E

PCT/WG/9/11
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
DATE: MARCH 21, 2016

Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)
Working Group
Ninth Session
Geneva, May 17 to 20, 2016

PCT USER SURVEY
Document prepared by the International Bureau

SUMMARY
1.
The second PCT User Survey was conducted in 2015. Survey respondents expressedhigh levels of satisfaction with the PCT System as a whole, with the International Bureau andother Offices/Authorities, with demonstrated improvements over the baselines established in thefirst such survey conducted in 2009. The findings of the survey are contained in the executive
summary, which is reproduced in Annex I of the present document.
BACKGROUND
2.
The International Bureau undertook a survey of PCT users in 2015 (“PCT Survey 2015”).
The objectives of the survey were:(a) to measure satisfaction levels with the PCT services directly provided by theInternational Bureau;(b) to compare satisfaction levels against the results of the PCT Survey conducted in
2008/09 (“PCT Survey 2009”); and(c) to measure satisfaction levels with PCT-related services provided by Offices andAuthorities other than WIPO.
3.
The PCT Survey 2015 was developed in cooperation with Mbee.M, an external service
provider which previously has carried out surveys for WIPO on the Madrid and Hague Systems.
PCT users were invited to participate in the survey by means of individualized e-mail links andPCT/WG/9/11
page 2were encouraged to provide textual feedback in any language. The matrix of the survey
questions is reproduced in Annex II of the present document.
4.
Over 10,000 PCT users were invited to participate, and more than 1,000 survey
respondents completed the survey. Survey respondents expressed high levels of satisfaction
with the PCT System as a whole, with the International Bureau and other Offices/Authorities
receiving satisfaction ratings of 89 per cent and 83 per cent, respectively.
FOLLOW-UP
5.
The International Bureau is already taking steps to address the areas where users havesuggested improvements to the services provided by the International Bureau. Specific issues
and comments made by survey respondents in respect of the PCT services provided byindividual Offices in the various PCT capacities will be communicated to each Office concerned.
6.
The Working Group is invited tonote the results of the PCT Survey
2015 set out in Annex I to the present
document.
[Annexes follow]

PCT/WG/9/11
ANNEX IPCT SURVEY 2015
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.

Introduction

The second user survey1 of the PCT System was conducted during 2015 (PCT Survey2015). The survey aimed mainly at measuring user satisfaction with the PCT services provided
by WIPO, but additionally sought feedback concerning the PCT functions performed by other
Offices and Authorities within the PCT System. The main findings are as follows:2.

The overall global satisfaction indicator for the PCT information products andservices provided by WIPO was 89%.

The PCT training provided by WIPO was highly rated with user satisfaction ratings ofover 90% for the individual training related services.



The PCT services provided by other Offices and Authorities as a whole, and in theirvarious capacities as receiving Office, International Searching Authority, andInternational Preliminary Examining Authority, received a user satisfaction rating of83%.

A number of specific suggestions for improvement were made by PCT users
concerning the PCT portion of the WIPO website, the PCT Applicant’s Guide, PCT
training, ePCT, language-specific services, and the payment of fees to WIPO.

Survey methodology

Survey respondents were asked to evaluate the products and services provided by WIPO
and other Offices, both from a quality and satisfaction perspective.
The survey was made available in nine languages2. Individual links to the survey weresent by email to 10,830 PCT users. The e-mail addresses, comprising applicants and agents,
were extracted from international applications and from subscribers to the PCT Newsletter.
One thousand and thirty six users completed the survey, representing a response rate of
approximately 10%, which corresponds to expected survey norms. More than 1,000 free text
comments were also submitted by survey respondents.
3.

Respondents

The profile of survey respondents was broad and varied, though understandably the
majority of responses came from countries of high PCT use.

