WTO was born on 1st January 1995 with main objective to improve the welfare of people of member countries.
Its main function is to ensure that trade flows as smoothly, predictably & freely as possible.
WTO was born on 1st January 1995 with main objective to improve the welfare of people of member countries.
Its main function is to ensure that trade flows as smoothly, predictably & freely as possible.
Pharmaceuticals and the WTO TRIPS Agreementjboscariol
A presentation on the application of the obligations and remedies under the WTO\'s agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights to pharma products. Includes a focus on access to patented medicines for developing countries.
International Trademark Protection (William Fisher - June 25, 2004). Many slides were prepared by the Technical Cooperation Division of the Office of Harmonization in the Internal Market, Alicante, Spain, October 29, 1998.
_____________________________________
This is just a selection from the original Fisher's presentation. My selection was made according stuff I may be use in the Argentina/Mercosur trademark presentation.
TREATIES ON IPR PROTECTION
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
Madrid Agreement for the Repression of False or Deceptive Indications of Source on Goods (1891).
The paris Convention
Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances (2012)
Brussels Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite (1974)
Marrakesh Treaty (2013)
Nairobi Treaty on the Protection of the Olympic Symbol (1981)
Patent Law Treaty (PLT) (2000)
Phonogram convention (1971)
Importance and Impacts of Strong Trademark Protection and Enforcement on Econ...Vincent BIROT
What Actually is “Economy 4.0”?
Intellectual Property and Economy 4.0
Trademark and Development of Economy
Merits of Trademarks on Business and Economic Performance
What Makes a Strong Trademark System?
Negative Impact of Counterfeits
Pharmaceuticals and the WTO TRIPS Agreementjboscariol
A presentation on the application of the obligations and remedies under the WTO\'s agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights to pharma products. Includes a focus on access to patented medicines for developing countries.
International Trademark Protection (William Fisher - June 25, 2004). Many slides were prepared by the Technical Cooperation Division of the Office of Harmonization in the Internal Market, Alicante, Spain, October 29, 1998.
_____________________________________
This is just a selection from the original Fisher's presentation. My selection was made according stuff I may be use in the Argentina/Mercosur trademark presentation.
TREATIES ON IPR PROTECTION
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
Madrid Agreement for the Repression of False or Deceptive Indications of Source on Goods (1891).
The paris Convention
Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances (2012)
Brussels Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite (1974)
Marrakesh Treaty (2013)
Nairobi Treaty on the Protection of the Olympic Symbol (1981)
Patent Law Treaty (PLT) (2000)
Phonogram convention (1971)
Importance and Impacts of Strong Trademark Protection and Enforcement on Econ...Vincent BIROT
What Actually is “Economy 4.0”?
Intellectual Property and Economy 4.0
Trademark and Development of Economy
Merits of Trademarks on Business and Economic Performance
What Makes a Strong Trademark System?
Negative Impact of Counterfeits
IP filings continue to break records. Initial data suggests that 2015 will set new records in the number of IP filings worldwide.
New players enter the game. An ever increasing mix of countries enter the coveted “most innovative list” as more patents are produced overseas.
More markets = more problems. Non-domestic filings are more important than ever. Globalization is only possible when ideas are protected at home and abroad.
Bring on the red tape. The downside is greater regulation, great administrative burden, and higher costs associated with IP management. Software can deliver the systematic approach to identify your opportunities, reach your maximum portfolio value, and mitigate potential risk.
Economic Contribution of Copyright-based
Industries in Pakistan
Ghulam Samad
Vaqar Ahmed
World Intellectual Property Organisation WIPO
Pakistan Development Review
Pakistan Institute of Development Economics
WIPO's World Intellectual Property Indicators 2011 provides a wide range of indicators covering various areas of intellectual property: patents, utility models, trademarks, industrial designs and microorganisms. It draws on data from national and regional IP offices, WIPO, the World Bank and UNESCO.
What are the user interests behind requests for data and indicators on PPI? C...STIEAS
Expert Workshop on the Measurement of Public Procurement of Innovation. “What are the user interests behind requests for data and indicators on PPI? Can these requirements be clearly identified and delivered? ”, presentation from Ms. Hernández-Garvayo
THE INNOVATION IMPERATIVE
The economic downturn makes it imperative to find new sources of growth
Innovation is a means of dealing with global and social challenges
OUTLINE A MEASUREMENT AGENDA FOR THE FUTURE:
1 - Improve the measurement of broader innovation and its link to macroeconomic performance
2 - Invest in a comprehensive, high-quality data infrastructure for measuring impacts
3 - Recognise the role, and improve the measurement of, innovation in the public sector
4 - Invest in the design of new statistical methods and interdisciplinary approaches to data collection
5 - Promote measurement of innovation for social goals and of social impacts of innovation
La Version 2023 de la doctrine du numérique en santébenj_2
Dans la logique d’État-plateforme, la Doctrine du numérique en santé constitue le document de référence pour les acteurs de l’écosystème de la e-santé, qui développent ou opèrent des services numériques au bénéfice des professionnels du système de santé et in fine des usagers. Elle s’adresse principalement aux entreprises du numérique en santé et plus largement aux structures publiques ou privées, de toutes tailles, qui créent, maintiennent ou développent des services numériques en santé.
Etude Biomédicaments et Bioproduction 2023 en France et en Europebenj_2
Synthèse réalisée à partir d’Étude et caractérisation de la filière des biomédicaments en France, étude réalisée en 2023 par Mabdesign pour France 2030, l’Agence de l’innovation en santé et sa stratégie d’accélération Biomédicaments et Bioproduction en thérapies innovantes,
France Biotech et France Biolead.
Cette étude a été réalisée sur 8 pays : France, Royaume-Uni, Suisse, Portugal, Italie, Belgique, Irlande et Allemagne.
Les données utilisées s’arrêtent en juillet 2023.
État des lieux du marché des biomédicaments dans le monde et en Europe
3ème édition de l’Observatoire du transfert de technologie en Santébenj_2
États des lieux du transfert de technologie en Santé : vers une meilleure structuration des négociations d’accords publics/privés.
France Biotech, l’Association des entrepreneurs de l’innovation en santé et KPMG en France, avec le soutien de l’Agence Innovation Santé et de bpifrance, publient la 3ème édition de l’Observatoire du transfert de technologie en Santé.
Confiance et utilisation du numérique en santé, sécurité́ des données de santé, retours d’expérience de Mon espace santé... afin de mieux déceler les habitudes et les freins des Français en matière de numérique en santé, la Délégation au numérique en santé (DNS) a mené́, avec Verian (ex Kantar Public) et Harris Interactive, une vaste enquête qualitative et quantitative intitulée « Les Français et le numérique en santé ».
Décret n° 2023-1222 du 20 décembre 2023 relatif à la prescription électroniqu...benj_2
Le décret définit les conditions de mise en œuvre et d'entrée en vigueur de la prescription électronique entendue comme la dématérialisation des prescriptions de soins, de produits de santé et de prestations établies ou exécutées par les professionnels de santé et leur transmission à l'assurance maladie par voie électronique. Il définit également les droits des patients à l'égard de ces précisions dématérialisées et de leurs conditions d'exécution ainsi que les cas ou circonstances dans lesquels la dématérialisation pourra, par dérogation, ne pas être mise en œuvre par les professionnels.
Feuille de route décarbonation de l'industrie pharmaceutiquebenj_2
Décembre 2023: Afin de lutter contre le réchauffement climatique et réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre associées à la production et à la consommation de médicaments en France, le Gouvernement a annoncé un plan de décarbonation pour l'industrie pharmaceutique.
Ce guide du déposant est destiné aux déposants qui souhaitent suivre une procédure selon le Traité de coopération en matière de brevets (PCT) et insiste sur les particularités des procédures PCT devant l'OEB. Il est appelé "Guide euro-PCT" afin de le distinguer du Guide du déposant du PCT publié par l'OMPI ("Guide PCT de l'OMPI").
