RESTRICTED  
  
WT/WGTTT/M/58/Rev.1  
 
16 October 2018 
(18-6446) Page: 1/4 
Working Group on Trade and Transfer of Technology  
Fifty-Eighth Session    
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 6 JULY  2018  
Chairperson: H.E. Ms Sabine Böhlke Möller (Namibia ) 
Revision  
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA ................................ ................................ ....................  1 
B. ANALYSIS OF THE RELA TIONSHIP BETWEEN TRA DE AND TRANSFER OF 
TECHNOLOGY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  1 
C. ANY POSSIBLE RECOMME NDATIONS ON STEPS TH AT MIGHT BE TAKEN WI THIN THE 
MANDATE OF THE WTO T O INCREASE FLOWS OF TECHNOLOGY TO DEVELO PING 
COUNTRIES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  4 
D. OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA 
 The agenda contained in Airgram WTO/AIR/WGTTT/11  of 20 June  2018 was adopted . 
B. ANALYSIS OF THE RELA TIONSHIP BETWEEN TRA DE AND TRANSFER OF 
TECHNOLOGY  
 Under the agenda item on the relationship between trade and transfer of technology, Members 
continued to discuss the nexus  between trade and transfer of technology on the basis of a 
presentation made by  the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO ) entitled , "Harnessing 
Public Research for Innovation and Know ledge/Technology Transfer – The Role of Intellectual 
Property". Based on the World Intellectual Property ( IP) Report 2011, WIPO IP Indicators 
Report  2017, WIPO PCT Report 2017, and WIPO Statistics Database, the presenta tion focused, 
among others, on (i) the evol ving role of  universities and public  research organizations (PROs) in 
national innovation systems; (ii) positive impact of academic research on these systems, 
competitiveness of businesses and on how to reap best returns on investment made in public 
research; and (iii)  to "bridge the gap"  between academy and  industry for the benefit of  society.  It 
found that IP -based technology transfer was meant to lead to better use of research results, different 
forms of academic entrepreneurship and, therefore, im proved economic and social development. 
Various policy and other factors at a country and institutional level needed to coincide to ensure that 
laws spurring university and PRO patenting , bear fruit through, inter alia , technology transfer 
towards business es and  markets.  
 Touching on the multiple factors of knowledge transfer, the presentation highlighted that 
public-private knowledge transfer occurred through a large number of formal and informal channels, 
and that IP issues were only one part of the bigger  landscape. While " informal channels"  included 
the transfer of knowledge through publications, conferences and informal exchanges between 
scientists, the " formal channels"  included hiring students and researchers from universities and 
PROs, sharing equipme nt and instrumentation, contracting technology services, research 
collaboration, creating university spin -offs or joint firms, and creating newer IP -related transmission 
channels such as, licensing inventions from universities. It was through informal as o pposed to 
formal links that knowledge was most frequently diffused to firms. "Formal " and "commercial 
channels " of knowledge transfer were frequently ranked lower in importance in firm surveys for 
high-, middle - and low -income countries. Importantly, policies or research that accounted for only WT/WGTTT/M/58/Rev.1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  one type of linkage would thus provide only a partial understanding of the patterns of interaction 
and their inter -reliant nature.  
 The payoffs of academic research were maximized when the private sector used and built on 
those multiple channels of transfer . Obviously, these were not one -way exchanges from universities 
to firms. While industrial research complemented and also guided more basic research, it also meant 
"equipping"  university scientists with new and powerful instruments. For knowledge transfer to work, 
firms needed to be able to assimilate and exploit public research. Often , this was attained by firms 
actively engaging  in upstream research activity and pr omoting outward knowledge transfer from 
universities and PROs , where this capacity was scarcely available or did not exist at all. Fostering 
this two -way exchange, which built on the mutual capacities of the public and private research 
sectors  was a challe nge for high -income countries, and was particularly so for less developed 
economies with fewer links among PROs, unive rsities and the private sector.  
 In addition, the presentation highlighted that even though IP was developed in collaboration 
with universi ties, as well as research and development (R&D) institutions, the significant majority of 
patent applications and other IP fi lings came fro m businesses. However, there were  studies and 
increasing evidence  regarding the positive impact of academic research results on innovation 
systems and competitiveness of businesses. In additi on, universities and publicly -funded research 
institutions are the main generators of IP in LDCs, developing  countries  and countries in transition. 
