research paper topics for intellectual property rights

Intellectual Property Law Research Paper Topics

Welcome to the realm of intellectual property law research paper topics , where we aim to guide law students on their academic journey by providing a comprehensive list of 10 captivating and relevant topics in each of the 10 categories. In this section, we will explore the dynamic field of intellectual property law, encompassing copyrights, trademarks, patents, and more, and shed light on its significance, complexities, and the diverse array of research paper topics it offers. With expert tips on topic selection, guidance on crafting an impactful research paper, and access to iResearchNet’s custom writing services, students can empower their pursuit of excellence in the domain of intellectual property law.

100 Intellectual Property Law Research Paper Topics

Intellectual property law is a dynamic and multifaceted field that intersects with various sectors, including technology, arts, business, and innovation. Research papers in this domain allow students to explore the intricate legal framework that governs the creation, protection, and enforcement of intellectual property rights. To aid aspiring legal scholars in their academic pursuits, this section presents a comprehensive list of intellectual property law research paper topics, categorized to encompass a wide range of subjects.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

Fair Use Doctrine: Balancing Creativity and Access to Knowledge
Copyright Infringement in the Digital Age: Challenges and Solutions
The Role of Copyright Law in Protecting Creative Works of Art
The Intersection of Copyright and AI: Legal Implications and Challenges
Copyright and Digital Education: Analyzing the Impact of Distance Learning
Copyright and Social Media: Addressing Infringement and User Rights
Copyright Exceptions for Libraries and Educational Institutions
Copyright Law and Virtual Reality: Emerging Legal Issues
Copyright and Artificial Intelligence in Music Creation
Copyright Termination Rights and Authors’ Works Reversion
Patentable Subject Matter: Examining the Boundaries of Patent Protection
Patent Trolls and Innovation: Evaluating the Impact on Technological Advancement
Biotechnology Patents: Ethical Considerations and Policy Implications
Patent Wars in the Pharmaceutical Industry: Balancing Access to Medicine and Innovation
Standard Essential Patents: Analyzing the Role in Technology Development and Market Competition
Patent Thickets and the Challenges for Startups and Small Businesses
Patent Pooling and Collaborative Innovation: Advantages and Legal Considerations
Patent Litigation and Forum Shopping: Analysis of Jurisdictional Issues
Patent Law and Artificial Intelligence: Implications for Inventorship and Ownership
Patent Exhaustion and International Trade: Legal Complexities in Global Markets
Trademark Dilution: Protecting the Distinctiveness of Brands in a Global Market
Trademark Infringement and the Online Environment: Challenges and Legal Remedies
The Intersection of Trademark Law and Freedom of Speech: Striking a Balance
Non-Traditional Trademarks: Legal Issues Surrounding Sound, Color, and Shape Marks
Trademark Licensing: Key Considerations for Brand Owners and Licensees
Trademark Protection for Geographical Indications: Preserving Cultural Heritage
Trademark Opposition and Cancellation Proceedings: Strategies and Legal Considerations
Trademark Law and Counterfeiting: Global Enforcement Challenges
Trademark and Domain Name Disputes: UDRP and Legal Strategies
Trademark Law and Social Media Influencers: Disclosure and Endorsement Guidelines
Trade Secrets vs. Patents: Choosing the Right Intellectual Property Protection
Trade Secret Misappropriation: Legal Protections and Remedies for Businesses
Protecting Trade Secrets in the Digital Age: Cybersecurity Challenges and Best Practices
International Trade Secret Protection: Harmonization and Enforcement Challenges
Whistleblowing and Trade Secrets: Balancing Public Interest and Corporate Secrets
Trade Secret Licensing and Technology Transfer: Legal and Business Considerations
Trade Secret Protection in Employment Contracts: Non-Compete and Non-Disclosure Agreements
Trade Secret Misappropriation in Supply Chains: Legal Implications and Risk Mitigation
Trade Secret Law and Artificial Intelligence: Ownership and Trade Secret Protection
Trade Secret Protection in the Era of Open Innovation and Collaborative Research
Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: Ownership and Liability Issues
3D Printing and Intellectual Property: Navigating the Intersection of Innovation and Copyright
Blockchain Technology and Intellectual Property: Challenges and Opportunities
Digital Rights Management: Addressing Copyright Protection in the Digital Era
Open Source Software Licensing: Legal Implications and Considerations
Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality: Legal Issues in Content Creation and Distribution
Internet of Things (IoT) and Intellectual Property: Legal Challenges and Policy Considerations
Big Data and Intellectual Property: Privacy and Data Protection Concerns
Artificial Intelligence and Patent Offices: Automation and Efficiency Implications
Intellectual Property Implications of 5G Technology: Connectivity and Innovation Challenges
Music Copyright and Streaming Services: Analyzing Legal Challenges and Solutions
Fair Use in Documentary Films: Balancing Copyright Protection and Freedom of Expression
Intellectual Property in Video Games: Legal Issues in the Gaming Industry
Digital Piracy and Copyright Enforcement: Approaches to Tackling Online Infringement
Personality Rights in Media: Balancing Privacy and Freedom of the Press
Streaming Services and Copyright Licensing: Legal Challenges and Royalty Distribution
Fair Use in Parody and Satire: Analyzing the Boundaries of Creative Expression
Copyright Protection for User-Generated Content: Balancing Authorship and Ownership
Media Censorship and Intellectual Property: Implications for Freedom of Information
Virtual Influencers and Copyright: Legal Challenges in the Age of AI-Generated Content
Intellectual Property Protection in Developing Countries: Promoting Innovation and Access to Knowledge
Cross-Border Intellectual Property Litigation: Jurisdictional Challenges and Solutions
Trade Agreements and Intellectual Property: Impact on Global Innovation and Access to Medicines
Harmonization of Intellectual Property Laws: Prospects and Challenges for International Cooperation
Indigenous Knowledge and Intellectual Property: Addressing Cultural Appropriation and Protection
Intellectual Property and Global Public Health: Balancing Innovation and Access to Medicines
Geographical Indications in International Trade: Legal Framework and Market Exclusivity
International Licensing and Technology Transfer: Legal Considerations for Multinational Corporations
Intellectual Property Enforcement in the Digital Marketplace: Comparative Analysis of International Laws
Digital Copyright and Cross-Border E-Commerce: Legal Implications for Online Businesses
Intellectual Property Strategy for Startups: Maximizing Value and Mitigating Risk
Licensing and Franchising: Legal Considerations for Expanding Intellectual Property Rights
Intellectual Property Due Diligence in Mergers and Acquisitions: Key Legal Considerations
Non-Disclosure Agreements: Safeguarding Trade Secrets and Confidential Information
Intellectual Property Dispute Resolution: Arbitration and Mediation as Alternative Methods
Intellectual Property Valuation: Methods and Challenges for Business and Investment Decisions
Technology Licensing and Transfer Pricing: Tax Implications for Multinational Corporations
Intellectual Property Audits: Evaluating and Managing IP Assets for Businesses
Trade Secret Protection and Non-Compete Clauses: Balancing Employer and Employee Interests
Intellectual Property and Startups: Strategies for Funding and Investor Relations
Intellectual Property and Access to Medicines: Ethical Dilemmas in Global Health
Gene Patenting and Human Dignity: Analyzing the Moral and Legal Implications
Intellectual Property and Indigenous Peoples: Recognizing Traditional Knowledge and Culture
Bioethics and Biotechnology Patents: Navigating the Intersection of Science and Ethics
Copyright, Creativity, and Freedom of Expression: Ethical Considerations in the Digital Age
Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence: Ethical Implications for AI Development and Use
Genetic Engineering and Intellectual Property: Legal and Ethical Implications
Intellectual Property and Environmental Sustainability: Legal and Ethical Perspectives
Cultural Heritage and Intellectual Property Rights: Preservation and Repatriation Efforts
Intellectual Property and Social Justice: Access and Equality in the Innovation Ecosystem
Innovation Incentives and Intellectual Property: Examining the Relationship
Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer: Promoting Innovation and Knowledge Transfer
Intellectual Property Rights in Research Collaborations: Balancing Interests and Collaborative Innovation
Innovation Policy and Patent Law: Impact on Technology and Economic Growth
Intellectual Property and Open Innovation: Collaborative Models and Legal Implications
Intellectual Property and Startups: Fostering Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Intellectual Property and University Technology Transfer: Challenges and Opportunities
Open Access and Intellectual Property: Balancing Public Goods and Commercial Interests
Intellectual Property and Creative Industries: Promoting Cultural and Economic Development
Intellectual Property and Sustainable Development Goals: Aligning Innovation with Global Priorities

The intellectual property law research paper topics presented here are intended to inspire students and researchers to delve into the complexities of intellectual property law and explore emerging issues in this ever-evolving field. Each topic offers a unique opportunity to engage with legal principles, societal implications, and practical challenges. As the landscape of intellectual property law continues to evolve, there remains an exciting realm of uncharted research areas, waiting to be explored. Through in-depth research and critical analysis, students can contribute to the advancement of intellectual property law and its impact on innovation, creativity, and society at large.

Exploring the Range of Topics in Human Rights Law

Human rights law is a vital field of study that delves into the protection and promotion of fundamental rights and freedoms for all individuals. As a cornerstone of international law, human rights law addresses various issues, ranging from civil and political rights to economic, social, and cultural rights. It aims to safeguard the inherent dignity and worth of every human being, regardless of their race, religion, gender, nationality, or other characteristics. In this section, we will explore the diverse and expansive landscape of intellectual property law research paper topics, shedding light on its significance and the vast array of areas where students can conduct meaningful research.

Historical Perspectives on Human Rights : Understanding the historical evolution of human rights is essential to comprehend the principles and norms that underpin modern international human rights law. Research papers in this category may explore the origins of human rights, the impact of significant historical events on the development of human rights norms, and the role of key figures and organizations in shaping the human rights framework.
Human Rights and Social Justice : This category delves into the intersection of human rights law and social justice. Intellectual property law research paper topics may encompass the role of human rights in addressing issues of poverty, inequality, discrimination, and marginalization. Researchers can analyze how human rights mechanisms and legal instruments contribute to advancing social justice and promoting inclusivity within societies.
Gender Equality and Women’s Rights : Gender equality and women’s rights remain crucial subjects in human rights law. Research papers in this area may explore the legal protections for women’s rights, the challenges in achieving gender equality, and the impact of cultural and societal norms on women’s human rights. Intellectual property law research paper topics may also address specific issues such as violence against women, gender-based discrimination, and the role of women in peacebuilding and conflict resolution.
Freedom of Expression and Media Rights : The right to freedom of expression is a fundamental human right that forms the basis of democratic societies. In this category, researchers can examine the legal dimensions of freedom of expression, including its limitations, the role of media in promoting human rights, and the challenges in balancing freedom of expression with other rights and interests.
Human Rights in Armed Conflicts and Peacebuilding : Armed conflicts have severe implications for human rights, necessitating robust legal frameworks for protection. Topics in this category may focus on humanitarian law, the rights of civilians during armed conflicts, and the role of international organizations in peacebuilding and post-conflict reconstruction.
Refugee and Migration Rights : With the global refugee crisis and migration challenges, this category addresses the legal protections and challenges faced by refugees and migrants. Research papers may delve into the rights of asylum seekers, the principle of non-refoulement, and the legal obligations of states in providing humanitarian assistance and protection to displaced populations.
Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights : Economic, social, and cultural rights are integral to human rights law, ensuring the well-being and dignity of individuals. Topics may explore the right to education, health, housing, and adequate standards of living. Researchers may also examine the justiciability and enforcement of these rights at national and international levels.
Human Rights and Technology : The digital age presents new challenges and opportunities for human rights. Research in this category can explore the impact of technology on privacy rights, freedom of expression, and the right to access information. Intellectual property law research paper topics may also cover the use of artificial intelligence and algorithms in decision-making processes and their potential implications for human rights.
Environmental Justice and Human Rights : Environmental degradation has significant human rights implications. Researchers can investigate the intersection of environmental protection and human rights, examining the right to a healthy environment, the rights of indigenous communities, and the role of human rights law in addressing climate change.
Business and Human Rights : The responsibilities of corporations in upholding human rights have gained increasing attention. This category focuses on corporate social responsibility, human rights due diligence, and legal mechanisms to hold businesses accountable for human rights violations.

The realm of human rights law offers an expansive and dynamic platform for research and exploration. As the international community continues to grapple with pressing human rights issues, students have a unique opportunity to contribute to the discourse and advance human rights protections worldwide. Whether examining historical perspectives, social justice, gender equality, freedom of expression, or other critical areas, research in human rights law is a compelling endeavor that can make a positive impact on the lives of people globally.

How to Choose an Intellectual Property Law Topic

Choosing the right intellectual property law research paper topic is a crucial step in the academic journey of law students. Intellectual property law is a multifaceted and rapidly evolving field that covers a wide range of subjects, including patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and more. With such diversity, selecting a compelling and relevant research topic can be both challenging and exciting. In this section, we will explore ten practical tips to help students navigate the process of choosing an engaging and impactful intellectual property law research paper topic.

Identify Your Interests and Passion : The first step in selecting a research paper topic in intellectual property law is to identify your personal interests and passion within the field. Consider what aspects of intellectual property law resonate with you the most. Are you fascinated by the intricacies of patent law and its role in promoting innovation? Or perhaps you have a keen interest in copyright law and its influence on creative expression? By choosing a topic that aligns with your passions, you are more likely to stay motivated and engaged throughout the research process.
Stay Updated on Current Developments : Intellectual property law is a dynamic area with continuous developments and emerging trends. To choose a relevant and timely research topic, it is essential to stay updated on recent court decisions, legislative changes, and emerging issues in the field. Follow reputable legal news sources, academic journals, and intellectual property law blogs to remain informed about the latest developments.
Narrow Down the Scope : Given the vastness of intellectual property law, it is essential to narrow down the scope of your research paper topic. Focus on a specific subfield or issue within intellectual property law that interests you the most. For example, you may choose to explore the legal challenges of protecting digital copyrights in the music industry or the ethical implications of gene patenting in biotechnology.
Conduct Preliminary Research : Before finalizing your research paper topic, conduct preliminary research to gain a better understanding of the existing literature and debates surrounding the chosen subject. This will help you assess the availability of research material and identify any gaps or areas for further exploration.
Review Case Law and Legal Precedents : In intellectual property law, case law plays a crucial role in shaping legal principles and interpretations. Analyzing landmark court decisions and legal precedents in your chosen area can provide valuable insights and serve as a foundation for your research paper.
Consult with Professors and Experts : Seek guidance from your professors or intellectual property law experts regarding potential intellectual property law research paper topics. They can offer valuable insights, suggest relevant readings, and provide feedback on the feasibility and relevance of your chosen topic.
Consider Practical Applications : Intellectual property law has real-world implications and applications. Consider choosing a research topic that has practical significance and addresses real challenges faced by individuals, businesses, or society at large. For example, you might explore the role of intellectual property in facilitating technology transfer in developing countries or the impact of intellectual property rights on access to medicines.
Analyze International Perspectives : Intellectual property law is not confined to national boundaries; it has significant international dimensions. Analyzing the differences and similarities in intellectual property regimes across different countries can offer a comparative perspective and enrich your research paper.
Propose Solutions to Existing Problems : A compelling research paper in intellectual property law can propose innovative solutions to existing problems or challenges in the field. Consider focusing on an area where there are unresolved debates or conflicting interests and offer well-reasoned solutions based on legal analysis and policy considerations.
Seek Feedback and Refine Your Topic : Once you have narrowed down your research paper topic, seek feedback from peers, professors, or mentors. Be open to refining your topic based on constructive criticism and suggestions. A well-defined and thoughtfully chosen research topic will set the stage for a successful and impactful research paper.

Choosing the right intellectual property law research paper topic requires careful consideration, passion, and a keen awareness of current developments in the field. By identifying your interests, staying updated on legal developments, narrowing down the scope, conducting preliminary research, and seeking guidance from experts, you can select a compelling and relevant topic that contributes to the academic discourse in intellectual property law. A well-chosen research topic will not only showcase your expertise and analytical skills but also provide valuable insights into the complexities and challenges of intellectual property law in the modern world.

How to Write an Intellectual Property Law Research Paper

Writing an intellectual property law research paper can be an intellectually stimulating and rewarding experience. However, it can also be a daunting task, especially for students who are new to the intricacies of legal research and academic writing. In this section, we will provide a comprehensive guide on how to write an effective and impactful intellectual property law research paper. From understanding the structure and components of the paper to conducting thorough research and crafting compelling arguments, these ten tips will help you navigate the writing process with confidence and proficiency.

Understand the Paper Requirements : Before diving into the writing process, carefully review the requirements and guidelines provided by your professor or institution. Pay attention to the paper’s length, formatting style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard, etc.), citation guidelines, and any specific instructions regarding the research paper topic or research methods.
Conduct In-Depth Research : A strong intellectual property law research paper is built on a foundation of comprehensive and credible research. Utilize academic databases, legal journals, books, and reputable online sources to gather relevant literature and legal precedents related to your chosen topic. Ensure that your research covers a wide range of perspectives and presents a well-rounded analysis of the subject matter.
Develop a Clear Thesis Statement : The thesis statement is the central argument of your research paper. It should be concise, specific, and clearly convey the main point you will be arguing throughout the paper. Your thesis statement should reflect the significance of your research topic and its contribution to the field of intellectual property law.
Create an Outline : An outline is a roadmap for your research paper, helping you organize your thoughts and ideas in a logical and coherent manner. Divide your paper into sections, each representing a key aspect of your argument. Within each section, outline the main points you will address and the evidence or analysis that supports your claims.
Introduction : Engage and Provide Context: The introduction of your research paper should captivate the reader’s attention and provide essential context for your study. Start with a compelling opening sentence or anecdote that highlights the importance of the topic. Clearly state your thesis statement and provide an overview of the main points you will explore in the paper.
Literature Review : In the early sections of your research paper, include a literature review that summarizes the existing research and scholarship on your topic. Analyze the key theories, legal doctrines, and debates surrounding the subject matter. Use this section to demonstrate your understanding of the existing literature and to identify gaps or areas where your research will contribute.
Legal Analysis and Argumentation : The heart of your intellectual property law research paper lies in your legal analysis and argumentation. Each section of the paper should present a well-structured and coherent argument supported by legal reasoning, case law, and relevant statutes. Clearly explain the legal principles and doctrines you are applying and provide evidence to support your conclusions.
Consider Policy Implications : Intellectual property law often involves complex policy considerations. As you present your legal arguments, consider the broader policy implications of your research findings. Discuss how your proposed solutions or interpretations align with societal interests and contribute to the advancement of intellectual property law.
Anticipate Counterarguments : To strengthen your research paper, anticipate potential counterarguments to your thesis and address them thoughtfully. Acknowledging and refuting counterarguments demonstrate the depth of your analysis and the validity of your position.
Conclusion : Recapitulate and Reflect: In the conclusion of your research paper, recapitulate your main arguments and restate your thesis statement. Reflect on the insights gained from your research and highlight the significance of your findings. Avoid introducing new information in the conclusion and instead, offer recommendations for further research or policy implications.

Writing an intellectual property law research paper requires meticulous research, careful analysis, and persuasive argumentation. By following the tips provided in this section, you can confidently navigate the writing process and create an impactful research paper that contributes to the field of intellectual property law. Remember to adhere to academic integrity and proper citation practices throughout your research, and seek feedback from peers or professors to enhance the quality and rigor of your work. A well-crafted research paper will not only demonstrate your expertise in the field but also provide valuable insights into the complexities and nuances of intellectual property law.

iResearchNet’s Research Paper Writing Services

At iResearchNet, we understand the challenges that students face when tasked with writing complex and comprehensive research papers on intellectual property law topics. We recognize the importance of producing high-quality academic work that meets the rigorous standards of legal research and analysis. To support students in their academic endeavors, we offer custom intellectual property law research paper writing services tailored to meet individual needs and requirements. Our team of expert writers, well-versed in the intricacies of intellectual property law, is committed to delivering top-notch, original, and meticulously researched papers that can elevate your academic performance.

Expert Degree-Holding Writers : Our team consists of experienced writers with advanced degrees in law and expertise in intellectual property law. They possess the necessary knowledge and research skills to create well-crafted research papers that showcase a profound understanding of the subject matter.
Custom Written Works : We take pride in producing custom-written research papers that are unique to each client. When you place an order with iResearchNet, you can be assured that your paper will be tailored to your specific instructions and requirements.
In-Depth Research : Our writers conduct thorough and comprehensive research to ensure that your intellectual property law research paper is well-supported by relevant legal sources and up-to-date literature.
Custom Formatting : Our writers are well-versed in various citation styles, including APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, and Harvard. We will format your research paper according to your specified citation style, ensuring accuracy and consistency throughout the paper.
Top Quality : We are committed to delivering research papers of the highest quality. Our team of editors reviews each paper to ensure that it meets the required academic standards and adheres to your instructions.
Customized Solutions : At iResearchNet, we recognize that each research paper is unique and requires a tailored approach. Our writers take the time to understand your specific research objectives and create a paper that aligns with your academic goals.
Flexible Pricing : We offer competitive and flexible pricing options to accommodate students with varying budget constraints. Our pricing is transparent, and there are no hidden fees or additional charges.
Short Deadlines : We understand that students may face tight deadlines. Our writers are skilled in working efficiently without compromising the quality of the research paper. We offer short turnaround times, including deadlines as tight as 3 hours.
Timely Delivery : Punctuality is a priority at iResearchNet. We ensure that your completed research paper is delivered to you on time, allowing you ample time for review and any necessary revisions.
24/7 Support : Our customer support team is available 24/7 to assist you with any queries or concerns you may have. Feel free to contact us at any time, and we will promptly address your needs.
Absolute Privacy : We value your privacy and confidentiality. Your personal information and order details are treated with the utmost confidentiality, and we never share your data with third parties.
Easy Order Tracking : Our user-friendly platform allows you to easily track the progress of your research paper. You can communicate directly with your assigned writer and stay updated on the status of your order.
Money-Back Guarantee : We are committed to customer satisfaction. If, for any reason, you are not satisfied with the quality of the research paper, we offer a money-back guarantee.

When it comes to writing an exceptional intellectual property law research paper, iResearchNet is your reliable partner. With our team of expert writers, commitment to quality, and customer-centric approach, we are dedicated to helping you succeed in your academic pursuits. Whether you need assistance with choosing a research paper topic, conducting in-depth research, or crafting a compelling argument, our custom writing services are designed to provide you with the support and expertise you need. Place your order with iResearchNet today and unlock the full potential of your intellectual property law research.

Unlock Your Full Potential with iResearchNet

Are you ready to take your intellectual property law research to new heights? Look no further than iResearchNet for comprehensive and professional support in crafting your research papers. Our custom writing services are tailored to cater to your unique academic needs, ensuring that you achieve academic excellence and stand out in your studies. Let us be your trusted partner in the journey of intellectual exploration and legal research.

Take the first step toward unleashing the full potential of your intellectual property law research. Place your order with iResearchNet and experience the difference of working with a professional and reliable custom writing service. Our team of dedicated writers and exceptional customer support are here to support you every step of the way. Don’t let the challenges of intellectual property law research hold you back; empower yourself with the assistance of iResearchNet and set yourself up for academic success.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Browse All Articles
Newsletter Sign-Up

IntellectualProperty →

No results found in working knowledge.

Were any results found in one of the other content buckets on the left?
Try removing some search filters.
Use different search filters.

How it works

Useful Links

How much will your dissertation cost?

Have an expert academic write your dissertation paper!

Dissertation Services

Get unlimited topic ideas and a dissertation plan for just £45.00

Order topics and plan

Get 1 free topic in your area of study with aim and justification

Yes I want the free topic

Intellectual Property Law Dissertation Topics

Published by Ellie Cross at December 29th, 2022 , Revised On August 15, 2023

A dissertation or a thesis in the study area of intellectual property rights can be a tough nut to crack for students. Masters and PhD students of intellectual property rights often struggle to come up with a relevant and fulfilling research topic; this is where they should seek academic assistance from experts.

An individual, a group, an association, an organisation or a company that wants to claim ownership of a particular design, piece of art, piece of technology, piece of literature, or physical or virtual property must adhere to a specific set of rules. Without these regulations, known as intellectual property rights, concerning parties will not be secure, and anyone could easily steal from them. If someone else attempts to take the property, the original owners are guaranteed the right to keep and reclaim it.

