The International Patent System

2015

Economics & Statistics Series

Patent Cooperation Treaty
Yearly Review

The International Patent System

2015

Economics & Statistics Series

Patent Cooperation Treaty
Yearly Review



Acknowledgements
The PCT Yearly Review was developed under the direction of Francis Gurry (Director General) and supervised by
Carsten Fink (Chief Economist). The report was preparedby a team led by Bruno Le Feuvre and comprising Neha
Deopa, Mosahid Khan, Ryan Lamb and Hao Zhou, allfrom the Economics and Statistics Division.
Additional written contributions came from Philippe
Baechtold, Matthew Bryan, Debra Collier, Patrick Genin,
Thomas Marlow, Ken-Ichiro Natsume, Bert Beijer, James
Phillips, Mike Richardson and Ting Zhao of the Innovation
and Technology Sector. Other colleagues from this sector
offered valuable comments at various stages.
Samiah Do Carmo Figueiredo and Caterina Valles Galmes
provided valuable administrative support. Gratitude isalso due to Brenda O’Hanlon for editing the review; tothe Communications Division for designing the review,and to staff in the Language Division and the Printing
and Publication Production Section for their services.
Finally, WIPO is grateful to national and regional patentoffices for sharing their annual statistics.
Readers are welcome to reproduce the information
provided in this review, but are requested to cite WIPO
as the source. Tables and graphs can be downloaded
at: www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/statistics/pct/
Contact Information
Economics and Statistics Division
Website: www.wipo.int/ipstats
Email: ipstats.mail@wipo.int

This quick response code provides a direct link to all WIPO statistical publications,which can be downloaded free of charge without creating an account. It also
provides easy access to the WIPO Statistical Country Profiles and Data Center.
To scan this code you will need an Internet connection and a barcode reader
application for smartphones or tablets.

22014 Key numbers
Number		Trend1

Description

565,500
		+4.3%

National phase entries2

214,500
		+4.5%

Applications filed+8.7%

Applicants3

49,621
		
148

0

		
124
0
			
+0.3
55.3%
			
			

1
2
3

Member states
Countries in which PCT
applications were filed
Share of national phase entries inworldwide non-residents filings

Trends correspond to annual growth
rates in percentages or in volume.
The latest available year for PCT national
phase entry data is 2013.
PCT applicants refer to first-named applicantsin published PCT applications.

3Highlights
PCT applications grew by 4.5% on
account of China and the US

China increased its presence
among the top PCT applicants

An estimated 214,500 applications were filed in 2014,

Two of the top three applicants were located in China.

representing an increase of 4.5% on 2013 figures andWith 3,442 applications published, Huawei Technologies

marking the fifth consecutive year of growth. China and

Co. Ltd. of China became the top PCT applicant. It

the United States of America (US) combined accounted

also became the third company to have had more thanfor nearly 90% of total growth.

3,000 applications published in the space of one year.

Japan recorded its first decreasein filings in 22 years
With 61,492 PCT applications filed, the US saw a 7.1%

Qualcomm Inc. of the US and ZTE Co. of China ranked
second and third, respectively. Both companies overtook
Panasonic Co., the top 2013 filer, which moved down
three places.

growth on 2013. China, with 25,539 filings, saw the highest annual growth among the top 10 countries, with an

For the first time, over 10% of the top 50 PCT applicants

increase of 18.7% on 2013 figures. The number of filings

were from China. Among the top 50 companies, thefrom Japan, the second largest PCT user, decreased for

majority were from Japan (19), followed by the US (15)the first time since 1992; as a result of a 3% drop, a total

and China (6). The number of Chinese applicants rank-of 42,459 filings.

ing among the top 50 doubled between 2013 and 2014.

Among the top 10 filing countries, 7 saw growth. Notable
increases originated from the United Kingdom (UK) (+9%),

Computer technology became thetechnology field with the most applications

the Republic of Korea (+6.2%) and France (+5.2%). The

Due to notable annual growth of 19.4%, computer tech-

number of filings from Switzerland (-5.9%), Japan (-3%)

nology became the field with the highest number of PCTand Sweden (-0.5%) decreased.

applications published (17,653) in 2014. It was followed bydigital communication (16,165) and electrical machinery

Other countries that saw notable increases included(15,220). The latter, which was ranked in first position

Saudi Arabia (+110.2%), Mexico (+21.9%), Barbados

in 2012 and 2013, moved down two places, despite(+17.4%) and Singapore (+12.6%). In contrast, South

achieving 1.1% growth.

Africa (-15.4%) and Brazil (-11.6%) saw sharp decreases.
Among the 35 fields of technology, 13 saw double-digit
growth; these fields included medical technology (+17.1%)
and digital communication (+14.5%).

4

HIGHLIGHTS

National phase entries grew markedly,
mainly due to the US and Japan
National phase entries (NPEs) totaled 565,500 in 2013,
representing an increase of 4.3% since 2012 and accounting for 55.3% of all patent applications filed abroad.
The US (47%) and Japan (34.2%) accounted for the largest shares of total growth.
Applicants from the US remained the biggest filers of
NPEs, with 157,943 applications and annual growth of
7.5% on 2012 figures. They were followed by applicantsfrom Japan (120,839) and Germany (63,173), countries
which saw annual growth of 7.1% and 5.3%, respectively.
Growth in the number of NPEs initiated was also notablein the case of applicants residing in South Africa (+22.1%),
Singapore (+17.9%), India (+17.1%), Switzerland (+12.8%)
and the Republic of Korea (+10.7%).

5



Table of contents
A brief presentation of the Patent Cooperation Treaty
Data description

11
15

Special theme
The most active applicants in the PCT System

16

Section A
Statistics on the international phase: PCT applications
A.1

32

Overview

A.1.1 Overall trend

32

A.1.2 Top receiving offices

33

A.2

PCT applications by country of origin

35

A.2.1 World map

35

A.2.2 Filing trends

36

A.2.3 PCT applications as a share of resident applications

39

A.3

PCT applicants
A.3.1 Distribution of applicants

40
40

A.3.2 Share of PCT applications with foreign co-applicants42

A.3.3 Top PCT applicants

43

A.4

PCT applications by fields of technology
A.4.1

Overall trend

A.4.2 Countries’ specialization

6

32

47
47
47



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section B
Statistics on PCT national phase entries
B.1

50

Overview

50

B.1.1

Overall trend

50

B.1.2

Non-resident patent applications by filing route

50

National phase entries by country of origin

52

B.2

B.2.1 World map

52

B.2.2 Filing trends

53

B.2.3 PCT national phase entries per PCT application

56

B.2.4 Share of PCT national phase entries in total filings abroad

57

B.3

National phase entries by office58

B.3.1 Top offices

58

B.3.2 Share of PCT national phase entries in non-resident filings

62

7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section C
Performance of the PCT System
C.1
International Bureau
C.1.1

Electronic filing and processing

63
63
63

C.1.2

Translation and terminology database

64

C.1.3

Timeliness in examining and publishing PCT applications

66

C.1.4

Quality in processing applications

68

C.1.5

Efficiency in processing applications

69

C.2

Receiving offices

70

C.2.1 Distribution of applications by medium of filing70

C.2.2 Timeliness in transmitting applications

71

C.3

International searching authorities

73

C.3.1 International search reports by authority

73

C.3.2 Timeliness in transmitting reports

75

C.4

Supplementary international searching authorities

77

C.4.1 Supplementary international search reports by authority

77

C.5

International preliminary examining authorities
C.5.1 International preliminary reports on patentability by authority

78

C.5.2 Timeliness in transmitting reports

78

C.6

PCT-Patent Prosecution Highway pilots

8

77

80

C.6.1 New PCT-PPH pilots

80

C.6.2 Number of requests by office80

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section D
Development of the PCT System
D.1

Electronic Filing and Processing of PCT Applications

82
82

D.1.1

ePCT-Filing

82

D.1.2

ePCT system

82

D.2

PATENTSCOPE Search System

D.3

WIPO Pearl database

D.4

Legal Developments
D.4.1

Amendments that entered into force in 2014

D.4.2 Amendments adopted in 2014

D.5

Meetings

83
83
85
85
85

86

D.5.1 Meeting of International Authorities under the PCT

86

D.5.2 PCT Working Group86

D.5.3 PCT Assembly

86

D.6

PCT Training

87

D.6.1 Seminars

87

D.6.2 Webinars

87

D.6.3 Distance learning

87

D.6.4 International cooperation

87

Statistical table
Acronyms
Glossary
PCT contracting states
Additional resources

88
92
93
97
98

9



A brief presentation of
the Patent Cooperation Treaty
The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) is an international

Advantages of the Patent Cooperation Treaty

treaty administered by the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO). Since entering into force in 1978, theApplicants and patent offices of contracting states ben-

PCT has served as an alternative to the Paris Convention

efit from uniform formality requirements, international

for the Protection of Industrial Property — the Paris

search, supplementary international search and prelimi-

Convention — for pursuing patent rights in different

nary examination reports, and centralized internationalcountries. The PCT System makes it possible to seek

publication.

patent protection for an invention simultaneously in a large
number of countries by filing a single “international” patentCompared with the Paris Convention route, applicants

application instead of filing several separate national or

can delay the examination procedures at national patentregional patent applications.

offices as well as the payment of associated legal fees
and translation costs. By deferring national and regional

When it was first established, the PCT System comprised

procedures, applicants gain time to make decisions on

18 members. By 2014, it comprised 148 contracting

the potential commercialization of the invention and on

states (figure 1).

the markets in which to seek patent protection.
The reports that applicants receive during the international phase — about relevant prior art and the potential
patentability of their inventions — help them make wellinformed decisions. The PCT System is intended toreduce unnecessary duplication among patent offices
and to support work sharing between those offices.

Figure 1: Contracting states in 2014

Source: WIPO, December 201411

A BRIEF PRESENTATION OF THE PATENT COOPERATION TREATY

Figure 2: Overview of the PCT System

International
authorities2

Inventions(ISA, SISA and IPEA)

transmit
reports2
toSearch service for internationaland national patent collections

are the object ofpublishesontransmit
applications tocommunicates toare filed with
PCT
international
applications

Months frompriority date :Receiving offices

grantInternational Bureau(national or regional
patent offices or
the International Bureau)

Designated offices3

Patents(national and/or regional
patent offices)

International phase

National phase

0

12

16

18

19

22

28

30

Application
filed withpatent office1(priority date)

PCT
international
application
filed withreceiving officeTransmittalof ISR &written
opinion2

Publicationof PCT
international
application,
ISR andwritten opinion

Applicantrequests
supplementaryinternational
search2

Applicant files
a demand forinternational
preliminary
examination

Transmittalof IPRP IIorSISR

PCT national
phase entry(where the applicant
seeks protection)(optional)(optional)(optional)

1 Generally, applicants first file a national or regional patent application with their patent office, and within 12 months from priority date, file a PCT application.
2 International searching authorities (ISA) transmit international search reports (ISRs) & written opinions; authorities specified for supplementary search (SISA) transmit supplementaryinternational search reports (SISR); international preliminary examining authorities (IPEA) transmit international preliminary reports on patentability II (IPRP II).
3 Called elected offices for applicants having filed a demand for international preliminary examination.

Source: World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), February 2015

Under the PCT System, an applicant must file an applica-

International phasetion with a receiving office (RO) and choose an international searching authority (ISA) to provide an international

The international phase usually continues for a period

search report and a written opinion on the potentialof 18 months and mainly involves the filing and formal

patentability of the invention (figure 2). The International

examination of the application, international search, inter-

Bureau of WIPO then publishes the application in its

national publication, optional supplementary international

online PATENTSCOPE search database. After receiv-

search and optional international preliminary examination.

ing the international search report and written opinion,

Published applications are accessible, free of charge,

the applicant can choose to request a supplementarythrough WIPO’s online PATENTSCOPE search system.

international search by a supplementary international
searching authority, have an international preliminary

Filing applications

examination undertaken on this application by an international preliminary examining authority (IPEA), or take

Typically, applicants seeking to protect an invention in

no further action. The applicant generally has at least

more than one country first file a national or regional

30 months from the earliest filing (priority) date to decide

patent application with their national or regional patent

whether to enter the national phase in the countries oroffice. Within 12 months from the filing date of that firstregions in which protection is sought.

application (a time limit set by the Paris Convention),they file an international application under the Patent
Cooperation Treaty with a receiving office — the respec-

12

A BRIEF PRESENTATION OF THE PATENT COOPERATION TREATY

tive national or regional patent office, or the International

Supplementary international search

Bureau — thus beginning the international phase. Onlya national or resident of a PCT contracting state can file

Since January 1, 2009, the supplementary internationala PCT application.

search service has offered applicants the option to request additional searches from ISAs other than the one

Because the application has legal effect in all contractingthat carried out the initial search. This service aims tostates, applicants can effectively postpone the require-give applicants the option of obtaining a more complete

ment to pay certain substantial fees and costs, such as

overview of the prior art in the international phase by al-

the translation of the application into national languages.

lowing them to have an additional search performed in
an ISA’s specialty language. Applicants can request a

The RO transmits a copy of the application to the

supplementary international search report by a supple-

International Bureau (IB), which is responsible for:mentary ISA up to 19 months from the filing (priority) date.

• receiving and storing all application documents;

International preliminary examination• performing a second formalities examination;• translating the title and abstract of the application

After receiving the ISA’s written opinion, applicants canand certain associated documents into English and/request an optional international preliminary examination

or French, where necessary;— a second evaluation of the invention’s patentability• publishing the application and related documents in— to be carried out by an IPEA, usually on an amended
version of the application (all ISAs are also IPEAs). The

PATENTSCOPE; and• communicating documents to offices and third parties.

resulting international preliminary report on patentability
further assists the applicant in determining whether toenter the national phase.

International search
Applications are subject to an international search by one

National phaseof the 18 functioning ISAs, which identify the prior art
4

relevant to the patentability of the invention, establish an

Applicants have at least 18 months from the filing dateinternational search report, and provide a written opinionof their applications before entering the national phaseon the invention’s potential patentability. That opinion canat individual patent offices. This delay affords addi-

assist the applicant in deciding whether to continue totional time—compared with that allowed under the Paris

seek protection for the invention. If the written opinion

Convention—to evaluate the chances of obtaining a pat-is unfavorable, the applicant may choose to amend theent and to plan how to use the invention commercially inapplication to improve the probability of obtaining a

the countries in which protection is sought. In the national

patent, to withdraw the application before international

phase, each patent office is responsible for processing

publication and before incurring additional costs, or to

the application in accordance with its national patent

do nothing.

laws, and for deciding whether to grant patent protection. The time required for that processing varies acrosspatent offices.
4

The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore
and the State Intellectual Property Service of
Ukraine have been appointed as international
searching authorities (ISAs), bringing to 20 the
total number of ISAs. However, these offices
had not yet commenced operations in 2014.

13

A BRIEF PRESENTATION OF THE PATENT COOPERATION TREATY

Patent prosecution highway
The PCT patent prosecution highway (PCT-PPH) pilots
comprise bilateral agreements between patent offices
to enable applicants to request a fast-track examination procedure. Under these agreements, an applicant
receiving a written opinion or an international preliminary
report on patentability indicating that at least one claimin the PCT application has novelty, an inventive stepand industrial applicability may request that the otherpatent office fast track the examination of corresponding claims in corresponding applications. The applicant
may request the PCT-PPH procedure when entering thenational phase of the PCT in a participating designatedstate. The advantage for PCT applicants is that patentapplications are processed faster and more efficiently
by designated (or elected) offices. Participating offices
also benefit from a reduced examination workload andadditional knowledge sharing.
The Global Patent Prosecution Highway (GPPH) was
launched on January 6, 2014. The GPPH pilot is a single
multilateral agreement between a group of offices (a totalof 17 at the end of 2014). It enables applicants to make arequest for accelerated processing at any participating
office, based on work products (including PCT reports)from any of the other participating offices, using a single
set of qualifying requirements.
For more information on the PCT, please visit
www.wipo.int/pct/.

14

DATA DESCRIPTION

Data description
In order to compile figures on the international phaseof the PCT System, data were drawn from the WIPO
Statistics Database. Due to the delay in transmitting PCTapplications to WIPO, the figures for 2014 are estimates.
For top filing countries, the estimates are made using
several statistical and econometric models. For othercountries, the estimates adjust actual received applications according to each country’s share of the estimatedtotal PCT filings.
For the national phase of the PCT System, statistics
are based on data supplied to WIPO by national andregional patent offices—data which WIPO often receives
six months or more after the end of the year in question.
Therefore, the latest year for which data are available is2013. Data may be missing for some offices and may be
incomplete for some origins. Data are available for the
majority of larger offices. With the 2013 data supplied to
WIPO corresponding to 99% of the world total, only asmall proportion of the total is estimated. Missing data
are estimated using such methods as linear extrapolation and averaging adjacent data points. The equivalent
patent application concept is not used in this review.
National phase entry data by country of origin may
therefore differ slightly from other sources, such as theWIPO Data Center.
The income groups correspond to those used by theWorld Bank5 and the groupings by region are based on
the United Nations (UN) definition of regions.6
The figures in this review are subject to change.7

5
6

7

Available at data.worldbank.org/about/countryclassifications/country-and-lending-groups
Available at unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/
m49/m49regin.htm. Although the geographicalterms used by WIPO may differ slightly fromthose defined by the UN, the composition ofregions and subregions remains identical.
Regular updates are available atwww.wipo.int/ipstats/15Special theme
The most active applicants in the PCT System
For multinational companies operating at global level, thePhilips of the Netherlands was the top PCT applicant

management of IP portfolios is of strategic importance.

over this 20-year period, with 28,486 applications (table

Filing patent applications abroad is a central element of1). It was followed by Panasonic of Japan, with only 262

such management. The PCT System is one of two pos-

fewer applications. Both companies filed applications

sible filing routes for multinational companies to obtainmainly related to inventions in the field of audio-visual

protection in foreign markets.

technology. Over this period, two other applicants filed
more than 20,000 PCT applications, namely German

Indeed, large multinationals have been an importantcompanies Robert Bosch and Siemens.

driver of the almost continuous growth of PCT filings.
Large companies from Europe, Japan and the US have

Even though Huawei of China started using the PCTlong used the PCT System to file applications abroad.

System only as recently as 2000, it ranks fifth among

More recently, multinationals from China have been filling

the top PCT applicants. Similarly, ZTE, also of China,

record numbers of PCT applications.

ranks eighth, having only used the system since 2002.

This special theme takes a closer look at the most active

Altogether, applicants from 10 countries are included

applicants in the PCT System by analyzing longer-termin this top 50 list. Totaling 17, the US accounts for thetrends and more recent developments. It provides infor-

largest number of applicants, followed by 15 from Japanmation on the applicants with the most filings during theand 7 from Germany.

international phase of the PCT, during the national phase,and broken down by world regions.8

For 9 of the top 50 applicants, digital communication is
the main technology field followed by computer technol-

The top 50 PCT applicantsogy, which is the main field for 7 applicants. For 5 applicants, the following three fields saw the highest filing

The top 50 PCT applicants from 1995 to 2014 account for

activity: audio-visual technology; electrical machinery,almost 18% of all PCT applications filed over this period.

apparatus, and energy; and optics. Altogether, almost

Approximately 240,000 corporate applicants have filed

two-thirds (31) of the top 50 applicants primarily filed inpatent applications under the PCT since 1995. In order

one of these top 5 technology fields.

to rank among the top 50, applicants must have filed atleast 3,370 applications.

One university and two public research organizations(PROs) rank among the top 50 PCT applicants. In 27th
position, the University of California of the US filed almost
6,000 applications, mainly in the field of biotechnology.
The two PROs—the Commissariat à l’Energie Atomiqueof France and the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft of Germany—

8

16

The special theme uses statistics on PCT applications
based on published PCT applications. Where data
are taken from the WIPO Statistics Database, theanalysis covers applications published between
1995 and 2014 based on their publication date. The
latest available year for data from the European
Patent Office (EPO) PATSTAT database is 2009 forpublished PCT applications and 2011 for national
phase entries (NPEs). PCT application data rely on
the first-named applicant’s information and exclude
applicants who are natural persons. For ease ofreference, applicant names are shortened in the text.

rank 39th and 40th, respectively.

SPECIAL THEMETHE MOST ACTIVE APPLICANTS IN THE PCT SYSTEM

Table 1: Top 50 PCT applicants, 1995–2014
Rank

Name

OriginMain field of tehnology

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.
PANASONIC CORPORATIONSIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFTROBERT BOSCH CORPORATIONHUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)QUALCOMM INCORPORATEDZTE CORPORATIONTOYOTA JIDOSHA KABUSHIKI KAISHASHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHABASF SENOKIA CORPORATION
PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
LG ELECTRONICS INC.
MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORPORATIONINTEL CORPORATIONNEC CORPORATION
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANYSAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
SONY CORPORATION
FUJITSU LIMITEDMOTOROLA, INC.
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY
MICROSOFT CORPORATIONINTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATIONHEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIAHITACHI, LTD.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
FUJIFILM CORPORATIONTHOMSON LICENSING
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.
HENKEL KOMMANDITGESELLSCHAFT AUF AKTIEN
KABUSHIKI KAISHA TOSHIBAKIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.
BOSCH-SIEMENS HAUSGERATE GMBHDAIMLER AGCANON KABUSHIKI KAISHACOMMISSARIAT A L'ENERGIE ATOMIQUE ET AUX
ENERGIES ALTERNATIVESFRAUNHOFER-GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER
ANGEWANDTEN FORSCHUNG E.V.
APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.
NOVARTIS AG
PIONEER CORPORATIONDAIKIN INDUSTRIES, LTD.
ALCATEL LUCENTMURATA MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.
CORNING INCORPORATEDDOW GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES INC.
MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD.
MEDTRONIC, INC.

Netherlands
Japan
Germany
Germany
China
SwedenUnited States of America
China
Japan
Japan
Germany
FinlandUnited States of America
Republic of Korea
Japan
United States of America
Japan
United States of America
Republic of Korea
Japan
Japan
United States of America
United States of America
United States of America
United States of America
United States of America
United States of America
Japan
United States of America
Japan
FranceUnited States of America
GermanyJapan
United States of America
Germany
Germany
Japan
FranceAudio-visual technology
Audio-visual technology
Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy
Engines, pumps, turbines
Digital communication
Digital communication
Digital communication
Digital communication
Transport
OpticsOrganic fine chemistry
Digital communication
Basic materials chemistry
Digital communication
Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy
Computer technology
Computer technology
OpticsDigital communication
Audio-visual technology
Computer technology
Digital communication
Macromolecular chemistry, polymers
Computer technology
Computer technology
Computer technology
Biotechnology
Computer technology
Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy
OpticsAudio-visual technology
Measurement
Basic materials chemistryElectrical machinery, apparatus, energy
Medical technology
Other consumer goods
Transport
Optics
Semiconductors

Germany

Measurement

3,951

United States of America
Switzerland
Japan
Japan
FranceJapan
United States of America
United States of America
Japan
United States of America

Semiconductors
Pharmaceuticals
Audio-visual technology
Thermal processes and apparatus
Digital communication
Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy
OpticsMacromolecular chemistry, polymers
Engines, pumps, turbines
Medical technology

3,745
3,712
3,638
3,564
3,475
3,456
3,453
3,405
3,390
3,373

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Published PCTapplications
28,48628,224
21,695
20,577
16,86915,78915,326
14,447
12,326
12,17911,853
10,668
10,563
10,36010,167
9,658
9,441
8,991
8,501
8,356
8,266
8,009
7,463
7,191
6,821
6,484
5,935
5,824
5,056
4,886
4,696
4,680
4,513
4,306
4,200
4,183
4,122
4,115
3,981

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 201517

SPECIAL THEMETHE MOST ACTIVE APPLICANTS IN THE PCT SYSTEM

sharply. Panasonic has continually featured as one ofFiling trends of the top 10 applicants

the top three applicants since 2003. Huawei saw sharp
Half of the top 10 applicants for the period 1995-2014

increases in applications from 2006 to 2008 and again

also featured in the 2014 top 10 applicants list (see tablefrom 2012 to 2014. With more than 3,400 applications

A.3.3.1). Over this 20-year period, Philips is the only com-

in 2014, Huawei recorded the second largest numberpany to have continuously featured among the top 10

of applications in a single year by one company. It also

applicants. Robert Bosch has featured among the top 10

became the third applicant — after Panasonic and ZTE

in 19 years—with the exception of 2014; and Panasonic— to account for more than 3,000 PCT applications in

has featured in 18 years.

a single year. Huawei’s 3,442 applications in 2014 alone
would have been sufficient to be included among the

Between 2009 and 2014, most of the top 10 applicants

top 50 PCT applicants over the last 20 years. ZTE saw ahave filed between 1,000 and 2,000 applications per

sharp increase in the number of applications from 2009

year (figure 1). Philips has filed at least 1,000 applications

to 2012. It accounted for 3,920 PCT applications in 2012,

each year since 2000, reaching a peak of 2,634 appli-

representing the largest number of applications filed bycations in 2004. Since 2006, Panasonic has recorded

an applicant in a single year. Despite two consecutive

higher application numbers than Philips; these numbers

years of sharp decreases, ZTE has featured as one ofreached a peak in 2012, after which filings decreased

the top three applicants since 2010.

Figure 1: Trend in PCT applications for the top 10 applicants
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.
ROBERT BOSCH CORPORATIONPANASONIC CORPORATIONHUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

4,000

PCT applications

3,000

2,000

1,000

0
1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)
TOYOTA JIDOSHA KABUSHIKI KAISHA

2004
2005
Publication year

2006

2007

2008

2009

QUALCOMM INCORPORATEDSHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2013

2014

ZTE CORPORATION

4,000

PCT applications

3,000

2,000

1,000

0
1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015

18

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004
2005
Publication year

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

SPECIAL THEMETHE MOST ACTIVE APPLICANTS IN THE PCT SYSTEM

Most applicants mainly use their local — national orEight of the top 10 applicants filed at least 95% of theirregional — office to file PCT applications (figure 2). This

PCT applications with the same office. The small propor-

is the case for 9 of the top 10 applicants. The only excep-

tion of applications filed elsewhere may reflect researchtion is Philips, which mainly uses the International Bureau

and development undertaken abroad. Ericsson is an(IB) acting as receiving office (RO). This reflects Rule 19

exception, as it filed 40.2% of its PCT applications atunder the PCT Regulations, which requires applicants to

the Swedish office; 34.6% at the European Patent Officefile a PCT application with the national or regional office(EPO), and 25.2% elsewhere, mainly at the IB. The sec-of the country of which the applicant is a resident or aond exception is Toyota, which filed 17.5% of its PCT

national, or, alternatively, to file it with the IB.

applications at the IB.

