[
Abram Landau Real Estate v. Bevonna, 123 F.3d 69, 73 (2d Cir. 1997).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (1986).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bermann G. A., The ‘Gateway’ Problem in International Commercial Arbitration, “Yale Journal of International Law” 2012, vol. 1, 37, no. 1.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Blackaby R.N. et al., Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, Student Edition, Oxford 2009.10.1093/law:iic/9780199557189.001.1
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Blanke G., Samsung Electronics offers arbitration commitment under article 9 of Regulation 1/2003, “Global Competition Litigation Review” 2014, vol. 7, no. 2.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Born G.B., International Commercial Arbitration in The United States: Commentary and Materials, New York 1994.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Buckeye Check Cashing Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (2006).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Certilman S.A., Lutsker J. E., Arbitrability of Intellectual Property Disputes, (in:) T.D. Halket (ed.), Arbitration of Intellectual Property Disputes, Huntington, New York 2012.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 10 June 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2519, 330 U.N.T.S. 3.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Cook T., Garcia A.I., Intellectual Property Arbitration, Netherlands 2010.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
David J.L., Harrison S., Edison in the Boardroom: How Leading Companies Realize Value From Their Intellectual Assets, Hoboken 2001.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
The DuPont Company’s Development of ADR Usage: From Theory to Practice, http://www.americanbar.org/publications/dispute_resolution_magazine/2014/spring/the-dupont-compans-development-of-adr-usage--from-theory-to-pra.html.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Epstein J. et al., A Practical Guide to International Commercial Arbitration, Dobbs Ferry 2000.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Fortune Magazine Global 500 2014, http://fortune.com/global500/dupont-320/.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Fox Jr. W., International Commercial Agreements: A Primer on Drafting, Negotiating, and Resolving Disputes 3rd ed., The Hague 1998.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Graves J.M., Competence-Competence and Separability – American Style, (in:) S. Kröllet et al. (eds.), International Arbitration and International Commercial Law: Synergy, Convergence and Evolution, Netherlands 2011.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Harrison S.S., Sullivan Sr.P.H., United Einstein in the Boardroom – Moving Beyond Intellectual Capital to I-Stuff, United States 2006.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Li X.,Ten Misconceptions About the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, (in:) X. Li, C.M. Correa (eds.), Intellectual Property Enforcement: International Perspectives, Northampton, MA 2009.10.4337/9781848449251
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lloreda, A., Exploring Alternative Dispute Resolution, (in:) L.G. Bryer et al. (eds.), Intellectual Property Strategies for the 21st Century Corporation: A Shift in Strategic and Financial Management, Hoboken 2011.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lucasfilm v. Ainsworth (2011) UKSC 39, (2012) 1 AC 208, (2011) 3 WLR 487 (appeal taken from Eng.).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mascarenhas V., Using ‘Baseball Arbitration’ to Resolve FRAND Disputes, “Corporate Counsel” 2015, http://www.kslaw.com/imageserver/KSPublic/library/publication/2015articles/2–11-15_CorpCounsel_Mascarenhas.pdf.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
McSherry C., Who Owns Academic Work?, Cambridge, MA 2001.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Miller C. et al., The Handbook of Nanotechnology, Hoboken 2005, p. 254.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Moses M.L., The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, Cambridge 2008.10.1017/CBO9780511819216
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Other relevant conventions http://www.newyorkconvention.org/other-relevant-conventions.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395 (1967).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rent-a-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 130 S. Ct. 2772, (2010).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Riley Mfg. Co. v. Anchor Glass Container Corp., 157 F.3d 775, 779 (10th Cir. 1998).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ryder R.D., Madhavan A., Intellectual Property and Business: The Power of Intangible Assets, United States 2014.10.4135/9789351508021
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Silverman A.E., Intellectual Property Law and the Venture Capital Process, “High Technology Law Journal” 1989, vol. 5, no. 1.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Shaw P.D., Managing Legal and Security Risks in Computing and Communications, Oxford 1998.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Shell G.R., Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel Effects of Commercial Arbitration, “UCLA Law Review” 1988, vol. 35.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Smit R.H., General Commentary on the WIPO Arbitration Rules, Recommended Clauses, General Provisions and the WIPO Expedited Arbitration Rules: Articles 1 to 5; Articles 39 and 40, (in:) H. Smit (ed.), WIPO Arbitration Rules: Commentary and Analyses, Huntington, New York 2009.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
States parties to the New York Convention, http://www.newyorkconvention.org/new-york-convention-countries/contracting-states and http://www.newyorkconvention.org/contracting-states/list-of-contracting-states.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sullivan P. H., Value-Drive Intellectual Capital: How to Convert Intangible Corporate Assets into Market Value, United States 2000.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
TRIPS: Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 April 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, The Legal Texts: The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations 320 (1999), 1869 U.N.T.S. 299, 33 I.L.M. 1197 (1994).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Troller K., Intellectual Property Disputes in Arbitration, “Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management” 2006, vol. 72.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
U.N. Commission on International Trade Law, Report on its 39th Session, 19 June–7 July 2006, U.N. Doc.A/61/17 (14 July 2006), http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/1985Model_arbitration_status.html.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy as Approved by ICANN on 24 October 1999, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012–02-25-en.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
U.S. Code > Title 9 Arbitration > CHAPTER 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS (§§ 1–16).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
U.S. Code > Title 9 Arbitration > CHAPTER 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS (§ 4). Failure to arbitrate under agreement; petition to United States court having jurisdiction for order to compel arbitration; notice and service thereof; hearing and determination.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
van den Berg A.J., The New York Convention of 1958: An Overview, pp. 6–9, http://www.arbitration-icca.org/media/0/12125884227980/new_york_convention_of_1958_overview.pdf.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Waelde C. et al., Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy 3rd ed., Oxford 2013.10.1093/he/9780199671823.001.0001
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Wheeler M., The Art of Negotiation: How to Improvise Agreement in a Chaotic World, United States 2013.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Wing J.D., International Arbitration and Mediation – The Professional’s Perspective, (in:) A. Alebekova, R. Carrow (eds.), International Arbitration and Mediation: From the Professional’s Perspective, United States 2007.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
WIPO Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) for Intellectual Property Offices,
]Search in Google Scholar
[
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/center/specific-sectors/ipoffices/.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
World Intellectual Property Organization, Why Arbitration in Intellectual Property?, http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/arbitration/why-is-arb.html.
]Search in Google Scholar