WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS

2010

WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS

2010 Edition

.

As the center of gravity of the world economy shifts. this year’s report offers a comprehensive overview of the current utilization worldwide of different forms of IP rights – patents. and industrial designs. At the same time. It also looks at innovative behavior more broadly and presents evidence on how some of the largest companies have adjusted their research and development (R&D) expenditures during the crisis. For firms. and trends in patent applications for selected fields of technology). new centers of innovation will continue to emerge – particularly in middle-income countries. a sound empirical base is required. it presents statistics on microorganisms for the first time. 2010 3 FOREWORD The world economy is recovering from the steepest economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s. utility models. I would like to thank our Member States and national and regional IP offices for sharing their annual statistics with WIPO and I look forward to our continued cooperation. challenging established policies and practices. the IP system is continuously changing. Some trends that were already visible before the crisis and that are documented in this report will persist. Other trends may be more difficult to predict. WIPO’s annual report on trends in the use of IP rights. Firms will increasingly practice innovation more openly. seeks to contribute to this base and support evidence-based decision-making. Notably. New technologies and business models are emerging. In such a situation. and the public at large to better understand these changes and their implications for the IP system. resulting in greater collaboration between enterprises and across countries. An entirely new “special theme” feature offers an analytical background on the impact of the economic crisis and recovery on innovation. and introduces a variety of new patent-based indicators (for example. Francis GURRY Director General . policymakers. Whatever form they may take. World Intellectual Property Indicators. trademarks.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. As with the first edition in 2009. In addition to analyzing IP filing trends for 2009. The post-crisis innovation landscape will invariably look different from that of a decade ago. they will be assessed and analyzed in future editions of World Intellectual Property Indicators. throwing the spotlight on technologies which may offer at least partial solutions. companies’ strategies and public policies towards innovation and intellectual property (IP) rights are central to promoting sustained economic growth and a confident approach to the future. New and growing threats to the environment and human welfare have surfaced. trends in internationalization. it describes the historical relationship between IP filings and the business cycle. This edition also expands on last year’s reporting in several areas. academic patents by field of technology.

Mosahid Khan coordinated the production of the Review and Samiah Do Carmo Figueiredo provided administrative support.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The World Intellectual Property Indicators was prepared under the general direction of Director General Francis Gurry and supervised by Carsten Fink. Gratitude is also due to Heidi Hawkings for editorial support. Tables and graphs can be downloaded at www. Bruno Le Feuvre. the Language Service for the French and Spanish translations and the Printing and Publication Production Section. The principal contributors were Mosahid Khan. Global Issues Sector. Sacha Wunsch-Vincent and Hao Zhou. Ryan Lamb. Colleagues in WIPO’s Innovation and Technology Sector. Brands and Designs Sector. Odile Conti for the publication’s design.int/ipstats/en/. Donatus Ayitey provided research assistance.wipo. Readers are welcome to use the information provided in this report. and Global Infrastructure Sector offered valuable comments on drafts at various stages of preparation. . Chief Economist. but are requested to cite WIPO as the source.

2.2 A . 8 I N T E N S I T Y O F PAT E N T A C T I V I T Y 51 51 53 55 57 59 59 60 61 62 64 65 .1 Trend in patent families Foreign-oriented patent families A.1.2 A .2 A.3 Trend in PCT national phase entries A.1 Trend in patent applications by patent office Trend in patents granted by patent office A.1 Trend in patent applications filed through the PCT System Top PCT applicants A.5 Patent activity in selected middle and low income economies A.4.6.6.4 Patents granted at the top 20 patent offices A.3.3 PCT patent applications from universities by technology A.2 A.2.2. 3 PAT E N T A C T I V I T Y B Y C O U N T R Y O F O R I G I N A. 6 PAT E N T S B Y F I E L D O F T E C H N O L O G Y A.4. 2010 5 TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S HIGHLIGHTS D ATA D E S C R I P T I O N S P E C I A L T H E M E : T H E I M PA C T O F T H E E C O N O M I C C R I S I S A N D R E C O V E R Y O N I N N O VAT I O N S E C T I O N A : PAT E N T S A N D U T I L I T Y M O D E L S 13 A.2 A.2 A.2. 4 PAT E N T FA M I L I E S A.1 WORLDWIDE TREND A.6.2.6 Utility model activity by patent office A .1.4 PCT national phase entry by country of origin and office A .WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.5.6.1 Total patents by field of technology Foreign-oriented patent families by field of technology A. 7 I N T E R N AT I O N A L C O L L A B O R AT I O N A .1 Trend in total patent activity Resident and non-resident patent activity A. 5 PAT E N T A P P L I C AT I O N S F I L E D T H R O U G H T H E PAT E N T C O O P E R AT I O N T R E AT Y ( P C T ) A.1 Patent activity by country of origin Patent applications by country of origin and patent office A.3 Patent applications at the top 20 patent offices A.5.1.3.3 Trend in utility model activity 8 13 14 31 33 33 34 36 37 37 38 39 41 43 45 46 46 47 49 49 50 A . 2 PAT E N T A N D U T I L I T Y M O D E L A C T I V I T Y B Y O F F I C E A.2.4 Patent applications in selected energy-related technology fields A .5.5.

2 B.6 TRADEMARKS IN FORCE 73 74 74 75 76 78 78 79 80 81 82 83 83 85 86 87 88 89 91 92 93 95 SECTION C: INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS C.3 Top Madrid applicants B.2 C.2 A .3 Industrial design registrations at the top 20 offices 97 98 98 99 100 100 101 103 .1 Trend in industrial design applications and registrations by office Industrial design applications at the top 20 offices C.4.4. 9 PAT E N T S I N F O R C E A.1.2 C.3.1 Trend in total trademark activity Resident and non-resident trademark activity B.1 Trend in total industrial design activity Resident and non-resident industrial design activity C.2.4.2 B .5 INTENSITY OF TRADEMARK ACTIVITY B.1 WORLDWIDE TREND C.2 B.3 Trademark applications by class B.4 Trademark applications by office and class B.1 Trademark activity by origin Trademark applications by origin and IP office B.3 TRADEMARK ACTIVITY BY ORIGIN B. 1 1 P E N D I N G PAT E N T A P P L I C AT I O N S B Y O F F I C E 66 66 67 69 70 SECTION B: TRADEMARKS B.6 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.2 TRADEMARK ACTIVITY BY OFFICE B.4 Subsequent designations of international trademark registrations through the Madrid System B.1.2 by origin and designation B.1.1 Trend in trademark applications by IP office Trend in trademark registrations by IP office B. 4 T R A D E M A R K R E G I S T R AT I O N S A N D R E N E WA L S THROUGH THE MADRID SYSTEM B.2.2.9.2.3 Trademark applications at the top 20 IP offices B.2.1 Trend in trademark registrations and renewals through the Madrid System Trend in trademark registrations and renewals through the Madrid System B.9.4. 2010 A .1. 1 0 O P P O S I T I O N A N D I N VA L I D AT I O N O F PAT E N T S G R A N T E D A .5 Non-resident trademark applications by filing route B.1.1 Patents in force by destination and source Patents in force by year of application A.5 Trademark registrations at the top 20 IP offices B.2.3.2 INDUSTRIAL DESIGN ACTIVITY BY OFFICE C.1 WORLDWIDE TREND B.4.2.2.

and patents in force.5 INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS IN FORCE C.5.4 International registrations and renewals through the Hague System by designation C. GLOSSARY AND L I S T O F A B B R E V IAT I O N S 117 118 118 119 123 ANNEX A Definition for selected energy-related technology fields GLOSSARY L I S T O F A B B R E VI AT I O N S S TAT I S T I C A L TA B L E S PAT E N T S Table P1: Patent applications by patent office and origin.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. and trademarks in force.1 Trend in international registrations of industrial designs through the Hague System International registrations with multiple designs C. and industrial designs in force.4.2 103 105 105 106 107 108 109 110 110 111 SECTION D: MICROORGANISMS D. 2010 7 C.1 MICROORGANISM DEPOSITS AND SAMPLES 113 114 ANNEX.4.5 Non-resident industrial design applications by filing route C. 2008 Table T2: Trademark registrations by IP office and origin.3 International industrial design renewals through the Hague System C.4. 2008 125 126 126 129 133 133 136 140 140 143 . 4 I N D U S T R I A L D E S I G N R E G I S T R AT I O N S A N D R E N E WA L S THROUGH THE HAGUE SYSTEM C.2 C.1 Industrial designs in force by destination Industrial designs in force by year of registration C.4.5.4. 2008 Table ID2: Industrial design registrations by IP office and origin. 2008 INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS Table ID1: Industrial design applications by IP office and origin. 2008 Table P2: Patent grants by patent office and origin.3 INDUSTRIAL DESIGN ACTIVITY BY ORIGIN C . 2008 TRADEMARKS Table T1: Trademark applications by IP office and origin.

.1%) and the United Kingdom (-6. though with substantial company-by-company variation.3%). on average. applications filed through the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) dropped by 4. Many countries saw a slowdown of growth in research & development (R&D) expenditure in 2008. prompted a decline in filings. which saw a fall in resident filings but an increase in non-resident filings in 2009. the first drop since the inception of the PCT System.1% fewer applications across the world in 2008 compared to 2007. In contrast. the economic downturn has intensified this slowdown and. The available IP application data for 2009 show non-resident filings to be. applications filed in China grew substantially (+18. However. …notwithstanding substantial heterogeneity in patenting activity across countries There is considerable variation across countries in the impact of the economic downturn on patent application activity. While the strength of the recovery remains uncertain. more negatively affected by the crisis. As these offices account for around 80% of the world total. notably patent filings in the United States of America (US). .8 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. PATENTS & UTILITY MODELS Economic downturn accelerates the slowdown in patent applications worldwide… In the early phase of the global financial crisis. The onset of economic recovery will likely prompt a rebound in IP filings.5%.. there will likely be a continuing geographic shift of innovative activity towards middle-income countries. in many cases.1 million resident applications and 0.7% more applications in 2008. patent applications worldwide grew by 2.7% decrease in patent applications in 2009. There are. diminished access to credit and increased economic uncertainty have led companies to adjust their innovation strategies. Falling revenues and reduced cash flows.5%). The growth rate of applications worldwide slowed in 2008. consisting of 1. A further downward trend in patent applications is expected in 2009. several exceptions to this trend. Data by origin of the applicant show US residents filed 4. Preliminary 2009 data assembled for this report point towards a drop in R&D expenditure. especially East Asia and India. the Republic of Korea (-1. Indeed. While growth in IP filings started to slow before the onset of the crisis. albeit a slower rate than in previous years. largely due to zero growth in applications filed in the US and a drop in applications in Japan (-1.and brings about the first ever decline in PCT applications… At the height of the economic crisis in 2009. a worldwide drop in patent applications is likely in 2009 and would constitute the first decline since 2002. preventing applications worldwide from reaching zero growth in 2008. . however. Approximately 1.6% in 2008. preliminary data for the first six months of 2010 point to renewed growth of Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications. This drop was preceded by declining growth rates starting in 2005.8 million non-resident applications. The available data for eight large patent offices show a 2.2%). residents of China filed 26.91 million patent applications were filed across the world in 2008. 2010 HIGHLIGHTS CRISIS & INNOVATION The global financial crisis has affected companies’ innovative activity. suggesting a greater short-term focus on home markets.

4%. The 10.8%) and Sweden (-13. accounted for the majority of all UM activity. continued growth in PCT filings in the case of Japan and the Republic of Korea took place against the backdrop of falling resident applications at the JPO and the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO).600 non-resident grants. Income group data show patent activity to be more concentrated than GDP The share of high-income economies in total patent applications (74. the number of applications saw considerable growth in 2008.5%) in patents issued by the KIPO accounted for a considerable portion of the slowdown in the growth of patents granted worldwide in 2008. 8. compared to 2007. The considerable growth in UM activity despite the challenging economic conditions can be explained by the fact that China.9% in 2009. Japan (+3.7%). respectively.6%).6% in 2008.600 in 2008. consisting of 425. Peru.8% and 1.8% decline in application numbers at the Japan Patent Office (JPO) is the largest in recent history. In contrast. 2010 9 Patent applications in offices of middle-income and low-income economies seemed to be less affected by the early phase of the global economic downturn. the Netherlands (+2. Romania and Turkey recorded double-digit growth. non-resident applicants accounted for the largest share of total applications. respectively.2%. residents of China (+29.3% and 12.6%. which constitutes the first drop in the number of applications since 2002. Resident applications accounted for 57. Canada (-11. respectively. The available 2009 data show a substantial drop in applications in a number of offices compared to 2008. The available 2009 data for the top three offices show that UM applications in China and Germany grew by 37. Utility Model activity continues to grow Worldwide numbers of utility model (UM) applications (313.1%.4%. UM applications at the SIPO increased by 24.000 resident grants and 352. .000) grew by 15.4% of the total number in high-income economies.9% more patents in 2008 than in 2007.5% in 2006 to 0.3%). the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted a higher share of patents to non-resident applicants compared to resident applicants. At the majority of these offices. For the first time.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. For example.4 percentage points higher than their gross domestic product (GDP) share (58. In contrast. PCT applications filed by residents of the US (-10. Slowdown in patent grants worldwide The growth in total patents granted has slowed from its peak of 19. The majority (around 96%) of UM applications were filed by and granted to resident applicants. the State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China (SIPO) issued 37.1%). which was less affected by the economic downturn.8%). For example. The total number granted stood at around 777.4% in 2008.000) and grants (238.9%) filed more PCT applications in 2009 than in 2008.4% and 17. The substantial fall (-32. applications in Germany. and the Republic of Korea (+1.4%). patent applications at the European Patent Office (EPO) declined by 7. In the majority of middle-income and low-income economies. applications in Belize.1%) is 15. while in the Republic of Korea applications dropped by 2. only a fifth of all applications in low-income economies were resident applications. respectively. In 2009. Indeed. Japan and the Republic of Korea decreased by 5.4%) experienced sharper than average declines. Germany (-11. In contrast. in 2008. Despite the challenging economic conditions.

35 million) owned around 48% of the patents in force in 2008. reflecting a shift in patent activity towards North East Asian countries. In 2008.5 million patent applications were awaiting a request for examination at the JPO for the same year. solar. but some of these offices show a high ratio of total pending applications to annual applications. which include the top 20 offices except those of China.2% increase over 2007. Middle-income economies – such as Azerbaijan. residents of the Republic of Korea and Japan filed. Singapore and South Africa. There was considerable growth in the number of pending applications undergoing examination at the patent offices of Chile. This is based on data from 39 patent offices. Italy. respectively. India. Applicants from Japan filed the largest number of PCT applications in the fields of solar energy and fuel cell technology. which are high-income economies. the Republic of Korea.94 million. wind and geothermal energy – increased from 584 applications in 2000 to 3.424 applications in 2009.7 million patents in force across the world Compared to 2007. many medium-sized patent offices across the world have low numbers of pending applications.87 million in 2008. North East Asian countries file the highest number of patents per GDP The Republic of Korea.85 million) and the US (1. the total number of potentially pending applications across the world stood at 5. while applicants from the US accounted for the largest share worldwide of PCT applications for wind energy technologies.3%.7 million patents in force worldwide (based on data from 88 patent offices) were granted in the US. . Solar energy-related PCT applications accounted for around 60% of this total increase. Mexico. Despite a 2. the number of patents in force in 2008 increased by 5. Japan and China were the three top ranked countries in terms of resident patents-to-GDP ratio and resident patents-to-R&D ratio. The total number of pending applications undergoing examination across the world is estimated at 3. the Russian Federation and New Zealand between 2007 and 2008. 2010 Considerable growth in PCT applications for energy-related technologies The number of PCT applications filed in four energy-related technology fields – fuel cells. which include the top 15 offices except for China. a 6% increase over 2007.10 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. around 1. In absolute terms. Singapore and Spain. There has been substantial growth in recent years in the number of patents in force in China and the Republic of Korea.3% drop.25 million. In addition. India. This world total is an estimate based on pending application data for 71 patent offices. A substantial level of pending patent applications In 2008. The Republic of Korea was the only country with more than 100 patents per billion GDP. As for the source of patents in force. Singapore and South Africa. In 2008. An estimated 6. the number of pending applications undergoing examination at the JPO stood at around 0. residents of Japan (1. Approximately 28% of the estimated 6. pending applications undergoing examination at the USPTO stood at around 1. Chile and Turkey – have a resident patents-to-GDP ratio similar to that of Greece. 103 and 82 patents per billion GDP. representing a 0.45 million.

consisting of around 2. Spain (-13.3% drop in 2009 is primarily due to a fall in applications from residents of France.2% drop in applications. An estimated 3. In contrast. At the top three IP offices – China. Germany and the US. . total trademark applications worldwide fell by 0. in 2008.8%) and France (+8. Chile heads the trademark applications per GDP list Chile is the only country with more than 100 resident trademark applications per billion GDP in 2008. a 7. For the US. representing the first decrease in applications since 2002-03. Bulgaria (82) and China (81) also exhibited a high resident applications to GDP ratio. The global economic downturn accelerated this decline and. 2010 11 TRADEMARKS Global economic downturn hits trademark applications.g. international registrations via the Madrid System declined at a faster rate in the majority of countries. the Russian Federation and the European Union’s Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) grew by 23. which is slightly above the growth rate of the previous year. respectively.. Germany and Japan experienced. The Republic of Korea (87). Majority of the top 20 IP offices see a drop in the number of trademark applications In 2008.6%). The available 2009 data for a few IP offices provide a mixed picture.7% and 20. A few offices. 14 of the top 20 IP offices saw a drop in trademark application numbers. the IP offices of many middle-income economies – e. In 2008. India and Thailand – experienced growth in application numbers over the same period.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.8% growth) is the main source of this increase. as non-resident applications actually grew between 2007 and 2008. approximately 2. …including Madrid registrations International trademark registrations via the Madrid System decreased by 12.1%) saw substantial growth in applications in 2009 compared to 2008. The 12. Brazil.3% in 2009. such as China (+20.9%.37 million trademarks were registered across the world.8%) saw the largest decreases in applications received in 2008 compared to 2007.1%.33 million resident applications and approximately 0. The increase in trademark registrations in China is partly due to the 300 additional trademark examination assistants recruited to reduce the number of pending applications. but fiscal year data show a drop (-11. China accounts for around 90% of the worldwide increase in trademark registrations The total number of trademark registrations across the world grew by 7% in 2008. the Republic of Korea and the US – the decrease in resident applications accounted for the overall decrease in applications.. In contrast.. A substantial increase in the numbers of registrations issued in China (+56. in 2008. The majority of the top 20 IP offices saw an increase in trademark registrations in 2008 compared to 2007. 21.3%) and the United Kingdom (-11.97 million non-resident applications. respectively. The growth in trademark applications worldwide started to slow in 2006.30 million trademark applications were filed across the world in 2008. Compared to resident trademark applications filed with national IP offices. data for the calendar year are not available.7%) in the number of applications from October 2008 to September 2009. The IP offices of Japan (-16.6%.7% and 7. Registrations issued by the IP offices of the United Kingdom.

5%). The majority of the top 20 IP offices saw growth in the number of applications in 2008 The majority of the top 20 IP offices recorded growth in the number of applications received in 2008 compared to 2007.700 (16%) nonresident applications. in most cases. the OHIM (-9. whereas this share was around 56% for patents.1 million. Most countries saw an increase in the number of trademarks in force in 2008 compared to 2004.300 (84%) resident and 105.9%) and the US (-7.3% over the same period. representing a 5. However. but is expected to be surpassed by China in 2009 France accounted for the largest number of designs in force in 2008.900 industrial design applications. growth rates were below the annual growth rates for 2004-07.000. Malaysia (-13. Resident applications grew by 7. respectively. applications in China grew by 12. France. The total number of industrial design applications filed across the world stood at around 656. The top three destinations accounted for 28.8 million trademarks in force across the world Based on data from 59 IP offices. industrial design applications in Brazil. France holds the largest number of industrial designs in force. The substantial growth in the number of applications in China (+17.8% in 2008 over the previous year.9%).2%. China accounts for the largest share of total industrial design activity The IP office of China received around 312.2% and 14. However. which amounts to nearly half (48%) of the world total and of which resident applications accounted for around 95%.4 million. China – with double-digit growth in the numbers of industrial designs in force – is expected to surpass France in 2009. and France. .4% of all trademarks in force in 2008. China. 2010 An estimated 14. an estimated 14. The total number of industrial design applications consisted of 550. while non-resident applications dropped by 4. The US.4% in 2009. industrial design applications showed year-on-year growth. with 1.1%) saw considerable declines in the numbers of applications received in 2009 compared to 2008. In contrast. were the only two other countries with more than 1 million trademarks in force.000 in 2008. Japan accounted for the largest number of trademarks in force (1.8 million trademarks were in force in 2008.7% increase over 2007.9%. except China and Hong Kong (SAR). 29.1%. The available 2009 data for nine IP offices show a drop in industrial design applications for all offices. Applications for international registrations filed through the Hague System grew by 10. In 2008. Mexico (-7. Germany and the United Kingdom decreased by 49. with around 400. with 1.3%). 13. despite a drop from the previous year. INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS Fifteen consecutive years of growth in industrial design applications For the fifteenth consecutive year. compared to 2007. The distribution of trademarks in force is less concentrated than for patents. The IP office receiving the next highest number of applications – OHIM – accounted for only 12% of the world total. The IP offices of the Philippines (-36.0%) is the main source of this worldwide growth.4%.12 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.7 million).

However. As for trademark application data. Data for other offices (beyond the 110 offices) are not included in the world estimate. Application data are estimated for 30 offices. trademarks and industrial designs are WIPO estimates. Only a small share of the world total is estimated. Please note that due to the continual updating of data and the revision of historical statistics.wipo. WIPO’S ANNUAL IP DATA SURVEY WIPO collects IP data from IP offices around the world through its annual questionnaires. statistics for 105 offices are available that. one has to keep in mind that national laws and regulations for filing IP applications or for issuing IP rights. re-examination and invalidation procedures were obtained from annual reports of patent offices. The estimation method used depends on the year and country or office in question. Trademark application data are estimated for 55 offices. The data supplied therein by national and regional offices on a voluntary basis are entered into the WIPO Statistics Database. average of adjacent data points and by applying shares of resident/non-resident data from the previous year. Data on opposition. which is primarily based on WIPO’s Annual IP Survey (see below) and data compiled by WIPO for the processing of international applications/registrations filed through the PCT System. Data are available for 80 patent offices. data provided in this report may differ from previously published figures and the data available on WIPO’s web pages. For example. ESTIMATION PROCEDURE FOR WORLD TOTAL The world total for applications and grants (or registrations) for patents. Missing data are estimated using methods such as linear extrapolation. . Data are available for the majority of the larger IP offices.int/ipstats/en/data_collection/ questionnaire/. Data are not available for all countries for every year. utility models (UM). A continuing effort is made to improve the quality and availability of IP statistics and to obtain data for as many offices and countries as possible. The April 2010 edition of the PATSTAT database was used for this publication. represent 90% of the estimated world total. The data are collected from IP offices using WIPO’s harmonized annual IP questionnaires. R&D expenditure data were obtained from the United Nations Educational. Data are available for download from WIPO’s web page: www. Again.int/ipstats/en.4% of the estimated world total. Patent family and technology data are based on the WIPO Statistics Database and the PATSTAT database of the EPO. GDP data were obtained from the World Development Indicators Database. the 2008 estimated world total for patent applications is based on 110 offices. as well as statistical reporting practices may differ across jurisdictions. INTERNATIONAL COMPARABILITY OF INDICATORS Every effort is made to compile IP statistics based on the same definitions and to ensure international comparability. which is maintained by the World Bank. in turn.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. The annual IP questionnaires can be viewed at: www.wipo. as they have not reported any data to WIPO in the recent past. 2010 13 D ATA D E S C R I P T I O N DATA SOURCES The intellectual property (IP) data published in this report are taken from the WIPO Statistics Database. the Madrid System and the Hague System. which account for 97. offices that have not reported any data to WIPO in the recent past are not included in the world estimate. Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

India and Indonesia). Most economies are now firmly on a path towards recovery. Looking at the largest users of the IP system. July 2010 Such a decline in world output – i. % Annual GDP Growth. Figure 1: Gross domestic product growth rate (%) World Advanced Economies Emerging and Developing Economies 15. Source: WIPO. % 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 10. At the same time.. The economic crisis and signs of recovery The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates global economic output to have shrunk by 0. based on data from the IMF.0 0. “Advanced economies”. “advanced economies” saw actual declines in output in 2009 (on average -3.0 5.wto. “emerging economies” were affected to a lesser extent. but also growth in Africa that compensated for declines elsewhere.2%) which were most pronounced for European countries (for example. The decline in the US (-2.1 Yet. Their output grew in 2009.8% in 2000 to 2. the crisis has invariably affected patent. around -5% for Germany and the United Kingdom) and for Japan (around -5%).0 Euro Area China Republic of Korea Japan United States of America Annual GDP Growth. Indeed.0 10. 2010 SPECIAL THEME: THE IMPACT OF THE ECONOMIC CRISIS AND RECOVERY ON INNOVATION The recent economic crisis will be remembered for its historic magnitude – in terms of the contraction of both global world output and international trade. only Australia (+1. led to a decline in the growth of global output from 4.e. for instance. Among the large “advanced economies”. a decrease in the growth of world output from a historic peak of 5. the IMF and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 1 World Trade Organization (WTO).2%) experienced an increase in economic activity. trademark and industrial design filing activity and is likely to have a lingering effect in 2010 and 2011. and “emerging and developing economies” aggregate as a defined by the IMF.3% in 2001.0 0. albeit at a much slower speed compared to previous years (on average 2.0 15.4%) was more moderate.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year Year Note: 2010 and 2011 data are IMF projections.htm. the crisis has struck different economies in different ways.5% in 2009 compared to 6. Proactive government policies – in the form of support to the financial sector and expansionary monetary and fiscal policies – helped to prevent a downward economic spiral. The 12% decline in global trade in 2009 also represented the steepest fall in five decades. On average. So far.3% in 2007).2% in 2007 – had not been measured since the 1930s.0 5.org/english/news_e/pres10_e/pr598_e. This was mainly due to continued growth in developing Asia (notably China.1% in 2008 and 8.14 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. since the beginning of 2010. The recession triggered by the burst of the “dot-com” crisis in 2001. www.0 -5. the impact of the crisis on the IP system has not been uniform across countries.0 -5. global economic recovery is taking place earlier and is more energetic than was initially expected. reflecting the heterogeneous economic effects of the crisis and other factors.3%) and the Republic of Korea (+0. and these differences are important to bear in mind when assessing the effects of the crisis on IP filings.6% in 2009 (see Figure 1). While economic recovery has set in. International Trade Statistics. .

the sustainability and strength of the recovery remain uncertain. China (+10.. leading. In particular. it is useful to analyze how R&D activities and IP filings have evolved in the context of the recent economic crisis.e. The IMF predicts that world output will rise by 4. Firms also face greater difficulties in tapping external sources of funding to support their R&D investments. such as business R&D expenditure. the growth rate of these three measures slowed markedly in high-income economies during the economic downturns of the early 1990s and the early 2000s. measures of innovative efforts. Brazil (+7. R&D investments and the introduction of new products or processes decline due to reduced cash flows. in the context of an economic downturn. with slower growth in “advanced economies” (+2. only to recover to original pre-crisis highs after 2005. for instance. This lag can partly be explained by R&D projects being longer-term in nature and firms opting to maintain existing projects involving sunk investments.6% yearly growth in 2000. thereby further re-balancing global output. R&D expenditure trends react even more strongly to changes in GDP. before recovering to pre-crisis levels in 2004. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. processes. In the largest high-income economies such as the US and Japan. (Source: OECDMain Science and Technology Indicators). Total R&D expenditure (GERD) as percentage of GDP for OECD countries decreased from 2001 onwards.5%). 2010 15 Development (OECD) have revised their growth estimates upwards. i. especially towards Asian economies.6% in 2010 and at a similar rate (+4. Policy responses to the economic crisis: Investing in innovation for long-term growth. decreased demand for new products/processes and increased business uncertainty. to 2. R&D expenditure growth declined as economic output fell from 4. Figure 2 illustrates the evolution of R&D in a few high-income as well as emerging middle-income economies during the “dot-com” crisis of 2001.1%) and other fast-growing Asian economies. gross domestic expenditure on R&D (so-called GERD. PCT Yearly Review 2009. and unemployment remains stubbornly high in most high-income economies. Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization and OECD (2009).6% in 2002. However.6% in 2010) compared to “emerging and developing economies” (+6.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. the post-crisis world economy is likely to see faster growth in low and middle-income economies. and the two tend to move together.8% in 2010) and. WIPO (2010). OECD Science. . Notwithstanding these uncertainties. India (+9. To the extent that investments in innovation such as R&D are long term in nature. which account for the bulk of worldwide R&D. The impact of the crisis on innovation Innovation – broadly defined as the creation of new products. including uncertainty concerning the size of the future market. R&D expenditure in high-income economies also appears to rise and fall in reaction to GDP fluctuations with a certain lag. R&D expenditure growth is positively associated with GDP growth. Over the past quarter of a century. and patent and trademark applications have correlated positively with GDP.3 R&D also significantly declined during and after the financial crisis in the Republic of Korea in 1998. see footnote 3). which stands for total public and private R&D) has moved with the business cycle in OECD economies (OECD. Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2009. R&D expenditure falls later than GDP itself and takes longer to recover. while cutting back on new ones leading therefore to later falls in R&D spending. short-term fluctuations in the business cycle should only have a limited impact on investment in innovation.4 2 3 4 IMF World Economic Outlook 2010 (July revision) and OECD Economic Outlook (June 2010). especially. In other highincome economies such as Spain and Poland.3%) in 2011 (see Figure 1).2% in 2001 and 2. to more pronounced declines in R&D than in output during downturns – sometimes two to three times greater.2 At the same time.4%). Historically. marketing and organizational innovations – is hard to measure due to its inherent complexity and the limited data available. Notwithstanding these difficulties.

5 -0.5 -1. 2010 Figure 2: R&D expenditure growth rate (%) Selected High-Income Countries 25 Selected Middle-Income Countries World GDP 6 R&D Expenditure Growth. China. 1999 and 2007 are unavailable and are an estimate.5 GDP Resident Trademark Applications 1. France. the economic downturn in 2001 led to a more pronounced and more rapid decline in trademark applications but a very quick recovery. based on data from the WIPO Statistics Database and the World Bank. Japan. Republic of Korea. In assessing the effects of the current economic downturn.5 -. June 2010 Changes in GDP and in patent and trademark applications also show a positive correlation for the group of highincome economies responsible for the majority of IP filings (Figure 3). The graph is based on data for Germany.5 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Year Note: GDP and patent and trademark application growth rates are divided by their respective standard deviations. The important cuts in R&D expenditure during the 2001 crisis and the steep falls in available finance for innovation could be at the root of the prolonged drop in patent applications. Brazil. Brazil’s data for 1998. France. 1. based on data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics and the World Bank.16 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. whereas the growth in numbers of patent applications dropped less sharply but took longer to rebound.5 -1. However. Source: WIPO. India and the Russian Federation).5 GDP Growth. Germany.5 0. Source: WIPO. This effect could be stronger for those entering the market or smaller firms than for large profitable companies with substantial stocks of net cash.D. June 2010 Interestingly. the depth of the crisis has also had an impact on the ability of large firms to finance Trademark Applications Growth / S. it is important to recognize that this was a major financial crisis with devastating effects on revenues and on access to the capital market. Figure 3: Gross domestic product.D.5 Patent Applications and GDP Growth / S. the United Kingdom and the US) and selected middle-income economies (Argentina. % . United Kingdom and the US.5 -2.5 -2. % 20 4 15 10 2 5 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 0 Year Note: Data on gross domestic expenditure on R&D are in purchasing power parity US dollars. The correlations may be different for countries not included in the graph. patent applications and trademark application growth rates (%) Resident Patent Applications 2. . Selected high-income economies (Canada.

The second half of 2009 brought a turnaround in VC investment in the US and in Europe.7 The available data for India (+130%) and China (+54%) also show high growth rates from the fourth quarter of 2009 to the first quarter of 2010. marking the lowest level of investment since 1997. data on gross domestic expenditure on R&D are primarily available for a number of high-income and for a few select middle-income economies (Figure 5). N. Banque de France. on-average estimates for global VC show a 13% increase over the previous year. which are complicated by the fact that lately Initial Public Offerings (IPO) – as one possible exit strategy – are rare. notably in the automotive and construction sectors. 16 December 2009. Askénazy. Out of the roughly 215 territories/countries reporting GERD data to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics.6 While the size of the decline is significant. European VC investment fell by 44% from 2008 to EUR 3. NVCA Venture View Survey. The available data on VC investments show a significant decline in the level of funds invested and the corresponding number of deals. 2008. Mixed but largely negative impact of the crisis on R&D The full impact of the economic crisis on aggregate R&D spending can only be fully evaluated once complete data on private and public R&D become available.9 Apart from a decline in absolute terms in gross domestic expenditure on R&D for the Czech Republic. figures are only available for about 60 countries for 2007. Financing for innovation . Cette. although growth from the last quarter of 2009 to 2010 slowed again.6 billion in 2009 (down 55% from USD 28 billion in 2008). Notes d’Etudes et de Recherche.venture capital (VC). in particular small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)5. This shift is putting an additional strain on entrepreneurship. Figure 4: US venture capital investments: all industries (volume and yearly growth rate) Year-on-Year Growth 40 20 Venture Capital Investments 30 20 0 10 -20 0 -40 -60 -80 -10 -20 2000-Q1 2001-Q1 2002-Q1 2003-Q1 2004-Q1 2005-Q1 2006-Q1 2007-Q1 2008-Q1 2009-Q1 2010-Q1 Source: WIPO. P. it is not comparable to the magnitude of the VC boom and bust cycle at the start of the decade which was much more significant. but also industries that heavily depend on exports. be used to make an initial assessment of impact of the crisis on R&D expenditure. There is also greater emphasis on early exit strategies.8 billion in 2009. The data currently available can. Billion of US Dollars Growth Rate. and L. albeit at comparatively small levels. Credit constraints and the cyclicity of R&D investment: Evidence from France. P. initial public offerings or the investment of corporate funds directly in external start-up companies – has historically been more limited during economic downturns. Canada and the Russian Federation. 29 April 2010. Berman.. Credit constraints on R&D investments tend to be particularly pro-cyclical in firms facing tighter capital supply constraints. VC in the US – the largest source of VC – made up for USD 12. however. Dow Jones Venture Source. at the expense of early stage (seed) investment8. over the last years anecdotal evidence is pointing to a shift towards later-stage (lowerrisk) investing. N. 2010 17 ongoing activities. In the first quarter of 2010. % . Q1 2010 Global Venture Financing Report. R&D expenditure and the crisis in 2008 For 2008. US National Venture Capital Association. based on data from PricewaterhouseCoopers/National Venture Capital Association. Data obtained from the European Private Equity & Venture Capital Association (EVCA).WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. provisional data show that the 5 6 7 8 9 Aghion. Eymard (2008).. June 2010 Despite this turnaround. n° 193.

China. R&D intensity increased. As revenues fell more steeply than R&D expenditure in most of 2009. Singapore and South Africa. Some of the firms missing may not conduct R&D or their R&D expenditure might not be considered central to company activities. Israel.000 firms that report R&D expenditure on a quarterly basis.9% in 2008. When.7%) (Figure 6). % 20 10 0 na in l nd d d tri a um ay om ce re al a s ea ae Ita l an ar lic ub ep n a an an ad tio Sp a tu g po Ko r Au s Is r m er gd m an hi w la gi nd Po l an ga Ire Be l Po r en Am er Fi Ki n de N Fr C et he Si n of rla Fe G D lic of te d an ub St at es N ep si ni us R R Country Note: R&D data refer to gross domestic expenditure on R&D. to 4. This is about a third of the total number of firms for which electronic SEC filings are available. 2010 majority of countries continued to experience growth in total R&D from 2007 to 2008. In 2008. Austria and Germany) most countries saw a slowdown in year-on-year growth in R&D expenditure.g. The slowdown was particularly pronounced for Singapore. business sector R&D expenditure of some countries with the largest business R&D expenditure10 slowed from a slightly higher than 7% growth in the years from 2005 to 2006 and 2006 to 2007. the Russian Federation. France and Japan (in order of appearance in Figure 5). except for a few countries (e.11 These averages hide the fact that some firms have substantially increased their R&D expenditure. Source: WIPO. but an actual decrease in R&D expenditure occured between 2008 and 2009 (-1. on average. based on data from the OECD. 10 11 All OECD high-income economies (31 countries) plus Argentina. renewed revenue growth outpaced the growth in R&D expenditure. Spain. Israel. R&D expenditure and the crisis in 2009 Data based on SEC filings show a small decline in year-on-year growth from 2007 to 2008. on average R&D intensity fell again. R&D expenditure mostly rose in 2008 but at a slower rate than in previous years.18 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. Italy. China. later. Similar data for firms that report quarterly R&D expenditure confirm the absolute decline in R&D expenditure in the first half of 2009 and a return to positive growth as of the fourth quarter of 2009 (Figure 6).. Data for India are not available. June 2010 Figures for business R&D as reported in aggregate official figures (business expenditure on R&D. or BERD) or company filings confirm this trend and show that.500 firms that report R&D expenditure on a yearly basis and about 2. U ni te d U C ze ch R Ja ra or C nl pa ic n k y y . the sample includes more than 2. Figure 5: Real R&D expenditure growth rate (%) 2007 30 2008 Growth Rate. However. Extracted from SEC filings. (Source: OECD Main Science and Technology Indicators).

2010 19 Figure 6: R&D expenditure based on company filings at the US Stock Exchange R&D expenditure yearly growth rate (%) 9.2) shows that. A systematic analysis of the available data for the top 100 firms in terms of PCT applications (see A. HP (Hewlett-Packard). FREESCALE SEMI (Freescale Semiconductor). DAIMLER IBM 6. Roche.000 firms across all sectors.000 NOVARTIS R&D Expenditure. HENKEL KONICA MITSUBISHI HEAVY IND. Source: WIPO..000F.g. Toyota.3 15 Revenue and R&D expenditure quarterly growth rate (%) R&D Expenditure Revenue 10 Growth Rate.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. Source: WIPO. % Growth Rate. GM (General Motors). HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE MICROSOFT NOKIA TOYOTA 8.5. on average. based on company filings at the US Securities and Exchange Commission or annual reports Many of the top PCT applicants (for example. Q1 2010 versus Q1 2009). % -1. US Dollars GM SAMSUNG ELEC.7 5 0 -5 -10 2007 2008 2009 2009-Q1 2009-Q2 2009-Q3 2009-Q4 2010-Q1 Year Year Note: The graph is based on data for 2.000 .000 - FUJITSU CONTINENTAL FUJIFILM SHARP CATERPILLAR HONEYWELL PHILIPS P&G RENAULT QUALCOMM 2. Companies report their financial results according to different fiscal years (see footnote 12). DOW GLOBAL DUPONT 3M NTT DOCOMO SHELL UNILEVER APPLIED MATERIALS L'OREAL FREESCALE SEMI. Nokia. Figure 7: R&D expenditure of top 100 PCT applicants (2008-09/10 growth rate and 2009 volume) 10. Abbreviations used: P&G (Procter and Gamble). NIKON KYOCERA DAIKIN KONICA MINOLTA PIONEER L'AIR LIQUIDE EASTMAN KODAK MONDOBIOTECH NTN ZTE ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 R&D Expenditure Growth (%) Note: The graph contains around 80 of the top 100 PCT applicants.BASF APPLE HUAWEI MITSUBISHI ELEC. yearly R&D expenditure decreased between 2008 and 2009.000 INTEL SIEMENS HONDA SONY ASTRAZENECA HITACHI ALCATEL LUCENT TOSHIBA MOTOROLA NEC HP BOSCH PANASONIC ERICSSON 4. based on company filings at the US Securities and Exchange Commission or annual reports . shows yearon-year growth rates between identical quarters (e. Novartis. Microsoft and General Motors) are also the top R&D spenders worldwide.450 firms across all sectors. PANASONIC ELEC.0 7. Note: The graph is based on data for 2.

most notably Chinese firms such as ZTE (+44. Portugal and the US. the impact on smaller firms more generally or firms from middle-income economies (exept for a few in China or India. firms in the sample reporting annual data for the full year 2009 (43 firms) showed a smaller decline in R&D expenditures (-1. or June 2009 to June 2010) experienced a significant decrease in R&D expenditures (-16%) which may be explained by the fact that Japan’s economy was particularly affected by the crisis.6%.. That said.5%. Novartis (3. 2010 The five firms in the sample reporting annual data from September / October 2008 to September / October 2009 experienced a fall in R&D expenditures by 3. on average. the decline in R&D spending among all the firms in this sample was particularly pronounced for automotive companies reflecting their cash flow problems.7% year-on-year).14 This had repercussions on government budget appropriations for R&D in 2008 and/or 2009 in high-income economies. In the pharmaceutical sector. Toshiba (-14.9%) and the automotive supplier ZF Friedrichshafen (+23. Austria.g. Microsoft (10. of which three firms report for the fiscal year ending in June 2009. These averages hide the substantial company-by-company variations that can be seen in Figure 7. 3. but also firms such as Apple (+20. and company-to-company comparisons are not recommended when this is the case. of total expenditures in high-income economies. stimulating private R&D investment (including through R&D tax credits and public procurement). Honda (-17.9%) and major automotive suppliers such as Bosch (-7. OECD (2009). implementing measures for SMEs and policies promoting R&D employment as well as skills preservation and development (e. governments are formulating and adhering to R&D spending targets (including increases in R&D funding.9%) but not L’Oréal (+3.8%) and Huawei (+27.3%. The reporting periods of individual firms vary.20 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. The other firms in this top 20 group all experienced a – sometimes substantial – decline in R&D spending. notably General Motors (-24. fn. The group averages in terms of expenditure growth involve conversion of R&D expenditures into United States Dollars. Samsung (5. 43 firms report for the fiscal year ending in December 2009 and 29 firms report for the fiscal year ending in March or April 2010. the majority of information technology (IT) or related firms in this sample cut their R&D expenditure substantially over the reporting periods – for example. NEC (-20. for example) is currently not documented. the Czech Republic. with some firms substantially increasing and some decreasing R&D expenditure.8%). Through these measures. sometimes significantly (in constant terms and at purchasing power parity rates (PPP)). electrical engineering).4%). firms showed either R&D increases or stable budgets – Hoffmann-La Roche and Novartis (see above) – reflecting a lesser impact of the economic downturn on the pharmaceutical industry and possibly more longer-term R&D-projects and thus greater resilience to spontaneous cuts. and Siemens (3. and are thus influenced by exchange rate movements. Moreover.1%.4%. The other (largely Japanese firms) that recently reported their annual figures (following the fiscal year March 2009 to March 2010. pharmaceuticals).3%). public sector R&D expenditure only makes up for 30%. Microsoft and Samsung (as mentioned above).7%). Philipps (-8. above. Pioneer (-34.6%). Construction-related firms such as Caterpillar (-17. software).13 Among the top 20 R&D spenders in the sample. a few ICT firms have substantially increased their R&D expenditures.4%). Motorola (-22. Overall. NTT Docomo (+9.5%). to prevent the unemployment of young researchers and loss of skills). data are available for 80 firms.4%).4%. information technology). most governments of high-income economies.5%) – with the exception of Renault (+2.9%). only a few firms saw substantial growth in R&D expenditure – in a decreasing order of R&D growth – Hoffmann-la-Roche (11.8%).12 On average. Freescale Semiconductor (-26.2).8%). However. as well as a select number of fast-growing middle-income economies. As part of their stimulus packages. which have continued to increase. pharmaceuticals). measures for specific research areas and investment in R&D infrastructure).7%). five firms for the fiscal year ending in September or October 2009. 12 13 14 Among the top 100 PCT filers. Daimler (-5.4) and Continental (-9.2%). . Toyota (-19. in countries such as Australia.8%) have also cut back on R&D expenditure in light of the revenue falls in that sector. The effects on entrepreneurship and firm entry are also still unknown. Hewlett-Packard (-20.6%) and Unilever (-3.5%).1%). as have consumer product firms such as Procter & Gamble (-7. While these data offer insights into the behavior of large firms. have pledged to avoid cutbacks in science and R&D or to even increase spending. and Sony (–13%). Sharp (-14.

WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS, 2010

21

Governments of middle-income economies, such as China and India, have also continued to devote an increasing amount and share of public expenditure to R&D, included as a part of fiscal stimulus programs (OECD, see footnote 3). The falls in private R&D registered in high-income economies, coupled with private and public R&D spending increases in middle-income economies, are expected to lead to an acceleration of the geographic shift of R&D activity to fast-growing middle-income economies. China, for instance, is likely to overtake Japan soon in terms of gross domestic R&D expenditure, at PPP rates. There is no linear relationship between R&D expenditure and patent filing activity or innovation. Not all R&D leads to new products or processes as defined above. In the sample of top 100 PCT applicants and their R&D expenditure, there is a positive and significant correlation between R&D investment and PCT applications across the top PCT applicants; however, R&D expenditure explains less than 10% of the variation in patent applications. In other words, a certain number of firms with relatively low R&D expenditure still file a large number of patents. Patent filing intensity is influenced by a large number of factors, including the level of R&D (in particular business R&D), the number of researchers, their scientific publications, the design of the patent system, institutional incentives to patent, and education and science and technology policies more broadly. Short-run changes in R&D expenditure appear to affect same-year and – to a lesser extent - future patent applications. The economic literature has demonstrated the former, but it is divided as to the existence and the exact length of the lag between R&D and patent filing.15 Accordingly, a decline in R&D expenditure coincides with declines in IP filings in the same year, and potentially with declines in subsequent years. Decreased R&D expenditure today, or in the aftermath of the economic downturn, might mean fewer patent applications in subsequent years. Firms not having engaged in new R&D projects during the crisis might lead to reduced patentable research output in the future and a drop in IP filings, well after recovery has set in. It is also important to keep in mind that reductions or a streamlining of R&D expenditure in times of crisis does not have to affect research output or innovation, if efficiency improvements are made and less promising projects discontinued. In research-intensive firms, the crisis may have led to a review of R&D projects and patents in order to identify and keep only those which appear to be most central to the business strategy. Finally, in times of crisis and tighter budgets, firms may be looking for new ways to improve efficiency and to innovate outside of formal R&D undertakings. Past economic crises have also coincided with the rise of new firms and new business models. These trends may not be captured by data on R&D or patenting activity.

The effect of the economic downturn on patent applications in 2008 and 2009
Most countries experienced a slowdown in the growth of patent applications in 2008 and an actual decrease in the numbers of patent applications filed in 2009. These tendencies apply to national and regional patent applications as well as PCT applications. However, like adjustments in R&D expenditure, the patent-filing response to the crisis has been uneven across countries. In times of economic downturn, reduced business confidence and a fall in cash flows may prompt firms to file for fewer patents. Firms may opt for patent filings and renewals that focus on core technologies. Anecdotal evidence concerning the current downturn suggests that company-wide budget cuts, which also affected IP departments, were behind the effort to streamline existing IP portfolios. However, there is no systematic effect across industries and companies. Similar to R&D expenditure, some firms have continued to increase patent application activity.

15

In some of the economic literature, it is asserted that R&D has an immediate (contemporaneous) effect on patents and, other findings in the economic literature show a lagged effect – with some empirical papers finding evidence for both. See Pakes, A. and Z. Griliches (1984), Patents and R&D at the firm level: A First Look, Chicago: University of Chicago Press; Stoneman, P. (1983), Patents and R&D: Searching for a lag structure, Proceedings of the Conference on Quantitative Studies of R&D in Industry, Paris and Hall, B.H, Z. Griliches, and J.A. Hausman (1986), Patent and R&D: Is there a lag?, International Economic Review, 27 (2), June 1986 and Gurmu S. and F. PerezSebastian (2008), Patents, R&D and Lag Effects: Evidence from Flexible Methods for Count Panel Data on Manufacturing Firms, Empirical Economics, Volume 35, Number 3, 507-526.

22

WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS, 2010

One would expect patent applications by small firms to be especially affected by the economic downturn. On the one hand, decreased access to capital might mean that smaller firms are less able to finance patent applications, including applications in multiple countries. On the other hand, there are reasons for small firms to be relatively resilient during downturns in terms of patent applications. Patents might be critical to a small firm’s ability to attract venture and other capital, as well as to secure its relative position and growth vis-à-vis large companies. There are no systematic data available that would allow an analysis of how smaller firms have fared relative to larger ones. The little available evidence at hand for France, for example, shows that large aggregate drops are often caused by a drop in applications of a few large rather than small companies. These differing effects according to firm size merit more investigation at the national level.

A slowdown in patent applications since the mid 2000s and a (likely) decline in 2009 due to the economic crisis
Both national and PCT data show that growth in numbers of patent applications started to slow before the onset of the economic downturn (see Figure 8). This slowdown started in 2005 and followed the strong surge in patenting over the previous decade that was only interrupted by the dot-com crisis. The latter led to actual declines in national and regional patents filed worldwide in 2002 and to a substantial decline in the growth in numbers of PCT applications. This deceleration in growth can be seen in aggregate figures for national and PCT applications (Figure 8), but also on a country-by-country basis for some of the largest offices, although it is not consistent across all countries (Table 1 and Figure 9). Some countries, such as Japan, actually experienced consistent decrease in national patents applications since 2005 (Figure 9). In the US, the slowdown in applications was felt after 2006, with a drop in growth rates from 9% in 2006 to 7.1% in 2007 and a drop to zero growth between 2007 and 2008 and 2008 and 2009 (Table 1). Similarly, the Republic of Korea experienced a rapid decline in growth rates after 2005 (from 14.8% in 2005 to 3.3% in 2006). Even for China and India, year-on-year growth rates mostly declined from 2005 onwards, although remaining at comparatively high levels (Table 1). The European Patent Office (EPO) and the patent office of Germany are the exceptions, with stable growth rates after 2004 before the drop in 2009.
Figure 8: Patent application growth rate (%)
Total Patent Applications Total PCT Applications

16.1

Growth Rate, %

11.5 9.4 8.1 5.9 4.4 2.0 3.0 5.3 6.4 6.9 5.7 4.0 2.6 2.1

-0.8 -4.5 2009

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Year

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, June 2010

WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS, 2010

23

Figure 9: Patent applications by patent office: selected offices
2006 2007 2008 2009

Number of Patent Applications

500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0

Ja pa n

C hi na

of Ko re a

of Am

Pa te nt

R ep ub lic

St at es

Eu ro pe an

U ni te d

Patent Office

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, June 2010

However, 2008 saw the greatest slowdown in national and regional patent applications since the dot-com crisis (2.6% compared to 4% in the previous year). The slowdown was largely due to zero growth in the US and a drop in the number of applications filed in Japan and the Republic of Korea. The substantial growth in numbers of applications filed in China (18.2%) prevented applications worldwide from reaching zero growth in 2008. The 2008 slowdown was followed by an actual drop in patent applications at most top offices in 2009 (in order of the size of decline: Japan, the EPO, the Republic of Korea, Germany, the United Kingdom and France), except for the US, which saw zero growth, and China, which saw a substantial growth of 8.5% (albeit lower than in previous years). Taken together, the total number of patent applications filed at the eight major patent offices in 2009 declined by 2.7% from the previous year. Given that these top eight offices account for 80% of global patent applications, an actual global decline in patent applications in 2009 appears likely and would constitute the first drop in applications since 2002.
Table 1: Patent application growth rate by patent office (%): selected offices
Patent Office China European Patent Office France Germany Japan Republic of Korea United Kingdom United States of America 2005 32.9 4.1 -0.1 1.7 0.9 14.8 -6.6 9.5 Panel 2006 21.4 5.1 -0.2 0.6 -4.3 3.3 -8.0 9.0 A: Total 2007 2008 16.5 18.2 4.1 3.8 -0.8 -2.4 0.7 2.3 -3.0 -1.3 3.8 -1.1 -2.9 -6.5 7.1 0.0 2009 8.5 -7.9 -3.6 -4.5 -10.8 -5.0 -3.9 0.0 2005 42.1 0.7 -0.2 -0.1 16.1 -7.0 9.7 Panel B: Resident 2006 2007 2008 30.8 25.1 27.1 1.4 -0.7 -5.7 2.7 -2.0 6.7 1.3 -0.3 -3.9 2.6 -0.6 8.8 0.1 2.9 -1.0 -1.2 -4.9 -4.0 2009 17.7 -3.0 -2.8 -10.5 -0.2 -3.3 -4.4 2005 23.6 4.1 -3.7 9.9 8.1 11.1 -5.8 9.2 Panel C: Non-Resident 2006 2007 2008 10.4 4.4 3.4 5.1 4.1 3.8 -7.7 -12.2 -17.8 6.1 4.5 0.3 4.2 1.9 -3.0 5.1 7.5 -0.6 -18.7 -7.7 -10.1 11.7 5.2 4.6 2009 -10.3 -7.9 -7.8 -11.0 -12.8 -19.0 -5.5 4.4

Note: Patent applications filed at the EPO are considered non-resident applications. Source: WIPO Statistics Database, June 2010

To better understand the drops in national patent applications, it is helpful to look at the relative contributions of resident and non-resident applications (Figure 10).

R us s

ia n

Fe de ra tio n

er ic a

G

er m

O

In di a

ffi ce

an y

Second. as non-resident applications actually grew by 4. the yearon-year decrease reflects an 10.24 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. . There is indeed significant heterogeneity in the 4. notably in the automotive sector which was heavily affected by the crisis as noted earlier. The fall in non-resident compared to resident applications was particularly marked at the EPO and the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO). firms may have filed for patents for only their most valuable inventions. in Japan and France. 4. To a large extent. Whether or not PCT applications were more or less affected by the economic downturn than national or regional patent applications depends on several considerations. Similarly. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.8 percentage points lower than in 2007. That fall is steeper than the year-on-year decrease in patent applications filed by US residents with the USPTO. Finally. applicants gain additional time to decide how many jurisdictions in which to pursue patent protection. in filing a PCT application. 2010 Figure 10: Source of change in total patent applications by office (%). Since patent protection for those inventions is more likely sought in more than one country. in France. sectors and countries. thus relying less on the PCT System to seek protection in foreign jurisdictions. thereby deferring IP filing costs to a later date.8% fall in PCT applications from the US – the largest user of the PCT System. the majority of the decline was due to reductions in numbers of applications from selected major patent applicants. as described above. This flexibility and deferral of payment may be especially valuable in times of cash constraints and high economic uncertainty. offsetting an equal percentage decline in resident applications.16 PCT applications experience a decline PCT applications grew by 2. In 2009. accounting for around 30% of total applications. the crisis led to a substantial fall in international trade. 2008-09 -3 6 00 -3 9 -5 0 -7 9 -10 8 Japan European Patent Office Republic of Korea -4 5 Germany United Kingdom France United States of America China Note: Patent applications filed at the EPO are considered non-resident applications. PCT applications may have been less affected than national or regional applications. The sharp fall in PCT applications from the US represents close to 80% of the worldwide drop.7% despite the downturn. where the drop in non-resident applications accounted for most of the overall fall. SMEs did not cut back on patent applications but instead increased their filings by 3.4%. PCT applications worldwide dropped by 4. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) again constitutes an exception. resident applications dropped to a more substantial extent than did non-resident applications. 2008-09 Total Resident Non-Resident 85 Growth rate (%). Interestingly.5% drop in PCT applications in 2009. First. non-resident applications fell more sharply in most patent offices than did resident applications. June 2010 As a possible sign of international cut-backs. Growth rates presented in the graph are weighted by the total growth in numbers of patent applications and should therefore not be compared to the growth rates in Table 1. which saw only a 4.1% in 2008. Firms’ patenting strategies may have focused on domestic markets. 16 Observatoire de la Propriété Intellectuelle (2010). The relative importance of these considerations is likely to differ across companies.5% – the first-ever year-on-year decline since the PCT became operational in 1978. Mémo Objet : Evolution de la propriété industrielle en 2009 et durant le 1er trimestre 2010.4% drop in 2009 (see Figure 11). May 2010.

3 -3. outpacing the 17.8 -11. non-resident applications were more strongly affected by the crisis.3 -2. This growth occurred at the time of flat resident patent applications at the KIPO. the number of PCT applications increased by 3. but at lower growth rates. but only to a slowdown in registrations (from 33% in 2008 to 10% in 2009).4 -3. Growth in numbers of PCT applications from China actually accelerated in 2009 vis-à-vis 2008. a similar comparative assessment of the impact of the crisis on national patent applications in middle. PCT applications grew by 29. a breakdown of design filing growth rates by resident versus non-resident applications confirms that.and low-income economies is premature. The economic recession also had a negative impact on industrial design applications.1% in 2009. The growth rate of PCT applications declined. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. the drop in PCT applications was steeper than the drop in resident national applications.2 3. The majority of middle.3 -10. the third largest user of the PCT System. The Republic of Korea saw continued growth in numbers of PCT applications. 2008-09 29. though at lower magnitudes compared to Japan. June 2010 PCT applications from Germany. saw a decline similar in magnitude to the US (-11. in most offices. The drops in both PCT and resident applications originating from the United Kingdom were of similar magnitude. appearing to be unaffected by the global economic turmoil. like the US. while non-resident applications have declined. the number of resident applications continued to grow at a fast rate.4 -3.1 Growth Rate (%) 17. However.5%. show that in 2009 most major IP offices experienced considerable declines in applications. France saw an increase in PCT applications and a decline in resident applications. 2010 25 Figure 11: Patent application growth rate by country of origin (%): selected origins PCT Applications Growth. Due to the unavailability of 2009 data.7 1. while the number of resident applications at the Japan Patent Office (JPO) fell by 10. Similarly.9% in 2010.7% growth rate in applications by domestic residents at the State Intellectual Property Office of China (SIPO). In Japan. from more than 10% annually in 2008 and the two preceding years.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.8 -4. In China. however.6 -10. That growth was particularly strong in the area of basic communication processes and audiovisual technologies. In China. international registrations via the Hague System did not lead to absolute declines between 2008 and 2009. R ep ub lic U ni te d C hi na .and lower-income economies that use the PCT saw increases in 2009 compared to the previous year. reflecting weaker economic conditions.0 1.6% in 2009. The available data on national and regional industrial design applications.5 G er m an y Ki ng do m Fr an ce of Am er ic a of Ko re a Ja pa n St at es U ni te d Country of Origin Note: Patent applications filed at the EPO are considered non-resident applications and are hence not included among the national resident applications. the second largest user of the PCT System.3% in 2009) and.9 -0. however. to 1. Again. 2008-09 Resident Applications Growth.

9.1 10.6 4.5 -4.6 4.6 -2.8 20.3 8. As indicated earlier.6%) and in the United Kingdom (-11.6 5..2 7.0 7.5 Panel A: Total 2006 2007 12. 2010 A downturn and eventual (likely) drop in trademark applications Similar to patent applications.6 14.3 -13. 2005 12.4 -9.9 -14. Data for the US for the fiscal year ending in September 2009 show that US trademark applications dropped by 12% in 2009.8 .4 4.4 10.4 6.5 5.6 7.7 -19.5 6.7 8.5 4. Panel C: Total Non-Resident 2005 2006 2007 2008 21. non-resident percentages are calculated on the basis of a sum of direct applications plus Madrid designations received.9 Country of Origin Note: The high growth in Madrid registrations in 2005 can be explained by the accession of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) to the Madrid System.5 3. Reflecting the weaker economic conditions.9 -9.1 3.1 5.4 0.2 5.17 The declines in trademark applications were more pronounced in many countries than were declines in patent applications.4 20.4 2.0 -10.5 5.4 3.2 -1.3 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2.5 4.7 -6. Note: For offices party to the Madrid System.9 -11.1 -3.1 .3 -4.6 10.5 -0.8 -1.6 0. Firms appear to be more cautious about introducing new products to market when economic uncertainty is high.8 0.6 13.1 2..0 23.2 6.7 6. growth in numbers of trademark applications started to slow before the onset of the economic crisis.4 -2.1 6.2 10.. 17 These data are not yet available according to calendar year and have thus not been integrated in Table 2.3 6.7 -10. in 2009 (Table 2). and a further fall is expected in 2009.2 7.5 2.8 4.6 8.8 9.9% in total trademark applications in 2008.9 -4.3 7.3 .4 15.3 -12.1 5.2 7.6 2.6 9.0 9.0 .9 5.8 -3.3 10.9 -16.9 -2.2 11. .6 5.2 9. .0 -7.1 -5.2 3.0 Panel B: 2006 12.3 -7.2 2.0 Resident 2007 2008 2009 -9.4 25.7 4.1 18.0 8.. Figure 12: Trademark application growth rate (%) Total Trademark Applications Total Madrid Registrations 41.6 -0.1 .6 -7..0 -5.5 10. there was an actual decline of 0.2 0. They might also forego new marketing programs for existing products.3 2. the decline was particularly pronounced in Japan (-16.7 -8. where data are available. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.7 -1.9 Growth Rate (%) 12.1 15.6 2008 2009 -1. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.7 0.2 8.7 10.6 15.7 -6.5 2. trademarks tend to be more vulnerable to economic downturns and more responsive to subsequent recoveries.8) but less so in France (-1%) and the Republic of Korea (-2. This confirms the earlier hypothesis that trademark applications are more vulnerable to the business cycle.4 -11.3 2009 -15. -3.7 3.7%).6 -2. June 2010 The available data on national and regional trademark applications confirm that most but not all major IP offices registered a considerable decline in trademark applications in 2008 and.9 9.3 10. namely as of 2005 or later depending on the country (see Figure 12).4 -11.6 -8.7 -2..3 -12.0 6.1 -3.26 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. Table 2: Trademark application growth rate by IP office (%): selected offices IP Office China France Germany Japan OHIM Republic of Korea United Kingdom United States of America 2005 13.0 -9.9 -0.8 4.0 7.0 -5. June 2010 In 2008.7 -16.

which shows a pronounced decline for other users of the Madrid System). trademark applications bounced back to positive growth at a few offices. for example. Figure 13: Source of change in total trademark applications by IP office (%). where data are available (China. except for Germany and Japan. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. possibly. in parallel with the anticipated recovery. In terms of individual origins. The recovery in growth rates for both China and France is substantial. June 2010 Economic crisis hits registrations under the Madrid System As shown earlier. in France. 2008-09 Total Resident Non-Resident Growth rate (%). the decline was widely shared among all countries using the Madrid System (see “Others” in Figure 14.3% in 2009 (Figure 12). Where quarterly data are available. 19 . Benelux19 and France accounted for the majority of this drop (in decreasing order of degree). Laurence JOLY. All offices in the sample experienced a decline in non-resident trademark applications. especially in China. Netherlands and Luxembourg. Avril 2010. they show that the majority of filing growth took place in the third and fourth quarters of 2009 and thus.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. the creation of a statute for micro-enterprises explains some of that growth. Les dépôts de marques en 2009. However. Belgium. resident applications continued to grow. In France. Germany. 18 19 Observatoire de la Propriété Intellectuelle (2010). 2008-09 81 20 8 06 -2 4 -7 7 Germany -7 2 Japan Republic of Korea OHIM France China Note: Growth rates presented in the graph are weighted by total growth in trademark applications and should therefore not be compared to the growth rates in Table 2. In contrast.18 A breakdown of trademark filing growth rates in 2009 by resident versus non-resident applications yields a similar pattern to that observed for patents (Figure 13). compared to patent filing growth which was mostly negative in 2009. international trademark registrations under WIPO’s Madrid System dropped by 12. whereas international registrations from Japan and the Russian Federation remained broadly unchanged (Figure 14). France and the OHIM). the US. 2010 27 Interestingly.

4 -22. June 2010 A comparison of the growth in numbers of registrations under the Madrid System compared to resident trademark applications shows that. in the majority of countries with available data.1 St at es si of G er de itz 3.28 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. this can be taken as a sign that firms focused on national markets during the crisis.5 -13.5 -8. Again.3 -12. Japan and the Russian Federation (Figure 15).3 -11.5 -14. Resident applications continued to grow in China.3 -1.1 -11.8 na IM n nd ce Ita l lu pa tio an ic Fr Am Be Fe Sw an R us Origin Source: WIPO Statistics Database.6 -1. Trademark Reg.9 O th e 4.7 -3.2 -4.6 Resident Applications Growth.9 -1.3 -1. 2010 Figure 14: Source of change in Madrid international registrations by origin (%).7 -14.7 -27. France and at OHIM. Growth Rate.4 -0. June 2010 R us si an ze Fe de R G N Ja pa n in y nl an d e y bl ic ay Sp a an c rk e H or w ra t C O io n rs y x n a y -4.1 -1.9 hi na IM er m an ep u Fi Fr Tu ch C Origin Source: WIPO Statistics Database. 2008-09 Growth Rate (%) 10.1 -4. Madrid registrations were more negatively affected by the crisis.7 -5.4 -4.0 .9 -0. 2008-09 Int.4 -11.5 U ni te d 6.1 -0. 2008-09 25. % 0.6 -0.1 0.4 O H an hi la ne er Ja ra C er m -11. except for Norway. Figure 15: Trademark application growth rate by origin (%): selected origins Madrid Int'l Registrations Growth.

Thus. and many middle-income economies have returned to fast pre-crisis growth rates. This turnaround notwithstanding. The true overall impact of the crisis and of recovery on innovation – be it positive or negative – is likely to become apparent only over time. The post-crisis world economy is likely to see faster rates of economic growth in low. The crisis is likely to have a lingering impact on IP filing behavior in 2010 and 2011. and there is a risk of further degradation in the economic climate. The corresponding geographic shift of innovative activity. that has been ongoing for a number of years is bound to continue. and there appears to be a modest recovery in R&D spending. which – based on lessons from past crises – is likely to be more pronounced for patent than for trademark filings. economic crises can offer opportunities for rationalization. The first signs of recovery are also apparent in the greater availability of venture capital since late 2009. In addition. the acceleration of structural changes. new entrepreneurship and “creative destruction” . Full crisis recovery will take time. in many large economies demand continues to be subdued and unemployment stubbornly high. preliminary data for the first six months of 2010 point to renewed growth of PCT applications.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. recovery in patent applications is bound to be more modest. while trademark applications are expected to return to healthy growth in 2010 and 2011. 2010 29 OUTLOOK Most major economies have emerged from recession. . Despite their detrimental effect on revenues and cash flows.and middle-income economies – especially in East Asia and India. as measured by R&D expenditure and IP filings.elements that are only incompletely measured by R&D expenditure or IP filings.

.

Similarly. spanning a large number of offices. most notably in China. skilled in the art. international collaboration.SECTION A PAT E N T S A N D UTILITY MODELS Over the past two decades. WIPO-administered PCT statistics are available for 2009. It is valid for a limited period of time (generally 20 years). and pending patents. patent legislation and patenting behavior have become prominent public policy themes. during which patent holders can commercially exploit their inventions on an exclusive basis. The patent system is designed to encourage innovation by providing innovators with time-limited exclusive legal rights. and the rights are limited to the jurisdiction of the issuing authority. They can also file an “international application” through the PCT. applicants are obliged to disclose their inventions to the public so that others. intensity of patent activity. origin. the patent system has undergone important changes worldwide. In return. are available for 2008. After a brief description of the trend in worldwide patent and UM activity follows an analysis of patent and UM activity by office. patents in force. patent families. These offices are responsible for issuing patents. nonobviousness and industrial applicability. oppositions to patents granted. use of the utility model system for protecting inventions has risen significantly. The procedures for acquiring patent rights are governed by the rules and regulations of national and regional patent offices. This section provides an overview of worldwide patent and utility model (UM) activity that will enable users to analyze and monitor the latest trends. PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) international applications. As a result. To obtain patent rights. thus enabling innovators to appropriate the returns of their innovative activities. which facilitates the acquisition of patent rights in a large number of jurisdictions. National and regional patent office data. The PCT is an international treaty administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). applicants must file an application describing the invention with a national or regional office. in the “Special Theme” that addresses the impact of the global financial crisis on IP activity. National and regional office statistics for 2009 are included for a handful of countries. patents by field of technology. A wide range of indicators are included to offer insights into the functioning and use of the patent and UM systems. PAT E N T S Y S T E M A patent confers a set of exclusive right to applicants by law for inventions that meet standards of novelty. may replicate the invention. The PCT System simplifies the process of multiple national patent filings by reduc- .

during which UM holders can commercially exploit their inventions on an exclusive basis. In this report. the procedures for granting UM rights are governed by the rules and regulations of national IP offices. However. the UM terminology refers to UMs and other types of protection similar to UMs. during which an international search and optional preliminary examination and supplementary international search are performed. The PCT international application process starts with the international phase. UMs are available in around 60 countries. . at most offices.int/pct/en/. For example. innovation patents in Australia and short-term patents in Ireland are considered equivalent to UMs.wipo. the decision on whether or not to grant patents remains at the discretion of national or regional patent offices. and rights are limited to the jurisdiction of the issuing authority.ing the requirement to file a separate application in each jurisdiction. and concludes with the national phase. during which national (or regional) patent offices decide on the patentability of an invention according to national law. UMs are issued for a shorter duration (7 to 10 years) and. UM applications are granted without substantive examination. and the patent rights remain limited to the jurisdiction of the patent granting authority. a UM confers a set of rights for an invention for a limited period of time. Like patents. UTILITY MODEL SYSTEM Like a patent. For example. For further details about the PCT System. refer to: www. and UMs are an important alternative to patents in protecting inventions. The terms and conditions for granting UMs are different from those for “traditional” patents.

1 depicts the total number of patent applications and patents granted across the world between 1985 and 2008. the overall growth rate of patent applications continued to be positive. reflecting strong growth in China (Figure A.8 10.2 24. a drop in the number of applications filed with the European Patent Office (EPO. was largely due to zero growth in patent applications in the United States of America (US) and a drop in the number of applications filed in Japan and the Republic of Korea. The world total is a WIPO estimate covering around 110 patent offices (see Data Description).1 WORLDWIDE TREND A. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.8 3.735).102) and substantial growth at the State Intellectual Property Office of China (SIPO. The slowdown in patent application growth in 2008.3 11. when global economic activity started to decline.6 1.500.1.5 8.000 Growth Rate (%) Patent Grants 600.0 4. June 2010 .1 5.0 2.0 -0.5 5.5 4. Despite the slowdown.1 2.9 4.000 750.It includes direct applications and Patent Cooperation Treaty national phase entry data.4 -9.000 300.0 5. As discussed in the Special Theme. Application counts are based on application date.3a). Figure A.5 10.000 1.1.7 2.9 -0.5 0. -12.7 4.000 Growth Rate (%) Patent Applications 1.000 -1. The latest available data covering a large number of patent offices are for 2008.6 Grant Year Note: Data prior to 1995 may be downward biased due to incomplete reporting of PCT national phase entries.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.5 24.7 4.3 5. and grant counts are based on grant date.000. +24.0 7.000 450.2 -26. 2010 33 A.6 0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Application Year Patent grants Patent Grants 900.2.4 6.9 1.0 3.3 0.6 0.1.0 -3. Trend in total patent applications and patent grants Patent applications Patent Applications 2.1 Trend in total patent activity Figure A.0 2.000.6 4.7 6.000 150.000 500.6 1.5 2.0 2.5 4.3 8. 2009 data show zero growth at the US patent and trademark office (USPTO). As in 2008.000 0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 -3.1 -11.1 -5. 2009 data for several patent offices point to a drop in patent applications worldwide.1 19.2 3.

2a Total resident and non-resident patent applications and grants Resident and non-resident applications Resident 1. A resident grant refers to a patent granted on the basis of a resident application.6% increase over the previous year. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. Resident applications are sometimes also referred to as domestic applications. A sharp drop in the number of patents granted by the patent office of the Republic of Korea (Figure A.000 0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Grant Year Note: Data prior to 1995 may be downward biased due to incomplete reporting of PCT national phase entries. representing a 0. representing a 2.6% increase over 2007. As with applications.1. June 2010 . The world total is a WIPO estimate covering around 110 patent offices (see Data Description).4) accounts for a significant portion of the slowdown in the growth in global patent grants. The long-term trend shows that the number of applications filed worldwide was stable between 1985 and 1995 . A non-resident application is an application filed with the patent office of a given country by an applicant residing in another country. the number of patent applications worldwide has followed a sustained upward trend. Patent applications filed with and granted by the EPO are considered non-resident applications. approximately 1.around one million applications per year. China and the US account for more than half of the growth between 1995 and 2008.2 Resident and non-resident patent activity A resident application is defined as an application filed with a patent office by an applicant residing in the country in which that office has jurisdiction. a patent application filed with the Japan Patent Office (JPO) by a resident of Japan is considered a resident application for the JPO.000 Non-Resident 400.000 Non-Resident Patent Applications 900. a patent application filed with the USPTO by an applicant residing in France is considered a non-resident application for the USPTO.000 300. Since then.34 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.600 in 2008. except for a small drop in 2002. 2010 In 2008.000 200.2. For example. For example. the growth in total patents granted has slowed in recent years.200. Figure A. A.000 Patent Grants 300.1.000 600. Non-resident applications are also known as foreign applications.91 million patent applications were filed across the globe.000 100. A non-resident grant is a patent granted on the basis of a non-resident application.000 0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Application Year Resident and non-resident grants Resident 500. The total number granted stood at around 777.

2% in 2008.6%) in 2008 compared to 2007. which is considerably higher than its share in the 1990s.8 million applications. 2010 35 In 2008.1. Non-resident grants account for 45. amounting to a total of around 0. Figure A. the Republic of Korea and the US filed fewer patent applications at their respective national patent offices in 2008 compared to 2007. the total number of resident patent applications stood at around 1. Residents of China. A substantial increase in resident patents granted by the SIPO prevented a larger drop in total grants. Residents of Japan.4% of global patents granted. As with resident grants. a 2. in contrast. Non-resident applications at the USPTO and the SIPO increased by 4.4%. The total number of resident patents granted decreased by 1.1% more applications in 2008.1 million. This is mostly due to a drop in resident patents granted by the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO).6% and 3. there was a drop in nonresident grants at the KIPO and a significant rise at the SIPO.6% increase over the previous year. This growth rate masks the large heterogeneity in annual changes of resident applications across patent offices. Total non-resident patents granted increased by 3.5% in 2008 compared to the previous year. respectively.2b Resident and non-resident share in total patent applications and grants Total patent applications Resident 100 Non-Resident Resident and Non-Resident Share (%) 80 60 40 20 0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Application Year Total patent grants Resident 100 Non-Resident Resident and Non-Resident Share (%) 80 60 40 20 0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Grant Year Source: WIPO Statistics Database. The non-resident share of total patent applications was 44% in 2008.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. June 2010 . The total number of non-resident applications increased by a similar magnitude (+2. filed 27.

000 200.9%.6) accounts for most of the overall growth in global UM applications. strong growth at the SIPO accounts for most of the increase in total grants.000 12. The grant data show a similar distribution between resident and non-resident grants.2 Growth Rate (%) Utility Model Grants 300.1.1 18.000.000 200.6 8. which is far above the proportion observed for patent applications.4 Non-Resident 8.3 8.000 100. the resident share of total UM applications is 96. 2010 A.8 12.6 9. in 2008. the UM System is mostly used by residents to protect inventions at national patent offices. Growth in UM applications at the SIPO (Figure A.1. For example. In contrast to patents.3 shows data on the total number of UM applications filed and issued across the world during the period 2000-08.3 Trend in total utility model applications and grants Utility model applications Resident 400. June 2010 .5 8. Figure A. The total number of UM applications has grown continually over the past decade and.000 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Grant Year Note: The world total is a WIPO estimate covering around 55 patent offices (see Data Description).1 -1.3 Trend in utility model activity Figure A.2 7.5 1. Similar to applications. representing a 12.000 -0.000 UM applications were filed across the world. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.1.2.36 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.000 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Application Year Utility model grants Resident 400.2 -1.2 9.3 Growth Rate (%) Utility Model Applications 300.3 15.000 100. The total number of UMs granted in 2008 is estimated at 238.7 2.2% increase over 2007.2 -0. approximately 313.6 Non-Resident 14.

followed by an acceleration in applications at the patent offices of Japan and. the USPTO overtook the JPO to become the largest patent office as measured by total applications.2. the JPO received the largest number of applications. resident applications account for the major part of total activity.1a presents the long-term trend in patent applications for selected patent offices. In 2005.000 0 1883 1898 1908 1918 1928 1938 1948 1958 1968 1978 1988 1998 2008 Application Year Canada 100. and the aggregate (worldwide) data presented above hide rich variations across offices.000 250. patent application data show that the patent offices of China. while at other offices non-resident activity far exceeds resident activity. Notably. at some patent offices. reaching 36.000 40.812 applications in 2008. the USPTO received 456.000 Patent Applications 60. the SIPO and the KIPO saw sharp increases in numbers of applications.2 PAT E N T A N D U T I L I T Y M O D E L A C T I V I T Y B Y O F F I C E Patent and UM activity differ across patent offices. The number of patent applications filed with the patent office of India was stable until 2000 and has since experienced rapid growth.000 20. It shows that the number of patent applications at leading patent offices was stable until the early 1970s. For example. Between 1968 and 2005. In 2006. later. the SIPO overtook the KIPO to become the third largest patent office and is rapidly closing the gap with the JPO and the USPTO.000 0 1883 1898 1908 1918 1928 1938 1948 1958 1968 1978 1988 1998 2008 Application Year Source: WIPO Statistics Database.2. Figure A.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. Japan and the US account for around 60% of patent applications worldwide. In 2008. 2010 37 A.000 125. A. More recently.000 Japan China Republic of Korea European Patent Office Germany Patent Applications 375.000 Russian Federation Australia United Kingdom France India 80. the US.321 applications. June 2010 .1a Trend in patent applications at selected patent offices United States of America 500. There is also substantial variation in the share of resident and non-resident patent and UM activity.1 Trend in patent applications by patent office Figure A.2.

2% of total patent applications in 2008.4% in 2008. The SIPO experienced the fastest growth in number of patents granted over the same period (+21.1b).2. In contrast.38 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.1b Share of top 5 offices in total patent applications Patent applications United States of America Japan China Republic of Korea European Patent Office Share of Office in Total Patent Applications (%) 100 80 60 40 20 0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Application Year Source: WIPO Statistics Database.1% over the same period. In addition. patents granted by the offices of France and the United Kingdom have declined since the late 1970s. reflecting the emergence of the EPO route. Figure A.2 Trend in patents granted by patent office The trend in patents granted is similar to that observed for patent applications.6% in 1991 to 44.2. the number of patents granted by the KIPO increased by 17.5% annually). As in the case of applications. . Despite a 32% fall in 2008. The drop in number of applications filed with those offices can be largely explained by the existence of an alternative route for acquiring national patent rights. the shares of the top five offices themselves have shifted considerably (Figure A. June 2010 A. the combined share of the JPO and the USPTO decreased from a peak of 59. 2010 The number of patent applications filed with the patent offices of France and the United Kingdom declined over the past three decades. the combined share of the KIPO and the SIPO increased from 4.9%). However.4% to 24.2. the acceleration in number of grants occurred later.4% per year (average annual growth) over the past two decades. a significant increase over 1985 (50. The top five offices accounted for 76. such as the hiring of new examiners. in the mid-1980s. reflecting institutional shifts that have taken place in various patent offices. patents granted show greater year-to-year variation. Compared to patent applications. namely through the EPO. In particular.

There was zero growth in patent applications in the US in 2008.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. For all reporting countries. China and the Republic of Korea. 2007-08 growth rates were below average annual growth rates between 2004 and 2007. The non-resident share of total patent applications varied from 9. For the majority of reporting offices. June 2010 A. China. the non-resident share of total applications was similar to that of total grants.837).000 0 1883 1898 1908 1918 1928 1938 1948 1958 1968 1978 1988 1998 2008 Grant Year Canada 75.7% in Hong Kong (SAR). Despite a fall in the number of applications filed with the JPO (-5.3a depicts the number of resident and non-resident patent applications received by the top 20 patent offices. the USPTO received the largest number of applications in 2008.000 Patent Grants 150.4). where the non-resident share of total applications was below that of total grants (Figure A. As previously pointed out.000 25. A breakdown of the application growth rates for 2004-07 and 2007-08 offers an insight into the impact of the global financial crisis on patent applications (see Special Theme for further details).000 50. except at the SIPO and the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO). This includes the SIPO that. which is far below the 8.000 0 1883 1898 1908 1918 1928 1938 1948 1958 1968 1978 1988 1998 2008 Grant Year Source: WIPO Statistics Database. 2010 39 Figure A. followed by the patent offices of Japan. nonetheless. 100%. by definition.2% in 2008.9% in 2007 to 76. showed the largest growth in applications in 2008.2.2.289) and the KIPO (-1. the combined share of the top five offices increased from 75.5% average annual growth rate recorded between 2004 and 2007. .1% in Italy to 98.2.000 100.2 Trend in patents granted at selected patent offices Japan 250. The non-resident share of total applications at the EPO is.2.3 Patent applications at the top 20 patent offices Figure A.000 United States of America Republic of Korea China European Patent Office Russian Federation 200.000 Germany France Australia Mexico United Kingdom Patent Grants 50.

Therefore.2 5.8 -6.2 -0.321 391. However. the shares of low-income and middle-income economies in total patent applications are below their respective GDP shares.2% in 2008.3 6.3b).9 4.742 l 8.0 1. is only 30.3 7. Growth rate (2004-07) refers to average annual growth rate.9 98.8 n.2.3 29.000 289.825 16.2 30 Growth Rate.000 146.6 11.2 20 10 0 26.4 -2.7 Th -6.741 500.2 15.5 7.5 0.7 Is ra el G -2.3 -1. 91.1 8.6 ce lia 7) ce pa an ad di ic na tio ric re or ic do 00 ra an hi ffi ex er In hi Ko Ja an ra O st ng (2 Am Fr er M C Af C de Au of nt Ki G az AR ut of lic Fe te d Pa Br te ub an es ep an at si ni pe us St R d te ro R Eu U Patent Office Note: Patent applications filed with the EPO are considered non-resident applications.662 .4%) and middle-income (52.838 300.1 ai la nd y 6.3 88.9 25. 2010 Figure A.581 13.449 7. H on ni g Ko ng U (S So Si ng C ).40 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.1 88.346 23.20 The share of high-income economies in total patent applications is 15.7%).000 ffi ce Ko re a er ic a an na 62.417 42.8% of world GDP in 2008. as reported in Figure A.2 -1.a.7 n.9 -2. Only a fifth of all applications in low-income economies are resident applications.002 400.7 4. 100%.150 26.6 32.000 170. In contrast. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.1 89.a Resident Non-Resident Total 9.9 11.0 33.0 7.5 1. il h ap m Ita ly a o y a a n a e -1.1.7 95.4 percentage points above their GDP share (Figure A. 2008 Number of Patent applications Resident 49. the resident share of middle-income economies.089 41.705 16. C hi So na ut h Af ric Si ng a ap or e Is ra e Ja p C hi Ita l er m Am C an tO of de Pa te n of lic Fe ub St at es R us si a R ep U Eu ro p ni te d ea Patent office U ni n te d n Patent Office Growth rate of patent applications Growth rate (%): 2004-07 23. 2007-08 (%) Growth Rate (%) 9.8 5.3 -3.3%) economies.3 Th ai la nd 100.5 -10 na n a -5.1 -1. June 2010 As mentioned previously.692 9.379 21.849 a n y an ra tio ad In d 0 Au ia st ra lia Ki ng do Br az m il (2 00 7) H Fr on an g ce Ko ng M ex (S ic AR o ). is based on data from around 110 patent offices of countries whose economies accounted for around 93.4 18.812 10. 20 The figure of total patent applications worldwide. the share of non-resident applications at the EPO is.000 456.8 4.1 -0.632 200.8 m -5.0 2.1.2. The SIPO accounts for 60% of middle-income economies’ patent share (25. Patent and GDP data by income groups show that patent application data are more concentrated than GDP.5 Non-Resident 100 21. Resident applications account for more than half of total applications in high-income (57.3 4.1 80. by definition.4 -0.3 81.3a Patent applications by patent office: top 20 offices.191 9.8 Patent Applications Patent Applications Non-Resident Share (%) Non-Resident Share (%) 36. excluding the SIPO data. the combined share of the top five offices was 76.8%.4 3.

which corresponds to their low numbers of non-resident applications (Figure A. These two offices accounted for 43. the combined share of the top five offices in total patents granted (73. Patent application data include three regional patent offices (the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO). In 2008. 2008 GDP share (%) High-Income: 58.$12. $995 or less.2.2.3% Patent applications share (%) High-Income: 74. 2010 41 Figure A. The income group classification is based on the World Bank definition. calculated using the World Bank Atlas method.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. residents and non-residents each account for about half of total grants (Figure A.195. EAPO and EPO patent application data are classified as non-resident applications. Economies are divided according to 2009 GNI per capita.3a).2. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. In 2008. the Eurasian Patent Organization (EAPO). $12. in the case of the SIPO. However. and high income.4 shows the number of resident and non-resident patents granted by the top 20 patent offices. the non-resident share of total patents granted is about 17 percentage points higher than the non-resident share of total patent applica- .196 or more. middle-income and low-income groups include 41. For the same reason.182) combined with a rise in patents granted in China (+25. the JPO and the USPTO issued the largest number of patents. High-income.3b GDP and patent share by income group.1% Middle-Income: 25. In 2008. All ARIPO.7% Low-Income: 0. 56 and 14 economies. At the USPTO and the SIPO.5%) was somewhat smaller than their combined share in total applications (76. The EPO data are allocated to the high-income group. The groups are: low income. middle income. the SIPO overtook the KIPO as the office issuing the third largest number of patents.758). This was due to a substantial fall in patents issued in the Republic of Korea (-40.7% Middle-Income: 40% Low-Income: 1. respectively. and the EPO).2% Resident and non-resident patent applications (%) Resident 100 Non-Resident Resident and Non-Resident Share.4 Patents granted at the top 20 patent offices Figure A. The JPO and KIPO exhibit relatively low numbers of non-resident grants. % 80 60 40 20 0 High-Income Middle-Income Low-Income Note: The above graphs are based on data for 111 economies. $996 .1% of patents issued around the world. respectively.2%).2. ARIPO and EAPO data are allocated to the low-income and middle-income groups. as the majority of EPO members are high-income economies.2.4). June 2010 A.