Therefore, one of the main challen ges at the policy level was, how to obtain the best return on 
investment made in the public research and how to "bridge the gap " between academy and industry 
for the benefit of society.  
 Furthermore, the presentation, among others, pointed out that: (i) in high-income countries, 
policy approaches to promote commercialization and public research have  included, namely , 
reforming higher education systems, creating clusters, incubators and science parks, promoting 
university -industry collaboration, and encouragi ng public research institutions to file for and 
commercialize their IP; (ii) in middle - and low -income countries, it was about increasing the quality 
of public research, creating new incentives, as well as performance -linked criteria for researchers, 
enhan cing collaboration of universities and PROs with firms, and setting up mechanisms for formal 
technology transfer; (iii) in the last three decades, the legislative trend to incentivize university and 
PRO patenting and commercialization has intensified; (iv)  almost all high -income countries have 
adopted specific legislative frameworks and policies; (v) in less developed economies, promotion of 
technology transfer and the development of industry -university collaboration had  only recently been 
given attention , resulting in  an increased number of more advanced middle - and low -incom e 
economies that had  followed suit; (vi) in the absence of comprehensive data on formal and informal 
university -industry relationships, fig ures on patents and licenses were  used by rese archers and 
policymakers to gain insights into university knowledge -transfer and research performance , with a 
view to gauging the patent output of tho se institutions , in order to  detect the evolution over time 
and to enable cross -country comparisons and be nchmark performance; (vii) although businesses 
still remain ed the primary Patent Cooperation Treaty ( PCT) applicant however , since 1979, the 
number of international patent applications filed by universities and PROs had steadily increased; 
(viii) areas of academic patenting were almost the same for high - and middle -income countries, 
such as biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, medical technology, mea surement technology and organic 
fine technology ; (ix) the share of university/ PRO business patent applications und er PCT was  
increasing rapidly, showing that there was a growing knowledge/technology transfer collaboration 
between academic institutio ns and industry as  part of innovation activities; and (x) universities and 
PROs must have a well -defined and focused publ ic policy to guide their research and innovative 
activities.  
 The presentation underscored the question, as to how academic knowledge/technology 
transfer towards business innovation could be stimulat ed. This needed preconditions on the policy 
level and other actions to be taken by governments and management of academic institutions. 
Economists have argued that allowing universities and PROs to patent inventions  enabled them to 
"reveal their inventions"  and improve incentives for firms to develo p, commerc ialize, and create a 
"market" . Despite various challenges , WIPO h ad continued to support member States  and their 
innovation stakeh olders  to develop  the needed eco -systems, for successful creation and 
knowledge/technology transfer through various long -term projects , with cross -border collaboration 
and shared responsibility, as well as development of modern tools and kits.  WT/WGTTT/M/58/Rev.1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  
 Membe rs found WIPO 's presentation useful, rich, thought -provoking and relevant to the 
activities  of the Working Group, and engaged in prel iminary discussion on some of its elements. In 
sharing its  national experience with R&D,  technology generation and its transfer, t he representative  
of South Africa  stated that much of what was presented  by WIPO  found resonance with its experience 
and effor ts to harness the trade benefits from technology transfer in  higher education and tertiary 
sectors. Innovation and technology transfer is crucial for economic growth and competitiveness. To 
enhance technological innovation, scien tific R&D  was necessary to either innovate or adapt existing 
technology. As the enabler of that  endeavour, governmen ts could play a crucial role by creating and 
enabling an entrepreneurial environment,  by channelizing substantial  investments in R&D activity, 
and by creating institutional platforms that dri ve innovation. In line with this,  to reap the full benefits 
of government -funded  R&D and to grow knowledge economy, his G overnment had accel erated 
transfer and commercialization of results from publicly -funded research in wa ys that  would  benefit 
the country . 
