《美國商會全球創新政策中心：2025年國際知識產權指數報告（第13版）（英文版）（427頁）.pdf》由會員分享，可在線閱讀，更多相關《美國商會全球創新政策中心：2025年國際知識產權指數報告（第13版）（英文版）（427頁）.pdf（427頁珍藏版）》請在三個皮匠報告上搜索。

1、InternationalIP Index 2025 Thirteenth Edition2|International IP IndexThe U.S.Chamber of Commerces Global Innovation Policy Center is working around the world to champion intellectual property rights as vital to creating jobs,saving lives,advancing global economic growth,and generating breakthrough s

2、olutions to global challenges.The U.S.Chamber of Commerce is the worlds largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes,sectors,and regions,as well as state and local chambers and industry associations.Copyright 2025 by the U.S.Chamber of Commerc

3、e.All rights reserved.No part of this work,covered by the copyrights herein,may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any meansgraphic,electronic,or mechanical,including photocopying,recording,taping,or information and retrieval systemswithout the permission of the Chamber.This report was conduc

4、ted by Pugatch Consilum,(www.pugatch-)a boutique consultancy that provides evidence-based research,analysis,and intelligence on the fastest growing sectors of the knowledge economy.Authors of this report are Meir Pugatch and David Torstensson.Professor Meir Pugatch,Managing Director and Founder Prof

5、.Pugatch is the Managing Director of Pugatch Consilium a boutique consultancy that provides evidence-based research,analysis and intelligence on the fastest growing sectors of the knowledge economy.He is an IPKM Professor of Valorisation,Entrepreneurship and Management at the University of Maastrich

6、t in the Netherlands;as well as a Professor at the School of Public Health,University of Haifa in Israel,in which he acts as the Chair of the Health Management Division since 2019.Prof.Pugatch specializes in innovation strategies,organizational entrepreneurship,intellectual property management,pharm

7、acoeconomics,pricing and reimbursement,and the management of public health systems.He is the author and editor of an extensive number of publications and serves as a referee and editorial board member of numerous peer review journals.David Torstensson,Partner Dr.Torstensson specializes in innovation

8、,tax and intellectual property policy,with a particular focus on the health care,information and communication technology and content industries.He has wide experience in policy and economic analysis,as well as data sampling and creation of strategic operational and advocacy plans.He is the author o

9、f a number of academic and commissioned reports and publications and is the co-author of all 13 editions of the U.S.Chamber International IP I Contents Foreword.7Executive Summary.8Overview of the Thirteenth Edition.21The Global IP Environment in 2024 Major Developments,Overall Index Scores,and Cate

10、gory-by-Category Results.25Economy Overviews.70Appendix:Methodology,Sources,and Indicators Explained.4054|International IP IndexTables and FiguresTable 1:Thirteenth Edition Index Economies by World Bank Region.22Table 2:Thirteenth Edition Index Economies by World Bank Income Group.23Table 3:New Inde

11、x Category and Indicators Added in 2025.24Table 4:Change in Overall Score,Thirteenth Edition versus Twelfth Edition.37Figure 1:World Total Patent Applications (Direct and Patent Cooperation Treaty National Phase Entries),Design Applications(Direct and via the Hague System),and Trademark Applications

12、(Direct and via the Madrid System),19952023.27Figure 2:Total Patent Applications(Direct and Patent Cooperation Treaty National Phase Entries),Regional Comparison,1997 versus 2023.28Figure 3:Total Design Applications(Direct and via the Hague System),Regional Comparison,1994 versus 2023.28Figure 4:Tot

13、al Trademark Applications(Direct and via the Madrid System),Regional Comparison,1994 versus 2023.29Figure 5:Charges for the Use of Intellectual Property,Receipts(Balance of Payments,Current U.S.Dollar),World Total.30Figure 6:Charges for the Use of Intellectual Property,Payments(BoP,Current U.S.Dolla

14、r),and Low and Middle Income versus High Income,1990 versus 2023.31Figure 7:Category 1:Patent Rights and Limitations,%Available Score.41Figure 8:Category 2:Copyrights and Limitations,%Available Score.45Figure 9:Category 3:Trademark Rights and Limitations,%Available S Figure 10:Category 4:Design Righ

15、ts and Limitations,%Available Score.50Figure 11:Category 5:Trade Secrets and the Protection of Confidential Information,%Available Score.52Figure 12:Category 6:Commercialization of IP Assets,%Available Score.54Figure 13:Category 7:Enforcement,%Available Score.58Figure 14:Category 8:Systemic Efficien

16、cy,%Available Score.60Figure 15:Category 9:Incentives for Cutting-Edge Innovation.62Figure 16:Category 10:Membership and Ratification of International Treaties,%Available Score.676|International IP Index0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%100.00%13.3023.5825.4925.8727.9128.682

17、9.1931.9634.2835.1535.3636.1136.4536.6838.0438.7538.9139.4839.7240.1742.1746.2346.5546.9147.0048.1548.2650.4351.9453.1753.7054.5856.5859.2165.4368.7469.0971.9171.9172.5776.1377.7480.1184.3485.8385.9486.7489.5190.8191.2692.0992.4293.5193.9895.17VenezuelaRussiaAlgeriaPakistanEcuadorIndonesiaKuwaitEgyp

18、tNigeriaSouth AfricaArgentinaThailandIndiaKenyaUkraineBruneiVietnamGhanaHondurasPhilippinesJordanBrazilColombiaChilePeruTrkiyeUAEMalaysiaCosta RicaDominican RepublicSaudi ArabiaChinaMexicoMoroccoNew ZealandTaiwanIsraelPolandCanadaGreeceAustraliaHungarySingaporeItalySwitzerlandSouth KoreaSpainIreland

19、JapanThe NetherlandsSwedenGermanyFranceUKU.S.U.S.Chamber International IP Index 2025,Overall Scores,%Available Score ForewordIntellectual property(“IP”)protections allow inventors and innovators to develop the next big idea that creates well-paying jobs,raises the standard of living for all,and impr

20、oves peoples lives through better medicines,new products,and more entertainment options.Strong IP policies also allow for increased trade and certainty in international commerce.Conversely,substandard policies negatively impact job creation and economic growth.The economies that embrace ingenuity an

21、d creativity are defined by energy and progress they lead the world in ground-breaking life sciences innovation,critical technology development,and creative content production.For these economies to continue to thrive,effective intellectual property(IP)must be in place.This is especially true of the

22、 United States but also for nations that are economic leaders and emerging economies.The 2025 IP Index recognizes the policies that make this progress possible and provides a blueprint for every economy to experience the invaluable benefits of IP.Stable,predictable IP protections heighten investment

23、 in innovation and creativity and ensure those economies have access to the latest technological breakthroughs.Likewise,creating incentives to pursue IP-driven innovation and creativitylike tax breaks and grant fundingencourages problem-solving around the worlds most pressing challenges,like creatin

24、g well-paying jobs,strengthening public health,addressing food security,and more.It is critical that leaders consider these approaches on a global scale.We know that advancing IP standards in isolation wont help us reach our shared goals.With fair,enforceable trade rules in place,IP can create produ

25、ctive partnerships between countries and boost collective competitiveness.Conversely,IP theft and forced transfers create mistrust and trade tensions that harm domestic economies and decrease the opportunities for fair trade.We must work together on IP,so we can all go farther.The Index provides the

26、 roadmap for our journey:It outlines the strengths of our global IP system and identifies where more work is needed to unleash the innovation ecosystems full potential.Policymakers can use the Index to inform conscious IP policy decisions that ensure that everyone with a great,new idea is along for

27、the ride.Only then can we create true prosperity and sustain it for the greater good.8|International IP Index76-100%51-75%26-50%1-25%Overall Economy ScoresExecutive SummaryThe 13th edition of the International IP Index benchmarks the IP framework in 55 global economies across 53 unique indicators.Th

28、e Index offers a roadmap for economies aiming to boost IP-driven innovation and creativity while also highlighting recent trends in global IP Geographic CoverageAlgeriaArgentinaAustraliaBrazilBruneiCanadaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptFranceGermanyGhanaGreeceHondurasHungar

29、yIndiaIndonesiaIrelandIsraelItalyJapanJordanKenyaKuwaitMalaysiaMexicoMoroccoThe NetherlandsNew ZealandNigeriaPakistanPeruPhilippinesPolandRussiaSaudi ArabiaSingaporeSouth AfricaSouth KoreaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTaiwanThailandTrkiye United Arab EmiratesUkraineUnited KingdomUnited StatesVenezuelaVietna

30、m10|International IP IndexKey Findings33The overall score improved in 33 economies,illustrating an increasing recognition of the value of IP protection worldwide.IP supports economies competitive advantage in innovation and creativity.The markets that seek to lead the world in ground-breaking medica

31、l innovation,critical technologies,and creative content must continue to invest in strengthening their IP ecosystem.Saudi Arabia,the United Arab Emirates(UAE),and Kuwait earned the largest improvements in overall score at 17.55%,11.22%,and 8.87%,respectively,building upon momentum in recent years to

32、 strengthen IP protection across the Middle East.Twenty economies scores remained unchanged,while the overall Index score dropped marginally in only two economies.There was little movement among the top 10 economies,with the U.S.,UK,some EU Member States,Japan,and Korea leading the rankings again in

33、 2025.In the United States,ongoing drug price negotiations,continued uncertainty around patentability,and march-in rights proposals weaken the framework for American life sciences innovation.In the EU,the General Pharmaceutical Legislation would reduce regulatory data protection and weaken existing

34、IP incentives,in turn undermining investment in innovation and exacerbating the existing trend of investment leaving Europe.Continued innovation in areas such as artificial intelligence has the potential to empower creative and innovative processes.Developing these tools responsibly and ethically wh

35、ile also ensuring full respect for IP protection is essential.Evolving artificial intelligence policies must be evaluated in light of these Key FindingsAcross Latin America,the Middle East,and Asia,economies took steps to better combat IP-infringing content online.In the 30 years since the World Tra

36、de Organizations Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights(TRIPS)Agreement entered into force,the increase in IP registration,IP-related trade,and technology transfer illustrates how IP can enhance trade relations between global economies.In Argentina,Brazil,and Colombia,the courts,law e

37、nforcement,and the Government disabled access to websites hosting copyright infringing content.In Kuwait,the government gave rightsholders the ability to request the disabling of access to sites hosting IP infringing content.In the UAE,the government introduced a new system of administrative injunct

38、ive-style relief that aims to disable access to all IP infringing content.In the Philippines,the government introduced a voluntary program for participating ISPs to disable access to copyright-infringing content.Following the TRIPS Agreement,the rates of IP registration improved the most dramaticall