So let’s take a look at the below list of unique and focused intellectual property law dissertation topics, so you can select one more suitable to your requirements and get started with your project without further delay. Don’t forget to read our free guide on writing a dissertation step by step after you have finalised the topic.

A List Of Intellectual Property Law Dissertation Topics Is Provided Below

How can virtual companies ensure that copyright rules are followed while creating their logos, websites, goods, and designs?
What does it mean legally to own an original work of art or piece of property?
Can the most recent technical developments coexist peacefully with the present patent rules and system?
Does the UK’s intellectual property legislation protect the owners and users fairly and securely?
Is there a connection between European and British intellectual property laws?
Comparison of the institutions and regulations governing intellectual property in the US and the UK
What do fair pricing and fair dealing with copyright regulations mean?
Can a business or individual assert ownership of a colour scheme or hue?
The conflict between business law and trade secrets
The Difficult Relationship Between Intellectual Property and Contemporary Art
Trade-Related Aspects of IP Rights: A Workable Instrument for Enforcing Benefit Sharing
A US-UK Comparison of the Harmonization of UK Copyright and Trademark Damages
The difficulties brought by digitalisation and the internet are beyond the capacity of the copyright system to appropriately address them. Discuss
Which copyright laws can be cited as protecting software?
The law on online copyright infringement facilitation
The necessity for companies to safeguard their brand value should serve as the primary
Justification for trademark protection. The general welfare is only a secondary concern. Discuss
Intellectual property rights are being directly used by businesses and investors: IP privateering and contemporary letters of marque and reprisal
Decisions and dynamics in understanding the role of intellectual property in digital technology-based startups
Investigating conflicts between appropriable and collaborative openness in innovation
Assessing the strength and scope of our system for protecting the intellectual property rights of indigenous people
Assessing legal protections for intellectual property rights online
Does EU copyright legislation adequately balance the requirements of consumers and inventors?
A case study of the US is used to evaluate fair dealing in terms of copyright law.
Contrasting and comparing the US and UK intellectual property systems
Are consumers and owners protected and treated fairly under EU intellectual property law?
What effects has EU legislation had on the UK’s intellectual property system?
What more should be done to increase the efficacy of the US’s present intellectual property laws?
Analyzing how Brexit may affect the UK’s protection of intellectual property rights
An in-depth analysis of the UK’s invention and patenting system: Can the existing, rigid system stimulate innovation?

Order a Proposal

Worried about your dissertation proposal? Not sure where to start?

Choose any deadline
Plagiarism free
Unlimited free amendments
Free anti-plagiarism report
Completed to match exact requirements

When choosing a topic in intellectual property law, make sure your selection is based on your interests.

As an intellectual property rights law student, there are many areas you might base your thesis or dissertation on. For example, a copyright lawyer can defend the rights of creative works; a patent lawyer can provide lawful protection for inventors; and a trademark lawyer can assist with the protection of trademarks. There are also rights related to plant varieties, trade dresses, and industrial designs that you could investigate.

Dissertations take a lot of time and effort to complete. It is essential to seek writing assistance if you are struggling to complete the paper on time to ensure you don’t end up failing the module.

ResearchProspect is an affordable dissertation writing service with a team of expert writers who have years of experience in writing dissertations and are familiar with the ideal format. P lace your order now !

Free Dissertation Topic

Phone Number

Academic Level Select Academic Level Undergraduate Graduate PHD

Academic Subject

Area of Research

Frequently Asked Questions

How to find intellectual property law dissertation topics.

To find Intellectual Property Law dissertation topics:

Study recent IP developments.
Examine emerging technologies.
Analyze legal debates and cases.
Explore global IP issues.
Consider economic implications.
Select a topic aligning with your passion and career goals.

Managing Editor

Sarah Harris

About the journal

JIPLP is a peer-reviewed journal dedicated to intellectual property law and practice.

Why Publish with JIPLP ?

The Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice publishes a full range of IP topics and practice-related, offering the opportunity to maximise the impact of your research with a global audience, Open Access publishing and more. Find out more about the benefits of publishing with our journal.

Find out more .

Case Law Round-Ups

An updated collection on the latest round-ups published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice on important topics.

Explore the full collection

DSM Special Issue Webinar

Watch a free webinar on the new DSM Special Issue, featuring the issue's authors and discussions of the Directive's most important provisions.

Watch now

The JIPLP Blog is where editorial panellists, readers and contributors all come together to share their view on all aspects of IP law and practice.

Explore the JIPLP Blog

Latest articles

Latest posts on x, jiplp on the oupblog, much ado about nothing the us supreme court’s warhol opinion.

“Is there any future guidance in the opinion about other fair use disputes? Yes, but not in the majority opinion.” William Patry’s latest blog post discusses future guidance for fair use disputes from the Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith US Supreme Court case.

View the blog post

Not only food and drinks: how EU (and UK) law could also protect handicrafts

On the EU and UK's GI Quality schemes and what classes of products are protected, from Andrea Zappalaglio.

The traps of social media: to 'like' or not to 'like'

“A recent Swiss case reported in the media has raised the spectre of criminal liability and/or defamation for merely ‘liking’ a 3rd party post on Facebook.”

Explore Gill Grassie's blog post here.

Rihanna, the Court of Appeal, and a Topshop t-shirt

“Can a fashion retailer take a photograph of a celebrity, print it on a t-shirt and sell it without the celebrity’s approval? Yes, but sometimes no.”

Read the rest of the post from Darren Meale here.

Related Titles

Cover image of current issue from Journal of European Competition Law & Practice

About Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice
JIPLP Weblog
Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

Online ISSN 1747-1540
Print ISSN 1747-1532
Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Institutional account management
Rights and permissions
Get help with access
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Innovations in intellectual property rights management: Their potential benefits and limitations

European Journal of Management and Business Economics

ISSN : 2444-8494

Article publication date: 9 April 2019

Issue publication date: 16 July 2019

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate innovations in intellectual property rights (IPR) databases, techniques and software tools, with an emphasis on selected new developments and their contribution towards achieving advantages for IPR management (IPRM) and wider social benefits. Several industry buzzwords are addressed, such as IPR-linked open data (IPR LOD) databases, blockchain and IPR-related techniques, acknowledged for their contribution in moving towards artificial intelligence (AI) in IPRM.

Design/methodology/approach

The evaluation, following an original framework developed by the authors, is based on a literature review, web analysis and interviews carried out with some of the top experts from IPR-savvy multinational companies.

The paper presents the patent databases landscape, classifying patent offices according to the format of data provided and depicting the state-of-art in the IPR LOD. An examination of existing IPR tools shows that they are not yet fully developed, with limited usability for IPRM. After reviewing the techniques, it is clear that the current state-of-the-art is insufficient to fully address AI in IPR. Uses of blockchain in IPR show that they are yet to be fully exploited on a larger scale.

Originality/value

A critical analysis of IPR tools, techniques and blockchain allows for the state-of-art to be assessed, and for their current and potential value with regard to the development of the economy and wider society to be considered. The paper also provides a novel classification of patent offices and an original IPR-linked open data landscape.

Artificial intelligence
Software tools
Social benefits
Intellectual property rights management
Linked open databases

Modic, D. , Hafner, A. , Damij, N. and Cehovin Zajc, L. (2019), "Innovations in intellectual property rights management: Their potential benefits and limitations", European Journal of Management and Business Economics , Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 189-203. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJMBE-12-2018-0139

Emerald Publishing Limited

Published in European Journal of Management and Business Economics . Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

1. Introduction

The world today seems to be characterised by the effects of information and communication technology (ICT) on every aspect of our lives, including that of intellectual property rights (IPR) ( Modic, 2017 ). Freeman and Louca (2002 , p. 301) wrote that “even those who have disputed the revolutionary character of earlier waves of technological change, have little difficulty accepting that a vast technological revolution is now taking place”. The surge of intellectual property is mirrored in rising IPR numbers with dissemination efforts dependent upon the available data, channels and skills. IPR data are big data, as its characteristics are high volume, high variety and high velocity of changes ( Ciccatelli, 2017 ). Consequently, merging different types of IPR data from various databases presents a challenge ( Stading, 2017 ; Abbas et al. , 2014 ).

When huge amounts of IPR data are connected, a new ecosystem for (open) innovation emerges. It is important to examine the best available IPR data sources, and their merge-readiness, in order to extract the maximum value. Furthermore, it is important to ensure the availability of appropriate IPR techniques and tools if we are to harness the benefits for IPR management (IPRM) and the wider social benefits of this new open IPR landscape and move towards knowledge creation assisted by artificial intelligence (AI). Examining the latest trends in technological solutions and their potential is the foci of our paper.

Figure 1 presents two dimensions: the benefits and the technology. Looking at the technology dimension, all three layers represent issues companies face. IPR software tools and techniques should better respond to business requirements, and as such support changes in databases when dealing with IPR big data, such as the implementation of blockchain technology and linked open databases.

The benefits dimension is also facing several gaps. One refers to the identification of the accessibility of employees’ knowledge both in SMEs and IPR-savvy companies. In addition, there are inefficiencies when trying to transform tacit to explicit knowledge in order to further knowledge creation.

Both the technology and benefits dimensions are linked, as the technology aims to, largely unsuccessfully at the present time, to support the requirements of the IPRM, thus increasing the IPRM-derived benefits. These would consequently be translated, especially through the use of blockchain technology and IPR-linked open data (IPR LOD) databases, into increased social benefits. The question as to when, and if, the technology will become smart enough to create IPR software tools and techniques that will function in an intelligent manner remains open to debate, as we are faced with increasing transparency and inherently imbued trust.

If AI systems provide the best possible answer to every IPR-related business requirement, in order to maximise business potential, does this mean that the employees’ knowledge creation will become obsolete and AI systems will be able to effectively create new knowledge?

The paper offers a review and an interview-based analysis of the requirements and expectations of some of the top IPR experts from IPR-savvy multinationals, as well as a consideration of the potential social benefits. This is followed by a web-based analysis and data retrieval-based evaluation of the current evolution of IPR (LOD) databases. Furthermore, the practical solutions available have been critically evaluated with respect to IPR databases and IPR software tools. The results of the analysis of the state-of-the-art with the available techniques are presented. Finally, a debate-style conclusion is presented.

2. Background and prepositions

This paper investigates IPRM and IPR social benefits by answering what are the potential social and IPRM benefits of adopting new ICT solutions when dealing with IPR, and especially what is the current state of all three technological layers? The research is based on the following prepositions constructed following the literature review and the evidence-based approach.

The IPR-linked open data (IPR LOD) map is still in its infancy, thus the full potential of their social benefits are still not realized.

AI is a term used very broadly when connected to IPR techniques, to oversell various information retrieval (IR) and machine learning (ML) methods.

The tools do not correspond to the needs of users as expressed by top IPR managers.

Blockchain has the potential to produce both IPRM and IPR-connected social benefits if some issues are solved.

The outputs of this paper are the classifications of IPR databases and patent offices according to Berners-Lee Open Data Plan, and IPR LOD map as connected to patents as well as classification of tools and techniques. A mixed methods approach has been used, every part diligently designed with methodological notes.

3. Methodology

We derive our analysis of potential benefits of new solutions for IPR and the potential of IPR tools from interviews with ten prominent IP experts. First, interviews with ten prominent IP experts were conducted. Seven out of the ten IP experts were head IP managers within their respective companies. The companies selected are positioned highly in terms of patent applications and quality rankings. Furthermore, they appear on top innovation listings, such as MIT’s list of the 50 Smartest companies. All respondents are executives with years of experience; and one of the interviewees appeared twice in the 50 most influential people in IP, as listed by the Managing Intellectual Property magazine. Views expressed inside the interviews are their own and not the views of the companies they are affiliated with. Interviews were conducted either in person, via Skype or via similar VoIP during 2016 and with follow-ups in 2017. Transcripts were analysed using MAXQDA Analytics Pro 12 software. Interview questions were divided into three sections: IPRM (1), formalization (2) and optimisation of processes and gaps reduction (3)). In particular for this paper three topics and their related questions that were included in this semi-structured interview questionnaire are harnessed upon (pertaining to either part (1) or part (3): What is the missing information and/or resources?; Which software tools do you use inside your processes? What are their pros and cons?; What kind of (big) data analysis would be particularly interesting? Who can provide them?

The technologies section brings further methods. The classification of patent offices was done in the period January–February 2018 by conducting web searches and experimental searches with consequent search retrievals inside patent search machines either for full patent documents or at least bibliographical exports. The classification encompasses primarily EU Patent Offices as well as a selection of other relevant patent offices [1] . The framework for the patent map relies on The Linking Open Data cloud diagram, however, it has been significantly upgraded by including material gathered via web searches guided by discussions with various patent offices’ staff members. Analysis of techniques is based on critical literature review. We also reviewed websites of 11 top IPR tools providers as identified by interviewees and/or the Hyperion MarketView™ Report (2016) and Capterra’s review (2017 ). Analysis is based on reviews of websites (November, 2017) by Anaqua for Corporations, IP One (from CPA Global), InnovationQ (from ip.com), IPfolio, PatentSight, Unycom Enterprise, Wellspring’s IP management software, Patricia (form Patrix), Alt Legal, Inteum, Dennemeyer’s DIAMS iQ [2] .

4. The potential social and IPRM benefits of new advances in the field of IPR

One of the biggest problems of IPR data usability is the rapid growth of number of IPR, especially patents. They are written in different languages and it has become increasingly challenging to understand the state of the art, this consequently causing duplication of research and increasing the number of invalid patents granted. Once errors can be corrected, it will be easier to identify inherently invalid patents previously granted, and consequently leading to a natural rise in the quality of IPR.

Governments have a large quantity of IPR-related data, which can be of economic and social value to society. European Patent Office (EPO) sees the advantages of its new LOD patent databases, one of the outlets of the new open data trend, as increased availability of data from different sources via one channel, less “data friction” when combining different data sets, more effective linking with business information and increased trust thanks to provenance ( Kracker, 2017 ). The Korean Patent Office (KIPO) also saw its efforts in a similar manner ( KIPO, 2016 ).

The growing importance of IPR Open (linked) data is connected to better transparency making it easier for companies to understand their value. However, if we could not only have exploitable open databases, but if these could also be combined with IPR techniques with AI functionality, and additionally, IPR tools which supported the handling of IPR data by integrating some AI functionalities, we could be seeing a new form of tacit knowledge, the “Artificial intelligence knowledge” creation (see Figure 1 ). Therefore, the often problematic issue of tacit knowledge inside the IPR field embodied in individuals (note that the usual way of gaining IPRM, exploitation and other connected IPR knowledge is through apprenticeship and that the rotation of individuals presents a serious problem for especially company IPR departments, Modic and Damij, 2018 )) would be transformed into a latent explicit knowledge (knowledge available on recall as opposed to explicit knowledge, always available). Solutions, like IBM Watson, seem to also be a game changer in this area. Watson identified compounds on which the patent protection has already lapsed, and the pilot results suggest that Watson can accelerate identification of novel drug candidates and novel drug targets by harnessing the potential of patent (and connected) big data ( Chen et al. , 2016 ). The IBM team believes the insights provided by Watson technology are to be used as a guide, i.e., as augmented intelligence – which is capable of ingesting, digesting, understanding and analysing data and can be harnessed in various elements of IPR processes: from evidence of use, to prior art, patent landscapes and portfolio analysis ( Fleischman, 2018 ). If the technology was widely available with all its features, this could present a significant change, as it would enable smaller entities to access knowledge that is now tacit knowledge.

When discussing traceability, blockchain is one of the frequently debated issues. Several potential social benefits, as derived from the utilisation of blockchain in the field of IPR, are present. A tool for registration of IPRs could simplify registration and lower the costs ( Vella et al. , 2018 ; Morabito, 2017 ) or could be an alternative to IPR registration, especially patents. Thus, it has a potential particularly for small entities (independent inventors, SMEs, non-profit organisations), as well as inventors and organisations from less developed countries, who are unable to access the current world patent system simply because it is too expensive for them.

Blockchain provides a robust and trustworthy method of establishing business ownership on intangible assets, including IPR ( Morabito, 2017 ) and thus has the potential to enhance transparency of IPR transactions ( Vella et al. , 2018 ). Not only does this have positive effects for individual companies, but it can also streamline the costs of operations for patent offices, and reduced options for litigation can lower court case numbers and reduce court backlogs. Furthermore, it also has the potential to enable half open licensing, when royalties start only when IPR-based income is generated by downstream users; meaning that without income generation, the half open licenses allow for IPR-based solutions to be spread in an open environment. Moreover, it would allow tracking commons’ knowledge (under open licenses or not) incorporation into corporate IPR portfolios disallowing the privatisation of gains.

With regard to potential IPRM benefits, IPRM deals with managing IPR big data efficiently, and differently ( Braganza et al. , 2017 ; Davenport et al. , 2012 ). McAfee and Brynjolfsson (2012) argue that companies will not reap the full benefits of the transition made in exploiting big data, unless they are able to manage change effectively.

Analysis of the interviews showed a clear trend that IP executives are aware of the growing importance of ICT, and their role in IPRM, however, they continue to struggle with defining how to integrate IPR tools to achieve best outcome. A Senior IP Counsel at a German multinational chemical manufacturing corporation stated that, “IT developments will have a big impact in the near future on IP development, because the more transparent you make the IP, the easier it is for management to understand its value”.

Utilising the ICT in IPR processes is possible, however, doing it in the most efficient way to enable companies to achieve maximum benefits, is the ideal. Some companies use a range of different software tools connected to IPR and IPRM, whilst others try to find or develop software that integrates as many features and data sources as possible and are able to connect to other business processes and databases. Generally, the more comprehensive the tool, the less information is missing, and consequently, the higher the satisfaction level. Nonetheless, some experts, such as the Head of Legal Operations and IP Management at a European multinational pharmaceutical corporation, believe that IPR tools often promise more than they deliver. He states that they, “do not think there are any particularly good IP management tools on the market /…/the whole industry still lacks are real IP management tools, helping to relate to the business value more”. IPR experts are seeking a tool that would, in addition to being a comprehensive docketing system and simple interface retrieval of data from public IPR databases, also encompass supplying or channelling invention disclosures to pertinent individuals, providing functionality for IPR valuation, evaluation and analysis.

The next chapter will provide more detail deal with regard to the technological dimension, providing an analysis on the current state of linked open databases, software tools for IPRM and techniques that support IPR data correction and analytics.

5. Technology

5.1 databases and linked (open) data.

Since the Venetian patent statute of 1474, IPR have retained their connection to the concept of openness and dissemination of ideas in exchange for limited time monopolies. There are various types of databases and online sources connected with IPR constituting Layer 1 in the framework in Table I . Public patent databases as the original sources allow raw data retrieval and the use of interfaces by providing patent texts and some metadata. Related IPR databases include, for example, those related to patent disputes, patent citations. Business databases provide information on IPR owners, etc. Scientific databases provide us inter alia with data on inventors. Miscellaneous online data sources include less or more structured sources, e.g., business news, blogs-based IPR-related texts, information on IPR experts. Multi-source IPR databases provide broader information, e.g., on IPR quality and business connected data. Two examples of the latter are the data set linking the EPO and USPTO patent data to Amadeus business database and the Oxford Firm-Level IP Database ( Thoma and Torrisi, 2007 ; Helmers et al. , 2011 ).

Linked open data (IPR LOD) databases are the latest evolution in IPR databases, although the concept of LOD goes back to 2006, when principles such as using uniform resource identifiers as names for things and including links were put forward ( Berners-Lee, 2006 ). Linked data are data published on the web in a machine-readable format, which can be linked to or from external data ( Bizer et al. , 2009 ). LOD is in essence a format allowing for efficient (multi-source) database utilisation as the term refers to a set of practices for publishing and interlinking structured data ( Auer, 2014 ).

Combining this to ideas of open data, we get LOD, structured data made available for others to be reused ( Mezaour et al. , 2014 ). The concept is connected to the Open Data movement to ensure public government data are accessible in non-proprietary formats ( Bauer and Kaltenböck, 2012 ). However, LOD landscape includes databases provided by non-governmental entities. DBPedia, extracting structured knowledge from Wikipedia, is often seen as the “nucleus” of LOD ( Auer et al. , 2007 ). Furthermore, patent data of individual patent offices are sometimes provided by outside providers, such as in the case of USPTO or (formally) the EPO.

Table I shows the classification of patent offices and their data according to the Berners-Lee Five Star Open Data Plan. More stars indicate data formats more conducive to open data policies, as they allow for easier export and import of data, and more streamlined merging and analysis. The category **** is redundant as there is no standalone RDF providing databases; and, we would suggest an introduction of the *****+ category, where the additional criteria is the existence of linkages with other data, signalling the real uptake of the raw data by users (see Table I ). The Type indicates the most Open data friendly format, though patent offices often provide other formats simultaneously. They often also provide more than one database, and the degree of the export varies for bibliographical data (Swiss Patent Database offering up to 25 variables).

Five patent offices are leading in terms of IPR LOD; USPTO, EPO, KIPO, IPAustralia and IPO UK. Cooperation of national offices with Espacenet was also advantageous, as it produced the option of a limited bibliographic data download in .csv format (not taken into account above). However, most of the patent offices can still be categorised only as Type * or Type **, their data remaining in linkable open data unfriendly formats.

There are only a few databases that could be categorised as *****+, or that have shown other initiatives to make exporting, merging and analysing data easier. For example, KIPO has not only published the IPR LOD, but also included the owners’ corporate registration number and the Australian Patent Office IPR database includes information about companies’ size, technology and geographic location, making it easier for users to link data on patents to information on related business entities ( KIPO, 2016 ; Man, 2014 ).

Currently, EPO’s Linked open data is the newest of the few IPR LOD databases at users’ disposal. It builds upon their previous work in connecting patent-related data, such as their Deep Linking service, allowing users to consult the EP document’s legal status data. However, the IPR LOD database remains as a raw data product and without additional skills and resources cannot be fully utilised, which could potentially widen the gap between SMEs and IPR-savvy companies. For example, the linkage to DBPedia has also been carried out, but since then de-installed ( Kracker, 2017 ). This year the EPO also included in their Research grant call explicitly the field of linked open data and solutions therein, where at least one project will start end of this year linking EPO database with the Springer database ( IP LodB, 2018 ). The current LOD IPR landscape shown below is based on the The Linking Open Data cloud diagram and upgraded [3] .

Figure 2 shows patent LOD databases [4] we could call *****+, and their inbound and outbound links, as per The Linking Open Data cloud diagram ( LOD cloud, 2018 ) – a complex LOD ecosystem currently listing 1,164 data sets. They are also linked to the most inbound and outbound link-rich LOD databases, namely, the Comprehensive KAN and DBPedia. The new EP LOD and KIPO databases have no data on linkages, even though some attempts were made as mentioned above. There are, however, several LOD databases that this patent data could be linked to; e.g. the recently published bibliographic LOD database by Springer Nature SciGraph or the older New York Times LOD.

When considering the traceability of IPR data, some patent offices offer centralised solutions, such as i-DEPOT, which allows to trace the date of inventions’ creation. However, at the forefront of these debates is blockchain as a disruptive technology, due to its transparency, decentralisation and prevention of infringements and fraud. Blockchain is a chain of blocks of chronologically linked information, replicated in a distributed database. Information can be added, but never removed, changes are registered and validated. Individual blocks can be protected by cryptography, and only those authorised can access the information ( McPhee and Ljutic, 2017 ). Blockchain application to IPR can be either inside the registration or exploitation phases (related to issues of licensing, proving authenticity and piracy) ( Vella et al. , 2018 ; Morabito, 2017 ) as well as distribution. In case of licensing, the topic is connected to smart contracts, open licenses and IPR-based collaboration ( Pilkington, 2016 ; Morabito, 2017 ). Smart contracts are computer codes that reside in the blockchain and are implemented if certain conditions are met, which is confirmable by a number of computers to ensure truthfulness ( Morabito, 2017 ; Szabo, 1997 ). There are numerous potential applications of blockchain connected to IPR. Also, the Linked Data paradigm is evolving from an academic concept for addressing one of the biggest challenges in the area of information management the exploitation of the web as a platform for data and information integration; to practical applications in IPR field deriving from the transfer from the Web of Documents to a Web of Data. Yet, it is clear there is still much to be done, both in terms of the volume of IPR LOD-connected databases, as well as their functionality in linking to other LOD data sets as well as the real-life uptake of blockchain solutions.

5.2 Classification of tools and techniques

This chapter summarises the techniques and tools (technology Layers 2 and 3 as set out in Figure 1 ) that analyse large quantities of patent documents and other IPR data to provide useful information to various users.

