 So, good afternoon, and I would like to welcome everyone to this special edition of our WIPO Economic Seminar series. It is a special edition because we are presenting today some of the results of our first-phase CDIP project on IP and socioeconomic development. We do have a number of external speakers, but it is also a bit of a self-serving seminar in the sense that we present the result of some of our own research. In a sense, this seminar summarizes research that was initiated more than four years ago, so indeed it has been a long road to get here, has also been an exciting road. I think we've learned a lot since we started with this. We also have benefited tremendously from partnerships throughout the world with some of the governments. We've worked with the researchers, and I think also the purpose of the seminars. Of course, we don't have the means to bring everyone to Geneva, but at least some of our partners. I won't say a lot at the outset. I'm going to be the timekeeper for today's seminar, which is going to be quite important because we have a loaded program, as you can see from the agenda. What I would like to do, however, is to introduce some of my colleagues here at WIPO, but also the external speakers, who have been involved in this research project on IP and socioeconomic development. So I particularly want to mention Julio Ruffo, who's a senior economist in the economics and statistics division. In fact, he was originally hired for this project, and he found it so interesting that he decided to stay on. I also would like to mention my colleague, Sascha Wunsch-Winzent, who's sitting there in the back, who has been involved in two of the studies. My colleague's intern, Hamdan Libramento, who is sitting in the first row here, who was involved in the project in Thailand. My colleague, Hao Zhu, who was involved in the project in China. I also especially want to mention my colleagues, Samir Figueredo and Katarina Vales-Games, who has provided tremendous administrative support throughout the whole project. So there were a lot of workshops, there were a lot of contracts that were issued as part of that. And I think without Samir and Katarina, we would not have been able to do all of this. Now, as I mentioned, we worked with governments in six countries, and also we worked with local researchers, we worked with international researchers. And I think that was a really enriching experience. And I think on behalf of the many people who are here, I'm at least able to welcome some of them. Let me start on my left is Graziella Succolotto, who is a researcher at IPEA at the Institute of Applied Economics in Brazil. And she's going to present some of the work that we've done in Brazil. I should better say that she has done in Brazil. To my right is Katarina Olivos from the National Institute for Industrial Property in Chile. And she's going to take the perspective of a policymaker who was involved in the research, but also was involved in using the research. And from China, we have Professor Huiju, and I, of course, ask for your forgiveness if I mispronounce your name, who's from the Research Center of the State Intellectual Property Office of the People's Republic of China. You know, we had a very interesting collaboration chip with Saipo as part of this country study project. And in the end, I will give the floor to Pierre Monin, who was one of the evaluators of the project, and who, along with Daniel Keller, presented the report's evaluation report at today's CDIP meeting. Now, that should be it for the introduction and the outset. I'm going to ask Julio Raffel to simply provide an overview of the project. We don't have the time here to do full justice to all of the studies that we've done, so he's not going to go study by study, but instead he's going to try to give you some of the, you know, thematic avenues that we explored as part of this project. So Julio. Thank you, Karsten, and thank you to all our colleagues and our partners during this very interesting and long 42 months. So we started this project in July 2010, was approved in April 2010, but we started in July 2010. And we, as part of the developer agenda recommendation, we tried to address two of those recommendations, namely 35 and 37, which, if you allow me the shortcut, basically wants to provide evidence and economic studies on socioeconomic development. This is how we frame the project, and I should have done this to give you a precise background. So in concrete, this meant conducting six country studies. We're going to have presentations for three of them today, and I will give an overview that will make not full justice, as Karsten was saying, to the other three. And we concluded the project in December 2013. So the main motivation of the project was, first of all, try to provide some answers about MP and socioeconomic development, but with the approach knowing beforehand that we cannot think that there's only one solution, and we try to be very open minded in our approach. They're going to see in the following slide. In particular, we also wanted to provide some support to policy makers, giving them tools they're going to be able to be used for the design and implementation of those policies. This, of course, has shown us early on in this project that we should invest a lot in data, because there is a lot of discussions on IP and economics, but often that discussion is not supported by data. So we tried, and sometimes this means putting the card before the horse, but we tried to provide as much data as possible, and I hope we're going to make a convincing argument that we produce way more data than actually we could analyze. So as I was mentioning, the project approach, we can divide it namely into main avenues. The institutional, we try to be very, very broad, and we started always by reaching the main stakeholders of each of the country studies that were requested by each member state. Actually, we have to decline some of the requests, because at a certain point we were too many requests. In that approach, we reached not only government agencies that were related or interested in specific questions relating IP and economics or socioeconomic development more specifically, but also we tried to engage private sector, academia as much as we could, and I think we were quite successful. Typically, I would say that basically in all six countries, we started with a small workshop where we invited countries, governments and stakeholders to participate and bring their questions, but also to give us useful feedback about the data, and with that feedback and knowing exactly what data was available and what were the interesting questions for them, we tried to narrow down to a couple of specific questions that were also useful for the broader membership of WIPO, because we knew from the beginning that we only were going to conduct six studies, so we cannot only address the questions that were specific for those countries. In terms of the other aspect of the approach, the methodological one, we, as I was mentioning before, we invested a lot of data, so basically, we relied as much as we could in what we call unit record data or micro databases, namely IP data, the patents, the trademarks, register or applications, but also some economic data at the level of firms or economic agents and for instance, researchers if you had the possibility of access. This implied a lot of efforts of data matching. I'm not going to go through them, but I invite you to look each of the studies. I would say that, namely, most of them, if not all of them, have a thick annexes where we try to explain very carefully what we did in terms of data and of course the limitations that this implies. In those cases that we couldn't rely on micro data, we relied of course in some more aggregate available data, but then we compliment that what we call case studies, which means doing extensive interviews with stakeholders trying to get us a much complete answer to the question, knowing that of course relying on anecdotal evidence is always a limitation. So this is a summary of the outputs that we did and I'm not going to make justice in what remains of my presentation to them, but I invite you to go and look at them in detail. Most of them, basically all of them, have been presented in the CDAP. Some of them are going to be discussed during this CDAP because they have been submitted to the last CDAP, but they couldn't be discussed or because they have been submitted to this CDAP and I invite you to look at them in detail. I'm going to now give a very short summary on some topics of in a more cross-sectional way if you allow me of these studies. Again, I'm not making justice, hopefully, Graciela and Houshe and Catalina will make more justice to the specific studies and I invite you to go see them in further detail. So one main avenue that we have explored is how much can we map IPUs by using these micro data sources? Basically, we