INPI : Le palmarès 2016 des déposants de brevets en France en 2016benj_2
Le Top 3 modifié et un nouvel entrant parmi les 10 premiers déposants. Des changements de stratégies de propriété industrielle. La recherche publique de plus en plus visible. Une concentration significative du nombre de demandes de brevets publiées.
Télémédecine et autres prestations médicales électroniquesbenj_2
France, 10 Février 2016, CNOM: Le Conseil national de l’Ordre des médecins publie son avis sur
« l’ubérisation » des prestations médicales
Répondre aux besoins médicaux des patients sans laisser s’installer une ubérisation de la médecine
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 6DianaGray10
Welcome to UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series part 6. In this session, we will cover Test Automation with generative AI and Open AI.
UiPath Test Automation with generative AI and Open AI webinar offers an in-depth exploration of leveraging cutting-edge technologies for test automation within the UiPath platform. Attendees will delve into the integration of generative AI, a test automation solution, with Open AI advanced natural language processing capabilities.
Throughout the session, participants will discover how this synergy empowers testers to automate repetitive tasks, enhance testing accuracy, and expedite the software testing life cycle. Topics covered include the seamless integration process, practical use cases, and the benefits of harnessing AI-driven automation for UiPath testing initiatives. By attending this webinar, testers, and automation professionals can gain valuable insights into harnessing the power of AI to optimize their test automation workflows within the UiPath ecosystem, ultimately driving efficiency and quality in software development processes.
What will you get from this session?
1. Insights into integrating generative AI.
2. Understanding how this integration enhances test automation within the UiPath platform
3. Practical demonstrations
4. Exploration of real-world use cases illustrating the benefits of AI-driven test automation for UiPath
Topics covered:
What is generative AI
Test Automation with generative AI and Open AI.
UiPath integration with generative AI
Speaker:
Deepak Rai, Automation Practice Lead, Boundaryless Group and UiPath MVP
Unlock the Future of Search with MongoDB Atlas_ Vector Search Unleashed.pdfMalak Abu Hammad
Discover how MongoDB Atlas and vector search technology can revolutionize your application's search capabilities. This comprehensive presentation covers:
* What is Vector Search?
* Importance and benefits of vector search
* Practical use cases across various industries
* Step-by-step implementation guide
* Live demos with code snippets
* Enhancing LLM capabilities with vector search
* Best practices and optimization strategies
Perfect for developers, AI enthusiasts, and tech leaders. Learn how to leverage MongoDB Atlas to deliver highly relevant, context-aware search results, transforming your data retrieval process. Stay ahead in tech innovation and maximize the potential of your applications.
#MongoDB #VectorSearch #AI #SemanticSearch #TechInnovation #DataScience #LLM #MachineLearning #SearchTechnology
Securing your Kubernetes cluster_ a step-by-step guide to success !KatiaHIMEUR1
Today, after several years of existence, an extremely active community and an ultra-dynamic ecosystem, Kubernetes has established itself as the de facto standard in container orchestration. Thanks to a wide range of managed services, it has never been so easy to set up a ready-to-use Kubernetes cluster.
However, this ease of use means that the subject of security in Kubernetes is often left for later, or even neglected. This exposes companies to significant risks.
In this talk, I'll show you step-by-step how to secure your Kubernetes cluster for greater peace of mind and reliability.
Climate Impact of Software Testing at Nordic Testing DaysKari Kakkonen
My slides at Nordic Testing Days 6.6.2024
Climate impact / sustainability of software testing discussed on the talk. ICT and testing must carry their part of global responsibility to help with the climat warming. We can minimize the carbon footprint but we can also have a carbon handprint, a positive impact on the climate. Quality characteristics can be added with sustainability, and then measured continuously. Test environments can be used less, and in smaller scale and on demand. Test techniques can be used in optimizing or minimizing number of tests. Test automation can be used to speed up testing.
LF Energy Webinar: Electrical Grid Modelling and Simulation Through PowSyBl -...DanBrown980551
Do you want to learn how to model and simulate an electrical network from scratch in under an hour?
Then welcome to this PowSyBl workshop, hosted by Rte, the French Transmission System Operator (TSO)!
During the webinar, you will discover the PowSyBl ecosystem as well as handle and study an electrical network through an interactive Python notebook.
PowSyBl is an open source project hosted by LF Energy, which offers a comprehensive set of features for electrical grid modelling and simulation. Among other advanced features, PowSyBl provides:
- A fully editable and extendable library for grid component modelling;
- Visualization tools to display your network;
- Grid simulation tools, such as power flows, security analyses (with or without remedial actions) and sensitivity analyses;
The framework is mostly written in Java, with a Python binding so that Python developers can access PowSyBl functionalities as well.
What you will learn during the webinar:
- For beginners: discover PowSyBl's functionalities through a quick general presentation and the notebook, without needing any expert coding skills;
- For advanced developers: master the skills to efficiently apply PowSyBl functionalities to your real-world scenarios.
Building RAG with self-deployed Milvus vector database and Snowpark Container...Zilliz
This talk will give hands-on advice on building RAG applications with an open-source Milvus database deployed as a docker container. We will also introduce the integration of Milvus with Snowpark Container Services.
Goodbye Windows 11: Make Way for Nitrux Linux 3.5.0!SOFTTECHHUB
As the digital landscape continually evolves, operating systems play a critical role in shaping user experiences and productivity. The launch of Nitrux Linux 3.5.0 marks a significant milestone, offering a robust alternative to traditional systems such as Windows 11. This article delves into the essence of Nitrux Linux 3.5.0, exploring its unique features, advantages, and how it stands as a compelling choice for both casual users and tech enthusiasts.
Essentials of Automations: The Art of Triggers and Actions in FMESafe Software
In this second installment of our Essentials of Automations webinar series, we’ll explore the landscape of triggers and actions, guiding you through the nuances of authoring and adapting workspaces for seamless automations. Gain an understanding of the full spectrum of triggers and actions available in FME, empowering you to enhance your workspaces for efficient automation.
We’ll kick things off by showcasing the most commonly used event-based triggers, introducing you to various automation workflows like manual triggers, schedules, directory watchers, and more. Plus, see how these elements play out in real scenarios.
Whether you’re tweaking your current setup or building from the ground up, this session will arm you with the tools and insights needed to transform your FME usage into a powerhouse of productivity. Join us to discover effective strategies that simplify complex processes, enhancing your productivity and transforming your data management practices with FME. Let’s turn complexity into clarity and make your workspaces work wonders!
GraphSummit Singapore | The Art of the Possible with Graph - Q2 2024Neo4j
Neha Bajwa, Vice President of Product Marketing, Neo4j
Join us as we explore breakthrough innovations enabled by interconnected data and AI. Discover firsthand how organizations use relationships in data to uncover contextual insights and solve our most pressing challenges – from optimizing supply chains, detecting fraud, and improving customer experiences to accelerating drug discoveries.
Generative AI Deep Dive: Advancing from Proof of Concept to ProductionAggregage
Join Maher Hanafi, VP of Engineering at Betterworks, in this new session where he'll share a practical framework to transform Gen AI prototypes into impactful products! He'll delve into the complexities of data collection and management, model selection and optimization, and ensuring security, scalability, and responsible use.
Epistemic Interaction - tuning interfaces to provide information for AI supportAlan Dix
Paper presented at SYNERGY workshop at AVI 2024, Genoa, Italy. 3rd June 2024
https://alandix.com/academic/papers/synergy2024-epistemic/
As machine learning integrates deeper into human-computer interactions, the concept of epistemic interaction emerges, aiming to refine these interactions to enhance system adaptability. This approach encourages minor, intentional adjustments in user behaviour to enrich the data available for system learning. This paper introduces epistemic interaction within the context of human-system communication, illustrating how deliberate interaction design can improve system understanding and adaptation. Through concrete examples, we demonstrate the potential of epistemic interaction to significantly advance human-computer interaction by leveraging intuitive human communication strategies to inform system design and functionality, offering a novel pathway for enriching user-system engagements.
