"Congress shall have the power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Several names have been used for the clause that is Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution. It's been called the Intellectual Property Clause, the Copyright and Patent Clause (or just one of those), and the Progress Clause. I believe that only the last of these is factually accurate and that it is also the only name with connotations that match the clause's primary purpose and function.

"The Intellectual Property Clause" is probably the most inaccurate of all the names. "Intellectual Property" is a catch-all phrase under which falls Copyright, Patent, Trademark, Trade Secret, and even some state law rights, such as the Right of Publicity. Several of these do not find their source in Article I Sec. 8 Cl. 8. Notably, Trademark law is enacted pursuant to Congress's Commerce Clause authority. Trade secret law is state law, not enacted under any Constitutional authority. Similarly for other state laws such as the Right of Publicity. So, calling this one clause "THE" IP clause ignores a good bit of "IP".

Calling it just the "Copyright Clause" ignores Patents and calling it just the "Patent Clause" ignores Copyrights. For the same reasons neither is truly accurate.

It is no solution to call it the "Copyright and Patent Clause" either. For even a copyright and patent minimalist like myself should admit that the Clause never uses either word! We have interpreted the Clause to provide authority for Copyrights and Patents, but this doesn't mean that the same clause might not provide support for other "exclusive rights" that could be secured for "authors and inventors". In particular, Prof. Pam Samuelson has argued that computer software should receive a sui generis form of protection that would be neither a copyright nor a patent. Such an exclusive right would nonetheless find its basis in Article I Sec. 8 Cl. 8. Other "exclusive rights" could too and would be left out of the "Copyright and Patent" monicker.

"The Progress Clause" on the other hand is factually accurate. The Clause is the only Article 8 power to have a stated purpose. "Congress shall have the power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." If that purpose were not important, the Clause could have simply begun "to secure..." But it doesn't.

One could also accurately call it the "Promotion Clause" or the "Securing Clause" but those names necessarily suggest the questions: Promotion of what? Securing of what? The name "Progress Clause" doesn't leave one guessing. One could also accurately call it the "Exclusive Rights" Clause, but this is where connotation matters. It's clear from the history surrounding the adoption of the Clause and from its own language that the point is not merely to grant exclusive rights for the sake of granting rights. These limited monopolies are not simply some sort of reward. On the contrary, their purpose and the only appropriate Congressional purpose for granting monopolies, is the promotion of Progress. To keep this central focus of the clause present in one's mind, it makes sense to call the clause by that name, the only factually accurate name that's been seriously proposed.