The document discusses the roles of national intellectual property (IP) systems in fostering innovation and economic development in Colombia and Indonesia, emphasizing the need for tailored policies that adapt to each country's specific contexts. It outlines the frameworks for analyzing IP systems, the challenges faced by innovators, and the necessity for comprehensive legal, administrative, and operational reforms to enhance IP effectiveness for socio-economic growth. The presentation culminates in identifying critical steps and collaborative efforts required to improve the integration of IP in broader innovation strategies.

1. National Intellectual Property Systems,
Innovation and Economic Development
with perspectives on Colombia and Indonesia
Presentation of the publication

2. Contents
• 1 – Framework for country analysis
• 2 – Country study of Colombia’s intellectual
property system
• 3 – Country study of Indonesia’s intellectual
property system

3. FRAMEWORK FOR COUNTRY
ANALYSIS

4. How can IP systems best be mobilised for
innovation in middle-income economies?
•
•
•
IP can have substantial impact on socio-economic
development / innovation (“dynamic efficiency”,
knowledge transfer of universities, licensing out)
Such impact depends on policy choices shaping the
national IP system starting with policies for the legal
quality of IP
It depends also on broader innovation policies,
beyond IP per se, requiring pragmatic steps to
address constraints & complexities in the
determinants and use of IP.

5. Project objective: Providing possible
approaches
• Project objectives are to support middle-income
countries in strengthening contributions of IP
systems to innovation
• Initial critical step = Develop a conceptual/policy
framework
– mapping actors, context, policies and
interrelationships, and
– identifying national IP policy principles for country
analyses (A policy compass to navigate the map)
• Implementation = Analysis of specific country IP
systems (cases of Colombia and Indonesia)

6. Conceptual mapping for analysing IP for
innovation
Innovation and IPR
Organisation of IP systems
Types of IPR
(patents, utility models, trademarks,
copyright, trade secrets, …)
Rationales of IP for innovation
(incentives for invention, access to
knowledge, access to finance, addressing
information asymmetries, ….)
IP, markets and diffusion
Open innovation
Open source
Licensing and
markets for IP
IP and markets for
finance
Competition
(standards and IP,
patent pools and
antitrust, patent
races, proliferation
of patents)
Legal quality of IP
IP operations and
procedures
IP enforcement and
litigation
IP law
International dimensions
(substantive patent
law, utility model law,
trademark law, ….)
(agreements and bodies)
IP users
Leading “frontier” businesses
“Catching-up” businesses
Innovators in traditional and
informal sectors
Universities and public
research institutes
IP skills and training
Fields of IP use
Innovation in biotechnology and
pharmaceuticals
Innovation in agriculture
IP policies in the context of
innovation
Characteristics of IP policies relative to
others
Policy design
Creative industries
(prioritization, compatibility and tradeoffs)
Innovation in ICT
Governance of IP

7. The Innovation Policy Platform
experiment
• Connecting to
relevant innovation
policy words
• Accessing country
policy information
• Accessing relevant
statistics and
graphical tools
•
Demystify IP and set it in the context of innovation policies by providing
one-stop information on IP policies (starting point set)
•
Setting explicitly IP policies within broader policy debates – critical
perspective of the framework (books are imperfect for that !)
•
Towards policy diagnostics by i) indicating types of linkages /
interdependencies, ii) providing relevant statistics and iii) country information
on policies

8. What makes developing countries
different from developed ones?
• Obviously, many similarities including critical
importance of administrative and legal dimensions
but …
• … maximising contributions of national IP systems
to innovation requires adapting IP policies to
national context even more fundamentally
• Two examples (more comprehensive in the book):
– Patents are often beyond reach for national
innovators - focus on other types of IP critical
– Concentration of research capacities in
universities makes them a priority area.