1
2

In accordance with the WIPO Program and Budget for 2014-15. The first PCT survey was conducted in 2009.
Chinese, English, French, German, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish

PCT/WG/9/11
Annex I, page 2
3.1

Participation by country
Survey respondents were from the following countries:

United States of America

158

China

131

Japan

14%
9%

88

Republic of Korea

51

India

46

5%

Germany

43

5%

Italy

43

5%

5%

Canada32

3%

Russian Federation

29

3%

France27

3%

United Kingdom

27

3%

Switzerland

26

3%

0

3.2

17%

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Number of PCT applications filed per year

Of the survey respondents, 4% filed more than 500 international applications per year,
38% filed between 101 and 500 international applications per year, and 58% filed less than 20.

Less than 2058%

20 - 10029%

101 - 5009%501 - 1000

2%

Over 1000

2%
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

PCT/WG/9/11
Annex I, page 3
3.3

Frequency and channel of PCT contact with WIPO

Survey respondents were asked to identify how often and which PCT staff or teams within
the International Bureau they had contacted in the last six months. The PCT users who
responded contacted WIPO on average two to three times within a six month period. The
receiving Office of the International Bureau received the highest number of contacts.

RO/IB

76%

PCT eServices

58%

PCT Infoline

46%

Processing Teams46%

Other team22%

Training

13%
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

E-mail was the preferred means of contact followed by WIPO’s website and telephone.
Fax and postal mail were not as frequently used. Based on the survey’s free text comments,
the preferred means of communication was related to time zone considerations and the user’s
perceptions as to the most expedient means for resolving a particular issue.

E-mail601

77%

Internet (Contact Us forms)

386

58%

Phone

386

58%

Fax

241

Letter

206
0

3.4

100

40%
36%
200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Users who have raised an issue or complaint

Of the survey respondents, nearly one out of five users had raised an issue or complaint
with the PCT at WIPO.

Issue/Complaint (No)82%

Issue/Complaint (Yes)

18%
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

PCT/WG/9/11
Annex I, page 4
4.
Quality and satisfaction of PCT information products and services provided by
WIPO
Quality and satisfaction indexes were established to evaluate the PCT services andinformation products provided by WIPO.
The quality index measured whether a particular information product or service “Met” or“Did not meet” user expectations in relation to quality, and represented the percentage of
responses which indicated that expectations were “Met”.
The satisfaction index measured the overall satisfaction of the respondents with theparticular information product or service. This included not only the end product or service itself
but also other aspects underlying the product or service delivery such as technical support, staff
availability, staff accessibility, staff responsiveness, timeliness, etc. Each product or service
was evaluated using a 5-point rating scale (“weak”, “average”, “good”, “very good”, and“excellent”).
4.1

Contacting PCT staff at WIPO

The attitude of WIPO’s PCT staff toward PCT users was perceived by respondents as
being very positive, resulting in a high level of user satisfaction with this aspect of the service
that WIPO provides. Survey respondents in general viewed WIPO PCT staff as being
courteous, friendly, competent, professional, and knowledgeable.

93

Staff attitude

86
Quality90

Assistance with issues

Overall satisfaction

79
0

20

40

60

80

100

The specific satisfaction ratings given by respondents were as follows:

Contacting PCT services

13%

Staff attitude

32%

21%

Assistance for issues

16%

Overall experience with staff

18%
0%

10%

Excellent(Overall satisfaction rating: 84%)

37%
32%

32%

28%

30%

Very good

17%

35%
40%

Good

50%

60%

Average

70%
Poor

3%

13% 2%

34%

31%
20%

15%

5%

13% 3%
80%

90%

100%

PCT/WG/9/11
Annex I, page 5Some specific examples of areas for improvement indicated by respondents in their
textual comments were the following:- expand hours of services for users in different time zones;- provide faster responses to e-mails;- make it easier to identify the right person to contact;- improve speed of service especially for urgent matters; and- extend the language coverage of PCT-related customer service.
4.2

Information resources

The PCT information resources provided by WIPO were viewed as being highly
informative and comprehensive. The PCT Newsletter, together with the PCT Applicant’s Guide
and the content of the PCT portion of the WIPO website, were all appreciated by the
respondents.

