Navigating Convergence and Conflict: A Literature Review on Intellectual Property in the Commonwealth

Navigating Convergence and Conflict: A Literature Review on Intellectual Property in the Commonwealth

Salmah Roslim^1*, Mohd Zulhelmey Abdullah², Syatirah Abu Bakar³, Nur Irinah Mohamad Sirat⁴, Nurul Mazrah Manshor⁵, Siti Khadijah Abdullah Sanek⁶, Norwahida Musa⁷

^1,2,3,4,5,6Faculty of Law, Universiti Teknologi MARA Cawangan Kedah, Kampus Sungai Petani, 08400, Merbok, Kedah, Malaysia

⁷Faculty of Business Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA Cawangan Kedah, Kampus Sungai Petani, 08400, Merbok, Kedah, Malaysia

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90900067

Received: 08 September 2025; Accepted: 15 September 2025; Published: 29 September 2025

ABSTRACT

As the world becomes more connected, the digital revolution happens, and the political landscape changes, intellectual property (IP) legislation in the Commonwealth has become more important. However, the different socioeconomic conditions in Commonwealth countries have led to differences in IP protection, enforcement, and harmonisation. This difference is a big problem: how can Commonwealth countries combine their obligations under international treaties with their own objectives, which include cultural preservation, sustainable development, and equal access to information? The present study aims to address the issue by analysing academic literature on intellectual property across the Commonwealth, emphasising points of consensus, dissent, and emerging challenges in managing IP rights. From 19 to 31 August 2025, the study conducted a literature review using Scopus AI. The Summary, Expanded Summary, Concept Map, Topic Expert, and Emerging Themes tools in Scopus AI were used to examine the relevant papers found with a well-crafted Boolean search phrase. This enabled the study to identify important themes, highlight new and long-standing contributions to the field, and define jurisdictional patterns. According to the findings, Commonwealth IP law is influenced by four primary factors: legal structures, intellectual property rights forms, global considerations, and challenges and issues. New topics, such as the function of preferential trade agreements, demonstrate how intellectual property is becoming increasingly significant in both economic and geopolitical policy. Themes from the past, such as IP in the digital age and global inequality, demonstrate that issues with access and enforcement persist. These results imply that the Commonwealth’s IP regimes converge around common legal traditions and simultaneously change in response to regional contexts and developmental needs. There are two implications of this study. It backs up the idea that intellectual property involves both conflict and cooperation. In actuality, it emphasises the necessity of cross-border collaboration, capacity building, and situation-appropriate adjustments to ensure that intellectual property frameworks support not only trade and innovation but also equity, cultural preservation, and sustainable development across the Commonwealth.

Keywords: Intellectual Property Law, Commonwealth Countries, Global Legal Harmonisation, Digital Intellectual Property, Trade Agreements and IP

INTRODUCTION

Intellectual property (IP) has become an important topic of law and policy in the twenty-first century. It affects economic growth, creativity, and interactions between people from different cultures in many places. Intellectual property (IP) is fundamental in the Commonwealth since the continent has many different economic systems, a shared colonial legal history, and is becoming more aware of how technology is changing worldwide. Even though intellectual property rights are important for encouraging creativity and new ideas, they often cause problems with enforcement, fair access, and keeping traditional knowledge safe. The global digital economy, the rise of biotechnology, and artificial intelligence (Davison et al., 2015; Lee, 2021) make it even more important to have strong and consistent IP regimes that protect people while making it easy to get to information. Even though it’s important, Commonwealth IP law is a confusing mix of agreement and dispute.

Legislative reforms and collaborative frameworks have sought to align member states’ strategies on patent regulation, piracy, and counterfeiting (Bruce, 2009). Nonetheless, there are still disparities, notably when it comes to enforcement capabilities, how authorship is understood in new technologies, and how to protect natural and indigenous resources (Elkin-Koren, 2012; Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 2017). These contrasts make us ask if the current ways of dealing with cross-border problems while protecting national interests are good enough.

Earlier research has looked at these issues from a number of angles, such as the Commonwealth of Independent States’ historical record of international treaties, the UK’s recognition of computer-generated works, and Australia’s comparative legislative developments (Davison et al., 2015; Lee, 2021; Gurko et al., 2022). These publications frequently remain fragmented, concentrating on individual case studies rather than providing a thorough synthesis of thematic tendencies throughout the Commonwealth, even though they provide insightful information about particular jurisdictions and regional frameworks. This disarray emphasises the need for a thorough analysis that can spot points of agreement and disagreement as well as new issues in a global economy.

By methodically examining the corpus of research on Commonwealth intellectual property law, the current study seeks to close this gap. Using Scopus AI, the review integrates data from multiple sources to identify thematic trends, jurisdictional patterns, and conceptual conflicts. It examines the research environment in depth using a concept map that displays thematic clusters, compiles the thoughts of acknowledged experts in the field, and uncovers new topics like digital innovation, traditional knowledge preservation, and regional treaty harmonisation. The study provides a thorough overview that covers the variations and parallels influencing IP laws throughout the Commonwealth.

This review contributes in two significant ways. Theoretically, it enhances scholarly understanding of how shared legal traditions intersect with divergent national practices in the field of IP. It offers policymakers, legal practitioners, and scholars an evidence-based framework to evaluate ongoing reforms and cooperative mechanisms. In particular, it emphasises the role of regional cooperation, technological disruption challenges, and contextual adaptation’s importance in shaping effective and equitable IP regimes. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: the next section outlines the methodology employed, emphasising the use of Scopus AI for systematic literature analysis. The results and discussion then synthesise findings across consistent and novel themes, highlighting technological, economic, and ethical drivers of IP development. The paper concludes by reflecting on theoretical and practical implications, limitations of the current study, and directions for future research, particularly in fostering harmonised yet context-sensitive IP frameworks within the Commonwealth.

METHODOLOGY

This study employed Scopus AI Analytics to conduct a literature review of intellectual property (IP) law in Commonwealth countries. The review was carried out during the official trial period from 19 to 31 August 2025, ensuring access to a comprehensive and multidisciplinary collection of peer-reviewed scholarship. The central aim was to address the existing research gap by synthesising fragmented literature and providing an integrated account of thematic trends, jurisdictional patterns, and conceptual tensions within IP law across the Commonwealth.

To guide the literature search, a Boolean query was constructed to capture the multidimensional scope of IP:

(“intellectual property” OR “ip” OR “patent” OR “trademark” OR “copyright”) AND (“commonwealth” OR “commonwealth nations” OR “commonwealth countries” OR “commonwealth law”) AND (“law” OR “regulation” OR “policy” OR “framework”) AND (“enforcement” OR “protection” OR “rights” OR “ownership”) AND (“innovation” OR “creativity” OR “invention” OR “licensing”).

We used this query to search the Scopus database, and it only found English-language papers from 2000 to 2025. These publications included both historical patterns and current discussions.

The collected literature was then carefully examined using Scopus AI’s analytical capabilities. As shown in Figure 1, this produced structured outputs along five main lines. While the Summary function condensed the main ideas of each study, the Expanded Summary provided more thorough details about the arguments, procedures, and findings. These characteristics facilitate the critical assembly of the study corpus in an understandable and repeatable manner.

