RESTRICTED  
  
WT/WGTTT/M/58  
 
13 August  2018 
(18-5079) 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 ) 
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 
WITHIN THE MANDATE O F THE WTO TO INCREAS E FLOWS OF TECHNOLOG Y TO 
DEVELOPING 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 . 1.
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, 2.
Members conti nued 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 Knowledge/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  univer sities 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, improved 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 t owards businesses and  markets.  
 Touching on the multiple factors of knowledge transfer, the presentation highlighted that 3.
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 equipment and instrumentat ion, 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 
opposed to formal li nks 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 one type of linkage would thus provide only a partial understanding of the 
patterns of interaction and their inter -reliant nature.  WT/WGTTT/M/58  
 
- 2 - 
 
   The payoffs of academic research were maximized when the private sector used and built on 4.
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 5.
with universi ties, as well as research and development (R&D) institutions, the significant majority 
of pate nt 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, 6.
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 7.
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.  
 Membe rs found WIPO 's presentation useful, rich, thought -provoking and relevant to the 8.
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 WT/WGTTT/M/58  
 
- 3 - 
 
  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 te chnology. 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, a nd 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 
Government 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 9.
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, 10.
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 11.
it was sent to 23 higher  education institutions and 10 Schedule 1 institutions or science councils. 
Valid responses were obtained from 24 institutions.  Of th ese, 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 12.
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 13.
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 14.
what exactly they had  in mind when they proposed a work programme, pri ority areas and time 
frames.  
 At the next meeting of the Working Group, tentatively scheduled for October this year, 15.
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 in 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 . WT/WGTTT/M/58  
 
- 4 - 
 
  C. ANY P OSSIBLE RECOMMENDATI ONS ON STEPS THAT MI GHT BE TAKEN WITHIN 
THE MANDATE OF THE W TO TO INCREASE FLOWS  OF TECHNOLOGY TO DEV ELOPING 
COUNTRIES  
 Under the agenda item  on possible recommendations that the Working Group could make in 16.
the future, the proponents inf ormed 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".  17.
 The meeting was adjourned . 18.
__________