The EPO’s database, Espacenet, on its own, currently contains over 100m patent documents from 90 patent authorities worldwide. Whilst patent data are exceptionally important, it is also very difficult to extract some useful information from it as patents are mostly stored as images; written in different languages; countries have different patent requirements; no uniform structural requirements; some patent figures are drawn by hand, some on computer; some patent attorneys intentionally use misleading language; incomprehensible language and grammatical mistakes can be also used inadvertently. How to deal with these issues remains a challenge.

There are several possible taxonomies of IPR software. Considering their functionalities we see tools supporting different phases of the innovation cycle, those supporting financial management (record and estimate costs), archiving documents (IPR portfolio) and enabling communication between users and IPR offices. Some tools have functionality to integrate data from external databases, such as patent litigation information and patent citation indexes. In terms of intended user-base we have IPR tools for companies, for IPR experts and for technology transfer offices.

There is an upward trend in the creation of new IPRM software in recent years. However, after reviewing the websites of the 13 most important IPR tools providers by Hyperion MarketView™ Report (2016) it appears that these tools only modestly respond to the challenges raised, and largely look like any project management software. Bonino et al. (2010) was optimistic with regard to semantic-based solutions, however, some of the tools he describes are currently in poor condition or unavailable.

In terms of techniques utilised in semantic analysis, Abbas et al. (2014) made a taxonomy of proposed computer-assisted patent analysis techniques where they distinguish between text mining and visualisation approaches. These two categories are based on frequent use-cases, whilst the underlying methods are primarily inspired by IR and ML. This is not unreasonable, as patent documents are similar to other types of documents in that they contain textual and visual data as well as references to other documents.

As seen in Figure 3 , a typical IR system consists of document pre-processing, feature extraction and feature analysis. Each of those steps can be based on heuristic rules or utilise machine learning methods. In the following paragraphs, we review the use of different techniques in the IPR research domain in the last decade, with a particular focus on the works referenced in recent literature reviews by Abbas et al. (2014) and Aristodemou and Tietze (2017) . The list is by no means complete, it is only focussed on key examples illustrating the diversity and potential of such methods.

The patent document pre-processing step involves scanning the unstructured data (text and images) and extracting useful information from it.

Due to the nature of the patent data, the approaches mainly focus around text mining techniques; meaning using some kind of natural language processing ( Wang et al. , 2015 ; Han et al. , 2017 ), such as subject–action–object analysis ( Park, Kim, Choi and Yoon, 2013 ; Park, Ree and Kim, 2013 ), property–function analysis ( Dewulf, 2013 ) or rule-based analysis to extract semantic primitives. Several authors have also proposed the utilisation of patent images and sketches in patent analysis, in order to determine similarities between patents ( Bhatti and Handbury, 2013 ). In terms of pre-processing, image analysis challenges involve localisation of images and sub-images, categorisation of images and label recognition ( Vrochidis et al. , 2010 ). The primary sources of inter-information are cross-patent citations ( Altuntas et al. , 2015 ).

The feature extraction methods transform low-level semantic primitives into a document-wide representation. By involving projection of each document into a high-dimensional feature space we can determine bounds between classes or proximity of documents. When processing textual data, the semantic primitives can be frequency vectors ( Chen and Yu-Ting, 2011 ), vectors of concepts that describe higher-level semantic information, or domain-specific hierarchical structures ( Lee, 2013 ). In analysis of patent sketches, content is frequently encoded with shape or texture descriptors ( Bhatti and Handbury, 2013 ) due to the line-art nature of visual information.

The method used in the feature analysis stage depends on the problem at hand, for example, retrieval of similar patents. In this case, IR techniques based on vector distances ( Lee, 2013 ) are used to infer which documents are most similar. Another task is automatic classification of patents using ML methods. Scenarios include patent quality analysis ( Wu et al. , 2016 ), patent categorisation ( Vrochidis et al. , 2010 ) and determining the impact of patents on other aspect of companies ( Chen et al. , 2013 ). Supervised learning methods, such as support vector machines ( Wu et al. , 2016 ) or artificial neural networks ( Chen et al. , 2013 ), are frequently used in such cases. In explorative analysis of the patent landscape for trend identification, people have also utilised unsupervised learning methods, like clustering ( Atzmüller and Landl, 2009 ; Madani and Weber, 2016 ) and network analysis ( Dotsika, 2017 ; Park, Kim, Choi and Yoon, 2013 ).

Despite the apparent contribution of IR methods in transforming access to information, they are harder to apply to semantic-sensitive fields, such as IPR analysis, with the same level of success. The crucial information in patent documents can be difficult to extract automatically because of objective (history, language) or subjective (intentional misuse of description) reasons. As noted by Lupu (2017) , the level of research interest in this field has, after more than a decade of increasing optimism, decreased in the past years. This can be in part attributed to the realisation that extracting high-level semantic content from sophisticated unstructured text and images is very a challenging problem. The most successful working cognitive computing system is IBM Watson, who has already been analysing patent information in the past, with a particular emphasis in the pharmaceutical sector. However, this system is proprietary and accessible only to a limited number of influential clients.

6. Discussion

Over the last years, activities around IPR Open Data, merging of IPR data with related data, IPR Linked Data, IPR-linked open databases and the debates over utilising the Semantic Web opportunities have gained momentum. However, this should go hand in hand with organisations (both public and private) publishing structured data (complying also with linked data standards/principles), the advances in new techniques, as well as IPR tools and their increased availability. Companies and other patent and IPR data users need to draw on those advanced technologies and tools in order to combine, query (and analyse) data as part of their business intelligence, as well as to improve their services and products.

In terms of the availability of data, the amount of IPR and IPR-connected data publically available is increasing. Responding to P1 , the new trends towards formats supporting more export-ready, merge-ready and analysis-ready data are also real, although the amount of patent data available (e.g. as LOD) is still relatively low. LOD means the data are “linkable”, not that it is already linked. This means that the uptake of these databases by the users can be slow and can even widen the gap between the IPR-savvy multinationals with sufficient resources and other smaller entities and individuals. The latter would defeat the purpose of publishing such databases, if the objective was to make IPR data more useful to more groups of users, especially also non-patent savvy users (data scientists, web developers, companies integrating IP into their products). Some steps are taken towards this, for example, IPNOVA (available at the moment as a beta version) which is the interface to the IPAustralia’s IPGOD database. Another route (contrasting somewhat with developing interfaces) is through sufficient dissemination and training workshop accompanying the releases of databases in new formats. On the other hand, the authors remain hopeful as new entities – including private and NGO entities – provide more and more LOD databases, and with growth of potential links, allowing greater potential for IPR.

In response to P2 , techniques that would support IPR data correction, and IPR data analytics and software tools, which support IPRM, are still not at a sufficient stage of development for IPR managers and other users dealing with IPR. The IPR tools remain primarily visualisation tools ( P3 ); or project management and docketing tools, applied to the field of IPR. There are few true IPRM tools that also integrate variable (external and internal) data merges and harness new advances in IPR techniques, although some solutions have been integrated. This is perhaps because the existing techniques, which are suitable for many existing retrieval and analysis tasks, are frequently branded as “AI”, a term that increases expectations about the capabilities which existing methods fail to fulfil. A complete AI system is perhaps the ultimate goal of automatic patent analysis, capable of high-level reasoning about the content of patent documents, comparing their underlying ideas and determining similarities. The current state is (far) removed from this goal. At present, it is primarily addressing very narrow domains, interpretable by data scientists and machine learning researchers. However, as also noted by Lupu (2017) , recent breakthroughs in deep learning and artificial neural networks already address tasks such as machine translation and image analysis, which can be (and sometimes are) utilised in IPR analysis.

In response to P4 , blockchain technology is now fairly widely discussed for its potential to change the nature of IPRs by simplifying registration, lowering costs, increasing transparency and enabling or improving licensing and other transfers of IPR. However, the technology has certain limitations and still needs significant time to develop. This is not only because of the influence that transnational companies have on policy makers, but also, the technology itself might have some weaknesses. It needs huge processing power and therefore for now requires high-volume electricity consumption. Second, field, such as the IPR field, has its own set of limitations connected to legal and judicial frameworks. Therefore, it is important to carefully determine fields where it would be used. “Despite the many interesting potential uses of blockchain technology, one of the most important skills in the developing industry is to see where it is and is not appropriate to use cryptocurrency and blockchain models” ( Swan, 2015 ). Although there are various social and IPRM benefits of employing blockchain technologies in the field of IPR, caution must be applied.

To conclude, despite significant efforts in the last decades, in the field of information technology support to IPRs, and the more and more used buzzwords of augmented intelligence and augmented expertise also for IPR, there is more time needed before these progressive ideas will become (widespread) reality.

Technology and benefits in IPR landscapes

Narrow IPR LOD landscape (patent databases)

A typical computer-assisted document analysis pipeline as IPR techniques classification framework

Classification of patent offices according to the Berners-Lee Open Data Plan

Notes: a Taking into account the AKSW database (different provider); b the patent offices have done additional steps non-related to the format to make merging of data easier; c the database can be described as providing linking data, yet it is not an LOD database in classical sense; d if taking into account the bibliographical export in .csv by Espacenet on its web-pages designed in cooperation with national patent offices (e.g. https://sk.espacenet.com/ ), there are such data provided for most, however, the end document exports remain .pdf

Missing from the list are the Latvian, Icelandic, Maltese and Cyprus Patent Office, as they only refer to Espacenet or there is a lack of sufficient information. The classification takes into account data that is (formally) provided by outside sources (e.g. for USPTO).

We have also taken into account a review of the available semantic solutions that was made by Bonino et al. (2010 , p. 37, Table 9). However, these new technology enablers are currently in a less than ideal state (in poor condition or unavailable) and they (those which are at least available) look more like a scientific experiment than a final product that would support real patent analytics in companies. Though we sent some follow-up e-mails we did not receive much useful information so they were excluded from the paper.

Eito-Brun (2015) lists 31 LOD databases according to datahub.io related to patents, but they could be hardly classified as IPR databases.

The Linked Open Data Cloud diagram includes EPO reference, which was created and published by the research group AKSW.

Abbas , A. , Zhang , L. and Khan , U.S. ( 2014 ), “ A literature review on the state-of-the-art in patent analysis ”, World Patent Information , No. 37 , pp. 3 - 13 .

Altuntas , S. , Dereli , T. and Kusiak , A. ( 2015 ), “ Analysis of patent documents with weighted association rules ”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change , No. 92 , pp. 249 - 262 .

Aristodemou , L. and Tietze , F. ( 2017 ), “ A literature review on the state-of-the-art on intellectual property analytics ”, Working Paper Series No. 2, Centre for Technology Management, Vol. 2017, Cambridge, pp. 1-13, available at: www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/268007 (accessed 25 August 2018 ).

Atzmüller , P. and Landl , G. ( 2009 ), “ Semantic enrichment and added metadata – examples of efficient usage in an industrial environment ”, World Patent Information , Vol. 31 No. 2 , pp. 89 - 96 .

Auer , S. ( 2014 ), “ Introduction to LOD2 ”, in Auer , S. , Bryl , V. and Tramp , S. (Eds), Linked Open Data – Creating Knowledge Out of Interlinked Data Results of the LOD2 Project , Springer , Cham, Heidelberg, New York, NY, Dordrecht and London , pp. 1 - 20 .

Auer , S. , Bizer , C. , Kobilarov , G. , Lehmann , J. , Cyganiak , R. and Ives , Z. ( 2007 ), “ DBpedia: a nucleus for a web of open data ”, in Aberer , K. et al. (Eds), ISWC/ASWC 2007 , Springer-Verlag , Berlin and Heidelberg , pp. 722 - 735 .

Bauer , F. and Kaltenböck , M. ( 2012 ), Linked Open Data: The Essentials – A Quick Start Guide for Decision Makers , Edition mono/monochrom , Vienna .

Berners-Lee , T. ( 2006 ), “ Linked data: a personal view note ”, available at: www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html (accessed 30 January 2018 ).

Bhatti , N. and Hanbury , A. ( 2013 ), “ Image search in patents: a review ”, International Journal on Document Analysis and Recognition , Vol. 16 No. 4 , pp. 309 - 329 .

Bizer , C. , Heath , T. and Berners-Lee , T. ( 2009 ), “ Linked data – the story so far ”, International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems , Vol. 5 No. 3 , pp. 1 - 22 .

Bonino , D. , Ciaramella , A. and Corno , F. ( 2010 ), “ Review of the state-of-the-art in patent information and forthcoming evolutions in intelligent patent informatics ”, World Patent Information , No. 32 , pp. 30 - 38 .

Braganza , A. , Brooks , L. , Nepelski , D. , Ali , M. and Moro , R. ( 2017 ), “ Resource management in big data initiatives: processes and dynamic capabilities ”, Journal of Business Research , No. 70 , pp. 328 - 337 .

Capterra ( 2017 ), “ Captera review ”, available at: www.capterra.com/ (accessed 10 December 2017 ).

Chen , Y. and Yu-Ting , C. ( 2011 ), “ An IPC-based vector space model for patent retrieval ”, Information Processing and Management , Vol. 47 No. 3 , pp. 309 - 322 .

Chen , Y. , Argentinis , E. and Weber , G. ( 2016 ), “ IBM Watson: how cognitive computing can be applied to big data challenges in life sciences research ”, Clinical Therapeutics , Vol. 38 No. 4 , pp. 688 - 701 .

Chen , Y.S. , Tien , W.P. , Chen , Y.W. , Lin , C.C. and Lee , Y.I. ( 2013 ), “ Using artificial neural network (ANN) to explore the influences of number of inventors, average age of patents, and age of patenting activities on patent performance and corporate performance ”, Proceedings – 2013 4th World Congress on Software Engineering , pp. 136 - 139 , available at: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6754276 (accessed 25 August 2018 ).

Ciccatelli , A. ( 2017 ), “ The future of big data and intellectual property ”, available at: www.insidecounsel.com/2017/06/13/the-future-of-Big-Data-and-intellectual-property?&slreturn=1507773271 (accessed 15 May 2018 ).

Davenport , T.H. , Barth , P. and Bean , R. ( 2012 ), “ How ‘Big Data’ is different ”, MIT Sloan Management Review , Vol. 54 No. 1 , pp. 43 - 46 .

Dewulf , K. ( 2013 ), “ Sustainable product innovation: the importance of the front end stage in the innovation process ”, in Coelho , D. (Ed), Advances in Industrial Design Engineering , Intech Open , Rijeka , pp. 139 - 166 .

Dotsika , F. ( 2017 ), “ Identifying potentially disruptive trends by means of keyword network analysis ”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change , No. 119 , pp. 114 - 127 .

Eito-Brun , R. ( 2015 ), “ Patents, semantics and open innovation: the role of LOD in a business directory for knowledge intensive industries ”, Presentation at Dr Haxel Congress and Event Management GmbH, Nice, 20 October, available at: www.slideshare.net/Haxel/linked-open-data-in-the-world-of-patents (accessed 10 February 2018 ).

European Data Portal ( 2017 ), Open Data Maturity in Europe 2017: Open Data for a European Data Economy , Publications Office of the European Union , Luxembourg , available at: www.europeandataportal.eu/sites/default/files/edp_creating_value_through_open_data_0.pdf (accessed 14 February 2018 ).

Fleischman , T. ( 2018 ), “ Augmented intelligence, intellectual property and IBM ”, Presentation at AI: Hype vs Reality and the Impact on the Patent Industry Clarivate Analytics Online Webinar .

Freeman , C. and Louca , F. ( 2002 ), As Time Goes By: From the Industrial Revolution to the Information Revolution , Oxford University Press , Oxford .

Han , Q. , Heimerl , F. , Codina-Filba , J. , Lohmann , S. , Wanner , L. and Ertl , T. ( 2017 ), “ Visual patent trend analysis for informed decision making in technology management ”, World Patent Information , No. 49 , pp. 34 - 42 .

Helmers , C. , Rogers , M. and Schautschick , P. ( 2011 ), “ Intellectual property at the firm-level in the UK: the Oxford firm-level intellectual property database ”, Discussion Paper Series No. 546, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, Oxford, pp. 1-23, available at: www.economics.ox.ac.uk/materials/working_papers/paper546.pdf (accessed 14 February 2018 ).

Hyperion MarketView™ Report ( 2016 ), “ Anaqua enterprise as featured in the Hyperion MarketView™ research program intellectual property management systems for corporation (2016) ”, available at: www.anaqua.com/anaqua-hyperion-report.html (accessed 25 February 2018 ).

IP LodB ( 2018 ), “ Granted project proposal IP linked open data: building bridges (IP LodB) ”, IP LodB (forthcoming), Muenich , pp. 1 - 96 .

KIPO ( 2016 ), “ Korean Intellectual Property Office and Patent Information Expansion of providing public services (English title) ”, available at: www.kipo.go.kr/kpo/user.tdf?a=user.news.press1.BoardApp&board_id=press&c=1003&catmenu=m03_05_01&seq=15589 (accessed 13 February 2018 ).

Kracker , M. ( 2017 ), “ New PI product: linked open EP data ”, Presentation at IP Statistics for Decision Makers Conference , Mexico City , 14–15 November .

Lee , S. ( 2013 ), “ How to assess patent infringement risks: a semantic patent claim analysis using dependency relationships ”, Journal Technology Analysis & Strategic Management , Vol. 25 No. 1 , pp. 23 - 38 .

LOD cloud ( 2018 ), “ The linked open data cloud ”, available at: https://lod-cloud.net/ (accessed 20 December 2018 ).

Lupu , M. ( 2017 ), “ Information retrieval, machine learning, and natural language processing for intellectual property information ”, World Patent Information , Vol. 49 , pp. A1 - A3 .

McAfee , A. and Brynolfsson , E. ( 2012 ), “ Big data: the management revolution, ” Harvard Business Review , Vol. 90 No. 10 , pp. 60 - 68 .

McPhee , C. and Ljutic , A. ( 2017 ), “ Editorial: blockchain ”, Technology Innovation Management Review , Vol. 7 No. 10 , pp. 3 - 5 .

Madani , F. and Weber , C. ( 2016 ), “ The evolution of patent mining: applying bibliometrics analysis and keyword network analysis ”, World Patent Information , No. 46 , pp. 32 - 48 .

Man , B. ( 2014 ), “ Overview of the intellectual property government open data ”, IP Australia Economic Research Paper No. 2, pp. 1-18, available at: www.ipaustralia.gov.au/about-us/reports/economics_research_paper02 (accessed 14 February 2018 ).

Mezaour , A. , van Nuffelen , B. and Blaschke , C. ( 2014 ), “ Building enterprise ready applications using linked open data ”, in Auer , S. , Bryl , V. and Tramp , S. (Eds), Linked Open Data – Creating Knowledge Out of Interlinked Data Results of the LOD2 Project , Springer , Cham, Heidelberg, New York, NY, Dordrecht and London , pp. 155 - 174 .

Modic , D. ( 2017 ), “ Intellectual property rights in the information sector: sociological perspective ”, in Rončević , B. and Tomšić , M. (Eds), Information Society and Its Manifestations: Economy, Politics, Culture , Peter Lang , Frankfurt am Main , pp. 55 - 70 .

Modic , D. and Damij , N. ( 2018 ), Towards Intellectual Property Management: Back Office and Front Office Perspectives , Palgrave Macmillan , Cham .

Morabito , V. ( 2017 ), Business Innovation through Blockchain: The B 3 Perspective , Springer Nature , Cham .

Park , H. , Ree , J.J. and Kim , K. ( 2013 ), “ Identification of promising patents for technology transfers using TRIZ evolution trends ”, Expert Systems with Applications , Vol. 40 No. 2 , pp. 736 - 743 .

Park , H. , Kim , K. , Choi , S. and Yoon , J. ( 2013 ), “ A patent intelligence system for strategic technology planning ”, Expert Systems with Applications , Vol. 40 No. 7 , pp. 2373 - 2390 .

Pilkington , M. ( 2016 ), “ Blockchain technology: principles and applications ”, in Olleros , X.F. and Zhengu , M. (Eds), Research Handbook on Digital Transformations , Edward Elgar Publishing , Cheltenham and Northampton , pp. 225 - 253 .

Stading , T. ( 2017 ), “ Using big data to make intellectual property a strategic weapon ”, available at: https://dzone.com/articles/using-Big-Data-to-make-intellectual-property-a-str (accessed 10 February, 2018 ).

Swan , M. ( 2015 ), Blockchain – Blueprint for a New Economy , O’Reilly Media , Sebastopol, CA .

Szabo , N. ( 1997 ), “ Formalizing and securing relationships on public networks ”, First Monday , Vol. 2 No. 9 , pp. 1 - 8 , available at: http://firstmonday.org/article/view/548/469 (accessed 29 January 2018 ).

Thoma , G. and Torrisi , S. ( 2007 ), “ Creating powerful indicators for innovation studies with approximate matching algorithms: a test based on PATSTAT and Amadeus databases ”, Working Paper No. 211, CESPRI Bocconi University, Milan, available at: https://ideas.repec.org/p/cri/cespri/wp211.html (accessed 14 February 2019 ).

Vella , D. , Falzon , M. , Cassar , T. and Valenzia , A. ( 2018 ), “ Blockchain’s applicability to intellectual property management ”, The Licensing Journal , Vol. 38 No. 1 , pp. 10 - 12 .

Vrochidis , S. , Papadopoulos , S. , Moumtzidou , A. , Sidiropoulos , P. , Pianta , E. and Kompatsiaris , I. ( 2010 ), “ Towards content-based patent image retrieval: a framework perspective ”, World Patent Information , Vol. 32 No. 2 , pp. 94 - 106 .

Wang , J. , Lu , W.F. and Loh , H.T. ( 2015 ), “ A two-level parser for patent claim parsing ”, Advanced Engineering Informatics , Vol. 29 No. 3 , pp. 431 - 439 .

White , E. ( 2018 ), “ AI in patent research ”, Presentation at AI: Hype vs Reality and the Impact on the Patent Industry Clarivate Analytics Online Webinar .

Wu , J.L. , Chang , P.C. , Tsao , C.C. and Fand , C.Y. ( 2016 ), “ A patent quality analysis and classification system using self-organizing maps with support vector machine ”, Applied Soft Computing , No. 41 , pp. 305 - 316 .

Acknowledgements

Dr Damij would like to acknowledge the ARRS Grant No. ARRS-P1-0383(A). Dr Hafner would like to acknowledge Operation No. C3330-17-529006 “Researchers-2.0-FIŠ-529006” supported by ERDF and Republic of Slovenia, Ministry of Education, Science and Sport. Dr Modic would like to acknowledge the JSPS International Research Grant ID No. 16774 and JSPS KAKENHI Grant No. 16F16774. Dr Hafner and Dr Modic acknowledge that this paper has been co-funded by the Academic Research Programme of the European Patent Office. The research results contained in this paper are those of the researchers only. They do not necessarily represent the views of the EPO.

Corresponding author

Related articles, we’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Intellectual Property Rights: What Researchers Need to Know

Intellectual property rights help protect creations of the mind that include inventions, literary or artistic work, images, symbols, etc. If you create a product, publish a book, or find a new drug, intellectual property rights ensure that you benefit from your work. These rights protect your creation or work from unfair use by others. In this article, we will discuss different types of intellectual property rights and learn how they can help researchers.

Types of Intellectual Property Rights

There are two main types of intellectual property rights (IPR).

Copyrights and related rights
Industrial property

Copyrights give authors the right to protect their work.

It covers databases, reference works, computer programs, architecture, books, technical drawings, and others.

By copyrighting your work, you ensure that others cannot use it without your permission.

Industrial property rights include trademarks, patents, geographical indications, and industrial designs.

A trademark is a unique sign used to identify a product or a service. It can be a single word or a combination of words and numbers. Drawings, 3-D signs, or even symbols can constitute a trademark. For instance, Google is a famous trademark. The trademark application can be filed at national or regional levels depending on the extent of protection required.
A patent is an exclusive right to an invention that introduces a new solution or a technique. If you own a patent, you are the only person who can manufacture, distribute, sell, or commercially use that product. Patents are usually granted for a period of 20 years. The technology that powers self-driving cars is an example of a patented invention.
A geographical indication states that a product belongs to a specific region and has quality or reputation owing to that region. Olive oil from Tuscany is a product protected by geographical indication.
An industrial design is what makes a product unique and attractive. These may include 3-D (shape or surface of an object) or 2-D (lines or patterns) features. The shape of a glass Coca-Cola bottle is an example of the industrial design.