39、y in regions that have historically had more underdeveloped IP systems,with a 450%increase in trademark filings in Africa between 1993 and 2023.The global volume of trade in IP assets increased over 17 times to$446 billion between 1990 and 2022.The proportion of overall trade in IP assets and techno

40、logy transfer from high-income to low-and middle-income economies increased threefold from 1990 to Key FindingsThe enforcement of outstanding trade-related IP commitments is essential for economies aiming to strengthen trade and global competitiveness through more effective IP.Mexico has yet to impl

41、ement the biopharmaceutical-related commitments of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement(USMCA),including provisions related to patent enforcement,timely marketing authorization,patent term restoration,and regulatory data protection.Canada has yet to establish a comprehensive patent term adjustment mecha

42、nism as required by USMCA.Full implementation of the IP provisions of Chinas Phase One Agreement with the United States will be key to mitigating trade irritants and enhancing the ecosystem for both foreign and domestic innovation and creativity in C Patents,Related Rights,and LimitationsTwenty-thre

43、e economies achieve a score of 70%or more of the available score,and 31 economies achieve a score of 50%or more.The average score on the category is 59.82%,which is the fifth highest scoring category on the Index.In the United States,proposed changes to the practice of terminal disclaimers introduce

44、 a new requirement to limit the number of claims that can be referred to future infringement action.In Australia,the Therapeutic Goods Administration announced that it would not pursue reforms to create a timelier patent notification framework for biopharmaceutical products.China released the Patent

45、 Law Implementing Regulations and updated Patent Examination Guidelines that make patent term restoration for biopharmaceuticals contingent on first global launch taking place in China.In Colombia,the Government granted a compulsory license for an HIV/AIDS treatment.Copyrights and LimitationsWhile m

46、ost Index economies continue to struggle in this category,the average score on this category continued to improve in 2024 from 50.61%last year to 51.45%this year.In Brazil,a new law gave the National Cinema Agency the power to suspend the use of unauthorized protected works,resulting in the creation

47、 of two pilot programs to disable access to copyright-infringing audiovisual content and live sporting events.In Mexico,the Supreme Court upheld the validity of USMCA copyright-related provisions.In Vietnam,the Peoples Court of Hanoi issued the first criminal court conviction for copyright infringem

48、ent.In Egypt,the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment facilitated a partnership with law enforcement to disable access to a website that was a central distribution point of infringing-content in Arabic across the Middle East and North Africa.Category-by Category R Trademarks,Related Rights,and

49、LimitationsMost economies sampled in the Index offer basic forms of trademark protection.Only nine of the 55 sampled economies fail to score 50%or more on this category.The average score increased from 62.84%in the twelfth edition to 63.41%in the thirteenth edition.In the Philippines,new legislation

50、 defines primary and secondary liability for the failure to act upon notification of IP infringement.In France,French Customs launched the National Anti-Counterfeiting Plan 20242026 that emphasizes fighting counterfeits sold and marketed online.Design Rights,Related Rights,and Limitations Most econo

51、mies included in the Index have in place some form of statutory law defining design rights and a term of protection for registered design rights.The average score on this category this year was 64.18%,up marginally from 64%last year.Saudi Arabia increased the term of protection for design rights fro

52、m ten years to 15 years.Indonesia is considering amendments to the Design Law,which would increase the design rights term of protection to 15 years,if passed into law.The EU is considering draft legislation that updates legal definitions,improves registration requirements,and expands the scope of pr

53、otection for design Trade Secrets and Protection of Confidential InformationOnly 23 of the 55 economies included in the Index achieved a score of 50%or more on this category.Twenty-two economies achieved a score of 33.33%or less.The average score in this category remained one the weakest in the Inde

54、x at 49.27%,up only marginally from last year.The EU is currently considering legislation that reduces the term of regulatory data protection(RDP)and conditions extensions of RDP term on external factors,such as market access.In South Korea,new legislation significantly strengthened existing penalti

55、es and damages for trade secret violations and misappropriation of confidential information.In the United States,the Federal Trade Commission issued a rule banning the use of noncompete agreements,which was overturned by the courts.Noncompete agreements can play a critical role in protecting IP asse

56、ts from trade secrets theft and misappropriation of confidential information.Commercialization of IP AssetsTwenty economies of the 55 sampled in the Index fail to achieve a score of 50%or more with twelve scoring 33.33%or less on the category.The average score on this category was 58.88%.The Chilean

57、 government is considering draft legislation that promotes the use of IP rights to commercialize publicly funded research.In the EU,the European Commission withdrew its proposed regulation on standard essential patents.The UK introduced changes to British tax law on the incentives for the creation o

58、f IP assets that include a new tax regime for R&D-intensive small and medium-sized enterprises(SMEs) EnforcementAs in years past,a majority of the sampled economies in the Index struggle on this category with only 26 Index economies achieving a score of 50%or more and only 11 economies achieving a s

59、core of 75%or more.The average score in this category remains one of the weakest on the Index at 50.68%,up only marginally from last years 50.24%.The UAE introduced a new dedicated anti-counterfeiting law that outlaws the importation,exportation,and re-exportation of counterfeit and fraudulent goods

60、;empowers judicial enforcement officers to take ex officio action against suspected counterfeit goods;and strengthens criminal sanctions and penalties for IP theft.In Saudi Arabia,the number of cases considered for IP infringement with damages awarded continues to increase.Also,the government streng

61、thened criminal enforcement of IP rights through the establishment of a dedicated prosecution office for IP offences.Systemic EfficiencyThe majority of sampled economies in the Index perform well in this category with only 13 economies failing to achieve a score of 50%or above.Overall,the average sc

62、ore on this category continues to be one of the strongest in the Index,at 63.91%,up from 63.55%last year.In the Dominican Republic,the government increased the number of IP infringement investigations and seized and destroyed 10 million units of counterfeit and/or illicit tobacco,medicines,alcohol,a

63、nd other goods.In the UAE,the Ministry of Economy launched two new programs to increase the development and registration of IP assets by SMEs through access to financing,technical assistance,and registration support.The Israeli Patent Office expanded its technical assistance program to assist SMEs a

64、nd start-ups in the FemTech industry with the creation and commercialization of IP Incentives for Cutting-Edge InnovationThe 2025 Index includes a new category that benchmarks the availability of incentives for cutting edge innovation.The average score on this category is the weakest of all included

65、 in the Index at 27.39%.Overall,38 economies fail to achieve any score on the three indicators included in this category.The U.S.was the first economy to introduce dedicated incentives for the development and commercialization of medicinal orphan products through the 1983 Orphan Drug Act.While EU ec

66、onomies lead the Index rankings in this category,the EU is currently considering proposals that would restrict or reduce the current term and scope of protection for orphan products that,if implemented,would result in a reduction in their score.Several economies in the Asia-Pacificincluding Taiwan,S

67、outh Korea,and Japanprovide legal definitions and policies related to rare diseases and orphan drugs and R&D incentives for the development of new treatments and technologies.Membership and Ratification of International TreatiesThis category remains one of the stronger overall categories in the Inde

68、x.Twenty-two economies have a score of 75%or more with 14 economies achieving a score of over 96%.Overall,the average score on this category is 63.91%.While Argentina is a contracting party to the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants(UPOV)1978,the government is consideri

69、ng joining the UPOV 1991,which would strengthen protection for new plant varieties.The Pakistan Intellectual Property Office is considering joining the Patent Cooperation Treaty(PCT)and hosted a PCT training program for local patent examiners in anticipation of Pakistans potential accession.While th

70、e UAE concluded six Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreements over the past three years,the IP chapters do not conform to the standards of a post-TRIPS free trade agreement.18|International IP IndexRegional Rankings RegionAverage overall%Index ScoreNorth America83.54%Europe and Central Asia76.11

71、%Asia54.67%Latin America42.24%Africa and Middle East41.82%Europe and Central AsiaOverall ScoreRegional RankingUnited Kingdom93.98%1France93.51%2Germany92.42%3Sweden92.09%4The Netherlands91.26%5Ireland89.51%6Spain86.74%7Switzerland85.83%8Italy84.34%9Hungary77.74%10Greece72.57%11Poland71.91%12Trkiye48

72、.15%13Ukraine38.04%14Russia23.58% North AmericaOverall ScoreRegional RankingUnited States95.17%1Canada71.91%2AsiaOverall ScoreRegional RankingJapan90.81%1South Korea85.94%2Singapore80.11%3Australia76.13%4New Zealand68.74%5Taiwan65.43%6China54.58%7Malaysia50.43%8Phillippines40.17%9Brunei38.91%10Vietn

73、am38.75%11India36.45%12Thailand36.11%13Indonesia28.68%14Pakistan25.87%1520|International IP IndexLatin AmericaOverall ScoreRegional RankingMexico56.58%1Dominican Republic53.17%2Costa Rica51.94%3Peru47.00%4Chile46.91%5Colombia46.55%6Brazil46.23%7Honduras39.72%8Argentina35.36%9Ecuador27.91%10Venezuela

74、13.30%11Africa and Middle EastOverall ScoreRegional RankingIsrael69.09%1Morocco59.21%2Saudi Arabia53.70%3UAE48.26%4Jordan42.17%5Ghana39.48%6Kenya36.68%7South Africa35.15%8Nigeria34.28%9Egypt31.96%10Kuwait29.19%11Algeria25.49% Overview of the Thirteenth EditionNow in its thirteenth edition,the U.S.Ch

75、amber of Commerces International Intellectual Property(IP)Index continues to provide an important industry perspective on the IP standards that influence both long-and short-term business and investment decisions.The Index is a unique and continuously evolving instrument.Not only does it assess the

76、state of the international IP environment,but it also provides a clear roadmap for any economy that wants to be competitive in the 21st centurys knowledge-based global economy.Large or small,developing or developed,economies from around the world can use the insights about their own national IP envi

77、ronments,as well as those of their neighbors and international competitors,to improve their own performance and better compete at the highest levels for global investment,talent,and growth.22|International IP IndexEconomies IncludedThe Index today covers 55 economies.Together,these 55 economies repr

78、esent both a geographical cross-section of the world and most of global economic output,together contributing over 90%of global gross domestic product(GDP).As Table 1 shows,the Index includes economies from all major regions of the world and is truly a global measure.1 Table 1:Thirteenth Edition Ind

79、ex Economies by World Bank RegionAsiaLatin America and the CaribbeanAfrica and Middle EastEurope and Central AsiaNorth AmericaAustraliaArgentinaAlgeriaFranceCanadaBruneiBrazilEgyptGermanyU.S.ChinaChileGhanaGreece IndiaCosta RicaIsraelHungary IndonesiaColombiaJordanIreland JapanDominican RepublicKeny