have two strategies and a complemented third one. The one, for instance, that Graciela would present some results on this is using existing micro data, namely innovation surveys and industrial surveys, to characterize how many of the population, for instance, in this case, population of firms or industrial firms, use or do not use a certain IP. There is some strength of doing that approach, but also some limitations. We hope that those limitations can be compensated by actually a very different approach, which is create an IP statistical database from the unit record data of IP. And this is what we did, for instance, in Brazil, Chile, China, Thailand, Uruguay, and actually to be fair to China, China did it itself. So there was a huge leap forward for us when we reached China. That data existed already, was constructed, and actually some surveys were conducted which relate to the third pillar I mentioned here, which is expanding this IP statistical databases with economic data. So in the case of China, for example, they have conducted some very interesting surveys of users of the IP system, of applicants of the IP system. So with that, we believe we can create a lot of information to characterize, but also to test and to verify different ideas for policy making. A second result that we had, and also by design from the beginning, is that we found that there is a lot of sectoral specificity, right? And that relates to what we say, that one size does not fit all. So sometimes what a certain sector needs, the other one may need a different requirement. One example is what we did in Uruguay for the forestry chain. Even if that was a case study, we discovered that they have huge cycles of product innovation. So since we discover a new seed that is gonna be and generate a very specific tree for the forestry sector, that tree can only be used in the paper meal or in a wood related sector, only 15 to 20 years afterwards. So of course there are many IPs that cannot be suitable because by the moment you can verify if it is useful or not, you cannot enforce your IP. But this was not only the results. Also by doing the extensive mapping that was mentioned in before, we discovered some very interesting results. For instance, Grasila will mention, I'm making a scoop of what she's gonna mention soon, is that the services sector in the Brazilian industrial surveys show a more intensive use of patents than the low manufacturing sector, which is something we don't expect. Usually service sectors do not use IP much unless trademarks. So that's a very interesting result. Similarly we have seen and that has been pointed by the distinguished delegate of Chile that the mining sector in Chile is the most intensive use of patents from resident patenting. So that was a very interesting result that we were not looking at the beginning for. Similarly we find a result equivalent for the Thai food industry in the use of utility models. And also we have seen that the national companies or pharmaceutical companies in Uruguay they use a lot trademarks. That was not something that we were expecting. They are very intense users of trademarks in Uruguay. And maybe Mrs. Huxue will speak about this, but also we found that the ICT sector is the most foreign oriented of all the sectors in China. That was not something that we were looking specifically, but we found that in our results. Equivalent, we found some results in terms of IP and economic performance and a certain link. As we always mentioned, we have to be very, very careful about establishing a causality of this. But we do find a strong correlation. I believe that Grazilla will present some results on this for Brazil. For instance, we observed that usually users of the IP system perform better in many indicators than non-users. That doesn't mean that they perform better because they use IP. But we do know that if they perform better, they will use IP. So that's an interesting result. This is equivalent for Brazilian exporters and we also find an equivalent result in Thailand for utility models. Last, we also find that the microeconomic behavior in terms of IP, if you allow me the jargon, basically how agents, inventors, entrepreneurs, but also firms, how they react to policy or to particular environments, they do change in terms of their strategy. For instance, in Brazil, we see that firms that have IP, they do collaborate more for achieving innovation. That's an interesting result. Again, causality is to be established there. We are not arguing causality, but we do observe that. Similarly, we saw that the in Chilean companies filing for trademarks in Chile, if they are squatted in their trademarks, they behave substantially how they file trademarks in the future after being squatted. So that's also an interesting result. We have similar results in terms of utility models in Thailand and we also have seen in the case of Uruguay that a policy change in this case on pharmaceuticals patents has shifted completely the kind of patents that the Uruguayan APF has received in terms of technologies, namely more pharmaceuticals than other technologies. So in conclusion, I hope I did a good job in convincing you that we generated a lot of new empirical insights, particularly that we can go very narrow in our analysis, going to the firm level, to the applicant level, to the sectoral level, which often is not possible with aggregate data. We certainly have generated more data than we can analyze, and when we leave that is an outcome or an output, if you prefer, of the project itself, and we're really happy to see that most of our partners have appropriated those results from themselves and they carry their own research, which will only benefit the general discussion. We also know the limitations of what we did, both in terms of data creation, we cannot say that we have covered every single AP form on every country and every sector, nor we can say with the analytical result that we have completed the discussion about APN development, nor established a causality, you have to be very, very humble there. But we see as a positive feedback, and we saw that a little bit in evaluation, that beneficiaries of the country studies were very, very happy and they keep contacting us for future work, so that means that they have strong interest on this, but also will receive a lot of new requests, and we think this is a good sign that at least we're going in the good direction. Thank you, Gersen. Thank you, Julio, for this overview of the project, which was really aimed at giving you a general idea of the overall project. Now, the idea is to focus on two of the studies. I don't think there are any particularly strong reasons aside, I think, from the availability of the authors and their willingness to travel to Geneva while we selected those. One is on Brazil and the other one is China, and I would first ask Brasila to present the work that she has done for Brazil under our project. Thank you, good afternoon, and thank you, Gersen, and Haful for this invitation. I'm very glad to be here, and so here we're going to present the results for the Brazil, and in the case of Brazil, we prepared two reports. So in the first one, it's basically some descriptive statistics about IP in Brazil. It's a more general idea of how IP works in Brazil, and in the second one, we present a more detailed analysis of the relationship between IP and export performance of Brazilian firms as Haful said. Especially in the second case, we were very interested in studying this because the Brazilian government was very interested in understanding this relationship, to understand how IP can impact on export performance and on the competitiveness of the Brazilian firms. So that's why one of the reasons we decided to study this subject. First, the database we used in both studies. First, we used the WIPO database that is available online, which shows some general indicators about IP in Brazil. Basic indicators about invention patterns, utility models, industrial designs, and trademarks. And as Haful said, we also used the PINTAC database. PINTAC is the innovation survey in Brazil. So it includes all the information about R&D, innovative expenditures, cooperation, everything about innovation. We find in this PINTAC survey, it's very similar to the CIS database people using in Europe. And we used three editions of PINTAC, 2003, 2005, and 2008. And we made some analysis, some sectorial, regional, and firm size analysis. We analyzed the innovative expenditures of firms that use IP, the cooperation for innovation, the public incentives for innovation, and we also could characterize the firms by, for example, orange of capital, foreign trade, and employee skills. And we crossed this database, this PINTAC database with the Brazilian export database and could see a big panel of the IP information in Brazil. And as Haful said, we don't have time to present all the results of the report. So