Full-RAG: A modern architecture for hyper-personalizationZilliz
Mike Del Balso, CEO & Co-Founder at Tecton, presents "Full RAG," a novel approach to AI recommendation systems, aiming to push beyond the limitations of traditional models through a deep integration of contextual insights and real-time data, leveraging the Retrieval-Augmented Generation architecture. This talk will outline Full RAG's potential to significantly enhance personalization, address engineering challenges such as data management and model training, and introduce data enrichment with reranking as a key solution. Attendees will gain crucial insights into the importance of hyperpersonalization in AI, the capabilities of Full RAG for advanced personalization, and strategies for managing complex data integrations for deploying cutting-edge AI solutions.
Sudheer Mechineni, Head of Application Frameworks, Standard Chartered Bank
Discover how Standard Chartered Bank harnessed the power of Neo4j to transform complex data access challenges into a dynamic, scalable graph database solution. This keynote will cover their journey from initial adoption to deploying a fully automated, enterprise-grade causal cluster, highlighting key strategies for modelling organisational changes and ensuring robust disaster recovery. Learn how these innovations have not only enhanced Standard Chartered Bank’s data infrastructure but also positioned them as pioneers in the banking sector’s adoption of graph technology.
Threats to mobile devices are more prevalent and increasing in scope and complexity. Users of mobile devices desire to take full advantage of the features
available on those devices, but many of the features provide convenience and capability but sacrifice security. This best practices guide outlines steps the users can take to better protect personal devices and information.
Observability Concepts EVERY Developer Should Know -- DeveloperWeek Europe.pdfPaige Cruz
Monitoring and observability aren’t traditionally found in software curriculums and many of us cobble this knowledge together from whatever vendor or ecosystem we were first introduced to and whatever is a part of your current company’s observability stack.
While the dev and ops silo continues to crumble….many organizations still relegate monitoring & observability as the purview of ops, infra and SRE teams. This is a mistake - achieving a highly observable system requires collaboration up and down the stack.
I, a former op, would like to extend an invitation to all application developers to join the observability party will share these foundational concepts to build on:
20 Comprehensive Checklist of Designing and Developing a WebsitePixlogix Infotech
Dive into the world of Website Designing and Developing with Pixlogix! Looking to create a stunning online presence? Look no further! Our comprehensive checklist covers everything you need to know to craft a website that stands out. From user-friendly design to seamless functionality, we've got you covered. Don't miss out on this invaluable resource! Check out our checklist now at Pixlogix and start your journey towards a captivating online presence today.
GDG Cloud Southlake #33: Boule & Rebala: Effective AppSec in SDLC using Deplo...James Anderson
Effective Application Security in Software Delivery lifecycle using Deployment Firewall and DBOM
The modern software delivery process (or the CI/CD process) includes many tools, distributed teams, open-source code, and cloud platforms. Constant focus on speed to release software to market, along with the traditional slow and manual security checks has caused gaps in continuous security as an important piece in the software supply chain. Today organizations feel more susceptible to external and internal cyber threats due to the vast attack surface in their applications supply chain and the lack of end-to-end governance and risk management.
The software team must secure its software delivery process to avoid vulnerability and security breaches. This needs to be achieved with existing tool chains and without extensive rework of the delivery processes. This talk will present strategies and techniques for providing visibility into the true risk of the existing vulnerabilities, preventing the introduction of security issues in the software, resolving vulnerabilities in production environments quickly, and capturing the deployment bill of materials (DBOM).
Speakers:
Bob Boule
Robert Boule is a technology enthusiast with PASSION for technology and making things work along with a knack for helping others understand how things work. He comes with around 20 years of solution engineering experience in application security, software continuous delivery, and SaaS platforms. He is known for his dynamic presentations in CI/CD and application security integrated in software delivery lifecycle.
Gopinath Rebala
Gopinath Rebala is the CTO of OpsMx, where he has overall responsibility for the machine learning and data processing architectures for Secure Software Delivery. Gopi also has a strong connection with our customers, leading design and architecture for strategic implementations. Gopi is a frequent speaker and well-known leader in continuous delivery and integrating security into software delivery.
Maruthi Prithivirajan, Head of ASEAN & IN Solution Architecture, Neo4j
Get an inside look at the latest Neo4j innovations that enable relationship-driven intelligence at scale. Learn more about the newest cloud integrations and product enhancements that make Neo4j an essential choice for developers building apps with interconnected data and generative AI.
Why You Should Replace Windows 11 with Nitrux Linux 3.5.0 for enhanced perfor...SOFTTECHHUB
The choice of an operating system plays a pivotal role in shaping our computing experience. For decades, Microsoft's Windows has dominated the market, offering a familiar and widely adopted platform for personal and professional use. However, as technological advancements continue to push the boundaries of innovation, alternative operating systems have emerged, challenging the status quo and offering users a fresh perspective on computing.
One such alternative that has garnered significant attention and acclaim is Nitrux Linux 3.5.0, a sleek, powerful, and user-friendly Linux distribution that promises to redefine the way we interact with our devices. With its focus on performance, security, and customization, Nitrux Linux presents a compelling case for those seeking to break free from the constraints of proprietary software and embrace the freedom and flexibility of open-source computing.
4. FoReWoRd
Innovation is a central driver of economic growth, de- Understanding these innovation trends and the asso-
velopment and better jobs. It is the key that enables ciated role of IP is important in order for public policy
firms to compete in the global marketplace, and the to support new growth opportunities. The essential
process by which solutions are found to social and questions to ask are whether the design of the current
economic challenges. IP system is fit for this new innovation landscape, and
how best to cope with the growing demand to protect
The face of innovation has evolved significantly over the and trade ideas. To move beyond polarized debates on
last decades. IP, more fact-based economic analysis is needed. In ad-
dition, it is crucial to translate economic research in the
First, firms are investing historically unprecedented field of IP into accessible policy analysis and messages.
amounts in the creation of intangible assets – new ideas,
technologies, designs, brands, organizational know-how I am pleased therefore that WIPO’s first World IP Report
and business models. explores the changing face of innovation. Through this
new series, we aim to explain, clarify and contribute to
Second, innovation-driven growth is no longer the policy analysis relating to IP, with a view to facilitating
prerogative of high-income countries alone; the techno- evidence-based policymaking.
logical gap between richer and poorer countries is nar-
rowing. Incremental and more local forms of innovation Clearly, this Report leaves many questions open. Where
contribute to economic and social development, on a the available evidence is insufficient for making informed
par with world-class technological inventions. policy choices, the World IP Report formulates sugges-
tions for further research. This first edition does not ad-
Third, the act of inventing new products or processes dress all the important IP themes – notably, trademarks
is increasingly international in nature and seen as more and branding, copyright and the cultural and creative
collaborative and open. industries, or the protection of traditional knowledge.
We intend to focus on these and other areas in future
Fourth, knowledge markets are central within this more editions of this series.
fluid innovation process. Policymakers increasingly seek
to ensure that knowledge is transferred from science to
firms, thereby reinforcing the impact of public research.
Moreover, ideas are being co-developed, exchanged and
traded via new platforms and intermediaries.
In this new setting, the role of intellectual property (IP)
has fundamentally changed. The increased focus on
knowledge, the rise of new innovating countries and
the desire to protect inventions abroad have prompted
a growing demand for IP protection. IP has moved from
being a technical topic within small, specialized com-
munities to playing a central role in firm strategies and Francis GURRY
innovation policies. Director General
3
5. AcknoWledgements
This Report was developed under the general direction Thanks also go to the Association of University
of Francis Gurry (Director General). It was prepared and Technology Managers (AUTM), Bronwyn Hall, Derek
coordinated by a core team led by Carsten Fink (Chief Hill, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Economist) and comprising Intan Hamdan-Livramento Development, Maxim Pinkovskiy, Melissa Schilling, and
(Economist) and Sacha Wunsch-Vincent (Senior the UNESCO Institute for Statistics for kindly providing
Economist), all from the Economics and Statistics Division. data used in this report.
Chapter 3 draws heavily on a contribution from Josh Samiah Do Carmo Figueiredo provided valuable admin-
Lerner and Eric Lin from Harvard Business School. istrative support.
