(Mis)reliance on Social Science Evidence in Intellectual Property Litigation: A Case Study
The Canadian Intellectual Property Review (CIPR) is a double-blind peer reviewed journal. It is sent to over 1,800 IPIC members at no cost and can be purchased by non-members for a fee. If you would like to browse the articles included in the CIPR, please consult our database below.
Any author, member or non-member can submit an article for consideration in the CIPR. The CIPR Editorial Board welcomes both short pieces (2,000 to 5,000 words) that may be included in the Notes section of the issue or longer, more in-depth articles. The maximum length of articles, including references, is 20,000 words. Articles may be submitted in French or English. Each article should be accompanied by a 150-word abstract.
All submissions undergo a double-blind review process: the reviewers are not given the authors' identities and the identities of the reviewers are shielded from the authors. Additionally, articles submitted must be original and must not have been previously published elsewhere.
If you would like to submit an article for an upcoming issue of the CIPR please contact admin@ipic.ca.
Canadian Intellectual Property Review
Share
(Mis)reliance on Social Science Evidence in Intellectual Property Litigation: A Case Study
Issue: Volume 28 no 2
Author(s): E. Richard Gold and Robert Carbone
Abstract:
Although courts increasingly rely on social science evidence in litigation, this practice has undergone surprisingly little analysis outside Charter litigation. In particular, although social science evidence—including surveys, economic studies, and estimates of market losses—is commonplace in intellectual property litigation, it has attracted only limited substantive or critical analysis. Because this evidence is fundamental not only to questions of liability, particularly in trade-mark litigation, but also to damages across all forms of intellectual property, it is time to fill this gap. This article begins the discussion by pointing to the urgent need for judges and lawyers to be discerning in their assessment of the reliability of this evidence. It then illustrates the difficulties of relying on social science evidence in intellectual property litigation by examining the admissibility of a study conducted by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) that has potential to be used in a patent case. On the basis of this examination, the authors propose guidelines to assist courts in making determinations concerning the admissibility of social science studies.
