Date post: | 28-Nov-2014 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | eric-lanado |
View: | 152 times |
Download: | 1 times |
1
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR GENERAL 3 ABOUT IPOPHL 6
Vision, Mission and Goals 10 Organization 11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 16 REGULATORY GOALS 19 DEVELOPMENTAL GOALS 42 ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS 58 FINANCIAL REPORT 62 NEXT STEPS 71 TABLES OF STATISTICAL DATA ON IP 76
3
MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
IPOPHL was my new home in 2010. As the new occupant at the helm of the organization, the thrust of the activities last year was focused on building the gains of my predecessors and in laying the groundwork for the organization’s transformation of the future. In other words, we are working on a sturdy foundation with which to build a world class Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines.
First building block was our new vision and mission. We rolled this out in
April 2010, aimed at making the Philippines an intellectual property conscious country in a demystified, development‐oriented, and democratized IP system. Together with this vision is the organization’s mission of making IPOPHL a knowledge‐driven government organization that works towards economic, technological, and socio‐cultural development by communicating, enabling, and ensuring the effective use of the Intellectual Property System in all levels of society for the creation, protection, utilization, and enforcement of intellectual property. To realize this vision and mission, eight (8) goals were formulated that focused on regulatory, developmental, and organizational development. Second building block is on the improvement of the Intellectual Property Office Technical Infrastructure aimed at modernizing IPOPHL’s information technology system. IPOPHL signed a Cooperation Agreement with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in the implementation of the Intellectual Property Automation System (IPAS). This system, once operational, will provide simplified, transparent, and consistent registration procedures as well as empower applicants to track the progress of their applications. In so doing, IPOPHL will be able to deliver timely and quality registration services, for quality is our primary focus. Third building block is creating innovation and inventing the future. Through the years, statistics at IPOPHL show that local patent filings are a measly five percent (5%) of the annual patent filings. Thus, IPOPHL embarked on a pioneering work of establishing a network of Innovation and Technology Support Offices (ITSOs) or patent libraries. The aim here is to make use of patent documents as a source of technological information. Without information about the state‐of‐the‐art, there is a high risk that a product will be developed a second time around. And this becomes an obstacle for technical and economic development and definitely a hindrance to innovation. IPOPHL supports inventions, creativity, and innovation toward economic growth. Fourth and a very important building block is our “holistic approach” to effective enforcement. We worked with rights holders and brand owners, with enforcement agencies and other key partners in IP. We experienced a growing mutual confidence, found a renewed sense of purpose, achieved a meeting of minds on our objectives, and together worked to forge an effective enforcement strategy. We put great value on the suggestions and inputs of our partners and stakeholders
4
toward improving our services and at the same time in advancing awareness, knowledge, and use of the IP system. This is just the beginning. Much still needs to be done, but we are ready to face challenges for our grounding rests on solid rock. We are working hard to answer the need and investing in a bright future for the country’s economic growth and improved competitiveness.
Atty. Ricardo R. Blancaflor Director General
5
6
THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES (IPOPHL) Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (IP Code) which was signed into law on June 6, 1997 and took effect on January 1, 1998, created the IP Philippines. Recognizing the importance of an effective intellectual property system, the IP Code in its Declaration of State Policy, stated the following: “Section 2. Declaration of State Policy. ‐ The State recognizes that an effective intellectual and industrial property system is vital to the development of domestic and creative activity, facilitates transfer of technology, attracts foreign investments, and ensures market access for our products. It shall protect and secure the exclusive rights of scientists, inventors, artists and other gifted citizens to their intellectual property and creations, particularly when beneficial to the people, for such periods as provided in this Act.
The use of intellectual property bears a social function. To this end, the State shall promote the diffusion of knowledge and information for the promotion of national development and progress and the common good. It is also the policy of the State to streamline administrative procedures of registering patents, trademarks, and copyright, to liberalize the registration on the transfer of technology, and to enhance the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the Philippines.”
To implement the above State policies, the IPOPHL: Examines applications for grant of letters of patent for inventions and register utility models and industrial design.
Examines applications for the registration of marks (including internet domain names as marks), geographical indications, and integrated circuits.
Registers technology transfer arrangements, settles disputes involving technology transfer payments, and develops and implements strategies to promote and facilitate technology transfer.
Promotes the use of patent information as a tool for technology development.
Publishes regularly the patents, marks, utility models, and industrial designs issued and approved, and the technology transfer arrangements registered.
Administratively adjudicates cases affecting intellectual property rights: Complaints for violation of laws involving Intellectual property rights Opposition to/cancellation of registration marks Cancellation of patents, compulsory licensing
Coordinates with other government agencies and the private sector to strengthen the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in the country.
7
PATENT It is an exclusive right granted for a product, process or an improvement of a product or process, which is new, inventive and useful. This exclusive right gives the inventor the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling the product of his invention during the life of the patent. A patent has a term of protection of twenty (20) years providing an inventor significant commercial gain. In return, the patent owner must share the full description of the invention. This information is made available to the public in the form of the Intellectual Property Official Gazette and can be utilized as basis for future research and will in turn promote innovation and development. Patentable inventions offer a technical solution to a problem in any field of human activity. However, theories, mathematical methods, methods of treatment and artistic creations are Non‐Patentable inventions.
TRADEMARK A trademark is a tool used that differentiates goods and services from each other. It is a very important marketing tool that makes the public identify goods and services. A trademark can be one word, a group of words, sign, symbol, logo, or a combination of any of these. Generally, a trademark refers to both trademark and service mark, although a service mark is used to identify those marks used for services only. Trademark is a very effective tool that makes the public remember the quality of goods and services. Once a trademark becomes known, the public will keep on patronizing the products and services. Utilized properly, a trademark can become the most valuable business asset of an enterprise. In addition to making goods and services distinctive, the owner of a mark may earn revenues from the use of the mark by licensing its use by another or though franchising agreements.
UTILITY MODEL A Utility Model is a protection option, which is designed to protect innovations that are not sufficiently inventive to meet the inventive threshold required for standard patents application. It may be any useful machine, implement, tools, product, composition, process, improvement, or part of the same, that is of practical utility, novelty, and industrial applicability. A utility model is entitled to seven (7) years of protection from the date of filing, with no possibility of renewal. Utility model registration is intended to accommodate local industries, small businesses or entities by providing an industrial property right that is relatively inexpensive, quick, easy to obtain and suited to innovations having short commercial life. Utility model registration is a useful tool in supporting the first to market place advantage. It promotes progress of technology and encourages innovation among small and medium businesses and the local industry.
8
It is inexpensive and easy to obtain, however it can't be enforced until after examination has been carried out and the registration is certified. A utility model is examined to determine if it meets the requirements embodied in the existing Utility Model law and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). It need not undergo substantive examination before it is certified.
INDUSTRIAL DESIGN
An industrial design is the ornamental or aesthetic aspect of an article. The design may consist of three‐dimensional features, such as the shape or surface of an article, or of two‐dimensional features, such as patterns, lines, or color. Industrial designs are applied to a wide variety of products of industry and handicraft: from technical and medical instruments to watches, jewelry, and other luxury items; from house wares and electrical appliances to vehicles; from textile designs to leisure goods. To be protected under most national laws, an industrial design must be non‐functional. This means that an industrial design is primarily of an aesthetic nature and any technical features of the article to which it is applied are not protected. When an industrial design is protected, the owner – the person or entity that has registered the design – is assured an exclusive right against unauthorized copying or imitation of the design by third parties. This helps to ensure a fair return on investment. An effective system of protection also benefits consumers and the public at large, by promoting fair competition and honest trade practices, encouraging creativity, and promoting more aesthetically attractive products. Protecting industrial designs helps economic development, by encouraging creativity in the industrial and manufacturing sectors, as well as in traditional arts and crafts. They contribute to the expansion of commercial activities and the export of national products. Industrial designs can be relatively simple and inexpensive to develop and protect. They are reasonably accessible to small and medium‐sized enterprises as well as to individual artists and craftsmen, in both industrialized and developing countries.
COPYRIGHT Copyright is the legal protection extended to the owner of the rights in an original work. “Original work” refers to every production in the literary, scientific, and artistic domain. Among the literary and artistic works enumerated in the IP Code includes books and other writings, musical works, films, paintings and other works, and computer programs. Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as their content, quality and purpose. Thus, it does not matter if, in the eyes of some critics, a certain work has little artistic value. So long as it has been independently created and has a minimum of creativity, the same enjoys copyright protection.
9
10
IPOPHL’S VISION, MISSION, AND GOALS VViissiioonn An Intellectual Property‐conscious Philippines in a demystified, development‐oriented, and democratized IP System by 2020 (2020 VISION: 3D IP) MMiissssiioonn We are a knowledge‐driven government organization that works towards economic, technological, and socio‐cultural development by communicating, enabling, and ensuring the effective use of the Intellectual Property System in all levels of society for the creation, protection, utilization, and enforcement of Intellectual Property SSttrraatteeggiicc GGooaallss RReegguullaattoorryy GGooaallss
Deliver quality and timely patents, trademarks, and other registrations Provide speedy, quality, and effective legal remedies and be the forum of choice for IP dispute resolution
DDeevveellooppmmeennttaall GGooaallss
Provide IP‐related business development and technology transfer services Institutionalize copyright support services Increase the level of appreciation of, respect for, and utilization of IP Lead the advocacy for legal and policy infrastructures to address emerging national and global demands of the IP system
OOrrggaanniizzaattiioonnaall GGooaallss Develop and maintain a highly‐motivated, competent, and cohesive workforce committed to serve with professionalism, transparency, and integrity
Provide a conducive work environment that supports professional growth and promotes work‐life balance
11
THE ORGANIZATION OF IPOPHL
Director General
Office of the Deputy Director General for Management Support
Services Office of the Deputy Director
General for Operations, Legal,Policy, and International Relations
NationalCommittee on IP
Rights(NCIPR
FinancialManagement &Administrative
Service(FMAS)
ManagementInformation
Service(MIS
Bureau ofPatents(BOP)
Bureau ofTrademarks
(BOT)
Documentation,Information &Technology
Transfer Bureau(DITTB)
Bureau of LegalAffairs(BLA)
IP Field Operations Unit
(IPFOU)
12
ATTY. RICARDO R. BLANCAFLOR DIRECTOR GENERAL
ATTY. ANDREW MICHAEL S. ONG ATTY. ALLAN B. GEPTY DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL
13
TTHHEE BBUURREEAAUU OOFF PPAATTEENNTTSS
EPIFANIO REY M. EVASCO LOLIBETH R. MEDRANO DIRECTOR IV DIRECTOR III
TTHHEE BBUURREEAAUU OOFF TTRRAADDEEMMAARRKKSS
ATTY. LENY B. RAZ ATTY. MA. CORAZON DP. MARCIAL DIRECTOR IV DIRECTOR III
14
TTHHEE BBUURREEAAUU OOFF LLEEGGAALL AAFFFFAAIIRRSS
ATTY. NATHANIEL S. AREVALO ATTY. EDWIN DANILO A DATING DIRECTOR IV DIRECTOR III
TTHHEE DDOOCCUUMMEENNTTAATTIIOONN,, IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN,, AANNDD TTEECCHHNNOOLLOOGGYY TTRRAANNSSFFEERR BBUURREEAAUU
CARMEN G. PERALTA EVELYN M. DAPLAS DIRECTOR IV DIRECTOR III
15
TTHHEE MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN SSEERRVVIICCEE
VINA LIZA RUTH C. CABRERA LOURDES F. ALABARCA DIRECTOR IV DIRECTOR III
TTHHEE FFIINNAANNCCIIAALL MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT AANNDD AADDMMIINNIISSTTRRAATTIIVVEE SSEERRVVIICCEE
FRISCO L. GUCE ERIC T. LANADO DIRECTOR IV DIRECTOR III
16
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the first quarter of 2010, IPOPHL, with a new management at the helm and the participation of the entire organization, refocused and redefined its vision, mission, and strategic goals so that the organization can be more attuned to the needs of its stakeholders. The strategic goals laid out the roadmap to achieve IPOPHL’s vision in 2020.
Operational results for the year were much better compared to 2009.
Coming from mostly two (2) consecutive years of decline in patent and trademark activity, a consequence of the global financial crisis felt by almost every IP Offices in the world, filings bounced back in 2010. Filings in 2010 for invention patents rebounded to a 13% growth after consecutive years of decline and are 2% higher than 2008 results. Coming from a decrease of about 5% in 2009, trademark filings for 2010 increased by 12% and is 6% higher compared to 2008 figures.
Pendency age from filing to grant or registration of patents, utility models,
and industrial designs continued to improve. The average pendency age from filing to grant of patents currently takes 4.8 years compared to 5 years in 2009, a 4% decrease. For utility model, the pendency age is now 5.5 months, a decrease of 51% from 2009 figures. The pendency age for registration of industrial design is 6.64 months in 2010, an 8% increase from that of 2009. On the other hand, the pendency age for trademarks from filing to registration is now 9.9 months compared to 10.73 months in 2009, a 7% decrease.
To further improve its service delivery through an efficient and globally
competitive IP registration system, IPOPHL entered into a Cooperation Agreement with WIPO for the Development of an Intellectual Property Office Technical Infrastructure. The major component of the agreement is the implementation of the Intellectual Property Automation System (IPAS) in the IPOPHL. Through the IPAS, IPOPHL will be able to provide the public with more efficient and highly effective delivery of quality and timely services that follow best practices and international standards.
Strengthening IP enforcement was one of IPOPHL’s major initiatives in 2010.
It commits to provide a speedy, quality and effective legal remedies to IP disputes. In 2009, it took an average of 3.62 years to render final decision on opposition and cancellation cases filed with the Bureau of Legal Affairs. In 2010, this was brought down to about 1.19 years, a decrease of about 67%. On the other hand, cases involving administrative complaints for violation of laws relating to intellectual property rights now take about one year, an improvement over the 1.55 years it took in 2009. IPOPHL also set up an arbitration mechanism and revived the mediation mechanism as alternative means for dispute resolution.