Therefore. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.758 (+37.8 Non-Resident 100 22.6 -17.4 -9.5 nt R us O si ffi an ce -2.819 28. 75% of this drop can be accounted for by the granting of resident patents.811 7.9 50. issued 40.9 d Ze of nt ).2.4 Patents granted by patent office: top 20 offices.9 7. Non-Resident Total 13.2 -1.a 27.2 9.6 86.1 19. 2008 Number of grants Resident 14.1 25. India and Italy and the EPO also experienced high growth in patents granted over the same period.4 -4. Australia and Hong Kong (SAR).863 Non-Resident Share (%) Patent Grants 10. C hi na lia er ic a ric a pa Ja st ra m Am er Au ut h G Af Ita of St at es So Si ni te d U ni -15. in contrast.4 98.0 13. The average 0.1 4.6% growth in total patents granted in 2008 (Figure A.230 17.6 -10.203 .1) masks substantial variation across patent offices.3 nd e in la N ew Ze al a kr a U Po nd ew -13.832 3.42 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.9 36. In 2008.7 1.1 0. The patent offices of the Russian Federation.6 7.4 7.440 5.5 N R C ep hi ub na Eu lic ro of pe Ko an re Pa a te -32.3 Fe de ra tio n -0.a.4 5.2 14.3 176.6 98.182 (-32.8 9. June 2010 H ng ap or te on e d g Ki Ko ng ng do (S m AR ).5%) fewer patents in 2008.286 83.1.4 59. Non-residents account for the majority (more than 90%) of total patents issued by the patent offices of Singapore.950 157.703 18.8 H on g Ko d R ng U 2. 100%.360 4.3 -2.706 7.2 50.9 12. Growth rate (2004-07) refers to average annual growth rate. U h al an ric ic hi ffi or d 3.1 n.4 0.590 nd la 25.0 Resident 92.318 6.8 37. China.4 12.523 59.9%) more patents than in 2007. Mexico. 2010 tions. Interestingly.6 Non-Resident Share (%) Patent Grants 11. 2007-08 (%) Growth Rate (%) 37. by definition.6 -10.4 0.8 92.8 n C an ad a In di a M ex ic o an y Fr an ce ly U Patent Office Note: Patents granted by the EPO are considered non-resident grants.0 61.772 26.3 11.808 18.001 3.3 4.9 Total n. the share of non-resident patents granted by the EPO is.8 -17. the SIPO issued 25.740 93.308 a a y 10.7 Growth Rate. The patent office of the Republic of Korea. Figure A.7 89.4 ce a na n a n na o a ad pa an tio ne lia e re ce ic di m ly Ita Ko an do er In ra hi ra an Ja ex m ap C O Af ai Am st C kr de M C Po Fr ng er Au ng G Fe te ut Ki AR of lic Si Pa So ub an es te (S ep an at si ni pe R us St te ro Eu ni U Patent Office Patent Office Growth rate of patent grants Growth rate (%): 2004-07 87.

and non-resident applications accounted for 86% of that increase. non-residents accounted for most of that increase. Similarly. At the majority of these patent offices. the Philippines.952 in 2008.5 Patent activity in selected middle and low income economies Figures 2. non-resident applications account for the largest share of total applications and grants.000 patent applications in 2008 (Figure A. Sri Lanka and Turkey. The patent offices of Armenia. the number of patent applications filed in 2008 is higher than in 2004. In the majority of the selected offices of middle-income economies. Azerbaijan.500 patents in 2008. the patent offices of Ukraine. at most offices. In contrast. all patents granted by the patent offices of Cuba and Guatemala were based on non-resident applications. Romania and Turkey were the only four offices with a low non-resident share in patent applications and grants – less than 8%. The two highest ranking offices in this selection are those of Ukraine and Malaysia. the number of patents granted in 2008 was lower than in 2004. The most notable drop in patents granted occurred at the offices of Pakistan.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. Egypt and Belize experienced a large growth in patent applications. There was a sharp increase in the number of patents granted by the office of Chile over the past five years. For example.5a).2. all applications filed with the patent office of Belize were from non-residents. each having received more than 5.5a and 2. However. the total number of applications received by the patent office of Chile rose from 2. Where these offices saw an increase in numbers of applications. . Malaysia and Romania saw a small decline in applications over the same period.5b show the total number of patent applications and patents granted for selected middleincome and low-income economies not covered in previous sub-sections. For example.2. which was mostly due to an increase in non-resident grants. The patent offices of Ukraine and Poland each granted more than 3. The patent offices of Jordan.867 in 2004 to 3. The selected offices represent economies from different parts of the world (additional offices are reported on in the statistical annex). 2010 43 A.

3 64.5 98.5 89.6 5.1 13. Therefore.2.6 3.0 98.6 95.1 95.6 Non-Resident 73.303 3.1 93.086 1.397 2. 2010 Figure A.7 Patent Applications 5. by definition.590 92.4 100 Non-Resident Sr Patent Grants 81.5b shows statistics on patent applications and patents granted for selected low-income economies.8 1.5 63.6 68.8 of grants Non-Resident 100 82.697 Non-Resident Share (%) 54 46 24 C hi le y a U kr ai ne ija n liz e si a ru y al a ka s an ia co 07 Tu rk e 07 ua 07 a C ub al ay or oc ki st t( 20 (2 0 (2 0 R om U ru g ilip p er ba Be ui ne an m Sr iL Pa ua M M n G yp ria Az Al ge Eg Jo Patent Office Number of grants Resident 37.5b Patent applications and patents granted in selected low-income economies by patent office. respectively.44 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. M oz Patent Office Et h zs as gl io pi a h (2 00 st 40 37 35 ca ta 7) O 77 R (2 00 ai la rk la st st 7) ) au te rit iu in e Pe an s ) ) ) .6 93.0 3.311 2.7 88.952 3.9 45.8 98. 2008 Number of applications Resident 50.5 Non-Resident Share (%) Patent Grants 2.4 0.3 2. the share of non-resident patents granted by the ARIPO is.398 969 966 838 689 549 359 300 268 233 171 127 96 92 Pa pu a N ew Ph rd a G 91 64 M 63 le ey nd ia a ne an nd an co ay a ru ia ia a s 7) ne 07 ar an Pe en ub si hi al 00 ay 20 C pi m Po Tu kr lg kh om m ai ki C (2 gu oc or al ilip Bu t( Th Pa U za Ar ua M M ka U ru te Ph yp Ka G an Eg Patent Office Source: WIPO Statistics Database.3 75.535 1.2 100 97.5 Non-Resident 90. June 2010 Figure A.5 89. nonresident applications accounted for a large share of all applications and grants.6 56.545 1.6 296 Patent Applications 448 Non-Resident Share (%) 288 123 120 34 iL Non-Resident Share (%) Jo rd an 13 138 n an r 7) IP 00 ek is AR yz as (2 zb rg ag es an 7) IP O 7) 7) 7) Ky n U ad r ca ta 00 00 00 00 ad M ki st AR (2 (2 gy ag (2 (2 Ky r ad bi qu hi op U de am ng Et Ye m la M Ba n zb e ia en sh e Ba Patent Office Note: Patent applications and patents granted by ARIPO are considered non-resident applications and grants. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.1 90.3 2.5 100 435 299 90.031 1.2.8 91.4 73.832 59.9 60. 100%.8 55.105 1. For example. The patent offices of Bangladesh and Uzbekistan each granted around 300 patents. except for Kyrgyzstan.7 87.6 100 100 40.6 95. June 2010 Figure A. 2008 Number of applications Resident 41. around 90% of all patent applications and patents granted by the office of Bangladesh were from non-residents.4 3. At all offices.2.3 22. The patent office of Uzbekistan and ARIPO each received more than 400 patent applications in 2008.2 Number Resident 90.5 7.5a Patent applications and patents granted in selected middle-income economies by patent office.5 82.4 84.0 67.011 849 739 566 465 311 258 227 86.

2.2.6 Utility model applications by patent office.255 1.6 0.641 2.a. showing that resident applications account for the bulk of total UMs granted.a.4 -17.8 n. resident applications account for the majority of UM applications. n.000 applications in 2008.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. Ph AR Fe lic ch ic ub an ze (S ep si us R R Patent Office Number of UM grants 17. -11.8 27.3 -1. Ukraine and Japan each received around 10. June 2010 Unlike patents. In 17 offices.3 -0.a. -6.6 9. It accounts for 72% of total UM applications worldwide. The distribution of resident and non-resident shares in total UMs granted is similar to that of UM applications.6.600 9.7% in France to 99.a. Growth Rate.405 17. Figure A.869 1.4 an az ru pa tio Ita ne re ai na ub Sp Ko Br m la Ja ra C Tu Au Po kr ai st pi C ep Be de Au Th of ilip er U R ). n. In other words.9 n.100 fewer UMs in 2008 than in 2007.a. both in terms of the number of applications received and granted. -0.1 n. 2008 Number of UM applications 24.200 1.a.a.1 -40.3 n.452 3.2 3.a.a.067 10.6 n. the SIPO issued the largest number of UMs in 2008.a.a.a.a.995 9.2. 2007-08 (%) Utility Model Grants 176.3% in China. As is the case of applications.1 5.586 Growth Rate (%): 2007-08 17.9 n.4 n.183 967 861 719 545 488 482 330 na n il ey n ly ne nd ria y lia s nd s lic 7) 00 (2 o Fr 28. the resident share of total applications exceeded 80%.5. -8. The KIPO and the patent office of Germany each received around 17. -14.673 9.975 2.a. n.682 2.6 n.6). Despite a 78% growth in UM grants at the KIPO. H on g Ko ng C (S n AR Fe h D en er ce G (2 00 ra rk hi st ai la la hi 7) a n . The patent offices of the Russian Federation. 2010 45 A.0 6. 78.347 9. that office issued only 4.430 1.045 860 740 711 668 457 435 289 227 190 159 H on g Ko na n n rk ey il ng C M ex an ar m Bu lg ar ia k ly ne nd a y s nd na an pa ub st ri tio Ita ne re az ru ai Ko Ja Tu Au Po kr ai R ep Be C st ra C hi ai la la Sp la hi ra Br m pi lia lic n a s de ilip G Au Th U of ). For the 20 offices shown in figure A. 10.035 2.6 n.917 4.675 14. the resident share of total UM applications varied from 36. n. both worldwide and in most offices.515 1.6 Utility model activity by patent office The SIPO received the highest number of UM applications in 2008 (Figure A. which is less than their respective 2007 figures.000 UM applications.975 UMs.4 -5.2.2 n.000 applications in 2008. applicants primarily use the UM system to protect inventions in domestic markets. n. Ph lic ze c si a ep ub us R R Patent Office Source: WIPO Statistics Database. The patent offices of Germany and the JPO each issued around 1. -21.282 8. which can be mostly accounted for by a fall in resident grants.6 2. Utility Model Applications 225. The majority of other offices received fewer than 4. Combined UM and patent data make the SIPO the largest office in the world.a. 5.8 -7.992 2.

5 -0.230 10.3 2. 2008 Number of applications Resident -0.277 7.5 Abroad -2.a.2 6.636 2.347 m el d ly n s 7.9 -4. resident applications in Japan include all applications received by the JPO with a firstnamed applicant residing in Japan.748 47.877 .0 -25.46 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.3.597 42.0 11.4 Resident 4. Figure A.711 ria st 172.789 ic a a n a n an ce ly y an at io re hi n pa Ita m er Ko 7.0 n.3.871 79.665 el ra D en m Be ar k of C Fi lg iu om er la N nd et he rla nd s C an ad Sw a ed en Fi nl an Au d st ra lia Sp ai n Be lg iu m U kr ai ne ng d Ja m of de r er Fr of A G Fe Ki ub l an es ep at si R U ni te d Country of Origin R us St U ni te Sw ic d itz Country of Origin Source: WIPO Statistics Database.814 25.0 5.870 12.6 Growth Rate (%): 2007-08 Patent Grants Growth Rate (%): 2007-08 8.0 n.3 4. The actual number of patent applications and patents granted by country of origin is likely to be higher than the data reported in the two figures due to incomplete data and because a breakdown of data by country of origin is not available for some patent offices.1 -3. The criterion for allocating patent applications to a particular country is residency of the first-named applicant.4 -1. For Japan.5 Abroad 2.330 17.719 7.a.388 1.0 0.769 26.592 203.1 Abroad 4.752 48.162 11.9 -2.3 14.296 29.2 12.188 Patent Grants 146.481 9.1 Patent activity by country of origin Figure A.3 1.051 11.133 8. it was not possible to determine the country of origin for around 7% of total patent applications filed in 2008.9 46.4 Patent Applications Patent Applications 25. June 2010 Is C 2.342 135.927 502. 2010 A.3 15.5 11.1 26.652 53. For example.640 Growth Rate (%): 2007-08 Growth Rate (%): 2007-08 21.054 400.8 1.3 PAT E N T A C T I V I T Y B Y C O U N T R Y O F O R I G I N Patent indicators presented in this sub-section are based on the concept of “country of origin” in order to provide a more complete picture of worldwide patent activity than can be provided solely by analyzing patent data by office.675 4.4 1.0 239.8 -2.5 Resident 3.911 21.176 a na n a ce m n y a en k nd lia an pa tio re ic nd do ad an Ita an ra hi ar ai er Ko ed ra la ra Sp m Ja C m rla an ng Am Fr er st nl Is de Sw en Au er Fe Au he G itz Ki of lic Sw te ub ep at ni U R U ni te d Country of Origin R us St si an es N et d Country of Origin Number of grants Resident 3.535 22.7 -1.670 2.3 20.7 Abroad 0.6 2.3. Specifically. 9.1 presents patent application and grant data by country of origin for the top 20 countries of origin.291 6. -8.1 Patent applications and patents granted by country of origin: top 20 countries of origin.5 -1.103 6.948 D 2.453 4.1 -4. A. applications filed abroad include all applications filed with other patent offices around the world with a first-named applicant residing in Japan.386 3.

Canada (45.3. applications originating from the US decreased by 17. The USPTO accounted for the largest share of total patents (around 43%) granted to residents of Israel.2b). residents of China and the Republic of Korea account for a small fraction of total applications filed with the JPO. For example.1% drop in patent applications. Residents of Japan account for the largest share of non-resident applications at the SIPO and the KIPO.3. Denmark. In contrast. with a few notable differences. .2 Patent applications by country of origin and patent office To provide an even more detailed picture of patent flows across countries. applicants consider such factors as market size and geographical proximity. residents of Japan filed the largest number of patent applications across the world. This explains why these countries rank higher (among the top 20) for application counts by country of origin than for application counts by patent office (Figure A. such as the SIPO. resident applicants account for a large share of total applications (Table A. the Netherlands and Sweden filed most of their patent applications abroad. Residents of the US filed 400. Sweden and Switzerland. The distribution of patent applications by country of origin and patent office in 2008 is similar to that in 2007. foreign patent offices accounted for the majority (more than 86%) of patents granted to residents of Belgium. For all reporting countries depicted – except Australia. Residents of Switzerland.004 (-4. this sub-section presents a breakdown of patent data by county of origin and patent office. the JPO and the USPTO.1%) in 2008 compared to the previous year. Residents of the US account for the largest shares of total patent applications filed at the offices of Mexico (49.2. When deciding where to seek patent protection.7%) and Australia (42. Residents of the Republic of Korea experienced a sharp fall (-25. Sweden and Switzerland. 94% of all patent applications filed by residents of Switzerland were filed abroad. The increase in patents issued to US residents can be explained by an increase in the number of patents granted to US residents by foreign patent offices.2a and A. This fall was entirely accounted for by a drop in resident grants. A. At large patent offices.3.769 patent applications. The EPO accounted for the largest share of patents (around 20%) granted to residents of Belgium.9%). Israel. Similar to data on applications. Denmark. Approximately three-fifths of the total drop in US applications is due to the decreased number of applications filed by US residents with the USPTO.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.5%).3) in total number of patents granted in 2008.3a). Patents granted by country of origin show a similar trend to that for patent applications by country of origin. the Republic of Korea and Spain – the numbers of patents granted increased from 2007 to 2008. However. 2010 47 Despite a 0.

3 1.1 0.486 8.1 0.3 67.3 0.1 0.0 15.4 0.437 1.1 70.1 0.343 3.9 4.7 0.4 100.6 3.5 1.1 88.5 45.6 1.1 2.9 1.510 54 1.0 0.2a Patent applications by country of origin and patent office: selected countries of origin and offices.8 1.6 4.7 1.523 453 2.0 0.0 0.3 78. China).1 0.085 97 7.216 3.1 0.0 0.6 2.579 352 631 274 979 2.3 2.1 0.0 4.2 0.5 0.583 26.5 0.150 FR 20 2 58 12 78 6 11 14.492 19 1.692 US 1.2 0.4 11.2 5.005 3.3 0.307 4.2 0.3 6.333 5.8 1.1 50.089 289.714 2.2 10. 2008 Country of Origin Austria Australia Belgium Canada China Denmark Finland France Germany Israel Italy Japan Netherlands Republic of Korea Russian Federation Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United States of America Others / Unknown Total AU 0.5 0.1 0.056 44 1.6 0.9 1.0 3.337 1.1 0.0 12.8 100.0 90.3 0.6 1.531 302 345 1.2 0.8 5.5 3.8 0.6 6.4 2.103 5.0 RU 0.552 3.1 0. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.4 6.7 0.511 23.2 0.7 100.051 49.2 0. June 2010 .2 0.8 0.309 1.109 41.1 2.9 5.1 0.202 4.265 3.264 739 3. IT (Italy).4 0.6 0.a.2 0.683 1.1 0.0 0.972 76 5. RU (Russian Federation).550 3.283 1.457 5.3 0.849 SG 30 211 83 171 71 92 101 298 589 90 97 1.8 1.805 82.3 2.1 0.391 1.5 7.8 100.2 0.0 0.3 0.023 3.1 3.057 2.417 146.3 0.527 1.5 13.660 10 1.079 753 25.3 1.6 0.621 8.6 3.0 CN 0.1 100.9 0.1 6.3 6.1 100.3 1.7 3.712 152 459 846 376 3. SG (Singapore) and US (United States of America).588 28.9 1.2 0.5 7.9 1.396 3.0 1.7 0.1 0.5 41.0 DE 1.588 140 14 49 12 15 59 15 76 113 9.3 100.1 0.4 10.0 0.1 0.0 EP 1.8 7.8 18.6 1.0 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 1.8 4.1 0.2 0.4 66.8 6.8 3.0 0.9 1.1 0.7 0.140 1.4 1.1 0.8 0. GB (United Kingdom).2 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 Patent Office GB HK 0. 2008 Number of patent applications.8 39.3 0.0 US 0.8 7.3 1.3 1.291 904 4.0 IT 0.7 2.112 12.0 100.581 RU 162 90 159 111 221 131 278 1.0 CA 0.2 0.2 18.603 520 294 820 328 330.379 13.3.0 0.9 0.8 74.0 0.5 0.2 2.818 2.374 33.321 Note: Patent data are allocated to a particular country according to the residency of the first-named applicant.9 100.9 6.931 129 1.1 1.6 0.0 0.1 1. CN (China).599 1.2b Patent applications by country of origin and patent office: selected countries of origin and offices.439 2.0 0.584 547 1. DE (Germany).3. June 2010 Table A.6 1.8 5.6 2.8 3.261 424 8.014 449 8.240 26.576 730 2.8 12.002 170.5 6.262 761 569 27.3 0.1 2.4 0.2 0.587 127 1. The actual numbers of patent application and grant data by country of origin might be higher than the data reported above due to incomplete data and/or because a breakdown by country of origin is not available for some patent offices.2 6.900 71 1.070 4.1 0.8 1.370 1.7 2.5 0.1 0.3 0.9 1.1 12.2 0.215 112 461 1.294 11.1 0.7 2.0 Note: See note of table A.7 2.0 JP 0. JP (Japan).599 127.8 100.7 1. 2008 Country of Origin Austria Australia Belgium Canada China Denmark Finland France Germany Israel Italy Japan Netherlands Republic of Korea Russian Federation Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United States of America Others / Unknown Total AU 116 2. Patent office codes: AU (Australia).9 2.561 25.3 1.771 231.1 4.5 0.3 3. FR (France).2 0.686 425 440 633 1.632 MX 66 119 172 257 47 157 140 694 1.5 0.5 5.795 19.5 5.1 1.469 1.9 42.7 1.0 3.8 0.775 456.9 2.6 4.7 49.1 0.347 64 161 22 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.1 0.1 0.838 DE EP 759 1.6 8.48 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.7 0. it was not possible to determine the country of origin for 39.449 JP KR 296 147 572 230 519 288 726 387 772 481 502 194 575 575 3.346 CA CN 212 379 616 609 354 535 5.5 2.1 0.4 0.6 0.5 25.0 0.9 5.5 0.0 0.3 0. CA (Canada).9 2. For example.961 62.2 0. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.9 0.662 IT 6 8 5 14 4 4 45 282 8.3 2.4 0.190 8.2 0.3 10.170 3.2 1.1 0.780 210 9.609 10.2 0.1 6.2 2.3 0.883 23.821 288 484 208 339 205 753 1.4 0.0 0.1 3.210 1.2 1.1 0.6 100.4 0.265 16.2 8.240 9.3 1.2 100.194 2.1 3.4 0.022 53 85 242 343 662 1.8 0.1 0.6 1.8 0. EP (European Patent Office).7 4.9 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.8 1.606 1.1 0.7 4.8 1.7 1.114 57 36 257 95 1.0 0.0 0.418 3.2 0.9 5.1 0.0 0.1 1.3 100.0 100.8 1.437 391.5 0.801 175 146 204 205 7 10 53 92 106 384 297 830 16.4 0.3.279 37. HK (Hong Kong (SAR). MX (Mexico).283 5.389 3.1 0.1 0.224 294 132 10 26 267 511 364 3.325 261 3.0 0.340 42.1 0.3 1.5 2. KR (Republic of Korea).8 2.0 0.705 Patent Office GB HK 10 44 114 173 215 143 160 373 110 351 12 160 67 154 137 359 339 972 132 94 68 230 594 1.6 0.6 2.7 0.7 1.118 104 4.2.1 0.0 MX 0.6 0. 2010 Table A.005 23.239 24.1 0.766 1.3 0.405 140 272 630 534 407 10 197 396 1.601 1.230 2.5 0.743 477 3 51 292 18 92 1 48 23 145 36 286 303 16.8 100.976 1.2 84.3 1.441 patent applications filed in 2008.1 1. 2008 Distribution of patent applications (%).1 0.4 0.458 1.9 8.1 3.061 896 233 194.2 0.5 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.110 17.817 594 373 13 164 524 1.6 0.4 0.353 9.9 2.0 1.0 0.0 FR 0.9 1.0 SG 0.5 1.791 1.4 7.9 2.0 KR 0.455 1.0 1.7 0.

3 Distribution by Offices (%) Average number of offices in foreign-oriented families 2.3 5.000 -3.2 54.4.3 2. addition or division.000 11.6 62.1% increase from 2007.2 55.3 55.0 55.1 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Note: The patent family dataset includes only published patent applications. Between 1985 and 2007. June 2010 Figure A. Figure A.2 58. Unpublished patent applications (e.1 3. patent families include only those families associated with patent applications for inventions and exclude families associated with UM applications.4 5.4 3.1 Trend in patent families Figure A. leading to some inventions being counted more than once in patent counts by office or by country of origin.5 3.9 3.3 100 75 50 25 0 hi na l n l a Ita ly ed en y ce lia do m tio n nd s ea az i ta a pa ad an er ic To Ko r Br er m Ja an er la ra C st an ng Fr Fe de Au Am Sw C of Ki et h G bl ic ia n ni te ep u us s U R Country of Origin Note: For information about patent families.4.1 3.0 2. a 1.3 3.7 54.7 3.0 48. (2) one patent application may belong to more than one patent family due to the existence of multiple priority claims.1a Trend in total patent families Patent Families (Invention) 1.4 53.4.8 57.8 0. refer to the note under figure A. The total number of patent families in 2007 was estimated at 880.7 2.1 3.4.3 Number of Families 600.7 4. 2010 49 A. continuation-in-part.5 53.0 53.3 2.8 5-Offices 4.1 2.3 0. WIPO has developed indicators related to so-called patent families.3 200.1a shows a steady increase in the total number of patent families from 1995 onwards.3% in 2007.1 7.2% in 1985 to 47. Source: WIPO Statistics Database and EPO PATSTAT Database. all subsequent patent filings are added to that family.000 Growth Rate (%) Share of Patent Families in Total Patent Filings (%) 54.g.6 -0.2 3.2 57.1b Distribution of patent families by number of offices and country of origin.1 -0. As a consequence.7 1. the share of patent families in total patent applications dropped from 54.4 51.8 55.8 3.5 3.9 53. patent applications withdrawn before publication) and provisional applications filed at the USPTO are not included in the patent family database. whereas the total number of patent applications doubled.21 A.0 -0. 2003-2007 1-Office 2-Offices 3-Offices 3.5 4.000.6 5.8 54.8 Over 5-Offices 2.2 3.8 -1.2 54.4.5 55. the total number of patent families increased by 75%. except for a small drop in 2002.7 47. U ni te d St R at es N Sw of d itz er la n ra d .WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.4 PAT E N T FA M I L I E S Applicants may file patent applications for their inventions in multiple jurisdictions.3 54. June 2010 21 In this report. WIPO’s patent family dataset has the following features: (1) each “first-filed” patent application forms a patent family. PCT national phase entry.1 57.4 4-Offices 2.1a.000. defined as a set of patent applications interlinked by— or a combination of—priority claim. To correct for this.8 1. continuation. Source: WIPO Statistics Database and EPO PATSTAT Database.

23 Between 2003 and 2007. Geographic proximity and market size appear to play an important role when applicants decide where to file applications abroad. if a Canadian applicant files a patent application directly (without previously filing with the patent office of Canada) with the USPTO. in 2005. the number of offices per patent family may be incomplete due to the time lag between first and subsequent applications. For example. Among the top countries.6% of all foreign-oriented patent families.4% FR: 3. Therefore.6% IT: 1.9% US: 24. Consequently.4. For example.1 patent offices per foreign-oriented patent family for Canada. whereas. CH (Switzerland). China accounted for only 1. In contrast. as applicants may choose to file directly at a foreign office. Japan.6% GB: 2. 21. Furthermore.5%) include at least two offices. For the latest years.23 million foreign-oriented patent families were created across the world. 22 23 24 Subsequent patent applications can be filed 30 months after the filing date of the first application.2 depicts the distribution of so-called foreign-oriented patent families for the 2003-07 period. there is considerable variation in this share. approximately 1. which could be up to 30 months. applicants from European countries have a high propensity to file with the EPO. 2003-2007 CA: 1. the USPTO and the EPO account for the largest numbers of foreignoriented patent families.6% of patent families created between 2003 and 2007 include at least two patent offices. subsequent patent filings at foreign patent offices may offer information on the flow of technology between countries. GB (United Kingdom).2. data on the number of offices for the latest year may be incomplete. KR (Republic of Korea) and US (United States of America). In contrast. .2.5%).4. the percentage of patent families covering at least two patent offices has increased considerably.4. that application and applications filed subsequently with the USPTO form a foreign-oriented patent family. Source: WIPO Statistics Database and EPO PATSTAT Database. Sweden (54.22 Figure A. IT (Italy). Some foreign-oriented patent families contain only one filing office. fewer than 7% of patent families created by residents of the Russian Federation (1. JP (Japan). 2010 Over the years.8% DE: 13. 24. For example. As shown in Table A. A.50 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. subsequent national patents originating from regional patent grants are not included.3%) and Switzerland (60.24 Figure A.2 Foreign-oriented patent families Figure A.4%) and Brazil (6.4.3. This can be largely explained by the fact that only a small proportion of total patent applications originating from China are filed at foreign patent offices. Applicants from Japan and the Republic of Korea tend to prioritize their filings abroad within East Asia. 15% of all patent families created in 1985 contained at least two patent offices. For example. For example. the SIPO. DE (Germany). On average.5% KR: 7. To the extent that the underlying invention was created in the applicant’s country of residence. Distribution of foreign-oriented patent families. The average number of offices per foreign-oriented family varied from four patent offices per foreign-oriented family for the US to 2. more than half of all patent families created by residents of France (51.8% JP: 26. CN (China).4. the total number of patent offices per patent family may be underestimated.6% Note: CA (Canada).4% CH: 1. this percentage stood at 25%. the US and Germany accounted for around 65% of all foreign-oriented patent families. the JPO and the KIPO also received large numbers of foreign-oriented patent families.4% Others: 15% CN: 1. despite being the third largest country in terms of number of patent applications by country of origin (Figure A. A foreign-oriented patent family is one that includes at least one filing office other than the office of the applicant’s country of origin.3% of all foreign-oriented patent families include filings at the USPTO.1b depicts the distribution of patent families by number of offices and for the top 15 countries of origin. FR (France).5%).6%) contained at least two patent offices between 2003 and 2007. June 2010 The criterion for allocating a patent family to a particular country is the residence of the applicant that filed the first application in that family. China (3.1).

749 16.786 1. 2003-2007 Country of Origin Australia Austria Belgium Canada China Denmark Finland France Germany India Israel Italy Japan Netherlands Republic of Korea Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United States of America Others Total AU 588 827 1.941 286 163 1.554 1.229 11.230 785.545 59. EP (European Patent Office). A.694 4.304 74.945 3.526 4. CA (Canada).352 2.989 845 1.064 406 2. the number of PCT applications had increased steadily since 1978.479 1.466 2.495 424 1.501 214 927 3.497 3.197 46.594 6.875 618 1.487 622 18.102 1.452 NO 137 175 278 99 46 566 347 1.469 CA 3.734 8.8% in 2009.164 23. Starting with only 18 Members in 1978.843 1.733 4.241 4.457 10. BR (Brazil).859 894 4. an estimated 155.487 3.860 11.436 11.900 PCT applications were filed worldwide.5.805 48.111 958 658 1. dropped by 10.924 KR 1.5% decrease compared to 2008.174 2.448 9.669 834 862 3.534 2.621 340.643 849 1.800 5.533 1.231 3.269 3. PCT applications from the US.052 45.224 1. Applicants from the US still accounted for the largest share (+29.684 13.876 94.213 4.6%) also showed positive annual growth in 2009.634 16.592 32.606 10.6%) of PCT applications in 2009.563 5.080 Note: Patent office codes: AU (Australia).033 26.990 1.643 60. compared to filing patent applications directly in foreign jurisdictions (using the so-called “Paris Convention” route).880 5.233 4.1%) and Germany (+10.729 58.400 25. MX (Mexico).637 23.724 Total 32.4.815 US 8.1 presents the trend in PCT applications data and the number of applications by country of origin.973 2.427 DE 153 2.873 310.109 136.700 95.402 1.765 704. Chiefly.353 6. offers applicants an advantageous route for obtaining patent protection internationally.836 BR 535 229 275 297 262 461 449 2. NZ (New Zealand).673 2.829 208 499 1.753 5.402 95. and counts are based on international application date.024 1.768 124.227 7.055 10.467 52. IL (Israel).797 755 779 2.334 272 93 361 1.404 3.483 17. The criterion for allocating PCT applications to a particular country is the residency of the first-named applicant in the PCT application.334 12.470 23. JP (Japan). June 2010 A.638 35.270 494 1.832 520 2.998 35.613 191.301.358 7. the number of applications filed through the PCT System declined compared to the previous year.451 651 478 1.505 24.958 94.133 3.860 EP 5. The data refer to the international phase of the PCT procedure.858 2.984 230.481 85.173 2.357 3. IT (Italy).584 1.570 2. In 2009.166 Others 2.884 2.185 814 1.312 RU 484 491 382 227 572 592 692 2.5.792 1.405 210.024 165.031 23.966 6.818 MX 834 293 680 586 182 931 471 3. Applications from Japan (3.289 3.4%) experiencing the largest falls.579 2.209 16.787 1. followed by applicants from Japan (+19.1 Trend in patent applications filed through the PCT System Figure A. with Germany (-11.521 38. RU (Russian Federation) and US (United States of America). KR (Republic of Korea).573 139.391 11.345 6.259 531 912 777 1.050 1.601 124.700 3.288 6.922 6.384 305.549 145 96 993 20.444 860 1.2 Foreign-oriented patent families by patent office and country of origin: selected offices and countries of origin.009 824 1.104 1. Until that time.289 IL 402 76 222 73 63 351 93 947 1.5 PAT E N T A P P L I C AT I O N S F I L E D T H R O U G H T H E PAT E N T C O O P E R AT I O N T R E AT Y ( P C T ) The PCT.496 33.329 475 2.610 43.076 GB 691 86 625 551 331 244 472 440 2.139 14.720 22.454 216 274 206 417 646 1.439 470. This was due in large part to the negative impact.243 2.134 26.427 489 281 1.766 10. CN (China).392 837 2. Source: WIPO Statistics Database and EPO PATSTAT Database. international search.149 97 460 1.355 11.672 33. applicants that use the PCT can delay examination procedures at national patent offices as well as the payment of associated legal fees and translation costs.539 3.098 4.656 6. Applicants and patent offices of PCT Contracting States benefit from uniform formality requirements.702 1.327 430 978 1.225 16.694 16. DE (Germany).580 1.138 1. For the first time.314 13.944 28.126 5. an international treaty administered by WIPO.1%).994 9.740 999 784 5. In addition.676 241 207 1.399 11.430 363 264 509 364 535 1.878 75 76 336 1.326 298 86 144 800 574 1.201 30.349 4. GB (United Kingdom).336 7.556 13.483 28. 2010 51 Table A.199 20. of the global economic downturn on international patent activity. the largest user of the PCT System. preliminary examination and international publication of patent applications.292 276 215 164 513 619 1.298 7.851 91 271 157 76 509 80 664 1.229 1.350 NZ 2. in certain countries.3%) and Sweden (-13.320 1. Many European countries registered declines in PCT applications in 2009.861 5.282 12.113 5.219 2.543 1.163 43.110 17.931 86.296 79.178 1.556 19.393 3. The top three countries accounted for 59% of all PCT filings in 2009.509 1.594 198.107 1.498 5.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.173 50. PCT applications filed in 2009 by applicants from China saw the highest annual growth (29.042 214 390 257 4.605 230.284 827 1.336 5.289 Patent Office JP 2.494 79. there were 142 PCT Contracting States at the end of 2009.790 1.889 13. representing a 4.109 146.188 3.078 59.330 2. down from 64% in 2005.263 1.320 4.522 2. NO (Norway).995 CN 3.902 2.032 2.134 65.285 21.741 963 3.876 302.690 24.7%).087 13.128 4.676 123.380 472 4. .046.049 682.528 725 2.

0 17.2 0.5 13.8 6.5 9.000 1.8 5.8 4.0 4.4 17.2 5.4 17.5 4. The annual growth rate for the US.5 18.9 16. the biggest user of the PCT System.2 2.0 Growth Rate (%): 2005-09 -3. Note: The data reported above refer to the international phase of the PCT procedure and are based on international filing date.9 2.5 33.3 1.000 3.000 2.1 15.1 -0.4 11.52 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. 2010 Over the 2005-09 period.5 22.2 8.7 17. June 2010 Au k st Be ria R lg us iu m si an Fe Ind de ia ra tio n N or w Si ay ng ap or e Br az Ire il la n O d th er s 0 lia el n ai D en ra ra Sp Au st Is m ic pa er Am Ja er m of G es St R ep at ub lic of ar Country of Origin .000 an y Ko re a C hi na U ni te Fra d n Ki ce ng N et do he m Sw rlan itz ds er la Sw nd ed en Ita C ly an ad Fi a nl an d a n U ni te d Country of Origin .9 8.000 30.2 5.9 -1.000 0 4.2 Growth Rate (%): 2005-09 PCT Applications 40.6 1.1 14.4 6.2%) and the Republic of Korea (14.000 Growth Rate (%) PCT Applications 100.2%).1 PCT applications Trend in PCT applications PCT Applications 200.4 4.8 5.000 20. Brazil (16.3 2. Figure A.6 11.5 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Application Year PCT applications by country of origin 2005 50. three of the major PCT-using countries experienced double-digit annual growth: China (33.6 1. The 2009 data are based on a WIPO estimate.0 20.000 10.000 2009 2005 2009 PCT Applications -0.4 6. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.1 -4.2 11.7 33. was close to zero during the same period.1 16.8 2.000 0 31.2 1.5%).5 3.0 14.5.8 18.6 3.

Due to confidentiality requirements.9%)..8 77. Applicants from the business sector accounted for the majority (83.7% of published PCT applications.9 80. Business applicants accounted for the majority of PCT applications in most countries.2 38.6 93.2a and A. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.7 94. en st e Sw in Lu ed xe e m n bo ur g Ja pa Fi n Sw nla itz nd N erla et he nd rla nd G er s m an U D ni en y te d m St ar at k es No rw of ay Am er ic a Fr an c U ni Be e te l d giu m Ki ng do m Au st ria Tu rk ey Ita C ly an ad a N ew Chi na Ze al an d Is ra el Ire la Au nd st ra R lia ep ub lic Ind ia of Ko re a Sp ai n B Si raz ng il a R us Sou por e si an th A Fe fric de a ra tio n Li ec ht Country of Origin .1 72.5.2 Distribution of PCT applications by ownership type: top 30 origins. Spain (14.5.6 93. and individuals.2 shows the distribution of PCT applications by applicant type.5. except for the Russian Federation and South Africa where individual applicants accounted for the largest shares. Government and research institutions were most prominent in Singapore (26.2 70. 2010 53 A.2%) of PCT applications published in 2009.6 83.4 89.7%) and Singapore (13. government and research institutions.0 71. (China) into second place (Table A. June 2010 The composition of applicant types varies across countries.3 65.8 77.2 Top PCT applicants Data on PCT applications are broken down by four types of applicants: businesses.5.3 75. Ltd. Co.9%).4 86. nudging Huawei Technologies.6 76. Universities and government/research institutions jointly accounted for 7.5 65. respectively.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. universities.2%) had the highest shares of PCT applications from the university sector.0 49. Figure A. Panasonic Corporation (Japan) returned to the top spot in the list of top PCT applicants.9 93. Ireland (21. Four Japanese companies were among the top 10 applicants. Figure A. 2009 Distribution of PCT Applications (%) Business Individual University Government/Research Business sector share (%) 99.7 74.4 90.0 100 75 50 25 0 Note: Government and research institutions include private non-profit organizations and hospitals. the Republic of Korea (9.6%).5. The university sector includes applications from all types of academic institutions.3 91.2 81.9%) and France (8. and Tables A. the PCT data shown are based on publication date.2a).7 88.1 54.0 53.4 68. Eight of the top 10 applicants saw more PCT applications published in 2009 than in 2008 – with the exception of Philips (rank 4) and Toyota (rank 9). and individuals made up the remaining 9%.2 31.2b list the top business and university applicants.5.0 67.

INA-SCHAEFFLER KG APPLIED MATERIALS. It is the only university in this category featured in the overall top 100 list of applicants. several universities filed more PCT applications in 2009. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.295 -256 1. Notwithstanding this drop. 2009 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 27 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 44 46 47 48 49 50 50 Applicant's Name PANASONIC CORPORATION HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LIMITED THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE GMBH SONY CORPORATION KABUSHIKI KAISHA TOSHIBA HONDA MOTOR CO. LTD. LTD. In contrast.5.2a Business sector top PCT applicants.280 373 1.891 162 1. MOTOROLA. LTD. NOKIA SIEMENS NETWORKS OY EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY MONDOBIOTECH LABORATORIES AG DOW GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES INC. DAIMLER AG KYOCERA CORPORATION THOMSON LICENSING SUMITOMO CHEMICAL COMPANY. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL) LG ELECTRONICS INC.V. June 2010 US universities dominated the list of top PCT applicants for the university sector. the 50 university applicants presented in the table experienced a combined 6.587 314 1. NXP B.. NEC CORPORATION TOYOTA JIDOSHA KABUSHIKI KAISHA SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT FUJITSU LIMITED BASF SE 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY NOKIA CORPORATION MICROSOFT CORPORATION SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.V.068 -296 997 183 932 -157 817 -167 739 18 688 25 663 -342 644 -161 596 -43 593 186 569 66 554 58 538 -240 517 188 509 -8 452 7 435 33 413 19 401 -263 401 121 375 79 374 4 373 158 363 127 362 30 359 -103 352 89 341 -71 334 -98 328 21 326 113 318 125 313 245 311 12 307 -19 307 307 304 19 299 -77 296 99 285 57 283 -214 283 71 Note: Due to confidentiality requirements. ZTE CORPORATION E.. ROBERT BOSCH GMBH KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N. LTD. the Korea Advanced Institute for Science and Technology and New York University. 2010 Table A.I. CORNING INCORPORATED PIONEER CORPORATION ALCATEL LUCENT Country of Origin Japan China Germany Netherlands United States of America Sweden Republic of Korea Japan Japan Japan Germany Japan Germany United States of America Finland United States of America Republic of Korea Netherlands Japan United States of America United States of America China United States of America Republic of Korea Sweden Germany United States of America Japan United States of America Japan Japan Germany Japan France Japan United States of America Germany Japan Japan Japan Finland United States of America United States of America Liechtenstein United States of America Germany United States of America United States of America Japan France Number of PCT Change from Applications 2008 1. notably the University of Tokyo. The University of California accounted for the largest number of published PCT applications in 2009. L.240 256 1.090 98 1.069 244 1..P.847 110 1.54 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES. MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORPORATION HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. INC.9% drop in PCT applications published in 2009. LTD. the top three universities saw a substantial drop in PCT applications published in 2009. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY ELECTRONICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH INSTITUTE SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS AB BSH BOSCH UND SIEMENS HAUSGERÄTE GMBH INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED DAIKIN INDUSTRIES. INC. the PCT data shown are based on publication date. . Compared to 2008.

