IP Offices and the Implementation of the WIPO Development Agenda: Challenges and Opportunities

1. IP Offices and the Implementation of the WIPO Development Agenda: Challenges and Opportunities Irfan Baloch World Intellectual Property Organization September 18, 2009 Geneva

2. The WIPO Development Agenda • In October 2007, the GA established the WIPO Development Agenda to mainstream development into all areas of activity of the organization • Adoption of 45 recommendations grouped into six clusters • Establishment of the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP)

3. Current Status in Implementation • 19 recommendations under implementation since November 2007 • 9 projects in Cluster A (technical assistance) under implementation since early 2009 • Implementation to begin on 3 projects in January 2010: • IP and the Public Domain • IP and Competition Policy • IP, ICTs, Digital Divide and Access to Knowledge • 3 projects for discussion and approval at CDIP 4 in November

4. Some important considerations for implementation • It is a collective effort (Secretariat + Member States + other stakeholders) • Must reflect the ground reality and respond to the real needs and interests of Member States • Should address the concerns behind the recommendations • Ensure mainstreaming of the DA principles into all of WIPO’s work • Should be member-driven and inclusive • Equitable geographical distribution of projects • Projects should be sustainable. Important that local partners are fully committed to the projects.

5. The Role of IP Offices in DA Implementation • IP Offices and the DA: • Role will depend on the mandate of the IP office • IP offices are key partners in the implementation of many projects • May participate in national debates on DA implementation • May participate in international debates (e.g. at the CDIP) • May contribute to national policy processes that draw inspiration from the DA • Coordination among the various government offices involved in IP administration and policy-making is crucial for DA to yield tangible results

6. Example 1 • Recommendation No. 8: Request WIPO to develop agreements with research institutions and with private enterprises with a view to facilitating the national offices of developing countries, especially LDCs, as well as their regional andsub-regional IP organizations to access specialized databases for the purposes of patent searches. IP Offices: key partners/beneficiaries of project Project implementation began in early 2009

7. Example 2 • Recommendation No. 10: To assist Member States to develop and improve national IP institutional capacity through further development of infrastructure and other facilities with a view to making national institutions more efficient and promote a fair balance between IP protection and the public interest. This technical assistance should also be extended to sub-regional and regional organizations dealing with IP. IP Offices key partners/beneficiaries in implementation Project implementation began in early 2009

8. Example 3 Project on IP and Competition Policy • Recommendation 7: Promote measures that will help countries deal with intellectual property related anti‑competitive practices, by providing technical cooperation to developing countries, especially LDCs, at their request, in order to better understand the interface between IPRs and competition policies. • Recommendation 23: To consider how to better promotepro‑competitive intellectual property licensing practices, particularly with a view to fostering creativity, innovation and the transfer and dissemination of technology to interested countries, in particular developing countries and LDCs. • Recommendation 32 : To have within WIPO, an opportunity for exchange of national and regional experiences and information on the links between IPRs and competition policies. IP Office important partner among others (e.g. national competition authorities) Implementation to begin in January 2010

9. Example 4 Project on IP and Public Domain • Recommendation 16 : Consider the preservation of the public domain within WIPO’s normative processes and deepen theanalysis of the implications and benefits of a rich and accessible public domain. • Recommendation 20 : To promote norm‑setting activities related to IP that support a robust public domain in WIPO’s Member States, including the possibility of preparing guidelines which could assist interested Member States in identifying subject matters that have fallen into the public domain within their respective jurisdictions. IP Offices will participate in elements of project implementation and may also be affected by any policy processes that may result from the implementation of the recommendations

10. Conclusions • IP Offices: traditional demandeurs/recipients of WIPO Tech Assistance and should be fully aware of the priorities set by Member States via the DA • Member states (including IP offices) are key partners in DA implementation • Different IP offices will play different roles depending on their mandate • Important to ensure no disconnect between Geneva debates and the ground reality • The DA provides a useful framework and the spirit of the DA may extend beyond the 45 recommendations into other activities undertaken by IP offices