China

European Patent OfficeInternational Bureau

Japan

SwedenUnited States of America

Others

100
75
50

N

A

TI
O

IS
H

OR
A
RP
CO
ZT
E

KA
OS
HA
JID
TA

TE
LE
FO

TO
YO

BO
L
TI
E
NA
K

HI
KI
BU
S

IC
S
ER
LM
T
AG
E

S
SI
EM
EN

KA

(P
UB
SO
N

LL
SC
H
GE
SE

AK
TI
EN

BU
S
KA
P
SH
AR

L)

AF
T

A
AI
SH
HI
K

PO
CO
R
SC
H
BO
T

BE
R
RO

IK

RA
T

RA
TE
RP
O
CO
IN
M

OM
AL
C
QU

IO
N

D

N
TI
O
RP
IC

SO
N

KO

NI
N

HU

KL
IJK

PA
NA

EL
EC
PS
PH
ILI
E

CO

TR
O

S
IE
LO
G
HN
O
EI
TE
C
AW

OR
A

NI
CS

., L
TD

N.
V

.

0

.

25

CO

Distribution of PCT applications
by receiving offices (%)

Figure 2: Distribution of receiving offices selected by the top 10 applicants, 2010–14

ApplicantSource: WIPO Statistics Database, March 201519

SPECIAL THEMETHE MOST ACTIVE APPLICANTS IN THE PCT SYSTEMOver time, the top 10 applicants have increased their use

In 2011, the two Chinese applicants accounted for theof the PCT System when filing abroad (figure 3), which islargest shares of applications filed abroad using the PCT

in line with the overall trend (see figure B.1.2). Siemensroute, whereas the two German companies accounted

was the only company to have relied on the PCT route forfor the lowest shares. Since 2003, all three Japaneseless than half of its filings abroad in 2011. The shares ofcompanies have rapidly increased their use of the PCT

the remaining companies varied from 60.6% for Robert

System.

Bosch to 97.6% for ZTE.
Figure 3: Share of PCT national phase entries in total non-resident filings for the top 10 applicants
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.
ROBERT BOSCH CORPORATIONPANASONIC CORPORATIONHUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

100

Share (%)

80
60
40
20
0
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004
2005
2006
Year of PCT national phase entries

TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)
TOYOTA JIDOSHA KABUSHIKI KAISHA2007

QUALCOMM INCORPORATEDSHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA

2008

2009

2010

2011

2010

2011

ZTE CORPORATION

100

Share (%)

80
60
40
20
0
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004
2005
2006
Year of PCT national phase entries

Source: WIPO Statistics Database and EPO PATSTAT database, March 2015

20

2007

2008

2009

SPECIAL THEMETHE MOST ACTIVE APPLICANTS IN THE PCT SYSTEM

The majority of PCT applications enter the national phase

Between 1995 and 2003, the top 10 applicants convertedof the PCT System. The top 10 PCT applicants converted

about 85% of their PCT applications into NPEs. This

73.1% of their PCT applications filed in 2009 into national

share was nearly 10 percentage points higher than thephase entries (NPEs). This is slightly below the overall

share for all PCT applicants. Between 2004 and 2009,average of 74.6% for all PCT applications filed in 2009.

the share of PCT applications that resulted in NPEs decreased sharply for the top 10 applicants, from 83% to73.1%. This was mainly due to Huawei and ZTE. In 2009,
they converted only 51.4% and 44.5%, respectively, of
their international filings into NPEs. When the figures forthese two companies are excluded, the share for the
top 10 applicants decreased to about 80% between
2006 and 2009.

Figure 4: Share of PCT applications converted into PCT national phase entries
Top 10 PCT applicants

Top 10 PCT applicants without the two Chinese applicants

PCT applicants100

Share (%)

80

60

40
1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001
2002
2003
International filing year

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Source: WIPO Statistics Database and EPO PATSTAT database, March 201521

SPECIAL THEMETHE MOST ACTIVE APPLICANTS IN THE PCT SYSTEM

On average, each PCT application filed by the top 10 ap-

With an average number of 5.5 NPEs per PCT applica-

9

plicants between 2006 and 2009 resulted in 3.2 NPEs.

tion in 2009, Qualcomm initiated the highest number of

The top 10 applicants mainly initiated between 3 and 4

NPEs per PCT application, despite its decreasing trend

national phases per PCT application filed between 1995

over time (figure 5). With 4.5 NPEs per PCT application,and 2009, with a peak of 4.5 NPEs in 1997.

Philips also has a higher than average number of NPEs
per application. All other top 10 applicants had between
2 and 3.2 NPEs per PCT application in 2009. Huawei
and Panasonic recorded the lowest numbers of NPEs
per PCT filing.

Figure 5: Average number of PCT national phase entries per converted PCT application for the

Average number of PCT national phase entries

top 10 applicants
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.
ROBERT BOSCH CORPORATIONQUALCOMM INCORPORATEDSHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHAPANASONIC CORPORATIONHUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.
ZTE CORPORATION

10
8
6
4
2
0
1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001
2002
2003
International filing year

Source: WIPO Statistics Database and EPO PATSTAT database, March 2015

922

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFTTELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)
TOYOTA JIDOSHA KABUSHIKI KAISHAThis calculation excludes PCT applications
which are not entering the national phase.

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

SPECIAL THEMETHE MOST ACTIVE APPLICANTS IN THE PCT SYSTEM

Since 1999, the 10 offices in which the top 10 PCT

Between 2007 and 2009, SIPO accounted for the largest

applicants initiated the most NPEs have accounted forshare of NPEs initiated by the top 10 applicants, whereas

90% of these applicants’ total NPEs (figure 6). Between

in 2010, the USPTO had the most NPEs. In 2011, the1995 and 2011, the top 10 applicants combined initiated

EPO, SIPO and the USPTO each accounted for about

22.4% of their NPEs at the EPO, followed by 19.9% at

23% of all NPEs.

the State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s
Republic of China (SIPO), 19.4% at the United States

Among the top 10 offices of destination, 3 are locatedPatent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and 13.1% at thein middle-income countries, namely Brazil, China andJapan Patent Office (JPO). Together, these four offices

Mexico. The top 10 offices are situated in every geo-

accounted for three-quarters of all NPEs made by thegraphical region except Africa.

top 10 applicants over this period.
Figure 6: Distribution of the top 10 offices of destination for the top 10 applicants
European Patent Office
CanadaChina
BrazilUnited States of America
Russian Federation

Japan
Australia

2002
2003
2004
2005
Year of PCT national phase entry

2006

Republic of Korea
Mexico100

Distribution (%)

75

50

25

0

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Source: WIPO Statistics Database and EPO PATSTAT database, March 201523

SPECIAL THEMETHE MOST ACTIVE APPLICANTS IN THE PCT SYSTEM

An applicant’s choice of NPE offices depends on dif-

In 2011, all top 10 applicants initiated the majority of theirferent factors, which include the office of first filing. For

NPEs at only 2 offices. ZTE initiated 75.2% of its NPEs

example, Qualcomm had almost no NPEs at the USPTO

at the EPO and the USPTO. Panasonic initiated 63.9%

in 2011, as it primarily filed first with this office (figure 7).

of its NPEs at SIPO and the USPTO. Qualcomm initiatedInterestingly, however, nearly half of all NPEs initiated by

53.7% of its NPEs at the EPO and the Korean Intellectual

Huawei were at SIPO.

Property Office (KIPO).

Figure 7: Distribution of the top 10 offices of destination by applicant, 2011

Source: WIPO Statistics Database and EPO PATSTAT database, March 2015

JID
TA
TO
YO

AG
E

T

A

TI
O

IS
H

OR
A
RP
CO
ZT
E

OS
HA

LM

KA

ER

BU
S

IC
S

HI
KI

SO
N

KA

(P
UB

S
SI
EM
EN
BO
L
TI
E
NA
K
TE
LE
FO

N

Republic of Korea
Singapore

L)

AG

RP
CO
P

SC
H
BO
T
BE
R

KO

NI
N

HU

Applicant

24

Japan
Mexico

RO

IN
M
OM
QU

AL
C

SH
AR

GM
BH

D
RA
TE
RP
O
CO

RP
CO
IC
SO
N

China
Australia

KL
IJK

PA
NA

EL
EC
PS
PH
ILI
E

TI
O
OR
A

NI
CS
TR
O

CO
S
IE
LO
G
HN
O
EI
TE
C
AW

United States of America
Canada

N

.
N.
V

.

100
75
50
25
0

., L
TD

Distribution (%)

European Patent Office
Russian Federation

SPECIAL THEMETHE MOST ACTIVE APPLICANTS IN THE PCT SYSTEM

For each of the top 10 applicants, the top 10 offices

top 10 applicants accounted for 96.2% of their total

combined received more than 95% of their NPEs, vary-

NPEs, whereas all applicants combined initiated 86.2%

ing from 96% for Qualcomm and Ericsson to 100% forof NPEs at their top 10 offices. The share of SIPO in total

Panasonic and Robert Bosch.

NPEs is lower for all applicants combined than it is forthe top 10 applicants. By contrast, the shares of Brazil

The top 10 applicants enter national phases at fewer

and India are higher for all applicants than they are for

offices than PCT applicants overall (figure 8). Between

the top 10 applicants.

2009 and 2011, the top 10 offices of destination for the
Figure 8: Distribution of the top 10 offices of destination, 2009–11
Top 10 PCT applicants				China: 25.8%
European Patent Office: 20.4%
Republic of Korea: 8.6%
Canada: 2.4%
Mexico: 1.1%
Others: 3.8%

United States of America: 21.9%
Japan: 10.3%
Russian Federation: 3.5%
Australia: 1.3%
Germany: 0.9%

PCT applicantsUnited States of America: 18.7%
China: 12.6%
Republic of Korea: 6.2%
India: 5.5%
Australia: 3.9%
Others: 13.8%

European Patent Office: 16.7%
Japan: 10.5%
Canada: 5.8%
Brazil: 3.9%
Mexico: 2.4%

Source: WIPO Statistics Database and EPO PATSTAT database, March 201525

SPECIAL THEMETHE MOST ACTIVE APPLICANTS IN THE PCT SYSTEM

Applicants with more than 500 applications

applications in a given year. Since 1995, 55 applicants
have met this criterion. Of these, 37 feature among theAnother way to consider the main users in the PCT

top 50 applicants in the period 1995 to 2014 (table 2).

System is to identify and analyze the most active applicants, defined as those who saw more than 500
Table 2: Applicants with more than 500 applications between 1995 and 2014
Among the most active applicants in
Rank Name

Origin

1995

2000

2005

2010

2014

Number of years
with more than
500 applications
19

1

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.

Netherlands

yes

yes

yes

yes

2

PANASONIC CORPORATION

Japan

yes

yes

yes

yes

15

3

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

Germany

yes

yes

yes

yes

19

yes

yes

16

4

ROBERT BOSCH CORPORATION

Germany

5

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.

China

6

TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)

Sweden

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

9

yes

yes

15

7

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

United States of America

yes

yes

9

8

ZTE CORPORATION

China

yes

yes

6

9

TOYOTA JIDOSHA KABUSHIKI KAISHA

Japan

yes

yes

9

10

SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA

Japan

yes

yes

8

11

BASF SE

Germany

yes

yes

yes

13

12

3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY

United States of America

yes

yes

yes

13

yes

14

13

NOKIA CORPORATION

Finland

yes

yes

15

LG ELECTRONICS INC.

Republic of Korea

yes

yes

9

16

MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORPORATION

Japan

yes

yes

9

17

INTEL CORPORATION

United States of America

yes

7

18

NEC CORPORATION

Japan

yes

yes

8

yes

yes

19

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

Republic of Korea

yes

9

20

SONY CORPORATION

Japan

yes

6

21

FUJITSU LIMITED

Japan

yes

8

24

MICROSOFT CORPORATION

United States of America

yes

6

25

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

United States of America

yes

6

26

HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P.

United States of America

yes

8

28

HITACHI, LTD.

Japan

yes

4

29

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

United States of America

yes

2

30

FUJIFILM CORPORATION

Japan

yes

3

34

KABUSHIKI KAISHA TOSHIBA

Japan

yes

2

46

MURATA MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.

Japan

yes

2

54

LG CHEM, LTD.

Republic of Korea

yes

1

55

HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.

United States of America

yes

1

57

GOOGLE INC.

United States of America

yes

2

61

APPLE COMPUTER, INC.

United States of America

yes

2

75

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Japan

yes

2

96

SHENZHEN CHINA STAR OPTOELECTRONICSTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD

China

yes

2

103

TENCENT TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) COMPANY
LIMITED

China

yes

1

113

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

United States of America

yes

1

155

KONICA MINOLTA, INC.

Japan

yes

1

187

DENSO CORPORATION

Japan

yes

1

258

BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO.,LTD

China

yes

1

14

PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY

United States of America yes

22

MOTOROLA, INC.

United States of America

23

E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY

United States of America

32

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.

United States of America

26

yes

yes

9
yes

8

yes

3

2

SPECIAL THEMETHE MOST ACTIVE APPLICANTS IN THE PCT SYSTEM

Among the most active applicants in
OriginRank Name

1995

37

DAIMLER AG

Germany38

CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA

Japan

2000

2005

2010

Number of years
with more than
500 applications

2014

yes

1
1

43

PIONEER CORPORATION

Japan

1

44

ALCATEL LUCENTFrance2

49

MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD.

Japan

1

52

SUMITOMO CHEMICAL COMPANY, LIMITED

Japan

1

53

INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG

Germany

64

EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY

United States of America

2
yes

1

67

SANYO ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

Japan

1

91

NXP B.V.

Netherlands

2260

BIOWINDOW GENE DEVELOPMENT INC. SHANGHAI

China

477

MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY United States of America

11

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015

The number of most active applicants has increased

The 55 most active fliers originate from 9 countries. Prior

rapidly over time (figure 9). In 1995, Procter & Gamble

to 2000, they all resided in Germany, the Netherlands,

was the only one in this category. Six years later, in 2001,

Sweden and the US. Subsequently, Panasonic of Japan

there were ten times as many. In 2007, the number ofbecame a large filer and was followed, in chronologicalapplicants with more than 500 applications peakedorder, by Biowindow Gene Development Inc. of China,

at 25, but dropped to 18 in 2010, coinciding with the

Nokia of Finland and applicants from the Republic ofglobal economic downturn. Since then, the number has

Korea and France.

increased continually, reaching a record of 39 in 2014.
Their share of total applications has followed a similar
trend, growing from 1.5% in 1995 to 20.7% in 2014 — inline with a higher concentration of PCT filings among thelargest applicants (see figure A.3.1.1).
Figure 9: Number of applicants with more than 500 applications and their share of total
PCT applications
Number of applicantsShare of published PCT applications (%)

40

Number of applicants

30

20

10

0

1.5

3.9

5.6

5.4

6.0

6.4

8.6

8.8

9.3

9.0

9.8

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004
2005
Publication year

12.2

14.3

13.1

13.6

13.6

15.5

18.4

19.9

20.7

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 201527

SPECIAL THEMETHE MOST ACTIVE APPLICANTS IN THE PCT SYSTEM

In recent years, the number of large applicants fromThe number of large European applicants has remained

China, Japan and the US grew most (figure 10). Japan,

relatively stable over time. Philips of the Netherlands,

with 19 companies, accounts for the highest proportion

Ericsson of Sweden and Nokia of Finland have been theof applicants with over 500 filings (34.9%); this number

only most active filers in their respective countries. The

has increased sharply since 2005, from 5 to 14. In 2014,

number of large applicants from Germany has increased

there were as many large Japanese applicants as there

modestly since 2000.

were large applicants from all other countries except the
US. The number of large US applicants (which represent
30.9% of such applicants) increased from 3 to 11 between
2010 and 2014. In 2014, China, with 5 companies, accounted for the third highest number of filers with morethan 500 applications. It now exceeds the number of large
applicants from Germany and the Republic of Korea.
Figure 10: Number of applicants with more than 500 applications by origin
2014

2010

2005

2000

1995

10

Un
ite

dS

tat
e

so
fA
me
ric
a

Sw
ed
en

Ko
re
a
of
Re
pu
bli
c

ds
rla
n
Ne
the

Ja
pa
n

Ge
rm
an
y

Fin
lan

0

d

5

Ch
ina

Number of applicants

15

OriginSource: WIPO Statistics Database, March 201528

SPECIAL THEMETHE MOST ACTIVE APPLICANTS IN THE PCT SYSTEM

All applicants with more than 500 applications in 2000,

share of digital communication has markedly increased

2005, 2010 and 2014 mainly filed in the same top fivesince 2000. Computer technology is the second largest

fields of technology (figure 11). These fields are digitalfield in which the most active applicants file. It accounted

communication, computer technology, electrical machin-for 16.7% of their total applications in 2014, nearly twice

ery, telecommunications and audio-visual technology.

its 2010 share.

They represent between 52.2% (in 2000) and 61.5% (in2010) of large applicants’ total PCT applications. The five

The shares of the remaining three technology fields

fields of technology for 1995 reflect the fields in whichhave decreased over time. The share of electrical ma-

Procter & Gamble mainly filed that year.

chinery stood at 8.8% in 2014, which exceeds its 2005
and 2010 levels, but remains below its 2000 share.

Between 2000 and 2014, the shares of the top two

Telecommunications and audio-visual technology saw

technology fields increased. Digital communication is thetheir shares decrease by around 6 percentage points

field in which the most active applicants filed most fre-each in 2014.

quently in 2005, 2010 and 2014. In 2014, its share stoodat 22.3%. Despite a decrease compared to 2010, theFigure 11: The top five fields of technology for the PCT applicants with more than 500 applications
2014

2010

2005

2000

1995

Share (%)

40
30
20

ine
ga
nic
f

Ha
nd
lin
g

ca
ls

Or

Ph
ar
ma
ce
uti

ry
ch
em
ist

gy
al
tec
hn
olo
Me
dic

ial
ma
ter

Ba
sic

vis
u

al
tec
hn
olo

sc
he
mi
str

y

gy

s
Au
dio
-

mu
nic
a

tio
n

y
Te
lec
om

ap
pa
ra

tus
,e

ne
rg

tec
hn
olo
gy
ma
ch
ine
ry,

Co
mp
ute
r

El
ec
tric
al

Di
git

al
co
mm
u

0

nic
ati
on

10

Technology

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 201529

SPECIAL THEMETHE MOST ACTIVE APPLICANTS IN THE PCT SYSTEM

Among the top five applicants from each of the regions of

The top five applicants per region

Africa, Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) and Oceania,
The top 50 PCT applicants of the last 20 years come fromnearly half are universities and PROs (8 out of 17). In Africa,

three of the six world regions— namely, Asia, Europe andall top five applicants are from South Africa, with Sasol

North America. Indeed, all top five applicants from eachTechnology as the top applicant. Five of the six (there areof these three regions feature in the top 50 applicants

two applicants ranked fifth) mainly filed in the chemistrylist for the period 1995 to 2014 (table 3).

sector. Among these six applicants, three are universities
and one is a PRO. In LAC, the top two are from Barbados

In Asia, Panasonic of Japan is the top applicant, and isand the following four from Brazil. Boston Scientific offollowed by Huawei and ZTE, both of China. Three of the

Barbados is the top LAC applicant. One university fea-

top five Asian applicants are from Japan. In Europe, thetures among the top five LAC applicants. In Oceania, all

top three companies accounted for more than 20,000

five top applicants are from Australia. The top applicant

applications each. Philips of the Netherlands—the top

is a PRO — the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial

PCT applicant—is followed by three German applicants

Research Organization — mainly filing in biotechnol-

and one from Sweden. In North America, all top five ap-

ogy. Two universities are also included in this ranking.

plicants are from the US. Altogether, these 15 applicants
mainly filed in 9 fields of technology, reflecting a relatively
high degree of diversity.
Table 3: The top five applicants per region, 1995–2014
RegionNameCountry

Main field of technology

Published PCTapplications

AfricaSASOL TECHNOLOGY (PROPRIETARY) LIMITEDCSIRELEMENT SIX (PTY) LTD
STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY SOUTH AFRICAN
SUGARCANE RESEARCH INSTITUTE
UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN
UNIVERSITY OF THE WITWATERSRANDPANASONIC CORPORATIONHUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.
ZTE CORPORATIONTOYOTA JIDOSHA KABUSHIKI KAISHASHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.
SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFTSouth Africa
South Africa
South Africa
South Africa

Basic materials chemistry
Biotechnology
Materials, metallurgy
Biotechnology

218
115
101
75

South Africa
South Africa
Japan
China
China
Japan
Japan
Netherlands
Germany

66
66
28,242
17,006
14,463
12,381
12,25028,55321,755ROBERT BOSCH CORPORATIONTELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)
BASF SEBOSTON SCIENTIFIC LIMITEDMARVELL WORLD TRADE LTD.
WHIRLPOOL S.A.
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO S.A. - PETROBRASUNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAISEMPRESA BRASILEIRA DE COMPRESSORES S.A. EMBRACOQUALCOMM INCORPORATEDPROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANYINTEL CORPORATION
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
MOTOROLA, INC.

Germany
SwedenGermany
Barbados
Barbados
BrazilBrazilBrazilBrazilMedical technology
Pharmaceuticals
Audio-visual technology
Digital communication
Digital communication
Transport
OpticsAudio-visual technology
Electrical machinery,
apparatus, energy
Engines, pumps, turbines
Digital communication
Organic fine chemistry
Medical technology
Digital communication
Engines, pumps, turbines
Basic materials chemistry
Pharmaceuticals
Engines, pumps, turbines

United States of America
United States of America
United States of America
United States of America
United States of America

Digital communication
Basic materials chemistry
Computer technology
OpticsDigital communication

15,428
10,587
9,683
9,021
8,015

Asia

EuropeLAC

North America

30

20,625
15,845
11,908
1,559
712
304
131
115
115

SPECIAL THEMETHE MOST ACTIVE APPLICANTS IN THE PCT SYSTEM

Published PCTapplications

RegionNameCountry

Main field of technology

Oceania

COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIALRESEARCH ORGANISATIONSILVERBROOK RESEARCH PTY LTD
UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND
UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEYRESMED LIMITED

Australia

Biotechnology

993

Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia

Textile and paper machines
Biotechnology
OpticsMedical technology

580
408
345
291

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015

Conclusion

Between 1995 and 2014, there were 55 applicants withmore than 500 applications in a given year. They came

From 1995 to 2014, the top 50 PCT applicants accounted

from nine countries. Their numbers and shares of total

for nearly 18% of all PCT applications. Philips is the top

PCT applications have markedly increased over time. In

PCT applicant, closely followed by Panasonic. Together

2014, Japan accounted for the highest number of mostwith Robert Bosch and Siemens, Philips and Panasonic

active applicants, followed by the US and China. As a

are the only applicants to have filed more than 20,000

whole, the most active applicants mainly file in digitalapplications. Huawei and ZTE are in fifth and eight posi-

communication and computer technology, and thesetion, respectively, even though they only started using thetwo technology fields have shares increasing over time.

PCT System in the early 2000s. Both recorded some ofthe highest numbers of applications for a company in a

The top 5 applicants from Asia, Europe and North

single year.

America all rank among the top 50 applicants over thelast 20 years. Only 4 countries rank among the top 5 inSince 2010, all top 10 applicants except Siemens mainly

each of the regions of Africa, LAC and Oceania — namely,used the PCT route to file abroad. The two Chinese com-

Australia, Barbados, Brazil and South Africa. Nearly half

panies among the top 10 applicants have high shares ofof all applicants ranking among in the top 5 in Africa,

filings abroad via the PCT compared with the others in

LAC, and Oceania combined are universities and PROs.

this group, especially those from Germany. Nearly threequarters of all PCT applications filed in 2009 by the top
10 applicants entered the PCT national phase — similar
to the share for all PCT applicants. On average, each ofthese PCT applications has resulted in 3.2 NPEs. In 2009,
Qualcomm and Philips were the only top 10 companies
with NPEs that exceeded this average. Since 1999, thetop 10 offices of destination have accounted for morethan 90% of all NPEs initiated by the top 10 applicants.
Compared to the overall population of PCT applicants,
the top 10 concentrate their NPEs in a smaller number ofoffices and initiate a higher proportion of NPEs at SIPO.

31SECTION A

STATISTICS ON THE INTERNATIONAL PHASE

Section A
Statistics on the international phase: PCT applications
Section A covers the international phase of the PCT
procedure. It provides a brief overview of global trends
and then focuses on PCT applications by receiving office

A.1
Overview(RO), country of origin and geographical region. It also
contains data by type of applicant and field of technol-

A.1.1 Overall trend

ogy—and for selected ROs and origins. The statistical
In 2014, an estimated 214,500 PCT applications wereannex provides data for all offices and origins.

filed, representing an increase of 4.5% on filings in 2013
(figure A.1.1). China and the US contributed, almost
equally, to 87.5% of this growth.
In 2014, nearly two-thirds of ROs (79 of the 116 ROs)
received at least one PCT application. Of these ROs, amajority (44) received more filings in 2014 than in 2013.
Figure A.1.1: Trend in PCT applications
PCT applications

Growth rate (%)

200,000

PCT applications

150,000
100,000
50,000
0

-4.8
.

15.5

11.0

14.7

17.4

16.9

20.6

18.3

17.5

13.9

22.1

16.1

2.0

4.4

6.4

11.5

9.4

6.9

2.1

5.8

11.0

7.1

5.1

4.5

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
International filing year
Note: Data for 2014 are WIPO estimates.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

32

SECTION A

STATISTICS ON THE INTERNATIONAL PHASE

Filings increased for 12 of the top 15 ROs. The stron-

A.1.2 Top receiving offices

gest annual growth rates were recorded at the State
The top 15 ROs accounted for 96% of all applications filed

Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic ofin 2014. With 62,133 filings, the United States Patent andChina (SIPO) (+18.2%), the office of Germany (+17.8%),

Trademark Office (USPTO) received the highest number

the office of the UK (+9.1%), and the USPTO (+7.7%). The

of PCT applications, followed by the Japan Patent Officenumbers of filings decreased at the offices of Finland(JPO) with 41,298 applications, and the European Patent(-12.2%), Sweden (-4.7%) and at the JPO (-4.1%).

