The Delegation of Brazil referred to the observation by the Delegation of Bolivia on the issue of focal points. That concept was an important element, which needed to be integrated before events took place as opposed to ad hoc appointments. One problem that sometimes arose was that WIPO approached some Ministries for the sake of time and also on occasions the IP offices, and the Delegation reiterated that sometimes more than the IP office was needed to have coordination with other Ministries and that it would be useful to have a focal point established beforehand so that when the Secretariat contacted a country, the Secretariat would know whom it should be contacting. For example, the Permanent Mission in Geneva or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs could be focal points. Moreover, it would be very relevant if the events were co-organized by other Ministries or the IP office, for instance.
The Secretariat agreed with the suggestion and said that it was something it would share on that system with Member States. It expressed doubts, however, with regard to the focal points’ willingness to have their names published all over the world, unless that would be comprised in the closed system.
The Delegation of Oman thanked the Chair and Secretariat for the presentation conducted during the lunch break. Although the presentation had been very useful, it had difficulty accessing the Web sites in question, as there was always a window showing an ‘ERROR’ message. In addition, with regard to technical assistance, the Delegation wished to know whether such assistance was financed by WIPO or by the recipient countries themselves. It further inquired whether that would be spelled out on the Web site or in the database.
The Secretariat apologized for not having the correct link in the document which had been prepared a couple of months previously, and confirmed that if Member States were to go to www.wipo.int, the correct link would be found at the bottom of the page with the graphic in the middle. All WIPO technical activities would appear there, whether financed by WIPO or by other means, because the database was more about knowing what was happening in countries and not about who was financing those activities. With regard to the second part of the question by the Delegation of Oman, the database would show all technical assistance activities, whether funded by WIPO or through Fund-in-Trust, as well as those supported by Governments.
The Delegation of Oman stated that it would submit a proposal that would consist of opening a window or portal so that countries could insert their comments and provide updates on their activities currently not referred to in the database.
The Secretariat replied that that was an interesting concept, and added that Member States’ contributions were more than welcome in an effort to populate the database. The tool currently catered exclusively for WIPO activities, but countries which were running their own initiatives were welcome to submit and share their information and experiences. That would entail some modifications to show the country’s ownership of the relevant activity. The Secretariat did not see anything wrong with the suggestion, since the idea of showing what was happening in countries was consistent with the important purpose of that database. As far as the WTO G-TAD database was concerned, it was a possible source of inspiration since the purpose of that assistance was to make information available, and that was something that most likely would be accommodated in the future if countries wanted to put in their activities.
The Chair expressed the hope that the Secretariat’s responses had satisfied the Delegation of Oman, observing that if there were no other comments he would proceed to the next project.
The Secretariat introduced the project relating to Recommendation 8 “Specialized Databases Access and Support” with the code DA_08_01 under Annex 3 of document CDIP/6/2. It reported that the project had five main components: the first was a needs analysis and database review study; the second was access to specialized and technical journal databases; the third was access to specialized patent databases; the fourth was the establishment of technology innovation support centers; and the fifth was training and awareness-raising. According to the progress report that had been prepared for the current session of the CDIP, the project was on track and the study papers reviewing the most important patents and non-patent databases had been prepared, as well as another more technical and detailed guide to databases. The Secretariat added that the guide had been developed based on the study paper, and was already available for IP offices and users in general on the WIPO Web site. It further reported that the public-private partnerships and WIPO on Access to Research for Development and Innovation or aRDi had been launched in 2009, followed by WIPO’s Access to Specialized Patent Information or ASPI program, launched in September 2010. The Secretariat explained that the fourth component was related to the establishment of Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISCs), and that the training regarding the establishment of TISCs and three regional conferences held during the current year were on track. It said the project had been delayed a bit in the conclusion of service level agreements (SLAs), which provided a framework for activities to be carried out in developing countries wishing to establish TISC. That delay was mainly due to the need for extensive preparatory work in developing SLAs in cooperation with target countries. It noted that the number of institutions participating in the aRDi program remained low, and explained the need for an active promotion campaign, at least for the LDCs, which had been given free access to the facility. Such campaigns would be undertaken during the last phase of the project implementation schedule. The Secretariat had managed to add three additional journals to the aRDi program, but wished to draw the attention of Member States to the fact that implementation of the project was somewhat restricted by the lack of staff. Only non-personnel costs were allocated to the project, it noted. Internal redeployment at the beginning of the year had mitigated the initial difficulty but had not provided sustainability, requiring further additional project personnel to be deployed. Referring to the implementation of that project, the Secretariat reported that the latest statistics showed that up to 14 SLAs across all regions had been signed, namely, four each in Africa, the Arab region and Latin America, and two in Asia, respectively. It also informed the participants that since the launch of the project, three regional symposiums on that project had been carried out; more than 30 assessment missions covering 10 countries had been carried out, while further requests were in the pipeline to create those TISCs and proceed with implementation of the project.
