Joint Ownership of Industrial Property Rights in the Research and Industry Consortium Agreement

The investment activity is diverse and can be carried out with the use of intellectual property rights in accordance with the current international and Russian investment law. The article aims to identify the specifics of the application of intellectual property rights as investments and the implementation of intellectual investments, i.e. investments endowed into intellectual property rights. The objectives of the study are to consider the categories of an investment and object of investment activity, intellectual property, exclusive and other intellectual rights, as well as to analyze and determine the features of legal regulation of the activity in question at the international and national levels in the Russian Federation. Based on the results of the systematic analysis with the use of formal legal, comparative and other research methods, it is concluded that investments as a property in a broad sense may include both exclusive and other non-personal intellectual property rights to the results of intellectual activity and equated means of individualization of goods, works, services and enterprises. At the same time, they exclude intellectual property itself as a set of various types of intangible products, moral and other personal non-proprietary intellectual rights by virtue of their inalienable and non-transferable character. It is argued to be the same with respect to the object of investment activity, i.e. the property which the investment is endowed in and is capable to bring income to the investor in the future. Investments into such intellectual property rights can be called as intellectual investments.The legal regulation of investment activity with the use of intellectual property rights has a dual character (in the sense that it is carried out by different investment legislative acts with the similar subject of their regulation) and depends on the type of a particular object used. If intellectual property rights are invested in fixed capital, then they are to be recognized as capital investments and are governed by the Federal Law of February 25,1999 No. 39-FZ “On Investment Activity in the Russian Federation Carried out in the Form of Capital Investments”. If intellectual property rights are used as the object of investment activity, i.e. where investments are endowed in, such intellectual investments are subject to the regulation by the Law of the RSFSR of June 26, 1991 No. 1488-1 “On Investment Activity in the RSFSR”.

In the process of civilization development, the intellectual component has become as important a resource as land, labor and capital. However, intellectual property requires special regulation in the development of economic relations. Effective use of intellectual property ensures that countries take a leading position in the global economy. The degree of use, conditions of implementation and specifics of intellectual property implementation become crucial in shaping the model of modern society, including its economic component. Accordingly, the issues of implementing intellectual property mechanisms and research projects require constant new research in the context of rapid changes in the course of society's informatization. The article is devoted to the analysis of international and Ukrainian experience in the problem of methodological bases of intellectual property and scientific projects management. The study of the problem was carried out using the following methods: monographic - in the study and theoretical generalization of research on the scientific foundations of intellectual property and research projects management; system analysis - in the analysis of the mechanism of intellectual property and research projects management; comparative analysis - in the study of global trends in intellectual property and research projects management; statistical - to analyze data characterizing the state of the object under study; abstract and logical. The author proves the necessity of integrating the processes of intellectual property management and scientific studies with a view to improving the efficiency of scientific and technological development, commercialization of research results and formation of an innovative environment. It is emphasized that a specific feature of the system of intellectual property and research projects management in Ukraine is their integration, which involves the creation of a joint unified system of strategic management of innovation development. Such integration ensures effective protection and use of research results, increases the competitiveness of organizations engaged in research activities, and contributes to the formation of an innovative environment. The key elements of such integration into the Ukrainian economy include: a policy for managing intellectual property rights within research projects; creation of technology transfer centers; introduction of IT instruments for monitoring intellectual property; attraction of venture capital funding and creation of start-ups based on academic research. The results of the study can be used to improve the national system of intellectual property and science management in Ukraine.

