WIPO Intellectual Property Indicators Released

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) recently released its World Intellectual Property Indicators information for 2017.  Global intellectual property filings are at an all-time high with patent filings up 5.8% from the prior year.  Notably, patent filings in China have increased substantially both by Chinese citizens and foreign residents.  U.S. patent filers continue to lead globally.  Concerning patents, WIPO notes:

China’s IP office received the highest number of patent applications in 2017, a record total of 1.38 million. China in 2017 refined its method for compiling statistics for patents and industrial designs applications, counting only those for which application fees have been paid. China’s IP office was followed by the offices of the United States of America (U.S.; 606,956), Japan (318,479), the Republic of Korea (204,775) and the European Patent Office (EPO; 166,585).

The top five offices accounted for 84.5% of the world total. Among these offices, China (+14.2%) and the EPO (+4.5%) saw strong growth in filings, while Japan (+0.03%) and the U.S. (+0.2%) saw negligible growth. The Republic of Korea (-1.9%) received fewer applications in 2017 than in 2016.

Germany (67,712), India (46,582), the Russian Federation (36,883), Canada (35,022) and Australia (28,906) also featured among the top 10 offices. Australia (+1.8%), Canada (+0.8%) and India (+3.4%) saw growth in filings, while Germany (-0.3%) and the Russian Federation (-11.3%) experienced a decline in filings.

. . .

Asia going strong

Asia has strengthened its position as the region with the greatest activity in patent filings. Offices located in Asia received 65.1% of all applications filed worldwide in 2017 – a considerable increase from 49.7% in 2007 - primarily driven by growth in China.

Offices located in North America accounted for 20.3% of the 2017 world total – six percentage points below its 2007 share. Europe’s share declined from 18.1% in 2007 to 11.2% in 2017. The combined share of Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Oceania was 3.4% in 2017.

Patenting activity beyond borders

In filing abroad, which is an indication of a desire to expand in new markets, U.S. residents continue to lead with 230,931 equivalent patent applications filed abroad in 2017. The U.S. was followed by Japan (200,370), Germany (102,890), the Republic of Korea (67,484) and China (60,310).

Among these five origins, China reported a 15% growth in filings abroad, which is far above that of Japan (+2.1%) and the U.S. (+2%). Both Germany (-0.6%) and the Republic of Korea (-4.1%) had fewer filings abroad in 2017 than in 2016.

Patents in force worldwide grew by 5.7% to reach 13.7 million in 2017. Around 2.98 million patents were in force in the U.S., while China (2.09 million) and Japan (2.01 million) each had around 2 million.

WIPO has also released data concerning trademarks, plant variety applications, industrial design and geographical indications, available here.  For the first time, WIPO has collected and released data on the creative economy:

Revenue generated by the three sectors (trade, educational and scientific, technical and medical) of the publishing industry of 11 countries amounted to USD 248 billion. China reported the largest net revenue (USD 202.4 billion), followed by the U.S. (USD 25.9 billion), Germany (USD 5.8 billion) and the U.K. (USD 4.7 billion)[3].

Digital editions generated 28.3% of the total trade sector revenue in China, 23.5% in Japan, 18.4% in Sweden, 13.2% in Finland and 12.9% in the U.S.

The U.S. sold 2,693 million copies of published titles in 2017, followed by the U.K. (647 million), Brazil (617 million) and France (430 million).

EPO Releases Annual Report on 2017 Patent Activity: Interesting Stats

The EPO has released its annual report for 2017 patenting activity.  Notably, patenting and patent filings are trending up at 3.9% and 4.4% respectively.  In the electrical engineering field, patenting is up in the audio visual space by 10.6% and semiconductors by 13.5%.  In instruments, patenting is up in optics by 15.6% and analysis of biological materials by 12.5%.  In chemistry, biotechnology is up 14.5%, but micro-structural and nanotechnology is down by 12.6%.  Interestingly, US nationals as first inventor lead patent applications in the EPO with a 26% share.  The EU member state inventors as a whole have more nationals as first inventor (47% total).  However, Germany, the leader in the EU, has a 15% share.  Japan has 13%, and China has 5%.  The top three technical fields in patent applications are 1) medical technology; 2) digital communication; and 3) computer technology.  The top ten applicant companies are: 1) Huawei (China); 2) Siemens (EU); 3) LG (Korea); 4) Samsung (Korea); 5) Qualcomm (US); 6) Royal Phillips (EU); 7) United Technologies (US); 8) Intel (US); 9) Robert Bosch (EU); and 10) Ericsson (EU).  Sixty-nine percent of the total applicants are large entities.  Twenty-four percent are SMEs/individual inventors.  Seven percent were universities/public research.  Interestingly, SMEs/individual inventors share is down from 28% in 2016.  Universities/public research is up 1 percentage point from 2016. 