once again, I invite you to go to the WIPO website and see the report. But here we're going to present some of the main results. And in the case of the sectorial analysis, for example, we can see the percentage of innovative firms that use IP methods, profitability methods. And we can see some results. For example, as in many other countries, the trademarks is the most relevant type of IP used in Brazil. In all sectors, we analyzed, we can see the results by sector in the report. And we also saw some sectorial difference in the use of IP methods. For example, high-tech industries, they use more patents than the innovative services. And these ones use more patents than low-tech industries. You can see also the results in the report. And we also saw that the design complexity and lead timing, which we consider informal methods of probability, they are not frequently used by Brazilian firms. You can find some of the results in other countries. It's very easy to compare Brazilian results with many other countries. They are very similar. In the case of the regional analysis, in Brazil we have a very strong concentrated productive and innovative structure. And we can see that production is very concentrated and also the IP activities are very concentrated. And if you see the green part of the graph, we can see that more than 6% of IP users are in the southeast of Brazil, especially in the state of São Paulo. Most of them are in the state of São Paulo. And in the last period, this percentage increased. We can see in the graph. By form size, we can see that a growing tendency in all types of IP, in all types of IP, you can see that the case of patents, trademarks, and design, the larger firms, they use more all types of IP methods than the small firms. And this is valid for all types of IP methods. So it's something that we have to pay attention that in the case of small firms, the small firms, they use more trademarks than the other types of IP. For example, in the case of large firms, the difference between the use of patents and trademarks is not so big. But in the case of small firms, this difference is much bigger. So firms start to use IP. And when they start to use the IP, they start to use trademarks. That's something that's very interesting in this graph. We also could characterize the firms crossing the pink-tack information with other databases. And we could see that patent users, they perform better. So in general, the patent users, they are larger if you consider revenue and number of employees. The patent users, they export more. They present higher R&D expenditures. They also cooperate more. And they also use more R&D incentives. We say in Brazil that the best firms are the best. So the firms that use IP, they have all the other good economic characteristics. But something that is very, very important in this slide is that we are talking about correlation. We are not talking about causality. For example, I'm saying that a firm that uses patent is larger. But I'm not saying that this firm is larger because it uses patent. So there's a correlation, it's not a causality relation. It's very important to say that. And in the second report, we analyzed the relationship, as I said, between IP and export performance of Brazilian firms. And we saw that in many countries, we saw a strong relationship between innovation and exports. So innovative firms, they tend to be more intensive in exports. And in Brazil, the data shows the same results. So innovative firms, they present better export performance. And we evaluated the export performance using three variables. The probability to export, which means that higher percentage of innovative firms are exporters. The value exported value. And the firms participation on sectorial exports. And we see that, if you can see this table, in all the case, the innovative firms, they present a better export performance. They export more. So the main question is, as the innovative firms presents a better export performance, maybe these firms presented this better export performance because they use IP methods. So do innovative firms that use appropriate methods as patents, utility models, industrial design, and trademarks, they present a better export performance? That was the main question of this study. And once again, I can present all the results and the methodology. We don't have time for that. But in the report, we explain it in detail. But just a simple table to show the relationship between exports and IP methods. And we can see that in every case, the exporting firms, they use more all types of the probability methods than non-exporting ones. For example, the first number, 17% of exporting firms, they use invention patents, while only 3% of non-exporting firms, they use invention patents. So it's a value for all the other types of IP methods. Again, sorry, I don't have time to present the methodology. But the main result of this test is that we found when control by order of capital, the use of innovation, the innovative expenditures, when control for all the other variables, we found a positive correlation between invention patents and all export performance variables. So we didn't find a very strong, a very robust result for the other variables, for utility models or industrial design, for example. But the most important relationship we found was between invention patents and the export performance. And we also present in the report an analysis of some additional variables. We mainly focused on exports, but we tried to analyze some additional variables, for example, as market share. And once again, we found a positive and strong correlation between these other variables and invention patents. So this is the main type of IP we could correlate with economic variables in Brazil. In the case of footwork studies, our main suggestion is to include our PTO database that we couldn't use in this time. Why? We would like to match our PTO database with Pintech, because Pintech itself has some advantages. For example, Pintech, we can compare the formal methods of appropriation within formal methods. For example, industrial secret, we can compare. But Pintech has some limitations. For example, we don't know the number of patents per firm. We don't have this information. We don't know if the patent is used in Brazil and or abroad. We don't know the time of protection. We don't know if the patent was applied 10 years ago or five years ago. We don't have this information. And the database is too short. Now we have only four editions. So it would be very nice to include the PTO information, the PTO database with Pintech, to improve the results of this study. I think that's it. Thank you. Thank you, Gracela. In the interest of time, I suggest that we leave time at the end for questions and answers. So I suggest we first go through the program. And in the end, I will open the floor to all of you to pose questions. So let me invite next Mrs. Huichu from the research center at Saipo to present the research work that was done in China, in particular, on the patenting strategies of Chinese firms. Which, as Huichu mentioned, was all based on a really interesting and comprehensive patent survey that Saipo now has undertaken for a number of years. So, floor to you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Good afternoon. I'm honored on behalf of our group to share our researches with all of you. And last year, Intellectual Property Development and the Research Center of Saipo conducted a project supported by WIPO. This study on patents roll in Chinese business strategies. And this analytical study was conducted on the basis of the survey of patents in China from 2008 to 2012. Today, I'll introduce the survey of the patents in China briefly, just from the following aspects. Saipo of China mentioned the survey of Chinese patents in 2008. In order to shed light on the patenting behavior of the enterprises, universities, research institutes, and the individual inventors in China. And the survey was designed and conducted by Intellectual Property Development and Research Center with the assistance of the local intellectual property offices. And the survey has been conducted six years until this year. And one of the most important parts of this survey is sampling and sampling frames, sampling method, and sample size. In the past five years, we took the granted patent as the sampling frame. And this year, we make a big change of the sampling frame from the granted patent to the valid patent holders. And the method of the sampling, because the sampling frame is very big and multi-level, so we take the probability proportionate to size sampling as the method of sampling. In the past five years, from 2008 to 2013, we drew about 40,000 patent samples every year, which belongs to about 15,000 patent holders. And the sample coverage rate decreased just because the amount of the authorized patents increased quickly. And it decreased