Office (EPO) with 32,968 (figure A.1.2.1).
Figure A.1.2.1: PCT applications for top 15 receiving offices, 2014
7.7

-4.1

2.9

18.2

5.9

2.1

9.1

6.5

4.3

-4.7

17.8

6.8

0.5

PCT applications-12.2

41,29832,968
27,107
13,177

10,615

d

1,111

Fin
lan

1,211

ae
l

Ge
rm
an
y

1,221

Isr

Sw
ed
en

1,625

Sp
ain

1,718

Au
str
ali
a

1,733

Ca
na
da

Fr
an
ce

ing
do
m
dK

ur
ea
u

2,181

Un
ite

on
al
B

Ko
re
a

3,528

Int

er
na
ti

of

Ch
ina

Re
pu
bli
c

e
Pa
te

nt
O

ffic

Ja
pa
n
Eu
ro
pe
an

dS

tat
e

so
fA
me
ric
a

4,247

Un
ite

1.1

Growth rate (%): 2013-14

62,133

Receiving office

Note: Data for 2014 are WIPO estimates.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

33

SECTION A

STATISTICS ON THE INTERNATIONAL PHASE

Among middle-income countries, the offices of India

As is the case for all PCT applicants, those from low- and(761), Brazil (513) and Turkey (487) received the highest

middle-income countries can choose to file their PCT

numbers of PCT applications in 2014 (figure A.1.2.2).10

applications with the International Bureau (IB) of WIPO

Filings increased at 7 of the listed 15 ROs, with theacting as the RO. For certain countries, the IB is the only

Eurasian Patent Organization (+29.4%), Turkey (+26.2%),

competent RO. In 2014, the IB as the RO received 1,514

Mexico (+10.8%) and the Philippines (+10%) showing dou-

applications from low- and middle-income countries, anble-digit annual growth rates. In contrast, the offices ofincrease of 6.8% on 2013 figures. Among applicants fromSouth Africa (-33.7%), Morocco (-20.4%), Bulgaria (-20%),

the 63 low- and middle-income countries which filed atBrazil (-16.7%) and Ukraine (-16.3%) saw sharp decreases.

this RO, those from India (621 filings), China (255) andSouth Africa (232) filed the highest numbers of PCT applications.

Figure A.1.2.2: PCT applications for selected offices of middle-income countries, 2014
-16.7

26.2

7.4

10.8

-16.3

-6.6

-33.7

-10.8

-20.0

-20.4

2.4

9.1

22

Ph
ilip
pin
e

s

22

tio
n
rg

Eg
yp
t

24

Eu
ra
sia
n

Pa
te

nt
O

42

Ro
ma
nia

43

cc
o

44

Mo
ro

58

Th
ail
a

63

Bu
lga
ri a

127

ric
a

Uk
ra
ine

o
Me
xic

sia
Ma
lay

Tu
rke
y

Br
az
il

128

nd

216

Af

289

Ind
ia

10.0

487

So
uth

513

Hu
ng
ar
y

PCT applications

29.4

Growth rate (%): 2013-14

761

an
iza

-6.9

Receiving office

Note: Data for 2014 are WIPO estimates. China is not included in this figure because it appears in figure A.1.2.1, and also because of the significant difference
between the number of PCT applications received by SIPO and by the ROs of other middle-income countries.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

10 This report uses the World Bank income classification
based on gross national income per capita torefer to particular country groups. See Data
Description section for further information.

34

SECTION A

STATISTICS ON THE INTERNATIONAL PHASE

A.2

High-income countries accounted for 85.8% of total

PCT applications by country of origin

for 14.1% of filings. Among middle-income countries,

PCT filings, and middle-income countries accounted

Counts are based on the international filing date andcountry of residence of the first-named applicant. A statistical table detailing all origins is provided in the annex.

applicants from China, with 25,539 applications filed in2014, were by far the largest users of the PCT System.
They were followed by applicants from India (1,394),
Turkey (802), Brazil (581) and Malaysia (314). Applicantsfrom low-income countries filed 24 PCT applications; of

A.2.1 World map

these, filings from Kenya (9), the Democratic People’s

Even though applicants from 124 countries filed PCTapplications in 2014, the bulk of these applications origi-

Republic of Korea (4) and Uganda (4) accounted for thehighest numbers.

nated in just a few countries (figure A.2.1). Applicants fromJapan and the US combined filed almost half the total
number of applications (48.5%). When the numbers offilings from China, Germany and the Republic of Korea
are included, these top five countries collectively filed thethree-quarters of all PCT applications.
Figure A.2.1: PCT applications by country of origin, 2014
1-9

10 - 99

100 - 999

1,000 - 9,999

10,000 - 62,000

No dataNote: Data for 2014 are WIPO estimates.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

35

SECTION A

STATISTICS ON THE INTERNATIONAL PHASE

German applicants filed 18,008 applications; this rep-

A.2.2 Filing trends

resents 0.5% growth on 2013 figures, thus ending a
The top 10 origins accounted for 87% of total filings inperiod of two consecutive years of decreases. From2014. Between 1990 and 2010, this share varied between

1990 onwards, German applicants increased their filings

84.5% and 86%. This share has consistently increased

each year until the economic downturn of 2009. Since

since 2009.

then, German filings have not exceeded their 2008 level.

The US filed the highest number of applications (figure

Applications from the Republic of Korea rose by 6.2%

A.2.2.1). When compared with 2013 figures, the number

in 2014 to reach 13,151. Among the top five origins, theof filings from the US rose by 7.1%, reaching a total of

Republic of Korea is the only country to have achieved

61,492 in 2014. Filings from the US grew steadily sincevirtually constant growth since 1990. The only decrease

1990, except during two periods – 2002-03 and 2008-10(-0.3%) recorded during this period dates back to 1997.

–, which coincided with economic downturns.
All five countries positioned between sixth place andFilings from Japan (42,459) decreased by 3% in 2014,

tenth place are in Europe. France is the only country

thus ending 22 consecutive years of growth, including athat has seen continuous growth in filings since 1990.

period of strong growth between 2010 and 2012.

The four other countries in this group have experienced
several years of decreases since 2008, and Switzerland

China saw the highest growth among the top 10 filingis the only one of these countries to have recovered its

countries. With 25,539 applications filed – representing

pre-2009 filing level.

annual growth of 18.7% –, it recorded its 12th consecutive
year of double-digit growth and has become the thirdlargest filer in 2013.
Figure A.2.2.1: Trend in PCT applications for the top 10 origins
United States of America

Japan

China

Germany

Republic of Korea

60,000

PCT applications

50,00040,00030,00020,00010,00001990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
International filing year

36

SECTION A

STATISTICS ON THE INTERNATIONAL PHASE

FranceUnited Kingdom

Switzerland

Netherlands

Sweden10,000

PCT applications

8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
International filing year

Note: Data for 2014 are WIPO estimates.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

Table A.2.2.2 shows the top countries (up to 10) in each

In 2010, Asia overtook Europe as the region filing mostregion that filed more than 20 PCT applications in 2014.

applications. Since 2010, Asia has increased its share

These regions are based on the United Nations defini-of total filings by 4.8 percentage points. Over the sametions of regions. In 2014, applications were filed by ap-

period, Europe’s share of total filings decreased by 5.7

plicants from 124 countries. Altogether, 71 countries saw

percentage points, that is from 33.1% in 2010 to 27.4%

an increase in filings and 57 countries saw a decreasein 2014.

compared with 2013. In each region, the top three origins
combined accounted for the majority of filings.
With the exception of Africa, filings in all regions recorded
an increase on 2013 figures. The highest annual growthin numbers of applications was seen in Oceania (+7.6%),
North America (+7.1%) and Asia (+4.7%). After three consecutive years of growth, Africa saw a sharp decreaseof 13.3% in filings.
Applicants from Asia, Europe and North America filed thebulk of applications. Asian countries filed 40.6% of total
applications in 2014, followed by North America (30.1%)
and Europe (27.4%). Combined, Africa, Latin America
and the Caribbean (LAC), and Oceania accounted forless than 3% of total filings.

37

SECTION A

STATISTICS ON THE INTERNATIONAL PHASE

Table A.2.2.2: PCT applications for the top countries by region
Year of international filing

Regional
share

ChangefromRegion

Name

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2014 (%)

2013 (%)

AfricaSouth Africa

291

309

313

351

297

66.1

-15.4

Egypt

47

32

45

50

48

10.7

-4.0

Morocco

21

19

39

54

45

10.0

-16.7

Asia

EuropeLatin America & the Caribbean

North America

Oceania

Others

65

73

55

63

59

13.1

-6.3

Total*

424

433

452

518

449

0.2

-13.3

Japan

32,21638,864

43,523

43,77142,459

48.8

-3.0

China

12,30016,39818,62021,51425,53929.4

18.7

Republic of Korea

9,604

10,357

11,787

12,381

13,151

15.1

6.2

Israel

1,475

1,449

1,374

1,607

1,596

1.8

-0.7

India

1,276

1,323

1,309

1,320

1,394

1.6

5.6

Singapore

643

668

714

838

944

1.1

12.6

Turkey

479

539

536

805

802

0.9

-0.4

Saudi Arabia

82

147

286

187

393

0.5

110.2

Malaysia

349

263

292

308

314

0.4

1.9

United Arab Emirates

41

43

52

57

98

0.1

71.9

Others

246

224

292

278

295

0.3

6.1

Total*

58,711

70,27578,78583,06686,985

40.6

4.7

Germany

17,55918,84718,75017,91318,00830.7

0.5

France

7,231

7,406

7,802

7,905

8,319

14.2

5.2

United Kingdom

4,892

4,875

4,917

4,847

5,282

9.0

9.0

Netherlands

4,011

3,511

4,077

4,188

4,218

7.2

0.7

Switzerland

3,761

4,045

4,222

4,372

4,115

7.0

-5.9
-0.5

Sweden

3,303

3,476

3,600

3,946

3,925

6.7

Italy

2,655

2,686

2,845

2,868

3,061

5.2

6.7

Finland

2,136

2,075

2,312

2,095

1,815

3.1

-13.4

Spain

1,769

1,732

1,704

1,705

1,705

2.9

0.0

Austria

1,144

1,343

1,319

1,262

1,387

2.4

9.9
-0.5

Others

5,857

6,307

6,632

6,940

6,902

11.8

Total*

54,31856,30358,18058,04158,737

27.4

1.2

Brazil

487

562

588

657

581

41.2

-11.6

Mexico

191

226

188

233

284

20.1

21.9

Barbados

86

111

168

149

175

12.4

17.4

Chile

89

115

120

142

144

10.2

1.4

Colombia

47

55

71

82

102

7.2

24.4

Argentina

16

24

25

26

33

2.3

26.9

Bahamas

21

9

14

10

20

1.4

100.0

Others

70

94

104

86

72

5.1

-16.3

Total*

1,007

1,196

1,278

1,385

1,411

0.7

1.9

United States of America

45,09049,21051,85957,441

61,492

95.2

7.1

Canada

2,688

2,914

2,737

2,845

3,089

4.8

8.6

Total*

47,77852,12454,59660,28664,581

30.1

7.1

Australia

1,769

1,748

1,710

1,604

1,726

83.2

7.6

New Zealand

309

329

303

320

346

16.7

8.1

Others

6

2

2

4

2

0.1

-50.0

Total*

2,084

2,079

2,015

1,928

2,074

1.0

7.6

19

27

28

48

263

n.a.

447.9

164,341

182,437

195,334

205,272

214,500

n.a.

4.5

Unknown
Total

Note:* indicates share of world total, and n.a. indicates not applicable. Data for 2014 are WIPO estimates. Table A.2.2.2 shows the top countries in each region(with a maximum of 10 countries per region) that filed more than 20 PCT applications in 2014.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

38

SECTION A

STATISTICS ON THE INTERNATIONAL PHASE

A.2.3 PCT applications as a shareof resident applications

In 2014, applicants from Israel (1.97), Luxembourg (1.35),

Figure A.2.3 presents a hypothetical “conversion ratio”

conversion ratios above one, reflecting numerous PCT

which reflects the proportion of direct resident patentfilings with no prior resident filings. In contrast, few direct

applications converted into PCT applications, defined as

resident filings from the Republic of Korea (0.08), Poland

the total number of PCT applications divided by the total(0.08), China (0.04) and the Russian Federation (0.03)

number of direct resident applications (including regional

were converted into PCT applications.

Singapore (1.12), Sweden (1.12) and Canada (1.03) had

applications and excluding PCT national phase entries).
Resident application data are lagged by one year because

The conversion ratios of the top three filers — China

applicants have up to 12 months from the filing date of(0.04), Japan (0.17) and the US (0.23) — are relatively low.

the earlier national filing to submit a PCT application.11 For

This likely reflects high levels of filing activity by residents.

example, in order to derive the conversion ratio for Turkey,
its 2014 PCT applications (802) are divided by the 2013
direct resident applications (4,337), which equals 0.18.
In theory, the conversion ratio should be between zeroand one. However, it may exceed one because some
applications do not have priority claims associated withprior resident filings. For example, an Israeli applicant may
forego filing an application at the Israel Patent Office, but
opt to file a first application at the USPTO, after which it
is converted into a PCT application.
Figure A.2.3: Conversion ratio of direct resident patent applications to PCT applications, 2014

1.35
1.12

1.0

1.12

1.03

0.95

0.82

0.5

0.76

0.72

0.65

0.58

0.55

0.54

0.49

0.45

0.43

0.33

0.30

0.30

0.23

0.22

0.18

0.17

0.13

0.12

0.08

0.08

0.04

0.03

Un
ite

dS

0.0

0.79

Ita
ly
tat Ger
ma
es
of
ny
A
Ne meri
c
w
Ze a
ala
nd
Tu
rke
y
Ja
pa
n
Ind
ia
Re
pu
B
ra
bli
c o zil
fK
or
ea
Po
lan
Ru
d
ss
ian ChFe ina
de
ra
tio
n

1.5

1.97

Lu Isra
e
xe
mb l
ou
r
Si
ng g
ap
or
Sw e
ed
e
Ca n
na
da
Au
str
ali
a
Fin
Sw lani tz de
Ne rlan
the d
rla
nd
s
I re
lan
Be d
lgi
um
No
rw
De ay
Sa nma
ud rk
iA
ra
bia
Au
str
ia
Sp
ain
Un
F
ite rand K ceing
dom

Direct resident to PCT application
conversion ratio (%)

2.0

OriginNote: The ratio is defined for the top 30 origins in terms of PCT applications filed in 2014, divided by resident patent applications (including regional applications
and excluding PCT national phase entries) filed in 2013. Data for 2014 are WIPO estimates.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

11 Strictly speaking, the calculation of the conversion
ratio should be based on “first” filings at national
offices (excluding “subsequent” filings). However,the data collected from most patent offices do
not distinguish between first and subsequent
filings. The data in figure A.2.3 are therefore
based on total resident patent filings.

39

SECTION A

STATISTICS ON THE INTERNATIONAL PHASE

A.3

on 2013. This latter percentage grew despite a sharp in-

PCT applicantsa higher concentration of publications over time amongcrease of 8.7% in the number of applicants, thus reflecting
the largest PCT applicants. In 2004, 20% of applicantsThis subsection provides data on the distribution of

accounted for 75.9% of published applications.

applicants, applications by ownership type, share ofapplications with foreign co-applicants, and top ap-

Figure A.3.1.2 shows the distribution of PCT applica-

plicants. Applications by type of applicant are based ontions for the top 30 origins, broken down by four types

international filing date and on the country of residence ofof applicant: businesses, individuals, universities, andthe first-named applicant. For confidentiality reasons, thegovernment and research institutions. In 2014, 85.1%

list of top applicants is based on the publication date.12of all published PCT applications belonged to businessapplicants, 7.8% to individuals, 4.8% to universities, andA.3.1 Distribution of applicants

2.3% to government or research institutions.

In 2014, 210,609 PCT applications were published by

Individuals accounted for the majority of applications in

the IB and filed by 49,621 applicants. Exactly 20% of

the Russian Federation (58.2%). Universities accounted

applicants accounted for 81.3% of applications published

for a large share of applications in Singapore (18.6%) andin 2014, representing an increase of 0.5 percentage point

Spain (16.3%). Government and research institutions were
responsible for a high share of applications originating in
Malaysia (41.4%) and Singapore (18.7%).

Figure A.3.1.1: Distribution of PCT applicants and published PCT applications
2014

2009

2004

Share of applications (%)

100
80
60
40
20
0
0

20

40

Share of applicants (%)

6080

Note: Counts are based on corporate applicants only (excluding natural persons). For confidentiality reasons, data are based on the publication date.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

12 For the majority of PCT applications, thedifference between the international filing date
and the publication date is about six months.

40

100

SECTION A

STATISTICS ON THE INTERNATIONAL PHASE

Figure A.3.1.2: Distribution of PCT applications by type of applicant for the top 30 origins, 2014
96.2

95.8

95.7

92.9

Individual
92.5

90.8

University
88.1

87.9

Government/research
86.3

85.3

83.4

83.1

80.5

79.6

Business sector share (%)

100
75
50

Ch
ina

ing
do
m

Un
ite

dK

Fr
an
ce

Au
str
ia

ay

so
fA
me
ric
a

Un
ite

dS

tat
e

No
rw

De
nm
ar
k

um
Be
lgi

Ge
rm
an
y

ds
rla
n
Ne
the

Sw
i tz
er
lan
d

d
Fin
lan

Ja
pa
n

0

Sw
ed
en

25

Lu
xe
mb
ou
rg

Distribution of PCT applications (%)

Business
97.0

Origin

77.5

72.7

71.7

71.3

Individual
70.2

69.7

University
67.6

58.6

Government/research
56.0

54.7

53.4

40.1

37.7

32.5

Business sector share (%)

100
75
50

sia
Ma
lay

ric
a
Af
So
uth

tio
n
nF
ed
er
a

Si
ng
ap
or
e

Ru
ss
ia

Br
az
il

Sp
ain

Ind
ia

Tu
rke
y

Au
str
ali
a

ae
l
Isr

Ne
w

Ze
ala
nd

Ko
re
a
of

I re
lan
d

Re
pu
bli
c

Ita

0

ly

25

Ca
na
da

Distribution of PCT applications (%)

Business
77.5

OriginNote: Government and research institutions include private non-profit organizations and hospitals. The university sector includes all educational institutions.
For confidentiality reasons, data are based on the publication date.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

41

SECTION A

STATISTICS ON THE INTERNATIONAL PHASE

A.3.2 Share of PCT applications
with foreign co-applicants

Among the top 20 origins, the Netherlands recorded
the largest share of foreign co-applicants, with 15.9% of

The share of applications jointly filed by applicants fromits applications listing at least one foreign co-applicant.

different countries is calculated based on all applicants

In second place was Canada with 15.5%, followed by

named in applications published in 2014 (not just first-

Belgium (10.3%), Finland (8.6%) and Switzerland (7.1%).

named applicants) that are corporations (excluding ap-

Only 0.8% of applications from Japan and 0.4% of ap-

plicants who are natural persons).

plications from the Republic of Korea had foreign coapplicants.

On average, international collaboration among applicantsfrom different countries remained fairly low in 2014, with

Compared to 2010, the share of applications with for-only 3% of applications having at least two joint corporate

eign co-applicants in 2014 has changed substantiallyapplicants from different countries (figure A.3.2). This

for Canada (+5.4 percentage points), Finland (+3.7),

share decreased slightly (-0.1 percentage point) on the

Switzerland (+2.9) and Belgium (+2.8).

2010 figure.

Share of PCT applications
with foreign co-applicant(s) (%)

Figure A.3.2: Share of PCT applications with foreign co-applicants, 2014
0.9

5.4

15.9

15.5

2.8

3.7

2.9

1.7

-0.5

-1.3

0.4

-0.1

1.2

-0.1

-2.4

-0.7

-0.2

-0.6

-1.0

-1.8

0.1

-0.0

-0.2

Percentage point change over 2010

10.3

1.4

1.1

0.8

ly

1.5

Ita

1.5

Au
str
ali
a

1.9

Sw
ed
en

2.0

0.4

Un
ite

dS

2.2

Ch
ina

2.6

Au
str
ia

2.9

Ind
ia
De
nm
ar
k

3.0

Sp
ain
so
fA
me
ric
a

3.3

tat
e

4.7

ae
l
ing
do
m

Isr

dK
Un
ite

Fr
an
ce

d
Sw
i tz
er
lan
d

um

Fin
lan

Be
lgi

Ne
the

rla
n

ds
Ca
na
da

5.2

Ja
Re
pa
pu
n
bli
co
fK
or
ea

7.0

To
tal

7.1

Ge
rm
an
y

8.6

OriginNote: A methodology was used to compute the shares for 2014. Counts are based on corporate applicants only (excluding natural persons) and are also basedon all applicants named in PCT applications. For confidentiality reasons, PCT data are based on the publication date.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

42

SECTION A

STATISTICS ON THE INTERNATIONAL PHASE

A.3.3 Top PCT applicants

University sector

Business sector

The University of California remained the largest filer
among educational institutions, with 413 published ap-

In 2014 Huawei Technologies of China became the top

plications in 2014; it was followed by the Massachusetts

PCT applicant, with 3,442 applications published (table

Institute of Technology (234) and the University of Texas

A.3.3.1). It advanced two places on its 2013 position,

System (154) (table A.3.3.2). The University of California

with more than 1,300 additional applications published.

was the only educational institution that ranked among

Since 2007, Huawei Technologies ranked among thethe top 50 PCT applicants.

top five applicants, and was also the top PCT applicant
in 2008. Qualcomm, which is incorporated in the US,

The number of applications published in 2014 increased

moved to second position, with 2,409 applicationsfor 33 of the top 50 university applicants. The University

published. It gained two places on its 2013 position andof Texas System saw the largest increase in number

overtook Panasonic Corporation and ZTE Corporation,(+35), followed by the China University of Mining andwhich ranked, respectively, as the top one and top two

Technology (+33) and the Danmarks Tekniske Universitet

applicants in 2013.

(+33). The Korea Advanced Institute of Science andTechnology (-37) and the Postech Foundation (-26) saw

Most of the top 50 applicants (70%) increased their

the sharpest decreases.

number of published applications in 2014, with Huawei
Technologies (+1,332), Tencent Technology (Shenzhen)

With the exception of the Seoul National University, 9 ofCompany Limited (+727) and Microsoft Corporation (+652)

the top 10 university applicants were from the US. The

recording the highest increases in publications. In contrast,

US, with 28 of the top 50 applicants, also dominates

Panasonic Corporation (-1,157), Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha

the list of top university applicants. It is followed by uni-(-612) and Robert Bosch Corporation (-438) recorded

versities from the Republic of Korea (7) and Japan (5).

the largest decreases in applications published in 2013.

Altogether, universities from 9 countries were ranked
among the top 50 in 2014. This is one country more thanWith 19 applicants, Japan had the highest number ofin 2013 (Switzerland).

applicants ranking among the top 50 applicants list, followed by 15 applicants from the US and 6 from China.
The number of Chinese applicants ranking in the top
50 applicant’s list of 2014 was double that in 2013. The
year 2014 was the first that over one-tenth of the top 50
applicants originated in China.

43

SECTION A

STATISTICS ON THE INTERNATIONAL PHASE

Table A.3.3.1: Top 50 PCT applicants: businesses, 2014
Overallrank

Changedpositionfrom 2013

ApplicantsOriginApplications

Changefrom 2013
1,332

1

2

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.

China

3,442

2

2

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

United States of America

2,409

351

3

-1

ZTE CORPORATION

China

2,179

-130
-1,157

4-3

PANASONIC CORPORATION

Japan

1,682

5

7

MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORPORATION

Japan

1,593

280

6

-1

INTEL CORPORATION

United States of America

1,539

-332

7

2

TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)

Sweden

1,512

44

8

12

MICROSOFT CORPORATION

United States of America

1,460

652

9

2

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

Germany

1,399

51

10

0

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.

Netherlands

1,391

-32

11

2

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

Republic of Korea

1,381

183

12

-4

TOYOTA JIDOSHA KABUSHIKI KAISHA

Japan

1,378

-320

13

-6

ROBERT BOSCH CORPORATION

Germany

1,371

-438

14

-8

SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA

Japan

1,227

-612

15

-1

NEC CORPORATION

Japan

1,215

26

16

-1

LG ELECTRONICS INC.

Republic of Korea

1,138

-40

17

36

TENCENT TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) COMPANY LIMITED

China

1,086

727

18

-2

FUJIFILM CORPORATION

Japan

1,072

69

19

31

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

United States of America

1,013

643
141

20

-1

HITACHI, LTD.

Japan

996

21

-4

SONY CORPORATION

Japan

982

66

22

5

GOOGLE INC.

United States of America

914

284

23

-6

SHENZHEN CHINA STAR OPTOELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD China

904

-12

24

13

KABUSHIKI KAISHA TOSHIBA

Japan

856

412

25

-3

HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P.

United States of America

826

52

26

9

HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.

United States of America

800

347

27

-4

BASF SE

Germany

780

82

28

0

3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY

United States of America

696

91

29

37

DENSO CORPORATION

Japan

665

369

30

-9

NOKIA CORPORATION

Finland

630

-176

31

-6

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Japan

620

-24

32

0

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

United States of America

604

86

33

0

MURATA MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.

Japan

588

75

34

2

LG CHEM, LTD.

Republic of Korea

553

104

34

20

BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO.,LTD

China

553

200

36

-10

FUJITSU LIMITED

Japan

552

-85

37

-3

KONICA MINOLTA, INC.

Japan

519

52

38

-9

APPLE COMPUTER, INC.

United States of America

514

-71

39

-15

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

United States of America

511

-179

40

-2

MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD.

Japan

487

44

41

7

PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY

United States of America

474

99

42

-3

KYOCERA CORPORATION

Japan

472

48

43

-1

DOW GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES INC.

