The 21st century business is built on intellectual property (IP), just as the 19th century firm had property as its main asset, a leading global IP lawyer says.
Taking the Apple iPhone as an example, David Llewelyn, the deputy chairman and external director of the IP Academy, Singapore, pointed out that the cost of making the phone in China amounts to only 5% of the price consumers pay for it.
“The 95% that Apple keeps is for its technology, design, trademarks and the Apple logo. That’s what everybody wants to reproduce,” he said.
“It’s almost negligent to not look at the IP issue in a long-term way,”said Llewelyn, whose book on the subject, Invisible Gold in Asia: Creating Wealth Through Intellectual Property, was launched earlier this year.
“It’s a matter of educating people that this is the business of the future. This is the long-term sustainable advantage that businesses have,” said Llewelyn, who was here recently to promote the third Global Forum on Intellectual Property, to be held in Singapore from Jan 6-7.
Nevertheless, getting people to claim their intellectual property rights is relatively easy, he said. “Transforming it from liability to asset is the hard part. That comes from advertising, promoting, licensing and doing joint ventures,” said Llewelyn. “There’s definitely a change of mindset from short-term to longer-term investment going on all around Asia, in building up their invisible gold reserves.”
Llewelyn says transforming intellectual property rights from liability to asset is the hard part.
Llewelyn says transforming intellectual property rights from liability to asset is the hard part.
Chinese president Hu Jintao signalled this trend in 2003 when he said that world competition was going to revolve around IP rights. Five years later, China introduced a national IP strategy.
“The government told Chinese businesses they must start creating their own IP, such as patents, designs and trademarks, rather than copying foreigners or having to pay for foreigners’ patented technology,” Llewelyn said.
The same is happening in India, and all around the region.
“Just reducing prices all the time and copying some brand leader is a short-term strategy. And the manufacturing might move from Malaysia to China, Vietnam or Indonesia, as has been happening in the last 10 years,” he said.
Having a unique identity is important for IP rights protection because IP is difficult to protect otherwise, he said. Citing the example of Legend, which was a Chinese computer brand, Llewelyn pointed out that it was a difficult name to protect. “So they changed it to Lenovo, and when they bought over IBM’s ThinkPad, they used the new brand name, and it is now a global brand,” he said.
According to Llewelyn, entrepreneurs need to think ahead to the time when they would be successful, and protect their IP long before they become well known.
“You’ve got to think ahead to where you’re going to be selling your products and do your homework about what the IP position in those countries is as well,” he said.
“If Malaysian companies are going to do business in China, they often find that their trademarks are registered there by someone else, and then they get sued and have to pay money for it,” said Llewelyn.
“This is a game that is being played now by businesses all around the world,” he said. “You need to have an IP strategy which fits with your business strategy and that fits your budget.”
According to Llewelyn, the costs of protecting IP range from nothing to millions. For example, the Chinese electronics firm ZTE Corp, has an annual IP budget of US$16 million (RM49.4 million) and it has 30,000 patents.
“In many of the areas in which they do business, unless you have a lot of patents, you might as well not be in the game, because you will be threatened with patent infringement action when you go into the US or European markets,” he said. “So, you then say, well, I’ve got my patents here, let’s do a deal.”
IP can be licensed to others for huge profits, said Llewelyn. “In 1982, Austrian entrepreneur Dietrich Mateschitz on a visit to Thailand saw an energy drink that was being drunk out of a bottle by long distance lorry drivers. He did a deal with the producer Chaleo Yoovidhya, where each took 49% share in the company and Yoovidhya’s son had 2%. Yoovidhya is now the wealthiest man in Thailand through realising Mateschitz’s marketing genius,” he said.