from about 14% in 2008 to 3.5% in last year. And this year, we drew more than 18,000 patent holders with the valid patents as the samples, and which cover about 3% of the total sampling frame. Every year, the investigation recovery rate is above 80%. So we have a very high recovery rate of our survey. And the content of the survey, including two parts, the patent holders and about the patents. About the patent holders, we investigate three aspects of the information. The basic information about the patent holders, such as the firm size types and the R&D import, et cetera. And their patenting motives, why they apply for a patent, and what will influence their patenting behaviors and their patenting propensities. And about their particular patent, we just collected the information about their patent production. How to get a patent, what will you cost? They time, import capital, import and human resources, et cetera. And the most important part is their patent use, how to use your patent transfer licensing, how to make products. And then we also investigate the patent incomes and the benefits from their patent use. The annual survey content would change, just according to some new questions, problems arise on that year. After six continuous years' investigation, we have established a big database, just including about more than 100,000 patent holders information and more than 200,000 patents information. Now that's a very big database. How to use it is important. And in turn, this enables us to analyze the patent behaviors of the enterprise universities and individual inventors as evidence. And also, it provides reliable basis for the government decision making. And we have done some analytical studies, just based on this database, such as this project supported by WIPOL last year. They study on patents role in business strategies. We just used the data of the firm, patenting motives information and the patent use information. And according to our study, we conclude Chinese companies apply for patent, just mainly for their implementation, how to use it to use their patent to protect their products in the market, to occupy, to get more share of the market. Just look at the first. Do you have the laser recombined with? This? Oh, thank you. Oh, welcome. They use the patent to occupy the market in advance. And they product their technologies just to prevent others imitate it. But more and more companies start to explore their strategic purpose motives, such as they take patents as they to cross-licing. And look at this. They take patents as they technology stockpile. And this is to incorporation into standard, all they patent to pose. And in this chart, we just make some comparisons between different types of enterprises, the big size, the medium size, or small size. And according to this study, the large size of the enterprises have more stronger strategic motives of their patenting behavior. And this is the patenting motives comparison from 2009 to 2011. That means the strategic use of the patent become more and more popular. And the patent implementation rate is very high, especially for the firms. The total implementation rate is above 80%. That's the one conclusion that the firms apply for the patent just for implementation protects their products. That's the main conclusions of our study. And in future, we'll go on our survey of patents in China. And we try our best to collect more scientific and accurate and firsthand data of the patents and the patent holders behaviors. And thanks a lot. Thanks all the facilities of the meeting. Thank you for this presentation on China. And I should say that because of time limitations, we're not able to present all the results that you would find in the study. And indeed, the China study is, of course, much richer compared to what professors you could present today. Also, I should say with a survey response rate of more than 80%, I think you make, I guess, researchers from all over the world jealous. Now, let me invite Catalina Olivos from the Public Policy Department at Inapi to take a slightly different perspective. Qatar contributed to some of the studies we've done. But more importantly, she had the role of coordinating the research work with us, with various government departments in Chile with other stakeholders, and also thinking about the question, well, what is it that in this case, the Chilean government would like to get out of the research, and how can this be used in the policymaking process? So along these lines, I would like to invite Qatar to share some observations with us. Thank you, Karsten, for your kind words. First of all, I want to say that I'm not an economist. I'm just a lawyer, so I will do my best. But I want to speak a little bit about why we have chose Chile for this study. Of course, it is a decision of Waipo, but why it was interesting to analyze the changes also in a country like Chile. I think it's important because nowadays, Chile is considered a medium-high economy as from 2013. And this brings about different consequences and analysis that we are undertaking in Chile. Also, it's important to have in mind that the IP is regulated in Chile in a law enacted in 1990, which has pioneering in many aspects within Latin American countries at that time. But this law has to be improved and updated, of course. We believe that at this point, we need a new and more flexible law, which may reduce procedural delays and costs for benefits of the IP users. We understand that we have to incorporate the internet facilities for our users. And that's why we have a draft law in Congress now. Thirdly, it's important to have in mind that we have a new IP framework in Chile. Inabi was created in 2009 and is a relatively new institution. And we changed from having a merely registration system in Chile to have an office with more faculties and especially in the international field in terms of advising the president and also the Ministry of Economy. And of course, it is important to highlight also that we have more faculties in the field of transfer of knowledge. So we are working on having also all the information of patents which has fallen into the public domain available for all the users. After saying that, it's important to know also how was the preparation of the studies. I don't want to get in details about it, but it's important to have in mind that we decide to become part of those way for member states where some research can be conducted in the economic field. And at that time, inabi, we realized in inabi that it was important to have it was needed to have basic information and data as well that impact analysis on issues related to IP for the creation of this new institution inabi. Now we can say that most of this information is available for us because of the work done in the context of this project. So we are really, really grateful to have it. All this work was conducted in the area of industrial property. We have two institutions in charge of intellectual property, one and the other one of industrial property. So our studies are not in the copyright field. The study began with some interviews as you may see in the slides. I think it was a very, very important part of the study. We had interviews with the stakeholders, with the agencies in charge of innovation, with some part of the academia in Chile that also work in the IP field with IP lawyers. So we had a great framework of what was needed to be done in Chile. Without entering into details, it is important to highlight the exhaustive work that we have done in this area after these interviews. We also start to have a look of our database. So after the interviews, we start the process of cleaning our database. I think one of the main problems faced by patents and trademark offices is the management of information they own and they recover from the IP users and passing through its standardization, maintenance, and updating. So after WIPO work, we think we are available to obtain a better understanding and standardization and updating of our data. It is also important to highlight that I will not speak about the data process of cleaning, but you can see more about it in the document CDIP slash 11 in 4. Also in this document, you can see more about the first project that we have in the studies about characterization and description of the Chilean IP system and the utilization of IP in Chile during the period of 1991 and 2010. This is a very important period for us because it was a critical period in Chile because it represents the first 10 years of democracy after the military government, which ruled the country since 1973. The legal reforms on our law are relevant during this period so it was very important for us to have a view of how IP users use their system. Some of the more interesting findings of this first study were regarding the IP system. It was to understand how was the institutional environment working at that time and analyze