United States of America

470

69

44

11

YAZAKI CORPORATION

Japan

448

103

45

30

HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD.

China

420

144

46

21

EMPIRE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT LLC

United States of America

411

120

47

19

TERUMO KABUSHIKI KAISHA

Japan

405

113

48

7

APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.

United States of America

395

67

49

1

NITTO DENKO CORPORATION

Japan

390

29

50

-22

ALCATEL LUCENTFrance367-173

Note: For confidentiality reasons, data are based on publication date.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, April 201544

SECTION A

STATISTICS ON THE INTERNATIONAL PHASE

Table A.3.3.2: Top 50 PCT applicants: universities, 2014
Overallrank

Changedpositionfrom 2013

ApplicantsOriginApplications

Changefrom 2013

47-4

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

United States of America

413

15

83

12

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

United States of America

234

15

132

38

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM

United States of America

154

35

145

19

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

United States of America

147

26

163

14

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY

United States of America

135

19

201

11

LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY

United States of America

113

12

206

-59

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

United States of America

112

-21

225

10

CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

United States of America

103

12

249

54

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

United States of America

94

22

253

16

SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Republic of Korea

92

12

275

-51

CORNELL UNIVERSITY

United States of America

87

-8

290

-2

NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

Singapore

82

7

293

-50

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

United States of America

81

-8

293

69

KYOTO UNIVERSITY

Japan

81

23

293

150

DANMARKS TEKNISKE UNIVERSITET

Denmark

81

33

304

-18

UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO

Japan

79

3

305

2

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

United States of America

78

7

312

54

KOREA UNIVERSITY

Republic of Korea

77

20

314

-33

PEKING UNIVERSITY

China

76

-1

325

77

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

United States of America

74

21

325

-39

ISIS INNOVATION LIMITED

United Kingdom

74

-2

332

79

KYUSHU UNIVERSITY

Japan

72

20

336

17

TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY

China

70

10

347

-143

KOREA ADVANCED INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Republic of Korea

67

-37

378

33

OSAKA UNIVERSITY

Japan

62

10

395

143

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA

United States of America

59

21

411

-150

POSTECH FOUNDATION

Republic of Korea

57

-26

411

229

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

United States of America

57

25

418

-107

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE

Singapore

56

-13

418

-56

YONSEI UNIVERSITY

Republic of Korea

56

-2

422

-65

TOHOKU UNIVERSITY

Japan

55

-4

431

127

HANYANG UNIVERSITY

Republic of Korea

54

17

452

121

DUKE UNIVERSITY

United States of America

51

15

452

-78

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY

United States of America

51

-5

465

193

EIDGENOSSISCHE TECHNISCHE HOCHSCHULE ZURICH

Switzerland

50

19

488

170

KYUNGPOOK NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Republic of Korea

48

17

521

162

ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE

Switzerland

45

15

526

32

NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY

United States of America

44

7

526

1202

CHINA UNIVERSITY OF MINING AND TECHNOLGY

China

44

33

526

114

EMORY UNIVERSITY

United States of America

44

12

526

-99

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH

United States of America

44

-6

538

-62

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

United States of America

43

-1

558

-70

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

United States of America

41

-2

558

-82

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH

United States of America

41

-3

558

173

IMPERIAL INNOVATIONS LTD.

United Kingdom

41

13

558

-60

STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

United States of America

41

-1

571

227

UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER

United States of America

40

14

584

-26

YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.

Israel

39

2

608

821

UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON

United States of America

38

24

608

-70

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

United States of America

38

0

624

-126

VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY

United States of America

37-5Note: The university sector includes all types of educational institutions. For confidentiality reasons, data are based on publication date.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, April 201545

SECTION A

STATISTICS ON THE INTERNATIONAL PHASE

Government and research institutions sector

The Republic of Korea – with 7 applicants – had the largest number of applicants, followed by the US (6), France

The Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies(3) and Japan (3). One government or research institution

Alternatives of France accounted for the largest number

from a middle-income country ranks among the top 30,(434) of published applications among government andnamely Mimos Berhad of Malaysia.

research institutions (table A.3.3.3). It was the only government and research institution that ranked among the
top 50 PCT applicants in 2014. It was followed by the
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Forderung der angewandten
Forschung e.v. of Germany.
Table A.3.3.3: Top 30 PCT applicants: government and research institutions, 2014
Overallrank

Changedpositionfrom 2013

ApplicantsOriginApplications

Changefrom 2013

45-5

COMMISSARIAT A L'ENERGIE ATOMIQUE ET AUX ENERGIES ALTERNATIVESFrance

434

15

63

21

FRAUNHOFER-GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER ANGEWANDTENFORSCHUNG E.V.

Germany

318

70

107

-15

CHINA ACADEMY OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY

China

196

-31

130

10

INSTITUTE OF MICROELECTRONICS OF CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

China

156

17

136

76

AGENCY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH

Singapore

152

51

139

-21

CENTRE NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE (CNRS)France

150

-15

161

23

INSTITUT NATIONAL DE LA SANTE ET DE LA RECHERCHE MEDICALE (INSERM)France

136

22

191

73

MIMOS BERHAD

Malaysia

119

37

192

43

COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

India

117

26

198

45

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Japan

114

25

262

53

CONSEJO SUPERIOR DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTIFICAS (CSIC)

Spain

90

22

290

-66

U.S.A., AS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMANSERVICES

United States ofAmerica

82

-13

293

69

KOREA INSTITUTE OF ENERGY RESEARCH

Republic of Korea

81

23

352

39

NEDERLANDSE ORGANISATIE VOOR TOEGEPASTNATUURWETENSCHAPPELIJK ONDERZOEK TNO

Netherlands

66

12
-1

374

-41

KOREA INSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Republic of Korea

63

378

13

KOREA ELECTRONICS TECHNONLOGY INSTITUTE

Republic of Korea

62

8

385

17

BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE

United States ofAmerica

60

7

422

-20

JAPAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AGENCY

Japan

55

2

422

-168

ELECTRONICS & TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF KOREA

Republic of Korea

55

-32

437

73

CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION

United States ofAmerica

53

12

488

195

SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RESEARCH

United States ofAmerica

48

18

501

139

KOREA RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY

Republic of Korea

47

15

538

-147

MAX-PLANCK-GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER WISSENSCHAFTEN E.V.

Germany

43

-11

550

71

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE
NAVY

United States ofAmerica

42

9

608

-197

COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION

Australia

38

-14

608

-98

MAYO FOUNDATION FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH

United States ofAmerica

38

-3
-3

645

-115

KOREA INSTITUTE OF MACHINERY & MATERIALS

Republic of Korea

36

645

-24

RIKEN (THE INSTITUTE OF PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL RESEARCH)

Japan

36

3

680

522

CONSIGLIO NAZIONALE DELLE RICERCHE

Italy

34

17

680

-259

KOREA RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF BIOSCIENCE AND BIOTECHNOLOGY

Republic of Korea

34

-17

Note: Government and research institutions include private non-profit organizations and hospitals. For confidentiality reasons, data are based on publication date.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, April 2015

46

SECTION A

STATISTICS ON THE INTERNATIONAL PHASE

A.4

A.4.2 Countries’ specialization

PCT applications by fields of technology

The relative specialization index (RSI) measures how
much a country specializes in a given technological

PCT applications span a wide range of technologies.

field. The RSI corrects for the effects of country size and

The tendency to file patent applications differs acrossfocuses on the concentration in specific technology fields;

technologies, as some technologies depend more on

it seeks to capture whether applicants from a particular

the patent system than others. This subsection shows

country tend to have a lower or a higher propensity to

the distribution of PCT applications across fields offile in certain technology fields.14

technology by year and origin, as well as the relative
specialization index.

Austria and Japan had a high concentration of applications in electrical machinery, apparatus and en-

For confidentiality reasons, statistics are based on theergy (figure A.4.2). RSI values for digital communication

publication date rather than the filing date. Statistics

are skewed towards just a few origins (Canada, China

based on the publication date have a delay of approxi-

Finland, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea and Sweden),mately six months compared with those based on in-

whereas those for measurement are more evenly distrib-

ternational filing date. The breakdown of publisheduted. In 2014, India had a high share of PCT applications

PCT applications by field of technology is based on ain pharmaceuticals.

concordance table that relates the International PatentClassification (IPC) symbols to 35 fields of technology.13
A.4.1 Overall trend
With a 19.4% annual growth and 17,653 applications,computer technology became the technical field in which
the largest number of PCT applications was publishedin 2014; this field was followed by digital communication(+14.5%; 16,165) and electrical machinery (+1.1%; 15,220)(table A.4.1). The latter, which ranked number one in 2013
and 2012, moved down two places in 2014. Medical
technology remained in fourth position.
Most fields (30 out of a total of 35) recorded growth in
the number of published applications; among these, 13
fields recorded double-digit growth. Control (+21.4%),
computer technology (+19.4%) and medical technology(+17.1%) recorded the largest increases on 2013 figures.
The two fastest declining fields were optics (-5.2%) andsemiconductors (-2%).

13 The concordance table is available atwww.wipo.int/ipstats/en/statistics/patents/.

14 The RSI is calculated using the following formula:whereby FC and FT denoteapplications from country C and in technological fieldT, respectively. A positive RSI value for a technology
indicates that a particular country has a relatively highshare of PCT filings related to that field of technology.

47

SECTION A

STATISTICS ON THE INTERNATIONAL PHASE

Table A.4.1: PCT applications by field of technology
Year
Technical field
I

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2014
share (%)

Change from2013 (%)

Electrical engineering

1Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy

9,172

11,355

13,45515,04915,220

7.3

1.1

2

Audio-visual technology

5,619

5,839

6,377

6,855

6,815

3.3

-0.6

3

Telecommunications

4,878

4,987

4,996

5,268

5,420

2.6

2.9

4

Digital communication

10,592

11,651

12,636

14,117

16,165

7.7

14.5

5

Basic communication processes

1,277

1,204

1,300

1,292

1,292

0.6

0.0

6

Computer technology

9,542

10,496

12,454

14,782

17,653

8.4

19.4

7

IT methods for management

2,084

2,363

2,936

3,768

4,114

2.0

9.2

8

Semiconductors

5,862

6,509

6,908

7,331

7,186

3.4

-2.0

II

Instruments

9

Optics

4,192

4,551

5,118

6,302

5,976

2.9

-5.2

10

Measurement

6,430

6,571

7,312

7,992

9,000

4.3

12.6

11

Analysis of biological materials

1,790

1,786

1,724

1,854

1,839

0.9

-0.8

12

Control

2,131

2,161

2,346

2,575

3,126

1.5

21.4

13

Medical technology

10,484

10,767

11,375

11,95013,996

6.7

17.1

III

Chemistry

14

Organic fine chemistry

5,516

5,308

5,602

5,559

5,971

2.8

7.4

15

Biotechnology

5,222

5,245

5,316

5,526

5,874

2.8

6.3

16

Pharmaceuticals

7,836

7,715

7,815

7,734

8,568

4.1

10.8

17

Macromolecular chemistry, polymers

2,806

3,108

3,287

3,546

3,778

1.8

6.5

18

Food chemistry

1,516

1,582

1,735

1,759

1,872

0.9

6.4

19

Basic materials chemistry

4,641

4,896

4,975

5,120

5,698

2.7

11.3

20

Materials, metallurgy

2,868

3,225

3,425

3,762

4,054

1.9

7.8

21

Surface technology, coating

2,426

2,667

2,935

3,248

3,493

1.7

7.5

22

Micro-structural and nano-technology

347

358

436

402

411

0.2

2.2

23

Chemical engineering

3,586

3,860

4,234

4,293

4,580

2.2

6.7

24

Environmental technology

2,166

2,475

2,647

2,716

2,765

1.3

1.8

IV

Mechanical engineering

25

Handling

3,648

4,073

4,020

4,264

4,779

2.3

12.1

26

Machine tools

2,715

3,049

3,381

3,510

3,762

1.8

7.2

27

Engines, pumps, turbines

4,309

5,058

5,586

6,169

6,884

3.3

11.6

28

Textile and paper machines

1,962

1,982

2,160

2,250

2,286

1.1

1.6

29

Other special machines

3,762

4,231

4,664

4,862

5,367

2.6

10.4

30

Thermal processes and apparatus

2,459

2,613

2,731

2,990

2,991

1.4

0.0

31

Mechanical elements

4,052

4,451

4,798

5,150

5,854

2.8

13.7

32

Transport

5,494

6,262

7,417

7,962

8,630

4.1

8.4

V

Other fields

33

Furniture, games

3,100

3,208

3,335

3,568

3,798

1.8

6.4

34

Other consumer goods

3,004

3,173

3,363

3,411

3,990

1.9

17.0

35

Civil engineering

4,362

4,823

5,339

5,546

6,420

3.1

15.8

Note: Due to confidentiality requirements, data are based on publication date.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

48

SECTION A

STATISTICS ON THE INTERNATIONAL PHASE

Figure A.4.2: Relative specialization index for published PCT applications by selected fields oftechnology, 2014
Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy-0.456-1

AustriaJapan
Switzerland
Germany
Republic of Korea
Netherlands-0.035-0.129-0.141-0.212-0.213-0.249-0.253-0.258-0.315-0.5

Digital communication

0.312
0.236

0.112
0.110
0.084
0.065
China
United Kingdom
FranceUnited States of America
OthersSpain
CanadaItaly
FinlandSweden0-0.483-0.525-0.557-0.639-0.6660.5

1-1

SwedenFinland
China
Malaysia
Republic of Korea
Canada-0.078-0.098-0.262-0.336-0.344-0.5

Computer technology
United States of America
Finland
China
IsraelRepublic of Korea-0.031-0.120-0.127-0.134-0.148-0.165-0.197-0.313-0.391-0.416-0.491
-1

-0.5

0.5

1

-1

-0.5

Pharmaceuticals

-1

-0.5

0.5

1

0.255
0.211
0.131
0.115
0.115
0.112
0.050
0.021
United States of America
Spain
Australia
Others
Italy
SwedenChina
Republic of Korea
0

0.5

1

Transport
FranceGermany
SwedenAustria
Russian Federation
Japan
United Kingdom
Italy
Spain
Australia-0.042-0.181-0.249-0.264-0.265-0.414

0.704

0.319
0.272
0.269
0.167
0.153
0.127
0.087
0.070
0.068
0.031
Republic of Korea
Netherlands
China
GermanyJapan00Measurement

0.005
Russian Federation
Netherlands
Australia
Japan
CanadaUnited Kingdom
FranceOthersSwedenGermany
Switzerland

India
Switzerland
IsraelSpain
Australia
United States of America
Canada
Italy
United Kingdom
OthersFrance-0.004-0.125-0.245-0.276-0.446

0.304
0.146
0.035
United States of America
FranceJapan
United Kingdom
IsraelSpain
Switzerland
Netherlands
OthersGermany

Switzerland
CanadaGermany
Netherlands
United Kingdom
FranceIsraelJapan-0.019-0.029-0.034-0.060-0.088-0.093-0.198-0.240

0.181
0.166
0.160
0.147

0

0.597
0.555
0.524

0.5

1

-1

-0.5

0.359
0.326
0.303
0.190
0.158
0.142
0.141
0.077
0.076
0.048
CanadaOthersRepublic of Korea
Netherlands
United States of America
China
0

0.5

1

Note: The IPC technology concordance table (available at: www.wipo.int/ipstats/en) was used to convert IPC symbols into 35 corresponding fields oftechnology. The data refer to published applications.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

49

SECTION B

STATISTICS ON PCT NATIONAL PHASE ENTRIES

Section B
Statistics on PCT national phase entries
The PCT process starts with the international phase andIn 2013, about 84% of total NPEs were filed by non-res-concludes with the national phase. The national or re-

idents (abroad) and 16% were filed by residents (at theirgional patent office at which an applicant enters the PCT

country’s home office). The share of NPEs by residents

national phase processes the application further with afiling applications at their home office has increased fromview to either granting or refusing it, in accordance with

11% in 1995 to 16% in 2013.

15

the applicable law, taking into account the search result,and optional examination, from the international phase.

The long-term trend shows continuous year-on-year
growth in NPEs since 1995, except for two years: 2003

The analysis of national phase entry (NPE) data provides

and 2009. This growth partly reflects the increasing trend

information on international patenting activities. Sectionof protecting inventions abroad, as well as increasing PCT

B briefly describes the global trends, the use of the PCT

membership, thus making the system more attractive toor the direct filing route (Paris route), the origin of NPEs,

its users. The 4.1% decrease in NPEs in 2009 was mainly

and the main offices of destination.

due to a fall in NPEs originating in the US, Germany and
the Netherlands.

The data reported here are based on data supplied to
WIPO by patent offices several months after the end ofeach year; the latest available data refers to 2013. It should

B.1.2 Non-resident patentapplications by filing route

be noted that not all offices supply NPE data to WIPO.16

To file a patent application abroad (seeking protection
in a foreign country), applicants can decide either to file
directly at an office (using the Paris route) or to use theB.1

PCT route and pursue the application through NPEs. In
2013, about 475,500 non-resident NPEs were initiatedOverview

worldwide and about 384,200 applications were filed

This subsection analyzes the global and latest trends

directly at offices by non-resident applicants (figure B.1.2).

in NPEs as well as their use relative to the Paris route.

In 2013, non-resident NPEs increased by 3.2% on 2012,
and non-resident Paris route filings increased by 2%.

B.1.1 Overall trend
The long-term trend shows that since 1995 both routes
The total number of NPEs is estimated to have been

trended upward, although the PCT route grew at a much

565,500 in 2013, representing a 4.3% increase on 2012

faster rate. On average, the Paris route grew 2.1% a year

(figure B.1.1). The year 2013 represented the fourthfrom 1995 to 2013, but the PCT route grew much faster,consecutive of annual growth, following a sharp drop inby 10.3% a year. The trend for the Paris route also showed

2009—the height of the financial crisis. US applicants

five years of decreases, compared with only two years ofaccounted for 47% of the total growth in NPEs followed

decreases for the PCT route. During the financial crisis

by applicants from Japan (34.2%).

and the economic downturn in 2009, Paris route filings
decreased by 9.1%, compared with a 5.4% decreasefor PCT NPEs.
In 1995, three-quarters of applications filed by nonresidents were filed directly at offices. By 2007, over half

15 For further details, see Introduction to
the Patent Cooperation Treaty.
16 For further details, see Data Description.

50

of non-resident applications were filed via the PCT routeand, in 2013, this share reached 55.3%.

SECTION B

STATISTICS ON PCT NATIONAL PHASE ENTRIES

Figure B.1.1: Trend in PCT national phase entries
PCT national phase entries

Growth rate (%)

PCT national phase entries

500,000

300,000

100,000

-0.3

-4.1

.

16.1

40.0

16.1

18.6

8.6

20.8

8.4

11.3

11.0

11.0

8.8

7.1

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003
2004
2005
Application year

2006

2007

2008

2009

8.5

4.6

6.5

4.3

2010

2011

2012

2013

Note: These are WIPO estimates. Missing data for offices that do not provide statistics have been estimated by WIPO on an aggregate basis.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

Figure B.1.2: Trend in non-resident applications by filing route
Paris route

PCT national phase entries

2002

2004
Year

Non-resident applications

500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2003

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Note: These are WIPO estimates. Missing data for offices that did not provide statistics have been estimated by WIPO on an aggregate basis in order to present
the figure.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

51

SECTION B

STATISTICS ON PCT NATIONAL PHASE ENTRIES

B.2

B.2.1 World map

National phase entries
by country of origin

In 2013, NPEs were initiated by applicants from 146 different origins, but most NPEs were concentrated among

This subsection analyzes NPEs according to the applicant’s origin. It also provides data by income group andfurther compares the use of the PCT System with thatof the Paris route. It should be noted that the origin of
an application is defined using the residence of the firstnamed applicant. Data by origin may be incomplete.17 A
statistical table listing all origins is provided in the annex.

Germany, Japan and the US. Combined, these three
countries were the origin of 60.5% of all NPEs initiatedworldwide in 2013 (figure B.2.1). Levels are low for many
countries. The top 20 origins accounted for 95% of total
NPEs in 2013.
In 2013, high-income countries accounted for 93.7% ofNPEs, whereas middle-income countries accounted for
5.1%. Low-income origins accounted for 0.2% of NPEs,
which is similar to their 2012 share. China, with 18,016
NPEs, filed by far the highest number of NPEs among
middle-income countries; it was followed by India (3,890),
Brazil (1,250) and South Africa (1,140). Low-income
countries filed 80 NPEs, with applicants residing in the
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (28), Kenya (19)and Bangladesh (16) accounting for the largest numberof such filings.18

Figure B.2.1: PCT national phase entries by country of origin, 2013
1 - 99100 - 999

1,000 - 9,999

10,000 - 49,999

50,000 - 160,000

No data

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

17 For approximately 6,600 PCT NPEs initiated in 2013,
WIPO has either received no notification of their origin
or has received invalid country or origin details.

52

18 Bangladesh is not party of the PCT, but its applicants
can file PCT applications, under certain conditions.

SECTION B

STATISTICS ON PCT NATIONAL PHASE ENTRIESThe share of the top 10 origins has increased from

B.2.2 Filing trends

81% in 1995 to 84% in 2013. With the exception of the
The top 10 origins represented 84% of total NPEs in

Netherlands, all of the top 10 origins had a higher num-2013 (figure B.2.2.1). With almost 157,943 NPEs, ap-

ber of NPEs in 2013 compared to 2005. Furthermore,

plicants from the US remained the largest users of thethe three Asian origins, China (+32.5%), Japan (+10.5%)

PCT System; they were followed by applicants fromand the Republic of Korea (+10.6%) reported double-

Japan (120,839), Germany (65,173), France (28,534) anddigit average annual growth. Europe accounted for a

Switzerland (21,913). The Republic of Korea (19,086)

majority of countries within the top 10 origins (6 of 10).

overtook the UK (19,020) in 2013 to become the sixth

Among European origins, France (+7%) and Switzerland

biggest filer of NPEs. With the exception of China, which(+7.1%) experienced the highest average annual growthis an upper middle-income country, the top 10 origins

between 2005 and 2013. The Netherlands (-1.3%) was

are all high-income countries.

the only country among the top 10 that filed fewer NPEs
in 2013 than in 2005.

Figure B.2.2.1: Trends in PCT national phase entries for the top 10 origins
United States of America

Japan

Germany

FranceSwitzerland

PCT national phase entries

150,000

100,000

50,000

0
2005

2006

2007

Republic of Korea

2008

2009
Year

United Kingdom

2010

China

Netherlands

2011

2012

2013

Sweden

PCT national phase entries

20,00015,00010,000

5,000

0
2005

2006

2007

2008

2009
Year

2010

2011

2012

2013

Note: WIPO estimates
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

53

SECTION B

Table B.2.2.2 shows the top origins for each region.

STATISTICS ON PCT NATIONAL PHASE ENTRIESThe share of NPEs within regions is skewed towards a

These data are based on the United Nations’ definition

few offices. For example, South Africa (82%) accountedof regions and 2013 totals.

for the bulk of NPEs originating from Africa. Similarly, theUS (94.6%) and Japan (69.9%) accounted for the majority

Europe remained the region that initiated the highestof NPEs in their respective regions.

number of NPEs worldwide; NPEs from Europe accounted for 36.4% of total NPEs in 2013. Due to a sharp

The majority of the origins reported in table B.2.2.2 show

increase in NPEs from China, Japan and the Republic

growth in NPEs between 2012 and 2013. The top originof Korea, Asia (30.6%) was ranked in second position; itfor each region shows growth in NPEs in 2013, withwas followed by North America (29.5%). Asia was ranked

South Africa (+22.1%) experiencing the sharpest growth

the fastest-growing region in terms of NPEs, increasing

and Australia (+4.6%) experiencing the slowest.

its share from 23.6% in 2008 to 30.6% in 2013.

54

SECTION B

STATISTICS ON PCT NATIONAL PHASE ENTRIES

Table B.2.2.2: PCT national phase entries for the top origins by region
Year of national phase entry

Regional
share

Changefrom2012 (%)
22.1
161.8
110.7
50.0
-21.2
25.9
7.1
10.7
6.6
-0.5
17.1
17.9
471.7
-5.8
15.7
80.6
30.6
8.0
5.3
-1.4
12.8
1.5
3.6
3.8
5.6
11.6
-4.3
-1.5
2.3
3.9
7.1
-5.4
60.1
-11.7
46.6
-34.7
-31.3
-8.7
327.3
100.0
17.5
7.3
7.5
-0.6
55.7
7.0
4.6
17.8
250.0
6.5
-58.3
4.3

Name

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2013 (%)

South Africa
Seychelles
Tunisia
Egypt
OthersTotal*Asia
Japan
Republic of Korea
China
IsraelIndia
Singapore
ThailandTurkeyMalaysia
Saudi Arabia
OthersTotal*
EuropeGermany
FranceSwitzerland
United Kingdom
Netherlands
SwedenItaly
Denmark
Finland
Belgium
OthersTotal*
Latin America Brazil& theMexicoCaribbean
Barbados
Chile
Cuba
Argentina
Colombia
BahamasPanamaUruguay
OthersTotal*
North America United States of America
CanadaBermudaTotal*
Oceania
Australia
New Zealand
OthersTotal*
Unknown
Total

854
19
11
16
76
976
79,134
12,606
5,145
4,695
1,891
1,259
30
353
195
189
483
105,980
49,98922,16916,426
17,47016,452
11,175
7,628
4,216
4,999
4,327
13,427
168,278
775
320
471
50
104
91
73
119
75
14
97
2,189
131,731
7,396
163
139,290
6,096
1,031
4
7,131
24,556448,400

804
28
8
12
62
914
91,24013,565
7,724
5,224
2,570
1,821
51
446
252
207
509
123,609
55,91426,552
18,24518,367
16,452
12,024
8,476
4,788
6,077
5,049
16,402
188,346
1,016
448
307
127
67
75
69
122
41
32
125
2,429
143,944
8,006
177
152,127
6,831
1,132
22
7,985
11,290486,700

984
41
2
42
111
1,180
96,101
14,213
12,913
4,967
2,950
1,950
72
594
486
241
556
135,043
57,81428,03917,971
19,771
17,160
11,636
8,841
5,255
5,089
5,135
16,919193,630
1,169
569
305
239
91
104
145
73
40
12
117
2,864
144,598
8,563
71
153,232
6,675
1,090
7
7,772
15,179508,900

934
34
28
24
85
1,105
112,862
17,238
16,978
5,527
3,322
2,009
120
693
470
211
709
160,139
59,96628,943
19,42818,74815,567
11,365
9,368
4,975
5,774
5,272
18,877
198,283
1,167
576
271
316
103
121
115
69
11
10
120
2,879
146,9888,947
61
155,996
6,941
1,004
8
7,953
15,845542,200

1,140
89
59
36
67
1,391
120,839
19,08618,106
5,498
3,890
2,368
686
653
544
381
926
172,977
63,17328,534
21,91319,02016,126
11,795
9,895
5,550
5,528
5,193
19,311
206,038
1,250
545
434
279
151
79
79
63
47
20
141
3,088
157,943
8,894
95
166,932
7,261
1,183
28
8,472
6,602
565,500

82.0
6.4
4.2
2.6
4.8
0.2
69.9
11.0
10.5
3.2
2.2
1.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.5
30.6
30.7
13.8
10.6
9.2
7.8
5.7
4.8
2.7
2.7
2.5
9.4
36.4
40.5
17.6
14.1
9.0
4.9
2.6
2.6
2.0
1.5
0.6
4.6
0.5
94.6
5.3
0.1
29.5
85.7
14.0
0.3
1.5
n.a.
n.a.