92

PCT Newsletter

80
88

PCT Applicant's Guide

Quality81

Overall satisfaction
88

Information on the website

81
0

20

40

60

80

100

The specific satisfaction ratings given by respondents were as follows:

PCT website

14%

PCT Applicant's Guide

18%

PCT Newsletter

Overall information resources

38%

17%

2%

29%

34%

15%

4%

17%

27%

36%

17%

3%

14%

30%

37%

16%

3%

90%

100%

0%

10%

Excellent

29%

20%

30%

Very good

40%
Good

50%

60%

Average

70%

80%

Poor

(Overall satisfaction rating: 81%)
Several survey respondents suggested that improvements be made in the presentationand clarity of PCT information resources. Comments were also made on difficulties
encountered in finding information and in navigating through the PCT portion of the WIPO
website. Some specific examples of areas for improvement included:

PCT/WG/9/11
Annex I, page 6- presentation of information on the website can be improved and finding the rightinformation on the website is time-consuming; and- the PCT Applicant’s Guide is very high-level, difficult to navigate, and not always uptodate.
4.3

PCT training

The PCT training services and resources provided by WIPO received ratings evidencing
very high-levels of user satisfaction. The PCT seminars, webinars, distance learning course,and video training series were all highly rated.

PCT seminars

91
92

PCT webinars

95
93

PCT distance learning course

95
96

PCT video training series

91
96
0

20

40

60

80

Quality
Overall satisfaction

100

27% of survey respondents had attended an in-person PCT seminar. The three othertraining services and products had a usage rate of about 10% each among the survey
respondents.

Seminar participant

27%

Webinar participant

13%

Video training participant

10%Distance learning course participant

9%
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

PCT/WG/9/11
Annex I, page 7
The specific satisfaction ratings were as follows:

PCT seminars

19%

39%

34%

6% 2%

PCT webinars

26%

36%

31%

5% 2%

PCT distance learning course

25%

37%

34%

4%

PCT video training series

22%

Overall PCT training

11%
0%

42%

22%

10%

Excellent

32%

20%

41%
30%

Very good

40%
Good

50%

4%
21%

60%

Average

70%

80%

5%

90% 100%

Poor(Overall satisfaction rating: 74%)
It is to be noted that the level of overall PCT training satisfaction (74%) is lower than theindividual ratings of PCT training services. This can be partly explained by the fact that many
survey respondents who responded to the overall satisfaction question did not provide individual
satisfaction ratings. This could also be due to lack of awareness of PCT training services, ordissatisfaction with some aspects of PCT training. The ratings gap between overall andindividual satisfaction could also highlight the need to better advertise and promote the PCT
training provided by WIPO.
The free text comments were analyzed in order to identify specific elements ofdissatisfaction. The only concrete issues identified were the availability of and awareness about
PCT seminars and the number, frequency and scheduling (time zone considerations) of
webinars.
4.4

Processing of international applications

The processing of international applications by the International Bureau (including as
receiving Office (RO/IB) and in its general function) overall had a high level of user satisfaction,
being rated as “good” and above by 87% of respondents. There was some level ofdissatisfaction expressed in the free text comments regarding the accessibility and availability ofstaff when such contact was needed.

94
90

Filing with RO/IB

95

Processing by IB

88

Quality
Overall satisfaction

90
90

ePCT
0

20

40

60

80

100

PCT/WG/9/11
Annex I, page 8
The specific overall satisfaction ratings were as follows:

Filing with RO/IB

25%

Processing by IB

33%

18%

ePCT

34%

24%

Overall PCT processing at WIPO

Excellent

20%

30%

Very good

10% 2%

35%

32%

10%

9% 1%

36%

31%

16%
0%

32%

8% 2%

39%
40%

Good

50%

60%

Average70%

12% 1%
80%

90% 100%

Poor(Overall satisfaction rating: 87%)
About one third (35%) of survey respondents had used ePCT private services, which are
in general perceived by their users as being easy to use for submitting documents, managing
files, and keeping track of information. A number of comments were received, however,concerning technical difficulties in obtaining and renewing digital certificates, and relating to the
management of ePCT access rights.
Some specific examples of areas where users expressed their desire to see
improvements were the following:- difficult to reach someone by phone;- make it easier to identify the right person for problem resolution;- staff is qualified but some are difficult to understand;- spoken language not always good;- colleagues in PCT Operations area are difficult to reach by fax;
- clearer system compatibility requirements, i.e., browsers, operating system plug-ins;- ePCT issues such as system performance, digital certificates, upload of documents,
handling of drawings, access management;- more training on ePCT; and- more electronic payment options.
4.5

