1 initiative for strengthening technology commercialization and
TRANSCRIPT
International Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (IJIPR), ISSN 0976 – 6529(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6537(Online) Volume 1, Number 1, Nov - Dec (2010), © IAEME
25
INITIATIVE FOR STRENGTHENING TECHNOLOGY
COMMERCIALIZATION AND THE INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS SYSTEMS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
AND INDIA
L. Chandra Sekaran
Research Scholar Anna University Coimbatore 641046
E-mail: [email protected]
Dr. S. Balasubramanian
Research Supervisor Former Director – CIPR
Anna University Coimbatore 641046 E-mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Technology is a key resource of profound importance for the well being of a
national economy as well as international competitiveness; it is also vital for corporate
profitability and growth. Development and commercialization of new technologies has
inherent uncertainties and associated risks. In a competitive world of scarce resources,
new technologies fight for survival against developed technologies that promise
immediate returns with comparatively little risk. Technologists and policy makers need to
provide wider perspectives that encourage an entrepreneurial spirit that nurtures new
technologies in an enabling environment through appropriate policy initiatives.
Mounting evidence suggests that intellectual property rights – and patents in
particular – are crucial to long-term economic growth. Patents provide a necessary
incentive to invest in research and development activity, which in turn builds
technological capacity and Economic efficiency within an economy. In part to meet
treaty obligations, several members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN) have over the last 10 years introduced modern intellectual property rights into
International Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (IJIPR), ISSN 0976 – 6529(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6537(Online) Volume 1, Number 1, Nov - Dec (2010), pp. 25 - 47
© IAEME, http://www.iaeme.com/ijipr.html
IJIPR
© I A E M E
International Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (IJIPR), ISSN 0976 – 6529(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6537(Online) Volume 1, Number 1, Nov - Dec (2010), © IAEME
26
their legal systems. However, while most ASEAN members have intellectual property
laws on the books, they have given insufficient attention to building the requisite
infrastructure required to make effective use of these laws. ASEAN members thus are at
a pivotal point in efforts to equip themselves with an intellectual property environment
capable of catering to global investment needs. Recognizing this, the Kenan Institute
Asia, the International Intellectual Property Institute, and the Chulalongkorn University
Intellectual Property Institute conducted this study aimed at identifying the current
capacities of one critical area of the region’s intellectual property infrastructure – namely,
patent administration.
While patents provide incentives for investment, they do so only because they
provide the patent owner the right to make exclusive economic use of a discrete
application of a new idea. A good patent administration is necessary to ensure that the
patent right is both valid and justified. In the absence of good patent administration, the
ability of patent rights to spark investment is diminished. Thus, the goal of this study was
to investigate the current capabilities of patent offices within ASEAN countries, looking
specifically at factors such as organization and structure, technological infrastructure, and
human resources, and to provide recommendations on how these systems could be
improved.
Findings suggest that, although room for improvement exists in each of these
countries, the types of improvements needed most varied based on the level of economic
development of the country. For countries classified as least-developed (Cambodia, Laos
and Myanmar), there is no modern intellectual property system to speak of Intellectual
property laws have yet to be passed and no functional infrastructure, i.e., patent office,
exist. For countries classified as developing countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, the
Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam), intellectual property laws and some infrastructure,
including operating patent offices, are in place.
However, for all these countries, patent offices lack the resources to effectively
carryout their function, and thus we see a lack of trained patent examiners, adequate
technological infrastructure and access to necessary databases and other bibliographic
materials. Lastly, Singapore stood alone with a fairly effective patent administration,
primarily because it makes use of the examination capabilities of patent offices outside
International Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (IJIPR), ISSN 0976 – 6529(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6537(Online) Volume 1, Number 1, Nov - Dec (2010), © IAEME
27
ASEAN. Note that Brunei Darussalam decided not to participate in this study. To address
the problems identified, this report recommends a series of short-term interventions and
presents possible long-term solutions. The short-term interventions focus on addressing
problems in the flow of work within patent offices, organization of intellectual property
policy making bodies, building minimum technological infrastructure, providing
assistance in developing intellectual property legislation and providing training for patent
office staff and others crucial in the overall intellectual property infrastructure.
The possible long-term solutions presented includes 1) each ASEAN member
makes a deliberate decision to strengthen their respective patent office capacity, 2) the
adoption by ASEAN members of a certification process for approving patent applications
similar to the one in use in Singapore, and 3) the creation of a regional patent office
through a phased process that begins with the establishment of a regional prior art search
center. For each long-term solution presented, the report reviews the pros and cons and
suggests a general implementation plan. The next step is to continue a meeting of
intellectual property policymakers to discuss the options and develop a plan for moving
forward.
The next step is for the ASEAN members to address the short-term interventions,
which could be implemented over a 2 – 3 year time frame. Meanwhile, additional study
and consensus building is needed to arrive at a decision on the long-term solution. A
coordinated and consistent approach to provide foreign technical assistance can greatly
enhance ASEAN’s efforts. The realization of these recommendations will undoubtedly
result in a healthier and more efficiently functioning IP environment throughout the
region, strengthening the economies and international pecuniary relationships of the
ASEAN nations.
The main objective of this study is to develop a plan of action for implementing
improvements in national patent office administration, and in particular to present ideas
that would help foster greater regional cooperation and standardization.