ISIS INNOVATION LIMITED KYOTO UNIVERSITY PURDUE RESEARCH FOUNDATION KOREA ADVANCED INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION IMPERIAL COLLEGE INNOVATIONS LIMITED NEW YORK UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA TOHOKU UNIVERSITY POSTECH FOUNDATION DANMARKS TEKNISKE UNIVERSITET OSAKA UNIVERSITY DUKE UNIVERSITY YALE UNIVERSITY THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO THE RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK EIDGENOSSISCHE TECHNISCHE HOCHSCHULE ZÜRICH UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER KEIO UNIVERSITY THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA YISSUM RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NATIONAL UNIVERSITY CORPORATION HOKKAIDO UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI THE UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND TOKYO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH OF THE COMMONWEALTH SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION Country of Origin United States of America United States of America United States of America United States of America United States of America United States of America Japan United States of America United States of America United States of America United States of America United States of America United States of America United States of America United States of America United States of America United States of America United States of America Republic of Korea Republic of Korea Israel United Kingdom Japan United States of America Republic of Korea United States of America United Kingdom United States of America United States of America United States of America Japan Republic of Korea Denmark Japan United States of America United States of America United States of America United States of America Switzerland United States of America Japan Canada Israel United States of America Singapore United States of America Japan United States of America Australia Japan United States of America Number of PCT Change from Applications 2008 321 -26 145 -44 126 -33 110 -20 109 -1 103 -15 94 23 87 6 80 -19 66 6 64 -25 62 -20 61 -9 60 2 55 10 52 -30 52 -16 52 0 50 7 49 -19 47 6 45 10 45 1 45 9 43 19 43 3 42 -14 42 14 41 -3 40 -11 39 5 39 7 38 11 38 -17 38 -8 38 -3 38 9 37 -13 36 10 36 -5 34 6 33 4 33 -11 33 -1 32 10 32 -17 30 0 30 10 29 -4 29 5 29 -14 Note: Due to confidentiality requirements.5.3 Trend in PCT national phase entries As mentioned above. if a PCT application from a resident of China enters the national phase procedure at the SIPO. The PCT indicators presented above (Figures A. INC. . it is excluded from the reported statistics. the PCT data reported above are based on publication date.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. Under the PCT System. The national or regional patent office at which the applicant enters the PCT national phase initiates the granting procedure according to prevailing national law.2) refer to the international phase. 2010 55 Table A.. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA RESEARCH FOUNDATION. YONSEI UNIVERSITY SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY INDUSTRY FOUNDATION RAMOT AT TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY LTD. PCT national phase entry statistics shed light on international patenting strategies. the PCT application process starts with the international phase and concludes with the national phase. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. applicants can decide to enter the PCT national phase in the jurisdiction(s) of their choice within 30 months from the priority date.5. resident national phase application data are excluded). For example.5. 2009 Rank 40 104 130 144 148 157 176 191 208 257 262 272 275 278 310 329 329 329 344 351 368 383 383 383 401 401 410 410 417 428 437 437 450 450 450 450 450 470 487 487 515 529 529 529 551 551 582 582 596 596 596 Applicant's Name THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOARD OF REGENTS.1 to A. THE UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA UNIVERSITY OF UTAH RESEARCH FOUNDATION WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON INDUSTRY-ACADEMIC COOPERATION FOUNDATION. This sub-section focuses on the national phase.5. National phase entry data presented here refer only to non-resident applications (i.2b University sector top PCT applicants. June 2010 A.e.

4 78.5.4 100 75 50 25 il an ad a hi na ra el di a co n ai ne tra lia si a ay ia e ea Ze al an d Af ric a at io n ce az a Ja pa ap or do ne s ex i w of Ko r al ay In ffi Br er or kr C Au s Fe de r nt O of Am M Si ng U N C M th In So u ia n ub lic Pa te ew N us s op ea R R Eu r Patent Office Source: WIPO Statistics Database.4 21.4 68.0 43.0 Year Note: The national phase entries data are based on a WIPO estimate (see Data Description).700 originated from non-resident applicants.5.2 90. especially during the 1996–2001 period.8 88.7 46. In particular. U ni te d St at e ep n s G er m Is an ic y .3b Share of PCT national phase entries in total non-resident patent applications: selected patent offices.2 23. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.8 400. which is counted as a “direct filing”.1 88. as most PCT applicants chose to enter the national phase at the EPO instead of the national offices.8 5.7 39.9 62. 2008 Non-Resident PCT National Phase Entries Direct Applications 72.9 57. the share of PCT national phase entries in total non-resident patent filings doubled in the past 14 years.5 7. 2010 To obtain patent protection in foreign jurisdictions.4 77.4 71. In particular. the PCT application is converted into a continuation or continuation-in-part application. the KIPO and the JPO saw around 70% of their non-resident applications routed through the PCT System. of which around 436.0 79.3 49. in turn.3 47. Many European countries exhibited low shares of PCT national phase entries.5.000. Among the five patent offices that received the highest number of non-resident patent applications.5.1 Non-Resident PCT National Phase Entries Share of non-resident PCT national phase entries in total non-resident filings 24. June 2010 The use of the PCT System for filing applications abroad varies across patent offices (Figure A.0 50.5 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 11.4 88.2 82.3b).0 81.2 23. Only a quarter of the non-resident patent applications filed with the USPTO made use of the PCT System25.2 -1.1 8.8 33. Figure A.0 37.6 9.0 82.56 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.0 52.000 0 19.0 Applications by Route (%) Share of non-resident PCT national phase entries in total non-resident applications (%) 93. At most patent offices.3a). June 2010 Figure A. applicants can either file patent applications directly with a foreign patent office or file a PCT application. The rapid growth in PCT national phase entries can be partly explained by an increase in the number of PCT Contracting Parties. this share stood at around 60%. increased the attractiveness of using the system.6 12. from 25% in 1995 to over 52% in 2008 (Figure A. The greater country coverage of the PCT has.0 40.4 59. The total number of national phase entries in 2008 amounted to 464.2 47.over 80% of total non-resident patent applications were filed via the PCT System in 2008.6 88. The relative importance of the PCT route has increased significantly over the past decade.3a Trend in non-resident PCT national phase entries Non-Resident PCT National Phase Entries Growth Rate (%) 45. the PCT System is the most popular route for non-resident patent applications . as many PCT applicants took advantage of a special legal provision in US patent law for proceeding with their PCT application at the USPTO (the so-called “by-pass route”).000 200.8 6.6 10. For the SIPO and the EPO. 25 However.4 21.0 33.9 26. the low percentage of PCT national phase entries at the USPTO does not accurately reflect usage of the PCT System at that office.

000 10.3 Growth Rate (%): 2004-08 nd Ita an re Ko ed la nl er Sw itz Sw . Country of Origin Note: Growth rate (2004-08) refers to average annual growth rate.000 105. June 2010 D en Au st ria m a k st ra lia a rla nd s .4 Non-resident PCT national phase entry by country of origin: selected origins 2004 2005 6. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. It shows that applicants from the US.000 35.000 70.0 Growth Rate (%): 2004-08 15.6 24.0 2007 2008 PCT National Phase Entries 8. Figure A.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.5.000 2.4 PCT national phase entry by country of origin and office Figure A.1 3.5.5.000 4.000 0 7. R ep ub lic of Country of Origin 2004 2005 14.2 2007 U PCT National Phase Entries 20.3 2007 2008 5.6 13.3 ni te es 2008 5. Japan and Germany accounted for the largest numbers of PCT national phase entries from 2004 to 2008.2 2006 8.1 1.3%) enjoyed the fastest annual growth during the same period.6 12.000 5.4 he Au 13.7 Growth Rate (%): 2004-08 PCT National Phase Entries 140.5 2006 6. PCT national phase entries by applicants from China (32.4 offers a breakdown of national phase entry by country of origin.000 0 en ly d N et 32. However.000 0 1.2 an y ce m ic a m an Am er Ja p an do Ki ng er Fr G of d at U ni te d St Country of Origin 2004 2005 8.000 9.2 Fi na el ad ra iu ar hi C an Is lg m C Be .4%) and the Republic of Korea (24.000 6.5 2006 5. 2010 57 A.

021 561 1.333 2.332 1.840 1.558 285 3.975 31.882 484 28 492 892 321 218 298 479 349 31 204 64 36 50 2 36 9 14 16 9 FR 4.902 3.921 9. FR (France). and IT (Italy).766 12.546 31.522 2.160 11.576 61.724 Australia 9. SE (Sweden). Applicants from Japan and the US filed approximately 55% of all national phase entries at the SIPO.718 Canada 15. Japan (14.614 3.333 2. It provides information on the “flow of patents” between countries.256 33 2.641 54. DE (Germany). Overall.159 2. the EPO received the largest number of national phase entries (83.499 7.692 United States of America 8.662 3.387 1. 2010 Table A. June 2010 .121 352 423 286 235 370 318 84 28 23 142 55 3 50 17 8 51 7 2 1 2 2 7 4 3 1 SE 2.164 23 421 65 566 76 802 5 401 32 454 22 127 9 157 22 104 4 132 1 39 1 96 3 50 2 66 81 Total 83.639 14.617 1.770 694 1.58 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.594 1.233 837 6. KR (Republic of Korea).5.301 377 2.331 624 565 477 425 385 438 204 114 283 39 85 138 113 81 25 14 178 4 3 11 5 Others/ IT Unknown 1.545 1.194 Republic of Korea 10.529 3.177 238 1.522 5.111 957 755 427 25 322 49 213 84 295 216 145 8 124 23 3 13 41 11 13 1 KR 1.258 2.4 presents the 2008 PCT national phase entry data broken down by patent office and country of origin. 2008 Patent Office US European Patent Office 27.288 4.548 2.079 511 89 319 88 68 204 51 36 7 8 12 4 7 2 DE 12.552 1. Table A. GB (United Kingdom).5.017 1.329 4. most of which originated from the US (33.174 548 786 478 688 214 52 235 23 275 78 84 82 158 37 56 29 11 2 3 1 11 1 CH 2.116 Israel 2.014 1.209 New Zealand 1.340 674 1. JP (Japan).4%).585 75 891 4 336 22 507 33 1.712 1.747 767 410 406 264 240 177 166 135 101 Note: Country codes: US (United States of America).725 2.009 906 254 257 1.762 2.139 304 4. NL (Netherlands).513 1.974 2. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.768 78 1. CH (Switzerland).319 1.062 9.582 1.822 Germany 1.601 1.719 349 1.523 15.119 538 433 347 317 277 291 23 209 276 172 132 166 319 1 59 36 35 20 8 1 17 1 1 NL 3.410 2.952 1.946 Mexico 7.576).979 2.279 512 5.988 13.116 1.757 3.921 1.674 1.4 PCT national phase entry at selected offices and countries of origin.909 20.259 1.282 661 1.471 1.322 6.812 1.312 1.773 Japan 17.741 Norway (2007) 1.137 Brazil (2007) 5.083 Philippines 959 Ukraine 657 Eurasian Patent Organization 623 United Kingdom 842 Colombia (2007) 685 Morocco 157 African Regional Intellectual Property Organization 108 T F Y R of Macedonia 134 Sri Lanka 69 Guatemala 96 Turkey 43 Uzbekistan 50 Kazakhstan 44 Spain 5 JP 12.5%) and Germany (14.1%).046 Malaysia 1.627 1.099 1.122 57.770 11.178 Singapore 3.631 10.071 614 767 236 151 211 29 122 92 94 165 125 9 79 143 19 37 2 12 2 2 2 3 Country of Origin GB 3.725 1.050 625 5.450 6.828 2.543 China 17.084 15.086 Russian Federation 3.

816 30.980 2.801 27.582 22.385 56.617 37.371 76.434 17.769 34. Applications in computer technology.556 31.5 5.391 62.618 22.474 27.586 20.619 25.794 95.434 116.062 54.130 25.395 38.992 57.128 68.149 125.7 3.482 70.267 25.552 74.191 36.734 20.511 46.228 69.827 43.447 44.214 27.2 Note: The IPC-technology concordance table (available at: www.179 43.615 20.832 50.0 5. polymers Food chemistry Basic materials chemistry Materials.421 42.1 Total patent applications by field of technology Field of Technology 2003 2004 Year of Filing 2005 2006 2007 Growth Rate.755 79.744 38. The IPC-technology concordance table (available at www.396 24.089 33.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.900 88.529 28.928 32. pumps.376 106.747 33.414 35.395 92.648 2.6. information technology (IT) methods for management and digital communication saw the highest annual growth rates from 2003 to 2007.479 10.8 5.6 3.5 8.668 40.900 58. Furthermore.448 1.770 78. To understand activity patterns and trends across technologies. Every patent application is assigned one or more International Patent Classification (IPC) symbols.880 68.0 4.581 47.969 53. A.548 9.944 46. 2010 59 A.242 33.2 6.759 23.492 64.965 38.1 -0.946 50.729 51.765 59.302 26.361 64.2 3.612 47.652 37. Source: WIPO Statistics Database and EPO PATSTAT Database.6 PAT E N T S B Y F I E L D O F T E C H N O L O G Y Patent applications span a wide range of technologies.2 6.321 80.433 27.3 9.860 18.282 25.878 77.168 63. whereby a patent application with multiple fields of technology is divided into equal shares.017 61.252 18.0 4.137 28.144 35.7 5.243 85. Table A.047 46.188 46.0 10.0 8.603 43.913 36. June 2010 .6 5.736 24.547 83.9 7.493 50.558 88.657 67.969 43. electrical machinery and telecommunications.6.2 5.144 67.109 17.267 42.794 17.930 69.4 7.356 41.8 3.698 46. apparatus.237 25.096 88.6.0 5.123 66.676 82.955 16. Patent statistics by technological field are based on the method of “fractional counting”.832 43. with each of these fields accounting for more than 5% of all applications.364 33.435 35.411 42.678 51.8 5.739 39.562 28.004 73.537 19. coating Micro-structural and nano-technology Chemical engineering Environmental technology Mechanical engineering Handling Machine tools Engines.393 18.669 34.941 31.229 2.507 42. each representing one field of technology.int/ipstats/en) was used to convert IPC symbols into 35 corresponding fields of technology.760 1.1 shows the total number of patent applications by field of technology and the average annual growth rate for 2003-07.048 120. games Other consumer goods Civil engineering 85. Patent applications in the life sciences (analysis of biological materials and biotechnology) experienced a decline during the same period. 2003-07 (%) Electrical engineering Electrical machinery.212 45.929 20.227 59. energy Audio-visual technology Telecommunications Digital communication Basic communication processes Computer technology IT methods for management Semiconductors Instruments Optics Measurement Analysis of biological materials Control Medical technology Chemistry Organic fine chemistry Biotechnology Pharmaceuticals Macromolecular chemistry.168 30.460 11.3 11.2 2. corresponding to the field(s) of technology to which an invention may belong.920 32.5 -1.652 40.0 5.362 53.078 10.2 9. turbines Textile and paper machines Other special machines Thermal processes and apparatus Mechanical elements Transport Other fields Furniture.525 71.840 28.365 34.215 21.638 28.839 31.171 26.844 85.844 9.266 72.821 65.106 145.449 35.443 47.240 96.558 32.5 2.313 110.345 83.3 4.663 36.566 50. the largest numbers of patent applications were filed in computer technology.210 92.0 2.883 31.1 -1.004 50.881 32.606 75.945 67.083 38. the tendency to file patent applications differs across technologies as some technologies depend more heavily on the patent system than others.607 29.285 52. In 2007.659 53. metallurgy Surface technology.894 35.1 Total patents by field of technology Table A.584 48.063 79.349 81.421 136.217 57.255 48.3 7.7 5.int/ipstats/en) was used to convert IPC symbols into 35 corresponding fields of technology.wipo.984 27.063 46.wipo. this sub-section presents data by field of technology. Applications for which no IPC symbol has been assigned are distributed proportionally to all fields of technology.304 88.228 30.295 46.195 46.024 23.595 10.812 71.926 37.

These countries generally show high R&D expenditure in the telecommunications sector.112 184 501 294 194 5.407 1. FI (Finland). turbines Textile and paper machines Other special machines Thermal processes and apparatus Mechanical elements Transport Other fields Furniture.519 850 161 699 242 762 249 785 219 312 1.440 573 336 664 3.593 428 21.665 1. KR (Republic of Korea).755 3.351 764 2.771 12. the largest numbers of foreign-oriented patent families originating from Canada.419 1. coating Micro-structural and nano-technology Chemical engineering Environmental technology Mechanical engineering Handling Machine tools Engines.737 5.490 2.414 11.195 4. AU (Australia).242 9.180 4.657 608 411 194 571 145 384 179 178 638 395 172 209 293 930 475 1.969 141 121 249 95 123 185 144 209 6 351 227 633 281 864 238 410 443 298 363 19 618 196 897 707 66 258 433 360 238 557 151 92 262 261 290 28 325 146 3.172 7.910 22 436 156 303 6.189 27. energy Audio-visual technology Telecommunications Digital communication Basic communication processes Computer technology IT methods for management Semiconductors Instruments Optics Measurement Analysis of biological materials Control Medical technology Chemistry Organic fine chemistry Biotechnology Pharmaceuticals Macromolecular chemistry.399 61 2.144 6.6.325 88 662 842 72 1.640 2.475 7.752 3. computer technology accounted for a large share of total foreign-oriented patent families.168 4. 2010 A. IT (Italy).475 5.770 70 7.311 128 804 710 481 5. apparatus.734 785 4. JP (Japan).int/ipstats/en) was used to convert IPC symbols into 35 corresponding fields of technology.882 2.140 302 574 164 926 702 1. DE (Germany).818 976 1.339 1.488 196 1.928 2.976 283 13.454 15.729 12.833 12.485 1.915 202 905 1.088 1.744 54 2.458 2.656 3. respectively.149 371 1.700 58 162 356 423 520 1.626 2.301 272 5.425 727 1. The largest numbers of foreign-oriented patent families for China and Sweden were in the field of digital communication.014 1.284 454 4.770 347 9.825 171 583 531 1.019 280 12.936 1.579 41 202 95 206 2. 2003-07 Field of Technology Electrical engineering Electrical machinery.239 1.385 1. Table A.019 2.wipo.497 1.182 1.198 2.445 154 410 110 240 660 185 315 444 54 321 169 295 154 14 365 251 515 360 439 528 412 288 378 400 222 242 563 1.764 204 468 233 46 365 363 80 670 678 122 644 300 130 654 424 12 116 18 238 1. Source: WIPO Statistics Database and EPO PATSTAT Database. For example.413 1.474 673 1.037 169 3.2 lists foreign-oriented patent families by 35 fields of technology for the top 15 countries of origin.607 3.773 8.508 1.426 2.374 886 290 789 80 1. the United Kingdom and the US were in the field of computer technology.157 1. China.409 1.156 443 17.461 4.508 762 13.602 2.223 8.222 7.717 9. Telecommunications accounted for a large share of the foreign-oriented patent families owned by residents of Canada.768 2.968 1.797 593 76 9.478 258 2.480 3. CH (Switzerland). which is at least partly reflected in the distribution of patent filings.786 1.505 128 873 552 299 31.454 104 3.428 7.227 1.199 368 1.671 13.079 738 1.068 250 1.422 723 27.489 Note: The IPC technology concordance table (available at: www.865 172 6.696 4.769 3. Assigning a field of technology to a patent family is based on all applications associated with that family rather than just first applications.078 6.636 1.545 2. Medical technology and pharmaceuticals accounted for a large share of foreign-oriented patent families originating from the United Kingdom and the US.372 210 1.117 279 349 189 140 1. SE (Sweden) and US (United States of America).776 299 4.160 936 1. metallurgy Surface technology.457 2.866 6. games Other consumer goods Civil engineering AT 543 133 110 63 59 183 38 304 77 276 51 163 263 87 126 134 57 33 97 228 120 7 184 154 333 360 253 152 375 261 336 393 AU CA CH CN DE Origin of Patent Families FI FR GB IT JP KR NL SE US Others 323 727 1.743 282 8.085 716 227 27. pumps.512 3.841 5.432 7.146 990 24.133 1. For the majority of those countries.066 1.307 1.413 43 5.945 334 2.922 2.234 1. FR (France).652 146 10.123 342 2.582 4.675 172 3.815 332 1.587 1.999 79 899 354 296 24.512 2.769 6.183 97 1.847 1.347 7.518 517 326 761 12.288 1.371 1.407 1.2 Foreign-oriented patent families by field of technology Countries may show innovative strength in different fields of technology.138 442 8. Optics and semiconductors were the top technology fields for Japan and the Republic of Korea.820 594 12.008 769 84 657 402 361 160 72 491 212 100 140 134 567 292 769 252 302 287 326 375 17 751 336 5. GB (United Kingdom).545 2.516 1.854 100 203 3.125 2.451 4.841 5. NL (Netherlands).605 2.6.60 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.710 3.462 317 217 645 283 196 694 374 493 838 176 289 436 680 1.583 15. the Republic of Korea and Sweden.210 1.919 847 501 1.679 5.639 9.320 4.393 1.068 260 1.2 Foreign-oriented patent families by field of technology and country of origin: top origins.411 4.972 6.303 6.323 382 393 13.994 7.577 1.478 332 1. polymers Food chemistry Basic materials chemistry Materials. CN (China).557 2. Table A. Finland.888 6.811 5.383 6.271 45 308 405 103 1.968 340 5.742 909 556 1.980 2. Germany.959 6.447 2.067 685 486 88 167 466 144 7. June 2010 .338 366 1.680 3.692 330 4.985 1.871 658 63 110 4.421 9.290 235 248 12 1.451 8.226 454 686 522 562 126 681 837 782 319 336 451 596 775 481 564 521 807 242 4. CA (Canada).422 1.994 9.578 109 231 445 77 1.222 523 349 316 2.097 1.254 2.638 10. Country codes: AT (Austria).568 490 759 31.578 3.509 7.742 950 795 10.6.114 3.150 80 1.187 119 113 195 755 7.634 4.385 211 4.585 1.051 1.003 1.827 3.666 1.569 218 8.465 1.904 3.968 928 1.903 1.

261 158 91 251 179 122 96 200 87 26 35 72 50 116 39 30 44 23 22 43 Growth Rate.143 1.7 17.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. PCT application data refer to PCT applications published during the reference year.7 25. turbines Textile and paper machines Other special machines Thermal processes and apparatus Mechanical elements Transport Other fields Furniture. Table A. coating Micro-structural and nano-technology Chemical engineering Environmental technology Mechanical engineering Handling Machine tools Engines. games Other consumer goods Civil engineering 2005 127 41 85 33 40 227 8 173 167 344 277 32 425 380 959 862 108 56 138 113 101 20 124 52 13 27 37 36 99 13 20 18 14 12 35 Year of Publication 2006 2007 182 57 111 48 55 313 14 230 211 472 338 50 542 389 959 1. apparatus.6.7 13.8 11.2 4.9 16.1 9.0 10. 2005-09 (%) 18. with more than 1.int/ipstats/en) was used to convert IPC symbols into 35 corresponding fields of technology. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.1 1.081 133 75 188 134 136 35 166 69 12 34 47 55 95 18 21 29 21 16 30 211 64 121 65 54 278 21 246 216 476 360 50 654 408 1.7 18.0 12.9 10.9 27.6. the total number of applications remained below 100 in 2009.3 Note: PCT application data by field of technology are based on publication date.6 4.0 11. June 2010 .3 PCT patent applications from universities by field of technology Field of Technology Electrical engineering Electrical machinery. Medical technology (648) and measurement technology (504) also accounted for a large number of applications.0 16.1 12.353 149 83 253 161 126 77 198 72 26 60 76 48 119 32 36 61 26 27 54 2009 247 59 138 88 56 355 20 332 187 504 421 59 648 397 1.179 1. metallurgy Surface technology.3 10. The largest numbers of PCT applications filed by university applicants were in the fields of pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. Despite rapid growth in PCT applications in the field of micro-structural and nano-technology.3 shows the number of PCT patent applications filed by universities broken down by field of technology. energy Audio-visual technology Telecommunications Digital communication Basic communication processes Computer technology IT methods for management Semiconductors Instruments Optics Measurement Analysis of biological materials Control Medical technology Chemistry Organic fine chemistry Biotechnology Pharmaceuticals Macromolecular chemistry. polymers Food chemistry Basic materials chemistry Materials.8 48.6. However.0 13.1 5.7 18.9 6.207 1.1 8.3 PCT patent applications from universities by technology Table A.0 12.5 11. between 2005 and 2009. pumps.8 25.2 16. 2010 61 A.7 2.6 10.0 31. The IPC-technology concordance table (available at: www.100 applications in 2009.5 12.118 133 80 211 151 128 38 205 89 21 41 60 45 107 26 31 34 14 15 45 2008 227 52 150 86 56 351 11 292 201 545 392 47 719 412 1. Universities accounted for 5% of all PCT applications published in 2009.4 5. PCT applications by university applicants experienced double-digit growth across most fields of technology.8 8.wipo. The growth rate shows average annual growth for the 2005-09 period.

while patent applications in the fields of wind energy and fuel cell technology followed a generally upward trend. It is therefore difficult to capture all patents in a specific technology field. 2010 A. namely. In the case of Denmark and Germany.8%) and fuel cell technology (45. will play an important role in tackling climate change. the Republic of Korea had the highest solar energy technology to total PCT applications ratio. The data presented refer to published PCT applications. France and Germany. The total number of PCT applications filed in the four energy-related fields increased from 584 applications in 2000 to 3. Canada accounted for a small share of PCT applications in fuel cell technology. fuel cells.9%) from 2005 to 2009. Canada had a higher ratio than the US. There has been a substantial increase in solar energy patent applications. wind energy technology accounted for a high proportion of PCT applications relative to the total number of published PCT applications. Applicants from Japan filed the largest share of PCT applications in the fields of solar energy (33. . geothermal. however. Germany and the US accounted for similar shares of PCT applications for wind energy technology worldwide.6. there is no one-to-one relationship). Nonetheless.e. but have nevertheless increased over the past three years. solar and wind energy. 26 The correspondence between IPC symbols and technology fields is not always clear cut (i.. while residents of the US accounted for a quarter of all PCT applications in these two fields. Applications in the field of geothermal energy were small in number compared to the other three fields. such as those related to renewable energy. relative to the total number of PCT applications published. The development of environment-related technologies. Denmark. the IPC-based definitions of the four energy-related technologies employed here are likely to capture the vast majority of patents in these areas. Annex A provides definitions of these technologies according to IPC symbols26.62 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.424 in 2009. This sub-section presents statistics on patent activity in selected energy-related technologies. climate change has been high on the political agenda. Similarly.4 Patent applications in selected energy-related technology fields In recent years.

0% FR: 2.3% CN: 5. June 2010 . CN (China).4% CN: 3.3% JP: 8.4% JP: 5.1% DE: 13.5% Geothermal energy Others: 29. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.4% CA: 6.6% CA: 3.8% DE: 11.9% Others: 9.6% Note.8% DE: 10.4 PCT applications by field of energy-related technology Trend in PCT applications in energy-related technology fields: selected technologies Solar Energy 3.4% KR: 7.8% Others: 16.3% US: 15. DK (Denmark).500 1.2% GB: 5. Country codes: CA (Canada). see annex A. NL (Netherlands) and US (United States of America).WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. ES (Spain). FR (France). GB (United Kingdom).2% GB: 2.500 3.6% DK: 13.4% FR: 5.9% Wind energy Others: 31. 2005-09 Solar energy JP: 33.5% NL: 3.4% US: 24.6% US: 24.5% US: 22.6.000 500 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Publication Year Country share (%).500 2. DE (Germany).000 Fuel Cell Technology Wind Energy Geothermal Energy PCT Applications 2. JP (Japan). 2010 63 Figure A. For definitions of the fields of technology.6% DE: 22.0% CN: 8.000 1.7% Fuel cell technology JP: 45. KR (Republic of Korea).8% ES: 7.

2009 74.7 26.3 41.6 11.7a depicts the percentage of PCT applications having at least one foreign inventor (i..7 13.5 24.3 25.0 24.2 10. reflecting the increased internationalization of R&D.3 20.9 59.9 18.6 19. June 2010 Figure A.9 3.9 26.5 44.9 65.3 14.3 22.5 24.7 25.7b PCT applications with at least one foreign inventor by country of origin (%).1 33.7 I N T E R N AT I O N A L C O L L A B O R AT I O N Foreign researchers play an increasingly important role in R&D and innovation activity.4 19.5 25. Figure A.8 21.2 16. 2009 India Russian Federation Others Belgium Canada China Austria United Kingdom 55.5 5.7 43. (%) Note: The data reported above are based on published PCT applications.1 17.2 41.5 21. The percentage of PCT applications that include foreign inventors has increased considerably.e.3 25.5 16.0 Origin of PCT Applicant Italy Origin of Inventor Switzerland Australia Spain Netherlands France Israel Sweden Germany Finland Republic of Korea United States of America Japan PCT Applications with Foreign Inventors.2 37.4 11.0 54. (%) PCT Inventors in Foreign Companies.8 7.5 25. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.2 33.9 49.2 40.3 16.5 13 15.3 6.7a PCT applications with at least one foreign inventor (%) PCT Applications with Foreign Inventors (%) 25.64 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.8 9. 2010 A.1 10. one inventor’s country of residence is different from the first-named applicant’s country of residence).4 3. Patent data can be used to monitor the level of cross-border collaboration in R&D activity.1 27. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.6 0 20 40 60 80 65.9 7.0 38.4 28.4 15.7 8. June 2010 .7c Inventors in foreign-owned PCT applications (%).9 80 60 40 20 0 Switzerland Singapore Ireland Netherlands Belgium Finland Sweden Canada United States of America Denmark United Kingdom Austria France Australia Germany Spain Others China Italy Republic of Korea Japan Figure A.4 24.9 43. This sub-section presents three indicators of crosscountry collaboration. Figure A.8 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Publication Year Note: The data reported above are based on published PCT applications.4 46.6 21. from around 9% in 1990 to 25% in 2009.1 50.

2 26.8 13. both for GDP and R&D-adjusted resident patents.014) recorded the highest absolute numbers of inventors contributing to PCT applications filed by foreign entities.3 2.2 0. Among PCT applications published in 2009.8 3.7 0.2 8. countries were selected based on having an R&D expenditure greater than 500 million dollars and more than 100 resident applications. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.1 11. Other countries with a large share of PCT applications citing foreign inventors include Singapore (65.3 5. June 2010 Country of Origin .2 0.1 4. the Republic of Korea and the US contributed to foreign PCT applications. while that was the case for only 3. In contrast.1 0.8 0.4 2.7 0.2 0.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.5 5. For the resident patent applications per GDP indicator.4 Resident Applications per GDP Republic of Korea Japan China Germany United States of America Belarus Russian Federation Armenia New Zealand Georgia Finland Ukraine Denmark Sweden Israel United Kingdom Austria France Switzerland Slovenia Serbia Ireland Norway (2007) Italy Croatia Canada Romania Poland Uzbekistan Netherlands Hungary Australia Singapore Azerbaijan Bulgaria Czech Republic Spain Greece Turkey Chile Resident patent applications per $million R&D expenditure Republic of Korea Japan China Belarus Russian Federation Ukraine New Zealand Romania Thailand (2007) Poland Germany United States of America Croatia Egypt (2007) Greece United Kingdom Italy Ireland Hungary Slovenia France Norway (2007) Turkey Denmark Malaysia (2007) Austria Finland Brazil (2007) Colombia (2007) Netherlands Sweden Canada Spain Morocco (2007) Czech Republic Australia (2007) Israel Singapore Portugal Mexico 3.708) and China (5. For the purposes of cross-country comparison. R&D expenditure was lagged by one year.4 0. A.9%).3 0.4 0. Italy (6.1 Resident Applications per R&D Expenditure Country of Origin Note: GDP and R&D expenditure data are in constant 2005 purchasing power parity dollars. In 2009. Ireland (59%) and the Netherlands (54.1 0. countries were selected based on having a GDP greater than 15 billion dollars and more than 100 resident applications.9 0.6 0.6 4.7 3.5 0. 74.8 17.2 4.3%).2 10.3 1.3 0.1 9.0 1.2 0. because of its large economy.8 13.4 5.6 17. the US (6.2 0.1 1.3 0.8 I N T E N S I T Y O F PAT E N T A C T I V I T Y Differences in patent activity across economies reflect their size and level of development. Countries with a low share include the Republic of Korea (5. it only occupied the 5th rank for the GDP-adjusted indicator and the 12th rank for the R&D-adjusted indicator.9 2.5 2. in percentage terms.4 0.8 presents data on resident patent applications per GDP and per R&D expenditure.6 82.6 1.7 7.2 0.6 3.2 0.9%) inventors were associated with foreign PCT applications (Figure A. the majority of Indian (65%) and Russian (55. Figure A.9% of PCT applications originating from Switzerland included at least one foreign inventor. The Republic of Korea.0 3.2 3.5 5. it is therefore interesting to express patent activity relative to GDP and to national R&D expenditure.4 0.9 7. one might ask how many inventors from around the world had a different country of residence to that of the PCT applicant. However.3 0.0 0.4 0. Germany (5.6 0.1%).4 0. 2008 Resident patent applications per $billion GDP 102.2 0.7 8.8 2.8 Intensity of patent activity. These indicators may be loosely regarded as measures of “patent intensity”.4 0.5 5.8 11.7c).5%) and China (7.2 4.3 5.2 7.3 13.4%). UNESCO and World Bank.003).9 3.9% of all PCT applications originating from Japan.7b).7 0.9 3.1 2.2 0.4 0. For the resident patent applications per R&D expenditure indicator. 2010 65 The level of cross-border collaboration varies considerably across countries (Figure A.1 8.6 2. respectively. Finally. fewer than 10% of inventors from Japan. The US accounted for the second largest number of resident applications but. Figure A.2 0. Japan and China are the top ranked countries in 2008.

Austria. China saw the largest increase in both resident patents per GDP and R&D ratios. the Republic of Korea experienced large decreases in both ratios due to a decline in resident patent applications and continued growth of GDP and R&D expenditure.7%).85 million) and the US (1. the United Kingdom. Indicators of patents in force provide information on the volume of patents currently in force as well as the patent “life-cycle”. In contrast. The US accounted for the largest share (28%) of patents in force by destination. Israel and Norway include only those patents in force abroad.8% of patents granted by the JPO in 2008. data on the number of patents in force by country of origin for Germany. By the same token.510 resident applications were filed with its patent office.9 PAT E N T S I N F O R C E Patent rights are granted for a limited time (generally 20 years). residents of Japan (1. For the majority of countries shown in the figures. a 5. 27 Note that the change in the number of patents in force is also affected by the number of patents that lapse in any given year. Statistics on patents in force domestically are not available.6%) and Switzerland (5.66 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.5% of all patents granted over the past 20 years.4). despite the fact that only 1.e. the Republic of Korea and New Zealand. a likely factor in the drop in number of patents in force in Spain. Italy. For all reporting destination countries except Spain. Turning to patents in force by source. resident patent per GDP and R&D ratios hardly changed from 2007 to 2008. Patent holders pay fees to IP offices in order to keep their patents valid. the number of patents in force in 2008 was higher than in 2007. The total number of patents in force across the world is estimated at 6. Sweden.27 There is similarity in the distribution of resident and non-resident patents in force and that of patents granted.1 depicts the number of patents in force by destination and source. The numbers of patents in force in China and the Republic of Korea have increased considerably in recent years. Japanese residents accounted for 89. The patent offices of these two countries issued around 47.1%) and the Republic of Korea (84. This is because the magnitudes of Belarus’ GDP and R&D expenditure were considerably lower than that of other reporting countries. Canadian residents accounted for only 10. because growth in resident patent applications outpaced growth of GDP and R&D expenditure. France (20.1 Patents in force by destination and source Figure A.3% increase over 2007.9. Notable exceptions are China. 2010 High R&D intensity countries (i. The largest shares of the patents owned by residents of Switzerland are in force in the US (20. Belgium. Most patents owned by residents of China (95. The first indicator provides information on the geographical location of patents in force. Finland and Sweden – filed fewer resident patents per R&D dollar compared to resident patents per GDP. For example. Belarus was ranked high both for resident patents per GDP and R&D ratios. In contrast.6%) are in force in their own country. and the second sheds light on the origin of the owners of patents that are in force. A.7 million in 2008. countries with a high R&D expenditure to GDP ratio) – such as Israel.. The number of patents issued by the patent office of Spain declined in 2008. only a small proportion of all patents owned by residents of Denmark (7. followed by Japan (19%).5% of all patents in force in Japan and 85.9.1% of patents granted by the patent office of Canada.2. New Zealand saw the largest drop in the resident patent to GDP ratio due to a sharp fall in resident patent applications.0%) and China (8.3%).7%) are in force in their respective countries. Unfortunately.6% of the patents in force in Canada and 10. . reflecting rapid growth in the number of patents issued by their patent offices (Figure A.35 million) owned around 48% of the patents in force in 2008. A.

Figure A.075 337. The timing for paying maintenance fees varies among patent offices.432 20. The second graph adjusts for the growth in number of patents in force and shows the percentage of patents in force in 2008 broken down by application year and divided by the total number of applications filed in a given year. therefore. Italy.419 509.928 21.231 115. . It would therefore be ideal to adjust patents in force data by the total number of grants. 2002 and 2000.699 78. it was not possible to determine the country of origin for 194.879 439.4 n.0 n.2 6.187 Growth Rate (%): 2007-08 107. Adjusting for number of patents in force by total number of applications causes the distribution of patents in force data to shift to the left.962 524.962 patents in force in 2008.a. Depending on technological and commercial developments. and about 21% were filed before 1997.106 11.851. 12.975 29.984 26. This estimate is based on data from 88 patent offices and is a lower bound estimate. Belgium. The first graph shows patents in force data for 2008 by year of application.7 million in 2008.347 124.720 20.3 10. n. due to incomplete data and because a breakdown by country of origin is not available for some patent offices.3 Australia Finland Ukraine Denmark Unknown Dummy 1 Dummy 2 Germany * 302. The largest numbers of patents in force in 2008 were filed in 2001. patent holders must pay maintenance fees to keep their patents valid. June 2010 A. Austria. Israel and Norway include only those patents that are in force abroad.872.a.233 31. 40% of total patent applications filed in 1994 resulted in patents being granted and are still in force 14 years later.a. as statistics on patents in force domestically are not available. When a patent is due for renewal.2 Patents in force by year of application As described in the previous sub-section.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.a. application data are used to provide a rough proxy.8 6.2 5.507 35.392 47.a.410 18.252 8.7 0.352 19.101 52.060 39.559 34.270 United Kingdom * Italy * Sweden * Belgium * Austria * Israel * Norway * Patents in Force Patents in Force Note: The global number of patents in force was estimated at 6. 24. n.a. A considerable portion (20%) of patent applications filed 20 years ago resulted in the issuance of patents that were maintained for the full patent term. The number of patents in force by country of origin for Germany. The breakdown of patents in force data by grant year are not available.8% of all patents in force in 2008 were filed between 1997 and 2006.2 Country of Origin 12.2 n.987 194. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. 0.4 0. patent holders may opt to let the patent lapse before the end of the full protection term (generally 20 years). 23. The actual number of patents in force by country of origin is likely to be higher than the data reported here.1 Patents in force by destination and source.1 3.5. A percentage based on patents in force data adjusted for the number of patents granted would be even higher28.833 18.2 depicts the breakdown of patents in force in 2008. 2010 67 Figure A. For example.067 129.353 91.374 39.9.337 48.0 13.9.872 1.9.352 17.367 624.122 1.966 134. For example.270.034 30.816 74.462 3. Approximately 71. 2008 In force by destination United States of America Japan Republic of Korea Germany France China Russian Federation Canada Sweden Australia Ireland Destination Mexico Monaco Finland Portugal Spain New Zealand Greece Brazil (2007) Ukraine Poland Israel Netherlands Norway (2007) Hungary 1. The bell-shaped curves portray the distribution of patents in force.6 -1.588 17.436 16.5 11.0 1.223 66.347.871 26.361 1.215 147.206 71. the United Kingdom.9 In force by source Japan United States of America Republic of Korea France China Russian Federation Switzerland Netherlands Canada Spain 196. Sweden. rejected or withdrawn. patent holders decide whether the expected benefit of holding on to the patent is greater than the cost of the renewal fee. 11. 28 Applications can be granted.533 50.801 11.8 n.307 65.

2010 Comparing the 2008 profile to previous years shows that the distribution of patents in force by application year remains fairly stable. June 2010 . Source: WIPO Statistics Database.000 Patents in Force 300.000 100.000 200. Patents in force in 2008 as a percentage of applications is calculated as follows: number of patent applications filed in year t and in force in 2008 divided by the total number of patent applications filed in year t.000 400.9.68 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. (%) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Application Year Note: The 2008 patents in force data are based on 58 patent offices.2 Patents in force by year of application Patents in force in 2008 by year of application 500.000 0 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Application Year Patents in force in 2008 as a percentage of applications 80 Patents in Force over Application. Figure A.

Some offices allow for pregrant opposition. the 4.7% of patents granted were opposed in 2009. Figure A. Differences in opposition procedures make it difficult to compare opposition-related statistics across patent offices.000 Patent Office of China Patents Granted Invalidation Requests 400 100. it is possible for third parties to oppose the grant of a patent.000 300 Patents Opposed Patents Granted Patents Granted .000 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 0 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 0 2009 Year Year Note: Opposition and invalidation procedures differ among patent offices .000 200 5. One exception is the USPTO. Some offices provide for a re-examination procedure instead of.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. the re-examination ratio (requests for re-examination divided by the number of patents granted) stood at 0. because the numerator and denominator do not cover the same data sample. Therefore.000 3500 3000 Patents Opposed 20. 1 0 O P P O S I T I O N A N D I N VA L I D AT I O N O F PAT E N T S G R A N T E D In some patent offices.000 50 25.000 Patent Office of Germany Patents Granted Patents Opposed 1500 25. at the EPO. In addition.10a Opposition and invalidation of patents granted Patent Office of Australia Patents Granted 15. where the number of re-examinations has more than tripled over the last eight years. at the USPTO.and post-grant opposition.000 500 5.000 10. the number of opposition and invalidation requests correlates positively with the number of patents granted. The SIPO and the JPO provide “invalidation request” and “trial for invalidation” procedures.000 100 50. or in addition to. Similarly. In most offices.7% opposition ratio at the EPO was derived by dividing the number of oppositions filed in 2009 by the number of patents granted in 2009.000 1000 500 0 1981 0 2009 Patents Opposed Patents Granted 2500 1000 15.000 2000 1500 25. Several insights emerge. Patents granted by the EPO can be opposed within nine months of the publication of the grant of the European patent in the European Patent Bulletin. it is referred to as “re-examination”. but data are comparable over time within a particular office. an opposition system. the number of oppositions filed in 2009 could refer to patents granted in 2008 and 2009. 2010 69 A .10a and A. others for post-grant opposition. June 2010 29 The opposition and re-examination to grant ratios presented here are a rough approximation. the procedure is called “opposition”. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. and again others for both pre. even though the number of patents granted has remained fairly stable.000 100 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 0 2008 0 1984 0 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 Year Year European Patent Office Patents Granted 75. For example. At the EPO and the patent offices of Germany and India. respectively. 4. Figures A.10b present data on opposition and invalidation requests for selected offices and compare these data to the number of patents granted.5% in 200929. For example. Patents Opposed Invalidation Requests 150 75. In other words. At the USPTO. there has been an increase in the tendency of third parties to challenge patents granted by the USPTO. The number of oppositions or requests for re-examination (or invalidation) appears small compared to total patents granted. certain national laws allow third parties to challenge patent validity through an invalidation procedure.000 Patents Granted 50.000 Patents Opposed 200 10.

statistics on potentially pending applications include all patent applications.000 120 100 80 60 Patents Granted Patents Granted 110. patent applications automatically proceed to the examination stage unless applicants withdraw them.000 750 Patents Opposed 100. it is important to know how many patent applications are still pending.000 Patent Office of the United States of America Patents Granted Re-examinations 1000 200.000 300 15. differences in procedures across patent offices complicate the measurement of pending applications.and resource-intensive undertaking.000 200 150 10. Patent offices need to carefully assess whether invention claims meet the standards of novelty.000 500 50. Unfortunately. figure A. at any Re-examinations Patents Granted Patents Granted Invalidations 250 .000 40 20 55. For operational planning and assessing the effectiveness of the patent system more broadly. 2010 Figure A.000 Patent Office of Japan Patents Granted 220. In contrast. it seems appropriate to count as pending all applications that await a final decision. patent applications filed at other offices do not proceed to the examination stage until applicants file a separate request for examination.10b Opposition and invalidation of patents granted Patent Office of India Patents Granted Post-Grant Oppositions 20. in the case of the JPO. June 2010 A .000 100 25. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.000 100 50 0 2002 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 0 0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Year Year Patent Office of the Republic of Korea Patents Granted 125. For example.000 250 0 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 0 2007 0 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 0 2009 Year Year Note: See note of Figure A.11a presents pending applications data for both definitions of pendency.70 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. non-obviousness and industrial applicability as set out in national laws.10a. it may be more fitting to consider pending applications to be those for which the applicant has requested examination. applicants have up to three years to file such a request.000 300 75. such as the USPTO. To take account of this procedural difference. For offices that automatically examine all patent applications.000 200 50.000 Patents Opposed 400 100. where offices require separate examination requests. In particular.000 5. 1 1 P E N D I N G PAT E N T A P P L I C AT I O N S B Y O F F I C E The processing of patents is a time. However.000 Pre-Grant Oppositions 160 140 Invalidations 400 350 Pre-Grant / Post-Grant Oppositions 165. In some offices.000 150.

