الف. فارسی
مقالات
*عبادی بشیر، مقصود (1404)، » تعهد به صداقت و وفاداری کارگر در برابر کارفرما «، مجله حقوقی دادگستری، دوره 89، شماره 130.صص 393-365.
*کلیشادی نجفآبادی، امین؛ شیرانی، مسعود؛ و سلطانی، رضا. (۱۴۰۴).» بررسی مقایسهای استانداردهای رفتار منصفانه و عادلانه و حمایت و امنیت کامل در حقوق سرمایهگذاری خارجی«، مجله حقوقی دادگستری، دوره ۸۹ُ شماره ۱۲۹ُ ُ صص ۲۰۳-۱۷۳.
قانون
* قانون حمایت از مالکیت صنعتی. (1403). مجلس شورای اسلامی. روزنامه رسمی جمهوری اسلامی ایران، شماره 18174/182.
ب. انگلیسی
* Aptix Corp. v. Quickturn Design Systems, Inc. 269 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
* Chiang, T. J. (2013). The Upside-“Down Inequitable Conduct Defense.” Northwestern University law Review. 107 (3), 1243-1306. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/nulr/vol107/iss3/4/.
* Corona Cord Tire Co. v. Donovan Chemical Corp. 276 U.S. 358 (1928).
* Dolak, L. A. (2013). “Litigating Inequitable Conduct after Therasense, Exerge, and the AIA: Lessons for Litigants, Option for Owners”. Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property, 13 (1), 50-90. https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/ckjip/vol13/iss1/3/.
* Executive Regulation of the Patent Law, 1386, Islamic Republic of Iran. (In Persian)
* Garreth, W. & Crudden, Mc. (2023). “Drugs, Deception, and Disclosure.” Berkeley Technology Law Journal. 38 (1131), 1132-1168. http://doi.org/10.15779/Z38N87314D
* Gvozdik, A. (2019). “The Federal Circuit's Standard for Inequitable Conduct: Out of Step with Supreme Court Precedent”, Duquesne Law Review, 57 (2), 451-475. https://dsc.duq.edu/dlr/vol57/iss2/10/.
* Karshtedt, D. Janis, D. & Sichelman, M. (2021). "Defenses to Infringement. Patent Law. An Open-Source Casebook. Edited by Dmitry, K. GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works. 1-103.
* Kasper, A. (2016). “Managing Inequitable Conduct by Legislation and/or Regulation”. Akron Intellectual Property Journal. https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=akronintellectualproperty.
* Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co. 290 U.S. 240 (1933).
* Kingsland v. Dorsey, 338 U.S. 318 (1949).
*. Kroll, K. (2018). “Prosecuting Inequitable Conduct.” Minnesota Law Review. 5 (2), 94-110. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&context=headnotes
* Laser, C. J. (2020). “Equitable Defense in Patent Law”. University of Miami Law Review. 75 (1), 1-75. https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol75/iss1/3/.
* Mathew, A. & et al. (2018). “The Return of the Plague: Inequitable Conduct after Regeneron v. Merus”, Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal, 34 (4), 327-361. https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj/vol34/iss4/1/
*. Parrish, D. (2013).” Supplemental Examination and Inequitable Conduct: Protection and Pitfalls”. An Intellectual Property Law Review, 4 (1), 156-190. https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cybaris/vol4/iss1/4/.
* Patent Act of 1836, 5 Stat. 117 (1836)
* Patent Act of 1952, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. (1952).
* Patent Act of 1970, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. (1970).
* Patent Law, (1386), Islamic Republic of Iran. (In Persian)
* Precision Instrument Manufacturing Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co. 324 U.S. 806 (1945).
* Regeneron Pharmaceuticals v. Merus N.V. No. 16-1346 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
* Soltesz, J. A. (2013). “Inequitable Conduct as a Defense to Patent Infringement: What Will the Effect of the Federal Circuit’s Decision in Therasense, Inc. Have?”. Seton Hall University Law. https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1307&context=student_scholarship
* Noonan, K. E. et al. (2019). In the Supreme Court of the United States (No. 17-1616). Motion for leave to file and brief of seven Chicago patent lawyers as amici curiae in support of petitioner. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Merus B.V., available at: <https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1616.html>(last visited on 1/8/2025)
* Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
* Thurlow, P. G.et al. (2019). Brief of amicus curiae New York Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Merus N.V. No. 17-1616. Supreme Court of the United States.available at: < https://www.nyipla.org/images/nyipla/Amicus/Regeneronv.MerusNYIPLACertStageAmicusBrief.pdf>, (last visited on 1/8/2025)
*. United States Patent and Trademark Office. (2018). All Claims [R-08.2017] 2016 Fraud, Inequitable Conduct, or Violation of Duty of Disclosure Affects. https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2016.html
*. Vidal, K. K. (2022). “Duties of disclosure and reasonable inquiry during examination, reexamination, and reissue, and for proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board”: The Daily Journal of the United States. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/07/29/2022-16299/duties-of-disclosure-and-reasonable-inquiry-during-examination-reexamination-and-reissue-and-for
* U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (n.d). 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 - Duty to disclose information material to patentability. Visited on 2025. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.56