PATENTS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Among the different forms of intellectual property rights, arguably the most
important form– at least from the point of view of many economists – is patents. Since
International Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (IJIPR), ISSN 0976 – 6529(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6537(Online) Volume 1, Number 1, Nov - Dec (2010), © IAEME
28
the development of economics as a field of study, economists have been searching to
identify the factors that allow economies to grow and prosper. Economists for some time
have realized that the key to long-run economic growth is tied to productivity– that is, the
efficiency of a country to make use of its resources in economic production. Classical
economists held that factors such as the quantity of labor, machinery (i.e., physical
capital), and availability of natural resources were the main ingredients in a country’s
overall productivity.
However, beginning in the 1950’s, economists began to realize that these
traditional factors, when added together, could not account for the economic growth that
many countries in the West had experienced. Investigating this economic phenomenon
further, economists began to realize that the use of improved technologies was increasing
productivity beyond what traditional economic inputs accounted for. Building on this
early work, contemporary economists looking into the role of technology in economic
growth have found that increasing the stock of technology through sustained investments
in research and development activities has been a key factor in the long-run economic
growth of developed countries. With increases in the stock of technology, countries have
continually been able to increase productivity and thus grow their economies. Economists
have also found that the ability for countries to achieve economic growth through
technology development is not exclusive to developed countries.
Indeed, evidence suggests that the relative increases in productivity that
developing countries receive through increasing their stock of technology are much
greater than the productivity gains developed countries receive. As such, an important
component in the formula for any developing country to achieve sustainable economic
growth is policies that increase the stock of technology available. The most direct route to
achieving this is through investments in research and development activities and
intellectual property policies, patents in particular, have proven to be important in
promoting such investments. Contemporary wisdom holds that patents provide an
economic incentive for inventors and businesses to create new inventions, or in other
words, patents promote the development of new technology.
This wisdom, however, has been challenged by many in the developing world
who claim that only in the absence of intellectual property rights can developing
International Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (IJIPR), ISSN 0976 – 6529(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6537(Online) Volume 1, Number 1, Nov - Dec (2010), © IAEME
29
countries afford to build the technical capability to imitate and then improve upon the
current stocks of technology in the world. While there may some merit to this argument,
particularly as it applies to least-developed countries, this argument generally does not
apply to most developing countries. Indeed, studies have shown that the availability of
patent protection in developing countries has a significant effect upon the ability of these
countries to stimulate investment in research and development activities.
Furthermore, it has been shown that the availability of patent rights also
encourages international technology flows through both foreign direct investment and
through licensing. These mechanisms for technology development are especially
important to developing countries as foreign investment in research and development
activities tend to promote larger gains inproductivity7 and the technology that flows from
these exchanges tend to be technologies that are more advanced than recipient countries
would otherwise have access to.
IMPACT OF POOR PATENT ADMINISTRATION
As mentioned, patents provide an incentive to invest in research and development,
either directly or through international technology flows. Businesses rely on patents to
protect such investments. If a competitor were to attempt exploitation of patented
technology, the patent holder could file suit in a court to prevent such unauthorized use,
seek damages and to prevent further abuses. While the ability of the patent holder to
enforce his right is generally tied to the capability and efficiency of his/her country’s
court system, the strength and reliability of a patent is first derived from the quality of the
examination performed. A well-functioning patent administration requires substantial
resources without which the quality of patents issued will invariably suffer.
While all patent offices have some sort of collection of prior art, such collections
are relatively small in many of the world’s patent offices, comprised mainly of the
patents issued in that country alone. Often, patent offices have very limited computer
resources, if any, which impedes their ability to access internet or electronic databases.
Additionally, most patent offices have difficulties recruiting, training, and retaining
qualified patent examination staff. Patent offices attempting to perform prior art searches
International Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (IJIPR), ISSN 0976 – 6529(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6537(Online) Volume 1, Number 1, Nov - Dec (2010), © IAEME
30
with such limited resources cannot adequately compare new inventions to existing
technologies, resulting in the issuance of patents that do not warrant patent protection.
Furthermore, if a patent office is understaffed, the time it takes to issue a patent –
referred to as patent pendency – may be great. Given the quick pace at which technology
is developed and the fact that the term of a patent begins when the application is
submitted, the longer the pendency is, the less time an inventor has to make use of the
patent once it is finally issued. When a patent office issues poor quality patents or suffers
from a substantial period of patent pendency, assurance of the enforceability of its patents
is reduced. In larger, more lucrative markets, poor patent quality and high pendency
periods mean a likely increase in patent litigation, as competing firms that are unwilling
to give up the market rely on the courts to settle their patent problems. This in turn may
have a chilling effect upon other innovating firms, dissuading them from researching
technology that would put them at risk of being sued. In smaller markets, this chilling
effect is even more pronounced, causing companies to altogether avoid making risky and
unprotected investments in local research and development and/or technology transfer
efforts. Of course, any reduction in research and development investment, whether in a
large or small country, will prove detrimental to long-run economic growth in the
country.
As a means to reduce the costs and administrative burdens associated with patent
administration, some blocks of countries have come banned together to establish regional
patent offices. These include the Eurasian Patent Organization (composed of the former
Soviet Republics, including Russia), the African Intellectual Property Organization
(composed of French speaking African countries), the African Regional Industrial
Property Organization (composed of English speaking African countries) and the EPO
which provides patent administration for 31 European countries. As established by
international agreements authorizing each respective regional patent office, each office
may perform all patent administration tasks for their client countries, including receipt of
application, collection of fees, and performance of formal and substantive examinations.
