Survey on ICT Strategy Recommendations

Collated Results (2021)

This survey contains priorities and views from Industrial Property Offices (IPOs) on the 40 ICT recommendations in document CWS/6/3.

Purpose: provide information on IPO views for consideration by the CWS
Conducted: June to August 2021
Survey approved: CWS/8

Notes

This data is presented as provided by the respondent. If you have questions about a particular respondent's data, please contact that Office for more information.
You can hover on an ST.3 code to see the name of the country or organization.
Empty table cells mean that the respondent did not answer that part of the question. Likewise, a respondent with no entry on a particular question means they did not answer that question.

Survey Contents

Click an item to jump to the responses.

Survey respondents
1. R01 - Develop an online data exchange protocol covering key common transactions to generate high quality IP data at the source, based directly from output from IP management systems, with a view to create and exchange IP data with IPOs and the IB in accordance with WIPO Standards. How would you rank the priority of the R01 recommendation?
2. R02 - In introducing an online data exchange protocol, implement appropriate policies and consider ICT systems in use by IP applicants and IP agents to facilitate their use of the protocol to submit high quality IP data. How would you rank the priority of the R02 recommendation?
3. R03 - Back-file capturing of IP data by OCR conversion of image data should be properly undertaken in accordance with good quality control and relevant WIPO Standards. How would you rank the priority of the R03 recommendation?
4. R04 - In addition to bibliographic data such as names of applicants, the full text of patent specification should be converted into, or generated at the source, to make patent applications searchable. Consider common tools or at least closer WIPO Standards for the preparation of XML from word processor formats to ensure consistency. How would you rank the priority of the R04 recommendation?
5. R05 - Image data and complex elements such as image of a device trademark, an industrial design and graphs contained in IP applications should be generated as machine-searchable data in accordance with relevant WIPO Standards (in particular WIPO Standard ST. 96). How would you rank the priority of the R05 recommendation?
6. R06 - Re-engineer and transform the current business models and workflow processes based on paper transactions into modernized and optimized business models and workflow processes based on digital IP data transactions, with collaboration of business, ICT and legal representatives at all stages. How would you rank the priority of the R06 recommendation?
7. R09 - Share information on emerging search technologies, especially image search, classification tools and language tools, and consider ways in which the technology can be shared and made available to smaller IPOs to improve the quality and efficiency of IP information search. How would you rank the priority of the R09 recommendation?
8. R10 - Develop a reference platform for online publication and search, while contributing to the international cooperation under CWS about systems for providing access to publicly available patent information of IPOs participating in the CWS Task No. 52. The platform would be linked to international and/or regional databases to automate the dissemination of information. How would you rank the priority of the R10 recommendation?
9. R11 - IPOs should share information on ICT solutions for records management, in particular on the appropriate use of standard ICT packages and the solutions for guaranteeing authenticity of digital records, signatures, etc. How would you rank the priority of the R11 recommendation?
10. R12 - In cooperation with interested Member States, the IB should develop a prototype for a distributed IP registry. The prototype could be used for IP applications to create an authentic registry of IP application numbers, for example to be used for validation of priority claims. Study the possibility of using a distributed IP registry linking to WIPO CASE or the International Register. The potential of blockchain technologies for linking such distributed registries should also be explored. How would you rank the priority of the R12 recommendation?
11. R13 - IPOs to work towards increasing the degree of exchanging standardized fully XML based data with the IB, considering synchronous models such as ePCT machine to machine services. How would you rank the priority of the R13 recommendation?
12. R14 - The IB and IPOs should begin consultations on a standardized model for data exchange for the traditionally bilateral paper exchanges in the PCT, taking into account investments in assuring security requirements are optimized. How would you rank the priority of the R14 recommendation?
13. R15 - IPOs should investigate legal and technical possibilities for identifying patent families prior to publication and ensure permission for IPOs processing family members to access search and examination reports. This recommendation should be considered in conjunction with R12 regarding the establishment of distributed registries, considering that a limited amount of information (e.g. priority references) could eventually be shared on a distributed registry prior to publication. How would you rank the priority of the R15 recommendation?
14. R16 - The application body formats for WIPO Standard ST.36 and ST.96 should be carefully analyzed and recommendations made for more specific, practical forms of implementation than the general standards (which allow for an enormous number of options) which meet all the needs for patent processing and allow reliable two way transformations between the two. How would you rank the priority of the R16 recommendation?
15. R17 - The work on development of search and examination report standards for WIPO Standard ST.96 should not simply convert the ST.36 standard to the expectations of ST.96, but analyze whether the structures encourage easy reuse of data between stages of search and examination both with an IPO and between different IPOs. How would you rank the priority of the R17 recommendation?
16. R18 - Common conversion software should be developed for the validation and conversion of major document types (initially DOCX; other formats could also be considered) into simplified XML formats. The software should be carefully version controlled, be suitable for integration into national processing systems both by local deployment and by reference to an API for centralized instances and be capable of producing either WIPO Standard ST.36 or ST.96 output in formats which allow for accurate conversion between the two at a later stage, if required. Converters for the other direction (ST.36 or ST.96 to DOCX) should be considered at a later stage if it will assist the process of effective amendment/correction of applications. How would you rank the priority of the R18 recommendation?