Finance services

The quality of services offered by WIPO Finance to PCT applicants was considered by thesurvey respondents to be very high.

93

Finance services

87
0

20

40

60

80

Quality
Overall satisfaction100

PCT/WG/9/11
Annex I, page 9
The specific satisfaction rating given by respondents was as follows:

Overall Finance services

14%
0%

10%

Excellent

28%
20%

45%

30%

40%

Very good

Good

50%

12% 1%

60%

70%

AveragePoor

80%

90% 100%(Overall satisfaction rating: 87%)
Some specific examples of areas for improvement which were expressed by users
included:- need more currency options for the WIPO current account (at the moment, CHF only);- need to broaden and offer additional payment means; and- difficult to reach staff in Finance.
5.

Global satisfaction with the PCT products and services provided by WIPO

In addition to the individual product or service evaluations, respondents were asked torate their global satisfaction level with the PCT information products and services provided by
WIPO.
In response to a single question on global satisfaction, 89% of the respondents indicatedsaid that they were either “satisfied”, “very satisfied”, or “extremely satisfied”. Out of theremaining 11%, 10% of them said that they were “moderately satisfied” and thus only 1% said
that they were “dissatisfied”.
PCT global satisfaction
indicator: 89%
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

38

Extremely satisfied
Very satisfied
Satisfied

12

10

Moderately satisfied
1

Extremely
satisfied

6.

39

Very satisfied

SatisfiedModerately
satisfied

Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

PCT services provided by other Offices and International Authorities

The ratings for PCT services provided by other Offices and Authorities in their various
international capacities were globally slightly lower than the ratings for the services provided by
the International Bureau of WIPO. When the services provided by the receiving Offices(excluding RO/IB), the International Search Authorities (ISAs) and International Preliminary
Examining Authorities (IPEAs) were evaluated collectively, 83% of the respondents rated thoseservices as “good” or above.

PCT/WG/9/11
Annex I, page 10

88

ROs (excluding RO/IB)

83
88

ISAs

82

Quality90

IPEAs

Overall satisfaction

81
89

As a whole

83
0

20

40

60

80

100

The overall usefulness of PCT reports produced by the ISAs and IPEAs was highly rated
although there was less satisfaction with timeliness, the specific quality of the reports, and theavailability of staff in the International Authorities when contact was necessary.
The specific overall satisfaction ratings were as follows:

ROs (excluding RO/IB)

16%

ISAs

12%

29%

IPEAs

11%

28%

As a whole

11%

32%

0%

10%

31%

20%

Excellent

30%

Very good

36%

13%

4%

41%

15%

3%

42%

16%

3%

15%

2%

90%

100%

40%
40%
Good

50%

60%

70%

Average

Poor

80%(Overall satisfaction rating: 83%)
Some examples of free text comments relating to the services provided by Offices andAuthorities other than the International Bureau included:- difficult to access documents electronically;- not satisfied with the quality and service of the international search;- difficult to reach the patent examiner;- prior art documents are not included with the search report;- some objections raised by patent examiners are insignificant;- examiners are not given sufficient time to do a proper search; and- unable to get urgent help especially when filing online.

PCT/WG/9/11
Annex I, page 117.

Added value for national phase processing

The added value provided by the PCT for national phase processing was widely
recognized, with 81% of respondents indicating “good” or above. A certain degree of failing tomeet expectations was noted with respect to the effect of international reports and the speed ofprocessing in the national phase. In the free text comments, issues were raised relating to
objections and delays encountered in the national phase.
Added value for national phaseprocessing

81

Quality
Overall satisfaction

0

8.

