 Mae'r rôl yn rhoi gweithio ar y 3-4 systemaeth global ym mwynhau ym Mwneud. Mae ym Mwneud gyda'r panon, mae'r perffwysig, mae'r ddweud, mae'r ddweud a'r ddweud, ac mae'r ffordd yn ei ddysgu ei ddechrau wedi'i gwneud. Mae'r ddweud wedi cael ei ddweud yn 96% o rôl ym mwynhau. So mae'r bwysig o'r holl ddweud. mae'r unig yn ystod yn 4% i'w ddweud. Y 96% o'r dweud y rhaid o'r ffordd yn ymweld yma yw'r ysbytydd yw'r cyflwydd. Mae nhw'n ddweud yn ei gweithio ffryd o'r ddifrif o'r cyffredinol i ffyrddig. Mae'r ddegwysig ffydellol ac mae'n cyfnod am y ddegwysig. Mae'r ddegwysig ffydellol i'r ddegwysig yw'r ddegwysig, yw ar gyflwylliannau. One of them is the membership of the systems. So in the case of the patent system it's the most complete, it's nearly 150 countries, 148. In the case of the trademark system Madrid it's around about 113 countries so it's less complete and the least mature is the Hague system for designs which is around about 50 countries. For arbitration and mediation it's open to the whole world. What are these systems telling us? Well very briefly and then you can go into the details in your questions if you like. In Safari's patents are concerned, the patent cooperation treaty, growth last year at a slightly lower rate, 1.7%. It's the sixth consecutive year of growth after the global financial crisis. Around about 220,000 international patent applications overall, exactly 218 so I'll use round figures. And the major story I suppose continues to be this continuing trend of growth from Asia. In particular in order of size Japan, China and the Republic of Korea. So Asia accounted for 43% of all international patent applications filed in 2015. So it's quite an extraordinary figure really and a growth that we have seen. 43, 43, yeah. So it's extraordinary, so if you're looking at where new technology is produced as measured by the patent indicator and it's one of the best we have, 43% of it is coming out of Asia. And in terms of the top filers, well again three of the first four come from Asia. So the top filers in order are Huawei technologies from China, Qualcomm from the United States of America, Samsung Electronics from Korea followed by Mitsubishi Electric in Japan. I'm not going to go into many more details because I'll leave it to you to ask questions but we're very happy to give you further details about all of this including for example university filings which are an interesting feature of this. In terms of trademarks then let me turn to the Madrid system. A slightly higher rate of growth, 2.9% in 2015. We're coming on to 50,000 international trademarks per year. These are using round figures, the exact figure was 49,000. 49,000. 49,000, yes. I mentioned at the outset it depends on the geographical spread. It also depends on when countries have joined the system. In the case of Madrid we know that the Asian countries have joined rather more recently this system. So it still remains a system where European countries together with the United States are the top users. I wouldn't want to extrapolate too much in terms of conclusions that one can draw from that because of the relatively recent use by Asian countries but if you think of areas where branding is important fashion, design and so forth of course European companies as well as American companies are very strong in these areas. So the top filing country is United States followed by Germany and France. Of the Asian countries China and Japan ranked 7 and 8 respectively. Of the top filing companies the top one is Novartis followed by Lidl followed by L'Oreal followed by Philips Electronics. So a good result for this I think and happy to go into further details. On the design system well this is the most recent of what's in chronologically not but it's a revision to make it a global system. It's the most recent and we're now starting to see it take off. Largerly it's consequence of the accession by the Republic of Korea, Japan and the United States of America in the course of the last two years. So the growth rate that we saw in applications here was about 40%. So this will be coming in increasingly interesting indicator of design activity around the world because we expect more big economies to be joining this system in the coming year or two. The performance of Korea is very interesting because it joined the system only 18 months ago and now Samsung Electronics has a displaced swatch as the top filer of international design applications. It filed 1132 compared to swatches 511. The top filing countries I think I gave you or I may not have are Germany followed by Switzerland and France. But we'll see an evolution of that in the coming years with respect to in particular Japan, the Republic of Korea and the United States of America. For our arbitration centre then if I move on to that we can do it later. Okay, fine. So on the first it's true that there's a relative stability in the top filers. Apart from this big historical trend of seeing the ascension of first in time Japan followed by China and the Republic of Korea. And what are we measuring here? We're measuring the output really of technological capacity. So it does reflect the differences in technological capacity around the world. But we are aware of that, we know that. Is that changing the levels, the asymmetries, if you like, that exist with respect to technological capacity? And I think it's changing but it's a slow process because to innovate of course you require a whole infrastructure or ecosystem which is very broad ranging. And it ranges from everything from the education system through to business sophistication and your capacity to be able to support innovative activity with appropriate intermediaries and capital markets, for example. Talking about in terms of technological capacity a huge ecosystem covering really the whole of the economy. So