17. R19 - IPOs and the IB should agree PLT-compatible bibliographic/description data packages for use in their online filing systems, together with a common method of coding Office-specific sections, allowing more effective reuse of bibliographic/description data from previously filed applications and development of third party IP management systems to deliver bibliographic/description data without the need for conversion or retyping. How would you rank the priority of the R19 recommendation?
18. R20 - IPOs and the IB should agree formats for packages (for PCT, this could be based on the existing PCT Annex F packages), which can be readily prepared by third party software (also including export of a filed application from another IPO) and pushed to Office servers to prepopulate most of a draft application prior to completion in an online filing system. How would you rank the priority of the R20 recommendation?
19. R21 - IPOs should participate in WIPO projects to use global common tools and platforms to which ICT systems of IPOs should be connected, such as WIPO CASE, WIPO global portal of IP registries, and provide IP data in accordance with relevant WIPO Standards. How would you rank the priority of the R21 recommendation?
20. R22 - IPOs need to share and disseminate patent information and data without any barriers and free-of-charge or at a marginal cost. How would you rank the priority of the R22 recommendation?
21. R23 - IPOs are encouraged to provide their authority file or the link to their website of authority file to the IB. How would you rank the priority of the R23 recommendation?
22. R26 - Develop further a new recommendation on a signed electronic package format for priority documents, including application bodies in full text formats (where available) and bibliographic data in XML format as a part of WIPO Standards. The new format could be exchanged via WIPO DAS or directly between applicants and IPOs. How would you rank the priority of the R26 recommendation?
23. R27 - Encourage the wider use of existing standardized data exchange mechanisms, promote wider use of electronic filing and prioritize creation of additional electronic forms to improve the quality and reliability of data received from applicants, thereby reduce the errors caused by data content and format inconsistencies. How would you rank the priority of the R27 recommendation?
24. R32 - The quality of exchange between IPOs and with the IB would be improved if IPOs move to using WIPO Standard ST96 for Hague-related XML components. How would you rank the priority of the R32 recommendation?
25. R33 - Technical issues related to the acceptance of moving images need to be considered, alongside the associated preparations with regards to integrity in terms of transmission and storage - as well as publication and sharing. How would you rank the priority of the R33 recommendation?
26. R35 - Enhance international cooperation among IPOs and the IB to adhere to agreed settlement timetables, the use of web-forms for data collection and the adoption of standardized electronic filing systems. How would you rank the priority of the R35 recommendation?
27. R36 - Agree on an international standard for information security such as ISO/IEC 27001 as a means to demonstrate reasonable assurance of internal control effectiveness by Offices. Where Offices are required to comply with their own national information security standard, a mapping to the international standard can be provided to demonstrate a healthy information security management system. For external Cloud service providers, agree on minimum certification and independent audits against standards prescribed by the Cloud Security Alliance STAR or SSAE (ISAE) SOC II Type 2 as a means of information security assurance in the Cloud. How would you rank the priority of the R36 recommendation?
28. R37 - Consider standardized security mechanisms as part of the review of data exchange protocols. How would you rank the priority of the R37 recommendation?
29. R38 - Improved methods should be explored for integration with international systems and for centralized systems. Create a centralized service, as a demonstration/prototype, with open and standard APIs, for dissemination of classification and standards data and for transactional data exchange between IPOs and regional/international IP systems. How would you rank the priority of the R38 recommendation?
30. R39 - Share information about online services (filing, subsequent transactions, etc) with the aim of identifying common transactions and services that could be made available through APIs to enable interoperability of systems, including systems developed by third party solution providers. How would you rank the priority of the R39 recommendation?
31. R07 - Explore the possibility of AI-powered automatic classification tools to enhance the use of, and control the quality of, classification symbols allotted to IP applications. How would you rank the priority of the R07 recommendation?
31: :R07 - Explore the possibility of AI-powered automatic classification tools to enhance the use of, and control the quality of, classification symbols allotted to IP applications. How would you rank the priority of the R07 recommendation?
32. R08 - Strengthen international cooperation for internationally coherent practices of using international classifications and for the provision of technical support to make local language versions of international classifications available. How would you rank the priority of the R08 recommendation?
33. R24 - Explore the possibility of an international Fund-in-Trust voluntarily contributed by IPOs to enhance international cooperation for digitizing IP data as a global public good. How would you rank the priority of the R24 recommendation?
34. R25 - IPOs should consider the use of WIPO DAS, particularly for processing patent and design applications. How would you rank the priority of the R25 recommendation?
35. R28 - Establish a self-service, centralized transaction processing model wherein users and IPOs connect to a central IB platform for data services. This will change the paradigm from one based around batch transmission of forms and responses to one of real-time updates to the International Register entered directly by the parties concerned. How would you rank the priority of the R28 recommendation?
36. R29 - Promote wider sharing of data concerning terms of goods and services that are acceptable or not by IP Offices to further reduce the need for costly and time-consuming processes (irregularity and refusal processes). How would you rank the priority of the R29 recommendation?
37. R30 - Create a more comprehensive, user-friendly and machine accessible database of terms of goods and services that could reduce irregularities. How would you rank the priority of the R30 recommendation?
38. R31 - IPOs should continue and expand their use of standard grounds of refusal. How would you rank the priority of the R31 recommendation?
39. R34 - IPOs are encouraged to consider participating in DAS as depositing and accessing IPOs for design priority documents, which would potentially reduce costs and risk with regard to provision of certified copies in respect of Hague international registrations. How would you rank the priority of the R34 recommendation?
40. R40 - Explore the possibility of global joint projects to capitalize on common interests and synergy of IPOs. How would you rank the priority of the R40 recommendation?

