IP5 Foundation Projects and the User Community Michael Brunner, Secretary General AIPPI

Gill Jennings & Every LLP 2010 Introduction Progress from 2007 to the start Foundation Projects agreed 2009 Working Groups formed 2010 Approved the resources requirements 2010 Invited acceleration proposals from the Working Groups 2010 Continuing implementation of 10 Foundation Projects 2010 Preparing for Fourth IP5 Heads of Office meeting to be held in 2011 Find out more at

Gill Jennings & Every LLP Foundation Projects Common Documentation Database Common Hybrid Classification Common Access to Search and Examination Results Common Application Format Common Training Policy Mutual Machine Translation Common Examination Practice Rules and Quality Management Common Statistical Parameter System for Examination Common Approach to Sharing and Documenting Search Strategies Common Search and Examination Support Tools

Gill Jennings & Every LLP 2010 From a users Perspective How does this impact users? What do we need to see? What do we know? What involvement do we have?

Gill Jennings & Every LLP 2010 Specific Foundation Projects Common Documentation Database Compiling a resource matrix Including already shared resources to allow gaps to be identified Attempting to get largest possible coverage Exchange agreements Relevancy ranking Minimum PCT requirements Availability of date in English & IP5 languages Removing barriers to retrieval of documents Where does the user fit in?

Gill Jennings & Every LLP 2010 Common Hybrid Classification Absolutely critical in avoiding duplication and getting consistency Who is being consulted outside the IP5?

Gill Jennings & Every LLP 2010 Common Access to Search and Examination Results The one portal concept Vital to avoid duplication and improve quality Allows global work sharing But Only investigating possible future access by the public Priority document exchange No mention of legal issues What will be the take-up if the present WIPO system doesnt seem to have attracted many offices?

Gill Jennings & Every LLP 2010 Common Application Format The holy grail of harmonisers? Requires law changes, so how long to implement? Any consultation with users?

Gill Jennings & Every LLP 2010 Common Training Policy Fostering mutual benchmarking of best practices Will this really achieve minimisation of non systematic discrepancies? What chance user involvement here?

Gill Jennings & Every LLP 2010 Mutual Machine Translation The project aims to improve the quality of machine translation Some of the best brains in the world have worked and are working on this outside the IP5; so is it worth developing a parallel line of research?

Gill Jennings & Every LLP 2010 Common Examination Practice Rules and Quality Management Probably vital to ensure consistency Is it realistic to expect results in the near term?

Gill Jennings & Every LLP 2010 Common Statistical Parameter System for Examination Internal to IPOs and little role for users

Gill Jennings & Every LLP 2010 Common Approach to Sharing and Documenting Search Strategies Will aid understanding of other IPOs search strategies Should these be made available to the public?

Gill Jennings & Every LLP 2010 Common Search and Examination Support Tools A common search environment? Without high quality searches patents are of doubtful validty This brings the system into disrepute Contains a proposal for 24/7 access by IPO examiners and customers! Arguably the most important aspect of the IP5 projects but the only one with seemingly a real commitment to helping users directly

Gill Jennings & Every LLP 2010 Summary How does this impact users? Mostly only in the long term unless the IP5 seeks to involve users in its projects. Are they? Will they? What do we need to see? Real dialogue between the IP5 and users What do we know? Very little so far other than what is reported on the website. Why not use the publicity offices of the IP5 to get more information to user? What involvement do we have? Very little so far. Why? Are the IP5 frightened of its users? Have they forgotten that we are the customers?

Gill Jennings & Every LLP 2010 User involvement Too many law and rule changes without consulting the real users risks alienating them and (worse) can lead to a serious loss of trust in IPOs abilities to improve the chronic problems they face. E.g. USPTO proposed rule changes litigated – then dropped E.g. EPO rule changes on divisionals causing chaos and arguably greater initial backlogs IPOs have to avoid creating an us and them divide and the best way is to consult properly. IP5 should avoid surveys from outside bodies, but get down to the grass root users and be seen to listen. Do poachers make good gamekeepers? Very probably! Good communication is everything!

Gill Jennings & Every LLP 2010 Enough said! Thank you for your patience