87

20

40

60

80

100

Improvements in performance compared with the survey results in 2009

While the methodologies employed in the 2009 and 2015 surveys were somewhat
different, there are some results relating to information product and services areas which can becompared:Service or product evaluated% difference insatisfaction in 2015
over 2009

WIPO’s PCT Information Resources
PCT Applicant’s Guide
PCT Newsletter

+7.41
+1.87

PCT Training
Seminar delivery
PCT Multimedia (Video) Presentations+13.22+19.09Processing of international applications
Processing by RO/IB
Processing by the International Bureau
Overall quality of processing services provided
by the IB+13.83+14.79+6.89

Overall satisfaction with WIPO’s PCT Services+11.05All of the International Bureau’s products and services for which a comparison was
possible showed improvement between 2009 and 2015. Notwithstanding certain differences
between the 2009 and 2015 surveys, there are clear indications of increased levels of user
satisfaction with PCT information products and overall service quality provided by WIPO in theintervening period.
9.

Conclusion

The 2015 PCT User Survey was completed by more than 1,000 survey respondents. The
results showed a high level of satisfaction with WIPO‘s PCT services among the survey
respondents, with all comparable areas showing improvement over the baselines established in
2009.
Despite the generally positive results of the 2015 survey, users indicated a lack ofawareness as to certain PCT information products and services, in particular relating to theavailability of PCT training. As a result, WIPO will endeavor to make users and potential users
more aware of PCT training resources and opportunities.

PCT/WG/9/11
Annex I, page 12

The free text comments provided by survey respondents have provided an importantcollection of suggestions and feedback for improving WIPO’s PCT-related services, andsuggested areas where improvements could be made to the overall functioning of the PCT
System. The International Bureau is already moving to implement many of those suggestions.
[Annex II follows]PCT/WG/9/11
ANNEX IISURVEY QUESTIONS
How often have you contacted WIPO
for PCT services during the last six
months?
1 to 6 times
7 to 12 times
more than 12 times

1 - CONTACTING WIPO FOR PCT SERVICES
How have you contacted us?
Yes

No

Yes

No

Meets myexpectations

Does notmeet myexpectations

Don’tknow, Not
applicable

Weak

AverageGood

Meets myexpectations

Does notmeet myexpectations

Don’tknow, Not
applicable

By Internet (Contact Us form)
By email
By faxBy letter
By phone
Which PCT staff or teams have youcontacted during the last 6months?
The International Bureau as
Receiving Office (RO/IB)One of the Processing Teams (PTs)
PCT Information Service (PCT
Infoline)
Staff in charge of PCT training,seminars, webinars
PCT eServices
Other
Finding PCT contact information

Ease in finding how to contact these
services (phone, fax, email, etc)
Quality of the contact information
provided (clarity, completeness,
usefulness)
Ease in finding the required
information on the WIPO website
Ease in finding the right service foryour needs

Evaluation of your experience infinding contact information on PCT
services at WIPO
Contacting via email or the website(Contact Us form)

Ease in sending your enquiry via thewebsite (Contact Us form)

Very
good

ExcellentPCT/WG/9/11
Annex II, page 2
Effectiveness of the WIPO website
Contact Us form
Responsiveness in replying to emails
or Contact Us form requests
Quality of the language used in
repliesVery
good

Excellent

Very
good

Excellent

Good

Very
good

Excellent

Good

Very
good

Excellent

Weak

AverageGood

Meets myexpectations

Does notmeet myexpectations

Don’tknow, Not
applicable

Weak

AverageGood

Meets myexpectations

Does notmeet myexpectations

Don’tknow, Not
applicable

Weak

Average

Weak

Average

Evaluation of your experience incontacting PCT services at WIPO via
email or the website (Contact Us
form)
Contacting by phone