What Do I Need to Know About IPR?

Intellectual property rights are governed by WIPO , the World Intellectual Property Organization. WIPO harmonizes global policy and protects IPR across borders. As a researcher, you rely on the published work to create a new hypothesis or to support your findings. You should, therefore, ensure that you do not infringe the copyright of the owner or author of the published work (images, extracts, figures, data, etc.)

When you refer to a book chapter or a research paper , make sure to provide appropriate credit and avoid plagiarism by using effective paraphrasing , summarizing, or quoting the required content. Remember plagiarism is a serious misconduct! It is important to cite the original work in your manuscript. Copyright also covers images, figures, data, etc. Authors must get appropriate written permission to use copyrighted images before using them in the manuscripts or thesis.

How do you decide whether to publish or patent? Check your local IPR laws. IPR laws vary between countries and regions. In the US, a patent will not be granted for an idea that has already been published. Researchers, therefore, are advised to file a patent application before publishing a paper on their invention. Discussing an invention in public is what is known as public disclosure . In the US, for instance, a researcher has one year from the time of public disclosure to file a patent. However, in Europe, a researcher who has already disclosed his or her invention publicly loses the right to file a patent immediately.

IPR and Collaborative Research

IPR laws can impact international research collaboration. Researchers should take national differences into account when planning global collaboration. For example, researchers in the US or Japan collaborating with researchers in the EU must agree to restrict public disclosure or publication before filing a patent. In the US, it is common for publicly funded universities to retain patent ownership. However, in Europe , there are different options . An ideal collaboration provides everyone involved with the maximum ownership of patent rights. Several entities specialize in organizing international research collaborations. Researchers can also consider engaging with such a company to manage IPR.

What questions do you have about IPR? Have you faced any situation where you need to consider IPR issues when conducting or publishing your research ? Please let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

Wow, I never knew that geographical indication can have a connection to intellectual property if it has distinctions that can be attributed to where it came from. After finishing my master’s degree, I think I’m going to be staying in the academe as a researcher so it’s quite helpful to know more about how the intricacies of IP can affect research. I hope I can one day attend a conference about IP to learn more about its modern day advancements.

I have invented – conceived – a training system. What do I have to do to achieve and retain ownership if I enroll in a university higher degree by research program to develop this idea?

Thank you for sharing your query on our website. Regarding your query, most universities recognize as a general principle that students who are not employees of the university own the IP rights in the works they produce purely based on knowledge received from lectures and teaching. However, there may be some circumstances where ownership has to be shared or assigned to the university or a third party. These include cases when the student is being sponsored by the university, or the project is a sponsored research project or involves the academic staff of the university or university resources. If the training system conceived by you does not involve any of the above mentioned scenarios, ideally you should be able to retain its ownership. For more clarity you can check through the IP rules section of the concerned university.

Please let us know in case of any queries.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

Publishing Research
Understanding Ethics

Simple Step-by-Step Guide on How to Get Copyright Permission

It is a well-known fact that when authors submit their work to a journal, the…

Infographic

All You Need to Know About Creative Commons Licenses

The development of technology has led to the widespread sharing of ideas including intellectual and…

Get Your Research Patented Now!

A patent is a form of intellectual property, which gives its owner the right to prevent other researchers…

How to Effectively Search and Read Patents – Tips to Researchers

Patents have two purposes: awarding rights to the inventor and preventing others from claiming ownership.…

Industry News
Publishing News

Does Copyright Transfer Hinder Scientific Progress?

The worlds of science and scientific publishing are deeply entwined. For many years, the best…

How Patent Searching Helps in Innovative Research

Is Pirate Black Open Access Disrupting Green & Gold Open Access?

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

2000+ blog articles
50+ Webinars
10+ Expert podcasts
50+ Infographics
10+ Checklists
Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Intellectual Property Rights and Access in Crisis

Karen walsh.

SCuLE Centre, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

Andrea Wallace

Mathilde pavis, natalie olszowy, james griffin, naomi hawkins.

The importance of access to intellectual property rights (IPR) protected subject-matter in two crucial areas – public health, and educational and cultural engagement – has been extensively demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although they involve separate legal areas, patent and copyright, the common thread linking the two is intellectual property's difficult relationship with access in the public interest. This paper examines the tensions caused by access barriers, the tools used to reduce them and their effectiveness. It is clear that the access barriers magnified by COVID-19 are not restricted to narrow or specific contexts but are widespread. They are created by, and are a feature of, our existing IPR frameworks. Open movements provide limited remedies because they are not designed to, nor can adequately address the wide range of access barriers necessary to promote the public interest. Existing legislative mechanisms designed to remove access barriers similarly fail to effectively remedy access needs. These existing options are premised on the assumption that there is a singular “public” motivated by homogenous “interests”, which fails to reflect the plurality and cross-border reality of the public(s) interest(s) underpinning the welfare goals of IPR. We conclude that a systemic re-evaluation is required and call for positive and equitable legal measures protective of the public(s) interest(s) to be built within IPR frameworks that also address non-IPR barriers. The current pandemic and development of a “new normal” provides a crucial opportunity to comprehensively consider the public(s) interest(s), not just during a global health crisis, but on an ongoing basis.

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has re-emphasised the importance of access to intellectual property during a crisis. This is especially true in two key areas: public health, and educational and cultural engagement. Although this involves two distinct areas of intellectual property rights (IPR) with differing access barriers – patent and copyright – the common underlying link is their complex relationship with access in the public interest.

A considerable amount has been written on the role of IPR during the current pandemic. 1 Much of the focus has been on how we could and should use open movements and pre-existing public interest mechanisms to provide access to IPR-protected subject-matter. While we also consider these, it is important to situate access barriers in their broader context. In doing so, we see that the IPR barriers faced during the current pandemic are reflective of wider and pre-existing access barriers.

This paper examines the tensions caused by access barriers, the tools developed to reduce them in the public interest, and their effectiveness. In Sections 2 and 3 respectively, we dissect the elusive terminology of access, public and open, and outline access barriers to IPR-protected subject-matter, questioning whether open movements may sufficiently resolve them. Access is mediated by both IPR and non-IPR barriers. The level of access achieved differs depending on the mechanism used and the public that requires it. Rather than a simple concept, the “public interest” is composed of distinct and differentiated identities and needs. We therefore deconstruct the public interest and explore the overlapping, porous and sometimes competing aspects of the publics and their interests. We make a careful effort to frame the public(s) interest(s) via plurality, the importance of which is explored below. In essence, this terminology reflects our argument that IPR must accommodate a plural public interest if it is to achieve its public welfare goals. 2

The urgency of access to valuable subject-matter in service of public interests becomes more acute during a public health crisis. Open movements are often advanced as the best solution to reduce access barriers erected by IPRs. For example, in response to COVID-19, numerous calls have been issued for owners of IPRs to grant access to relevant protected subject-matter through open movements. 3 Such IPR management strategies seek to promote access while centring the public interest within open frameworks. These movements address a pressing and long-standing issue in IPR frameworks – the absence of effective positive measures serving the public(s) interest(s). Despite their clear benefits, we argue that both patent and copyright open movements provide limited solutions because they are not designed to, nor can, adequately address the range of access barriers to promote the public(s) interest(s).

In Section 4 , we examine pre-existing legal doctrines as an alternative and additive solution to identified access barriers. In both patent and copyright law, various mechanisms exist to remove access barriers in the public interest. We argue that although these doctrines could be useful, they similarly fail to effectively remedy access needs.

Overall, we find that neither approach, nor their combination, offers an adequate response to reducing access barriers in the public(s) interest(s). Therefore, we recommend that a systemic re-evaluation is necessary. The current pandemic and development of a “new normal” presents a crucial moment to do so. Governments, industry and policymakers have shown their willingness to collaborate. We need to see this as an opening to go further than the immediate pandemic and design new governance approaches that holistically address the range of barriers that compromise access. Left unchecked, these barriers will continue to produce hierarchies among the public(s) and undermine the claims that open movements operate to democratise information, consumption and knowledge production.

We conclude by stressing the pressing need to create positive legal measures protective of the public(s) interest(s) within IPR frameworks that also address non-IPR barriers. This requires expressly referencing or defining the public(s)’ rights to access within IPR doctrine, whether based in legislation or jurisprudence. To do so, we must revisit normative understanding(s) of the public interest and how the public(s) may be more effectively served during and outside times of crises.

Access to Protected Subject-Matter

When evaluating mechanisms protecting the public interest, key terms such as “access”, “public” and “open” remain elusive concepts, often informed or dependent on the respective various viewpoints, disciplines and contexts. Below, we outline the competing understandings of “access” and “public,” before moving on to “open” in Section 3 .

What Is Access?

To begin, access to subject-matter can be impacted by both IPR and non-IPR parameters. These parameters naturally shape which public(s) are able to access and re-use subject-matter, or not.

Indeed, IPRs are premised upon restricting access to subject-matter. This allows innovators and creators (hereafter collectively referred to as “makers” 4 ) to limit and leverage access to subject-matter during the relevant period and subject to the conditions of protection. Leveraging access often comes in the form of payment to the rightsholder when the subject-matter is valued enough to be in demand. The opportunity to leverage access is designed to incentivise makers to produce valuable subject-matter, in theory. 5 This short-term restriction is thought to best serve the long-term interest of the public (i.e. society or the community-at-large) on the basis that more subject-matter will be created and disseminated as a result. 6 The short-term public interest is served by providing narrow limitations to that bundle of exclusive rights. IPR rationale thus relies on balancing access with short-term restrictions to generate long-term benefits in the public interest. This system depends on reasonable pricing of protected subject-matter. 7

Open movements are meant to remove, reduce or modify prohibitive IPR parameters. However, open movements are not generally designed within or by the same regulatory systems that have shaped the IPR regime. 8 Indeed, they have emerged as a grassroots response to inflexible regulatory and statutory frameworks. Open movements are thus better framed as IPR private ordering strategies because they are meant to map onto, but develop outside of, the regulatory framework of IPR.

Within these strategies, there are different levels or types of access to IPR-protected subject-matter. Practically, a distinction can be made between access to physical materials versus access to their digital formats, particularly with copyright. While these are not entirely separate, they reveal a tension between the physical and digital materials, even where IPR access has been secured. For example, purchasing a physical copy of an in-copyright book will rarely extend access to its digital format. With pandemic related restrictions, the lack of access to physical materials, education sites, libraries, and heritage institutions exacerbated the public’s need for digital access, as well as the creation of new digital materials to sustain connectivity. IPR frameworks that treat such materials differently require multiple licences to access identical materials published in different formats.

Another level of access refers to permissions granted to the end-user in relation to the physical or digital materials. Free access (or gratis ) extends access to IPR-protected subject-matter to the public free of charge, often through digital means. 9 Re-use access (or libre ) goes further by removing most or all IPR parameters through a licence or public domain dedication in addition to providing free (or gratis ) access. For example, many cultural institutions extend gratis access to platforms for online collections. However, the majority restrict re-use of those images through claims to copyright even where the underlying work is in the public domain. 10

The last level of access we envisage highlights another difference between copyright and patent protection. The copyright consumer does not necessarily need access to the entire protected subject-matter (the work) in the same way the patent consumer might (the invention). Instead, digital access to view or re-use portions of the works may be sufficient for the types of subject-matter protected by copyright. Certain re-use may already be permitted by statutory exceptions and limitations. By contrast, subject-matter protected by patents cannot be as easily consumed in portions.

Access is also mediated by non-IPR parameters. These include, for example, access to the technologies necessary to view or download the subject-matter (e.g. hardware, software, internet access), whether openly-licensed or with all rights reserved. Accordingly, non-IPR barriers can prevent access to subject-matter made publicly available as both gratis and libre . With patents, an open invention removes IPR barriers by allowing access to the disclosure, but that does not mean that the invention can be easily produced due to non-IPR barriers, such as know-how. Such non-IPR barriers can impact who is able to access, re-use and innovate around open or IPR-protected materials during crises. This ultimately impacts the wider public(s) interest(s), as discussed below.

Who Are the Public(s)?

Discussing access in the public interest raises questions of who needs access, or in other words, who is the public. Depending on the context, there may be various public s and interest s to consider.

In simple terms, IPR theory envisions two traditional types of public. The first is the “wider” public, understood as society or the community-at-large residing in a given jurisdiction. As with any legislation, IPR is implemented to serve the wider public in principle. The second public refers to would be users or consumers of subject-matter. They can be thought of as the “immediate” public, who are often the most affected by short-term access restrictions and incur leveraging fees.

The traditional distinction drawn between makers on the one hand (meaning the owners of IPR-protected subject-matter) and the (wider or immediate) public s on the other hand is imperfect and overbroad. This is because both groups represent diverse composites that may overlap in practice.

First, makers include inventors and authors, as defined by patent and copyright law. These laws recognise a wide range of rightsholders across extremely varied and specialist fields, from software and hardware engineers, to biotechnologists and geneticists, to artists and performers producing a range of media. Finer distinctions can be drawn among large companies, small and medium-sized enterprises, and individual innovators, with each group facing different market realities.

Second, there are the wider and immediate public s in need of IPR-protected subject-matter. However, these categories can be broken down even further according to the relevant jurisdiction due to IPR’s territorial nature, the relevant community, and considerations of inequity (both via the wealth gap and development divide). For example, depending on the country in question, different diseases are prevalent, and treatments may or may not be developed, produced, available or affordable. Accordingly, access to medicines, treatments, devices, diagnostics and testing requires different approaches for the public(s) of low/middle-income countries/communities as opposed to high-income. 11 The same applies to copyright protected subject-matter, like research, educational materials and accessible format copies, for the public(s) indefinitely homebound, although this is not discussed as widely. 12 Moreover, the concept of the “public” and its embedded gendered, classist, racial, and geographic associations must be considered. 13 Consequently, the interest s of the relevant public s will depend on the type of IPR-protected subject-matter, location, resources and other factors.

Traditionally, makers and publics have been treated separately. These groups are more porous in reality: makers consume subject-matter to produce subject-matter. 14 Consequently, binary distinctions and generalised framings are inappropriate to reflect the diverse public(s) interest(s) at play in IPR theory and rationale.

What Are the Access Barriers?

A more complex public reveals nuanced access tensions caused by IPR and non-IPR barriers. Within IPR, the absence of positive measures serving the public interest (in the singular traditional meaning) is better understood when viewed in the context of the IPR balancing exercise between makers’ rights and publics’ rights. 15 In this paper, we focus on the IPR issues to the extent that is possible. Nevertheless, competing and additive non-IPR barriers in areas like contract and competition law are connected, and might frustrate, overlap, or prevent access for the reasons previously discussed.

In the patent law context, access is restricted to protected inventions. 16 However, even if patent rights are waived or licensed, re-producing the invention requires the necessary technology (which is also sometimes patent protected), manufacturing capacity and know-how. 17 These excess limitations are even more pronounced for public(s) in low/middle-income countries and communities due to the development divide and the wealth gap. Other barriers also play a significant role in restricting access, such as funding, regulation, pricing and business models, and distribution. 18

In the copyright context, access is restricted to a range of relevant subject-matter, like medical-related research and data, as well as educational materials and cultural content. Only the rightsholder may determine whether access will be extended beyond the exceptions and limitations of a given territory. Similar to patents, releasing copyright materials under limited use or open licences allows only the public(s) with technological access to engage via copies. Other barriers can include high pricing and inaccessible business models, publishing models and paywalls, contractual frameworks of platforms and IP overreach, digital rights management tools (DRMs) and digital locks, and distribution. 19

Although the balance between makers and publics is core to IPR’s premise and rationale, direct references to the wider or immediate publics are largely absent from statutory frameworks. Indeed, these frameworks are dominated by makers’ rights and frame the rights of the public(s) as exceptions to protection or permitted acts. The result is that such “rights” are framed as a defence to infringement, which imposes a burden that is often higher than the one required of makers to secure or enforce protection. 20 It is not the purpose of this article to give a detailed account of how IPRs favour makers’ interests over public(s) interest(s). This is already well-documented. 21 We only note this im balance, as it is critical when assessing the role and place of open movements in re balancing IPR frameworks.

Lastly, distributional inequities raise IPR and non-IPR access barriers. As outlined by Margaret Chon, this is especially true in relation to defining and balancing a more comprehensive understanding of the public(s) interest(s) against IPR’s short-term goals of leveraging access, including who receives or is able to access materials. 22 Chon has argued the focus on rudimentary high-level measurements of economic welfare reveals growing asymmetries and negative impacts on “development”, capacity-building and social welfare concerns built into international measures such as the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). 23 These access barriers are not only concerning in times of global crises. Persistent health issues affecting millions of people in low/middle-income countries and communities are not addressed in the same way – there is no scramble for a cure to a disease for which profit margins would be low. There is less attention on the development of cures, let alone access. 24 Without a more effective means of embedding the public(s) interest(s) in the global IPR system, such inequalities of access to effective diagnosis and treatment will continue.

Access hinges on various technical, financial and other practical resources in the first place. 25 The application of each given filter reduces access to an increasingly narrow, singular and privileged public. In effect, these filters produce hierarchies among the public(s) and undermine the claims that open movements operate to democratise information, consumption and knowledge production. 26 This is crucial to consider against the necessary infrastructure and digital technologies for participation, as well as when designing more equitable approaches within the global IPR regime in the public(s) interest(s).

Open Movements – A Panacea?

Open movements are often proposed as the solution to IPR barriers. Indeed, during the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been numerous calls to use open movements and for government intervention around IPR access. 27 In the IPR context, open movements augment existing frameworks and allow access to materials that would normally be restricted. Yet, “open” plays out differently in patent and copyright law. As will be elaborated on below, open innovation (OI) is more commonly used in relation to inventions, whereas open access (OA) has a long-standing attachment to copyright law.

Interestingly, funding approaches also differ in the patent and copyright contexts, which can impact “open” obligations. With patents, the makers of both privately and publicly funded initiatives retain the capacity to apply for IPR. For privately funded innovations, this complements the underlying IPR rationale. However, when public funding is involved and the maker retains IPR, this allows the rightsholder to charge the public for that invention again, with no restriction on cost. There have been numerous calls for public funding bodies to insert IPR or pricing conditions into funding obligations. 28 Funders increasingly recognise the need to ensure the public welfare benefit of the research that they fund, but significant progress remains to be made. 29

With copyright, public and private funding schemes often set OA obligations to release research and data under open licences or tools. 30 For example, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Ford Foundation, and William and Flora Hewlett Foundation require materials to be made available via a Creative Commons CC BY licence. 31 In 2018, a group of 11 funders called cOAlitionS announced they will require funded research to be published in OA journals, platforms, and repositories without embargo. 32 Indeed, funders have been instrumental in changing scholarly publishing practices in relation to the open sharing of data, research, and publications as a condition of funding. 33

Against this backdrop, it is worth examining open movements to determine whether grassroots and industry driven initiatives can sufficiently fill the gaps left open by regulatory and statutory frameworks and promote the public(s) interest(s).

Open Movements in Patents for Public Health

In patent law, OI is becoming more popular. Developments through OI include Mozilla Firefox and Moodle, and this type of innovation has been used by companies such as LEGO and NASA. 34

Open Innovation Theory

OI has been mostly defined in reference to its more common and well-known counterpart – closed innovation. 35 Closed innovation involves research taking place within a particular company. Inventions are generally protected by patents (if granted) with access completely controlled by the rightsholder. OI has been defined as “the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation and expand the markets for external use of innovation respectively”. 36 Companies that adopt OI use both internal and external knowledge to develop new inventions, often in partnership with other firms. In doing so, they rely on private ordering, for example, using contracts to construct terms of access to IPR. Many of these initiatives have increased information flow, resulting in quicker development compared to closed innovation models. However, OI often remains for-profit and restricted by patents. As a result, how and when licences are granted depend on the rightsholders.

Geertrui Van Overwalle has distinguished this type of “firm-centred open innovation” (FCOI) from “community-centred open innovation” (CCOI). 37 While the results of FCOI are commonly restricted, CCOI has broader parameters. It involves a group of makers connected by “shared worldviews, norms and identities”. 38 Accordingly, there are different motivations to innovate than with traditional IPR incentive arguments. The resulting inventions are generally not patent protected, not-for-profit, and made more accessible to wider and immediate public(s) than inventions produced under traditional innovation models. 39 Van Overwalle distinguishes both groups from individual user innovators, whose contributions could be their own projects, or a part of group or community innovation. 40

Open Innovation in Practice

OI often takes the form of patent pools and pledges. There are a number of examples of rightsholders limiting their IPR through conditional mechanisms. For example, the UN Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) negotiates licences with rightsholders to provide access to medicines to low/middle-income countries. 41 While such initiatives can serve to address IPR-related access barriers, some can also raise competition concerns and entrench the power of existing market incumbents with strong patent portfolios, disadvantaging both wider and immediate public(s). 42

Open source software can be considered a subset of OI, falling under either CCOI or individual user innovation. 43 Software can be patent protected in the traditional sense and thus fall within OI. 44 Alternatively, open source licences can permit the use and re-use of software. This allows others to view, share and adapt the software so long as any modifications are also shared under the same permissions. Open source can go beyond OI by implementing licences that ensure users retain access to downstream innovations.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a scramble to develop treatments and vaccines to counter this disease alongside the parallel scramble by IP scholars, activists and practitioners to enable access to these innovations. The specific response thus far has resulted in two group initiatives being set up to grant access to patented inventions and technological know-how.

The first initiative is the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Technology Access Pool (C-TAP). On 29 May 2020, Costa Rica and the WHO launched a voluntary IPR pool for COVID-19 related technologies. The Pool compiles all pledges made under the WHO’s call to action for sharing COVID-19 “health technology related knowledge, intellectual property and data” and draws on relevant data from pre-existing pools. 45 C-TAP is supported by Unitaid and MPP. 46 As such, C-TAP could increase the availability and exchange of information needed to respond to the pandemic and “would make country-by-country, product-by-product confrontations over such knowledge redundant.” 47

The second initiative, developed by the Open COVID Coalition, is the Open COVID Pledge. Led by legal and scientific academics and practitioners, this pledge “calls on organisations around the world to make their patents and copyrights freely available in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic.” 48 It is another mechanism that can be used to fulfil the WHO’s call to action. By signing the Pledge, rightsholders commit to openly-license medical equipment, testing kits, software, AI and biotech solutions to help fight the virus through a pre-prepared and very simple licence. 49 The pledge currently applies to more than 250,000 patents worldwide. 50 Generally, the pledge accepts three categories of licences: standard, compatible and alternative. 51 The most commonly used standard Open COVID License (OCL-PC v1.0) grants a “non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, fully paid-up license (without the right to sublicense)” for products, services and processes for the sole purpose of ending the COVID-19 pandemic. 52 The OCL is retroactive to December 2019 and expires one year after the WHO announces the end of the pandemic (or 1 January 2023, unless extended by the rightsholder).

There have also been a number of individual voluntary actions taken to allow access to certain medicines and technologies relating to COVID-19. 53

There are important advantages to FCOI for firms adopting this model. Inventions are developed in collaboration. The eventual rightsholder is rewarded through licence fees, but licences are granted on fair terms to the firms involved and can therefore be used and developed more widely. This model mostly depends on the rightsholder. If their invention is not deemed to be a standard essential patent, they have a choice whether or not to licence voluntarily and set charges. 54 Access is restricted by IPR protection (and non-IPR barriers), similar to the closed innovation model, which impacts both the public(s) and re-users.

With other types of OI, for example, open source software, the source code is made accessible to all and it can be developed, improved and redistributed under the condition that any downstream innovations must also be open source. This innovation can be community-centred or individual, allowing for more re-users and public(s) to be considered, to some extent. Living labs are an example of an OI model that enables users to be more actively involved in the innovation process. 55

Although access remains somewhat restricted in OI given the continued use of IPR and/or the requirement of a licence to re-use subject-matter, this is unavoidable. Reducing all IPR-protection could result in downstream re-use that makes even minor improvements being re-subjected to IPR-protection. Power would shift to the new IPR owner, who would control the re-use of that improvement. This would also raise new IPR access barriers for all public(s) as the new owner would also control the development of further improvements.

These apparent benefits have led to the introduction of the above initiatives to assist with the COVID-19 pandemic. Because these pools and pledges can be fast-moving, individually tailored, and remove barriers to information, they can adapt to the pandemic in ways regulatory frameworks cannot. However, the ultimate impact of these responses upon access to vaccines, treatments and other inventions relevant to COVID-19 is yet to be seen.

