Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Contribution of Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) in IPR Research: A View through the Articles Published in the Second Decade of Twenty-First Century (2010–2014) — IV


Affiliations
1 Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat — 131 001, Haryana, India
2 Council of Scientific & Industrial Research-National Institute of Science Communication and Policy Research (CSIR–NIScPR), New Delhi — 110 012, India
 

This Paper seeks to review the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) in the first half of the second decade of the twenty-first century from Volume 15 (1) (2010) to Volume 19 (6) (2014). This is the fourth paper on the theme ‘JIPR in IPR Research’ and proceeds with the same argument and method as developed and used in the previous three papers published on the theme ‘JIPR in IPR Research’. In this decade, two Special Issues on the themes ‘IPR and Agriculture’ and ‘Leveraging IP for Business Advantage’ were published with their separate guest editors. Compared to the previous decades, the articles published between 2010–2014 are maximum. Out of the total articles published between 1996–2014, the number of articles (251) published in this decade between 2010–2014 constitute 37.24 (point two four) compared to 32.64 (point six four) percent in 2005–2009, 19.58 (point five eight) percent in 2000–2004 and 10.53 (point five three) in 1996–1999.

Keywords

JIPR, IP Statutes, Scholars, CSIR-NIScPR, CSIR-NISCAIR, IP Awareness, Articles, Copyright, Patents, Trade Marks, Geographical Indications, Trade Secrets, Industrial Design, Design, Integrated Circuit, Plant Varieties, TRIPS, WIPO, GATT, IPRs, Treaties, Agreement, Research, Case Law Development, Internet Service Provider, Amendments, Review, Handicrafts, Counterfeit Drugs, IP Publications, Dissemination of Knowledge, Creation of New Knowledge, Second Decade, Twenty-First Century.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Malik K and Raza A, Contribution of Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) in IPR research: A view through the articles published in the last decade of twentieth-century (1996–1999) — I, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 28 (1) (2023) 68–78.
  • Malik K and Raza A, Contribution of Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) in IPR research: A view through the articles published in the first decade of twenty-first century (2000–2004) — II, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 28 (2) (2023) 171–186.
  • Raza A and Malik K, Contribution of Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) in IPR research: A view through the articles published in the first decade of twenty-first century (2005–2009) — III, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 28 (3) (2023) 242-266.
  • Carrier M A, The Pirate Bay, Grokster and Google, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (1) (2010) 7–18.
  • Kochupillai M, The protection and utilization of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill, 2008: A critique in the light of India’s innovation environment, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (1) (2010) 19–34.
  • Gupta A, The scope of online service providers’ liability for copyright infringing third party content under the Indian Laws – The road ahead, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (1) (2010) 35–45.
  • Act 14 of 1957.
  • Ashok A, Economic rights of authors under Copyright Law: Some emerging judicial trends, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (1) (2010) 46–54.
  • Jauhar A & Narnaulia S, Patenting life the American, European and Indian way, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (1) (2010) 55–65.
  • Thomas Z, IP Case Law development, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (1) (2010) 66–73.
  • Nair M D, TRIPS, WTO and IPR - TRIPS & affordable healthcare: The concept of OSDD & Patent Pools, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (1) (2010) 74–76.
  • Nayak A & Chatterjee S, Onset of mobile chip piracy in the domain of copyright infringement, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (2) (2010) 117–121.
  • Chopra S & Negi A, Role of intellectual property during recession, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (2) (2010) 122–129.
  • Gupta V K, Insight into firms’ strategy for leveraging technological competences in Asia, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (2) (2010) 130–137.
  • Thomas Z, IP Case Law developments, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (2) (2010) 138–145.
  • Sreedharan S K, Bridging the time and tide –Traditional knowledge in the 21stcentury, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (2) (2010) 146–150.
  • Nair M D, TRIPS, WTO and IPR - World patents, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (2) (2010) 151–153.
  • Mittal A, Patent linkage in India: Current scenario and need for deliberation, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (3) (2010) 187–196.
  • Bayer Corporation vCipla, Union of India 2009 (41) PTC 634 (Del).
  • R Kalpana S, Rashmi H B & Rao N H, Nanotechnology patents as R&D indicators for disease management strategies in agriculture, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (3) (2010) 197–205.
  • Barpujari I, The patent regime and nanotechnology: Issues and challenges, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (3) (2010) 206–213.
  • Samaddar A B & Komal Chaul – A potential candidate for Geographical Indication, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (3) (2010) 214–219.
  • Mir F A & Ain F, Legal protection of Geographical Indications in Jammu and Kashmir—A case study of Kashmiri handicrafts, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (3) (2010) 220–227.
  • Liu W, Approaches to ensuring access to pharmaceuticals under the New China’s Patent Law, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (3) (2010) 228–234.
  • Nair M D, TRIPS, WIPO and IPR: Prevailing issues and emerging trends, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (3) (2010) 235–237.
  • Kochhar S, How effective isSui GenerisPlant Variety Protection in India: Some initial feedback, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (4) (2010) 273–284.
  • Mittal R, Analysis of the mysterious element of quality control in trademark licensing, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (4) (2010) 285–292.
  • Choudhary V K, Protection of well known trademarks and weakening of honest concurrent user defense, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (4) (2010) 293–301.