The IP Statistics and Data Development Sections sup- Finally, gratitude is due to Heidi Hawkings and Stephen
plied many of the data used in this Report and made Mettler from the Communications Division for editing and
written contributions to Chapters 1 and 4. Special thanks designing the Report and the Printing and Publication
go to Mosahid Khan and Hao Zhou. Ignat Stepanok and Production Section for their printing services. All worked
Maria-Pluvia Zuñiga contributed to the development of the hard to meet tight deadlines.
data methodology and to several sections of Chapter 4.
Background reports were prepared by Suma Athreye,
José Miguel Benavente, Daniel Goya, Ove Granstand,
Keun Lee, Sadao Nagaoka, Jerry Thursby, Marie Thursby,
Yong Yang, and María Pluvia Zuñiga.
Nuno Pires de Carvalho and Giovanni Napolitano from
the Intellectual Property and Competition Policy Division
provided helpful input for Chapter 3. Ilaria Cameli, Yumiko
Hamano, Ali Jazairy and Olga Spasic from the Innovation
and Technology Transfer Section contributed to and of-
fered helpful suggestions on Chapter 4.
The Report team benefitted greatly from comments
on draft chapters from Alfonso Gambardella, Richard
Gilbert, Christian Helmers, Derek Hill, Martin Schaaper,
Mark Schankerman, Pedro Roffe, and Jayashree Watal.
In addition, several WIPO colleagues also offered helpful
suggestions, namely Philippe Baechthold, Juneho Jang,
Ryan Lamb, Bruno Le Feuvre, Tomoko Miyamoto, Julio
Raffo, Yoshiyuki Takagi and Takashi Yamashita.
4
6. dIsclAImeR tecHnIcAl notes
This Report and any opinions reflected therein are the COUNTRY INCOME GROUPS
sole responsibility of the WIPO Secretariat. They do not This Report relies on the World Bank income classifica-
purport to reflect the opinions or views of WIPO Member tion based on gross national income per capita to refer
States. The main authors of this Report also wish to to particular country groups. The groups are: low-income
exonerate those who have contributed and commented (USD 1,005 or less); lower middle-income (USD 1,006 to
upon it from responsibility for any outstanding errors USD 3,975)-; upper middle-income (USD 3,976 to USD
or omissions. 12,275); and high-income (USD 12,276 or more).
Readers are welcome to use the information provided in More information on this classification is available at
this report, but are requested to cite WIPO as the source. http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications.
IP DATA
The majority of the IP data published in this Report are
taken from the WIPO Statistics Database, which is primar-
ily based on WIPO’s annual IP statistics survey and data
compiled by WIPO in processing international applica-
tions/registrations filed through the Patent Cooperation
Treaty (PCT), the Madrid System and the Hague System.
Data are available for download from WIPO’s web-
page: www.wipo.int/ipstats/en. WIPO’s annual World
Intellectual Property Indicators, freely available on the
same webpage, provides additional information on the
WIPO Statistics Database.
The patent family and technology data presented in
this Report come from the WIPO Statistics Database,
the most recent Worldwide Patent Statistical Database
(PATSTAT) of the EPO, and from selected national data
sources, as indicated in the Report.
Every effort has been made to compile IP statistics based
on the same definitions and to ensure international compa-
rability. The data are collected from IP offices using WIPO’s
harmonized annual IP statistics questionnaires. However,
it must be kept in mind that national laws and regulations
for filing IP applications or for issuing IP rights, as well as
statistical reporting practices, differ across jurisdictions.
Please note that, due to the continual updating of miss-
ing data and the revision of historical statistics, data pro-
vided in this Report may differ from previously published
figures and the data available on WIPO’s webpage.
5
7. eXecUtIVe sUmmARY
Throughout human history, innovation has been a power- How is the face of
ful force for transformation. This arguably holds true now innovation changing?
more than ever. However, the face of innovation – the
“who”, the “how”, and the “what for” – has continu- Claims about new innovation models and practices
ously changed. abound. Assessing the significance of those claims
requires a dispassionate look at the available data – a
Understanding these changes is important. In modern task performed in Chapter 1.
market economies, innovation is a key ingredient of
The geography of innovation has shifted,
sustained economic growth. In high-income countries,
although high-income countries still
studies have estimated that innovation accounts for as
dominate global R&D spending
much as 80 percent of economy-wide growth in produc-
tivity. Research at the firm level has shown that firms that A natural first step is to look at trends in research and
innovate outperform their non-innovating peers. Less is development (R&D). Global R&D expenditure almost
known about innovation and its economic impact in low- doubled in real terms from 1993 to 2009. Since this period
and middle-income economies. However, the available also saw marked growth of the global economy, the share
evidence similarly suggests that innovating firms in those of global gross domestic product (GDP) devoted to R&D
economies are more productive – especially if applying increased at a more modest rate – from 1.7 percent in
a broad view of innovation that includes incremental 1993 to 1.9 percent in 2009. Two other important insights
product and process improvements. Indeed, the experi- emerge from the available R&D data (see Figure 1):
ence of several East Asian economies has demonstrated
how innovation can spur economic catch-up – even • Most R&D spending still takes place in high-income
if innovation may be only part of the success story of countries – around 70 percent of the world total. They
those economies. spend around 2.5 percent of their GDP on R&D – more
than double the rate of middle-income economies.
For policymakers in particular, it is important to monitor
and assess how innovation changes. Governments are • Low- and middle-income economies increased their
key stakeholders in national innovation systems. They share of global R&D expenditure by 13 percent be-
directly fund research and provide incentives for firms tween 1993 and 2009. China accounts for most of this
to invest in innovation – including through the protection increase – more than 10 percentage points – propel-
of intellectual property (IP). As innovation practices shift, ling China to the world’s second largest R&D spender
governments need to assess the effectiveness of existing in 2009.
policies and, where necessary, adapt them.
This Report seeks to make an analytical contribution in
this respect. It does so in two ways. First, it sheds light
on global innovation trends – especially those concerning
IP – and assesses the ways in which innovation has really
changed. Second, it reviews the available evidence on
how IP protection affects innovative behavior and what
this evidence implies for the design of IP and innova-
tion policies.
6
8. eXeCUTIVe SUMMArY
Figure 1: R&D expenditure still comes The innovation process is increasingly
mainly from high-income countries international in nature
Worldwide R&D expenditure, by income group,
in 2005 PPP Dollars, 1993 and 2009
Clear evidence exists that innovation is increasingly
1993 2009
1000 international in nature. Greater mobility of students,
854
800
highly-skilled workers and scientists has spurred the in-
523 ternational exchange of knowledge. There also has been
600
a sharp increase in the share of peer-reviewed science
400
245
105
and engineering articles with international co-authorship,
200
56 44 and a rising share of patents that list inventors from more
0
High-income Middle- Middle- and low-income, than one country. More and more, multinational firms are
and low-income excluding China
locating their R&D facilities in a variety of countries – with
See Figure 1.5.
certain middle-income economies seeing particularly
fast growth. The rising share of middle-income countries
R&D statistics paint only a partial picture of innovation in the global economy is, in turn, reorienting innovation
landscapes. The innovation performance of economies towards the demands of those countries.
depends on broader investment in knowledge beyond
Innovation is seen to have become more
formal R&D spending. This includes, above all, invest-
collaborative and open…
ment in education. The introduction of new machinery
but is this perception correct?
and equipment is another important component of
innovation expenditure, especially in low- and middle- One much-discussed element of the new innovation
income countries. paradigm is the increasingly collaborative nature of the
innovation process. Indeed, the available data confirm
Studies have also pointed to the importance of non-tech- that there is greater collaboration in some respects. The
nological innovation – including organizational, marketing, above-mentioned trend of more frequent international
design and logistical innovation – as an important driver co-patenting points to greater collaboration at the in-
of firm and economy-wide productivity enhancements. ternational level. In addition, the available data on R&D
Indeed, data show that firms’ investment in all types alliances have shown upward trends in some sectors,
of intangible assets has grown more rapidly than their although not necessarily in recent years, and the reliability
investment in tangible assets; in selected countries, of those data is weak.
firms even invest more in intangible than in tangible as-
sets. However, few hard data exist to rigorously assess Heightening perceptions of greater collaboration, scholars
whether non-technological innovation has risen in relative and business strategists have emphasized that innova-
importance – not least because such innovation often tion is becoming increasingly “open”. In particular, firms
complements technological breakthroughs. practicing open innovation strategically manage inflows
and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innova-
tion and to expand the markets for external uses of their
intangible assets. “Horizontal” collaboration with similar
firms is one important element of open innovation, but
it also includes “vertical” cooperation with customers,
suppliers, universities, research institutes and others.