The successful implementation of the Strategy for the development of the sphere of innovation activity for the period up to 2030 involves taking into account the peculiarities of the organization of management of the creation, protection of intellectual property rights objects (IPRO) and technology transfer. Therefore, the article is aimed at studying these aspects in scientific institutions and developing effective proposals in this context. The article considers the importance of the role of objects of intellectual property rights in the activities of scientific institutions and the need for full functioning in these institutions of the units for technology transfer, innovation activity and intellectual property. The authors examine the problems that hinder the development of such units in scientific institutions and institutions of higher education. Based on the research of the experience of the aforementioned units in both domestic and foreign scientific institutions, it is recommended to introduce and develop in Ukraine mechanisms of the State support for innovation activities, technology transfer, commercialization of research results, intellectual property objects taking into account the experience of the EU Member States, technologically developed countries, directed towards developing innovations in business; combining business and scientific institutions, higher education institutions for research and development for transfer of technologies in the interests of enterprises; support of high-tech industries; development of innovative activities at the regional level. Important issues, in particular, are the development of model agreements for research and development with various options for the distribution of intellectual property rights between scientific organizations and national or foreign counterparties, which would take into account the international practice of concluding such agreements; development of provisions defining the peculiarities of creation and use of intellectual property objects by employees of the NAS of Ukraine who work in foreign projects and scientific institutions, as well as foreign specialists conducting research and development in institutions of the NAS of Ukraine. The nuances of management of the creation, protection of objects of intellectual property rights and technology transfer in scientific institutions related to the innovative attractiveness of enterprises are planned to be highlighted in further scientific research.

The commercialization of research results, understood as their use and dissemination to other entities in a manner that allows for financial gain. In this regard, the general rules that apply to the commercial exploitation of economic and trans­ferable intellectual property rights protecting the results of scientific activities are supplemented with specific statutory regulations. They define the procedure for the commercialization of the results of scientific activities carried out in univer­sities and research institutes, the rights and obligations of researchers in the field of commercialization and the rules for distribution of profits from commercialization between the entity and the single author or members of the research teams.

Managing R&D and the innovation process is closely linked with technology transfer and the commercialization of research results. This is especially so in the context of publicly-funded R&D laboratory systems in developing countries, such as India's Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). Inefficiencies in the transfer process and a lack of orientation towards the commercialization of scientific research results are predominantly responsible for ineffective public research. Against this background, the paper puts forward an argument for the adoption of a networking strategy or consortium-style operation by the various actors in the technological innovation process. To this end, the author presents case studies of specific technology development and commercialization efforts undertaken in different laboratories functioning under the CSIR. The lessons drawn from the case studies and the key elements that have led to the success of these initiatives are highlighted.

Islam recognizes the notion of personal rights of the individuals including the right of ownership, possession and property. Islam also identifies the individual’s rights to function individualistically. Therefore the efforts made for promoting intellectual rights can be considered a legitimate and recognized personal right. The notion of intellectual property is not unfamiliar to the Islamic regulation of property but it is an essential portion of it. Wide-ranging doctrines derived from the foundations of Islamic law and defined by Muslim jurists have directly protected it as a legal property. Intellectual property rights are indispensable to human creativity. Many laws have been enacted to protect intellectual property rights by creating awareness among the individuals about the intellectual property rights at national and international level. This research presents various viewpoints of Islamic scholars on intellectual property rights by highlighting the extent of these intellectual property rights. It also explores the endeavors being made at national and international level to raise awareness about various intellectual property rights including trademark, copyright and patent, which facilitate innovators to acquire acknowledgment or monetary advantages from their innovations. The basic aim of this research is to portrait a general idea of the endeavors made by numerous international organizations, countries and bodies including World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Paris Convention, Protection Industrial Property, Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and World Trade Organization (WTO) for protecting the intellectual property rights. This study also explores the efforts made by Pakistan to enact laws for intellectual property rights by issuing various ordinances including Patents Ordinance 2000, Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001, Copyright Ordinance 1962. The Intellectual Property Organization-IPO was also as an autonomous body in 2005 under the administrative control of the Cabinet Division for integrated and efficient intellectual property management in Pakistan. Results, recommendations are presented at the end.


 
 