Since its creation in 2005, the National Committee on IP Rights (NCIPR), of
which IPOPHL is a key member, has seized counterfeit and pirated goods totaling
17
almost Php 20 billion. For 2010 alone, the combined operations of the NCIPR Member Agencies resulted in seizures of 5,091,704 pieces and 217 boxes of counterfeit and pirated goods with an estimated amount of Php 5.29 billion. IPOPHL was also a party to several Memoranda of Agreement with various IP organizations and agencies to support the protection, promotion, and enforcement of IP rights.
To contribute more to the Philippine’s technological development by
promoting innovation, IPOPHL entered into a cooperation agreement with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on the establishment and support of the Innovation and Technology Satellite Offices (ITSOs). The establishment of ITSOs or patent libraries will provide Filipinos access to global science and technology information that are legally available for developing innovations
Numerous outreach and awareness activities on IP targeting the academe,
SMEs, RDIs, businesses, and other non‐IP organizations were conducted in 2010. IPOPHL also joined other government agencies in making use of technology and social networking websites to bring the government and IP closer to the public through an improved interactive website and the use of Facebook and Twitter. IPOPHL also opened up its 7th IP Satellite Office (IPSO) in Iloilo in November 2010. IPOPHL further strengthened its relationship with fellow ASEAN Member Countries and contribute to the development of ASEAN as a formidable bloc in the community of nations. The Philippines was appointed Chairman of the ASEAN Working Group on Intellectual Property Cooperation (AWGIPC) in 2010. As Chair, IPOPHL steered the group in preparing for its Strategic Action Plan 2011‐2015 by organizing and leading the 33rd AWGIPC Meeting held in Shangri‐la Hotel in Cebu and the AWGIPC Strategic Planning Session held at the New World Hotel in Makati. It also facilitated the sharing of knowledge of patent experts from the ASEAN IP Offices on the technical, procedural, and structural requirements for the effective ASPEC implementation through the Patent Directors’ Meeting under the ASEAN Patent Examination Cooperation Program (ASPEC).
Aiming for organizational excellence, IPOPHL’s Management Committee attended a Bridging Leadership Course in June‐July 2010. The course was an intensive leadership journey that aims to build ownership of IPO’s social and economic outcomes among its management and the different stakeholders, resulting in mobilizing support for innovative and sustainable programs.
18
19
REGULATORY GOALS
DDeelliivveerr qquuaalliittyy aanndd ttiimmeellyy ppaatteennttss,, ttrraaddeemmaarrkkss,, aanndd ootthheerr rreeggiissttrraattiioonnss TRENDS IN FILINGS, GRANTS, AND REGISTRATIONS TOTAL TRADEMARK FILINGS Trademark applications filed rebounded from a 5% decline in 2009 to a 12% growth in 2010. From 15,011 in 2009, filings went up to 16,827. This is the highest number of filings received by IPOPHL since year 2000. The filing trend from 2005 as shown in Figure 1 showed that there was a continuous increase in filings except in 2009 where was a 5% decrease caused by the global economic crisis.
Figure 1
TREND IN TRADEMARK FILINGS
5%
14%
4%5%
‐5%
12%
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,0002005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
GRO
WTH
‐10%
‐5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
FILINGS
Total Filings Growth
RESIDENT AND NON‐RESIDENT TRADEMARK FILINGS
Figure 2
TREND IN RESIDENT AND NON‐RESIDENT TRADEMARK FILINGS
8% 9% 9%
‐12%
15%
3%
18%
2%0%
10%
4%
4%
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,0002005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
FILINGS
‐15%
‐10%
‐5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
GRO
WTH
Non‐Resident Resident Growth (NR) Growth (R)
20
The effects of the global financial crises were felt more in non‐resident filings. Figure 2 shows that there is a continued increase in non‐resident trademark filings from 2005 except in 2009 where it declined by 12%. Contrast this with the number of resident filings, which exhibited continued growth at an average of about 6% per year. In 2010, there was a 6% growth of non‐resident filings from 2009 and a 9% growth in resident filings. Total figures for 2005‐2010 showed that trademark filings from those outside of the Philippines account for 43%, while the balance of 57% is credited to those residing in the Philippines. TRADEMARK FILINGS ACCORDING TO REGION
Figure 3
TRADEMARK FILINGS IN THE REGIONS
VII3%
XI1% III
2%IVA2%
NCR65%
Others27%
Most of the resident filings came from the National Capital Region, which accounted for 65% of the total filings from 2005‐2010. Central Visayas (Region VII), where the Cebu IP Satellite Office is located came in second while Calabarzon (Region IV‐A), Central Luzon (Region III), and Davao (Region XI) were the next top filers.
Figure 4
TRADEMARK FILINGS IN THE REGIONS 2010
Others3%
XI2%
III4%
VII4%
IVA4%
NCR83%
21
In 2010 alone, 535 trademark applications were filed through the IP Satellite Offices. NCR had an 86% share of filings in 2010 as seen in Figure 6 while Regions IVA (CALABARZON), VII, and III came in next with 4% shares each. TRADEMARK FILINGS ACCORDING TO COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
Figure 5
TOP FILERS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN(*excluding the Philippines)
OTHERS34%
KR ‐ KOREA REPUBLIC OF
2%
US ‐ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
27%
CN ‐ CHINA4%
FR ‐ FRANCE4%
DE ‐ FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
5%
CH ‐ SWITZERLAND8%
JP ‐ JAPAN8%
GB ‐ UNITED KINGDOM
3%
NL ‐ NETHERLANDS3%
SG ‐ SINGAPORE2%
The United States of America (USA) continued to be the top trademark filer for non‐resident applications with a 27% share from 2005‐2010. Japan and Switzerland came in next with 8% share each.
Figure 6
TOP FILERS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN 2010(*excluding the Philippines)
JP ‐ JAPAN10%
CH ‐ SWITZERLAND7%CN ‐ CHINA
6%
DE ‐ FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
5%
FR ‐ FRANCE4%
KR ‐ KOREA REPUBLIC OF
4%
SG ‐ SINGAPORE3%
NL ‐ NETHERLANDS3%
GB ‐ UNITED KINGDOM
3%
OTHERS27% US ‐ UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA28%
22
The USA had a 28% share of trademarks filed in the Philippines in 2010 followed by Japan with 10%, Switzerland 7%, and China 5%. TRADEMARK REGISTRATIONS Meanwhile, trademark registrations increased by 8% in 2010 with 12,028 registered coming from consecutive years of decline. The most substantial increase would be in 2007 where 17,592 registrations were recorded, the highest number since year 2000. Registrations continued to increase from 2005 declining only in 2008‐2009.
Figure 7
TREND IN TRADEMARK REGISTRATIONS
47%
26%
39%
‐21% ‐19%
8%
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,0002005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
REGISTR
ATIONS
‐30%‐20%‐10%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
GRO
WTH
Total Registrations Growth
INVENTION PATENT FILINGS Invention filings increased yearly from 2005 but dropped in 2008‐2009. The drop in filings for the years 2008 and 2009 was caused by the global economic crisis. However in 2010, as the global economy recovered, filings bounced back and registered a 13% growth.
Figure 8
TREND IN INVENTION PATENT FILINGS
10% 10%
7%
‐5%
‐10%
13%
2,7002,8002,9003,0003,1003,2003,3003,4003,5003,600
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
GRO
WTH
‐15%
‐10%
‐5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
FILINGS
Total Filings %Growth
23
RESIDENT AND NON‐RESIDENT INVENTION PATENT FILINGS
Figure 9
TREND IN RESIDENT AND NON‐RESIDENT INVENTION PATENT FILINGS
9% 10%7%
‐9%
14%
34%
‐20%
‐3%‐5%6%
1%
‐4%
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,5002005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
FILINGS
‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
GRO
WTH
Non‐Resident Resident %Growth (NR) %Growth (R)
Non‐residents continue to dominate the patent activity in the country as they account for 94% of the filings in the Philippines.
Meanwhile, non‐resident filings peaked in 2010 with a 14% growth after a
two‐year decline. Resident patent filings also experienced a decrease starting 2008 and still failed to increase in 2010.
PCT FILINGS
78% and 86% of the applications received by IPOPHL in 2008 and 2009, respectively, were filed through the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). PCT applications increased by 26% in 2010 from the 2,509 applications received in 2009. 37% of these were filings from the USA.
Figure 10
TREND IN PCT FILINGS
11%13%
11%
‐4%
‐12%
26%
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,5002005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
GRO
WTH
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
FILINGS
Filings % Growth
24
Figure 11
Top PCT Filers (National Phase Entries)
France3%
Belgium2%
Australia2%
Others14%
Sweden3%
Netherlands4%
United Kingdom4%
Switzerland9%
Germany10%
Japan12%
USA37%
Figure 12
TOP PCT FILERS 2010
OTHERS13%
Belgium2%
Sweden3%
Republic of Korea2%
United Kingdom4%
Netherlands4%
France4%
Germany8% Switzerland
10%
Japan14%
USA36%
As with trademark filings, USA remains the top filer of invention patents through the PCT with a 37% share from 2005‐2010. Japan and Germany followed with 12% and 10% of the filings coming from these countries, respectively.
USA and Japan still took the lead in PCT filings in 2010 with 36% and 14%
shares, respectively, followed by Switzerland.
25
INVENTION PATENT GRANTS
Patent grants followed an “up‐down” trend from 2005 to 2010. From a 100% increase in 2009, grants decreased by 31% in 2010. This is partly due to the designation of some patent examiners to assist filers in the regions through the IPSOs. Some examiners were also assigned to work on the IIPMS Project.
Figure 13
TREND IN INVENTION PATENT GRANTS
13%
‐27%
49%
‐53%
100%
‐31%
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,0002005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
GRO
WTH
‐100%
‐50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
GRA
NTS
Total Grants %Growth
UTILITY MODEL FILINGS Utility model filings followed a decreasing trend from 2005‐2007 but registered a big increase in 2008. It further increased in 2010 by 13% following a plateau year.
Figure 14
TREND IN UTILITY MODEL FILINGS
‐8%‐1%
‐21%
28%
0%
13%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
7002005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
GRO
WTH
‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
FILINGS
Total Filings %Growth
26
RESIDENT AND NON‐RESIDENT UTILITY MODEL FILINGS Resident filings continue to account to about 94% of total utility model filings. While resident filings grew by 3% in 2010, non‐resident filings suffered a 27% decline after continuously increasing from 2005.
Figure 15
TREND IN RESIDENT AND NON‐RESIDENT UTILITY MODEL FILING
42%
‐19%
45% 45%
‐27%
‐3%3%3%
1%‐2% ‐4% 2%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
7002005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
FILINGS
‐40%‐30%‐20%‐10%0%10%20%30%40%50%
GRO
WTH
Non‐Resident Resident %Growth (NR) %Growth (R)
UTILITY MODEL REGISTRATIONS Utility model registrations, except for 2007 where the effects of the backlog reduction program were felt, continue to hover at the 300 to 400 level representing about 60 to 70% of filings.
Figure 16
TREND IN UTILITY MODEL REGISTRATIONS
‐12% ‐3%
158%
‐41%‐19%
2%
0
200
400
600
800
1,0002005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
GRO
WTH
‐100%
‐50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
REGISTR
ATIONS
Total Registrations %Growth
27
INDUSTRIAL DESIGN FILINGS Applications for industrial design experienced a decline in 2006‐2007 but increased in 2008 by 41%. Coming from a big decline of 36% in 2009, it rebounded to a 9% growth in 2010.
Figure 17
TREND IN INDUSTRIAL DESIGN FILINGS
25%
‐24%
‐10%
41%
‐36%
9%
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,4002005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
GRO
WTH
‐60%
‐40%
‐20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
FILINGS
Total Filings %Growth
RESIDENT AND NON‐RESIDENT INDUSTRIAL DESIGN FILINGS Resident filings for industrial design declined in 2010 by 13% after a continuous increase from 2007. Meanwhile, after consecutive declines in 2006‐2007 and a decline again in 2009, non‐resident industrial design filings increased by 30% in 2010.
Figure 18
TREND IN RESIDENT AND NON‐RESIDENT INDUSTRIAL DESIGN FILINGS
30%
‐21%
‐11%
34%
‐45%
30%
1%
12%
‐13%
5%‐4% ‐3%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
7002005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
FILINGS
‐60%
‐40%
‐20%
0%
20%
40%
GRO
WTH
Non‐Resident Resident %Growth (NR) %Growth (R)
28
INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REGISTRATIONS From a decrease of 21% in 2006, registrations for industrial design increased by 123% in 2007. It again declined in 2008‐2009 by as much as 57% and grew by 23% in 2010.
Figure 19
TREND IN INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REGISTRATIONS
103%
‐21%
123%
‐9%
‐57%
23%
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,4002005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
GRO
WTH
‐100%
‐50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
REGISTR
ATIONS
Total Registrations %Growth
AVERAGE PENDENCY AGE TRADEMARKS
One of the measures of the timeliness of patents and trademarks is the time it takes for applications to be granted / registered from the time it was filed and is referred to as the average pendency age. Since 2005, IPOPHL has been continuously streamlining its processes and procedures to shorten pendency age. Since then, the average pendency age for trademarks decreased remarkably. From 2005 to 2010, the average pendency age for trademark registration decreased by 78.9%. From 47.42 months in 2005, it is now 9.9 months.
Figure 20
AVERAGE PENDENCY AGE FROM FILING TO REGISTRATION OF TRADEMARKS (IN MONTHS)
47.42
37.6
19.04
9.9910.7310.75
0
10
20
30
40
50
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
29
First action pendency measures the time it takes to issue a registrability report for a trademark application from the time it is filed in IPOPHL. From a high of 19.95 months in 2005, the first action pendency decreased to as low as 2.48 months in 2009. However, it increased in 2010 to an average of 3.83 months.