  • Rastogi T, IP audit: Way to a healthy organization, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (4) (2010) 302–309.
  • Nair M D, TRIPS. WTO and IPR: The year 2009 in retrospect, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (4) (2010) 310–312.
  • Barpujari I, Facilitating access or monopoly: Patent pools at the interface of patent and competition regimes, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (5) (2010) 345–356.
  • Gupta R, Compulsory licensing under TRIPS: How far it addresses public health concerns in developing nations, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (5) (2010) 357–363.
  • Saha T K, Cyberspace-conflicting jurisdictional spheres of litigating IPR claims, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (5) (2010) 364–373.
  • Negi A & Thakuria B J, Principles governing damages in trademark infringement, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (5) (2010) 374–379.
  • Nair M D, TRIPS, WTO and IPR: Counterfeit drugs, Journal of Intellectual PropertyRights, 15 (5) (2010) 380–382.
  • Watkins J M & Taylor M Z, Intellectual property protection and US foreign direct investment in emerging economies, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (6) (2010) 415–428.
  • Boztsoun N A O, Exploring the utility of Utility Models for fostering innovation, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (6) (2010) 429–439.
  • Martínez L M, Patent licensing: Global perspective and analysis of case studies, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (6) (2010) 440–446.
  • Junli Chang X Z, Bioinformatics databases: Intellectual property protection strategy, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (6) (2010) 447–454.
  • Sethi R, Ambush marketing – Need for legislation in India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (6) (2010) 445–463.
  • Ghazinoory S & Abdi M, Promoting nanotechnology patenting: A new experience in National Innovation System of Iran, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (6) (2010) 464–473.
  • Nair M D, TRIPS, WTO and IPR: Impact of Indian Patent Act 2005 on Indian pharmaceutical industry, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 (6) (2010) 474–476.
  • Ahmad T & Swain S R, Celebrity rights: Protection under IP Laws, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (1) (2011) 7–16.
  • Anand N, Accommodating long term scientific progress: Patent prospects in the pharmaceutical industry, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (1) (2011) 17–22.
  • Sakthivel M, Is it broadcast or broadcasting? Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (1) (2011) 23–26.
  • Ghazinoory S, Abedi S & Mashari B, Model for IP protection based on an empirical study of Iranian nanotechnology companies, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (1) (2011) 27–34.
  • Nair M D, TRIPS, WTO and IPR: Protection of bioresources and traditional knowledge, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (1) (2011) 35–37.
  • Kochhar S, TRIPS, Analysis of opportunities and challenges in IPR and agriculture in the Indian context, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (2) (2011) 69–73.
  • Jördens B P, Effective system of plant variety protection in responding to challenges of a changing world: UPOV perspective, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (2) (2011) 74–83.
  • Strachan J M, Intellectual property rights for plants in the United States, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (2) (2011) 84–87.
  • Kochupillai M, The Indian PPV & FR Act, 2001: Historical and implementation perspectives, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (2) (2011) 88–101.
  • Kumar P S, Khan S M, Hora M & Rao M P, Implementation of Indian PPV&FR Act and Rules: Inadequacies leading to avoidable litigation, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (2) (2011) 102–106.
  • Singh A P, Manchikanti P & Chawla H S, TRIPS, Sui GenerisIPR Lawsvis-à-visFarmers’ Rights in some Asian countries: Implications under the WTO, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (2) (2011) 107–116.
  • Kapur A, IPR Laws to protect innovation not restrict crop breeding - A rational approach, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (2) (2011) 117–123.
  • Sreedharan S K, Agricultural researchvis-à-visthe cresting IPR wave in the 21stcentury, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (2) (2011) 124–130.
  • Dewan M, IPR protection in agriculture: An overview, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (2) (2011) 131–138.
  • Sastry K R, Rashmi H B & Badri J, Research and development perspectives of transgenic cotton: Evidence from patent landscape studies, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (2) (2011) 139–153.
  • Ramesha K P, Intellectual property rights regime for livestock agriculture in India - Present status and future prospects, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (2) (2011) 154–162.
  • Manchikanti P & Sengupta M, Agricultural machinery in India: IPR perspective, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (2) (2011) 163–169.
  • Soam S K & Hussain M, Commercialization of indigenous health drinks as Geographical Indications, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (2) (2011) 170–175.
  • Spink J, The challenge of intellectual property enforcement for agriculture technology transfers, additives, raw materials, and finished goods against product fraud and counterfeiters, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (2) (2011) 183–193.
  • Nair M D, GATT, TRIPS, WTO and CBD – Relevance to agriculture, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (2) (2011) 176–182.
  • Sidhu A K, Managing intellectual property for agriculture inventions in the university, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (2) (2011) 194–199.
  • Vijayaraghavan K, Akshat M, Shruthi A & Chiranth C R, circumventing complex intellectual property hurdles to enable access to proven upstream technology for poverty alleviation and benefiting resource poor farmers: Case studies, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (2) (2011) 200–203.
  • Sandal N & Kumar A, Role of freedom to operate in business with proprietary products, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (2) (2011) 204–209.
  • Kadri H & Saykhedar M, Post-TRIPS patenting trends in india with special reference to USA: A comparative analysis, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (3) (2011) 217–224.
  • Tse-Ping D, Chun-Hsien S & Hsiao I-Hsuan, Exuberance or bubble? Study of nano-based herbal medicine patents in the PR China, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (3) (2011) 225–234.
