A country’s framework for IP governance and administration typically reflects numerous factors: the country’s legal traditions and its level of development, its approach to multi-dimensional policies related to economic growth, industrial development and innovation, the evolution of its IP legal framework in addressing the needs of innovators and the marketplace, and a variety of global IP trends. This study’s review of the governance and administration framework suggests that there is no single model that offers superior results everywhere.
The different frameworks reviewed arguably converge on the overarching objectives that they are supposed to promote. At a highest level, these fall into two categories. First, promoting a balanced IP legal framework that responds to the needs of a dynamic marketplace while reflecting broader public interests. Second, ensuring that the IP office is sufficiently equipped to carry out its core functions – above all, the provision of quality and timely IP rights. In principle, these objectives can be equally well advanced with different sets of institutional choices.
However, it would be wrong to conclude that institutional choices do not matter and that there is no scope for reforms to foster more effective IP governance and administration. Indeed, policymakers around the world have long introduced such reforms based on fresh thinking – sometimes in response to newly arising challenges. In doing so, they have frequently been inspired by approaches adopted in other countries. We hope that the rich information contained in this study can inspire radical thinking and provide insights into the pros and cons of different institutional choices.
In addition, the study points to emerging trends that invariably will shape IP governance in the future. The IP system has always been highly dynamic. It is arguably more crosscutting than ever, as IP considerations play a role in a wide variety of public policies – from promoting innovation and industrial development to protecting public health and fighting climate change. IP governance and administration choices therefore not only shape the community of IP practitioners; they also determine how coherently governments advance wider societal objectives.
As a final remark, we hope that this study is a step forward in providing government policymakers with information on global trends and practices so that they can make more informed choices in adjusting their systems of IP governance. At the same time, the findings of this report are still at a high level and may raise more questions that policymakers would want to see answered. For example, certain institutional mechanisms are not formally documented and may rely on informal practices. Assessing the effectiveness of different institutional approaches and policy tools often requires a careful understanding of the local context. For policymakers in one country to draw the right lessons from the experiences of other countries, additional dialogues with national experts may be required. This is an activity that WIPO would be glad to facilitate.