Theory and practice of intellectual property
№ 3 / 2026

ISSN (Print) 2308-0361
ISSN (Online) 2519-2744

PDF (Ukrainian)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33731/tpip.2026.3.1

Submitted     2026-06-21
Accepted      2026-07-14
Published      2026-09-10

The concept of interest as a criterion for the limitation of intellectual property rights in compulsory licensing

Kateryna Yanishevska
PhD (Law), Associate Professor,
Associate Professor of Criminal Legal Disciplines and Proceedings Department,
Academic and Research Institute of Law,
Sumy State University
Sumy, Ukraine
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3648-5543

Dmytro Murach
PhD student,
Academic and Research Institute of Law,
Sumy State University
Sumy, Ukraine
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4645-1275

Abstract
The article examines the concept of interest as a criterion for limiting intellectual property rights in the context of compulsory licensing. It has been established that two forms represent the institution of compulsory licensing in Ukraine: constitutional (derogation under Articles 41, 54 and 64 of the Constitution) and statutory (limitation under Article 30(3) of the Law “On the Protection of Rights to Inventions and Utility Models”), each of which must satisfy the three-part test of legitimate limitation. It has been demonstrated that the current regulations do not provide for a clear and predictable mechanism of “fair balancing” between individual and societal interests, relying on extensional definitions of public, state, and private interest and thus remaining largely declarative. Based on the doctrine of the jurisprudence of interests, the concept of interest was proposed to bridge this gap, which includes three types of interest: public (sustaining state and municipal authority), private (an individual or group), and societal (the universal interest of individuals as society), and advances the concept of interest as the criterion of a limitation’s legitimacy.

Keywords: intellectual property law, private interest, public interest, societal interest, martial law, state of emergency, compulsory licensing

References

Campbell, H., & Marshall, R. (2002). Utilitarianism’s bad breath? A re-evaluation of the public interest justification for planning. Planning Theory, 1(2), 163–187.
https://doi.org/10.1177/147309520200100205

Syam, N., & Abbas, M. (2026). From proposal to compromise: the TRIPS waiver debate and the crisis of WTO decision-making. Global Health, 22, 1-19.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-025-01176-7

Гургула, О. (2019). Примусові ліцензії в Україні: неефективний механізм, час змін якого нарешті настав. Право.UA. 
https://pravo.ua/prymusovi-litsenzii-v-ukraini-neefektyvnyi-mekhanizm-chas-zmin-iakoho-nareshti-nastav/

Мурач, Д. В. (2026). Інтерпретація корупції через призму юриспруденції інтересів (Interessenjurisprudenz). Юридичний науковий електронний журнал, 3, 27–33.
https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0374/2026-3/4

Мурач, Д. В. (2026). Корупційний трикутник інтересів: концептуалізація метазлочину через призму юриспруденції інтересів. Грааль науки, 65, 551–557.
https://doi.org/10.36074/grail-of-science.03.04.2026.061

Штефан, А. (2023). Якість законодавства у сфері авторського права і суміжних прав з позиції принципу правової визначеності. Теорія і практика інтелектуальної власності, 6, 13–22. 
https://doi.org/10.33731/62023.293212