 Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for coming. This year as you may have noticed, we are releasing the statistics, the figures for our services all at once, last year and the year before we did the patent cooperation treaty on its own and then we did the trademarks. So this year we're doing all at once and I'll hand over the floor to the Director-General to basically walk you through the year in review for 2012 for each one of the services and then we'll be happy to take your questions. Thank you very much, Samar. Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon and thank you very much for coming this afternoon. Look, a preliminary word perhaps. There are three systems on which we're reporting. The patent cooperation treaty which deals with international patent applications, the Madrid agreement or Madrid system which deals with trademarks and the Hague system which deals with industrial designs. They have a different number of participants, each of them. So the most broad geographically is the PCT which has 146 members. The next most broad is the Madrid system with 89 members and the Hague is the least mature of the systems in terms of its geographical size. I mention that because therefore the PCT gives a very accurate picture of what is going on in terms of patenting activity worldwide. The Madrid also gives a considerably accurate picture but it is not as complete as the picture that you would get with if you had 146 members and the Hague gives the least complete picture of industrial design activity worldwide. One other thing about those systems then is that both the Madrid system and the Hague system while being at this stage less broad and less mature geographically are in the process of expansion. So for the Madrid system last year, Colombia, Mexico, the Philippines and New Zealand all joined the system and we're expecting India to join it next month. So Madrid is in the process of really growing and becoming a truly international system. As far as the Hague system is concerned, we're hopeful that China and the US will join by the end of the year and that Japan will follow next year and the Republic of Korea if not next year the year after. So that also is in the process of expansion and we will be able to give you a better picture for trademarks and for designs of worldwide activity. Now coming back to the results of these three systems with those qualifications last year it was a very good year for the systems, a very good year. So this is once again telling a story of actually quite robust growth in the systems despite the weak international economic climate. And that is probably, I would say, and Karsten Fink, expert and chief economist can also comment after I have spoken, but that is probably due to, we believe, at least two factors. One is the importance of building strong intangible asset portfolios even in times of crisis because you need it for the recovery. And secondly, the continued expansion of these systems, the use of these systems in particular Northeast Asia. So while demand may have been relatively flat in Europe, it has been quite robust in Northeast Asia. Now what were the actual figures for the robustness? 6.6% increase in international patent applications to 194,400. I think you have the figure already. 4.1% increase in international trademark applications and 3.5% increase in the number of designs. And I say designs rather than applications because you can file more than one design in the same application. So it's just a way of measuring it. And then some comments on those general figures. First of all, China, Japan and the US accounted for 3 quarters of the 6.6% growth in the PCT, those three countries. The US remains the largest file of international patent applications with 51,000, I can give you the exact number if you like, 51,207. Sorry, you've got it on your sheet if you have that. Followed by Japan, Germany and China. Interestingly, China was within 250 of taking over Germany. So it didn't quite do it, which some of us had thought it might happen. But Germany remains in third position, China just behind Germany. And let me say that overall the trend that we've been talking about now on a yearly basis, on an annual basis of the growth from North-East Asia, let me just give you the figure. In 2008, China, Japan and the Republic of Korea accounted for 26.2% of international patent applications. 2012, that was 38.1%. So it's really quite remarkable, you know, this continued growth. And similarly, as that has increased, Germany and the US, for example, over the same period went from 43.2% of all international patent applications to 36%. So, you know, one down the other end. What else shall I tell you about the two other things if I may tell you about the international patent applications? The largest filer was ZTE, or ZTE if you're American, with 3,906 international patent applications. So China first, ZTE first, second Panasonic, third Sharp, and fourth Huawei. So the top four PCT applicants, the top four filers of international patent applications are from China and Japan. And perhaps a word on the middle income countries, just to say that looking at those, after China, which is right out there with 18,000 applications, you then get India with 1,200, Russian Federation with 950, Brazil with 580, Turkey with 450, and South Africa with 300. So there's a big distance between in numbers there. And Russia? 