Singapore and South Africa. the USPTO (1.a.2% increase over 2007.035 12. June 2010 In 2008.94 million.869 281.1 Growth Rate (%): 2007-08 n.313 1.941 25.620 11.a 7.025 -2. the total number of potentially pending applications across the world stood at 5.904 -6. Singapore and South Africa.58 million) and the KIPO (0. A large number of pending applications were undergoing examination at the USPTO. which include the top 20 offices except those of China.538 38. n. n. The total number of pending patent applications undergoing examination shows a similar trend to that of potentially pending applications.3 n. Italy.290 6.0 868. -1.185 16.234 5.8 Patent Office Mexico 14.a.024 38. India.2 n.358 11.396 2.6 Growth Rate (%): 2007-08 7.a.3 Pending applications undergoing examination United States of America Japan Republic of Korea Germany Canada Mexico Russian Federation Israel 212.2 17.9 Australia Chile Malaysia Ukraine Turkey New Zealand Uruguary Austria Philippines Peru Egypt Denmark Potentially Pending Applications Pending Applications in Examination Source: WIPO Statistics Database. 2008 Potentially pending applications Japan United States of America European Patent Office Republic of Korea Germany Canada Australia Russian Federation 1. Figure A.0 n. 2010 71 stage in the process.351 48. n.3 16.0 5.11a Pending patent applications.4 times higher than the number of total patent applications (2. The patent offices of Chile.464 6.a.248.214 6.37 million).7 0. 6.3 6. the number of potentially pending applications (34.45 million.2 5.1 9. This is based on data from 39 patent offices. which include the top 15 offices except for China.47 million).078 45.530) is 14.1 0.530 25.8 74.397) received in 2008.a.423 34. The growth rate for pending patent applications undergoing examination shows a sim- .a.1 40. At the majority of patent offices.a.368.0 3. that await a final decision by the patent office. Statistics on pending patent applications undergoing examination exclude those applications for which the applicant has not yet requested examination (where separate requests are necessary).a.214 578.986 3. these countries have a high ratio of potentially pending applications to total patent applications (Figure A. the number of potentially pending applications has increased over the past few years.089 13. the JPO.25 million).025 142.a.a.389 20.955 3.3 23.0 n.765 56.9 -17.a -22. the KIPO and the patent offices of Germany and Canada (no breakdown is available for the EPO).2 n. The total number of pending applications undergoing examination across the world is estimated at 3.989 85.442 2. Poland and Turkey show small absolute numbers of potentially pending applications.965 96.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. n.596 469.423 21.505 186.266 69. The largest numbers of total potentially pending applications are for the JPO (2.171 47.7 n.248. -24. at the patent office of Turkey.11b). the EPO (0. India. However.4 9.811 2.019 57. This world total is an estimate based on pending applications data for 71 patent offices. representing a 0.611 6. including those applications for which applicants have not filed a request for examination (where applicable). 15.612 10.3 28.856 2. n. 3. For example.9 Patent Office France United Kingdom Israel Turkey Poland Italy Chile Malaysia Ukraine Philippines Spain 3.

4 2.0 4.72 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. 2008 Potentially Pending Applications to Patent Applications Ratio Pending Applications undergoing Examination to Patent Applications Ratio Pending to Applications Ratio 14.4 5.2 2.0 5.3 1. June 2010 U Eu ni U ni Patent Office te Ph te d ilip er C U Sp er m Is C ai ic si n y 2.1 2.6 1. between 2007 and 2008.3% drop in potentially pending applications.8 el le 1.0 5.4% increase in potentially pending applications.0 2.1 3.5 4.2 3.9 2.2 ne s pi ey n ly a o a ce an nd ne ce lia m a a n pa ad re tio ic Ita do ra ra an rk hi ffi ex la ay ai Ko Ja an ra Tu Am M Fr Po O ng al kr st Au de nt of Ki G M of lic Fe Pa ub an es an ep at si pe d ro R us St R te Source: WIPO Statistics Database.9 3. pending patent applications undergoing examination at the JPO decreased by 2.7 2. In contrast.3 2. there are few notable differences among the top patent offices.7 .0 0. Figure A. For example.3 4. compared to a 5.3 2. pending applications undergoing examination at the KIPO increased by 16.5 3.2 2. However.8 1.7 2.7 2.7 2.4 6.2 3.11b Pending application to patent application ratio.8 1.1 2. 2010 ilar trend to that of potentially pending applications.3%.1%. compared to a 6.1 9.

2008 is the latest year for which comprehensive statistics from national and regional offices are available. and f) trademarks in force. which distinguishes certain goods or services of one undertaking from those produced or provided by other undertakings. used for goods or services that are identical with or similar to the goods and services for which the mark is registered. Further details about the Madrid System can be found at: www. or a confusingly similar mark.SECTION B TRADEMARKS This section provides an overview of worldwide trademark activity using a range of indicators covering the following areas: a) trademark applications.wipo. and trademark rights are limited to the jurisdiction of the authority that issues the trademark. A registration recorded in the International Register produces the same effect as one made directly with each designated contracting party if no refusal was issued by the competent authority of that jurisdiction within a specified time limit. The Madrid System simplifies the process of multinational trademark registration by reducing the requirement to file a separate application with each IP office. The holder of a registered trademark has the legal right to exclusive use of the mark in relation to the products or services for which it is registered. the decision of whether or not to issue a trademark registration remains at the discretion of the competent national or regional authority. . The procedures for registering trademarks are governed by the rules and regulations of national and regional IP offices. c) trademark applications by class. since it is possible to record changes or to renew the registration through a single procedural step. Statistics contained in this section concern those reported by national and regional IP offices from around the world and those resulting from use of the Madrid System. is governed by the Madrid Agreement (1891) and the Madrid Protocol (1989) and administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). or by filing an international application through the Madrid System. trademark registrations can potentially be maintained indefinitely as long as the trademark holder pays the renewal fees and actually uses the trademark.int/madrid/en/. d) international registrations and renewals through the WIPO-administered Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks (Madrid System) and e) intensities (trademarks per GDP and per population of one million). TRADEMARK SYSTEM A trademark is a distinctive sign. established in 1891. The owner can prevent unauthorized use of the trademark. Indicators solely referring to Madrid System statistics already incorporate data for 2009. Trademarks can be applied for by filing an application with the relevant national or regional IP office(s). However. Unlike patents. The Madrid System. The Madrid System makes it possible for an applicant to apply for a trademark registration in a large number of contracting parties by filing a single application at a national or regional IP office party to the System. It also streamlines subsequent management of the registration. b) trademark registrations.

3 5.9 4.1 8.3 0. Figure B.8 17.000 3.7 7.7 11.000.350.3 15.000 2.7 17.1 reports worldwide totals of trademark applications and registrations and gives an overall view of the general trend between 1985 and 2008.0 2.8 22.8 6. As suggested in the Special Theme.800.1 -0.0 9.0 -4.000 Growth Rate (%) Trademark Applications 2.000.6 8.000 1.5 4.8 7. June 2010 .74 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.1.2 -0. for the first time since 2001.1 B. at the peak of the so-called “dot-com boom” in 2000.0 7.000 Growth Rate (%) Trademark Registrations 1.500.000 900. The period between 1985 and 2007 shows an upward trend in total trademark applications interspersed with years of high growth – for example.6 4.000 1.000 1.250. the total number of trademark applications filed worldwide in 2008 is estimated at 3.4 4.1 11. which was then followed by a sharp decline in 2001. this decline is likely a reflection of the onset of the economic downturn.000 450.1 2.2 0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 4. representing a 0.9 12.000 0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 -2.9 9.4 3.0 6.2 7.1 WORLDWIDE TREND Trend in total trademark activity Figure B.2 3.000.6 6.000 500.2 2.1a Trend in total trademark applications and registrations Trademark applications Trademark Applications 3.3 7.7 7. The world total estimate includes direct application and Madrid designation data.9% decline from 2007.2 28.7 7. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.500.500.2 2.9 Application Year Trademark registrations Trademark Registrations 2.0 1. The decreasing growth rate since 2005 has culminated.1.7 1.0 Registration Year Note: The world total is a WIPO estimate covering around 164 IP offices (see Data Description). Thus. 2010 B.30 million. in a drop in total trademark applications in 2008 compared to the previous year.4 -8.4 6.5 9. Estimations have been made for offices for which statistics are missing in order to calculate the overall totals.1.000 -11.2 10.

330. at the end of 2007.4%) in registrations issued by IP offices to residents of the office’s jurisdiction.000 non-resident trademark applications filed in 2008 accounted for almost 30% of all applications. accounting for 33% of total trademark registrations. B. the generic term “IP office” is used to refer to an office that receives trademark applications and issues registrations since not all such offices are called trademark offices. some offices had received large numbers of trademark applications resulting in backlogs. For example. The approximately 975.209) and Spain (-8. non-resident applications are those filed by applicants with a foreign IP office. Based on available 2009 national and regional IP office statistics and the continuation of the economic downturn.000 trademark registrations were issued to non-residents. Trademark applications filed by residents of EU countries at the OHIM are considered resident trademark applications by this office. attenuated by a net 1. China (-14. The estimated total number of trademark registrations issued worldwide is 2.2. As for registrations. which. 30 31 In this section. however. and to growth (+3. the Netherlands and Luxembourg who file applications with the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP). recruited 300 trademark examination assistants to help reduce the pendency time from 36 months to 30 months.9%) in the numbers of applications filed by residents with their respective national or regional offices.2% over the same period. Direct non-resident registrations declined by 1.2 Resident and non-resident trademark activity It is insightful to study more closely the difference between resident versus non-resident trademark activity.324 from 2006 to 2007 after a long period of exponential growth (Figure B. This can be seen in the case of China. This can be attributed to the high growth in registration activity experienced by a number of IP offices. This is also the case for residents of Belgium.1.0% over 2007.2% in total designations received by offices via the Madrid System. this share remained between 28% and 30% after peaking at 38% in 1997. and the recent high numbers of registrations issued are likely a result of the allocation of additional resources. Between 2003 and 2008. .37 million. the US (-10. such as those of China and the European Union’s (EU) Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM). In contrast to trademark applications.000 resident applications accounting for slightly over 70% of the total. resident applications had already fallen by 64. which. it is expected that many offices will show a further drop in trademark applications from 2008 levels. When totaled. thus reinforcing the pattern that over two-thirds of all trademark application activity occurs within the domestic market (Figure B.427).5%) in registrations issued by IP offices to non-resident applicants who had filed trademark applications via the Madrid System31.059). with the approximately 2. The concepts of resident and non-resident are similarly applied to registrations. in turn. The overall decease was. representing a growth of 7. For example. 2010 75 The drop in trademark applications was mainly due to a decrease (-1. had over 1. In 2008. The largest decreases in resident applications from 2007 to 2008 occurred at the IP offices30 of Japan (-22.1. a total of 783. In the case of China. 32% of all trademark applications from 1985 to 2008 were filed by non-resident applicants. total trademark registrations have shown positive year-on-year growth since 2000. in 2008. a slightly higher share (38%) of all trademark registrations between 1985 and 2008 were issued to non-resident applicants. an application filed with the IP office of China by a resident of the US is considered a non-resident application from that office’s perspective. however.8 million pending trademark applications and.2).4% growth in applications filed by non-residents.1). was driven by an increase of 4. Resident applications refer to those filed by applicants with their national or regional IP office. high growth at the IP office of China will attenuate and perhaps offset the expected decrease in trademark applications worldwide in 2009. including the hiring and training of examiners to process pending trademark applications. an application filed by a resident of the US with the USPTO is considered a resident application from that office’s perspective. In previous years. Similarly. The registration of many of these pending applications in 2008 contributed to positive growth in total registrations.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.472). The increase in trademark registrations is largely due to growth (+10.

4 39.5 41.500.6 37.6 36.7 44.3 32.0 34.3a).9 35.000 0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Registration Year Source: WIPO Statistics Database.3 29. together accounting for approximately 27.000.4 34. the top 10 classes accounted for just over half of all classes specified in trademark applications.4 26.0 41. 2010 The trends of non-resident applications and registrations are fairly flat compared to those for residents.000 600.8 37.2 42. Figure B.000 1.76 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.7 28.000 0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Application Year Resident and non-resident registrations Resident Non-Resident 27.6 34. there is no fractional counting of trademark applications with regard to class. 41 and 25 were the top four specified in these trademark applications.5 31.8 39.7 35.1.2 Total resident and non-resident trademark applications and registrations Resident and non-resident applications Resident 2.000 500.6 35. The breakdown of applications by class offers some insight into the relative importance of trademarks for different classes of goods and services.5 31. Trademark applications typically group the goods or services indicated therein into one or more classes (depending on whether or not an IP office has a single or multiclass filing system)32 of the Nice Classification.2 41.1 29.wipo. reflecting that growth over the years has been mainly driven by increases in resident applications and registrations.1 1.0 31.500. June 2010 B.6 35.9 35.5% of the total (Figure B. 32 In contrast to patent/IPC counts.0 27.8 29.6 35.3 34.200.1 33.3 Trademark applications by class Statistics concerning “Class” refer to the 45 classes of the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks under the Nice Agreement (Nice Classification) (see www.0 32.1.000 Non-Resident 31.000 1.000 900.0 42.0 30.5 Non-Resident Share in Total Applications (%) Trademark Applications 2. 9.500.000 Non-Resident Share in Total Registrations (%) Trademark Registrations 1.3 28. class numbers 35.6 35. Ranked in order.9 28.3 38.1 31.3 37.2 37. The first 34 of the 45 classes indicate goods and the remaining 11 refer to services.9 31. Among the 97 offices for which direct application and/or Madrid designation statistics broken down by class were available for 2008.9 33.int/classifications/en/).000 300. .9 28.7 42.000.1.2 38.

8% Class 9: 6. Class 41 . weighing. footwear and headgear) at the IP office of China. Class 36 . four of the top 10 classes. magnetic data carriers. 2008 Goods Classes 1 to 34: 64. business administration and office functions). photographic and measuring apparatus and instruments. temporary accommodation. medical. the 11 service-related classes accounted for about 36% of all reported applications in which one or more classes were specified. The frequency with which this class was specified in applications was highest at the IP offices of the US (41. fireextinguishing apparatus. as well as data processing equipment and computers. dental wax.8% Remaining Classes: 49. together. The most specified class at a single office was Class 25 (clothing. which comprises.335 times in applications filed with this office. services that cannot be placed in other classes.069) and the Republic of Korea (14. honey. Germany (27.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.Clothing. dietetic substances adapted for medical use. rice. baking-powder. June 2010 . Note: see www.8% Class 3: 3. salt.006) and the Russian Federation (18.Coffee.984). computer programming.0% Note: The above figures are based on class statistics available for 97 offices. Class 25 . ice. business management. 2008 Figure B.Paper. Class 9 . photographs.382).324).3a Top 10 reported classes specified in trademark applications. were service classes — Class 35 (advertising. cardboard and goods made from these materials. typewriters and office requisites (except furniture).3% Class 35: 8. cash registers. tapioca. automatic vending machines and mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus. Figure B. which was specified 64.3b Distribution of total reported classes specified in trademark applications by goods and services classes. mustard. flour and preparations made from cereals.8% Class 41: 6. vinegar. paint brushes. office functions. life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments. headgear. hygienic and beauty care.htm for further details.1. scientific.Providing of food and drink. perfumery. sago. surveying.369). apparatus for recording. dentifrices. plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes).2% Service Classes 35 to 45: 35. business administration. not included in other classes. scientific and industrial research. pastry and confectionery. photographic. real estate affairs. Class 35 . Class 5 .9% Class 42: 4.3% Class 30: 3.992).568). Class 42 . In addition.983 specifications). recording discs. hair lotions. spices. providing of training. food for babies. bread.5% Class 36: 3. artists’ materials. 2010 77 Three of the top five classes related to services and. printers’ type. Class 30 . cocoa.Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. veterinary and agricultural services.Advertising. sauces (condiments). cinematographic. Class 3 . playing cards. preparations for destroying vermin. instructional and teaching material (except apparatus). transmission or reproduction of sound or images. material for stopping teeth. artificial coffee. adhesives for stationery or household purposes. followed by the US (40.Scientific. disinfectants. Brazil (22. essential oils. calculating machines.Pharmaceutical.4% Class 16: 4. financial affairs. printed matter. tea. sporting and cultural activities. measuring. data processing equipment and computers. legal services. China (37. business management. Class 16 . footwear. stationery. signaling.wipo. electric. sugar. soaps. printing blocks.4% Class 5: 4. the OHIM (23. nautical. yeast. fungicides. materials for dressings.int/classifications/fulltext/nice/enmn30. entertainment. scouring and abrasive preparations. veterinary and sanitary preparations. ices.Education. This was the most specified class in applications filed with the IP office of China (46. checking (supervision).379).0% Class 25: 5. among other things. monetary affairs. optical. including the number one class. The highest ranked class indicating goods was Class 9. the OHIM (21.Insurance. polishing. cleaning. plasters. herbicides. bookbinding material.1. treacle. cosmetics.

2. Figure B.000 10.912 and +6. Germany and Mexico received similar numbers of trademark applications in 2008 -between 79.78 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.1). for the second year running the IP office of China received fewer applications in 2008 than in the previous year. The multi-class filing system used by many national offices must also be taken into consideration (see B. showed increases in applications filed with their offices (+15. respectively. In 1995. extending from the 1950s to the mid-1990s. B. .000 450. Compared to 2007 figures.33 As mentioned earlier. The IP office of Japan witnessed the largest drop in applications from 2007 to 2008 (-23. the US overtook Japan as the largest office in terms of applications until 2001 when it was surpassed by the IP office of China (Figure B.658. Statistics pertaining to IP offices reflect all applications/registrations received/issued by the office itself either to residents of the country/region it represents or to non-residents filing from abroad.000 50. The offices of France.2 TRADEMARK ACTIVITY BY OFFICE This sub-section offers a more detailed breakdown of trademark activity by IP office.000 90. dropping by 12. France and Germany fell by 1% and 3%.2.1 Trend in trademark applications at selected IP offices China 750.1 Trend in trademark applications by IP office Japan experienced a long period.550).4).2.000 0 1883 1898 1908 1918 1928 1938 1948 1958 1968 1978 1988 1998 2008 Application Year OHIM 110.000 75. followed by the IP offices of the US (-10. in contrast.788). These significant declines in applications are the first to occur since the end of the dot-com boom in 2001 and correspond with the onset of the economic downturn.000 150.000 30. whereas Mexico increased by 1.000 300.2.270 applications. June 2010 33 It should be noted that IP offices have either a single-class or multi-class filing system. respectively) in 2008. the IP offices of Brazil and India. during which its office received the largest number of trademark applications worldwide. Most big IP offices also showed falls in the number of applications received in 2008.000 United States of America Republic of Korea India Brazil Japan Trademark Applications 600.059) and Spain (-8.000 0 Mexico Germany France Turkey Argentina Trademark Applications 1883 1898 1908 1918 1928 1938 1948 1958 1968 1978 1988 1998 2008 Application Year Source: WIPO Statistics Database. 2010 B.000.000 and 85.3%.000 70. Compared to 2007.

In the case of China. Both offices were surpassed by the Republic of Korea’s office in 2005.000 20.000 0 1883 1898 1908 1918 1928 1938 1948 1958 1968 1978 1988 1998 2008 Registration Year Source: WIPO Statistics Database.000 10.000 220. However. registrations fell markedly from 2007 to 2008 for Brazil and from 2005 to 2006 for India. 2010 79 B. The increase in trademark registrations at the offices of Brazil and India started from 2003 onward.000 Republic of Korea Spain Germany Turkey Australia Trademark Registrations 60.000 United States of America India Japan OHIM Italy Brazil Trademark Registrations 275.000 40.000 330.2.2).2 Trend in trademark registrations at selected IP offices China 385. The offices of Germany and Spain have historically ranked among the top 7 to 12 offices in terms of registrations. This is largely due to the processing of backlogs since many registrations issued in 2008 were for applications filed before that year.2. June 2010 . Similar to the historical trend observed for applications. the sharp falls most likely reflect a high level of processing of application backlogs during the year(s) prior to the drop.2 Trend in trademark registrations by IP office For the majority of reporting IP offices.918 additional registrations issued in 2008 compared to 2007 were due to the hiring and training of additional examiners. the number of trademark registrations was relatively stable until the early 1980s. Most larger IP offices witnessed growth in the number of trademark registrations issued in 2008 compared to 2007 despite decreases in trademark application activity.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.000 110. as described earlier.2.000 55.000 0 1883 1898 1908 1918 1928 1938 1948 1958 1968 1978 1988 1998 2008 Registration Year Mexico 80. Japan’s office saw the highest number of trademark registrations worldwide for many years starting in 1960. after which registrations increased sharply. Since trademark applications filed with these offices actually grew over the same years.000 165. Figure B. before being overtaken by the offices of the US and China in 2000 (Figure B. the 140.

6 in na IM ce ey ea pa an 07 di ic Ita tio Sp a ad nd lia m zi a Br a an O H tra do rk hi Ko r er ex In la Ja m 6- Tu an ra C Au s Am M 00 er de ng Fr of G (2 of lic Fe ub es tin an ep at en si St R Ar g ni te d IP Office Source: WIPO Statistics Database.1 28.448 87.841). June 2010 Figure B.3 6.4 1.3b shows that.070). Source: WIPO Statistics Database. India and China) are among the top five offices.2 -2.0 -6. respectively.586 80. 18.0 18.3 -1.2.026 .9 -3. India (130. -13.070 45.717 Resident Non-Resident Non-Resident Share (%) 11.6 9. Mexico.6%. of the European IP offices presented.865 a n il na IM o y az pa an di re ic ic ce a a 79.6 38.344 59.9 10.3 19.0 -1.3 4. Spain and the United Kingdom saw the largest yearon-year fall in applications at -16.705 35.0 Growth rate (%): 2004-2008 5.9 31.9 56. Figure B. The IP offices of Japan. India. Thailand and Turkey – experienced growth in the number of applications received.3 21.1 te d St R 15.619 700.7 -16.4* 1. the average annual growth rate of total trademark applications worldwide was 4.6 a l -1. Brazil.3b Trademark application growth rate by IP office: top 20 offices Annual Growth Rate (%): 2007-2008 3.8 n. each exceeding 10%. The combined share of the BRIC countries was around 30% of all trademark applications worldwide.8 -3.088 applications.5 2. all experienced a decrease from 2007 to 2008 in the number of applications received.000 57.8 12.3 -11.000 100.3 5.5 8.1 35.5 18.6 3. Russian Federation.2 -2.8 -1.172 119.461).9 -2.8 60. most upper-middle and lower-middle income economies – notably.165 35.3a Trademark applications by IP office: top 20 offices.8%.7 2.2. The rapid growth in applications at the OHIM was largely due to the increasing use of this regional office by EU residents.4 0. In other words. In total.5 -13. The offices of India and Turkey and the OHIM exhibited the highest five-year annual growth rates.3% and -11. 2008 Resident Trademark Applications 669. three of the four so-called BRIC countries (Brazil.3 -4.a.7 16. with the Russian Federation being in fifteenth place.3 11. Chile.172) and Brazil (119. For the period of 2004 to 2008.5 0. June 2010 U R us U ni te d a Ki Th C ai C hi ic le n ly o n a y ) at si es ng M (2 do hi H In ra rk 2.9 13.0 28.685 73.088 Non-Resident Total Trademark Applications 74.206 an Ita ad tio ai 00 Ko Br ex er Sp Ja O m ra Tu Fr an C st Am er Au de of C Fe of lic in ub nt es an te d Ki G a ge ep at ni St Ar us U R d ni U Note: The OHIM resident statistics represent applications filed at that office by residents of all EU countries.000 40. 2010 B.9 13.2. whereas the remaining 10 offices comprised just 16% of trademark applications worldwide.422 137.370 55.000 60.80 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.5 13. the top 20 offices received over two-thirds (71%) of all applications.4 47.461 130. the Republic of Korea (137. In contrast.2 1.4%. followed by the IP offices of the US (294.9 25.2.7 -0.000 20.000 of Tha Am ila er nd ic C a hi le ey ly lia n a 7) m n Non-Resident Share (%) 294.3 Trademark applications at the top 20 IP offices The trademark office of China was the largest recipient of trademark applications in 2008 with 669. Figure B.287 80.640 84. enabling them to obtain trademark protection in all EU countries through a single registration.3 0 3.000 300.6 4.841 119.7 -3.3 -2.9 33.1 U ni IP Office IP Office te -1.5 32. The top 10 offices in 2008 accounted for just over half (55%) of all trademark applications.000 500.

070 251. In spite of the fact that the office of China uses a single-class filing system.64 2. However.640 IM 79. the gap between the offices receiving higher volumes of trademark applications and those receiving lower volumes is narrower when comparing on the basis of number of classes rather than number of applications. IP offices have either a single-class or multi-class filing system34.8 times.36 3.87 110.287 84.127 78.685 60.05 699.08 2.00 1.83 Trademark Applications / Class Count 1.165 151. For better comparison of trademark application activity across offices.001 84. C Be M U hi na Br m 1.035 87. the multi-class filing system used by many national offices must be taken into consideration. i.00 2.92 az io ic il .019 20.478 137.609 24.586 28.344 ey ly Ita 119.448 181.126 86. China and Mexico use single-class filing systems. More generally. provided by the IP office of Japan. class count-based trademark application data reduce this gap to about 2. For example.206 ce 202.064 80. the Republic of Korea. the total number of classes specified in applications is calculated based on the average figure of 1.95 1.10 2.006 199. For instance.636 59.85 3.731 2. 2010 81 B. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. requiring a separate application for each class in which applicants seek trademark protection.36 2. 2008 Total Trademark Applications Total Number of Classes Specified in Applications 1.094 244.088 1.193 120.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.2. The offices of Brazil.810 58. in contrast. H IP Office on g Ko ng U (S AR d ).4 Trademark applications and total class count: top 20 offices.992 57.897 35.47 1. the offices of Japan. Figure B.424 46.461 119. the US as well as many European offices all have multi-class filing systems.013 91. the number of applications received by the trademark office of China is over 8.865 na y a 250. Japan received more trademark applications than did each of the offices of France and Germany as well as the OHIM. For Japan.370 31. This can result in much higher numbers of applications for these offices than for those that allow multi-class applications.02 Trademark Applications / Class Count 1.514 55. allows multi-class filings.67 3. one application per class specified. June 2010 34 Not all IP offices use the Nice Classification.00 Average number of Classes per application 400.67 classes specified per application.98 R us si St R an Fe d G er Tu Average number of Classes per application 93. However. the class count figure for this office is greater than the application count figure due to designations received via the Madrid System that.323 669.2.e. the applications received by those offices specified higher total numbers of classes than did applications filed with the office of Japan.578 294.18 2.705 33.4 Trademark applications by office and class Within the international trademark system and in certain offices.2 times that received by Germany’s IP office.230 n o lu x nd ne nd lia m ai ic do ra la ai la Sp ne ex Po er ng kr st Au itz Ki Sw te ni Note: These data are a composite of both trademark applications received directly by offices and designations received by each office via the Madrid System.841 a n n an pa re er an at rk hi H Ko Ja O C Fr Am er of of ub lic at es ep d U ni IP Office te Total Trademark Applications Total Number of Classes Specified in Applications 1. an applicant can file a trademark application specifying one or more of the 45 classes of goods and services defined in the Nice Classification.39 2.634 74.

0 24.5b Trademark registration growth rate by IP office: top 20 offices Annual Growth Rate (%): 2007-2008 10.9 27. the number of registrations issued by the IP office of China jumped by approximately 141.1 48.1 -1.2 -2.2 38.1 15.000 28.000 ub an te Sw of lic es ep ni at us U St R R d ni Source: WIPO Statistics Database.2 -7.5 32. some offices.6 5. such as those of Australia.8 1.a.5 U Growth rate (%): 2004-2008 56.3 3.998 80.743 102.0 27.1 25.82 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.2 10.9 U 9. 2008 Resident Trademark Registrations 389.4 2. the US.516 50.8 5.8 12.306 34.2 18.3 20.5 10.7 50. Japan and the OHIM issued almost one-third of total estimated trademark registrations worldwide in 2008.6 -1.7 63. Together. issued between 40% and 68% of registrations to non-residents.2.8 48.6 35.5 53.3 10.2 16.7 23. June 2010 U ni IP Office te R us s U ni at e te d of Ca Amna d U eric a kr a ai ne IM ey lia le ly o n a az an nd m n di pa ic re ai Ita tio ic do ra hi rk H hi la ex Ko Sp Br m Ja O Tu C st ra Am ng er M er Au de Ki itz of G Fe d M al ay er In C si a il y 3.206 40.1 -3.2 ni IP Office IP Office te te d 10. India.4 24.2 500. These offices.0 41. IP offices issued 33% of total trademark registrations to non-residents in 2008.001 46. June 2010 Figure B.5 St at si es -53.5 -9.2 15.000 100.8 20.443 60.5a Trademark registrations by IP office: top 20 offices.695 .4 n.2.9 9.000 to 389.000 300.847 27. Canada.4 67. on average.103 Resident Non-Resident Non-Resident Share (%) 12.2.115 representing an increase of nearly 57% and more than doubling the number of registrations issued in the US.3 8.063 62.000 200. 15. along with the remaining top 10 offices.161 27.307 63.9 26.9 53. meaning that these offices’ percent shares of non-resident registrations are higher than their shares of non-resident applications.7 22.115 Non-Resident Total Trademark Registrations 56.5 6.0 14. 2010 B. Figure B. Malaysia. the offices of China. the Russian Federation and Switzerland.4 21.992 60.000 0 a n na a 14.525 82.4 12.500 Non-Resident Share (%) 184.2 in a Sw le itz er la nd M al ay si a C an ad a U kr ai ne Be ne lu x H IM na an il ke y co y ra lia Sp a m an tio n om ea a az di Ja p ex i Br Tu r G er Au st of K Am er a M Ki n gd er C O C hi hi ic or In of bl ic Fe d ep u ia n s St R d Note: Growth for Italy could not be calculated due to unavailability of registration data from 2004 to 2008 Source: WIPO Statistics Database. While.000 400.8 0.9 0 14.7 7.086 25.520 39.5 Trademark registrations at the top 20 IP offices From 2007 to 2008.7 1. issued about half of total registrations.8 0.5 13.257 97.

8%) were destined for protection outside their respective borders. it is not possible to do so due to lack of detailed information. Applications by Japanese residents saw the largest change from 2007 to 2008. many registrations issued in 2008 were for applications filed prior to that year. It should be noted.7%).1a.444 applications for protection outside of China. most of the offices above showed year-on-year growth in registrations issued despite some having seen declines in the numbers of applications received. figures for 2008 show that 14 of the top 20 origins experienced decreases in the numbers of applications filed globally by residents of these countries (or.35 B. 35 For example. whereas origins abroad statistics correspond with IP office activity involving applicants residing outside the office’s jurisdiction.3. proportionally speaking. placing this country in eighth position in terms of applications filed abroad. Chile.3. the Russian Federation and the OHIM. Mexico. China. This reflects the time lag between receipt of trademark applications and the issuance of registrations. Malaysia and the OHIM experienced in excess of 20% growth in the number of registrations for the period of 2004 to 2008. the Russian Federation. demonstrating that.1 Trademark activity by origin Although non-residents account for around 30% of total trademark applications filed worldwide.1b should be redistributed to applicants’ country of origin. Despite having filed only approximately 6% of their total applications abroad. Residents of the Republic of Korea. India. In contrast. Mexico.1%). Residents of Canada. Brazil. there is substantial variation in this share across origins. Spain and the US filed a substantial share (between 29% and 38%) of their applications at IP offices abroad. whereas Brazil showed a large drop (-53%) in the number of registrations issued in 2008 compared to 2007. that from 2006 to 2007.1a and B. The five offices out of the top 20 that saw year-on-year growth in applications are those of Benelux. Poland. the Netherlands (60.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. South Africa and Thailand filed only between 3% and 10% of their total applications abroad. the number of registrations issued by the office of Brazil nearly quadrupled. a high-income economy. Japan. China had the highest annual change followed by the United Kingdom. however. Peru. However. as some offices do not report detailed statistics containing the origin of all applications and registrations.2%) and Switzerland (81.3.9%. Origin statistics refer to the residence of the applicant or registrant. in the case of the OHIM. In other words. as shown in figure B. According to longer term trends.3. OHIM Madrid designation data contained in Figures B. the Russian Federation and Turkey. Numbers of applications and registrations for origins abroad are underestimated. EU residents). 2010 83 In 2008. For instance. B. . and its 2008 registration figures are nearly twice that of 2006. residents of Argentina. Brazil.7%. filed a similarly small share of their applications abroad (8. In terms of year-on-year change.3 TRADEMARK ACTIVITY BY ORIGIN This sub-section presents application and registration statistics by origin of applicants. Resident origin statistics correspond with IP office activity pertaining to residents of the office’s jurisdiction. falling by 9. and is sometimes related to the processing of backlogs. Brazil. with Brazil experiencing the highest year-on-year percentage increase of 16. relatively few residents from these lower to upper-middle income economies seek international trademark protection. Chinese residents nonetheless designated 35. over 50% of applications filed by residents of Germany (55.

000 40.3.210 36.065 60.9% from 2007 to 2008.9 -2.963 600.109 58. increased by 30.000 134.2 -9.8 -4.276 71. the shares in total registrations issued to these countries’ residents by IP offices abroad were much higher at 44. 2008 Resident Trademark Applications 625.8* -2. June 2010 As for trademark registrations by origin.208 46.969 Abroad Trademark Applications -5.8% in registrations issued domestically to Turkish residents. resident applications at the Benelux office comprise those filed by residents of Belgium. June 2010 Figure B.000 0 77. Notably.9% overall drop in registrations issued to residents of Turkey represents a decrease of 12.000 20.1 -2. 6.8% and 29.666 117. The number of Brazilian residents that were issued registrations by IP offices abroad.5% in registrations issued for Turkish applications filed abroad. 2010 Figure B.2 4.4 12.a. resident registrations issued by the Benelux office comprise those issued to residents of Belgium. 81. Similarly.7 -0.856 45. Germany and Japan saw the next highest numbers of registrations.4 n. 59. Luxembourg and the Netherlands. which is partially offset by an increase of 27. Resident applications at the OHIM comprise those filed at that office by residents of EU member states.2 -9.6 n.775 193. although only 8% of those registrations were issued by IP offices abroad (Figure B.793 45.000 10.0 75.649 Am Ki itz of G N an Sw of lic d te es ub us ni ep at U R St R Note: Registration by origin statistics are not included for France.000 200. U ni te Origin U Origin d ni te d St at si es C hi l of Ca e Amna e da Po rica la nd ey o x il lia s az nd ic lu na ly IM nd Br rla ne ex m a ra a rk n n y an pa ai Tu re ic Ita do M Be hi H la st Sp Ja Ko O C ng er Au he m Fe er et de er ra tio n 20.7 7.101 56.482 44. 2008 Resident Trademark Registrations 371. Most origins experienced growth in total registrations from 2007 to 2008.8 -0. respectively.2 -4.817 38.6 20.4 16. The 4.4%) can be accounted for by the 57.6 30.250 200.3%.1 13.2 1.733 74.537 80.771 21. However. Resident registrations issued by the OHIM comprise those issued to residents of EU member states by that office.000 20.2 -9. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.a. For national IP offices in the EU.4 60.5% of all registrations issued to residents of Switzerland came from IP offices other than the Swiss IP office.000 102.000 0 109. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.898 U ni Origin Abroad Trademark Registrations 48.8 10.3 7. with registrations issued to residents showing faster growth than registrations issued to non-residents.000 40. Residents of the US.327 71.9 -55.9 -7.9 6.3.876 .1b).3.1b Trademark registrations by origin: top 20 origins. resident applications include those filed directly by residents with their respective national office as well as those filed with the OHIM (if chosen as the office of first filing). resident registrations include ththe ose issued to residents by their respective offices as well as those issued by the OHIM (if chosen as the office of first filing).8 7.2 38. Similarly.6 23. residents of China were issued the highest number of registrations worldwide in 2008.6 2.1a Trademark applications by origin: top 20 origins.326 53.7 4.84 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.675 300.7 -4.000 51.256 140.877 65.328 Note: The growth rate for Argentina is based on the percentage change from 2006 to 2007.000 34.790 Growth rate (%) 396.024 do m Tu Sw rk itz ey er la nd Ar M ge ex nt ic in o a (2 00 R us 7) A si a n u st Fe rali de a U ra ni N ti te et d he on St rla at nd es of Be s Amne lu C eric x an a ad a C hi Am na er G ica er m an y Ja pa R ep n ub Fra lic nc e of Ko re a Ita ly Br az il O H IM Sp ai n of es at te d St U ni te d Ki ng Origin Resident Abroad Growth rate (%) -4.4 19. For national IP offices in the EU.245 Resident Abroad Growth rate (%) -1.000 100.2 0.3 4.745 80.780 Growth rate (%) 285.9 7.009 101. 16.2% fall in registrations issued by the Brazil IP Office to its residents. Luxembourg and the Netherlands. however. which does not report resident registration statistics.9 31.633 400.000 44. The large drop in total registrations of Brazilian origin (-55.024 116.8%.851 58.000 0 22.042 156.268 79.489 50.648 400.000 30.

WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS, 2010

85

Care should be taken when comparing 2008 statistics on applications by origin with registrations by origin statistics in view of the time lag between application for a trademark and the issuance of a registration. Moreover, registration data are highly influenced by the capacity of offices to process applications and backlogs, and can thus vary greatly from year to year.

B.3.2

Trademark applications by origin and IP office

To better understand the flow of trademarks across countries, it is useful to consider application data by origin and IP office. Table B.3.2 provides a breakdown of these statistics for selected origins and IP offices. In the distribution table, the highest percentage in each column represents the share of all resident applications received by that IP office. This figure varies from 29.8% at the IP office of Israel to 88.3% for China. Over half of the 15 IP offices listed received over 80% of all applications from domestic applicants. For the majority of offices, applications of US origin accounted for the largest proportion of applications received from abroad. Exceptions are the offices of France, Switzerland and Turkey, which received the highest proportion of their non-resident applications from applicants in Germany. Applicants residing in Switzerland accounted for the highest proportion of non-resident applications in Germany. The IP office of the Russian Federation received 6.2% of its applications equally from German and US residents. Nearly one in three of all non-resident applications received by the IP office of Canada originated from the US, and residents of Canada accounted for the highest proportion of non-resident applications at the US office. More generally, many offices receive a high proportion of trademark applications from residents of neighboring countries, suggesting greater demand for protecting goods and services in geographical proximity to the applicant’s country of residence.