Despite the benefits of FCOI, the resulting invention remains in-house and participants are chosen by the firm. CCOI shows significant promise; however, a question remains as to whether this type of OI is more suitable to certain industries where research costs are lower, for example, in computer software. Furthermore, although OI may extend access beyond what traditional IPR frameworks achieve, access is not guaranteed to all public(s). Individuals, communities and companies without the technological or manufacturing capacity and know-how will not be in a position to build upon these innovations.

With both FCOI and CCOI, access barriers remain. For the firm-centred approach, inventions remain restricted by patent protection and restrictive licence agreements. For the community-centred approach, inventions remain restricted by barriers related to the wealth gap.

Both the C-TAP and Open COVID Pledge are promising initiatives. Temporarily relinquishing IPR barriers could lead to more effective responses to the pandemic. However, the effectiveness of the Pool and Pledge will entirely depend on the pledgors and what they decide to pledge. Multiple countries, intergovernmental organisations and nongovernmental organisations have supported the WHO’s call for action, and an impressive line-up of technology, information and communication companies like Intel, IBM, and Microsoft have signed on. 56 Such broad and wide-ranging support is encouraging. However, most pharmaceutical companies have yet to sign on. 57 In the absence of key players’ support, the impact of these initiatives on the wider availability of COVID-19 pharmaceutical treatments and vaccines will be minimal. Such initiatives run the risk of being used as a mere public relations exercise. When entities with little IP in relevant fields or little potential profit to lose become pledgors, but those who hold key patents remain outside the initiative, the real-world impact is lessened.

These ad-hoc responses allow for flexibility but require further consideration to ensure responses are equitable and sustainable. Ellen ‘t Hoen questions how key technologies will be made available to the public(s) and stresses the “urgent need for global collaboration, access conditions on public funding and upfront agreements on access and affordability with those engaged in the development of new medical technologies.” 58 Of note, is that the majority of funding for COVID-19 research and innovation has been provided by government and charitable organisations. However, EU officials have stated that “pharmaceutical companies who will receive the funding will not be requested to forgo their intellectual property rights on the new vaccine and treatments, but they should commit to make them available worldwide at affordable prices.” 59 These requests for access at affordable prices are rarely followed up by enforceable conditions in funding however, and what is “affordable” is also not clearly specified, nor tailored to the realities of individual public(s).

The next step will be to ensure that all public(s) receive treatment in a fair and equitable manner. As of 8 July 2020, €15.9 billion has been raised by the Coronavirus Global Response Initiative for universal access to tests, treatments and vaccines, and this fund will go some way to providing for access. 60 The WHO (supported by organisations including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Gavi and CEPI) have also launched the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator to assist with development and equitable access to tests, treatments and vaccines. 61 The COVAX pillar is implementing a pooled procurement and equitable distribution mechanism for vaccines. 62 There is great political will to sustain public funding of treatment costs. Moreover, the size of the market for COVID-19 vaccines and treatments is likely to be so large that companies will be able to recover vast sums even if there is a tiny return on each individual item. This could make the pricing of individual items lower than for vaccines and treatments for other diseases. However, the overall cost of providing global access to vaccination will be enormous.

For high-income countries, access agreements to treatments and vaccines have been and will be relatively easily reached. The US acquired the remaining doses of remdesivir, a key treatment for COVID-19 in June 2020. 63 The US and UK entered into advanced purchase orders for vaccines which are currently being rolled out, prompting discussions on vaccine nationalism. 64 However, whether all public(s) in high-income countries will have equal access to the vaccine will depend on how individual governments finance the roll out.

Further, for public(s) in low/middle-income countries, access barriers such as availability and affordability will likely endure. 65 The vaccine is currently being administered across the world. However, at the time of writing, out of the 42 countries administering the vaccine, only six are middle-income countries; the vaccine has not been dispensed in any low-income country. 66 A request to waive key provisions of TRIPS and for the global sharing of technology and know-how was made by India and South Africa to the WTO. 67 If accepted it would allow a circumvention of key IPR and non-IPR access barriers. This would be especially important for low/middle-income countries. However, and despite the urgency of this situation, a decision has been delayed until 2021. 68

Pandemics are not the norm, and global access to treatments and vaccines for orphan diseases or diseases less common in high-income countries remain problematic. As we argue below, lessons learnt from the COVID-19 push for access must be applied to wider contexts.

Open Movements in Copyright for Education and Cultural Materials

Differences in patent and copyright entitlements naturally lead to differences in their respective open movements. As copyright arises automatically once an original work is expressed in a material form, individuals have more power to determine subsistence and access parameters.

Open Access Theory

In copyright law, the term “open access” is used broadly and inconsistently across science, culture, education, publishing, and technology fields. One reason these disparate understandings have emerged is due to scholarly publishing practices. This has particular consequences for scholarly research across all fields, given the publishing requirements in academia and size of the market. Publishing culture frames the act of making information viewable without a paywall or fee as satisfying OA standards. In this way, open is widely presented as synonymous with gratis access, with some models extending additional permissions for user activity already protected by copyright law, such as educational use.

By contrast, Peter Suber distinguishes between non-IPR and IPR access barriers via the terms gratis and libre . 69 As discussed in section 2 , gratis access signals free of charge (non-IPR), while libre access is both free of charge and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions (non-IPR and IPR). “Open” access thus requires both gratis and libre access. 70 This aligns with international OA initiatives that qualify materials according to their commercial reusability. 71 Under such initiatives, only materials published under tools and licences that permit commercial re-use are open compliant. 72 This has an impact on re-users as only materials with libre access can be re-used without risk. However, not all re-users will benefit as other non-IPR barriers remain.

Gratis access is important to consider on its own when IPR does not arise. For example, basic research data, descriptive data, and faithful reproductions of public domain works may not qualify for copyright protection when the output does not satisfy the relevant threshold for protection. In theory, this eliminates the need for setting libre access parameters, while increasing the focus on gratis access via a commitment to voluntarily make the non-original materials publicly available for access and re-use.

OA extends to any original subject-matter that a copyright might apply to, such as: software (open source), data (open data) and other cultural and educational subject-matter (open educational resources). However, the inconsistent use of “open” introduces legal uncertainty in practice.

Open Access in Practice

Any elimination of a non-IPR barrier (e.g. paywall or subscription fee) to IPR-protected materials is commonly presented as “open” in and of itself. Within scholarly publishing, this has been driven by journal and repository practices via the adoption of green OA (i.e. the author deposits the article with repository or self-archives the work) and gold OA (the final version of the article is made available upon publication). 73 These delivery models are primarily gratis based, but some extend libre access.

During COVID-19, the general response has been to temporarily adopt limited gratis access models. More than 30 leading publishers, such as Oxford University Press, Elsevier, Wiley and Springer removed subscription-based restrictions for COVID-19 research, textbooks and other educational materials. 74 In addition, various subscription-based media publishers, such as the New York Times, Bloomberg, The Atlantic and Publico did the same for COVID-19 articles. In other cases, licensing organisations temporarily revised their educational licences to allow for higher copying thresholds. 75

At the same time, organisations, funders and grassroots initiatives were able to apply pressure to closed publishing models, sometimes by circumventing them entirely. One example includes a call from the National Science and Technology Advisers of a dozen countries for publishers to make COVID-19 research, and the supporting data, available through PubMed Central. 76 The Wellcome Trust issued a similar commitment and call for researchers, journals and funders, with more than 140 signatories. 77 A letter to WIPO “to take a clear stand in favour of ensuring that intellectual property regimes are a support, and not a hindrance, to efforts to tackle both the Coronavirus outbreak and its consequences” was signed by 32.5 million educators, 2.5 million libraries and archives, 45,000 museums, and 200 copyright scholars across 199 countries. 78 Other examples of public(s) support for reduced barriers include statements by copyright specialists to support maximising copyright limitations and exceptions by interpreting them to provide the necessary flexibility for online education in the current crisis, 79 as well as individual researchers widely publishing materials prior to (lengthy) peer review processes via platforms like SSRN, bioRxiv and Gisaid. 80

Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums (GLAMs) have taken similar blended approaches to OA. While some GLAMs release all non-original data gratis and libre (e.g. digital surrogates of public domain works, collections data, metadata, paradata, etc.) via open tools, others claim copyright and release data via open licences (CC BY, CC BY-SA). 81 The majority of GLAMs with digital collections online make them viewable gratis while reserving all rights through an (alleged) copyright claim or by releasing data via closed licences (e.g. Creative Commons NC and ND). 82 Data may be released gratis and/or libre via institutional websites, while platforms such as Wikimedia Commons and GitHub set libre conditions for any data uploads.

COVID-19 has so far had no measurable impact on GLAM OA policies. Nor has it stimulated any OA adoptions by non-open GLAM institutions despite the public(s) inability to physically access collections. This is likely because OA transitions are time and resource intensive, even under normal conditions. During indefinite closures, with staff working from home, priorities have shifted to cost reduction, increased digital engagement through social media, and digital collections management. 83 The current situation has exacerbated the digital divide for institutions without digital resources, expertise and presence. 84

OA adoptions may pause due to (misplaced) desires to retain commercial licensing benefits and generate revenue through online activities. Studies by UNESCO, ICOM and NEMO have detailed the dire economic impact of COVID-19 on an already financially-stressed sector. 85 At least one national museum has recalled its public domain policy in recent months, though reasons have been attributed to the general desire to license images again rather than as a direct response to COVID-19. 86 However, research shows the economic inefficiencies of maintaining licensing schemes, which often operate at a cost to cultural heritage institutions. 87

Lastly, Open Educational Resources (OER) initiatives across multiple fields and sectors have been designed with OA in mind. In November 2019, UNESCO adopted the UNESCO OER Recommendation as the first and only international standard-setting framework worldwide. The recommendation defines OER as learning, teaching and research materials that are marked as public domain or released under open-compliant licences that permit no-cost access, re-use, re-purpose, adaptation and redistribution (i.e. gratis and libre access). 88 This benefits many wider and immediate public(s) and re-users who can distribute OER materials to digitally-isolated publics.

GLAMs and OER have played an important role in home-schooling, distance learning, and public(s) engagement. Many GLAMs have hosted virtual exhibitions and lockdown tours, turning to social media to publish materials, engage audiences and participate in the #MuseumsFromHome initiative. 89 While this results in significant amounts of new IPR, there have been no corresponding pledges to release GLAM-generated IPR via open licences or tools for COVID-19 access, even temporarily. 90 By contrast, UNESCO launched the COVID-19 Global Education Coalition and issued a call to the global community via an open letter “to support the use of OER for sharing learning and knowledge openly worldwide, with a view to building more inclusive, sustainable and resilient Knowledge Societies.” 91 Indeed, UNESCO is supporting a number of OER initiatives in relation to COVID-19 to reduce IPR and non-IPR access barriers to a range of relevant materials, including for digitally-isolated publics. 92

One advantage of copyright is that all or select rights in the bundle may be waived (or at least not enforced). This has allowed open movements, like Creative Commons (CC), open GLAM and OER, to develop innovative IPR strategies to confront ongoing problems around the lack of cross-border exceptions and limitations for re-use, as well as the lack of legal clarity and consistency around originality standards. 93 For example, open licences and tools are legally interoperable, machine readable, and international. CC has even revised its tools to better convey the limitations of a public domain status and the express intention of enabling cross-border re-use: these include the Public Domain Mark 1.0 and the CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.

As implied, the CC0 tool is premised on a waiver, and thus the existence of a copyright. Technically, CC0 is therefore inappropriate for materials that fail to satisfy the originality standard. However, the tool’s legal code expressly considers users as central to the Public Domain Dedication relationship. 94 Although no rights may arise in the jurisdiction of origin (e.g. moral rights in the United States, which are very limited in scope), other jurisdictions might recognise rights in the materials (e.g. moral rights in France, which are broad and perpetual). In this sense, the Public Domain Mark is imperfect, because it is territorial to and dependent upon the public domain law in the jurisdiction of origin, which can differ from the re-use jurisdiction. 95 The CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication thus provides cross-border re-users with legal certainty that even if rights arise, the rightsholder will refrain from enforcing them. The design of this IPR strategy accounts for different cross-border publics. Moreover, open licences enable rightsholders to reduce access barriers to some rights in the bundle while retaining others, such as CC BY (Attribution) and CC BY-SA (Attribution-ShareAlike). These licences are irrevocable, which provides greater legal certainty to downstream makers re-using IPR-protected materials in cross-border environments.

Open compliant materials (i.e. Public Domain, CC0, CC BY, CC BY-SA, etc) can be uploaded to platforms like Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. Considering the infrastructure required to host online collections, Wikimedia platforms have helped reduce digital access barriers by allowing rightsholders and content providers to directly upload high-quality materials for access and re-use. Indeed, open movements have both fed and benefitted from these and similar platforms. Such websites have been a driver for OA via the upload conditions, providing more open compliant materials to the public for re-use. In return, OA has been a driver for knowledge production via the websites through which the open compliant materials are contributed. 96 Accordingly, public(s) and maker(s) are comprehensively built into the structure and IPR strategies of Wikimedia platforms like Wikipedia, which consistently falls in the 10 most visited websites in the world. 97

Unlike OI, with OA, concerns are particularly related to non-IPR barriers for the immediate public(s). IPR concerns relate to the technical and cross-border nature of digital dissemination.

Practical barriers arise when makers fail to embed digital materials with machine-readable interoperable rights statements. Once divorced from their origins, the open status of the materials will fail to follow their circulation online. Cautious downstream users may forgo re-use at the risk of legal liability, even when materials appear to be non-original (e.g. digital reproductions of public domain works). 98

Even when rights statements follow the materials, legal barriers can arise. IPR remains jurisdictional. CC licences and their application may change from one jurisdiction to the next depending on differences between moral rights, the term of copyright protection, and other national IPR law parameters. One significant barrier is the question of originality, which is legally required to enforce copyright entitlements. The instantaneous nature of copyright protection enables a system that allows the party who would benefit from an exclusive right to determine whether the work is sufficiently original in the first place. Any conflict or challenge to originality must be litigated in court. Taken together, these conditions produce disincentives to enforcement by the alleged rightsholders. 99

This occurs when makers claim copyright in non-original subject-matter and restrict access or re-use by reserving all rights or releasing materials through non-open compliant licences. Even when no rights are claimed, gratis access may be withheld. No positive or enforceable legal obligations exist to release non-original materials in the public interest.

The development divide and wealth gap raise the most significant access barriers. As noted above, finances are required to secure IPR access. The greater risk is overlooking the structural inequities that prevent both IPR and non-IPR access. 100 Access, participation and innovation with IPR-protected content in libre access, as envisioned by open movements, requires access to the necessary digital technologies, something unrelated to IPR. As a result, the enjoyment of libre access is being limited to privileged public(s), now in the position to gain further benefits. 101 OA cannot resolve these underlying barriers and may deepen the development divide and wealth gap, 102 especially during crises. 103

To this point, studies on the impact of COVID-19 on the heritage sector show GLAMs may shutter at an alarming rate. UNESCO estimates more than 10% of museums may never reopen. 104 In the United States, that number is as high as 30%. 105 The loss of institutional and individual knowledge will be immeasurable. For those that remain operational, there have been increased attempts to collect cultural engagement during COVID-19 on digital platforms. The growing digital divide means significant portions of the public are not only excluded from these archival collections, but also the knowledge generated around them due to their inability to both contribute and participate. 106

Open Movements as a Response to Access Barriers

Releasing IPR-protected materials under open licences and tools, in and of itself, neither results in the public(s) having access, nor satisfies wider public welfare goals as envisioned by IPR.

Open movements in patent and copyright law have clearly addressed a number of issues relating to access barriers. Yet, significant gaps remain for a number of publics. This is mainly due to the voluntary nature of open movements. For this reason, open movements cannot resolve every IPR barrier. This is particularly apparent during times of crises. During COVID-19, impressive initiatives have emerged, but they are participant-dependent and time-limited. The long-term impact of the virus must also be taken into account, which will outlast many of these initiatives. Finally, the existence of life-threatening diseases that affect public(s) in low/middle-income countries and communities and the likelihood of future pandemics and other crises must be considered.

The temporary status of COVID-19 open initiatives brings benefits and drawbacks. One benefit is that their temporary validity may attract participants who would not usually engage in open movements due to the irrevocable status of many tools and licences. Most if not all of the subject-matter being pledged was developed outside of OI strategies, but has now adopted those characteristics. This may incentivise companies to opt for OI in the future, given the mutual benefits to maker(s) and public(s) in terms of innovation efficiency. 107 However, temporary also means that these initiatives are narrowly defined and less sustainable. For example, as mentioned, the standard OCL expires one year after the end of the pandemic. IPR access barriers therefore remerge upon expiration. Even with non-IPR access, scholarly and media publishers are beginning to reintroduce paywalls to COVID-19 and educational materials.

While open movements are filling gaps in ways the IPR regime is unable, such strategies frame access for maker(s) and public(s) within the relevant materials and IPR area. This results in narrowly tailored IPR strategies for some immediate public(s) without non-IPR considerations for the wider public. Significant room remains to develop more equitable access strategies and obligations that are more appropriately designed and supported by IPR regimes, so long as the concerns noted above are confronted.

Open movements have somewhat addressed IPR access barriers, but a question remains as to why open movements were seen as necessary given the existence of traditional public interest legal doctrines.

Existing IPR Legal Doctrines – An Alternative or Additional Solution?

Multiple IPR doctrines have been developed to provide access in the traditional public interest, many of which find their basis in the flexibilities of the TRIPS Agreement. 108 In this section, we consider how these doctrines could be applied in public health crises and evaluate their capacity for reducing access barriers. We approach this section primarily from a UK perspective. Many jurisdictions have similar provisions; thus, this analysis can be applied in broader contexts. However, the territorial nature of these doctrines limits their application in cross-border contexts, which are especially important during crises.

Patent law provides various mechanisms that aim to take the traditionally conceptualised public interest into account. Although a specific public interest doctrine does not exist in UK patent legislation, the concept is inherent to the patent system. The balance between granting a patent and restricting access to the public has been considered in each requirement for and restriction to patentability. 109 Patent offices examine the exceptions and exclusions to patentability, users can rely on certain defences to infringement, and governments can impose compulsory licences or approve crown/government use. Courts also have discretion when deciding on many of these issues when raised, including also whether or not to grant an injunction. 110 In this way, the patent system includes checks and balances whereby the public interest can be considered at multiple points in the life cycle of a patent. 111

However, because of these inherent inclusions, the public interest rarely receives additional attention. There appears to be a reliance on the fact that patent requirements and restrictions have taken the public interest into account, and therefore, with their application, the public interest has been accommodated. In times of crises, it should be possible to re-consider this balance with public(s) interest(s) in mind and use pre-existing legal mechanisms more readily to allow access. This section considers these possibilities and how useful they are.

Exceptions and Enforcement

Exceptions to patentability prevent rights arising in situations where patents are considered to be against the public interest. There are two relevant sets of exceptions in the public health context: ordre public and morality; and medical and diagnostic methods. These provisions are considered during examination and can be raised when opposing the grant of the patent, or in revocation proceedings post grant.

In Europe and the UK, patents are refused for inventions if their commercial exploitation would be contrary to ordre public or morality. 112 The European Patent Convention (EPC) provides no definition for these terms but the Board of Appeal in Plant Genetic Systems offered vague working definitions. 113 Case law suggests the possibility of abuse of the invention is not sufficient to deny patent protection, and if the invention can be exploited in one way that would be considered moral, protection will be granted. 114 The exception has been applied very narrowly and it is unlikely that it would be stretched to restrict the patenting of a vaccine during a public health crisis. Patents being used to limit or restrict access to a technology that would be useful to the public would not fall under this exception. 115

The second set of exceptions relevant in the public health context refuses patents on methods for treatment by surgery or therapy, and diagnostic methods. 116 These exceptions are also narrow in scope. With diagnostic testing, if in vitro testing is required, these methods fall outside the exception because tests are carried out on samples removed from the body rather than practiced on the body, as the exception requires. 117 Given that the vast majority of modern diagnostic tests require some laboratory element, the scope of this exception is so narrow as to be practically irrelevant. Treatment by surgery or therapy practiced on the human body may not be patented, but any devices or drugs used in that therapy fall outside the exclusion. The practical effect of these exceptions in times of public health crisis is therefore limited.

Exceptions to infringement provide a defence against otherwise valid patents in specific circumstances. 118 One such defence is for acts done for experimental purposes. 119 An act will fall within the defence if its purpose is to discover something unknown or to test a hypothesis, but it must relate to the subject-matter of the patented invention. 120 This would be useful during a crisis to identify new uses of patented therapies, pharmaceuticals and products. However, once the new application has been validated and becomes routine, its use will not be covered by the defence. 121 A licence on the original subject-matter would be required to use the new material, and the maker of the new invention could choose to apply for a patent, thus further restricting access.

Another relevant defence is for the making of a prescribed medicine in a pharmacy. 122 The practical application of the defence is limited to cases where such preparation is medically necessary rather than economically necessary, as most pharmacists dispense pre-prepared medicines where possible. 123 In the context of a public health crisis, the defence could become relevant where commercial manufacturing capacity is limited. However, this would only be in the relatively rare situation where hospital pharmacies are capable of the preparation of the relevant drug.

(b) Enforcement

Enforcement is also relevant with regards to the court’s discretion to refuse granting injunctions. Even if a patent is held to be valid and infringed, a court has the discretion to choose the appropriate remedy. Remedies include an injunction, damages or an account of profits, and delivery up or destruction of infringing articles. 124 For example, if another company makes a patented medicine to provide access, the rightsholder can sue for infringement. During a public health crisis, a court could choose to refuse an injunction and award damages instead. 125

Although there is little scope for the public interest to be considered when enforcing a valid patent, recent English case law demonstrates a potential, if limited, role for the stay of an injunction on public health grounds. 126 This would only be possible if there is a lack of viable alternatives for patient access to life-saving treatment. The circumstances in which such a stay may be awarded are rare and damages would likely follow.

Non-Voluntary Licensing

Compulsory licensing

A compulsory licence, granted by the government, compels a patentee to allow use of their patented invention under reasonable terms. 127 However, there are many onerous requirements to fulfil prior to the authorisation of a compulsory licence. As a result, their effectiveness is limited. For example, an application can only be made three years after a patent has been granted. Applicants must also show that demand for the product is not being met and that attempts have been made to reach an agreement on reasonable terms through a voluntary licence within a reasonable period. 128 Data exclusivity must also be taken into account in the EU context with regard to pharmaceuticals. 129

This is not to say that compulsory licences are not useful. The mere existence or the threat of applying for a compulsory licence often forces patentees to come to voluntary agreement or to take alternative action. 130 A recent example occurred in the UK with medicines for cystic fibrosis. During a three-year negotiation, it was argued that the government should enforce a compulsory licence on these medicines given their cost was unaffordable for the NHS. 131 With mounting public pressure, a voluntary licence was agreed. 132 Another example can be seen in the COVID-19 context. AbbVie, a biopharmaceutical company, has stated that it will no longer enforce its patent rights worldwide on a medicine used to treat COVID-19 symptoms. However, this was only after a compulsory licence had been issued. 133

This mechanism is one of the most useful to re-balance the patent bargain in the public interest. However, it places a significant burden on the applicant, especially during a public health crisis. Moreover, it is worth noting that in a non-pandemic situation it took three years of negotiations to reach an agreement on an affordable voluntary licence for cystic fibrosis medicines, which only benefits the public in the UK. For low/middle-income countries, movement is much slower and efforts to provide affordable access to treatment for HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C and tuberculosis remain ongoing. 134

In response to COVID-19, some countries, such as Germany, France and Chile, have introduced legal measures to make it easier to grant compulsory licences. 135 In Germany, legislation was introduced relevant to all pandemics, whereas in France and Chile, the emergency laws are COVID-19 specific. 136 These types of legislative changes could be of great benefit if widely introduced in low/middle-income countries during and beyond the context of the pandemic to include all public health crises, especially considering that many high-income countries have declared themselves ineligible to be importing members under Art. 31 bis TRIPS. 137

(b) Crown Use

Another option is to employ the Crown Use provision whereby any authorised department or person can make, use or sell a patented invention “for the services of the Crown” without the permission of the patentee, so long as it is in the public interest to do so. 138 Further detail states that “the production or supply of specified drugs and medicines” would be included in services of the Crown. 139 Finally, there are special provisions relating to Crown use during a declared emergency, which allows use of the invention in many other circumstances, including “for the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community”. 140

Crown Use was successfully used as a defence to infringement recently in IPCom v. Vodafone . 141 Attempts were made to limit the provision’s scope, but these were rejected by the court. 142 The provision was also raised in Evalve v. Edwards , where the court gave the example of generic versions of life-saving drugs engaging the public interest in “special cases, such as a novel pandemic disease”. 143

During a public health crisis, Crown Use could be invoked successfully, if required. Given the legislative and recent jurisprudential applications of Crown Use, the requirements would likely be satisfied. However, one crucial aspect to consider remains. The appropriate royalty to be paid is only negotiated after use and so the eventual cost to the public is unclear at the point of implementation and may prove high. The uncertainty around the cost of invoking Crown Use may result in hesitancy. Even so, it remains an option where negotiations with a patent holder prove intractable.