Using the Concept Map visualisation, we then identified and categorised thematic themes, such as regional harmonisation, enforcement and compliance, technology disruption, and traditional knowledge. This mapping provided a clear picture of the intellectual landscape by highlighting both places where ideas came together and places where they diverged.

The Topic Experts tool also put thematic patterns into bigger intellectual traditions by finding well-known scholars whose work has shaped current IP debates.

Finally, new and unexplored topics include AI-generated works, indigenous rights, and the role of intellectual property in sustainable development, according to Scopus AI’s Emerging Themes study (Bruce, 2009; Davison et al., 2015; Lee, 2021). Using a strong search strategy and sophisticated analytical tools, the study thoroughly analysed convergence and conflict in Commonwealth IP law to identify both recurrent and unique themes (Elkin-Koren, 2012; Gurko et al., 2022).

Figure 1: 5 core elements of Scopus AI

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

This section presents the key findings derived from Scopus AI Analytics, structured around four core elements: (i) Summary & Expanded Summary, (ii) Concept Map, (iii) Topic Experts, and (iv) Emerging Themes. The results of this systematic literature review, conducted between 19 to 31 August 2025, provide a structured understanding of intellectual property (IP) law within Commonwealth countries.

Summary & Expanded Summary

The literature review for the Summary and Expanded Summary outputs demonstrates how IP law is evolving swiftly and intricately throughout the Commonwealth. All of the studies examine how the global economy, technology, and the internet have changed the nature of intellectual property. The literature constantly emphasises how digitisation has opened up new avenues for creativity and innovation while also highlighting flaws in security and enforcement procedures. Countries have increased their trademark protection and taken more aggressive measures to prevent cross-border infringement as a result of the emergence of “superbrands” that appeal to consumers worldwide (Davison, Monotti, & Wiseman, 2015). This shows how Commonwealth countries have had to change their intellectual property rules to keep up with the way the global economy works since markets have become more connected.

The historical views of the publications that were looked at show how the Commonwealth’s IP law has developed along with bigger changes in society and the economy. Common law concepts heavily influenced early frameworks, but as globalisation evolved, changes became increasingly responsive to outside trade factors and technology improvements. Researchers have emphasised that the internet era has transformed enforcement techniques, particularly due to counterfeiting and piracy’s expanded scope and complexity (Bruce, 2009). These changes show how IP law has changed from a static system of protection to a dynamic system of regulation that must always adapt to changes in trade and technology.

Comparative analyses based on the Expanded Summaries further highlight the conflict between the convergence and divergence of Commonwealth IP systems. Gurko, Savina, and Kharitonova (2022) cite research on the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) as an example of the difficulties in balancing national laws with international agreements, especially when historical treaty responsibilities make the process more difficult. According to comparative approaches, Commonwealth jurisdictions respond to international treaties and conventions in very different ways, reflecting different socioeconomic objectives, even though they share a common legal heritage. This balance between national sovereignty and international alignment characterises the debate over Commonwealth intellectual property.

Emerging issues were also well-represented in the summaries, particularly those concerning the connection between IP law and non-traditional security concerns. Scholars are increasingly pointing out that intellectual property rights, once considered specialised legal protections, are now part of broader governance frameworks linked to national security, innovation policy, and economic strategy (Liu & Mao, 2022). In this sense, IP is no longer just about protecting ownership but is also linked to competitiveness, state capability, and geopolitical rivalry. Commonwealth nations have the chance to use intellectual property (IP) as a catalyst for sustainable development, especially by incorporating local innovation, biodiversity, and traditional knowledge into formal legal frameworks (Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 2017).

Another important theme in the Expanded Summaries was the economic effects of IP law. Strong IP systems have been shown to have a positive correlation with metrics like technology transfer, gross domestic product growth, and foreign direct investment (Asrani, 2015). However, stringent regulations can also hinder innovation, especially in Commonwealth economies that are still in development. This conflict between encouraging innovation and guaranteeing fair access to information continues to be a major policy issue in the area. Therefore, balancing investment-attracting protective policies and adaptable regimes supporting inclusive innovation ecosystems continues to be a top priority for policymakers and academics.

In sum, the Summary and Expanded Summary outputs of Scopus AI revealed five overarching insights: (i) the growing influence of technology and globalisation on IP law, (ii) historical transitions shaped by trade and digitalisation, (iii) comparative divergences and convergences with international legal frameworks, (iv) the emergence of IP as both a security and development issue, and (v) the significant but contested economic implications of IP protections. These findings highlight the consistencies and conflicts that define the Commonwealth’s IP landscape, providing a strong foundation for the subsequent thematic analysis.

Concept Map

The concept map presented in Figure 2 illustrates intellectual property (IP) in Commonwealth countries and its key thematic dimensions, as identified through Scopus AI Analytics. The diagram categorises the research into four primary domains: Challenges and Issues, International Considerations, Legal Framework, and Types of IP. Each branching into specific subtopics that collectively define IP within the Commonwealth and its broader societal outcomes.

Figure 2:  Concept map of Intellectual Property in the Commonwealth Countries

Intellectual Property in the Commonwealth Countries

The literature highlights the multidimensional challenges of balancing protection, enforcement, and accessibility within Commonwealth IP systems. Central to these challenges are debates over subject matter and first ownership of rights, which remain contested across jurisdictions. For example, the United Kingdom’s recognition of computer-generated works under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 has exposed the doctrinal limits of traditional authorship concepts in the era of artificial intelligence (Lee, 2021). Similarly, disputes over ownership of employee-created and commissioned works in Australia illustrate how national contexts complicate uniform application of IP principles (Davison, Monotti, & Wiseman, 2015). In the agricultural sector, the regulation of plant varieties reflects broader tensions between global harmonisation and the protection of traditional knowledge, particularly in African and South Asian Commonwealth nations (Rai & Stirling, 2016). These contested dimensions demonstrate that defining IP rights is a legal exercise and a cultural negotiation.

In addition to domestic variables, external forces have a big effect on Commonwealth IP networks. Many member nations are bound by international agreements like the TRIPS Agreement, which set minimum standards for protection and enforcement. However, historical legacies and treaty succession make it harder to follow international rules. Gurko, Savina, and Kharitonova (2022) show this in their study of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). International protection and the level of protection are two crucial points on the concept map. They show how hard it is for countries to balance their responsibilities to international trade and their needs. This sometimes puts developing countries in a double bind: they have to meet international standards while also dealing with socioeconomic problems and a lack of enforcement power.

The Commonwealth IP legislative system shows both convergence and divergence. Bruce (2009) says that most member countries have updated their copyrights, patents, and trademarks rules to follow international agreements and shared legal traditions. However, some areas still have variances, such as geographical markers. For example, India has strong protections for products that are tied to cultural identity, but other places are not as good at this. The level of protection also differs; some places still have old rules that limit what they may do, while others have new laws that encompass new creative and technology outputs. These disparities show that both internal political economics and outside pressures have an effect on IP systems at the same time.

