DOCSLIB.ORG

Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Annex 1 E PCT/WG/11/27 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: JANUARY 11, 2019 Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group Eleventh Session Geneva, June 18 to 22, 2018 REPORT adopted by the Working Group 1. The Patent Cooperation Treaty Working Group held its eleventh session in Geneva from June 18 to 22, 2018. 2. The following members of the Working Group were represented at the session: (i) the following Member States of the International Patent Cooperation Union (PCT Union): Algeria, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe (69); and (ii) the following intergovernmental organizations: the European Patent Office (EPO), the Nordic Patent Institute (NPI), and the Visegrad Patent Institute (VPI) (3). 3. The following Member States of the International Union for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Union) participated in the session as an observer: Mauritius, Yemen (2). 4. The following intergovernmental organizations were represented by observers: African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI), African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO), African Union (AU), Eurasian Patent Organization (EAPO), European Union (EU), Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office), South Centre (7). PCT/WG/11/27 page 2 5. The following international non-governmental organizations were represented by observers: Asian Patent Attorneys Association (APAA), Institute of Professional Representatives Before the European Patent Office (EPI), International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI), International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys (FICPI), International Institute for Intellectual Property Management (I3PM), Knowledge Ecology International Inc. (KEI), Union of European Practitioners in Industrial Property (UNION-IP) (7). 6. The following national non-governmental organizations were represented by observers: American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), Japan Intellectual Property Association (JIPA), Japan Patent Attorneys Association (JPAA) (3) 7. The list of participants is contained in the Annex. OPENING OF THE SESSION 8. Mr. Francis Gurry, Director General of WIPO opened the session and welcomed the participants. Mr. Michael Richardson (WIPO) acted as Secretary to the Working Group. 9. The Director General informed the Working Group that, at the beginning of June, the landmark of 40 years of operations under the PCT was reached. From the first international application filed on June 1, 1978, the total number of filings of international applications was now close to 3.5 million. This figure testified to the great success of the PCT System, which was a very successful example of international cooperation that relied on many different actors in order to make it functional. 10. The Director General reported on a few of the key developments in the PCT System since the tenth session of the Working Group. 2017 was another successful year for the PCT System. In terms of International Searching and Preliminary Examining Authorities, the Director General congratulated the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines on its appointment by the Assembly in October 2017 as the twenty-third International Searching and Preliminary Examining Authority. In addition, the appointments of all other International Searching and Preliminary Examining Authorities were extended by a period of ten years until the end of 2026, and the Director General thanked all Authorities for their extraordinarily important work in the PCT System. In terms of results in 2017, the number of international applications filed rose by 4.5 per cent to 243,500 applications, recording the eighth consecutive year of growth in the PCT. It was pleasing that applications were received from applicants in 126 different countries, which was testimony to the international character of the PCT. The number of different applicants using the PCT passed 50,000 for the first time in 2016, and last year that number increased by 6.2 per cent to 55,000 different applicants throughout the world. On World Intellectual Property Day this year, WIPO celebrated the role of women in innovation and creativity. It was encouraging to see the statistics maintained by the Office of the WIPO Chief Economist in this regard. At least one woman was named among the inventors in 31 per cent of international applications published in 2017. While this was a relative low percentage, it