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 OpenAlexaboutno aff
Guan Yu

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0160.020
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0120.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management WorldSame topicIntellectual Property LawFrench-language works237,207