MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976795608 · doi:10.4337/qmjip.2015.02.05

The responses in the United Kingdom and United States to groundless threats of patent infringement proceedings

2015· article· en· W1976795608 on OpenAlexaff
Trevor Cook, Corinne Atton

Bibliographic record

VenueQueen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Property and Patents
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatent infringementIntellectual propertyScope (computer science)Bad faithLawSettlement (finance)PaymentPolitical scienceBusinessKingdomLaw and economicsEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While most legal systems encourage settlement of disputes out of court, and the warning of potential defendants, a warning of legal proceedings can also been seen as a threat, necessitating specialist legal advice and potential difficulties for individuals and small enterprises. This situation can provide scope for unscrupulous operators to make, in bad faith, threats of actions for intellectual property infringement, never intending to start proceedings, but instead seeking to attract nuisance payments from the recipients of such threats. This article examines recent developments in groundless threats of patent infringement proceedings in the United States and United Kingdom.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.253
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.020 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQueen Mary Journal of Intellectual PropertySame topicIntellectual Property and PatentsFrench-language works237,207