RegionAfricaNote: World totals and unknown filings are WIPO estimates. * indicates share of world total. n.a. indicates not applicable. The table shows the top countries oforigin having filed more than 20 NPEs in 2013 for each region (with a maximum of 10 countries per region).
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

55

SECTION B

STATISTICS ON PCT NATIONAL PHASE ENTRIESWith the exception of Thailand, the top 15 middle-income

B.2.3 PCT national phase entries
per PCT application

countries had lower average numbers of NPEs per PCT
application than their high-income counterparts. Thailand,

Among high-income countries, applicants fromwhich joined the PCT System in 2009, saw considerable

Switzerland had the highest number of NPEs per PCT

growth in NPEs in 2013. As a result, among the middle-

application (5.3); they were followed by applicants fromincome countries, Thailand recorded the highest number

the Netherlands (4.3) and Australia (4.2). Applicants fromof NPEs per PCT application (10.4), followed by Souththe Republic of Korea (1.7) and Spain (2.2) had the lowest

Africa (3.7), Hungary (3) and India (3). Among the top 10

number of NPEs per PCT application (figure B.2.3). The

origins in terms of number of NPEs (figure B.2.2.1), China

US and Japan recorded the largest number of NPEs (see(1) had the lowest average number of NPEs per PCT

figure B.2.2.1), but their respective average numbers ofapplication. The majority of the reported origins had a

NPEs per PCT application is considerably lower thanhigher average number of NPEs per PCT application inthat of Switzerland.

2013 than in 2009.

Figure B.2.3: Average number of national phase entries per PCT application for selected
origins, 2013
1.0

0.5

1.1

1.3

0.7

0.5

1.0

0.6

0.5

0.6

0.6

0.1

0.1

5.3

0.3

0.0

Change from 2009

Ko
re
a
of

0.1

1.7

Re
pu
bli
c
0.6

2.2

Sp
ain

d

2.5

Fin
lan

2.9

Un
ite

dS

tat
e

so
fA
me
ric
a

3.1

Ja
pa
n

3.1

Ca
na
da

Sw
ed
en

3.3

Un
ite

dK

3.4

Ge
rm
an
y

ly

3.6

Ita

3.8

Fr
an
ce

3.9

ing
do
m

ae
l

3.9

Isr

4.2

Au
str
ali
a

Ne
the

rla
n

ds

4.3

Sw
i tz
er
lan
d

Average PCT national phase entries

Top 15 high-income origins

OriginTop 15 middle-income origins
1.5

-0.4

1.0

1.0

1.4

1.4

0.4

0.7

-0.5

0.3

-0.5

0.9

cc
o

0.2

Mo
ro

Eg
yp
t

1.0

Ch
ina

1.2

Uk
ra
ine

1.2

Tu
rke
y

1.3

Co
lom
bia

2.0

sia

2.2

Ma
lay

2.3

Br
az
il

2.4

Bu
lga
ri a

Me
xic

o

2.6

Ro
ma
nia

3.0

Ind
ia

3.0

Hu
ng
ar
y

ric
a
Af

nd

3.7

Th
ail
a

0.5

Change from 2009

10.4

So
uth

Average PCT national phase entries

7.8

OriginNote: The average is defined as the number of PCT national phase entries (NPEs) initiated in 2013 divided by the average number of PCT applications filed in
the two preceding years.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

56

SECTION B

STATISTICS ON PCT NATIONAL PHASE ENTRIES

the PCT System. Since 2009, the share of NPEs in total

B.2.4 Share of PCT national phaseentries in total filings abroad

filings abroad has raised for a majority of the high-income
countries reported in figure B.2.4 (10 countries out of a

The top 15 origins are selected based on the total number

total of 15), with Japan (+11.5 percentage points) andof filings abroad.19 In 2013, applicants in high-income

Austria (+6.2) recording the sharpest increases.

countries – who accounted for around 57% of PCT NPEs
initiated abroad – relied slightly more on the PCT System

The use of the PCT System across middle-income coun-than did applicants in middle-income countries (51%).

tries ranged from 85.8% for Cuba to 2.4% for Belarus.
Since 2009, the share of NPEs in total filings abroad

The share of PCT NPEs in total filings abroad for the top

increased most in the case of applicants residing in

15 high-income origins ranged from 72.2% for Sweden

Thailand (+25 percentage points), Bulgaria (+23.7) andto 29% for the Republic of Korea (figure B.2.4). Applicants

China (+16.5). Interestingly, applicants from Argentina filed

from only three origins, namely Canada, Israel and the

29% of their applications abroad using the PCT System

Republic of Korea, relied more on the Paris route than ondespite the fact that Argentina is not a PCT member.20

Figure B.2.4: Share of PCT national phase entries in total filings abroad, 2013
Top 15 high-income origins
-1.9

2.0

72.2

70.0

-4.6

66.7

4.2
66.7

2.3

5.8

-1.4

-2.5

2.0

6.2

11.5

-7.0

0.7

0.3

Change from 2009
63.7

63.6

62.9

62.1

58.6

Share (%)

67.4

3.7

53.5

51.0

44.9

Ko
re
a
of

Ca
na
da

Re
pu
bli
c

ae
l
Isr

Ja
pa
n

Au
str
ia

Ge
rm
an
y

ing
do
m

d

dK

Fin
lan

Un
ite

ly
Ita

Sw
i tz
er
lan
d

Fr
an
ce

Au
str
ali
a

ds

so
fA
me
ric
a

rla
n

dS

tat
e

Ne
the

29.0

Un
ite

Sw
ed
en

34.8

Origin19 Here, PCT NPEs include only entries recorded at
the patent offices of foreign countries—i.e., theyexclude NPEs in an applicant’s country of residence.
However, PCT NPEs recorded at the EPO by applicantsfrom European Patent Convention (EPC) member
countries are included in the calculation of NPEs.

20 Under certain conditions, a PCT application
may be filed even if the first-named applicant
is not a national of or does not reside in acountry that is member of the PCT.

57

SECTION B

STATISTICS ON PCT NATIONAL PHASE ENTRIESTop 15 middle-income origins
-6.2

-4.7

-7.9

0.5

1.8

2.4

16.5

16.4

25.0

23.7

8.2

1.0

-0.1

12.0

-2.3

Change from 2009

85.8
73.9
64.6

Share (%)

67.0

61.3

56.4

53.5

50.6
43.7

41.1

38.5

34.7

29.0

26.7

us
Be
lar

Uk
ra
ine

na
Ar
ge
nti

Ro
ma
nia

Ind
ia

Bu
lga
ri a

nd
Th
ail
a

sia
Ma
lay

Ch
ina

o
Me
xic

Br
az
il

Tu
rke
y

Hu
ng
ar
y

So
uth

Af

ric
a

Cu
ba

2.4

OriginNote: The share is defined as the number of PCT NPEs initiated abroad divided by the total number of patent applications filed abroad. Both of these numbers
are WIPO estimates.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

B.3

B.3.1 Top offices

National phase entries by office

The number of NPEs for the top 20 offices reflects theThis subsection provides information on the destinationscommercial attractiveness of the country or region repre-of NPEs, NPEs by office and origin, and the NPE share in

sented by that patent office. The top 20 offices attracted

total non-resident applications. A statistical table listing

95% of all NPEs initiated in 2013, which is similar to theall offices is provided in the annex. Data for some offices

2012 share. The USPTO, the most preferred patent office

do not exist.21

by destination in 2013, received almost 120,000 NPEs,
21.2% of all NPEs initiated (figure B.3.1.1). The USPTO
was followed by the EPO (87,367) and China (72,867). The
top 20 offices list includes a number of middle-income
countries’ offices, such as the offices of India, China,
Brazil and Indonesia. Thailand, which joined the PCT
System in December 2009, received more than 5,600
NPEs in 2013.
The majority of the top 20 offices reported growth in the
21 For some offices, such as the Institut Nationalde la Propriété Industrielle (INPI) of France, the“national route” via the PCT system is closed (seethe PCT contracting states table in the annex). In
such cases, PCT applicants must enter the national
phase at a regional patent office in order to obtainpatent protection in that contracting state via the
PCT. For these offices, relevant NPEs are includedin the figures for regional offices. An estimated 500
PCT NPEs were initiated in 2013; of these, WIPO
has no indication for their office of destination.

58

number of NPEs in 2013, with Germany (+17%), Thailand(+16.9%) and the Republic of Korea (+14.4%) recording the
sharpest increases. In contrast, Israel (-8.6%) and India(-5.9%) received fewer NPEs in 2013 compared to 2012.
In terms of volume, the biggest increases in the numbersof NPEs were recorded at the USPTO (+9,923), KIPO(+4,416) and SIPO (+3,174).

SECTION B

STATISTICS ON PCT NATIONAL PHASE ENTRIES

Figure B.3.1.1: PCT national phase entries for top
20 offices, 2013
2.3

4.6

2.1

14.4

-5.9

-1.0

-0.4

8.4

4.1

Growth rate (%): 2012-13

119,899

22,576 20,720

36% in the Russian Federation to 63% in Germany and13,115

Br
az
il
A
Ru
us
t ra
ss
ian
lia
Fe
de
ra
tio
n

Ja
Re
pa
pu
n
bli
co
fK
or
ea

Ind
ia
Ca
na
da

27,592 26,627

Un
ite

Ch
ina

35,168

.

-2.7

16.9

5.4

Thailand (table B.3.1.2 captures the “flow of patents”
between territories through the PCT System22). The PCT
System is normally used to seek protection in foreign
jurisdictions; however, applicants from some countries,
such as Japan and the US, initiate a notable proportion

Office
17.0

-8.6

-1.3

3.8

of their NPEs at their respective national offices.

Growth rate (%): 2012-13

11,766

6,557

6,129

6,105

5,604

5,284

5,253

5,101

Ne
w

.

Me
xic
o

3,063

Isr
ae
l
Ze
ala
nd
Vi
et
Na
m

3,808

Si
ng
ap
or
e
Ind
on
es
ia
So
uth
Af
ric
a
Th
ail
an
d
Ma
lay
sia
Ge
rm
an
y

PCT national phase entries

plicants. US applicants accounted for the largest share

The combined shares of these two origins ranged from54,157-1.7

resident in Japan and one-fifth (22,908) from US ap-

Japan accounted for largest share at the remaining 7.

72,8672.0

2013, about a quarter (29,971) originated from applicantsof NPEs at 13 of the top 20 offices, and applicants from87,367

dS
tat
es
Eu
of
ro
Am
pe
er
an
ica
Pa
ten
tO
ffic
e

PCT national phase entries

9.0

Among the 119,899 NPEs initiated at the USPTO in

OfficeSource: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

22 A PCT applicant seeking patent protection in a
European Patent Convention (EPC) member state(see list of PCT contracting states in the annex) canchoose to enter the national phase at the national
office (if the national route is not closed, as is thecase for France) or at the EPO. As a result, thenumber of NPEs at some European national patentoffices is lower than would otherwise be expected
given the size of some of these countries’ economies.

59

SECTION B

STATISTICS ON PCT NATIONAL PHASE ENTRIES

Table B.3.1.2: National phase entries for top 20 offices and top 10 origins, 2013

United States ofAmerica

2,780

6,112

2,871

2,278

5,953

22,90820,405 119,899

15,422

2,587

2,727

2,484

2,929

2,920

24,204

12,97087,367

China

2,923

3,162

8,764

21,459

2,150

3,448

1,483

2,385

1,357

18,0197,717

72,867

Japan

1,434

2,604

5,108

19,340

1,514

2,364

679

1,590

1,170

13,728

4,626

54,157

Republic of Korea

923

1,735

3,647

10,797

556

730

460

1,157

704

11,0603,399

35,168

Total

United Kingdom

29,971

12,549Others

Switzerland

14,545

5,387

Sweden

6,672

3,188

Republic of
Korea

Japan

5,404

OfficeNetherlands

Germany

United States of America
European Patent Office

ChinaFranceOrigin

India

742

1,287

3,212

4,756

1,294

586

812

1,392

947

8,599

3,965

27,592

Canada

429

1,349

2,201

1,726

488

388

417

1,321

1,005

12,1795,124

26,627

Brazil

444

1,524

2,599

2,242

1,220

356

517

1,506

645

7,668

3,855

22,576Australia

456

691

1,419

1,348

526

422

402

1,051

952

8,996

4,457

20,720Russian Federation

406

931

1,946

1,421

944

283

451

971

349

3,295

2,118

13,115

Mexico

150

529

1,149

912

400

173

182

930

319

5,241

1,781

11,766Singapore

168

230

442

1,059

112

135

91

443

217

2,438

1,222

6,557

Indonesia

167

196

446

1,746

318

228

114

442

162

1,309

1,001

6,129

South Africa

130

312

653

303

134

62

144

603

346

2,075

1,343

6,105

Thailand

134

102

149

2,126

19

114

20

15

93

1,430

1,402

5,604

Malaysia

145

196

431

1,223

138

159

85

413

190

1,438

866

5,284
5,253

Germany

175

45

1,041

2,050

12

128

37

53

50

1,304

358

Israel

46

82

23

203

30

38

50

15

149

2,232

2,233

5,101

New Zealand

71

132

293

187

93

33

86

297

229

1,454

933

3,808

Viet Nam

4

114

195

1,001

115

212

40

180

63

734

405

3,063

Note: This table shows the top 20 offices for which NPE data by origin are available.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

In 2013, NPEs initiated by the top 10 middle-income
countries, excluding China which is reported in table
B.3.1.2, represented one-third of all middle-income
country NPEs initiated worldwide.23
The most attractive patent office for NPEs originating in
middle-income country was the USPTO. For example,
approximately 30% (1,176) of all NPEs originating in India
were destined for the USPTO. Similarly, the majority of
NPEs from Brazil (28.5%) and Hungary (33%) were destined for the USPTO. The EPO was the most attractive
office for applicants from Turkey, whereas applicantsfrom Thailand filed the majority of their NPEs at theirnational IP office.

23 The share of the top 10 middle-income country
origins, including China, is approximately 95%.

60

SECTION B

STATISTICS ON PCT NATIONAL PHASE ENTRIES

Table B.3.1.3: National phase entries for top 20 offices and top 10 middle-income origins, 2013

Cuba

Hungary

India

Malaysia

MexicoSouth Africa

ThailandUkraineOthers

Total

United States of America

356

22

150

1,176

130

106

235

29

96

37

244

2,581

European Patent Office

150

8

61

452

34

51

94

10

240

23

114

1,237

China

85

8

26

243

37

34

62

12

73

9

130

719

Thailand

8

4

4

96

26

2

1

538

0

0

4

683

Japan

79

7

19

222

23

20

34

11

32

7

57

511

Brazil

129

7

16

142

18

47

46

3

11

4

43

466
453

TurkeyOfficeBrazilOrigin

India

45

6

19

172

28

17

67

12

13

9

65

Australia

35

7

13

167

28

10

75

9

14

1

52

411

Canada

39

8

15

152

10

42

50

1

12

7

54

390

Republic of Korea

51

8

11

156

21

22

22

8

21

6

44

370

South Africa

21

9

7

78

5

6

158

2

7

1

23

317

Mexico

53

8

12

101

7

50

15

1

6

4

38

295

Russian Federation

25

6

17

61

3

14

29

3

18

18

21

215

Indonesia

18

2

7

74

43

6

19

7

1

2

26

205

Malaysia

8

5

3

76

32

4

18

5

0

0

19

170

Singapore

20

4

2

72

17

2

12

4

1

1

16

151

New Zealand

7

1

8

59

7

3

26

1

2

1

9

124

Colombia

21

4

0

23

9

24

6

1

0

2

23

113

African Regional Intellectual Property
Organization

2

1

1

45

4

0

44

1

1

2

11

112

Eurasian Patent Organization

4

1

14

33

2

6

5

0

12

5

19

101

Note: This table shows the top 20 offices in terms of middle-income country filings for which NPE data by origin are available. China, a top 10 origin, is notreported in this table as it is included in table B.3.1.2.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

61

SECTION B

STATISTICS ON PCT NATIONAL PHASE ENTRIES

the PCT System is, however, quite intense at the offices

B.3.2 Share of PCT national phaseentries in non-resident filingsof middle-income countries. Nine of the top 10 offices
are in the middle-income country category. By contrast,

In 2013, the use of the PCT route (as opposed to theseveral offices in the high-income country category had a

Paris route) for non-resident filings varied widely fromlow share of NPEs; these include the patent offices of theone office to another, with shares ranging from 94.5%

UK (24.8%), Germany (26.6%) and the USPTO (34.2%).

for Israel to 24.8% for the UK (figure B.3.2). The use of
Figure B.3.2: Share of PCT national phase entries in total non-resident filings by office, 2013
0.3

..
90.2

..
89.3

1.8
87.4

3.3

-1.5

86.9

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.5

-0.1

2.9

-3.1

5.6

-1.1

2.9

-1.7

0.6

0.7

86.6

86.2

84.7

83.0

82.3

80.7

77.2

73.1

73.0

72.9

67.6

61.4

Ch
ina
so
fA
me
ric
a
Ge
rm
Un
an
y
ite
dK
ing
do
m

24.8

dS

tat
e

Ja
pa
n

26.6

Un
ite

Me
xic
o
nF
ed
er
Re
ati
pu
on
bli
co
fK
or
ea
Au
str
ali
Ne
a
w
Ze
ala
nd
Eu
Si
ro
ng
pe
ap
an
or
e
Pa
ten
tO
ffic
e

Ru
ss
ia

Ind
ia
Ca
na
da

Na
m

Vi
et

Br
az
il

1.9

58.2
34.2

Isr
ae
l
Ind
on
es
ia
So
uth
Af
ric
a
Ma
lay
sia
Th
ail
an
d

2.5

Change from 2012

Share (%)

94.5

OfficeNote: ".." indicates not available. The share is defined as non-resident PCT NPEs initiated, divided by the number of non-resident patent applications filed. It
includes data from the 20 offices that received the most non-resident filings in 2013, i.e., data from countries that are members of the PCT System and thatprovided data by filing route.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

62

SECTION CPERFORMANCE OF THE PCT SYSTEM

Section C
Performance of the PCT System
C.1

C.1.1 Electronic filing and processing

International Bureau

Medium of filing

In addition to its role as a receiving office (RO), theInternational Bureau (IB) of WIPO is responsible forfunctions related to the international phase of the PCT
System, including examining formalities, translating abstracts, titles and patentability reports, and publishing
PCT applications.

Every PCT application is filed using one of three methods:
paper; paper plus PCT-EASY (the application is preparedelectronically using WIPO-provided software known
as PCT-SAFE); and fully electronic media in different
formats, such as PDF or XML (figure C.1.1). Electronic
filing is encouraged by way of fee reductions, as it offers
benefits to applicants, offices and the IB.
The share of electronic filings continued to increase in2014, rising to 91.3% of all applications filed. Following
the introduction of fully electronic filing, the number of
paper plus PCT-EASY filings dropped considerably—from
44.8% in 2003 to just 2.3% in 2014. Paper filings accounted for 71.3% of filings in 2000, but just 6.4% in 2014.

Figure C.1.1: PCT applications by medium of filing
Paper

Distribution of PCT applications (%)

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

Paper + PCT EASY
14.1

26.2

32.4

Fully electronic (PDF, EFS-Web and XML)
52.7

64.1

72.6

78.3

82.8

87.3

89.6

91.3

Share of fully electronic filings (%)

100

75

50

25

0

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006
2007
2008
International filing year

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Note: Data for 2014 are WIPO estimates.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

63

SECTION CPERFORMANCE OF THE PCT SYSTEM

ePCT-filing

Automation of XML documents

As highlighted above, electronic filings increased rapidly

In 2014, the IB made substantial progress in automaticallyand accounted for a large majority of the PCT applica-

processing international search reports, declarations

tions filed in recent years. Two challenges remain: first,

under Article 17(2)a, written opinions of the ISA and in-the challenge of making it practical for the remaining

ternational preliminary reports on patentability (Chapter

applicants who have so far been unable to file electroni-

II of the PCT) received in Extensible Markup Language

cally to do so; second, further improving the quality of(XML) format from the EPO and SIPO acting as ISAs.

data submitted. The ePCT System aims to address

The formality examination for more than 70% of these

these challenges. Prior to 2014, ePCT-filing had been

documents no longer requires human intervention. This

limited to filing at the IB acting as RO – which alreadyhas enormously improved productivity and timeliness in

accepted electronic applications filed using the PCT-

processing these documents (see figure C.1.3.3). In future

SAFE software – in a limited number of languages. During

years, the XML data contained in these documents will be

2014, the system was opened up to a wider number ofused, and will also be made available to PATENTSCOPE.

offices, and permitted filing in any language, with the

The procedure will also be extended to the same docu-

request form capable of being accepted in 9 out of 10

ments received from other ISAs in XML format.

publication languages. Several of the offices concerned
had not previously permitted electronic filing, but were

C.1.2 Translation and terminology database

able to benefit from services hosted by the IB. The ability
to offer hosted services to any office opened the way toLanguages of filingbeing able to announce the withdrawal of the PCT-EASY
service with effect from July 1, 2015; it was hoped thatIn 2014, PCT applications were filed in 26 languages (fig-these applications, which had previously provided only

ure C.1.2.1).24 English remained by far the most frequently

the bibliographic data in electronic format, would be re-used language in 2014, accounting for approximately

placed by fully electronic filings. Moreover, the improved

half (51.6%) of all languages of filing. Among the top fiverange of checks, and the direct use of the IB’s central-

filing languages, Chinese (+18.7% annual growth), Koreanized reference data, means that the quality of electronic(+6.5%) and English (+5.7%) were more frequently usedapplications filed should be improved.

in 2014 than in 2013. In contrast, the number of filings
in Japanese (-3.4%) decreased and the number of ap-

For details on other developments within the ePCT

plications filed in German remained almost unchanged.

System, please see section D.1.

24 A PCT application may be filed in any language
accepted by the relevant RO, but must be publishedin one of the 10 official publication languages.
Among the top 10 filing languages listed ingraph C.1.2.1, all languages with the exceptionof Italian are used to publish PCT applications.

64

SECTION CPERFORMANCE OF THE PCT SYSTEM

Figure C.1.2.1: PCT applications for top 10 filing languages, 2014
51.6

18.7

10.7

7.7

5.1

3.0

0.2

0.4

0.8

0.9

Share (%)

PCT applications

110,054

39,848

6,471

490

n
Ru
ss
ia

Po
rt u
gu
es
e

Ita

919

h

1,696

lia
n

Fr
en
ch

1,985

Sp
an
is

10,894Ko
rean

16,534

Ge
rm
an

Ch
ine
se

Ja
pa
ne
se

En
gli
sh

22,930Language

Note: Data for 2014 are WIPO estimates.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

Translation

Figure C.1.2.2: Distribution of translation work
Translation of abstracts

Translations by the IB are intended to enhance the patent

In-housesystem’s disclosure function by making the technological

60.1

information in PCT applications accessible in languages

Share of outsourced translation (%)

73.9

79.5

Outsourced

88.8

89.6

264,795

ensures that all titles and abstracts of PCT applications
are available in English and French, and all international

Abstracts and titles

other than the languages in which the original documents were filed. In order to meet this objective, the IB

87.1

205,885

214,153

216,282

2008

2009

89.8
280,82090.1
300,186

233,471
203,460

search and preliminary examination reports are available
in English.
2007

Figure C.1.2.2 presents the distribution of in-house andoutsourced translations since 2007 for both titles and

2010

Year

2011

In-houseand preliminary examination reports (henceforth, reports).

89.9

93.6

95.7

2014

95.9

97.3

93,45993,4112013

2014

Outsourced

97.9

98.5

97.3

Share of outsourced translation (%)

In 2014, the number of translated abstracts increased

78,455

Reports

substantially and, for the first time, exceeded 300,000
annual growth with an increase of 6.9% on 2013 figures.

2013

Translation of reports

abstracts (henceforth, abstracts) and international searchtranslations. The year 2014 marked the fourth consecutive

2012

62,59644,90048,80948,5502008

2009

55,276

Following four years of double-digit growth, the numberof translated reports remained almost the same as thatrecorded in 2013.
2007

The increase in abstract translations was due mainly tohigher numbers of translations from Asian languages.

2010

Year

2011

2012

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

65

SECTION CPERFORMANCE OF THE PCT SYSTEM

External agencies and translators continued to translate

multilingual terminology database. Emphasis was placed

the vast majority of abstracts (90.1%) and reports (97.3%).

on adding terms in languages that were underrepresented in the database, i.e., Arabic, Chinese, Japanese,

Other important developments in 2014 included the fol-

Korean, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish. During 2014,

lowing.