 
 Proponents of the free culture movement argue that contemporary, “over-zealous” copyright laws have an adverse affect on the freedoms of consumers and creators to make use of copyrighted materials. Lessig, McLeod, Vaidhyanathan, Demers, and Coombe, to name but a few, detail instances where creativity and consumer use have been hindered by copyright laws. The “intellectual land-grab” (Boyle, “Politics” 94), instigated by the increasing value of intangibles in the information age, has forced copyright owners to seek maximal protection for copyrighted materials. A propertarian approach seeks to imbue copyrighted materials with the same inalienable rights as real property, yet copyright is not a property right, because “the copyright owner … holds no ordinary chattel” (Dowling v. United States 473 US 207, 216 [1985]). A fundamental difference resides in the exclusivity of use: “If you eat my apple, then I cannot” but “if you “take” my idea, I still have it. If I tell you an idea, you have not deprived me of it. An unavoidable feature of intellectual property is that its consumption is non-rivalrous” (Lessig, Code 131). It is, as James Boyle notes, “different” to real property (Shamans 174). Vaidhyanathan observes, “copyright in the American tradition was not meant to be a “property right” as the public generally understands property. It was originally a narrow federal policy that granted a limited trade monopoly in exchange for universal use and access” (11). This paper explores the ways in which “property talk” has infiltrated copyright discourse and endangered the utility of the law in fostering free and diverse forms of creative expression. The possessiveness and exclusion that accompany “property talk” are difficult to reconcile with the utilitarian foundations of copyright. Transformative uses of copyrighted materials such as mashing, sampling and appropriative art are incompatible with a propertarian approach, subjecting freedom of creativity to arbitary licensing fees that often extend beyond the budget of creators (Collins). “Property talk” risks making transformative works an elitist form of creativity, available only to those with the financial resources necessary to meet the demands for licences. 
 
 There is a wealth of decisions throughout American and English case law that sustain Vaidhyanathan’s argument (see for example, Donaldson v. Becket 17 Cobbett Parliamentary History, col. 953; Wheaton v. Peters 33 US 591 [1834]; Fox Film Corporation v. Doyal 286 US 123 [1932]; US v. Paramount Pictures 334 US 131 [1948]; Mazer v. Stein 347 US 201, 219 [1954]; Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aitken 422 U.S. 151 [1975]; Aronson v. Quick Point Pencil Co. 440 US 257 [1979]; Dowling v. United States 473 US 207 [1985]; Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises 471 U.S. 539 [1985]; Luther R. Campbell a.k.a. Luke Skyywalker, et al. v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. 510 U.S 569 [1994].). As Lemley states, however, “Congress, the courts and commentators increasingly treat intellectual property as simply a species of real property rather than as a unique form of legal protection designed to deal with public goods problems” (1-2). Although section 106 of the Copyright Act 1976 grants exclusive rights, sections 107 to 112 provide freedoms beyond the control of the copyright owner, undermining the exclusivity of s.106. Australian law similarly grants exceptions to the exclusive rights granted in section 31. Exclusivity was a principal objective of the eighteenth century Stationers’ argument for a literary property right. Sir William Blackstone, largely responsible for many Anglo-American concepts concerning the construction of property law, defined property in absolutist terms as “that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the whole universe” (2). On the topic of reprints he staunchly argued an author “has clearly a right to dispose of that identical work as he pleases, and any attempt to take it from him, or vary the disposition he has made of it, is an invasion of his right of property” (405-6). Blackstonian copyright advanced an exclusive and perpetual property right. Blackstone’s interpretation of Lockean property theory argued for a copyright that extended beyond the author’s expression and encompassed the very “style” and “sentiments” held therein. (Tonson v. Collins [1760] 96 ER 189.) According to Locke, 
 
 every Man has a Property in his own Person . . . The Labour of his Body and the Work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property. (287-8)
 
 
 
 Blackstone’s inventive interpretation of Locke “analogised ideas, thoughts, and opinions with tangible objects to which title may be taken by occupancy under English common law” (Travis 783). Locke’s labour theory, however, is not easily applied to intangibles because occupancy or use is non-rivalrous. The appropriate extent of an author’s proprietary right in a work led Locke himself to a philosophical impasse (Bowrey 324). Although Blackstonian copyright was suppressed by the House of Lords in the eighteenth century (Donaldson v. Becket [1774] 17 Cobbett Parliamentary History, col. 953) and by the Supreme Court sixty years later (Wheaton v. Peters 33 US 591 [1834]), it has never wholly vacated copyright discourse. “Property talk” is undesirable in copyright discourse because it implicates totalitarian notions such as exclusion and inalienable private rights of ownership with no room for freedom of creativity or to use copyrighted materials for non-piracy related purposes.
 
 The notion that intellectual property is a species of property akin with real property is circulated by media companies seeking greater control over copyrighted materials, but the extent to which “property talk” has been adopted by the courts and scholars is troubling. Lemley (3-5) and Bell speculate whether the term “intellectual property” carries any responsibility for the propertisation of intangibles. A survey of federal court decisions between 1943 and 2003 reveals an exponential increase in the usage of the term. As noted by Samuelson (398) and Cohen (379), within the spheres of industry, culture, law, and politics the word “property” implies a broader scope of rights than those associated with a grant of limited monopoly. 
 
