News

Articles:

Singapore takes 9th spot in global intellectual property index

Singapore takes 9th spot in global intellectual property index

On
Feb 8, the US Chamber of Commerce Global Innovation Policy Centre (GIPC) released
its 6th annual International Intellectual Property (IP) Index,
“Create”.

Singapore
came in at 9th place on global intellectual property (IP) index.
Scoring 84%, the city-state is ahead of Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand,
and only came second to Japan in Asia-Pacific region.

The global
IP index Create analyses IP climate in 50 economies around the world using 40
unique indicators that benchmark activity critical to innovation development
surrounding patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secrets protection.

 “The results of this
year’s Index illustrate a growing global commitment to IP-driven creativity and
innovation,” said President and CEO of GIPC David Hirschmann.

“The majority of countries took steps to strengthen their IP
systems and foster an environment that encourages and incentivizes creators to
bring their ideas to market. While a clear pack of leaders in IP protection top
the rankings, the leadership gap has narrowed in a new global race to the top,”
he continued.

The US
tops the list, followed by Britain, Sweden, France, Germany, Ireland and the
Netherlands in the next sixth places. The only two economies from Asia-Pacific
region that made it to the top 10 are: Japan ranking 8th and
Singapore ranking 9th.

In
the last poll, Singapore scored 82% and ranked 8th on the Index in
2016 which assessed 45 countries. Singapore’s improvement on the ranking
“reflects a strong performance in the new indicators added", according to
the US Chamber of Commerce.

The latest
Index added 6 new indicators in the areas of commercialisation and systemic
efficiency to provide a more complete, bottom-to-top picture of the investments
countries are making in support of domestic innovation and creativity.

Under
the category of systemic efficiency, the 3 new indicators are: (1) inter-governmental
coordination of IP rights enforcement efforts, (2) consultation with
stakeholders during IP policy formation, and (3) educational campaigns and
awareness-raising.

Singapore
scored full marks on all three of these indicators.

Singapore’s
key strengths identified are: (1) advanced national IP framework in place, and
(2) active participation in efforts to accelerate patent prosecutions.

The
Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) has a number of cooperation
agreements and Patent Prosecution Highways (PPHs) in place and is a member of
the Global PPH. IPOS also has separate PPH agreements in place with China,
Mexico, and the European Patent Office.

While
the report recognised Singapore’s key strengths, it also named software piracy
and lack of transparency and data on Customs seizures of IP-infringing goods as
the country’s weaknesses.

According
to the report,
estimated software piracy in Singapore has decreased from 35% in 2009 to 30% –
but is still quite high for a high-income economy.

In
both “availability of frameworks that promote cooperative private action
against online sale of counterfeit goods” and “transparency and public
reporting by Customs authorities of trade-related IP infringement”, Singapore
scored 0.25 out of 1 for each indicator.

The two weaknesses in software piracy and lack of data on
Customs seizures were also highlighted in the 2016 survey.

In
Asia-Pacific region, the report stated that most of the economies benchmarked
in the Index are building more effective
foundations for IP policy. Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam were named to have
long-standing programs to enhance coordination among government agencies
responsible for IP enforcement.

Malaysia
is also among countries that introduced policies to enable innovators and
creators to utilise IP as an economic and commercial asset and encourage
legitimate technology transfer. In Malaysia, the government placed an emphasis
on encouraging the dissemination of IP as an asset in successive national
innovation plans.

However, in some countries, the results were mixed with
significant steps forward in some areas and steps back in others.

For
example, China adopted proposals to strengthen biopharmaceutical innovation
through its patent linkage opinion and expanded regulatory data protection
proposal, yet IP-intensive industries continue to face significant market
access barriers.

In India, the July 2017 Guidelines on the Examination of
Computer-Related Inventions significantly improved the patentability
environment for technological innovations. The Government also created IP
awareness workshops and technical training programs for enforcement agencies,
implementing key deliverables of the National Intellectual Property Rights
Policy. However, India’s score continues to suggest that additional, meaningful
reforms are needed to complement the Policy.

The
Index aspires to provide a blueprint for creating innovative and creative
sectors through an effective IP architecture.

“There is still work to be done, and we hope
governments will use this Index as a blueprint to further improve their IP
ecosystems and grow competitive, knowledge-based economies. When countries
invest in strong IP systems, we all benefit,” President and CEO of GIPC David
Hirschmann concluded.

0 Shares