![\"\"](\"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/018-cover-734x1024.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nTheory and practice of intellectual property
\u2116 3 \/ 2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
ISSN (Print) 2308-0361
ISSN (Online) 2519-2744<\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/test.inprojournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/free-icon-pdf-201153.png\"){kind=icon}
PDF (Ukrainian)<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nDOI: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.33731\/tpip.2026.3.1<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Submitted\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 2026-06-21 <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n The concept of interest as a criterion for the limitation of intellectual property rights in compulsory licensing<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Kateryna Yanishevska<\/strong> Dmytro Murach<\/strong> Abstract Keywords: <\/strong>intellectual property law, private interest, public interest, societal interest, martial law, state of emergency, compulsory licensing<\/p>\n\n\n\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Campbell, H., & Marshall, R. (2002). Utilitarianism’s bad breath? A re-evaluation of the public interest justification for planning. Planning Theory, 1(2), 163\u2013187. 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. \u0413\u0443\u0440\u0433\u0443\u043b\u0430, \u041e. (2019). \u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0443\u0441\u043e\u0432\u0456 \u043b\u0456\u0446\u0435\u043d\u0437\u0456\u0457 \u0432 \u0423\u043a\u0440\u0430\u0457\u043d\u0456: \u043d\u0435\u0435\u0444\u0435\u043a\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u0438\u0439 \u043c\u0435\u0445\u0430\u043d\u0456\u0437\u043c, \u0447\u0430\u0441 \u0437\u043c\u0456\u043d \u044f\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043d\u0430\u0440\u0435\u0448\u0442\u0456 \u043d\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432. \u041f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e.UA. \u041c\u0443\u0440\u0430\u0447, \u0414. \u0412. (2026). \u0406\u043d\u0442\u0435\u0440\u043f\u0440\u0435\u0442\u0430\u0446\u0456\u044f \u043a\u043e\u0440\u0443\u043f\u0446\u0456\u0457 \u0447\u0435\u0440\u0435\u0437 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0437\u043c\u0443 \u044e\u0440\u0438\u0441\u043f\u0440\u0443\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0446\u0456\u0457 \u0456\u043d\u0442\u0435\u0440\u0435\u0441\u0456\u0432 (Interessenjurisprudenz). \u042e\u0440\u0438\u0434\u0438\u0447\u043d\u0438\u0439 \u043d\u0430\u0443\u043a\u043e\u0432\u0438\u0439 \u0435\u043b\u0435\u043a\u0442\u0440\u043e\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0439 \u0436\u0443\u0440\u043d\u0430\u043b, 3, 27\u201333. \u041c\u0443\u0440\u0430\u0447, \u0414. \u0412. (2026). \u041a\u043e\u0440\u0443\u043f\u0446\u0456\u0439\u043d\u0438\u0439 \u0442\u0440\u0438\u043a\u0443\u0442\u043d\u0438\u043a \u0456\u043d\u0442\u0435\u0440\u0435\u0441\u0456\u0432: \u043a\u043e\u043d\u0446\u0435\u043f\u0442\u0443\u0430\u043b\u0456\u0437\u0430\u0446\u0456\u044f \u043c\u0435\u0442\u0430\u0437\u043b\u043e\u0447\u0438\u043d\u0443 \u0447\u0435\u0440\u0435\u0437 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0437\u043c\u0443 \u044e\u0440\u0438\u0441\u043f\u0440\u0443\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0446\u0456\u0457 \u0456\u043d\u0442\u0435\u0440\u0435\u0441\u0456\u0432. \u0413\u0440\u0430\u0430\u043b\u044c \u043d\u0430\u0443\u043a\u0438, 65, 551\u2013557. \u0428\u0442\u0435\u0444\u0430\u043d, \u0410. (2023). \u042f\u043a\u0456\u0441\u0442\u044c \u0437\u0430\u043a\u043e\u043d\u043e\u0434\u0430\u0432\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0430 \u0443 \u0441\u0444\u0435\u0440\u0456 \u0430\u0432\u0442\u043e\u0440\u0441\u044c\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0430 \u0456 \u0441\u0443\u043c\u0456\u0436\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432 \u0437 \u043f\u043e\u0437\u0438\u0446\u0456\u0457 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u043d\u0446\u0438\u043f\u0443 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0457 \u0432\u0438\u0437\u043d\u0430\u0447\u0435\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0456. \u0422\u0435\u043e\u0440\u0456\u044f \u0456 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u043a\u0442\u0438\u043a\u0430 \u0456\u043d\u0442\u0435\u043b\u0435\u043a\u0442\u0443\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0457 \u0432\u043b\u0430\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0456, 6, 13\u201322. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Theory and practice of intellectual property\u2116 3 \/ 2026 ISSN (Print) 2308-0361ISSN (Online) 2519-2744 DOI: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.33731\/tpip.2026.3.1 Submitted\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 2026-06-21Accepted \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 2026-07-14Published \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a02026-09-10 The concept of interest as a criterion for the limitation of intellectual property rights in compulsory licensing Kateryna YanishevskaPhD (Law), Associate Professor,Associate Professor of Criminal Legal Disciplines and Proceedings Department,Academic and Research […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-11720","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/11720","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11720"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/11720\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11727,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/11720\/revisions\/11727"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11720"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Accepted \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 2026-07-14
Published \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a02026-09-10<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/CC-2.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
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<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
PhD student,
Academic and Research Institute of Law,
Sumy State University
Sumy, Ukraine
https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-4645-1275<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/strong>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 \u201cOn the Protection of Rights to Inventions and Utility Models\u201d), 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 \u201cfair balancing\u201d 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/147309520200100205<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12992-025-01176-7<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/pravo.ua\/prymusovi-litsenzii-v-ukraini-neefektyvnyi-mekhanizm-chas-zmin-iakoho-nareshti-nastav\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/doi.org\/10.32782\/2524-0374\/2026-3\/4<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/doi.org\/10.36074\/grail-of-science.03.04.2026.061<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/doi.org\/10.33731\/62023.293212<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n