In order to best accomplish this, each country participating in a particular regional patent
office must have relatively similar substantive and procedural patent law. Furthermore,
International Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (IJIPR), ISSN 0976 – 6529(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6537(Online) Volume 1, Number 1, Nov - Dec (2010), © IAEME
31
the regional patent office itself should utilize a common operational language (or
languages).
THE ECONOMIC SITUATION IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
Southeast Asia is a diverse and culturally rich region of the world. In 1967, five
Southeast Asian countries created an international body known as the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in order to promote regional economic growth and
security. Today, SEAN has ten members, which comprise a population of about 550
million people and combined GDP of USD $884 billion. While the combined members of
ASEAN constitute significant economic force, the economic situation in individual
member countries is as diverse as are the people and cultures. Thus, in order to
understand the stark differences uneconomic capabilities of ASEAN countries, it is useful
to divide them into three main groups.
The first group is composed of Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar. These three
countries are officially classified as least-developed countries by the United Nations.
Each country has a per capita GDP below USD $500 and each has export earnings below
$4 billion. For both Cambodia and Laos, foreign assistance constitutes roughly 13% of
their GDP. Myanmar, by contrast, received less than 1% of GDP from foreign assistance.
The current account balance is negative due to a deficit in the trade balance. The
economies of these countries rest primarily on the exploitation of natural resources.
Foreign trade for Cambodia and Laos is composed mostly of exported and consumption
goods from other ASEAN countries and China. Myanmar’s trade with the United States,
Europe and Japan is negligible; the majority of Myanmar’s trade occurs with other
ASEAN members and China. The second group is composed of Indonesia, Malaysia, the
Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. These countries are classified by the United Nations
as developing countries. In2005, they each have per capita GDPs ranging between USD
$635 and $5,008.
Each economy is driven by export-led growth, with export earnings between USD
$28.6 and$140.5 billion. Of note, each of the countries in this group receives FDI inflow
amounting to at least 3-5% of their GDP which has fueled much of the export-led activity
(in several of these countries, this percentage has recently been much higher). Building
International Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (IJIPR), ISSN 0976 – 6529(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6537(Online) Volume 1, Number 1, Nov - Dec (2010), © IAEME
32
upon this strategy, all of these countries are implementing various reforms, including
strengthening their intellectual property infrastructure, as a means of stimulating greater
FDI. The volume of this group’s exports to the United States, Europe and Japan
amounted to USD $162billion, or about half of the total export volume of these countries.
However, the vast majority of exports from these countries are low-cost manufactured
goods such as low-end electronic products and textiles.
The last group consists of Singapore alone. While Singapore is classified as a
developing country, it clearly is much further along in the development process than any
other country in the region. In 2005, per capita GDP in Singapore is USD $26,880 and
export earnings are just over $200 billion. The consumer price inflation was low 1.3%
and the re a growth rebounded to 6.4% in 2005 after recording lower growth in 2002 and
2003 due to the effects of SARS. Foreign direct investment to Singapore was over USD
$5 billion and the FDI stock (active accumulated FDI) amounted to $120 billion. Foreign
companies are clearly willing to invest in Singapore, as evidenced by the presence of
over 1,500 United States-based firms operating in the country. Furthermore, Singapore
has built a robust local high-technology industry that includes semi-conductors, computer
equipment, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals.
POLICY INITIATIVES IN INDIA
The importance of technology was spotlighted by its incorporation as a key factor
in the first scientific Policy Resolution of India enacted in 1958. A large-scale
development of technology was envisaged to support early and critical stages of
industrialization. The Technology Policy Statement (TPS) in 1983 spoke of technology in
the broadest sense, including the agricultural and service sectors as well as the obvious
Manufacturing sector, which stretches over a wide spectrum ranging from small scale?
Village and cottage industries (often based on traditional skills) to medium, heavy and
sophisticated industries [50].
The policy has a basic objective of developing indigenous technology and
encouraging efficient absorption and adaptation of imported technologies that are
appropriate to national priorities and resources. Its aims are to attain technological
competence and self-reliance; to reduce vulnerability; identify obsolete technologies still
International Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (IJIPR), ISSN 0976 – 6529(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6537(Online) Volume 1, Number 1, Nov - Dec (2010), © IAEME
33
in use and arrange for modernization of equipment and technology; and to develop
technologies that are internationally competitive, particularly those with potential
The TPS stated that, within technology development, special emphasis would
focus on: Indigenous technology — strengthening and diversifying domestic technology
bases in order to reduce imports and simultaneously expand exports to ensure
international competitiveness. TPS emphasize the following requirements for developing
indigenous technologies: (a) importance of technology development, (b)inventions, (c)
enhancing traditional skills and capabilities, (d) ensuring timely availability,(e) upgrading
to prevent obsolescence, (f) increasing the demand for indigenous technology, (g)
preferential treatment, (h) fiscal incentives, (i) design engineering,(j) engineering
consulting, and (k) establishing in-house R&D centers. Technology acquisition —
industrializing a country requires a heavy price to import Science and technology in the
form of plants and machinery, well-paid personnel, and technical consultants.
