‌Context & Objective: The intellectual property framework is traditionally conceptualized through an economic and technical lens, positioned as a market mechanism designed to rectify market failures and incentivize innovation. This utilitarian discourse neglects the profound distributive, cultural, and human consequences inherent in these regimes. As a legal institution regulating access to knowledge, health, and technology, intellectual property inherently influences equitable social ideals. The complexities of this influence have intensified amid the digital revolution, biotechnological advancements, and international legal demands, necessitating a reassessment of philosophical foundations. An exclusive economic focus has exacerbated structural inequalities, ranging from restricted access to essential medicines to the monopolization of indigenous knowledge. A central inquiry addresses whether social justice components are effectively institutionalized within the current architecture, or if the system itself acts as a structural impediment to equitable distribution. A theoretical framework is articulated for a balanced paradigm wherein the socio-economic interests of all groups—including asset holders, the public, and marginalized communities—are integrated fairly into the design and execution of these legal systems, moving beyond one-sided economic discourse toward equitable, capability-enhancing governance.
 ‌Method & Approach: A qualitative and doctrinal analytical methodology is utilized to evaluate the intersection of intellectual property and equitable resource distribution. The theoretical framework is anchored in two prominent theories within the liberal philosophical tradition: John Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness, and Robert Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice. This foundational analysis is integrated with capability-centric social justice paradigms to construct a comprehensive evaluative mechanism. By juxtaposing Rawls’s structural, goal-oriented perspective—which relies on the veil of ignorance and the difference principle—with Nozick’s strict adherence to absolute private property and a minimal state, the analytical boundaries of legitimate monopoly rights are delineated.
 ‌Findings: Social justice considerations constitute an inherent element of the nature, normative legitimacy, and ultimate purpose of intellectual property, rather than merely existing as marginal constraints. A functional dependency exists between social justice and social utility; structural inequalities stemming from intellectual monopolies actively undermine long-term economic efficiency and normative legitimacy. Comparative theoretical analysis reveals that the Rawlsian framework, emphasizing the difference principle and equal opportunity, provides a robust justification for limiting intellectual property rights. Mechanisms such as reasonable protection terms, compulsory licensing, and fair use doctrines are validated as essential tools serving the public interest and disadvantaged populations. Conversely, the Nozickian approach, advocating absolute property rights, struggles to accommodate necessary regulatory limitations. An evaluative framework comprising three core criteria—equitable access, inclusivity, and human empowerment—emerges as necessary for reforming intellectual property architectures. Within the Iranian legal system, substantial deficiencies exist regarding these criteria. The current copyright framework features a narrowly defined scope for fair use, restricting it strictly to personal and non-commercial applications. Furthermore, judicial practice concerning compulsory licensing for pharmaceutical patents remains exceptionally limited, and the legal structure lacks mechanisms to protect indigenous knowledge against external appropriation.
 ‌Conclusion: Resolving the conflict between the monopolization and dissemination of knowledge necessitates a critical re-reading of the philosophical and regulatory foundations of intellectual property through the lens of social justice. Intellectual property operates as a regulatory tool equipped with social obligations rather than an absolute private entitlement. To align the legal framework with equitable standards, specific structural reforms are imperative. The scope of fair use must be redefined by incorporating systematic standards, such as evaluating the commercial nature of the use, the significance of the portion utilized, and the impact on the original market. Transparent executive regulations must be established to facilitate compulsory licenses, prioritizing essential medicines. Implementing an equitable compensation system for the utilization of prior works is essential to maintain innovation incentives while facilitating public access. Adopting complementary policies, including tax incentives for preferential pricing and the integration of shared governance and open-access models, will mitigate existing structural inequalities. Transitioning to this holistic paradigm is an urgent necessity to ensure sustainable legitimacy and practical efficacy, transforming intellectual property into a responsible institution committed to collective human advancement.