3D Printing and Intellectual Property Futures Research commissioned by the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) and carried out by: Thomas Birtchnell, Angela Daly, Thierry Rayna and Ludmila Striukova November 2018 This is an independent report commissioned by the Intellectual Property Office (IPO). Findings and opinions are those of the researchers, not necessarily the views of the IPO or the Government. © Crown copyright 2018 Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office 2018/03 ISBN: 978-1-910790-43-4 When do firms not use patents and trade marks to Authors protect valuable innovations? Evidence from the SIPU 2015 survey Dr Thomas Birtchnell is Senior Lecturer in the University of Published by The Intellectual Property Office Wollongong School of Geography and Sustainable November 2018 Communities (Australia). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Email: [email protected] © Crown Copyright 2018 Dr Angela Daly is Assistant Professor in the Chinese You may re-use this information (excluding logos) University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law (Hong Kong SAR, free of charge in any format or medium, under the China) and Adjunct Associate Professor at Queensland terms of the Open Government Licence. To view University of Technology Faculty of Law (Australia). this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives. gov. uk/doc/open-government-licence/ Email: [email protected] or email: [email protected] Dr Thierry Rayna is Professor of Innovation Management at Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from Ecole Polytechnique (France) and a Visiting Professor at the copyright holders concerned. Birkbeck University of London School of Management (UK). Email: [email protected] Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to: Dr Ludmila Striukova is Professor of Strategy, The Intellectual Property Office Entrepreneurship and Management in SKEMA Business Concept House Cardiff Road School (France). Newport Email: [email protected] NP10 8QQ This commissioned project was led by Dr Angela Daly and Tel: 0300 300 2000 Fax: 01633 817 777 managed from Queensland University of Technology, in e-mail: [email protected] collaboration with Dr Thomas Birtchnell, Dr Thierry Rayna and Dr Ludmila Striukova. This publication is available from our website at www.gov.uk/ipo Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to Dr Luke Heemsbergen, Dr Jiajie Lu, Ms Lesedi Mashumba and Ms Rebecca Morrison for their research assistance, and to the QUT Law Research Services team for assisting in administering the project. The authors also acknowledge the financial and logistical support of the British High Commission of Singapore, and IP Attaché Ms Christabel Koh, for the 3DPIP Futures horizon scanning workshop in Singapore, and the assistance of Dr Soumitra Satapathi from IIT Roorkee for the horizon scanning workshop there. We also acknowledge anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier version of this report. The team also thank Jane Hedin (IPO) for assisting with the India workshop. The team wish to thank Soumitra Satapathi from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Roorkee, India. Contents Executive Summary 1 Part I Existing 3D Printing and IP Literature 2 Part II Empirical 3D Printing and IP Research 2 Part III Recommendations and Conclusion 3 Introduction 5 Part I Existing 3D Printing and IP Literature 7 1 Business and Social Science views of 3D Printing and IP 7 1.1 3D printing adoption 7 1.2 Industrial applications 8 1.3 Potential industrial impacts 9 1.4 3D printing and sustainability 10 1.5 The adoption paradox 10 1.6 Prosumerism and co-creation 11 1.7 3D Printing and IP 12 1.8 3D printing and business futures 14 1.9 Forecasting IP’s Role in 3D Printing’s Ubiquity 14 2 Legal views of 3D Printing and IP 15 2.1 By jurisdiction 16 2.2 Copyright 17 2.3 Patents 20 2.4 Design Rights 21 2.5 Trade Marks 22 2.6 Trade Secrets 24 2.7 Sui generis rights 24 2.8 Enforcement issues 24 2.10 Future scenarios 27 Part II Empirical 3D Printing and IP Research 29 1 Methods 31 1.1 Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) 31 1.2 Ideal Futures 32 1.3 Backcasting 33 2 Multi-Level Perspective 35 2.1 China 35 2.2 France 38 2.3 India 43 2.4 Russia 44 2.5 Singapore 48 2.6 United Kingdom 50 3 Foresight and Backcasting 52 3.1 China 52 3.2 France 53 3.3 India 55 3.4 Russia 57 3.5 Singapore 58 3.6 United Kingdom 60 Part III Recommendations and Conclusion 62 Main Findings 62 Recommendations 64 Conclusion and Future Work 65 References 66 Figures Figure 1. The MLP technology substitution dynamic model (Geels 2012). Figure 2. Four quadrants from two axes: global/local & capital/commons (Kostakis et al 2016: 87). Figure 3. Plotting of niches in each quadrant (Kostakis et al 2016: 87). Figure 4. MLP and