 It is on that  basis that, among other measures, the South Afr ican Government had introduced 
the Intellectual Property Rights from Publicly Financed Res earch and Development Act (IPR A ct) of 
2008. The objective was to ince ntiviz e actors in research -to-innovation value chain to improve their 
approaches in identifying and managing IP  for eventual commercial and social use, as well as their 
interface with the private sector and international partners in these aspects.  
 The representative  of South Africa  also stated that effective policymaking required  evidence, 
and the  South African National Survey of Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer at Publicly 
Funded Research Institutions  (2008 – 2014)  was one such in strument that demonstrated his 
Government's resolve to promote innovation and tec hnology generation through R&D. The survey 
establish ed which  baseline indicators we re needed to track overall activity in IP management and 
technology transfer . The survey helped  to de fine, in practical terms, specific indicators that 
government s and its stakeholders, including the broader community of techno logy transfer 
practitioners , could  use to measure the capacity, outputs and targeted outcomes and ultimately 
impacts of publicly -funded R&D.  
 In elabora ting the key findings of the sur vey, the representative  of South Africa  stated that it  
was sent to 23 higher  education institutions and 10 Schedule 1 institutions or science councils. Valid 
responses were obtained from 24 institutions.  Of these, 23 indicated that they had  either established 
a dedicate d office of technology transfer or we re members of a regional office.  South Africa's  
experience showed that the management of technologies, patent families, trademark families, 
registered d esign families and n ew patent applications had risen  more rapidly than the increase in 
resea rch expenditure, which indicated acceleration of tho se activities relative to research 
expenditure.  On average, 100 new technologies were added annually between 201 1 and 2014 to 
the portfolio managed by respondent institutions.  In total, 45 start -up companies were formed  over 
the period to commercialize the institutions'  technology, 73% of which were based on 
publicly -funded IP.  
 Innovations generated span ned various technology and industrial sector s from low 
technology , to very high technology such as , the manufacture of satellites. South Africa' s rich 
biodiv ersity was  also a d river of many innovation and te chnology transfer initiatives.  
 The representative  of South Africa  went on to underscor e the importance of revitalizing  the 
work of  the Group , with a view to fulfi lling the mandate given by the Ministers in paragraph 37 of 
the Doha Declaration. In this context , he be lieved that the Working Group c ould agree on a clear 
work programme including identification of priority areas and time frames, so that focused work 
could be taken to achieve meaningful results.  
 Some developed country Members asked South Africa to  table a written propo sal and clarify 
what exactly they had  in mind when they proposed a work programme, pri ority areas and time 
frames.  
 The delegation of Turkey  also made a statement on the establishment of a UN Technology 
Bank for LDCs, established in Turkey, in collaborat ion with the Turkish Government , with primary 
focus on goal  17.8 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) related to technology.  In doing so, 
the delegation  highlighted the challenges faced by these countries in the area of technology and its 
transfer and stated that stream lining investment flows, accelerating  technology transfer  and WT/WGTTT/M/58/Rev.1  
 
- 4 - 
 
  exchanging  best practices in science, technology and innovation policies to LDCs was crucial to  
pulling them up the development ladder. The Bank aimed to initiate baseline Science, Technology 
and Innovation (STI) reviews and technology needs assessments in Guinea, Haiti, Sudan, Timor -
Leste and Uganda. Turkey also expressed interest in making a detailed presentation on the Bank's 
activities and objectives at one of the future meetings .   
 At the next meeting of the Working Group, tentatively scheduled for October this year, 
Members have invited the Foo d and Agriculture Organization  to share its work in the area of 
innovation, technology, its generation, transfer, and impact on productivity gains i n agriculture. 
Members also agreed to invite the World Bank to make a presentation on its work in this area at one 
of the WGTTT's future meetings . 
C. ANY POSSIBLE RECOMME NDATIONS ON S TEPS THAT MIGHT BE T AKEN WITHIN THE 
MANDATE OF THE WTO T O INCREASE FLOWS OF TECHNOLOGY TO DEVELO PING 
COUNTRIES  
 Under the agenda item  on possible recommendations that the Working Group could make in 
the future, the proponents informed that they continued to work on a formal submission which they 
hoped to table in the Wo rking Group in the near future.  
D. OTHER BUSINESS  
 No matter w as raised under "Other Business".  
 The meeting was adjourned . 
__________