Patent Evaluation

Overall, these legal doctrines are underdeveloped and underused, particularly when considering the plural public. The possibility of the exceptions and enforcement mechanisms reducing access barriers is limited at best. While they may permit a degree of research and development of new therapeutics and vaccines, they will not enable access to those products, except in very limited circumstances. Courts refusing injunctions on public interest grounds would be helpful, but only arise in rare circumstances and rely on judicial discretion.

More promising are the non-voluntary licence mechanisms. Compulsory licences may be effective in reducing access barriers, but in practice, their effectiveness arises primarily in the threat of their use, rather than their implementation. Crown Use seems to be the best fit to permit access to patented diagnostic equipment, medications and other treatments during a public health crisis. However, questions remain relating to payment.

As well as the gaps identified above, especially with regard to licences, these mechanisms share some overarching barriers, as previously mentioned. If a licence is granted, be it voluntary, compulsory, or as a result of Crown Use, there are remaining non-IPR access barriers relating to technology transfer, data and market exclusivity, and know-how, which are necessary to make the invention work. It is important to note that trade secrets may also be operating in the background. 144

Finally, and most importantly, for equitable access, especially for public(s) in low/middle-income countries, lack of local manufacturing capacity, and inability to import due to trade restrictions can be a significant barrier to access. These points must all be considered and addressed prior to the emergence of a public health crisis so that access is guaranteed for all public(s).

Copyright Law

Copyright law has various mechanisms that were developed to advance the public interest. The most commonly relied on is fair dealing, found in Chapter III of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (CDPA) 1988. Fair dealing contains a list of permitted acts which support copying and access in the public interest. 145

In a crisis, how these acts are framed and extended in the public interest will naturally depend on the act and the context of the crises or emergency situation. For example, with respect to UK educational institutions, it has been argued elsewhere that permitted acts are too narrow for consideration of a pandemic and also that the public interest defence would likely fail but may be relevant to calculating remedies. 146 Instead, legislative expansion, voluntary collective licensing and alternative models for academic publishing might be used in tandem. 147 This suggests that legislative reform alone is insufficient to expand existing categories and/or design new permitted acts adequate for responding to crises in the public interest, particularly in a common law system which relies on precedent to inform entitlement boundaries. For these reasons, we consider the existing scope of doctrines outside of fair dealing and whether they provide adequate approaches to responding to public crises. These include the doctrine of public interest and others related to public interest, such as ideas, morality, non-voluntary licensing and restraint of trade.

Public Interest

Section 171(3) CDPA states that “nothing in this Part affects any rule of law preventing or restricting the enforcement of copyright, on grounds of public interest or otherwise.” The doctrine has been developed through case law and the discussion has been piecemeal. Furthermore, it is clear that different judges have different views about what the test for public interest should be. 148

A number of cases have considered the relationship between copyright and the public interest. 149 In Lion Laboratories , O’Connor LJ took a broad approach to whether copyright prevented a work’s publication and re-use, stating that “once the public interest has been properly aroused and brought out in public” the subject-matter “should be before the public and not restrained from use”. 150 Aldous LJ restricted this framing in Hyde Park Residence Ltd , suggesting a court would only consider the public interest in instances “injurious to public life, public health, and safety or the administration of justice”. 151 Mance LJ dissented on the basis that the public interest could not be reduced to such “precise categorisations”. 152 This dissent and the approach taken in Lion Laboratories was followed in Ashdown v. Telegraph , which reiterated that there are “those rare cases [where the public interest] trumps the rights conferred by the Copyright Act.” 153

Although not clarified, one interpretation could be that the Hyde Park reference to public health relates to the injurious nature of the work placing it squarely within the public interest defence. However, narrowly read, the reference to public health might be less likely to apply to materials that merely improve public health. There is insufficient guidance to be sure. As the court noted in Ashdown , “It will be very rare for the public interest to justify the copying of the form of a work to which copyright attaches.” 154 What is interesting to consider is the dynamic of enforcing copyright in works that improve public health during crises. Following Ashdown , it is now less likely that a court would put the public at a disadvantage when access barriers become injurious to the public(s) interest(s). However, overall, this piecemeal approach is inadequate to address the broader challenges raised during crises.

Morality and Ideas

Two relevant but thin approaches include morality and the idea/expression dichotomy. Although morality has been present in UK copyright law for over a century, it is rarely invoked. 155 Discussions have intersected with the public interest, but the notion of morality appears to be restricted to subject-matter that would offend public sensibilities or prevent a breach of statutory duties, rather than more usefully, as a means to allow reproduction of works in times of crisis in the public(s) interest(s). 156

The idea/expression dichotomy is another long-standing legal doctrine that protects the public domain and promotes independent creation in the public(s) interest(s). Copyright law’s refusal to protect ideas, unexpressed ideas, non-original elements, and expressions not associated with the work allows such material to remain in the public domain and be re-used. The complex nature of much copyright subject-matter means that the public must assess which elements of a work are not protected and remain available for re-use. This places a burden on the public, and the presence of copyright can chill re-use.

Courts make similar decisions when assessing elements of works. 157 During a public health crisis, judicial discretion could be used to favour the withholding of copyright subsistence from works which could benefit public health. Even so, non-IPR and IPR barriers, like paywalls and DRMs, can be used to restrict access to elements ineligible for IPR protection and so this approach would be limited.

Similar to patent law, non-voluntary licences can override copyright norms in specific and narrow circumstances. 158 However, copyright schemes are underdeveloped and lack a unified approach. 159 Relevant factors for the grant of a licence include exorbitant pricing, and the unmet needs of the public along with other producers and distributors. 160 Non-voluntary licences have been criticised as “administratively cumbersome, unlikely to arrive at a correct rate, and contrary to copyright’s overall free market philosophy.” 161 Unlike patent law, copyright law contains multiple permitted acts covering many circumstances in which a non-voluntary licence would be otherwise useful.

It is therefore unlikely that non-voluntary licences would be useful during a public health crisis in their current form. However, these schemes could be tailored more effectively to better enable their use when crises arise.

Restraint of Trade

The doctrine of restraint of trade was developed through case law to withhold the use of copyright in certain circumstances within the broader marketplace. 162 Judges have applied the doctrine in a way that focuses on exclusive licence agreements between rightsholders and authors. 163 Restraint of trade is often applied, but inconsistently, to rebalance the unequal bargaining positions of the contracting parties. 164 It is of limited use because the public(s) who seek access or use of IPR-protected content are rarely party to these agreements.

Restraint of trade would need to be reformulated to consider public(s) and access barriers. While this would require significant expansion, it is consistent with the spirit of the doctrine. Restraint of trade is often associated with the doctrine of illegality, which allows courts to set aside contracts that contravene the law or public policy. 165 Courts have identified freedom from restraint of trade as one of such public policies. 166 Judicial discretion could be used to interpret either doctrine in the public(s) interest(s) to enable access to health relevant IPR unfairly restrained by contractual terms as a matter of public policy.

Copyright Evaluation

There is an important procedural difference between copyright and patent law. Copyright arises automatically, whereas patents must be registered. Therefore, to test its limits, copyright must be enforced in court, which is why these doctrines have largely developed through case law. 167 Consequently, this puts the public(s) seeking access at a disadvantage, as they must infringe copyright and invite a lawsuit to defend its use and test the boundaries of the rightsholder’s entitlements.

Additionally, their application is dependent upon varying degrees of judicial discretion resulting in inconsistency. If there is any context in which a broad interpretation of these doctrines would be justified, it would be a public health crisis. This may help resolve IPR access barriers, but cannot address the more prevalent non-IPR access barriers that are raised within this article. Existing public interest mechanisms in copyright law are therefore inadequate to reduce access barriers in a meaningful manner.

Many of the pre-existing mechanisms discussed above are ineffective due to multiple factors, such as the procedural differences among types of IPR protection, the stage at which these doctrines are applied and the limited way in which the public(s) interest(s) are considered outside the legal boundaries of these doctrines. Some could be tailored more effectively or interpreted more broadly to provide additional access in times of crises, but non-IPR barriers persist. An overriding and unavoidable problem is that any national efforts will be territorially constricted. This fails the public(s) interest(s) during and outside public health crises. Directing attention to removing access barriers outside times of crises is therefore required to ensure more effective responses are in place when cross-border interventions become necessary. Overall, these pre-existing legal doctrines alone are insufficient to address access barriers in the public(s) interest(s) during a public health crisis.

In considering the relationship between IPR and access in the “public interest”, this paper has examined the range of access barriers that are faced by various public(s), the methods used to grant access, and the effectiveness of these methods. We argue that neither open movements nor pre-existing legislative doctrines provide sufficient or effective solutions to the access barriers we have identified. Although significant advancements have been made through open movements that map onto IPR frameworks, movements that exclusively address IPR access barriers are inadequate. Moreover, traditional public interest mechanisms within existing IPR frameworks are so restricted and internally focused that they are ill-equipped to adapt to a crisis.

By contrast, the combination of existing non-voluntary mechanisms with open movements can go some way towards remedying issues relating to the voluntary nature of current open movements. This dual approach is the most promising to address the access barriers we have outlined within the confines of the current system, but it nonetheless fails to provide sufficient and effective solutions, and inequalities of access remain unresolved. The existing options are ineffective and insufficient because they fail to sufficiently address the wide range of existing non-IPR access barriers and public(s) interest(s). Binary distinctions and generalised framings that are common among these methods are inappropriate to reflect the diverse and plural public(s) interest(s) underpinning the welfare goals of IPR.

This problem is evident in the COVID-19 context. However, this crisis has only highlighted access barriers that have previously been an issue in many contexts, including global and national public health and in relation to educational and cultural heritage materials. The COVID-19 crisis has brought these issues to the attention of many who previously would not have been part of the public for whom access to IPR protected subject matter was problematic. What is clear is that the access barriers highlighted by COVID-19 and discussed in this paper are not restricted to narrow specific contexts but are widespread. They are created by, and are a feature of, our existing IPR frameworks. More room is required for a consideration of the public(s) interest(s), not just during a global health crisis, but on an ongoing basis. The “new normal” needs to advance equitable access to IPR protected subject matter for all public(s).

Accordingly, we propose that a systemic re-evaluation of IPR and access mechanisms is required to ensure public interest goals are (re)centred and shape both private and public responses to future crises. Part of this re-evaluation should include an examination of the effectiveness of the solutions put forward for addressing the public interest in this, and future, crises. The current pandemic and development of a “new normal” can provide a wake-up call to go further than the immediate pandemic and look to resolve the IPR issues that underlie access barriers. Otherwise, the scramble to remove these barriers during a public health crisis will continue to repeat itself, and inequalities will remain and deepen.

At present, IPR reform is a low priority for national governments and international organisations, even though access to IPR subject-matter is crucial to resolving the current pandemic and future public health crises. Countries have so far taken individual approaches to IPR reform that have largely been specific and focused on the COVID-19 public health context. By contrast, the Open COVID-19 initiative’s framework was designed for this crisis in a way that can be replicated and applied to future different global crises contexts, such as an environmental crisis. This is one reason why grassroots and industry IPR strategies developed: to fill gaps by reducing cross-border IPR access barriers. However, equitable long-term regulatory solutions that centre the public(s) interest(s) are essential to increase the likelihood that future crises will be less devastating and more efficiently and equitably resolved on a global level.

This requires international IPR legislation with defined and enforceable cross-border mechanisms to remove IPR and non-IPR access barriers that enters into force during crises. It must include clear and fair avenues for how “crisis” can be defined and adapted to new future crises. This should be created and developed through collaboration between governments, grassroots organisations, activists and representatives of all public(s). Particularly where public funding is involved, the public(s) should be normalised as interested parties in contracts, which should also include obligations to ensure the public(s) interest(s) are met. Of course, it is still imperative to develop national and international strategies. However, both national and international crises will require an international response due to the IPR and non-IPR barriers that arise. This is especially important for low/middle-income countries and communities.

The current pandemic, and development of a “new normal” provides a crucial moment to advance reform of the IPR system to better accommodate the public(s) interest(s). The willingness of governments, industry and policy-makers to work together towards the development of therapeutics and vaccines and to enable access to educational materials shows how much can be achieved in this way. Such efforts should be harnessed, so that reform goes further than the immediate crisis, and seeks to solve the problems outlined in this paper that underlie access barriers.

1 Otero ( 2020 ); Brown, Ng and Adebola ( 2020 ); Stothers and Morgan ( 2020 ); Trimble ( 2020 ); “COVID-19 Special Issue” ( 2020 ) 42(9) EIPR; Contreras et al. ( 2020a ); Gurry ( 2020 ).

2 The public welfare goals of IPR have been the subject of a rich body of literature. For one example, see Merges ( 2011 ).

3 See discussion below in section 3 .

4 Here, “maker” is not used as a term of art or understood to carry meanings pertinent to specific industries ( e.g. 3D printing) or regulations ( e.g. Copyright Act 1968 (Australia), Sec. 22(3A)) referring to “makers of sound recordings” and not authors). It also captures the set of individuals who make new works that do not satisfy the threshold of originality as required by copyright, but nevertheless continue to claim rights in the outputs.

5 See Merges ( 2011 ). But, see Buccafusco and Sprigman ( 2019 ).

6 Pila ( 2017 ); Tushnet ( 2017 ).

7 Fisher and Oberholzer-Gee ( 2013 ). See also Barel and Boman ( 2020 ).

8 There have been some government initiatives to tackle national inflexibilities. In some countries, bespoke open government licences are used to release publicly-funded subject-matter. See “About Open Data” (National Palace Museum) https://theme.npm.edu.tw/opendata/Article.aspx?sNo=02009126&lang=2 ; and Loi n° 78-753 du 17 juillet 1978 portant diverses mesures d’amélioration des relations entre l’administration et le public et diverses dispositions d’ordre administratif, social et fiscal. The EU have adopted Creative Commons tools and licences to facilitate their own information sharing – Commission Decision of 22/02/2019 Adopting Creative Commons as an Open License under the European Commission’s Reuse Policy.

9 Discussed infra in section 3.2 .

10 At the time of this writing, around 170 cultural heritage institutions, organisations and universities globally have stopped claiming copyright in faithful reproductions of public domain works as a matter of policy. See McCarthy and Wallace ( 2018 ).

11 A vast amount has been written on this topic and multiple organisations have been set up to tackle this issue. See , for example: Aritarathna and Kariyawasam ( 2020 ); Thambisetty ( 2019 ); Owoeye and Owoeye ( 2018 ); Manu ( 2014 ); Moon et al. ( 2012 ); ‘t Hoen et al. ( 2011 ). Organisations include but are not limited to: Unitaid, https://unitaid.org/ ; The Medicines Patent Pool, https://medicinespatentpool.org/ : Gavi, https://www.gavi.org/ ; Knowledge Ecology International, https://www.keionline.org/ ; CEPI, https://cepi.net/ ; UNAIDS, https://www.unaids.org/en ; Access to Medicine Foundation, https://accesstomedicinefoundation.org/ .

12 In the copyright law context, the public(s) can be broken down even further according to the information sought. One public includes those who require access to copyright protected research, data, and other materials related to public health and the COVID-19 crisis. A second public includes those who are homebound, keeping connected via digital technologies, namely by moving to online-based education, 3D printing, and so on.

13 See , for example: Gana ( 1996 ); Rose ( 1996 ); Aoki ( 1998 ); Okediji ( 1999 ); Bartow ( 2006 ); Craig ( 2007 ); Craig ( 2014 ); Tushnet ( 2017 ), p. 113; Brauneis and Oliar ( 2018 ).

14 Strandburg ( 2018 ); von Hippel ( 2005 ); Craig ( 2011 ).

15 See Greenleaf and Lindsay ( 2018 ).

16 Unless a non-voluntary licence is granted by the government, as discussed below.

17 For more on this, see Price et al. ( 2020 ); Iqbal et al. ( 2020 ); Shadlen et al. ( 2013 ).

18 For a comprehensive overview, see UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose ( 2018 ).

19 For example: the Bibliothèque nationale de France does not claim or charge a copyright fee, but restricts use to non-commercial purposes or requires a “user fee” ( https://gallica.bnf.fr/edit/und/conditions-dutilisation-des-contenus-de-gallica ); PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) charges $0.10% to view United States federal judiciary opinions ( https://pacer.uscourts.gov/ ). The terms and conditions of websites often claim rights in materials that extend beyond the reach of what copyright would recognise (Crews ( 2012 ); Wallace and Deazley ( 2016 )). Also consider online streaming and protection under Sec. 18 CDPA 1988, as well as market access and competition aspects.

20 Vaver ( 2013 ), pp. 668–669. Supporting the framing of copyright exceptions and defences as users’ rights, see CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada [2004] SCC 13, para 48.

21 For patents, see Pogge, Rimmer and Rubenstein ( 2014 ); Drahos and Braithwaite ( 2002 ). For copyright, see Greenleaf and Lindsay ( 2018 ); Frosio ( 2012 ); Boyle ( 2008 ).

22 Chon ( 2006 ), pp. 2823–2824.

23 Chon critiques the concept of development in globalised intellectual property measures as a term of art with different contexts, applications and assumptions. See ibid 2818–20, 2823–25. See also Chander and Sunder ( 2004 ); Sunder ( 2006 ).

24 For more on this, see Bertoni ( 2012 ); Moon et al. ( 2012 ). Many organisations have been leading the way on providing access to medicines in low/middle-income countries and advocating for change. See supra note 11.

25 Over 60% of the world’s population remains offline according to a 2014 report, which also found 75% of that population is concentrated in 20 countries and is disproportionately rural, low income, elderly, illiterate, and female. Moreover, the lack of fixed-line infrastructure and high PC costs results in many users using their mobile devices to access the Internet. See McKinsey and Company ( 2014 ).

26 See also Burkett ( 2000 ).

27 “Joint Letter to Dr Francis Gurry” ( 2020 ); UNAIDS ( 2020 ).

28 See UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose ( 2018 ); Mazzucato ( 2017 ); and ‘t Hoen ( 2020a ).

29 The Wellcome Trust have been considering how to include access requirements for downstream inventions resulting from their funded research: “Wellcome’s Approach to Equitable Access to Healthcare Interventions” https://wellcome.ac.uk/what-we-do/our-work/access-healthcare-interventions/wellcomes-approach-equitable-access-healthcare-interventions . See also Hawkins, Garden and Winickoff ( 2021 ).

30 Licences are premised upon copyright and reserve some rights, whereas tools are used to dedicate materials to the public domain or signal their public domain status.

31 Kapsalis ( 2016 ), pp. 7–8.

32 “Principles and Implementation” https://www.coalition-s.org/addendum-to-the-coalition-s-guidance-on-the-implementation-of-plan-s/principles-and-implementation/ . Signatories now include: the UK Research Institute, Wellcome Trust and the European Commission.

33 Kaye et al. ( 2009 ).

34 See Firefox, https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/ ; Moodle, https://moodle.com/open-source/ ; Lego Ideas, https://ideas.lego.com/howitworks ; NASA, https://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/openinnovation/aboutus .

35 Van Overwalle ( 2015 ), p. 212, citing Chesbrough ( 2003 ). For similar, see Hope ( 2008 ); Van Overwalle ( 2009 ); Lee ( 2019 ); Chesbrough et al. ( 2013 ).

36 Van Overwalle ( 2015 ), p. 212, citing Chesbrough ( 2003 ).

37 Van Overwalle ( 2015 ), pp. 209–211.

38 Van Overwalle ( 2015 ), p. 220.

39 Van Overwalle ( 2015 ), p. 220.

40 Van Overwalle ( 2015 ), p. 210. For more on user innovation, see Strandburg ( 2018 ).

41 For more on the Medicines Patent Pool, see https://medicinespatentpool.org/ .

42 For more on patent pledges and pools, see Aoki and Schiff ( 2008 ); Ebersole et al. ( 2005 ); Hope ( 2008 ); Van Overwalle ( 2009 ); Verbeure et al. ( 2006 ); Contreras and Jacob ( 2017 ).

43 Open software also falls under open access frameworks, as discussed below.

44 However, patenting software is controversial from both a “how to” protect and “whether to” protect perspective. For more, see Bakels and Hugenholtz ( 2002 ).

45 WHO ( 2020 ).

46 The MPP negotiates licences with pharmaceutical companies to provide affordable access to medicines for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and Hepatitis C in low/middle-income countries and has recently expanded its mandate to include COVID-19. See Unitaid ( 2020 ).

47 ‘t Hoen ( 2020b ).

48 “About – Open Covid Pledge” https://opencovidpledge.org/about/ . A call to join the pledge was published in Nature: Contreras et al. ( 2020b ).

49 Neuburger ( 2020 ).

50 Contreras et al. ( 2020b ).

51 See detailed information on licenses here: https://opencovidpledge.org/licenses/ .

52 “OCL-PC v1.0 – Open COVID License 1.0” https://opencovidpledge.org/licenses/v1-0/ .

53 For a list of these actions, see the WIPO COVID-19 IP Policy Tracker: https://www.wipo.int/covid19-policy-tracker/#/covid19-policy-tracker/ipo-operations .

54 That is, unless a compulsory licence is issued against them, as discussed further below.

55 DG Connect ( 2016 ); Leminen et al. ( 2012 ).

56 A list of pledgors is available at https://opencovidpledge.org/partners/ . Pledged content includes designs for 3D printed respirators, swabs for testing, and techniques to aid in drug discovery. Further examples are available at https://opencovidpledge.org/partner-ip/ . It will be interesting to note whether new inventions will be added to the pledge and whether all relevant inventions of those signing up have been pledged.

57 Fehrer ( 2020 ).

58 ‘t Hoen ( 2020c ).

59 ‘t Hoen ( 2020a ). See also ‘t Hoen and Boulet ( 2021 ).

60 Coronavirus Global Response, https://global-response.europa.eu/index_en .

61 WHO, “The Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator”: https://www.who.int/initiatives/act-accelerator .

62 Gavi, “COVAX Facility”: https://www.gavi.org/covax-facility .

63 Boseley ( 2020 ). A separate but related point is the discrepancy between the cost of production and current price of remdesivir (as well as other medicines), highlighted in Hill et al. ( 2020 ).

64 Matthews ( 2020 ).

65 Fletcher et al. ( 2020 ); Callaway ( 2020 ).

66 “WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19” ( 2021 ).

67 Communication from India and South Africa, “Waiver from certain provisions of the TRIPS Agreement for the prevention, containment and treatment of COVID-19” (2 October 2020) IP/C/W/669.

68 Mara ( 2020 ).

69 Suber ( 2012 ), p. 65.

70 Suber ( 2012 ), p. 65 – “digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions”.

71 Such as: Budapest Open Access Initiative, http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/ ; Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing, http://legacy.earlham.edu/%7Epeters/fos/bethesda.htm ; Berlin Declaration, https://openaccess.mpg.de/Berlin-Declaration ; Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, https://oaspa.org/ .

72 This includes: Public Domain Mark, CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication, CC BY, CC BY-SA, and equivalent statements ( e.g. “no known copyright restrictions”).

73 Suber ( 2012 ), pp. 52–65.

74 Wellcome ( 2020a ); “Oxford University Press – COVID-19”: https://global.oup.com/about/covid19?cc=gb .

75 The Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK temporarily revised the CLA Higher Education License, which expired 30 June 2020: “Addendum Amending CLA Higher Education Licence” https://cla.co.uk/sites/default/files/HE%20Licence%20Amendment%20Addendum.pdf . The UK’s sector-leading network of libraries (Research Libraries UK) requested the government to issue a statement allowing public libraries, research organisations and educational establishments to rely on the Sec. 171(3) CDPA for the period of crisis: “Letter to ministers” ( 2020 ).