IP management and IP strategy in small and medium-sized enterprises – perspectives from the EPO

OxFirst will be presenting a free webinar on one of the most challenging IP issues-- how small and medium-sized enterprises (SME’s) can effectively engage in IP management and strategy. The webinar will take place on January 26th between 3:00 PM- 4:00 PM British Standard Time.

The focus of the program will be on the results of a series of case studies carried out on the subject by the EPO. Twelve SMEs from different countries, operating in different industries and technology sectors and applying different business models, were interviewed about their IP strategies. The resulting case studies illustrate the various ways in which patents can be leveraged to support the development of SMEs in domestic and foreign markets. They also provide detailed information and recommendations on best practices in IP strategy and IP management. The case studies can be downloaded here.

About the Speakers

Professor Yann Ménière joined the European Patent Office as Chief Economist in February 2016. He was previously a Professor of Economics at MINES ParisTech, where he led the Chair on "IP and Markets for Technology". Besides his academic publications, he has prepared policy studies for the European Commission and other public organizations relating to patents. He previously taught at Imperial College, Université Catholique de Louvain and CEIPI.

Pia Björk is Programme Manager at the European Patent Academy. She joined the European Patent Office (EPO) in 1989 as an examiner in the fields of metallurgy and general mechanics. Between 2007 and 2017, she was operational director in the cluster of Pure and Applied Organic Chemistry in directorates dealing with cosmetics and then later pharma (galenics, medical use and biopharmacy). Pia Björk has passed the European Qualifying Examination (EQE), worked in the EQE Committee for the opposition paper and has been involved in basic and advanced training of examiners in search and examination. In January 2018, she joined the European Patent Academy.

To register, follow the instructions here. Oxfirst advises that private email addresses are not recognized.

Adjusting the Balance in SEP Evaluations and Licensing

A European Commission DG Growth initiative described in its Roadmap on Standard Essential Patents for a European digitalised economy aims to increase information on SEPs so implementers can get a better idea about which of these they might be infringing. Additional disclosures on how patent claims might read on the standards could be beneficial. Requirements should reflect the dynamics and uncertainties in standards development and patent prosecution and must not be onerous to patent owners. These are issues for standards development organisations to consider.

A report DG Growth commissioned in support of its initiative entitled Transparency, Predictability, and Efficiency of SSO-based Standardization and SEP Licensing (the CRA report) proposes that SDOs or the European Patent Office could also help meet this objective by being appointinted the central assessor that would screen patent disclosures to determine and count which patents are truly essential. This would be undesirable intervention with various adverse consequences. As I wrote here for IP Finance in detail very recently, third-party determinations on large portfolios are inherently subjective, inconsistent and unreliable.

The creation of this EC-ordained “patent counting” database would also lend it to being used as an interventionist means of valuing SEP portfolios. In conjunction with the unwarranted imposition of maximum cumulative rates (i.e. royalty caps), this could facilitate the ill-conceived price regulation alluded to by the Competition Commissioner.

The CRA report also embraces defective patent hold-up and royalty stacking theories. General theories on hold-up and “Cournot complements” are misrepresented and do not apply to patents. There is a lack of supporting evidence on alleged patent hold-up, royalty stacking and much of it to the contrary including that for opposing effects from patent hold-out (i.e. patent trespass). 

SDO IPR policies are commonly misrepresented with the bogus notion that patent owners should be deprived a share of value from use of patents in standards. Neither the economics nor the law is settled here. Sharing in the “gains from trade” incentivises risky investments.

Private ordering has worked very well in 2G, 3G, 4G and it will continue to work well in IoT including 5G. Prospects are no more uncertain now than they were when these previous-generation standards were introduced and helped transform the communications markets. Decades of fruitful progress indicates it is not “too soon to tell” how things are playing out. By all measures these markets are extraordinarily competitive and successful, with large research and development investments, extensive resulting innovation, massive growth in subscribers and data consumption, reducing quality-adjusted prices, and dramatic shifts in market shares with new market entry, market exits, low and decreasing concentration in supply. I have been showing this with facts and figures here, here and here for many years, and as others have confirmed.

The CRA report is right to reject a mandatory switch to chip-based royalty rates and licensing, and to recognise the legitimacy of charging different royalties depending on “field-of-use” (e.g. an IoT lightbulb versus an augmented reality headset or a self-driving car). This well-established principle aligns costs with functionality used and value generated.

IoT is expected to be worth up to the teens of trillions of dollars to the global economy by 2025. That is 500 times more than the cost of licensing the communications technologies that are already providing the growth fulcrum for IoT developments. Undercutting royalties will diminish gains that could otherwise be obtained widely by leveraging reinvestments in intellectual property.

With it being much more difficult to obtain injunctions than it used to be, as the CRA report and Justice Birss in Unwired Planet v. Huawei also observes, the scales have already been tipped significantly in favour of implementers versus technology developers in terms of bargaining power. The balance here needs to be redressed here not swayed further. Royalties are flat or declining while opportunities and demands to invest in R&D for the good of all in IoT and 5G are increasing.