The Delegation of Senegal endorsed the statements made by the African Group, the Development Agenda Group as well as the one by the LDC Group, and expressed concern with respect to the project on specialized database access and support. It pointed out that approximately 33 percent of the total budget had been used up, and given the fact that almost two-thirds of the budget needed to be spent for the second period of the program, it wished to know how a project mechanism could be set up making it possible to achieve all of the scheduled activities despite the lack of personnel. The Delegation added that the increase in the number of requesting countries, particularly given the success of the project, was noted in the report. In conclusion, it thanked the Committee for the importance attached to that program, particularly for developing countries, because it gave them access to information that was extremely useful for drafting research projects and for limiting claims in the field of patents.
The Delegation of the United States of America, taking the floor for the first time, thanked the Chair for his continued able stewardship of the Committee as well as the Secretariat for its meticulous preparation of the progress report on that project. The report indicated that significant progress had been made since the previous year. The Delegation noted as one example that 25 assessment missions had been carried out in preparation for the establishment of technology and innovation support centers, whereas only five had been conducted the previous year at the same time. It further noted that it appeared that more than 30 other countries had requested to benefit from those centers and that further assessment missions were therefore under way. The Delegation observed that those numbers showed that the project met a hitherto unmet need in many countries, and therefore applauded WIPO’s efforts in that area. There were still a few questions about the project, which were touched upon in the introductory remarks, but a few more details were perhaps needed. The Delegation expressed its curiosity about, firstly, why the number of institutions participating in the aRDi program still remained low, even though the service had been launched in July 2009. Secondly, the Delegation sought clarification as to why only non-personnel costs were allocated for the project, when it was clear that the project’s personnel would be needed to support in-country TISCs.
The Delegation of India, referring to a point raised in the presentation on the need for additional project personnel, asked the Secretariat how it intended to tackle that issue and what plan was to be followed in order to meet those requirements. The Delegation welcomed the fact that three additional journals had been included in the aRDi project and also believed that the project was very useful as well as aiming in the right direction. It requested further clarifications on the paper presented, and noted that the launch of the ASPI providing access to specialized patent information had shown in its indicators full achievement of the expected result of providing specialized patent databases to IP offices. In that regard, the Delegation asked for information on how that database had been reviewed and updated and how many IP offices currently had access to it. The Delegation pointed out from the report that strong progress had been shown in the completion of the needs analysis and basic training for each TISC, adding that although that was a positive and indeed welcome development, it still wished clarification on what exactly the TISCs were doing at present. The Delegation understood that the TISCs were still in a nascent stage, and reminded the Committee that it was the one that had proposed that instrument at the CDIP a couple of sessions ago. It further explained that what had been proposed was really a technology and innovation hub to foster domestic innovations in developing countries. The Delegation asked for clarifications about the current functions of the TISCs, and whether or not there were plans to expand them. With regard to the training seminars held, the Delegation requested additional details as to who were the faculty for those and whether all were WIPO Secretariat staff; whether the Secretariat was looking at train-the-trainer kind of programs and at sustainable models for the TISCs. It would have perhaps been useful to share the findings of the needs analysis and the general terms of the SLAs signed between the TISCs and WIPO, not in detail but just to give an idea of how those were working out in practical terms. Similarly, it might be useful to hear about how many additional TISCs were planned for the coming two years and their locations. The Delegation of India noted from the report in CDIP/6/2 that although the subject of specialized patent and non-patent services at WIPO had not been included in the study paper, the Secretariat intended to propose new WIPO services by the end of 2010. The report also indicated that there had been some progress in that regard. The Delegation pointed out that since the Sixth Session was the last session of the CDIP in 2010, it would probably have been useful to hear what kind of progress had been made and where the Committee stood in that respect. Finally, the Delegation asked how far the evaluation had gone, noting that evaluation forms were to be circulated after every training seminar in order to assess in quantifiable terms the increase in awareness of IPRs.