13,744 terms were added across all 10 publication languages, with the biggest growth in Portuguese, followed

The IB continued its roll-out of the translation manage-by Spanish and Chinese. At the end of 2014, the databasement system for carrying out workflow automation andcontained 100,522 terms, 97% of which were validated.

translation distribution. This makes the translation pro-In September 2014, the validated content of the databasecess more efficient and ensures a higher level of security.

was made freely available on the WIPO website as “WIPO

In the past, translations were distributed to agencies,

Pearl”. For more details on WIPO Pearl, see the feature

which then forwarded the files to individual translators.

in subsection D.3.

This made the tracking of the final destination of thetranslations difficult. Such an approach no longer applies.
With the new system, translations can be tracked down

C.1.3 Timeliness in examining andpublishing PCT applications

to end-translators in translation agencies.
The IB performs a formality examination of PCT applicaThe increasing lengths of reports continue to have ations and related documents promptly after their receipt.

substantial budgetary impact. The average length of aOnce the formality examination of a PCT application istranslated report increased from 602 words in 2013 tocompleted, the IB sends a form to the applicant ac-

685 words in 2014, with the biggest increases seen in theknowledging receipt of the application. In 2014, 81.2%

length of Korean, Chinese and French language reports.

of these forms were sent within 1 week after the date on
which the PCT application was received, and 91% within

A tender for Korean translation was concluded, and a

3 weeks (figure C.1.3.1). These are the highest sharestender for Japanese translation was used to refine theobserved since 2007.

new structure of the tendering process put into operationin 2013, with great success. The new structure will be

PCT applications and related documents are to befurther refined in tenders planned for 2015.

published “promptly” after the expiration of 18 months
from the priority date, unless the applicant requests early

The number of early translations of patentability reports

publication, or the application is withdrawn or considered

increased from 763 in 2013 to 1,059 in 2014, which led

withdrawn. In 2014, 74.9% of publications occurred within

to an increase the internal workload.

one week after the expiration of the 18-month period, and97.1% of publications occurred within two weeks (figure

A new translation management system was selected

C.1.3.2). Only 2.9% of PCT applications were publishedspecifically to handle localization translation, such as

more than two weeks after the expiration of 18 months,

the translation of web application interfaces. This should

mainly due to the late arrival of the translation in theenable more accurate and rapid creation of multilingual

publication language.

web application interfaces.
The IB is required to publish applications, even in the
Terminology databaseabsence of an international search report (ISR). In suchcases, the application is republished along with the ISR

In order to improve the quality of internally and externallyproduced translations, the IB continued to develop its
66

after the report is received (figure C.1.3.3).

SECTION CPERFORMANCE OF THE PCT SYSTEM

Figure C.1.3.1: Timeliness in formalities examination
Within 1 week
44.3

53.9

In the 2nd week
63.0

In the 3rd week
57.4

In the 4th week

53.9

72.0

81.2

Share of examination finished within two weeks (%)

100

Distribution by delay (%)

More than 4 weeks

54.4

75

50

25

0

2007

2008

2009

2010

Processing year

2011

2012

2013

2014

Note: Timeliness is calculated as the time elapsed between the date of receipt of the record copy of the PCT application and the date of issuance of form PCT/IB/301.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

Figure C.1.3.2: Timeliness in publishing PCT applications

Distribution by time category (%)

57.3

44.1

Within 1 week

In the 2nd week

In the 3rd week

22.0

8.4

43.1

7.4

49.1

54.8

In the 4th week
65.9

74.2

More than 4 weeks
75.0

77.3

76.4

74.9

Share of PCT applications published within one week (%)

100

75

50

25

0

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007
2008
Publication year

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Note: Timeliness is calculated as the time elapsed between the time limit of 18 months from the priority date and the actual publication date.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

Figure C.1.3.3: Timeliness in republishing PCT applications with ISRs
Within 2 months

Distribution by time category (%)

2.7

14.8

13.5

46.1

In the 3rd month

In the 4th month

52.6

45.3

43.1

54.3

In the 5th month
71.1

76.3

More than 5 months
73.7

69.9

58.5

77.3

Share of PCT applications republished within two months (%)

100

75

50

25

0

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007
2008
Republication year

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Note: Timeliness is calculated as the time elapsed between the date of the receipt of the ISR at the IB and the date of republication by the IB.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

67

SECTION CPERFORMANCE OF THE PCT SYSTEM

In 2014, the share of applications republished within two

The overall quality rate, as measured by the aggregatemonths increased markedly on 2013, rising from 58.5%

index, was 93.1% in 2014, the highest level achieved

to 77.3%. This ended a period of three consecutive years

since 2007 (figure C.1.4.1). The sharp increase in theof decreases. In 2014, 98% of republications occurred

quality level since 2013 was mainly due to improved

within three months of the IB receiving the ISR, and 99.6%

timeliness in performing formalities examination as wellof republications occurred within four months. These areas to reduced delays in republishing applications withthe highest shares observed since 2001.

the ISR (see subsection C.1.3).

C.1.4 Quality in processing applications

Translation

Formalities examination

The translation quality indicator shows the average qualityof abstracts and reports translated by external suppliers

In order to measure the quality of the formalities examina-

and in-house translators combined, based on the resultstion by the IB in a simple and comprehensive manner, theof the IB’s regular quality control (figure C.1.4.2).

IB has developed an aggregate quality index, calculated
as the average of four lead quality indicators. Three of

The share of acceptable translations has remained rela-these are based on the timeliness of key transactions: ac-tively unchanged since 2009, fluctuating within a margin

knowledgement of receipt of the application; publication;of three percentage points over five years (with a minimum

and republication with ISRs. The fourth lead quality indi-of 84.4% in 2011 and a maximum of 87.4% in 2009).

cator reflects the PCT operation quality control error rate.

In 2014, 86% of documents translated by the IB wereconsidered acceptable and 14% were considered not
acceptable; these percentages are close to the 2009–13
average for both acceptable and non-acceptable translation quality.

Figure C.1.4.1: Formalities examination quality index
Quality index of formality examination
100

Quality index (%)

95
90
85
80
75
2007

2008

2009

2010

Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

Note: The quality index is the simple average of the (i) percentage of forms PCT/IB/301 (notification of receipt of a PCT application) sent within five weeks of the
IB receiving a PCT application; (ii) percentage of PCT applications published within six months and three weeks after the international filing date; (iii) percentageof republications with ISRs within two months after the IB receives the ISR; (iv) percentage of corrections to bibliographic data in the published PCT application(from 2007 to 2011); and (v) PCT operation quality control error rate (from 2012 onwards).
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

68

SECTION CPERFORMANCE OF THE PCT SYSTEM

Figure C.1.4.2: Translation quality indicator
Acceptable

Not acceptable

100%

Distribution of quality result

12.6%

80%

13.5%

15.6%

87.4%

86.5%

84.4%

2009

2010

2011

12.8%

12.9%

14.0%

87.2%

87.1%

86.0%

2012

2013

60%

40%

20%

0

Year

2014

Source: WIPO, March 2015.

C.1.5 Efficiency in processing applications

The average cost of processing a published PCT application was 662 Swiss Francs in 2014, down 8.3%

The IB’s efficiency in processing PCT applications canon 2013 figures. On the one hand, this sharp decrease

be measured by the unit cost of processing, defined as

is due to the total cost of production, which remained

the average total cost of publishing a PCT application.25

almost unchanged compared with 2013. On the otherAverage total cost is determined by total PCT System

hand, it is due to an increase of 9.3% in the number of

expenditure, plus a proportion of expenditure on support

published applications.

and management activities. The unit cost thus includes
the cost of all PCT activities, including translation, communication, management and others.

Figure C.1.5: Unit cost of processing a published
PCT application
Direct costs

Costs have direct and indirect components. Direct costs

712
800

expenditure for supporting activities (such as buildings
and information technology). Indirect costs are weighted
in order to take into account only the share that is attributable to the PCT System. The unit cost is calculated

Cost of processing (CHF)reflect expenditure incurred by the IB in administering thePCT System and related programs. Indirect costs reflect

Indirect costs
722

600

400

662
total processing cost (CHF)

248

252

464

470

2012

2013
Processing year

231

431

200

by dividing the total cost of production by the numberof publications.

0

2014

Note: The average cost of processing a published PCT application is an
estimate that is calculated by dividing the total processing cost by the
number of published PCT applications.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

25 The methodology used to compute the unit cost wasrevised in 2013 in order to align it with other WIPO
unit and union cost calculations, and also in order
to better capture a fast-changing environment.

69

SECTION CPERFORMANCE OF THE PCT SYSTEM

C.2

C.2.1 Distribution of applications
by medium of filing

Receiving offices
A PCT application is filed with an RO, which may be anational or regional patent office or the IB. In 2014, 116
ROs were responsible for receiving PCT applications,
examining their compliance with PCT formality requirements, receiving the payment of fees, and transmitting
copies of the application for further processing to the
IB and the ISA. Subsection A.1.2 presents the numberof PCT applications filed in 2014 at selected ROs. A
statistical table in the annex shows the number of PCT
applications for all offices and origins.

Each RO determines the filing media that applicants areallowed to use. Fee reductions may apply for certain
media. By the end of 2014, 32 ROs accepted the filingof PCT applications in fully electronic format.
In 2014, on average, 91.3% of PCT applications were filedusing a fully electronic medium (see subsection C.1.1).
This share varied considerable across the top 20 ROs,
ranging from 0% for the Russian Federation to 99.6% for
the US (figure C.2.1).
Paper remained the dominant filing medium for theRussian Federation (95.3%) and India (53.6%). Paper plus
PCT-EASY filings accounted for the majority of filings in
Singapore (68.5%).

Figure C.2.1: Distribution of media of filing for top 20 receiving offices, 2014
Fully electronic (PDF, EFS-Web and XML)

Distribution by filing method

99.6

96.8

96.2

96.1

95.1

92.6

92.2

91.2

91.0

90.3

Paper + PCT EASY
89.5

81.9

69.6

Paper
67.2

58.1

57.3

1.0

0.2

0.0

Share of fully electronic filings (%)

100
75
50

Receiving office

Note: Data for 2014 are WIPO estimates.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

Ind
ia
Si
ng
Ru
ap
ss
or
ian
e
Fe
de
ra
tio
n

Au
str
ia

Ca
na
da

Ge
rm
an
y
Au
str
ali
a

Sp
ain

dK
Eu
ro
ing
pe
do
an
m
Pa
ten
Int
tO
er
ffic
na
e
tio
na
lB
ur
ea
u

Sw
ed
en

Un
ite

Isr
Re
ae
pu
l
bli
co
fK
or
ea

ds

Fr
an
ce

d

rla
n

Fin
lan

Ne
the

Ch
ina

so
fA
me
ric
a
Un
ite

dS

tat
e

Ja
pa
n

25
0

70

82.7

SECTION CPERFORMANCE OF THE PCT SYSTEM

In 2014, for the third consecutive year, the average

C.2.2 Timeliness in transmitting applicationstransmittal time increased slightly to 3.4 weeks (figure
The copy of the PCT application sent by the RO must

C.2.2.1). Between 2001 and 2007, the average transmit-

reach the IB before the expiration of the 13 month fromtal time fluctuated within about six or seven weeks fromthe priority date.26 PCT applications are usually filed be-

the international filing date. It then improved markedly,

fore the expiration of 12 months from the priority date.

taking approximately three weeks in 2010. This is partly

Where this occurs, the IB should receive the application

attributable to a shift to electronic filing, which madewithin one month of the international filing date.

the exchange of information between ROs and the IBthmore efficient.
Figure C.2.2.1: Average timeliness in transmitting PCT applications to the IB
Average timeliness in transmitting PCT applications
8
7

Weeks

6
5
4
3
2
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Note: Timeliness is calculated as the time elapsed between the international filing date and the date on which the IB received the PCT application from the RO.
Applications transmitted under PCT Rule 19.4 are excluded.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

26 A copy of the PCT application, known as therecord copy, is transmitted to the IB by the RO for
processing, publication and communication.

71

SECTION CPERFORMANCE OF THE PCT SYSTEM

In 2014, offices transmitted, on average, 83.5% of their

On average, in 2014, receiving offices transmitted 73.9%

applications to the IB within four weeks. Finland, Israelof their applications to ISAs within four weeks. The share

and Japan transmitted more than 99% of their applica-of applications transmitted to ISAs within four weeks

tions to the IB within this time frame (figure C.2.2.2).

ranged from 98.3% at the JPO to 0.4% at the office ofIndia (figure C.2.2.3). When compared with figures for

Compared to 2013, the share of applications transmitted

2013, the share of applications transmitted within four

within four weeks increased most at the offices of Spain

weeks to ISAs in 2014 improved most at the offices of(+63.7 percentage points), the IB (+41.9) and the Russian

Spain (+45 percentage points), the IB (+24.7) and theFederation (+12.7). In contrast, this share decreased by

Netherlands (+12). In contrast, the share of applications

18.8 percentage points at the USPTO (from 87.3% indecreased most at the USPTO (-20.4).

2013 to 68.5% in 2014).
Figure C.2.2.2: Timeliness in transmitting PCT applications to the IB by time category andby receiving office, 2014
99.7

99.5

99.0

98.9

98.7

98.4

97.3

Between 5 - 8 weeks
97.2

92.6

90.4

87.2

More than 8 weeks
83.5

82.5

75.7

71.6

68.5

59.3

58.1

14.1

13.8

Share of PCT applications transmitted within 4 weeks (%)

100
75
50

Ind
ia
nF
ed
er
ati
on
Ru
ss
ia

Fr
an
ce

Sp
ain

Int

Ca
er
na
na
da
tio
Un
na
ite
lB
dS
ur
tat
ea
es
u
of
Am
er
ica
Ge
rm
an
y

To
tal

Ch
ina

ing
do
m
Si
ng
ap
Re
or
pu
e
bli
co
fK
or
ea
Eu
Au
ro
pe
str
an
ali
a
Pa
ten
tO
ffic
e
Ne
the
rla
nd
s

Un
ite

dK

Au
str
ia

d
Sw
ed
en

Fin
lan

Isr

0

Ja
pa
n

25

ae
l

Distribution by time category (%)

Within 4 weeks
100.0

Receiving office

Note: Timeliness is calculated as the time elapsed between the international filing date and the date on which the IB received the PCT application from the RO.
Applications transmitted under PCT Rule 19.4 are excluded.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

Figure C.2.2.3: Timeliness in transmitting PCT applications to ISAs by time category andby receiving office, 2014
89.9

89.6

89.0

88.7

87.9

81.4

81.2

Between 5 - 8 weeks
81.1

77.4

73.9

68.4

More than 8 weeks
57.6

57.6

55.3

55.1

33.8

32.3

19.8

4.8

0.4

Share of search copies transmitted within 4 weeks (%)

100
75
50

Ind
ia

ur
ea
u
Ge
Ru
r
m
ss
an
ian
y
Fe
de
ra
tio
n

Au
str
ia

on
al
B

er
na
ti
Int

ae
l

Sp
ain

Isr

Fr
an
ce

Ch
ina

To
tal
so
fA
me
ric
a
tat
e
dS

Un
ite

Fin
Re
lan
pu
d
bli
co
fK
o
Un
re
a
ite
dK
ing
do
m

Ca
na
da

Si
ng
ap
or
e
Au
str
ali
a

Sw
ed
en

ds
rla
n

ffic

Ne
the

Eu
ro
pe
an

Pa
te

nt
O

0

e

25

Ja
pa
n

Distribution by time category (%)

Within 4 weeks
98.3

Receiving office

Note: Timeliness is calculated as the time elapsed between the international filing date and the date on which the ISA received the PCT application (also called
search copy) from the receiving office. Dates of search fee payments are not used, due to the unavailability of data. Applications transmitted under the terms of
PCT Rule 19.4 are excluded.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

72

SECTION CPERFORMANCE OF THE PCT SYSTEM

C.3

C.3.1 International search reports by authority

International searching authorities

In 2014, the EPO remained by far the most selected ISA,
with 37.2% of all ISRs issued; it was followed by the JPO

Each PCT application must undergo an international

at 19.1% and KIPO at 14.3% (table C.3.1).

search by an ISA. ROs have agreements with at least one(but sometimes several) ISAs that carry out international

India, which began issuing ISRs in 2013, increased its

searches. If an RO has an agreement with multiple ISAs,

volume almost fivefold in 2014. The USPTO (+30.7%) andthe applicant selects one of them.

SIPO (+16.9%) also recorded substantial growth. The
Russian Federation (-31.6%), Finland (-25.5%) and Brazil

Once the ISA has performed the search, the applicant(-10.4%) recorded the sharpest decreases.

receives an ISR containing a list of documents relevant
for assessing the patentability of the invention. The ISA
also establishes a written opinion, providing a detailed
analysis of the potential patentability of the invention inlight of the documents found in the search. With the ISR
and the written opinion, an applicant can make a more
informed decision about whether or how to enter the
PCT national phase.
Following the commencement of operations by the
National Institute of Industrial Property (Chile) on October22, 2014, the total number of national or regional offices
acting as ISAs in 2014 was 18.27

27 The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore andthe State Intellectual Property Service of Ukraine
have been appointed as ISAs (bringing to 20 the
total number of ISAs). However, these offices
had not yet commenced operations in 2014.

73

SECTION CPERFORMANCE OF THE PCT SYSTEM

Table C.3.1: Distribution of international search reports by ISA and by origin
International filing year
International searchingauthorities
Australia

Austria

BrazilCanada

Chile

China

Egypt

European Patent Office

Finland

India

IsraelJapan

Nordic Patent InstituteRepublic of Korea

Russian Federation

Spain

74

Total plus the top three
origins
Australia
Singapore
New Zealand
Total*South Africa
United Arab Emirates
Republic of Korea
Total*
BrazilColombia
Total*
CanadaUnited States of America
Barbados
Total*Chile
El Salvador
MexicoTotal*
China
United States of America
Japan
Total*
Egypt
Saudi Arabia
Total*
United States of America
Germany
FranceTotal*
Finland
China
Total*
India
Iran (Islamic Republic of)United States of America
Total*
IsraelUnited States of America
Romania
Total*Japan
United States of America
Singapore
Total*
NorwayDenmark
Spain
Total*
United States of America
Republic of Korea
CanadaTotal*
United States of America
Russian Federation
UkraineTotal*Spain
MexicoColombia
Total*

2010
1,703
402
270
3,423
60
9
139
409
307

2011
1,636
381
283
3,140
82
8
39
251
432

2012
1,544
387
253
2,832
91
10
18
178
425

310
2,096
37
4
2,208

435
2,301
21
11
2,396

429
2,179
80
6
2,339

12,118293
96
13,271

16,207583
145
18,017

18,273
1,023
103
20,72016,98017,416
7,039
68,937905

17,593
18,524
7,194
71,633914

18,661
18,423
7,528
75,147
969

921

928

977

30,67089
430,856189
97
299
13,0189,346
147
23,310
4
760
77
935
1,154
168
30
1,453

36,96444
737,094
118
134
1
275
15,963
10,234211
27,180
18
930
113
1,181
1,106
170
38
1,445

2013
1,473
444
261
2,699
121
25
19
233
497
5
509
2,228
60
4
2,324

21,126
1,101
137
23,70614
14
20,996
17,616
7,681
77,412
792
795
108

108
815
21

332
11
1
358
41,388158
1841,677130128854
41,890136
5542,270115
101

278
14,876
11,736
220
27,576
1,368
996
96
2,679
1,069
150
58
1,401

223
17,252
12,312276
30,642
2,362
1,069
126
3,802
1,013
205
58
1,412

2014
1,602
462
250
2,766
99
30
25
212
453
3
456
2,348
53
45
2,515
35
2
1
38
25,1881,261
187
27,71114
1
15
21,756
17,6538,112
79,716
591
1
592
484
12
5
506
811
37
4
876
40,491180
108
41,033
129
101
1
232
16,23013,094447
30,622
1,495
760
118
2,600
1,028
240
79
1,423

ISA share
2014 (%)
57.9
16.7
9.0
1.3
46.7
14.2
11.8
0.1
99.3
0.7
0.2
93.4
2.1
1.8
1.2
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
0.0
90.9
4.6
0.7
12.9
93.3
6.7
0.0
27.3
22.1
10.2
37.2
99.8
0.2
0.3
95.7
2.4
1.0
0.2
92.6
4.2
0.5
0.4
98.7
0.4
0.3
19.1
55.6
43.5
0.4
0.1
53.0
42.8
1.5
14.3
57.5
29.2
4.5
1.2
72.2
16.9
5.6
0.7

Changefrom2013 (%)
8.8
4.1
-4.2
2.5
-18.2
20.0
31.6
-9.0
-8.9
-40.0
-10.4
5.4
-11.7
1,025.0
8.2
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
19.2
14.5
36.5
16.9
0.0
n.a.
7.1
3.6
0.2
5.6
3.0
-25.4
n.a.
-25.5
348.1
n.a.
n.a.
368.5
-0.5
76.2
n.a.
2.6
-3.3
32.4
96.4
-2.9
12.2
0.0
n.a.
4.0
-5.9
6.4
62.0
-0.1
-36.7
-28.9
-6.3
-31.6
1.5
17.1
36.2
0.8

SECTION CPERFORMANCE OF THE PCT SYSTEM

International filing year
International searchingauthorities
SwedenUnited States of America

Total plus the top three
origins
SwedenNorwayFinland
Total*
United States of America
IsraelJapan
Total*

2010
1,388
126
375
2,074
14,162714
121
15,902
33
164,341

Unknown
Total

2011
1,402
131
317
1,942
14,541662
203
16,47941
182,437

2012
1,217
82
217
1,577
15,291493
162
17,10957
195,334

2013
1,272
100
108
1,522
15,168326
156
16,68661
205,272

2014
1,163
106
82
1,375
20,048302
178
21,8120
214,500

ISA share
2014 (%)
84.6
7.7
6.0
0.6
91.9
1.4
0.8
10.2
n.a.
100.0

Changefrom2013 (%)
-8.6
6.0
-24.1
-9.7
32.2
-7.4
14.1
30.7
n.a.
4.5

Note: * indicates share of total PCT applications, and n.a. indicates not applicable. Data for 2014 are WIPO estimates.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

C.3.2 Timeliness in transmitting reports

In 2014, the average timeliness to transmit ISRs to the

The ISA must establish the ISR within three months of

est transmittal time achieved since 2001. From 2001

receiving a copy of the application (the “search copy”),

to 2008, the average transmittal time, measured fromor nine months from the priority date (or, if no priority

the date of receipt of search copy to the IB, increased

is claimed, from the international filing date), whicheverby approximately two months (from four months to al-

expires later.

most six months); however, since 2008, it has improved

IB was of 3.6 months (figure C.3.2.1). This is the short-enormously. The electronic transmittal of numerous
ISRs to the IB may have played an important role in thisimprovement.
Figure C.3.2.1: Average timeliness in transmitting ISRs to the IB, measured from date of receipt ofsearch copy
Average timeliness in transmitting ISRs (from receipt of search copy)
6

Months

5

4

3
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Note: Timeliness is calculated as the time between the date when the ISA receives a copy of the PCT application and the date when the ISA transmits the ISR
to the IB (or, if applicable, the date of receipt of the declaration under Article 17(2)(a)). The figure shows timeliness in establishing the ISR, where the applicabletime limit for establishing the ISR under Rule 42 is three months after the date of receipt of the search copy.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

75

SECTION CPERFORMANCE OF THE PCT SYSTEM

In 2014, ISAs transmitted, on average, 67% of ISRs to

Figure C.3.2.3 presents the timeliness in transmitting

the IB within three months from the date of receipt of the

ISRs to the IB for ISRs where the deadline is 9 months

search copy (figure C.3.2.2). In 2013, this share improved

from the priority date. On average, the share of ISRs

most at the offices of the Republic of Korea (+23.8

transmitted within 9 months from the priority date waspercentage points), Austria (+11.8) and Finland (+11). By

61.8% in 2014. The office of Egypt and Spain transmitted,

contrast, it decreased most at the USPTO (-25.8).

respectively, 100% and 96.8% of ISRs within 9 months
from the priority date.

Figure C.3.2.2: Timeliness in transmitting ISRs to the IB, measured from date of receipt of thesearch copy by time category and by ISA, 2014
98.0

98.0

Between 4 - 5 months

93.7

92.9

92.8

Between 6 - 7 months

88.6

86.4

76.0

67.0

Between 8 - 9 months
65.2

63.3

60.5

More than 9 months

59.5

57.6

46.9

33.0

24.9

Share of international search reports transmitted within 3 months (%)

100
75
50

Sw
ed
en

tio
n
so
fA
me
ric
a
tat
e

dS

Un
ite

Ru
ss
ia

nF
ed
er
a

ffic

e

ae
l

nt
O

Pa
te
Eu
ro
pe
an

Re
pu
bli
c

No
rd
ic

Isr

Ind
ia

d
Fin
lan

Ko
re
a
of

To
tal

te

Au
str
ia

ns
titu

Br
az
il

Pa
ten
tI

Ca
na
da

Au
str
ali
a

Ch
ina

Sp
ain

0

Ja
pa
n

25

Eg
yp
t

Distribution by time category (%)

Within 3 months
100.0International Searching Authority

Note: Timeliness is calculated as the time between the date when the ISA receives a copy of the PCT application and the date when the ISA transmits the ISR
to the IB (or, if applicable, the date of receipt of the declaration under Article 17(2)(a)). The figure shows timeliness in establishing the ISR, where the applicabletime limit for establishing the ISR under Rule 42 is three months from receipt of the search copy.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

Figure C.3.2.3: Timeliness in transmitting ISRs to the IB, measured from priority date by time bycategory, and by ISA, 2014
96.8

94.6

Within the 10th month
94.1

91.3

81.6

81.6

Within the 11th month
79.3

76.9

75.0

Within the 12th month
71.8

71.4

71.1

More than 12 months

65.7

62.5

61.8

51.4

39.6

Share of international search reports transmitted within 9 months (%)

100
75
50

Ch
ina

Sw
ed
en

To
tal

ns
titu

te

e
ffic
nt
O

Pa
ten
tI

No
rd
ic

Eu
ro
pe
an

Pa
te

Ko
re
a
of

d
Fin
lan

Re
pu
bli
c

Ja
pa
n
so
fA
me
ric
a

Un
ite

dS

tat
e

Au
str
ia

Ind
ia

Au
str
ali
a

tio
n

nF
ed
er
a

Br
az
il

Ru
ss
ia

Ca
na
da

ae
l
Isr

0

Sp
ain

25

Eg
yp
t

Distribution by time category (%)

Within 9 months
100.0International Searching Authority

Note: Timeliness is calculated as the time elapsed between the priority date and the date on which the ISA transmits the ISR to the IB (or, if applicable, the dateof receipt of the declaration under Article 17(2)(a)), for ISRs where the deadline is nine months from the priority date.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

76

SECTION CPERFORMANCE OF THE PCT SYSTEM

C.4

C.5

Supplementary international
searching authorities

International preliminary examining
authorities

Since 2009, the supplementary international search (SIS)

PCT applicants can request an optional international

service has enabled PCT applicants to request searches

preliminary examination (IPE) from an international prelimi-

in additional languages, thus complementing the searchnary examining authority (IPEA), with competence basedby the main ISAs.

on negotiated agreements between ROs and IPEAs.