850, I think I said. 950, 956. Exactly, 956 Russia. Oh, Brazil last year. 956? Did you get it? It's in the table. Okay, a word about trademarks then. So with the qualifications that I made, it's 4.1% growth. That generally is a pretty good indicator of economic activity starting to pick up, because trademarks are usually new products or new enterprises, new product services or enterprises. In Japan, the UK and the US account for 80% of that 4.1% growth. We've got a slightly different geography of trademarks to the geography of technology and patents, and that's due to the system really. The fact that it's been traditionally a European system, the US was relatively recently coming into it and so on, but the biggest failure is Germany, followed by the US and France. The US is increasing its use of the system, interestingly. And amongst the fastest growers last year were Japan, with increasing by 33%. Again, that's increasing its use of the system. I'd say the UK 22% and Turkey 22%. The biggest applicant was Novartis of Switzerland, and I suppose the only other thing I would say is that the country that was what we call technically the most designated, that means the country in which people, filing applications that wanted protection the most, was China, which was designated 20,000 times. Next is the European Union, 16,000, 17,000 times. Next Russia, Russian Federation, 16,000, and the US, 16,000. So it's quite interesting, you know, the magnetism of the Chinese market. And then a quick word on industrial designs and the Hague system. So some growth, Germany is the largest user of the system, followed by Switzerland and France, and the biggest individual user is Swatch, Swatch Group, which overtook Procter & Gamble, the biggest user of the system last year. And I would say the only other comment I would make to you is that Philips is the only company in the top 10 of each system, PCT, trademarks and designs. Okay, Karsten, perhaps if I may hand over to Karsten, say a few words, if you want. I think you've summarised it well, then at this point I wouldn't have anything to add. Okay, so. Sure. Your question, please. Thank you. I don't know what about Brazil, and the Madrid, and the West, and the respect from the Brazilian government because I think we have a lot of respect and respect here. Yeah, well, we are hopeful that the dossier is moving in Brazil. We're hopeful that Colombia and Mexico's entry is going to provide an encouragement, and certainly India's entry will provide further encouragement to Brazil. So it makes less and less sense for Brazil to be outside the system. And so we are rather optimistic that if it's not this year, it'll be next year. Dan. Yes. I just wanted, perhaps if you could clarify something for me, you did say that China and the U.S. counted from three quarters under 6.6% for open patents applications. If you take the share, according to the chart here, now it comes under 60%. I just want to make sure that you say that these three account for three quarters of the growth. Three quarters of the growth, yes. Okay. Likewise, in terms of the trade market, you did say it was Japan, Germany, and the U.S. 80%. Japan, no. It was Japan, UK, and U.S. 80%. Yep. Can I also ask as well, the growth rate, you said it was, you said it was a good year. Rebust. Rebust. Yeah. But it was less robust than the previous year. Is there any particular reason for this kind of drawing conclusions from that? I would say, maybe Carlson can follow, that of course the total volume of applications is bigger each year. So it's a percentage increase we're giving, not an absolute increase. And we're now up to 194,000 international applications. We would expect that in the course of 2013, we would pass 200,000. But, you know, these high growth rates of 6.6%, that's a very high growth rate when you compare it to national growth rates. National growth rates with the exception of exceptions like China, you know, national growth rates are usually around between 2% and 5% in good years. So 6.6% still very strong. And that strength is coming in particular from last year, from Japan, which is interesting. There's more, we believe, a change in patenting behaviour, internationalising more of their applications. And it's coming from China, you know, up, Japan up 12%, China up 13%, China up 13%, as the fourth largest. So those both have large volumes of applications and they're increasing by double digit figures. Well, and if I can add to that, I think what one also has to take into account that when the economic crisis hit in 2009, this was the one year, the one single year in the history of the PCT system where the system saw a drop of filings of 4.5%. And since then, you have seen a rebound. And I think the experience in 2010 and 2011, you know, one should probably, you know, see as a post-crisis rebound and I think it was quite evident that especially the high growth rate of more