80、aItaly MalaysiaEcuadorKuwaitThe Netherlands New ZealandHondurasMoroccoPoland PakistanMexicoNigeriaRussia PhilippinesPeruSaudi ArabiaSpain SingaporeVenezuelaSouth AfricaSweden South Korea UAESwitzerland Taiwan Trkiye ThailandUKVietnam Ukraine Source:World Bank(2024) In addition to geographic diversit

81、y,the Index includes economies from a broad spectrum of income groups as defined by the World Bank.Table 2 provides an overview of all 55 economies sampled according to income group as defined by the World Bank.Table 2:Thirteenth Edition Index Economies by World Bank Income GroupLower-Middle-Income

82、EconomiesUpper-Middle-Income EconomiesHigh-Income EconomiesHigh-Income OECD MembersEgyptAlgeriaBruneiAustraliaGhanaArgentinaKuwaitCanadaHondurasBrazilRussiaChileIndiaChinaSaudi Arabia FranceJordanColombiaSingaporeGermanyKenyaCosta RicaTaiwanGreeceMoroccoDominican RepublicUAEHungaryNigeriaEcuadorIrel

83、andPakistanIndonesiaIsraelPhilippinesMalaysiaItalyVietnamMexicoJapanUkrainePeruThe NetherlandsVietnamSouth AfricaNew ZealandThailandPolandTrkiyeSouth KoreaUkraineSpainVenezuela(2020)SwedenSwitzerlandUKUnited StatesSource:World Bank(2024).The World Bank has since 2020 removed Venezuela pending the re

84、lease of national accounts statistics.Consequently,the Index uses Venezuelas latest income classification from 2020.24|International IP IndexWhat Is New in the Thirteenth Edition?A significant new feature of the 2025 Index is the addition of three indicators in a new,stand-alone category:Category 9:

85、Incentives for Cutting-Edge Innovation.This brings the total number of indicators included in the Index to 53.Since the inaugural edition of the Index in 2012,the number of indicators included in the Index has more than doubled from 25 in the first edition to todays 53.Consequently,the maximum possi

86、ble score in the Index has increased from 25 to 53.Table 3 provides an overview and summary of the new indicators and what they seek to measure.(The methodology section at the end of this report fully defines and describes the three new indicators.)Table 3:New Index Category and Indicators Added in

87、2025Index CategoryNew IndicatorsCategory 9:Incentives for Cutting-Edge Innovation1.Special market exclusivity incentives for orphan medicinal product development2.Special market exclusivity incentives for orphan medicinal product development,term of protection3.Restrictions on the effective use of e

88、xisting market exclusivity incentives for orphan medicinal product The Global IP Environment in 2024Major Developments,Overall Index Scores,and Category-by-Category Results26|International IP IndexInternational Developments The world of international intellectual property is profoundly transformed f

89、rom the situation that prevailed at the time the TRIPS Agreement was coming into force.Participation in and benefits from the IP system are increasingly widespread and more equitable.Johanna Hill,World Trade Organization(WTO)Deputy Director General,April 25,20242When signed in 1994 as an annex to th

90、e Final Act establishing the WTO,the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement(TRIPS)was considered by many to be the most comprehensive and ambitious agreement ever reached in the multilateral IP domain.TRIPS aimed to harmonize the global protection of IP rights by establishin

91、g a minimum standard for IP frameworks along with provisions on dispute settlements and enforcement to make it effective.Given that TRIPS largely predates globalization and the technological revolution that have allowed complex flows of information,capital,and human capital to move virtually seamles

92、sly around the globeas the IP standards captured and measured in the Index demonstratesTRIPS has today been superseded by other more modern IP frameworks at both the national level and through various bilateral and plurilateral free trade agreements.Still,despite this clear dating,the Agreement has

93、provided a critical minimum floor for global IP standards over the past 30 years and,as such,been an economic boon for the world.As WTO Deputy Director General Hill rightly pointed out in her remarks on the TRIPS Agreements 2024 anniversary celebration,this global floor has led to a marked increase

94、in the creation,registration,and economic value added from IP assets across the world.IP and knowledge-intensive industries today make up a greater proportion of global economic output than at any other time in modern economic history.For example,in the United States,European Union(EU),South Korea,B

95、razil,and Mexico,IP-intensive industries make up at least 40%of national economic output and over 30%of employment.Both at the aggregated global total and at the level of individual economies,several economic indicators suggest that these industries and sectors are responsible for a considerable and

96、 growing proportion of international trade,national employment,and economic output.TRIPS has made an extraordinary and underappreciated contribution to this development.From developed,high-income economies to low-and middle-income economies,the long-term positive impact of the Agreement can be seen

97、in two distinct areas:1.The building and usage of the international IP system as we know it today and the accompanying increase in the number of IP assets registered globally.2.The positive added value,economic activity,and national output contributed through the creation and registration of these I

98、P Building a Global IP SystemHow TRIPS Helped Establish Todays International IP Architecture and Enabled the Creation and Registration of IP Assets Across the WorldIt is not hyperbole to say that TRIPS helped cement and solidify what has today become“the global IP system.”Although modern internation

99、al cooperation on IP rights dates to the late 1800s and to the Paris and Berne conventions,the idea that IP rights should be included as an integral part of an international trade agreement like the WTO treaty was in 1994 pathbreaking.By requiring all WTO signatories to put in place a basic IP infra

100、structure and legal framework,the TRIPS Agreement,in effect,established two new legal and economic reference points.The first is that IP-based goods and services are in themselves important as international economic assets and,consequently,should be protected as such through an international institu

101、tion like any other trade-related right.Second,through its specific and detailed legal requirements on different minimum standards of IP protection,legal infrastructure,and enforcement provisions,the Agreement put in place a standardized institutional framework that,once adopted by each Member State

102、,would contribute to the creation and registration of IP assets.Since the conclusion of the TRIPS Agreement,the increased use of this international IP system has been staggering.As Figure 1 shows,across all major registerable industrial IP rights for which standardized international data is availabl

103、epatents,trademarks,and design rightsthere has been a tremendous and sustained increase in the volume of applications worldwide.Figure 1:World Total Patent Applications(Direct and Patent Cooperation Treaty PCT National Phase Entries),Design Applications(Direct and via the Hague System),and Trademark

104、 Applications(Direct and via the Madrid System),19952023320,000,00018,000.00016,000,00014,000,00012,000,00010,000,0008,000,0006,000,0004,000,0002,000,000020212022202319951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020Total trademark applications(d

105、irect and via the Madrid system)Total design applications(direct and via the Hague system)Total patent applications(direct and PCT national phase entries)28|International IP IndexIn 1995,there was a global total of 3.2 million total patent,design,and trademark applications1,048,300,187,200,and 1,954

106、,500,respectively.In 2023,this had reached a total of 16,370,400a growth rate of over 500%with 3,552,100 total patent applications,1,186,800 design applications,and 11,631,500 trademark applications.The World Intellectual Property Organizations(WIPO)statistical database shows how this growth has bee

107、n driven not just by developed economies in Europe and North America with long-standing,established IP systems.Instead,some of the strongest growth in the number of applications across these major IP rights has come from lower-and middle-income economies in Asia,Africa,Latin America,and the Caribbea

108、n.Figures 2,3,and 4 compare this growth for total applications for patents,trademarks,and design rights in the worlds major regions as defined by WIPO since the conclusion of the TRIPS Agreement.Figure 2:Total Patent Applications(Direct and Patent Cooperation Treaty National Phase Entries),Regional

109、Comparison,1997 versus 20234North AmericaLatin America and the CaribbeanEuropeAsiaAfrica1997 2023249,100633,70042,10055,200264,000365,200570,5002,438,70010,50021,500 Figure 3:Total Design Applications(Direct and via the Hague System),Regional Comparison,1994 versus 20235North AmericaLatin America an

110、d the CaribbeanEuropeAsiaAfrica1994 202318,50062,7695,09015,71866,73392,66989,893994,0466,2705, Figure 4:Total Trademark Applications(Direct and via the Madrid System),Regional Comparison,1994 versus 20236North AmericaLatin America and the CaribbeanEuropeAsiaAfrica1994 2023188,785610,690275,601936,6

111、73573,2491,001,696589,0801,946,95434,944166,781As these figures suggest,although all major regions saw increased registration activity after TRIPS,Asia,Africa,Latin America,and the Caribbean saw some of the biggest aggregate and percentage jumps.Notably,there was significant growth in the registrati

112、on of patents,design,and trademarks in Asia.Remarkably,some of the strongest increases in rates of IP registration occurred in those regions that have historically had more underdeveloped IP systems.For example,with respect to trademark registration,Africa saw the greatest percentage increase in the

113、 total number of applications of all regions in the period studied,growing from 34,944 applications in 1994 to 166,781 applications in 2023.This is an increase of over 450%.For the economies that make up the Africa region,this data shows how TRIPS made a sustained and meaningful contribution to the

114、building of their national IP systems and accompanying positive socioeconomic impact.Although the act of registering an IP right does not in itself lead to the successful commercialization of an invention,technology,brand,or design,the filing of a registration application suggests that an applicant

115、perceives a potential economic and commercial value of the IP asset in question and is willing to invest the resources required to legally protect that asset.As the following subsection demonstrates,the post-TRIPS global boom in increased registration activity of IP assets has in turn created tremen

116、dous economic value and output as measured through both international trade data and rates of national economic activity.Increased Trade in IP Assets,Technology Transfer,and National Economic OutputHow TRIPS and IP-Intensive Industries Have Transformed the Global EconomySince the conclusion of the T

117、RIPS Agreement,the economic impact of IP rights at both the macro and micro levels has been a topic of growing interest to economists,social scientists,and governments.Notably,the positive economic impact of TRIPS was discovered and highlighted quickly,within 10 years of the conclusion of the Agreem

118、ent.For example,in a 2003 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD)study,Park and Lippoldt compared WTO signatories to the TRIPS Agreement and non-WTO members,and found that,overall,IP rights tend to have a positive impact on foreign direct investment(FDI).7 30|International IP Ind

119、exWith the exception of least developed countries,which may not yet have implemented the TRIPS Agreement because of transition period allowances,WTO members had higher levels of FDI than nonmembers.Similarly,in a 2010 paper,the OECDs Cavazos et al.looked at research&development(R&D)expenditure and t

120、echnology transfer as well as FDI and found that a 1%change in the strength of a national IP environment(based on a statistical index)was associated with a 2.8%increase in FDI inflows,a 2%increase in service imports,and a 0.7%increase in domestic R&D.8 Today a growing body of academic,government,and

121、 nongovernmental research shows a positive and sustained relationship among the strengthening of IP rights and economic growth and socioeconomic development,job creation,technology transfer,and increased rates of investment and innovation after the conclusion of TRIPS.The direct positive economic im