C.4.1 Supplementary international
search reports by authority

Once the IPE has been carried out, an International
Preliminary Report on Patentability (IPRP) is sent by the
IPEA to the applicant, who is then better placed to makeA total of 109 SIS requests were recorded in 2014,

an informed decision about whether or not to enter the

representing an increase of 42 requests on 2013 figures

PCT national phase. The report is also transmitted to(table C.4.1). At the EPO, the number of SIS requests in-national offices in their capacity as the “elected” office.28

creased by 31, and at the office of the Russian Federation

Patent offices, in examining the PCT application during

it increased by 14, collectively accounting for almost all

the national phase, take into account the IPRP (as well

(98.2%) requests made in 2014.

as the ISR and the written opinion of the ISA) when
considering the patentability of the underlying invention.

Table C.4.1: Distribution of supplementaryinternational search reports by SISA

After the National Institute of Industrial Property (Chile)commenced operations on October 22, 2014, the total

Supplementary
International
Searching Authority
Austria

Year
2010

2011
1

2012
2

2013
2

2014
2

European Patent Office

3

7

21

30

61

32

46

Finlandnumber of national or regional offices acting as IPEAs
in 2014 was 18.29

1

Nordic Patent Institute1

Russian Federation

35

31

3

Sweden

2

2

Total

41

41

19

3
46

67

109

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

28 “Elected” offices are national or regional offices atwhich the PCT application has potential legal effect.
29 The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore andthe State Intellectual Property Service of Ukraine
have been appointed as IPEAs (bringing to 20 the
total number of IPEAs). However, these offices
had not yet commenced operations in 2014.

77

SECTION CPERFORMANCE OF THE PCT SYSTEM

Table C.5.1: Distribution of IPRPs by IPEAInternational preliminary
examining authority
Australia
Austria

Year
2012
818

2013
653

28

14

28

16

0.1

15

45

47

48

0.4

2.1

2010
850

2011
701

60

Brazil2014
639

2014 Change fromshare (%)
2013 (%)
4.7
-2.1
-42.9

Canada

258

184

360

255

249

1.8

-2.4

China

394

340

450

433

337

2.5

-22.2

1

0.0

n.a.

Egypt
8,261

7,177

7,743

7,307

7,652

56.1

4.7

139

122

115

91

104

0.8

14.3

9

40

0.3

344.4

1,905

2,206

2,741

2,470

2,236

16.4

-9.5

Nordic Patent Institute

34

40

37

48

42

0.3

-12.5

Republic of Korea

308

248

254

254

261

1.9

2.8

Russian Federation

62

67

76

123

91

0.7

-26.0
-11.8

European Patent Office
FinlandIsrael
Japan

Spain

109

149

107

85

75

0.6

Sweden

408

357

332

249

251

1.8

0.8

United States of America

2,215

3,246

2,244

2,526

1,587

11.6

-37.2

Total

15,003

14,88015,336

14,578

13,629

100.0

-6.5

Note: The figures for 2014 may be incomplete. n.a. indicates not applicable.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

C.5.1 International preliminary reports
on patentability by authority

C.5.2 Timeliness in transmitting reports
The PCT Regulations set a time limit for establishing the

When compared with figures for 2013, the number of

IPRP: 28 months from the priority date, six months from

IPRPs issued in 2014 fell by 6.5%, reaching 13,629 (table

the start of the preliminary examination, or six months

C.5.1). The USPTO and the JPO accounted for most of

from the date of receipt of the translated application

this decrease (USPTO -939 reports, or -37.2%) and the

document by the IPEA (where relevant)—whichever time

JPO (-234 reports or -9.5%). Several IPEAs recorded

limit expires latest.

growth; these included the EPO (+345 reports or +4.7%)
and the office of Israel (+31 reports).

In practice, most applicants enter the national phase
immediately before the expiration of the time limit set by
the PCT—generally 30 months from the priority date.
The establishment of IPRPs before 28 months from thepriority date is therefore intended to give applicants twomonths, in principle, to evaluate the IPRP and consider its
impact on the decision to enter the PCT national phase.
Timeliness is measured using the date the IB receives
reports, rather than the date when the reports were established. The measurement may therefore be influenced
by transmittal times.

78

SECTION CPERFORMANCE OF THE PCT SYSTEM

Average time in transmitting IPRPs was 28.9 months in

In 2014, on average, 73.2% of IPRPs were transmitted

2014 (figure C.5.2.1). Since 2001, the delay in transmitting

to the IB within 28 months from the priority date (figure

IPRPs rose from 27.6 months, before peaking in 2011 at

C.5.2.2). Egypt and the Nordic Patent Institute each

31.6 months. Since then, it has decreased almost con-transmitted more than 95% of IPRPs within 28 months

stantly each year, before reaching in 2014 a level similarfrom the priority date of the application. When comparedto that observed in 2003.

with figures for 2013, this share improved most at theoffice of Austria (+33.9 percentage points) and Finland(+24.5), whereas it decreased most at SIPO (-33.4) andthe office of Israel (-18.3).

Figure C.5.2.1: Average timeliness in transmitting IPRPs to the IB
Average timeliness in transmitting International Preliminary Reports on Patentability (from priority date)
32

Months

31
30
29
28
27
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Note: Timeliness is calculated as the time elapsed between the priority date and the date on which the IB received the IPRP from the IPEA.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

Figure C.5.2.2: Timeliness in transmitting IPRPs to the IB by time by category and by IPEA, 2014
95.2

94.7

93.7

90.4

Between 29 - 30 months
87.8

87.7

83.3

Between 31 - 32 months
73.2

73.1

72.7

62.5

More than 32 months
61.6

60.4

57.5

55.9

49.6

Share of IPRPs transmitted within 28 months (%)

100
75
50

Un
ite

dS

tat
e

of

Ko
re
a
so
fA
me
ric
a

ae
l
Isr

Re
pu
bli
c

tio
n

Ch
ina

nF
ed
er
a

Ru
ss
ia

Au
str
ia

e

Ca
na
da

ffic
nt
O

To
tal
Eu
ro
pe
an

Pa
te

Br
az
il

Ja
pa
n

d

Au
str
ali
a

Fin
lan

Sw
ed
en

Sp
ain

ns
titu

No
rd
ic

Pa
ten
tI

0

te

25

Eg
yp
t

Distribution by time category (%)

Within 28 months
100.0International Preliminary Examining Authority

Note: Figure C.5.2.2 presents the same timeliness information for 2014 as presented in figure C.5.2.1, but breaks down this information by IPEA. Timeliness iscalculated as the time elapsed between the priority date and the date when the IB received the IPRP from the IPEA.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

79

SECTION CPERFORMANCE OF THE PCT SYSTEM

C.6

IP5 PPH pilot program

PCT-Patent Prosecution Highway pilots

In January 2014, the group of IP5 offices, which com-

Where a favorable written opinion or IPRP has been issued by the participating ISA and/or IPEA, use of the PCTPatent Prosecution Highway (PCT-PPH) pilots enables
applicants to fast-track patent examination proceduresin the national phase and, generally, to obtain a patentability decision more quickly from participating offices.
In 2014, 63 PCT-PPH bilateral pilots were active, withthe participation of 29 offices, including 14 international
authorities. More comprehensive pilot programs withmultilateral agreements, which also include PCT work
products, were also active—namely, the Global PPH pilot
program and the IP5 PPH pilot program. Between them,
they included 21 participating offices at the end of 2014.
C.6.1 New PCT-PPH pilots
Bilateral and unilateral pilots
The following offices started bilateral one-way or two-way
PCT-PPH pilots in 2014 (in chronological order):• KIPO and Swedish Patent and Registration Office• Israel Patent Office and KIPO
• KIPO and Spanish Patent and Trademark Office• National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) (Portugal)
and SIPO• INPI (Portugal) and KIPO
• Israel Patent Office and SIPO
• SIPO and Swedish Patent and Registration Office• Icelandic Patent Office and SIPO
• Intellectual Property Office30 (United Kingdom) andSIPO

prises the world’s five largest intellectual property offices (the EPO, the JPO, KIPO, SIPO and the USPTO),
launched a comprehensive IP5 PPH pilot program whichuses PCT products.
Global PPH pilot program
In January 2014, 17 offices31 joined the pilot program ofa new Global PPH arrangement, whereby it is possible
for a request for accelerated processing to be made atany participating office, based on work products, including a written opinion or IPRP under the PCT from any of
the other participating offices. The pilot program uses asingle set of qualifying requirements, and aims to simplify
and improve the existing PPH network to make it moreaccessible to users.
C.6.2 Number of requests by office
Table C.6.2.1 presents the number of requests for PCTPPH fast-track patent examination in 2014 by office ofnational phase entry and by ISA. Due to technical reasons, the USPTO, as the office of national phase entry– which accounted in 2013 for 54.8% of all requests –,did not communicate its 2014 statistics.
With the exception of the USPTO, offices of national
phase entry received a total of 4,127 requests in 2014.
This represents an increase of 44% on 2013 figures.
All offices presented in the table experienced growthcompared to previous years. The JPO saw the sharpest increase in the number of requests (+363 requests),
followed by the EPO (+249) and KIPO (+213).

• JPO and Superintendence of Industr y andCommerce (Colombia)• Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia andthe JPO• Patent Office of the Republic of Poland and the USPTO
30 Intellectual Property Office is anoperating name of the Patent Office.

80

31 The offices of Australia, Canada, Denmark,Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Norway,
Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the RussianFederation, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom
and the US, as well as the Nordic Patent Institute.

SECTION CPERFORMANCE OF THE PCT SYSTEM

Table C.6.2.1: Distribution of PCT-PPH requests by international authority and by office of PCT
national phase entry, 2014

Australia

Austria

CanadaChina

European
Patent Office

FinlandIsraelJapan

NordicPatentInstitute

Republic of
Korea

RussianFederation

Spain

SwedenUnitedStates ofAmerica

Total

International authority

Japan

4

0

11

56

256

3

3

1,212

0

63

3

0

6

18

1,635

China

-

1

-

-

183

2

0

569

-

146

8

0

3

41

953

Republic of Korea

1

2

2

28

153

8

0

189

0

86

1

0

5

33

508

European Patent
Office

-

-

-

102

-

-

-

273

-

31

-

-

-

100

506

Canada

1

0

92

-

-

2

1

23

0

27

1

0

0

99

246

Australia

0

0

3

-

-

2

1

29

0

36

3

0

1

43

118

Russian Federation

0

0

5

3

-

1

0

29

0

3

0

1

0

21

63

Philippines

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

25

-

-

-

-

-

14

39

Mexico

-

-

0

1

0

-

-

9

-

-

-

7

-

-

17

Israel

0

0

0

0

-

0

5

1

0

3

1

0

0

5

15

United Kingdom

1

0

2

2

0

0

0

2

0

1

1

0

0

0

9

Spain

0

0

0

-

-

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

5

Sweden

0

0

0

-

-

0

0

2

0

0

3

0

0

0

5

Malaysia

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4

-

-

-

-

-

-

4

Denmark

0

0

0

0

-

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

Finland

0

0

0

0

-

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Norway

0

0

0

-

-

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

Iceland

0

0

0

-

-

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Office of PCT
national phase
entry

Note: Data for USPTO acting as office of national phase entry are missing.
Source: WIPO, based on data from the JPO, March 2015

Table C.6.2.2: Additional statistics on PCT-PPH applications, July to December 2014

Republicof Korea

RussianFederation

UnitedKingdom

98.0

100

98.0

16.6

90.0

33.3

73.3

65.0

42.0

69.8*

65.3

44.0

66.6

15.9

21.2

4.5

47.6

8.2

9.5

Japan

Israel78.8

CanadaAdditional statistics

Australia

Office of PCT national phase entry

Grant rate (%)
PCT-PPH applications

100

All applications combinedFirst action allowance rate (%)
PCT-PPH applications

52.6

All applications combined
Note: *January-December 2013.
Source: WIPO, based on data from the JPO, March 2015.

Table C.6.2.2 compares the July to December 2014 data

The grant rates and first-action allowance rates werefor PCT-PPH applications with total patent applications foralmost always higher for PCT-PPH applications. The only

some key elements of the patent examination procedure.

exception was for the grant rate at the office of Israel,

It should be noted that due to significant differences

which was almost nine percentage points lower for PCT-

in patenting procedures among offices, a cross-office

PPH applications than for total applications.

comparison is not relevant.

81

SECTION DDEVELOPMENT OF THE PCT SYSTEM

Section D
Development of the PCT System
D.1
Electronic Filing and Processing of PCT
Applications

D.1.2 ePCT system
The ePCT system enables applicants to securely fileand manage their PCT applications, and to access thebibliographic data and documents in real time through-By the end of 2014, 32 out of 116 PCT ROs acceptedout the lifetime of the PCT application, including prior to

the filing of PCT applications in fully electronic format.

publication. The system comprises two modes: ePCT
public services (submission of electronic documents,

D.1.1 ePCT-Filingbut no access to confidential data and documents) andePCT private services (filing of PCT applications, real-

Although electronic filing now accounts for a large major-

time access to confidential data and documents andity of PCT applications filed, the outstanding challenge issemi-automated ‘Actions’).

to make online filing easily accessible and desirable for theremaining 8.5% of applicants, and to further improve the

The system also provides services for offices—primarily

quality of the filings that are already made electronically.

for ROs, but also in roles as ISAs, IPEAs and designatedor elected offices. By the end of 2014, 49 offices had

ePCT-Filing aims to address these issues in four main

accessed the system and several had been able to takeways: first, offer new tools to offices, such that any RO is

up use to the extent that they could eliminate paper com-able to accept fully electronic filings without maintaining

munications between their office and the IB.

a dedicated IT infrastructure; second, allow applicants
to use electronic filing without having to install and keep

New features were added to ePCT in 2014, among which

updated dedicated local software, which may require

the most notable were:regular maintenance by the company’s IT administrators;
third, provide easier tools to submit PCT applications in

ePCT for applicants

XML format; fourth, provide a wider range of checks andservices prior to filing, based directly on the tools and• the possibility to attach the full application body in XML

databases used by the IB, in order to minimize the risk

format or to attach a .DOCX version of the applica-of errors in the application.

tion body for real-time conversion to XML formattingePCT-filing;

Prior to 2014, ePCT-Filing had been available for applica-• Languages for the output of the request form in ePCT-

tions (in one of five languages) made to the RO of theFiling were extended to include Chinese, Japanese,

IB only. During 2014, these restrictions were lifted. By
the end of 2014, 10 other offices had begun to accept
electronic filings from ePCT; 5 of these offices had not

Korean and Russian.
• the integration of an online payment system for paying
fees directly online to the IB as RO; andpreviously accepted online filing, and several more were

• the ability for applicants to save ePCT Actions as drafts

preparing to accept this means of filing within a short timeprior to submission, permitting review and signature

period. Since e-PCT was first introduced, 2,553 PCT ap-

by other colleagues not having ePCT access rights.

plications were filed using this system. The main technicalimprovements made are set out in subsection D.1.2.

82

SECTION DDEVELOPMENT OF THE PCT SYSTEMePCT for offices

D.3• ROs can enter bibliographic data for applications filed

WIPO Pearl databaseon paper, allowing access to more effective tools forgenerating correspondence to applicants.
• file segregation of documents relevant to different
capacities (RO, international authorities, IB);In September 2014, WIPO launched a new database thatprovides free access to a wealth of multilingual scientificand technical terminology found in PCT applications.33• significantly improved document processing capabili-

WIPO Pearl promotes accurate and consistent use ofties, including document status handling, document

terms across the 10 publication languages of the PCT,

routing and dedicated replacement sheet process-and makes it easier to search and share scientific anding, thus reducing work required by the RO andtechnical knowledge. Legal terminology from the PCT iseliminating potential sources of confusion for the IB

also included in WIPO Pearl.

in complex cases;• significantly improved tools for generating and checking certain key forms;

Identifying the right term with the same scope of meaning in another language is a particular challenge faced• designated office functions, allowing access to files ofby many stakeholders, such as patent drafters, patent

unpublished applications in the case of national phasesearchers and examiners and attorneys. In offering vali-

entry prior to publication and to certain documents

dated equivalents across languages for the terminology

never published on PATENTSCOPE;

found in PCT applications, and linking each term retrieved• advanced search facility for searching PCT applications using multiple criteria; and• enabled IB form distribution for the RO/ISA/IPEA as
an alternative to paper and PCT-EDI.

to the full PATENTSCOPE corpus, it is hoped that WIPO
Pearl will prove to be a useful tool for the patent community. Users of the patent system in regions or countries that do not have a highly developed infrastructure
for accessing patent information in different languages
may also benefit from the database. In addition, since

D.2

not only terminology in multiple languages is included in

PATENTSCOPE Search System

WIPO Pearl but also value-added information such as
examples of term usage, definitions of terms, and links

The regional collection of the Eurasian Patent Office andshowing relationships between concepts, the resource

the national patent collections of Canada, Germany andcan also be useful as a learning and information tool for

Portugal were added to PATENTSCOPE.32 This brings

scientific and technical terminology in a broader sense.

to 39 the number of national (or regional) offices whose
data are available in PATENTSCOPE; in addition, it is now

Some 15,000 concepts and over 90,000 terms have beenpossible to search over 46 million patent documents,

entered and validated by IB translators and terminologists

including almost 2.6 million published PCT applications.

who have considerable experience of working with patent documents in multiple languages; the database hashitherto been used internally to help improve the qualityof translations performed during the international phaseof the PCT. Moreover, future plans envisage collaboration
with technical experts in external institutions, in order togive the data a further degree of reliability.

32 https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf

33 www.wipo.int/wipopearl

83

SECTION D

Feedback on WIPO Pearl is welcomed, and can be sent
to wipopearl@wipo.int or via the “Contact us” link on

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PCT SYSTEM

Figure D.3: WIPO Pearl — the concept
map search

WIPO internet website.
Some key features of WIPO Pearl

SCIE• All 10 PCT publication languages covered: Arabic,
Chinese, English, French, German, Japanese, Korean,
Portuguese, Russian and Spanish;

ROAD
SPRT

RAI

TEXT

MIL

with associated subfields;• “Concept maps” that give an innovative graphical

DATA
ENGY

• Context and reliable source provided for all terms;• Term labelling (for example, “recommended”, “standardized” or “avoid”);

AUDV
ENVR

ADM AERO

BLDG
FOOD

MEDI
HOME
HO

retrieved in the PATENTSCOPE corpus;• Integrated with PATENTSCOPE CLIR (Cross-Lingual
Information Retrieval), so that an unvalidated proposal
from WIPO’s patent-trained machine translation engine
is offered, or can be obtained if the database does
not contain an equivalent for the term searched; and• Users can rate the quality of results.

84

CHEM

LEGL
MECH
MANU

• Integrated with PATENTSCOPE, so that all occurrences of a searched term or its equivalent can be

METL

AGRI

display of related concepts by language and subject
field (figure D.3);

PACK
MINE

ELEC

• Classification of concepts by 29 subject fields, each
• Fully validated content with reliability scores;

PRNT

Source: WIPO, March 2015

MARI
MEAS

SECTION DDEVELOPMENT OF THE PCT SYSTEM

D.4

amendment was also made to enable the IB, in cases

Legal Developments

copy of the general power of attorney, to process thewhere it receives a notice of withdrawal together with a
notice of withdrawal without requiring the agent to submit

Changes in the PCT Regulations that entered into force

a separate original general power of attorney.

or were adopted by the Assembly of the International
Patent Cooperation Union (PCT Assembly) in 2014 are

In view of the ceasing of PCT-EASY filings on July 1,

presented below.

2015, the PCT Schedule of Fees was also revised witheffect from that date to remove the fee reduction avail-D.4.1 Amendments that entered into force in 2014

able for such filings. Furthermore, the eligibility criteria
for the 90% reduction in the international filing fee, theThe amendments adopted by the PCT Assembly insupplementary search handling fee and the handling fee,

October 2013 that entered into force on July 1, 2014

which is available for applicants from certain countries,

provided the inclusion, during international preliminary

have been revised with effect from July 1, 2015, withexamination, of a “top-up” search, the main purpose of

the following effect: natural persons who are nation-

which is to find potentially relevant prior art documents

als and residents of Singapore and the United Arabthat have become available since the international search

Emirates will no longer benefit from the fee reduction,

was conducted (PCT Rules 66.1ter and 70.2(f)). They

but natural persons who are nationals and residents ofalso provided for the availability of the written opinion

the Bahamas, Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Nauru, Palau,of the ISA, in its original language, on PATENTSCOPE

Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia and Suriname34 will

as from the date of international publication (instead of

be able to benefit from it.

30 months from the priority date) (PCT Rule 94 and deletion of PCT Rule 44ter).
As a consequence of the above-mentioned amendments
to the Regulations under the PCT, modifications to the
Administrative Instructions under the PCT and to the
PCT International Search and Preliminary Examination
Guidelines were made accordingly, with effect from thesame date.
D.4.2 Amendments adopted in 2014
The amendments adopted by the PCT Assembly in
October 2014 that will enter into force on July 1, 2015
included the introduction of a requirement, in the case of
applicants making an express request for early national
phase entry, to file any request for the restoration of theright of priority at the designated or elected office within
one month from the date of receipt of the request for earlynational phase entry (rather than one month from theexpiration of the normal period for entering the national
phase) (amendment of PCT Rule 49ter.2 and 76.5). An

34 Applicants from the Bahamas, Nauru, Palau andSuriname, which are not bound by the PCT, must filethe PCT application together with an applicant who
is a national of and/or resides in a PCT contracting
state, and may only benefit from the fee reduction ifthat co-applicant is also entitled to a fee reduction.

85

SECTION DDEVELOPMENT OF THE PCT SYSTEM

D.5

D.5.2 PCT Working Group

Meetings

The seventh session of the PCT Working Group was

Several meetings take place every year between the PCTinternational authorities, the IB, PCT member states and/or offices to ensure the regular operation of the systemand to improve its performance and facilitate its use.
The main developments in 2014 are described below.
D.5.1 Meeting of International
Authorities under the PCT

held in Geneva from June 10–13, 2014. The Working
Group recommended proposed amendments to the
PCT Regulations, which were later adopted by the PCTAssembly, as presented in subsection D.4.2. The Working
Group endorsed proposed modifications to the third
party observation system, which would be implemented
when the necessary technical changes could be made,and also endorsed modifications to the Receiving Office
Guidelines in relation to selecting a competent ISA and

The 21st session of the Meeting of Internationalin relation to the correction by ROs of checklists of the

Authorities under the PCT was held in Tel Aviv, Israel,contents of the PCT application. The Working Group also

from February 11–13, 2014. The matters discussed at

noted a report by the IB on the development of the ePCTthe meeting included the approval of recommendations

system; it invited the IB to refine proposals concerning an

for further work of the Meeting’s Quality Subgroup,arrangement to use ePCT to assist national phase entry,

comprising: the provision of better information on theand it discussed color drawings.

scope of the international search, the preparation of apilot of feedback from designated offices to international

D.5.3 PCT Assembly

authorities and the development of improved explanations
and examples of complex cases of unity of invention.

The 46th session of the PCT Assembly was held in

A report was provided on the current state of ePCT,

Geneva during the period September 22–30, 2014 aswhich offered all the most essential services requiredpart of the meetings of the Assemblies of the Member

for applicants and ROs, but which required more active

States of WIPO. The PCT Assembly adopted amend-

participation by a wide range of offices in order for it toments to the PCT Regulations which will enter into force

reach its full potential. Presentations of proposals wereon July 1, 2015, as outlined under subsection D.4.2.

provided by the JPO, KIPO, the Federal Service for

The Assembly also appointed the Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property (Rospatent)(Russian Federation)

Office of Singapore as an ISA and IPEA, effective fromand the USPTO. International authorities expressed aa future date to be notified by the office when it is readydesire to make progress towards permitting the filingto begin operations. The Assembly also approved new

and processing of color drawings in PCT applications.

procedures for appointing ISAs and IPEAs, including
the recommendation that offices seeking appointment
obtain the assistance of an existing international authority
to help assess the extent to which they meet the necessary criteria. Furthermore, the Committee for TechnicalCooperation would meet to give expert advice on theapplication for appointment at least three months inadvance of the session of the PCT Assembly where theapplication is to be considered.

86

SECTION DDEVELOPMENT OF THE PCT SYSTEM

D.6

D.6.3 Distance learning

PCT Training

The PCT distance learning course entitled “Introduction
to the PCT”, available in all 10 PCT publication languages,

The IB offers training sessions and provides training ma-

was followed via the Internet by 2,688 participants.

terials on the PCT System to a wide range of interested
parties worldwide.

D.6.4 International Cooperation

D.6.1 Seminars

The PCT International Cooperation Division organizedand participated in 43 events such as seminars andIn 2014, the PCT Legal Division participated in 53 seminars

workshops mainly for offices of PCT member statesfor PCT users in 11 countries (China, France, Germany,and possible PCT member states as well as other stake-

Greece, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the UK

holders. These were held in 35 countries and at WIPO

and the US) and at WIPO headquarters, which were

headquarters. Participants were more than 2,500 anddelivered in five languages (Chinese, English, French,from more than 50 countries.

