Canadian implied renunciation theory with an implied licence-basis for recognizing the purchasers’ rights to patented products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
... ‘Why [cannot] a patentee … complain when someone to whom he had sold the patented product then, without any further consent, uses it or disposes of it to someone else [?]’, asked Lord Hoffmann.1 Such a question arises due to possible conflicts of interest between the patentee and the purchaser with respect to the patented product. The question may arise in any jurisdiction, but the rationale for the purchaser’s use and resale of the patented product may be different in different jurisdictions. Widely accepted theories around the world are the implied licence theory and the exhaustion theory.2 This article reviews Canadian jurisprudence and identifies the Canadian theory for recognizing the purchasers’ rights to patented products. The Canadian Patent Act3 grants a patentee the exclusive right of ‘making’, ‘constructing’ and ‘using’ the invention and ‘selling’ it to others.4 The invention must be a statutory subject matter, such as ‘machine’ or ‘manufacture’,5 and a patented invention is described in the specification and defined by the claim.6 Absent permissions of the patentee, each exploitation of making, constructing, using and selling the invention is an infringement. A patent infringement is described as any act that interferes with the full enjoyment of the exclusive right granted to the patentee under the Patent Act, directly or indirectly, without the patentee’s consent.7 Since the purchaser of a patented product paid for the use and resale of it, she must be allowed to use and resell it without infringing the patent. To resolve conflicts of interest between the patentee and the purchaser, the ‘purchaser’s right’ is conceptually recognized.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".