Volume 02, Issue 6
Published on: June 2026
CROSS-BORDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RISK ASSESSMENT FOR DIGITAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP
D Divyashree Greeshma S
Dr. Chitra B T
Article Status
Plagiarism Passed
Peer Reviewed
Open Access
Available Documents
Abstract
Digital entrepreneurs seeking to commercialize innovations across national borders face a fragmented and increasingly complex intellectual property (IP) landscape. Despite the harmonization efforts of international agreements such as TRIPS, the Paris Convention, and the Patent Cooperation Treaty, significant jurisdictional divergences persist in patentability criteria, copyright scope, trade secret protections, and enforcement mechanisms. These divergences create substantial compliance risks that disproportionately affect small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and technology startups, which typically lack the specialized legal resources available to large multinational corporations. This paper proposes a structured decision support framework for cross-border IP risk assessment tailored to digital entrepreneurs. The framework employs a composite risk scoring model that integrates the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) with fuzzy logic inference to quantify IP risk across five measurable dimensions: infringement exposure, protection gap, regulatory uncertainty, enforcement weakness, and strategic vulnerability. The framework is validated through an expert evaluation involving five IP law professionals and a scenario-based assessment covering 100 cross-border commercialization cases across ten major jurisdictions. The composite risk scores exhibit a Spearman correlation of ρ = 0.81 (p < 0.001) with independent expert assessments, demonstrating strong alignment with professional judgment. A filing strategy optimization component reduces estimated IP protection costs by 23% on average while maintaining risk within acceptable thresholds. The findings offer practical guidance for entrepreneurs navigating cross-border IP decisions and contribute to the growing body of literature on IP management in the context of digital innovation and international entrepreneurship.
Keywords
Intellectual property rights; cross-border entrepreneurship; risk assessment; decision support; fuzzy-AHP; digital innovation; IP compliance; patent strategy; SME internationalization.
Keywords
Intellectual property rights; cross-border entrepreneurship; risk assessment; decision support; fuzzy-AHP; digital innovation; IP compliance; patent strategy; SME internationalization.
How to Cite this Paper
Divyashree, D. & S, G. (2026). Cross-Border Intellectual Property Risk Assessment for Digital Entrepreneurship. International Journal of Creative and Open Research in Engineering and Management, <i>02</i>(6). https://doi.org/10.55041/ijcope.v2i6.224
Divyashree, D, and Greeshma S. "Cross-Border Intellectual Property Risk Assessment for Digital Entrepreneurship." International Journal of Creative and Open Research in Engineering and Management, vol. 02, no. 6, 2026, pp. . doi:https://doi.org/10.55041/ijcope.v2i6.224.
Divyashree, D, and Greeshma S. "Cross-Border Intellectual Property Risk Assessment for Digital Entrepreneurship." International Journal of Creative and Open Research in Engineering and Management 02, no. 6 (2026). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.55041/ijcope.v2i6.224.
Search & Index
References
- Abbott, R. (2016). I think, therefore I invent: Creative computers and the future of patent law. Boston College Law Review, 57(4), 1079–1126.
- Abbott, R. (2020). The reasonable robot: Artificial intelligence and the law. Cambridge University Press.
- Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
- Allison, J. R., & Tiller, E. H. (2003). The business method patent myth. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 18(4), 987–1084.
- American Intellectual Property Law Association. (2023). Report of the economic survey. AIPLA.
- Ashley, K. D. (2017). Artificial intelligence and legal analytics: New tools for law practice in the digital age. Cambridge University Press.
- Bessen, J., & Meurer, M. J. (2008). Patent failure: How judges, bureaucrats, and lawyers put innovators at risk. Princeton University Press.
- Davison, M. J., & Hugenholtz, P. B. (2005). Football fixtures, horse races and spin-offs: The ECJ domesticates the database right. European Intellectual Property Review, 27(3), 113–118.
- Dinwoodie, G. B. (2009). Developing a private international intellectual property law. William and Mary Law Review, 51(2), 711–800.
- Dreyfuss, R., & Frankel, S. (2015). From incentive to commodity to asset: How international law is reconceptualizing intellectual property. Michigan Journal of International Law, 36(4), 557–602.
- European Commission. (2022). Intellectual property SME scoreboard 2022. European Union Intellectual Property Office.
- Farre-Mensa, J., Hegde, D., & Ljungqvist, A. (2020). What is a patent worth? Evidence from the U.S. patent “lottery.” Journal of Finance, 75(2), 639–682.
- Golden, J. M. (2007). Patent trolls and patent remedies. Texas Law Review, 85(7), 2111–2160.
- Goldstein, P., & Trimble, M. (2022). International intellectual property law (4th ed.). Foundation Press.
- Graham, S. J. H., Merges, R. P., Samuelson, P., & Sichelman, T. (2009). High technology entrepreneurs and the patent system: Results of the 2008 Berkeley patent survey. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 24(4), 1255–1328.
- Hasan, S., Weng, K., & Hossain, M. S. (2021). Patent valuation using machine learning and patent citation network analysis. World Patent Information, 64, 101–112.
- Helmers, C., Love, B., & McDonagh, L. (2014). Is there a patent troll problem in the UK? Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, 24(2), 509–553.
Ethical Compliance & Review Process
- •All submissions are screened under plagiarism detection.
- •Review follows editorial policy.
- •Authors retain copyright.
- •Peer Review Type: Double-Blind Peer Review
- •Published on: Jun 17 2026
CCBYNC
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. You are free to share and adapt this work for non-commercial purposes with proper attribution.