MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408740223 · doi:10.53935/jomw.v2024i4.1077

US and Canadian Law on Compulsory Licensing of Intellectual Property Rights

2025· article· en· W4408740223 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management World · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntellectual Property Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual propertyLaw and economicsProperty lawLawBusinessPolitical scienceProperty rightsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relevance of scientific research lies in the fact that the article explores the theoretical and legal issues of the compulsory licensing in American and Canadian law. Compulsory licensing is a mechanism that allows the state or third parties to use intellectual property (IP) objects without the consent of the copyright holder, but with compensation. This tool is used to balance the interests of copyright holders and society, especially in cases where IP monopoly may impede access to important technologies, medicines or cultural goods. This article discusses the specifics of US and Canadian compulsory licensing legislation, as well as their practical application.The leading method of researching the problem was the deductive method, which made it possible to study the legal and social nature of the processes of using compulsory licensing in American and Canadian law. The article uses inductive method, method of system scientific analysis, comparative legal and historical methods. The leading method behind the problem is to justify the concept of carefully study of judicial practice (on the example of specific court cases) and legislation of US and Canadian compulsory licensing.The author of the article made the following conclusions. First, the convergence of US and Canadian approaches to compulsory licensing may facilitate more efficient use of this mechanism. Second, U.S. enforcement licensing jurisprudence demonstrates the importance of this tool in protecting competition and the public interest. Examples of court decisions such as United States v. Line Material Co. and eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., illustrate how compulsory licensing can be used to provide access to important technologies and medicines. However, its application comes with certain challenges, such as legal barriers and economic consequences. Further development of judicial practice in this area will depend on global challenges and changes in international law. Third, Canada's enforcement licensing jurisprudence demonstrates the importance of this tool in protecting the public interest, particularly in the area of access to medicines. Examples of court decisions such as Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. and Eli Lilly and Co. v. Canada, illustrate how compulsory licensing can be used to provide access to important technologies and medicines. However, its application comes with certain challenges, such as legal barriers and economic consequences.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.249 · 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