The global forum, which is a biennial event, will be held at the Raffles City Convention Centre. It is expected to attract about 500 lawyers, professionals, entrepreneurs and business development managers in IP-related fields. It will feature some 80 international speakers on various aspects of the IP business, such as best practices in Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia, the US and Europe. “By listening to how others use and abuse their IP rights, businesses can learn how to play the game,” said Llewelyn. - The Edge
Patents, trademarks and copyright are integral parts of intellectual property that form intangible assets in our daily life. IP matters from Malaysia and the world are shared here.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Innovation Competition
MyIPO is organizing an innovation competition. There are three categories of competition and a winner will be picked from each category of students, researchers and inventors. Winners will receive:
- financing for patent application, if qualified
- WIPO medal
- financing to attend training or study visit to Korea
For details visit link
- financing for patent application, if qualified
- WIPO medal
- financing to attend training or study visit to Korea
For details visit link
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Trademark Registrations Trend
The trademark office of China was the largest recipient of trademark applications in 2008 with 669,088 applications, followed by the IP offices of the US (294,070), the Republic of Korea (137,461), India (130,172) and Brazil (119,841). In other words, three of the four so-called BRIC countries (Brazil, Russian Federation, India and China) are among the top five offices, with the Russian Federation being in fifteenth place. The combined share of the BRIC countries was around 30% of all trademark applications worldwide. The top 10 offices in 2008 accounted for just over half (55%) of all trademark applications, whereas the remaining 10 offices comprised just 16% of trademark applications worldwide. In total, the top 20 offices received over two-thirds (71%) of all applications.
From 2007 to 2008, the number of registrations issued by the IP office of China jumped by approximately 141,000 to 389,115 representing an increase of nearly 57% and more than doubling the number of registrations issued in the US.
While, on average, IP offices issued 33% of total trademark registrations to non-residents in 2008, some offices, such as those of Australia, Canada, Malaysia, the Russian Federation and Switzerland, issued between 40% and 68% of registrations to non-residents, meaning that these offices’ percent shares of non-resident registrations are higher than their shares of resident applications.
Together, the offices of China, the US, India, Japan and the OHIM issued almost one-third of total estimated trademark registrations worldwide in 2008. These offices, along with the remaining top 10 offices, issued about half of total registrations. The top 20 trademark registration by IP offices of 2008:
1. China 389,115 (majority from China)
2. USA 184,306 (majority from USA)
3. India 102,257 (majority from non-resident)
4. Japan 97,525 (majority from Japan)
5. OHIM 82,998 (resident more than non-resident)
6. Italy 80,307 (majority from Italy)
7. Mexico 63,063 (resident more than non-resident)
8. Republic of Korea 62,443 (majority from Korea)
9. Spain 60,992 (majority from Spain)
10. Brazil 60,086 (resident more than non-resident)
11. Germany 56,103 (majority from Germany)
12. Turkey 48,001 (majority from Turkey)
13. Australia 46,206 (resident more than non-resident)
14. Russian Federation 40,520 (almost equal)
15. United Kingdom 39,500 (majority from UK)
16. Chile 34,161 (resident more than non-resident)
17. Switzerland 28,695 (resident less than non-resident)
18. Malaysia 27,847 (resident less than non-resident)
19. Canada 27,743 (resident less than non-resident)
20. Ukraine 25,516 (resident less than non-resident)
From 2007 to 2008, the number of registrations issued by the IP office of China jumped by approximately 141,000 to 389,115 representing an increase of nearly 57% and more than doubling the number of registrations issued in the US.
While, on average, IP offices issued 33% of total trademark registrations to non-residents in 2008, some offices, such as those of Australia, Canada, Malaysia, the Russian Federation and Switzerland, issued between 40% and 68% of registrations to non-residents, meaning that these offices’ percent shares of non-resident registrations are higher than their shares of resident applications.
