WIPO is often asked for advice by its member states on how a country should organize and administer its IP system as well as for good practices on models of governance and administration. However, there is no reference material currently available that could offer governmental policymakers in WIPO member states guidance on alternative governance approaches and ways to organize the administration of their IP system.
Due to developments in science and technology, such as AI, but also in markets, for example litigation practices, countries throughout the world have evolved their IP regimes. Governments have adopted different approaches toward organizing IP policy, laws and administration, reflecting their own governance traditions, constitutional arrangements and historical legacies.
Against this background, WIPO assigned the study on “Models of IP Governance and Administration” to Fraunhofer ISI. The idea of the study is to document and analyze the different forms of IP governance and IP rights administration that exist among WIPO member states, and to describe their main features and dynamics. The objective is to provide WIPO member states with information and an evidence base on models of IP governance and administration against which they could adjust or revise their own approaches. Besides the documentation and analysis of the different forms of IP governance and IP rights administration, the study aims to identify emerging trends in view of the increasing importance of IP policy and administration as a tool for governments to advance broader policy objectives relating to innovation, creativity and economic development.
The study analyzes which government agencies or ministries are responsible for the development of IP policies and laws, and whether the responsibility for the development of the IP policy framework rests with the same government agency that is responsible for administering IP rights. Furthermore, the role of IP rights administration entities in the development and formulation of IP policy and interrelated policy areas such as economic development, innovation, science and technology, and trade is examined. Moreover, the connections between IP policy and related policy areas, for example innovation, trade, competition, industrial and economic development, and culture, are studied. The study also analyzes which coordination mechanisms, such as inter-agency committees or working groups on IP, exist among the various actors and who participates in such committees or groups.
Regarding IP rights administration, the study explores the IP rights administration authorities for the various forms of IP rights, including patents, trademarks, industrial design, geographical indications, copyright and plant varieties, and to which ministries they are accountable. The institutional and legal status of the IP offices, their mandates and how they are financed are also examined. Moreover, the study examines the most common core functions of the IP rights administration entities and identifies additional functions, such as IP information and outreach, SME support programs, and initiatives to promote the innovation ecosystem.
The analysis of the report is based on desk research of 25 IP offices and is followed up by structured interviews with 12 IP offices from WIPO member states (see Table 1). The interviews are based on pre-set questions (see Annex A.3) and were conducted with the heads or deputy heads of the IP offices. More details on the methodology applied and on the complete set of countries considered in the study can be found in Annexes A.1 and A.2. The full names of the IP offices considered for this study are listed in Table 1 and Annex A.2. Throughout the text and in the tables, the IP offices are referred to by the name of the country/region.