Figure 21
AVERAGE TRADEMARKS FIRST ACTION PENDENCY (IN MONTHS)
19.95
11.94
5.19
2.32 2.483.83
0
5
10
15
20
25
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
INVENTION PATENTS
IPOPHL’s efforts to deliver timely patents have brought the average pendency age from filing to grant of invention patents from 5.21 years in 2005 to 4.84 years in 2010.
Figure 22
AVERAGE PENDENCY AGE FROM FILING TO GRANT OF INVENTION PATENTS (IN YEARS)
5.21
5.33 5.31
4.76
5
4.84
4.44.54.64.74.84.95
5.15.25.35.4
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
30
UTILITY MODEL
The average pendency age for registrations for utility model and industrial design were reduced by 83% and 53.6%, respectively.
Figure 23
AVERAGE PENDENCY AGE FROM FILING TO REGISTRATION OF UTILITY MODEL (IN MONTHS)
32.6
28.25
16.52
10.99 11.29
5.50
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
INDUSTRIAL DESIGN
Figure 24
AVERAGE PENDENCY AGE FROM FILING TO REGISTRATION OF INDUSTRIAL DESIGN (IN MONTHS)
14.3
19.28
12.89
7.96.11 6.64
0
5
10
15
20
25
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
INTEGRATED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Work on the Integrated Intellectual Property Management System (IIPMS) Project commenced in March 2009 when the First Advisory Mission on Automation was conducted by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in the Philippines. WIPO undertook the mission to conduct an initial assessment of the automation systems and IT infrastructure of the office as well as the skills of its IT personnel upon the request of IPOPHL. The mission also sought to make
31
recommendations to improve and maximize the level of automation, including the feasibility of using WIPO’s Intellectual Property Automation System (IPAS), WIPO’s automated system designed for IP offices. The team also made a presentation on the IPAS strategy, architecture, technology, functionality, and productive development. IPAS is a system developed over several years and owned by WIPO, which is given to Member States under a package of technical assistance for free. The technical assistance includes the use by IPOPHL of the software, including its upgrades, and technical consultancy for IPAS implementation and the conduct of the sub‐projects required for the deployment of the system. It covers end‐to‐end processing of IP (patents, trademarks, utility model, and industrial design) applications throughout their life cycle, including printing of certificates, publication, and post‐registration. It also allows users to track the applications/registrations at all stages of processing. It is web‐based and has advanced search tools. IPAS is a very flexible system and can be easily customized depending on the requirements of a specific IP office. It is also constantly improved based on the best practices of the IP office.
With the IIPMS, IPOPHL aims to be more efficient and highly effective and deliver quality and timely services that follow the best practices and international standards. It will also reduce the processing time of IP applications by 30%. The IIPMS will be IPOPHL’s primary tool to administer the IP system, manage all IP applications from reception to post‐registration, and provide high quality services to its stakeholders and the public in general. It will be based on streamlined business processes and will provide highly reliable information from updated and accurate databases. It has the following sub‐projects: business process reengineering and redesign of workflows of Patent (Invention), Utility Model, Industrial Design, and Trademarks; updating and clean‐up of the patents and trademarks databases; and IPAS implementation. The IPOPHL has two (2) major systems for the automated processing of P applications ‐‐ the Trademark Electronic Application Management System (TEAMS), which was developed in‐house and the Patent Administration Computerized System (PACSYS) that was outsourced to Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). There are other smaller standalone systems that are linked to these two (2) major systems that have responded to the needs of the office over the last few years. However, IPOPHL felt that there was a need to enhance these automated systems if IPOPHL is to meet international standards necessary for IP offices to exchange data efficiently, access and interface with various electronic systems needed to administer the IP system, meet the evolving requirements of modern IP offices, and provide better and timely services to its stakeholders. Based on the results of the assessment and the recommendations made by the WIPO team, IPOPHL decided to adopt IPAS as its way forward to modernize its IT systems. IPOPHL then formally requested technical assistance from WIPO for the implementation of the IPAS in the office. IPOPHL subsequently discussed the scope and deliverables of the second mission with WIPO. The second mission would cover an in‐depth assessment of the IT systems of the office in order to prepare the project
32
plan and the workplans for the sub‐project plans on data clean‐up and migration; systems design integration; and the other activities on IPAS implementation in IPOPHL. Thus, a second mission was conducted in March 2010 as a next step towards the implementation of IIPMS. In September 2010, IPOPHL entered into a Cooperation Agreement with WIPO for the Development of an Intellectual Property Office Technical Infrastructure. The major component of the agreement is the implementation of WIPO‐IPAS in the IPOPHL. In preparation, IPOPHL conducted initial studies on the IPAS database and system architecture and also the systems integration of existing systems of IPOPHL with IPAS. The IIPMS team formulated strategies for the updating of the databases of patents and trademarks. The team is responsible for updating utility model, industrial design, and invention records that are published for opposition or registered before 30 May 2010 and trademark registrations before 31 May 2010. IPOPHL and a third party service provider has updated 98.68% of 45,151 industrial design records, 12.48% of 70,625 utility model records, and 25.11% of 85,520 invention records.
WIPO Director General Francis Gurry and IPOPHL Director General Ricardo Blancaflor sign a cooperation agreement for the modernization of the technical infrastructure of the IP Philippines that will enable it to
have one of the more advanced patent and trademark automated systems in the region.
33
PPrroovviiddee ssppeeeeddyy,, qquuaalliittyy,, aanndd eeffffeeccttiivvee lleeggaall rreemmeeddiieess aanndd bbee tthhee ffoorruumm ooff cchhooiiccee ffoorr IIPP ddiissppuuttee rreessoolluuttiioonnss STRENGTHENING THE ENFORCEMENT OF IP
Protecting Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) is a major component of the Philippine strategy to develop local creativity and innovation, improve competitiveness, attract foreign investments, and generate jobs. Since 2005, the IPOPHL, in coordination with law enforcement agencies and private sector partners, has been spearheading the strengthening of the IPR regime in the country. While IPOPHL has no enforcement mandate, it takes the lead in ensuring enforcement of IPR both in operations and prosecution of IPR violations through a holistic approach using the following strategies:
IPOPHL in coordination with the BOC will exercise visitorial powers on
imported items that are counterfeit. IPOPHL in coordination with the OMB will exercise visitorial and
inspection powers on optical media products. PNP and NBI will conduct “test buy” on suspected counterfeit items as
basis of probable cause to effect enforcement of IPR. Application of search warrants. Cancellation of Visa (e.g. US Visa) of IPR violators. Cancellation of business name registration with the Department of
Trade and Industry (DTI). Cancellation of Mayor’s Permit in coordination with the Local
Government Units (LGUs). Filing of cases for violation of Consumer Welfare Act against IPR
violators. Revocation of registration with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) of IPR violators who are corporations or partnerships.
Application of Executive Order No. 913 on the power of DTI to enforce trade and industry laws.
For the period 2005 to 2010, the combined enforcement operations of the
Intellectual Property Unit‐Bureau of Customs (IPU‐BOC), Anti‐Fraud and Commercial Crimes Division‐Philippine National Police (AFCCD‐PNP), Intellectual Property Rights Division‐National Bureau of Investigation (IPRD‐NBI) and Optical Media Board (OMB) under the NCIPR resulted in the confiscation of 31 replicating machines and 39,306,664 pieces, 31 containers and 39,034 boxes of counterfeit and pirated products amounting to P19,995,412,034.09. For the period January to December 2010, the NCIPR was able to confiscate 5,091,704 pieces and 217 boxes of pirated and counterfeit goods with an estimated amount of P5,295,596,875.50.
34
In celebration of the 12th anniversary
of the IP Code in June 2010, IPOPHL launched the Counterfeit‐Free IPOPHL Program in its aim to strengthen its advocacy against the use of counterfeit and pirated products. As a first activity under said program, IPOPHL’s new Director General led all officials and employees in signing the “I Am an IP Advocate” commitment wall in IPOPHL. To emphasize the significance of the efforts of the government in curbing piracy and counterfeiting in the country, IPOPHL led the NCIPR in the ceremonial destruction of counterfeit and pirated goods held on 23 June 2010 at the headquarters of the Philippine National Police in Camp Crame, Quezon City. The event marked the 13th anniversary of the passage of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 8293). Among the goods destroyed included pirated CD’s and DVD’s, fake routers, counterfeit Louis Vuitton and Coach bags, photocopied books and fake medicines. Among those who witnessed the occasion were members of the Executive Committee of IPOPHL and representatives of the embassies of the United States of America and Switzerland.
LEGISLATIVE REFORMS AND INITIATIVES
IPOPHL supported the passage of the Anti‐Camcording Act of 2010 (Republic Act 10088) approved on 13 May 2010. The law aims to curb illegal camcording activities in the country. It prohibits and penalizes the unauthorized use, possession, and/or control of audiovisual recording devices for the unauthorized recording of cinematographic films and other audiovisual works and/or their soundtracks in an exhibition facility.
Republic Act No. 9502 (Universally Accessible Cheaper and Quality Medicines Act of 2008) was approved on 06 June 2008. The law amends specific sections of Republic Act No. 8293 (Intellectual Property Code), Republic Act No. 6675 (The Generic Act of 1988), and Republic Act No. 5921 (The Pharmacy Law). The DOH‐DTI‐IPO‐BFAD Joint Administrative Order 2008‐01, which is the Implementing Rules and Regulations for Republic Act No. 9502, was signed on 04 November 2008. The IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents (BOP) is amending its Manual of Substantive Patent Examination Procedures (MSPEP) for drugs and medicines.
Republic Act No. 10055 (Philippine Technology Transfer Act of 2009) took effect on 08 May 2010. It provides the framework and support system for the
Director General Ricardo R. Blancaflor holds on to the PNP’s V‐150 armored personnel carrier as
it rolled over fake discs and CPU’s in Camp Crame last June 23, 2010
35
ownership, management, use, and commercialization of intellectual property generated from research and development funded by government and for other purposes. This makes research and development institution the default owner of IPR arising from the results of government funded research. In addition, scientists will now be allowed to create, manage, or serve as consultants to companies that can commercially exploit technology arising from government funded research. The Joint DOST‐IPO Administrative Order No. 02‐2010 provides for the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No. 10055. The IRR underlined the intent of the law which is lodging ownership of IP rights to research and development institutions by setting parameters on copyright ownership and recovery of IP ownership.
IPOPHL’s legislative initiatives are aimed at strengthening the enforcement of IP rights. Two (2) House Bills, House Bill No. 47 (An Act Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 8293 Entitled, “An Act Prescribing the Intellectual Property Code and Establishing the Intellectual Property Office, Providing for its Powers and Functions and for Other Purposes) and House Bill No. 267 (An Act Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 8293, Otherwise Known as the “Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines,” and for Other Purposes) both filed on July 2010 by Representatives Rufus B. Rodriguez and Juan Edgardo M. Angara, respectively, seeks to amend the Code through the integration of comprehensive, swift, efficient and adequate strategies designed to respond to the criminal onslaught of Internet piracy. At the same time, it seeks to give as much concern to the rights of performers, phonogram producers and broadcasters in the same breath as those accorded authors of artistic and literally works, by acknowledging the right of such phonogram producers, performers or broadcasters to control or be compensated for the various ways in which their works are used and enjoyed by others. This measure also seeks to recognize rights to distribution and rental, and rights to receive payments for certain forms of broadcasting or communication to the public. These two (2) bills were consolidated as approved by the Committee on Trade and Industry on 23 November 2010 and is now House Bill 3841. Further, House Bill 3147 entitled “An Act Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 8293 Entitled “An Act Prescribing the Intellectual Property Code and Establishing the Intellectual Property Office, Providing for Its Powers and Functions and For Other Purposes” filed by Representative Joel Roy Duavit on October 201 and Senate Bill No. 2553 entitled “An Act Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 8293 Entitled “An Act Prescribing the Intellectual Property Code and Establishing the Intellectual Property Office, Providing for Its Powers and Functions and For Other Purposes” filed by Senator Manuel B. Villar on September 2010 seek to address the inadequacy of enforcement mechanisms to protect IPR by according visitorial powers and empowering the Director General of the IPOPHL to undertake enforcement functions supported by concerned agencies. Thus, IPOPHL would be more adequately equipped to protect IPR and provide immediate assistance to IPR owners.
36
JUDICIAL AND IPR DISPUTE RESOLUTION REMEDIES
The proposed special rules on IP litigation are now under deliberation under a special committee in the Supreme Court prior to its submission to the Court en banc for approval. The initial draft was prepared by a joint technical working group (TWG) comprising of the Policy Unit of IPOPHL, various IP associations (IPAP, IP PRO, IPAA and IP Coalition), other government agencies involved in the enforcement of IP such as OMB, DOJ and BOC as well as interested industry associations like FILSCAP and BSA. It is anticipated that once the Supreme Court has approved the final draft of the special rules, a series of orientation and seminars will be organized by IPOPHL and the Philippine Judicial Academy to acquaint the judges of the new rules and to provide guidance on the implementation of the same. It is also expected that IPOPHL will provide the judges with a continuing series of training on IP, which it did in 2006 and 2009.
Further, to increase court competence and their efficiency in the disposition
of IP cases, the proposed special rules recommends the designation of twenty‐two (22) Regional Trial Courts, located mostly in urbanized areas throughout the country, as “Special IP Courts” having exclusive jurisdiction over IP cases within their respective territorial jurisdictions. Aside from the advantage of creating a system wherein resources for training and capacity building of court personnel may be more economically distributed among a limited number of courts, the proposal seeks foremost to expedite court procedures and reduce the backlog of IP cases. Increasing volume of IP cases concentrated in selected courts, the judges in these special courts will develop the expertise in IP cases, thus, hastening litigation and raising the quality and consistency of decisions. Different stakeholders welcome this move.
Complementary to the creation of Special IP Courts, the proposed Rules
likewise recommends that the special courts be authorized to issue criminal and civil writs of search and seizure which are enforceable nationwide, even outside of their respective territorial jurisdictions. Such authority would encourage more brand owners to pursue legal remedies to enforce IPR in light of safeguards against prejudicial disclosure or leakage of critical operational information. Aside from a more expedient resolution of warrant applications, judges from Special IP Courts would also be more equipped to establish the requirements of probable cause for issuance of a warrant, owing to their extensive training and proficiency in IP.
