Abstract
When people commonly think of patent and trademark offices of different countries, they think of huge amounts of paperwork, unresolved issues, backlogs and stagnated knowledge. Offices have been perceived for years as bureaucratic and passive entities, having immense backlogs. Only a few were able to appreciate their actual potential and significance. The latent and key role of the knowledge held by intellectual property offices across the world has been underestimated for years. However, with the passage of time and the paramount significance gained by technology, digitalization, trade and innovation, these offices have begun to become protagonists—and not antagonists—in the advances and economic progress of a country. The emergence of digital technologies and the internet is an opportunity not only to solve the traditional problems of intellectual property offices but also to fulfill, once and for all, one of the original objectives of the IP system, which is, not only to promote innovation, but also technology transfer and diffusion of knowledge. Our reflection focuses on the leading role that said offices have or should acquire in the twenty-first century, which is expected to continue in the upcoming years, with special emphasis on the closest case to us: Chile’s National Institute of Industrial Property.
A country without a patent office and good patent laws is just a crab, and can’t travel any way but sideways and backways
Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Barraclough and Crompton (2010).
- 2.
See https://www.inpi.fr/fr/missions-strategie. Accessed December 2017.
- 3.
See https://www.inpi.fr/fr/services-et-prestations/master-class-pi. Accessed December 2017.
- 4.
Chabal (2017).
- 5.
See https://www.ip-marketplace.org/. Accessed December 2017.
- 6.
The Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ), presented its technological advances in the Conference “Working Towards the 21st Century IP Office” (International Trademark Association (INTA) 2016).
- 7.
- 8.
See http://www.wipo.int/patents/en/topics/quality_patents.html. Accessed December 2017.
- 9.
For a good description of the objectives of the IP system from an economic perspective see WIPO (2008).
- 10.
Summerfield (2016).
- 11.
WIPO (2016).
- 12.
See OECD, Intellectual property (IP) statistics and analysis, available at http://www.oecd.org/sti/intellectual-property-statistics-and-analysis.htm. Accessed December 2017.
- 13.
- 14.
See Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, available at https://www.ip-search.ch/en/patent-searches.html. Accessed December 2017.
- 15.
Lemley (2007), p. 16.
- 16.
Ibid.
- 17.
WIPO administers 26 treaties. See WIPO-Administrated Treaties, available at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/index.html. Accessed December 2017.
- 18.
WIPO Case is a patent system that “enables patent offices to securely share search and examination documentation related to patent applications in order to facilitate work sharing programs.” See WIPO Case—Centralized Access to Search and Examination, available at http://www.wipo.int/case/en/index.html. Accessed December 2017.
- 19.
The GDI, developed by the IP5 (USPTO, EPO, JPO, KIPO and SIPO), is a single portal/user interface for the management of dossier and examination information of the prosecution of a patent family. See Global Dossier, available at https://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/. Accessed December 2017.
- 20.
“The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) is a framework in which an application whose claims have been determined to be patentable in the Office of First Filing (OFF) is eligible to go through an accelerated examination in the Office of Second Filing (OSF) with a simple procedure upon an applicant’s request.” See Patent Prosecution Highway Portal Site, available at http://www.jpo.go.jp/ppph-portal/aboutpph.htm. Accessed December 2017.
- 21.
“The Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) is a joint endeavour of the European Patent Office (EPO) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to harmonize their classification systems (ECLA and USPC respectively) into a single system having a similar structure to the International Patent Classification (IPC) administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a specialized agency of the United Nations, and is the only patent classification system used by all patent offices. The jointly developed classification system will be more detailed than the IPC to improve patent searching.” See Cooperative Patent Classification, available at http://www.cooperativepatentclassification.org/obj.html. Accessed December 2017.
- 22.
The Five Trademark Offices ID List is “a list of descriptions and their classifications that are pre-approved by all TM5 partners, and which if used, are assured of being accepted by all TM5 partner offices.” See http://euipo.europa.eu/ec2/tm5/?lang=en. Accessed December 2017.