backcasting of four scenarios creates pathways for six dimensions (Geels 2012). Figure 5. News mentioning 3D Printing in France. Figure 6. Web Searches related to 3D printing in France. Figure 7. Searches related to 3D printing (blue) and FabLabs and makerspaces (red) in France. Figure 8. Searches in France related to DIY. Figure 9. News mentioning 3D Printing in Russia. Figure 10. Two axes and four futures scenarios from the MLP (adapted from Kostakis et al 2016): China. Figure 11. Two axes and four futures scenarios from the MLP (adapted from Kostakis et al 2016): France. Figure 12. Two axes and four futures scenarios from the MLP (adapted from Kostakis et al 2016): India. Figure 13. Two axes and four futures scenarios from the MLP (adapted from Kostakis et al 2016): Russia. Figure 14. Two axes and four futures scenarios from the MLP (adapted from Kostakis et al 2016): Singapore. Figure 15. Two axes and four futures scenarios from the MLP (adapted from Kostakis et al 2016): UK. 3D Printing and Intellectual Property Futures 1 Executive Summary This report contains socio-legal research conducted on the relationship between 3D printing and intellectual property (IP) at the current point in time and in potential future scenarios, through the use of horizon-scanning methods in six countries—China, France, India, Russia, Singapore and the UK - to build a rich picture of this issue, comprising both developed and emerging economies. In conducting this research, we take up the baton from previous UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) reports on 3D printing and IP (Mendis, Secchi and Reeves 2015). As noted in these previous reports, there is very little empirical research on how the relationship between 3D printing and IP is playing out in practice. In addition, there is very little existing literature or research on 3D printing’s trajectory outside of developed Western economies, and how it is interacting with IP in the rest of the world. Our research goes some way to filling this gap, presenting novel insights on developments in Russia and Asia. Furthermore, as the UK reassesses its place in the world post-‘Brexit’ there is a need for greater awareness about future trade partners outside of the European Union (EU) such as the countries we examine. In our project, we have collected valuable information ‘from the ground’ on the past and present of 3D printing and IP in these different countries. Another novelty of our project is the futures projections we led in each place, in order to understand potential trajectories going forward for 3D printing and IP, and to understand the extent to which a harmonised or fragmented global picture can be constructed. Our interdisciplinary, international team, combining legal, business and social scientific regional expertise on 3D printing, has used cutting edge and novel empirical methods in order to pioneer a deeper probing of the ramifications of 3D printing, going further than prior commentary through methodological innovation and an international focus on 3D printing and IP. While we have created new research filling - to some extent - the gap on 3D printing and IP outside of Western countries, we also acknowledge one of the limitations of our work. The case of BRICS countries may not be representative of all developments in 3D printing and IP outside of Western countries. Indeed, the use of 3D printing is growing in the Middle East and Africa, but due to limitations of scope we were not able to conduct research in these locations. However, in order to build up a fuller picture of 3D printing’s implementation globally, and the effect this may have on IP, more research is required in locations outside of the North/West. This Report is structured in three parts: in Part I we present a summary of illustrative existing literature on 3D printing and IP; in Part II we present our empirical research on 3D printing and IP, including potential future scenarios; and in Part III we finish by outlining our findings, recommendations and conclusions drawn from both parts of our research. 2 3D Printing and Intellectual Property Futures Part I Existing 3D Printing and IP Literature There is a blossoming body of literature from the business, legal and social sciences disciplines examining various aspects of 3D printing and/or IP. In the business and social science literature, topics including adoption, industrial applications, prosumerism, IP and future forecasting feature. The legal literature review covers each IP right in turn, proposals for new sui generis rights, enforcement, how different industries have engaged with 3D printing and IP issues, and potential future scenarios. Much of this existing scholarship comes from and focuses on 3D printing and IP in the Global North/West, with limited material on emerging economies and the Global South.