Survey respondents

ST.3 Code	Country or Office
AP	African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)
AU	Australia
BA	Bosnia and Herzegovina
BH	Bahrain
CA	Canada
CL	Chile
CZ	Czechia
EC	Ecuador
EE	Estonia
EM	European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
EP	European Patent Office (EPO)
ES	Spain
GB	United Kingdom
GC	Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)
HU	Hungary
IB (PCT)	International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (PCT)
IT	Italy
JP	Japan
MX	Mexico
NO	Norway
NZ	New Zealand
RU	Russian Federation
SE	Sweden
SK	Slovakia
US	United States of America
UY	Uruguay
UZ	Uzbekistan

1. R01 - Develop an online data exchange protocol covering key common transactions to generate high quality IP data at the source, based directly from output from IP management systems, with a view to create and exchange IP data with IPOs and the IB in accordance with WIPO Standards. How would you rank the priority of the R01 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	Medium
AU Australia	High
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Medium
BH Bahrain	High
CA Canada	High
CL Chile	Medium
CZ Czechia	High
EC Ecuador	High	Alta, sin embargo esto dependerá mucho de la calidad de información de origen, es decir en cada oficina PI, en el caso de Ecuador hay muchas dificultados en tema de depuración de base de datos
EE Estonia	High
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	High	Aligned with EUIPO API strategy
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	High	EPO is promoting an API for data exchange with the national offices
ES Spain	Low	La OEPM ya intercambia abundante información en línea con OMPI y EPO usando los estándares establecidos.
GB United Kingdom	High
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	High
HU Hungary	High
IB (PCT)	High
IT Italy	Medium
JP Japan
MX Mexico	Medium
NO Norway	High
NZ New Zealand	High
RU Russian Federation	Medium
SE Sweden	Medium
SK Slovakia	Low
US United States of America	Medium	The United States believes that this would depend on the type of data being exchanged, including whether the data was published or unpublished. Different protocols may be needed depending on the data being exchanged and the publication status of the data.
UY Uruguay	Medium
UZ Uzbekistan

