1.1 Major priorities and challenges for innovation and IP
Intellectual property rights encourage creativity and innovation by providing incentives for creators and inventors, and by facilitating the sharing of knowledge. The provision of robust legal frameworks and effective enforcement mechanisms is therefore crucial to safeguard IP and foster innovation. Strengthening IP protection in response to technological advances while considering international best practices is key to making this possible.
Strong IP rights are valuable assets for businesses engaged in cross-border trade, enabling them to protect and exploit their innovations, brands and creative content. Trade agreements often include provisions on IP protection, enforcement and harmonization to facilitate trade, and IP policies and systems are critical for industrial and economic development. A well-functioning IP framework supports the growth of IP-intensive industries such as pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, software and the creative sectors. It facilitates the creation of high-value jobs, encourages entrepreneurship and startups, and contributes to economic diversification. IP can attract foreign direct investment and promote technology transfer, enabling countries to move up the value chain and strengthen their industrial and economic base.
The opportunities for countries to improve their innovative capacity are driven by big societal challenges, such as poverty, health and food security, environmental sustainability and climate change, and rapid technological progress.
The growing importance of IP in government policies
In this context, it is important for governments to align their innovation and economic development policies with IP considerations. This includes policies which encourage research and development, initiatives for SMEs in high-growth sectors of the economy, measures to facilitate commercialization and technology transfer, and incentives to facilitate domestic innovation and foster business growth and export, to name a few. Furthermore, cultural policies have IP dimensions that serve to encourage cultural and creative expression and protect the rights of creators, particularly in the digital age.
The broader impact and importance of IP for government policymakers was reflected in our interviews with senior officials and heads of IP offices. Increasingly, they are being solicited to provide advice to governments on how to better leverage IP to improve a country’s innovative capacity, creative potential and economic development.
One important function of the IP system is to facilitate technological progress and technology transfer. A particular challenge mentioned by our interviewees is the extent to which IP laws, regulations and administrative practices can keep up with the accelerating pace of change and the dynamic technological advances in new and emerging technology fields. Notably, the rapid evolution of AI has economic and social implications in many areas for policymakers, including the IP system.
In recognition of the growing importance of IP as a policy tool, many countries undertake public awareness campaigns and educational initiatives to enhance the understanding of IP rights and foster a culture of respect for IP. Educating the public, businesses and creators about the importance of IP protection and its role in driving innovation and economic growth can help to exploit its benefits, but also address infringement and misuse.
Program and policy tools
A natural focus of most countries is to strengthen domestic IP creation. Facilitating transfer of knowledge and technology from research institutions to industry was mentioned throughout our interviews as a national priority. Governments use a variety of policy and program tools such as encouraging partnerships, licensing agreements, and fostering technology transfer infrastructure and networks to help commercialize inventions and maximize their societal impact. Another important priority is to nurture entrepreneurship and support startups by providing funding and mentorship programs, and through the creation of incubators/accelerators to help entrepreneurs bring their innovative ideas to market.
Governments are increasingly aware that their national IP system must not only facilitate domestic innovation but also foster global commercialization. In this context, countries are looking to align their national IP system with those of their major trading partners and global IP trends. On a practical level, accession to international IP treaties such as the Madrid Agreement for the international registration of trademarks can facilitate companies’ access to foreign markets and protection of IP rights.
Collaboration with international partners and participation in multilateral forums are important to address global IP challenges. Countries actively engage in international cooperation, harmonization efforts and information sharing to stay updated on global best practices and develop effective responses to cross-border IP challenges. The sale of counterfeit goods on online marketplaces, digital piracy and online infringement are growing threats confronting creators and innovators, and show where cross-border collaboration by countries can provide successful solutions.
Another priority of many heads of IP offices is to provide their government and the public with improved access to IP-related data to better understand marketplace, technological and innovation trends, particularly in IP-intensive sectors of the economy. The use of the technological information contained in patents and other IP documents as a source of information for effective innovation has long been recognized as an important policy tool, and is becoming more valuable in a global digital and data-driven economy.
Public interest and ethical considerations
IP touches many public policy aspects affecting a country’s economy, society and culture. As such, reflection of public interest is an important consideration for heads of IP offices and policymakers. Striking a balance between protecting IP rights and ensuring access to knowledge is an ongoing challenge. Issues such as monopolies based on patents, open access to scientific research, and affordable access to essential medicines require careful consideration.
Similarly, ethical considerations in fields such as AI, biotechnology and genetic engineering are the subject of much public and policy debate. IP plays a vital role in cultural policies and the development and protection of artistic expression and traditional knowledge. Ensuring a coherent and balanced approach that takes all stakeholders’ interests into account is crucial to maximize the benefits of IP while addressing potential challenges and promoting the public interest.