than 10% that we saw in 2011 would not be sustainable. I think it's also important to realise that if you look at the growth rate of China, that growth rate in 2012 is lower than the growth rate in 2010 and 2011, but that is a natural phenomenon and when China started to really see large increases in 2009, this was from a relatively low base and since growth rates always measure relative increases, I think it's quite natural that, you know, once you have a larger base, you know, you still see strong absolute increases but the growth rate in terms of, you know, the percentage increase that we see that is coming down somewhat. Good question. On Canada, I see that their growth rate is going down 6.7% on last year, is there any reason for that in particular? No, we don't know. What happened in the preceding three years, if I'm not mistaken, is that Canada went up quite significantly but why it went down 6% in one year, I'm not sure. Listen, and you would see this for many countries, they are year-to-year fluctuations that we don't have an obvious explanation for. I'm sure there is an explanation in the case of Canada but it is quite natural for these filings to fluctuate from one year to another. It's obviously different if you look at these fast-growing countries like China, also the Republic of Korea, we've seen strong growth where that persists but I think these are probably more the exception to the rule in the system. I'm not familiar with the history of this, I just wonder whether it's normal not to really see any oil companies or gas companies in there or lots of electronics companies, computer companies as well. Has that changed? You know, mining technology and extraction technology is an important field but it's not as prolific as electronics technology, for example, so that's the first thing I'd say. Second thing is that in that area you also get quite a significant number of process inventions, processes opposed to product inventions and when you get the process inventions you get a higher usage of trade secrecy rather than the patent system because they can continue to work it without anyone knowing what it's about because the process inventions. I'd say those are probably two explanations. If I could add to that, if you look at the breakdown of PCT filings in 2012 by field of technology and I believe this is both in the press release as well as in these one-page charts that we've provided you with, you would see that the two fields that have seen the fastest growth in 2012 are electrical, machinery and digital communications. These are fields of technologies that broadly relate to information and communication technologies and I think that on the one hand reflects that this is the sort of broad field of technology that has seen tremendous technological opportunities where a lot of innovation is happening but also these are industries that are extremely competitive and where it has become really important to have a portfolio of patents for you to be competitive in the marketplace and this is what is born out in our data. And I suppose one other thing that might be if you analyse this just to guess. I'm sure there's a patent on that song. You might have a classification question too. So satellite imaging for extractive industries and the use of satellites or IT for exploration or prospecting may not be classified as, you know, under the extractive industries, might be classified under IT. You're attracting a lot of noise. The patents and other applications can be filed by universities that they pay and reflect the same subject areas as the one that's been filed by companies. I look at a guess, and it's a guess because, you know, I think you'll find that life sciences figure very prominently in the university's patenting. And Gaston, any others? Well, and I think, you know, that is sort of with the nature of the technological field. Life sciences are, you know, much closer to science than, you know, the field of telecommunications. So you have a lot more inventions emerging out of the academic system. I think that has to do with the nature of inventions in these fields. So certainly I can't give you the specific figures. We would be happy to look them up. But it's certainly the life sciences that account for most of the patent filings in, you know, university patent filings. Any more questions? Yes. Sorry, we looked at the reality. You mentioned the United States is not part of the paid convention yet they were fit. Yeah, because, you know, how do you determine the nationality of a company, basically? And for tax treaties and for our treaties, you know, your right to file is either citizenship as an individual or effective establishment, I think is the terminology we use for the Hague. It's effective commercial establishment, isn't it? I think it's real and effective industrial commercial establishment. So if they have a subsidiary or, you know, a major operation in one country, that will give them entitlement to use the system if that country is a party. So through subsidiaries, we have to do this. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Thanks for coming, yeah. 28th of March for another one.