Moreover, the proposed rules also recommends that judicial authorities be
allowed, after hearing and conditioned upon the posting of a sufficient bond, to order that goods found infringing be disposed of outside the channels of commerce after the filing of a complaint. Relevant evidence will be preserved under the requirement of retaining representative samples, together with photographs and inventories, which may be used as evidence in lieu of the actual items. The proposal seeks to alleviate the burden of IPR owners who must shoulder the exorbitant cost of storage, and addresses the problem of seized goods of a
37
perishable nature, which will spoil during long‐term storage. The remedy would likewise prevent the pilferage of warehouses, which makes possible the release of dangerous counterfeit goods into the market.
PUBLIC‐PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP ON IPR
Establishing and sustaining partnerships with public and private institutions are critical to the effective enforcement of IP rights. IPOPHL and IP Coalition signed on October 2005 a MOU agreeing to support each other and nurture a strategic partnership that will work to open the gateway to economic growth and progress through genuine protection and promotion of IPR. Considering the significance of the collaborative agreement in the promotion, protection, and enforcement of IPR in the country, IPOPHL and IP Coalition reaffirmed this cooperation on August 2010, and agreed to develop projects within the next months. IPOPHL was also a party to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on Cooperation of the Relevant Government Agencies of the Government of the Philippines with the Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry FH and Selective Trademark Union Limited (STU). Under the MOA, the parties agreed to promote multi‐lateral cooperation and to develop mechanisms and channels aimed at sharing and exchanging relevant information in order to prevent and suppress the importation, exportation, sale, wholesale, assembly, and manufacture of products that infringe the IPR of Swiss watch brands and other members of the Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry (FH). Under IPOPHL’s IPROTECT Program, the following seminars were organized by partner stakeholders to increase the skills and knowledge of law enforcement agencies in IPR enforcement:
Product Identification Seminar – Epson, Canon, and Motorola o The training was conducted on 23 March 2010 in partnership
with Epson, Motorola & Canon, and was attended by thirty‐five (35) participants from the NCIPR.
Workshop on Effective Practices in the Regulation of Optical Media, Digital Piracy and Anti‐Piracy Efforts
o The workshop was in partnership with the Optical Media Board, United States Patent and Trademark Office Global Intellectual Property Academy (USPTO‐GIPA) and the Embassy of the United States of America – Manila. It was conducted on 15 July 2010 and was attended by seventy‐four (74) participants from the NCIPR.
National Workshop on Counterfeiting, Piracy, and Border Measures conducted in partnership with the
IPR Business Partnership on September 2010
38
Product Identification Seminar – Swiss Watches o Conducted on 17 August 2010 in partnership with the
Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry FH (the Swiss watch industry’s leading trade association currently bringing together more than 500 members representing more than 90% of all Swiss watch manufacturers with a mission, among others, to protect the interests of the Swiss watch industry on a national and international level) and the Embassy of Switzerland – Philippines. Thirty‐seven (37) participants from the NCIPR attended the activity.
National Workshop on Counterfeiting, Piracy and Border Measures o Conducted in partnership with the IPR Business Partnership, a
private aggrupation of international IP stakeholders that works to reduce the effect of counterfeiting and piracy through active and practical cooperation between IP rights owners and the Customs, Police and other frontline law enforcement agencies and through the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement and other international instruments.
BECOMING THE FORUM OF CHOICE FOR LEGAL REMEDIES AND DISPUTE RESOLUTIONS
One of the potent legal remedy in combating IP violation and piracy is the availment by IPR owners of injunctive relief including Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO) and Preliminary Injunctions, a concillary action to complaints for IP violation. In 2010, IPOPHL’s Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) issued three (3) TROs/Preliminary Injunctions. Recognizing therefore the significant and deterrent effect of TROs and injunctive relief, IPOPHL issued Office Order No. 186 (Enhancing the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights by Amending Certain Provisions of the Regulations on Administrative Complaints for Violation of Law Involving Intellectual Property Rights) in 2010 to amend the modified rules and regulations on administrative complaints which took effect last 28 March 2001. The amendments to the IPV Rules take effect in January 2011, strengthening the grant of provisional remedies/injunctive relief. If the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant for provisional remedies will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury, the Hearing Officer, may issue, as approved by the Director with the concurrence of the Director General ex parte a TRO effective for 72 hours from issuance subject to the subsequent grant of regular TRO effective for 30 days if evidence so warrants. It also allows the presentation or submission of forensic evidence which may be admitted and given weight. Consultations with the stakeholders were conducted regarding these amendments/revisions. The amendments to the IPV rules were speeded up to bolster IPOPHL’s thrust in strengthening IPR enforcement, particularly in eliminating the counterfeit products in the streets through the power to issue injunctive relief (TROs, preliminary injunction), and modernizing IP litigation by expressly allowing the utilization of forensic (and technology‐based) evidence.
39
Meanwhile, the Rules and Regulations on Inter Partes proceedings
(opposition to trademark application, petition for cancellation of registration, etc.) will be up for revisions. The revised Inter Partes Rules will undergo a second round of consultation with stakeholders and will be implemented by the Second Quarter of 2011. The revisions will further speed up the resolution of Inter Partes Cases and will complement the improvements in registration processes of the other bureaus.
In 2010, IPOPHL has disposed 142 cases comprised of 137 Inter Partes Cases (IPC) and 5 Intellectual Property Violation (IPV) Cases. This is a 54.63% decrease from disposals in 2009. However, it should be noted that there were no disposals for the periods of January until the 2nd week of March 2010 and from August to September 15, 2010 due to the retirement of the former BLA Director and the implementation of EO No. 2, respectively, resulting to the decline in the number of cases disposed. The new BLA Director was prohibited from issuing and promulgating decisions and final orders as a precautionary measure until reappointment papers are issued by the Office of the President. At the end of 2010, 647 cases remain pending consisting of 597 IPC and 50 IPV cases.
Figure 25
TREND IN INTER PARTES CASE DISPOSAL 2005‐2010
41%
96%
4% 3% ‐1%
‐54%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
3502005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
‐100%
‐50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
IPC Growth
Figure 26
TREND IN IPV CASE DISPOSAL 2005‐2010
280%
32%4%
‐50%
8%
‐64%0
5
10
15
20
25
302005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
‐100%
‐50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
IPV Growth
40
The average turnaround time (TAT) from filing to disposal of IPC and IPV Cases was reduced to 1.19 and 1.01 years, respectively, from the 2009 TAT figures.
Figure 27
AVERAGE TAT OF IPC AND IPV CASE DISPOSAL
3.79
2.98
2.06
1.351.55
2.151.85
2.73
3.62
1.01
1.19
2.16
00.51
1.52
2.53
3.54
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
IPC IPV
IPOPHL established the Mediation Office in January 2010 and convened a Mediation Steering Committee to provide the necessary legal and technical assistance in the crafting of the improved Rules of Procedure on the Mediation Proceedings. A public consultation was held on July 29, 2010. On 21 October 2010, IPOPHL issued Office Order No. 154 (Rules of Procedure for IPO Mediation Proceedings), which makes the referral to Mediation of the following cases filed from 21 October 2010 onwards mandatory:
1. Administrative complaints for violation of Intellectual Property Rights
(IPV) and/or Unfair Competition; 2. Inter partes cases (IPC); 3. Disputes involving technology transfer payments; 4. Disputes relating to the terms of a license involving the author’s rights
to public performance or other communication of his work; 5. Cases appealed to the Office of the Director General from decisions of
the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) and the Documentation, Information and Technology Transfer Bureau (DITTB); and
6. All other cases which may be referred to mediation during the settlement period declared by the Director General.
The exception to the mandatory referral is in IPV cases where the
complainant files an application for TRO and other injunctive relief, unless the parties agree to refer their case to mediation. Compromise agreements resulting from mediation shall have the effect of decision on the merits once approved by the BLA Director. To provide administrative and technical support/coordination with Mediation Office, the BLA created a Task Force in charge of providing inventory of mediatable cases, referral to Mediation Office of cases and other related functions.
41
42
DEVELOPMENTAL GOALS
PPrroovviiddee IIPP‐‐rreellaatteedd bbuussiinneessss ddeevveellooppmmeenntt aanndd tteecchhnnoollooggyy ttrraannssffeerr sseerrvviicceess
IPOPHL set July 2010 as Patent Consciousness Month in celebration of the National Science and Technology Week. These celebrations emphasize the important contributions of science, technology, and innovation to the country. One of the highlights of the Patent Consciousness Month was the launch of the Alfredo M. Yao Intellectual Property Awards that was conferred to Filipino IPR owners who have contributed or may be able to contribute to the country’s economic growth and development.
ENABLING UNIVERSITIES AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTIONS (RDIs) TO COMMERCIALIZE THEIR IP ASSETS
With IPOPHL’s partnership with Commission on Higher Education (CHED), state universities with research capability must adopt university‐wide IP policies to guide their innovators through the IP Policy Program, thus, paving the way for innovation and technology commercialization. Both institutions issued a joint Memorandum Circular requiring and mandating all state universities and colleges as well as private higher education institutions to formulate an implement an IP policy within their campuses. Campus‐based IP policies have become the advocacy tools in school campuses around the country. IPOPHL conducted 11 IP Policy Workshops participated in by 36 universities and RDIs that aimed to provide them with knowledge on how their respective universities can create, institutionalize, and implement IP policies. As a result, 24 universities were able to develop IP policies. Two (2) of these universities (Xavier University and Laguna State Polytechnic University) were able to have their respective IP Policies signed by their Board of Regents (BOR)/Board of Trustees (BOT) and 22 universities were able to draft their respective IP policies for signature/approval of their BOR/BOT. DITTB also provided technical assistance to Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and Research & Development Institutions (RDIs) by reviewing the contents of their IP Policies. In 2010, the following IP Policies were reviewed: Cebu State College of Science and technology, Product Development and design Center of the Philippines, Philippine Army, Cebu Institute of Technology, Xavier University, and Ifugao State University.
IPOPHL forged a partnership with the International Intellectual Property
Institute (IIPI) on November 2010 to undertake a project to provide technical assistance to universities and research and development institutions to commercialize patentable and viable inventions. The end result of the project is the development of a protocol which will serve as a guide in commercializing the
43
researchers’ inventions and the creation of a blueprint for the establishment of technology transfer offices or units that will manage technology commercialization of academic and research institutions.
THE PHILIPPINE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ACT OF 2009
In August 2010, the Joint DOST‐IPO Administrative Order No. 02‐2010 was signed by DOST Secretary Mario G. Montejo and Director General Ricardo R. Blancaflor. The Administrative Order covers the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act 10055 or the Philippine Technology Transfer Act of 2009. The Act is considered the blueprint for a nationally coordinated technology transfer framework of government‐funded agencies (GFAs). It aims to promote and facilitate the transfer, dissemination, and effective use, management, and commercialization of IP, technology and knowledge resulting from research and development (R&D) funded by the government for the benefit of national economy and taxpayers.
A total of 204 applications for technology transfer agreements were received in 2010 which consists of 38 applications for clearance for legal purposes, 34 requests for exemptions from Sections 87 and 88 of the IP Code, 4 applications for trademark license agreement recordal, 40 agreements for preliminary review, 1 requests for reconsideration, and 87 requests for amendments, clarifications, and issuance of certified true copies of Agreement. From last year’s figure, there was an 18% increase in TTA filings in 2010. Registered agreements in 2010, classified by industry sector, show that the top industries are: business/technical services industries, pharmaceutical industries, electronics/ electrical appliances and parts, computer software, and machinery and equipment.
With 180 actions issued, 52 certificates were issued and 128 notices were prepared consisting of notices of compliance, recordal of trademark, license agreement, preliminary review of license agreement, and amendments and clarifications on certain provisions of the Rules and Regulations.
SUPPORTING INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY
IPOPHL also entered into a cooperation agreement with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on the establishment and support of the Innovation and Technology Support Offices (ITSOs). Under the MOA, IPOHL and the host institutions have agreed to strengthen the institutional capacity of host institutions to conduct patent research, patent drafting, and to increase access of host institutions to patent information. Thus, a two‐day “Basics on Patent Information Search for the Academe and Business Organizations” was held on November 17‐18, 2010 at the Hotel Elizabeth, Cebu City. Decision makers, representatives from partner institutions, i.e. universities, business chambers, technology incubators, and representatives from government agencies were among the participants of said capacity building activity. Experts from international
44
organizations such as WIPO‐Singapore and the International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI) shared their expertise and experiences on patent information and technology commercialization during the seminar.
This pioneering project of the IPOHL with the assistance of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) purports to support innovation activities by strengthening local institutional capacity to access patent information and the use of the patent system. With ITSO’s services, it is projected that duplication in research work will be avoided and funds allocated to research and development will be efficiently utilized. Businesses, at the same time, are able to benefit from the project by identifying existing patented technologies that they could license to increase productivity and efficiency. The ITSOs will provide the following:
assistance in searching technical information using free and/or commercial patent databases, as well as scientific and technical journal (non‐patent) databases;
trainings in searching patent databases for local users, aside from providing technology and competitor monitoring;
search for business partners and essential know‐how; market and competitor analyses; general information on IP valuation, IP laws and IP strategies (information
on filing of patents, trademarks, etc.); and basic advice on licensing, business plans, IP aspects of product
commercialization and raising funds (e.g., government funding).