86

WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS, 2010

Table B.3.2 Trademark applications by country of origin and IP office: selected origins and offices, 2008 Number of trademark applications
AU BR Australia 38,381 158 Brazil 47 97,868 Canada 295 298 China 948 507 France 923 1,586 Germany 1,828 2,526 Israel 79 58 Italy 802 957 Japan 1,011 971 Mexico 22 417 Portugal 51 337 Republic of Korea 206 244 Russian Federation 86 53 Singapore 269 63 South Africa 91 86 Spain 269 761 Switzerland 1,013 1,393 Turkey 123 27 United Kingdom 1,445 1,205 United States of America 6,466 5,875 Others / Unknown 5,015 4,451 Total 59,370 119,841 Country of Origin CA 424 59 20,040 425 1,227 1,687 99 518 1,089 166 54 203 17 87 39 222 891 28 1,173 14,359 2,812 45,619 CH CN 138 1,453 14 262 74 925 386 590,525 2,221 3,740 5,064 5,806 30 160 1,377 3,411 557 12,917 62 369 86 136 65 3,255 166 695 49 1,433 19 291 354 1,502 11,885 2,505 179 372 682 3,809 2,553 20,269 5,553 15,253 31,514 669,088 DE 132 13 21 836 1,016 70,076 10 525 325 3 67 130 343 35 7 248 1,560 427 353 907 3,831 80,865 FR 138 6 30 836 70,100 1,274 503 351 4 93 87 253 23 2 236 1,004 348 331 840 2,747 79,206 IP Office IL 80 46 77 144 572 834 3,198 367 288 7 11 54 18 31 23 79 550 61 495 2,393 1,414 10,742 IT JP KR 115 545 398 37 108 56 43 241 276 772 1,040 1,277 1,201 1,709 1,729 1,299 2,440 2,659 8 87 60 49,432 1,221 1,315 553 95,660 5,284 13 85 28 92 70 41 130 704 107,487 258 124 121 24 169 203 8 29 28 234 376 320 863 1,394 1,601 325 148 124 377 1,126 1,206 2,017 7,340 8,949 2,543 4,832 4,299 60,344 119,448 137,461 MX 154 310 527 389 1,329 2,407 94 740 856 56,592 35 209 8 48 23 1,316 1,498 18 1,217 11,775 4,742 84,287 RU 195 43 113 1,094 1,828 3,568 63 1,830 1,142 97 78 263 30,024 85 34 524 1,733 635 1,013 3,519 9,284 57,165 TR US 123 1,999 27 376 55 6,569 651 1,807 934 2,834 2,579 4,987 37 548 1,035 2,034 501 3,284 17 1,103 69 201 118 967 214 293 37 287 8 147 258 1,040 1,091 2,338 60,597 295 547 4,983 2,154 246,222 3,633 11,756 74,685 294,070

Distribution of trademark applications
AU Australia 64.6 Brazil 0.1 Canada 0.5 China 1.6 France 1.6 Germany 3.1 Israel 0.1 Italy 1.4 Japan 1.7 Mexico 0.0 Portugal 0.1 Republic of Korea 0.3 Russian Federation 0.1 Singapore 0.5 South Africa 0.2 Spain 0.5 Switzerland 1.7 Turkey 0.2 United Kingdom 2.4 United States of America 10.9 Others / Unknown 8.4 Total 100.0 Country of Origin BR 0.1 81.7 0.2 0.4 1.3 2.1 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.6 1.2 0.0 1.0 4.9 3.7 100.0 CA 0.9 0.1 43.9 0.9 2.7 3.7 0.2 1.1 2.4 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.5 2.0 0.1 2.6 31.5 6.2 100.0 CH 0.4 0.0 0.2 1.2 7.0 16.1 0.1 4.4 1.8 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.1 37.7 0.6 2.2 8.1 17.6 100.0 CN 0.2 0.0 0.1 88.3 0.6 0.9 0.0 0.5 1.9 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.6 3.0 2.3 100.0 DE 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.3 86.7 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.9 0.5 0.4 1.1 4.7 100.0 FR 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.1 88.5 1.6 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.3 0.4 0.4 1.1 3.5 100.0 IP Office IL 0.7 0.4 0.7 1.3 5.3 7.8 29.8 3.4 2.7 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.7 5.1 0.6 4.6 22.3 13.2 100.0 IT 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.3 2.0 2.2 0.0 81.9 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.4 0.5 0.6 3.3 4.2 100.0 JP 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.9 1.4 2.0 0.1 1.0 80.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 1.2 0.1 0.9 6.1 4.0 100.0 KR 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.9 1.3 1.9 0.0 1.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 78.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 1.2 0.1 0.9 6.5 3.1 100.0 MX 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.5 1.6 2.9 0.1 0.9 1.0 67.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.6 1.8 0.0 1.4 14.0 5.6 100.0 RU 0.3 0.1 0.2 1.9 3.2 6.2 0.1 3.2 2.0 0.2 0.1 0.5 52.5 0.1 0.1 0.9 3.0 1.1 1.8 6.2 16.2 100.0 TR 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.9 1.3 3.5 0.0 1.4 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.5 81.1 0.7 2.9 4.9 100.0 US 0.7 0.1 2.2 0.6 1.0 1.7 0.2 0.7 1.1 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.1 1.7 83.7 4.0 100.0

Note: AU (Australia), BR (Brazil), CA (Canada), CH (Switzerland), CN (China), DE (Germany), FR (France), IL (Israel), IT (Italy), JP (Japan), KR (Republic of Korea), MX (Mexico), RU (Russian Federation), TR (Turkey), US (United States of America). Source: WIPO Statistics Database, June 2010

B.4

T R A D E M A R K R E G I S T R AT I O N S A N D R E N E WA L S T H R O U G H T H E MADRID SYSTEM

In order to obtain trademark protection in multiple offices, an applicant can either file an application directly with each office or file an application for international registration through the Madrid System. The Madrid System makes it possible to seek trademark protection in up to 85 contracting parties by filing a single application. Before seeking international protection through the Madrid System, applicants must apply for trademark protection at their national or regional IP office. An international registration under the Madrid System produces the same effect as an application for registration of the mark in each of the contracting parties designated by the applicant. If protection is not refused by the office of a designated contracting party, the status of the mark is the same as if it had been registered by that office. Thereafter, the international registration can be maintained and renewed through a single procedure.

WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS, 2010

87

B.4.1

Trend in trademark registrations and renewals through the Madrid System

Figures B.4.1a and B.4.1b present the trend in international trademark registrations and renewals from 1985 to 2009. There were nearly 36,000 new Madrid international registrations in 2009, representing a drop of approximately 5,000 or 12.3% from 2008 levels. As discussed in the Special Theme, this drop is a likely reflection of the global economic downturn.
Figure B.4.1a Trend in international trademark registrations through the Madrid System
Madrid International Registrations Growth Rate (%)

International Trademark Registrations

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

-7.0 -1.6
0

-1.9 5.1 6.0 7.8 3.2 5.0 0.3 14.4 4.4

-7.3 -1.7 7.0 41.9 12.2 3.3 6.5

-12.3

2.3 11.1 27.8 14.4 15.2

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Registration Year

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, June 2010

Figure B.4.1b Trend in international trademark renewals through the Madrid System
Madrid Renewals
20,000

Growth Rate (%)

International Trademark Renewals

16,000 12,000 8,000 4,000 0

-56.2 74.1 25.7 1.2 5.7

-0.5 12.6

-21.6 7.5

-16.9 18.4 8.1 18.0

-0.7 20.3

-5.3 -7.4 10.2 10.7 2.1 102.8 14.9 11.4

-1.2

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Renewal Year

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, June 2010

Between 1985 and 2008, the number of Madrid international registrations has seen an upward trend with occasional decreases during and immediately after periods of economic recession. For example, after the end of the dot-com boom in 2001, international registrations decreased in 2002. The high growth rate in 2005 can be explained, on the one hand, by the economic recovery that followed the recession induced by the burst of the dot-com-bubble and, on the other, by the addition of new contracting parties to the Madrid System, notably the OHIM, which made it possible for applicants of EU countries to apply for international registrations via the OHIM to protect their marks beyond the EU’s borders. The year-on-year drop in the number of international registrations in 2009 was the first to occur since 2003. The trend for international trademark renewals through the Madrid System (Figure B.4.1b) is similar to that for international registrations. The significant growth of renewals in 2006 is due to a change in renewal period from 20 years to 10 years in 1996. Similar to international registrations, the drop in the number of international trademark renewals in 2009 was the first to occur since 2003.

Spain and Switzerland accounted for the largest shares of renewals (ranging from about 4% to 5%). 85.8% of all renewals. this has no bearing on trademark renewals occurring directly at these national offices.1 2. having only recently become contracting parties of the Madrid System. the Russian Federation. The distribution in 2009 of renewals by designated contracting party remained similar to that observed in 2008.2b shows the share of international registrations by designated contracting party. however.2 .1 0.2 Origin 0. C hi na Ja Fe p de an ra tio U ni te Au n d st Ki ria ng d Au om st ra l Tu ia rk ey Sp C D ain ze en ch m R ark ep ub l Po ic la nd N or w Sw ay ed en si an an ic an H la Ita m O Fr Am er G at es Sw of itz Be er ne er lu 0.0 3.9 0.3 1. about 62% of all international registrations in 2009 were issued to applicants from EU countries.1 15.5 2.0 0.8 10. Renewal numbers from the US and the OHIM are comparatively small. respectively.4.7 3. the OHIM. the designated office in which the owner of an international registration seeks trademark protection. 2010 B. saw the largest increase by nearly one percentage point in its share of total international registrations.0 11.2 0. Applicants from Germany that filed applications via the Madrid System accounted for 15% of total international registrations. June 2010 R d us Figure B.8 9.5 0. there was not a substantial shift from 2008 in the distribution of the origin of the applicants to which registrations were issued. China.2 Trend in trademark registrations and renewals through the Madrid System by origin and by designation Despite the drop in international registrations in 2009.3 3. however.2a International trademark registrations and renewals through the Madrid System by origin: top 20 origins..3 9. Switzerland and the US received between 4% and 5% of all designations.1% and 21.9 9.4.2a). Figure B.7 0.2 1.1% of all renewals were made by owners of international registrations residing in EU countries. showing the importance placed by international registration holders on protecting their goods and services in those foreign markets.2 0.4.4. Figure B.1 1.4.88 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.2 0. remaining virtually unchanged from their 2008 share (Figure B.5 1.1 21. This is a result of the historically larger numbers of international registrations filed in these European countries.7 2. 36 OHIM is listed as the origin for international registrations where applicants chose that office as the office of first filing.7 5.0 6.8 3.8 % of Total International Registrations / Renewals % of Total International Registrations / Renewals Madrid International Registrations Madrid Renewals 3. France. Germany and France accounted for 29. In 2009.36 When totaled.8 4. either through their national offices or through the OHIM. Germany.2a also presents statistics on renewals of international registrations by origin.9 1.4 0.2 9.5 1. Italy. 2009 Madrid International Registrations Madrid Renewals 29. i.e.4 IM ce nd ly y a x St U ni te Origin Source: WIPO Statistics Database.0 0.8 6. The OHIM.9 0.

2b International trademark registrations and renewals by designated contracting party: top 20 parties. LTD.5 1.9 hi na IM n at io n ai ne ic a nd lia St at es us R U ni te d Designated Contracting Party Source: WIPO Statistics Database. Pharmaceutical company Novartis AG of Switzerland topped the list with 136 applications. Positions 6 and 7 went to companies from Slovenia and Hungary. June 2010 R ep B.9 4.4 4.7 3.6 2. which came in 4th.2 1.7 2.6 1. retail.1 Designated Contracting Party 0.0 2.3 4. 2010 89 Figure B.1 % of Total International Registrations / Renewals % of Total International Registrations / Renewals Madrid International Registrations Madrid Renewals 4.4 2. and the top 50.2 4.6% of these applications.2 0. 2009 Madrid International Registrations Madrid Renewals 4.4.2 0.3 Top Madrid applicants In 2009.1 0.4 3.4.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.0 2. listed in table B. They consist mainly of companies specializing in home and personal care products.5 1.8 2.8 1.4 2. ke y Ko re N a or w a C y ro at Si ng ia ap G ore er m an Be y la ru s Se rb ia Fr an ce U ni te Ita d Ki l ng y do m Sp ai n of pa rla er Ja O tra H Au s Am itz e Fe d Sw of U si an ub lic Tu r C er kr 0.1 0.5 1.3. electronics and mechanical engineering.9 1.2 .8 1.6 1. is one of four Chinese companies appearing in the list of top 50 applicants.0 2.7 4.5 1. the top 100 Madrid System applicants accounted for nearly 10% of all international applications for the registration of marks. respectively.1 4.4.6 2. German applicants held 16 positions among the top 50 applicants.. comprised about 6.7 0.9 4. China’s Zhejiang Province Haomenglai Group Co.6 1.6 2.8 1.

.90 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.. June 2010 . GDF SUEZ HOFER KOMMANDITGESELLSCHAFT ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN AG BASF SE NOVO NORDISK A/S BRILLUX GMBH & CO. LTD. KG HENKEL AG & CO.. KG DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY.O.3 Top 50 Madrid applicants.4.LTD) ICN POLFA RZESZÓW S. 2009 2009 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 27 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 44 46 47 48 49 50 Madrid Applicant's Name NOVARTIS AG LIDL STIFTUNG & CO.D. LIMITED AUDI AG UNILEVER N.A.V. SPAR ÖSTERREICHISCHE WARENHANDELS-AG OTKRYTOE AKTSIONERNOE OBCHTCHESTVO "NEFTYANAYA KOMPANIYA "LUKOIL" KAUFLAND WARENHANDEL GMBH & CO. MERCK KGAA Country of Origin Switzerland Germany Germany China Japan Slovenia Hungary France Germany Hungary Switzerland Belgium Germany United Kingdom Germany Switzerland France United States of America Germany Germany France Germany Germany Switzerland Netherlands France Japan Poland Austria Russian Federation Germany Japan Germany Netherlands France Austria Germany Germany Denmark Germany China Slovenia Netherlands France China United States of America China Germany Serbia Germany Madrid Applications Filed 136 109 98 96 74 74 70 67 64 63 61 61 54 53 52 51 51 45 44 42 42 41 40 39 39 38 37 37 36 36 36 36 34 32 32 31 30 30 29 29 29 28 28 28 27 27 27 26 25 25 Source: WIPO Statistics Database. LTD MIBE GMBH ARZNEIMITTEL STRAUSS ADRIATIC D. KRKA RICHTER GEDEON NYRT L'OREAL BSH BOSCH UND SIEMENS HAUSGERÄTE GMBH EGIS GYÓGYSZERGYÁR PFIZER AG JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA NV BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT GLAXO GROUP LIMITED BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMA GMBH & CO. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N. ITM ENTREPRISES SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME KABUSHIKI KAISHA SANKEI SEISAKUSHO (SANKEI MANUFACTURING CO. KG BEIJING WANJINDAO SHANGMAO YOUXIAN GONGSI PIVOVARNA UNION D. MICROSOFT CORPORATION HANGZHOU ZHONGCE RUBBER CO. SANOFI-AVENTIS. KGAA ZHEJIANG PROVINCE HAOMENGLAI GROUP CO.V. KG SOCIÉTÉ DES PRODUITS NESTLÉ S..V.A.O. LTD. 2010 Table B. CHRISTIAN DIOR COUTURE NINGBO FAR EAST LIGHTING CO. SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG BIOFARMA BEIERSDORF AG TUI AG SYNGENTA PARTICIPATIONS AG DSM IP ASSETS B. SHIMANO INC.

5 12. The large increase of subsequent designations in 1990 was the result of higher numbers of such designations for Eastern European countries and countries that had been part of the former Soviet Union.8 20.9 1.4. This figure represents a fall of 18.7 7.9 3.6 31.9 16.4.4a Trend in subsequent designations of international trademark registrations Subsequent Designations 50.8% from 2008 and thus a further decline from a peak reached in 2007. The holder of an international registration can thus expand the geographical scope of protection of the mark in line with its business needs. In 2009.7 -3.3 6.0 8.0 2.4.6 .9 2.1 2.8 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Registration Year Source: WIPO Statistics Database.4 3. 2010 91 B.9 -50.4 Subsequent designations of international trademark registrations through the Madrid System A “subsequent designation” is a procedure for extending the effects of an international registration to a contracting party not covered by the original registration – either because that contracting party was not initially designated in the international application or it could not have been designated since it was not yet a member of the Madrid Agreement or the Madrid Protocol at the time.9 4.1 37. the share in total subsequent designations for 2009 varied only slightly from 2008 levels.5 82.4b Subsequent designations of international trademark registrations by designated contracting party: top 20 parties.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.7 5. June 2010 U Bo sn te Designated Contracting Party d ia an d H er ze go or Eg er la N ro yp t 1.0 3.7 1.1 -4.0 1.000 0 -12.2 3.0 3.0 2.3 -4.5 -13.000 10. the Russian Federation. China. in the period from 1985 to 2009. there were nine years during which subsequent designations decreased from the previous year’s levels (Figure B.9 273.4a).2 -5.000 20.000 Growth Rate (%) Subsequent Designations 30.4b).9 43.000 subsequent designations filed by holders of international registrations.000 40.4.8 1.0 2.4 -18. June 2010 Figure B.5 2.4.9 3.7 na IM ia ey ne lia ay nd ia n e s am co n a a a pa tio re or ru oc vi n ic at ra rk hi ai w la H rb Ko ap Tu Se Ja ra kr or C st er O Am Be et de Au ng U N of itz C M Fe Si Vi Sw of lic an es ub ep at si us St R R ni Source: WIPO Statistics Database. Figure B. 2009 Percentage of total Subsequent Designations (%) 4. there were close to 36.2 5.6 -5.1 2. Indeed. Although most contracting parties showed decreases from the previous year.0 2. and the United States of America received the highest numbers of subsequent designations in 2009 (Figure B.

000 400. 16 of the 20 offices shown received more than half of their trademark applications from abroad through Madrid designations. Since 2001.000 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Application Year Source: WIPO Statistics Database. with some offices receiving upwards of 70% to 90%. but this decline was more than offset by a 4.8 38. 2010 B.5a shows that total non-resident applications actually grew slightly from about 961. Applications filed directly with national and regional offices fell slightly by 0.4 37. the Republic of Korea and the OHIM — received between 22% and 33% of their non-resident applications via Madrid designations.4.1%.2 Trademark Applications 800. applications filed directly at national or regional offices by foreign residents saw a one percentage point lower average annual growth rate of 5.000 increase in the number of designations received in 2008 compared to 2004.000 applications from 2004 levels.000 200.000 in 2007 to nearly 975.4.2% increase in the number of designations received by offices party to the Madrid System. the share of non-resident applications received by IP offices worldwide through the Madrid System increased from 37.8 31.2 38.9 40.0 32. .0 33. this share has varied from 38% to just over 40%.9% from 2007 to 2008. a lower proportion than the global figure of almost 39% calculated across all IP offices. non-resident applications resulting from Madrid designations saw an average annual growth rate of 6.92 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. equivalent to an increase of approximately 107.5 Non-resident trademark applications by filing route Non-resident trademark applications can be filed directly with national and regional IP offices or through the Madrid System.1 34.2 37. June 2010 The share of non-resident applications filed via the Madrid System varies across IP offices (Figure B. Although total resident trademark applications dropped by 1.000 Madrid Non-Resident 38.5a Non-resident trademark applications by direct and Madrid routes Direct Non-Resident 1.4.8% in 2007 to 38.000 600.2 Madrid Share (%) 38.9 35. the US.3%. The top four offices in terms of non-resident applications — China. Figure B. In 2008. This growth is equivalent to an almost 80.5b). For the same period. Figure B. Between 2004 and 2008.4.000.1%.8% in 2008.000 in 2008.5 39. As a consequence.

selected countries.8 36.848 9. Figure B.523 14.106 80.9 54.564 27.5b Share of Madrid applications in total non-resident applications: top 20 offices 2008 Direct Non-Resident Trademark Applications 78.9 22.4.9 61.0 50.066 Direct Non-Resident 12.967 29.5 28. For purposes of cross-country comparison.500 0 7.1 68.4 33.0 18.228 Madrid Share(%) 47.3 39.801 10.9 84.9 25.1 40.6 42.088 ni te d Office Source: WIPO Statistics Database.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.6 56.788 20.0 73.000 60. Source: WIPO Statistics Database and World Bank. their size.6 64.563 Madrid Non-Resident Trademark Applications 14.3 41.9 125 Resident Applications over GDP 86.5.7 38.0 31.2 m do ng us si an Fe de ra So ut tio n h Af lg C al 15 n ly a ria nd ry an an ne pa ic a na ar m d e e s nd an Ita ay hi m ga st st la ap er m Ja re pi lg rla Au Po ). June 2010 B.5 U INTENSITY OF TRADEMARK ACTIVITY As in the case of patents.000 40.4 87.0 74.1 Resident trademark applications per $billion GDP.2 91.2 76.000 20.000 10.4 ric re hi a 35.5 60.8 .500 7. June 2010 H U ni te g d R d Ki 14.523 14.5 31.789 10.141 23.5 75. C en un M al Am ilip Pa ng Be er Fi G he H C an ki nl ad si ec or iu a y s k G Ph AR D N et Si of (S es ng at Ko St U ni te on Country / Territory of Origin Note: GDP data are in billions of constant 2005 US dollars based on purchasing power parities.7 81.5.832 Madrid Non-Resident Madrid Share(%) 22.1 23. Countries and territories of origin were selected based on having a 2008 GDP greater than $80 billion and resident applications exceeding 3.2 26. 2008 104.8 30 25.7 19.1 53.8 66.5 12.0 lic ub ep It G aly U er ni m te a d Ki ny ng do m Fr U an ni te ce d C St ro at at es ia of Be Am la errus i Sp ca ai n St at es C hi o n R ep f Am a ub er lic ic a of Ko R re us a si an O H Fe I de M ra tio n Ja pa n Au s Sw tral itz ia er la nd U kr ai ne Tu rk ey Si ng M on ap or te e ne gr N o or w ay Office 7.974 27.3 29.5 75 66.1 76.0 30. to a large extent.7 32.3 44. it is therefore interesting to express trademark activity as measured by resident applications.9 31.9 80.5 43.6 50.500.000 0 8.1 28.7 ze 16. relative to GDP and population levels. The resulting intensity of trademark activity indicators are presented in Figures B.0 C 16.2.000 3.736 25 na le il ey n ia en o ne nd nd ce ru l lia ia a d ga az ai ex ic an ar Pe st ra an rk Ko Sp rtu Br C ed an hi ai la la Tu U kr R om er ai Sw Bu Ze Po Au Th itz M Fr of R ew Sw lic ch ub N R ep Country of Origin 45 Resident Applications over GDP 35. 2010 93 Figure B.0 54. differences in trademark activity across economies reflect.5.629 14.7 59.989 19.912 10.2 26.1 and B.1 19.3 70.9 18.8 78.

From its population of 48. Uruguay and Panama37.000 resident applications. Turning to the intensity of trademark activity indicator of resident trademark applications per population. a somewhat different picture emerges..361 1.4 in the Russian Federation to 78.000 820 810 Resident Applications per million population 800 600 400 200 0 749 608 603 602 553 532 520 510 H on g Ko ng 492 465 446 428 400 334 326 212 98 il um ic o na ey n ce a ru nd si a ne ia nd s m a ic a pa az n ad ric do re e Pe an rk hi la ai la ne io M ex Ja an Tu Po om kr Ki ng Am Be al ai de ilip G R M ut Th of te So U ni at ze ch R Pa ki st an ep ru Fr ub la hi st lg i ay er ra t Br C U h Af C U ni te d Country / Territory of Origin Note: Countries and territories of origin are selected based on whether they had populations greater than 3.8) resulted.211 1. June 2010 37 This number would likely have been higher if 2008 data were available from all Latin American IP offices. New Zealand and Australia held the 2nd and 3rd positions with resident applications per population of 1 million of 1. at about 105.568 1. followed by the Republic of Korea.200 resident applications per population of 1 million make the Republic of Korea the most intensive trademark user according to this intensity indicator.791 1. Among the top 10 countries.554 1. Hungary and Singapore) rank higher than some that have higher numbers of resident applications (e. Finland.6 million. from having populations often much larger than those of the other countries depicted.2 Resident trademark applications per population. the US (809.951 and 1.0 in New Zealand.297 1. the resident applications to GDP ratio varied from 14. eight are located in Southeast and East Asia.3 million and resident applications exceeding 4.400. 13 were European. Among the top 20 countries represented. Among the top 20 countries. For all other reporting countries.107 1. Source: WIPO Statistics Database and World Bank. respectively.g. the United Kingdom and the US).399 2.202 1.043 961 948 865 865 ia ar lg C le n en ay ce ria ly y lia a nd d d l s k ga na an nd ar ai an ra Ita an re hi m gu ed an Sp rtu na Ko rla m m C al Au st er C nl Sw en Ze Po Au Pa he of itz U Bu er ). namely Chile. Bulgaria and China (between 80 and 87) exhibited the highest resident applications to GDP ratio. selected countries.158 1.500 Resident Applications per million population 1.g.791.110 1.951 2. the lower ratios of resident trademark applications per population of 1 million seen by China (445. countries with lower numbers of resident applications (e.5. Figure B. in part.223 1.321 1..000 500 0 1.94 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. 2008 2.8). R us St si an es Fe Ph d pi 61 lic a 837 .8) and Brazil (509. Fi G Sw AR ew lic et D ub (S N N ep R Country / Territory of Origin 1.000 1. where their respective residents filed between 19 (Singapore) and almost 87 (Republic of Korea) trademark applications per billion dollars of GDP. Chile. 2010 When resident trademark applications are adjusted for GDP.500 1. The resulting 2. the Republic of Korea received about 107. three were from Latin America. Compared to the higher ratios associated with other countries of origin.

0 456.727. er 196.209 225.6 1.469 .6.6 TRADEMARKS IN FORCE This sub-section presents statistics on trademarks in force.1* 404. 2008 2004 -0.8 million trademarks in force at the 59 IP offices for which statistics are available.4 million) and France (1.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.636 6. the 2005 data are presented.755 332. 2004 n.119.1 million)38.6. June 2010 38 Trademarks in force reported for EU countries do not include those in force at the OHIM belonging to residents of these countries.682 911. 2004 and 2005 data on trademarks in force for Chile.a. the continuing year-on-year increase in number of trademarks in force.7* 4.5 1.884 n ey ce IM lia an pa tio re lu ic ai ic az do rk hi ga nd an Sp Ko Ja m Tu rtu er ne ex ra ra H C la C hi na * il* m le a a x n o n y * l Am Fr M Be de Po er Po ng Br O st of Au G Ki AR Fe te es ub ni si an ep St us d R te U Destination Destination Note: *Due to the unavailability of 2004 data for trademarks in force for Australia. and their average annual growths were calculated based on years 2005-08. followed by the US (1. n. as reported by the 59 IP offices.1 Trademarks in force by destination.199 607. The top seven destinations in figure B.1 presents data available on trademarks in force by country / territory of destination.2 Trademarks in Force Trademarks in Force Average Annual Growth (%): 2004-2008 1. focusing on the numbers of trademarks in force by destination.782 312.333 232. Brazil and the OHIM.6.1 account for almost half of all trademarks in force in 2008.6* 17.7 2008 1. Figure B. H on ni g Ko R ng at U (S Sw of lic d itz ).4 1.8 10.4 4.7 million) in 2008 despite seeing a decrease from previous years’ levels. In 2008.1 exhibited positive four or five-year average annual growth rates.a.000 Average Annual Growth (%): 2004-2008 342.0 0.a.7 n.1 2.107 1.355 615.0 -1. Figure B.602 539.670 nd H un ga la ry 674. Most countries shown in figure B.667 5.628 207.7 4.8 13.823 776.6. This figure thus gives only a partial picture of the total number of trademarks in force worldwide as many offices do not report this information. Data on trademarks in force provided by the office of France are an approximate figure. 2008 6. there was a combined total of 14. and the distribution of trademarks in force by year of registration.433. Japan continued to have the largest number of trademarks in force (1. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.411 1. Portugal and Turkey are not available. 2010 95 B.321 290.910 481.

Figure B. Interestingly. The largest number of trademarks in force in reporting year 2008 were registered in 2007 and 2008. Of the approximately 10. June 2010 20 08 .6.000 of the trademarks in force in 2008 were registered prior to 1960.2 million trademarks in force represented in figure B. In other words. more than 125.000 300. Data for several larger offices. such as those of China. thereby portraying the distribution of trademarks in force worldwide.6. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. are not included in this graph. 2008 900.96 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.000 0 0 61 65 70 75 79 84 89 93 98 03 96 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 <1 Year of Registration Note: The above graph is based on actual data received from the 46 offices that provide a breakdown of trademarks in force by year of registration.2 Trademarks in force by year of registration. as the statistics reported by these offices do not give a breakdown by year of registration. 2010 Figure B.000 125. reflecting the longevity of certain trademarks.000 Trademarks In Force 600. 53% of them have an initial registration year of between 2002 and 2008.6.2 provides a breakdown of the 2008 data on trademarks in force by year of registration.2. Germany and Japan. over half of the trademarks in force have resulted from relatively recent registrations. France.

. The procedures for registering industrial designs are governed by national laws. from textile designs to leisure goods. It also simplifies the subsequent management of the industrial design. The Hague System consists of two active international treaties (the Hague Act and the Geneva Act). The Hague System makes it possible for an applicant to register up to 100 industrial designs in multiple countries by filing a single application with the International Bureau of WIPO. An industrial design can be registered if it is new or original. The holder of a registered industrial design has exclusive rights against unauthorized copying or imitation of the design by third parties. The Hague System simplifies the process of multinational registration by reducing the requirements to file multiple applications with each IP office. For further details about the Hague System. National and regional IP office statistics are available for the years up to and including 2008. industrial design registrations.int/hague/en/. since it is possible to record subsequent changes or to renew the registration through a single procedural step. They refer to the ornamental or aesthetic aspects of a useful article. refer to: www. Rights are limited to the jurisdiction of the issuing authority. whereas those for the Hague System also include 2009 data. Industrial designs are applied to a wide variety of industrial products and handicrafts: from technical and medical instruments to watches. international registrations of industrial designs through the WIPO-administered Hague System and industrial designs in force.wipo. from house wares and electrical appliances to vehicles and architectural structures. jewelry and other luxury items.SECTION C INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS This section provides an overview of worldwide industrial design activity using a range of indicators that cover industrial design applications. or by filing an international application through the Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs (Hague System). The term of protection is generally 15 years. Industrial designs can be obtained by filing an application with the relevant national or regional IP office. Industrial designs are compositions of lines or colors or any three-dimensional forms that give a special appearance to a product or handicraft.

3 3.1 Trend in total industrial design activity Figure C.2 5.8 8.6 0.3 1.5 9.000 Growth Rate (%) Industrial Design Registrations 400.2. After exceptional growth in registrations in 2007.5 3. The 2008 growth rate was lower than that for the previous three years. total industrial design registrations increased by a modest 1.000 440.0 6. the term registrations is used.6 3.6 4.000 300.8 8.3 -3.2 -2. 39 Some IP offices refer to industrial designs granted.7% increase over the previous year.1.7% rise in global applications (Figure C. This represents the fifteenth consecutive year of growth.1 reports the worldwide trend in industrial design applications and registrations39 from 1985 to 2008. .000 100.472) primarily explains the 5.000 0 -0.3 6.2a).8 -3.8 1. representing a 5.7 17.000 330.1 Trend in total industrial design applications and registrations Industrial design applications Industrial Design Applications 660.7 15. 2010 C.1% in 2008.2 10.7 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Application Year Industrial design registrations Industrial Design Registrations 500. The world total estimate includes direct applications and international registrations filed through the Hague System.2 -0.8 4.000 in 2008.98 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. following a decade of stagnation.7 -0.9 6. while others refer to industrial design registrations.1 12.1 11.6 9.9 2.000.9 1.8 4. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.4 11.000 200.1 5. The total number of industrial design applications filed worldwide in 2008 stood at approximately 656.1 WORLDWIDE TREND C. Figure C.9 8.7 16. This low growth is partly due to a decrease in registrations in Germany and slowing growth in registrations in China.0 -0.000 Growth Rate (%) Industrial Design Applications 550. June 2010 The total number of industrial design registrations worldwide stood at around 517.4 -1.000 110.1.1 0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Registration Year Note: The world total is a WIPO estimate covering around 120 IP offices (see Data Description).000 220.4 3.1. The substantial increase in industrial design applications in China (+45.0 15. Throughout this report. The drop in industrial design applications experienced in some countries due to the global financial crisis was offset by strong growth in China.000 -7.9 4.5 5.4 -6.8 -4.9 4.0 3.2 12.

0 20.8 23.4 Industrial Design Registrations 400.1.3 21.7 19.000 Non-Resident Share in Total Registrations (%) 300.2 Trend in resident and non-resident industrial design applications and registrations Industrial design applications Resident Non-Resident 19.5 20.1 18.4 31.8 16. The total numbers of resident and non-resident applications filed in 2008 are estimated at 550.3 28.1 20.000 100. the number of resident applications has increased significantly.6 17. June 2010 40 In this sub-section.2% from the previous year.4 18.9 29. In 2008.1.3 31.2 20.5 29. A non-resident registration is an industrial design registration based on a non-resident application.8 20.7 16.000 0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Registration Year Note: The world total is a WIPO estimate covering around 120 IP offices (see Data Description).6 20.6 26. For example.3 21.6 19. Industrial design applications filed by residents of EU countries with the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) are considered resident industrial design applications for this office.8 19. respectively. Figure C.9 32.000 200. A resident registration is an industrial design registration based on a resident application. . The share of nonresident applications has followed a downward trend since its peak of 32% in 1998 because.1 20.300 and 105. non-resident applicants accounted for about 16% of total industrial design applications.7 27.7 23.9 21. the generic term “IP office” is used to refer to an office that receives industrial design applications and issues registrations.000 200.3 22.7 19.4 19.2 21. while non-resident applications dropped by 4.1 Non-Resident Share in Total Applications (%) 500.9 18. an application filed at the IP office of Switzerland by a resident of Switzerland is considered a resident application for the Swiss IP office.6 22.000 300. an application filed with the IP office of Australia by an applicant residing in Canada is considered a non-resident application for the Australian IP office.6 27.3 15.3 29. 2010 99 C.000 100.0 14.7 16. This is also the case for residents of Belgium.9 21. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. A non-resident application is defined as an application filed at an IP office of a given country by an applicant residing in another country.0 18. while the number of non-resident applications has remained largely stable.2 Resident and non-resident industrial design activity A resident application is defined as an application filed with an IP office40 by an applicant residing in the country in which that office has jurisdiction.000 Industrial Design Applications 400.6 22.1 20.8% in 2008.4 20.000 0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Application Year Industrial design registrations Resident Non-Resident 14.2 18. the Netherlands and Luxembourg who file their applications at the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP).0 19. For example. Resident applications grew by 7.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.700.

The total number of resident registrations increased by 1. June 2010 41 It should be noted that IP offices have either a single-class or multi-class industrial designs application system. C. the non-resident share of total registrations has followed a downward path. From the mid-1950s until the late 1990s.000 90. respectively.000 225.2.000 1883 1898 1908 1918 1928 1938 1948 1958 1968 1978 1988 1998 2008 Application Year Industrial design registrations China 225. the office of Japan received the largest numbers of applications. Most of the increase in resident registrations was due to growth in registrations in China. In contrast. while the total number of non-resident registrations declined by 0. the office of France received the highest numbers of industrial design applications. the non-resident share in all registrations dropped from 29. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.100 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.000 and 100.000 180.000 90.000 30.000 135. For example.e. Some offices permit applications to contain more than one design for the same product or within the same class. while other offices have strict requirements on unity (i.. one application per design).1 Trend in industrial design applications and registrations by office For most years spanning the late 1800s to the late 1930s. the number of resident registrations has increased considerably since 2001.4% in 2008.4% in 2008 from 2007.1 Trend in industrial design applications and registrations at selected offices Industrial design applications China 320.000 OHIM Republic of Korea Japan United States of America France Industrial Design Applications 270.9% in 2000 to 19.5%. after which the number of applications dropped.2 INDUSTRIAL DESIGN ACTIVITY BY OFFICE Statistics on industrial design applications and registrations by IP office are presented below.000. Similar to application data.000 OHIM Republic of Korea Japan United States of America France Industrial Design Registrations 180.000 60. 2010 The total numbers of resident and non-resident registrations in 2008 stood at about 417.000 30. These statistics include applications and registrations pertaining to both residents and non-residents.41 Figure C.000 60. the number of non-resident registrations has remained largely stable over the last decade.000 1883 1898 1908 1918 1928 1938 1948 1958 1968 1978 1988 1998 2008 Registration Year Note: OHIM (Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market).2. As a result.000 135. C. .

The numbers of registrations issued by the IP offices of the Republic of Korea and the US have remained largely stable despite an upward trend in registrations in recent years. the IP offices of China and Mexico experienced double-digit growth over the same period. representing a more concentrated distribution of applications compared to 2004 (75. some offices permit applications to contain more than one design for the same product or within the same class. In 2008. while other offices have strict requirements on unity (i. The IP office of China became the top office in terms of applications received in 2002.. the 2007-08 annual growth rate in industrial design applications was below the average annual growth rate for 2004-07.6% for China to 87. does not completely capture the differences between offices. the IP office of China surpassed France in 2003 to become the largest office. there was a substantial decrease in industrial design applications at the IP offices of Brazil. It is therefore necessary to take into consideration legislative differences that exist across IP offices. For most IP offices. 2010 101 The most notable development in recent history has been the rapid growth in industrial design applications at the Chinese IP office. by far. Several additional insights emerge.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.2b provides statistics on the number of designs contained in industrial design applications. the non-resident share in all applications was highest at the IP office of the US (44. suggesting that most applications contain one design per application. the second largest office. France.8%). While.904). Comparing the numbers of industrial design applications filed per office. The number of designs contained in applications filed at the IP office of France (16. the office of China received. Of the top six offices.857) is approximately four times higher than the number of applications. The trend in industrial design registrations is similar to the trend observed for applications. Similarly. Germany42 and the United Kingdom. from 4.3%). the number of applications filed at the Chinese office was four times higher than that filed at the OHIM. The non-resident share of total applications varied significantly across offices.2 Industrial design applications at the top 20 offices With a growth rate of 17% in 2008 compared to the previous year. corresponding to almost 48% of the world total. with a few notable differences. Figure C.6 designs. To account for this institutional difference. mostly driven by applications from Chinese residents. For the OHIM and the Republic of Korea the difference between the number of applications and the number of designs contained in an application is small. This implies that. . on average. there are four designs contained in each application filed with that office.2. In 2008.e. C.4% for Canada. In contrast. In particular. the highest number of industrial design applications (312. the IP office of France had historically received large numbers of registrations. applications filed with the IP office of Turkey contain 4. Together. while offering interesting insights . the top six offices accounted for 85% of all industrial design applications in 2008. one application per design).2. 42 Data for Germany refer to the total number of designs contained in applications for the purposes of comparison with data from previous years. on average.

2 -3. 2008 IP Office il nd IP Office 3.8 2.1 4.0 58.904 312.2.4 Fr an 16 an 16.244 Non-Resident Share (%) 51.7 4. C hi kr na U ai Br Sw itz er ne az la o ex ic M ai Figure C.1 17.5 5. June 2010 50.2b Number of designs contained in industrial design applications by office.2a Industrial design applications by IP office: top 20 offices.0 6.1 7.5 Resident 50.5 -29. 12.6 312.491 3.0 0.8 7.3 53.135 er ic a Source: WIPO Statistics Database.3 an ce 33.0 2.1 O 22.4 la nd 55. 2010 pa n 33.391 Total 34.1 m y an y U ni te d Ja pa n of St at es Am er 26.820 4.185 5.6 IM bl ic of Ko Resident 56.5 5.181 y In Au dia R st us ra si l an Ca ia Fe na de da ra tio Fr n an U In d ce ni te on d e Ki sia ng H do on Th m g ai Ko la ng n (S Me d AR x ).372 IP Office Fr ey ic a 44.761 2.1 4.7 1.135 Ja 12.181 3.907 Th H on g Ko ng (S AR ).307 4.455 3.5 5.8 27.569 Note: OHIM (Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market). 2008 Number of applications 87.782 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.5 4.0 2.9 ne si a In U ni te d Ki ng do m do Industrial Design Applications Tu r ke R us si -17.8 -2.711 4.282 8.6 -8.8 50.2 2. lia F C Y h R M ina of or M oc ac co ed Si on ng ia ap o C re ro at In do ia ne s U ia kr ai M ne on ac Tu o ni si a 2.4 3.4 6.0 ep ub lic of Ko IM H O hi 4.4 ra lia In di a Au st R us si an Fe de ra tio n a ad an C Non-Resident 33.102 Industrial Designs C hi na Industrial Design Applications Industrial Design Applications C hi na C 34.2 Figure C.009 3.6 8.857 7.479 8.4 3.473 4.243 6.4 ce Fe Spa de in H Sw rat on itz ion g er Ko la ng A n (S us d AR tra T ).5 10.7 3.077 -0.7 31.050 81.473 62.078 2.1 7.912 a G er m an G IP Office Source: WIPO Statistics Database.291 .830 22.750 re -13.3 Industrial Designs -4.557 6.597 33.8 4.2.569 Non-Resident Share (%) Growth rate (%): 2004-07 Tu rk 0.904 na R 12. ico C hi U na kr ai ne Sw Br az itz er il la nd 2. 11.5 6.0 5. June 2010 IP Office Tu rk ey er 5.005 -49.2 11.357 ep u 9.6 R re a H R ep ub lic of Ko r ea IM G er m an y U ni te d St at es of Am n pa Ja O H 78.4 Industrial design applications growth rates (%) Growth rate (%): 2007-08 6.1 3.9 -14.845 Non-Resident 28.5 16.077 -- Note: OHIM resident statistics represent applications filed at this office by residents of all EU countries.

916 33.8 11. which is reflected by the similarity between application and registration statistics.3 INDUSTRIAL DESIGN ACTIVITY BY ORIGIN Figure C.874 59.079 3.7% and 33.048 3. whereas origins abroad statistics correspond with IP office activity pertaining to applicants residing outside the office’s jurisdiction. applications undergo a formality examination. China experienced a 29.2. 2010 103 C.6 46. Tu r Au key st ra C lia an ad a Br az U ni il R us ted In si K d an in ia H Fe gdo on de m g Ko ra tio ng (S Uk n AR rai ).0 Non-Resident Share (%) Non-Resident Share (%) 4.043 39.3 Industrial design registrations at the top 20 offices Figure C.442 2.907) of industrial design applications worldwide. June 2010 C. It reveals that the gap in design registrations between China and other offices is considerably smaller than the gap in design applications. Applicants residing in China account for the largest number (300.6%). Sweden (27.657 3.5 29. For example.3 provides a breakdown of industrial design registrations for the top 20 offices.565 na IM a n y a IP Office Note: OHIM resident statistics represent registrations issued by this office to residents of all EU countries.8%) saw double-digit growth. Applications by German residents occupied the second place. Figure C.7 62. the majority of reporting countries saw a decrease in numbers of applications.2.4%) and China (17.689 applications43 or one-fifth of the number of applications from Chinese residents. with 61. Country of origin statistics refer to the residence of the applicant or registrant. respectively.000 industrial design applications is unknown for 2008.382 2. 43 Resident data for Germany refer to the total number of designs contained in applications received and registrations issued by the German IP office.444 2. In many offices.3 presents industrial design application and registration data by country of origin.7 6. Resident origin statistics correspond with IP office activity pertaining to residents of the office’s jurisdiction. Residents of the Republic of Korea.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.2.697 51.7% drop in applications. such as the OHIM.7 141. the Netherlands (24.3 Industrial design registrations by IP office: top 20 offices.601 22. ne C hi n M a ex ic o Sw I ta itz ly er la Th nd ai Si lan ng d ap or e an pa re hi H Ko m Ja O C G of ub lic ep R U ni te d St at es of Am er er ic IP Office 1.1 Non-Resident 8. the origin of about 10.287 1.938 25.035 78. In contrast.4 Total 49.097 89.1 11.781 . The resident and non-resident distribution for registration data is also similar to that for application data. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.897 -4. Numbers of applications and registrations for origins abroad are underestimated as some offices do not report detailed statistics containing the origin of all applications and registrations.6 52. As for year-on-year growth.0 6.1 5.6 5.9 75.2 Non-Resident 43.9 78. 2008 Industrial Design Registrations Industrial Design Registrations Resident 7. Japan and the US also filed a substantial number of industrial design applications in 2008.772 8. Austria and Hong Kong (SAR). In 2008.6 31.4 Resident 17.858 29.