76 “COVID-19 Open Access Letter” ( 2020 ).

77 Wellcome ( 2020b ).

78 “Joint Letter to Dr Francis Gurry” ( 2020 ).

79 “Public Statement: Fair Use & Emergency Remote Teaching & Research” ( 2020 ). See also Hudson and Wragg ( 2020 ).

80 Lees ( 2020 ).

81 McCarthy and Wallace ( 2018 ).

82 Globally, almost 750 GLAMs, Universities and other organisations make some or all eligible data ( i.e. images and collections data) available under open compliant reuse terms. This represents a small portion of cultural heritage organisations and institutions worldwide. See Wallace and Deazley ( 2016 ).

83 Hadley ( 2020 ), pp. 16–20.

84 Hadley ( 2020 ), p. 19.

85 “Museums around the World in the Face of COVID-19” ( 2020 ). See also “Museums, Museum Professionals and COVID-19” ( 2020 ); “Survey on the Impact of the COVID-19 Situation on Museums in Europe” ( 2020 ).

86 The National Museum in Prague. See McCarthy and Wallace ( 2018 ).

87 See Tanner ( 2004 ), p. 40; Dryden ( 2011 ); Kelly ( 2013 ), pp. 4–5; Pekel ( 2015 ), p. 9; Light ( 2015 ); Schmidt ( 2017 ), pp. 31–32; Valeonti et al. ( 2018 ), p. 57.

88 UNESCO Recommendation on Open Educational Resources (2019).

89 “#MuseumsFromHome” http://midatlanticmuseums.org/resources-museumsfromhome/ .

90 It is worth noting materials submitted to social media and online platforms will be reusable by the public(s) according to the service providers’ terms and conditions.

91 Chakchouk and Giannini ( 2020 ).

92 “Fighting COVID-19 through digital innovation and transformation” ( 2020 ).

93 See Wallace and Euler ( 2020 ).

94 The text expressly ensures “the public can reliably and without fear of later claims of infringement build upon, modify, incorporate in other works, reuse and redistribute as freely as possible in any form whatsoever and for any purposes, including without limitation commercial purposes. These owners may contribute to the Commons to promote the ideal of a free culture and the further production of creative, cultural and scientific works, or to gain reputation or greater distribution for their Work in part through the use and efforts of others.” See CC0 1.0 Universal Legal Code, https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode .

95 For example, see Angelopoulos ( 2012 ).

96 Stinson et al. ( 2018 ).

97 See data collected monthly via Amazon’s Alexa service: https://www.alexa.com/topsites .

98 Cameron ( 2006 ).

99 Mazzone ( 2006 ).

100 Crissinger ( 2015 ).

101 See Taylor and Gibson ( 2017 ).

102 Chon ( 2006 ); Correa ( 2000 ); Okediji ( 2003 ).

103 Chander and Sunder ( 2004 ). “COVID-19: Human development on course to decline this year for the first time since 1990” ( 2020 ).

104 See supra note 95.

105 American Alliance of Museums ( 2020 ).

106 Digital divide is more evident than ever with GLAMs – 5% of museums in Africa and Small Island Developing States have been able to put content online. See “Museums around the World in the Face of COVID-19” ( 2020 ).

107 In fact, the temporary status may additionally benefit the maker post-crises.

108 WTO, “Intellectual Property and the public interest”.

109 For example, a patent will only be granted if it has been sufficiently disclosed. This requirement ensures that once the 20-year exclusive right comes to an end, the public will have the necessary information to make that invention without requiring any further research. Elaborated upon in: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v. Kymab [2020] UKSC 27, [23] and Warner-Lambert v. Generics (UK) Ltd t/a Mylan [2018] UKSC 56, [17].

110 Public interest was recently considered in Evalve & Abbott v. Edwards Lifesciences [2020] EWHC 513 (Pat).

111 See Pila ( 2017 ); and Tushnet ( 2017 ).

112 Art. 53(a) EPC. The corresponding provision of the UK Patents Act 1977 (PA), Sec. 1(3), uses the term “public policy” rather than “ ordre public ”, but the terms equate: Cole and Davis ( 2019 ), p. [1.21]. The Biotechnology Directive, implemented through Rule 28 EPC and Schedule A2 PA, sets out a number of specific cases where patenting is immoral.

113 T356/93 Plant Genetic Systems/Glutamine Synthetase Inhibitors of 21.2.1995. For more on ordre public and morality, see Walsh and Hawkins ( 2020 ).

114 T0866/01 Euthanasia Compositions/Michigan State University of 11.5.2005, [5.8].

115 T1213/05 Breast and Ovarian Cancer/University of Utah of 27.9.2007, [52]–[53].

116 Art. 53(c) EPC and Sec. 4A PA. This exception does not apply to products for use in these methods.

117 On in vitro testing, see Cole and Davis ( 2019 ), p. [4A.07]; and UK IPO, Examination Guidelines for Patent Applications relating to Medical Inventions in the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO, Newport 2016) [56]. On genetic testing, see T0080/05 Method of Diagnosis/University of Utah of 19.11.2008, [62]–[63].

118 Sec. 60 PA, based on Art. 25 of the Community Patent Convention.

119 Sec. 60(5)(b) PA.

120 Monsanto Co v. Stauffer Chemical Co [1985] RPC 515 (CA) 542.

121 Cook ( 2006 ), pp. 133–134; Bor ( 2006 ).

122 Sec. 60(5)(c) PA. The corresponding provision of the Community Patent Convention is Art. 27(c).

123 Domeij ( 2000 ), p. 310.

124 Sec. 61 PA.

125 Chiron Corporation v. Organon Teknika (No 10) [1995] RPC 325.

126 Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Boston Scientific Scimed Inc [2018] EWHC 1256 (Pat); Evalve & Abbott v. Edwards Lifesciences Limited [2020] EWHC 513 (Pat), [55]. For an international perspective, see Basheer et al. ( 2014 ).

127 Compulsory licensing is approved under TRIPS as long as it is compliant with Art. 31.

128 Sec. 48 and 48A PA.

129 Directive 2004/27/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use [2004] OJ L 136/34. For a more detailed analysis, see Li and Lim ( 2014 ).

130 For a more detailed discussion, see Aritarathna and Kariyawasam ( 2020 ), pp. 111–114; van Zimmeren and Van Overwalle ( 2011 ).

131 The application of Crown Use provisions (discussed following this section) was also argued.

132 “NHS England concludes wide-ranging deal for cystic fibrosis drugs” ( 2019 ).

133 ‘t Hoen ( 2020c ).

134 For more on this work, see supra note 11.

135 For a list of these actions, see the WIPO COVID-19 IP Policy Tracker.

136 Germany – Act for the Protection of the Population in the Event of an Epidemic Situation of National Significance of 27 March 2020. France – Emergency Law No 2020-290 of 23 March 2020 to combat the COVID-19 epidemic. Chile has introduced legislation allowing compulsory licences on medicines, vaccines and technologies ( https://www.keionline.org/chilean-covid-resolution ).

137 Garrison ( 2020 ); Love ( 2020 ).

138 Sec. 55 and 56 PA. Many jurisdictions have similar government use provisions. The WIPO IP Policy tracker includes a list of existing legislative measures in all countries.

139 This is one of three examples in a non-exhaustive list.

140 Sec. 59 PA. To apply, an Order of Council declaring a period of emergency would be required.

141 IP Com v. Vodafone [2020] EWHC 132 (Pat).

142 IP Com v. Vodafone [2020] EWHC 132 (Pat), [207]–[213].

143 Evalve & Abbott v. Edwards Lifesciences Limited [2020] EWHC 513 (Pat), [77].

144 See Levine ( 2020 ).

145 Examples include temporary copying, reporting current events, disability access and parody (Secs. 28A, 30, 31A, 30A CDPA 1988 respectively).

146 Hudson and Wragg ( 2020 ).

147 Hudson and Wragg ( 2020 ).

148 Discussed immediately below.

149 For more on these cases, see Mysoor ( 2020 ), pp. 19–23.

150 Lion Laboratories v. Evans [1985] QB 526, 549.

151 Hyde Park Residence Ltd v. Yelland and Others [2000] EWCA Civ 37.

152 Hyde Park Residence Ltd v. Yelland and Others, [83].

153 Ashdown v. Telegraph Group Ltd [2002] RPC 5, [237].

154 Ashdown v. Telegraph Group Ltd , [251].

155 See Glyn v. Weston Film Feature [1916] 1 Ch 261; AG v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109.

156 See Glyn v. Weston Film Feature ; AG v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) .

157 Kenrick & Co. v. Lawrence & Co. (1890) 25 QBD 99; Designers Guild v. Williams [2000] UKHL 58, [6].

158 See , inter alia Secs. 63, 73, 135A–H, 144 CDPA 1988; Sec. 176, Sch. 17, Broadcasting Act 1990. Examples include: sound recordings in broadcasts and cable transmissions, orphan works, or duration. For a full list, see Caddick et al. ( 2016 ), Chapter 28 Part II.

159 The reason for this might be that the international rules to which the UK subscribes are not favourable to such schemes. Nonetheless, the Berne Convention does permit the granting of these sorts of licences.

160 Caddick et al. ( 2016 ).

161 Ginsburg ( 1990 ), p. 1924.

162 Restraint of trade is similar to the US copyright misuse doctrine, although the latter operates as a defence, not a cause of action in itself.

163 See Schroeder Music Publishing v. Macaulay [1974] 1 WLR 1308, 1314; Joined Cases Silvertone Records v. Mountfield, Zomba Music v. Mountfield [1993] EMLR 152, 160.

164 Panayiotou and Others v. Sony Music Entertainment [1994] EMLR 229, 345.

165 Nordenfelt v. Maxim Nordenfelf Guns & Ammunition Co Ltd [1984] AC 535 (HL); Egon Zehnder Ltd v. Tillman [2020] AC 154, 163–164.

166 Egon Zehnder Ltd v. Tillman [2019] UKSC 32; [2020] AC 154, 157.

167 The limits of patent law are also tested through litigation, but are first considered at the examination stage without the need for third party intervention.

The authors would like to thank Professor Abbe Brown and Dr. Aisling McMahon for comments on previous drafts of this paper and the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions. The research for this paper forms part of Policy@Exeter – a scoping programme that seeks to build Exeter's external profile and internal capacity for policy engaged research. Funded by Research England's Strategic Priorities Fund. This study did not generate any new data. All links last accessed on 22 January 2021.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

American Alliance of Museums (2020) National Survey of COVID-19 Impact on United States Museums, https://www.aam-us.org/2020/07/22/united-states-may-lose-one-third-of-all-museums-new-survey-shows/
Angelopoulos C (2012) The myth of European term harmonisation: 27 public domains for the 27 Member States, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2145862
Aoki K (1998) Neocolonialism, anticommons property, and biopiracy in the (Not-so-Brave) New World Order. Indiana J Glob Legal Stud 6:11
Aoki R, Schiff A (2008) Promoting access to intellectual property: patent pools, copyright collectives, and clearinghouses. R&D Manag 38(2):189
Aritarathna L, Kariyawasam K (2020) Pharmaceutical patents and access to generic medicines in developing countries. EIPR 42(2):108
Bakels R, Hugenholtz B (2002) The patentability of computer programs. European Parliament, Legal Affairs Series
Barel A, Boman L (2020) Clinical trial cost transparency at the National Institutes of Health: law and policy recommendations. Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy, available at https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/Clinical_Trial_Cost_Transparency_at_the_NIH-Law_and_Policy_Recommendations.pdf
Bartow A (2006) Fair use and the fairer sex: gender, feminism, and copyright law. 14 American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law 551
Basheer S, Sanklecha J, Gowda P (2014) Pharmaceutical patent enforcement: a developmental perspective. In: Okediji R, Bagley M (eds) Patent law in a global perspective. Oxford University Press
Bertoni A (2012) Research and “development as freedom”—improving democracy and effectiveness in pharmaceutical innovation for neglected tropical diseases. IIC 43(7):771
Bor F (2006) Exemptions to patent infringement applied to biotechnology research rools. EIPR 28:510
Boseley S (2020) US secures world stock of key Covid-19 drug remdesivir’ The Guardian (London) available at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/30/us-buys-up-world-stock-of-key-covid-19-drug
Boyle J (2008) The public domain: enclosing the commons of the mind. Yale University Press
Brauneis R, Oliar D (2018) An empirical study of the race, ethnicity, gand age of copyright registrants. George Washington Law Rev 86:101
Brown A, Ng C, Adebola T (2020) Intellectual property rights, the public interest and COVID-19 ( University of Aberdeen, School of Law Blog ) available at https://www.abdn.ac.uk/law/blog/intellectual-property-rights-the-public-interest-and-covid19/
Buccafusco C, Sprigman CJ (2019) Experiments in intellectual property. In: Mennel P, Schwartz D (eds) Research handbook on the economics of intellectual property law. Edward Elgar
Burkett I. Beyond the “information rich and poor”: future understandings of inequality in globalising informational economies. Futures. 2008; 32 (7):679. doi: 10.1016/S0016-3287(00)00016-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
COVID-19: Human development on course to decline this year for the first time since 1990 (2020) (United Nations Development Programme) https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/news-centre/news/2020/COVID19_Human_development_on_course_to_decline_for_the_first_time_since_1990.html .
COVID-19 Open Access Letter (2020) https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/covid19-open-access-letter.pdf
COVID-19 Special Issue (2020) 42(9) EIPR
Caddick N, Davies G, Harbottle G (2016) Copinger and Skone James on copyright (17th edn). Sweet & Maxwell
Callaway E (2020) The unequal scramble for coronavirus vaccines - by the numbers. Nature 584:506 [ PubMed ]
Cameron C. In defiance of Bridgeman: claiming copyright in photographic reproductions of public domain works. Texas Intell Property Law J. 2006; 15 :31. [ Google Scholar ]
Chakchouk M, Giannini S (2020) Call for joint action: supporting learning and knowledge sharing through open educational resources (OER)’ available at https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/covid19_joint_oer_call_en.pdf
Chander A, Sunder M. The romance of the public domain. California Law Rev. 2004; 92 :1331. doi: 10.2307/3481419. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Chesbrough H (2003) Open Innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard University Press
Chesbrough H, Vanhaverbeke W, West J (eds) (2013) Open innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press
Chon M (2006) Intellectual property and the development divide. Cardozo Law Rev 27:2821
Cole P, Davis R. CIPA Guide to the Patents Acts. 9. London: Sweet & Maxwell; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
Contreras J, Jacob M (eds) (2017) Patent pledges: global perspectives on patent law’s private ordering frontier. Edward Elgar
Contreras J, Eisen M, Ganz A, Lemley M, Molloy J, Peters D, Tietze F. Pledging intellectual property for COVID-19. Nat Biotechnol. 2020; 38 :1146. doi: 10.1038/s41587-020-0682-1. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Contreras J, Eisen M, Peters D. COVID-19: save lives with open intellectual-property licences. Nature. 2020; 583 :683. doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-02233-4. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cook T. A European Perspective as to the Extent to which Experimental Use, and Certain Other Defences to Patent Infringement, Apply to Differing Types of Research: A Report for the Intellectual Property Institute. London: Intellectual Property Institute; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
Correa C (2000) Intellectual property rights, the WTO and developing countries: the TRIPS agreement and policy options. Zed Books
Craig C (2014) Feminist aesthetics and copyright law: genius, value, and gendered visions of the creative self. Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper Series, available at https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/olsrps/31
Craig C (2007) Reconstructing the author-self: some feminist lessons for copyright law. Soc Policy 15:62
Craig C (2011) Copyright Communication and culture. Towards a relational theory of copyright law. Edward Elgar
Crews K (2012) Museum policies and art images: conflicting objectives and copyright overreaching’. 22 Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal 795
Crissinger S (2015) A critical take on OER practices: interrogating commercialization, colonialism, and content – in the library with the lead pipe, available at http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2015/a-critical-take-on-oer-practices-interrogating-commercialization-colonialism-and-content/
DG Connect (2016) Living labs and open innovation (Shaping Europe’s digital future - European Commission), available at https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/living-labs-and-open-innovation
Domeij B (2000) Pharmaceutical patents in Europe. Stockholm Studies in Law, Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Drahos P, Braithwaite J (2002) Information feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy? Earthscan
Dryden J. Copyfraud or legitimate concerns? Controlling further uses of online archival holdings’ Am Arch. 2011; 74 :522. [ Google Scholar ]
Ebersole T, Guthrie M, Goldstein J. Patent pools and standard setting in diagnostic genetics’ Nat Biotechnol. 2005; 23 (8):937. doi: 10.1038/nbt0805-937. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Fehrer P (2020) Pharma Companies are worried about pooling their IP. They shouldn’t be’ ( Barron’s ) available at https://www.barrons.com/articles/pharma-companies-are-worried-about-pooling-their-coronavirus-intellectual-property-they-shouldnt-be-51593178200
Fighting COVID-19 through digital innovation and transformation (2020) (UNESCO) https://en.unesco.org/covid19/communicationinformationresponse/digitalinnovation
Fisher W, Oberholzer-Gee F (2013) Strategic management of intellectual property: an Integrated Approach’. California Management Review 157
Fletcher ER, Hacker J, Hoecklin M (2020) Procure and supply vaccines through COVAX and not bilateral deals – WHO plea to countries and pharma’ (Health Policy Watch) https://healthpolicy-watch.news/fund-and-supply-vaccines-through-covax-and-not-bilateral-deals-pleads-who/
Frosio G (2012) Communia and the European Public Domain Project: a politics of the public domain. In: Dulong de Rosnay M, De Martin JC (eds), The digital public domain; foundations for an open culture. Open Book Publishers
Gana R. The Myth of Development, The Progress of Rights: Human Rights to Intellectual Property and Development. Law Policy. 1996; 18 :315. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9930.1996.tb00175.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Garrison C (2020) Never say never - Why the High Income Countries that opted-out from Art. 31 bis WTO TRIPS system must urgently reconsider their decision in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic’ (Medicines Law & Policy) available at https://medicineslawandpolicy.org/2020/04/never-say-never-why-the-high-income-countries-that-opted-out-from-the-art-31bis-wto-trips-system-must-urgently-reconsider-their-decision-in-the-face-of-the-covid-19-pandemic/
Ginsburg J. Creation and commercial value: copyright protection of works of information. Col L Rev. 1990; 90 :1865. doi: 10.2307/1122769. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Greenleaf G and Lindsay D (2018) Public rights: copyright’s public somains. Cambridge University Press
Gurry F (2020) Some Considerations on intellectual property, innovation, access and COVID-19’, available at https://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/dgo/news/2020/news_0025.html
Hadley W (2020) COVID-19 Impact: Museum Sector Research Findings Summary Report’ (Art Fund) available at https://www.artfund.org/assets/downloads/art-fund-covid19-research-report-final.pdf
Hawkins N, Garden H, Winickoff D (2021) Advancing Genomics and Biobanks for Personalised Medicine – building and sustaining collaborative platforms. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 11 (in press)
Hill A et al (2020) Minimum costs to manufacture new treatments for COVID-19. J Virus Educ 6:61 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
Hope J (2008) Biobazaar: the open source revolution and biotechnology. Harvard University Press
Hudson E, Wragg P (2020) Proposals for copyright law and education during the COVID-19 pandemic’, available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3617720
Iqbal Z, Iqbal Z, Sadaf S (2020) Impact of Bolar-exemption and compulsory licencing on market exclusivity and the public health crisis—perspective from developing countries. EIPR 42(6):364
Joint Letter to Dr Francis Gurry, Director General, World Intellectual Property Organization (2020) https://www.communia-association.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/200403-Joint-Letter-to-Dr-Francis-Gurry.pdf
Kapsalis E (2016) The impact of open access on galleries, libraries, museums, & archives (Smithsonian Institutes 2016) available at https://siarchives.si.edu/sites/default/files/pdfs/2016_03_10_OpenCollections_Public.pdf
Kaye J, Heeney C, Hawkins N, de Vries L, Boddington P. Data sharing in genomics – re-shaping scientific practice. Nat Rev Genet. 2009; 10 :33. doi: 10.1038/nrg2573. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kelly K (2013) Images of works of art in museum collections: the experience of open access. Council on Library and Information Resources
Lee N (2019) Intellectual Property Rights and open innovation in 3D printing: a different form of exclusivity. In: Drexl J, Kamperman Sanders A (eds), The Innovation Society and Intellectual Property. Edward Elgar
Lees N (2020) Covid-19 - Scientific Research on the Coronavirus Is Being Released in a Torrent’ (The Economist) available at https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2020/05/07/scientific-research-on-the-coronavirus-is-being-released-in-a-torrent
Leminen S, Westerlund M, Nyström A-G (2012) Living Labs as Open-Innovation Networks. Technology Innovation Management Review 6
Letter to ministers: Copyright and enabling remote learning and research during the COVID-19 crisis - UPDATED (2020) ( RLUK Research Libraries UK ) https://www.rluk.ac.uk/letter-to-ministers-copyright-and-enabling-remote-learning-and-research-during-the-covid-19-crisis/
Levine D (2020) COVID-19 Trade secrets and information access: an overview’ (Infojustice) available at http://infojustice.org/archives/42493
Li P, Lim PH. A precautionary approach to compulsory licencing of medicines: tempering data exclusivity as an obstacle to access. IPQ. 2014; 3 :241. [ Google Scholar ]
Light M. Controlling goods or promoting the public good: choices for special collections in the marketplace. RBM A J Rare Books Manusc Cult Heritage. 2015; 16 :48. doi: 10.5860/rbm.16.1.435. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Love J (2020) Open letter asking 37 WTO members to declare themselves eligible to import medicines under compulsory licence in another country, under 31bis of TRIPS Agreement (KEI Online) https://www.keionline.org/32707
Manu T (2014) Essential medicines and the complexity of implementing nationally based compulsory licensing: on the need for a regional system of compulsory licensing in sub-Saharan Africa. EIPR 36(1):39
Mara K (2020) Decision on intellectual property waiver over Covid technology on hold till 2021 (Medicines Law & Policy) https://medicineslawandpolicy.org/2020/12/decision-on-intellectual-property-waiver-over-covid-technology-on-hold-till-2021-what-are-the-next-steps/
Matthews D (2020) Coronavirus: how countries aim to get the vaccine first by cutting opaque supply deals’ (The Conversation) available at https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-how-countries-aim-to-get-the-vaccine-first-by-cutting-opaque-supply-deals-143366
Mazzone J (2006) Copyfraud. New York University Law Review 81:1026
Mazzucato M (2017) Mission-oriented innovation policy: challenges and opportunities. UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose Working Paper
McCarthy D, Wallace A (2018) Survey of GLAM open access policy and practice’, available at http://bit.ly/OpenGLAMsurvey
McKinsey & Company (2014) Offline and falling behind: barriers to internet adoption’, available at https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/technology-media-and-telecommunications/our-insights/offline-and-falling-behind-barriers-to-internet-adoption#
Merges R (2011) Justifying intellectual property. Harvard University Press
Moon S, Bermudez J, ‘t Hoen E (2012) Innovation and access to medicines for neglected populations: could a treaty address a broken pharmaceutical R&D system? PLoS Med 9(5) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
Museums, Museum professionals and COVID-19 (ICOM 2020) https://icom.museum/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Report-Museums-and-COVID-19.pdf
Museums around the World in the face of COVID-19 (UNESCO 2020) https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373530 .
Mysoor P (2020) Capturing the dynamism of fairness: a common law perspective. In: Daniel Gervais (ed), Fairness, morality and ordre public in intellectual property. Edward Elgar
NHS England concludes wide-ranging deal for cystic fibrosis drugs (2019) https://www.england.nhs.uk/2019/10/nhs-england-concludes-wide-ranging-deal-for-cystic-fibrosis-drugs/
Neuburger J (2020) Open COVID pledge rolled out to make patents and other IP available for COVID-19 response’ (New Media and Technology Law Blog) available at https://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2020/04/21/open-covid-pledge-rolled-out-to-make-patents-and-other-ip-available-for-covid-19-response/#page=1
Okediji R. Copyright and public welfare in global perspective. Indiana J Global Legal Stud. 1999; 7 :75. [ Google Scholar ]
Okediji R. The international relations of intellectual property: narratives of developing country participation in the global intellectual property system. Singap J Int Comp Law. 2003; 7 :315. [ Google Scholar ]
Otero B. Thinking Slow about IP in Times of Pandemic. IIC. 2020; 51 :555. doi: 10.1007/s40319-020-00942-x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Owoeye O, Owoeye O. Intellectual property, access to medicines and universal health coverage through a health right lens. EIPR. 2018; 40 (1):49. [ Google Scholar ]
Pekel J (2015) Making a big impact on a small budget - how the LSH museums shared their collection with the world’ (Europeana 2015) available at http://pro.europeana.eu/blogpost/making-a-big-impact-on-a-small-budget-how-the-lsh-museums-share
Pila J (2017) The Subject-matter of intellectual property. Oxford University Press
Pogge T, Rimmer M, Rubenstein K (2014) Incentives for global public health: patent law and access to essential medicines. Cambridge University Press
Price N et al (2020) Knowledge transfer for large-scale vaccine manufacturing. Science 369(6505):912 [ PubMed ]
Public Statement: Fair use & emergency remote teaching & research (2020) https://docs.google.com/document/d/10baTITJbFRh7D6dHVVvfgiGP2zqaMvm0EHHZYf2cBRk/edit
Rose M. Mothers and authors: Johnson V, Calvert and the New Children of Our Imaginations. Critical Inquiry. 1996; 22 :613. doi: 10.1086/448811. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Schmidt A. MKG collection online: the potential of open museum collections. HJK. 2017; 7 :25. [ Google Scholar ]
Shadlen K, Guennif S, Guzman A, Lalitha N (eds) (2013) Intellectual property, pharmaceuticals and public health: access to drugs in developing countries Edward Elgar
Stinson A, Fauconnier S, Wyatt L (2018) Stepping beyond libraries: the changing orientation in flobal GLAM-Wiki. JLIS.it 9:16
Stothers C, Morgan A. IP and the Supply of COVID-19-related drugs. JIPLP. 2020; 15 (8):590. [ Google Scholar ]
Strandburg K (2018) Users, patents and innovation policy. In: Dreyfuss R, Pila J (eds) The Oxford handbook of intellectual property law. Oxford University Press
Suber P (2012) Open access. The MIT Press
Sunder M (2006) IP3. Stanford Law Rev 59:257
‘Survey on the impact of the COVID-19 situation on museums in Europe’ (Network of European Museums Organisations 2020) https://www.ne-mo.org/fileadmin/Dateien/public/NEMO_documents/NEMO_Corona_Survey_Results_6_4_20.pdf
‘t Hoen E (2020a) The € 7.4 Billion for Covid-19 product and vaccine development needs a few strings attached (Medicines Law and Policy) available at https://medicineslawandpolicy.org/2020/05/the-e-7-4-billion-for-covid-19-product-and-vaccine-development-needs-a-few-strings-attached/
‘t Hoen E (2020b) Covid-19 Intellectual property pool gaining support’ (Medicines Law & Policy) available at https://medicineslawandpolicy.org/2020/04/covid-19-intellectual-property-pool-gaining-support/ .
‘t Hoen E (2020c) Covid-19 and the comeback of compulsory licensing’ (Medicines Law & Policy) available at https://medicineslawandpolicy.org/2020/03/covid-19-and-the-come-back-of-compulsory-licensing/
‘t Hoen E, Berger J, Calamy A, Moon S (2011) Driving a decade of change: HIV/AIDS, patents and access to medicines for all. J Int AIDS Soc 14 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
‘t Hoen E, Boulet P (2021) The European Commission says Covid-19 vaccines should be global public goods, but do their agreements with pharma reflect this?’ (Medicines, Law & Policy) available at https://medicineslawandpolicy.org/2021/01/the-european-commission-says-covid-19-vaccines-should-be-global-public-goods-but-do-their-agreements-with-pharma-reflect-this/
Tanner S (2004) Reproduction charging models & rights policy for digital images in American Art Museums: a mellon foundation funded study 40, available at http://msc.mellon.org/msc-files/Reproduction%20charging%20models%20and%20rights%20policy.pdf
Taylor J, Gibson LK. Digitisation, digital interaction and social media: embedded barriers to democratic heritage. Int J Heritage Stud. 2017; 23 :408. doi: 10.1080/13527258.2016.1171245. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Thambisetty S. Improving access to patented medicines: are human rights getting in the way? IPQ. 2019; 4 :284. [ Google Scholar ]
Trimble M. COVID-19 and Transnational Issues in Copyright and Related Rights. IIC. 2020; 51 :407. doi: 10.1007/s40319-020-00938-7. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Tushnet R (2017) Intellectual property as a public interest mechanism. In: Dreyfuss R, Pila J (eds) The Oxford handbook of intellectual property law. Oxford University Press
UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose (2018) The people’s prescription: re-imagining health innovation to deliver public value. IIPP Policy Report, London (IIPP, Global Justice Now, Just Treatment, STOPAIDS), available at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/publications/2018/oct/peoples-prescription
UNAIDS (2020), ‘As pandemic deaths pass 1 million, COVID survivors from 37 countries write to pharmaceutical bosses to demand a People's Vaccine’ (UNAIDS) https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/pressreleaseandstatementarchive/2020/september/20200929_covid-19-survivors-write-to-pharmaceutical-bosses-to-demand-a-peoples-vaccine
UNESCO Recommendation on Open Educational Resources (OER) (2019) http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=49556&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
Unitaid (2020) The Medicines Patent Pool and Unitaid Respond to Access Efforts for COVID-19 Treatments and Technologies’ ( Unitaid ) https://unitaid.org/news-blog/medicines-patent-pool-and-unitaid-respond-to-access-efforts-for-covid-19-treatments-and-technologies/#en
Valeonti F et al (2018) Reaping the benefits of digitisation: pilot study exploring revenue generation from digitised collections through technological innovation, available at https://www.scienceopen.com/document?vid=72172cf4-9b91-46cc-a494-bf95694a8610
Van Overwalle G (2015) Inventing inclusive patents: from old to new open innovation. In: Drahos P, Ghidini G, Ullrich H (eds) Kritika: essays on intellectual property. Edward Elgar
Van Overwalle G (2009) Gene patents and collaborative licensing models: patent pools, clearinghouses, open source models, and liability regimes. Cambridge University Press
van Zimmeren E, Van Overwalle G. A paper tiger? Compulsory license regimes for public health in Europe. IIC. 2011; 42 :4. [ Google Scholar ]
Vaver D. Copyright defenses as user rights. J Copyright Soc USA. 2013; 60 (4):661. [ Google Scholar ]
Verbeure B, van Zimmeren E, Matthijs G, Van Overwalle G. Patent pools and diagnostic testing. Trends Biotechnol. 2006; 24 (3):115. doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2006.01.002. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Von Hippel E (2005) Democratizing innovation. The MIT Press
WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 (2021) https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19-8-january-2021
WHO (2020) Commitments to share intellectual property, knowledge and data, https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/global-research-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov/covid-19-technology-access-pool
WTO, Intellectual property and the public interest, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/trips_and_public_interest_e.htm
Wallace A, Deazley R (2016) Display At Your Own Risk, available at https://displayatyourownrisk.org/
Wallace A, Euler E. Revisiting access to cultural heritage in the public domain: EU and international developments. IIC. 2020; 51 (7):823. doi: 10.1007/s40319-020-00961-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Walsh K, Hawkins N (2020) Expanding the role of morality and public policy in European patent law. In: Torremans P (ed) Intellectual property and human rights. Wolters Kluwer
Wellcome (2020b) Coronavirus (COVID-19): sharing research data, https://wellcome.ac.uk/coronavirus-covid-19/open-data
Wellcome (2020a) Publishers Make Coronavirus (COVID-19) content freely available and reusable, https://wellcome.ac.uk/press-release/publishers-make-coronavirus-covid-19-content-freely-available-and-reusable