122、pact of TRIPS can most clearly be seen in the tremendous growth in the international trade of IP assets and high-value proprietary technologies.One good proxy that captures inflows of technology and the international trade of different types of IP assets is the World Banks indicator on payments by r

123、esidents to nonresidents for the use of IP rights.9 The World Bank defines these charges for the use of IP as“payments and receipts between residents and nonresidents for the authorized use of proprietary rights(such as patents,trademarks,copyrights,industrial processes and designs including trade s

124、ecrets,and franchises)and for the use,through licensing agreements,of produced originals or prototypes(such as copyrights on books and manuscripts,computer software,cinematographic works,and sound recordings)and related rights(such as for live performances and television,cable,or satellite broadcast

125、).”The statistics are based on the International Monetary Funds Balance of Payments Statistics Yearbook and data files.Figure 5 shows the growth in the trade of these IP assets globally from 1990 to 2022.Figure 5:Charges for the Use of Intellectual Property,Receipts(BoP,Current U.S.Dollar),World Tot

126、al500,000,000,000450,000,000,000400,000,000000350,000,000,000300,000,000,000250,000,000,000200,000,000,000150,000,000,000100,000,000,00050,000,000, As Figure 5 shows,in 1990,the total global volume of trade for charges for the use of IP assets totaled just over$26 billion.Fast forward to three decad

127、es later,and the latest available data from 2022 shows this trade had increased more than 17 times to$446 billion,illustrating how significantly IP-related trade has grown since the TRIPS Agreement was signed in 1994.Todays global economy is interlinked,interdependent,and open for business in a way

128、that was impossible logistically,politically,or financially in 1994.Indeed,the sum of the profound technological,cultural,political,and socioeconomic changes of the past three decades amounts to what is truly a paradigm shift in how the global economy works.In 1990,the internet was not a commerciall

129、y or publicly available entity.The Soviet Union,although crumbling,was still the worlds second most important geopolitical bloc and one of its largest economies.The value of world trade in goods in 1990 was an estimated$3.5 trillion.Today,the value of global trade is almost 10 times that amount at a

130、n estimated$25 trillion in 2022.Just-in-time manufacturing and the use of international supply chains were not industry standards and the basis for much of modern commerce.Naturally,the positive economic impact of TRIPS would not be possible without these structural,technological,and political chang

131、es to the global economy.Nevertheless,within this larger context and deep structural changes,TRIPS acted as an enabler of the creation,registration,and global trade in IP assets,particularly for low-and middle-income economies.Just like WIPOs registration data referenced earlier,the World Banks data

132、 on the global trade in IP assets also shows how the global distribution and flows of IP assets have changed markedly over the past 30 years.In fact,a growing proportion of the international trade in IP assets is today flowing to low-and middle-income economies.Figure 6 shows payments for the use of

133、 IP assets,comparing the proportion of overall trade in IP assets and technology transfer taking place to low-and middle-income economies versus high-income economies in 1990 and today.Figure 6:Charges for the Use of Intellectual Property,Payments (BoP,Current U.S.Dollar),and Low and Middle Income v

134、ersus High Income,1990 versus 202320231990Low&middle income High income0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%$1,433,469,081$97,411,822,610$22,258,452,690$482,842,387,60732|International IP IndexAs Figure 6 shows,the proportion of overall trade in IP assets and technology transfer taking place to low-and

135、middle-income economies versus high-income economies has increased almost threefold,from 6%of the total in 1990 to 17%of the total in 2023.Notably,this increase has taken place as the aggregated total of trade in IP assets and has grown from$26 billion to$446 billion.In other words,a greater percent

136、age of a much larger overall volume of trade in IP assets is today flowing to low-and middle-income economies 30 years after the TRIPS Agreement entered into force.This means that although most payments for IP assets and technology transfer are made by high-income economies,low-and middle-income eco

137、nomies today directly derive an increasing economic benefit from the international IP system.The growing importance of IP and knowledge-intensive industries to economic activity can also be seen at the national level.In fact,more economies are measuring the contribution that IP and knowledge-intensi

138、ve industries make to their national economies.Although different economies use slightly different methods of assessing and counting the contribution that IP-intensive industries make to their national economies,the data is unambiguously clear:IP and knowledge-intensive industries today make a subst

139、antial and growing contribution to national output and employment.For example,since 2012,the United States Patent and Trademark Office(USPTO)has measured the economic contribution of IP-intensive industries to the U.S.economy.The latest report from 2022,Intellectual Property and the U.S.Economy:Thir

140、d Edition,found that IP-intensive industries made up an estimated 41%of national economic output.10 With respect to national employment,IP-intensive industries supported an estimated 63 million jobs,directly and indirectly,or 44%of all national employment.Similarly,many European institutions study t

141、he economic impact of IP-intensive industries in the EU and Europe.Major institutions that publish studies and research on various aspects of the economic contributions of IP-intensive industries include the European Patent Office(EPO),European Union Intellectual Property Office(EUIPO),EUROSTAT,and

142、the European Commission.In 2019,EUIPO and EPO published their latest study,IPR-Intensive Industries and Economic Performance in the European Union.11 This study found that IP-intensive industries contributed an estimated 44.8%of the EUs GDP and 29.2%of direct employment(this aggregated estimate incl

143、udes estimates for the United Kingdom(UK),which was still an EU Member State at the time the study was conducted).As in the United States,this report also found that there had been a notable increase in the contribution of IP-intensive industries to EU GDP and employment compared to previous studies

144、.Just as with registration data and international trade in IP assets,IP-intensive industries also make up an increasing proportion of economic activity in emerging,low-income,and middle-income economies.For example,in 2018,the Korea Intellectual Property Office released a comprehensive assessment of

145、 the contribution of Korean IP-intensive industries to national GDP,employment,and R&D investment:the Economic Contribution Analysis of IP-Intensive Industry.12 Based on 2015 statistics collected by the national statistics agency,the report found that IP-intensive industries are a major contributor

146、to national Korean output,employment,and R&D spending.This was estimated at constituting 43.1%of GDP,employing over 6 million people(29.1%of the entire workforce).IP-intensive industries were responsible for close to 80%of R&D investment in Korea.Similarly,in 2021,the national IP office(INPI)in Braz

147、il published a study of the contribution of Brazilian IP-intensive industries to national GDP,employment,and exports,Intensive Sectors in Intellectual Property Rights in the Brazilian Economy(Setores Intensivos em Direitos de Propriedade Intelectual na Economia Brasileira) Based on statistics from 2

148、008 to 2016,the report finds that IP-intensive industries are a major contributor to Brazilian national output,employment,and trade.In the latest three-year period studied(20142016),this was estimated at averaging 44.2%of total gross value added,and IP-intensive industries directly employed over 19

149、million people on average(36%of the workforce).Finally,in 2021,the Mexican national IP offices(IMPI)study also found that IP-intensive industries are a major contributor to national output,employment,and trade.For 2019,this was estimated at 47.8%of national GDP,and IP-intensive industries directly a

150、nd indirectly employed over 17 million people(33.6%of the workforce).Unfortunately,the long-term positive impact of TRIPS and the centrality of IP rights to the modern knowledge-based economy are facts that some of the worlds most important international institutions and many of their members seem t

151、o have lost sight of.During the COVID-19 pandemic,the global IP rights architecture developed over several decades contributed to the rapid availability of lifesaving vaccines and therapies and to other technological solutions that have kept humans safe,connected,and productive to a degree unimagina

152、ble in previous health crises.However,over the past four years,those same rights and architecture have been under serious challenge from governmental and nongovernmental activists who misrepresent the role of IP rights in innovation and the global economy.There is no clearer example of this misrepre

153、sentation and disconnection than the WTO discussion on the TRIPS waiver.34|International IP IndexIn a State of Denial?International Institutions and IP RightsThe WTO TRIPS Waiver and Proposed TRIPS ReviewAt the 12th Ministerial Conference in 2022,the WTO members adopted a waiver of certain patent ri

154、ghts under the TRIPS Agreement.The final Ministerial Decision allows eligible WTO members“to limit the rights provided for under Article 28.1 of the TRIPS Agreementby authorizing the use of the subject matter of a patent required for the production and supply of COVID-19 vaccines without the consent

155、 of the right holder.”13 The waiver gives eligible members extraordinarily broad latitude in overriding any relevant patent rights through“any instrument available in the law of the Member such as executive orders,emergency decrees,government use authorizations,and judicial or administrative orders.

156、”Under paragraph 6,the waiver will remain in effect for at least five years,with the possibility of further extension depending on the“exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.”The discussions continued for over two years,but no evidence shows that the WTO TRIPS waiver in any way helped im

157、prove access to medicines.In fact,WTO members never made use of the waiver despite the immense harm that has been done to the international IP system by introducing a waiver of IP rights rather than addressing the actual barriers of access to medicines.In a related development,in 2024,several member

158、s put forth proposals to conduct a review of the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement,pursuant to Article 71.1 of the Agreement.In March,Bangladesh,Colombia,Egypt,and India made a formal request with a more fleshed out communication issued by Colombia a few months later.It remains unclear what thes

159、e members hope to achieve with any prospective review.Article 71.1 of TRIPS is primarily aimed at reviewing the Agreements implementation.Specifically,it states that:The Council for TRIPS shall review the implementation of this Agreement after the expiration of the transitional period referred to in

160、 paragraph 2 of Article 65.The Council shall,having regard to the experience gained in its implementation,review it two years after that date,and at identical intervals thereafter.The Council may also undertake reviews in the light of any relevant new developments,which might warrant modification or

161、 amendment of this Agreement.Many WTO members have still not fully and adequately implemented commitments made under TRIPS three decades ago.In many Member States,significant gaps remain with respect to both the availability of TRIPS-defined IP rights and,when in place,their practical accessibility

162、and active enforcement.Although Article 71.1 of TRIPS covers an implementation review,some countries are calling for a review beyond this scope.The communication from Colombia,for instance,states that the purpose of the proposed review should be“to identify(or produce)relevant analytical metrics and

163、 data,which are currently nonexistent,incomplete,or not appropriately used,to better assess the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement over the years,and better guide the discussions and domestic policymaking process of Members.”14 As desirable as it would be to compile data and metrics on the impact

164、 of the TRIPS Agreement and IP rights on society and economic activitymuch of which is already available in the wealth of economic and social scientific research produced over the past 30 years,not to mention the 13 editions of this Index and its accompanying Statistical Annexit is not clear that su

165、ch an exercise requires a formal WTO review of the Agreement or that the TRIPS Council is the appropriate venue for such research.At the time of publication,it remained unclear what the next steps of the review process would be.The Index will continue to monitor these developments in 2025.Learning t