Together, the offices of China, the US, India, Japan and the OHIM issued almost one-third of total estimated trademark registrations worldwide in 2008. These offices, along with the remaining top 10 offices, issued about half of total registrations. The top 20 trademark registration by IP offices of 2008:
1. China 389,115 (majority from China)
2. USA 184,306 (majority from USA)
3. India 102,257 (majority from non-resident)
4. Japan 97,525 (majority from Japan)
5. OHIM 82,998 (resident more than non-resident)
6. Italy 80,307 (majority from Italy)
7. Mexico 63,063 (resident more than non-resident)
8. Republic of Korea 62,443 (majority from Korea)
9. Spain 60,992 (majority from Spain)
10. Brazil 60,086 (resident more than non-resident)
11. Germany 56,103 (majority from Germany)
12. Turkey 48,001 (majority from Turkey)
13. Australia 46,206 (resident more than non-resident)
14. Russian Federation 40,520 (almost equal)
15. United Kingdom 39,500 (majority from UK)
16. Chile 34,161 (resident more than non-resident)
17. Switzerland 28,695 (resident less than non-resident)
18. Malaysia 27,847 (resident less than non-resident)
19. Canada 27,743 (resident less than non-resident)
20. Ukraine 25,516 (resident less than non-resident)
PCT National Phase
The national or regional patent office at which the applicant enters the PCT national phase initiates the granting procedure according to prevailing national law. Statistics associated with PCT national phase entry offer information on international patenting strategies.
Most applicants enter the PCT national phase around 18 months from the international filing date. On average, applicants using the PCT system, enter the national phase in slightly less than three patent offices for every PCT application filed. The average fillings of USA is also less than three. In 2008, applicants from Switzerland had, on average, 4.2 PCT national phase entries for every PCT application. In contrast, the average number of PCT national phase entries by applicants from China and the Republic of Korea was relatively low (below 2), revealing a smaller country coverage in the international patenting strategies of applicants from those countries.
The EPO was the most preferred destination for national phase, reflecting the large number of EPC Member States. It had more than 80,000 PCT national phase entries in 2008, followed by USA, China and Japan. The top 20 national phase entries for 2008:
1. European Patent Office 83,576 (regional patent, 27,692 from USA)
2. USA 61,122 (15,988 from Japan)
3. China 57,641
4. Japan 54,546
5. Canada 31,975
6. Republic of Korea 31,909
7. Australia 20,523
8. Brazil 15,639
9. Mexico 14,160
10. Russian Federation 11,499 (except Eurasion patent)
11. Singapore 7,322
12. Israel 6,288
13. Norway 4,902 (except European patent)
14. Germany 3,662 (except European patent, 1,079 from Japan)
15. Malaysia 3,529
16. New Zealand 3,258
17. Philipines 2,828
18. Ukraine 2,548
19. Eurasion Patent Organization 2,545 (regional patent)
20. United Kingdom 1,921 (except European patent)
USA is the top applicant for most of the national phase entry. Japan is the top applicant for USA and Germany national phase entry.
Most applicants enter the PCT national phase around 18 months from the international filing date. On average, applicants using the PCT system, enter the national phase in slightly less than three patent offices for every PCT application filed. The average fillings of USA is also less than three. In 2008, applicants from Switzerland had, on average, 4.2 PCT national phase entries for every PCT application. In contrast, the average number of PCT national phase entries by applicants from China and the Republic of Korea was relatively low (below 2), revealing a smaller country coverage in the international patenting strategies of applicants from those countries.
The EPO was the most preferred destination for national phase, reflecting the large number of EPC Member States. It had more than 80,000 PCT national phase entries in 2008, followed by USA, China and Japan. The top 20 national phase entries for 2008:
1. European Patent Office 83,576 (regional patent, 27,692 from USA)
2. USA 61,122 (15,988 from Japan)
3. China 57,641
4. Japan 54,546
5. Canada 31,975
6. Republic of Korea 31,909
7. Australia 20,523
8. Brazil 15,639
9. Mexico 14,160
10. Russian Federation 11,499 (except Eurasion patent)
11. Singapore 7,322
12. Israel 6,288
13. Norway 4,902 (except European patent)
14. Germany 3,662 (except European patent, 1,079 from Japan)
15. Malaysia 3,529
16. New Zealand 3,258
17. Philipines 2,828
18. Ukraine 2,548
19. Eurasion Patent Organization 2,545 (regional patent)
20. United Kingdom 1,921 (except European patent)
USA is the top applicant for most of the national phase entry. Japan is the top applicant for USA and Germany national phase entry.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Relocation of MyIPO
It is official, MyIPO is moving out from Dayabumi to Menara UOA Bangsar. From 22 November 2010 onwards, their customer service counter will operate in their new office:
Perbadanan Harta Intelek Malaysia,
1-7, Menara UOA Bangsar,
5 Jalan Bangsar Utama 1,
59000 Kuala Lumpur
There are two towers in Menara UOA Bangsar and MyIPO is located in Tower B, first floor.
