Strengthening IPR requires making protection stronger for the rights owner---it excludes making IPR more socially beneficial.
Mandel ’18 [Gregory N.; January; Dean & Peter J. Liacouras Professor of Law, Temple University; Minnesota Law Review, “Institutional Fracture in Intellectual Property Law: The Supreme Court Versus Congress,” 102:803]
Recent legislative and judicial actions concerning intellectual property law reveal several stark trends. Congress has been remarkably hospitable to stronger intellectual property rights. Congress passed forty-three intellectual property laws during the time period in question. Of those that affected the substantive strength of intellectual property rights, over 80% made rights stronger.1 These laws made it easier to acquire intellectual property rights, broadened the scope of protection, and strengthened enforcement. The Supreme Court’s intellectual property jurisprudence, however, has moved largely in the opposite direction. The Court decided forty-four intellectual property cases from the October 2002–2003 Term through the October 2015–2016 Term, and of those that substantively affected the extent of rights, two-thirds weakened protection.
Footnote 1
1. The use of the terms “stronger” and “weaker” refers solely to the strength (or weakness) of intellectual property rights from the perspective of the intellectual property rights owner. These terms do not indicate that a given law is more or less socially beneficial.