 Music United claims “unauthorized reproduction and distribution of copyrighted music is JUST AS ILLEGAL AS SHOPLIFTING A CD”. James Brown argues sampling from his records is tantamount to theft: “Anything they take off my record is mine . . . Can I take a button off your shirt and put it on mine? Can I take a toenail off your foot – is that all right with you?” (Miller 1). Equating unauthorised copying with theft seeks to socially demonise activities occurring outside of the permission culture currently being fostered by inventive interpretations of the law. Increasing propagation of copyright as the personal property of the creator and/or copyright owner is instrumental in efforts to secure further legislative or judicial protection:
 
 Since 1909, courts and corporations have exploited public concern for rewarding established authors by steadily limiting the rights of readers, consumers, and emerging artists. All along, the author was deployed as a straw man in the debate. The unrewarded authorial genius was used as a rhetorical distraction that appealed to the American romantic individualism. (Vaidhyanathan 11)
 
 
 The “unrewarded authorial genius” was certainly tactically deployed in the eighteenth century in order to generate sympathy in pleas for further protection (Feather 71). Supporting the RIAA, artists including Britney Spears ask “Would you go into a CD store and steal a CD? It’s the same thing – people going into the computers and logging on and stealing our music”. The presence of a notable celebrity claiming file-sharing is equivalent to stealing their personal property is a more publicly acceptable spin on the major labels’ attempts to maintain a monopoly over music distribution. 
 
 In 1997, Congress enacted the No Electronic Theft Act which extended copyright protection into the digital realm and introduced stricter penalties for electronic reproduction. The use of “theft” in the title clearly aligns the statute with a propertarian portrayal of intangibles. Most movie fans will have witnessed anti-piracy propaganda in the cinema and on DVDs. Analogies between stealing a bag and downloading movies blur fundamental distinctions in the rivalrous/non-rivalrous nature of tangibles and intangibles (Lessig Code, 131). Of critical significance is the infiltration of “property talk” into the courtrooms. In 1990 Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote:
 
 Patents give a right to exclude, just as the law of trespass does with real property … Old rhetoric about intellectual property equating to monopoly seemed to have vanished, replaced by a recognition that a right to exclude in intellectual property is no different in principle from the right to exclude in physical property … Except in the rarest case, we should treat intellectual and physical property identically in the law – which is where the broader currents are taking us. (109, 112, 118)
 
 
 Although Easterbrook refers to patents, his endorsement of “property talk” is cause for concern given the similarity with which patents and copyrights have been historically treated (Ou 41). In Grand Upright v. Warner Bros. Judge Kevin Duffy commenced his judgment with the admonishment “Thou shalt not steal”. Similarly, in Ja

The article deals with the issue of protection of intellectual property rights by customs authorities. The current problems of infringement of intellectual property rights during moving across the customs border of Ukraine are considered, in particular: transportation of counterfeit products, which includes goods that are subject to infringement of intellectual property rights to the trademark and goods that are the subject of infringement of intellectual property rights to a geographical indication in Ukraine and pirated products, which includes goods that are the subject of infringement of copyright and / or related rights or intellectual property rights to a registered industrial design in Ukraine and which are or contain copies made without the consent of the copyright and related rights or intellectual property rights to the industrial design or a person authorized by such right holder in the country of production, as well as moving across the customs border of small consignments of goods with violation of customs legislation and introduction of simplified procedure for destruction of such goods. The article also analyzes issues of novelty of the Ukrainian legislation – “original goods”, that is, those that were made with the consent of the right holder, as a basis for the existence of the international principle of exhaustion of intellectual property rights. It has been established that national legislation does not sufficiently protect intellectual property rights and that Ukraine remains one of the four points of transit and transit of counterfeit goods to the European Union. The mechanism of regulation of compensation of costs in connection with storage of goods suspected of violation of intellectual property rights after all, the owner of the rights has the opportunity to demand compensation for these costs from the owner of goods that violate his intellectual property rights, as well as the destruction of such goods by the owner of intellectual property rights. Key words: intellectual property rights, customs border, promotion of protection of intellectual property rights, procedure for destruction of goods, counterfeit goods.