Instead of training individuals in patent skills and technology transfer know‐how, which was done in the past 10 years, IPOPHL will now focus on building institutions that have high potential for using the IP system and promoting it to its constituents. Thus, IPOPHL will focus on organizing a network of patent libraries in schools, universities, technology hubs, business chambers and the likes and function
as a “franchiser” to provide strategic and
collaborative management of the libraries. For this purpose, intensive training on patent skills and technology transfer know‐how will have to be provided in partnership with WIPO. The project will comprise of two components – one for private institutions while
MOA Signing between IPOPHL, University of Santo Tomas (UST), and the Ayala Foundation, Inc. (AFI) on November 15, 2010 on the establishment of ITSOs
45
another for public institutions. The differentiation is made in light of the differing priorities, restrictions, and preferences between private and public entities. The initial pilot sites for the component of private institutions will be Manila and Cebu comprising 15 libraries. The project will be implemented in two phases. The first phase will focus on training basic skills (fundamentals on IP, patent information and drafting) while the second phase will focus on skills relating to technology licensing. The component for public institutions is yet to be designed in collaboration with DOST.
IPOPHL formalized its partnerships with various universities and institutions that have agreed to host the ITSO or patent libraries in two separate signing ceremonies. In Metro Manila, the University of Santo Tomas (UST), and the Ayala Foundation, Inc. (AFI) signed agreements with IPOPHL on the establishment of patent libraries held on November 2010 at the IPOPHL Office. In Cebu City, four (4) universities, namely: the University of San Carlos (USC), the University of San Jose‐Recoletos (USJ‐R), the Cebu Institute of Technology University (CIT‐U), and the University of Cebu (UC), including one business organization, the Cebu Furniture Industries Foundation (CFIF), signed the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on November 17, 2010. The establishment of ITSOs or patent libraries will provide Filipinos access to global science and technology information that are legally available for developing innovations.
Aside from MOAs/MOUs signed with various IP organizations, IPOPHL also signed a Declaration of Commitment with the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI) in October 2010 to boost competitiveness of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) through the effective use of the patent system. A core group of IP advocates/specialists shall also be formed within the various local chambers of PCCI in the archipelago to assist SMEs in the creation, registration, and commercialization of IP assets including the integration of IP Management in SMEs business strategy/plan.
PATENT INFORMATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
In line with IPOPHL’s goal to aggressively promote the importance of effectively utilizing the Philippine patent system, and DOST’s objective of enhancing the quality of science and technology researches to better serve the Filipinos and Philippine industries, the need to examine the local trend in patenting activities both in terms of profile of filers and technological fields was felt. In partnership with the Department of Science & Technology (DOST), IPOPHL conducted a study aimed at measuring the innovative and technological capabilities of the country and identifying the gaps where relevant interventions can be initiated to bring about an IP and technology‐driven economy. A compilation of data involving granted local invention patents, registered utility models and registered industrial designs from 1998‐2008 was done. The study showed that for the past 10 years (1998‐2008), only 279 invention patents were
46
granted to Filipinos, 3403 utility models and 3780 industrial designs were registered. The result of the study identified the technologies where Filipinos are filing patents, as well as the technological fields where the country needs to focus on. The study also identified the key players in the Philippine IP system.
Moreover, a total of 4,849 patent documents were reviewed and reclassified according to the latest editions of the International Patent Classification (IPC) and Locarno Classification. The reclassification covered patents, utility models, and industrial designs. Some 6,233 full text patent documents of inventions by Filipinos in PDF format were collated and organized for the preparation of e‐book patents as the next step in 2011. In Cebu, the initial E‐book compilation was distributed to universities and colleges, inventors and SMEs.
IPOPHL also provides commercial patent searches to the public. A total of
172 patent search requests were received in 2010 comprising of equivalent, compound‐per‐se, and comprehensive patent searches, 37% of which were paid for services. A total of 177 actual patent searches were conducted. An 84% increase in the number of search requests was noted, although there was a decrease of 31% in paid for search services compared with 2009 figures. IPOPHL also regularly conducts Patent Search and Documentation Seminar‐Workshops for the public. For 2010, four (4) workshops were done for professors, students, and researchers from the University of Santo Tomas (UST) and University of the Philippines in Los Baños (UPLB) as well as researchers from the government and pharmaceutical firms.
BRINGING IP CLOSER TO STAKEHOLDERS IN THE REGIONS
Following the establishment of six (6) IP Satellite Offices (IPSOs) in 2008 and 2009, IPOPHL launched its seventh satellite office in the province of Iloilo on November 2010. Director General Ricardo R. Blancaflor, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) Regional Director Dominic P. Abad, and DTI Provincial Director Wilhelm M. Malones graced the event. Representatives from the Department of Science and Technology, the academe, business sector and other stakeholders were
also in attendance. The launching of IPSOs in strategic areas in the country makes IP services accessible to IP stakeholders in the regions. It is a strategy to harness the creativity and innovative skills of IP generators like small and medium enterprises (SMEs), the academe, inventors, and artists, among others. A strong IP‐inspired culture of IPSO Launching in Iloilo last November 2010
47
innovation and creativity brings forth business success which in turn leads to countryside and national development, indicators that raises the barometer of the country’s global competitiveness.
The accomplishments of the IPSOs are the result of programs and projects
undertaken directly by IPOPHL and those that are done jointly with IPOPHL’s partners, numbering about 42. The IPSOs have received 535 trademark applications, 35 invention applications, 155 utility model applications, and 47 industrial design applications in 2010. From these filings, 67 patent and trademark applications were generated solely from e‐mail campaigns while 108 patent filings were generated from 33 State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) who attended the Patent Drafting Seminars conducted by IPOPHL.
Region VII (Central Visayas), where the Cebu IP Satellite Office is located,
contributed the most number of trademark applications with 119 filings followed by Region XI (Davao) with 70 filings. In terms of patent filings, Region VII again topped the list with 45 patents with the National Capital Region (NCR) coming in close second with 44 patent filings.
In addition to the IP filings that were generated, another tangible output
from the IP Filed Operations Unit (IP‐FOU) is the “Embedment of IP Education in the Curriculum of HEIs in the Caraga Region”. This was made possible through the collaboration of IPOPHL with the Intellectual Property Advocates of Caraga. With this initiative, IP education will be embedded in courses like engineering laws, business, and information technology in all HEIs in Caraga strating in the first semester of SY 2011‐2012. IPOPHL assisted in identifying the topics for inclusion in the IP module and provided them with relevant course materials.
IPOPHL worked closely with the Research and Development Center of Bicol
University in establishing their Intellectual Property Rights Unit that will assist the university’s faculty, scientists, and researchers in drafting their patent, trademark, and copyright applications. IPOPHL also conducted a retooling of the DTI frontline personnel resulting in the filing of trademark applications. IPOPHL’s strong collaboration with its national and regional institutional partners led to the integration of IP activities in the plans, programs, and events of the latter.
Prior to 2008, there were various attempts by the Western Visayas College of Science and Technology (WVCST) to apply for a patent or utility model of the products developed by their faculty and students researchers. Unsuccessful attempts prompted them to invite the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) through Dr. George M. Colorado and the late Engr. Lowel M. Grado to give the faculty researchers assistance on this matter. A three‐day seminar workshop on concepts of invention, overview of patent application and drafting patent was conducted followed by a series of seminar‐workshops attended by select faculty conducted in various venues. Attendees to these seminar‐workshops echoed their learning to the faculty in the college.
48
At present, the college has a total of 6 granted Utility Models registration, 8 Utility Model pending applications, and 2 Patent pending applications which are already on the formality stage. These applications has been generated and filed through the concerted effort of IPOPHL Satellite Office (IPSO) and the college. Moreover, their faculty and student researchers excelled fairly in various research contests sponsored by various organizations in regional and national levels. Recently, one of their student researchers placed 3rd in the creative research category on the recently concluded National Inventors Contest and Exhibits (NICE) held on November 2010 at Cebu City. The college was also recognized as the pioneering institution on IP protection in the region. Through the Office of the Director of Research Services Division, member institutions of the Philippine Association of State Universities and Colleges (PASUC) in Region VI and the Western Visayas Consortium on Industry and Energy Research and development (WVCIERD) , Inc. embraced the concept of IP protection through changing the paradigm of conducting research and development activities.
Aside from the initial training conducted by DOST‐TAPI, IPOPHL was instrumental in the series of seminar‐workshops the college has participated in. These series of seminar‐workshops was dubbed with honing the IP policy of the college, changing the research paradigm, and influencing faculty researchers and research professors. At present, the college is working to be the Innovation Technology Support Office (ITSO) in Region VI. It is hoped that this will lead to realize the ardent dream of making region VI the IP hub in the Visayas Islands and be of service to the inventors and researchers in the region.
*TUGUEGARAOP H I L I P P I N E SINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
BAGUIO
ANGELES
LEGASPI
**TTAACCLLOOBBAANN
ILOILO
CEBU
*CAGAYAN DE ORO
DAVAO
GENSAN
IIPPOOPPHHLL IIPP SSAATTEELLLLIITTEE OOFFFFIICCEESS
*TO BE LAUNCHED
P H I L I P P I N E SINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
P H I L I P P I N E SINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
P H I L I P P I N E SINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
P H I L I P P I N E SINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
P H I L I P P I N E SINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
P H I L I P P I N E SINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
P H I L I P P I N E SINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
P H I L I P P I N E SINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
P H I L I P P I N E SINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
49
IInnssttiittuuttiioonnaalliizzee ccooppyyrriigghhtt ssuuppppoorrtt sseerrvviicceess IPOPHL created an ad hoc Copyright Support Services Unit in 2008 to provide assistance to the creative industries, performers, artists, etc. In 2010, IPOPHL collaborated with the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) on the conduct of three (3) basic copyright seminars entitled “Punto de Vista”. These seminars identified several common themes that will help shape the direction of future IP work in the arts sector: that there is a need for IPOPHL to continue initiatives that would educate relevant stakeholders on copyright and the collective management of copyright, including workshops with student artists and artists in the regions; there is a need for consultations with stakeholders in drafting guidelines and policies; and there is a need for copyright management organizations who will look after the interests of the artists. Moreover, 13 copyright lectures were conducted by IPOPHL for copyright owners and users of copyrighted works.
In May 2010, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed formally establishing the Anti‐Book Piracy Coalition (ABC). The ABC is a partnership between the private and government sector dedicated to combating all forms of book piracy in the country. The parties include the National Book Development Board (NBDB), Optical Media Board (OMB), Philippine National Police (PNP), National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Book Development Association of the Philippines (BDAP), and the Filipinas Copyright Licensing Society, Inc. (FILCOLS). IPOPHL also assisted in the establishment of the Filipino Visual Arts and Design Rights Organization (FILVADRO).
At present, there is no copyright bureau in IPO and copyright concerns are
dealt with on an ad hoc basis. Senate Bill No. 2487 (An Act Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 8293 Entitled “An Act Prescribing the Intellectual Property Code and Establishing the Intellectual Property Office, Providing for its
Representatives from FILCOLS, PNP, OMB, NBDB, NBI, and BDAP with Director General Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Deputy Director General Allan
B. Gepty during the MOU Signing establishing the Anti‐Book Piracy Coalition (ABC)
50
Powers and Functions and for Other Purposes) was filed in September 2010 seeks to create a Bureau of Copyright to focus on the literary and artistic works and its derivatives with the end in view of ensuring that any dispute that may arise related to the same may be swiftly addressed. Further, in view of the changing times, i.e. the evolution of contracts, leap in the electronic age and information technology, the IP Code is likewise amended to adjust to these changes.
So far, numerous activities involving various areas of copyright law were
conducted in the past years, including a study sponsored by WIPO involving copyrights in the Philippines but there is yet no comprehensive roadmap for the copyright system that deals with and considers the different copyright‐related or copyright‐based industries. Again “one size does not fits all,” thus there is a need to carefully map the Aligned with the policy of using IP as a tool for national development, the copyright system should likewise be designed to bring about economic and socio‐cultural development. Thus, there is a need to create a strategic roadmap and direction for the copyright system. For this purpose, a national strategy is needed to be crafted with the involvement of different stakeholders from various sectors and industries where copyright is relevant.
IPOPHL and WIPO, in cooperation with the Cultural Center of the Philippines
(CCP), the Filipinas Copyright Licensing Society (FILCOLS), and the National Book Development Board (NBDB) organized and conducted a Workshop on Management of Intellectual Property in the Book Publishing Industry in January 2010. The workshop was designed to provide practical knowledge for stakeholders of the publishing industry to benefit from their intellectual property as economic assets. International and local speakers presented business models and shared their practices concerning royalties and other payments as well as present current trends in online publishing and distribution. A forum on emerging trends in the business rounded up the 2‐day workshop. Further, a WIPO Expert Mission on Collective Management Organizations was held on August 2010 to consult with the existing CMOs in the Philippines and conduct a detailed examination of the current copyright and related rights protection system and the operation of the existing CMOs in the country. The mission examined available options and recommended specific measures to improve the collective management systems so as to make it effective and to ensure that it meets the needs and specific requirements of the Philippines. IPOPHL also entered in a Memorandum of Understanding with the Intellectual Property Association of the Philippines (IPAP) to undertake a study on the Fair Use under the Copyright Law on October 2010.
IInnccrreeaassee tthhee lleevveell ooff aapppprreecciiaattiioonn ooff,, rreessppeecctt ffoorr,, aanndd uuttiilliizzaattiioonn ooff IIPP
Aggressive promotion on IP ensued targeting the academe, SMEs, RDIs, businesses, and other non‐IP organizations. They were educated in the basics of
51
intellectual property through 64 Basic IP Orientation Seminars, 22 L.E.A.P. IP Seminars (Learn…be Empowered…Adopt…and Profit from IP), and 23 Patent Drafting Seminars. IPOPHL also joined other government agencies in making use of technology and social networking websites to bring the government and IP closer to the public. It introduced a new and more interactive website and activated its Facebook and Twitter pages where updates on IP and announcements on IP events are provided to the public. IPOPHL also participated in 13 major trade fairs and exhibits to bring IP closer to SMEs, artists and inventors.