Hot Topics in Intellectual Property

Biometrics as Intellectual Property in an AI-Driven World

By: The Michelson Institute for Intellectual Property Executive Editor: Nathan Mutter, Holland & Hart LLP, IPO Education Foundation The convergence of artificial intelligence (AI) and biometrics is reshaping our world. While these technologies open new...

Breaking Barriers: How Women are Redefining the Intellectual Property Landscape

Over the past several decades, women have been making waves in the IP field, often in areas traditionally dominated by men. Their groundbreaking contributions as attorneys, judges, policy-makers, inventors, entrepreneurs, and educators are reshaping the IP landscape...

What’s the Real Deal between AI Art & IP?

By: The Michelson Institute for Intellectual Property Executive Editor: David Orozco, J.D., Bank of America Professor at Florida State University & Editor-in-Chief at American Business Law Journal Artificial intelligence (AI) art is a form of digital art that is...

Monthly News Roundup – September 2022

Need some good reading material? Here's a quick recap of the top IP news stories and hot topics in IP we loved diving into the past month! "Getty Images chief Craig Peters told The Verge in a statement that his company has banned AI-generated art over the potential...

What is IP Valuation? The role of IP in the value of a startup

When you are starting a business, one of the most important things to think about is your intellectual property (IP). Your IP is what makes your business unique and gives you a competitive advantage. In this article, we will discuss the role of IP when it comes to...

Founder Dr. Gary Michelson wins IPOEF’s Champion Award for Intellectual Property Education advocacy

We're proud to announce that our founder Dr. Gary Michelson has been awarded the 2022 Intellectual Property Owners Education Foundation's IP Champion award for leadership his vast advocacy efforts in highlighting the value of intellectual property awareness &...

Sign up for our Lessons in IP Strategy 8-week Micro Course Challenge

Intellectual property is not just the domain of a hired lawyer, but rather it is an integral part of the strategy behind launching any new business venture. Patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets -- all of these aspects of IP are embedded into the overall...

Navigating the PTAB: A Primer on The Patent Trial and Appeal Board

By: The Michelson Institute for Intellectual Property Executive Editor: Mark E. Michels, Esq., Lecturer, Santa Clara School of Law Ten years ago Congress passed the America Invents Act (AIA). One AIA goal was to create an expedient and less costly patent dispute...

What is the Freedom to Operate?

In this article, we explore common questions about the FTO. We’ll also provide examples of the FTO in action and share tips on conducting searches and mitigating risks.

IP for Social Media Influencers and Content Creators

Social media influencers and content creators work hard to build a reputation of expertise for specific topics, brands and industries. In fact, the influencer marketing industry is projected to be worth $15 billion by 2022 and currently accounts for roughly 15 percent...

Can You Apply for a Patent Without Legal Assistance?

The cost of hiring a patent attorney can be prohibitive to many individual inventors, students, and startups. While the patent application process can be lengthy and complex, it is possible to apply for a patent without an attorney. There are many advantages and...

How (and Why) to File a Provisional Patent Application

In this post, we’ll discuss why provisional patent applications are useful and explain what the PPA process entails. First, let’s break down the definition of a provisional patent application.

How to Strengthen Your Patent

The primary goal of a patent is to secure exclusive rights to produce and sell your invention or license others to do so. If you cannot enforce it, your patent is not very valuable. This article discusses ways you can strengthen the value and enforceability of your patent.

Understanding the Balance of Traditional IP Rights and Open Access Initiatives

Why would one choose protecting intellectual property (IP) that one could potentially profit from rather than making it freely available? Are there types of IP that should be more publicly accessible? These are complex questions continuing to be explored and debated as our innovation economy and information sharing capacity rapidly evolves.

Basics of IP Blog Series #1: What Can Be Patented?

This is Part 1 of our ‘Basics of IP’ blog series. The following has been adapted from “Can I Patent That?”, a Michelson IP animated short.

The Latest News from IPWatchdog

SCOTUS (Unsurprisingly) Declines Invitation to Clarify Alice April 2, 2024 Eileen McDermott
Rader’s Ruminations – Patent Eligibility III: Seven Times the Federal Circuit Has Struck Out March 31, 2024 Randall Rader
Rader’s Ruminations – Patent Eligibility II: How the Supreme Court Ignored Statute and Revived Its Innovation-Killing Two-Step March 24, 2024 Randall Rader
Amid Approval of EU AI Act, Creators Demand Stronger Protections for Rightsholders March 17, 2024 Steve Brachmann
Uncovering Valuable AI Assets: A Strategic Guide for AI Companies and Patent Attorneys March 13, 2024 Robert Plotkin

Open Educational Resources

Introduction
Best Practices
From Our Faculty
General Resources
Administrative Law
Antitrust Law
Civil Procedure
Commercial Law
Conflict of Laws
Constitutional Law
Corporations
Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Employment Law
Environmental Law

Intellectual Property

International Law
Internet Law
Law & Technology
Legal Research & Writing
National Security Law
Native American Law
Securities Regulation
Wills, Trusts, and Estates

Intellectual Property - Casebooks

Intellectual Property - Hornbooks, Treatises, and Supplements

<< Previous: Health Law
Next: International Law >>
Last Updated: Nov 30, 2023 11:47 AM
URL: https://libguides.law.uga.edu/OER

Find a Lawyer
Ask a Lawyer
Research the Law
Law Schools
Laws & Regs
Newsletters
Justia Connect
Pro Membership
Basic Membership
Justia Lawyer Directory
Platinum Placements
Gold Placements
Justia Elevate
Justia Amplify
PPC Management
Google Business Profile
Social Media
Justia Onward Blog

Intellectual Property Law Topics

Intellectual Property Law Center
Applying for a Patent to Protect Your Legal Rights
Non-Obviousness Requirement for Patents
Utility Requirement for Patents
Prior Art Leading to Denials of Patent Applications Under Federal Law
Provisional Patent Applications & Their Legal Impact
Patents Appeals & The Legal Process
Enforcement of Patent Rights Under Federal Law
First Steps in a Patent Infringement Lawsuit
Time Limits in Patent Infringement Lawsuits
Damages in Patent Infringement Lawsuits
Injunctions and Restraining Orders in Patent Infringement Lawsuits
Choosing Between Licensing and Manufacturing an Invention
Patent Prosecution & Legal Concerns Over Patentability
Patent Search to Assess Legal Patentability
Design Patents Under Federal Law
Utility Patents Under Federal Law
Plant Patents Under Federal Law
Business Method Patents & Legal Requirements
Improvement and New Use Patents Under Federal Law
Combination Inventions & Legal Requirements for Patent Protection
Small and Micro Entities Pursuing Patents
Patent Drawings & Legal Requirements
International Laws Involving Patents
How the First-to-File Rule Legally Affects Patent Applications
Timeline for Patent Applications & The Legal Steps
Scope of Patent Protection Under Federal Law
Duration of Patent Protection Under Federal Law
Revising a Patent After Getting Legal Protection
Royalties and Deductions From Legally Licensing Inventions
How to Legally Protect an Invention Before Getting a Patent
Working With a Patent Lawyer
Filing for a Patent WIthout a Lawyer
Patent Legal Forms
Damages in Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
Secondary Copyright Infringement & Proving Legal Liability
First Steps in a Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
Copyright Ownership Under the Law
Assignment of Copyrights & Legal Implications
Royalty Payments for Legally Copyrighted Artwork
International License Agreements for U.S. Artists & Related Legal Issues
Copyright Registration Under the Law
Safe Harbors for Online Service Providers Under Copyright Law
Criminal Copyright Infringement Laws
Enforcement of Copyrights Through Lawsuits & Criminal Charges
Transformative Use and Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
Software Development Agreements & Related Legal Concerns
End-User License Agreements Imposing Legal Restrictions on Software
Lists, Directories, and Databases Under Copyright Law
Photos of Buildings and Architecture Under Copyright Law
Photos of Copyrighted or Trademarked Works & the Fair Use Defense to Infringement Lawsuits
Works in the Public Domain After Copyrights Legally Expire
Copyrights and Credits for Songwriters Under the Law
Sample Clearance for Copyrighted Music to Avoid Legal Liability
Playing Music in Stores or Restaurants — How to Avoid Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
Consignment Sales by Artists to Stores & Legal Protections
Destruction of Copyrighted Works & Limited Legal Protections
Copyright Legal Forms
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Safe Harbors From Legal Liability
Certification Marks Under the Law
Collective Marks Under the Law
Service Marks Under the Law
Trademarks Under the Law
Cybersquatting Involving Trademarks and Service Marks
Trademark Infringement & Related Legal Claims
Arbitrary Trademarks and Service Marks & Their Legal Protection
Descriptive Trademarks and Service Marks & Their Potential Legal Protection
Fanciful Trademarks and Service Marks & Their Legal Protection
Suggestive Trademarks and Service Marks & Their Legal Protection
Generic Terms Legally Excluded From Trademark Protection
Trade Dress Under the Law
Trade Names Under the Law
Trademark Dilution Law
Enforcing Trademark Rights Through Lawsuits & Other Strategies
Trademark Registration Under the Law
Trademark Classes Defined by Law
How a Trademark Search Can Protect Your Legal Interests
Unregistered Trademarks Under Federal and State Laws
Naked Licenses of Trademarks to Unmonitored Licensees
Trademark Legal Forms: 50-State Survey
Non-Compete Agreements Legally Protecting Trade Secrets
Non-Disclosure Agreements Legally Protecting Trade Secrets
Enforcing Trade Secret Rights Through Lawsuits & Criminal Charges
Trade Secret Infringement & Potential Legal Defenses
Choosing Among Patent, Copyright, and Trademark for Legal Protection
Intellectual Property Law FAQs
Intellectual Property Law Articles
Intellectual Property Law Resources
Intellectual Property Laws Reference
Intellectual Property Legal Glossary

Last reviewed October 2023

Bankruptcy Lawyers
Business Lawyers
Criminal Lawyers
Employment Lawyers
Estate Planning Lawyers
Family Lawyers
Personal Injury Lawyers
Estate Planning
Personal Injury
Business Formation
Business Operations
Intellectual Property
International Trade
Real Estate
Financial Aid
Course Outlines
Law Journals
US Constitution
Regulations
Supreme Court
Circuit Courts
District Courts
Dockets & Filings
State Constitutions
State Codes
State Case Law
Legal Blogs
Business Forms
Product Recalls
Justia Connect Membership
Justia Premium Placements
Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
Testimonials

IMAGES

Free Research Paper International Intellectual Property Rights
Intellectual Property Rights
introduction to intellectual property rights
Intellectual Property Rights Notes
Intellectual Property Rights
Guide to The Various Intellectual Property Rights

VIDEO

Intellectual Property Rights-IPR
Research Paper Topics 😮😮😯 Best for Beginners 👍
Law P10 M-01. Introduction to intellectual property: a conceptual primer
Weeks 9-10
The importance of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) (4/15)
Online Workshop on Research Paper Writing & Publishing Day 2

COMMENTS

Intellectual Property Law Research Paper Topics
Research papers in this area may explore the legal protections for women's rights, the challenges in achieving gender equality, and the impact of cultural and societal norms on women's human rights. Intellectual property law research paper topics may also address specific issues such as violence against women, gender-based discrimination ...
Intellectual Property Articles, Research, & Case Studies
by Ian Appel, Joan Farre-Mensa, and Elena Simintzi. Patent trolls are organizations that own patents but do not make or use the patented technology directly, instead using their patent portfolios to target firms with patent-infringement claims. This paper provides evidence that state anti-troll laws have had a net positive effect for small ...
Intellectual Property Law Dissertation Topics
Intellectual Property Law Dissertation Topics. Published by Ellie Cross at December 29th, 2022 , Revised On August 15, 2023. A dissertation or a thesis in the study area of intellectual property rights can be a tough nut to crack for students. Masters and PhD students of intellectual property rights often struggle to come up with a relevant and ...
Protection of Intellectual Property Rights: an Examination of
Abstract. This paper explores the complex world of international intellectual property rights. It delves into the legal protection of intangible assets, including patents, copyrights, and ...
80 Intellectual Property Law Research Topics
A List Of Potential Research Topics In Intellectual Property Law: The role of trade secrets in protecting innovation in startups. IP rights in cultural heritage preservation: a comparative review of museums and institutions. The part of intellectual property in the global music streaming industry: critical thinking.
Intellectual Property Law Dissertation Topic Examples
Intellectual Property Law Dissertation Topic Examples. 3rd Oct 2019 Law Dissertation Topic Reference this In-house law team. Intellectual property law, sometimes known as IP Law, governs the ownership and accessibility of ideas and inventions. There are many different ways to protect these ideas and inventions, including Designs, Patents ...
Advance articles
Cross-checking the recitals: the exclusion of 'the mere provision of physical facilities' from the right of communication to the public in recent CJEU case law
34043 PDFs
Explore the latest full-text research PDFs, articles, conference papers, preprints and more on INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. Find methods information, sources, references or conduct a literature ...
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice
Why Publish with JIPLP?. The Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice publishes a full range of IP topics and practice-related, offering the opportunity to maximise the impact of your research with a global audience, Open Access publishing and more.Find out more about the benefits of publishing with our journal. Find out more.
Innovations in intellectual property rights management: Their potential
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate innovations in intellectual property rights (IPR) databases, techniques and software tools, with an emphasis on selected new developments and their contribution towards achieving advantages for IPR management (IPRM) and wider social benefits. ... and optimisation of processes and gaps reduction (3)). In ...
Intellectual property rights: An overview and implications in
Intellectual property rights (IPR) refers to the legal rights given to the inventor or creator to protect his invention or creation for a certain period of time. [ 1] These legal rights confer an exclusive right to the inventor/creator or his assignee to fully utilize his invention/creation for a given period of time.
(PDF) Intellectual Property Rights in the Digital Age: A Scopus-Based
Abstract and Figures. This study utilizes the Scopus database to examine the literature on intellectual property rights (IPR) authored by Indian researchers. The objective is to analyze the trends ...
PDF Intellectual Property Rights and Legal Research: Issues and ...
Intellectual property rights are intelligence related rights which specifically deals to any original creation of the human intellectsuch as artistic work, literary work, technical or scientific creation. This right protects the legal right of the inventor or creator-with a view to protect his invention or creation for a certain period of time ...
Intellectual Property Rights: What Researchers Need to Know
Industrial property rights include trademarks, patents, geographical indications, and industrial designs. A trademark is a unique sign used to identify a product or a service. It can be a single word or a combination of words and numbers. Drawings, 3-D signs, or even symbols can constitute a trademark. For instance, Google is a famous trademark.
Intellectual Property Rights and Access in Crisis
Correa C (2000) Intellectual property rights, the WTO and developing countries: the TRIPS agreement and policy options. Zed Books; Craig C (2014) Feminist aesthetics and copyright law: genius, value, and gendered visions of the creative self. Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper Series, available at https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/olsrps/31
PDF Intellectual Property Rights in the Digital Age: A Scopus-Based Review
comprehensive collection of research articles, conference papers, and reviews authored by Indian researchers on ... identifying the key areas of focus within intellectual property rights research conducted by Indian authors. ... diverse research interests of Indian scholars and their contributions to intellectual property-related topics from a ...
(PDF) A STUDY OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND ITS ...
Intellectual property refers to creations of the inventions;literary and artisti c works; and. symbols, names and images used in commerce. Intellectual property rights are like any other. property ...
Hot Topics In Intellectual Property
Basics of IP Blog Series #1: What Can Be Patented? This is Part 1 of our 'Basics of IP' blog series. The following has been adapted from "Can I Patent That?", a Michelson IP animated short. Learn intellectual property fundamentals by reading up on the key, hot topics being debated today.
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR): An Overview
Abstract. All tangible and intangible creations of human mind and intellect can be considered as the assets of humanity. These manifestations come under the category of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). Research and scientific activities trigger the production of intellectual properties in many ways and impetus as a catalyst of the industrial ...
Intellectual Property Rights Research Paper Topics
Intellectual Property Rights Research Paper Topics - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. intellectual property rights research paper topics
PDF Interplay between Intellectual Property Rights and Competition ...
2. The TRIPs Agreement, Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Law: Understanding the International Perspective. Intellectual Property is a term referring to a number of distinct types of reality of mind for which property rights are appreciate and the corresponding fields of law .Under the IRP law , owners are granted certain
Intellectual Property
This seminar offers students with an interest in intellectual property and/or cyberlaw the opportunity to explore and research an advanced topic in-depth. Although the focus of class discussion will be on the effects of new technologies, students may write a research paper on any topic related to intellectual property law or cyberlaw.
(PDF) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (IPR)
Research, Shirpur 425405, Dist. Dhule Maharashtra State, India. ... the legal rights which the paper confers, and hence the promissory note is defined by the legal ... intellectual property rights ...
Intellectual Property Law Topics
Intellectual Property Law Topics. Intellectual Property Law Center. Patent Law. Applying for a Patent to Protect Your Legal Rights. Patentability Legal Requirements. Non-Obviousness Requirement for Patents. Utility Requirement for Patents. Prior Art Leading to Denials of Patent Applications Under Federal Law.