Perbadanan Harta Intelek Malaysia,
1-7, Menara UOA Bangsar,
5 Jalan Bangsar Utama 1,
59000 Kuala Lumpur
There are two towers in Menara UOA Bangsar and MyIPO is located in Tower B, first floor.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
International Search Authorities in 2009
Each PCT application must undergo an international search carried out by one of the International Searching Authorities (ISA). Receiving Offices have agreements with at least one but sometimes several ISAs for carrying out international searches. Where a Receiving Office has an agreement with multiple ISAs, the PCT applicant must select one of them. Malaysia has nominated European Patent Office, Australia and Korea.
Once the ISA has performed the search, the applicant will receive an International Search Report (ISR) that contains a list of documents relevant for assessing the patentability of the invention. In addition, the ISA establishes a written opinion containing a detailed analysis of the patentability of the invention.
The distribution of Top 10 ISRs in 2009:
1. European Patent Office: 70,232. Language: English, French, German, Dutch
Fee: EUR 1,700
2. Japan: 28,613. Language: English, Japanese
Fee: JPY 97,000
3. Korea: 21,755. Language: English, Korean
Fee: KRW 900,000 (for English), KRW 450,000 (for Korean)
4. USA: 15,514. Language: English
Fee: USD 2,080
5. China: 8,146. Language: English, Chinese
Fee: CNY 2,100
6. Australia: 2,666. Language: English
Fee: AUD 1,600
7. Canada: 2,065. Language: English, French
Fee: CAD 1,600
8. Sweeden: 2,050. Language: Danish, English, Finnish, French, Norwegian, Swedish
Fee: SEK 18,000
9. Austria: 1,544. Language: English, French, German, Hungarian, Russian
Fee: EUR 200
10. Spain 1,358. Language: Spanish
Fee: EUR 1,700
European Patent Office (EPO) is the most popular ISA due to its wide recognition. Note that most of the ISA has revised their fee for 2010.
The Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) is increasingly used notably by applicants from the US and Malaysia. KIPO has a patent prosecution highway agreement with USPTO. By 2009, over 60% of searches carried out by KIPO were done for applicants from the US. In 2009, only 30% of US applicants selected the USPTO as the ISA, with 30% of applicants selecting KIPO and the remaining 40% opting for the EPO.
In practice, since the technical preparation for publishing a PCT application takes approximately one month and should finish 15 days before the publication date, the establishment of the ISR within 16 months from the priority date still allows the IB to publish the ISR with the application document. ISRs received at IB after technical preparation of the PCT applications they relate to are published separately later.
Australia has a good timeliness by preparing 87% of ISR within 17 months, compared to Korea which only manages to prepare 27% of ISR within 17 months. The EPO manages to prepare 56% of ISR within 17 months.
Once the ISA has performed the search, the applicant will receive an International Search Report (ISR) that contains a list of documents relevant for assessing the patentability of the invention. In addition, the ISA establishes a written opinion containing a detailed analysis of the patentability of the invention.