the weaknesses and the strains of our country in the IP field. Everything analyzed was very consistent with our vision of IP in Chile and help us to reaffirm some of the initiative that we have undertaken at that time. This time, for example, our draft law. We are improving procedures, we are reducing administrative delays and fees as well as giving protection to different types of trademarks, for example, for smell trademarks. We were able now to reaffirm our perception of the low capacity we have to use utility models and industrial design as tool for protection of IP rights and we are working on a strategy for enhance this work in NINAPI. It's also important that we have a characterization of the user of our system and we are working on giving them more tools for working on the APS strategy. After that, this was the first project that we have and then we have the trademark squatting evidence from Chile and the pharmaceutical patents in Chile. I will not get into details also in these two projects but I will say something that is important for us after that. The trademark squatting will be presented in the CDEP on Thursday, so you can also have a view there about the study. Then after the work done jointly with WIPO, we have realized that it is dispensable for us to have access to economic research, to inform our decisions and measures and of course, likewise, our international public policy department today relies on chief economist, as we have said in the plenary before that, in charge of providing supporting and necessary evidence about the measures that we are undertaking in Chile. Especially regarding the work complete with WIPO and the opportunity to have a chief economist in our office exclusively dedicated to carrying economic research related to AP, we have eight to begin with the better base for designing our national strategy of IP. This is the main goal that in AP has for the years to come is to have a new strategy for our country. We identified together with WIPO the areas where the highest number of trademarks and patents application were filled and we analyzed some of their consequences. That's why you can found in the two studies that we have. Also, now after the studies, we are able to observe that there exists almost no link between the system of industrial property and the regulation of contracts of the agencies in charge of the public funds on the innovation field. So we are also working with all these agencies for having a structure about it. This permitted us to access information which is fundamental for a large project that we have initiated in design, established and industrial property policy for the years to come as I said before. But the work did not end there. After this characterization of the system, the two studies conducted were also very important, particularly in the area of trademarks. The proposed model developed under the squatting study seems to us a very interesting study because it allows us first to realize that the work we are doing is in the right direction because the model places in evidence that these illegal behavior exist but in a small percentage in our trademark application. In the area of patents, the pharmaceutical sector is where we have the highest number of application in our country and this is why we are interested in know more about these applicants how we can improve the innovation in our country. As a conclusion, we would certainly like to extend our appreciation for the work completed by WIPO. We believe that this has been a contribution to our activity in the area of public policy of course and will help us to develop better services to our users and have certainty about what we need to do in the IP strategy. We hope that this work may continue to be developed in our country, especially in the field of the mining sector as we mentioned before because it's important for us to understand our applicants in these sectors and also we are sure that we can share this information with other IP offices that will be also very interested in the mining sector like Australia, Brazil, South Africa, etc. So I don't want to burden you with more information but I think it's important to highlight that we can now have more clarity about the measures we must undertake in the public policy field in the IP office. So this is why we are very happy to have these three studies the last one is being reviewing and we hope to present it as soon as possible. Thank you. Thank you Catalina and I think in the case of Chile and I think that also applies to Brazil we were especially happy about the fact that INAPI created a chief economist position and a similar or equivalent position was created in Brazil at the IP office there and that is good because obviously I have a biased perspective but I think as far as sustainability of the work that we initiated especially the data work is concerned I think this is a really positive development and I certainly don't want to claim that this is an outcome of our project but it's certainly a really welcome development and we really look forward to interacting with both Chile and Brazil in the future on all kinds of research initiatives. Now as I mentioned in the first phase of this project came to an end operationally at the end of last year and as a standard practice with all CDIP projects they are independently evaluated and we had the pleasure this morning of listening to the evaluation report that was prepared by Daniel Keller and Pierre Monen and I think first of all the evaluation report itself provided valuable evidence on the impact of the study work that we've done but it also made I think a number of really constructive comments that we will be able to take into account in the envisaged second phase of this project but I think also this seminar is a good opportunity to sort of reflect on what has gone right and what are the kinds of things that maybe did not work out that well in the first phase where we could do better and in this regard we invited Pierre Monen to share some of his thoughts on the project and with us as I mentioned Pierre he's a professor at UNU Merit he's an economist who very much talks the same language that we do he has looked at the overall project and we are very curious to have his views on what he thinks were successful, useful elements of the project and what we could do better in the future. So Pierre. Thank you Gaston. Let me give you a few remarks about the utility of this kind of project and by the way what I'm going to say is also shared I think by Daniel so part of these thoughts are also joined thoughts with Daniel Keller. First of all what I consider what I found the most interesting in this project was the construction of a database and especially I think the two countries where it has been most developed was Brazil and Chile and also a very nice in the appendix of these papers that you referred to a very nice description of what were the problems with these data sets and how some of these problems have been corrected and all the effort that has been done for instance a big problem is the name associated to a given patent that name a company may change names over time there may be spelling mistakes if you compare the name that's reported on the patent with the official name of the company there may be as I said differences over time there may be differences in the name of that same company that is associated to the patent and it is associated to the trademark so all these problems have been tried to be settled as much as possible and given that there exists now a nice database that allows a certain number of questions to be asked like what are the kinds of intellectual property rights that are being used is it more patents or is it more trademarks and what we have often found is that trademarks is the most used method of appropriation now trademarks is quite a different thing from patents patents are used to protect your invention so for a certain period of time you have the monopoly only you can produce that product that has been patented so it's a way to recover the initial investment you have made and it gives you the incentive to invest money in research and development that's the logic of patents and at the same time it also to some extent these diffuses already the knowledge that is contained in the patent and can maybe in this way be a building block for future patents trademarks are quite different trademarks are used to give a certain logo or to give a certain name to a product like Coca-Cola or Siemens and you have this picture of Mercedes-Benz these are trademarks trademarks are mainly used as a strategic purpose as a marketing tool so it's not exactly the same thing and you see that in many countries especially in developing countries trademarks are much more used than patents you try to look for patents in certain countries you find very few patents but you find a lot of trademarks so the first thing is then to be able