In Colombia one important priority is to foster the regional innovation ecosystem and the democratization of knowledge throughout all parts of the national territory, as reflected in the Colombian National Development Plan (Pacto por Colombia, Pacto por la Equidad) 2019–2022.
Under Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, the direction is to shift from being an oil-based economy to a more diversified knowledge- and innovation-based economy. The National Strategy for Intellectual Property launched in 2022 for a period of five years is one of the tools to achieve the objectives of Vision 2030.
The major priority in Botswana is to move from a resource-based to a knowledge-based economy making use of science, technology and innovation. This priority is enshrined in the national development Vision 2036 and in the Botswana Intellectual Property Policy (BIPP) 2022.
The Azerbaijan 2030 strategy, approved by the President in 2021, sets the country’s national priorities for socioeconomic development, including the development of IP that supports innovation, creativity and competitive markets.
Egypt has a number of national strategies aimed at strengthening its sustainable development, innovation and competitive landscape, including Vision 2030, a strategy for sustainable development; the State Strategy for Science and Innovation 2030, an economic and structural reform program; the national Climate Change Strategy 2050; and its first-ever national IP strategy, launched in 2022.
1.2 National IP strategies as public policy tools
Increasingly, governments see the benefit of having a national IP strategy as a key public policy tool. Such a strategy plays a crucial role in shaping and supporting a national innovation system and serves as a roadmap for how a country manages its IP assets and leverages these aspects to foster innovation and economic development. It helps align the IP framework with a country’s economic and innovation goals, supports innovation across sectors, and ensures a balanced approach to IP protection that benefits both creators and inventors, and the economy and the public.
National IP strategies are being formulated using a whole-of-government approach that includes all ministries involved in the issue. Draft strategies are often the subject of broad public consultations with experts and relevant stakeholders. In our interviews, some heads of IP offices pointed out the value of such an inclusive process in highlighting the important role that IP plays in a country’s broader goals of fostering innovation, promoting creativity and supporting economic development.
Important elements of a national IP strategy include encouraging and incentivizing innovation and creativity by providing a clear and structured framework for the protection and utilization of IP rights; strengthening the legal framework for IP rights and their enforcement; supporting SMEs and startups; promoting technology transfer; and improving IP awareness. Figure 1 shows the framework that WIPO encourages member states to use in developing their national IP strategies.
In some countries IP is part of broader national innovation policies and strategies, for example in Germany and Estonia. In West Africa, OAPI uses a multilayered approach to encourage its member states to develop their own strategy, while also leading activities which support the implementation of national strategies.
Naturally, IP offices often lead or play an important role in the development of national IP strategies. They possess specialized knowledge and expertise in IP law, enforcement and administration. They are also an important source of IP-related data that can help inform the strategy’s focus and provide valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities in the country’s IP landscape. Consequently, they can help to identify areas for improvement, creating opportunities for innovation and growth. They are actively involved in developing action plans and in the strategy’s implementation, monitoring and evaluation.
Most IP offices also collaborate with international organizations, other IP offices and foreign counterparts to share best practices, learn from successful strategies in other countries, and harmonize IP standards at the regional and global level.
1.3 Ministerial responsibility models
One of the primary features relating to the governance of IP is how countries organize the policy oversight and responsibilities of the various ministries, and how this is reflected in the structure of the IP administration entities.
Governance options range from the more traditional model, where IP is seen primarily as a legal and regulatory function, to a more modern approach, which recognizes IP as an enabling tool for broader innovation, creativity and economic development goals. One specific feature relating to the range of institutions that deal with IP administration concerns the number and types of IP offices and the inter-coordination mechanisms between them.
From our initial research and interviews, we identified various models and approaches, outlined below.
Lead ministry with responsibility for IP office
In most countries, responsibility for IP lies with one lead ministry, even though the responsibility for the development of IP policies and laws involves various ministries and government agencies.
The involvement of multiple ministries can be explained by IP rights touching on various policy areas, including industrial development, scientific research and technology, international trade and export, support to innovation and entrepreneurship, culture and the arts, agriculture and plant varieties, and issues relating to IP protection and enforcement, among others.
In most jurisdictions, the lead ministry has responsibility for most IP policy issues and is seen as the department providing leadership and coordination of IP-related matters. Common examples are the ministry of innovation, economy or justice.