The distribution of Top 10 ISRs in 2009:
1. European Patent Office: 70,232. Language: English, French, German, Dutch
Fee: EUR 1,700
2. Japan: 28,613. Language: English, Japanese
Fee: JPY 97,000
3. Korea: 21,755. Language: English, Korean
Fee: KRW 900,000 (for English), KRW 450,000 (for Korean)
4. USA: 15,514. Language: English
Fee: USD 2,080
5. China: 8,146. Language: English, Chinese
Fee: CNY 2,100
6. Australia: 2,666. Language: English
Fee: AUD 1,600
7. Canada: 2,065. Language: English, French
Fee: CAD 1,600
8. Sweeden: 2,050. Language: Danish, English, Finnish, French, Norwegian, Swedish
Fee: SEK 18,000
9. Austria: 1,544. Language: English, French, German, Hungarian, Russian
Fee: EUR 200
10. Spain 1,358. Language: Spanish
Fee: EUR 1,700
European Patent Office (EPO) is the most popular ISA due to its wide recognition. Note that most of the ISA has revised their fee for 2010.
The Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) is increasingly used notably by applicants from the US and Malaysia. KIPO has a patent prosecution highway agreement with USPTO. By 2009, over 60% of searches carried out by KIPO were done for applicants from the US. In 2009, only 30% of US applicants selected the USPTO as the ISA, with 30% of applicants selecting KIPO and the remaining 40% opting for the EPO.
In practice, since the technical preparation for publishing a PCT application takes approximately one month and should finish 15 days before the publication date, the establishment of the ISR within 16 months from the priority date still allows the IB to publish the ISR with the application document. ISRs received at IB after technical preparation of the PCT applications they relate to are published separately later.
Australia has a good timeliness by preparing 87% of ISR within 17 months, compared to Korea which only manages to prepare 27% of ISR within 17 months. The EPO manages to prepare 56% of ISR within 17 months.
Top PCT Applicants: University Sector 2009
The top 10 PCT applicants in the world from the university sector in 2009:
1. University of California, US, 321 applications
2. MIT, US, 145 applications
3. University of Texas, US, 126 applications
4. Colombia University, US, 110 applications
5. Harvard, US, 109 applications
6. University of Florida, US, 103 applications
7. University of Tokyo, JP, 94 applications
8. John Hopkins University, US, 87 applications
9. University of Pennsylvania, US, 80 applications
10. University of Utah, US, 66 applications
Nine out of ten universities are based in US while the other one is based in JP. Interestingly NUS made it to the top 10 PCT applicants in Asia from the university sector in 2009:
1. University of Tokyo, JP, 94 applications
2. Yonsei University, KR, 50 applications
3. Seoul National University, KR, 49 applications
4. Kyoto University, JP, 45 applications
5. Korea Advanced Institute of Science & Technology, KR, 43 applications
6. Tohoku University, JP, 39 applications
6. Postech Foundation, KR, 39 applications
8. Osaka University, JP, 38 applications
9. Keio University, JP, 34 applications
10. National University of Singapore, SG, 32 applications
The are 5 JP, 4 KR and 1 SG universities in the top 10 Asian universities.
1. University of California, US, 321 applications
2. MIT, US, 145 applications
3. University of Texas, US, 126 applications
4. Colombia University, US, 110 applications
5. Harvard, US, 109 applications
6. University of Florida, US, 103 applications
7. University of Tokyo, JP, 94 applications
8. John Hopkins University, US, 87 applications
9. University of Pennsylvania, US, 80 applications
10. University of Utah, US, 66 applications
Nine out of ten universities are based in US while the other one is based in JP. Interestingly NUS made it to the top 10 PCT applicants in Asia from the university sector in 2009:
1. University of Tokyo, JP, 94 applications
2. Yonsei University, KR, 50 applications
3. Seoul National University, KR, 49 applications
4. Kyoto University, JP, 45 applications
5. Korea Advanced Institute of Science & Technology, KR, 43 applications
6. Tohoku University, JP, 39 applications
6. Postech Foundation, KR, 39 applications
8. Osaka University, JP, 38 applications
9. Keio University, JP, 34 applications
10. National University of Singapore, SG, 32 applications
The are 5 JP, 4 KR and 1 SG universities in the top 10 Asian universities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)