The three types of intellectual property that Commonwealth countries still use are patents, trademarks, and copyright. However, how they are used shows what each country cares about most. Trademarks have become more well-known as global branding and consumer culture have increased. This is especially true in developed countries like the UK and Australia (Davison et al., 2015). Many developing countries have a hard time balancing rewarding innovation and ensuring that medications and technologies are inexpensive and easy to get. However, patents are still important for encouraging new innovations (Elkin-Koren, 2012). Digitalisation and artificial intelligence provide unprecedented challenges to copyright law, raising concerns regarding the adequacy of existing frameworks for emerging distribution methods and innovations (Lee, 2021). These differences show how important it is to use existing IP categories in a way that makes sense in each situation across the Commonwealth.

Finally, the concept map demonstrates how several strands come together to show a general conflict between divergence and harmonisation. One sign of convergence is that people agree on basic IP categories, international commitments, and similar legal traditions. Conflicts persist due to divergent national objectives, inconsistent enforcement, and contested definitions of the subject matter. Globalisation, technological changes, and development differences cause these conflicts. The research indicates that addressing these challenges necessitates both the harmonisation through international accords and adaptable legal frameworks that promote equitable innovation while being attuned to local contexts (Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 2017). Consequently, in a dynamic and varied global landscape, the Commonwealth’s experience with intellectual property law exemplifies both the possibilities and limitations of transnational harmonisation.

Challenges and Issues

The disputed aspects of intellectual property (IP) in the Commonwealth are highlighted in the concept map’s first domain, Challenges and Issues. First and foremost is the challenge of defining protection, particularly in light of technological developments that constantly push the limits of invention and originality. Traditional frameworks for copyright, patents, and trademarks are under increasing pressure when applied to digital works, products created by artificial intelligence (AI), and biotechnology. For instance, in the UK, the person who makes the necessary arrangements for works created by artificial intelligence is granted copyright under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. This strategy departs from global norms and has sparked debate about whether the definitions of authorship and originality used today are appropriate (Lee, 2021). To meet the demands of modern creativity and technological disruption, Commonwealth jurisdictions must adapt traditional intellectual property regimes, as demonstrated by these doctrinal uncertainties.

The initial ownership of rights, which is still up for debate and frequently varies within Commonwealth jurisdictions, is a second major obstacle. In circumstances of cooperative authorship, commissioned works, and job partnerships, ownership issues are common. Although statute change and case law have attempted to shed light on these issues in Australia, disagreements still surround how to strike a balance between the rights of individual creators and institutional or corporate interests (Davison, Monotti, & Wiseman, 2015). These ownership problems are made worse in many developing Commonwealth countries by a lack of intellectual property rights knowledge, exposing artists to abuse and appropriation. These discrepancies highlight the lack of uniform guidelines and the ongoing dispute over who is entitled to first ownership in many creative and industrial situations.

One of the problems that Commonwealth IP systems have to deal with is how to control genetic resources and plant variability. Many member states, especially in South Asia and Africa, find it hard to make their national laws fit with international agreements like the UPOV Convention since it raises difficult questions of fairness and cultural preservation. Rai and Stirling (2016) say that formalised plant variety limits often go against traditional ways of cultivating and distributing seeds, which could push indigenous people to the side. This disagreement raises the bigger problem of ensuring that international intellectual property laws don’t hurt biodiversity or local knowledge networks. By reconciling their international commitments with their particular socioeconomic realities, Commonwealth countries attempt to protect both innovation and cultural heritage.

Issues with enforcing the rules are another persistent challenge. Piracy and counterfeiting are widespread in Commonwealth nations, particularly in emerging nations with ineffective and disjointed enforcement mechanisms. According to Bruce (2009), intellectual property rights enforcement remains challenging despite legislative efforts to strengthen deterrence mechanisms due to inadequate cross-border cooperation and limited institutional capacity. In addition to undermining the legitimacy of IP regimes, inconsistent enforcement discourages foreign direct investment and discourages people from investing in novel concepts. People’s confidence in Commonwealth IP systems is harmed by these enforcement flaws, which demonstrate that there is still a gap between what lawmakers desire and what is truly feasible.

The issues of plant variety protection, first ownership of rights, subject matter definition, and enforcement all show how complicated the link is between theory and practice in Commonwealth intellectual property law. Even though they have comparable legal histories, countries deal with these problems in different ways because of their different socioeconomic situations and institutional strengths. The study says that fixing these difficulties needs frameworks that take into account cultural and developmental contexts, more cooperation between countries, and the building up of people’s skills, in addition to changes to the law (Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 2017). By dealing with these controversial issues, the Commonwealth has the ability to develop IP systems that are more fair and work better, finding a balance between being relevant to local needs and being in line with global standards.

International Considerations

The second part of the idea map, “International Considerations,” shows how Commonwealth intellectual property (IP) systems work in a global framework. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), the Berne Convention, and the Paris Convention are just a few of the international treaties and conventions that Commonwealth countries follow very closely. These frameworks affect national policies and changes to laws by making it necessary for member nations to keep IP protection and enforcement at a minimum. However, implementation has been uneven since different countries have varied socioeconomic situations. Developed Commonwealth countries like the UK, Canada, and Australia have mainly followed international rules (Davison, Monotti, & Wiseman, 2015). On the other hand, poor countries have limited resources and contradictory policy goals. This difference shows how domestic limits and international commitments can clash, causing differing outcomes in the Commonwealth.

The level of international protection and the capacity of Commonwealth nations to meet international commitments are persistent topics in scholarly discourse. For instance, the implementation of TRIPS regulations has put an unfair amount of stress on countries with weaker institutions and economies. There are worries about how “one-size-fits-all” international intellectual property accords can hurt developing Commonwealth countries who really want access to medical treatment, educational resources, and agricultural achievements (Elkin-Koren, 2012). In some cases, following international rules too closely could impede local inventiveness and the flow of information, which would keep global inequity going. These talks show a bigger problem between the need for countries to have their own domestic policies and the need for international rules to be the same.

History makes the link between Commonwealth governments and international intellectual property law even more convoluted. As an example, the former Soviet Union had complicated contractual obligations when it left the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). CIS countries have had trouble figuring out how to make their own laws fit with international accords. This is what Gurko, Savina, and Kharitonova (2022) say. This demonstrates post-colonial and post-socialist countries’ particular challenges in balancing their historical responsibilities with contemporary political and economic demands. The colonial heritage is still very much present in South Asia, the Caribbean, and Africa, where many intellectual property (IP) systems were imported from British legal traditions with little modification to local cultural and economic contexts.

Initiatives for regional cooperation within the Commonwealth also touch on international issues. The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the African Regional Intellectual Property Organisation (ARIPO) are two regional organisations that have tried to promote cooperation in IP governance. These procedures seek to increase enforcement capabilities among member nations, standardise legal requirements, and pool resources (Bruce, 2009). However, the efficacy of such programs is limited by enduring inequities in legal infrastructure and economic capabilities. Although regional cooperation has potential, it also emphasises how crucial it is to use context-sensitive tactics that honour international commitments while taking into account local realities.

In terms of international factors, Commonwealth IP law has both parallels and differences. Divergence occurs due to states’ differing abilities to fulfil and maintain these obligations, while convergence is evidenced by the adoption of shared international norms and the recognition of international treaties. The research indicates that international obligations often result in tensions between national interests and global alignment, particularly in emerging countries. In the future, Commonwealth countries will need to find a balance between following international rules and protecting their interests, cultural heritage, and goals for development. This complex balancing act shows how important it is to make international agreements that are flexible, fair, and take into account the different situations of Commonwealth countries (Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 2017).