The IP office is usually placed under this lead ministry. This can streamline policy development, as it brings together expertise, resources and a focused approach to IP matters. It encourages collaboration between the development of policy relating to IP and its administration or implementation. It can also facilitate better coordination and integration of IP policies with broader government strategies and initiatives. This can in turn lead to more coherent and effective policy frameworks.
In our interviews with the heads of IP offices, several mentioned the various legal and administrative obligations that they must coordinate with other government agencies on a wide range of policy matters, and the increasing recognition that IP is a crosscutting policy issue.
Depending on the ministry’s mandate, positioning the IP office under a specific ministry can signal a specific focus in line with the government’s priorities.
Ministries of science, technology and/or innovation often play a significant role in IP policy development. These ministries work toward fostering research and development, promoting innovation and supporting technology transfer. Placing the IP office under their jurisdiction, as in Canada, reflects the emphasis on IP as a driver of innovation and technological advancement.
In some countries the ministry of commerce or industry plays a central role in formulating IP policies, for example in Botswana and India. These entities are responsible for promoting economic growth, trade and industrial development, making them important policy instruments for IP matters. Positioning the IP office under the responsibility of the ministry of economy, as in Chile, emphasizes the economic dimension of intellectual property.
Historically, in the 19th and 20th centuries IP was viewed primarily as a legal domain. In some countries, IP continues to be governed under the ministry of justice and legal affairs, for example in Germany, where copyright, patent and trademark law and DPMA are under the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice. Placing the IP office under the Ministry of Justice leverages the legal expertise and enforcement capabilities of the justice system to ensure that IP laws are developed, implemented and enforced effectively, and are in line with the overall legal framework of the country.
In Botswana, the Ministry of Trade and Industry is responsible for IP and coordinates any related work with other ministries. All types of IP rights are administered by CIPA within the Ministry of Trade and Industry.
In India, CGPDTM is located in the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade within the Ministry for Commerce and Industry. The IP office is responsible for all IP rights, except for plant protection varieties, which is with the Ministry of Agriculture.
In Canada, the department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) is the federal department responsible for IP policy and legislation. Within ISED, CIPO administers and processes IP rights. Other departments are also responsible for IP; for example, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is responsible for plant breeders’ rights and the Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for copyright policy and policies relating to cultural industries.
In Chile, industrial property is handled by INAPI under the authority of the Ministry of Economy, and the protection of plant varieties is with the Agriculture and Livestock Service under the ministry of Agriculture. INAPI’s role is that of an advisor on industrial property issues to the President of the Republic and as a specialized agency when such issues arise in international trade negotiations. The Ministry of Culture is responsible for copyright policies and the copyright office.
Responsibility for copyright policy and administration
In many countries, the policy responsibility for copyright is under a ministry other than the one responsible for industrial property policies. Often the ministry of culture, arts or heritage takes the lead in copyright policy development and administration.
This usually leads to a model where there is an industrial property office and a separate copyright office. The copyright office often operates as a specialized agency responsible for copyright policies and administration. It is usually responsible for copyright law development, administration and enforcement guidance on copyright-related matters.
In some jurisdictions, there is a single IP office responsible for both industrial property and copyright matters. Often, the lead ministry also has policy responsibilities for both areas, facilitating a single IP office entity. In other cases, the administration functions are combined in a single office, for example by combining the copyright registry with other IP registries, which can be more efficient.
The study has not delved deeper into the question of whether there is greater IP policy coherence by putting industrial property and copyright under one administrative entity. We note, however, that there are emerging challenges around IP in the digital economy, leading to a convergence of policy issues around industrial property and copyright. In the marketplace, businesses in many sectors manage their IP portfolios in an integrated way, whether it be formal IP rights such as patents or trademarks and designs, or other forms of protection such as trade secrets. With new technologies adding to this trend for convergence, we may see more governments considering the integration of copyright with other IP policy responsibilities in future.
Emerging trends
A few countries have combined all IP-related entities and their responsibilities under one overall ministerial-level organization, to address the challenges of inter-ministerial coordination and diffusion of IP-related responsibilities and policies. Doing so also elevates the importance of intellectual property in the government hierarchy.
For example, in Saudi Arabia, SAIP is responsible for the administration of all IP rights, including patents, trademarks, industrial design, geographical indications, copyright, plant varieties and integrated circuits. It is also responsible for legislation, regulations and policies related to IP, and contributes to IP enforcement and creation.
Similarly, in India, under the National IPR Policy of 2016, all IP agencies were brought together within the Ministry for Commerce and Industry (except for plant varieties, which remained with the Department of Agriculture). Coordination was improved as result of this single-agency approach.
Another recent example is Egypt, which is in the process of establishing EAIP, as illustrated in Key insight 3.