to have a picture of what are the types of property rights that are being used and you can also look at what are the technologies in which patents or trademarks are mainly used and you can make a relationship between the intensity of use of property rights in certain fields, in certain industries and for instance the export composition of the country is there a link between the composition of exports in terms of industries and the composition of patents in terms of industries and that then allows at least economists to ask the question what is the source of international trade is it comparative advantage or is it advantage in technologies so that's the sort of thing that you can answer once you have the data for that also who are the applicants is it a resident or is it a non-resident what has been found in some of these studies that a lot of patents are also used by non-residents multinational firms is it used by universities individual researchers is it used by researchers in collaboration so joint patents and that tells us something about the way innovation occurs the way research is being done something about the geographical distribution so are certain states more active than other states so Paulo for instance is a state that's much more active than other states and what are the different routes through which patents are being applied is it a direct route directly applied to your own patent office or do you go to the PCT route so these kind of things are quite interesting and that's something that you can do once you have set up this data and that's why it's so important to have this data set the second thing is the relationship between property rights and some other variables Randy mentioned the relationship between property rights and trade but also you can look at the relationship between patents for instance and R&D is there a link between the amount you spend in R&D and the output that you see in terms of patents so called what is called in the literature the knowledge production function or you can compare the output in terms of patents with the outputs in terms of products that are brought on the market so called the share of total sales due to new products that's a variable that is contained in the innovation service like Pitek or CIS or similar service in China so compare different outputs of innovation that gives us a better picture because patents to some extent are used strategically are not just used to protect property rights but are also used as a tool of competition to pre-empt competition or to prevent other people to give less incentives for other people to come and compete with you so there are strategic ways in which patents are used it would be interesting to see to what extent is it strategic to what extent does it really correspond to what in theory we had in mind by devising the patents and then finally you can look at the link between patents and productivity productivity finally is one of the major components of economic growth at least 50% of growth is due to productivity to what extent is productivity explained by research and development but it's not just research as such but also the output of the research and patent is a measure of the output of this research now as Karsten Fink said this morning in the plenary session is that it's difficult to talk about John has to be careful in assigning causality by looking at relationships between patenting and for instance productivity and so on if you have just a cross section because basically a cross section gives you a correlation but you can hardly establish the causality link of causality is it from A to B or from B to A now if you have a data set like the one that has been constructed with this project and you keep that data set updated after a while like you have for instance in China with that patent survey you have so called a panel data you have information on the same firm but over time a certain number of years and then you can then link productivity today with patenting two or three years ago or R&D of three or four years ago and patenting today and then you can already have a link of causality due to the fact that some variables are predetermined with respect to other variables so that's why it's important to keep up this exercise so that would allow us in medium term also to do some series analysis and rigorous analysis of causality so I think the various studies that have been done the nice thing was I think the idea not to have a common framework for all the studies but for every country there was a discussion with the stakeholders of that particular country and the institutions are different if I remember well in Brazil you have a number of institutions that are connected to patents you don't have just one patent office but you have different offices I think which made it a little bit difficult at the beginning to get all these actors together well institutions are different in different countries and that's why maybe the same model shouldn't be applied to all countries and it was a good idea to have a different to ask different questions and to have a different approach for each of these projects and although in general one always thinks okay you have a common model you can apply the model to different data sets and that allows a better comparison but I think in this case it was really a good idea to have a different approach for every country for the case of China I think this survey is quite interesting but what is also interesting is to establish and I think some people are already working on this and maybe Saipo is working on this is to do the link between the different patents and the surveys that you have and the enterprise survey and other surveys that you have that allow you again to link micro data from different sources because that would then give you more of a census kind of information and not just a sample although the sample might be representative and so on but still it's just a sample and unless you follow up the same firms year after year what happens unfortunately very much with the innovation surveys is that precisely the same firms are not followed year after year but every year or every two years you do a different sampling and then it's unlikely that the same firm will appear in every successive wave and if you don't have this then you cannot construct that famous panel data set that allows you to do dynamic analysis and causality analysis so that's why the census might be quite interesting and you could also in parallel to this survey approach also do the census approach I think that would be quite interesting so I think I'll stop there with my remarks Thank you Pierre for these observations let me sort of half open the floor in a sense that you know I'll open the floor to questions from the audience but let me first invite a number of representatives from the beneficiary governments to ask if they want to make statements let me start with Ambassador Francisco Pires from Uruguay if you would like to make an observation Thank you very much Good afternoon distinguished delegates and Guaipo secretariat on behalf of the government of Uruguay I would like to thank Guaipo and the CDIP for the opportunity to be part of this project in the framework of the development nation our government truly appreciates the work carried out by Guaipo under the leadership of Mr. Castan Fink and succeeded by Mr. Julio Raffo so many thanks to them Uruguay recognizes that country studies are important tools to enhance knowledge on the impact of the IP system particularly in developing countries since 2005 the government of Uruguay has prioritized the promotion of policies on science, technology and innovation understanding that there is no development without innovation thus the industrial property office is working to promote the strategic use of IP instruments to support innovation and competitiveness competitive advantages particularly important is the policy vision in this sense in the last decade Uruguay has reshaped its public health system integrating medical care institutions health maintenance organizations and public insurance so in this context the pharmaceutical sector is very relevant patents in Uruguay come in a high proportion more than 80% from the pharmaceutical industry or related in addition the majority are requested by known residents most of which come from countries outside of the region in this regard the Ministry of Industry, Energy and Mining requested the director general Francis Garry to participate in this project the first exploratory mission was conducted in order to discuss the terms of reference of this study gathering information from different sources and actors identify existing quantitative information sources as well as exchange views from interested parties following this mission WIPO prepared a document containing a proposal for a study defining information to use and the technology to be applied this proposal was