Legal Framework

Originally based on English common law principles, the Commonwealth’s intellectual property (IP) legal system has since developed into a patchwork of laws, regulations, and court decisions from various member states. For intellectual property protection, copyright, patent, and trademark laws are crucial. In order to address the issues brought on by globalisation, new technologies, and international commitments, many Commonwealth nations have gradually updated their legal systems. Australia has made significant changes to its copyright and patent laws, for example, making them more applicable to digital technologies and simplifying the patent application process (Davison, Monotti, & Wiseman, 2015). These legal amendments demonstrate how wealthy Commonwealth nations can modify their legal frameworks to meet emerging global demands.

Even with these changes, there are still big variations amongst Commonwealth jurisdictions. Some governments still use old legal systems that don’t deal well with current issues like digital piracy, biotechnology, and artificial intelligence. On the other hand, other governments have strong and up-to-date intellectual property laws (Lee, 2021). These differences in how laws are made are a sign of the Commonwealth’s bigger socioeconomic inequalities. While smaller or poorer countries sometimes don’t have the institutional capacity to make similar changes, advanced economies like Canada and the UK emphasise complex enforcement procedures and laws based on new ideas (Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 2017). This difference shows how hard it is to make laws work together and how important it is to have legal answers that are tailored to each case.

One of the most important parts of the legal structure is how it deals with geographical indications (GIs), which protect items that are linked to certain places or cultural practices. This is where the Commonwealth states differ a lot. India, for example, has implemented strict GI rules to protect items like Basmati rice and Darjeeling tea. This aligns with its national cultural identity and international commitments (Rai & Stirling, 2016). On the other hand, other countries have only partially adopted GI protection, which leaves big holes in the protection of cultural and economic assets. These differences indicate how IP frameworks balance the need to protect local cultures with the need to follow international business rules. This is because cultural heritage and global integration are at odds.

IP frameworks have a direct impact on innovation as well. In Commonwealth countries like South Africa and India, patent laws have played a key role in promoting technological advancement while maintaining access to necessities, particularly in the areas of green technologies and pharmaceuticals (Mani, 2020). Furthermore, IP law and equity issues are related because strict enforcement of rights can worsen global inequality by denying developing Commonwealth nations access to knowledge and necessary medications (Maskus, 2004). By encouraging collaborative approaches that both promote innovation and guarantee equitable access, regional initiatives like those promoted by the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) aim to address these disparities. The literature emphasizes the significance of creating IP frameworks that are not only legally sound but also socially inclusive and policy-relevant throughout the Commonwealth by highlighting the connections between IP law and distributive justice, economic development, and cultural sustainability.

The relationship between statutory law and judicial interpretation is also included in the legal framework, with courts throughout the Commonwealth being crucial in establishing the parameters of intellectual property rights. Judicial rulings usually clarify legislative ambiguities, especially regarding ownership disputes, infringement standards, and rights exceptions. Case law has greatly influenced doctrines pertaining to fair use, originality, and patentable subject matter in nations like Australia, Canada, and the UK. This has had an impact on both domestic jurisprudence and the larger international conversation (Elkin-Koren, 2012). Although these judicial contributions demonstrate how flexible common law systems are, they also bring about divergence because courts in different jurisdictions have different interpretations of the same ideas.

When combined, Commonwealth IP systems’ legal frameworks show a combination of similarities and differences. Accepting fundamental IP categories, including international duties, and similar common law traditions all contribute to convergence. However, there are differences in the scope of GI protection, the extent of legislation revisions, and the way judges interpret important concepts. These results imply that although the Commonwealth has a shared legal history, local socioeconomic circumstances, cultural values, and institutional capabilities are progressively influencing its intellectual property regimes. In order to maintain the effectiveness, equity, and context-sensitivity of IP laws, strengthening legal frameworks throughout the Commonwealth necessitates both increased alignment with international standards and adaptation to domestic conditions.

Types of Intellectual Property

The concept map’s last domain, Types of Intellectual Property, focuses on the traditional types of copyright, trademarks, and patents that serve as the foundation for IP systems throughout the Commonwealth. Despite their widespread recognition, these categories’ laws, interpretations, and applications differ greatly throughout jurisdictions. Both the socioeconomic diversity of Commonwealth member states and the common legal legacy derived from English common law are reflected in this variance. Due to the unique demands imposed by globalisation, technology advancement, and cultural factors, each category’s use is extremely context-dependent (Davison, Monotti, & Wiseman, 2015).

Although they are essential for encouraging innovation and technological advancement, patent regulation has generated a lot of discussion among Commonwealth scholars. Patent laws in developed nations like the UK and Australia have changed to cover digital technologies, pharmaceuticals, and biotechnology, frequently in accordance with international agreements like TRIPS (Elkin-Koren, 2012). On the other hand, patent protections usually cause issues with access to affordable technologies, agricultural resources, and necessary medications in developing member states. This conflict highlights a persistent problem: how to strike a balance between the necessity of securing equitable access to resources and information and the requirement of luring investment and rewarding innovation (Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 2017).

Trademarks are becoming more and more essential in the Commonwealth because of the rise of global consumer markets and the power of great multinational brands. For example, Asian and Pacific countries have strengthened trademark protection to safeguard “superbrands” and keep consumers from being tricked in markets that are becoming more connected (Davison et al., 2015). There are problems, though, notably with trademark overreach, which can limit cultural expression and make competition harder (Bruce, 2009). This shows how hard it is to keep competition fair while also protecting brand value. This is especially true for small and medium-sized enterprises in developing countries who are at a competitive disadvantage.

Copyright is one of the most controversial and quickly changing categories of intellectual property in the Commonwealth, especially since the digital revolution. The rise of streaming services, internet platforms, and AI-generated content has changed what it means to be original and an author. For example, the UK goes against international standards by recognising computer-generated works under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. This has led to debates on whether copyright laws should evolve to include creativity that isn’t human (Lee, 2021). However, piracy and illegal distribution are still big problems in many poor Commonwealth countries. This shows that there is still a gap between legislative protections and their effective use (Bruce, 2009). These problems show how the growth of copyright law is shaped by both the need for new ideas and the need for real-world enforcement.

There are some similarities and differences among the Commonwealth’s three primary categories of intellectual property. Convergence is demonstrated by the broad recognition of patents, trademarks, and copyright as the cornerstones of intellectual property law and by their inclusion in international agreements. However, there are differences in how these rights are applied, upheld, and challenged in various jurisdictions, which reflect differences in institutional strength, cultural norms, and economic advancement. Patents, trademarks, and copyright are still important for intellectual property governance, according to the literature, but their efficacy in the Commonwealth depends on flexible frameworks that strike a balance between national and international commitments (Rai & Stirling, 2016). This demonstrates how crucial it is to alter IP classifications in order to foster innovation, cultural preservation, and equitable development across all Commonwealth nations.