In celebration of the World Book and Copyright Day, IPOPHL partnered with
the National Book Development Board (NBDB) and organized a Binondo Literary and Food Wok in April 2010. Officials of the NBDB, members of the IPOPHL Executive Committee, members of the media, and writers took a tour of Binondo, the Philippines’ Chinatown, to appreciate its heritage, arts, and culture. Also, IPOPHL, in partnership with WIPO, organized a Regional Workshop on Copyright Documentation Systems on April 2010. The workshop brought together participants from countries in the Asia‐Pacific region to discuss and increase awareness on copyright registration and deposit systems in the Asia Pacific region, to provide ways of securing and identifying contents in the digital environment, and to acquaint participants on how copyright works are preserved in the digital environment.
As part of IPOPHL’s tradition, the Intellectual Property Rights Week is
commemorated with a month‐long celebration during October. For 2010, IPOPHL opened its doors to entrepreneurs to display and sell their products inside the IPOPHL grounds. SMEs and businesses from the following industries participated in the activity: food, garment, beauty and fashion, and books and other published materials. A Special Franchising Seminar 101 was also conducted as part of the event.
Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) between IPOPHL and various IP
organizations were forged in October 2010 for the conduct of Studies/Research Projects in 2011 on relevant and emerging issues on intellectual property. Specifically, the following studies will be conducted:
Study on Geographical Indications to be conducted by IPAP; Study on Certification Marks by IP Coalition; Studies on Non‐Traditional Marks and Licensing by LESP; and Studies on Novelty, Bolar Exception, and Mechanisms for Lowering the
Prices of Medicines in other Countries by IP‐PRO.
Superbrands, the only international Award giving body on marketing/branding in the Philippines, entered into a partnership with IPOPHL specifically the Bureau of Trademarks to deliver the second Superbrands Academy last July 2010. According to the Chief Executive Officer of Superbrands, it will now be a requirement for brands to be registered with IPOPHL before becoming a Superbrands.
52
Basic Orientation Seminars
Provinces Tuguegarao City General Santos City Benguet Butuan City Cebu City Cagayan
Academe/Universities University of Southern Mindanao Benguet State University Aklan State University Mariano Marcos State University Ifugao State University Quirino State University Abra State Institute of Science & Technology Bicol University Catanduanes State Colleges Central Luzon State University Davao del Norte Colleges Ateneo de Davao University DLSU‐St. Benilde School of Design and Arts PUP Lopez Quezon UP‐IECEP Miriam College Philippine Science Centrum (PSC) TUP‐Manila College of Engineering Polytechnic University of the Philippines
Agencies/Organizations La Union Foundation DTI‐Bohol DOST Region 2 DTI Region 12 Association of Negros Producers HARRDEC (Highland Agriculture & Research & Development Consortium) BSU DOST‐Cagayan Valley DTI‐Koronadal DTI‐Camarines Sur DTI RII‐Tuguegarao City DTI‐Iloilo City SPAMAST B.R.A.I.N.S Institute for the Highly Talented (Bright) Bureau of Customs (BOC) Filipino Inventors Society (FIS) DOST PEZA Open Technology Business Incubator DOST
53
DTI‐ Argao Cebu Provincial Cooperative, Livelihood & Entrepreneurial Development Office
Others Cebunext "The 2010 Furniture Exhibition” Northern Luzon Cluster Invention Contest & Exhibition Visayas Island Invention Contest & Exhibition 6th Northern Luzon Cluster Science & Technology Fair
Patent Drafting Seminars Provinces Butuan City
Tuguegarao City Academe/Universities Cebu Technological University
Bicol University Nueva Vizcaya State University Abra State Institute of Science & Technology Notre Dame of Marbel University Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University University of Antique Ifugao State University Benguet State University University of Southern Mindanao Western Visayas College of Science & Technology
Agenices/Organizations HARRDEC (Highland Agriculture & Research & Development Consortium) BSU
L.E.A.P. IP Seminars The World of Patents: An Introduction to Invention Patents
Earn from Your Innovations and Novel Designs: An Introduction to Utility Models and Design Patents
Distinguishing Your Business Through Trademarks: An Introduction to Trademarks Literary and Artistic Works: Your Valuable Creations ‐ An Introduction to Copyright
Major Trade Fairs and Exhibits 43rd Annual Convention of the Association of Philippine Medical Colleges
Foundation, Inc. (APMC) Exhibit 1st Techno‐Partnering Forum 9th Philippine Food Expo
Manila Now 2010‐14th Philippine International Furniture Show Cebu Next‐Cebu International Furniture and Furnishing Exhibition
Women’s Negosyo Summit Manila F.A.M.E. International Show 7th International Food Exhibition Negosyo Seminar‐NEGOSEM
Em:POWER Business Convergence Exhibit National Invention Contest and Exhibits (NICE) 2010
54
LLeeaadd tthhee aaddvvooccaaccyy ffoorr lleeggaall aanndd ppoolliiccyy iinnffrraassttrruuccttuurreess ttoo aaddddrreessss eemmeerrggiinngg nnaattiioonnaall aanndd gglloobbaall ddeemmaannddss ooff tthhee IIPP ssyysstteemm
There are various development partners that IPO deals with to benefit from various collaborative and joint endeavors involving different areas of the IP system from patents, patent information, copyright, trademarks, designs and other IP‐related areas. These may be on a bilateral, regional, or multilateral capacity and each have its own work plans comprising of activities, events, and projects.
In particular, IPOPHL deals with WIPO’s various bureaus and divisions (like Asia Pacific Bureau, Creative Industries Division, Infrastructure Modernization Division, Global IP Infrastructures, etc.), the European Patent Office (EPO), United States Patents and Trademarks Office (USPTO) and Japan Patent Office (JPO) bilaterally as well as in conjunction with other ASEAN members such as in the case of ECAP III and other AWGIPC‐related projects like those relating to the AANZFTA.
ASEAN WORKING GROUP ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COOPERATION
The Philippines is a member of the AWGIPC, a body established pursuant to the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Intellectual Property Cooperation signed by ASEAN Member Countries in 1995. The Philippines took over from Malaysia the Chair of the AWGIPC in 2009. As Chair of the AWGIPC, the Philippines steered the group in preparing for its Strategic Action Plan 2011‐2015 through the 33rd AWGIPC Meeting and AWGIPC Strategic Planning Session. IPO facilitated the sharing of knowledge of patent experts from the ASEAN IP Offices on the technical, procedural, and structural requirements for the effective ASPEC implementation through the Patent Directors’ Meeting under the ASEAN Patent Examination Cooperation Program (ASPEC). IPOPHL provided further assistance to the AWGIPC by conceptualizing programs and projects and prepared recommendations for the ASEAN IPR Action Plan 2011‐2015.
55
ASEAN‐SIPO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
IPOPHL is also a party to the cooperative agreement between the ASEAN countries and China through its IP Office through the ASEAN‐SIPO MOU. The MOU seeks to strengthen the strategic partnership and cooperation on intellectual property between ASEAN and China. The ASEAN Trade Ministers and the SIPO Commissioner signed it on 21 December 2009 in Thailand. The MOU will be effective for 5 years, and will be automatically renewed for successive 5 year‐periods unless terminated by one of the parties. IP Officials from ASEAN and China discussed future cooperation activities to be implemented under the MOU, with a special focus on the following areas:
establishment of a mechanism for a periodic Meeting of Heads of IP Offices; coordination on issues related to the protection of intellectual property
rights; developments in the field of IP including best practices relating to
examination, quality assurance, examiners’ training, and other related issues; development of IP automation and databases; and major issues relating to
the international IP systems that are under deliberation at WIPO and other international fora
INTERNATIONAL IP AGENDA
IPOPHL is also preparing for the accession to Madrid Protocol and Hague Agreement. The IPOPHL will partner with WIPO and the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) in acceding to these agreements. A series of public consultations and
Representatives of ASEAN Working Group on IP Cooperation (AWGIPC) during the AWGIPC Strategic Planning Session in August 2010 at the New World
Hotel in Makati City
56
public awareness actions will be undertaken with different stakeholders to ensure the acceptability of accession and in order to maximize the benefits from the implementation of the agreements. IPOPHL shall also prepare for the additional work or changes in work processes in order to accommodate the new filing options for trademark and design registration.
Protecting traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions, and genetic resources (TK TCE GR F) as part of the country’s intellectual creation and national heritage is a priority. Owing to the fact that the Philippines is a “mega‐diverse” environment with numerous indigenous cultures and traditions, the country has become a powerful resource for potential IP’s with scientists and researchers, both local and foreign, scouting for useful knowledge and materials to develop into solutions and products capable of obtaining great commercial value. Clearly, it is crucial for IPO to work with other Government agencies to protect and prevent the misappropriation and unfettered exploitation of its TK TCE GR F with little or no benefit to the Philippines. And with the neighboring countries already working towards identifying, documenting, and claiming their TK TCE GR F, it is rather urgent that the Philippines likewise commence its initiatives on the same.
IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS ON PATENTS
After more than ten years of implementation, the existing IRR for patents is subjected to extensive review and general overhaul in order to rectify errors, clarify vague provisions and, more importantly, to find ways to streamline procedures, in anticipation of the automation project, IIPMS, which requires the re‐engineering of work processes based on past experiences, lessons learned through the years and best practices. Numerous internal meetings were conducted with the patent examiners to discuss the proposed draft revisions. Consultative meetings with external stakeholders (which comprise the patent agents, lawyers, and owners) were also conducted to obtain feedback on the proposed draft and get additional inputs on matters to be incorporated into the rules. Also, although the implementing rules of RA 9502 have been issued; little guidance is provided to the patent examiners in examining the patent application of drugs and medicines under the new law. Thus, guidelines are being drafted into the manual of patent examiners for said purpose. So far, several meetings and discussions have taken place among patent examiners in the Bureau of Patent on the subject matter. A partial draft of the manual citing several sources and jurisprudence, among others, has also prepared.
57
58
ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS
DDeevveelloopp aanndd mmaaiinnttaaiinn aa hhiigghhllyy mmoottiivvaatteedd,, ccoommppeetteenntt,, aanndd ccoohheessiivvee wwoorrkkffoorrccee ccoommmmiitttteedd ttoo sseerrvvee wwiitthh pprrooffeessssiioonnaalliissmm,, ttrraannssppaarreennccyy,, aanndd iinntteeggrriittyy In its objective of increasing the skills of its patent examiners, IPOPHL conducted a weekly training on substantive examination for utility model and industrial design examiners due to the increase in PCT applications received and the limited number of examiners in the mechanical, electrical, and civil engineering fields. IPOPHL also welcomed the Korea Internet Volunteers (KIV) from the Korea Agency for Digital Opportunity and Promotion (KADOP) for the conduct of the KIV Program’s Korea‐Philippines Culture Exchange on July‐August 2010. The program aimed to provide support for domestic and international relations through a variety of programs to bridge the global digital divide; and to facilitate a cultural exchange between the Philippines and South Korea. The visit included seminars on South Korea’s food and culture and training on JAVA Programming for IT personnel and other interested employees.
IPOPHL’s Management Committee attended Bridging Leadership Courses in June‐July 2010. The course is an intensive leadership journey that aimed to build ownership of IPO’s social and economic outcomes among its management and the different stakeholders, resulting in mobilizing support for innovative and sustainable programs. A total of 15 Executive Committee members and 25 Management Committee (Division Heads/OICs) members attended this program. The 2nd session of this program was conducted with the participation of IPOPHL’s stakeholders. As a result, IPOPHL came up with “quick wins” that would improve more its service delivery and cater to its clients.
In addition to this, IPOPHL also sent a total
of 168 employees to local and foreign‐sponsored seminars and trainings to increase their knowledge in IP and enhance their administrative and technical skills (i.e. IT, records management, planning and monitoring, etc.). IPOPHL also sent its Human Resource Development personnel and some key personnel to attend a 2‐day intensive training on
A volunteer from the KADOP giving a lecture on JAVA Programming last August 2010 as part of the
Korea‐Philippines Culture Exchange Program
59
the conduct of a Training Needs Analysis (TNA). A major output of this program is for the HRDD and other key members to effectively implement a TNA process that will gather necessary data and extract information to properly identify training and developmental programs that fit each official and employee in the Office. The program was further aimed to:
Understand the TNA framework and its accompanying concepts and tools acquire the knowledge, skills, tools, and competencies necessary for
facilitating the TNA process; Appreciate the importance of conducting a training and organizational
needs analysis that make possible programs which will contribute to the development of IPO’s human resources;
Systematically analyze training and organizational needs of IPO and formulate appropriate methods and instruments that will generate the required information; and
Be able to apply learning gained and confidently conduct TNA for various individuals within the organization.
PPrroovviiddee aa ccoonndduucciivvee wwoorrkk eennvviirroonnmmeenntt tthhaatt ssuuppppoorrttss pprrooffeessssiioonnaall ggrroowwtthh aanndd pprroommootteess wwoorrkk‐‐lliiffee bbaallaannccee
IPOPHL created a Travel and Assistance Unit (TAU) to assist employees sent to international trainings on the preparation of travel documents and provide orientation on the important details they need to know about the sponsor organization and the country they will be visiting. In order to hire the best qualified applicants that embodies the values of an IPOPHL employee, the office Merit Selection and Promotion Plan (MSPP) was reviewed and necessarily revised to meet the demands of employees and address gaps in its implementing guidelines and procedures. A total of 14 employees were promoted and hired in the first half of 2010. By year‐end, 51 plantilla positions remained vacant out of the 282 plantilla positions approved by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) under the Rationalization Plan [excluding the 17 Co‐Terminus with the Incumbent (CTI) positions]. Further, six (6) vacant third level positions were filled in 2010.
The Program on Awards and Incentives for Excellence (PRAISE) Committee
launched the IPO PRAISE Awards on December 2010. Award categories were identified along with their respective criteria and qualifications. Awarding is scheduled for Y2011. 48 loyalty Awardees were also recognized at 2 separate events held in June and December 2010.
60
IPOPHL also re‐grouped the members of its Chorale as its representative in the DTI Chorale Competition held in December 2010 where the IPOPHL Chorale bagged the 1st runner‐up position. The chorale is one of the office’s holistic life enriching projects to ensure that its employees enjoy a more balanced work‐life and to enrich their knowledge and experience of the “arts and culture”.