2. R02 - In introducing an online data exchange protocol, implement appropriate policies and consider ICT systems in use by IP applicants and IP agents to facilitate their use of the protocol to submit high quality IP data. How would you rank the priority of the R02 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	Medium
AU Australia	Low
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Medium
BH Bahrain	Medium
CA Canada	High
CL Chile	High
CZ Czechia	Medium
EC Ecuador	Medium	es posible siempre resguardando la seguridad de la información.
EE Estonia	High
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	High
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	High	EPO is promoting an API for data exchange with the national offices
ES Spain	Low
GB United Kingdom	Medium
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	Medium
HU Hungary	High
IB (PCT)	High
IT Italy	High
JP Japan	Medium
MX Mexico	Medium
NO Norway	Medium
NZ New Zealand	High
RU Russian Federation	Medium
SE Sweden	High
SK Slovakia	Medium
US United States of America	High	Different protocols and policies would potentially be needed, depending on the data being exchanged and the publication status of the data.
UY Uruguay	Medium
UZ Uzbekistan

3. R03 - Back-file capturing of IP data by OCR conversion of image data should be properly undertaken in accordance with good quality control and relevant WIPO Standards. How would you rank the priority of the R03 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	Medium
AU Australia	Low
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	High
BH Bahrain	High
CA Canada	High
CL Chile	Medium
CZ Czechia	Medium
EC Ecuador	Medium	ayuda mucho el reconocimiento óptico de caracteres, sin embargo aplicarlo en cada documento, sin embargo aplicarlo en cada documento implica tiempo y recurso humano
EE Estonia	High
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	Low	Not needed for EUIPO> Data already keyed-in/Efiling
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	Low
ES Spain	Low	La OEPM tiene digitalizada la gran mayoría de su Archivo Histórico en calidad adecuada.
GB United Kingdom	Low	Not previously prioritised
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	High
HU Hungary	High
IB (PCT)
IT Italy
JP Japan	Low
MX Mexico	Low
NO Norway	Medium
NZ New Zealand	Low
RU Russian Federation	High
SE Sweden	Medium
SK Slovakia	Medium
US United States of America	Low	While the United States believes that in reality the OCR conversion of image backfile data is a costly endeavor, with diminishing returns. Likely each IPO's circumstances would need to be taken into consideration.
UY Uruguay	High
UZ Uzbekistan

4. R04 - In addition to bibliographic data such as names of applicants, the full text of patent specification should be converted into, or generated at the source, to make patent applications searchable. Consider common tools or at least closer WIPO Standards for the preparation of XML from word processor formats to ensure consistency. How would you rank the priority of the R04 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	High
AU Australia	Medium
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	High
BH Bahrain	High
CA Canada	High
CL Chile	Medium
CZ Czechia	High	frontfile
EC Ecuador	Medium	Nos preocupa la generación de XML de las memorias descriptivas por lo expuesto en el R03. Recurso humano y tiempo para poder lograrlo.
EE Estonia	High
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	Low	Patents are not managed in EUIPO
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	High	H 1st part, L common tools All EPO documents are fully searchable. EPO support the extension of the practice to all IPOs
ES Spain	High	Nuestros documentos de texto completo ya figuran en un formato buscable. Estamos trabajando para enviar el informe de búsqueda y la opinión escrita también en formato XML.
GB United Kingdom	High	Split priority: GB: H 1st part, L common tools
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	High
HU Hungary	High
IB (PCT)	High
IT Italy	High
JP Japan
MX Mexico	High
NO Norway	High
NZ New Zealand	Medium
RU Russian Federation	High
SE Sweden	High
SK Slovakia	Medium
US United States of America	High	It is also likely some standardization and/or mapping of bibliographic data would be needed, as well as how this data may be utilized by different IPOs. Should there also be discussion into country/office specific bibliographic data that individual IPOs use but may have little/no relevance elsewhere?
UY Uruguay	Medium
UZ Uzbekistan