7
9. eXeCUTIVe SUMMArY
Assessing the true scale and importance of open innova- • Comparing growth in the number of first filings to
tion is challenging. For one, it is difficult to draw a clear growth in real R&D expenditure shows that, for the
distinction between open innovation strategies and long- world as a whole, the latter has grown somewhat faster
standing collaborative practices, such as joint R&D, joint than the former. This suggests that growth in patent-
marketing or strategic partnerships. In addition, certain ing is rooted in underlying knowledge investment. As
elements of open innovation strategies – such as new discussed further below, however, patenting and R&D
policies internal to firms or informal knowledge exchanges trends vary markedly across countries and industries,
– cannot easily be traced. Anecdotally, examples of truly with important implications for how firms innovate.
new approaches abound – notably, so-called crowd-
sourcing initiatives, prizes and competitions, and Internet Figure 2: Patenting abroad is the main
platforms on which firms can post challenges. Modern driver of worldwide patenting growth
information and communications technologies (ICTs) have Patent applications by type of application, indexed 1995=1
facilitated many of these approaches. First ling Subsequent ling
3.0
IP ownership has become more central to
business strategies 2.5
Turning to the IP system, there is every indication that IP
2.0
ownership has become more central to the strategies of
innovating firms. IP policy has, therefore, moved to the 1.5
forefront of innovation policy.
1.0
Demand for patents has risen from 800,000 applications
0.5
worldwide in the early 1980s to 1.8 million in 2009. This
increase has occurred in different waves, with Japan 0.0
75
77
79
81
85
87
89
91
95
97
99
01
05
07
driving filing growth in the 1980s, joined by the United
83
93
03
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
19
19
20
States (US), Europe and the Republic of Korea in the
Contribution of first and subsequent applications
1990s and, more recently, by China. to total growth, in percent, 1995-2007
There are many causes of this rapid increase in patent-
ing, including some which are specific to countries and
51.7%
industries. However, two key forces stand out:
• Dividing the growth in patenting worldwide into so- 48.3%
called first filings – approximating new inventions
– and subsequent filings – primarily filings of the
First ling
same invention in additional countries – shows that Subsequent ling
the latter explains slightly more than one-half of that
See Figure 1.20.
growth over the last 15 years (see Figure 2). Patent
applicants increasingly seek to protect their patents
abroad and, indeed, in a larger number of countries,
reflecting greater economic integration.
8
10. eXeCUTIVe SUMMArY
Figure 3: International royalty and licensing payments and receipts are growing
RLF payments and receipts, in USD millions (left) and as a percentage share of GDP (right), 1960-2009
Payments Receipts Payments (percentage share of GDP) Receipts (percentage share of GDP)
250'000 0.0035
0.003
200'000
0.0025
150'000
0.002
0.0015
100'000
0.001
50'000
0.0005
0 0
1960
1961
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
1962
1963
1972
1973
1982
1983
1992
1993
2002
2003
See Figure 1.26.
Demand for other IP rights – which firms often use as a Figure 3 depicts the growth of cross-border licensing
complement to patents – has also seen marked growth. trade in the world economy, showing an acceleration of
Trademark applications worldwide increased from 1 such trade since the 1990s. In nominal terms, interna-
million per year in the mid-1980s to 3.3 million in 2009. tional royalty and licensing fee (RLF) receipts increased
Similarly, industrial design applications worldwide more from USD 2.8 billion in 1970 to USD 27 billion in 1990,
than doubled from about 290,000 in 2000 to 640,000 and to approximately USD 180 billion in 2009 – outpac-
in 2009. Greater internationalization is also an important ing growth in global GDP. There are far fewer data on
factor behind the rising demand for protection of these domestic IP transactions, but selected company informa-
forms of IP. However, little is known about what precisely tion confirms this trend.
has driven their filing growth and to what extent their role
in business strategies has shifted. Technology market intermediaries have existed for a long
time. However, new “market makers” have emerged, such
Knowledge markets based on IP rights are
as IP clearinghouses, exchanges, auctions and broker-
on the rise, though still nascent
ages. Many of them use modern ICTs for valuing IP rights
A final important trend concerns the rise of IP-based and matching buyers and sellers. As further discussed
knowledge markets. Evidence suggests that the trad- below, another rapidly growing form of intermediation
ability of IP has increased over the last few decades. This over the last decades has been the establishment of
is reflected in more frequent licensing of IP rights and the technology transfer offices (TTOs) at universities and
emergence of new technology market intermediaries. public research organizations (PROs).
9
11. eXeCUTIVe SUMMArY
While only limited analysis is available on the size and Difficult trade-offs exist in designing IP rights, not least be-
scope of actual IP transactions, the available evidence cause IP protection has multifaceted effects on innovative
on patent licensing, auctions and other IP-based transac- behavior and market competition. As technologies ad-
tions suggests that trading activity remains at incipient vance and business models shift, optimally balancing these
levels. For example, firms typically license less than 10 trade-offs represents a continuing high-stakes challenge.
percent of their patents. Certainly, technology markets
are still small relative to the revenue of firms’ or the overall In more recent history, economists have refined their
output of economies. However, they increasingly shape view of the IP system – partly as a result of new research
how innovation takes place and therefore deserve care- and partly due to real world developments. The patent
ful attention. system has received particular attention.
Patent portfolio races complicate
Many of the above-outlined changes in the innovation
cumulative innovation processes
landscape are challenging long-standing business prac-
tices. Firms need to adapt in order to remain competitive. Economists have long recognized that innovation seldom
But do these changes also require a rethinking of the happens in isolation; one firm’s solution to a problem
policy framework for innovation? This question is at the typically relies on insights gained from previous innova-
heart of the remainder of the Report. The Report first of- tion. Similarly, in competitive markets, firms innovate
fers a general introduction to the economic literature on simultaneously and develop technologies that may
how IP protection affects innovation; it asks, in particular, complement each other. The rapid increase in the number
how the views of economists have changed in the last of patent filings has, in turn, raised concerns about pat-
few decades (Chapter 2). It then returns to the theme ents hindering cumulative innovation. Indeed, patenting
of collaboration, first looking at collaborative practices activity has grown especially fast for so-called complex
between firms (Chapter 3) and then at collaboration be- technologies. Economists define complex technologies
tween public research institutions and firms (Chapter 4). as those that consist of numerous separately patentable
inventions with possibly widespread patent ownership;
discrete technologies, by contrast, describe products or
How have economists’ views processes made up of only a few patentable inventions.
on IP protection evolved? Figure 4 shows that complex technologies have seen
Understanding how IP protection affects innovative be- faster growth in patent applications worldwide.
havior has long been a fertile field in economic research.
Important insights from the past still shape how econo-
mists view the IP system today. Above all, compared to
other innovation policies, IP protection stands out in that
it mobilizes decentralized market forces to guide R&D
investment. This works especially well where private
motivation to innovate aligns with society’s technological
needs, where solutions to technological problems are
within sight, and where firms can finance upfront R&D
investment. In addition, the effectiveness of different IP
instruments depends on the absorptive and innovative
capacity of firms, which varies considerably across
countries at different levels of economic development.