  • Liu W, A critical review of China’s approach to limitation of the internet service provider’s liability: A comparative perspective, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (3) (2011) 235–245.
  • Silva E F da & Peralta P P, Collective Marks and Geographical Indications - Competitive strategy of differentiation and appropriation of intangible, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (3) (2011) 246–257.
  • Kutty A A & Chakravarty S, The Competition-IP Dichotomy: Emerging challenges in technology transfer licenses, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (3) (2011) 258–266.
  • Nair M D, TRIPS, WTO and IPR: Recent happenings in WTO, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (3) (2011) 267–269.
  • Ghafele R, Gibert B & Di Giammarino P, Driving innovation through patent application review: The power of crowdsourcing prior art search, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (4) (2011) 303–308.
  • Sakthivel M, 4G Peer-to-Peer Technology – Is it covered by copyright?, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (4) (2011) 309–312.
  • Jethi M, Dealing ‘Fairly’ with software in India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (4) (2011) 313–320.
  • Mahajan M M, The emergence of new R&D paradigms in the Indian pharmaceutical industry: Post TRIPS period, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (4) (2011) 321–329.
  • Tripathy I G, Surendra S & Sharma S, FDI flows into the Indian pharmaceutical industry: An analysis of trends and constraints, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (4) (2011) 330–334.
  • Dahiya K, Cinematographic lyricists right to royalty: Myth or reality?Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (4) (2011) 335–340.
  • Nomani Md Z M & Rahman F, Intellection of Trade Secret and Innovation Laws in India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (4) (2011) 341–350.
  • Nair M D, TRIPS, WTO and IPR: IPA 2005: Potential for disputes and litigation, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (4) (2011) 351–353.
  • Collan M & Heikkilä M, Enhancing patent valuation with the Pay-off Method, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (5) (2011) 377–384.
  • Jeon J, Lee C and Park Y, How to use patent information to search potential technology partners in open innovation, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (5) (2011) 385–393.
  • Banerjee A & Agrawal A D, Morality of copyright – A critique in view of the ‘3 Idiots’ controversy, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (5) (2011) 394–401.
  • Sehgal D & Mathur S, Rights and duties of broadcasting organizations: Analysis of WIPO Treaty on the protection of broadcasting organizations, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (5) (2011) 402–408.
  • Lu B, Best mode disclosure for patent applications: An International and comparative perspective, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (5) (2011) 409–417.
  • Chakravarti D, Thadani K, Chablani V & Nayak A, Abrogating sovereign immunity in patent infringement cases in India: Retreating without disgrace, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (5) (2011) 418–425.
  • Cook T, European intellectual property developments, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (5) (2011) 326–328.
  • Nair M D, TRIPS, WTO and IPR: Geographical Indication protection in India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (5) (2011) 429–430.
  • Himanshu V K, Patent monopoly and doctrine of exhaustion: Limits on exclusive right, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (6) (2011) 453–462.
  • Kulkarni V & Konde V, Pre- and Post-Geographical indications registration measures for handicrafts in India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (6) (2011) 463–469.
  • Thapa R, Waiver solution in public health and pharmaceutical domain under TRIPS Agreement, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (6) (2011) 470–476.
  • Escobar-Andrae B, North-South Agreements on Trade and Intellectual Property beyond TRIPS: An analysis of US Bilateral Agreements in comparative perspective, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (6) (2011) 477–499.
  • Ahmad T & Choudhury P P, Rebirth of Opt-in System in copyright: Analysis in the light of ‘Google Books’ controversy, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (6) (2011) 500–508.
  • Paul S & Chugh A, Assessing the role of Ayurvedic ‘Bhasms’ as Ethno-nanomedicine in the Metal Based Nanomedicine Patent Regime, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (6) (2011) 509–515.
  • Cook T, The role of Europe in the development of Related Rights Laws, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (6) (2011) 516–518.
  • Nair M D, TRIPS, WTO and IPR: Biodiversity protection – A critical issue, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 (6) (2011) 519–521.
  • Yang D, Patent system measurements: Review, critique and proposal, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (1) (2012) 7–19.
  • Chen R & Cheng-Rong H, Changes and challenges in using the formality examination for Utility Models in Taiwan, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (1) (2012) 20–26.
  • Ma Zhong-fa & Gao Wei-na, Impact of the ‘Tomato Garden’ Software Internet Piracy Case on combating copyright infringement in China, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (1) (2012) 27–36.
  • Yoon B & Lee S, Applicability of patent information in technological forecasting: A sector-specific approach, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (1) (2012) 37–45.
  • Liu W, Models for collective management of copyright from an international perspective: Potential changes for enhancing performance, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (1) (2012) 46–54.
  • Vinayan S, Intellectual property rights and the handloom sector: Challenges in implementation of Geographical Indications Act, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (1) (2012) 55–63.
  • Jain V & Kiran R, Technology management strategies and small and medium enterprises of Punjab manufacturing: A use-based sector analysis, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (1) (2012) 64–72.
  • Cook T, Stem cell patenting in the European Union, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (1) (2012) 73–75.
  • Yang D, Compulsory licensing: For better or for worse, the done deal lies in the balance, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (1) (2012) 76–81.
  • Ryu Tae-Kyu & Han Yoo-Jin, Indicator for evaluating national patent performance: Comparative analysis among the 30 OECD countries, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (2) (2012) 103–110.