discussed with WIPO representatives and national authorities had the opportunity to make suggestions and comments and then it was sent to different stockholders to seek their views first this study should determine what the specific changes happened in the sector where the new patent law came into force in the field of patent application part of the major players market and the introduction of new products secondly the study should aim to quantify the impact of patents on the pharmaceutical market conditions the industrial property office had an active and engaged role in this research providing free access that database facilitating further information from different sources studies available of the sector and coordinator interviews and related activities in october 9th took place a national presentation of the results of the project organized by the DNPI that is the national industrial office I would like to emphasize that the national authorities receive the versions of the study in advance and then they provide suggestions and comments to clarify some questions and to contribute supporting the conclusions the use of national data based on IP and innovation produced information that could be useful for future initiatives, research and purposes to explore the relation between an IP system and innovation the methodology applied would be employed in other studies related impact of IP the results of this study provide useful information on IP and innovation environment and better understanding about the pharmaceutical industry behavior the study is very important and will provide inputs for developing sectorial strategies and will help to take decisions at national and international levels to finalize I would like to express that this study enforce recommendation 35 of the development agenda to conclude one more time I want to thank you the WIPO secretariat for their contribution this is all what I have to say for the one, thank you thank you very much ambassador for these extremely generous comments let me next invite Clayton Schenkel from the Brazilian government to provide a view thank you chief economist and thanks also to all the presenters and evaluator the one where I read this studies it reminded me of one saying that we have in Brazil it says that if you don't know exactly where you are and where you want to go every path you take will be potentially wrong I think that's the best thing that these studies can do for our countries is to provide this picture to know better have a clear picture of the relationship between IP development and the exporting capacities and all these items I think this surely helps the policy makers in drafting their decisions and in this sense I would like to reiterate what I said in the morning about the appreciation of our government our government and I think this was reflected in the responses that we got from the institutions that involved the institute of research that is here represented by Ms. Graciela is one example but you have others like the IP office the statistics institution I think all of them are grateful for the help and the cooperation if you allow me just a few points on each of the studies relationship between IP and exporting performance of Brazilian firms have three points and I think they are interconnected the first is already highlighted the cooperation with the institutions was mentioned by Graciela the Pintek which is the technological innovation survey in the studies it mentions the limitations but even with that I think it allows ensuring the evolution of the use of IPRs in private sector in Brazil this is innovative in the country the second point is when you mentioned in the morning that the studies were careful in the inferences that they made I think it strengthens the points that are made if they show they are clearly to give an idea and to allow for the conclusions and I think this point is related to the third that is recognition of the limitations of some items it was mentioned by Graciela that some of the indicators that are used they have to be used carefully because they have certain limitations I think this point when you provide one picture and you look exactly to where to which point it can be used it can provide for some conclusions I think it helps even better the policymakers about the second study on IPUs in general it provided for a comprehensive overview of the use of IP in Brazil and it was particularly important in the sense that it was used it provided for the creation of a statistic database it's Badepi the Brazilian acronym and some of the information that was gathered using this database is innovative in the sense that for the decade that it encompasses it applied to all the industrial the all the industrial IP assets in Brazil some of them I will not go into the details some of them for example we have 38,000 patents deposited it was already intuitively known by Brazilians that most of them were by non-residents but we didn't know exactly the details on the percentage so I think it is certainly helpful and finally you mentioned the sustainability of the project and we received from the IP office for example some information that they created an internal structure to reproduce this methodology and it's already bearing fruits we have now monthly statistics and annual compilation of this statistics and this information this data is being shared with research institutions mostly universities and also it's being cross-referenced with data from other organizations so one of the results of this cross-references is to to permit to understand for example the profile of the IP users I think for all these reasons these studies were very helpful very productive and the Brazilian government is thankful for that thank you Philippe would you like to say something? Philippe Ferreira of the Chilean government thank you very much we would like to thank the speaker for their very interesting presentation and to the secretariat for the organization of the seminar we think that Catalina has already highlighted the importance of the studies conducted by WIPO in partnership with our national industrial property office the databases generated by the projects are unimportant the studies also helped us to understand the importance of the economic analysis in order to take public policy decisions we believe that it is important to recognize that beyond the income classification there is no one size fits all process of development and therefore there is room to improve our public policies and institution WIPO has been a key actor in the IP area finally we would like to thank WIPO for their work and we look forward to keep them together in the future thank you thank you very much Philippe and with that let me open the floor to everyone invite you to make comments or ask questions the only thing I would ask you if you raise your hand please identify yourself so that everyone knows who you are yes please thank you Mr. Casten my name is Madeline Scher I'm president of health and environment program NTO based in Cameroon and also have an office in Geneva my question is about collecting data I would like to know how academics and universities go into the field is it only the government who recommend those institutions or also some NTOs or NTOs in some countries can be involved and I would like to know if you find or you verify that civil society is involved on these matters thank you thank you for this question let me maybe try to give an answer and I could also invite Julio to compliment if he has any additional thoughts on that I think first and foremost we work with governments I think we initially sit down with governments and listen to them and see what are their interests as far as policymaking is concerned and I think the next step then is to consult beyond government and I think that very much includes NGOs of various types so I think there I certainly see involvement as far as the conduct of the researchers concerned I think we primarily have worked with researchers, research institutes, economists who have the relevant skills so for example in a number of countries I think IPEA is actually a research institute that's affiliated with the government but we've also worked with independent research institutes in Thailand for example Thai Development Research Institutes and to the extent that any type of organization has skills to offer and has the competence to assist us in our work I think we're definitely open to it I think it really depends on a country by country basis who has the skills and experience to contribute so that would be my perspective on this Okay Any other Pedro Thank you Karsten I think thanks to the speakers I think was extremely interesting in all the three cases something that was mentioned by all of them was utility models and Catalina mentioned that it was an institution that was not well used and that there was not enough information My question is in relation