10
12. eXeCUTIVe SUMMArY
Figure 4: Complex technologies Research which originally focused on the semiconductor
see faster patenting growth industry has shown that firms proactively build up large
Patent filings for complex versus discrete patent portfolios. One motivation for such portfolios is to
technologies, 1972=100, 1972-2007
ensure a firm’s freedom to operate in its innovation space
First filings
and to preempt litigation. A second motivation for firms to
First lings: complex technologies
First lings: discrete technologies create these portfolios is to strengthen their bargaining
400 position vis-à-vis competitors. In particular, firms own-
ing many patents in a crowded technology space can
300 preempt litigation by credibly threatening to countersue
competitors. In addition, they are in a better position to
200 negotiate favorable cross-licensing arrangements which
are often needed to commercialize new technologies.
100
In addition to semiconductors, patent portfolio races have
been documented for other complex technologies – ICTs
0
in general and, in particular, telecommunications, soft-
74
76
78
19 0
84
86
88
19 0
94
96
98
20 0
04
06
72
82
92
02
8
9
0
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
19
ware, audiovisual technology, optics and, more recently,
smartphones and tablet computers. Even though these
Subsequent filings
portfolio races often take place in industries making fast
Subsequent lings: complex technologies
Subsequent lings: discrete technologies technological progress, there is concern that they may
400 slow or even forestall cumulative innovation processes.
In particular, entrepreneurs facing dense webs of over-
300 lapping patent rights – or patent thickets – may forgo
research activity or shelve plans for commercializing
200 promising technologies.
Patents facilitate specialization
100 and learning
A second area of refined thinking concerns the role of
0
patents in modern technology markets. Research has
74
76
78
19 0
84
86
88
19 0
94
96
98
00
04
06
92
02
72
82
8
9
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
19
shown that patents enable firms to specialize, allowing
them to be more innovative and efficient at the same
See Figure 2.1.
time. In addition, they allow firms to flexibly control which
knowledge to guard and which to share so as to maximize
What accounts for the difference in growth rates? It learning – a key element of open innovation strategies.
partly reflects the nature of technological change. For
example, complex technologies include most ICTs which
have experienced rapid advances over the last three
decades. However, economic research suggests that
faster growth in complex technologies is also due to a
shift in patenting strategies.
11
13. eXeCUTIVe SUMMArY
Such learning can also take place when patents are Do markets forces
disclosed to the public. Little evidence is available on the optimally balance
value of patent disclosure, although some surveys have collaboration
revealed that published patents are indeed an important and competition?
knowledge source for firms conducting R&D – more
so in Japan than in the US and Europe. Yet, the patent Firms increasingly look beyond their own boundaries to
literature represents a valuable source of knowledge maximize their investment in innovation. They collaborate
for creative minds anywhere in the world. In addition, with other firms – either in the production of IP or on the
the easy availability of millions of patent documents to basis of IP ownership in commercializing innovation.
anyone connected to the Internet has arguably created
Collaboration can benefit firms and society
new catch-up opportunities for technologically less
developed economies. Joint IP production occurs through R&D alliances, in
particular contractual partnerships and equity-based
Well-functioning patent institutions
joint ventures. Data on such alliances are limited and
are crucial
sometimes difficult to interpret, but they suggest that
Finally, economic research has come to recognize the firms in the ICT, biotechnology and chemical industries
crucial role played by patent institutions in shaping in- most frequently enter into such alliances.
novation incentives. Patent institutions perform the es-
sential tasks of ensuring the quality of patents granted Joining forces with competitors offers several benefits.
and providing balanced dispute resolution. A firm can learn from the experience of others, reduce
costs by dividing efforts, share risk and coordinate with
Unprecedented levels of patenting have put these institu- producers of complementary goods. Society usually
tions under considerable pressure. Many patent offices benefits from such collaboration as it enhances the ef-
have seen growing backlogs of pending applications. In ficiency and effectiveness of the innovation process.
2010, the number of unprocessed applications world-
wide stood at 5.17 million. In absolute terms, the patent Collaboration between firms extends beyond the joint
offices of Japan and the US as well as the European production of IP. In many cases, firms only join forces
Patent Office account for the largest office backlogs. when, or even after, they commercialize their technolo-
However, relative to annual application flows, several gies. As explained above, the fast growth of patenting in
offices in middle-income countries face the most sub- complex technologies has given rise to patent thickets,
stantial backlogs. The increasing size and complexity whereby patent rights are distributed over a fragmented
of patent applications have added to the “examination base of patent holders. Those seeking to introduce
burden” of offices. products that use such technologies face the high cost
of negotiating with multiple parties. If each technology
The choices patent offices face can have far-reaching is essential, a negotiation failure with any of the patent
consequences on incentives to innovate. These include holders amounts to a failure with all.
the amount of fees to charge, how to involve third par-
ties in the patenting process, how best to make use of
ICTs and the level and type of international cooperation
to pursue. In making these choices, a key challenge is to
reconcile incentives for efficient office operations with a
patenting process that promotes society’s best interest.
12
14. eXeCUTIVe SUMMArY
One solution is for firms to pool their patents, sharing Notwithstanding their benefits, leaving the formation of
them with other patent holders and sometimes licensing collaborative ventures to private market forces may not
them to third parties as a package. Patent pools are not always lead to socially optimal outcomes; firms may either
a new collaborative practice; they have existed for more collaborate below desirable levels or they may do so in
than a century. The available data point to their wide- an anticompetitive manner.
spread use in the first half of the 20 century (see Figure
th
Market forces may not always lead to
5). In the period after the Second World War, the more
desirable levels of collaboration…
skeptical attitudes of competition authorities drastically
reduced the formation of new pools. However, this has Insufficient levels of collaboration – whether in the produc-
again changed in the last two decades, with a new wave tion or commercialization of IP – may arise from conflicts
of pools emerging, especially in the ICT industry where of interest between potential collaborators. Fears of
patent thickets have proliferated. free riding, risk shifting and other forms of opportunistic
behavior may lead firms to forgo mutually beneficial
Figure 5: The ICT industry dominates cooperation. Differences in business strategies between
the recent wave of patent pools specialized R&D firms and “vertically” integrated R&D
Number of patent pools by industry and production firms can add to negotiation gridlock.
Other Communications
Transportation equipment Packaged software
Scienti c instruments
Chemicals
Metal products
Petroleum re ning
Electrical
Machinery
In principle, the failure of private markets to attract optimal
35 levels of collaboration provides a rationale for government
30
intervention. Unfortunately, the available evidence offers
little guidance to policymakers on how such market fail-
25
ures are best resolved. This is partly because the benefits
20 of and incentives for collaboration are highly specific to
15 particular technologies and business models, and also
because it is difficult to evaluate how often potentially
10
fruitful collaboration opportunities go unexplored in dif-
5
ferent industries.
0
Some governments promote collaboration among firms
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
00
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
through fiscal incentives and related innovation policy in-
See Figure 3.4.
struments. In addition, there are incentive mechanisms for
sharing patent rights – for example, discounts on renewal
As in the case of R&D alliances, there is a compelling fees if patent holders make available their patents for
case that patent pools are not only beneficial to partici- licensing. However, as greater technological complexity
pating patent holders, but also to society. They enable and more fragmented patent landscapes have increased
the introduction of new technologies and promote the the need for collaboration, there arguably is scope for
interoperability of different technologies. The latter as- creative policy thinking on how best to incentivize the
pect is especially important where technology adoption licensing or sharing of patent rights.
requires standard setting. Indeed, patent pools are often
formed as a result of standard-setting efforts.