it's not surprising that there are no sharp movements in this area apart perhaps I would say from China where there has been a dramatic change in a relatively short period of time. Whether the differences are getting greater or not is I think a very major question that I would prefer not to hazard an answer on. Because I think that's a really crucial question for the world, crucial question of political economy. And I think you would need to measure that extremely carefully before you made a guess at whether the differences are getting greater or not. All we know, what we do know though, is that technology and knowledge more generally form an increasingly important component of wealth generation in the economy. And the speed at which technology is developing is accelerating. So that makes the catch up task even more difficult. On the second question I think that the I don't think the design law treaty, the proposed design law treaty will have much of an influence on filing activity in the Hague system. What the proposed design law treaty will do is make it easier for designers to obtain protection around the world for designs because they will not have to contend with such a perplexing complexity of procedural requirements in making an application. For China? No, for the Asian. For Asia? Well because I think it's a reflection of two things. First of all the economic dynamism of the Asian countries and in particular the three that I cited. And secondly the strategic focus of economic policy on innovation in those countries. Question on the table on the ranking exists early on this time? Yes, we can give it to you. We can give it that, yes. Because in the table you gave us there's no ranking for the US products. One, two, three, four. We can get that. We can get that to you. It's across the bottom. It's up on the table. Yes, sure. But we can get it easily. We can get it easily. The whole list. You can reproduce the infographic also electronically. We can get you any format you want with pleasure. I have a question about the city application by companies. I'm not sure if I'm correct but look at the Panasonic. It seems to me that two years ago they were given first last year, second and now 16th. I just missed the last page of what you said. There is an increase compared to Panasonic. I know it's an absolute increase but the decline from the second one last year to 16th is impressive. I can get the simple answer to that Panasonic but it also applies to Microsoft. What happened last year was they have changed their name. If you look at the name of this year, it's Panasonic Intellectual Property Management, where last year or the year before that it was Panasonic Corporation. So there has been a change in the name. At the moment we are just reporting what the actual name is registered in the application. There is also some application coming from Panasonic Corporation. But our guess is in the future. Everything will be combined into Panasonic Intellectual Property Management. So it's a matter of changing the name actually. It's a transition. Some application from the corporation are included in this one? It's not included in this one. This one is only Panasonic Intellectual Property Management. We have a small number of applications filed under the name of Panasonic Corporation. But at the moment we just don't know the legal status of changing the name. It's just a change of name but there's something else taking place in the company structure. That's what we think they're doing. That's what we think they're doing. Question on the top. One's technology and the other's brands. So Madrid is brands. And Patence is technology. PCT is technology. So you would expect a difference. Fashion companies are not going to be finding designs and branding. But they're not going to be much in the technology area. A quick question in the next specific country. Which is India. If you can only last two years actually. So it's difficult to use some fancies in terms of the stagnation in India's type of PCT application. So you have also cited factors that hold up technological growth. Namely lack of infrastructure, ecosystem, educational, sound education and business institutions. Are these all the factors holding up in India? What in your view are they holding up in India's stagnation in India? I wouldn't say the stagnation first of all. Let me give you some figures. So from 2010 to 2015 the average growth rate of international patent applications from India was 2.2%. So that compares favourably with most European countries over the same period. Which was an economically turbulent period. A more difficult period let's say. So I wouldn't say stagnation at all. However it's not the growth rates of China. So how do you explain that? I'm an expert on India in particular. But I think what we are seeing is investment in innovation policy in India at the moment. And that generally is a medium to long term policy. Or a policy that produces results in the medium to long term. It's not a policy that produces overnight. It's a policy that's not going to start investing in research and development. And expect to see patent applications skyrocket the very next year. It's a process. So I would say that the jury is still out. And that we should watch further on this. Masai, do you want to? No, I just want to follow up on what the director General said. One of the things we have to look at the long term trend. We have to be careful when it comes to China or other countries. For example, if you look at the R&D investment, China has invested heavily over the last 15 to 20 years. And at the moment it's the second largest country in terms of R&D expenditure after US. Where India is lagging behind. So we have to look at the investment in innovative activity over a long period of time. Use the word dramatic several times in your