The world community recognizes that intellectual property and intellectual rights are one of the foundations of the modern business world. The issues of choosing ways to protect intellectual property rights are the subject of constant discussions. The authors analyze the problem in two aspects: from the point of view of state and international policy and from the point of view of the possibility of protecting their intellectual rights by participants in civil turnover. The purpose of the study is to study the mechanism of intellectual property rights protection, as well as to study the problems of compensation for moral damage and self-defense in the field of intellectual property. When preparing the article, general scientific logical methods were used, as well as a private formal legal method. The authors note that the conflict between the interests of the copyright holder of exclusive rights, on the one hand, and the general rights of participation and access, on the other, is a characteristic feature of modern society and culture, therefore intellectual property and intellectual rights are of interest not only as a legal institution, but also as a cultural model and socio-economic mechanism. With the development of digital technologies, the very principle of exclusivity of intellectual rights is increasingly being questioned both in theory and in practice, which naturally leads to a revision of existing ideas about the protection of these rights.

The article focuses on a comprehensive study of the procedure for acquiring rights to the industrial property. The author has attempted to determine the individual stages of such an administrative procedure. The procedural issues, in general, are considered and complex stages are identified. The problematic issues concerning the rights of the subjects of power authority, the terms of the examination for the objects are analyzed. There is a discussion on the amount of payment for such services. The principles of providing and signs of administrative services are described in detail. Comparison of the legal protection of industrial property rights and legislation on administrative services was carried out. The legal protection of each object of the industrial property right has its own characteristics. The legal protection of intellectual property is ensured by the norms: copyright and related rights (works of science, literature and art, performance, phonogram, videogram, speech transfer), the right to the results of scientific-technical creativity (discoveries, inventions, utility models, industrial designs, topographies of integrated microcircuits, plant varieties and breeds of animals, rationalization proposals, commercial secrets); rights to commercial designations (trademarks (marks for goods and services), geographical indications, commercial (company) name). The study focuses on the legal ways of acquiring the rights of the second and third group of industrial property rights. The subjects of intellectual property rights are the creator (creators) of the intellectual property right object (author, performer, inventor, etc.) and other persons who own personal non-property and (or) property intellectual ownership rights. The primary subject of intellectual property right is an individual. The primary subjects of property rights of intellectual property are also the employers of the person who created the object of intellectual property right in connection with the performance of official duties. Individuals and legal entities can also acquire the primary right of intellectual property by virtue of law. Derived subjects of intellectual property rights are legal successors to whom this right passes by virtue of law, contract or inheritance. Authors can be individuals regardless of their age, legal, social, political or another status.Differences between protection of copyright objects and industrial property rights associated with various types of objects of intellectual property rights and features of protection of rights in accordance with the Law on Copyright and Industrial Property Laws. The difference of legal protection to objects of copyright and industrial property rights is associated with various grounds for the emergence (acquisition) of intellectual property rights. The acquisition of intellectual property rights for an invention, utility model, industrial design, plant variety, the animal breed is certified by a patent. The acquisition of intellectual property rights for the layout of integrated circuits, a trademark is certified by a certificate. The receipt of a patent, a certificate for the relevant objects of industrial property rights, is connected with the conduct of an expert examination, established by law. This stage of the legal protection of industrial property is considered as an administrative procedure that has certain stages, requirements, formalized documents and definite rights, duties of participants in such procedures. Particular attention is paid to the regulation of administrative services in the sphere of acquiring the right to industrial property. Administrative service is the result of the implementation of power by the subject of administrative services provision at the request of an individual or legal entity, aimed at establishing, changing or terminating the rights and/or duties of such person in accordance with the law.