166、he Wrong Lessons?The Draft WHO Pandemic Agreement In early 2021,at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic,a group of world leaders published a joint article calling for the establishment of a new World Health Organization(WHO)convention,agreement,or other international instrument on pandemic prevention

167、,preparedness,and response.Since then,WHO Members have been negotiating a“Pandemic Agreement.”In 2024,some amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations were agreed to at the 77th World Health Assembly,but,at the time of research,no final Pandemic Agreement had been agreed on.Worryingly,al

168、l publicly released drafts echo the WTOs ignorance of some of the most fundamental lessons of the pandemic,especially with respect to IP rights.Although the draft Agreements preamble states that“intellectual property protection is important for the development of new medicines,”the meat of the agree

169、ment on the development and distribution of biopharmaceuticals effectively undercut this statement by requiring the sharing and transfer of developed technologies on an involuntary basis and/or actively setting the terms for the licensing and commercialization of a developed technology.For example,A

170、rticle 11 would require contracting parties to“promote”and actively“encourage”private rightsholders to share and transfer their technologies,know-how,and IP to other contracting parties to the Pandemic Agreement either on a completely cost-free basis or at a reduced price.It is far from clear what s

171、uch encouragement and promotion would entail and whether rightsholders who refused to participate would be subject to some sort of sanctions or penalties.Similarly,Article 9 Research and Development,Subsection 5,states:Each Party shall develop and implement national and/or regional policies,adapted

172、to its domestic circumstances,regarding the inclusion of provisions in publicly funded research and development grants,contracts,and other similar funding arrangements,particularly with private entities and public-private partnerships,for the development of pandemic-related health products,that prom

173、ote timely and equitable access to such products,particularly for developing countries,during public health emergencies of international concern including pandemic emergencies,and regarding the publication of such provisions.Such provisions may include:(i)licensing and/or sublicensing,particularly t

174、o manufacturers of developing countries and for the benefit of developing countries,preferably on a non-exclusive basis;(ii)affordable pricing policies;(iii)technology transfer;(iv)publication of relevant information on clinical trial protocols and relevant research results;and(v)adherence to produc

175、t allocation frameworks adopted by WHO.15 From a policy perspective,restricting the manner in which publicly funded research and the IP developed from it can be commercialized through setting the terms for future pricing and licensing is unlikely to lead to the innovation and new medical products th

176、e WHO presumably desires.36|International IP IndexThe drafters of the Agreement seem to have overlooked the fact that within the life sciences R&D ecosystem,most publicly funded research does not result in or even seek to result in a finalized,commercially available product.Instead,the translation o

177、f basic scientific research into new biopharmaceutical products is done through the partnership of the private sector,which invests the resources and shoulders the accompanying financial risk of the commercialization process.Although critical,basic researchno matter how pathbreakingis almost never e

178、nough to lead to a finished medicine or treatment.Like the continued discussions at the WTO on the TRIPS waiver,the draft WHO Pandemic Agreement,and the thinking that much of it represents,actively ignores one of the real lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic,which is the centrality of IP rights to the l

179、ife sciences innovation ecosystem.The research-based biopharmaceutical industry,together with its partners in academia and the public sector,achieved an incredible feat in developing responses to the virus,including a range of safe and effective vaccines,in 12 months.The scientific and technological

180、 capacity that allowed industry,public research organizations,and academic researchers to achieve this technological miracle was not built overnight.Instead,it is based on decades of scientific study,R&D investment,and innovation predicated to a large degree on a system of strong,clear,and reliable

181、IP rights.Fundamentally,both the WTO and WHO have lost sight of the fact that the availability of medicinesand the ability of patients to effectively access those treatments in health systemis a complex subject.True patient access involves many factors such as health system infrastructure,health fin

182、ancing,logistics,transportation networks,proper storage and distribution,as well as a technical drug regulatory capacity.During the pandemic,many of these barriers inhibited access to innovative medicines and technologies,ranging from regulatory delays to trade barriers and export restrictions to la

183、st-mile delivery issues.For example,in Africa,several economies were unable to effectively distribute and use donated vaccines before expiration.16 Unfortunately,many economies around the world still lack many of these basic health system features.These challenges have nothing to do with the protect

184、ion of IP or availability of IP rights.As international policymakers and domestic legislators around the world should know,the architecture for building a global capacity for both innovation and local production of the products of biopharmaceutical innovation already exists.The ground floor of that

185、architecture can be found in the WTO TRIPS Agreement,whereas many more critical elements are found in this Index.As the Index has documented over the past 13 years,too many economies have resisted the IP standards embodied in the TRIPS Agreement,which they have viewed as a cost rather than an invest

186、ment.Consequently,many WTO members have never fully or faithfully implemented the TRIPS Agreement.Yet,for economies that want to be on the front lines in devising solutions to the next global health crisis,that very same IP architecture provides all the tools necessary for full and effective partici

187、pation in the innovation ecosystem:enabling allocation of scarce financial resources to risky innovative R&D,facilitating IP licensing for access to critical know-how,and fostering multidirectional technology transfer through contractual partnerships.To effectively prepare for the next pandemic,the

188、WTO and WHO would be well served to focus on the enabling role IP rights play in the response to global health crises,rather than dismantle the system that has successfully supported the response to past National DevelopmentsOverall Results and Category-by-Category ScoresUp or down?How have economie

189、s fared in this edition of the Index?Table 4 shows the overall results for the thirteenth edition of the Index and how they compare to last years edition.Table 4:Change in Overall Score,Thirteenth Edition versus Twelfth EditionEconomyThirteenth Edition Overall Numeric ScoreTwelfth Edition Overall Nu

190、meric ScoreChange in Overall Score,%Movement,+/United States50.4447.745.66%UK49.8147.065.84%France49.5646.566.44%Germany48.9846.235.95%Sweden48.8146.065.97%The Netherlands48.3745.626.03%Japan48.1345.635.48%Ireland47.4444.696.15%Spain45.9743.226.36%South Korea45.5542.477.25%Switzerland45.4942.995.82%

191、Italy44.7041.956.56%Singapore42.4642.460.00%Hungary41.2038.457.15%Australia40.3540.350.00%38|International IP IndexEconomyThirteenth Edition Overall Numeric ScoreTwelfth Edition Overall Numeric ScoreChange in Overall Score,%Movement,+/Greece38.4635.717.70%Canada38.1138.110.00%Poland38.1135.377.75%Is

192、rael36.6236.370.69%Taiwan35.4032.668.39%New Zealand34.6834.680.00%Morocco31.3831.380.00%Mexico29.9929.990.00%China28.9328.930.00%Dominican Republic28.1827.651.92%Costa Rica27.5327.520.04%Saudi Arabia28.4624.2117.55%Malaysia26.7326.720.04%UAE25.5823.0011.22%Trkiye25.5225.520.00%Peru24.9124.910.00%Chi

193、le24.8624.860.00%Colombia24.6724.421.02%Brazil24.5023.265.33%Jordan22.3522.350.00%Philippines21.2920.792.41%Honduras21.0521.08-0.14%Vietnam20.6220.381.18% EconomyThirteenth Edition Overall Numeric ScoreTwelfth Edition Overall Numeric ScoreChange in Overall Score,%Movement,+/Brunei20.5420.540.00%Ghan

194、a20.5320.032.50%Ukraine20.1620.150.05%Kenya19.4418.942.64%India19.3219.320.00%Thailand19.1419.140.00%Argentina18.7418.501.30%South Africa18.6318.64-0.05%Nigeria18.1718.170.00%Egypt16.9416.930.06%Kuwait15.4714.218.87%Indonesia15.2015.200.00%Ecuador14.7914.790.00%Pakistan13.7113.710.00%Algeria13.5113.

195、182.50%Russia12.5012.500.00%Venezuela7.057.050.00%This years Index saw substantial movement in economies scores with almost two-thirds of the economies sampled seeing a score change.Of the 55 economies included,this year,20 economies had no score change.However,33 economies saw an improvement,and in

196、 two economies,the overall Index score dropped.Significantly,most of these changes were movements greater than 1%.The addition of three new indicators and a new,stand-alone category to the Index,Category 9:Incentives for Cutting-Edge Innovation,drove many of the score changes.Specifically,of the 33

197、economies that had a score increase,this was due to a strong performance on these new indicators in 22.However,as in all preceding editions of the Index,this does not mean that no meaningful score developments occurred in 2024.40|International IP IndexOn the contrary,three economiesSaudi Arabia,Unit

198、ed Arab Emirates(UAE),and Kuwaitsaw score improvements of 17.55%,11.22%,and 8.87%,respectively.These substantial and noteworthy improvements mark what appears to be a new regional trend in the Middle East.Since its inception in 20172018,the Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property(SAIP)has worked t

199、o improve the national IP environment.As detailed here in its Economy Overview,SAIPs reform efforts have cut across the categories of the Index,with improvements ranging from rightsholders ability to enforce their rights more effectively to expanding the institutional framework and systemic governan

200、ce of IP rights and related industries in Saudi Arabia.These improvements are reflected in the Kingdoms improved Index performance over the past six years.Before SAIPs reform efforts,Saudi Arabia achieved an overall Index score of 36.60%in the seventh edition of the Index.Today,that score has increa

201、sed to an overall score of 53.70%,a cumulative score increase of over 40%.Although this does not mean that rightsholders face no challenges in Saudi Arabiathe overall score still remains just over 50%of the maximum available scorethese are nevertheless real and meaningful improvements to the Saudi n

202、ational IP environment,and the Saudi Government and SAIP should be congratulated for their efforts.Like Saudi Arabia in past editions,this year,both the UAE and Kuwait saw score increases primarily because of changes to the IP enforcement environment.In the UAE,this was driven by changes to the copy

203、right enforcement environment as well as institutional improvements to the national IP environment captured in Category 8:Systemic Efficiency.Although Kuwaits overall score is still in the lower quartile of the Indexwith significant gaps in Category 8:Systemic Efficiency,Category 9:Incentives for Cu

204、tting-Edge Innovation,and Category 10:Membership and Ratification of International Treatiesand substantially lower than other high-income Index economies,there have been improvements in the enforcement environment and,specifically,rightsholders ability to enforce their copyrights and trademarks in t

205、he past two years.All three of these Middle Eastern economies have now introduced systems of administrative injunctive relief whereby rightsholders can directly contact a government authority and request the disabling of access to infringing online content.This marks a significant positive change fr

206、om previous years.The lack of large score movements in an individual Index economy does not mean that the national IP environment in 2024 stood still.As the following subsections and the individual Economy Overviews in Section 5 detail,a striking number of Index economies put forth policy proposalsb

207、oth positive and negativethat,if implemented,would amount to substantial overall score changes in future editions of the I Category 1:Patent Rights and LimitationsFigure 7 summarizes the total scores for Category 1.This category measures the strength of an economys environment for Patent Rights and

208、Limitations.The category consists of nine indicators with a maximum possible score of 9.00.Figure 7:Category 1:Patent Rights and Limitations,%Available Score0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%100.00%8.3316.6722.2222.2227.7830.2232.2233.1733.1733.3333.3333.3333.3335.9436.1136.