marked a significant improvement compared to a decade earlier when 23 per cent of international applications included a woman inventor. The top country of origin of international applications under the PCT in 2017 was, again, the United States of America with 56,624 applications. China again recorded double digit growth, with the number of international applications of Chinese origin increasing by 13.4 per cent, becoming the second largest source of international applications under the PCT with 48,882 international applications, just ahead of Japan, which was the source of 48,208 applications, some 600 international applications fewer. In terms of top applicants, Huawei moved into first position with slightly more than 4,000 international applications published in 2017, taking the top spot from its compatriot ZTE Corporation which was the second highest applicant in terms published international applications with nearly 3,000 international applications for 2017. In terms of numbers of PCT/WG/11/27 page 3 national phase entries, there was a slight decline of 1.4 per cent in 2016 with 615,000 national phase entries. That represented the first drop since 2009 and reflected fewer designations from applications originating from the United States of America in 2016. 11. In addition to the PCT System reaching 40 years of operations, the Director General informed delegations that it was 10 years since the first session of the PCT Working Group. On this occasion, the Director General thanked all members of the Working Group for the extraordinary work done within the Working Group in keeping the PCT System up-to-date and for the extraordinary workload that had been accomplished by the Working Group. This session was no different, with 25 working documents to consider. In addition, two workshops would take place, one of PCT fee reductions and the other on correction of erroneously-filed elements and parts. The Director General thanked the two Chairs of the those workshops, Mr. John Sandage, Deputy Director General, and Mr. Paul Harrison, Co-Chair of the Patents Committee of the Asian Patent Attorneys Association (APAA) and a regular participant in the work of the PCT. Looking at the agenda, the Director General highlighted two items. The first was the document prepared by the International Bureau discussing appropriate action to be taken by WIPO and its Member States with regard to international patent applications related to persons or technologies that were the subject of United Nations Security Council Sanctions. The second was the document on future development of the PCT based on a Memorandum that was issued in 2017 on the occasion of the publication of the 3 millionth application under the PCT. Looking back over 40 years, the system had been an extremely successful example of international cooperation and the cornerstone of the patent system worldwide. The future of the PCT System was of fundamental importance, first of all, to this Organization since the PCT was the source of nearly 77 per cent of the income to WIPO, and also to the functioning of the patent system worldwide. ELECTION OF A CHAIR AND TWO VICE-CHAIRS 12. The Working Group unanimously elected Mr. Victor Portelli (Australia) as Chair for the session. There were no nominations for Vice-Chairs. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 13. The Working Group adopted the revised draft agenda as proposed in document PCT/WG/11/1 Prov. 3. PCT STATISTICS 14. The Working Group noted a presentation by the International Bureau on the most recent PCT statistics1. 15. The Delegation of the United States of America informed the Working Group that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) would issue U.S. patent number 10 million that day (June 19, 2018). This patent would also be the first to receive a new patent cover design. PCT USER SURVEY 16. The Working Group noted a presentation by the International Bureau on the results of the PCT User Survey 20172. 1 The presentation is available on the WIPO website at: https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/pct_wg_11_statistics. 2 The presentation is available on the WIPO website at: https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/pct_wg_11_user_survey. PCT/WG/11/27 page 4 MEETING OF INTERNATIONAL AUTHORITIES UNDER THE PCT: REPORT ON THE TWENTY-FIFTH SESSION 17. Discussions were based on document PCT/WG/11/2. 18. The Delegation of the United Kingdom stated that it was
Recommended publications
  • Impact of International Law on the Application of Islamic Law in Saudi Arabia