9. IP systems and the democratisation
of innovation
• Identify differential IP policy issues for groups of
innovators to maximise impacts
Four categories of users
with:
Innovators
in
traditional
and informal
sectors
“Catchingup“
businesses
Leading
“frontier“
businesses
Research
institutions
and
universities
• Different types of IP use
• Challenges with IP of
different natures
• Complementary policies
for commercialisation
often needed

10. Needs to be accompanied by related
investments
Source: OECD and WIPO Statistics Database

11. COLOMBIA'S NATIONAL
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
SYSTEM

12. The socio-economic and innovation
context
•
Colombia is 3rd most populous and 4th largest economy in Latin America
•
Stable economic performance in last decade, strong macro-economic discipline, trade
reforms, increased security
 positive context for strengthening innovation system
•
Overall expenditure on S&T activities lags behind, traditional output indicators equally modest
 variety of factors require focus from skill base to articulation of different actors & critical
complements of IP systems’ contributions
•
Small number of well-known universities (research) and some strong private sector capacities
(Ecopetrol), rapid growth in mineral exports (esp. oil) - “Dutch disease” or opportunities?
 leading sectors beyond traditional manufacturing firm
•
Inequality challenge: informal sector employs 1/2 of the labour force
 renders broader focus for IP policies desirable
•
Challenges for innovators (limited access to capital, high barriers to business entry,
infrastructure)
 need to be addressed: IP provides incentives only for those who can commercialise

13. Applying the framework
Innovation and IPR
Organisation of IP systems
Types of IPR
(patents, utility models, trademarks,
copyright, trade secrets, …)
Rationales of IP for innovation
(incentives for invention, access to
knowledge, access to finance, addressing
information asymmetries, ….)
IP, markets and diffusion
Open innovation
Open source
Licensing and
markets for IP
IP and markets for
finance
Competition
(standards and IP,
patent pools and
antitrust, patent
races, proliferation
of patents)
Legal quality of IP
IP operations and
procedures
IP enforcement and
litigation
IP law
International dimensions
(substantive patent
law, utility model law,
trademark law, ….)
(agreements and bodies)
IP users
Leading “frontier” businesses
“Catching-up” businesses
Innovators in traditional and
informal sectors
Universities and public
research institutes
IP skills and training
Fields of IP use
Innovation in biotechnology and
pharmaceuticals
Innovation in agriculture
IP policies in the context of
innovation
Characteristics of IP policies relative to
others
Policy design
Creative industries
(prioritization, compatibility and tradeoffs)
Innovation in ICT
Governance of IP

14. Organisation of the Colombian IP
system
• Comprehensive legal provisions: TRIPS, Andean
Community & signatory of major international treaties
• New IP policy with strategy 2008 document [CONPES,
3533]
• Intersectoral Commission for Intellectual Property (CIPI):
created in 2010, initial success in co-ordination, next step:
driving an innovation agenda !
• A few key actors for this:
– a) Colciencias: key player in STI;
– b) DNP: technical secretariat of CIPI;
– c) MCIT: presidency of CIPI, international treaties &
business development and
– d) IP offices

15. Organisation of the Colombian IP system

16. IP operations and procedures
•
Institutions in charge of IP (SIC, ICA, Copyright Office) since 2012 now courts of first instance in IP
law cases
 step towards greater efficiency (guarantee of ownership) but requires vigilance of functioning
• Fee structure with discounts for smaller entities, also general reductions of trademarks
 growing awareness that price is not binding constraint
• Continuous reduction of application processing time since 2011
Time required for processing IP applications, averages in months for 2005-11

17. IP markets and diffusion
• Licensing and IP markets weakly developed but interesting success
stories
- TECNNOVA: fostering university-industry co-operation
-
• Institutional characteristic: entity in charge of granting industrial
property is also competition authority
 proposal to create autonomous IP institution

18. IP users … a quick data perspective
• Weak use of IP system by residents by regional and international
standards, particularly patents
• Concentration of patent-level innovation capacities in universities
and the oil sector.
Number of patent applications for the top 10 Colombian entities for 2007-12
Source: SIC

19. IP users … a quick data perspective
700000
600000
600
517
500
581303
400
500000
Applications
• Relatively weak
use of utility
models in spite
of relevance for
large number
of national
entities
Resident utility model applications for selected IP offices, 2011
300
214
200
400000
72
100
65
36
18
11
0
300000
Mexico
[18]
200000
Colombia Peru [38] Chile [40] Uruguay Ecuador Guatemala
[24]
[44]
(2010) [46] [48]
100000
12759
12584
11462
10279
6305
0
3210
2481
China [1] Germany [2] Federation [3] Korea [4]
Russian
Republic of
Ukraine [5] Japan [6] Turkey [7] Spain [8]
Source: WIPO Patent Statistics
2308
1926
Italy [9]Brazil (2010) [10]
IP Office
Causes?
-More affordable fee compared to patents and, with recent reductions = reasonable
timeframes
 Either reflection of past (long processing) or, likely part of explanations, other
factors such as limited awareness … would require different approaches