to China because China is well known for patenting activity and my question relates to in the data that was collected on patents utility models are included or you have a separate item for that Pedro before turning to China let me just point out one study among the six country studies that exclusively focused on utility models which is the study that we did in Thailand and I think we're trying to get at the question that you posed that in a sense that a lot of people have observed that utility models are maybe a form of IP protection that especially suits the type of innovation that is being conducted in many low and middle income countries in a sense that they protect let's say smaller, more adaptive innovations inventions that don't necessarily have to meet the full inventive step requirement that you would find under regular patent law and I still the jury is still out there I think the Thai study is very interesting in a sense that I think on the one hand it showed that it did I think fulfill the objective that the Thai government set itself when it started with utility models they introduced it at the time they implemented the reforms to become trips compliant and they essentially thought that regular invention patterns are mostly used by non-residents we need a form of protection that targets Thai companies and in that sense it was really successful in a sense that I think more than 90% of all utility model applications in Thailand are by Thai residents are substantial there are a number of sectors industries, sub-industries that make heavy use of the utility model system we also looked at the performance of firms in relation to utility model use and I would say we did see some encouraging signs our results do suggest that after the first time company uses utility models they record better performance but we do have the causality caveat in respect of this result that I already pointed out so sorry this was just a little bit of advertisement that one of our study very much dealt with utility model but I think your question was more specific to China I'm so sorry about whether and my answer will reply your questions and we just appreciate their patents granted every year including three types of their patents including the utility model and invention patents and their designs and the utility model I think the utility model system is important kind of patent in China especially for some small size enterprises and individual inventors and but according to our but according to our survey I have this this chat this one yeah and this is the I couldn't understand this is the invention patents and this is the utility model and this is the design this is the implementation weight different patentees and the different types of the patents they hold it and utility model and design is important for the firms maybe I don't know the reason why it has the higher implementation rate but the state of facts maybe that's more easy to make products and for the universities that's different conclusions we can understand the invention patents it's easy to be licensed or transferred to others and I can say that in the video for the individual inventors they designs important types of patents to be used I think I don't know whether I just answer you sorry I'm hiding here let's see if this is good enough related to what Pierre Monend said he kindly said in his exposition we tried since the beginning to be as broad as possible also about IP because most of the economic studies in the past have focused on patents which are not to fall on that trap of course in some aspects we are constrained by data availability and what actually is important for the sector so building on this question by Pedro Rofio and utility models let me add that the Brazilian statistical database contains information on utility models the Chilean I believe as well the Uruguayan that we did for the pharmaceutical study also contains data interesting and of course China that was just mentioned and Thailand which is specific to utility models so what we found is that while in Brazil and China this is actually used by residents of utility models we do not find the same in Uruguay and Chile and that was an interesting result while in Thailand by the fact of applying the new regulation there was a substantial use by residents so I believe that also is part of the interesting result that we cannot fully depict given the richness of the data but I think that's interesting that we see that an instrument that should be more or less the same depending on the country on the size of the country of maybe the sectoral specialization of the country we have substantial difference of how they use the particular IP instrument I think you would have time for one more question I'm from Tanzania and I thank all the presenters for their wonderful job but let me quickly because of time ask with the head how they dealt with the challenge of collection of data in my perception collection of data the constitution is straight but when it comes to private sector and especially in industries sometimes it's difficult because they will be hesitant to give information thinking that we may share with the rival or competitor so how did they deal with this challenge if at all they experience this challenge on collection of data thank you let me try to give an answer I think it's a really important question I think part of the answer is that a big focus of the studies that were done here made use of the data that is generated in IP offices and at one level IP officers are an extremely rich data source because whenever a patent or a trademark is filed they leave a statistical trace that analysts can make use of and we can learn something from it the challenge is that the way that data are often organized and also the way the patent operations, trademark operations and so on work it's not meant as a statistical collection process so often one has extremely rich raw data unit record data that is quite difficult to use that not only has to do with IT issues with software issues it also has to do with some of the challenges that I think Pierre mentioned applicant name harmonization and also carefully understanding what are rather complex data sets and I think what we try to do is essentially to take an extract of the operational data that exists in IP offices and make it available in a form that economists and other professionals can do research with I think as far as other data beyond IP are concerned we mostly work with other official statistics and I think there especially data that are compiled by national statistical institutes that have under national laws the mandates to conduct surveys and where quite often also companies are under legal obligation to respond to these surveys which in a number of countries has raised questions of data confidentiality often companies are required to respond to the surveys you know the information on the individual companies is not disclosed for the reasons that you mention and that has often requires sort of creative solutions either to anonymize the data or the Brazilians have I think an excellent system where researchers can go to the national statistical institute and they can work with the data and they can do research there and they can sort of publish results but they're not allowed to take out individual records or disclose information on individual companies so one has to think of creative solutions there do you want to add anything to that? Okay unfortunately we are out of time let me first of all thank all the presenters that presented today let me also again thank all the people from Geneva in the six countries that we worked in that were involved in these studies I think you know this has been a great experience we're now in the fortunate situation that the CDIP this morning approved the second phase of the project so we are going to continue with this work and I think you know there are a lot of you know we have a lot of ideas we also have a lot of lessons learned but I think events like this are extremely useful in sort of reflecting on what we might do in the future I finally would like to point out that I think except the study that Catalina mentioned on Chile all of the studies are online by now and you can go to our website if you go to the main Viper website you know there is a section on policy you know where economics is you know falls under you can also just search in Google Viper Economics you would find us go to development studies or go to publications and you know you would find a page where all of the studies should be available I should also point out that all of our economic seminars are also recorded and we post them a day or two later on the website so that people especially in developing countries have access to the debate that is taking place in our seminar so with that let me thank you all for your attention and let me wish you all a wonderful afternoon thank you