    Impact of International Law on the Application of Islamic Law in Saudi Arabia

    Hamzah, Dawood Adesola (2015) Impact of international law on the application of Islamic law in Saudi Arabia. PhD Thesis. SOAS, University of London http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/18432 Copyright © and Moral Rights for this thesis are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non‐commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder/s. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. When referring to this thesis, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given e.g. AUTHOR (year of submission) "Full thesis title", name of the School or Department, PhD Thesis, pagination. Impact of International Law on the Application of Islamic Law in Saudi Arabia Dawood Adesola Hamzah Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD 2015 Department of Law School of Oriental and African Studies University of London Declaration for PhD Thesis I have read and understood regulation 17.9 of the Regulation for student of the SOAS, University of London concerning plagiarism. I undertake that all the material presented for examination is my own work and has not been written for me, in whole or in part, by any other person. I also undertake that any quotation or paraphrase from the published or unpublished work of another person has been duly acknowledged in the work which I present for examination.
  • I-Link for Access Code on the AIA/14

    I-Link for Access Code on the AIA/14

    i-link for Access Code on the AIA/14 Q1. What is an Access Code? A1. Data that used together with the application number and filing date to uniquely identify a patent application that is registered into the WIPO DAS (World Intellectual Property Organization Digital Access Service). As of March 18, 2013, all WIPO DAS participating offices require that the access code be provided in order to retrieve the priority document. Q2. When is an Access Code required? A2. When the following conditions are met: (1) The foreign priority application is filed in a foreign intellectual property office that is a participating WIPO DAS depositing office; (2) Appropriate steps have been taken by the applicant to make the priority application available to the Office via the WIPO DAS; and, (3) The applicant wishes the Office to attempt electronic retrieval of the priority application. Q3. What format should be used on the Application Data Sheet (ADS) Foreign Priority Information section? A3. The application number and access code format are determined by the DAS participating office. Sample application number formats can be found on the USPTO Website at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ADSSampleFormat.pdf Q4. Will the Office notify the applicant when an Access Code is required, but not furnished? A4. When an applicant claims priority to a foreign application filed in a WIPO DAS depositing office and fails to provide the required access code, the U.S. application filing receipt will include an indication “No Access Code Provided” adjacent to the foreign application number. Q5. Will the Office notify the applicant that retrieval of the priority document will be attempted? A5.
  • State of Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement in Armenia

    State of Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement in Armenia

    State of intellectual property protection and enforcement in Armenia 2020 Supported by Implemented by Table of contents Foreword ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... 5 About Editors ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ 7 Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 9 Executive summary ............................................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 1 Contribution of IP system and IP protection to economic growth and development .......................................................................................................................................... 13 1.1. Importance of efficient IP system for economic growth and development ............. 13 1.2. Importance of IP protection for national economies ............................................... 15 Chapter 2. Current state of the IP system in Armenia ..................................................................
  • Indian Patent Law and Novartis AG V. Union of India

    Indian Patent Law and Novartis AG V. Union of India

    TRIALS AND TRIPS-ULATIONS: INDIAN PATENT LAW AND No VAR TIS A G v. UNION OF INDIA By Linda L Lee I. INTRODUCTION When pharmaceutical company Novartis challenged the rejection of its patent application for the leukemia drug Gleevec in Novartis A G v. Union of India,' it became the first major legal challenge to India's newly amended patent law. In 2005, India purportedly made the final changes required to bring its intellectual property laws in compliance with the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), the World Trade Organization's (WTO) minimum standards for intellectual property protection, 2 but its patent law is still fraught with a number of controver- sial provisions. The ability of pharmaceutical companies such as Novartis to secure patent protection in India not only is important in creating incen- tives for pharmaceutical research, but also greatly affects the Indian ge- neric drug industry, and therefore the price of medicine available to pa- tients. India is the world's second most populous country3 and the second- fastest growing major economy,4 but has 70% of its population living on less than $2 per day,5 making Novartis A G of paramount importance. © 2008 Linda L. Lee. 1. Novartis AG v. Union of India, (2007) 4 MADRAS L.J. 1153, available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/456550/High-Court-order-Novartis-Union-of-India. 2. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, Le- gal Instruments-Results of the Uruguay Round, 33 I.L.M.
  • India: Effects of Tariffs and Nontariff Measures on U.S. Agricultural Exports