13
15. eXeCUTIVe SUMMArY
… and they may sometimes result in Public policies have encouraged
anticompetitive practices the commercialization of
scientific knowledge…
The problem of anticompetitive collaborative practices
seems to be easier to address from a policymaker’s The last three decades have seen the emergence of
viewpoint. Such practices are generally more observable, targeted policy initiatives to incentivize university and PRO
and authorities can assess the competitive effects of patenting, and subsequent commercial development.
collaborative agreements on a case-by-case basis. Almost all high-income countries now have institutional
In addition, some consensus exists about the type of frameworks to this effect. One general trend has been
collaborative practices that should not be allowed or for universities and PROs to take institutional ownership
that, at the least, trigger warning signs. Nonetheless, of the inventions researchers generate, and to pursue
evaluating the competitive effects of specific collaborative their commercialization through TTOs. More recently, a
agreements remains challenging. Technologies move fast, number of middle- and low-income countries have also
and their market impact is uncertain. In addition, many explored how technology transfer and the development
low- and middle-income countries have less developed of industry-university collaboration are best promoted.
institutional frameworks for enforcing competition law
… leading to rapid growth in patenting by
in this area – although they are likely to benefit from
universities and PROs
the enforcement actions of high-income countries,
where most collaborative agreements with global reach Accordingly, there has been a marked increase in patent
are concluded. applications by universities and PROs – both in absolute
terms and as a share of total patents filed. Figure 6 depicts
this trend for international patent filings under the Patent
How to harness public
Cooperation Treaty (PCT) system.
research for innovation
Universities and PROs play a key role in national inno- High-income countries have been responsible for most
vation systems. Beyond their mission to educate, they of the university and PRO filings under the PCT. However,
account for substantial shares of total R&D spending. such filings have also grown rapidly in certain middle-
They also perform most of the basic research carried income countries. Among them, China leads in terms
out in their countries. This is especially so in middle- of university applications, followed by Brazil, India and
income countries; for example, the share of universities South Africa. Compared to university patenting, the dis-
and PROs in total basic research is close to 100 percent tribution of middle-income country PRO filings is more
for China, 90 percent for Mexico and 80 percent for the concentrated. Chinese and Indian PROs alone account
Russian Federation. for 78 percent of the total. They are followed by PROs
from Malaysia, South Africa and Brazil.
Close interaction with public research helps firms to
monitor scientific advances that are likely to transform National patent statistics confirm the prominence of uni-
technologies. It also facilitates joint problem solving and versity patenting in China; they also reveal a high share
opens up new avenues for research. of PRO patenting for India (see Figure 7).
Public-private knowledge exchanges occur through a
number of channels. One is the creation of IP in the public
sector that is licensed to firms for commercial development.
14
16. eXeCUTIVe SUMMArY
Figure 6: University and PRO patenting is on the rise
World PRO and university PCT applications, absolute numbers (left) and as a percentage of total PCT applications (right), 1980-2010
7
University PRO
10'000
University share PRO share 6
Share in total PCT applications (%)
Number of PCT applications
8'000 5
6'000 4
3
4'000
2
2'000
1
0 0
80
81
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
82
83
92
93
02
03
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
19
19
19
19
20
20
See Figure 4.3
Figure 7: University and PRO patenting is prominent in China and India
University and PRO patent applications as a share of total national applications for selected countries, in percent, for different time spans
University share PRO share
16%
14% Indian PROs stand at 22 percent. Capped for better readability
of the gure
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
co
ain
ico
a
UK
il
n
ea
e
y
a
l
a
ly
US
ae
az
di
an
pa
nc
ric
in
Ita
oc
r
Sp
ex
In
Isr
Ch
Br
Ko
m
Af
a
Ja
or
Fr
M
er
h
of
M
G
ut
p.
So
Re
See Figure 4.10
15
17. eXeCUTIVe SUMMArY
Universities and PROs have also experienced growth in • Studies have pointed to several successful elements of
licensing revenue. This growth has occurred from low institutional design. Well-defined university regulations
initial levels and is still fairly concentrated; only selected on IP ownership and on the participation of research-
institutions, few scientific fields and a small number ers in technology transfer matter. Performance incen-
of patents account for the bulk of licensing revenue. tives for researchers need to appropriately balance
Compared to overall public research budgets, licensing entrepreneurial activity and scientific achievement.
income remains small. In low- and middle-income coun- Finally, TTOs operating at a sufficient scale and helping
tries, university and PRO patents are used even less for to standardize relationships with licensees can lower
technology transfer. However, recent trends suggest that the transaction costs of technology transfer.
revenue flows are diversifying, in terms of both the number
of beneficiary institutions and the number of countries. • The evidence is more ambiguous as to the best own-
ership model for public research. While the general
Policy reforms have multifaceted effects
trend has been towards institutional ownership, it is
on research institutions, firms, the science
not clear whether this model is necessarily superior
system and the economy – yet important
to others.
lessons are emerging
Reforms aimed at incentivizing university and PRO • Setting up successful frameworks for technology
patenting and licensing have multifaceted effects on transfer that deliver tangible benefits takes time and
research institutions and firms but also, more broadly, resources. In particular, it not only requires legal
on the science system and on economic growth. The reforms, but also cultural change and the creation of
evidence – mostly focusing on high-income countries – new institutions.
yields the following broad conclusions:
Legitimate concerns exist about the potentially negative
• Patenting can make an important difference in wid- effects that patenting and other entrepreneurial activity
ening opportunities for commercializing university by researchers may have on scientific performance.
inventions. Turning academic ideas into innovation
often requires substantial private investment in de- • Reduced knowledge sharing among scientists and
velopment. crowding-out of scientific research are often-cited
downsides. The evidence on these effects is ambigu-
• There are important synergies between scientists’ aca- ous, although it does not suggest radically negative
demic activity and their interactions with private firms. effects. Much depends on researchers’ performance
Such interactions not only take place through the licens- incentives. Moreover, interactions with the private
ing of patents, but also through R&D collaboration, con- sector can lead to improved scientific performance.
ference participation and scientific publishing. Indeed,
the evidence suggests that the various channels of • Another source of concern is that university and
technology transfer complement each other. For ex- PRO patenting may reduce the diversity of follow-on
ample, researchers may find that their patenting activity research and access to essential research tools. A
usefully informs their scientific activity, and vice-versa. few studies confirm this concern. However, most of
the evidence to this effect is case-specific and limited
to the life sciences.
16
18. eXeCUTIVe SUMMArY
Many of these conclusions are likely to apply to low- and
middle-income economies as they do to high-income
economies. However, the different environment in which
innovation takes place in these economies raises ad-
ditional questions.
One is the extent to which greater university and PRO
patenting in richer countries may reduce poorer countries’
access to key technologies and international scientific
cooperation. Another is whether the weaker absorptive
capacity of firms and more limited science-industry link-
ages would favor channels of technology transfer other
than IP-based licensing. Different stages of development
and different innovation systems require tailor-made
approaches to IP-based incentives for commercializing
public research.
Only limited guidance is available to policymakers on
these questions. At the same time, high-income countries
still struggle with many of the same challenges. There is
no perfect blueprint that lends itself to universal adoption.
This caveat also extends to the development of safe-
guards against the potentially negative consequences
of university and PRO patenting. Selected institutions
have pioneered such safeguards; however, it is too early
to fully assess their effectiveness.
Conclusion
The evidence presented in this Report is intended to in-
form policymakers. While some innovation trends are well
understood, others are not. The Report points to a num-
ber of areas where more statistical data and new investi-
gations could offer fresh insights relevant to policymaking.
Surely, the face of innovation will further evolve in the
coming years and decades. Some trends are bound to
continue – above all the shifting geography of innovation.
Others will come as a surprise. An unvarnished look at
today’s evidence and policy challenges – as attempted
in this Report – will hopefully stimulate thought on how
best to manage the future.