Opening hours
Availability of staff
Friendly attitude of staff
Responsiveness in answering thephone
Choice of available languages ofcommunication
Completeness of the answer given
the first time you called
Ease in contacting the right person
for your needs
Quality of the language spoken

Evaluation of your experience incontacting PCT services at WIPO by
phone
Contacting by letter or by fax

Timeliness in replying to a letter or toa fax
Style and format of the reply
Quality of the language of the reply

Evaluation of your experience incontacting PCT services at WIPO byletter or by fax
CONCLUDING THIS CHAPTER

Overall evaluation of your experiencein contacting WIPO for PCT services
Comments on your experience incontacting WIPO for PCT services

PCT/WG/9/11
Annex II, page 3

2 - PCT STAFF AT WIPO
PCT staff attitude
Meets myexpectations

Does notmeet myexpectations

Don’tknow, Not
applicable

Weak

Average

Good

Yes

No

Meets myexpectations

Does notmeet myexpectations

Don’tknow, Not
applicable

Weak

Average

Weak

Average

Courtesy of staff
Listening to your request andunderstanding of your needs
Competence of staff
Responsiveness in providing a first
reply or in acknowledging receipt of arequestQuality of the response
Making commitments and respecting
themContinuity of assistance where yourrequest is handled by different
persons or services
Proactive attitude of staff
Information provided as to who deals
with your request
Very
good

Excellent

Good

Very
good

Excellent

Good

Very
good

ExcellentYour evaluation of PCT staff attitude
at WIPO
Assistance with particular issues
or complaints
Have you ever raised an issue orcomplaint with PCT services at
WIPO?

Listening to you and understanding
your problem
Responsiveness in providing asolution or explanation
Solution or explanation provided
Our problem solving attitude
Information we provided about thestatus of your issue or complaintYour evaluation of the assistanceprovided with regard to issues orcomplaints
CONCLUDING THIS CHAPTER

Overall evaluation of your experience
in relation to PCT staff at WIPO
Comments on your experience inrelation to PCT staff at WIPO

PCT/WG/9/11
Annex II, page 4

3 - PCT SERVICES PROVIDED BY WIPO
3.1 INFORMATION RESOURCES
PCT website
Meets myexpectations

Does notmeet myexpectations

Don’tknow, Not
applicable

Weak

AverageGood

Meets myexpectations

Does notmeet myexpectations

Don’tknow, Not
applicable

Weak

AverageGood

Meets myexpectations

Does notmeet myexpectations

Don’tknow, Not
applicable

Weak

Average

Weak

Average

General information
Legal information
Information on filing a PCT
application
Training, seminars, webinars, etc.
Technical support on e-filing
Other topics
Very
good

Excellent

Very
good

Excellent

Good

Very
good

Excellent

Good

Very
good

ExcellentYour evaluation of the PCT
information provided on the website
Comments on PCT website
PCT Applicant's Guide

Ease of finding information
Clarity of the information
CompletenessHelpfulness

Your evaluation of the PCTApplicant's Guide
PCT Newsletter

Ease of finding information
Clarity of the information
CompletenessHelpfulness

Your evaluation of the PCT
Newsletter
Concluding section 3.1 on
information resources

Overall evaluation of your experiencein using PCT information resourcesYour comments on PCT
information resourcesPCT/WG/9/11
Annex II, page 5

3 - PCT SERVICES PROVIDED BY WIPO
3.2 - PCT TRAINING
PCT Seminars
Yes

No

Meets myexpectations

Does notmeet myexpectations

Don’tknow, Not
applicable

Weak

Average

Good

Yes

No

Meets myexpectations

Does notmeet myexpectations

Don’tknow, Not
applicable

Weak

Average

Good

Yes

No

Meets myexpectations

Does notmeet myexpectations

Don’tknow, Not
applicable

Weak

Average

Good

Yes

No

Have you attended a PCT seminartaught by a WIPO representative?

Availability of seminars
Materials provided during the seminar
Quality of the presentations
Training content
Very
good

Excellent

Very
good

Excellent

Very
good

ExcellentYour evaluation of PCT seminars
PCT Webinars
Have you participated in a PCT
webinar?