209、1136.1143.7244.4444.4447.2247.2247.2247.2250.0055.3955.5655.5661.1163.3363.6163.8970.8372.2275.0075.0078.3380.5680.8383.3383.3388.8991.6791.6791.6791.6791.6791.6791.6791.6794.4494.4494.4494.4497.22VenezuelaRussiaAlgeriaSouth AfricaParkistanThailandArgentinaEcuadorIndiaIndonesiaKuwaitNigeriaVietnamBr

210、azilEgyptHondurasUkraineChileGhanaTrkiyeUAEPhilippinesPeruMalaysiaMexicoColombiaKenyaSaudi ArabiaBruneiDominican RepublicCosta RicaJordanMoroccoNew ZealandCanadaHungaryPolandGreeceChina AustraliaIsraelItalyThe NetherlandsUKTaiwanSwedenSpainIrelandGermanyFranceSwitzerlandSouth KoreaU.S.JapanSingapore

211、42|International IP IndexAs in past editions,the overall results for Category 1 are still one of the strongest of all the categories included in the Index.Twenty-three economies achieved a score of 70%or more of the available score,and 31 economies in total achieved a score of 50%or more.The average

212、 score in the category is 59.82%,which is the fifth highest-scoring category in the Index.As in years past,Singapore is ranked number one,ahead of Japan,South Korea,Switzerland,and the United States.As noted in previous editions and detailed below in its Economy Overview,the patenting environment in

213、 the United States continues to be held back by uncertainty over what constitutes patent-eligible subject matter and patent nullity proceedings through the inter partes review,which occurs before the specialized Patent Trial and Appeals Board(PTAB)within the USPTO.Since the Supreme Court decisions i

214、n the Bilski,Myriad,Mayo,and Alice cases,there has been a high and sustained level of uncertainty about which inventions are patentable in the United States.Efforts to address this long-standing problem continued in 2024.Most promisingly,the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act and Promoting and Respe

215、cting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership Act were introduced into the Senate by Sens.Tillis and Coons in 2023.As discussed with respect to previous iterations of the draft bills,the proposed legislation marks a significant breakthrough on the legislative front.Both drafts address many

216、 of the long-standing areas of concern and uncertainty over what constitutes patentable subject matter in the United States as well as the uncertainty and unpredictability caused by PTAB.In 2024,Sens.Coons and Cotton introduced the Realizing Engineering,Science,and Technology Opportunities by Restor

217、ing Exclusive Patent Rights Act.It seeks to address the difficulty rightsholders have had since 2006and the Supreme Court decision in eBay v.MercExchangein getting permanent injunctions in infringement proceedings.It,too,would address what has become a long-standing challenge.On the other end of the

218、 spectrum,several developments occurred in 2024 that would negatively affect the patenting environment in the United States and curtail existing patent rights.First,in May,the USPTO proposed to change the practice of terminal disclaimers.These disclaimers are required by the agency in relation to no

219、nstatutory double patenting.In its proposals,the USPTO wishes to include a new requirement whereby applicants also agree to limit the number of claims that could be referred to in future infringement action.The agency argues that the proposed rule change would lower“the cost of challenging groups of

220、 patents tied by terminal disclaimers,resulting in reduced barriers to market entry and lower costs for consumers.”In other words,the USPTO seeks to limit and reduce existing IP rights because itnot Congress or existing patent statutebelieves that doing so would achieve a perceived policy good.In Co

221、ngress,several billsS150,HR6986,and S3583were introduced that all seek to limit the number of patents a rightsholder may assert in an infringement action.Not only do these bills discriminate and selectively target the life sciences sector with these restrictions,but they also embrace a fundamentally

222、 anti-IP and anti-innovation logic whereby the restriction of IP rights will lead to lower prices and greater access to a given product,in this case,biopharmaceutical treatments.At the time of research,the proposed laws had not been passed by Congress or signed into law.In other Index economies,righ

223、tsholders also continued to face uncertainty and a challenging environment in 2024.In the EU,discussions continued on a new cross-European compulsory licensing regime.The European Commissions proposals are based on the idea that the COVID-19 pandemic and other crises showed the need for a clearer an

224、d more“effective”pan-EU compulsory licensing mechanism.However,the European Commissions fascination with expanding involuntary mechanisms for sharing IP through a more“effective”compulsory licensing mechanism does not seem to be based on actual real-world data and need.As part of the EU legislative

225、process,in early 2024,the European Parliament provided its position on the Commissions proposed Although some of these amendments may limit the wide scope of the Commissions original proposals,Parliament has not rejected the draft legislation or has not fundamentally challenged the flawed premise on

226、 which it is based.More worryingly,the Parliaments position proposes to explicitly violate the WTO TRIPS Agreement by including trade secrets and know-how in scope.The position of EU Member States in the legislative process appears to be more reasonable.After European elections to a new European Par

227、liament in the summer of 2024 and the election of a new European Commission,so-called Trilogue negotiations are underway among the three EU institutions on a final legal text,which may be expected by the second half of 2025.New developments also occurred with respect to Supplementary Protection Cert

228、ificates(SPCs)for biopharmaceuticals.As noted over the course of the Index,the European Commission has since 2015 sought to recalibrate certain elements of the EUs SPC regime.Since 2019,Regulation 2019/933,which creates an SPC manufacturing and export exemption,has been in force.This law allows comp

229、anies to manufacture generic and biosimilar products in the EU during the SPC period for export to third(non-EU)economies and to stockpile during the last six months of the validity of the SPC for the domestic market.It still remains unclear what material benefits to the EU the introduction of this

230、exemption has had.Unlike Regulation 2019/933 and the SPC exemption,proposals for a new centralized process for granting and administering SPCs would be a positive addition to the EUs IP environment.As part of the introduction of the Unitary Patent system and Patent Court,in 2022,the European Commiss

231、ion first outlined several options for reforming the SPC system,including introducing a new centralized system of SPC protection and application.In 2024,the Commission introduced a formal legislative proposal for both a unitary SPC and a new centralized procedure for other applications and a subsequ

232、ent response from the European Parliament.On the one hand,the Commission and Parliament should be congratulated for recognizing that a potential centralized procedure for SPC protection would provide legal,administrative,and financial efficiencies to all affected parties.In this sense,the proposed l

233、egislation fills a gap and as such is a net positive.Unfortunately,fundamental aspects of the proposed procedure would insert a new level of uncertainty and potential delay into the patent term restoration process.For example,it is not clear why both the Commissions proposal and Parliaments response

234、 includes a novel SPC opposition mechanism.The purpose of the SPC system is to restore patent term lost due to the unique and lengthy sanitary registration requirements for biopharmaceutical products.This restoration is for what is already an existing,duly granted,valid,and in-force patent.Consequen

235、tly,by the time an SPC application is lodged,there will have already been plenty of opportunities for related parties to challenge the validity of the underlying in-force patent administratively or judicially either regionally through the EPO or nationally in a manner defined in each Member State.As

236、 such,it is unclear why the Commission and Parliament have felt the need to add a novel layer of potential opposition.The most likely outcome of this addition is delays in the application process and additional costs imposed on applicants.As with the proposal for a new compulsory licensing regime,it

237、 remains to be seen what will happen to the current proposals under a new Commission and European Parliament.In Australia,rightsholders saw a notable setback with the Therapeutic Goods Administration(TGA)announcing that it would not move ahead with a set of reforms and creation of a timelier patent

238、notification framework for biopharmaceutical products in 2024.As noted repeatedly in the Index,Australias pharmaceutical linkage mechanism has several notable deficiencies:the absence of an automatic stay,the certification requirements for both generic producers and innovative patent holders,the abs

239、ence of a mechanism to notify patent holders of potentially infringing follow-on products,and the historical application of market-sized damages.44|International IP IndexIt is unfortunate that after years of review and discussionand public recognition of the deficits of the current regimethe TGA wil

240、l not move forward with the necessary reforms.In late 2023 and early 2024,China released long-awaited Patent Law Implementing Regulations and updated Patent Examination Guidelines.Unfortunately,these regulations and guidelines make patent term restoration for biopharmaceuticals contingent on first a

241、 global launch taking place in China.This stands in stark contrast to international best practices,where“new”biopharmaceutical products are defined as those newly approved for that individual market.Given that most innovative medicines are first launched outside of China,this requirement all but neg

242、ates the practical availability of term restoration to most innovators.Should no action be taken by Chinese authorities and the regulations remain unchanged,the score for indicator 7 will be reduced to 0.Finally,the Colombian Government granted a compulsory license for the HIV/AIDS treatment doluteg

243、ravir in 2024.As noted last year,the issuing of the license is based on a Ministry of Health Resolution and public interest request from 2023.As detailed over the course of the Index,Colombia has moved in a decidedly negative direction on the issue of compulsory licenses.Up until the mid-2010s,the i

244、mposition and discussion of compulsory licensing for biopharmaceuticals had not been a recurring issue in Colombia.But over the past 10 years,this has now become viewed as a legitimate health policy and a way to contain pharmaceutical expenditure.Some positive developments also occurred in 2024.In a

245、 historic first,the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization(ARIPO)and the China National Intellectual Property Administration agreed on a Patent Prosecution Highway(PPH)pilot program in 2024.Neither ARIPO nor its two member economies included in the Index,Ghana and Kenya,participate in t

246、he IP5 PPH or the Global PPH or have had in place a PPH on a bilateral basis.At the time of research,the Agreement had come into effect and would remain operational for five years.PPH initiatives and increased cooperation among IP offices are one of the most tangible ways in which the administration

247、 and functioning of the international IP system can be improved and harmonized to help inventors and Category 2:Copyrights and LimitationsFigure 8 summarizes the total scores for Category 2.This category measures the strength of an economys environment for Copyrights and Limitations.The category con

248、sists of seven indicators with a maximum possible score of 7.00.Figure 8:Category 2:Copyrights and Limitations,%Available Score0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%100.00%0.0018.2921.8621.8623.2923.2924.8626.1426.8627.7129.0030.4335.5735.9036.1436.1436.1437.0038.8639.1039.5739.