IPOPHL’s Chorale Group singing Christmas Hymns during the DTI Chorale Competition on December 2010 at the PTTC.
61
62
FINANCIAL REPORT
The following presents the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines’ financial performance for CY2010.
SOURCES OF FUNDS
Starting CY 2006, IP Philippines had ceased receiving subsidy or funds from the General Appropriations of the Government. The budgetary requirements for the implementation of the Office’s programs, projects, and activities are sourced from the agency’s revenue collections as authorized by law.
The required funds are sourced from the collections of patents & trademarks related fees, legal fees, documentation, information, technology transfer fees, and miscellaneous income. In addition to the above sources of funds, the interest income from the Investment of IPOPHL’s Reserve Funds is another source of income to support different activities of the agency. The chart below shows the relationship of the sources of funds based on the collection for CY2010. The bulk of the collections come from the Patents & Trademarks, which provide us 57% and 33%, respectively. The interest income also contributes a considerable amount of about 7% of the total Office’s Income/Collections for the year.
Figure 28
SOURCES OF FUNDS (in millions)
Mediation fees, 0.09 , 0%
Miscellaneous Income, 0.97 , 0%
DITTB Research & Training fees, 1.53 ,
0%
IPSO Patent & TM fees, 1.58 , 0%
Legal & other related fees, 6.69 , 2%
Interest Income, 27.38 , 7%
Patents & other related fees, 214.95 ,
58%
Trademarks & other related fees, 124.00 ,
33%
Source of Funds CY2010 CY2009 Inc/(Dec) in
%
Patents and Other Related Fees 214.95 186.90 15.01%
Trademarks Related Fees 124.01 113.49 9.27% Legal Fees and Other Related Fees 6.69 6.45 3.72% IPSO Patents & Trademarks Fees 1.60 0.83 92.77% DITTB/ Training Fees 1.50 2.51 ‐40.24% Miscellaneous Fees 0.97 1.02 6.73%
63
Mediation Fees 0.09 Total Income from Operation 349.81 311.20 7.44% Add: Interest Income 27.38 30.47 ‐10.14% Total Income 377.19 341.69 7.25%
The table above shows the comparative revenue collections for the CY 2010 & 2009. The total income from operation for 2010 amounted to Php349.81M, up by 7.44% compared to the previous year. However, the interest income for 2010 decreased by 10.14% due to the low market interest rates of government securities. The significant factors in the growth and decline of revenue are as follows:
Patents total number of applications received for CY 2010 was 4,852 or 12%
higher than CY 2009, applications were broken down per category as follows:
Invention – 3,391 applications Utility Model – 614 applications Industrial Design – 847 applications
collections of annuities for CY 2010 was higher by 13.10% than the
collections for CY 2009
Trademarks total number of applications received for CY 2010 was 16,827 as
compared to 15,011 for CY 2009, there was an increase of 12% total number of registered trademarks for CY 2010 & 2009 were
12,028 & 11,181 respectively up by 8% total number of renewals for CY 2010 decreased by 3.91%
The two main sources of IPOPHL’s revenue are the Patent and Trademark
Fees, which contribute 57% and 33%, respectively for the CY 2010. Below is the detailed discussion of the Patent and Trademark Revenue.
Patent
The income/collections from patent operations consist of annuities (old law RA 8293 & new law RA 165) and application fees for filing, search, and examination. The chart illustrates that the collections on Annuities‐RA 8293 & RA165 are the major sources of patents’ income, which shows 38% & 29% accordingly. This is followed by the collections on Filing fees‐Invention which contributes 28% of the total Patent Revenue.
64
Figure 29
Patent Revenue per Fee TypeCY 2010 (in millions)
FILING FEES ‐ UM/ID, 3.46 , 2%
INVENTION/UM/ID RELATED FEES, 5.60
, 3%
FILING FEES ‐ INVENTION, 61.44 ,
29%ANNUITY ‐ RA 165,
61.92 , 29%
ANNUITY ‐ 8293, 82.55 , 37%
Comparative Patent Revenue for CY 2010 & 2009
Patent income for CY 2010 is higher by 15.01% or Php28.05M as compared to the previous year. As shown in the chart below, all patent revenue per fee type increases. The Collections of annuities under RA 8293 & RA 165 contribute an increase of 6.86 % & 22.66%, accordingly or a total of Php11.43M. Another reason for the huge increase of patent income can be attributed to the increase in the collection of filing fees‐ invention of 19.95% or Php10.22M.
Figure 30
3.46 2.73 5.60 5.22
61.44
51.22
61.92
50.48
82.5577.25
‐
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
FILING FEES‐UM/ID
INV/UM/IDRELATED FEES
FILING FEES‐INVENTION
ANNUITY‐RA165
ANNUITY‐RA8293
Comparative Patent Revenue CY 2010 & 2009 (in Millions)
2010 2009
Applications Received
Applications received for CY 2010 is 4,852 or 12% higher than CY2009. The chart and table below show the details of patents application received.
65
Figure 31 Applications Receivedper Category ‐ CY 2010
INVENTION70%
UTILITY MODEL13%
INDUSTRIAL DESIGN17%
Applications Received for 2010 vis‐à‐vis 2009
The table shows the applications received for invention, industrial design, and utility model both foreign and local filings. Except for the filings of local invention and industrial design, all applications received increases.
Trademark
Trademark Collections are sourced from filing fees, publication fees, issuance fees, declaration of actual use, maintenance fees under RA166, and other TM related fees. The chart shows that filing fees, DAU, Issuance Related Fees and Publication Related Fees are the source of major income by which they contribute 32%, 21%, 17% & 11%, respectively.
CY2010 CY2009 % of Inc(Dec) Type of Patents Foreign Local PCT Total Foreign Local PCT Total Foreign Local PCT
Invention 251 167 2973 3391 226 172 2599 2997 11.06% ‐2% 14.35% Industrial Design 415 432 847 320 458 804 29.68% ‐6% Utility Model 35 579 614 48 496 544 ‐27.08% 17% Total 701 1178 2973 4852 594 1126 2599 4345 18.01% 5% 11.66% Total Increase 12%
66
Figure 32
Trademark Revenue per Fee TypeCY 2010 (in Millions)
DAU, 25.89 , 21%
RA 166, 7.95 , 6%
Examination Related Fees, 7.58 , 6%
Renewal, 3.10 , 3%
Other TM Related Fees, 2.10 , 2%
Post‐registration related fees, 2.85 ,
2%
Filing Fees32
Issuance Related Fees, 20.91 , 17%
Publication Related Fees, 13.66 , 11%
Comparative Trademark Revenue for CY2010 & 2009
Trademarks Revenue for CY 2010 increases by 9.27% or Php10.52M compared to the previous year. The increase of revenue can be attributed to the collections of Examination Related Fees, DAU, and Filing Fees, with a rise of 55.66%, 41.15% & 12.82%, respectively, as compared to CY 2009. However, as shown in the chart there are other types of fees which decline, such as Renewal, RA 166, and Issuance Related Fees.
Below are the graphs and table, which show the detailed Trademark Income/Collections for CY2010 vis‐à‐vis CY2009, and the detailed number of new applications received both foreign and local.
Figure 33
‐
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
Comparative Trademark RevenueCY 2010 & 2009 (in Millions)
2010 39.98 20.91 13.66 25.89 7.95 7.58 3.10 2.10 2.85
2009 35.43 21.80 12.67 18.34 10.64 4.87 5.07 2.37 2.30
Filing FeesIssuance
Related FeesPublication Related Fees
DAU RA 166Examination Related Fees
RenewalOther TM
Related Fees
Post‐registration related fees
67
Applications Received
Trademarks total application received for CY2010 is 16,827 up by 12%.
Figure 34
Applications ReceivedCY 2010
Local54%
Foreign46%
Applications Received for 2010 vis‐à‐vis 2009
Inc (Dec) Type 2010 2009
Volume % Foreign 7076 6135 941 15% Local 9751 8874 877 10% Total 16827 15011 1816 12%
The above table shows the applications received from both foreign and local filings. Fifty‐four percent (54%) of the total applications received in CY2010 comes from local filings and foreign filings contribute the remaining forty‐six percent (46%).
UTILIZATION OF FUNDS
Total expenses incurred in the implementation of programs and projects of IP Philippines for CY2010 totaled to Php230.57million. IP Philippines expenditures are classified into three. The Personal Services (PS), the Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE), and Capital Outlay (CO).
68
Figure 35
Utilization of FundsCY 2010 (in Millions)
Personal Services,
206.58 , 65%
MOOE, 108.52 , 34%
Capital Outlay, 2.32 , 1%
The graph shows the relationship among the expenditures per classification.
The huge part is the utilization for Personal Services amounting to Php206.58M, followed by MOOE, Php108.52M and Capital Outlay, Php2.32M.
Personal Services
The personal services include salaries, other personnel benefits, terminal leave benefits, PERA & other allowances, RATA, 13th Month Pay, Statutory Obligations, and Overtime Pay. PERA & other allowances consist of the personnel economic relief allowance, BAC honorarium, clothing allowance, etc. RATA is the representation & transportation allowance of directors/asst. directors, and division chiefs/officer in charge. Statutory Obligations are government share for Pag‐ibig, Philhealth, GSIS, and ECC contribution. Other personnel benefits include monetization of leave credits, grant of loyalty award, and CNA benefits.
Figure 36
Personal ServicesCY 2010 (in Millions)
Salaries , 82.97 , 40%
PERA & Other allowances, 6.92 , 3%
RATA, 3.92 , 2%
Overtime Pay, 0.96 , 0%
Statutory Obligations, 11.37 , 6%
Terminal Leave Benefits, 0.83 , 0%
13th Month Pay, 8.41 , 4%
Other Personnel Benefits, 91.20 , 45%
69
Maintenance and Other Operating Expense
Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE), includes but not limited to rent, supplies, traveling expenses, training expenses, utilities, and other professional services. Below is the graph that shows the relationship among the MOOE expenditures.
Figure 37
MOOE CY 2010 (in Millions)
Rental Expense, 43.78 , 41%
Other Expenditures, 8.39 , 8%
Repairs and Maintenance , 1.82 ,
2%
Communication Expenses , 2.68 , 2%
Professional Fees, 29.61 , 27%
Training Expenses, 4.04 , 4%
Utilities, 10.13 , 9%
Supplies and Materials , 5.75 , 5%
Traveling , 2.32 , 2%
Capital Outlay
Capital Outlay also known as CAPEX or capital expenditures. This refers to purchase of property plant and equipment. For the CY 2010, IP Philippines only spend Php2.3million in CAPEX, because there is no huge purchase of equipment due to the planned transfer of office building.