The early and large-scale development of science and technology in India would
greatly reduce the drain on capital during the early stages of industrialization. The TPS
advocated a mix of indigenous and imported technology. With a view to further
strengthening the Indian economy and to assisting the nation to fulfill its role in the
global economy with both confidence and urgency, a draft paper for a new technology
policy was initialed in 1993. It aimed to inculcate renewed sense of purpose for
accelerated development and use of indigenous technology in the context of the 1991
industrial policy statement while keeping in view the need to adhere to international
quality and to preserve the environment. It focused on issues such as: (a) technology and
society, (b) technology and environment, (c) human skills, (d) thrust areas, (e) role of
research, development and engineering (RDE), (f) resources for RDE, (g) linkages and
(h) policy implementation, monitoring, and review. The draft technology policy was
widely circulated during 1993-94.
However, the final version of the policy statement has yet to appear. The
Research and Development Cess Act (1986) was promulgated to establish a fund for the
import of technologies, to finance development of indigenous technologies, and to make
imported technologies indigenous. Simultaneously, as follow-ups the 1983 Technology
Policy Statement, the Technology Information Forecasting& Assessment Council
International Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (IJIPR), ISSN 0976 – 6529(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6537(Online) Volume 1, Number 1, Nov - Dec (2010), © IAEME
34
(TIFAC), an autonomous body fully owned by the government of India, was formed
under the Department of Science and Technology during 1988. In addition to its other
activities, TIFAC provides some financing and facilitates development and
commercialization of technologies under the Homegrown Technology scheme. Venture
capital funds and a few other schemes were also promoted during the 1980s to support
similar activities. The Technology Development Board Act (1995) was another major
policy initiative of the government in this direction. Table 1 lists various special schemes
and funding mechanisms that have been commissioned to finance new technology
commercialization.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN ASEAN COUNTRIES
There is a stark contrast in the intellectual property infrastructure and respect for
intellectual property rights among the three groups of ASEAN countries. For the first
group, the most pressing issue is the implementation of national legislation regarding
intellectual property rights. For the most part, the intellectual property laws in place are
obsolete or are nonexistent. Cambodia and Myanmar are WTO member countries, but, as
they are classified as least developed countries, they are under no obligation to institute
TRIPS-compliant intellectual property rights until 2016. When appropriate legislation is
passed, they will need to devote significant resources to their intellectual property
administrative bodies of (i.e., patent offices) as these are currently grossly inadequate
Year of Signature
Table 3-1: Participation in International IP Treaties by ASEAN Countries
Year of signature
Group - 1 Group - 2 Group -3 Treaty
CAM LAOS MYA INDO MAL PHI THA VIET SING
Wipo* 1995 1995 2001 1979 1989 1980 1989 1976 1980
Paris 1998 1998 1950 1989 1965 1949 1995
Berne 1997 1990 1984 1931 2004 1998
WCT 2002 2002 2005
WPPT 2005 2002 2005
PCT 2006 1997 2006 2001 1993 1995
Trips 2001 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 2006 1995
* Denotes signatory to the WIPO convention and thus a member state of the organization
Although intellectual property infrastructure in the second group is more
developed than the first, it is still in much need of improvement. These countries have
International Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (IJIPR), ISSN 0976 – 6529(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6537(Online) Volume 1, Number 1, Nov - Dec (2010), © IAEME
35
generally been participants in the primary international intellectual property treaties, and
for a longer period of time, than the countries of group one. The most notable exception
to this Thailand, which is not yet party to the Paris Convention or the PCT. The national
legislation on intellectual property in this group generally adheres to the standards set out
in the international treaties to which they subscribe. All group two countries have
intellectual property offices responsible for the administration of patents, trademarks, and
industrial designs. While intellectual property laws and administration structures are in
place in group two countries, their ability to enforce their intellectual property laws
remains insufficient. Enforcement of intellectual property rights does not seem to be a
political priority in most of these countries.
To the contrary, it seems that many policymakers in these countries believe that,
for the short term, allowing local firms to engage in piracy and counterfeiting is more
beneficial to their economy than enforcement of intellectual property laws. Furthermore,
courts capable of adjudicating intellectual property cases do not exist or don’t have staff
with adequate training and experience to handle intellectual property cases. Meaning a
holder of intellectual property rights in these countries would likely not be able to
effectively bring suit and enforce his/her rights through litigation. On the other hand,
Singapore has modern intellectual laws in place, a well functioning intellectual property
administration, and effective enforcement of intellectual property rights. Singapore is
able to do so due to a strong legal system.
PATENTS AND PATENT ADMINISTRATION IN ASEAN
The total number of patent applications received by ASEAN member countries in
2004 was27, 077. Of these applications, only5-10% of the applications each country
received was filed by residents, with the remainder filed by foreign entities. The total
number of applications filed by ASEAN residents is around 3,000 per year. Most of the
foreign applications are coming from the United States, Europe and Japan, and are
relatively equally distributed among these countries. Applications in the field of
chemistry and pharmaceuticals represent around 60% of all applications filed in ASEAN.
ASEAN members that are party to the PCT receive most of their foreign
applications through the PCT.ASEAN patent offices offer applicants two different patent
International Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (IJIPR), ISSN 0976 – 6529(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6537(Online) Volume 1, Number 1, Nov - Dec (2010), © IAEME
36
rights: the triple test patent and utility models (e.g., petty patents). The triple test patent is
the type of patent described earlier in this report, with the three requisite criteria of
novelty, inventive step and industrial application. The utility model shares the
requirements of novelty and industrial application, but lacks the third criterion of
inventive step. In this way, utility models are designed to encourage incremental
innovation, as opposed to the significant leaps within a technological field promoted by
triple test patents.