249、7141.1442.6742.7143.2943.2945.1446.2946.8048.2949.8650.4350.4353.4354.1462.5764.1064.7166.1468.4370.1471.8076.8680.4381.9584.0085.5785.5790.7191.1492.7194.7196.2996.43U.S.SingaporeUKFranceGermanySwedenSouth KoreaThe NetherlandsAustraliaJapanIrelandSpainNew ZealandItalyCanadaIsraelMalaysiaGreeceHunga

250、ryMexicoMoroccoSaudi ArabiaUAECosta RicaSwitzerlandKuwaitPeruPolandChinaKenyaNigeriaGhanaBrazilThailandIndonesiaDominican RepublicIndiaColombiaPhilippinesSouth AfricaTaiwanHondurasTrkiyeChileVietnamJordanArgentinaUkraineEcuadorEgyptVenezuelaAlgeriaBruneiPakistanRussia46|International IP IndexHistori

251、cally,Index economies have not performed well in Category 2.Although most Index economies continue to score poorly in this category,the average score in this category continued to improve in 2024 from 50.61%last year to 51.45%this year.As detailed here and in the individual Economy Overviews,many In

252、dex economies saw notable improvements to their copyright environments after legislative reforms and/or stronger enforcement measures.Although challenges remain,this is an important and positive achievement.As noted in past editions of the Index,one driver of this development is the increased use of

253、 injunctive relief mechanisms.Ten years ago,rightsholders across the globe struggled to effectively enforce their copyrights against online piracy.Beginning in the mid-to late 1990s,advances in computer-based technology and the advent of the internet fundamentally changed how consumers access creati

254、ve goods.In a growing number of the worlds economies,internet penetration and the use of mobile devices are almost ubiquitous.Even in developing economies that often lack sophisticated technological infrastructure,consumers can access a growing range of digital services and content through mobile de

255、vices.The growth and scale of online piracy since the late 1990swhether through downloading,streaming,or some other technologyhave mirrored this growth in broadband and mobile device connectivity.This scale and volume of online infringement have resulted in a growing strain and burden on rightsholde

256、rs to effectively protect their content and economic rights.Since the early 2010s,rightsholders have identified and successfully applied injunctive-style relief to combat online infringement.Injunctive-style relief gives rightsholders the option of seeking redress for an infringement of copyright ei

257、ther through a court of law or,administratively,through a government authority.Expeditious legal remedies disabling access to infringing content online gives rightsholders the option of seeking redress for an infringement of copyright either through a court of law or,administratively,through a gover

258、nment authority.The mechanism can look and work slightly differently depending on the legal jurisdiction,but it results in an order to disable access to the infringing content.The past decade has seen a sharp increase in the number of economies that use this type of mechanism to effectively disable

259、access to infringing content.Today,most EU Member States,the UK,India,Singapore,Canada,and other Index economies have introduced measures that allow rightsholders to seek and gain effective relief against copyright infringement online.Often,these injunctions are categorized as either static or dynam

260、ic.Static injunctions are the most common form.These actions are against a known copyright infringer and seek relief for a specified infringement action.However,many of these economies are also introducing dynamic injunctions.Such an injunction addresses the issue of mirror sites and disables infrin

261、ging content that re-enters the public domain by simply being moved to a different access point online.Dynamic injunctive relief is an especially important tool for rightsholders of live-streamed content,such as sporting events,concerts,and televised specials.In welcome news,more Index economies int

262、roduced or extended the application of these types of injunctions in 2024.In 2024,the UAE took significant steps to improve the copyright enforcement environment.As part of a broader package of IP reforms(detailed in its Economy Overview),the Ministry of Economy introduced a new system of administra

263、tive injunctive-style relief through the InstaBlock program.Introduced in early 2024,the program aims to disable access to all copyright-infringing content online through the active monitoring of the internet by Ministry personnel as well as through direct rightsholder reporting of illicit activity.

264、As part of the initiative,the Ministry also introduced a rapid response tool termed LiveBan.This tool targets live events and broadcasts such as sports and concerts.Finally,the Ministry announced over the summer a new antipiracy partnership with the Spanish soccer league La Liga.As has been noted ov

265、er the course of the Index,rightsholders have historically faced real challenges in protecting their content in the UAE Gaps exist in the legal framework,and enforcement has always remained partial.At the time of research,the InstaBlock program was fully operational with access so far disabled to ov

266、er 1,000 websites and online access points.This is a major positive development and has significantly strengthened rightsholders ability to protect and enforce their copyrights in the UAE.As noted in the previous edition of the Index,over the past few years,some welcome developments have occurred on

267、 enforcement of copyright in Argentina.In 2023,a federal court ordered the disabling of access to several copyright-infringing websites and included a“dynamic”element.The plaintiffsled by a coalition of international,regional,and domestic rightsholdersspecifically requested that the injunction inclu

268、de the ability to update and apply the disabling of access to new websites and URLs as and when they appear.These positive actions continued in 2024.During the summer,Argentine law enforcement disabled access to over 50 websites offering access to pirated sports content.This was followed up by a rai

269、d and the arrest of a suspect.The regional rightsholders association Alianza played a pivotal role in supporting the local operation.In Brazil,the government continued to implement several concrete efforts to improve the copyright environment.On the enforcement side,operations continued under Operat

270、ion 404 Against Piracy(Operao 404 contra pirataria),which launched in 2019.Spearheaded by a special police enforcement unit,the Ministry of Justice,and with international support from the U.S.Embassy and UK police,this special enforcement effort has had direct and tangible results.In its first four

271、years of operation,over 2,000 websites and applications offering copyright-infringing content were shut down,more than 100 search and seizure warrants were issued and executed across 20 Brazilian states,and several arrests have been made.Similarly,the legislative side had important developments.To b

272、egin with,Brazil enacted Law 14,852 in May 2024.Dedicated to defining and incentivizing the video and electronic gaming industry,the new legislation provides a powerful statement that the gaming industry is a central part of Brazils burgeoning creative sector and the national economy.From an IP pers

273、pective,the new law does not introduce any new forms of IP rights and protections or greater enforcement through existing statutory rights.Both online piracy of video games and the trade in pirated and modified video games and devices remain key piracy challenges in Brazil,with several markets in So

274、 Paulo having been included in the Office of the U.S.Trade Representatives(USTR)Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy,including in the latest edition.Given the growing use of video and computer game technology around the world,it is vital that this industry be better protected in

275、 Brazil.At the time of research,no further details had been published on how the law would be implemented and applied.In a separate development,President Lula enacted bill 3,696/2023 earlier in the year.Although primarily concerned with the continued requirement of local content quotas on domestic f

276、ilm distributors,in a potential breakthrough for the creative sector,Article 3 of the law gives the National Cinema Agency the power to“determine the suspension and cessation of unauthorized use of protected Brazilian or foreign works.”In September,the agency announced that it would apply its new po

277、wers in two pilot applications,disabling access to the dissemination of audiovisual content and live sporting events.These efforts build on those taken by the Brazilian National Telecommunications Agency in 2023.As noted last year,the agency launched a dedicated campaign against illicit IPTV set-top

278、 boxes and their streaming applications online.48|International IP IndexCategory 3:Trademark Rights and LimitationsFigure 9 summarizes the total scores for Category 3.This category measures the strength of an economys environment for Trademark Rights and Limitations.The category consists of four ind

279、icators with a maximum possible score of 4.00.Figure 9:Category 3:Trademark Rights and Limitations,%Available Score0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%100.00%0.0037.5037.5037.5043.7543.7543.7543.7543.7550.0050.0050.0050.0050.0050.0050.0056.2556.2556.2556.2556.2556.2556.2556.25

280、56.2556.2562.5062.5062.5062.5062.5062.5062.5068.7568.7568.7568.7575.0075.0075.0075.0075.0075.0081.2587.5087.5087.5087.5087.5087.5087.5093.75100.00100.00100.00FranceUKU.S.South KoreaGermanyIrelandJapanNew ZealandSwedenSwitzerlandThe NetherlandsAustraliaChinaItalySaudi ArabiaSingaporeSpainUAECanadaHun

281、garyIsraelPhilippinesGhanaKuwaitMalaysiaMexicoTaiwanThailandTrkiyeBrazilChileColombiaCosta RicaDominican RepublicGreeceIndiaPolandSouth AfricaVietnamArgentinaBruneiHondurasKenyaMoroccoNigeriaPeruEcuadorEgyptIndonesiaJordanUkraineAlgeriaPakistanVenezuelaR Most economies sampled in the Index offer bas

282、ic forms of trademark protection.Only 9 of the 55 sampled economies fail to score 50%or more in this category.This Index category saw an increase in the average score from 62.84%in the twelfth edition to 63.41%.Just as with copyright infringement,an increasing share of trademark-infringing activity

283、is taking place online through e-commerce platforms and online shopping.Although many Index economies do not have the appropriate resources,technology,or mechanisms in place to combat the increased sale of counterfeit goods online,there are some examples of jurisdictions where relevant legislation,c

284、ase law,or enforcement practices have established an obligation on the part of online merchants to take down IP infringing material when notified.As noted over the past few editions of the Index,the Philippines has strengthened the ability to fight the spread of counterfeits and trademark-infringing

285、 goods online over the past few years.This continued last year.In late 2023,Republic Act 11967,the Internet Transactions Act,was passed and signed into law.The Act outlines the legal rights and responsibilities of all parties engaging in e-commerce from individual sellers to e-marketplaces and platf

286、orms.Notably,Sections 25 and 26 of the Act define primary and secondary liability for the violation of Filipino law and failure to act upon notification of IP infringement.Specifically,e-marketplaces and digital platforms can be found to have secondary liability under Section 26(b)if they“failed,aft

287、er notice,to act expeditiously in removing or disabling access to goods or services that either infringe on anothers intellectual property rights or is subject to a takedown order by any appropriate government agency.”The past year also saw similar improvements in both the UAE and Kuwait.Historicall

288、y,the UAE has not had in place a legally defined notification system allowing rightsholders to request the removal of counterfeit goods online.Although it addresses the online environment,it is unclear the extent to which existing statuteincluding,for instance,Federal Law,Decrees 5 and 34(both relat

289、ing to cybercrimes)could be used for enforcing trademarks online.This lack of legal clarity may now be changing.In late 2023,the UAE enacted a new e-commerce law,Federal Decree,Law No.14.Notably,Article 3 explicitly states that one objective of the law is to“protect intellectual property rights rega

290、rding goods or services purchased through Modern Technology.”Similarly,the IP trademark enforcement environment in Kuwait has long been difficult.Although civil remedies,including injunctive relief,the suspension of alleged infringing activities,and the seizure of infringing materials and goods,are

291、available,active enforcement has been lacking,and no dedicated measures have tackled IP infringement online.Since 20142015,laws related to telecommunications and cybercrime have also included some reference to the protection of IP rights,including allowing online requests for the disabling of websit