The Delegation of Panama asked a question about the examples of achievements and lessons learned and whether or not at some point the Secretariat had thought about encouraging the work that would be undertaken by the TISCs, because there was a reference to a network of TISCs that was not located within the intellectual or industrial property offices, but rather would have included academic institutions as well as research institutions. With regard to universities where transfer of technology and research institutions were located, the Delegation wondered what the chances were of truly researching and investigating the possibility of coordination with those offices in order to encourage efforts being undertaken through the initiatives in that project. Finally, the Delegation asked whether the Secretariat had any knowledge as to when the guide would be available in Spanish.
The Delegation of Cuba endorsed the statement made by the Delegation of Brazil on behalf of the Development Agenda Group and welcomed the results achieved through the aRDi project as well as the TISCs. The Delegation believed that it was important for the Secretariat to continue efforts aimed at increasing the number of developing countries that would benefit from the ASPI project for access to specialized patent information.
The Delegation of France, speaking in its national capacity, stated that while it was pleased to see the specialized databases access and support being concluded, it was also very pleased to witness the progress made in that project. It believed that the database guide and access to it which was technical and scientific in nature, and the specialized patent database, as well as the setting-up of TISCs, would all substantially contribute to knowledge dissemination as well as better use of the patent system.
The Delegation of Pakistan believed that much progress had been made with specific reference to the TISCs, judging by the fact that more than thirty countries had requested the opening of such centers. That showed progress and a move forward in that direction. One point which still needed clarification was the role and scope of those TISCs. By their name, they encompassed a huge area of work, but it appeared that that was limited to databases and their accessibility only. The Delegation ended by asking the Secretariat to clarify that point.
The Secretariat began by responding to the concern expressed by the Delegation of Senegal’s with regard to financial expenses. It explained that so far, one-third of the budget had been used and since it was a three-year project, it all seemed to be well on track despite the human resources issues. In answer to the Delegation of the United States, the Secretariat said that it had noted its remarks concerning the increase in demand for the services. It confirmed its commitment to attempting to meet that demand. There was a great deal of interest because it was a question of not only giving access to those databases but also providing support to help countries and interested parties use those databases effectively. Therefore, capacity-building was important, which was why aRDi had been launched in July 2009. The Secretariat observed that it was very much along the same framework as Hinari of WHO, Agora of FAO and Awari of UNEP. It explained that the project was very much dependent on contacts with the publishers, who really gave WIPO access to their publications and journals, through their own generosity. For a bit over six months, the Secretariat had felt that it was very close to a break-through in having at least one major set of publications. The Secretariat further explained that there were other journals waiting to be added, and that it would continue to do so as more publications came to its possession. Initially, it had wanted to make a big impact by adding fifty new journals. However, as that had not been the case, it would no longer keep waiting for that to happen and would merely keep adding others as they came. The original group or set of journals added for the PCT minimum non-patent literature journals, some of which were rather difficult to access. The Secretariat observed that it might perhaps take a different approach and certainly broaden the scope to move beyond the PCT minimum non-patent literature journals that were offered, so that many publications would be added as quickly as possible. In reference to the query by the Delegation of India regarding the lack of staff, that it was an issue which was currently under internal review in order to respond to that underestimated demand. The Secretariat added that even events needed to make an effective project had been underestimated, as well as the human resources element involving regular training. Projects like aRDi and ASPI were very much based on what the commercial patent database providers had offered to the Secretariat, and it was up to them to decide who the eligible countries were. Moreover, WIPO had good relations with the commercial patent databases and was much closer to them than to the international publishers, and was hoping that things could move much more quickly perhaps, to get the commercial patent databases to offer more and in that way to also reflect on aRDi so that more publications could be brought onboard. In relation to ASPI, it had just been started at the end of September 2010 and had received at least three requests, one rather persistent, and the Secretariat deeply regretted not being able to satisfy them by opening the system. It further stressed the need to formalize the institutional user license. It was slightly different from the aRDi because instead of the publishers, the Secretariat had to deal with commercial patent