It appears that the vast majority of utility model applications come from ASEAN
residents. Further, utility models are not sought as often as triple test patents, as they
amount to only around 10% of each country’s total patent applications. The search tools
being employed by ASEAN patent offices include patent data collections on CD from
other patent offices, and the internet search tools provided by the largest patent offices
(i.e., the EPO’s Spacemen).Efficiently accessing these resources is difficult, however, as
computer resources are generally inadequate, and the available internet bandwidth is
often very small. It should be noted that the EPO has recently made available a newly
developed database containing patent bibliographic data for ASEAN countries.
Chart 3-Patent Applications in ASEAN Countries - 2005
Indonesia, 4303
Malaysia, 6286
Singapore, 9177
Thailand, 6340
Philippines, 2431
Vietnam, 1624
INDIA 23,000
(ASEANPAT). Additionally, most of the information systems used to manage the
patent Procedure – PAMs – need considerable improvement. Effective PAMs are
essential for knowing the precise status of each application and for building a register of
all of the applications. Group one countries are not currently enforcing patent laws, and
so do not have any existing patent applications or modern patent administrations.
The patent offices of group two countries suffer from significant resource
shortages –lack of trained/experienced patent examiners, appropriate technological
infrastructure, access to prior art databases and effective PAMs. These shortages have
resulted in overly long pendency rates for patent applications, significant backlogs of
International Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (IJIPR), ISSN 0976 – 6529(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6537(Online) Volume 1, Number 1, Nov - Dec (2010), © IAEME
37
unexamined applications and poor quality in the patents issued. Users of the patent
systems of these countries have expressed frustration over such problems. For instance,
one user commented that once you file a patent application in some of these countries, it
is “like going into a black hole” – no information concerning the application is provided
until it is issued.
Singapore is the only country in the region to issue quality patents in a timely
manner. However, Singapore achieves this end in a rather novel manner. Instead of
maintaining a patent office staffed with patent examiners and equipped with the
necessary technological capabilities, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS)
either accepts the examination results of certain major patent offices, or outsources the
patent examination function for domestically filed patent applications to the patent
offices of Australia, Austria and Denmark to conduct patent examinations.
PLAN OF ACTION
It is clear that building and maintaining an intellectual property infrastructure –
particularly in the realm of patents – has been struggle for most ASEAN member
countries. While some ASEAN countries do maintain patent offices, most are
understaffed and ill-equipped to address the huge backlogs they currently have. Still,
other ASEAN countries have yet to even implement laws creating patent rights. The lack
of patent rights and poor patent administration may have dire consequences for the ability
of ASEAN countries to attract technology investments by both local and foreign entities,
thereby impacting their ability to successfully compete in the growing world knowledge
economy. While a ubiquitous lack of political will to improve the intellectual property
infrastructure in ASEAN countries is partly responsible for this situation, another
obstacle is the inherent difficulty in securing the resources necessary to create and/or
improve patent offices of the region.
As outlined above, maintaining an intellectual property infrastructure – and in
particular a patent office – is a resource intensive enterprise. If the existing patent offices
of the region are to be improved in any meaningful way and those countries with out
patent laws or patent offices are to catch up with their peers, substantial technical
assistance and funding by international aid agencies will be required. International aid
International Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (IJIPR), ISSN 0976 – 6529(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6537(Online) Volume 1, Number 1, Nov - Dec (2010), © IAEME
38
devoted to this endeavor should be judiciously spent in a comprehensive strategy that
recognizes the strengths and shortcomings of each ASEAN member country. Training for
new patent examiners in the ASEAN countries is available through the EPO and USPTO.
It inessential to have adequate infrastructure and trained examiners for the patent offices,
but its equally important to have adequate law and procedures for patent enforcement as
well to encourage patent filing. To inform such an endeavor, we offer the following plan
of action that breaks down improvement priorities to short-term and long-term
interventions.
SHORT TERM INTERVENTIONS
The approach to short-term interventions is to provide technical assistance to
ASEAN Members on an individual basis. Each office would be treated independently
and the Assistance provided would be tailored to each country’s specific needs.
However, the \assistance provide to each country would focus on five major areas:
Update and Harmonize PAM Systems: This is certainly the most urgent and important
need that could be easily and rapidly implemented. Not only will this provide needed
transparency to the patent process, but it will also reduce the threat of an uncontrolled
backlog situation.
The Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) has implemented a
system called the Patent Administration Computerized System (PACSYS)in Philippines
and Vietnam. Vietnam, however, is the sole country that seems satisfied .The drawbacks
of using this system should be addressed Alternatively, the EPO has progressed with the
tool box concept and now has employed a set of modules called EPTOS covering all
aspects of procedures (online filing, patent management database, Phoenix, Registry,
online file inspection, and online publication).
The EPO is currently installing EPTOS in Malaysia. It might be worth exploring a
possible framework for cooperation (bilateral or multilateral) in order to implement
EPTOS in the other ASEAN countries. Further, such cooperation could help in
developing ways to share information on the best practices. It is important to realize,
though, since each office works independently and are at different stages of development,
they will not be ready to work together on the same project.
International Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (IJIPR), ISSN 0976 – 6529(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6537(Online) Volume 1, Number 1, Nov - Dec (2010), © IAEME
39
Review of the patent procedure flow chart: Patent offices in the region often
employ complicated procedures that result in time consuming delays and duplication of
work. A Simplification of the patent procedure flow should increase the number of files
handled by each examiner per year, while at the same time reduce the backlog and
decrease the Tendency time in many patent offices.
Information Technology Infrastructure: In most offices the basic information
technology infrastructure needs improvement. Computer equipment, LAN capacity,
internet capacity, and level of technological expertise of staff do not meet the needs of a
modern patent office. Cooperation and modernization programs to address these
insufficiencies are urgently needed.
Training: Programs should be designed and implemented to train formality
officers (especially for the PCT procedures), examiners (for search and substantive
examination, online searching, inventive step assessment, quality control, etc.),
information technology experts, lawyers, judges and customs officials. Legal training for
lawyers in the fields of trademarks, patents, utility models, and industrial designs are
needed. Training in the drafting of intellectual property legislation should be designed
and delivered for the countries where the intellectual property infrastructure is less
developed.
Reorganization of IP Policy Making Bodies: Countries that have spread
intellectual property policy making authority among several different ministries should be
encouraged to either consolidate such authority into one or improve coordination
mechanisms that will lead to a unified policy on intellectual property matters at the
national level. Legislative Drafting: ASEAN countries in group three require assistance
developing basic legislation that provides a modern intellectual property legal system.
The intellectual property legislation that is developed should take into consideration the
requirements of the TRIPS Agreement and WIPO treaties, but should also be harmonized
to the extent possible with other ASEAN member countries. Implementing these short-
term interventions is both feasible and necessary. Such an approach would lead to certain
improvements of a limited nature for each existing patent offices, most notably in
improving tendency, transparency and professionalism
International Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (IJIPR), ISSN 0976 – 6529(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6537(Online) Volume 1, Number 1, Nov - Dec (2010), © IAEME
40
LONG TERM INTERVENTIONS
While the short-term interventions will produce incremental improvements to
patent Administration among ASEAN countries, it is unrealistic that technical assistance
for each office would solve the primary underlying problem – that is, the long-term lack
of adequate resources to perform the full patent examination function. As an interim
solution, however, using patent searches from the PCT, USPTO, EPO and JPO may
enable applicants to amend local claims to granted claims in another country while
maintaining the local country’s sovereignty. Resources include access to and
maintenance of appropriate search tools, continued training and retention of patent
examiners, and maintenance of technical infrastructure that is built through short-term
interventions. There are three main options to solve this problem of inadequate resources.
EACH COUNTRY STRENGTHENS NATIONAL PATENT OFFICE
CAPACITY
First, ASEAN policy makers may find the arguments for effective patent
administration championed in this report persuasive enough that they begin to dedicate
the necessary resources needed to field a well functioning patent office and overall
intellectual property infrastructure. This certainly is not out of the realm of possibility,
given the examples of other countries in the region, most notably China. While China
continues to be the top world producer of counterfeit and pirated goods (e.g., apparel,
optical discs), it is also becoming a world leader in technology development. Hence,
policymakers have made conscious effort to strengthen patent administration by
dedicating substantial resources to the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO).
For more information, see China Country Report. Already, SIPO is vastly larger
and has more resources than all the ASEAN countries put together. Their office receives
about 170,000 patent applications a year, 50%of which come from abroad. SIPO employs
over 1,000 patent examiners, has a modern technological infrastructure, provides
examiners with modern prior art search tools, and myriad prior art databases. For more
information, please refer to the China country report. China’s example of building up its
patent administration can serve as a model for other countries in the region and provide
International Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (IJIPR), ISSN 0976 – 6529(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6537(Online) Volume 1, Number 1, Nov - Dec (2010), © IAEME
41
the political cover policymakers may need to divert resources to build up their countries’
patent administration capabilities
COUNTRIES IMPLEMENT A CERTIFICATION SYSTEM
A second solution is for ASEAN patent offices to follow the example on the
patent examination results of other countries. To recap, the majority of patent
applications filed in Singapore are filed by international applicants, either through the
PCT or Paris Convention. In either case, applicants may submit proof of an issued patent
for a corresponding application in one of a handful of other patent offices (i.e., USPTO,
EPO, JPO, SIPO, etc). With such proof, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore
(IPOS) certifies the patent application it is holding as valid and thus grants the patent. For
domestic applications not following a PCT route, substantive patent examination is
outsourced to other patent offices that do maintain sophisticated patent administrative
capabilities.
This process is widely used by the IPOS and eliminates the need for the IPOS to
maintain a large patent examination capacity. Some users of ASEAN patent systems
favor this approach, mainly because it is easy to implement and easy to receive a patent
grant, however they also point out that this approach is not without its drawbacks.
Though a patent grant is based on a corresponding patent application that presumably
undergoes a quality substantive examination, such examination is based on the laws and
rules of another country. For patents issued through a certification process as in
Singapore, the first and only test for validity in Singapore is through litigation. However,
as discussed above, intellectual property right holders are constantly struggling with the
limited and ineffective means they have to enforce their rights in the region. What
litigation there is, usually centers on questions related to copyright or trademark law – not
on patents. So, right holders are leery of having to rely on enforcement mechanisms to
prove their patents are valid.
