Patents and Plant Breeders' Rights: Approaches to Intellectual Property Overlaps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English Abstract: This article addresses overlaps between patents and plant breeders’ rights. To do so, it examines language that judges in the United States and Canada have used in deciding whether to allow cumulative protection for the same subject-matter by both kinds of intellectual property rights. Distilling the core arguments from a series of judgments during the last four decades, the article explains three themes underpinning the case law on overlaps among patents and plant breeders’ rights. Majority and dissenting opinions consider overlaps in terms of: the adequacy of incentives, the potential for inconsistency, and/or the historical logic of legislative drafting. These considerations may determine the outcome of future cases in which overlapping protection is at issue. French Abstract: Dans cet article, l’auteur traite des chevauchements entre les brevets et la protection des obtentions ve ge tales. Pour ce faire, il examine le langage utilise par les juges aux E tats-Unis et au Canada au moment de de cider s’il y a lieu d’autoriser que le meˆme objet rec oive une protection cumulative en vertu des deux types de droits de proprie te intellectuelle. Re sumant les principaux arguments d’une se rie d’arreˆts rendus au cours des quatre dernie`res de cennies, l’auteur explique trois the`mes qui sous-tendent la jurisprudence sur les chevauchements entre les brevets et la protection des obtentions ve ge tales. La majorite et les opinions dissidentes conside`rent les chevauchements en ce qui concerne l’ade quation des mesures incitatives, du risque d’incohe rence et de la logique historique de la re daction le gislative. Ces conside rations peuvent de terminer le re sultat d’affaires futures dans lesquelles le chevauchement de la protection est en cause.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".