Frequency of webinars
Usefulness of the webinar archiverecordings
Topics variety
Quality of the presentations
Training content

Your evaluation of PCT webinars
PCT Distance Learning Course
Have you taken the PCT Distance
Learning Course?

User-friendliness of the online course
Technical support received
Training content

Your evaluation of PCT Distance
Learning Course
PCT Video Training Series
Have you watched one or moresegments of the PCT Video Training
Series?

PCT/WG/9/11
Annex II, page 6
Meets myexpectations

Does notmeet myexpectations

Don’tknow, Not
applicable

Weak

Average

Good

Very
good

Excellent

Weak

Average

Good

Very
good

Excellent

Quality of presentations
Duration of videos
Training content

Your evaluation of PCT Video
Training Series
Concluding section 3.2 on PCT
Training

Overall evaluation of your experience
with PCT training services
Your comments on the PCT
training services

3 - PCT SERVICES PROVIDED BY WIPO
3.3 - PROCESSING OF PCT APPLICATIONS AT WIPO
Processing by the International
Bureau of WIPO (IB)Meets myexpectations

Does notmeet myexpectations

Don’tknow, Not
applicable

Weak

Average

Good

Yes

No

Meets myexpectations

Does notmeet myexpectations

Timeliness in processing post-filingdocument at the IB
Accuracy in processing document at
the IB
Competence of staff
Timeliness in international publication
Accuracy of information madepublicly available for your application

Your evaluation of the processing by
the IB
Using ePCT
Have you ever used ePCT private
services?

Opening an ePCT accountManagement of rights under ePCT
Ease of submitting documents
through ePCTTime in receiving a response to yoursubmission
Ease of managing files and keeping
track of information and record
Technical support regarding the useof ePCT

Don’tknow, Not
applicable

Very
good

ExcellentPCT/WG/9/11
Annex II, page 7
Weak

Average

Good

Very
good

Excellent

Weak

Average

Good

Very
good

Excellent

Weak

Average

Good

Very
good

Excellent

Very
good

ExcellentVerysatisfied

Extremely
satisfiedYour evaluation of ePCT
Concluding section 3.3 onprocessing of PCT applications at
WIPO

Overall evaluation of your experiencein the processing of PCT applications
at WIPOYour comments on the processingof PCT applications at WIPO
Concluding this chapter on PCT
services provided by WIPO
including information resources,
training and processing of
applications

Overall evaluation of your experienceon these PCT services provided by
WIPO

Comments on these PCT services
provided by WIPO

4 - VALUE OF PCT SERVICES PROVIDED BY WIPO
Meets myexpectations

Does notmeet myexpectations

Don’tknow, Not
applicable

Weak

AverageGood

Trust and confidence in PCT services
provided by WIPO
Value of the PCT services deliveredfor your business needs

Your oveall evaluation of the value of
PCT services provided by WIPO
Your comments on the value of
PCT services provided by WIPO

5 - YOUR OVERALL SATISFACTION
Dissatisfied
In conclusion of all your previous
evaluations
Your overall satisfaction about all
PCT-related services provided by
WIPO
Comments and suggestions

Moderately
satisfiedSatisfiedPCT/WG/9/11
Annex II, page 8

6 - PCT SERVICES PROVIDED BY OTHER OFFICES THAN WIPO
a - Services provided by the
Receiving Office (RO)Please select the most frequently
used RO[List of receiving Offices]
Meets myexpectations

Does notmeet myexpectations

Don’tknow, Not
applicable

Weak

AverageGood

Meets myexpectations

Does notmeet myexpectations

Don’tknow, Not
applicable

Weak

AverageGood

Meets myexpectations

Does notmeet myexpectations

Don’tknow, Not
applicable

Ease of filing
Timely issuance of communications
to the applicant
Correct processing of documents
Availability of staff
Very
good

Excellent

Very
good

Excellent

Evaluation of your experience withthe services provided by the RO
b - Services provided by theInternational Searching Authority(ISA)
Please select the most frequently
used ISA[List of ISAs]