Another drawback to the certification method is that countries tend to guard their
sovereign rights. Relying entirely on another country’s patent administration to
essentially determine what is patent able in ASEAN countries may not be palatable to
policy makers. This may be especially true for certain areas of patent law that are not yet
International Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (IJIPR), ISSN 0976 – 6529(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6537(Online) Volume 1, Number 1, Nov - Dec (2010), © IAEME
42
completely internationally harmonized, as in the case of whether software is patentable
subject mater. This of course could be addressed by maintaining some capacity in local
patent offices to review patent applications under local standards during formal
examination and/or during the certification process. Regardless of whether ASEAN
member countries elect to implement certification systems, intellectual property
enforcement throughout the region must be improved.
However, as discussed above, it is especially important that countries
implementing a certification system are able to effectively adjudicate patent cases in
order to help preserve the reliability of the patents they issue. This means that the laws
should give patent holders the right to private action, that courts and/or administrative
bodies have the capacity to properly decide patent cases and the authority to implement
their decisions, and that the remedies provided fairly compensate the right holder and are
sufficient to infringer. This of course will pose a challenge in itself and will require both
legislative changes, political will to enforce intellectual property rights and substantial
training of enforcement bodies and local attorneys. Thus, to effectively implement a
certification system will require more than just changes in law – it will require substantial
resources in training and strengthening enforcement mechanisms
CREATION OF A REGIONAL SEARCH CENTER/PATENT
OFFICE
The third long-term intervention would be to create an ASEAN regional patent
office, which would initially be responsible for carrying out prior art searchers but
eventually also able to conduct substantive examinations and grant patents for the region.
Such a solution is by far the most difficult to implement, but at the same time it is the
solution that will provide the most benefit. A regional patent office would allow ASEAN
members to share the costs for maintaining a modern patent administration that could
then presumably issue reliable patents. A regional patent office would also allow ASEAN
members to discontinue much of the redundancies of current patent office operations,
provide patent administration capabilities to ASEAN member countries that currently
have none, and make it easier to receive patent protection in multiple countries within the
region.
International Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (IJIPR), ISSN 0976 – 6529(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6537(Online) Volume 1, Number 1, Nov - Dec (2010), © IAEME
43
The execution of such an endeavor would no doubt take many years and would
require phased implementation. A good model for this would be the path Europe took to
create the EPO. The foundations of the EPO began with the creation of the Institute
International desBrevets (IIB, or in English, the International Patent Institute). The IIB
served as a shared prior art search facility initially for France, Belgium, The Netherlands,
and Luxemburg, but eventually grew to service many other European countries. When
the EPO was created, the IIB was incorporated into the EPO and continued its critical
function of carrying out prior art searches.
Following the European experience, the first phase in creating an ASEAN
regional patent
office would be to create a common prior art search center. The prior art search
center will require sufficient and qualified technical staff in the different technical fields,
able to access the most modern search tools and equipped with appropriate information
technology resources. Initial capitalization for this endeavor will likely be substantial and
may require aid from outside ASEAN countries. Over time, search fees, if set
appropriately, can be used to maintain the center’s functions.
The main function of the prior art search center will be to deliver comprehensive
search reports on which national patent offices may rely on in the examination of patent
applications. This necessarily means that ASEAN countries will still need to maintain
national patent offices at this stage. However, to further assist national offices in the
performance of their functions, the search center could provide advisory written opinions
on the patentability of applications that could aid in their patentability determinations.
Providing advisory opinions would also give staff the opportunity to hone their
examination skills.
Implementation of a regional search center would not require all ASEAN
members to participate and indeed, it may be best that not all ASEAN members
participate in its creation. As the European experience demonstrates, it is possible to
initiate the creation of a regional search center among just a handful of the eventual users
of such a system. Limiting initial participation in the search center to a small number of
ASEAN members (e.g., 2-4 countries), would give the implementing countries an
opportunity to work out problems that will invariably arise as the search center is
International Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (IJIPR), ISSN 0976 – 6529(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6537(Online) Volume 1, Number 1, Nov - Dec (2010), © IAEME
44
founded, begins to operate and interacts with national patent offices. As the search center
becomes competent in fulfill ignites duties, additional ASEAN members may be asked to
join or otherwise added to the search center’s clientele.
The second phase would be to empower the regional search center with the
authority to grant patent rights, and thus turn the search center into a regional patent
office. It should be stressed that ASEAN members need not surrender their authority to
grant patents to the regional patent office. If they so choose, the system should be flexible
enough to allow ASEAN members to maintain independent national patent offices and
just rely on the regional patent office to continue to perform search functions only. Of
course, the logical course of action would be for ASEAN members to allow the regional
patent office to perform all patent administration functions, thereby eliminating the need
to maintain a national patent office. Nevertheless, allowing countries to choose whether
to surrender patent granting authority to a regional patent office will help guard against
critics who may challenge the creation of the regional patent office on grounds that it
strips countries of their sovereign rights.
At first glance, the ASEAN region seems like an ideal candidate for the
development of a regional patent office similar to the EPO. After all, ASEAN itself
provides a framework in which a regional office can reside. In December 1995, ASEAN
members entered into a Framework Agreement, wherein they agreed to “explore the
possibility of setting up an ASEAN patent system, including an ASEAN Patent Office, if
feasible, to promote region wide protection of patents bearing in mind developments
regarding regional and international protections.”12 However, despite arguments
favoring the development of an ASEAN regional patent office, existing underlying
circumstances are significant obstacles to such an endeavor.
