Advances in Patent Rights Acquisition in International Patent Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At this centennial event, we have been asked to reflect on the most consequential developments in international intellectual property law of the last 100 years, with an eye towards important future developments as well. This is no small task, given the proliferation of intellectual property-related treaties and the profound changes in business structures, manufacturing, and trade that the last century has seen. The rise of the multinational corporation has been fueled in part by changes to trade laws, and the inclusion of intellectual property in trade-related treaties has facilitated cross-border research and development, manufacturing, and distribution of goods subject to intellectual property rights. I think the most consequential development in the last century both reflected and facilitated these changes, and that is the broad adoption of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Law (TRIPS Agreement)--an agreement made as part of the World Trade Organization Agreement in 1994. The TRIPS Agreement has arguably led to the biggest substantive changes in intellectual property law in countries throughout the world in the last 100 years. As such, it merits discussion. But I am not the first speaker, and there have been other developments that were hugely consequential for intellectual property rights globally. So, instead of focusing on the substantive changes required by the TRIPS Agreement, I want to discuss changes that are ostensibly about the process of intellectual property rights-acquisition, and patent acquisition specifically, that have affected both the practice and substance of intellectual property rights protection. In particular, the centralization of patent filing that was facilitated by the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) also made it nearly inevitable that the United States and Canada would switch from their first-to-invent to first-to-file patent systems. The PCT has changed global patent prosecution and made it more efficient, but this sort of procedural streamlining can often make substantive changes seem inevitable. This abstract has been taken from the author's introduction.
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 | 0.021 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".