Topic Expert

According to experts in the field, Louise L. Dalingwater has significantly improved our comprehension of the connections between intellectual property (IP), trade, and sovereignty in the Commonwealth. Because it clarifies how intellectual property rights are influenced by and dependent upon larger political and economic agreements, Dalingwater’s experience is especially pertinent to Britain’s post-Brexit trade negotiations. Dalingwater (2021) notes that post-Brexit trade accord negotiations demonstrate the difficulty of “regaining control” at the national level while maintaining international commitments that restrict a nation’s autonomy. IP frameworks connect national innovation programs with international economic integration and are frequently used as negotiating tools in trade agreements. The Commonwealth as a whole exhibits this pattern.

From an intellectual property standpoint, Dalingwater’s findings highlight how deeply IP law is incorporated into trade regimes. Terms that exceed the TRIPS Agreement’s requirements are found in an increasing number of trade agreements. More rights and stricter enforcement are typically demanded in these sections. For many Commonwealth nations, particularly the developing ones, this raises concerns about excessive government control and the loss of policy autonomy. According to Dalingwater’s research, these commitments could limit smaller governments’ capacity to achieve developmental objectives while disproportionately benefiting developed economies and multinational corporations (Dalingwater, 2021).

By concentrating on the geopolitical ramifications of sovereignty and intellectual property regulation, Dalingwater’s study also significantly contributes. In order to improve its standing internationally, the UK has pursued bilateral and multilateral trade agreements since Brexit; however, these agreements almost always include clauses pertaining to intellectual property rights. This demonstrates how IP is now strongly related to issues of global competitiveness, market access, sovereignty, and legal and economic issues. Dalingwater’s analysis highlights the dangers of Commonwealth nations negotiating from unequal power dynamics giving up sovereignty through legally binding intellectual property obligations that limit domestic flexibility in vital areas like health, education, and traditional knowledge.

This knowledge of the trade-offs between domestic objectives and international commitments makes it particularly helpful for Commonwealth IP negotiations. In its post-Brexit arrangements, the UK must cede some sovereignty, and other Commonwealth nations face comparable challenges when incorporating intellectual property rights into trade agreements with more powerful economic blocs. For example, developing nations frequently struggle to strike a balance between their obligation to protect pharmaceutical patents and the need to ensure that people can obtain affordable medications. A helpful approach to examining how these governments might strategically participate in trade negotiations without jeopardising their own interests is Dalingwater’s concept of sovereignty negotiation.

Dalingwater’s perspective, when viewed holistically, enriches the understanding of intellectual property across the Commonwealth by situating IP within a broader framework of trade and sovereignty. She believes that intellectual property can’t be studied in a vacuum; instead, it has to be seen as part of a complicated system affected by trade agreements, geopolitical negotiations, and sovereignty concerns. This educated point of view stresses that states’ positions in the international trade system will affect Commonwealth IP law in the future, along with changes in doctrine and enforcement techniques. 

Emerging Theme

The relationship between intellectual property rights and global inequality is a common topic in Commonwealth studies. The literature regularly emphasises the disparities between industrialised and developing nations’ ability to protect, enforce, and benefit from intellectual property (IP) regimes. Advanced legal and enforcement reforms that closely resemble international standards have been implemented in developed Commonwealth countries such as the UK, Canada, and Australia. However, many developing members particularly those in Africa, the Caribbean, and South Asia, face significant institutional and financial barriers to effective enforcement (Bruce, 2009). These disparities exacerbate global inequality by restricting less developed states’ access to essential pharmaceuticals, agricultural technologies, and educational resources. Scholars argue that capacity-building initiatives and international cooperation are necessary to support harmonisation efforts in order to prevent the continuation of existing disparities (Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 2017).

The ongoing discussion of intellectual property protection in the digital age highlights how challenging it is for Commonwealth jurisdictions to stay up to date with the quick changes in technology. Due to the growth of innovation, distribution, and enforcement brought about by the digital revolution, legal systems now need to adjust to shifting conditions. Artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain technology, and digital platforms all present opportunities as well as risks. On the one hand, smart contracts and blockchain-based registries can improve transparency, lower transaction costs, and increase enforcement effectiveness (Lee, 2021). However, the emergence of the metaverse and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) presents hitherto unheard-of difficulties with regard to ownership, licensing, and infringement in cross-border digital domains. Based on these findings, Commonwealth countries must develop adaptable legal frameworks that safeguard the integrity of existing intellectual property categories while accommodating emerging digital domains (Davison, Monotti, & Wiseman, 2015).

A recent and increasingly popular topic is the connection between preferential trade agreements (PTAs) and intellectual property. This demonstrates how the literature has shifted from focusing on domestic IP enforcement to examining the geopolitical aspects of IP. PTAs sometimes have clauses that go beyond what TRIPS says is necessary, which changes the legal and economic situations in the countries who sign them. ASEAN and the European Union are good examples of how PTAs may help bring regions together, but their experiences also show how hard it is to balance national autonomy with harmonisation (Dalingwater, 2021). PTAs have both good and bad effects on Commonwealth countries. They can help the economy flourish and encourage patent collaboration across regions, but they can also make obligations that limit their ability to meet local socioeconomic goals.

The UK’s post-Brexit trade strategy, which places intellectual property rights at the forefront of discussions with Commonwealth partners, makes this subject particularly significant. Dalingwater (2021) points out that sovereignty issues are frequently included in trade agreements, with intellectual property rights acting as a crucial negotiating and occasionally threatened point of national authority. Deals with more developed economies may cause new Commonwealth nations to unduly depend on one another. However, these agreements also enable the establishment of regional innovation ecosystems where uniform intellectual property rights facilitate cross-border technology transfer, investment, and collaboration.

According to the new themes, Commonwealth IP researchers have followed two different trajectories: continuity and change. Persistent issues like global inequality and the digital revolution exacerbate long-standing discussions about how to strike a balance between protection and access. Research at the nexus of law, trade, and geopolitics is expanding due to novel concepts, such as the function of preferential trade agreements. According to the literature, the future evolution of intellectual property within the Commonwealth will be influenced by member states’ capacity to balance local autonomy with global integration. This is because intellectual property frameworks ought to support long-term prosperity, equity, and cultural preservation in addition to economic growth and innovation. 

CONCLUSION

This analysis of intellectual property (IP) in the Commonwealth shows how similar legal traditions, disparate socioeconomic realities, and the forces of globalisation impact the industry, leading to both convergence and conflict. Throughout the four examined categories; Difficulties and Issues, International Considerations, Legal Framework, and Types of Intellectual Property. The literature continuously emphasises the conflicts between local autonomy and global harmonisation. These dynamics are further supported by the emerging themes that consistently draw attention to global inequality and digital transformation while offering fresh perspectives on how preferential trade agreements impact IP governance. The findings show that while the Commonwealth’s intellectual property laws are grounded in common law traditions, they have undergone significant change due to new technologies, shifting geopolitical landscapes, and development priorities.

By showing that harmonisation is a negotiation between convergence and divergence rather than a linear process, the work supports intellectual property scholars theoretically. It emphasises how crucial it is to place intellectual property (IP) in larger frameworks of trade, sovereignty, and technological disruption. This viewpoint improves the conceptual understanding of intellectual property law as a hybrid system that incorporates both particular adjustments and general guidelines. It emphasises the value of interdisciplinary approaches combining political science, economics, and law to understand the complexities of intellectual property within the Commonwealth completely.

