The IPC development plan for the next five years IPC Workshop February 2013 Geneva Antonios Farassopoulos Director, International Classifications and Standards Division, WIPO

Introduction February 2009: simplification of IPC structure Core and Advanced levels abolished One yearly publication of the IPC IPC revised by one unique technical body (IPC Revision WG) 2009: IP5 Offices established the Common Hybrid Classification (CHC) project October 2010: EPO and USPTO agreed to develop the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) January 2013: CPC enters in force

IPC Revision Program Revision requests from IP5 CHC or Trilateral projects automatically included in the IPC revision program and treated with priority Since IPC reform very few revision requests submitted outside IP5. Systematically opposed by trilateral/IP5 After reform 2,500 new subdivisions were introduced into the IPC ( ) ~ 360 / year This is less than half compared to the period before the reform, although the global amount of patent applications has exploded

A projects (origin Trilateral) F projects (origin IP5)

The decrease of the IPC development is due to: - Strong expectations from Trilateral / IP5 cooperation - Cost of compulsory reclassification - Suspension of revision during the reform - Emergence of new searching tools - Reduced investment in Classification by Offices IPC Revision Program (cont.)

Some comments … On the progress of the CHC project: “… progress was very slow. In one year they managed only six out of more than 600 areas – so it would have taken 100 years to harmonize the existing schemes”Benoît Batistelli Concerning the development of the USPC “The agency had de-invested in classification. We had stopped keeping it up, and it was really a moribund situation….We knew the WIPO system was better and more modern” David Kappos

Plan of Future Revision of the IPC Pending A and F projects to be soon completed; risk that the IPC will be frozen (moribund situation?) Current environment: Use of CPC by increasing number of European offices Parallel viewer of the IPC, CPC and FI Possibility of searching using the CPC and FI in global databases Is there a place for the IPC next to the CPC and FI?

The increase in the number of patent applications from emerging countries and the shift of the interest of users of patent information to their patent collections show the areas where the IPC should be developed during the next years Prioritise technical areas: -where there is a large amount of patent applications from emerging countries with significant growth rate; and -where the number of subgroups in the IPC is not sufficient for an effective search Plan of Future Revision of the IPC (cont.)

Taking into account the classification symbols allotted to patent applications published by CN, KR, BR, IN, RU, IL, MX, SE and FI between 2004 and 2009 (Patent Collection) The list of the main groups was ranked -according to the average file size of the Patent Collection per subgroup -taking into account a growth rate higher than 0% The first 96 IPC main groups were selected as the areas to be revised during the next five years The creation of new subdivisions should mainly be based on the integration into the IPC of subdivisions from the existing local classifications, i.e. CPC or FI Areas to be Revised

Examples

Reclassification Since early 2012, a new reclassification tool was implemented by the IB allowing a wider participation of offices in the reclassification of completed projects Phases of reclassification have been defined allowing more offices to participate Automatic reclassification of not reclassified documents after a certain period (~ 5 years)

Reclassification (cont.) CPC and FI offices will not be obligated to immediately reclassify their complete back file when the other scheme is used as a basis for revision. During a certain period they will be able to keep the local scheme to search their back file until the reclassification is complete. This period could be flexible, based on the number of documents that will need reclassification and on the interest of the new scheme for that particular office.

Initial feedback from Offices Comments have been received from eight offices Agreed in general with the basic idea of the proposal Comments, recommendations and suggestions by commenting offices have been reflected in this presentation