DG Growth should not interfere with SDO governance or try to pick winners among these or their IPR policies. Rather than speculating about how much aggregate licensing costs could be, costs should be measured by asking licensees what they are actually paying in cash royalties. Compare that with the value the resulting technologies deliver in the market.

Private ordering is preferable to public ordering and intervention is unnecessary. SDOs, patent pools, other licensing platforms and bilateral licensing under FRAND conditions can continue to serve the industry well and to the benefit of consumers.

However, if EC decides to intervene there should be impact assessments before intervening and empirical analysis of effects thereafter. DG Growth should also measure the results previous rulings— including those affecting the availability of injunctions— have already had on royalty rates and how long it takes to complete licensing agreements.

DG Growth’s analysis should be as open and transparent as possible, for scrutiny by all.

The above is a summary to my full article, here. This supplements my response to the DG Growth consultation on this topic in 2015.

Biotech Hopping at Wall Street and Biotech Patenting on an Upswing--More Patenting to Come?

The Wall Street Journal reports that there have been 16 biotech IPOs (it is unclear what is defined as biotech) since the beginning of this year raising over $1.1 billion.  (for more on venture capital backed IPOs generally see here)  To put that in context, in 2004 there were 25 IPOs bringing in close to $1.17 billion.  In the last ten years, at this point, this year would be tied for the second best year and the future looks bright for more biotech IPOs.  The Wall Street Journal also speculates that the rise in IPOs along with their general success is attributable to R&D and clinical trial successes.  For example, the article states that: “Last year, the Food and Drug Administration approved 39 new drugs, according to the agency, a figure not reached since 1997. This year, the agency has approved 13 new drugs.”  With the supposed dried up pipeline of Big Pharma, this is welcome news.  Also, the surge in IPOs with more funding may mean more money for patenting efforts in the biotech space with more investors looking to biotech.

On the patenting side, Nature Biotechnology’s Bioentreprenuer reports on statistics on biotech patenting provided by IP Checkups.  It is also unclear what is defined as “biotech,” but the numbers are interesting.  There is a general upswing in biotech patents granted since 2008 from 657 to 850 in 2012 in the United States.  Interestingly, the article also notes the average number of biotech patents by university.  (it is unclear whether these numbers are for granted patents or for patent applications—or full applications or provisional--but it is more likely applications or some of the other numbers don't add up).  If you add up the average number of patents per year between 2008 and 2012 for U.S. universities listed (not all U.S. universities apparently), you get around 880 patents in the United States per year.  The article also has the numbers for patenting at the EPO.  The patenting in the United States is quite a bit higher than the patenting at the EPO.  This could be, in part, because of cost.  Any opinions on the data?   

Creating markets from research results: a new EPO event

Do you fall within the class of persons described as "senior-level decision-makers concerned with the commercialisation of public research, including national representatives of technology transfer offices (TTOs), representatives from ministries for education and research, higher education councils and funding agencies, the business and industry communities, and national patent offices"?  If so, a forthcoming event organised by the European Patent Office (EPO) might be just up your street.  Long gone are the days when the EPO confined its focus to the immediate functions of receiving, examining and granting patents and handling the large number of oppositions that followed: the EPO, like the other major regional and national patent offices, is increasingly aware of its interface with the business community. This conference represents continuing evidence of its commitment in this direction. You can register online here.

Creating markets from research results

6-7 May 2013
European Patent Office, Munich, Germany 

The role of universities in national innovation systems has expanded from the production of scientific knowledge for economic growth to include solving large scale challenges, such as climate change and energy and addressing social needs.

Without adequate strategies and policy support to manage IP effectively, there is a risk that inventions and ideas produced by universities and public research organisations may not be exploited. Such strategies and policies have therefore become a matter of top priority for policymakers, funding agencies and business, all of whom have a high degree of interest in the ability of universities to diffuse knowledge. Universities in turn have a strong interest in seeing their research put to good use for society and in enhancing their relevance to society, including through collaboration and economic development.

While the prospect of using the commercialisation of IP as a source of additional income for research is not a realistic priority for most universities, IP management remains an important element in any university’s strategy,particularly in the context of the EU Horizon 2020. The different roles, missions and resources of universities and public research organisations can lead to differences in IP policies and commercialisation practices, which can be a driver or a barrier to commercialisation. There is therefore a need for a deeper understanding of their impact on both research and commercialisation.

The conference therefore aims to:

• promote understanding and awareness of the importance of IP policies and procedures for the long-term strategy and mission of universities and public research organisations;
• promote the establishment of structures which will allow the implementation of IP management in universities;
• identify novel practices for fostering and accelerating the transfer, exploitation and commercialisation of knowledge with a view to developing international best practice; and
• encourage closer collaboration between universities and industry.