The findings have important real-world ramifications for politicians, international organisations, and attorneys. According to the data, Commonwealth nations that are poorer but still struggle to enforce the law and gain access must cooperate across national boundaries and improve their capacity. It recommends that in addition to ensuring that international agreements are adhered to, reforms should concentrate on developing adaptable, context-sensitive frameworks that safeguard traditional knowledge, foster creativity, and grant equitable access to resources. The importance of updating laws to address new forms of infringement, ownership, and creativity is further demonstrated by examining emerging technologies such as blockchain and artificial intelligence.

There are several restrictions on this study. First, it may have overlooked pertinent scholarship from other databases or jurisdictions because it mostly draws from sources that were indexed in Scopus during a certain trial period (19 to 31 August 2025). Second, the review’s ability to assess how IP law is actually enforced in particular national contexts is limited by its emphasis on intellectual and thematic analysis. Third, although a wide range of knowledge is included in the review, insights into the actual lived realities of IP implementation are limited by the lack of empirical evidence, such as case studies or fieldwork from developing Commonwealth nations.

Comparative and empirical methods should be used in future studies to overcome these constraints. Research could look at how particular Commonwealth jurisdictions apply IP laws, especially when striking a balance between local priorities and international commitments. Cross-regional analyses that contrast the Commonwealth with other blocs, like the EU or ASEAN, would also clarify the distinct dynamics of harmonisation and divergence. In addition, future research should explore emerging frontiers, including the regulation of digital assets, the role of IP in sustainability and climate governance, and the geopolitical implications of trade-linked IP provisions. By addressing these areas, future scholarship can enrich global debates on IP law while providing practical pathways for more equitable and effective governance across the Commonwealth.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to sincerely thank the Kedah State Research Committee, UiTM Kedah Branch, for the generous funding provided under the Tabung Penyelidikan Am. This support was crucial in facilitating the research and ensuring the successful publication of this article. 