introductory comments about China. In the case of PCT you also said about Korea and I think designs. So I find it a bit puzzling answer that given the kind of time series stagnation that you see, I mean forget about percentage growth, see it in absolute terms as you are seeing in China. Are you trying to sort of not come clean on what exactly is happening in terms of stagnation in India? No, I would say that the use of dramatic with respect to China's filings of international partner applications or careers filing of international design applications are exceptions. They're exceptions. We don't see that elsewhere. These are extraordinary developments. Now that doesn't mean that everyone else is in the dunce category. It means you've got two exceptional performers there. And all the more exceptional when we know that innovation policy is a very complex matter which doesn't produce immediate overnight results. So I wouldn't put in my mouth the words that India is performing badly. I'm not saying that. And I don't think it is the converse of the exceptional performance of two countries. But you also said that investments in innovation in India are lagging far behind. Masaid said that investment in research and development, yes. Yes, well there's no doubt about that. I mean that's a fact. I think that investment in research and development is a very important element in innovation capacity but it's not the only factor. Well, I'd say everything from the strength of your education system because we're talking about the generation of new knowledge and of course the transmission of existing knowledge is an essential basis to the generation of new knowledge. So your educational system you can start with. The government policy framework which creates incentives for behaviour which is behaviour in this instance investment in innovation. General awareness of the importance of innovation as a competitive factor, as a means of gaining competitive advantage. The nature of your economy, what sort of things you're doing. India has a strong service sector for example. It has a very important creative industries sector with body wood and music and so on. And these are not reflected in technology, technological activities. So the extent to which you have risk capital, venture capital, the extent to which you have a range of intermediaries who are assisting. I think we measure in the global innovation index for example about 64 inputs. So it covers, that's the problem in a certain sense, it covers everything. If there was a simple way of saying okay we're going to be an innovation nation then we'd see more performance. I'm suggesting there are a lot of non-tangible factors basically say anti-deluvium beliefs or anachronistic systems that are holding up. You're suggesting that, I didn't say that. I don't think so, I think, look India is a country what, 1.3 billion people? Less than that. 1.2 billion people. Vast, differential levels of development within the country. Within the country. Pressing priorities across the country in terms of infrastructure and poverty alleviation, everything. So it's also a large democracy and I don't think you can decree, you know better than I, the change in India, it's a process. It's just for my understanding when the world is in the Madrid system, if you develop a new drug you don't get it. Look, if I may answer it this way. I think that enterprises now seek to protect their competitive advantage in whatever way they can. So if you are marketing a new drug, naturally if it's new you will be seeking patent protection and that will give you the protection of the basic technology. But you will also try to brand it so that consumers think, whatever it might be, headache aspirin and that's the function of the brand. The brand creates that reputation and image in the marketplace. So you would do that as well. You might also, although it's pretty rare on drugs, but you might also in other sectors be looking at the design of the thing that you've got. So if we take a different example, if we take that example, you have patents in it for concerning the functionality, you have design in it concerning the look of it and you have a brand that we all know. So they seek to protect their competitive advantage in as many ways as possible. We can find it out. We can find it out. What you have in the annex is the top 50, but we have lists beyond that and Novartis does appear in the list of top PCT applicants. So there's a lot of companies you'll see there, not only in the PCT, but also in trademark, Madrid also in the industrial zone. For example, Samsung is at the top of the industrial zone, but also they appear in the PCT. So you have Philip Electronics is another one where they're covering all three aspects of the IP. Please. I wonder if you can explain to me these figures related to the international applications, every number of sub-Saharan African countries, for instance, that we have, there's no applications by American, but it has given directions to the government to try more and more. You've got the same sort of thing for the suit too. Is it widely available here? Absolutely. Just explain what does... Sure. Sure, thank you. It's a very interesting question because it also applies to top countries too. So the application is the generation of new brands in that country. So the extent to which that country enterprises are developing new brands. Designation is where new brand owners, wherever they are, seek to protect their own brand, their new brands. So it's an indicator of the markets that are of interest to other countries. So in the examples you've given, we don't see any new brands in the new international brands emerging from them, but we see international brands coming from other markets seeking protection there because they're going to be selling their products there.