20. Innovators in traditional and informal
sectors

Limited experience using geographical indications with notable exception and
success story: “Café de Colombia”
 replication needs more efforts into institutional parts than identifying more
products

Traditional knowledge and biodiversity equally critical & dialogue with afroindigenous community

21. “Catching-up” firms and leading “frontier
businesses“
• Addressing needs of SMEs  critical role of regional
services
• Propiedad Intelectual Colombia: Chambers of
Commerce & IADB  specialised IP consulting
services, practical support and management of relevant
IP
• Challenges for IP support programmes: demanding and
lengthy selection leading to rigorous selection but
difficulties for companies & firms

22. Research institutes and universities
• Regulatory constraints faced by researchers in
public universities substantial & limited
incentives
• Difficulty of finding right counterparts –
challenges broader than IP-related challenges
• Technology transfer offices: challenge of scale
currently mostly initial attempts, possibly
regional services or other types of cooperation
for efficiency

23. Some conclusions
• Recent reforms have considerably improved
legal and administrative conditions
• More remains to be done to assist a wider
group of innovators in identifying how IP can
serve their innovation activities
• The CIPI could be enabled to push the “IP for
innovation” agenda forward

24. INDONESIA’S NATIONAL
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
SYSTEM

25. The socio-economic and innovation
context
• Indonesia is 4th most populated country in the world with 237 million
inhabitants
Night lights: another
perspective on
development patterns
Images source: Google Maps

26. The socio-economic and innovation
context
•
Indonesia is 4th most populated country in the world with 237 million inhabitants
•
Dynamic region of the world & strong growth performance (after Asian crisis)
 attracting foreign capital offering potential opportunities
•
Innovation has played limited role in development, GERD as % of GDP of 0.08%, but
pockets of concentrated S&T and R&D expertise, particularly public sector institutes
(bulk of R&D investments)
 focus on leading public research institutions = greater opportunities for success of
patents
• Low technology base & declining exports of high-tech products
 Types of IP such as: Utility models, design rights and trademarks are worth exploring
•
•
Poverty and inequality are substantial, informal sector (68%)
Traditional industries and rich repository of traditional knowledge (including bhatik
textiles and manufacturing)
 IP policies should consider these activities

27. Applying the framework
Innovation and IPR
Organisation of IP systems
Types of IPR
(patents, utility models, trademarks,
copyright, trade secrets, …)
Rationales of IP for innovation
(incentives for invention, access to
knowledge, access to finance, addressing
information asymmetries, ….)
IP, markets and diffusion
Open innovation
Open source
Licensing and
markets for IP
IP and markets for
finance
Competition
(standards and IP,
patent pools and
antitrust, patent
races, proliferation
of patents)
Legal quality of IP
IP operations and
procedures
IP enforcement and
litigation
IP law
International dimensions
(substantive patent
law, utility model law,
trademark law, ….)
(agreements and bodies)
IP users
Leading “frontier” businesses
“Catching-up” businesses
Innovators in traditional and
informal sectors
Universities and public
research institutes
IP skills and training
Fields of IP use
Innovation in biotechnology and
pharmaceuticals
Innovation in agriculture
IP policies in the context of
innovation
Characteristics of IP policies relative to
others
Policy design
Creative industries
(prioritization, compatibility and tradeoffs)
Innovation in ICT
Governance of IP

28. Organisation of the Indonesian IP system
• Regulatory framework reflects 1991 and 1995 WTO
membership & Indonesia is a signatory of major international
treaties
• Task Force for IP Enforcement: formal instance of interministerial co-ordination
 A step in the right direction as to date ministries have limited
knowledge about IP policy enacted by their counterparts. More
coordination is desirable to allow for bigger projects involving
several bodies.

29. IP operations and procedures
• Legal and administrative conditions are crucial for the IP system to
support innovation:
• Indonesia still faces several challenges…
Summary of Indonesia’s challenges
• …but has taken steps towards addressing them including:
• Efforts to improve efficiency of IP application processing via
automation with the collaboration of the WIPO
• Creation of the Arbitration and Mediation Agency for IP
rights to offer faster, simpler and cheaper solutions for IP
dispute resolution

30. IP markets and diffusion
• Limited development of markets for IP (multiple factors
including shortcomings in legal frameworks and regulations
for licensing)
• Pioneering case of the Indonesian Agricultural Research and
Development Institute for Agricultural Technology Transfer
(very active in patenting, pushing for licensing, looking for
international partners, etc.)