  • Ahmad T & Dan S, Comparative analysis of copyright protection of databases: The path to follow, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (2) (2012) 111–121.
  • Sharma R & Saxena K K, Strengthening the patent regime: Benefits for developing countries - A survey, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (2) (2012) 122–132.
  • Ramos B D, Fernandes L R R de M V & De Souza C G, An overview of Geographical Indications in Brazil, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (2) (2012) 133–140.
  • Arumugam V & Jain K, Technology transfer from higher technical institutions to the industry in India - A case study of IIT Bombay, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (2) (2012) 141–151.
  • Sinha R, Insurance patents: Indian scenario, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (2) (2012) 152–156.
  • Cook T, Online intermediary liability in the European Union, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (2) (2012) 157–159.
  • Yang D, Software protection: Copyrightability vs Patentability? Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (2) (2012) 160–164.
  • Koo D, Trial to confirm the scope of a patent in Korea, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (3) (2012) 185–194.
  • Vaish V & Haji M, Is there a need to ‘Substantially Modify’ the terms of the TRIPS Agreement?Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (3) (2012) 195–208.
  • Yu Y & Zhang L, Analysis of enforcement mechanism of Section 337 of the US Tariff Act through perspectives in law and economics, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (3) (2012) 209–217.
  • Mazzocchi C & Sali G, Classification of Geographical Indications: A proposal of codification, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (3) (2012) 218–225.
  • Uluko H, Oyewunmi A & Mandewo G, Protecting Geographical Indications in Malawi: Current situation and future prospects, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (3) (2012) 226–234.
  • Sebastian T, Copyright World’ and access to information: Conjoinedviathe Internet, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (3) (2012) 235–242.
  • Cook T, Exceptions and limitations in European Union Copyright Law, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (3) (2012) 243–245.
  • Yang D, Colourmarkability: Registrable in few nations, but debatable among many!Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (3) (2012) 246–250.
  • Nair G G, Fernandes A & Parmar K R, Post-TRIPS thrust triggers for Indian pharmaceuticals in the IP context, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (4) (2012) 273–283.
  • Verma S K, IP protection of software and software contracts in India: A legal quagmire!Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (4) (2012) 284–295.
  • Cook T, How IPRs, like nature, Abhor a vacuum, and what can happen when they fill it - lacunae and overlaps in intellectual property, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (4) (2012) 296–304.
  • Nair M D, TRIPS and access to affordable drugs, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (4) (2012) 305–314.
  • Yang D, Marks and brands: Conceptual, operational and methodological comparisons, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (4) (2012) 315–323.
  • Thomas Z, Overview of changes to the Indian Copyright Law, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (4) (2012) 324–334.
  • Act 27 of 2012.
  • Basheer S, Khettey D, Nandy S & Mitra S, Exhausting copyrights and promoting access to education: An empirical take, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (4) (2012) 335–347.
  • Kankanala K C, Business value from intellectual property, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (5) (2012) 369–373.
  • Thakur A V, Branding and business management: Leveraging brand names for business advantage, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (5) (2012) 374–384.
  • Mukundan R & Jain K, Enhancing a firm’s strategic Intellectual Property Management System – The role of patent quality, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (5) (2012) 385–389.
  • Meyer R H, A review and analysis of a selection of India’s Innovation, Entrepreneurship, Knowledge Management and Technology Policy Literature, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (5) (2012) 390–399.
  • Pandsey N & Agarrwal S, Taking an independent inventor’s inventions to the market - Challenges and issues, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (5) (2012) 400–405.
  • Nithyananda K V, Alchemy and IPR – Monetizing intellectual property rights, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (5) (2012) 406–416.
  • Punnoose S & Shobhana V, The Intellectual Property Audit, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (5) (2012) 417–424.
  • Kankanala K C & Mishra R, The strategy of commons, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (5) (2012) 425–429.
  • Kalluri S, Traditional knowledge and patent strategy, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (5) (2012) 430–436.
  • Kalamadi S, Intellectual property and the business of Sports Management, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (5) (2012) 437–442.
  • Garon J M, The heart of the deal: Intellectual property aspects in the Law and Business of Entertainment, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (5) (2012) 443–453.
  • Kewalramni N & Sandeep H M, Character merchandising, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (5) (2012) 454–462.
  • Scaria A G, Does India need Digital Rights Management Provisions or better Digital Business Management Strategies?Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (5) (2012) 463–477.
  • Radhakrishnan V, IP strategy for drug discovery: A dedicated research firm’s perspective, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (5) (2012) 478–483.
  • Thakur V P S & Ramacha S, Pharmaceutical business strategy: A generics perspective, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (5) (2012) 484–496.
  • Nair M S, Drug prices - How much is too much?Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (5) (2012) 497–500.
  • Vasudeva V N, Open source software paradigm and intellectual property rights, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (6) (2012) 511–520.
  • Ashok A, Technology protection measures and the Indian Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012: A comment, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (6) (2012) 521–531.
  • Zhao L, Information disclosure mechanism for technological protection measures in China, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (6) (2012) 532–538.