17
19. tAble oF contents
cHAPteR 1
The changing nature of innovation and
intellectual property
1.1
Innovation as the driving force behind economic growth
and development 23
1.2
The shifting nature of innovation 27
1.2.1 Globalization of production and demand for innovation 29
1.2.2 Increased investment in innovation 33
1.2.3 Internationalization of science and innovation 36
1.2.4 The importance of non-R&D-based innovation 42
1.2.5 Greater collaboration in the process of innovation 43
1.3
Shifting importance of IP 52
1.3.1 Demand and the changing geography of the IP system 52
1.3.2 Increased tradability of IP 60
1.3.3 New collaborative mechanisms and IP intermediaries 66
1.3.4 Emergence of new IP policies and practices 67
1.4
Conclusions and directions for future research 68
References 70
18
20. TAble oF ConTenTS
cHAPteR 2
The economics of intellectual property
– old insights and new evidence
2.1
Understanding IP rights and their role in the innovation process 75
2.1.1 How IP protection shapes innovation incentives 77
2.1.2 Trade-offs in designing IP rights 80
2.1.3 How IP protection compares to other innovation policies 82
2.2
Taking a closer look at the patent system 86
2.2.1 How patent protection affects firm performance 86
2.2.2 How patent strategies shift where innovation is cumulative 89
2.2.3 How patent rights shape the interplay between competition and innovation 92
2.2.4 The role patents play in technology markets and open innovation strategies 94
2.3
Appreciating the role of patent institutions 97
2.3.1 What makes for sound patent institutions 97
2.3.2 How patenting trends have challenged patent offices 98
2.3.3 The choices patent institutions face 100
2.4
Conclusions and directions for future research 103
References 105
19
21. TAble oF ConTenTS
cHAPteR 3
Balancing collaboration and competition
3.1
Collaborating to generate new IP 109
3.1.1 What the available data says about formal R&D collaboration 110
3.1.2 Why firms collaborate for strategic reasons 114
3.1.3 How collaboration can improve efficiency 115
3.1.4 The complications that arise in joint R&D undertakings 116
3.1.5 How collaboration differs in the case of open source software 118
3.2
Collaborating to commercialize existing IP 120
3.2.1 Why complementarities require coordination 120
3.2.2 How firms collaborate in patent pools 121
3.2.3 Why patent pools are emerging in the life sciences 125
3.2.4 How firms cooperate to set standards 126
3.3
Safeguarding competition 129
3.3.1 The type of collaborative R&D alliances that may be considered anticompetitive 130
3.3.2 How competition rules treat patent pools and standard-setting agreements 131
3.4
Conclusions and directions for future research 132
References 134
Data Annex 136
20
22. TAble oF ConTenTS
cHAPteR 4
Harnessing public research for innovation
– the role of intellectual property
4.1
The evolving role of universities
and PROs in national innovation systems 140
4.1.1 Public R&D is key, in particular for basic research 140
4.1.2 Public R&D stimulates private R&D and innovation 141
4.1.3 Fostering the impact of publicly-funded research on innovation 143
4.2
Public research institutions’ IP comes of age 144
4.2.1 Developing policy frameworks for technology transfer 144
4.2.2 Measuring the increase in university and PRO patenting 146
4.2.3 University and PRO licensing growing but from low levels 153
4.3
Assessment of impacts and challenges in high-income countries 156
4.3.1 Direction of impacts 156
4.3.2 Impacts and experiences in high-income countries 159
4.4
IP-based technology transfer
and the case of low- and middle-income countries 168
4.4.1 Impacts of high-income technology transfer legislation on low- and middle-income countries 169
4.4.2 Challenges to home-grown technology transfer in low- and middle-income countries 170
4.5
New university policies act as safeguards 172
4.6
Conclusions and directions for future research 174
References 176
Data annex 179
Methodological annex 181
Acronyms 183
21
23.
24. Chapter 1 the Changing faCe of innovation and intelleCtual property
cHAPteR 1
tHe cHAngIng FAce oF InnoVAtIon
And IntellectUAl PRoPeRtY
Innovation is a central driver of economic growth and 1.1
development. Firms rely on innovation and related invest-
ments to improve their competitive edge in a globalizing Innovation as the driving
world with shorter product life cycles. Innovation also has force behind economic
the potential to mitigate some of the emerging problems growth and development
related to health, energy and the environment faced by
both richer and poorer countries. Overcoming barriers to Although there is not one uniquely accepted definition,
innovation is hence a recurring and increasingly promi- innovation is often defined as the conversion of knowl-
nent business and policy challenge. edge into new commercialized technologies, products
and processes, and how these are brought to market.1
At the same time, our understanding of innovative activity, Innovation often makes existing products and processes
the process of innovation itself and the role of IP within obsolete, leading to firms’ entry, exit and associated en-
that process are in flux. Among the factors that have influ- trepreneurship.
enced innovation over the last two decades are structural
shifts in the world economy, the steady globalization of In recent decades, economists and policymakers have
innovative activity, the rise in new innovation actors and increasingly focused on innovation and its diffusion as
new ways of innovating. critical contributors to economic growth and develop-
ment.2 Investments meant to foster innovation, such
This chapter assesses the changing face of innovation as spending on research and development (R&D), are
and the corresponding new demands on the intellectual found to generate positive local and cross-border im-
property (IP) system. The first section sets out the central pacts, which play an important role in the accumulation
role of innovation, while the second describes what has of knowledge. In other words, thanks to these so-called
been labeled a new “innovation paradigm”. The third “spillovers” the benefits of innovative activity are not only
section discusses the implications of this for IP. restricted to firms or countries that invest in innovation.
While the importance of “creative destruction” was high-
lighted in the early 20th century, more recent economic
work stresses the role that various factors play in driving
1 The Oslo Manual defines four types of innovation:
long-run growth and productivity.3 These include not
product innovation (new goods or services or
significant improvements to existing ones), process only formal investment in innovation such as R&D, but
innovation (changes in production or delivery also learning-by-doing, human capital and institutions.
methods), organizational innovation (changes in
business practices, workplace organization or in a
firm’s external relations) and marketing innovation 3 See Schumpeter (1943). The endogenous growth
(changes in product design, packaging, placement, models and quality ladder models theorize that
promotion or pricing) (OECD & Eurostat, 2005). innovation drives long-run aggregate productivity
2 For some examples of the classic literature in and economic growth. See Grossman and Helpman
this field, see Edquist (1997); Freeman (1987); (1994); Romer (1986); Romer (2010); Grossman and
Lundvall (1992); and Fagerberg et al. (2006). Helpman (1991); and Aghion and Howitt (1992).
23
25. Chapter 1 the Changing faCe of innovation and intelleCtual property
A voluminous empirical literature has examined the re- At the firm-level, there is emerging but increasingly solid
lationship between innovative activity and productivity evidence that demonstrates the positive links between
growth at the firm-, industry- and country-level. However, R&D, innovation and productivity in high-income coun-
due to data limitations, earlier empirical work in this area tries.6 Specifically, these studies imply a positive relation-
mostly relied on two imperfect measures of innovation, ship between innovative activity by firms and their sales,
namely R&D spending and patent counts. In recent years, employment and productivity.7 Innovative firms are able to
innovation surveys and accounting exercises relating to increase efficiency and overtake less efficient firms. Firms
the measurement of intangible assets have emerged as that invest in knowledge are also more likely to introduce
new sources of data (see Boxes 1.1 and 1.2). new technological advances or processes, yielding in-
creased labor productivity. In addition, a new stream of
Most empirical studies on the relationship between in- research stresses the role of investing in intangible assets
novation and productivity have focused solely on high- for increased output and multifactor productivity growth
income economies and the manufacturing sector. As (see Box 1.1).8 While it is assumed that process innovation
early as the mid-1990s, the economic literature suggested has a direct effect on a firm’s labor productivity, this is
that innovation accounted for 80 percent of productivity harder to measure.9
growth in high-income economies; whereas productivity
growth, in turn, accounted for some 80 percent of gross Clearly, the causal factors determining the success
domestic product (GDP) growth. More recent studies
4
and impact of innovation at the firm-level are still under
at the country-level demonstrate that innovation – as investigation. An increase in a firm’s R&D expenditure
measured by an increase in R&D expenditure – has a or the introduction of process innovation alone will not
significant positive effect on output and productivity.5 automatically generate greater productivity or sales.
Many often connected factors inherent in the firm or its
environment contribute to and interact in improving a
firm’s performance.
4 See Freeman (1994).
5 For an overview, see Khan and Luintel
(2006) and newer studies at the firm level,
such as Criscuolo et al. (2010).
6 See, for instance, Crepon et al. (1998);
Griffith et al. (2006); Mairesse and
Mohnen (2010); and OECD (2010a).
7 See Evangelista (2010); OECD (2010a); OECD
(2009c); Guellec and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie
(2007); and Benavente and Lauterbach (2008).
8 See OECD (2010b).
9 See Hall (2011).
24