Intellectual Property Rights in Investment Treaty Arbitration: A Critical Examination of the Philip Morris & Eli Lilly Awards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between intellectual property rights (IPRs) and investment treaty arbitration is a relatively new phenomenon. One reason is that the intellectual property system has been designed, implemented and enforced on the national level. A state may use the World Trade Organization dispute settlement mechanism for the clarification of an Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) provision. Alternatively, parties can resolve disputes either on the national level or through alternative dispute resolution, mainly arbitration and mediation. Despite the traditional practice, investors have brought forward intellectual property-related investor-state dispute settlement disputes in Philip Morris v. Uruguay and Eli Lilly v. Canada, which created opportunities for possible IPR litigation in the future. This paper critically examines the two disputes and broadly analyzes the important findings of these cases. The paper analyzes the arguments of the parties and the tribunal conclusions to show potential implications and challenges which these disputes might bring to the intellectual property system.
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 | 0.035 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".