2 IP office administration

In examining various models of IP office organization and administration, the study probed interviewees on the role and appointment of the head of the IP office, the institutional and legal status of IP offices, their mandate and scope of responsibilities, the degree of administrative autonomy and approaches regarding service delivery.

2.1 The role of head of the IP office

In many countries, the head of the IP office is the most senior public official responsible for the administration of intellectual property rights. As such, it is usually a senior position, reporting to the senior official or head of a ministry, in some cases to a minister, or even directly to the head of the government.

A multi-faceted role, bridging policy and administration

Our interviewees emphasized that the head of the IP office plays a multi-faceted role. This involves balancing legal, administrative, strategic and diplomatic aspects to foster innovation, protect IP rights and contribute to economic development at the national level.

The head of the IP office bridges the IP policy and administration functions. This person is often solicited for strategic advice on IP matters by senior officials in their government. While the head of the IP office is a public servant, they must maintain some autonomy and exercise their powers free from undue interference and in accordance with their statutory obligations under the relevant acts and laws of the country.

The head of the IP office maintains ongoing relations with key stakeholders in the legal and business community and with others in the innovation and creative ecosystem. They have international representation responsibilities on behalf of their country, notably at WIPO, and can be part of national delegations at other international forums. They also maintain relations with other heads of IP offices and engage in collaborative projects and activities, particularly in their region of the world.

The head of the IP office is also the chief administrator, managing the financial resources and the hiring and training of qualified staff, and making strategic decisions to improve operational effectiveness, including procedures and guidelines for the processing and granting of timely and quality IP rights. Heads of IP offices are also concerned with improving the quality of client services, particularly online and digital services.

Reporting relationship and appointment process

The appointment process for the position of the head of an IP office depends on the legal, administrative and political systems in place. Similarly, the level of the position and its reporting relationship is often due to the public service rules and customs of that country. Nevertheless, the importance of the position in the government apparatus and the decision on who heads the IP office can be a signal of the importance that the government places on IP issues.

In most instances, the head of the IP office reports to the ministry of commerce or trade, the ministry of industry or innovation, the ministry of justice or legal affairs or the ministry of science and technology or research and development, depending on how the government has organized its administrative hierarchy. In some cases, the head of the IP office reports directly to a higher-level office, such as the Cabinet or the Prime Minister’s office, especially if IP is considered a top national priority.

Typically, the appointment is based on the candidate’s qualifications, professional experience and credentials in the field of IP. Sometimes the appointment of the head of the IP office involves consultation with relevant stakeholders, such as industry associations, legal experts and academia. Many countries have established fixed-term limits for the head of the IP office (see Table 5). 

In some countries, the head of the IP office is appointed by a government authority, such as the President, Prime Minister or a relevant minister. For example, in Germany, the President of the DPMA is a high-ranking civil servant position, which is nominated by the Ministry of Justice and appointed by the President of the Federal Republic. The appointment may require approval from the legislative body or other responsible bodies. Often the process involves nominations, interviews and evaluations to ensure that the candidate possesses the necessary qualifications, experience and expertise in IP matters. In countries where the civil service is involved in appointments, the head of the IP office might be selected through a competitive process based on merit and qualifications.

Some countries have established independent commissions or bodies responsible for appointments to high-level positions in the government (for example, Estonia). In some countries appointments to high-level positions are approved at the level of Cabinet (for example, India). These commissions ensure a transparent and unbiased selection process. The commissions might review applications, conduct interviews and make recommendations to the relevant government authority.

To ensure competence and professionalism, certain countries use selection panels composed of experts in IP and related fields. Some countries also conduct the recruitment process with the help of a professional recruitment service provider (for example, with OAPI). Often the position of the head of the IP office is advertised publicly, inviting qualified individuals to apply (as in the case of Colombia). This approach aims to attract a diverse pool of candidates and promote transparency in the selection process.

2.2 Mandate and range of IP office functions

The mandate of many national IP offices is to encourage innovation, creativity and economic development by providing a framework for the protection and management of IP rights within a specific jurisdiction. While the core functions remain consistent, the specific details and emphasis of each function can vary based on the country’s legal system, economic priorities and evolving policy landscape. The mandate of IP offices is typically covered in a mission statement.

Two general types of mandates were observed in the sample of our study (see Table 6): one with a broader economic and societal ambition; the other focusing on the optimal operation of IP services.

The broader type of mandate looks at the national system of IP as a whole (for example, in the case of Colombia and Chile) and aims at facilitating economic and social development and the national competitiveness of the country (for example, Saudi Arabia). Sometimes, the mandate also expresses general support for creativity and innovation, including building respect for IP (for example, in the case of India).

IP offices with a broad mission undertake a range of activities that go beyond their core functions. This may include policy development and advocacy as well as technical assistance and capacity-building. They may offer educational and training sessions, or consultation and guidance services for individuals, businesses and inventors, in particular in IP-intensive sectors. Other services may include IP search and information services, provision of databases, and other analysis and research studies.

Offices which have a more operational mandate deliver their core functions with a focus on providing effective and efficient services to their clients. This may include the granting and registration of IP rights, examination and evaluation (for example, patent search reports), and the provision of IP information and documentation. Public awareness and education activities as well as international collaboration are also core functions of most IP offices. Some IP office mandates also address the interests of IP system users such as rights holders and inventors (for example, Botswana and Egypt).

Depending on their mandate, some have responsibility for enforcement matters, while others play a supporting role. Responsibility for copyright policy or administration may be part of the mandate of the IP office or may rest with the copyright office.

Many IP offices offer administrative review and opposition (pre- and post-grant) proceedings and mechanisms of dispute resolution. Taking into consideration the collective expertise on IP matters in IP offices, administrative proceedings tend to be efficient and discrete. In some countries it may be difficult to find judges with the relevant IP expertise, unless there exist specialized court divisions (like the Düsseldorf regional court in Germany) or specialized courts (like the Federal Patent Court in Switzerland).

Furthermore, IP offices play a vital role in promoting and undertaking IP education and training programs, often in partnership with other stakeholders in the innovation and creative ecosystem. They organize workshops, seminars and training sessions for entrepreneurs, innovators, researchers and SMEs to enhance their understanding of IP, including topics such as patent filing, trademark registration and copyright protection. They collaborate with innovation agencies, technology transfer offices and other stakeholders to foster the effective transfer of knowledge and technology from research organizations to industry.

Several IP offices (for example, Colombia, Estonia, Germany and Egypt) provide specific programs for SMEs and startups, or for the university research and scientific community (for example, Azerbaijan). IP offices also offer programs aimed at underrepresented groups, such as women and minorities (for example, Chile). Several offices have an economic research function (for example Canada, Azerbaijan), sometimes headed by a chief economist, that produces studies, trend analysis and forecasting.

2.3 Administrative autonomy models

Administrative autonomy and legislation governing the IP office are two distinct but closely related aspects of how an IP office operates.

The legislation refers to the laws, regulations and legal framework that define the authority, functions and powers of the IP office. It sets out the rules and procedures for the protection and administration of IP rights. It defines the rights granted to IP owners, the application and registration processes, enforcement mechanisms, and the responsibilities of the IP office.

Administrative autonomy refers to the degree of independence that the IP office has in managing its day-to-day operations and resources. This is often determined by the legal framework but also depends on the country’s public administration structure, policies and practices.

The key parameters we looked at included the degree of administrative autonomy, the office’s legal status, the source of its operating budget and the degree of control over revenues and expenditures (including fee-setting), as well as its capacity and flexibility in hiring staff.

Table 7 summarizes our findings from the 12 organizations interviewed.

Administrative autonomy 

In general, the level of administrative autonomy that an IP office has varies by country, although this is difficult to judge in absolute terms.

A number of the IP offices in the study sample have the status of a national government agency. In most cases, such agencies are linked or subordinated to a ministry, as is the case in Estonia, Germany and the Philippines. Some are directly linked or affiliated to the Prime Minister, as in Saudi Arabia and as foreseen in the new national IP authority in Egypt (EAIP). In Botswana, CIPA is a parastatal organization (statutory body). Canada’s IP office is a special operating agency with some quasi-judicial functions. INAPI in Chile has the status of a decentralized public agency under the supervision of the President through the Minister of the Economy. In the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Intellectual Property Agency, subordinated to the President of the country, is one entity of public law with three independent legal entities: the center for the examination of patents and trademarks, the center for the enforcement of IP rights and the center for the commercialization and transfer of technologies, as well as the Republican Scientific-Technical library.

Regardless of the level of administrative autonomy, IP offices generally must adhere to the public administration rules, policies and practices, and remain accountable to their government for their activities, performance and use of resources.

Financial autonomy

A key parameter we studied relates to financial autonomy. At one end of the spectrum, some IP offices can be described as self-sustaining agencies. These types of IP offices finance their operations entirely from the fees they collect and receive no additional budget from the government. They have the authority to use their income to finance their operations, special programs and longer-term investments such as systems upgrades. They can hire as many staff as their revenues and financial situation permit (usually subject to government staffing rules and approvals). Of course, this level of autonomy comes with risks, should there be a downturn in the economy and lower revenues or unexpected large investments beyond the financial capacity of the office.

Offices in this category include the Philippines, as IPOPHL is a self-sustaining agency relying on income alone for operational expenses. It has full autonomy to manage the revenue generated from fees.

OAPI, the regional agency for 17 member states in West Africa, is financed entirely from its fee revenues, although its budget must be approved by the Council of Ministers. Its operational costs are covered by the fees, which are determined in the long term and the fee structure is submitted to the Board of Directors and eventually adopted by the Council of Ministers. With the fees collected, OAPI finances the institutional structures of its member states in their IP promotion activities.

In Canada, CIPO is a special operating agency, with the authority to generate revenues and to fully spend them. It operates under a revolving fund authority over a multi-year business cycle, allowing it to accumulate a surplus or run a deficit in any particular year. It can staff as many positions as it needs so long as it has the funds to pay the salaries and it meets government hiring rules.

In Saudi Arabia, SAIP is considered a government entity with financial and administrative independence. It finances its operations through allocations in the government budget and has autonomy in its expenditures. SAIP must get its budget approved by its Board and submitted to the Ministry of Finance. According to Law 163, 2023, the new Egyptian national IP authority, EAIP, shall not receive any financial allocations from the Egyptian Ministry of Finance; instead, funding shall depend on the resources raised from the services provided by the agency and fees collected for registration of IP applications.

Some IP offices operate with a level of autonomy that allows them to use a portion of the collected revenue to cover their operating costs. This is often referred to as “cost recovery.” The IP office may need to provide a certain level of revenue to the government, while it retains the remaining amount to cover its expenses. This approach may suit IP offices in less developed economies, where governments are overall more resource-constrained, to fund key government functions. However, it hinges on the assumption that IP office revenue exceeds the resource needs of providing quality and timely IP services, which may not always hold.

In most countries, IP offices receive a direct annual budget from the finance ministry or treasury or through the parent ministry, out of which they must cover all expenses. Revenues from IP fees are deferred back into the general government budget. This is the case, for example, in Estonia, India, Germany and Egypt.

The IP office may also need to obtain approval for its proposed budget plan, and make requests as part of the budgetary process from the parent ministry or the treasury for additional funding to finance new initiatives, to make investments in new technology or to hire additional staff.

Determination and management of IP fees

The determination and management of IP fees is one important element of administrative autonomy, but also of IP governance. In principle, the ability to set fee levels provides more flexibility to adjust fees to cover increases in costs. However, most IP offices do not have the autonomy to set the level of fees independently from the related ministry and must receive approval from other government agencies, and sometimes also legislatures.

From a broader governance perspective, fee-setting entails delicate trade-offs. In addition to generating revenue that funds IP office operations, fees have important regulatory functions. If fees are set too high, they may discourage innovators from using the IP system, especially small- and medium-sized companies. If they are set too low, they may encourage speculative or low-quality IP applications that can burden IP offices and undermine the IP system at large. Renewal fees help ensure that only commercially relevant IP stays on IP registries. A substantial body of economic literature has emerged that provides guidance on how the revenue-raising and regulatory functions of fees are best combined and offers empirical evidence on how different fee levels affect the behaviour of IP applicants (see de Rassenfosse and van Pottelsberghe, 2011, and Thumm, 2023).

Recruitment and staffing

One aspect relating to autonomy refers to the recruitment and promotion of staff.

Many IP offices have full autonomy with the recruitment of staff, for example Botswana, Estonia, Germany and others we interviewed. The constraints relate to staffing levels, which can be determined by the parent ministry or the treasury, and of course the allocated budget and level of financial resources of the IP office. Those with more financial autonomy tend to be able to hire more freely to meet needs or to face upsurges in demand, to reduce backlogs or to invest additional human resources in certain priority activities.

Notwithstanding their level of autonomy in hiring matters, all IP offices face challenges in recruiting the expertise required; notably in the examination functions, but also in hiring professionals with diverse backgrounds such as legal experts, and technology and industry specialists. A common concern of heads of IP offices relates to training, skills development and capacity-building in this field. Knowledge-sharing and collaboration among IP offices, accessing the learning and skills development programs of the WIPO Academy, and partnerships with local and national learning institutions are ways to fill skills gaps in IP offices.

2.4 Service improvement strategies

A common concern of heads of IP offices we interviewed is to improve the quality, effectiveness and efficiency of services, and to introduce modern work tools and advanced technological solutions to provide better support to their employees and clients. They noted that the IP office operates in a national and global marketplace where speed and ease of service has become commonplace and client-centered service models have become the norm. Increasingly, global businesses are using multiple forms of IP in a range of countries, requiring IP offices to harmonize practices, procedures and technological platforms with other jurisdictions.

National IP offices generally prioritize the implementation of advanced technological solutions for application processing, document management and data sharing. One example is the use of AI and machine learning to assist with search and examination processes. IP offices can employ automated systems for document processing, fee calculations and notifications, and enhance examination processes by utilizing specialized search databases and tools to expedite prior art searches and examination of applications. This usually includes the implementation of quality control measures to ensure consistency and accuracy in examination outcomes. Part of quality assurance is the conducting of regular audits and reviews to ensure compliance with quality standards.

Furthermore, IP offices provide digital services, user-friendly interfaces and informative guides to help applicants navigate the IP system. IP services can also be improved by collaborating with other IP offices and international organizations to share best practices and harmonize procedures, and by partnering with research institutions, industry associations and legal professionals to enhance IP awareness and education.

While there are common challenges faced by IP offices globally, developing countries often face unique challenges due to resource constraints, limited technological infrastructure and varying levels of IP awareness. To address these challenges and contribute to the development of a robust innovation ecosystem, IP offices in developing countries may focus on improving specific services. They may face challenges in terms of human resource capacity and expertise. Limited training opportunities and resources can affect the quality and efficiency of IP examination and administration, while limited financial resources can hinder their ability to invest in modernization, training programs and public outreach initiatives. Weak enforcement mechanisms and limited resources for combating counterfeiting and piracy are common challenges in developing countries.

One important objective for many IP offices is the reduction of examination times, which is often facilitated by the use of general data tools, sometimes assisted by AI. In some countries, AI is used for translation and classification purposes; for example, DPMA uses it for translation and classification of patents issued in Asia. IPOPHL in the Philippines and CIPA in Botswana are introducing online applications and payment. CIPO in Canada has implemented an e-granting approach to issue entirely electronic patents. Process improvements are supported by the introduction of quality management; for example, in IP offices in the Philippines and Saudi Arabia. Estonia, Chile, Canada and others have gone through an ISO 9001 quality management certification process.

In addition, many IP offices now give their employees the opportunity to work from home with effective and secure work tools. Complementary, incentive-based contracts have been introduced for the employees of INAPI in Chile. Measures to improve employee productivity have been implemented by many offices based on an analysis of quality indicators and process improvements.

IP offices use efficiency-enhancing technologies to move from partly paper-based internal operation to paperless online IP administration systems in their journey toward full process automation and knowledge-based IP services, as exemplified in the “Smart IP office model” presented by Prihastomo et al. (2019; see Figure 2). The implementation of these technologies is expected to increase productivity of examinators and ultimately reduce the demand to hire more staff.

Looking forward, the portfolio of services offered by IP offices is expected to continue to evolve to meet the major priorities and challenges of their country and the global IP system. A number of heads of IP offices mentioned that improving the quality, timeliness and efficiency of examination and processing of IP rights remains a top priority, as are the recruitment and retention of qualified staff, the continuous transition to new technologies and digital services, improving data transparency and access, and providing outreach and IP information to their country’s innovators, creators, SMEs and others.

Figure 2. Smart IP office model Source: Prihastomo et al., 2019.