  • Jun S, Park S S & Jang D S, Patent management for technology forecasting: A case study of the Bio-Industry, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (6) (2012) 539–546.
  • Andanda P, Striking a balance between intellectual property protection of traditional knowledge, cultural preservation and access to knowledge, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (6) (2012) 547–558.
  • Manghutay A G, The Berne Convention and the Iranian Law: Negative implications of the differences in the scope of application, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (6) (2012) 559–567.
  • Cook T, Has an agreement been reached on a Unitary Patent and a Unified Patent Court for Europe, and if so, what is it?Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (6) (2012) 568–572.
  • Yang D, Patent trolls: Legit enforcers or harrassers?Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (6) (2012) 573–577.
  • Dodeja K D, The sheer ‘Film’ of protection - An exercise in exhaustion, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (1) (2013) 7–14.
  • Reddy G B and Kadri H A, Local working of patents - Law and implementation in India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (1) (2013) 15–27.
  • Liu W & Gu Z, Delineating the scope of protection for technological protection measures in an equitable way: Approaches of US & EU - A frame of reference for China’s legislation, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (1) (2013) 28–38.
  • Fa-Chang C, Legal protection of intellectual property: The changing attitude of US and its influence on Taiwan, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (1) (2013) 39–46.
  • Zhongfa M, Reconsideration of the essence of a patent and the missions of patent institution: Low rate of patented technology commercialization in China, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (1) (2013) 47–55.
  • Lo C C, Shih-yun L & Hsieh W H, Patent enforcement strategies in the United States: An integrative framework, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (1) (2013) 56–66.
  • Huaiwen H, Amendment to claims of granted patent under Chinese Patent Law, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (1) (2013) 67–71.
  • Patent Reexamination Board (PRB)vJiangsu Xiansheng Pharm Co Ltd (Case Number Zhixingzi 17/2011).
  • Tehrani P M & Manap N A, Urgency and benefits of protecting Iranian carpets using Geographical Indications, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (1) (2013) 72–82.
  • Cook T, The cumulative protection of designs in the European Union and the role in such protection of Copyright, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (1) (2013) 83–87.
  • Agitha T G, Global public health: Should the Trade Forum Reign?, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (1) (2013) 88–92.
  • Bedi N, Bedi P M S & Sooch B S, Patenting and R&D in Indian pharmaceutical industry: Post-TRIPS scenario, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (2) (2013) 105–110.
  • Raju K D, The inevitable connection between Intellectual Property and Competition Law: Emerging jurisprudence and lessons for India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (2) (2013) 111–122.
  • Act 12 of 2003.
  • Act 39 of 2009.
  • Mitra D & Modi A, Pay ‘n’ Play: Public performance of Sound Recordingsvis-à-visCopyright Infringement, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (2) (2013) 123–132.
  • Li W & Xue-Kai X, Technology development and legislation progress: Third party liabilities of internet service providers in China Tort Law, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (2) (2013) 133–142.
  • Liu X, A study on global intellectual property right governance: From the perspective of StructureFunctionalism, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (2) (2013) 143–157.
  • Wardhan P & Manchikanti P, A relook at inventors’ rights, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (2) (2013) 168–173.
  • Lukose L P, Minors’ rights under Intellectual Property Rights Laws: A myth or reality?Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (2) (2013) 174–180.
  • Cook T, The future of copyright protection in the European Union, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (2) (2013) 181–185.
  • Agitha T G, Intellectual property regime and developing country health concerns, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (2) (2013) 186–191.
  • Singh H R & Singh P R, Entertainment NetworkvSuper Cassette Industries: Compulsory licensing in the copyright demystified, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (3) (2013) 201–211.
  • Entertainment Network (India) LtdvSuper Cassette Industries Ltd (2008) 37 PTC 353 (SC).
  • Kant A, Efficacy’ Factors under Section 3(d): A ‘Law and Economics’ perspective, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (3) (2013) 212–229.
  • Collan M & Kyläheiko K, Forward-looking valuation of strategic patent portfolios under structural uncertainty, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (3) (2013) 230–241.
  • Asif E, Exclusion of diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods from patentability, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (3) (2013) 242–250.
  • Jain R and Rod M, Intellectual property management: Assessing stakeholder knowledge regarding obtaining valid patent rights, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (3) (2013) 251–258.
  • Qinghai L, Sizong W, Chen S & Junzhe J, Reputation building to reduce risk of IP litigation and infringement allegation, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (3) (2013) 259–271.
  • Lalitha N, Protecting traditional knowledge in Siddha System of medicine, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (3) (2013) 272–282.
  • Cook T, European Union Trademark Law and its proposed revision, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (3) (2013) 283–286.
  • Agitha T G, TRIPS Agreement and public health: The Post Doha Crises, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (3) (2013) 287–293.
  • Kant A, An attempt at quantification of ‘Efficacy’ factors under Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (4) (2013) 303–315.
  • Bhardwaj R, Raju K D & Padmavati M, The impact of patent linkage on marketing of generic drugs, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (4) (2013) 316–322.
  • Ravi B, Gene patents in India: Gauging Policy by an analysis of the grants made by the Indian Patent Office, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (4) (2013) 232–329.
  • Piekut M, Polarization of the European Union: Patent activity and R&D expenditure, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (4) (2013) 330–337.