Figure 38
Capital OutlayCY 2010
Other Assets, 135,650.00 , 6%
Furniture and Fixtures,
3,789.60 , 0%
Office Equipment, 356,281.00 , 15%
Books, 56,592.26 , 2%
IT Equipment & Software,
1,772,228.31 , 77%
70
71
NEXT STEPS
IPOPHL’s ROADMAP FOR 2011 For 2011, IPOPHL identified the deliverables for each of the eight (8) strategic goals, the attainment of which would contribute to the realization of an Intellectual Property‐conscious Philippines in a demystified, development‐oriented, and democratized IP system by 2020. REGULATORY GOALS Strategic Goal 1: Deliver quality and timely patents, trademarks, and other
registrations
A development‐oriented and globally competitive IP registration system which raises the bar of trademark, design, UM and patent examination & administration processes to satisfy unmet end‐user expectations
Patent registration process is streamlined and clarified with the amended implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of patent registration provisions of the IP Code
Significant improvement in the consistency of patent examiners’ decisions that is consistent with and aligned to declared IPOPHL patent policies
Design registrations are generally granted in 5 days and at the same cost as copyright notifications/registrations (DESIGN IN 5 DAYS)
Utility Model registrations are generally granted in 2 months (UM IN 2 MONTHS)
Effective management of knowledge workers in the Bureau of Patents in preparation for the implementation of IIPMS
A rationalized patent examination organization is in place to expand the bureau’s capacity to meet global patent examination needs
Speedy disposition of applications pending appeal of examiner’s decision or with third party observations
Patent examination skills are enhanced through a continuous learning mechanism for patent examiners
Significant improvement in the quality and consistency of trademark examiners’ decisions that is consistent with and aligned to declared IPOPHL trademark policies
Further reduction of turnaround time (time of filing to registration, with the exception of Oppositions)
Effective management of knowledge workers in the Bureau of Trademarks in preparation for the implementation of the IIPMS
An efficient and transparent IP registration system using internationally accepted IT systems specially designed for IP offices
More client‐friendly electronic and web‐based IP registration related services are introduced and pilot‐tested
72
An integrated IP administration and search system that is efficient and transparent, operating in a secure and highly reliable ICT infrastructure
IP information will be conveniently accessible by the public through an “IP eData Bank” or an electronic centralized depositary containing various IP databases (TM registry, UM/ID registry, Inventions registry, IP Cases registry)
IPOPHL’s onsite customer service is enhanced by a Single Point of Contact for Client Service in IPOPHL (SPOC‐CSI)
IPOPHL’s ability to respond to stakeholders and clients needs is heightened by an effective and institutionalized feedback mechanism
Strategic Goal 2: Provide speedy, quality, and effective legal remedies and be
the forum of choice for IP dispute resolution
Establishing an effective multi‐door conflict resolution structure and justice system for IPOPHL
More effective legal remedies are provided through streamlined procedures and revised rules for Inter Partes Case (IPC)
Case backlog is eradicated through effective disposal of aging cases Innovations for achieving greater transparency in IP litigation is explored Competency of IPOPHL lawyers is raised through continuous legal education Significant improvement in the quality and consistency of BLA decisions that
is consistent with and aligned to declared IPOPHL policies The case flow of IPC cases in IPOPHL is better managed with a tighter case
monitoring system Execution of IPOPHL judgments and orders are implemented with the
assistance of Law enforcements agencies Making all decisions of IP cases, whether in IPOPHL or the courts, publicly
accessible fosters greater transparency and consistency Integrity of case records and evidence is greatly improved by an institutional
records & evidence storage management system DEVELOPMENTAL GOALS Strategic Goal 3: Provide IP‐related business development and technology
transfer services
Establishing new delivery mechanisms and stakeholder platforms to increase the use of the IP system by sectors that have never been served before by IPOPHL
Local IP’s are supported by IPOPHL through various business development and commercialization assistance programs
Institutional results are derived from operation of IPSO’s Use of trademark to create value for OTOP businesses is increased through
partnership with DTI‐RODG Institutions with high incidence of, or potential for, technological innovation
are equipped with Innovation and Technology Support Offices (or ITSO Patent Libraries) which are linked as a network with other technology information centers
73
Technology and innovation support policies and strategies of IPOPHL are enhanced by an institutionalized patent information unit
The institutional capacity of IPOPHL is enhanced by international partnerships and bilateral cooperation with various institutions or government agencies
The service delivery mechanisms of IPOPHL are enhanced by domestic partnerships with various institutions or government agencies
Strategic Goal 4: Institutionalize copyright support services
Establishing new delivery mechanisms and stakeholder platforms to increase the use of the IP system by sectors that have never been served before by IPOPHL
A copyright registry system is in place that will effectively serve queries on registered copyrights
Strategic Goal 5: Increase the level of appreciation of, respect for, and
utilization of IP
Institutionalized involvement of IPOPHL in key national programs and initiatives that will bring about economic, technological, and socio‐cultural development
Empowering MSMEs through increased awareness and use of the IP system Heightened awareness on IP among local government officials through
collaborations and IP enforcement undertakings Successful “consumeralization” of the concept of intellectual property as a
business and economic tool, starting from Metro Manila and 1 major city in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao
Heightened public awareness on IPOPHL activities and initiatives through public relations, social media and other channels
An appropriate brand image or “trade dress” for IPOPHL is developed through consistent practice and usage
All members of IPOPHL organization are well‐informed of programs, events and initiatives through effective internal communications
Internet social networks are effectively used to promote the use of the IP system and services of IPOPHL
Strategic Goal 6: Lead the advocacy for legal and policy infrastructures to
address emerging national and global demands of the IP system
Strengthening the legal and policy support units of IPOPHL through
institutionalized mechanisms and structures Proposed legislations to enhance the IP system and strengthen IPOPHL in
fulfilling its mandate are successfully introduced A more accessible and affordable IP registration system is made available to
Filipinos by acceding to treaties that allow the Philippines to participate in global IP infrastructures
74
A 3‐D IP policy framework and implementation strategy for IPOPHL is formalized and adopted in order to guide all IPOPHL actions and decisions
Increased role of IPOPHL as a member of the ASEAN Working Group on Intellectual Property Cooperation (AWGIPC) with the end in view of aligning Philippine domestic initiatives with international IP discussions and cooperation
ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS Strategic Goal 7: Develop and maintain a highly motivated, competent, and
cohesive workforce committed to serve with professionalism, transparency, and integrity
The general welfare of IPOPHL employees in terms of professional growth
and work life balance is secured. Increased usage of the IT systems among IPOPHL employees results from a
continuing IT literacy program An HR Integrated System, which includes an Attendance and Leave
Monitoring integrated with Payroll System, is in place An organization‐wide human resource training and competency development
structure is in place to make IPOPHL an innovative and learning organization Strategic Goal 8: Provide a conducive work environment that supports
professional growth and promotes work‐life balance
Creating an end‐user centric and market‐oriented balanced scorecard for IPOPHL through effective institutional planning, performance monitoring and benchmarking
A modernized IPOPHL office comparable to the best in the ASEAN Region. Programs and initiatives of IPOPHL are supported by appropriate IT‐based
resources and solutions An IT‐based Information Center, a conglomeration of the IPOPHL Call Center,
Knowledge Center, and Enforcement Center, is established The ICT Strategic Direction Statement and broad parameters are defined to
ensure that MIS operational plans and actions are aligned with the programs and initiatives of IPOPHL
Users and administrators of IPOPHL’s ICT facilities are guided by ICT policies to ensure that ICT assets are used and maintained effectively in a secure environment
IPOPHL is able to respond to accidents, disasters, emergencies or threats without any stoppage in its critical business operations
Organizational goals are supported by broad‐based constituents within IPOPHL
The office environment at IPOPHL headquarters is significantly enhanced with the successful transfer of its operations to the new office building
The safety and security of IPOPHL employees are assured through compliance with occupational, health, and safety work environment requirements
75
Integrity of records and administrative work are greatly improved by an institutional office‐wide records management system
Operational and transaction costs are lowered with an enhanced Property Procurement Inventory Management System (PPIMS)
IPOPHL management is supported by a strategic HR Organizational efficiency and effectiveness is achieved through increased
accountability to pre‐determined work deliverables supporting the 8 strategic goals of IPOPHL
IPOPHL employees enjoy a more balanced work‐life through holistic life enriching programs
76
ANNEXES
TABLES OF STATISTICAL DATA 1. RESIDENT AND NON‐RESIDENT FILINGS AND GRANTS/REGISTRATIONS Resident applications refer to those filed by an applicant, who is a resident of the Philippines, at the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines. Non‐resident applications refer to those filed by applicants, who are not residents of the Philippines, at the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines. A. TRADEMARK FILINGS
YEAR NON‐RESIDENT RESIDENT NOT SPECIFIED TOTAL 2005 5,680 7,048 1 12,729 2006 6,175 8,317 2 14,494 2007 6,402 8,676 0 15,078 2008 6,987 8,870 1 15,858 2009 6,135 8,874 2 15,011 2010 7,076 9,751 0 16,827
*Note: The change in data from those published in the 2008‐2009 IPOPHL Performance Report is due to the TM database updating project.
B. TRADEMARK REGISTRATIONS
YEAR NON‐RESIDENT RESIDENT NOT SPECIFIED TOTAL 2005 6,816 3,208 0 10,024 2006 7,634 5,027 2 12,663 2007 10,177 7,414 1 17,592 2008 7,285 6,582 1 13,868 2009 5,800 5,380 1 11,181 2010 6,141 5,887 0 12,028
*Note: The change in data from those published in the 2008‐2009 IPOPHL Performance Report is due to the TM database updating project.
C. INVENTION PATENT FILINGS
YEAR NON‐RESIDENT RESIDENT TOTAL 2005 2,762 210 2,972 2006 3,038 223 3,261 2007 3,248 225 3,473 2008 3,097 216 3,313 2009 2,825 172 2,997 2010 3,224 167 3,391
77
D. INVENTION PATENT GRANTS
YEAR NON‐RESIDENT RESIDENT TOTAL 2005 1,638 4 1,642 2006 1,191 5 1,196 2007 1,785 2 1,787 2008 797 41 838 2009 1,657 22 1,679 2010 1,140 13 1,153
E. UTILITY MODEL FILINGS
YEAR NON‐RESIDENT RESIDENT TOTAL 2005 27 519 546 2006 22 519 541 2007 32 395 427 2008 33 512 545 2009 48 496 544 2010 35 579 614
F. UTILITY MODEL REGISTRATIONS
YEAR NON‐RESIDENT RESIDENT TOTAL 2005 14 296 310 2006 18 282 300 2007 58 715 773 2008 52 405 457 2009 51 317 368 2010 49 326 375
G. INDUSTRIAL DESIGN FILINGS
YEAR NON‐RESIDENT RESIDENT TOTAL 2005 619 646 1,265 2006 486 475 961 2007 434 431 865 2008 581 640 1,221 2009 320 458 778 2010 415 432 847
H. INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REGISTRATIONS
YEAR NON‐RESIDENT RESIDENT TOTAL 2005 332 426 758
78
2006 306 293 599 2007 865 468 1,333 2008 721 493 1,214 2009 213 309 522 2010 318 324 642
2. CASES FILED AND DISPOSED A. INTER PARTES AND IP VIOLATION CASE FILINGS
YEAR IPC IPV TOTAL 2005 140 30 170 2006 200 22 222 2007 359 14 373 2008 371 13 384 2009 296 14 310 2010 333 17 350
B. INTER PARTES AND IP VIOLATION CASE DISPOSALS
YEAR IPC IPV TOTAL 2005 145 19 164 2006 284 25 309 2007 295 26 321 2008 303 13 316 2009 299 14 313 2010 137 5 123
3. TRADEMARK FILINGS BY REGION
REGION 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 I 17 13 14 17 10 16 II 7 19 9 20 12 17 III 119 142 160 154 162 285 IV 156 123 62 52 54 15 V 3 17 19 21 17 24 VI 39 27 49 87 65 93 VII 171 199 201 243 210 298 VIII 23 11 15 11 2 12 IX 3 13 9 21 10 10 X 10 13 11 16 17 20 XI 52 93 76 58 115 134 XII 18 7 27 14 19 16 XIII 2 4 8 0 6 1 IV‐A 48 158 211 193 126 303 IV‐B 1 5 4 15 15 5
79
ARMM 1 0 0 0 3 0 CAR 7 10 7 15 17 11 NCR 4,890 5,872 6,224 5,795 4,753 5,966 Not Specified
1,481 1,593 1,570 2,142 3,263 2,525
4. TRADEMARK FILINGS THROUGH THE IP SATELLITE OFFICES
REGION 2008 2009 2010 I 0 4 3 II 0 2 8 III 2 27 52 IV 0 0 3 V 0 5 12 VI 2 12 8 VII 7 92 117 VIII 0 1 3 IX 0 1 0 X 0 3 2 XI 3 60 70 XII 0 6 9 XIII 0 1 1 IV‐A 0 0 1 IV‐B 0 0 0 ARMM 0 0 0 CAR 0 7 7 NCR 4 46 54 Not Specified 24 152 185 TOTAL 42 419 535
5. INVENTION, UTILITY MODEL, AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN FILINGS THROUGH THE IP SATELLITE OFFICES
REGION 2009 2010
INV UM ID INV UM ID I 0 3 0 0 19 1 II 0 0 0 1 4 6 III 0 0 5 1 2 1 IV 0 0 0 0 0 0 V 0 3 3 1 3 1 VI 9 9 1 1 28 0 VII 1 5 4 4 19 21 VIII 0 2 0 0 0 0 IX 0 0 0 1 1 0 X 0 3 6 1 4 0 XI 10 10 1 3 5 0 XII 0 13 0 4 2 1
80
XIII 4 3 1 0 5 0 IV‐A 0 0 0 0 0 1 IV‐B 0 0 0 3 0 0 ARMM 0 0 0 0 7 1 CAR 1 0 0 9 31 0 NCR 1 12 3 6 24 14 TOTAL 26 63 24 35 103 47
6. PATENT FILINGS FROM UNIVERSITIES THROUGH THE IPSOs
UNIVERSITY PATENTS FILED
St. Louis University (Baguio City) 3 Ifugao State University (Lamut & Tinoc, Ifugao) 7 Benguet State University (La, Trinidad, Benguet) 6 Apayao State College (Luna, Apayao) 4 Kalinga Apayao State College (Tabuk City, Kalinga) 4 Abra State Institute of Science and Technology (Langangilang, Abra) 4 Mariano Marcos State University (Batac City, Ilocos Norte) 2 University of Northern Philippines (Vigan City) 1 Don Mariano Marcos Memorial StateUniversity (Bacnotan, La Union) 14 Pangasinan State University (Bayambang, Pangasinan) 1 Isabela State University (Iligan, Isabela) 1 Nueva Viscaya state university (Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya) 6 Central Luzon State University (Muñoz, Nueva Ecija) 2 Western Phils. University (Puerto Pricesa City, Palawan) 3 Bicol University (Legazpi, Albay) 2 Western Visayas College of Science and Technology (Lapaz, Iloilo City) 2 Iloilo State College of Fisheries (Iloilo City) 3 University of Antique (Sibalom, Tibiao & Hamtic, Antique) 7 University of St. La Salle (Bacolod City) 1 Colegio San Agustin (Bacolod City) 1 Northern Negros State College of Science and Technology (Sagay City, Negros Occidental)
1
Technological University of the Philippines (Talisay City, Negros Occidental)
1
Carlos Hilado Memorial State College (Talisay City, Negros Occidental) 1 Cebu Technological University (Cebu City & Barili, Cebu) 16 Mindanao State University (Naawan, Misamis Oriental) 1 Southern Philippines Agri‐Business and Marine and Aquatic School of Technology (Digos City & Malita, Davao del Sur)
2
Cotabato City State Polytechnic College (Cotabato City) 1 University of Southern Mindanao (Kidapawan & Kabacan, North Cotabato) 3 Father Saturnino Urios University (Butuan City) 1 Caraga State University (Cabadbaran City, Agusan del Norte) 3 Sultan Kudarat State University (Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat) 4 TOTAL 108
81
IPOPHL ANNUAL REPORT 2010 TEAM HEAD: MR. ERIC T. LANADO, DIRECTOR III TEAM LEADER: MS. SHERRYL U. YUKI, PLANNING OFFICER III CONTRIBUTORS: ATTY. NATHANIEL S. AREVALO, DIRECTOR IV ENGR. ROSA M. FERNANDEZ, IPR SPECIALIST IV MS. REMEDIOS N. GARCIA, IPR SPECIALIST III ATTY. CHESTER ARTURO D. CINCO, ATTORNEY IV MR. RIZALINO F. GALACIO JR., INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OFFICER I MS. MA. VICTORIA N. SUAREZ, BUDGET OFFICER III
MR. EDGAR ALLAN C. YORRO, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER V DESIGN AND MR. ALJEN R. CHU, INFORMATION SYSTEMS ANALYST I LAYOUT: PHOTOGRAPHY: MR. ALJEN R. CHU, INFORMATION SYSTEMS ANALYST I MS. GLADYS B. UPO, INFORMATION SYSTEMS ANALYST I MS. SHERYL C. TAÑON, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER IV MR. RODEL S. ESPIRITU, IPR SPECIALIST II MR. JEFFERSON N. ACIERTO, IPR SPECIALIST II
82