INTERVIEW WITH FRANCIS GURRY
the fiſth-largest user of the PCT,” Gurry says. “In this respect, it’s not just a Western system. Because China is both a First World and Tird World country, it’s difficult to generalise, but I am convinced that China sees IP as vital to its economic future.” Tat confidence will come as a relief to those still concerned that China has a less than vigilant approach to IP enforcement. Gurry acknowledges the perception, but argues that the country is progressing quickly towards stricter enforcement.
Indeed, those who doubt multilateral support for the international patent process would be well advised to look at the most recent figures. While there was an overall decline in international patent filings in 2009—a predictable outcome of the global financial crisis—several countries bucked the trend. Many countries commonly thought of as bastions of IP protection, such as the US and UK, saw numbers fall. Korea, by way of contrast, saw a 2.6 percent rise, while China became the fiſth-largest user following a huge increase of 29.7 percent in international patent filings. And of the top 20 filing companies, nine are headquartered in Asia, compared to four in the US. Tese are undoubtedly positive signs for an international process that looks set to have to rely more and more on the enthusiasm of East- Asian countries for success, as global economic power continues to shiſt in that direction. But these statistics show that work still needs to be done. In 2009, 92 percent of all international patent applications were filed in just 15 countries. While it is true that this reflects the level of investment and innovation in those countries, it also demonstrates that more is needed to encourage use of the system by others with more fledgling IP cultures.
“Developmental efforts are a challenge,” Gurry says. WIPO pursues a four-pronged approach to assisting developing countries with IP. Helping countries create intellectual property is one aspect, but it means little if there is no appropriate legislative framework in place. And for any legislative framework to be effective, there has to be infrastructure—not just in the form of institutions to handle IP, but also the technology necessary to properly administer patent filing or trademark registrations. Finally, there is the challenge of capacity building. WIPO tries to assist on all these fronts, by providing technical and legal expertise, but also with funding for development efforts.
According to Gurry, these efforts are bearing fruit. “Demand is unlimited,” he says. “We’ve recently come back from Vietnam, where there is great enthusiasm for IP. Now it will move up the value chain in the country.”
While WIPO will undoubtedly continue to make its case, what will really shape its future will be its response to an ever-changing technological environment and the associated implications for international communication. Whether Gurry and WIPO can seize the initiative and dictate some of the effects of these changes will have a great influence on the success of the overall agenda. Take online platforms for example:
“We live in a world where the instruments of international co-operation are changing,” Gurry says. “Te default for co-operation used to be the treaty. But different platforms can be as important as a treaty for co-ordinating international action. It would have been impossible to develop instruments such as Twitter or Facebook in a treaty. Te challenge is now to work out how to use these sorts of platforms for international co-operation.”
Of course, there are potential pitfalls to being too aggressive in increasing and centralising tasks such as licence registration, and Gurry is alert to potential problems. “One has to proceed carefully here,” he says. “Economists would love to have everything registered, but that is a big no-no. Companies would not like that. Tat said, it’s perfectly normal to develop the apparatus to protect the market. It’s not only desirable but absolutely necessary.”
Te same goes for patents. As much as a one-stop- shop for patents would be desirable in an ideal world, the discrepancies between national systems and competencies make it improbable, even in the medium to long term. “I don’t think it’s politically feasible,” Gurry says. “Te day will come when people will appreciate the use of this. If you’re a non-governmental organisation and you oppose a patent, you currently have to do it in 180 countries. We need a sensible mechanism for dealing with such a patent invalidation, but there are lots of questions. Would you have an international court or would you allow a court in Togo (or any other country) to invalidate a US patent?”
“ ONE OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS WE HAVE TO DO NOW IS TO FACILITATE CO-OPERATION ON THE POST-GRANT USE OF IP.”
For now at least, the most sensible compromise lies in further developing and refining the PCT. Tis should also deal with another problem seen in national patent agencies worldwide: backlog.
Gurry says: “Tere are a limited number of new inventions per year. Te capacity that we have to process those applications has to be used in a rational and effective manner. Te capacity should not be misused by searching and examining the same application in different offices.” Te question is one of work-sharing. To a degree, the PCT achieves this with a single application, international searches and international publication. But other, radical agreements are carrying it even further.
One method that Gurry favours is providing “access to published works for the visually impaired. We are also looking at encouraging companies to make available technologies where there is no commercial market. Te infrastructure of the platforms will develop over time, but it has a lot of potential.” Other possible options include creating an international brands database or trying to increase the number of trademarks registered internationally.
“Troughout the first 100 years of IP, most of the international co-operation was directed at systems for obtaining IP and harmonising the associated conditions. One of the important things we have to do now is to facilitate co-operation on the post-grant use of IP. Tat is where the important stuff is for the future,” Gurry says.
32 World Intellectual Property Review March/April 2010
“Te Vancouver group, incorporating the UK, Canada and Australia, has agreed to apply mutual recognition of national patents. We are building platforms for similar groups, but there is a long way between the PCT and mutual recognition,” Gurry says. “Tere are limits on work-sharing and, ultimately, you have to be careful to maintain TRIPS flexibilities. At the end of the day, you cannot impose on countries the decision on patentability.”
Tere is no legislative or regulatory panacea for the ills of the IP world. WIPO operates under restraints that are largely beyond its control, whether they be political, practical or even financial. But it is clear that its influence continues to grow, and in a world that is becoming ever smaller, it is well placed to guide the multilateral solutions that will be needed.
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76