5. R05 - Image data and complex elements such as image of a device trademark, an industrial design and graphs contained in IP applications should be generated as machine-searchable data in accordance with relevant WIPO Standards (in particular WIPO Standard ST. 96). How would you rank the priority of the R05 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	High
AU Australia	High
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	High
BH Bahrain	High
CA Canada	Medium
CL Chile	High
CZ Czechia	Medium
EC Ecuador	High	Sería de bastante ayuda, sin embargo, las oficinas no poseen herramientas tecnológicas para hacerlo.
EE Estonia	Medium
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	High
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	Medium
ES Spain	High
GB United Kingdom	High	Previously prioritised as Low
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	Medium
HU Hungary	Medium
IB (PCT)	Low	Except for the importance of being able to extract text effectively from images or to recognize richer standard formats, with particular regard to flowcharts
IT Italy	High
JP Japan	High	The JPO expects that the 3D taskforce and Design Representative Taskforce will cooperate to make each standards.
MX Mexico	Low
NO Norway	High
NZ New Zealand	Medium
RU Russian Federation	High
SE Sweden	Medium
SK Slovakia	Low
US United States of America	Medium	While the United States agrees that better ways for processing and handling image data such as drawings and designs are important, there may be limitations, including IPO constraints and applicant constraints/limitations.
UY Uruguay	Medium
UZ Uzbekistan

6. R06 - Re-engineer and transform the current business models and workflow processes based on paper transactions into modernized and optimized business models and workflow processes based on digital IP data transactions, with collaboration of business, ICT and legal representatives at all stages. How would you rank the priority of the R06 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	Medium
AU Australia	High
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Medium
BH Bahrain	High
CA Canada	High
CL Chile	High
CZ Czechia	High
EC Ecuador	Low	buena recomendación sin embargo hay otras que son mas importantes que se podrían priorizar.
EE Estonia	High
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	Low	Models and workflow already based on digital IP data transactions
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	Medium
ES Spain	Medium
GB United Kingdom	High
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	Medium
HU Hungary	Low
IB (PCT)	High
IT Italy	Low
JP Japan	High
MX Mexico	Medium
NO Norway	High
NZ New Zealand	High
RU Russian Federation	High
SE Sweden	Medium
SK Slovakia	Low
US United States of America	High
UY Uruguay	High
UZ Uzbekistan

7. R09 - Share information on emerging search technologies, especially image search, classification tools and language tools, and consider ways in which the technology can be shared and made available to smaller IPOs to improve the quality and efficiency of IP information search. How would you rank the priority of the R09 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	High
AU Australia	High
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Medium
BH Bahrain	High
CA Canada	High
CL Chile	High
CZ Czechia	Medium
EC Ecuador	High	Sería de gran aporte a las pequeñas oficinas de PI
EE Estonia	High
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	High
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	High	EPO is applying or exploring applications of AI to all parts of the Patent Grant Process whenever possible
ES Spain	High
GB United Kingdom	High
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	High
HU Hungary	High
IB (PCT)
IT Italy	High
JP Japan
MX Mexico	Medium
NO Norway	High
NZ New Zealand	High
RU Russian Federation	High
SE Sweden	High
SK Slovakia	Low
US United States of America	Medium
UY Uruguay	High
UZ Uzbekistan

8. R10 - Develop a reference platform for online publication and search, while contributing to the international cooperation under CWS about systems for providing access to publicly available patent information of IPOs participating in the CWS Task No. 52. The platform would be linked to international and/or regional databases to automate the dissemination of information. How would you rank the priority of the R10 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	Medium
AU Australia	Low
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Medium
BH Bahrain	Medium
CA Canada	Low
CL Chile	Medium
CZ Czechia	Medium
EC Ecuador	Medium	Ya existen buscadores, sin embargo generar una nueva plataforma totalmente mejorada es importante para los usuarios.
EE Estonia	Medium
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	Low	Patents are not managed in EUIPO
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	High	EPO has been a leader in creating Patent Information Platforms and will continue in this effort
ES Spain	Low
GB United Kingdom	Low
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	Medium
HU Hungary	Low
IB (PCT)	High
IT Italy	High
JP Japan
MX Mexico	Medium
NO Norway	High
NZ New Zealand	Medium
RU Russian Federation	High
SE Sweden	Medium
SK Slovakia	Low
US United States of America	Low	Would this be building off of Patentscope, or a separate initiative?
UY Uruguay	High
UZ Uzbekistan