German and Japanese). In addition, 54 presentations
on the PCT were given to users and potential users of
the PCT.
D.6.2 Webinars
In 2014, 17 webinars, including “PCT update” webinars
and webinars on the use of the ePCT system, were given
in nine languages to a total of 715 participants. The recordings and accompanying PowerPoint presentations
are available on the PCT website.35
In addition, 10 webinars were held on a number of topics
related to the use of the PATENTSCOPE search system.
The PowerPoint slides that were used for those webinars
are also available on the WIPO website.36

35 www.wipo.int/pct/en/seminar/webinars/index.html
36 www.wipo.int/patentscope/en/webinar/

87ANNEXES

Statistical table
The table shows the number of PCT applications filed

The following example may be of assistance in under-in 2014 and the number of PCT national phase entries

standing the table below: the patent office of Australia

in 2013 by office and by country or territory of origin.

received 1,625 PCT applications as a PCT receiving of-37

fice in 2014 and 20,720 PCT national phase entries as adesignated office in 2013; applicants residing in Australia
filed 1,726 PCT applications in 2014 and initiated 7,261
PCT national phase entries worldwide in 2013.

PCT applications filed(international phase) in 2014

PCT national phase entries
in 2013at receiving officeby countryof origin

at office of destinationby countryof origin

OA

3

n.a.

426

n.a.

AP

0

n.a.

637

n.a.

AL

1

1

3

1

Algeria

DZ

7

7

676

1

Andorra

AD

n.a.

1

n.a.

19
1

Name

Code

African Intellectual Property Organization
African Regional Intellectual Property
Organization
Albania

Angola

AO

IB

2

--

Antigua and Barbuda

AG

0

0

--

1

Argentina

AR

n.a.

33

n.a.

79

Armenia

AM

3

4

5

6

Aruba

AW

n.a.

0

n.a.

2

Australia

AU

1,625

1,726

20,7207,261

Austria

AT

541

1,387

533

5,113

Azerbaijan

AZ

0

1

5

6

Bahamas

BS

n.a.

20

n.a.

63

Bahrain

BH

0

2

170

6

Bangladesh

BD

n.a.

2

n.a.

16

Barbados

BB

IB

175

39

434

Belarus

BY

10

13

105

4

Belgium

BE

71

1,197

EP

5,193

Belize

BZ

0

4

29

14

Benin

BJ

OA

1

OA

--

Bermuda

BM

n.a.

0

n.a.

95

Bhutan

BT

n.a.

0

n.a.

1

Bolivia (Plurinational State of)

BO

n.a.

0

n.a.

1

Bosnia and Herzegovina

BA

5

5

21

5

Botswana

BW

0

0

1

--

Brazil

BR

513

581

22,5761,250

Brunei Darussalam

BN

0

0

--

8

Bulgaria

BG

44

51

8

70

Burkina Faso

BF

OA

0

OA

2

37 A PCT applicant seeking protection in any of theEuropean Patent Convention (EPC) member states
can generally choose to enter the national phase at
the relevant national office or at the EPO (see EPC
member states indicated in the PCT contracting
states table in the annex). This explains why the
number of PCT national phase entries at some

88

European national offices is lower than would
otherwise be expected. The PCT national phase routeis closed for France, Italy, the Netherlands and several
other countries (again, see the PCT contracting
states table in the annex). A PCT applicant seeking
protection in those countries must enter the PCT
national phase at the regional office (the EPO).

ANNEXESPCT applications filed(international phase) in 2014

PCT national phase entries
in 2013at receiving officeby countryof origin

at office of destination

CV

n.a.

0

n.a.

1

CM

OA

0

OA

--

Name

Code

Cabo Verde
Cameroonby countryof origin

Canada

CA

2,181

3,089

26,627

8,894

Central African Republic

CF

OA

0

OA

1

Chad

TD

OA

0

OA

1

Chile

CL

92

144

2,504

279

China

CN

27,10725,53972,867

18,106China, Hong Kong SAR

HK

n.a.

0

n.a.

238

China, Macao SAR

MO

n.a.

0

n.a.

2

Colombia

CO

15

102

1,690

79

Comoros

KM

OA

0

OA

--

Congo

CG

OA

0

OA

3

Cook Islands

CK

n.a.

0

n.a.

1

Costa Rica

CR

5

9

567

18

Côte d'Ivoire

CI

OA

3

OA

2

Croatia

HR

49

54

10

91

Cuba

CU

4

4

137

151

Curaçao

CW

n.a.

0

n.a.

10

Cyprus

CY

1

38

EP

117

Czech Republic

CZ

166

189

41

357

Democratic People's Republic of Korea

KP

4

4

--

28

Democratic Republic of the Congo

CD

n.a.

1

n.a.

--

Denmark

DK

510

1,301

86

5,550

Dominica

DM

0

0

--

1

Dominican Republic

DO

3

3

240

6

Ecuador

EC

0

7

--

12

Egypt

EG

42

48

1,353

36

El Salvador

SV

2

3

--

7

Equatorial Guinea

GQ

OA

0

OA

--

Estonia

EE

9

29

14

76

Eurasian Patent Organization

EA

22

n.a.

2,796

n.a.

European Patent OfficeEP

32,968n.a.

87,367

n.a.

Fiji

FJ

n.a.

0

n.a.

1

Finland

FI

1,111

1,815

38

5,528

France

FR

3,528

8,319

EP

28,534

Gabon

GA

OA

0

OA

1

Gambia

GM

AP

0

--

--

Georgia

GE

1

1

199

4

GermanyDE

1,718

18,008

5,253

63,173

Ghana

GH

0

0

--

2

Greece

GR

68

133

EP

102

Grenada

GD

0

0

--

1

Guatemala

GT

1

1

308

1

Guinea

GN

OA

0

OA

--

Guinea-Bissau

GW

OA

0

OA

--

Honduras

HN

0

0

204

--

Hungary

HU

127

159

7

450

Iceland

IS

15

43

5

91

India

IN

761

1,394

27,592

3,890

Indonesia

ID

12

17

6,129

59

International BureauIB

10,615

n.a.

--

n.a.

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

IR

n.a.

35

n.a.

2

89

ANNEXESPCT applications filed(international phase) in 2014
Name

Code

at receiving office

PCT national phase entries
in 2013by countryof origin

at office of destinationby countryof origin

Ireland

IE

19

440

EP

1,427

Israel

IL

1,211

1,596

5,101

5,498

Italy

IT

337

3,061

EP

9,895

Jamaica

JM

n.a.

2

n.a.

5

Japan

JP

41,29842,45954,157

120,839

Jordan

JO

n.a.

3

n.a.

64

Kazakhstan

KZ

18

19

166

40

Kenya

KE

9

9

111

19

Kiribati

KI

n.a.

0

n.a.

10

Kuwait

KW

n.a.

3

n.a.

8

Kyrgyzstan

KG

0

1

2

1

Lao People's Democratic Republic

LA

IB

2

--

--

Latvia

LV

12

29

EP

66

Lebanon

LB

n.a.

4

n.a.

14

Liberia

LR

0

1

--

1

Liechtenstein

LI

CH

231

CH

225

Lithuania

LT

12

49

10

29

Luxembourg

LU

0

392

--

1,088

Madagascar

MG

IB

2

44

--

Malaysia

MY

289

314

5,284

544

Mali

ML

OA

0

OA

1

Malta

MT

0

58

EP

85

Marshall Islands

MH

n.a.

1

n.a.

6

Mauritania

MR

OA

0

OA

--

Mauritius

MU

n.a.

2

n.a.

14

Mexico

MX

216

284

11,766545

Monaco

MC

0

33

EP

59

Mongolia

MN

0

0

125

2

Montenegro

ME

IB

1

--

--

Morocco

MA

43

45

775

5

Mozambique

MZ

AP

0

--

---

Namibia

NA

AP

3

--

Nepal

NP

n.a.

0

n.a.

3

Netherlands

NL

976

4,218

EP

16,126

Netherlands Antilles

AN

0

0

--

10

New Zealand

NZ

273

346

3,808

1,183
--

Nicaragua

NI

0

0

116

Niger

NE

OA

0

OA

--

Nigeria

NG

IB

4

--

-2,637

Norway

NO

295

690

538

Oman

OM

IB

0

--

1

Pakistan

PK

n.a.

1

n.a.

11

Panama

PA

3

16

--

47

Papua New Guinea

PG

0

0

76

--

Paraguay

PY

n.a.

0

n.a.

6

Peru

PE

11

12

1,069

15

Philippines

PH

22

35

2,747

42

Poland

PL

243

349

80

706

Portugal

PT

83

158

10

401

Qatar

QA

0

18

314

8

Republic of Korea

KR13,177

13,15135,16819,086

Republic of Moldova

MD

3

3

20

33

90

ANNEXESPCT applications filed(international phase) in 2014
at receiving office

PCT national phase entries
in 2013by countryof origin

at office of destinationby countryof origin

Name

Code

Romania

RO

24

26

18

67

Russian Federation

RU

920

890

13,1151,815Saint Kitts and Nevis

KN

0

2

--

8

Saint Lucia

LC

IB

0

--

--

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

VC

IB

1

8

17

Samoa

WS

n.a.

0

n.a.

9

San Marino

SM

0

2

--

3

Sao Tome and Principe

ST

IB

0

--

--

Saudi Arabia

SA

n.a.

393

n.a.

381

Senegal

SN

OA

3

OA

--

Serbia

RS

12

14

13

44

Serbia and Montenegro (formerly
Yugoslavia)

YU

n.a.

0

n.a.

1

Seychelles

SC

0

5

--

89

Sierra Leone

SL

AP

0

--

--

Singapore

SG

632

944

6,557

2,368

Slovakia

SK

47

65

9

89

Slovenia

SI

87

156

EP

204

Somalia

SO

n.a.

0

n.a.

2

South Africa

ZA

63

297

6,105

1,140

Spain

ES

1,221

1,705

111

3,794

Sri Lanka

LK

IB

21

--

81

Sudan

SD

0

4

--

--

Swaziland

SZ

AP

0

AP

4

Sweden

SE

1,733

3,925

67

11,795

Switzerland

CH

181

4,115

75

21,913Syrian Arab Republic

SY

0

3

--

8

T F Y R of Macedonia

MK

3

4

--

5

Tajikistan

TJ

0

0

2

--

Thailand

TH

58

68

5,604

686

Togo

TG

OA

0

OA

--

Trinidad and Tobago

TT

0

1

--

2

Tunisia

TN

6

8

437

59

Turkey

TR

487

802

231

653

Uganda

UG

AP

4

5

1

Ukraine

UA

128

136

2,280

154

United Arab Emirates

AE

IB

98

1,334

108

United Kingdom

GB

4,247

5,282

2,381

19,020

United Republic of Tanzania

TZ

AP

0

--

5

United States of America

US62,13361,492

119,899

157,943

Uruguay

UY

n.a.

6

n.a.

20

Uzbekistan

UZ

4

6

249

6

Vanuatu

VU

n.a.

1

n.a.

1

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

VE

n.a.

1

n.a.

4

Viet Nam

VN

4

7

3,063

36

ZambiaZM

Unknown
Total

0

0

10

--

0

263

452

6,602

214,500

214,500

565,500

565,500-- indicates data are unknown;
n.a. indicates not applicable, as it is not an office of a PCT member state;
AP, CH, EP, IB and OA are the competent — designated, elected or receiving — offices for certain member states;
PCT national phase entries by origin, world totals and PCT application data are WIPO estimates; andOffices of destination are designated and/or elected offices.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2015.

91

ANNEXES

Acronyms
EPC

European Patent Convention

EPO

European Patent Office

GPPH

Global Patent Prosecution Highway

IBInternational Bureau of WIPO

IP

intellectual property

IPC

international patent classification

IPE

international preliminary examination

IPEA

international preliminary examining authority

IPRP

international preliminary report on
patentability

ISA

international searching authority

ISR

international search report

JPO

Japan Patent Office

KIPO

Korean Intellectual Property OfficeNPEnational phase entry

PCT

Patent Cooperation Treaty

PCT-PPH

Patent Cooperation Treaty-Patent 		
Prosecution Highway

PCT-SAFE PCT-Secure Application Filed Electronically
PDF

portable document format

RO

receiving officeSAFE

secure application filed electronically

SIPO

State Intellectual Property Office of thePeople’s Republic of China

SIS

supplementary international search

SISA

authority specified for supplementary
search (supplementary international
searching authority)

SISR

supplementary international search report

USPTO

United States Patent and Trademark Office

WIPO

World Intellectual Property Organization

XLM

extensible markup language92ANNEXES

Glossary
Applicant: An individual or legal entity that files a patent

Designated state: A contracting state in which pro-application. There may be more than one applicant in an

tection for the invention is sought, as specified in theapplication. For PCT statistics, the place of residence of

PCT application.

the first-named applicant is used to determine the originof a PCT application.

Elected office: The national or regional office of, or acting
for, a state elected by the applicant under Chapter II of

Application: A set of legal documents submitted to a

the PCT, where the applicant intends to use the results

patent office requesting that a patent be granted for theof the international preliminary examination.

applicant’s invention. The patent office processes theapplication and decides whether to grant a patent orFiling abroad: For statistical purposes, a patent applica-

reject the application.

tion filed by a resident of a given country with a patentoffice of a foreign country. For example, a patent appli-

Authority specified for supplementary international

cation filed with the USPTO by an applicant residing insearch (SISA): An international searching authority

France is considered a filing abroad from the perspective(ISA) that provides a supplementary international searchof France. A filing abroad is the opposite of a non-resident

service—also known as a supplementary international

filing, which describes a patent application by a resident

searching authority (SISA).

of a foreign country from the perspective of the country
receiving the application.

Chapter I of the PCT: The provisions in the PCT that
regulate the filing of PCT applications, the international

Global Patent Prosecution Highway (GPPH): The

searches and written opinions by ISAs, and the interna-

GPPH pilot is a single multilateral agreement between ational publication of PCT applications—and that provide

group of offices. It allows applicants to make a request

for the communication of PCT applications and related

for accelerated processing at any participating office,documents to designated offices.

based on work products from any of the other participating offices (including PCT reports), using a single set ofChapter II of the PCT: The provisions in the PCT that

qualifying requirements.

regulate the optional international preliminary examination procedure.

International authority: A national or regional patentoffice or international organization that fulfills specificCountry of origin: For statistical purposes, the country

tasks, as prescribed by the PCT.

of origin of a PCT application is the country of residence(or nationality, in the absence of a valid residence) of theInternational Bureau (IB): In the context of the PCT, thefirst-named applicant in the application.

IB of WIPO acts as a receiving office for PCT applications from all contracting states. It also handles certain

Designated office: A national or regional office of, orprocessing tasks for all PCT applications filed with all

acting for, a state designated in a PCT application underreceiving offices worldwide.

Chapter I of the PCT.
International filing date: The date on which the receiving office receives a PCT application (provided certain
formality requirements have been met).

93

ANNEXES

International Patent Classification (IPC): An interna-International searching authority (ISA): A nationaltionally recognized patent classification system, the IPC

patent office or intergovernmental organization ap-

has a hierarchical structure of language-independent

pointed by the PCT Assembly to carry out international

symbols and is divided into sections, classes, subclasses

searches. ISAs establish ISRs and written opinions on

and groups. IPC symbols are assigned according to the

PCT applications.

technical features in patent applications. A patent application that relates to multiple technical features canInvention: A new solution to a technical problem. To

be assigned several IPC symbols.

obtain patent rights an invention must be novel, involvean inventive step and be industrially applicable, as judged

International phase of the PCT: The international phaseby a person skilled in the art.

consists of five main stages:• Filing of a PCT application by the applicant and its
processing by the receiving office.
• Establishment of an ISR and a written opinion by
an ISA.

National phase entry (NPE): The entry of a PCT application into the national phase before a national or regional
patent office. National phase entry (NPE) involves thepayment of fees and, where necessary, the submission• Publication of the PCT application and related docu-

of a translation of the PCT application. The entry must

ments, as well as their communication to designatedin general take place within 30 months from the priority

and elected offices by the IB.

date of the application, although longer time periods are• Optional establishment of an SISR by a SISA.

allowed by some offices.

• Optional establishment of an IPRP by an IPEA.
• International preliminary examining authority (IPEA):

National phase under the PCT: Following the PCT

A national or regional patent office appointed by theinternational phase, the national phase consists of thePCT Assembly to carry out international preliminary

processing of the application before each national or

examination. Its task is to establish the IPRP (Chapter

regional patent office in which the applicant seeks pro-

II of the PCT).

tection for an invention.

International preliminary report on patentability

Non-resident filing: For statistical purposes, a patent ap-(Chapter II of the PCT) (IPRP): A preliminary non-plication filed with a national patent office by an applicant

binding opinion established by an IPEA at the request of

from a foreign country. For example, a patent application

the applicant, on whether the claimed invention appears

filed with the USPTO by an applicant residing in France

to be novel, to involve an inventive step (is not obvious)

is considered a non-resident filing from the perspective

and to be industrially applicable. Prior to January 1, 2004,of the US. A non-resident filing is the opposite of a filingthis report was known as the “International Preliminary

abroad, which describes a patent application filed by the

Examination Report”.

resident of a given country with a foreign patent officefrom the perspective of the applicant’s origin. A non-International search report (ISR): A report establishedby an ISA containing citations of documents (prior art)
considered relevant for determining, in particular, thenovelty and inventive step of the invention as claimed. The
ISR also includes the classification of the subject matterof the invention and an indication of the fields searched
as well as any electronic databases searched.

94

resident filing is also known as a foreign filing.

ANNEXES

Paris Convention: An international convention (the Paris

PCT application: A patent application filed through theConvention for the Protection of Industrial Property)

WIPO-administered PCT, also known as a PCT interna-

signed in Paris, France, on March 20, 1883, it is one oftional application.

the first and most important intellectual property treaties.
The Paris Convention establishes, among other things,

PCT-Patent Prosecution Highway Pilots (PCT-PPH):

the “right of priority” principle, which enables a patent

A number of bilateral agreements signed between patentapplicant to claim a priority of up to 12 months when

offices enable applicants to request a fast-track examina-

filing an application in countries other than the originaltion procedure whereby patent examiners can use thecountry of filing.

work products of another office or offices. These work
products can include the results of a favorable written

Patent: An exclusive right granted by law to an applicant

opinion by an ISA, the written opinion of an IPEA or thefor an invention for a limited period of time (generally 20

IPRP issued within the framework of the PCT. By re-years from the time of filing). The patent holder has thequesting this procedure, applicants can generally obtainright to exclude others from commercially exploiting thepatents more quickly from participating offices.

invention for the duration of the patent term. In return,the applicant is obliged to disclose the invention to thePrior art: All information disclosed to the public in any

public in a manner that enables others skilled in the art

form about an invention before a given date. Information

to replicate it. The patent system is designed to balanceon the prior art can assist in determining whether thethe interests of applicants (exclusive rights) with theclaimed invention is new and involves an inventive step

interests of society (disclosure of the invention). Patents(is not obvious) for the purposes of international searches

are granted by national or regional patent offices and are

and international preliminary examination.

limited to the jurisdiction of the issuing authority. Patentrights can be sought by filing an application directly with

Priority date: The filing date of the application on thethe relevant national or regional office(s), or by filing abasis of which priority is claimed.

PCT application.
Publication of PCT application: The IB publishes the
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT): An international

PCT application and related documents promptly after thetreaty administered by WIPO, the PCT allows applicants

expiration of 18 months from the priority date. If the PCT

to seek patent protection for an invention simultaneously

application is withdrawn or considered withdrawn before

in a large number of countries (contracting states) by fil-the technical preparations for publication are completed,ing a single PCT international application. The decision

the application is not published. An applicant can request

whether to grant patent rights remains the prerogative

early publication of a PCT application.

of national and regional patent offices.
Receiving office (RO): A patent office—or the IB—with
PATENTSCOPE search system: Provides access, freewhich the PCT application is filed. The role of the RO isof charge, to all published PCT applications along withto check and process the application in accordance with

their related documents, and to the national or regional

the PCT and its regulations.

patent collections from numerous offices worldwide.
Since April 2006, the PATENTSCOPE search systemis the authentic publication source of PCT applications.

95

ANNEXES

Resident filing: For statistical purposes, an application
filed with a patent office by an applicant having residence
in the same country. For example, a patent application
filed at the JPO by a resident of Japan is considereda resident filing for that office. A “resident filing” is also
known as a “domestic filing.”
Supplementary international searching authority(SISA): See “Authority specified for supplementaryinternational search”.
Supplementary international search report (SISR): A
report, similar to the ISR, established during the supplementary international search, that allows the applicant torequest, in addition to the main international search, one
or more supplementary international searches, each to
be carried out by an international authority other than the
ISA that carries out the main international search. The
SIS primarily focuses on the patent documentation in thelanguage in which the SISA specializes.
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO):
A specialized agency of the United Nations, WIPO is
dedicated to developing a balanced and effective international IP system that rewards creativity, stimulates
innovation and contributes to economic development
while safeguarding the public interest. WIPO was established in 1967 with a mandate from its member states
to promote the protection of IP throughout the world
through cooperation among states and in collaboration
with other international organizations.
Written opinion of the ISA (WOSA): For every PCT
application filed on or after January 1, 2004, an ISA establishes, at the same time that it establishes the ISR, apreliminary and non-binding written opinion on whether
the claimed invention appears to be novel, to involve an
inventive step and to be industrially applicable.

96ANNEXESPCT contracting states
In 2014, 148 countries were contracting states of the PCT.

Sao Tome became a member state of ARIPO on May
19, 2014 and the Harare Protocol entered into force

On September 4, 2014, Lithuania closed its nationalwith respect to that state on August 19, 2014, bringing

route, with the result that applicants desiring protection

the number of member states of ARIPO to 19 and thein Lithuania will only be able to enter the regional phase

number of states party to the Harare Protocol to 18. PCT

before the EPO.

applications filed on or after August 19, 2014 include thedesignation of Sao Tome for an ARIPO patent, in addition
to a national patent.

Albania (EP)
Algeria
AngolaAntigua and Barbuda
Armenia (EA)
Australia
Austria (EP)
Azerbaijan (EA)
BahrainBarbados
Belarus (EA)
Belgium (EP)2
BelizeBenin (OA)2
Bosnia and Herzegovina1
Botswana (AP)BrazilBrunei Darussalam
Bulgaria (EP)Burkina Faso (OA)2Cameroon (OA)2
CanadaCentral African
Republic (OA)2Chad (OA)2
Chile
China
Colombia
Comoros (OA)2Congo (OA)2
Costa Rica
Côte d’Ivoire (OA)2
Croatia (EP)Cuba
Cyprus (EP)2
Czech Republic (EP)
Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea
Denmark (EP)

Dominica
Dominican Republic
EcuadorEgypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea (OA)2
Estonia (EP)Finland (EP)France (EP)2
Gabon (OA)2
Gambia (AP)Georgia
Germany (EP)Ghana (AP)Greece (EP)2GrenadaGuatemalaGuinea (OA)2Guinea-Bissau (OA)2
Honduras
Hungary (EP)
Iceland (EP)
India
Indonesia
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Ireland (EP)2IsraelItaly (EP)2
Japan
Kazakhstan (EA)
Kenya (AP)Kyrgyzstan (EA)
Lao People’s 		
Democratic Republic
Latvia (EP)2
Lesotho (AP)Liberia (AP)
Libya
Liechtenstein (EP)

Lithuania (EP)
Luxembourg (EP)Madagascar
Malawi (AP)Malaysia
Mali (OA)2
Malta (EP)2
Mauritania (OA)2MexicoMonaco (EP)2
Mongolia
Montenegro1
MoroccoMozambique (AP)Namibia (AP)Netherlands (EP)2
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger (OA)2
Nigeria
Norway (EP)Oman
PanamaPapua New Guinea
Peru
Philippines
Poland (EP)Portugal (EP)
Qatar
Republic of Korea
Republic of Moldova
Romania (EP)Russian Federation (EA)
Rwanda (AP)Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and 		the Grenadines
San Marino (EP)

Sao Tome and 		
Principe (AP)3
Saudi Arabia
Senegal (OA)2
Serbia (EP)
Seychelles
Sierra Leone (AP)Singapore
Slovakia (EP)Slovenia (EP)2South Africa
Spain (EP)Sri Lanka
Sudan (AP)Swaziland (AP)2
Sweden (EP)Switzerland (EP)
Syrian Arab Republic
Tajikistan (EA)
ThailandThe former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia (EP)Togo (OA)2
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey (EP)
Turkmenistan (EA)
Uganda (AP)UkraineUnited Arab Emirates
United Kingdom (EP)United Republic of 		
Tanzania (AP)United States of America
Uzbekistan
Viet Nam
Zambia (AP)Zimbabwe (AP)

Note: 1 Extension of European patent possible. 2 May only be designated for a regional patent (the national route via the PCT has been closed). 3 Only PCT
applications filed on or after August 19, 2014 will include the designation of Sao Tome and Principe for an ARIPO patent.
Where a state can be designated for a regional patent, the two-letter code for the regional patent concerned is indicated in parentheses (AP = ARIPO patent,
EA = Eurasian patent, EP = European patent, OA = OAPI patent).
Source: WIPO, December 2014.

97

ANNEXES

Additional resources
The following patent resources are available on the
WIPO website:
PATENTSCOPE — enables the search and download of
published PCT applications and national/regional patentcollections. It also provides access to related patent andtechnology information programs and services.
www.wipo.int/patentscope/ePCT Portal — provides access to ePCT public andprivate services.
https://pct.wipo.int/LoginForms/en/epct.jsp
PCT resources — WIPO’s gateway to PCT resources
for the public, applicants and offices.
www.wipo.int/pct/
PCT newsletter — PCT monthly magazine containing
information about the filing of PCT applications and news
about changes relating to the PCT.
www.wipo.int/pct/en/newslett/
PCT statistics — provides access to the IP Statistics
Data Center – the on-line service enabling access to
WIPO’s statistical data – and to the IP statistical country
profiles. It also provides access to the top PCT applicants’ list and to the underlying data used to computethe indicators included in this report.
www.wipo.int/ipstats/
Law of patents — includes current and emerging issues
related to patents, information on WIPO-administeredtreaties, access to national/regional patent laws, patentlaw harmonization.
www.wipo.int/patent/law/98For more information
contact WIPO at www.wipo.int
World Intellectual Property Organization34, chemin des Colombettes
P.O. Box 18
CH-1211 Geneva 20
Switzerland
Tel: + 4122 338 91 11
Fax: + 4122 733 54 28

WIPO Publication No. 901E/2015
ISBN 978-92-805-2620-2