Introduction. Current legislation uses, but does not define, the concept of a "theatrical and spectacular performance." Modern theoretical scholarship has developed a number of approaches to identifying its content and determining its place within the system of intellectual property rights. Determining where this phenomenon fits in the intellectual property system is of great practical importance, since recognizing it as an independent object would mean establishing a legal regulatory framework for it and acknowledging its intellectual rights, including the "exclusive right" to it as a whole. The article is devoted to analyzing law enforcement practices, various scholarly approaches to defining the place of the "theatrical and spectacular performance" as a phenomenon and object in the intellectual property rights system, and possible mechanisms of its protection. Materials and methods. The study was based on the norms of the legislation of the Russian Federation regulating relations in copyright and related rights, judicial practice materials, and doctrinal research. During the study, general scientific and special legalmethods were used: analysis, generalization, systemstructural, formal-legal, logical, and others. Research results. The study showed that, under the existing legal framework, it is not possible to define a theatrical and spectacular performance as an independent object of intellectual property to which intellectual property rights could be attached. The definition of a complex object, as provided in Article 1240 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, implies a special regime of joint existence and use of several interconnected results of intellectual activity. Discussion and conclusion. A theatrical and spectacular performance gives heterogeneous results a unity of perception but does not form an independent object of intellectual rights. The form of this phenomenon does not meet the requirements of objectivity, as it is too susceptible to changes from external factors. Protection of the rights of the organizer of a theatrical and spectacular performance can only be achieved by demanding the cessation of violations regarding the included results, including the director's staging of a performance.

The Colour of Copyright

Ownership of cultural expression: Speech & culture in the new intellectual property rights regime of the European Union

The rendezvous between intellectual property rights and human rights has awakened slumbering legal spirits. Miscellaneous legal phenomena are now nestled in the intersection between intellectual property rights and human rights. However, the interplay between human rights and intellectual property rights is bizarrely characterized by amity and hostility. Naturally, therefore, situating indigenous intellectual property at the intersection of intellectual property and human rights becomes a daunting task. However, the dilemma is often overstated especially from the point of view of conventional intellectual property rights. At the outset of this Article, I shall be exploring the history and the development of the relationship between human rights and intellectual property rights. In the followng section, I shall be examining the extent to which intellectual property rights are entrenched in the international human rights instruments. The last section shall be devoted to exploring the phenomenon of locating indigenous peoples' rights at the interface between intellectual property rights and human rights and reflecting on the ensuing issues—an aspect which has seldom been considered in the existing literature.

This study determined the awareness and strategies of implementation of the law on intellectual property rights in the state universities and colleges in Western Visayas. Universities and Colleges are eliciting and harnessing the talents of the faculty, staff, students and alumni in advancing their respective academic missions, specifically in the area of research. Through the years many universities and colleges has maximized the use of its resources in creating products, and processes which are novel in nature. These are either derivatives or products of improvements, of inventions to benefit instruction which gain practical use in the society. The awareness of the possible infringement of the privileges due to the rightful owner of a copyright work, invention and innovation, the idea of protecting their rights demands. The use of intellectual property bears a social function. To this end, the State shall promote the diffusion of knowledge and information for the promotion of national development and progress and for the common good. It is in this perspective, that the researcher works to determine the extent by which Universities and Colleges of Western Visayas implement programs on Intellectual Property Rights, it relation to the overall performance of an educational institution. The respondents of this study are the deans, department heads and the faculty of the four members of the stateuniversities and college in Western Visayas specifically located in the city and province of Iloilo. A universal and purposive sampling was adopted in this study. The deans and department heads were the universal sample, while the faculty are purposive samples and represent the ten percent of the whole faculty populace having apermanent status. In the level of awareness on the provisions of the law on intellectual property rights existing in institutions, the result showed that the weighted mean was 2.318 which means that the respondent were less aware of the provision of the intellectual property rights. In the level of implementation of strategies of the law on intellectual property rights being practiced in institutions showed that the weighted mean was 1.812 which means that the respondent have observed to the least extent in the implementation of strategies of the law on intellectual property rights. In the problems encountered with their degree of seriousness in connection with the enforcement of the intellectual property rights law the result showed that the over-all weighted mean was 1.39 which means that the respondent have not seriously encountered problems with the enforcement of the intellectual property rights in their institution due to unpracticed of the law. In terms of the significant variance in the use of strategies for the enforcement of the law on intellectual property rights in the four state institutions in Western Visayas the result showed that Sig. value was 0.000 which is less than the Alpha level at 0.05 therefore the variance in the use of strategies in the implementation of intellectual property rights law in four state institutions in Western Visayas was significant and the null hypothesis was rejected.