    India: Effects of Tariffs and Nontariff Measures on U.S. Agricultural Exports

    United States International Trade Commission India: Effects of Tariffs and Nontariff Measures on U.S. Agricultural Exports Investigation No. 332-504 USITC Publication 4107 November 2009 U.S. International Trade Commission COMMISSIONERS Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun Charlotte R. Lane Irving A. Williamson Dean A. Pinkert Robert A. Rogowsky Director of Operations Karen Laney-Cummings Director, Office of Industries Address all communications to Secretary to the Commission United States International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 U.S. International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 www.usitc.gov India: Effects of Tariffs and Nontariff Measures on U.S. Agricultural Exports Investigation No. 332-504 Publication 4107 November 2009 This report was prepared principally by the Office of Industries Project Leader George S. Serletis [email protected] Deputy Project Leader Brian Allen [email protected] Laura Bloodgood, Joanna Bonarriva, John Fry, John Giamalva, Katherine Linton, Brendan Lynch, and Marin Weaver Primary Reviewers Alexander Hammer and Deborah McNay Office of Economics Michael Ferrantino, Jesse Mora, Jose Signoret, and Marinos Tsigas Administrative Support Phyllis Boone, Monica Reed, and Wanda Tolson Under the direction of Jonathan R. Coleman, Chief Agriculture and Fisheries Division Abstract This report describes and analyzes policies and other factors that affect U.S. agricultural exports to India. The findings suggest that India’s high agricultural tariffs are a significant impediment to U.S. agricultural exports and that certain Indian nontariff measures (NTMs), including sanitary and phyosanitary measures, substantially limit or effectively prohibit certain U.S. agricultural products. Agriculture is vital to India’s economy, accounting for a substantial share of employment (60 percent) and GDP (17 percent).
  • The Global Patent Prosecution Highway: Enhancing Attractiveness for Applicants and Patent Offices

    The Global Patent Prosecution Highway: Enhancing Attractiveness for Applicants and Patent Offices

    JULY 2015 COMMENTARY The Global Patent Prosecution Highway: Enhancing Attractiveness for Applicants and Patent Offices History of Patent Prosecution Highways Office (“SIPO”)—cooperate to improve efficiency and During the last couple of years, a considerable num- address the backlogs in applications worldwide. ber of Patent Prosecution Highway (“PPH”) programs between national and regional patent offices were However, PPH programs are not just limited to the launched. Five years ago, we commented on those world’s largest IP offices. A large number of national involving the European Patent Office (“EPO”), the offices of various countries around the globe, includ- United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), ing the German Patent and Trademark Office (“GPTO”), and the Japan Patent Office (“JPO”).1 Since then, the profit immensely from PPH programs by tightening their programs have been refined and largely expanded. cooperation with the various participating patent offices. Most PPH programs are initially limited to trial peri- A PPH provides a framework in which an application ods of one to three years, so that their feasibility can whose claims have been determined to be patent- be assessed. Depending on the outcome of these able by an Office of First Filing or Office of Earlier assessments, the trials are extended or the programs Examination (“OEE”) is eligible to go through an accel- are stopped. However, the assessments of unsuc- erated examination in an Office of Second Filing or cessful programs are helpful in devising new trial pro- Office of Later Examination (“OLE”) with a simple pro- grams. In that way, PPH programs are continuously cedure, upon an applicant’s request.
  • Post-2005 TRIPS Scenario in Patent Protection in the Pharmaceutical Sector

    Post-2005 TRIPS Scenario in Patent Protection in the Pharmaceutical Sector

    Post-2005 TRIPS scenario in patent protection in the pharmaceutical sector: The case of the generic pharmaceutical industry in India BISWAJIT DHAR Professor and Head Centre for WTO Studies Indian Institute for Foreign Trade India And K.M. GOPAKUMAR Centre for Trade and Development India November, 2006 Post-2005 TRIPS scenario in patent protection in the pharmaceutical sector: The case of the generic pharmaceutical industry in India Biswajit DHAR International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) International Environnement House 2 7 Chemin de Balexert, 1219 Geneva, Switzerland Tel: +41 22 917 8492 Fax: +41 22 917 8093 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.ictsd.org United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Palais de Nations 8 – 14 avenue de la Paix, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland Tel : +41 22 907 1234 Fax : +41 22 9070043 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.unctad.org International Development Research Centre (IDRC) 250 Albert Street Ottawa, ON, Canada K1P 6M1 Phone: (+1-613) 236-6163 Fax: (+1-613) 238-7230 e-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.idrc.ca Programme Team (ICTSD): David Vivas-Eugui, Pedro Roffe, Gina Vea, Preeti Ramdasi Project Team (UNCTAD): James Zhan, Kiyoshi Adachi and Christoph Spennemann Programme Team (IDRC): Randy Spence, Stephen McGurk, Jaqueline Loh Acknowledgment: Funding for the UNCTAD/ICTSD Project on Intellectual Property Rights and Sustainable Development has been generously provided by DFID, IDRC, SIDA and the Rockefeller Foundation. The broad aim of this Programme is to improve the understanding of intellectual property rights related issues among developing countries and to assist them in building their capacity for ongoing as well as future negotiations on intellectual property rights.
  • Patent Harmonisation and Utilisation: First Europe and Then the World?