Timely issuance of the international
search report and written opinion
Overall quality of the international
search report
Overall quality of the written opinionof the ISA
Usefulness of the international search
report and written opinion
Availability of staff

Evaluation of your experience withthe services provided by the ISA
c - Services provided by theInternational Preliminary
Examining Authority (IPEA)
Please select the most frequently
used IPEA[List of IPEAs]

Timely issuance of the international
preliminary examination report (IPER)
Overall quality of the IPER
Usefulness of the IPER

PCT/WG/9/11
Annex II, page 9
Availability of staff
Weak

Average

Good

Very
good

Excellent

Weak

Average

Good

Very
good

Excellent

Evaluation of your experience withthe services provided by the IPEACONCLUDING THIS CHAPTERYour overall evaluation of PCT
services provided by other Offices
than WIPO
Comments on your experience
about PCT services provided byother Offices than WIPO

7 - ADDED VALUE OF THE PCT SYSTEM FOR THE PROCESSING IN THE
NATIONAL PHASE
Meets myexpectations

Does notmeet myexpectations

Don’tknow, Not
applicable

Weak

Average

Good

Information and support before andafter filing
Added value in meeting the formality
requirements of the national Office
Help in meeting the patentability
requirements of the national Office
Expedited processing in the national
phase
Economic benefit compared withdirect national filingYour overall evaluation of the added
value of the PCT System for national
phase processing
Your comments on the added
value of the PCT System fornational phase processing

8 - CONTINUING TO WORK WITH WIPO
WIPO customer assistance teams
which you know
Yes
PCT Information Services (PCT
Infoline)
PCT eServices Help Desk
PCT Processing Teams (PTs)
PCT Receiving Office (RO/IB)
Madrid Customer Service
Madrid Teams 1, 2 and 3
Madrid Client Record Unit
International Designs Registry staff
Arbitration and Mediation Center
Academy Infodesk
WIPO Customer Service Center
Finance Service Desk

No

Very
good

ExcellentPCT/WG/9/11
Annex II, page 10
WIPO Library
Others (please specify)
How likely are you toContinue to work with PCT-related
services at WIPO for your businessneeds
1=not at all likely
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10=extremely likely
Recommend PCT services tosomebody else
1=not at all likely
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10=extremely likely
Consider using WIPO services otherthan PCT services
1=not at all likely
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10=extremely likely
Yes

No

Competitors
Would you say that WIPO has
competitors for PCT services?
If yes, please specify
Compared to other customer
assistance services you have used,
how would you rate your experience
with WIPO
Worse
Similar
Better

9 - YOUR OVERALL PERCEPTION OF WIPO

PCT/WG/9/11
Annex II, page 11
Do you view WIPO as the global
forum for intellectual property
services, policy, information andcooperation
Yes
No
How would you rate WIPO in
general on the following attributes
Weak

Average

Good

Very
good

Excellent

Weak

Average

Good

Very
good

Excellent

Weak

Average

Good

Very
good

ExcellentProfessionalism
Reliability
Responsiveness
Ability to provide valuable information
Service orientation
Enterprising
Being a friendly, informal, nonbureaucratic organization
How would you rate WIPO
information and promotion throughthe following means ofcommunications

WebsitePublications
WIPO Magazine
E-mail newsletters
Press releases
Social media
EventsCONCLUDING THIS CHAPTERYour overall view of WIPO's public
imageYour comments on WIPO’s public
image

COMPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
You or your company's profile
Individual
Small or medium-sized enterprises(less than 250 employees)
Large enterprise (250 or more
employees)
University
Public research institution
Agent or law firm
Other
Number of PCT applications you file
per yearLess than 20

PCT/WG/9/11
Annex II, page 12
20 - 100
101 - 500
501 - 1000
Over 1000
How did you hear about WIPO thefirst time?
Event/Conference
InternetNational Office
Word-of-mouth
Social media
WIPO publication
Press
Other
If Other, please specify[End of Annex II and of document]