The Geneva-based World Intellectual Property Organization (Wipo), a specialised agency of the United Nations, aims at developing a balanced and accessible international intellectual property (IP) system among its 184 member countries. While its efforts are highly appreciated in the developed world, some of its initiatives have drawn flak from various IP stakeholders in developing nations. Just before the ongoing annual general assembly of Wipo began in Geneva on September 22, Delhi-based civil society groups had asked the central government for measures to defend the domestic policy space, as well as the public health safeguards available within the framework of international treaties. In an e-mail response to Joe C Mathew, WIPO Director-General FRANCIS GURRY addresses such fears and says he is personally committed to have Wipo work towards narrowing the knowledge gap in the world, and help developing and least developed countries avail the benefits of the knowledge economy. Excerpts:
What are the major items on the agenda for the 47th General Assembly?
For the first time, the annual meetings of Wipo member states began with a two-day, high-level ministerial segment. This, I believe, reflects the importance of IP to senior policy makers. The high-level segment on September 22 and 23 brought together over 40 ministers, mostly from developing and least developed countries, who addressed national IP priorities. The participation by senior policy makers from developing countries in this high-level segment reflects growing recognition of the importance of IP to these countries.
The Assemblies of member states are reviewing the status of activities and discussing future work (agenda available at www.wipo.int). The 184 member states are considering and approving the programme and budget for the 2010/11 biennium. They will take note of the work undertaken in the past year and will provide direction for the Organisation’s future substantive work in the context of the various inter-governmental committees. I reported to the member states on progress we have been able to make in implementing the organisation’s nine new strategic goals over the past year.
Do you agree with the view that WIPO is primarily customer-driven, as it generates its revenue from customers (primarily developed nations) and not members? Could you elaborate on your views?
No, I don’t agree with this view. Unlike other UN organisations, Wipo is largely self-funding, thanks to the revenues generated by a range of services that facilitate the process of acquiring IP rights in multiple countries. These include the Patent Cooperation Treaty and the Madrid System for the International Registration of Trademarks. It is true that companies and individuals operating in the private sector are the main users of these services, but Wipo is first and foremost an intergovernmental organisation. And, as such, owned by its 184 member states, who are responsible for setting the organisation’s agenda, allocating budgets in line with priorities, and overseeing implementation of the programme and budget. Wipo is a non-profit, member-driven organisation that is committed to ideals of the United Nations. Any surpluses generated by the demand for Wipo’s filing and registration services, subject to the scrutiny and agreement of member states, are re-invested in programmes and activities designed to help create a stable international IP environment and build IP capacity in developing countries. This arrangement benefits all stakeholders.
Do you agree to the view that objectives like balanced evolution of the international normative framework for IP, provision for premier global IP services, etc, are indirectly harming the interests of developing countries?
No, I do not agree with this statement. This is not a zero-sum scenario. Balanced evolution of the international normative IP framework and provision of global IP services complement and support efforts to promote the economic interests of developing countries. The organisation’s nine strategic goals, which have been agreed upon by the international community, are designed to ensure that the IP system is accessible to all those interested in leveraging the value of their innovative and creative assets. We are working to develop concrete, practical and workable solutions to help narrow the knowledge gap that exists in the world today and to increase participation in the benefits of the knowledge economy by supporting national efforts (of both developing and least developed countries) to develop effective IP systems. This is something to which I am personally strongly committed.
The international discussions that take place under the auspices of Wipo are inclusive. The active engagement of developing countries in these international negotiations is a reflection of the recognition of the importance of IP to these countries. Such participation in these negotiations also means that these countries are in a position to influence the outcomes of these international discussions. India, for instance, is an active participant in the normative IP discussions that take place at Wipo. It is only through an inclusive debate that we can arrive at consensus decisions that address the concerns of all member states.
Moreover, Wipo continues to invest significant resources in supporting national efforts to develop and strengthen IP capacity in the interests of economic development. In the current financial period, almost one-fifth (some 117 million Swiss francs) of the organisation’s budget has been allocated to this activity. A similar amount is earmarked for the 2010/11 biennium.
How far is it true that a ‘global patent system’ will undermine the sovereign rights of individual member nations to determine patentability of applications?
It’s not clear what you mean by a “global patent system”. The only international system as such that exists today is the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). But, the PCT is not a patent granting system; it is an international filing system for patent applications. As such, it does not touch the sovereign rights of states because under this system, it is the national patenting authorities themselves that determine the patentability of inventions. It is these same national authorities which decide whether to grant a patent or not.
The basic rule is that countries are sovereign. Each country crafts its patent system in a way that best fits with its national priorities for technological and economic development. Thus, a “global patent granting system” could only be established if and when sovereign states agreed to set up such a system and there is no such proposal on the table anywhere, to my knowledge.
In what stages are the plans for developing patent prosecution highway projects? Is it going to be a major topic of discussion in the General Assembly?
No, during the meetings of Wipo Assemblies, the only context in which discussions may refer to the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) is that of the PCT Assembly, when member states will be invited to note the report of the second session of the PCT Working Group which featured discussions on the PCT Roadmap (document PCT/WG/2/3 “The Future of the PCT”), with reference also to ongoing PPH (pilot) projects. In this context, I would like to draw your attention to the latest development, which I very much welcome. Representatives of the three Trilateral Offices (European Patent Office, Japan Patent Office and United States Patent and Trademark Office), attending the Global Symposium of Intellectual Property Authorities, hosted by Wipo on September 17 and 18, have signalled their agreement in principle to integrating PCT work products (PCT international preliminary reports on patentability) into their ongoing PPH projects, and to start pilot projects in early 2010.
As PPH projects are all bilateral projects between various national offices, it would be more appropriate for you to address the first part of your question to those offices which have entered into bilateral PPH agreements.
Could you elaborate on the role of IP in mitigating climate change?
Technology will play an important role in mitigating and adapting to climate change. Policies that stimulate the creation and diffusion of technology, especially policies that encourage and protect innovation and technology transfer, including improving access to patent information, are directly relevant to an effective response to the challenges of climate change. Private sector investments in innovation are possible in large part because a functioning patent system enables successful innovators to earn an economic return. The patent system also facilitates the transfer of technology, insofar as patent applications and patents themselves are published and publicly available, and insofar as the system transforms inventions into tradable assets (through licencing contracts and other agreements).
Wipo is committed to building a broader understanding of the important contribution that intellectual property can make in generating and disseminating technological solutions to address the multi-faceted challenges that climate change presents.