databases, so there were slight differences, and it was necessary to ensure agreement among all six commercial patent databases provided. The Secretariat said that the most important difference, also with ASPI as compared to aRDi, was that in ASPI it would just be an initial filter agreement. For ASPI in any case, all users would have to sign the terms and conditions of the commercial patent databases. However, there was still a bit of a hold-up, and the Secretariat had just received feedback from one of the commercial patent database providers. It hoped to pass their comments on to the Office of Legal Counsel so as to get feedback very soon, and to give access or ensure that the commercial database providers were given answers in the next week or so. The Secretariat added that in relation to the number of aRDi users, much more promotion seemed to be needed, with regard to access to scientific and technical journals, particularly for LDCs, where they could be accessed free of charge. It said that the human capacities needed and the human resources efforts in particular would be for someone to be actively involved in such promotion. It went on to cite an example from Mozambique, where there were 38 universities out of which none had heard of aRDi, even though the program had been running for one year. In theory, all of those universities could access aRDi free of charge, whereas subscribing to those databases would cost the Secretariat close to half a million dollars. The Secretariat therefore, stated that more efforts were really needed to promote both aRDi and ASPI. It explained that the TISCs should offer basic services, that is, how users could access technology. It was really not as simple as sitting down at the computer and Googling a few words in relation to patent databases, but that one should know which database to search. If one wished to search full text U.S. documents, then one would not go to WIPO’s Patentscope or the European Patent Offices, rather, the USPTO was the place to start. Knowing which database to search was the starting point; subsequently, it was necessary to know how that search should be done, provided the user knew about search strategies using key words, using classification and the IPC, which meant that all of those steps had to be taught. It was very important for the Secretariat to start off with that and that was very much dependent on the needs and the resources available at any center of any country. The network would decide what else could be offered, and what else was needed. Subsequently, the Secretariat would provide that training, using professional staff from different departments in WIPO, as well as external experts giving support in order to ensure completion of the necessary training. The Secretariat reported that the initial seminars were two and a half to three days long, and that five international experts including WIPO experts had run a theoretical session, followed by a practical session on, for example, searching Patentscope and the USPTO databases. Having both theoretical and practical sessions had proved to be very important, but that was just the tip of the iceberg as two or three days were not enough, a factor which underscored the importance of having regular training as well. The Secretariat then explained that the needs analysis could be found in the study paper, which in turn could be found on the CDIP/3 Web pages alongside all other details of the study paper, including the needs analysis. Upon request, the Secretariat confirmed that examples of the SLAs were available and that it was a very standard document. There were also Web pages for TISCs, but if users went to Patentscope and followed the link for patents in the left-hand column, there was a link for projects where TISCs could also be found. The Secretariat concluded by stating that four people were working on that project and that the project budget permitted the creation of 12 TISCs by the third year of implementation. However, demand was more than double of what had been expected. That implied that some internal redeployment was needed in terms of human resources in order to cope with the demand, bearing in mind that the project in question was not going to be completed since it was an ongoing process. To answer the question of Panama, the Secretariat said it was creating a coordinating TISC within the IP offices but the ultimate goal was that the TISCs would be created where the users of the information were for example in universities, R&D institutions, industry associations, etc. It noted, however, that TISCs set up in the IP office had the main role of coordinating the national network being established in a certain country, and of partnering therewith in order to establish plans and training programs as well as evaluating the services provided by them. As regards the last question concerning the kind of other services to be provided by WIPO in relation to search and examination included in the project document, the Secretariat said that WIPO was providing a service called International Cooperation for Search and Examination of Inventions (ICSEI), which was being repackaged and would henceforth be called International Cooperation for Examination (ICE). The Secretariat was in the process of establishing the platform and defining the products and the services that would be mainly offered under the new repackaged ICE program and platform, and it would mainly be helping offices from developing countries in order to provide search and examination of inventions, on how to use the result or the work done by other offices in the examination process in order to avoid duplication of efforts and reduce the operating costs of the IP office.