Regional IP organizations
OAPI is a unique model in that it is a regional IP institution. It provides IP registration and protection on behalf of its 17 member states in West Africa. It has a long history of cooperation, having been established in 1962, and is governed by an Administrative Council composed of the responsible ministers from its member states. National policymaking is the purview of individual member states, but OAPI has a national liaison structure through which it supports the implementation of IP policies in each member state. For example, OAPI provides model laws relating to genetic resources and traditional knowledge, in collaboration with its member states. Once there is consensus on a document, it is submitted to the Administrative Council for approval and translated into regulations that apply as national law in each country, although each is free to add additional measures to meet its specific needs.
The Egyptian government formally launched its first national IP strategy in 2022. One of its key pillars was a new Egyptian Authority for Intellectual Property (EAIP), which combined into one organization the IP-related responsibilities of nine offices and administrations (see “Executive Summary,” Egypt’s National Intellectual Property Strategy 2022, p.12, https://www.sis.gov.eg/UP/Culture/Strategic%20Book%20(E).pdf). This has been established by Law 163/2023 enacted in August 2023, which defined EAIP’s mandate, role and responsibilities.
1.4 Policy development and coordination mechanisms
One important element of IP governance relates to the formulation and coordination of IP policy within the government, the types of coordination mechanisms in place and the role of the IP office in these processes.
In our interviews with heads of IP offices, the prevailing view was that for IP policies to be effective and relevant, governments need to coordinate policy development among various entities, whether through formal or informal means.
Furthermore, these collaboration mechanisms are not only necessary for IP-specific laws and policies, but also affect how IP considerations are included in broader interrelated policy areas, such as economic development, science and technology, and trade.
Coordination among government entities at the national level
The coordination of IP policy among various entities typically varies based on the governance structure and legal framework of the country. In most countries, the legislative process, including drafting and amending IP laws, involves multiple stages of review and public and inter-ministerial consultations, including coordination between relevant ministries and parliamentary committees.
It is interesting to observe the two prevailing types of inter-ministerial coordination mechanisms.
Many countries establish formal inter-ministerial committees or task forces comprising representatives from relevant ministries and government agencies. These committees serve as platforms for coordination, collaboration and consultation on IP policy matters. They help align the perspectives and interests of different entities involved in IP and facilitate the development of cohesive policies.
For example, in Colombia, the Intersectoral Commission on Intellectual Property is in charge of coordinating the different actors that participate in the IP system. These actors include the Superintendence of Industry and Commerce as the competent national office for industrial property, the National Directorate of Copyright as the authority for copyright and related rights, and the Colombian Agricultural Institute as the competent authority for plant varieties.
In some countries, more informal coordination mechanisms are used. Different government entities with responsibilities related to IP, such as ministries of commerce, justice, culture and technology, collaborate through regular communication, information sharing and joint initiatives. This collaboration ensures that IP policies align with broader national objectives, legal frameworks and sector-specific needs. In many countries, the lead ministry has the responsibility to reach out and consult with other ministries who either have responsibility for certain aspects of IP policies and/or may be impacted by the proposed changes.
OAPI is a regional IP office serving 17 member states in West Africa. In OAPI countries, there are generally three ministries working together: the ministry responsible for industry, which is the official supervisory authority of OAPI in each member state; the ministry responsible for culture, which deals with copyright; and the ministry responsible for innovation. OAPI has a national liaison structure in each member state for coordination between the three bodies. There are areas in which initiatives on IP promotion and development are started by OAPI, and these initiatives are passed on to the country level. This is the case, for instance, for patents and trademarks. Each state is then free to add further measures addressing its specific needs and preferences.
Public consultations and other forms of engagement with stakeholders
After inter-ministerial consultations have been conducted and a proposed policy initiative has been articulated, governments often seek input and feedback from the public, industry stakeholders and experts through public consultations. This allows for a broader range of perspectives to be considered in shaping the proposed policy. Consultations are conducted by specific ministries or IP offices, and the collected input informs the policymaking process, and subsequent legislative and parliamentary processes.
Countries also engage in international cooperation and participate in multilateral and regional forums to address global IP challenges. Through bilateral and multilateral negotiations, countries harmonize IP standards, exchange best practices and develop international agreements, such as free trade agreements or treaties, to promote IP protection and enforcement.
Role of the IP office
Depending on the nature of the IP policy, national IP offices either lead or contribute to the exercise. They often act as central hubs for collecting input from various stakeholders during public consultations, conduct research and formulate policy recommendations. They collaborate with relevant ministries, industry associations and other entities to ensure comprehensive and coherent IP policies.
IP offices also play an active role in the development and review of IP legislation. They provide technical expertise and insights on legal aspects, aligning IP laws with international standards, and addressing emerging challenges and opportunities. IP offices collaborate with relevant ministries and legal experts to ensure that the legislative framework is robust, up to date and supports broader policy objectives.
In general terms, most IP offices provide expert advice and recommendations to the government and relevant ministries on the formulation of IP policies. They contribute insights on the impact of IP on economic development, innovation ecosystems, scientific advancements and trade competitiveness.
In addition, many IP offices collect and analyze data on IP filings, trends and relevant economic indicators that can help shape government policies. This information is very valuable to monitor the impact of IP policies on economic development, innovation and trade. By providing statistical data, market insights and economic impact assessments, IP offices contribute to the formulation of evidence-based policies.
Finally, it was noted by our interviewees that many IP offices maintain ongoing relations with their external stakeholders and thus can provide a ready source of insight and advice to government policymakers on various policy initiatives, which may not be limited to intellectual property. For example, some IP offices (and WIPO) have conducted studies on the gender gap in patenting, which has contributed to broader governmental policy objectives regarding how to increase the participation of women in scientific fields.
In Botswana, the development of IP policy is the responsibility of the Ministry of Trade and Industry, but CIPA is instrumental in leading the development and the formulation of this policy up to the point when it is approved by Parliament. Once it is approved, CIPA has the role of an implementing agency for IP policy.
In Chile, INAPI was established as an advisory body for the President of the Republic on industrial property issues. This requires INAPI to prepare IP-related recommendations for the President through the Ministry of Economy, for example in the case of a new Chilean law on technology transfer, which would be under the core responsibility of the Ministry of Science. Still, INAPI would perform its role as a specialized agency contributing to the development of this legislative initiative.
OAPI is a regional IP office that plays an advisory role for its member states. OAPI also proposes policies and activities related to areas such as economics, innovation, science and technology. One example would be the use of geographical indications by its member states. OAPI is responsible for the Dakar, Ouagadougou and Abidjan declarations on the economic impact of geographical indications on the development of states.
Involving stakeholders in IP office governance
Beyond policy consultations, many IP offices involve external stakeholders in their own governance through various mechanisms; for example, through advisory bodies, formal committees, more task-oriented working groups or subject-specific forums. In most cases, recommendations by external stakeholders in advisory boards and other decision-making bodies are non-binding (see Table 4).
External stakeholders represent a diverse set of perspectives, including those of industry, business, academia, inventors, artists, researchers and the public. Their involvement ensures that the IP office considers a wide range of viewpoints when formulating policies and making decisions.
Our interviewees mentioned some important benefits: bringing in specialized knowledge and expertise, for example, in fast-moving technology fields, can help shape patent guidelines and practices. On a more practical level, involving a wide range of stakeholders can help the IP office identify unintended consequences of new policies or regulations, or find solutions that balance the interests of various groups while meeting public policy objectives.
The IP office can collaborate with external stakeholders on specific projects and initiatives. This cooperation may involve joint research, educational programs, IP-awareness campaigns and capacity-building efforts. External stakeholders can be included in the review and evaluation of the IP office’s performance. They may provide input on the effectiveness of policies and suggest areas for improvement.
The Advisory Council for Intellectual Property (ACIP) of the Philippines is a board composed of eight to ten distinguished individuals from both the public and the private sectors. Members serve up to two years at the invitation of the Director General of IPOPHL. The Council provides recommendations to IPOPHL based on an assessment of its performance (according to the Balanced Scorecard of Harvard Business School) and its achievements and partnerships with key stakeholders, and identifies challenges and issues that may impact the realization of IPOPHL’s mission and vision.
In Saudi Arabia, SAIP has a Board of Directors and a Chair (a Minister from the Council of Ministers) appointed by the Prime Minister. They oversee the management and conduct of SAIP, and set its general policy.
In Chile, the Chilean Civil Society Council serves as a platform for dialogue, collaboration and engagement between civil society and the government, allowing civil society organizations to provide input on public policies and government decision-making processes. It meets regularly (four or five times a year) and provides a forum for the exchange of information with INAPI. The Council’s conclusions are not binding but are a source of useful feedback.
In Germany, contact with applicants is very important to the DPMA. The office has a User Advisory Council for Patents and Utility Models. It consists of 15 members and meets twice a year with the objective of including all relevant user groups in its discussions (large, small and individual patent applicants, and search and patent management software service providers). The Council has a purely advisory function and is not involved in the office’s decision-making.