9. R11 - IPOs should share information on ICT solutions for records management, in particular on the appropriate use of standard ICT packages and the solutions for guaranteeing authenticity of digital records, signatures, etc. How would you rank the priority of the R11 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	High
AU Australia	Low
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Low
BH Bahrain	High
CA Canada	High
CL Chile	High
CZ Czechia	Medium
EC Ecuador	Medium	No creo que muchas oficinas tengan implementado firma electrónicas en sus registros.
EE Estonia	Medium
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	Medium
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	Low	Sharing Information in the Annual Technical Report is an activity EPO asked to be discontinued
ES Spain	High
GB United Kingdom	Low
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	Medium
HU Hungary	Low
IB (PCT)	Low
IT Italy	Medium
JP Japan	Medium	The JPO understands that each offices including JPO have just started to consider how to adopt the AI technology to IP division. So we concerned that it is difficult for IP office to proceed the discussion for the experience.
MX Mexico	Medium
NO Norway	Medium
NZ New Zealand	Low
RU Russian Federation	High
SE Sweden	Medium
SK Slovakia	Low
US United States of America	High
UY Uruguay	High
UZ Uzbekistan

10. R12 - In cooperation with interested Member States, the IB should develop a prototype for a distributed IP registry. The prototype could be used for IP applications to create an authentic registry of IP application numbers, for example to be used for validation of priority claims. Study the possibility of using a distributed IP registry linking to WIPO CASE or the International Register. The potential of blockchain technologies for linking such distributed registries should also be explored. How would you rank the priority of the R12 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	High
AU Australia	High
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Low
BH Bahrain	High
CA Canada	Low
CL Chile	Low
CZ Czechia	Low
EC Ecuador	Low
EE Estonia	High
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	Medium	We note a strong correlation with our EUIPO IP Register in Blockchain https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/news/-/action/view/8793606
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	High	EPO is exploring Blockchain based solutions for different use cases and we would like to share its experience with other Patent Offices
ES Spain	Medium
GB United Kingdom	High
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	Medium
HU Hungary	Low
IB (PCT)	Low
IT Italy	Medium
JP Japan
MX Mexico	Low
NO Norway	High
NZ New Zealand	Low
RU Russian Federation	High
SE Sweden	High
SK Slovakia	Low
US United States of America	Medium
UY Uruguay	Medium
UZ Uzbekistan

11. R13 - IPOs to work towards increasing the degree of exchanging standardized fully XML based data with the IB, considering synchronous models such as ePCT machine to machine services. How would you rank the priority of the R13 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	Medium
AU Australia	Low
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Low
BH Bahrain	High
CA Canada	High
CL Chile
CZ Czechia	High
EC Ecuador	Medium
EE Estonia	Medium
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	High	XML and JSON
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	Low
ES Spain	Low
GB United Kingdom	Medium
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	High
HU Hungary	Low
IB (PCT)	High
IT Italy	High
JP Japan	Low
MX Mexico	Medium
NO Norway	Medium
NZ New Zealand	High
RU Russian Federation	Medium
SE Sweden	High
SK Slovakia	Medium
US United States of America	Low	The United States is currently evaluating its ability to transition toward providing XML data.
UY Uruguay	Medium
UZ Uzbekistan

12. R14 - The IB and IPOs should begin consultations on a standardized model for data exchange for the traditionally bilateral paper exchanges in the PCT, taking into account investments in assuring security requirements are optimized. How would you rank the priority of the R14 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	Medium
AU Australia	Low
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Low
BH Bahrain	High
CA Canada	Medium
CL Chile	High
CZ Czechia	Medium
EC Ecuador	Medium
EE Estonia	Medium
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	Low	Patents are not managed in EUIPO
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	Low
ES Spain	Low	OEPM no usa papel en los intercambio con OMPI.
GB United Kingdom	Low	Previously prioritised as High
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	High
HU Hungary	High
IB (PCT)	Low	XML representations of the traditional paper contents already exist, just need to make more use of it.
IT Italy	Medium
JP Japan	Medium	The JPO cannot provide the useful data for discussing study for utilizing block chain. The JPO expects that the discussion of Blockchain TF will be proceeded.
MX Mexico	Medium
NO Norway	Low
NZ New Zealand	Medium
RU Russian Federation	Low
SE Sweden	High
SK Slovakia	Medium
US United States of America		The United States is unclear on this question – is this to replace paper data exchanges with digital data exchanges?
UY Uruguay	High
UZ Uzbekistan