9 10.554 Ita ly Origin Industrial design registrations Industrial Design Registrations Industrial Design Registrations Resident 1.4 33.8 8.3 Abroad 35.560 11.452 10.307 4. the gap between China and Germany is smaller for registration than for application data. 2008 Industrial design applications Industrial Design Applications Industrial Design Applications Resident 0.839 19.244 60.8 Resident 90.0 7.935 10.0 33.8 Abroad 5.293 3.907 8.2 29.3 2.301 3. Fewer than 1% of all registrations of Chinese origin were issued by foreign IP offices.9 52.111 40.3 Industrial design applications and registrations by origin: top 20 origins.7 Abroad Share (%) Abroad Share (%) 6.5 9.689 56.780 3. the Republic of Korea. 8% and 6. nd C In hin do a R ne us s si an Tha ia Fe ila de nd ra tio n U hi na y m an ea Ko r pa Ja C G of ub lic R U ni te d St at es ep of Am er er Origin Resident 89.814 F Sw ran ni itze ce te d rla Ki nd ng do Au m st ri Tu a rk ey S N et pa he in rla Au nds st H ra on Sw lia g Ko ed ng e (S Po n AR la ). Residents of Switzerland filed the majority of their applications abroad (90.6 3.127 73. 2010 Figure C.949 n 33.999 Abroad Share (%) 10.9% of design applications.5%).720 4.7 0.2 9.317 Origin Source: WIPO Statistics Database.8 3.5 11.555 61.104 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.568 3. Overall patterns for industrial design registrations are similar to those for applications.208 3.427 39. C Fe hi de na ra ti U on kr ai ne te d na an pa re ic Ita hi Ko m Ja er Am er G of ub es Sw lic of itz er C ep at R U ni te d St U ni la nd n ly y a a Origin 2.796 .7 27.9 21. Japan and the US each received more than 30. June 2010 Almost all applications originating from Chinese residents were filed at the Chinese IP office.701 43.5 Abroad 57.290 4.701) accounted for the largest number of registrations.9 34.6 10. were filed abroad. the share of registrations abroad is less than 10%.6 Abroad 54. respectively.768 3. Of the top six origins. only US residents filed more applications abroad than domestically.8 29. Residents of China (132.4 54.8 300. However.840 26.701 7.182 3.2 34.1 9.927 6.459 4. In contrast.5 75.890 2.575 6.5 26.5 132.078 6.789 ic a 16.000 industrial design registrations in 2008.6 38. For the top three origins. In the case of Germany and the Republic of Korea.0 6.0 Abroad Share (%) 2. Au s Ki tria ng do Fr m an ce Sp ai n N Tur et he key rla nd s Br Au azi st l H ra on l g Po ia Ko la ng nd S R (S we us A si R) den an .7 15.8 12. Residents of Germany.9 32.2 14.546 18.9 27.061 2. The shares of registrations registered abroad are similar to those for applications.060 32.807 10. around 90% of registrations of Swiss origin were issued by foreign IP offices.

681 international registrations issued in 2009 shows that applicants residing in Switzerland accounted for around 37% of all Hague System international registrations (Figure C.1 2.6 17.4% compared to 2008 (Figure C.1b).2 3. in turn.4 0.7 0.681 registrations issued in 2009 represented an increase of 10.4 I N D U S T R I A L D E S I G N R E G I S T R AT I O N S A N D R E N E WA L S THROUGH THE HAGUE SYSTEM An applicant seeking protection for an industrial design in a number of countries can choose to file an application directly with each national or regional IP office or to file a single application via the Hague System. there are 56 contracting parties to the Hague System. most of which are from Europe.4.5 -0.1 Trend in international registrations of industrial designs through the Hague System The number of Hague registrations fell sharply during the 2003-05 period. which can be partly explained by the fact that it became possible.8 10.1 5. Figure C.3 3.8 -42. An application for international registration of an industrial design leads to its recording in the International Register44.4.1 5. The 1.000 4.9 -0.000 2.7 0.000 0 -1.1 -40.3 32.4 6.000 3.4 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Registration Year Source: WIPO Statistics Database.1a).WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.000 1.1 10. Currently. 2010 105 C. as of 2003.8 0. thus enabling applicants to file a single application with this office to protect their designs in all EU member countries. A registration recorded in the International Register will have the same effect as one made directly with each designated contracting party.1a Trend in international registrations of industrial designs Hague International Registrations Growth Rate (%) International Industrial Design Registrations 5. The Hague System makes it possible to seek protection for up to 100 industrial designs in a number of countries with a single application. 2008 saw a return to high growth (approximately 33%) in international registrations that can.9 -3.2 9. and the publication of the registration in the International Design Bulletin.8 24. C. A breakdown by origin of these 1.8 -19. be largely attributed to the accession of the OHIM to the Hague System in that year. to apply for a Community Design via the OHIM.4.0 6. June 2010 44 If it complies with the formal requirements. if no refusal was issued by the IP office of a specific contracting party.4. .

3 64.000 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Registration Year Source: WIPO Statistics Database.106 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.7 Mutiple Design Registrations Share (%) 4.4.5 48.0 46. DE (Germany) and TR (Turkey).4.5 54. EM (data for unknown EU origins). 17.5 64. 2010 Figure C.5 50. The share of international registrations with multiple designs increased from 46.9 60.7 52.7 57.3 54.4.1% in 1986 to 64.0% FR: 13. As shown in Figure C. June 2010 . with an average of 7.2b.2a Trend in single-design and multiple-design international registrations Single Design Registrations 5.5% of international registrations contained two designs per registration. In 2009.5% TR: 3.0 54.1 46.5%. June 2010 C.1b International registrations of industrial designs by origin.6 designs per registration in 2009.1 49.7 58.8 51.1% DE: 4.6% Others: 4. the average number of designs contained in multiple-design international registrations has remained stable over time.000 Multiple Design Registrations Industrial Design Registrations 46.000 1.4.7% Note: CH (Switzerland).000 2.4.2% EM: 37.7 44.6 51.2 International registrations with multiple designs An international registration under the Hague System can contain up to 100 designs for products belonging to the same class.000 3.7 53. 2009 CH: 37. approximately.0 64.9 55. FR (France).2a). Figure C.8 61.7% in 2009 (Figure C.6 55.1 43. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. The share of international registrations with more than 20 designs per registration was around 4.

5 9.0 3.500 1.8 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Renewal Year Source: WIPO Statistics Database.1 8.000 3. declining from a peak of 4.2 7.3 7.5 8.1 8.7 8.000 500 0 7.6%) and Switzerland (18.3 7. Figure C.5 11.9 8.0 4. 2010 107 Figure C.8 3.000 2.0 Average Number of Designs Contained in Renewals 4. The average number of designs contained in renewals has experienced little variation over time.000 Avg number of designs contained in a Multiple Design Intl.0 6.5 4.6 8. The drop in the number of international registrations in 2003 led to the decline in the total number of renewals in 2008-09.0 7.4 8.7 3.8 7.0 3.1 8.7 -1.4.3 Industrial Design International Registration Renewals 5.6 -13.3 International industrial design renewals through the Hague System International registration renewals followed an upward trend until 2007. The decrease in the number of renewals from Swiss residents accounted for 40% of the total decrease in 2009 renewals.2% of total renewals in 2009. June 2010 .000 3. followed by residents of France (23.749 in 2009.9 4.5 7.4. 2003 registrations being due for renewal from 2008 onwards.1 0.3 8. June 2010 C. after which a continuous drop in the number of renewals ensued.5 13.4 7.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.6 9. Residents of Germany accounted for 34.9 4.000 Renewals Growth Rate (%) 4. and was 3.500 2.8 designs per renewal in 2009.205 in 2007 to 2.4 9.6 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Registration Year Source: WIPO Statistics Database.2 7.1 -24.3a Trend in international registration renewals Hague Renewals 6.8 8.5 7.000 1.8%).6 3.4 8.4 3.2 3.4.2b Multiple-design international registrations and average number of designs Multiple Design International Registrations 2. Registration Multiple Design International Registrations 1.8 8.

4.6% CH: 18.108 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.4 include self-designations.2% FR: 23.215 1.163 T 2009 International Renewals 2. et h Designated Contracting Party er la Li M ia on te ne gr o Sl ov en ia Bu lg ar ia an ce Ita ly el ux ec e an y si a a la nd o un ga ry on ac o Eg yp Sp ai le s ei n ne si an i cc a Tu ni An til or o Be n er m In do G R om itz er Fr G M H M Se rb ns t re m en rk rg ia d e s o .142 1. June 2010 45 Note: The designations shown in figure C. June 2010 C. residents of Switzerland may designate Switzerland in an application filed directly with the International Bureau of WIPO. the OHIM and Switzerland were the most designated contracting parties in Hague international registrations in 2009. All other reporting contracting parties experienced a decline in designations. FR (France). BX (Benelux) and IT (Italy).8% BX: 13.45 Turkey. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.3% Note: DE (Germany). For example. 2010 Figure C.4. The top four contracting parties saw an increase in designations in 2009 compared to the previous year.094 1.105 1.058 847 814 N F et he R rla of 761 724 M on In Sw nd s 687 608 M 601 Ar 458 U M n t G ec ht e nd s Sw N Note: OHIM (Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market). 2009 International registrations by designated contracting party 2008 2009 International Registrations 1.7% IT: 8.4 Industrial design registrations and renewals by designated contracting party: top 20 contracting parties.085 1.309 1. CH (Switzerland). Singapore. Figure C.3b International registration renewals by origin.4 International registrations and renewals through the Hague System by designation Mirroring the distribution by origin.276 2. Ukraine and Croatia each received more than 400 designations.185 2.4.3% Others: 1.207 752 470 447 412 361 341 341 339 301 283 274 270 243 192 192 180 172 159 t bi a IM ey ia si a si a co ai ne ac o ia la n or yp ille at gr va in ia ia an Al b 592 576 st e O H oc on Eg ne do ni Tu An t Se r ap on ne ro eo er kr Tu en ed or Si ng do C te ol itz M M ac ht Li ec Y Designated Contracting Party International renewals by designated contracting party 2008 2. 2009 DE: 34.244 2. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.4.

Figure C. For all reporting designated contracting parties.000 100. Indonesia and Singapore.4. France and Germany were also each designated more than 2.9 10.000 non-resident applications filed in 2008.8 42.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. The share of Hague non-resident applications has followed a downward trend since 1999. with 2. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.5% at the IP offices of Montenegro and Liechtenstein.4 13.1 28.5 Non-resident industrial design applications by filing route Applicants seeking design protection in foreign jurisdictions can either file applications directly with national or regional IP offices or make use of the Hague System.4. to 97.9% and 2.8% at the IP office of Germany and OHIM. For all reporting IP offices.000 40.8 40.4.000 60. Switzerland was the most designated contacting party. This is consistent with the drop in renewals observed over the previous two years (Figure C.5b). 2010 109 As for renewals of international designs.8 41. C. Italy. the Hague System share varied from 1. Of the 106. Across offices. there was a decrease in the number of renewals between 2008 and 2009.5a Trend in non-resident industrial design applications by direct filing and by the Hague System Direct Non-Resident 120. respectively. the share of total non-resident applications filed through the Hague System in 2008 was around or above 50%.4.4 12.000 20.000 80. Figure C.6 Hague Share (%) 10.276 renewals. respectively (Figure C.8 Industrial Design Applications Application Year Note: The direct non-resident filing data by application year are based on actual and estimated data. the Hague System accounted for 10.100 times for renewal of a registration.5a shows the breakdown of non-resident applications by direct filing and by the Hague System.6 48. June 2010 .3a).000 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Hague Non-Resident 18.3% and 97. Belgium-Netherlands-Luxembourg.4. except the OHIM and the offices of Germany.6% of total non-resident applications.

479 m ep er ub ic a lic of Ko re a Si ng ap or e an ce an y az il a IM n a 57.823 237. The term of protection is usually 15 years in most jurisdictions.309 at io n ad a ey lia om n o Ja pa st ra oc co hi n hi n ria rk ai ic Au st ng d Sp Br m Tu an O C C Au of A G AR Ki (S at es te d Ko ng on g H U ni te d IP Office IP Office Source: WIPO Statistics Database.6 50.0 93. differences in national legislation do exist.441 a y H IM m an si 1.728 2007 2008 369. June 2010 R us si an St R U ni Fe M or Fr de r er C ).252 2008 Industrial Designs in Force 50.8 17. In 2008.3 90. Among the top destinations.5 49. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. C.110 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.0 824 93. notably in China (which provides for a 10-year term from the date of application) and the US (which provides for a 14-year term from the date of registration).806 884 Hague Share (%) Hague Share (%) 472 436 400 393 380 371 354 320 308 264 13.206 256.5. the number of industrial designs in force increased in 2008 compared to the previous year. China experienced the fastest growth (40%) in industrial designs in force in 2008.1 Industrial designs in force by destination Figure C.162 U k M r ai ac ne ed on C ia ro a M tia or oc M co on ac o Li ec Bel ht iz e en st e F in M ra on nc te e ne gr Se o rb G ia eo r M gia ol do Ar v a m en ia Ita ly T F Y R of ke y ne ap do er ng Sw itz G In Si Tu r O er IP Ofice Note: The direct non-resident filing data by application year are based on actual and estimated data. 2008 Direct Non-Resident 2.4 94.769 Be 1.1 85.152 .5 INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS IN FORCE Industrial design registrations are valid for a limited period. M ne l H ex 13.784 297.3 64.9 82.152 229. However.6 93.480 18.1 Industrial designs in force by destination 2007 Industrial Designs in Force 400.5 Direct Non-Resident 61.5. For the majority of reporting destinations.9 Industrial Designs Industrial Designs 553 11. A notable drop in the number of industrial designs in force was recorded in Spain.6 Hague Non-Resident 32.4 56.358 45.624 1.527 18.5b Hague System applications in total non-resident industrial design applications: selected offices. 2010 Figure C. June 2010 IP Ofice C. Figure C.9 30.4.9 Hague Non-Resident 97.718 40.451 17. possibly due to the availability of the OHIM route.1 presents the number of industrial designs that were in force in 2008 by destination.5 58.581 213.7 90.162 263 ux 63.566 28.000 388.0 97.719 48.405 e or 1.168 nd la 1. France accounted for the largest number of designs in force.5.

Data for several large offices – such as China. 2008 250.2 offers a breakdown of total industrial designs in force during the reporting year by year of registration. Approximately 66% of all industrial designs in force in 2008 were registered in or after 2004. Figure C.000 50. Japan and France – are not included in this figure. Only a small share of industrial designs in force were registered in 1994 or earlier. as these offices’ statistics do not include a breakdown by year of registration. 2010 111 C.2 Industrial designs in force by year of registration Figure C.5.000 150.000 0 <19851985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year of Registration Note: The industrial designs in force data presented in this graph are based on data from 55 offices.5.000 Industrial Designs in Force 200.000 100. Germany. based on 55 offices. portray the age distribution of designs in force.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.5. The data presented for reporting year 2008.2 Industrial designs in force by year of registration. Source: WIPO Statistics Database .

.

int/treaties/en/registration/budapest/ . Presently. the Budapest Treaty provides that the deposit of a microorganism with any “International Depositary Authority” (IDA) suffices for the purposes of patent procedure at the national patent offices of all Contracting States and before any regional patent office that recognizes the effects of the Treaty. there are 38 such authorities.wipo. disclosure is not always possible in writing but can sometimes be achieved only by the deposit. Under specific conditions set out in the Regulations under the Budapest Treaty.SECTION D MICROORGANISMS M I C R O O R G A N I S M S U N D E R T H E B U D A P E S T T R E AT Y The Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure plays an important role in the field of biotechnological inventions. of a sample of the microorganism. I N D I C AT O R S C O V E R E D This sub-section reports the worldwide totals of deposits made at and samples of deposits furnished by IDAs for the period of 2001 to 2009. An IDA is a scientific institution – typically a “culture collection” – capable of storing microorganisms. It is to be noted that not all IDAs have made data available. Further details about the Budapest Treaty are available at: www. third parties or to depositors themselves. samples of deposited microorganisms may be furnished by IDAs to IP offices. with a specialized institution. Where an invention involves a microorganism or the use of a microorganism. . To eliminate the need to deposit a microorganism in each country in which patent protection is sought.

7 5.628) is roughly equivalent to that observed in 2001 (1.000 1. followed by IDAs from France.0 24.4 -1.8 1.1 MICROORGANISM DEPOSITS AND SAMPLES Figure D.1 shows the nine-year trend of total deposits made at and samples of deposits furnished by all IDAs that receive and store microorganisms. With a 24. The remaining three IDAs had between 130 and 220 deposits each in 2009. June 2010 Figure D.2 shows deposit activity for a nine-year period at the top five IDAs.100 in 2009. France. The two IDAs from China – the China Center for Type Culture Collection (CCTCC) and the China General Microbiological Culture Collection Center (CGMCC). The International Patent Organism Depositary (IPOD) of Japan and the Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen (DSMZ) of Germany have each received about 14% and 10%. deposits gradually dropped to around 2. 2010 D. Strong growth in recent years by the China General Microbiological Culture Collection Center (CGMCC) has. Figure D.1 Trend in total microorganism deposits and samples Microorganism deposits -12.000 Growth Rate (%) Number of Deposits Number of Samples 2.654). however. respectively. which are selected on the basis of total deposits made at IDAs since the Budapest Treaty became operational in 1981.3 10. have received a combined total of 9. The trend in number of samples furnished shows greater year-to-year variation.000 500 0 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Year Year Source: WIPO Statistics Database.600 in 2004. From a high of nearly 3.5% of all deposits made since 1980 despite having achieved IDA status only in 1995. The top five include authorities from China.3 shows the shares of the top 10 IDAs in the total number of deposits received by all IDAs since the acquisition of their status under the Budapest Treaty.5 -7.8 -6.6 16. Japan.000 1. Germany. China.2 -15.2% increase in total number of samples. the US authorities received over 42% of all deposits.7 13.3 Microorganism samples -18.9 2.500 -5. before rising for most subsequent years to slightly over 3. resulted in a difference of only about 50 fewer deposits in 2009 than the 772 made at the ATCC. the 2009 level (1.7 -1.5 -2.2 Growth Rate (%) 3. and the US.300 in 2001. along with the Agricultural Research Service Culture Collection (NRRL). the Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom. of all microorganism deposits. The US-based American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) has seen the highest numbers of deposits for all years represented. Figure D. .6 2. The American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) has received over onethird of all microorganism deposits worldwide and.114 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.

DSMZ (Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH. KCTC (Korean Collection for Type Cultures. the United Kingdom). Food and Marine Bacteria. Japan).8% Deposits Made 800 600 400 300 200 100 ATCC: 37. IPOD (International Patent Organism Depositary.8% CCTCC: 4.200 1.3% NRRL: 4.000 IPOD DSMZ CNCM CGMCC Remaining IDAs: 10. Republic of Korea).3% DSMZ: 9.0% NCIMB: 2.5% CGMCC: 5. June 2010 . France). CNCM (Collection nationale de cultures de micro-organismes. 2010 115 Figure D. ECACC (European Collection of Cell Cultures. Germany).5% ECACC: 2.2% CNCM: 5. US).WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. NCIMB (National Collections of Industrial.8% KCTC: 3. US). CGMCC (China General Microbiological Culture Collection Center).2 Top 5 IDAs receiving the highest numbers Figure D.2% Year Note: ATCC (American Type Culture Collection. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. CCTCC (China Center for Type Culture Collection). the United Kingdom) and NRRL (Agricultural Research Service Culture Collection.6% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 IPOD: 14.3 Deposits made at IDAs: 1980-2009 of deposits since the Budapest Treaty entered into force ATCC 1.

.

ANNEX, G L O S S A RY A N D L I S T O F A B B R E VI AT I O N S

118

WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS, 2010

A N N E X A : D E F I N I T I O N F O R S E L E C T E D E N E R G Y- R E L AT E D TECHNOLOGY FIELDS
Energy-related technology International Patent Classification (IPC) Symbols
Solar energy technology F24J 2/00, F24J 2/02, F24J 2/04, F24J 2/05, F24J 2/06, F24J 2/07, F24J 2/08, F24J 2/10, F24J 2/12, F24J 2/13, F24J 2/14, F24J 2/15, F24J 2/16, F24J 2/18, F24J 2/23, F24J 2/24, F24J 2/36, F24J 2/38, F24J 2/42, F24J 2/46, F03G 6/06, G02B 5/10, H01L 31/052, E04D 13/18, H01L 31/04, H01L 31/042, H01L 31/18, E04D 1/30, G02F 1/136, G05F 1/67, H01L 25/00, H01L 31/00, H01L 31/048, H01L 33/00, H02J 7/35, H02N 6/00 H01M 4/00, H01M 4/86, H01M 4/88, H01M 4/90, H01M 8/00, H01M 8/02, H01M 8/04, H01M 8/06, H01M 8/08, H01M 8/10, H01M 8/12, H01M 8/14, H01M 8/16, H01M 8/18, H01M 8/20, H01M 8/22, H01M 8/24 F03D 1/00, F03D 3/00, F03D 5/00, F03D 7/00, F03D 9/00, F03D 11/00, B60L 8/00 F24J 3/08, F03G 4/00, F03G 7/05

Fuel cell technology

Wind energy Geothermal energy

Note: For definition of IPC symbols see, www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/en/. The correspondence between IPC symbols and technology fields is not always clear cut. Therefore, it is difficult to capture all patents in a specific technology field. Nonetheless, the IPC-based definitions of the four technologies presented above are likely to capture the vast majority of the patents. Source: WIPO

WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS, 2010

119

GLOSSARY

This glossary seeks to assist readers in better understanding key technical terms and concepts. Many of the terms are defined generically (e.g., “application”), but apply to several or all of the various forms of IP covered in this report.
Applicant: An individual or other legal entity that files an application for a patent, UM, trademark or industrial design. There
may be more than one applicant in an application. For the IP statistics presented in this report, the first-named applicant is deemed to be the owner of the application.

Application: The formal request for IP rights at an IP office, whereupon the IP office examines the application and decides
whether to grant or refuse protection. Application also refers to a set of documents submitted to an IP office by the applicant.

Application Abroad: An application filed by a resident of a given country with a patent office of another country. For
example, a patent application filed by an applicant residing in France with the USPTO is considered an “application abroad” from the perspective of France. “Application abroad” is a concept similar to “non-resident application”, which describes a patent application received by an IP office from an applicant residing in a country represented by another IP office. Application Date: The date on which the IP office receives an application that meets the minimum requirements. Application date is also referred to as the filing date. Country of Origin: The country of residence (or nationality, in the absence of a valid residence) of the first-named applicant of an IP application. Country of origin is used to determine the origin of the IP application. European Patent Office (EPO): A regional patent office responsible for granting European patents for the Member States of the European Patent Convention. In the PCT procedure, the EPO acts as a receiving office, an international searching authority and international preliminary examining authority. Foreign-Oriented Patent Families: A patent family having at least one filing office that is different from the office of the applicant’s country of origin. Grant: Exclusive IP rights conferred to an applicant by an IP office. For example, patents are granted to applicants (assignees) to make use of and exploit an invention for a limited period of time. The holder of the rights can prevent unauthorized use of the invention. Grant Date: The date on which an IP office issues IP rights. Gross Domestic Product (GDP): The total, unduplicated output of economic goods and services produced within a country as measured in monetary terms. Hague Registration: An international registration filed under the Hague System, which facilitates the acquisition of industrial design rights in multiple jurisdictions. An application for international registration of industrial designs leads to its recording in the International Register and the publication of the registration in the International Design Bulletin. If the registration is not refused by the IP office of a designated contracting party, the international registration will have the same effect as a registration in that contracting party. Hague System: The abbreviated form of the Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs. The Hague System consists of two active international treaties (the Hague Act and the Geneva Act). The Hague System makes it possible for an applicant to register up to 100 industrial designs in multiple countries by filing a single application with

Madrid Registration: An international registration filed under the Madrid System. producers of phonograms in their recordings. as judged by a person skilled in the art. 2010 the International Bureau of WIPO. since it is possible to record changes or to renew the registration through a single procedural step. since it is possible to record subsequent changes or to renew the registration through a single procedural step. UMs and industrial designs can only be maintained for a limited number of years. Industrial Design Application filed via the Hague System: An application for the international registration of an industrial design filed under the WIPO-administered Hague Agreement. patents. Registration through the Madrid System does not create an “international” registration of a trademark. which includes literary and artistic works such as novels. established under the Madrid Agreement and the Madrid Protocol and administered by WIPO. Industrial Design: Compositions of lines or colors or any three-dimensional forms that give a special appearance to a product or handicraft. however. notably in China (which provides for a 10-year term from the application date) and the US (which provides for a 14-year term from the date of registration). However. trademarks. Industrial designs are applied to a wide variety of industrial products and handicrafts. subclasses and groups. The Madrid System makes it possible for an applicant to apply for a trademark registration in a large number of contracting parties by filing a single application at a national or regional IP office party to the System. Industrial design registrations are valid for a limited period. IPC symbols are assigned according to technical features in the patent applications. differences in legislation do exist. usually by paying maintenance (renewal) fees to an IP office at regular intervals. serves as an application at each of the national and regional IP offices which are designated by the applicant and are party to the Madrid System. paintings. Intellectual Property (IP): Refers to creations of the mind: inventions. Invention: An invention is a new solution to a technical problem. Madrid System: The abbreviated form of the Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks. which includes patents. classes. International Patent Classification (IPC): An internationally recognized patent classification system.120 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. IP rights must be maintained. photographs and sculptures. The IPC’s hierarchical structure consists of sections. A trademark can be maintained indefinitely by paying renewal fees. IP Rights In Force: IP rights that are currently valid. Trademark rights are limited to the jurisdiction of the trademark registration office(s). artistic works such as drawings. The Madrid System simplifies the process of multinational trademark registration by reducing the requirement to file a separate application with each IP office. films. once issued by WIPO. They refer to the ornamental or aesthetic aspects of a useful article. and those of broadcasters in their radio and television programs. literary and artistic works. industrial designs and geographical indications of source. To obtain patent rights. and the decision to register or refuse the trademark remains in the hands of the national and/or regional IP office(s). On the basis of the Madrid international registration. The term of protection is usually 15 years for most jurisdictions. One patent application can be assigned multiple IPC symbols. images and designs used in commerce. IP is divided into two categories: industrial property. It also simplifies the subsequent management of the industrial design. names. as it may relate to multiple technical features. The Hague System simplifies the process of multinational registration by reducing the requirements to file multiple applications with each IP office. the invention must be novel. and symbols. which facilitates the acquisition of trademark rights in multiple jurisdictions. the national or regional IP office decides whether or not to issue a trademark registration that is valid within its jurisdiction. poems and plays. The holder of a registered industrial design has exclusive rights against unauthorized copying or imitation of the design by third parties. musical works. and copyright. It also streamlines subsequent management of the registration. An international registration. It is not the same as a trademark registration issued by a national or regional IP office. involve an inventive step and be industrially applicable. and architectural designs. . To remain in force. Rights related to copyright include those of performing artists in their performances.

kept in force). to claim priority of an earlier application filed up to 12 months previously. A non-resident grant is a patent granted on the basis of a non-resident application. a patent application filed with a patent office and for which no patent has yet been granted or refused and the application has not been withdrawn. PCT System: The PCT. during which an international search and. The Nice Classification is divided into 34 classes for goods and 11 for services. Patent Opposition: An administrative process for disputing the validity of a granted patent that is often limited to a specific time period after the patent has been granted. and the patent rights remain limited to the jurisdiction of the patent granting authority. PCT National Phase Entry: The decision by a PCT applicant to enter the national phase before a national or regional patent office is referred to as national phase entry. For example. The PCT international application process starts with the international phase. Non-resident applications are sometimes also referred to as foreign applications. the decision on whether to grant patent rights remains in the hands of national and regional patent offices. at the EPO. a pending application may refer to an application for which a request for examination has been received but for which no patent has been granted or refused. It establishes the “right of priority” which enables a patent applicant. In return. It consists of the submission of a written request and payment of fees and must be carried out within 30 months from the priority date of the application (longer time periods are allowed by some offices). 2010 121 Maintenance: The process by which IP rights are maintained (i. to replicate the invention. thus enabling innovators to reap the benefits of their innovative activity. IP rights may lapse. and the application has not been withdrawn. anyone may oppose a patent within nine months of publication of the grant of the European patent in the European Patent Bulletin. However. PCT Application: A patent application filed through the WIPO-administered PCT. on March 20. The PCT System simplifies the process of multiple national patent filings by reducing the requirement to file a separate application in each jurisdiction. . This usually consists of paying maintenance (renewal) fees to an IP office at regular intervals. Non-Resident Application: An application filed with a patent office of a given country by an applicant residing in another country. Patent Family: A set of interrelated patent applications filed in one or more countries to protect the same or a similar invention. The patent system is designed to encourage innovation by providing innovators with time-limited exclusive legal rights. is one of the most important IP treaties. when filing an application in countries other than the original country of filing.e. skilled in the art.. non-obvious and commercially applicable. an international treaty administered by WIPO. Nice Classification: The abbreviated form of the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of Registering Marks under the Nice Agreement. Paris Convention: The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. Pending Patent Application: In general. and concludes with the national phase. In jurisdictions where a request for examination is obligatory to start the examination process. facilitates the acquisition of patent rights in a large number of jurisdictions. during which national and regional patent offices decide on the patentability of an invention according to national law. 1883. If maintenance (renewal) fees are not paid. Patent: A set of exclusive rights granted by law to applicants for inventions that are new. a preliminary examination are performed. possibly. during which patent holders can commercially exploit their inventions on an exclusive basis. For example. signed in Paris. a patent application filed with the USPTO by an applicant residing in France is considered a nonresident application for the USPTO. It is valid for a limited period of time (generally 20 years). applicants are obliged to disclose their inventions to the public in a manner that enables others.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.

Reference Date: Application data are based on the date of application. Grant/registration data are based on the date of grant/registration. Regional Application (Grant or Registration): An IP application (grant or registration) filed (granted or registered) with (by) a regional IP office having jurisdiction over more than one country or territory. For example. Trademarks can be registered by filing an application with the relevant national or regional IP office(s). World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO): A United Nations specialized agency dedicated to the promotion of innovation and creativity for the economic. issued to an applicant by an IP office. The procedures for registering trademarks are governed by the rules and regulations of national and regional IP offices. Established in 1967. or a confusingly similar mark. notably for trademarks and industrial designs. WIPO’s mandate is to promote the protection of IP throughout the world through cooperation among states and in collaboration with other international organizations. including knowledge of man. There is one regional trademark and industrial design office: the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market of the EU. The terms and conditions for granting UMs are different from those for “traditional” patents.122 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. Like a patent. a UM is a set of rights granted for an invention for a limited period of time. Trademark Application filed via the Madrid System: An application for international registration of a trademark filed through the WIPO-administered Madrid System. A resident grant is a patent granted on the basis of a resident application. The holder of a registered trademark has the legal right to exclusive use of the mark in relation to the products or services for which it is registered. The procedures for granting UM rights are governed by the rules and regulations of national IP offices. The owner can prevent unauthorized use of the trademark. Registration: Exclusive rights. Resident Application: An application filed with a patent office by an applicant residing in the country in which that office has jurisdiction. can be renewed indefinitely. 2010 Publication Date: The date on which an IP application is disclosed to the public. For example. For example. Unlike patents. the Eurasian Patent Organization. particularly in the case of trademarks. Utility Model (UM):. registrations are issued to applicants to make use of and exploit trademarks or industrial designs for a limited period of time and. Trademark: A trademark is a distinctive sign. a patent application filed with the JPO by a resident of Japan is considered a resident application for the JPO. UM applications are granted without substantive examination. UMs are issued for a shorter duration (7 to 10 years) and. Resident applications are sometimes referred to as domestic applications. the subject matter of the application becomes “prior art”. which distinguishes certain goods or services of one undertaking from those produced or provided by other undertakings. social and cultural development of all countries through a balanced and effective international IP system. and rights are limited to the jurisdiction of the issuing authority. during which UM holders can commercially exploit their inventions on an exclusive basis. On that date. There are currently four regional patent offices: the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization. and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications. Research and Development (R&D) Expenditure: The money spent on creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge. the European Patent Office and the African Intellectual Property Organization. Patent family data are based on the priority (or first filing) date. . trademark registrations can potentially be maintained indefinitely as long as the trademark holder pays the renewal fees and actually uses the trademark. Trademark rights are limited to the jurisdiction of the authority that issues the trademark. in some cases. culture and society. at most offices. or by filing an international application through the Madrid System. Patent data by field of technology and top PCT applicants are based on the publication date. used for goods or services that are identical or similar to the goods and services for which the mark is registered.

WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. 2010 123 L I S T O F A B B R E V I AT I O N S BOIP EPO EU GDP IB IP IPC JPO KIPO OHIM PCT R&D SIPO UM USPTO WIPO Benelux Office for Intellectual Property European Patent Office European Union Gross Domestic Product International Bureau Intellectual Property International Patent Classification Japan Patent Office Korean Intellectual Property Office Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market Patent Cooperation Treaty Research and development State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China Utility model United States Patent and Trademark Office World Intellectual Property Organization .

.

S TAT I S T I C A L TA B L E S .

. 10 25 3. n. .719 1 20 10 617 1 123 13 n.. 220 133 54 .. . 4 23...259 1..027 2 . 17. . .. 53 . . 11 27. n.a.a.641 1. 5.a.a.a. ..126 24 403 3 4 21.421 95. 7 0 444 n.029 3 22 1 1 92 19 1.762 7. 2008 Office Origin African Intellectual Property Organization African Regional Intellectual Property Organization Albania 3 Algeria 4 Andorra 3 Antigua and Barbuda 3 Argentina 3 Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas 3 Bahrain 3 Bangladesh 4 Barbados 3.. 1. 401 258 21 854 ... 1 2 5 5 65 2 6.. . 29 .a.. . .. .. n..747 . .981 . 516 ..066 146.... . 1.. 1 89 16 11 269 242 11.. 6 Bermuda 3 Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 3 Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana 3 Brazil 4 Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burundi 3 Cameroon 3..006 22 1 1 2 . n.028 3. .602 25 57 .... . .579 121 . 283 794 2. 270 . n. 57.150 .592 41 5 151 15 68 1 5.. 2009 Receiving 2 Origin Office 2 PCT National Phase Entry..a...a.236 2. ... n.. 31.. 59 . .023 0 249 . n. 2 1.a..802 75 22 ...422 51 4. 71 189 10 142 . . .... 410 .523 ..952 289.. 1. .. . 12 .975 ..a. 195 . 6 Congo Cook Islands 3 Costa Rica 3 Côte d'Ivoire 3.a. n.634 . . . ...a... 0 8 2 5 11 5 1.906 64 0 0 4 0 38 9 37 178 0 1. .a.825 75 271 ...a. 3 3 1 0 7 n.a.. 4 Egypt 4 El Salvador 3 Estonia Ethiopia 4 Eurasian Patent Organization European Patent Office Fiji 3 l d . 0 ..a.a.. ... 435 .....838 1.569 55 7.150 . 88 . 15. 0 n. 37. n. . 34 9 1 164 0 602 0 1 3 33 3 17 n. 4 Ecuador 3.639 . .. . ..061 531 194.a.576 . n. 1 n. 74 234 187 272 17 3.105 . 226 2. . .525 329 5 . 11 57 0 n.a.a. 1. 2 20. 607 12 4..263 33 7.a. 849 . n.a.089 3. n.336 n. 84 . 9 ..126 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS..a. 1.. ..066 146.. 299 .. 54 . 230 26. 49 .. . ... 21 n.. . 6 Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic People's Republic of Korea 3 Denmark Dominica 3 Dominican Republic 3.961 ..353 1 1 4 33 3 30 0 n. 0 n...000 0 n.. .... 4.589 ...a.730 708 54 .... .. .. 14 . 72 37 3.. 2008 Applications by Office Name Total Resident NonResident Applications by Origin Total 1 PCT International Applications.. . .a. 765 . ....000 2 0 0 0 12 0 492 0 25 1 9 2.. .a. n.298 222 .710 492 4 n. .. 119 8 2 . 330 69 11 712 . .. 71 .a. 6 Canada Chile China 4 Colombia 3.895 28 8. 42.. .a. .. 1.a..... 734 . n.230 7. .. 2010 PATENTS Table P1: Patent applications by patent office and origin. 1 2 20 .510 575 0 .. 62 12 n.. 435 ... 21.481 201 1 1 15 2 445 326 279 1..... n.829 .545 83. n.330 743 203. .754 1. . . 34 n.821 2... 5 Belarus Belgium Belize Benin 3.627 227 . 625 22 53 3 2 6.a. . 7 2..346 2. . . . . . .860 .711 255 110 2 30 765 1.a.

. .... 2.a.....102 n.214 861 . 0 11 n. . . 5 Oman Pakistan PCT International Applications.420 .. 306 ...748 1 994 1 7 1 1 1..a....588 .160 16 .. 2010 127 Applications by Office Name Total Resident NonResident Applications by Origin Total 1 j Finland France Gabon 3. .133 7.. China 5 Madagascar Malaysia Malta Marshall Islands 3 Mauritius Mexico Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro 5 Morocco 4. 3 . 931 1.375 10.581 295 10 .a... 18 23 208 63 4.743 . 22 15. n. 8 .258 . China Hungary Iceland India 3 Indonesia 3 International Bureau Iran (Islamic Republic of) 3 Iraq 3 Ireland Israel Italy 3 Jamaica Japan Jordan 4 Kazakhstan Kenya 3 Kuwait 3 Kyrgyzstan Latvia 3 Lebanon 3 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 3 Liechtenstein 3... .566 26 889 1 .a...664 3 29.662 . 1. .133 47.. n.597 2 227 135. 5.577 2.527 9...a. . .417 ..WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.. . . 1. 5 .a. 8 Namibia Netherlands Netherlands Antilles 3 New Zealand Niger 3. n.. n.. 56 26 ... . . 157 37 1 26 285 1 26 . 1.875 8 189 1. 5 194 18 4 25.143 19. .683 23 n.. 91 1.546 . 4.821 1 ... . 6.910 6 n.002 566 173 .892 507 162 . . 141 8 511 2 . . 22 n..954 0 69 0 2 n. n. 4 15.. . 112 17 663 2 8. .. .528 8.994 9 20 .309 113 5 52 1. . 311 . .a.445 0 283 1 2 629 1 0 56 . 135 ..a.350 2 2 47....962 ... .. . . ...485 34 . .727 n.812 . 76 6. n.a. 36 6 .946 16.705 ..a. .a. 247 62. . .421 . 4 1..a. 449 n.732 . .a.... ..a. 221 49. 1.468 .... . . 1.911 15 502. 216 .054 113 77 4 23 148 98 23 4 764 123 915 13 14 1.. n. 3.545 1.. n...799 14... .238 598 n. .324 202 4.. 5. 13. 6 Georgia Germany Ghana 3 Greece Grenada 3 Guatemala Guinea 3.a.280 .449 .240 . 5 Norway 3...389 .397 4. 224 0 n. 917 1..a.724 .560 1. 3 177 18 . 60. 10 ..... . .. 2 685 273 7 . 6 Nigeria 3.a.140 . .. ......489 89 31 .. 105 71 211 77 5. 1.011 40 . . . 914 834 22 .303 48 . 26 13. 170 147 1.a. 330.a. .. . .a.. . 13.177 ... 5..a. n... 135 .157 3..a. 2 .594 1 4 3. ..a. 1.a.a.770 n. 2008 Office Origin 1. n.a.877 21. .732 0 99 0 2 0 1 0 141 57 865 7 0 5 0 469 1...... 0 n.. 2009 Receiving 2 Origin Office 2 PCT National Phase Entry. .529 .007 7. ... 126 458 125 1. 658 ........ 3 . 87 48 3 14 818 14 .a.742 9.941 3 71. 6 . 240 ..705 6.178 281 83 . 2. 7 Lithuania Luxembourg Macau (SAR)..110 59 11 . 8 Mozambique 3... .. 4.a. 6 Honduras 3 Hong Kong (SAR).927 47 2. .. 3. 173 683 50 .256 . 146 2 0 0 n. 21 3 n..288 . .163 1 5 16.291 n.807 1 21 5 1 1 24 2 4 56 22 227 0 0 224 31 0 2 192 2 13 2 0 25 0 4 4. . 286 n. 51 2 3. .... . 138 . 29... 391. 30 .. 2... 14. 54. 1 n.. 17 0 n.896 22 3 . 1.. 61 3. 628 .... 24 16.... . . 767 .662 772 81 36. 311 .

. 35 . 4. 2. 5 United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United Republic of Tanzania 3.855 2... 6.673 9 2 0 19 2 6 385 0 0 79 28 5. ...031 41.197 47 835 10 . 1 2. . 406 .. Not applicable Not available . 10.a.. .. 224... 0 2. 6 Senegal Serbia Seychelles 3 Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Somalia South Africa 3 Spain 5 Sri Lanka 4 Sudan Sweden Switzerland 3 Syrian Arab Republic T F Y R of Macedonia Tajikistan 3 Thailand Trinidad and Tobago 3 3 Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan 3 Uganda 4.... 177 . . . 0 20 152 82 n..549 1. 0 1 .286 69 42.909 12 11..a. 371 46 .. 170. 2008 Office Origin Panama Papua New Guinea 3 Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal 3 Qatar Republic of Korea Romania Russian Federation 3 Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 4 Samoa San Marino 3 4 Saudi Arabia 3. 2010 Applications by Office Name Total Resident NonResident Applications by Origin Total 1 PCT International Applications.. 1.033 . 642 . 0 n.. 24 . 2007 data are used for patent applications by office.. 7.114 995 27. 1. The International Bureau acts as the receiving office for PCT applications. .778 405 .248 14..504 3.. 10....397 . 8. .. 101 264 . ... . ...a.921 . .... . .. 793 167 301 . 72 n..176 13 .a. 1 19 130 237 1 11. . 0 n... 776 2. 802 . Patent applications by country of origin data are partial and incomplete. 34 . n.326 0 46.. . .322 36 .a. 56 17 16.. 43. The Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property acts as the receiving office for PCT applications. 38 31 373 1 419 44 3.321 739 448 . 11 . by origin and national phase entry data.699 2 7 3.079 10 0 1 2 5 1 1 1 . 73 .. .a.488 381 . 2 n. .518 36 14. .. 27 5 7 361 ..051 26..581 3..095 290 24 . . 7 5..... 128 ...342 1.... 231. therefore origin data are partial and incomplete.296 2 400. .825 .. 31.490 n. 623 .899 75 6 ..369 50 209 . n. 4 n.632 1. 1 2... The African Regional Intellectual Property Organization acts as the receiving office for PCT applications. 31 216 2.045 412 9 2 0 3 1 2 159 0 n. 456.191 3. 176 .535 3.. 16.. . 61.741 ..137 ..316 8 1 4 2 5 .a.. 3. 3 ... 14 152 1 21 14 1.025 8.221 . 8 United States of America Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu 3 3 Venezuela 3 Viet Nam Yemen 4 Zambia Zimbabwe 3 1. 770 . . 105 1. .277 218 5 17.. ..a.. 386 ..... 106 1 2 37 310 2.526 . 23...a... . . 6. 8..... 2009 Receiving 2 Origin Office 2 PCT National Phase Entry. 73 . . 3... ... 127. as some offices do not report detailed statistics containing the origin of all applications. 1.697 .893 n.849 . 25 0 500 21 68 n.. 1. 2. ..939 . .640 2 35 2 986 12 27 2.594 ... ...049 12 669 2 1 2 8 71 0 26 11 572 34 137 1 373 1.. 440 . 371 45 . 0 0 10 0 0 9 20 173 165 1 8. . 406 .393 1 .a.. . 46.889 747 4 172.a. . .769 75 270 7 40 14 11 .... .523 .733 706 186 . 237 .. 166 .122 . The African Intellectual Property Organization acts as the receiving office for PCT applications. 6. .a... 11 .692 242 307 .379 ... 7.. WIPO estimate. 58 .a.a.244 n.. 8. 2 n. 8 Ukraine 3.499 .a. n. 2.. Resident application data are missing.... 5.872 . 4: 5. 0 ...128 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS... 9.... 129.548 .635 278 659 .561 16 0 3.093 29.884 465 16 2.616 1 ..712 .588 33 262 . .. . 41 . . 11 .856 . 6 2.632 201 3 2.. 252 264 13 306 439 . .026 9 678 0 0 n.311 2.a.

