WIPO's Pooley positive on collaborative search
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

WIPO's Pooley positive on collaborative search

Collaboration between patent offices on patent searching is “exciting” and could lead to “a much better product”, WIPO Deputy Director General James Pooley said at Managing IP’s International Patent Forum in London

Opening the Forum this morning, Pooley said: “This is where I think we all understand the highest quality search can come.”

But he added that there are important questions about how to achieve collaborative search at a reasonable price, as well as how to implement software platforms.

Pooley, whose term as deputy director general for innovation and technology finishes at the end of this year, told attendees about the progress WIPO has made with ePCT, adding that it may have a role to play in collaborative search: “There are discussions on how ePCT hooks up with national phase entry.”

He said ePCT was “one of the most exciting initiatives I’ve had the privilege to work on since coming to WIPO” and had the potential to remove inefficiencies from the patent system.

Some 205,300 international PCT applications were filed in 2013, up 5.1% on 2012. The US had the most applications in 2013. Its figure of 57,239 applications was up 10.8% on 2012. Japan was second with 43,918, while China jumped to third place with 21,516, placing it ahead of Germany's 17,927.

Pooley said the tool needed to be seamless, easy and help to reduce mistakes: “Our vision is broad: we want everything we do to be based on electronic communication and the web.” Priorities are security, dependability and ease of use, he added.

Thirty-seven offices have now taken on the system and are at various levels of maturity. A demonstration version offering e-filing is being considered by 15 offices.

In the past five days alone, said Pooley, there were 76 e-filing applications using PCTsafe and 72 through ePCT.

WIPO’s aims for this year include engaging more offices and adding up to nine more languages, he said. Electronic payment using credit cards is also being looked at.

Other topics covered during the first morning of the Forum were: patent monetisation, software patenting in Europe and the US, licensing standard essential patents and Russia’s IP Court.

The Forum concludes tomorrow. Look out for more reports on www.managingip.com.


more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A majority of clients – particularly high-earning businesses – want advisers with demonstrable social credentials, according to a survey of more than 28,000 corporate counsel
The US Supreme Court’s ruling in Warner Chappell Music v Nealy is a boost for certain copyright plaintiffs, but some counsel wonder if the court addressed the right question
Private equity firm Adamantem Capital leads the race to acquire Australia-based intellectual property business Qantm IP
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Counsel at four firms reveal how they supervise associates on pro bono matters and what kind of volunteer work their attorneys do
Kramer Levin litigators explain how they secured victory for their client against Microsoft subsidiary Activision in a dispute concerning the video game ‘Call of Duty’
Steven Cooper, partner at Ware Fressola Maguire & Barber, explains what sponsoring Brand Action means for his firm and why the IP community is well-placed to help
Tilman Müller-Stoy reveals why he never made it as a footballer and how he could have had an alternative career as a fire juggler
As the UPC approaches its first anniversary, there’s a risk that persisting teething issues will continue to be the major pain points
Justin Davidson and Stanley Ng of Norton Rose Fulbright discuss what China’s recent Ultraman ruling does and doesn’t say about who is responsible when an AI system infringes copyright
Gift this article