13. R15 - IPOs should investigate legal and technical possibilities for identifying patent families prior to publication and ensure permission for IPOs processing family members to access search and examination reports. This recommendation should be considered in conjunction with R12 regarding the establishment of distributed registries, considering that a limited amount of information (e.g. priority references) could eventually be shared on a distributed registry prior to publication. How would you rank the priority of the R15 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	Medium
AU Australia	High
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Low
BH Bahrain	High
CA Canada	Low
CL Chile	High
CZ Czechia	Low
EC Ecuador	Low
EE Estonia	Low
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	Low	Patents are not managed in EUIPO
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	Medium
ES Spain	High	Nos gustaría tener información más detallada para entender mejor esta iniciativa que, en principio, nos parece muy interesante.
GB United Kingdom	High	Not previously prioritised
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	Low
HU Hungary	Low
IB (PCT)	Low
IT Italy	Low
JP Japan	Medium
MX Mexico	Medium
NO Norway	Low
NZ New Zealand	Medium
RU Russian Federation	Medium
SE Sweden	High
SK Slovakia	Low
US United States of America	High
UY Uruguay	Low
UZ Uzbekistan

14. R16 - The application body formats for WIPO Standard ST.36 and ST.96 should be carefully analyzed and recommendations made for more specific, practical forms of implementation than the general standards (which allow for an enormous number of options) which meet all the needs for patent processing and allow reliable two way transformations between the two. How would you rank the priority of the R16 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	Medium
AU Australia	Medium
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Low
BH Bahrain	High
CA Canada	High
CL Chile	Medium
CZ Czechia	High
EC Ecuador	Low	Implica cambios a partir del ingreso de la solicitud presentada en linea.
EE Estonia	Low
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	Low	Patents are not managed in EUIPO
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	Low
ES Spain	Medium
GB United Kingdom	High	Previously prioritised as low
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	High
HU Hungary	Medium
IB (PCT)	High
IT Italy	High
JP Japan	Medium
MX Mexico	Medium
NO Norway	Medium
NZ New Zealand	High
RU Russian Federation	Medium
SE Sweden	Medium
SK Slovakia	Low
US United States of America	High
UY Uruguay	Medium
UZ Uzbekistan

15. R17 - The work on development of search and examination report standards for WIPO Standard ST.96 should not simply convert the ST.36 standard to the expectations of ST.96, but analyze whether the structures encourage easy reuse of data between stages of search and examination both with an IPO and between different IPOs. How would you rank the priority of the R17 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	Medium
AU Australia	Medium
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Medium
BH Bahrain	High
CA Canada	High
CL Chile	Low
CZ Czechia	Low
EC Ecuador	Low
EE Estonia	Low
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	Low	Patents are not managed in EUIPO
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	Low
ES Spain	Medium
GB United Kingdom	Medium
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	Medium
HU Hungary	Medium
IB (PCT)	Low
IT Italy	Medium
JP Japan	Low
MX Mexico	Low
NO Norway
NZ New Zealand	Medium
RU Russian Federation	High
SE Sweden	Medium
SK Slovakia	Low
US United States of America	High	The United States would also suggest identifying the different use cases that might involve the reuse of data.
UY Uruguay	Medium
UZ Uzbekistan

16. R18 - Common conversion software should be developed for the validation and conversion of major document types (initially DOCX; other formats could also be considered) into simplified XML formats. The software should be carefully version controlled, be suitable for integration into national processing systems both by local deployment and by reference to an API for centralized instances and be capable of producing either WIPO Standard ST.36 or ST.96 output in formats which allow for accurate conversion between the two at a later stage, if required. Converters for the other direction (ST.36 or ST.96 to DOCX) should be considered at a later stage if it will assist the process of effective amendment/correction of applications. How would you rank the priority of the R18 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	High
AU Australia	Medium
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	High
BH Bahrain	Medium
CA Canada	Medium
CL Chile	Medium
CZ Czechia	Low
EC Ecuador	Medium
EE Estonia	Medium
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	Low	Patents are not managed in EUIPO
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	High	EPO has been working with WIPO on the harmonization of the DocX converter and would like to continue with this collaboration as users will benefit from offering a consistent approach across offices
ES Spain	High
GB United Kingdom	High	Previously prioritised as Medium
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	High
HU Hungary	High
IB (PCT)	High	see R04
IT Italy	High
JP Japan	High
MX Mexico	Medium
NO Norway	High
NZ New Zealand	High
RU Russian Federation	Low
SE Sweden	High
SK Slovakia	Medium
US United States of America	Low	It should be noted that the documents received by different IPOs may be different, depending on the IPO office specific requirements and forms. This would be difficult for a common conversion software to handle the different types of documents. In addition, IPOs may have differing needs. It may be beneficial to further define the scope of the recommendation, as there may be business cases/situations where common conversion software would be beneficial.
UY Uruguay	Medium
UZ Uzbekistan