292、es for copyright infringement.In late 2022,these powers of administrative enforcement were extended to other IP rights,including trademarks.Today,the Ministry of Commerce and Industry offers rightsholders the ability to submit infringement complaints directly through their website.As of 2024,rightsh

293、olders can directly lodge complaints and request the disabling of access to any online access point offering access to IP infringing content and/or goods electronically directly via several Government of Kuwait websites.Public reporting suggests that the number of online access points to which acces

294、s has been disabled over the past few years numbers in the thousands.Significantly,many of these access points were disabled because of IP infringement.50|International IP IndexCategory 4:Design Rights and LimitationsFigure 10 summarizes the total scores for Category 4.This category measures the str

295、ength of the environment for design rights.The category consists of two indicators with a maximum possible score of 2.00.These indicators measure the maximum term of protection offered(including renewable periods)for design rights and the extent to which economies have in place and apply laws and pr

296、ocedures that provide necessary exclusive rights.Figure 10:Category 4:Design Rights and Limitations,%Available Score0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%100.00%0.0032.5032.5037.5042.5042.5042.5042.5042.5042.5045.0045.0045.0045.0045.0045.0045.0055.0055.0055.0055.0055.0055.0055.0

297、055.0055.0055.0057.5062.5062.5062.5065.0067.5067.5067.5075.0075.0075.0075.0080.0087.5087.5087.5087.5087.5087.5090.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00FranceGermanyIrelandJapanSwedenSwitzerlandThe NetherlandsUKSouth KoreaGreeceHungaryIsraelItalySpainTrkiyeU.S.BrazilMalaysiaMexicoPolandN

298、ew ZealandSingaporeTaiwanUAEMoroccoPakistanUkraineCanadaArgentinaBruneiChileDominican RepublicGhanaHondurasIndiaKenyaSaudi ArabiaVietnamAustraliaColombiaCosta RicaEcuadorIndonesiaPeruThailandChinaEgyptJordanKuwaitNigeriaPhilippinesSouth AfricaAlgeriaVenezuelaR Most economies included in the Index ha

299、ve in place some form of statutory law defining design rights and a term of protection for registered design rights.The average score in this category this year was 64.18%,up marginally from 64%last year.Over the past few years,many economies have reformed relevant laws and regulations pertaining to

300、 design rights and,in many cases,have extended the term of protection for registered designs.This has often been part of an accession process to the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs,a treaty included and benchmarked in the Index.This continued in 2024.S

301、ignificant changes were made to the protection of design rights in Saudi Arabia.In late 2023,Royal Decree M/45 was issued to increase the term of protection for design rights from 10 years to 15 years.Although this is still less than the 25-year term benchmark used by the Index,it is still a positiv

302、e development.As noted in the Index,public reports suggest that the Directorate General of Intellectual Property and the Indonesian Government have proposed new amendments to the Design Law,and these include an increase of the total term of protection available up to 15 years.Article 5 of the curren

303、t Industrial Design Law provides a 10-year term of protection for registered designs.At the time of research,the Indonesian parliament(the Peoples Consultative Assembly of the Republic of Indonesia)was still examining the bill.Finally,as noted last year,in late 2022,the European Commission proposed

304、changes to the existing legal framework for community designs in the EU.The European Parliament and Council reached an agreement on the final text,and in early 2024,Parliament published its formal response to the Commissions original draft.Although not having a direct impact on EU Member States Inde

305、x scores,under a revised directive and regulation on the legal protection of designs,several important changes would be made.For example,the draft legislation updates existing legal definitions and registration requirements to better align the legal framework with current and future technological de

306、velopments.Category 5:Trade Secrets and the Protection of Confidential InformationFigure 11 summarizes the total scores for Category 5.This category measures the strength of the IP environment for trade secrets and confidential information.For trade secrets,the category includes two indicators that

307、measure the availability of civil and criminal sanctions,respectively,in relation to the misappropriation,improper acquisition,use,or disclosure of trade secrets or confidential business information and the application of this legislation and effective access to these remedies.In addition to the pro

308、tection of trade secrets,this category measures the existence of a regulatory data protection(RDP)term of protection for biopharmaceuticals.In total,the category consists of three indicators with a maximum possible score of 3.00.Figure 11:Category 5:Trade Secrets and the Protection of Confidential 0

309、.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%100.00%VenezuelaNigeriaBruneiThailandPhilippinesPakistanKuwaitIndonesiaKenyaIndiaEgyptArgentinaAlgeriaUkrainePeruGhanaTrkiyeRussiaSouth AfricaChileEcuadorBrazilVietnamSaudi ArabiaMoroccoMalaysiaMexicoJordanDominican RepublicCosta RicaIsraelCh

310、inaColombiaHondurasSingaporeUAEHungaryTaiwanAustraliaUKNew ZealandPolandGreeceFranceIrelandSouth KoreaCanadaItalyU.S.JapanThe NetherlandsSwitzerlandSwedenGermanyS As noted in past editions of the Index,many Index economies do not have specific trade secret legislation in place but instead rely on la

311、ws related to employment contracts and disclosure of confidential information.Consequently,many economies have sizeable gaps in protection.Trade secrets are not adequately defined in relevant laws and regulations,and courts have limited experience ruling in cases involving the misappropriation,impro

312、per acquisition,use,or disclosure of trade secrets or confidential business information.This gap is especially pronounced with respect to criminal sanctions.Many Index economiesincluding developed OECD membersdo not have statutory criminal sanctions in place for the theft and misappropriation of tra

313、de secrets.Likewise,many economies included in the Index do not provide RDP for biopharmaceutical test data submitted during market authorization.Of those that do,many limit or actively attempt to restrict the practical availability of this protection through various terms,conditions,and/or carve-ou

314、ts.Overall,only 23 of the 55 economies included in the Index achieved a score of 50%or more in this category.Twenty-two economies achieved a score of 33.33%or less.The average score in this category remained one of the weakest in the Index at 49.27%,up only marginally from last year.As noted in prev

315、ious editions,in 2023,the European Commission published a package of proposed legislative changes not only to the EUs RDP regime but also to almost all facets related to the biopharmaceutical market authorization process and related incentives,including for orphan and pediatric drugs.Unfortunately,t

316、his reform package is almost wholly negative.The proposed revised directive would replace the current RDP regime and 8+2+1 formula with a baseline formula of 6+2 with a defined data exclusivity term of protection of six years and a two-year market exclusivity window.Although Article 81(2)of the draf

317、t directive includes the possibility of extending this exclusivity to the existing 10-year period(or even,under fairly unique circumstances,12 years),the conditions that must be fulfilled to gain these additional periods of exclusivity are so convoluted and complex that it is unlikely that many rese

318、arch entities will,in practice,be able to access them.The draft directive also appears to condition the extension of the term of exclusivity on external factors,such as market access.For example,under Article 82,the possibility of a 24-month extension of the term of data exclusivity is contingent on

319、 the relevant product being“continuously supplied into the supply chain in a sufficient quantity and in the presentations necessary to cover the needs of the patients in the Member States in which the marketing authorisation is valid.”At the time of research,the European Parliament had proposed a mo

320、dified version of the pharmaceutical package,including with respect to both the term of RDP offered and the conditioning of extensions to this term of protection on levels of market access.Although constituting an improvement over the Commissions proposed baseline terms,Parliaments draft nevertheles

321、s results in a weakening of RDP standards compared to the current term of protection.After European elections to a new European Parliament in the summer of 2024 and the election of a new European Commission,it was unclear what would happen to the current proposals.Moving forward with the draft chang

322、es to the EUs RDP regime would result in all EU Member States included in the Index seeing a score reduction for this indicator.In 2024,important changes were made to South Koreas laws related to the protection of trade secrets and confidential information.Together with similar changes to the Patent

323、 Act,in the beginning of the year,amendments to the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act significantly strengthened existing penalties and damages for trade secret violations and misappropriation of confidential information.Specifically,the changes include an almost doubling

324、 of existing punitive damages,increased potential criminal penalties for corporate entities engaged in infringement activities,and the introduction of new“corrective orders”or administrative powers granted to the Korea Intellectual Property Office.These changes follow 2019 amendments to Article 18 o

325、f the Act,which also strengthened penalties for the theft and misappropriation of trade secrets.54|International IP IndexCategory 6:Commercialization of IP Assets Figure 12 summarizes the total scores for Category 6.This category consists of six indicators with a maximum possible score of 6.00.These

326、 indicators measure the presence of barriers and incentives in place for the commercialization and licensing of IP assets.These include barriers to technology transfer,registration and disclosure requirements of licensing agreements,direct government intervention in setting licensing terms,and the e

327、xistence of tax incentives for the creation and commercialization of IP assets.Figure 12:Category 6:Commercialization of IP Assets,%Available Score 0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%100.00%4.178.3312.5016.6720.8323.6726.3327.8329.1732.0032.0033.3334.6734.6736.1738.8341.6743.

328、0044.5045.8350.0052.8354.1754.1758.3358.3361.1761.1762.5065.3365.3366.6769.5070.8370.8372.1773.6779.1779.1783.3383.3386.1786.1786.1787.5087.5087.5087.5090.3391.6791.6791.6795.8394.5095.83IndonesiaEcuadorVenezuelaGhanaKenyaRussiaVietnamColombiaUkraineNigeriaThailandKuwaitAlgeriaPakistanPhilippinesChi

329、naIndiaBrazilPeruEgyptSaudi ArabiaSouth AfricaTrkiyeUAECosta RicaHondurasJordanArgentinaSouth KoreaChileMalaysiaDominican RepublicMexicoGreeceMoroccoBruneiTaiwanPolandSwedenItalySpainNew ZealandJapanCanadaThe NetherlandsHungaryIrelandFranceGermanyUKSwitzerlandSingaporeU.S.AustraliaI As has been note

330、d in previous editions of the Index,many of the economies benchmarked in the Index introduce policies that make it more difficult to access their respective markets or commercialize IP assets.Twenty economies of the 55 sampled in the Index fail to achieve a score of 50%or more,with 12 scoring 33.33%

331、or less in the category.The average score in this category was 58.88%.In the early and mid-1980s,the U.S.Congress passed several groundbreaking pieces of legislation establishing the basis for our modern-day technology transfer and commercialization framework.Chief among these was the University and

332、 Small Business Patent Procedures Act,(the Bayh-Dole Act)of 1980.For the past 40 years,this legislative framework has supplied federal laboratories,small businesses,universities,and other entities using federal funds with the incentives needed to work with the private sector for the purpose of trans

333、lating early-stage research into usable products in the marketplace for the benefit of the wider public.The legislation resulted in a 400%increase in patenting activity by U.S.universities and between$333 billion and$1 trillion added to GDP(measured in 2012 U.S.dollars).At the micro level,the Bayh-Dole framework has led to the invention and commercialization of thousands of products and technologi