REFERENCES

1. Aggarwal, A. (2019). Leveraging SEZs for regional integration in ASEAN: A synergistic approach. Asian Survey, 59(5), 795–821. https://doi.org/10.1525/AS.2019.59.5.795
2. Aghaee, S. D., & Khademi, G. (2021). Assessing multilateral parliamentarism in Eurasian regional integration. Central Eurasia Studies, 14(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.22059/jcep.2022.320811.449996
3. Akiyama, T., & Furukawa, Y. (2006). Innovation, standardisation, and imitation in the product cycle model. Economics Bulletin, 6(1). https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84892974469
4. AlDebasi, A., & Price, D. (2025). Intellectual property, artificial intelligence and economic development: Sport and the Saudi Arabia exemplar. In Political economy of the Middle East (Part F516, pp. 21–45). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-4020-1_2
5. Al-Makhzoumi, O. M., Al-Imadi, N. A., & Ibrahim, A. A. (2024). The international framework for the protection of intellectual property rights. In Studies in Computational Intelligence (Vol. 1152, pp. 279–288). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-57242-5_23
6. Amani, B., Ncube, C. B., & Rimmer, M. (2024). The Elgar companion to intellectual property and the sustainable development goals. Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781803925233
7. Antonio Gil Celedonio, J. (2024). The fight against the infringement of intellectual property rights from an administrative perspective: Institutional enforcement measures in the European Union and Spain [La lucha contra las vulneraciones de los derechos de propiedad industrial e intelectual desde el prisma administrativo: Las actuaciones institucionales de observancia en la Unión Europea y España]. Anuario de la Facultad de Derecho. Universidad de Extremadura, 40, 397–419. https://doi.org/10.17398/2695-7728.40.397
8. Austin, G. W. (2017). Cooperation through conflict of laws: The justiciability of cross-border copyright infringement. In E. S.-K. Ng & G. W. Austin (Eds.), International intellectual property and the ASEAN way: Pathways to interoperability (pp. 111–127). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316711606.012
9. Bagirov, D., Manafov, G., Bagirov, M., Babayev, N., & Mammadova, G. (2025). Global approaches to evaluation of intellectual assets in agriculture: Experience of leading countries in context of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Scientific Horizons, 28(6), 180–192. https://doi.org/10.48077/scihor6.2025.180
10. Barnett, J. M. (2024). The big steal: Ideology, interest, and the undoing of intellectual property. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197629529.001.0001
11. Beltrán-Urvina, L. I., Acosta-Andino, B. F., Gallegos-Varela, M. C., & Vallejos-Orbe, H. M. (2025). Intellectual property as a strategy for business development. Laws, 14(2), 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws14020018
12. Blakeney, M., & Alemu, G. M. (2024). African free trade agreements and intellectual property. Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035328956
13. Brunner, H.-P. (2016). Innovation networks and the new Asian regionalism: A knowledge platform on economic productivity. Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785364495
14. Capello, R., & Cerisola, S. (2019). Competitiveness through integration in the European Union Strategy for the Alpine Region: A ‘balanced development’ approach. European Planning Studies, 27(5), 1013–1034. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1588860
15. Chen, D., & Chen, S. (2024). Promoting corporate independent innovation through judicial protection of intellectual property rights. China Economic Quarterly International, 4(3), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceqi.2024.09.002
16. Cheng, D., Yu, X., & Bacher, K. (2024). New progress of regulations and judicial practice of intellectual property. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-6095-4
17. Choudhary, L., & Daga, H. (2025). What does religion have to do with it: Exploring noninstitutional arguments for effective enforcement of IPR. Journal of World Intellectual Property, 28(1), 220–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12329
18. Davé, R. S., Goswami, H., Meena, M., Davey, N., Ramakrishna, T., & Murthy, S. K. (2024). Need for a legal framework to enable public-funded organisations in India to build a new paradigm for innovation and utilisation of intellectual property (IP). Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 29(5), 413–422. https://doi.org/10.56042/jipr.v29i5.3366
19. Dhingra, R. M., & Dewani, N. D. (2024). Intellectual property rights: Theoretical foundations to practical considerations. In Intellectual property rights and competition law in India (pp. 1–15). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003471523-1
20. Dihaa, D. H., Salman, A. S., Khalaf, L. R., Jasim, B. A. A.-L., & Vorona, L. (2024). International legal frameworks for protecting intellectual property and ensuring academic freedom. Journal of Ecohumanism, 3(5), 249–269. https://doi.org/10.62754/joe.v3i5.3905
21. Dindaroğlu, Y., Baday Yıldız, E., Temel, S., & De Fuentes, C. (2025). Knowledge accumulation at the regional level and the role of intellectual property rights. Innovation and Development, 15(1), 153–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2023.2268915
22. Dolcerocca, A. (2024). Intellectual property rights, global inequalities, and secular stagnation. International Critical Thought, 14(2), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/21598282.2024.2365123
23. Drazewski, K. (2024). Welcoming digital innovation: Why America seems to get it right. In Law, governance and technology series (Vol. 63, pp. 15–44). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51276-6_2
24. Fan, H., Yin, J., Usman, M., & Li, Z. (2024). Intellectual property protection and total factor productivity of enterprises: A quasi-natural experiment of intellectual property courts. Finance Research Letters, 70, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2024.106236
25. Febrian, H., Sofilda, E., & Harris, F. (2025). The policy of intellectual property as a bank guarantee for the support of creative economic development. OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development, 18(3), 97–112.
26. Foster, C. (2024). Intellectual property rights and control in the digital economy: Examining the expansion of M-Pesa. Information Society, 40(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2023.2259895
27. Frantsuz-Yakovets, T. A., Anisimov, K., Biryukova, A. G., Kolisnykova, H. V., & Yaroshevska, T. V. (2024). Constitutional guarantees of intellectual property protection in the context of digital transformation: Ukrainian experience. Law: Journal of the University of Latvia, 17, 209–222. https://doi.org/10.22364/jull.17.13
28. Gilda, A., & Ghose, A. (2023). Decussating aspects of intellectual property rights and private international law in India. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 28(6), 510–517. https://doi.org/10.56042/jipr.v28i6.762
29. Gitterman, D. P. (2003). European integration and labour market cooperation: A comparative regional perspective. Journal of European Social Policy, 13(2), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928703013002001
30. Gliściński, K. (2025). Intellectual property rights as private rights: Implications of the theory of internally limited rights and incentive theory for reconstructing the normative content of rights in intangible goods. Journal of World Intellectual Property, 28(2), 516–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12339
31. Godt, C. (2024). Information property: Navigator principles for the private–public conundrum between digital data and immaterial property (IP). In Research handbook on European property law (pp. 219–246). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839105845.00027
32. Gommers, C., Leppink, W., & Schneider, M. (2024). Round-up of European enforcement case law 2023. Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 19(6), 467–475. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpae031
33. Gommers, C., Leppink, W., & Schneider, M. (2025). Round-up of European enforcement case law 2024. Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 20(4), 209–214. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpaf014
34. Goodman, N., & Lehto, O. (2024). Intellectual property, complex externalities, and the knowledge commons. Public Choice, 201(3–4), 511–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-023-01110-8
35. Gu, L., Liang, X., & He, J.-H. (2023). Research on the interaction mechanism of intellectual property governance subjects from the perspective of the whole process [知识产权治理主体的相互作用机制研究———基于全过程视角]. Studies in Science of Science, 41(10), 1854–1863, 1886. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85212179841
36. Gurko, A. V. (2025). The influence of the technological factor on the transformation of intellectual property rights. Gosudarstvo i Pravo, 2025(6), 91–99. https://doi.org/10.31857/S1026945225060083
37. Handler, M. (2024). Preventing unfair competition in Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific countries: The intertwined roles of passing off and consumer protection statutes. Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 19(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpad107
38. Hermeto, J. R. (2024). The paradox of intellectual property in capitalism. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49967-8
39. Howard, J., Maskus, K. E., & Ridley, W. (2025). The impacts of intellectual-property related preferential trade agreements on bilateral patent applications. Review of International Economics, 33(2), 466–485. https://doi.org/10.1111/roie.12783
40. Jamali, H. R. (2024). Navigating intellectual property (IP): A comparative analysis of Australian universities’ IP policies. PLoS ONE, 19(5), e0304647. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304647
41. Kakade, A. B. (2025). Monetisation of intellectual property through commercialisation of products and services developed through research and innovation. In Lecture notes in networks and systems (Vol. 1097, pp. 281–295). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-68282-7_15
42. Khan, B. (2024). Intellectual property, development, and inclusiveness: A postcolonial critique. In S. Mendis (Ed.), Research handbook on intellectual property rights and inclusivity (pp. 48–73). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781803927268.00010
43. Khuchua, T., & Galeotta, G. (2024). Intellectual property and the European Courts, conference at the Court of Justice of the European Union, Luxembourg, 5 June 2024. GRUR International, 73(11), 1071–1078. https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikae120
44. Klopschinski, S., & McGuire, M.-R. (2024). Research handbook on intellectual property rights and arbitration. Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800378360
45. Koellner, E. (2025). AI and intellectual property law in the digital age: Creating a cohesive global system for ethical innovation and societal benefit. Jusletter IT, April, 533–541. https://doi.org/10.38023/c0b9fea3-d2ed-41b2-9f00-031b9c4ac0df
46. Kuanpoth, J. (2017). Challenges for protection and administration of intellectual property: Thailand’s perspective. In E. S.-K. Ng & G. W. Austin (Eds.), International intellectual property and the ASEAN way: Pathways to interoperability (pp. 230–235). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316711606.019
47. Kurniawan, I. G. A., Samsithawrati, P. A., Disantara, F. P., Budiana, I. N., & Nutakor, B. S. M. (2025). Utilitarianism versus communalism: A legal theory analysis of intellectual property rights ethics in global North and South. Jambe Law Journal, 8(1), 229–254. https://doi.org/10.22437/jlj.8.1.229-254