  • Zekos G I, Interrelation of intellectual property rights and competitiveness: FDI inwards and FDI outwards, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (4) (2013) 338–350.
  • Gupta J, John Doe Copyright injunctions in India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (4) (2013) 351–359.
  • Matveev A G, Copyright regulation in Russia: Rejection of classical theories or legislative mistakes?Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (4) (2013) 360–368.
  • The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (as amended on September 28, 1979), https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/283693 (accessed on 26 May 2023).
  • Manap N A, Hambali S N & Tehrani P M, Intellectual creation in database: A superfluous test?, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (4) (2013) 369–376.
  • Cook T, How Europe has learnt how to deal with exclusions from patentability, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (4) (2013) 377–381.
  • Agitha T G, Impact of IP on public health: The developed country scenario, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (4) (2013) 382–389.
  • Cook T, Revision of the European Union Regime on Customs Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (5) (2013) 485–490.
  • Agitha T G, Alternative incentive models delinking R&D costs from pharmaceutical product price, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (5) (2013) 491–498.
  • Barpujari I and Nanda N, Weak IPRs as impediments to technology transfer- Findings from select Asian countries, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (5) (2013) 399–409.
  • Dulakakhoria S & Jana T, Mapping innovation growth in the sports industry through Patent Data Mining, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (5) (2013) 410–418.
  • Shen W, Protecting layout designs on printed circuit boards in China and some key industrial countries - New Regulatory Regime from a Law and Economics perspective, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (5) (2013) 419–438.
  • Bucasio R de P, da Dilva E F, Fierro I M & Peralta P P, Pharmaceutical trademark examination and its implications for self-medication: Parameters and examples in Brazil, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (5) (2013) 439–447.
  • Venkatesh P & Pal S, Determinants and valuation of Plant Variety Protection in India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (5) (2013) 448–456.
  • Hemmige N, Piracy in the internet age, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (5) (2013) 457–464.
  • Act 21 of 2000.
  • Wu H & Qu H, The Copyright Law of China in knowledge revolution and economic globalization: Modernization, Internationalization and localization, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (5) (2013) 465–474.
  • Sattar A, Mehmood T, Malik W S & Subhan Q A, Patenting, licensing, trade, foreign direct investment and economic growth: A panel data analysis of middle and low income countries, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (5) (2013) 475–484.
  • Jinjin W, Xiaobao P, Wei S, Xuehe Z, Xiaoyan S & Yuan Y, Technical standards and Patent Pools: Antecedents, formation and distinctions, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (6) (2013) 511–522.
  • Liu Y, The tale of Viagra patents: Comparative studies of the global challenges in China and other countries, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (6) (2013) 523–533.
  • Lo C C, Strategic dimensions of International Patent Litigation – The experience of Taiwanese firms in the US legal jurisdiction, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (6) (2013) 534–547.
  • Chen R, Hsien-Tsung K & Ming-Hong W, Determining design patent similarity based on the Ordinary Observer Test, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (6) (2013) 548–555.
  • Gavrilovic N, Using YouTube: Practical consequences of the approach adopted by EU Copyright Law, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (6) (2013) 556–565.
  • Neethu R & Shakeri Z, My religion: My ‘Copy’ ‘Right’, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (6) (2013) 566–575.
  • Dhamotharan P G & Selvaraj K N, Determining consumer preference and willingness to pay for GI registered bananas, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (6) (2013) 576–583.
  • Cook T, The progress to date with the Unitary European Patent and the Unified Patent Court for Europe, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (6) (2013) 584–588.
  • Agitha T G, Global governance for facilitating access to medicines: Role of World Health Organization, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (6) (2013) 589–595.
  • Nair G G & Fernandes A, Patent system measurements: Review, critique and proposal, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (1) (2014) 7–17.
  • Baltatzis A & Marvin S, Recent pharmaceutical patent decisions in the United States, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (1) (2014) 18–26.
  • Lei Z, Beyond the US borders: A primary analysis of extraterritorial application of US Patent Law, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (1) (2014) 27–32.
  • Bagheri S K & Casprini E, Intellectual property paradoxes in developing countries: The case of software IP protection in Iran, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (1) (2014) 33–42.
  • Chen R, Sung-Yun S & Su-Ping T, Design patents for animated images: Development trends, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (1) (2014) 43–48.
  • Anson C J & Pavithran K B, Pokkali rice production under Geographical Indication Protection: The attitude of farmers, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (1) (2014) 49–53.
  • Cook T, The proposal for a Directive on the Protection of Trade Secrets in EU Legislation, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (1) (2014) 54–58.
  • Pai Y, Standards-Essential Patents: A prolegomena, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (1) (2014) 59–66.
  • Nair G G, Fernandes A & Nair K, Landmark pharma patent jurisprudence in India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (2) (2014) 79–88.
  • Higgins B W & Lessler J P, The weakening of pharmaceutical method patents: The Federal Circuit Addresses the ‘FDA Conundrum’, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (2) (2014) 89–96.
  • MomentaPharmaceuticals vAmphastar Pharmaceuticals 686 F. 3d 1348 (Fed Cir. 2012).
  • AstraZenecavApotex669 F. 3d 1370 (Fed Cir. 2012).
  • Bayer ScheringPharma AGvLupin 676 F. 3d 1316 (Fed Cir. 2012).
  • Köster C, Oppositions against European patents: Three successful examples of oppositions lodged by indian opponents, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (2) (2014) 97–103.