- 23.
See https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/es/search.jsf. Accessed December 2017.
- 24.
See http://www.wipo.int/branddb/en/. Accessed December 2017.
- 25.
See https://www.tmdn.org/tmview/welcome. Accessed December 2017.
- 26.
See https://www.tmdn.org/tmdsview-web/welcome. Accessed December 2017.
- 27.
ASEAN IP is a cooperation Framework between the offices of Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. See ASEAN Intellectual Property Portal, available at https://www.aseanip.org/. Accessed December 2017.
- 28.
PROSUR is a cooperation initiative by 12 Latin American countries. Originally formed by the IP offices of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay, today IP offices from Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Panama and the Dominican Republic, have been incorporated. See www.prosur.org. Accessed December 2017.
- 29.
Law No. 20.254 established the National Institute of Industrial Property of Chile.
- 30.
Report on support for the strategic planning internal process, No. 2013–2015, of the National Institute of Industrial Property of Chile for the BID, Catalina Martinez.
- 31.
See http://www.inapi.cl/portal/prensa/607/w3-article-8514.html. Accessed December 2017.
- 32.
See www.inapiproyecta.cl. Accessed December 2017.
- 33.
See https://www.inapi.cl/conecta. Accessed January 2018.
- 34.
See https://www.inapi.cl/estadisticas. Accessed January 2018.
- 35.
See https://www.inapi.cl/buscador-dominio-publico. Accessed January 2018.
- 36.
INAPI (2016).
- 37.
IP Australia is experimenting with formal examination made by machine. See Centre for Public Impact, available at: https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/from-the-machines-of-today-to-the-machines-of-tomorrow/. Accessed December 2017.
References
Barraclough, E., & Crompton, S. (2010). Multi-functional: What Europe’s IP offices can do for you. Managing Intellectual Property.
Chabal, A. (2017). L’INPI lance un service de cartographie sur-mesure des inventions brevetées. Forbes. Retrieved from December 2017 https://www.forbes.fr/entrepreneurs/inpi-service-cartographie-inventions-brevetees/.
Clayton, T., Mitra-Kahn, B., Sultan, N., & Graham, S. (2013). Patent backlogs, inventories, and pendency: An international framework. Retrieved from December 2017 https://www.oecd.org/site/stipatents/PSDM2013_7_2_Clayton_Mitra-Khan_Sultan_Graham.pdf.
INAPI. (2016). Chile National strategy on industrial property. Retrieved from December 2017 http://www.inapi.cl/portal/publicaciones/608/articles-9870_recurso_1.pdf.
IRENA. (2013). Intellectual property rights the role of patents in renewable energy technology innovation. Retrieved from December 2017 https://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/Intellectual_Property_Rights.pdf.
Lemley, A. M. (2007). A new balance between IP and antitrust. Southwestern Journal of Law and Trade in the Americas, 13(2), 237–256; Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 340.
Mitra-Kahn, B., Marco, A., Carley, M., D’Agostino, P., Evans, P., Frey, C., et al. (2013). Patent backlogs, inventories, and pendency: An international framework. Retrieved from December 2017 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/311239/ipresearch-uspatlog-201306.pdf.
Summerfield, M. (2016). A conversation with IP Australia’s Chief Economist, part I. Patentology. Retrieved from December 2017 http://blog.patentology.com.au/2016/05/a-conversation-with-ip-australias-chief.html.
WIPO. (2008). Report on the international system. WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Patents. SCP 12/3.
WIPO. (2016). Report Committee on Development and Intellectual Property. CDIP/16/10.
WIPO and IRENA. (2011). Patent landscape report on desalination technologies and the use of alternative energies for desalination. Retrieved from December 2017 http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/patents/948/wipo_pub_948_2.pdf.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Santa Cruz, M., Olivos, C. (2019). The Twenty-First Century Intellectual Property Office. In: Correa, C., Seuba, X. (eds) Intellectual Property and Development: Understanding the Interfaces. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2856-5_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2856-5_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-2855-8
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-2856-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)