48. Leroy, M. H. C. (2024). Copyright and social development: The correlational nexus in the current world [Direito autoral e desenvolvimento social: O nexo correlacional no mundo atual]. Revista do CAAP, 29(2). https://doi.org/10.69881/b49apd08
49. Ma, B., & Yu, D. (2025). Balancing regional integration and national diversity in IP harmonisation: Lessons from the EU and ASEAN. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2025.2495354
50. Mahmudova, N., Norbaev, T., & Savickiene, J. (2024). The role of innovation activity in sustainable development. E3S Web of Conferences, 574, 02009. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202457402009
51. Mani, S. (2020). India’s patenting record since trips compliance of her patent regime. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 29(3), 427-454. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2020.1829977
52. Maskus, K. E. (2004). The globalization of private knowledge goods and the privatization of global public goods. Journal of International Economic Law, 7(2), 279-320. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/7.2.279
53. Maskus, K. E., & Reichman, J. H. (2017). The globalisation of private knowledge goods and the privatisation of global public goods. In Globalisation and intellectual property (pp. 335–377). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315254111-14
54. Mattioli, M. (2024). Data and intellectual property law. In Research handbook in data science and law (2nd ed., pp. 156–175). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035316458.00015
55. Mendis, S. (2024). Re-thinking intellectual property law’s promise of democratic inclusion. In S. Mendis (Ed.), Research handbook on intellectual property rights and inclusivity (pp. 10–33). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781803927268.00008
56. Mirawanty, N., Hamzah, M. Z., & Harris, F. (2025). Indonesia data protection policy of intellectual property and its effect on the economy. OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development, 18(3), 113–128.
57. Muñoz, L. R. M. (2024). Legal system for the protection of intellectual property rights in Colombia: Evolution and contemporary trends [Sistema jurídico para la protección de los derechos de propiedad intelectual en Colombia: evolución y tendencias contemporáneas]. Revista Iberoamericana de la Propiedad Intelectual, 2024(20), 7–33. https://doi.org/10.26422/RIPI.2024.2000.med
58. Muradov, A. J., & Hajiyeva, N. (2024). The politicisation of intellectual property rights in the context of Karabakh. Cogent Social Sciences, 10(1), 2386710. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2386710
59. Murtadho, N. A. (2024). International legal resolution of the recognition dispute over the intellectual property rights of the ‘Reog cultural dance’ by Malaysia. Jurnal Hukum Bisnis Bonum Commune, 7(2), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.30996/jhbbc.v7i2.10525
60. Naim, N., AlDebasi, A., & Price, D. (2025). Innovation and development of knowledge societies: Artificial intelligence and knowledge-based socioeconomic growth. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003528517
61. Ng, E. S.-K., & Austin, G. W. (2017). International intellectual property and the ASEAN way: Pathways to interoperability. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316711606
62. Oke, E. K. (2024). Intellectual property rights and investment law in the AfCFTA. In O. Owoeye (Ed.), Contemporary issues in intellectual property law in Africa (pp. 5–22). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003491392-2
63. Okorie, C. (2023). Intellectual property and the Constitutional Court of South Africa: Lessons from the deployment of adjudicative strategies. IIC International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 54(10), 1508–1534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-023-01397-6
64. Onufrienko, K. V. (2024). Intellectual property rights protection mechanisms harmonisation in the EAEU preferential trade agreements. Sovremennaya Evropa, 2024(3), 209–219. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0201708324030173
65. Owoeye, O. (2024). Contemporary issues in intellectual property law in Africa. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003491392
66. Palašta, D. (2024). Identifying coping strategies trends with the ML (machine learning) threats to intellectual property. Jusletter IT, 439–449. https://doi.org/10.38023/a98ede0f-071f-418d-9049-edb5390cfc47
67. Pandey, A., & Mishra, A. (2025). Conflict and coexistence of human rights: An exploratory study with reference to intellectual property rights. Journal of Human Rights and Social Work, 10(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41134-024-00361-9
68. Pengoriya, S. (2025). A case against enforcement of patent rights in transit: Resolving the unresolved controversy. Journal of World Intellectual Property, 28(1), 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12336
69. Perera, A. (2024). Dilemmas of intellectual property discourse in Sri Lanka. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-6117-3
70. Peukert, C., & Windisch, M. (2025). The economics of copyright in the digital age. Journal of Economic Surveys, 39(3), 877–903. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12632
71. Rejdak, M. (2024). European Union perspective on intellectual property proceedings [Unijna perspektywa postępowania w sprawach własności intelektualnej]. Polski Proces Cywilny/Polish Civil Procedure, 2024(4), 787–806.
72. Rimmer, M. (2024). The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership: Intellectual property and trade in the Asia-Pacific. Asia Pacific Law Review, 32(2), 392–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2024.2349387
73. Sanjaya, K., & Rajavenkatesan, P. R. L. (2024). Intellectual property protection for virtual assets and brands in the Metaverse: Issues and challenges. International Journal of Intellectual Property Management, 14(6), 527–536. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIPM.2024.142411
74. Segate, R. V. (2024). Precedential value of judicial decisions in increasingly hybridised civil law systems: Chinese choreographies at the WTO. Asian Journal of Comparative Law, 19(1), 107–141. https://doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2023.38
75. Senftleben, M. (2024). The unproductive “overconstitutionalization” of EU copyright and trademark law – Fundamental rights rhetoric and reality in CJEU jurisprudence. IIC International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 55(9), 1471–1514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-024-01527-8
76. Sharma, N., & Manohar, S. (2024). Unlocking the Metaverse and navigating legal implications in the NFT landscape. In Exploring the use of Metaverse in business and education (pp. 193–209). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-5868-9.ch011
77. Singh, B., Kaunert, C., Arora, M. K., & Lal, S. (2025). Redefining intellectual property: Navigating artificial intelligence impact on jurisprudence. In Economic and political consequences of AI: Managing creative destruction (pp. 183–203). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-7036-0.ch009
78. Spinello, R. A. (2024). Intellectual property rights. In Encyclopedia of libraries, librarianship, and information science (Vol. 4, pp. 306–313). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-95689-5.00134-6
79. Sreenivasa Murthy, M. R., & Kandadai, S. (2025). Human ingenuity, emerging technologies and IPR – Need for setting doctrine of constitutional morality as standard. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 30(2), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.56042/jipr.v30i2.3469
80. Su, C., Zeng, G., Ye, L., & Xu, Y.-Q. (2021). Influence of trans-regional cooperation innovation on regional diversification in the Yangtze River Delta [长三角地区跨区域合作创新对区域多样化的影响研究]. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 30(3), 534–543. https://doi.org/10.11870/cjlyzyyhj202103002
81. Su, L., & Lei, S. (2024). Intellectual property securitisation risk analysis, legal regulation, and management strategies: From Chinese perspective [Intelektinės nuosavybės pakeitimo vertybiniais popieriais rizikos analizė, teisinis reguliavimas ir valdymo strategijos: Kinijos perspektyva]. Transformations in Business and Economics, 23(3), 1114–1128.
82. Tkeshelashvili, K., Dutt, P. K., & Gurgenidze, M. (2024). Commercialisation of intellectual property: A comparative analysis of Georgia and Estonia. TalTech Journal of European Studies, 14(1), 22–52. https://doi.org/10.2478/bjes-2024-0002
83. Tomczyk, E. (2024). Concurrence of norms of civil procedural law – Remarks regarding intellectual property proceedings and other separate proceedings [Zbieg norm prawa procesowego cywilnego – uwagi na tle postępowania w sprawach własności intelektualnej i innych postępowań odrębnych]. Polski Proces Cywilny/Polish Civil Procedure, 2024(4), 807–823.
84. Tua, J. S. M., Damian, E., Nainggolan, B., Panjaitan, H., & Johnstone, C. J. (2025). From failure to future: Reconstructing intellectual property in bankruptcy law. Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System, 5(1), 279–318. https://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v5i1.569
85. Unah, I., & Zi Tong Peng, S. (2024). US Supreme Court decision making in intellectual property rights (1954–2022). In Research handbook on judicial politics (pp. 14–34). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035309320.00010
86. Varella, M. D., & de Oliveira, K. A. C. (2024). The flexibilisation of intellectual property rights in cases of health crises: A case study of Brazil in the face of the AIDS and COVID sanitary crises. Journal of World Intellectual Property, 27(3), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12317
87. Vats, A., & Vélez Martínez, S. I. (2024). Knowledge anti-imperialism in a propertied world. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 85(40), 745–769. https://doi.org/10.5195/lawreview.2024.1060
88. Wu, P. (2024). The refusal to license intellectual property as an antitrust violation in China: How should the current approach be improved? Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, 14(1), 7–28. https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2024.01.01
89. Xiao, Y., & Wang, S. (2024). Research on reform of security review mechanism of intellectual property transfer in China [我国知识产权对外转让安全审查机制改革思路研究]. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 39(3), 509–518. https://doi.org/10.16418/j.issn.1000-3045.20230709002
90. Yadav, A., Yadav, R. K., Singh, V. P., Rajpurohit, G. S., & Singh, S. (2025). Recognition to implementation: Bridging the gap in moral rights protection under Indian copyright law. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 30(3), 295–303. https://doi.org/10.56042/jipr.v30i3.9408
91. Yang, X., & Qi, Y. (2022). Study on the evolution driving mechanism of IPM to regional economic development. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 19(7), 6699–6711. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2022315
92. Zhang, Y., Zhang, H., Ullah, M., Nazir, S., & Chun, Z. (2024). Intellectual property protection in the oil, gold sectors and mineral resources rent on indigenous populations: Preserving innovation and value. Resources Policy, 95, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.105090
93. Zou, L., & Zhu, Y. (2024). What mode is conducive to an effective regional IP regime? Evidence from intellectual property courts in China. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1638. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04156-1