCTR 121.

 -          IUSCT, Tippetts, Abbeu, McCarthy, Stratton v. TAMS-AFFA Consulting Engineers of Iran, Award No. 141-7-2 (29 June 1984), 6 IUSCTR 219.

 -          Matos and Silva EGMR, Matos e Silva v. Portugal, Judgment of27 August 1996, ECHR 1996-IV.

 -          Metalclad Corp. v. United Mexican States, (NAFTA), ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/97/1, Award (30 August 2000), 5 ICSID Reports (2002) 212-35.

 -          Methanex Corp. v. U.S. (NAFTA), Final Award (3 August 2005) 4 I.L.M. 1345 (2005).

-          Novopharm Limited v Eli Lilly and Company (2010), FC  915. (Canada).

 -          Pope & Talbot Inc. v. The Government of Canada, NAFTA Arbitration (UNCITRAL).

 -          Saluka Investments BV v. Czech Republic, (Netherlands -Czech BIT), Partial Award, 17 March 2006.

 -          S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Government of Canada, NAFTA Arbitration (UNCITRAL), 2002.

 -          Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited (SPP) v. Arab Republic of Egypt, (National Law), Award, (20 May 1992), 3 ICSID Reports 189.

 -          Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, SA v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF) 2/00, (Mexico-Spain BIT)  Award, 29 May 2003, 43 I.L.M. 133, (2004).

 -          Telenor Mobile Communications A.S. v. The Republic of Hungry, ICSID, case No. ARB/04/15, Award, 13 September 2006.