  • Pusceddu P, Access to medicines in developing countries and Free Trade Agreements: The case of the US-DR-CAFTA with focus on Costa Rica, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (2) (2014) 104–112.
  • Jeitschko T D and Zhang N, On the challenges facing patent pooling in biotechnology, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (2) (2014) 113–122.
  • Yu Y, Reflections on recent developments of statutory public interests in patent-based Section 337 proceedings, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (2) (2014) 123–132.
  • Jankowska M M, Ghostwriting in Polish Copyright Law – A new perspective needed?Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (2) (2014) 133–140.
  • Cook T, The Court of Justice recasts the EU Patent Term Extension System, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (2) (2014) 141–145.
  • Pai Y, The rational basis for FRANDly courts denying injunctive relief for SEPs infringement, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (2) (2014) 146–156.
  • Mysore S, Technology transfer and commercialization – Innovative model for strengthening research and industry linkages and valuation through public private partnership in agriculture, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (3) (2014) 167–176.
  • Ramli N and Zainol Z A, Intellectual property ownership model in Academia: An analysis, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (3) (2014) 177–188.
  • Samuel M P, Sastry R K and Venkattakumar R, Status and prospects of IP regime in India: Implications for agricultural education, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (3) (2014) 189–201.
  • Xu C, Comparative analysis of intellectual property between China and the West: A cultural perspective, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (3) (2014) 202–208.
  • Nair G G, Nair K and Fernandes A, India’s options for improving affordable access to lifesaving patented medicines, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (3) (2014) 209–217.
  • Pohl M, Patent infringement by ANDA filing, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (3) (2014) 218–222.
  • Rahman S S, Industrial design in different jurisdictions: A comparison of laws, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (3) (2014) 223–228.
  • Cook T, The New EU Guidelines on Technology Transfer Agreements, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (3) (2014) 229–233.
  • Tyagi S, Mahajan V and Nauriyal D K, Innovations in Indian drug and pharmaceutical industry: Have they impacted exports?, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (4) (2014) 243–252.
  • Lath A, Analysing the pitfalls of Indian patent injunctions based on fear of infringement, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (4) (2014) 253–259.
  • Suman A and Pandey D, Patent trends in ICAR institutes - A review, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (4) (2014) 260–265.
  • Zhan Y, Problems of Enforcement of Patent Law in China and its ongoing fourth amendment, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (4) (2014) 266–271.
  • Kumar A, Internet Intermediary (ISP) Liability for contributory copyright infringement in USA and India: Lack of uniformity as a trade barrier, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (4) (2014) 272–281.
  • Petridis S, Comparative issues on copyright protection for films in the US and Greece, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (4) (2014) 282–292.
  • Cook T, Territoriality and jurisdiction in EU IP Law, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (4) (2014) 293–297.
  • Unni V K, Exploring sovereign immunity in copyright infringement: How India can learn from the global experience, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (5) (2014) 307–314.
  • Dey S and Jana T, E-waste recycling technology patents filed in India - An analysis, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (5) (2014) 315–324.
  • Chakrabarti G, Need of data exclusivity: Impact on access to medicine, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (5) (2014) 325–336.
  • Zekos G I, Denying patentability of scientific theories, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (5) (2014) 337–346.
  • Hanchinal R R, Agrawal R C, Prakash R, Stephen T & Jaiswal J, Impact of awareness programmes and capacity building in Farmers’ Plant Variety Registration under the PPV&FR Act, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (5) (2014) 347–352.
  • Cook T, The New European Commission and its work plan for EU intellectual property, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (5) (2014) 353–357.
  • Wilson N, The Supreme Court clarifies Indian patent invalidity proceedings, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (5) (2014) 358–360.
  • Kacheria A, MayovPrometheus: The eternal conundrum of PatentabilityvsPatent-Eligibility, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (6) (2014) 371–377.
  • Joshi O, Roy A & Janodia M, Supplementary protection certificate provisions for pharmaceutical and biotechnological products in Europe: An era after Medeva and Georgetown Decisions, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (6) (2014) 378–386.
  • Medeva BV v Comptroller Genera of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks C-322/10 (CJEU, 24 November 2011).
  • Georgetown University, University of Rochester, Loyola University of Chicago v Comptroller Genera of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks C-422/10 (CJEU, 24 November 2011).
  • Sinha R, Patent insurance: A roadmap, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (6) (2014) 387–394.
  • Jefferson D J, Camacho A B & Chi-Ham C L, towards a balanced regime of intellectual property rights for agricultural innovations, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (6) (2014) 395–403.
  • Acquah D O, Balancing or lobbying? On access to medicines, border measures and the European Parliament’s amendments to the proposed EU Trademark Rules, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (6) (2014) 404–412.
  • Chin-Lung L, Yu-Ting C, Sheg-Hsien L & Yuan-Kai C, Business strategies in intellectual property rights: An example of patent disputes solutions in the Taiwan High-Tech industry, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (6) (2014) 413–422.
  • Cook T, Three dimensional trade marks in European Union, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (6) (2014) 423–427.
  • Wilson N, Patent Office Examination Guidelines for pharmaceuticals applications, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (6) (2014) 428–430.