130 46. 27 ... 120 . . ...a. . ..167 13 1. n. Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin 3 3 3 3 Bermuda ..699 .a.. 94 . . .. .. 329 444 29..... 3.. 148 .a.. . . .666 59.a. 1..398 93.819 .703 ..306 215 58 1 28 257 1. .... 234 0 95 1.. 1. ..217 75 173 16.. 2010 129 Table P2: Patent grants by patent office and origin.. . . .. 1. 3 3 3 120 214 ..268 47.563 92 454 10. .386 2.. 3 Bolivia (Plurinational State of) Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Canada Chad Chile China 3 4 .. 31 220 ..... .. 113 131 .451 75 268 18.. 41 0 9 239 . 3 3 Cook Islands Costa Rica Côte d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic People's Republic of Korea Denmark Dominica Ecuador Egypt 2 3 2 3 3 3 ... . .a... 1. .. 125 925 . 4..a.414 852 . 77 ..879 337.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS..116 207 . 33 300 .. n.981 129.. .. 196 .a. .181 13 1.706 Colombia 2 3 227 .215 5. ...666 59. 269 ..522 . Dominican Republic El Salvador Estonia 2 Ethiopia Eurasian Patent Organization European Patent Office Fiji 3 . .. . 350 107. 1.948 16 1 17 1 35 .. 127 ..863 .a..814 38 1 17 1 108 83 96 435 53 2..895 .. 127 11.... . .. . . 1 1. .... . 97 92 27 1. .. 2.... 14 0 n.. 2. 2008 Grants by Office Name Total Resident NonResident Grants by Origin Total 1 In Force by Office Total African Regional Intellectual Property Organization Algeria Andorra 2. n.. 1 15 1 102 134 4. ..347 . . . .. 2.252 526 . .871 . .. 138 92 36 1. 9 .. .. 620 2 134 8. n.280 . ... and patents in force.. 1. .322 2.347 2 3 9 93 2 50 1 n.. . ...438 . 7...817 . 296 .938 . 33 . n... . 2 80 ..590 20 .... . Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain 3 2 3 3 3 . .188 3 176 48. 2 10... 1.893 ... 205 n.819 .139 395 . .886 .. ...041 . 225 ..

.789 8 239. . 1. China Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Malta Marshall Islands Mauritius Mexico Moldova Monaco Morocco 3 3 3 . 151. 59 13 0 6 .879 1. 2 410 77 485 1 6 .388 38 173 6 15 132 27 6 . 315 .. 47060 439..008 2. .... 75 34 46 34 ... . 78. . 1 .... 991 1. . 1..233 .462 1.230 3 3 ... .... . 997 10. . ... . 7 156 4. ... 122 .. 520 4 498 391 77 1.855 7. 1..183 . . Resident Grants by Origin In Force by Office 1 Fiji Finland France Gabon 3 2 .975 521 .811 .954 442 157 .. 701 .. ..950 63 171 ... 2.020 509.... 1 4... Indonesia Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan 2 3 3 . 390 34 2 16 330 254 89 122 18 1 11. . . .130 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. 74.533 1.310 .. 2.. . 1.103 33 884 1 Total ... 176..440 250 14 969 Mozambique Namibia Netherlands 2 40 . 16 21 46 28 ....058 3 Netherlands Antilles New Zealand Niger 3 ... 455 51 18.367 ... 318 1. 324 ... .. .. .669 .588 . 430 .. 262 320 6. 738 9..008 .743 .308 .... 25.816 19.236 .773 .667 . 125 333 1. ... . .. 2010 Grants by Office Name Total Resident Non. ...270. .922 296 .. .. 10.535 1. 56 1. 3. .. 19 96 3.031 .675 25.392 . 971 . 425 0 47 109 6 .. . 11.. 259 1..075 .. 164 3 . Total Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Guatemala Hong Kong (SAR).. China Hungary Iceland India 3 0 141 12.665 12....275 14 5 2 1.318 . 444 96 4. ..639 .. . 3 Iran (Islamic Republic of) Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya 3 Kuwait 3 Kyrgyzstan Latvia 3 3 Lebanon Lesotho Liberia 3 Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macau (SAR)... 123 .752 ...001 551 163 18. .018 31. 197 247 11 115 18 .. ..535 3 0 147 53. 34.086 299 .765 23 132 . 2.. 171 1... 7 297 17.305 .185 40 39 . 10.243 3 3 854 22 ....575 .833 .. .203 .049 50...

. .451 132 ..570 . 11 . 527 1.. 1. 222 310 1 ...108 .352 39. 257 220 ..... 61.. .. 966 Trinidad and Tobago 3 . 5.. . Resident Total 1 Total ... . ..360 . ... 11 . . . 22.. 1. Non.. 233 310 1 ..870 0 3 2 0 10 72 81 27 2 1. 5.980 1.260 0 . 299 . 354 797 2.186 26....264 147....370 .772 64 288 . 2.070 ...067 .277 91 140 . ...187 6. . . 325 .. 6. . 2.148 6 14 66 0 1 7 75 1. 5 41 1. 3. 1. 11 0 0 . .832 United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United Republic of Tanzania United States of America Uruguay Uzbekistan 3 .590 165 .. 77. 2. . Nigeria Norway 3 ...453 11.224 787 3 Syrian Arab Republic T F Y R of Macedonia Tajikistan Thailand Tunisia Turkey Uganda Ukraine 3 3 ..032 54 140 .017 124.408 96 6...740 2.419 10.. 2.872. 2..212 1 . .. 3.928 . 359 838 3. .. ..908 . 1. .785 477 12 .. . 624.559 .. .037 510 .. 17 70 .501 8 114 17.872 .290 . 1...115 593 22.254 .. 35. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines San Marino Saudi Arabia Serbia Seychelles 3 3 Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia South Africa Spain Sri Lanka Sudan 2 3 3 2 3 Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland .... ..801 ... ...605 241 1 79. 596 . 501 89 195 .. ..523 689 28.369 124 317 399 3.871 19 118 1. 1. 1.636 58 140 4 10 7..675 Oman Pakistan Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal 3 3 Qatar Republic of Korea Romania Russian Federation Rwanda 2 Saint Kitts and Nevis Samoa 2 3 2 . 146. 157.. .. 2010 131 Grants by Office Name 3 4 Grants by Origin In Force by Office 1 Niger Total ..670 25 12..WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.139 33 .391 1. 549 . .... Resident .433 ..... 62 . 21.... 904 ..652 622 22.. 2.. 11 ..548 20 .... 83..808 20 3 3 377 .507 . 274 290 . . 1.399 .271 56 174 1 1. 187 277 . 9.277 . 250 .. 0 ....291 1 12 2 110 2 6 435 . 8. 80. 245 37 0 .631 .... 336 .162 .286 566 207 7.

2007 data are used for patents in force. .... .160 Total . . .. . . 638 1.. 4 34 2 . . 1. ... as some offices do not report detailed statistics containing the origin of all applications for which patents were issued.675 .. . .a... .. Patents granted by country of origin data are partial and incomplete. 114 . Not available .. 2.. 3..132 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. . 2007 data. 4. 9 Venezuela 3 . n...... 2010 Grants by Office Name Total Resident Non174 Resident Grants by Origin Total 118 1 In Force by Office Uzbekistan Vanuatu Viet Nam Zambia Zimbabwe 3 3 3 288 . therefore origin data are partial and incomplete.. . 1. Resident grant data are missing. Not applicable .

a.147 1..735 n.563 15.. n.598 .876 . 6. 2008 Applications by Office Applications by Origin Madrid International Registrations.565 n..146 128 .029 19 2..a.076 . 4.652 719 ...324 3. 3. 14 0 n.186 41 232 43 376 10 51 58. n.370 13.135 n.931 4.340 . 0 0 n. 712 n.136 16.381 7.489 696 .002 592 0 101. .a.078 .771 709 n.. 55.a. 3.613 3.a.682 10.853 2.028 73.214 n. 239 3.a..a. . 3. n..525 14.538 2.a. 0 n.172 694 608 5.681 8.154 5.380 2. 9.872 .021 .620 3 20 6.a. 218 2 13 418 0 n.527 3. . n..a.251 908 ..057 n... 5.a.897 .a. 2. 11. 2.967 .a.a.876 23. n.a. n..a.605 3. 986 6.a. 596 n.a. 18 1..232 .868 40 6.343 n.a. n.a.910 n.a.100 .882 .369 3..a. 9 976 1..a.a.507 590. 42 759 70.a. 4. n. n. 97.. . 55 n.a... 436 n. 4. 1. 8.268 65 10. n. n..596 2.a.a.489 1...963 2 26.280 873 2.846 70.a. n. n..816 n. 8.102 n.267 .575 4. 968 4.122 920 21.230 .a.789 61 4. 5.a.007 .757 n.421 449 9 8.. 4. 23.a. n.a.028 18. n.666 2 42 932 193. 6. n.380 n.a.002 .060 2.. .a.989 6. 805 28.838 . 20 n.a. 770 7.340 . 3. .a..178 147 193 6..a. 5.a. 2.a.041 3.965 n. 2.869 76 . 3. 1.441 80. 1.322 25.a.317 13..a.841 944 10.701 .116 8.754 .. 35 21.346 n.011 576 4.a.059 .839 2.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. 325 .a.208 5.454 .a..118 . .717 4.208 12.328 79.118 3.a.a. n. n.a.563 9. n..206 .a.873 416 .a.412 .315 544 20..106 2. 14.252 939 38.593 677 2.766 n.790 1. 3. 2010 133 TRADEMARKS Table T1: Trademark applications by IP office and origin..206 5 3.. 3.426 426 .a.a.100 51.015 204 5.040 . 11.735 59. 5..538 920 119.460 2. n.579 .801 581 604 8.619 .228 4.967 1.081 5.075 4 n.a.026 669. n.487 ..465 3. 2009 Designated Contracting Party n. n. 285 4. 7..a.a.a. n.a.973 904 4.007 .745 1 1..088 23. n. 6...a. 0 n. 190 n..866 45. 1.733 134. n.482 9.097 625. . 3.523 2. 7..796 20. n. n.479 5. 216 . n...106 .391 0 77 .713 4.a. 503 5.324 545 31.474 1.865 61 10..994 . n..256 5 8.609 .444 1.168 n. 2. 42 n. 1. n.a. 33.. n..452 Name Total Resident Non-Resident Total 1 Origin Afghanistan 2 Albania Algeria Andorra Angola 2 Antigua and Barbuda Argentina 3 Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas 2 Bahrain Bangladesh 3 Barbados 2 Belarus Belgium 4 Belize Benelux 5 Benin 2 Bermuda 2 Bhutan 3 Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 3 Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Cambodia 3 Canada Chad 2 Chile China Colombia 3 Congo 2 Cook Islands 2 Costa Rica 3 Côte d'Ivoire 2 Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic People's Republic of Korea Democratic Republic of the Congo 2 Denmark Dominica 3 Dominican Republic 3 Ecuador 3 Egypt El Salvador 2 Estonia Ethiopia 3 Fiji 2 Finland France Gabon 2 Gambia 3 Georgia Germany Ghana Greece .. 10.194 n. 327 5. n.506 839 214 2. 1.076 157 44..969 16. 2. 5.a. 6 5.475 90 7 13. 1..226 293 .a.519 78. 4. 0 n.a.a. 6.. .

788 4.. 42 3 n. 4.a.a. 3.003 . 1... 1 8.536 ...081 4. 7. 24 45 1 1 62 1 n.134 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. n.847 4...851 3 2.a. 1.169 808 1.941 79.512 1.377 35 125 582 529 20 24 617 45.a..098 n.966 5. 14.432 594 95..a. 9.116 1.729 ..199 17 6.501 n.324 87.a.407 1. 2. 503 .a.318 . 1.a. 1.a.a. 6 .590 n.a.695 . n.750 3.851 .825 5.474 0 .231 n.762 1.319 3.801 27. 7.a.309 536 .a. 2.145 8. .a. .847 14..a. n.413 3. n.565 ..762 866 n. n.a.a.. 3. 2009 Designated Contracting Party Name Total Resident Non-Resident Total 1 Origin Guatemala 3 Guinea 2 Guinea-Bissau 3 Guyana 2 Haiti 2 Honduras 3 Hong Kong (SAR).903 4.a.a. n.a.936 12.. 624 514 .213 705 575 1 14.. n.a. China Hungary Iceland India Indonesia 2 Iran (Islamic Republic of) Iraq 2 Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica 3 Japan Jordan 3 Kazakhstan Kenya Kuwait 2 Kyrgyzstan Latvia Lebanon 2 Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 2 Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg 4 Macau (SAR).287 .367 2. n. n.a. .328 651 140..407 76 .334 5...474 1.386 n..a.729 .a.a. 22 27.854 17. 2 56. . . 612 .025 5.. 6.036 155 . n. 1. n. 0 0 n. n..101 .573 2. 18 n.393 3. . n.a.a.. n. 3. n. 4. 3.181 n..a. 5. n. n.980 5. 240 38 n.975 ..a. .236 . .a. n. n.a.054 804 . n.695 1 8 6 5 2.a.a. 24 84.. .488 1.385 2. n.240 102.727 3. 12.a.a.250 22 10...742 60.281 80 6. n.a. 3. 2. n.425 n.a.054 166 1 10 5 4.. 2 n.a.845 6. .230 7. 1.a. China Madagascar Malawi 2 Malaysia Maldives 3 Mali 2 Malta Marshall Islands 2 Mauritania 2 Mauritius Mexico Micronesia 2 Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Mozambique 3 Myanmar 2 Namibia Nepal 3 Netherlands 4 Netherlands Antilles New Zealand Nicaragua 3 Nigeria 2 Norway Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market Oman Pakistan Panama Papua New Guinea 3 Paraguay 2 Peru 6 11.183 10.620 2.724 1..a.252 4. 776 n.a. n. n. n.a. n..149 4. 13.367 1.a.a.853 9.775 325 10.a. 7.419 . n.581 358 .936 12.a...a.433 7.686 6. n. 1.955 ..a. 4.a.. 98 60 n..a.a. 3. 39 n.733 87 188 15..065 4..a. 1.562 155 ...a..467 .a..211 1. 239 1.445 3.a.344 1..627 12. n.335 n. .a.517 0 n.180 4.... 0 n.369 8. n.a. n.915 .713 n. 910 781 .556 1. 342 3.901 .662 4. 7.259 7. 96 .a.921 2.872 10.a.564 2. 2.920 3.a. 5.a.182 3.564 1.a. 24. 3.047 .296 550 .524 6... 3.195 .132 .a.a.011 2. 631 486 n... 3. n. 5.544 10.633 6. 0 . n..660 4.403 24. n. . n.198 49.139 1.a. 0 96 n.523 60.. n. n.172 . 2010 Applications by Office Applications by Origin Madrid International Registrations..330 1.417 .a..678 1.a..a. 3. .832 4. 910 781 .048 .928 4..a.a.139 520 .780 . 10.582 5. n. 26..076 .597 130.708 119.a.912 1.a. 18 n.332 . 16. n. 205 2. n.747 n.006 n. n.a. 830 n.a.. n..360 156 5 882 62 5 442 60. . n. n. 10.450 41 223 253 3.114 23. 852 n..a. 1 ..640 1.607 4.716 612 .. 733 .a.. 6 .468 .390 12. n.186 4. 12.034 16. n.a.081 3.592 . n. 518 .a. n. 1..448 9.353 n.

..501 1. 1.501 5.a. 18. 676 2. n.316 30.685 2... Application by office data are missing.a.330 n.793 16 40 37 5 196 519 1 588 4 4. 14.. 3.070 11.856 4..a.869 128 . 682 n.869 128 .904 4.998 31. n.597 ..479 .971 4.a..819 .852 119 . Not applicable .. 740 n.262 27. 0 209 139 276 n.044 35. 8.234 9 466 596 1. 254 n.a. .477 47 246.a..850 3. . 107. 25.. .. 7.425 . .. .a.a.848 7.950 .a.. n.054 .a. . .088 2..448 3 20 0 n.a. 2.518 1.263 14. 259 21..496 .539 n. n. .255 1. 999 n. All applications for trademark protection in this country are filed at the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property or the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market. 747 5.774 1.... 74. 1 n.508 .705 15. 10. 8. therefore origin data are partial and incomplete.228 509 47. 231 50 1.755 3. . n.097 n. 761 0 n. .. n. n.885 .a. n. n.757 4. n.. 2.a.a. 790 n.169 n.309 287 n. 4. . n..a.629 2. 9.898 1.007 .952 11.141 224 ..225 n.a. .803 .096 3.. n. n.325 .a. Resident applications at this regional office are comprised of those filed by residents of EU member states. . 29 .648 3..517 451 1.197 2.. 29. .a. Resident applications at this regional office are comprised of those filed by residents of Belgium.a.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.a.877 0 10 22.405 1.523 . 6. Resident application data are missing. 7.159 .965 5.a. 0 328 2. 2. 5.a..a.009 11.024 14 .487 10. 0 . 408 161 n. 1.461 15.004 4.017 14.a. 46 n. 0 n. Application by origin data are partial and incomplete.872 1.. as this country does not have a national trademark office.a.369 570 1. 1.288 1 6 10 43 52 74. 4..017 18. n. .159 . n.678 91 117.a.422 .676 2.a....746 .a.790 3 9 n.675 n. 159 1. 2009 Designated Contracting Party Name Total Resident Non-Resident Total 1 Origin Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar 2 Republic of Korea Romania Russian Federation Rwanda 3 Saint Kitts and Nevis 2 Saint Lucia 2 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 2 Samoa 3 San Marino Sao Tome and Principe 3 Saudi Arabia 2 Senegal 2 Serbia Seychelles 2 Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands 2 South Africa Spain Sri Lanka Sudan 3 Suriname 3 Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic T F Y R of Macedonia Tajikistan Thailand Timor-Leste 2 Togo 2 Tonga 2 Trinidad and Tobago 2 Tunisia2 Turkey Turkmenistan Uganda 2 Ukraine United Arab Emirates 2 United Kingdom United Republic of Tanzania 3 United States of America Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu 2 Venezuela 2 Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe 2 1..204 .785 13.843 6.578 57.. .. n.420 3. 13.a. n.269 47.671 n..564 7. 9.. 1.410 n. 137. 4.245 234 257 259 23.957 2. 13.595 2. 18 0 n.916 4. 3.004 14.a.a.a.056 226 2 9.a.508 n.. 29.723 75..a. 60. n.705 556 294.a.a.406 n.a. .394 23. .066 4.. 3. 15.a.827 n. .. 10. as some offices do not report detailed statistics containing the origin of all applications. . 4..a. Not available ...a.311 13..882 14..853 125 9 21. 5.733 59 396. .395 3.675 4.019 . Luxembourg and the Netherlands.222 4.165 238 . 16.a...150 n. 201 n.. .995 65..592 20. n.609 20.a. n.757 4.705 77..724 2.833 55.a.a..472 .514 2. 130 1.847 20.161 2.537 .a.974 5.264 n.a.. .586 5.660 45. n. .772 1. n..a. 4.192 .321 1..a.053 7 17.a.a.130 n. n. 14.a.a..817 .. 35. 4.890 3. 2007 data are used for trademark applications by office and by origin.971 2. 6.267 5.a.890 2.655 .. 2 n..a.a.942 2. 7. n. 4.263 7.819 . n. n. 33..736 2.. 2010 135 Applications by Office Applications by Origin Madrid International Registrations. .046 19.a.a.

3..519 . 649 . . 78. 9. 5.. 312.370 .. 934 355 . ... .482 21 7.... 2. ... .502 . 3. 1. .640 ..324 155 5.870 4.743 .541 ..910 .538 . 138..661 .048 . 43.227 46...117 2.000 . 318 .728 11.. . 34. 13.877 627 . 8. .... .. 187.780 14.591 2..129 .. .504 ...781 ..754 619 . 118.601 .. 46... 3. 404... 26.247 2 . .. 7.193 .454 .180 682 279 1...320 2.. .730 . 27.199 ... 219 126 .497 ..253 3. 8. . 12.891 .798 . ...227 66 38.. 4. ..011 17. 9. 4.. 24. 946 .210 1 921 2 97 354 .332 1 439 2 21...204 2.. 3.086 155 9.127 56... 437 .872 ..531 1.636 114.503 14.. .. .515 631 1. 12.. .181 3..942 ..955 .710 ... . 615.127 5..635 ..155 112.. .218 1 23 125 5.. 5.. .. .. ... ... . 1.350 12....115 18..574 12 258 1 2. 1.5 Belize 2 Benelux 6 Benin 2 Bermuda 2 Bhutan 2 Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 2 Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana 2 Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burundi 2 Cambodia 3 Cameroon 2 Canada Central African Republic 2 Chile China Colombia 3..206 10.161 389. ..136 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.857 5. 20..934 342. .. 6.. 4.561 .. .928 . 61. .193 .671 ..429 1.146 787 4 36..832 3. .. 4.429 695 . .022 . 19.. 946 . . 675 . .661 .943 272 . . 8 15 35 347 1 42 3. .028 .551 .617 7.556 1.... .116 367 317 6. 14. . 7. .849 365 15 7.937 5. .. .498 10. 2008 Registrations by Office Name Total Resident NonResident Registrations by In Force by Origin Office Total 1 Total Afghanistan 2 Albania 2 Algeria 2 Andorra Angola 2 Antigua and Barbuda 2 Argentina 2 Armenia Aruba 2 Australia Austria 2 Azerbaijan Bahamas 2 Bahrain Bangladesh 3 Barbados 2 Belarus 4 Belgium 2... 3. 2. 18.321 .. . . .. and trademarks in force.535 493 .... .866 .. 164.762 0 4..945 . 1..465 3. 4.373 .975 ..139 ..119.. .190 ... .329 ..898 12. 46.743 . 542 24.257 4..013 ..929 920 60. 2. .. .. .792 1.514 . 203 ...411 4.. 5. 18.042 2 22.. 7.377 855 556 265 142 437 2....955 . 27.303 . ..028 .726 920 16.. 539. 1. 3..949 .. .528 82 3 11. 34.771 371.871 . 2010 Table T2: Trademark registrations by IP office and origin.... .843 ..4 Cook Islands 2 Costa Rica 2 Côte d'Ivoire 2 Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic People's Republic of Korea 2 Democratic Republic of the Congo 2 Denmark Djibouti 2 Dominica 2 Dominican Republic 2 Ecuador 3 Egypt 2 El Salvador 2 Estonia Ethiopia 3 Fiji 2 Finland France 2 Gabon 2 .045 30..

...469 53. .438 ...206 . .. 285 4.404 ... . . 21 4 3... 15...626 3. 4... . 36. .147 12. China Madagascar Malawi 2 Malaysia Maldives 3 Mali 2 Malta 4 Marshall Islands 2 Mauritania 2 Mauritius 2 Mexico Micronesia 2 Moldova Monaco Mongolia 2 Montenegro Morocco 2 Mozambique 3 Myanmar 2 Namibia 2 Nauru 2 Nepal 3. .925 16.366 63.518 5.318 3. . .110 ..241 . 73.673 2..727. 170 1.5 Netherlands Antilles New Zealand Nicaragua 2 327 4... .. .279 . .. . ...675 79 2.902 .373 61 3.063 ...5 Macau (SAR).841 . 3..... 4. ...308 94.542 . 1.791 4.725 56. . 7.312 837 .823 196. ..211 151 2 698 15 2 311 44.375 2.. . 40..WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.. 1.653 190.076 ..087 . 1. 612 .364 8. 200 1.. 3.7 Netherlands 2. 42 361 47.824 7.194 555 ... 520 ...889 .730 .. 1..820 6.. 5.741 6.847 151 .....851 ..240 ..795 4. . . .821 12.490 .796 4.933 11. .572 4... China Hungary Iceland India 2 Indonesia 2 Iran (Islamic Republic of) Iraq 2 Ireland Israel 4 Italy Jamaica 2 Japan Jordan 2.. 607.561 49 . 1. .448 ..004 366 . .566 ..557 .. 97.355 2.316 43 129 195 2.979 1.731 ..3 Kazakhstan Kenya 2 Kuwait 2 Kyrgyzstan Latvia Lebanon 2 Lesotho 2 Liberia 2 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 2 Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg 2. 2 ...537 87 116..505 3. 2010 137 Registrations by Office Name Total Resident NonResident Registrations by In Force by Origin Office Total 1 Total Gambia 3 Georgia Germany Ghana 2 Greece 2 Guatemala 2 Guinea-Bissau 3 Guyana 2 Haiti 2 Honduras 3 Hong Kong (SAR). .. 4.. 929 .. 667 567 .407 .559 . 1 .495 .. 4.871 631 987 6 4. . 18.... 5. . . 1. 1.103 61 3. .139 . 1..202 ...765 .667 .. 3... .933 11. 2 . . 27.728 .408 7. 910 781 .132 . . 1. 7.798 0 .232 6. 26... .760 712 605 . 3.525 6.391 . .882 10. 4...817 324 7. 9. ..994 ..606 . 42 497 156..519 1. ..710 3.953 .861 .. 3.572 4.557 3.926 3.. 1.... 1 5.156 109. 10..604 63. .326 1 1. 57.857 .132 9.. .602 ..005 . 1...457 102.799 ..307 . ..529 80.257 . 39.691 1.482 4...279 ..125 24 14 495 509 1 10 2 612 38... 502 . 0 . 82...094 433 13 8 4 1.119 5. 5.497 1. 7. . 22.824 776. .607 9. 0 .266 18.373 136 .. 14... .961 4.. 910 781 . .024 7 2.. 504 ... .355 1. .433 . 56..139 .. ..904 4.. 75.... 225. .131 1.728 . ....087 1. 2.628 .892 1.049 151 ..

.364 ..276 35 285..357 34. .974 . 674.391 1. 50. .556 82.820 232.270 . 629 13. 1. 39.. 11.... 132..588 ..696 23. 7.. 28.107 81.682 .693 40.989 28. 1..382 71. .004 2.785 18.472 .837 8.277 1. .726 4. 12.500 547 184. 152.670 ...125 ...184 2.741 56. 18. 3. . 37.543 ..073 207.884 .509 ..322 6.. . ...209 290.426 .123 . . .. .433 1 983 80.. 47.941 .034 4 130 10..927 8.640 .964 . .391 2.468 991 .788 4.367 ... 14.138 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. 62.119 24. 2. 45. 11.553 .733 512 26.382 20. .204 10.. . . .737 6.333 9. 15. . 1. ..502 34 5.547 ....715 13.695 14.... .041 917 17 217 16.. 11. 644 ... .974 7. 92.001 2.429 4.575 342.004 8.373 7.208 ... 1 . 2010 Registrations by Office Name Total 2 Registrations by In Force by Origin Office Total 1 Total Resident NonResident Nigeria Norway Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market 8 Oman 2 Pakistan Panama Papua New Guinea 2 Paraguay 2 Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar 2 Republic of Korea Romania Russian Federation Rwanda 3 Saint Kitts and Nevis 2 Saint Lucia 2 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 2 Samoa 3 San Marino 2 Sao Tome and Principe 2 Saudi Arabia 2 Serbia Seychelles 2 Sierra Leone 2 Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands 2 South Africa Spain Sri Lanka Sudan 3 Suriname 2 Swaziland 2 Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic 2 T F Y R of Macedonia 2 Tajikistan Thailand 4 Tonga 2 Trinidad and Tobago 2 Tunisia 2 Turkey Turkmenistan 2 Tuvalu 2 Uganda 3 Ukraine United Arab Emirates 2 United Kingdom United Republic of Tanzania 3 United States of America Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu 2 Venezuela 2 Viet Nam 2 Yemen .322 911.807 .695 2..311 19.017 17. 1.. . 186.815 26.869 . 259 12. . . 122 1. ..443 13.. .635 9.. .520 238 .204 4.. 4.109 11 3.191 4.810 4... 35.191 2.208 .146 . .516 5.633 19.335 1. 332..364 56.. .104 19.571 ... .992 2. 29 60. ... 3.458 2..133 . .789 6.837 .. . .389 5.865 2.411 ...079 .. . 481. ...865 2.484 4. ..101 9..982 20.024 15 25 18 17 67 464 1 340 2. 94. . 48. . ..227 .. 6.845 998 8 465 451 659 ..165 11.894 21.429 4....674 1 50 23 48.... .755 .657 907 911 .580 8.807 . ..469 1.771 1. 6.....306 12.998 1..104 60 58.533 2. 456. .823 .002 .869 .730 19.837 4. 10.433..690 . .. 10 53. 8..782 ..355 70. .251 5..911 .895 14 .417 .017 14. 1.819 4..598 100...... ..911 15... ...767 35 157....327 1. 143 1. 21 ..975 115 4 7. 4. 10.649 145 189 261 13.574 .194 5. ..542 .212 911 71....504 .. ....660 .016 3. 1.341 3.625 224 . .489 4. 19 7. ..957 38. . 629 25.516 .

2. 6. Not available . 4. 2010 139 Registrations by Office Name Total 2 Registrations by In Force by Origin Office Total 1 Total Resident NonResident Zambia Zimbabwe 2 1.. .159 . Registration by office data are missing. 3. 2007 data are used for trademarks in force. therefore origin data are partial and incomplete... Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Registration by origin data are partial and incomplete.. ..159 . 8. . as this country does not have a national trademark office. 2007 data are used for trademark registrations by office and by origin. as some offices do not report detailed statistics containing the origin of all applications for which registrations were issued.. All trademark registrations for this country are issued by the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property or the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. 1.. 2007 data are used for trademarks in force. Resident registrations for this regional office are comprised of those issued to residents of Belgium. Resident registrations for this regional office are comprised of those issued to residents of EU member states. 5. 7. Resident registration data are missing. 6 5 . . 1.

307 n. n. 232 . 40 63 n..a. 14 0 1.560 .. 8 2.a. .. 26 n..620 166 .a. n.a.284 280 .. 70 26 n.441 n...689 . n.. n.761 17 337 5..a..447 295 21 . 33 n.127 25 19 752 58 201 1. 5 16 . 135 246 .a. 51 26 . n..a.618 387 14. 14 380 26 320 13. 62 .a.. 113 .557 4.a.078 407 153 6... . 220 4.a.282 485 312. n. ..095 108 300.a. n. 206 4. n. . 64 12 n. China Hungary Iceland India 2 Indonesia 2 5 281 . 63 43 2.866 5 .a.424 4 136 64 1... n..727 805 25 . 2010 INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS Table ID1: Industrial design applications by IP office and origin. 185 417 .320 9 703 2. 4 1 50 9 4.a.a.a.. 814 .545 14. 287 7 51 1. 43 751 18 28 305 182 248 . 141 9 192 140 14 52 n. 2... 19 412 n. 361 ...350 227 30 . 1.a. 72 0 .a. .907 235 1 ..a. . 6 7 0 .. 272 6. 113 417 . n.a.135 4 388 85 3.a.711 0 252 21 1. 84 220 . n. n. .032 55 .a. 2009 Designated Origin Contracting Party 0 37 0 172 African Intellectual Property Organization Albania Andorra 2 Antigua and Barbuda 2 Argentina 2 Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas 2 Bangladesh 3 Barbados 2 Belarus Belgium 2 Belize Benelux Benin Bermuda 2 Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Canada Chile China Colombia 3 Cook Islands 2 Côte d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic People's Republic of Korea Denmark Dominican Republic 2 Ecuador 3 Egypt El Salvador 2 Estonia Ethiopia 3 Fiji 2 Finland France Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Guatemala Hong Kong (SAR). 406 998 37 . n.132 35 73 6 8 128 220 3 2.a. 49 43 951 16 67 4..a. n. .093 0 38 36..890 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 220 0 1 75 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 n... .810 1 270 664 98 298...061 558 46 141 2. 264 3. n.a.a. 119 .182 10.. .a.904 446 . 752 .068 22 2. n.571 9 151 . 274 n...473 26 358 50.a.. 159 n...a... 400 991 37 .077 1.631 112 132 .. 2.a. 2008 Applications by Office Name Total Resident NonResident Applications by Origin Total 1 Hague International Registrations. n.a. 66 61.. n..a. 413 24 3.a.a.140 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. 0 198 7 26 288 0 183 .. 43 553 11 2 17 182 65 . n. 136 109 15 n. n.

.a.a. .. .. .a.. . 69 57 12 1.230 758 472 55 23 32 45 0 45 4 2 2 . n. n.a.a..a. Applications by Origin Total 1 2. 5 n. n.a.441 .. 46 42 134 19 716 295 239 171 Hague International Registrations.a.516 1.702 630 1. 301 21 n.. 1 9 13 .307 2.181 1. 2009 Designated Origin Contracting 0 361 Party 0 n.a.a.a.. ..667 16. .465 51 306 292 14 56. 14 42 1..a. n. . 6 0 6 .a.554 2 43..405 117 85 32 166 57 109 .993 382 74 308 475 39 436 239 0 239 371 0 371 1.215 110 n.. 3 144 5 653 85 483 17 298 966 .a... . n..a. n.255 17.356 2.a. n.a.a. 111 17 94 304 298 6 1.. 29 n.. 270 n.....a.. . 158 n. .WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. .. 2010 141 Applications by Office Name Indonesia NonTotal Resident 4.794 1.a... .711 2.188 1. . n.a.964 497 404 93 4. n.a..a...621 3..a. n. 125 89 36 .948 205 116 89 239 0 239 . 576 378 198 54 0 54 6 1 5 ..278 103 104 2 0 776 23 .. 385 34 1 1 87 658 3. .a. . .. .. 10 n. 18 180 n.a..a. .a.795 .750 52.701 524 2.050 60. .a. 59 n. .a. 22 n. 41 1 40 473 119 354 .. 33.. 342 84 258 1.759 354 1.312 482 1.866 Resident 1.949 119 .a. .221 640 581 1.. n..568 1.a.786 3. 592 . 10 n..a. 0 n.. 46 n.569 29. 10 n.. .334 351 983 25 0 25 679 252 427 78. n.. n.355 1 0 1 . n. .890 Iran (Islamic Republic of) 2 Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica 2 Japan Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic 2 Latvia Lebanon 2 Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg 2 Macau (SAR). .133 56.. .796 .447 1. n.720 4 754 .. . . n.184 263 . 470 n. . . 1. 399 6 393 48 39 9 . China Madagascar Malaysia Mali Malta Mauritius Mexico Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Mozambique 3 Namibia Nepal 3 Netherlands 2 Netherlands Antilles New Zealand Niger Norway Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market Oman Pakistan Panama Papua New Guinea 2 Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Republic of Korea Romania Russian Federation Rwanda 3 Saint Kitts and Nevis 2 Samoa 3 San Marino 2 Sao Tome and Principe 2 Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia 2 Seychelles Singapore Slovakia Slovenia South Africa 2 4 311 1. 360 0 360 1...a...a.072 23 0 23 2 1 1 13 6 7 3. 2 4. .a. n.. n.. 1. . 192 339 159 243 341 n. .a. 0 n. 0 113 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 622 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 8 0 n.

n. . n. n.319 .840 . 2.. n. 2009 Designated Origin Contracting 0 n.735 0 6.a..a..243 2.291 32 845 24 3.a..118 23 10.a.. 37 .123 0 21 0 2.377 209 402 350 52 Applications by Origin Total 1 171 6...290 358 Hague International Registrations. Industrial design application by country of origin data are partial and incomplete. 31 52 . 341 752 447 n.168 32 824 24 1. 3. 83 ..009 27. 24 n.a.207 50 283 n. ..927 2. Not applicable .a. 48 . .586 1.782 . 1. 3.. n..a.. n..a. 46 .. Sudan 3 Suriname Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic T F Y R of Macedonia Tajikistan Thailand Tunisia Turkey Ukraine United Arab Emirates 2 United Kingdom United States of America Uruguay 2 Uzbekistan Vanuatu 2 2 Venezuela 2 Viet Nam Yemen 3 1.. n.789 16 46 1 5 10 72 0 0 0 625 0 0 0 0 0 60 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n.935 33.a.a. Party 14 98 0 n.. Not available .839 8 6.820 418 7.a.463 .081 1.142 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.a..a.830 .162 884 . 52 44 713 2. n. n. 328 12.946 .085 418 1.a. . therefore origin data are partial and incomplete.. n.. 2007 data. 2. 3.. 1. 2010 Applications by Office Name South Africa Spain Sri Lanka NonTotal Resident .780 11. . 72 0 44 26 1.. Resident application data are missing. .a. as some offices do not report detailed statistics containing the origin of all applications. . 103 52 0 687 1.a.681 15.. Resident . 4.

. 173 257 26 353 51.916 227 141..807 17 28 386 57 135 1. .303 209 10. 6 0 3. 13... 2008 Registrations by Office Name Total Resident NonResident Registrations In Force by Origin by Office Total 1 Total African Intellectual Property Organization Albania Antigua and Barbuda 2 Argentina 2 Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas 2 Bangladesh 3 Barbados 2 Belarus 4 Belgium 2 Belize 2 Benelux Benin Bermuda 2 Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria 2 Canada Chile China Colombia 3 Cook Islands 2 Costa Rica 2 Côte d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic People's Republic of Korea Denmark Dominican Republic 2 Ecuador 3 Egypt El Salvador 2 Estonia Ethiopia 3 Fiji 2 Finland France Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Guatemala Haiti 2 Hong Kong (SAR)..... .. .358 18.152 . 394 5 1 3. 88 22 . 5..601 197 ..... .954 135 .897 17 347 5.. 1. . 41 60.206 . 7 0 .a. 5 . ... .. 2010 143 Table ID2: Industrial design registrations by IP office and origin.... 823 .035 350 148 4.727 . 113 336 . ...111 528 48 280 n.. 247 . 2 54 6 3. 257 3. n... 2 8 .430 234 23 . 408 .141 395 .. 8 224 26 317 14.952 16 . . .. 0 137 6 26 304 0 139 .182 0 220 0 .. 43 704 10 28 348 182 210 ... ... 1. 261 6. 98 48.252 2.647 62 . 297 297....858 36 132...038 10. and industrial designs in force... .301 7 674 1... . 201 6 51 1.. 72 0 ... 1. 43 567 4 2 44 182 71 .046 .. 105 .662 ......480 7. . .... 24 ..605 116 125 .874 388.011 400..a. 165 33 0 36 36.768 .WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. .. 197 . 237.309 ..152 21 2. 4. 3. 24 43 5.. .068 30 72 5 4 123 145 4 2...861 4 137 6 .599 356 166 4. 185 336 . China Hungary Iceland India 2 5 276 .945 1 . 87 145 .a. 57. .097 942 25 . . 1.077 37 .. 92 . 3.. ..078 .108 59 . . . . .718 2. 5.. 4. 8.814 10. 28.000 . . 18 43 1. 613 18 130.527 .701 113 4 4 .. 384 .. 400 1.. 175 167 .070 37 ..642 192 8 ....455 750 17 ..043 4 357 6 . 127 .277 ... ...582 6 67 .772 n. 4 2.

533 ..769 .566 1. 844 .. 0 17 23 ... China Madagascar Malaysia Mali Malta Mauritius Mexico Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Mozambique 3 Namibia Nepal 3 Netherlands 2 Netherlands Antilles New Zealand Nicaragua 2 Niger Norway Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market Pakistan Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay 2 Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Republic of Korea Romania Russian Federation Rwanda 3 Samoa 3 San Marino 2 Saudi Arabia 2 Senegal Serbia Seychelles 2 Singapore Slovakia Slovenia 441 . 256.. 369.. 23 353 278 . 1.427 860 2...207 291 36. 360 1. . 723 ...077 2.. 393 12 . 25 731 78.444 369 478 239 361 401 55 45 4 . 13.. . 2010 Registrations by Office Name Total Resident NonResident Registrations In Force by Origin by Office Total 1 Total Indonesia Iran (Islamic Republic of) 2 Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica 2 Japan Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Latvia Lebanon 2 Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg 2 Macau (SAR)..317 . 132 2 510 74 435 3 378 817 1 48 31 633 94 100 . 288 721 65 19 3.657 1 6 . 391 71 58 441 . 417 .595 1 6 .. 381 1. 41 382 .144 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS.071 18...062 4.214 1.. . 17.. 0 269 60...483 23 2 13 2.. 40 338 .. 63. . .206 18..164 .479 1. .. 1.382 84 239 112 . 1... 1.029 40. 6 26 . .. 2 378 580 0 2 3 591 73 41 0 0 0 23 0 2 .784 .187 213. ....390 22 111 38 2 357 1.317 3 39..990 236 7 1 . .858 907 3. .442 .986 39 0 74 . 25..781 93 169 0 .... 399 38 . 1 44 . 101 1.. 308 1.451 .. 6.. 11.060 40 . 25 462 17.. 360 1.853 296 437 239 361 401 32 45 2 . 3.697 382 45 5 ...162 4..089 ..266 734 .082 .062 0 0 ... 2 4.... 185 ..823 307 . .555 0 4 15 96 38 57 24 703 259 234 . 9 ..486 ... 9.617 10.645 781 2.....707 146 38 4 .967 ..293 1..371 . .. 78 724 2.. 53 14 903 23 0 10 1. 244 42 1 8 101 515 3.129 .... . .307 7 818 100 .213 126 1. 55 392 1. 292 5 . 29.272 310 39. 0 404 .396 45 239 38 . .. .. 93 493 1. .

4. 45. therefore origin data are partial and incomplete. Industrial design registration by country of origin data are partial and incomplete.. .086 .244 84 10.. 2007 data. 50. 2010 145 Registrations by Office Name Total Resident NonResident Registrations In Force by Origin by Office Total 1 Total South Africa 2 Spain Sri Lanka Sudan 3 Suriname Swaziland 2 Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic T F Y R of Macedonia Tajikistan Thailand 4 Trinidad and Tobago 2 Tunisia Turkey Ukraine United Arab Emirates 2 United Kingdom United States of America Uzbekistan Vanuatu 2 Venezuela 2 Viet Nam 2 Yemen 3 1. 3..728 11.. 561 1.. 0 5. 212 4 0 44 . 40..102 . ..048 . .452 32.706 2. 64 .. .. 418 6..150 0 20 0 719 . 2007 data are used for industrial designs in force. 8.780 8.WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDICATORS. . .526 85 51 0 .219 . 1. .....719 229... as some offices do not report detailed statistics containing the origin of all applications for which registrations were issued. 1.208 10. 334 11. 29 187 6. .152 1.137 10 824 8 1..745 13. 8. . 418 1..079 25... . 4.102 ..459 2.852 23 ...938 .999 . . Not applicable .565 67 . 4 3. . 3... . 36 ..... 23 1.. Resident registration data are missing.168 962 .. 793 1 15 6.. Not available .581 262 . 2..575 92 51 . n..907 . 35 ..287 10 844 8 1. 584 2.738 89 51 44 .546 45 1 7 2 35 ..713 44 .874 3.268 ..a.215 41 4.

mail@wipo.World Intellectual Property Organization Address: 34.wipo. Box 18 CH-1211 Geneva 20 Switzerland Telephone: +41 22 338 91 11 Fax: +41 22 733 54 28 Website: www. 941(E) ISBN 978-92-805-1978-5 © iStockphoto.O.wipo.com/Cristian Andrei Matei/Spiderstock/Renee Keith/peter lecko .int/ipstats e-mail: ipstats.int Contact Information Economics and Statistics Division Website: www.int WIPO Publication No. chemin des Colombettes P.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful