A.1 Methodology
In the first phase, a framework for analyzing the existing models of IP governance and administration among WIPO member states was developed in close collaboration with WIPO. Based on this framework, desk research with information from the WIPO website and member states websites was conducted to identify and document the existing models among a sample of 25 WIPO member states (see Annexes A.1 and A.2). The choice of countries studied was made in close collaboration with WIPO, and was based on ensuring appropriate regional representation, a balance between developed, developing and least-developed countries, and a deliberate choice to cover different existing models of IP offices. For each member state studied a country file with the main features regarding IP governance and administration has been created (for an overview see Annex A.5).
Based on the information from the desk research and in consultation with WIPO, in a second step, 12 member states (see Annex A.2) were selected for in-depth interviews with the heads of IP offices and for structured information gathering. The interviews were conducted with the heads or deputy heads of the IP offices between April and August 2023 and lasted between 60 and 90 minutes. Particularly in under-studied research domains where no reference material is available, as in the case of models of IP governance and administration, a qualitative approach with interviews is informative in gaining initial insights (see Shah and Corley, 2006).
The interviews were scheduled by the WIPO Chief Economist secretariat in interaction with the individual IP offices. The interviewees were informed about the objective of the study and received guiding questions for the interview in advance. The interviews were designed as semi-structured, with pre-set guiding questions and additional follow-up questions.
The guiding questions for the interviews are included in Annex A.3. With the interviewees’ permission, the interviews were recorded, and a transcript of each interview was produced as well as summaries of the interviews. Key insights from the interviews were included in text boxes as samples in the respective sections throughout the report. A list of interviews and participants is included in Annex A.4. The report is primarily based on the information retained from the desk research and from the structured interviews.
A.2 List of IP offices included in the study
A.3 Guiding questions for IP office interviews
IP policy framework and governance
1) Please tell us about the major priorities and challenges for innovation and intellectual property in your country.
2) How are IP policy issues dealt with in your government? Which government agency or ministry is responsible for the development of IP policies and laws? Is it one ministry or various ministries? For example, is there a separate entity responsible for copyright policies? How is IP policy coordinated among the various entities?
3) What role does the IP office play in the development and formulation of IP policy in broader interrelated policy areas such as economic development, innovation, science and technology, and trade?
4) Does your country have a national IP strategy adopted by the government? What are its key objectives and what is the IP office’s role in the national IP strategy?
5) Are external stakeholders included in the IP office governance (for example, on a board of governance)? What role do they play (for example, advisory, decision-making, etc.)?
6) Please explain the appointment process for the position of the head of the IP office in your country. What are this position’s general authorities, and to whom is it accountable (reporting relationship)?
IP rights administration
7) What institutional or legal status does the IP office have?
8) What is the overall mandate and scope of functions of the IP office? Does the IP office go beyond its obligations as an IP granting authority and cover additional functions, such as IP information, awareness-building, SME and innovation support programs, economic research and data analysis?
9) What level of administrative autonomy does the IP office have within the government? For example, as it relates to budgetary matters, financing, revenue spending and fee-setting? Does it have full responsibility for staff recruitment?
10) What is the IP office’s approach to making its services more effective and efficient?
A.4 Participants and dates of interviews conducted
A.5 Governance of the 25 IP offices studied