First, the disparate languages among ASEAN countries could be a significant
barrier to a regional patent office. Each ASEAN member country has a different national
language which is employed in their patent offices and patent records. Further, most non-
patent prior art databases are in yet other languages, such as English, Japanese and
German. Such language differences among ASEAN countries and between ASEAN
countries and available prior art resources, pose considerable difficulties in adequately
staffing a regional office. While the language barrier is not insurmountable, as evidenced
International Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (IJIPR), ISSN 0976 – 6529(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6537(Online) Volume 1, Number 1, Nov - Dec (2010), © IAEME
45
by the success of the EPO, it will require significant political will – and compromise – on
the part of ASEAN countries.
Another impediment to the creation of a regional office is that there remains a
wide variation in patent laws, administrative procedures and information management
between ASEAN countries. Assuming that the short-term interventions are successfully
carried, some harmonization will take place by utilizing a common PAMS. When users
of the ASEAN patent systems were asked whether a regional patent office would be
advisable, many thought the idea had merit. However, most were quick to caution that
patent rights could be harmed as much as helped in the process. Specifically, it was
pointed out that substantive changes to intellectual property laws adverse to users of the
system could creep in during the harmonization process. Thus, care must be given to
ensure that harmonization efforts complied with international standards embodied in
TRIPS and the Paris Convention.
Given such impediments, the wisdom of initiating this project with only a few
countries is clear. Identification of the best candidate countries among ASEAN members
will require further study, though they would likely be group two countries. A feasibility
study looking into the best course of implementation should be commissioned. Such a
feasibility study would look at whether a regional search system should be built from
scratch, built upon an existing ASEAN patent office, or whether the capacity of a non-
ASEAN patent office (i.e., China or Australia) in the region could be relied upon. The
study would also look into the resources the search center will need initially and where
personnel for the search center will be recruited from.
CONCLUSION
It is clear that there are myriad problems that need to be addressed with the patent
administration of ASEAN member countries including INDIA. The solution of these
problems will ultimately assist these countries in attracting greater investment in R&D
and high technology sectors, either through local investment or through FDI. The section
immediately preceding this provides a useful roadmap for solving these ASEAN patent
administration problems.
International Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (IJIPR), ISSN 0976 – 6529(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6537(Online) Volume 1, Number 1, Nov - Dec (2010), © IAEME
46
The short-term interventions listed are all very much possible. Completion of
these interventions could occur in as little as 2-3 years provided that efforts are fully
funded and cooperation with ASEAN members is secured. Further, implementation of
these interventions can be staggered and executed piecemeal among ASEAN members
(though if implemented piecemeal, completion may take longer than 2-3 years). The
more challenging aspect to our Plan of Action is the long-term solutions
To implement one of the long-term solutions proposed will require agreement
among at least a few of the ASEAN countries. Thus, the next step should be to convene a
meeting of intellectual property policy makers to discuss the options and weigh the value
and drawbacks of each. Thus some form of diplomatic or otherwise official conference
will be required, preferably under the auspices of ASEAN, to get the ball rolling.
However, realistically, a decision on which course of action will take some time.
Thus, efforts to develop a consensus on the course of action should be initiated at the
same short-term interventions are underway. Ideally, a decision will be reached by the
time short-term interventions are completed.
REFERENCES;
• See generally, Elhanan Helpman, The Mystery of Economic Growth (2004).
• Id. Also see Dominique Guellec and Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, R&D
and Productivity Growth:
• Panel Data Analysis of 16 OECD Countries, Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development,
• Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2001/3, June
14, 2001 (hereinafter, “OECD Study”). This study found on average that an
increase of 1% in business R&D generates 0.13% in Productivity growth while an
increase of 1% in public R&D generates 0.17% in productivity growth.
• Daniel Lederman and William F. Maloney, R&D and Development, Office of the
Chief Economist, Latin America and Caribbean, the World Bank, May 1, 2003.
• Sunil Kanwar and Robert Evenson, Does Intellectual Property Protection Spur
Technical Change, Economic Growth Center, Yale University, Discussion Paper
No. 831, June 2001.
International Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (IJIPR), ISSN 0976 – 6529(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6537(Online) Volume 1, Number 1, Nov - Dec (2010), © IAEME
47
• Edwin Mansfield, Intellectual Property Protection, Foreign Direct Investment
and Technology Transfer, Discussion Paper 19, International Finance Corporation
(1994). Keith E. Maskus, The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Encouraging
Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Transfer, in Intellectual Property and
Development – Lessons from Recent Economic Research (Carsten Fink & Keith
Maskus, eds, 2005).
• Walter Park & Douglas Lippoldt, International Licencins and the Strengthening
of Intellectual Property Rights in Developing Countries, OECD Economics
Studies (2005).
• OECD Study, supra note 4. This study also found that a 1% increase in foreign
R&D generates 0.44% in productivity growth, or in other words foreign supported
R&D has 2-3 times the impact upon productivity that locally supported R&D has.
• Maskus, supra note 7.
• ASEAN Framework Agreement on Intellectual Property Cooperation, Bangkok,
Thailand (December 15, 1995), available at http://www.aseansec.org/6414.htm.