    Patent Harmonisation and Utilisation: First Europe and Then the World?

    Patent Harmonisation and Utilisation: First Europe and Then the World? Dr Mark Weaver 3 December 2009 Director Practice & Procedure Utilisation and Harmonisation - Drivers Challenges • Worldwide Patent Application Backlogs - Millions • Duplication of Work • Increased Costs • Lack of Consistency • Increased Legal Uncertainty Possible Solutions • Utilisation and Work Sharing • New Bilateral or Multi-Lateral Agreements • Improve on Existing Work Sharing Agreements • Substantive Patent Law Harmonisation • Simplified Language Requirements First Europe ... European Patent Landscape EPO - 36 Member States Unified Patent Litigation System Austria • Belgium • Bulgaria • Croatia • UPLS Cyprus • Czech Republic • Denmark • Estonia • Finland • France • Germany • Greece • Hungary • Iceland • Ireland • Italy • Latvia • Liechtenstein • Lithuania • Luxembourg • Former Yugoslav Republic of European and Macedonia • Malta • Monaco • Netherlands • Community Norway • Poland • Portugal • Romania • Community San Marino • Slovakia • Slovenia • Spain • Patents Court Patent Sweden • Switzerland • Turkey • United Kingdom ECPC European patent applications and patents can European also be extended at the applicant's request to Enhanced Patent Network the following states: Partnership Albania • Bosnia-Herzegovina • Serbia EPN Status: December 2009 European Patent Landscape • Unified Patent Litigation System • Draft Council Conclusions on an enhanced patent system in Europe http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st14/st14040.en09.pdf • Draft Council Agreement
  • Doing Business in Kazakhstan

    Doing Business in Kazakhstan

    DOING BUSINESS 2021 IN KAZAKHSTAN Doing Business in Kazakhstan 2021 Baker McKenzie – CIS, Limited Almaty office Samal Towers, 8th Floor 97 Zholdasbekov Street Almaty, Kazakhstan 050051 Phone: +7 727 3 300 500 Facsimile: +7 727 258 40 00 [email protected] www.bakermckenzie.com The information in this brochure is for informational purposes only and it may not reflect the most current legal developments, judgments or settlements. This information is not offered as legal or any other advice on any particular matter. The Firm and the contributing authors expressly disclaim all liability to any person in respect of anything and in respect of the consequences of anything done or omitted wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the contents of Baker McKenzie’s “Doing Business in Kazakhstan” brochure. No client or other reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any matter contained in this brochure without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances. Doing Business in Kazakhstan Table of Contents 1 Kazakhstan — an overview ..................................................... 1 1.1 Geography .................................................................... 1 1.2 Population .................................................................... 1 1.3 History.......................................................................... 1 1.4 Government and political system ................................. 2 1.5 Economy .....................................................................
  • INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Patent Cooperation

    INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Patent Cooperation

    TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 13-1218.1 ________________________________________________________________________ INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Patent Cooperation Treaty Between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and OTHER GOVERNMENTS Adopted at Geneva June 1, 2000 with Amended Schedule Adopted May 15, 2008 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 (80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)— “. .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent evidence . of the treaties, international agreements other than treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the United States, and of the several States, without any further proof or authentication thereof.” MULTILATERAL Intellectual Property: Patent Cooperation Treaty adopted at Geneva June 1, 2000; Transmitted by the President of the United States of America to the Senate September 5, 2006 (Treaty Doc. 109-12, 109th Congress, 2d Session); Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations September 11, 2007 (Senate Executive Report No. 110-6, 110th Congress, 1st Session); Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate December 7, 2007; Ratified by the President May 6, 2008; Ratification deposited September 18, 2013; Entered into force December 18, 2013. With Amended Schedule adopted May 15, 2008. PATENT LAw TREATY (PLT) PATENT LAW TREATY (PLT) and REGULATIONS UNDER THE PATENT LAW TREATY Done at Geneva on June 1, 2000 and EXPLANATORY NOTES ON THE PATENT LAW TREATY and THE REGULATIONS UNDER THE PATENT LAW TREATY 2 NOTE: This page appears to be intentionally blank, except for page number.
  • Preparation for Accelerated Examination of Patent Application in India It Takes on Average 7 Years from Application to Registrat

    Preparation for Accelerated Examination of Patent Application in India It Takes on Average 7 Years from Application to Registrat

    Column No.19 Preparation for Accelerated Examination of Patent Application in India 【2013/6/19】 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Preparation for Accelerated Examination of Patent Application in India Hiroyuki Hashimoto, Patent Attorney, Deputy Director, Miyoshi & Miyoshi Osamu Kubori, Foreign Services Division Chief, Miyoshi & Miyoshi Vinit Bapat, Indian Patent Attorney, Managing Director, Sangam IP Recently, for Japanese enterprises, India is positioned as not only a production base aimed at the Indian domestic market but also as an exporting base for Africa and the Middle East, taking advantage of its geographical location. Also, law offices dealing with intellectual properties in India are taking advantage of the country's geographical strengths to not merely provide services relating to intellectual property protection within India. In addition, they have positively built up a network including neighboring countries, and are seeking retention of overseas customers. In light of these circumstances alone, the significance of India is great as a base for IP strategy from South East Asia to the west, and many Japanese enterprises focus attention on the importance of obtaining intellectual property rights, such as patents, in India. However, under current circumstances, from initial application to the start of an examination takes a long time in India so applicants face a problem in trying to accelerate important applications. Therefore, we propose measures that can contribute to accelerated examination of patent applications in India. It takes on average 7 years from application to registration in India, which has no accelerated examination system India has four Patent Offices (Calcutta, Mumbai, Delhi, and Chennai) and enables overseas residents to file a patent application with any of the Patent Offices by selecting a local agent (patent attorney).
  • U.S. Chamber of Commerce 2019 IP Index

    U.S. Chamber of Commerce 2019 IP Index

    Inspiring Tomorrow U.S. Chamber International IP Index | 7th Edition February 2019 The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Innovation Policy Center (www.theglobalipcenter.com) is working around the world to champion intellectual property rights as vital to creating jobs, saving lives, advancing global economic growth, and generating breakthrough solutions to global challenges. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world’s largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry associations. This report was conducted by Pugatch Consilum, (www.pugatch-consilium.com) a boutique consultancy that provides evidence-based research, analysis, and intelligence on the fastest growing sectors of the knowledge economy. Authors of this report are Meir Pugatch and David Torstensson. Professor Meir Pugatch, Managing Director and Founder Prof. Pugatch founded Pugatch Consilium in 2008. He specializes in intellectual property policy, management and exploitation of knowledge assets, technology transfer, market access, pharmacoeconomics and political economy of public health systems. He has extensive experience in economic and statistical modeling and indexing, valuation of assets and design of licensing agreements, and providing strategic advice to international institutions, multinational corporations, and SMEs from all sectors of the knowledge economy. In addition to his work at Pugatch Consilium, he is an IPKM Professor of Valorisation, Entrepreneurship and Management at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands, as well as the Chair of the Health Systems Administration and Policy Division at the School of Public Health, University of Haifa in Israel. He is author and editor of an extensive number of publications and serves as a referee and editorial board member of numerous peer review journals.