31. IP users … a quick data perspective
Relatively weak use of IP system by residents …
except for design rights and use of trademarks :
trademark use in Indonesia is stronger than
this of its neighbours (reflecting the dynamism
of the service industry)
Applications
•
Trademark applications by China, Indonesia and India at
USPTO, OHIM, JPO and national IP offices, 2000-02 and 2009-11
averages
USPTO
OHIM
JPO
National trademark office (right-hand scale)
Trademark applications at foreign
offices, thousands
0.5
0.4
Indonesia
Thailand
Viet Nam
Malaysia
Philippines
Singapore
60 000
50 000
40 000
30 000
20 000
10 000
Trademark applications at
national offices, thousands 250
2.3(USPTO)
0.8 (OHIM)
1.3 (JPO)
996 (national TM
office)
Resident trademark applications for selected ASEAN offices
200
0.3
100
0.1
50
0.0
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Source: WIPO Patent Statistics
Application year
150
0.2
0
2009-11
2000-02
CHN
Source: WIPO Patent Statistics
2009-11
2000-02
IDN
2009-11
2000-02
IND
• However, international
trademark applications are
still low compared to those
of other BRIICS countries

32. Industrial design
• The number of industrial design applications in Indonesia is remarkable
compare to other types of IP (except trademarks), and is high for the
region.
Resident design applications for selected IP offices, 2011
600 000
507 538
4 000
500 000
3 601
2 905
400 000
2 000
Applications
3 000
1 000
743
663
533
0
300 000
Indonesia Thailand Viet Nam Malaysia Singapore Philippines
(2009) [12]
[13]
[21]
[31]
[32]
[33]
200 000
100 000
1 197
52 812
26 658
17 443
15 949
7 530
5 602
5 156
4 375
4 290
India [8]
France [9]
United
Kingdom
[10]
0
China [1] Republic of Japan [3]
Korea [2]
Source: WIPO Patent Statistics
United
OHIM [5] Turkey [6] Germany
States of
[7]
America [4]
IP Office

33. Innovators in traditional and informal
sectors
• In spite of potential, limited awareness among
producers in traditional industries and their institutions
• GI seen as potentially relevant but still need to be
exploited, management and benefit sharing systems are
critical
• Traditional knowledge: joint database is being
developed across several ministries and organisations
 critical to help create system of benefit sharing to
safeguard but even more if building opportunities

34. “Catching-up” businesses and leading
“pioneer” businesses
• “Pioneer” business IP user case using traditional
knowledge : Dexa Medica (building on traditional
medicine)
• SMEs weak and limited uses of IP with some
exceptions for quality consumer products (challenges
of product quality in Indonesia)
• Possibly interesting to think about unregistered
design rights for textiles producers

35. Research institutions and universities
•
Concentration of research capacities  high potential for revenuegenerating innovation that should be exploited
•
All income generated from publicly-funded projects claimed by Ministry of
Finance, no rewards for researchers, in some cases negative selection
(researchers leaving if IP becomes success)
•
Negative effects of certain well-intentioned support programmes: filing
low-quality patents to receive support (for applications) but without
increasing opportunities for commercialisation
• Limited & short-term resources: short-term budgetary allocations hinder
commercialisation = projects abandoned en route
• Research quality & research projects not starting from the “state of the
art”  screening patent information
• Technology transfer offices: created in many universities but often not
formalised, limited funding sources & capacities  towards common
services could be useful

36. Some conclusions
• Legal and administrative reforms are needed to improve
the quality of the IP system.
• Efforts must be taken to include smaller entities and
businesses in remote geographic areas (high potential
gain from use of IP).
• High potential in the public research sector  IP policy
also has to address challenges that inhibit public
research institutes from supporting the innovation
system
• Better co-operation of IP policy for innovation is needed
to improve policy design

37. FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION

38. For further information…
• Project Website:
– http://oe.cd/ip-studies or
– www.oecd.org/sti/inno/ip-studies.htm
• Innovation Policy Reviews:
http://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/oecdreviewsofinnovationpol
icy.htm
• Innovation Policy Platform:
www.innovationpolicyplatform.org
• Contact: Caroline Paunov : caroline.paunov@oecd.org