Abstract Views: 194

PDF Views: 127




  • Contribution of Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) in IPR Research: A View through the Articles Published in the Second Decade of Twenty-First Century (2010–2014) — IV

Abstract Views: 194  |  PDF Views: 127

Authors

Aqa Raza
Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat — 131 001, Haryana, India
Kanika Malik
Council of Scientific & Industrial Research-National Institute of Science Communication and Policy Research (CSIR–NIScPR), New Delhi — 110 012, India

Abstract


This Paper seeks to review the articles published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) in the first half of the second decade of the twenty-first century from Volume 15 (1) (2010) to Volume 19 (6) (2014). This is the fourth paper on the theme ‘JIPR in IPR Research’ and proceeds with the same argument and method as developed and used in the previous three papers published on the theme ‘JIPR in IPR Research’. In this decade, two Special Issues on the themes ‘IPR and Agriculture’ and ‘Leveraging IP for Business Advantage’ were published with their separate guest editors. Compared to the previous decades, the articles published between 2010–2014 are maximum. Out of the total articles published between 1996–2014, the number of articles (251) published in this decade between 2010–2014 constitute 37.24 (point two four) compared to 32.64 (point six four) percent in 2005–2009, 19.58 (point five eight) percent in 2000–2004 and 10.53 (point five three) in 1996–1999.

Keywords


JIPR, IP Statutes, Scholars, CSIR-NIScPR, CSIR-NISCAIR, IP Awareness, Articles, Copyright, Patents, Trade Marks, Geographical Indications, Trade Secrets, Industrial Design, Design, Integrated Circuit, Plant Varieties, TRIPS, WIPO, GATT, IPRs, Treaties, Agreement, Research, Case Law Development, Internet Service Provider, Amendments, Review, Handicrafts, Counterfeit Drugs, IP Publications, Dissemination of Knowledge, Creation of New Knowledge, Second Decade, Twenty-First Century.

References