110 likes | 117 Views
This panel discussion at the WIPO Symposium on Intellectual Property Authorities focuses on the need for global databases in the field of intellectual property. The discussion covers the current situation, commonly agreed aspects, and the consequences of implementing global databases. The panel also highlights the facilitators and working groups involved in this initiative.
E N D
Panel 2: Global DatabasesService provider viewpoint WIPO Symposium of Intellectual Property Authorities Geneva, September 22-23, 2011
Global databasesAgenda • What do we need? • Legacy • Current situation • Commonly agreed aspects • Some consequences • Facilitators
Global databasesWhat do we need? • IPOs • Examination: Worldwide information • Legal aspect: National & Regional information • Governements • Support economic development: Worldwide information • Industry: Worldwide information • Prior art • Validity, freedom to operate • Alerts • Competitive intelligence
Global databasesLegacy - Patents • INPADOC (Vienna) • Founded by WIPO and Austrian government (1972) • Integrated to EPO as a sub-office (early nineties) • 2 databases based on patent offices input • PFS, Patent Family Service: biblio • PRS, Patent Register Service: legal status • EPO documentation (The Hague) • Image of EPO documentation (INVE, ECLA, PRIOR) • Evolution: EDOC -> EPODOC -> DOCDB (with PFS) • Derwent WPI (London) • Consolidation of subject specific files • Cooperation Derwent – Orbit (1976)
Legacy – Trademarks, Brands, Industrial designs • Trademarks • Trademark offices • Nothing similar to INPADOC • Compu-Mark • Cooperation Compu-Mark / INPI / Questel • Saegis • Industrial designs • The orphan of IP information
Global databasesCurrent situation - Patents • EPO DOCDB -> espacenet, Patstat, GPI • IP5 Common documentation project • Latipat • Commercial service providers, e.g.: • Thomson-Reuters: DWPI • Questel: FamPat • Minesoft: Patbase • LexisNexis: TotalPatent
Current situation –TMs, Brands, Industrial designs • Trademarks / Brands • OHIM: TM View • WIPO: Brand database • Commercial service providers • Thomson-CompuMark: Saegis • Corsearch: Edital • Industrial designs • Commercial service provider • Questel: DesignFinder
Global databasesCommonly agreed aspects • Improve overall efficiency • Improve quality • Reduce costs • Avoid duplication • Focus on each player expertise • Applicants: quality of Applications • IPOs: produce clean "source" information • Service providers: add value
Global databasesSome consequences • Access to information • Expand multi-lingual availability • Move toward classification of concepts (F-terms, ICO?) • Global databases versus Global services Keith Dilley (GE), WIPO Symposium 2011: • Consider a global approach (no longer US-Centric) • Looking more at processes than at tools • Interoperability • Standards are a pre-requisit (Lingua Franca), e.g. • PR N°: family building • PN N°: citations network • Inventors, Assignees, Classifications: statistics, landscaping • IP office information available at marginal cost
Global databasesFacilitators Through working groups involving: • IPOs • WIPO • Regional Offices • IP5 • Applicants • PDG: Patent Documentation Group • PIUG: Patent Information User Group • Service providers • PATCOM: Patent Commitee
Thank you www.questel.compbuffet@questel.com