17. R19 - IPOs and the IB should agree PLT-compatible bibliographic/description data packages for use in their online filing systems, together with a common method of coding Office-specific sections, allowing more effective reuse of bibliographic/description data from previously filed applications and development of third party IP management systems to deliver bibliographic/description data without the need for conversion or retyping. How would you rank the priority of the R19 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	High
AU Australia	Medium
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Low
BH Bahrain	High
CA Canada	Low
CL Chile	Low
CZ Czechia	Low
EC Ecuador	Medium
EE Estonia	Low
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	Low	Patents are not managed in EUIPO
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	Medium
ES Spain	Low
GB United Kingdom	Medium	Not previously prioritised
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	High
HU Hungary	Low
IB (PCT)	Medium
IT Italy	Medium
JP Japan	Medium
MX Mexico	Low
NO Norway	Low
NZ New Zealand	Medium
RU Russian Federation	Medium
SE Sweden	Medium
SK Slovakia	Low
US United States of America	Medium
UY Uruguay	Medium
UZ Uzbekistan

18. R20 - IPOs and the IB should agree formats for packages (for PCT, this could be based on the existing PCT Annex F packages), which can be readily prepared by third party software (also including export of a filed application from another IPO) and pushed to Office servers to prepopulate most of a draft application prior to completion in an online filing system. How would you rank the priority of the R20 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	High
AU Australia	Low
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Low
BH Bahrain	High
CA Canada	Medium
CL Chile	High
CZ Czechia	Medium
EC Ecuador	Medium	en EC ya tenemos solicitudes en línea, se debería modificar para considerar los estándares y generar los XML desde su inicio
EE Estonia	Low
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	Low	Patents are not managed in EUIPO
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	Low
ES Spain	Low
GB United Kingdom	Medium
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	Medium
HU Hungary	Low
IB (PCT)	Low	The aims of this would probably better be furthered by the approach suggested in R01.
IT Italy	Medium
JP Japan	High
MX Mexico	Medium
NO Norway	Low
NZ New Zealand	Medium
RU Russian Federation	Low
SE Sweden	High
SK Slovakia	Low
US United States of America	Medium
UY Uruguay	Low
UZ Uzbekistan

19. R21 - IPOs should participate in WIPO projects to use global common tools and platforms to which ICT systems of IPOs should be connected, such as WIPO CASE, WIPO global portal of IP registries, and provide IP data in accordance with relevant WIPO Standards. How would you rank the priority of the R21 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	High
AU Australia	Medium
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Medium
BH Bahrain	Medium
CA Canada	High
CL Chile	High
CZ Czechia	Medium
EC Ecuador	Low
EE Estonia	Medium
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	Medium
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	Medium
ES Spain	Medium
GB United Kingdom	Medium	Previously prioritised as Low
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	Medium
HU Hungary	Low
IB (PCT)	High
IT Italy	High
JP Japan
MX Mexico	High
NO Norway	High
NZ New Zealand	High
RU Russian Federation	High
SE Sweden	High
SK Slovakia	Low
US United States of America	High
UY Uruguay	Medium
UZ Uzbekistan

20. R22 - IPOs need to share and disseminate patent information and data without any barriers and free-of-charge or at a marginal cost. How would you rank the priority of the R22 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	High
AU Australia	Medium
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Low
BH Bahrain	High
CA Canada	High
CL Chile	Medium
CZ Czechia	High
EC Ecuador	Low
EE Estonia	High
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	Low	Patents are not managed in EUIPO
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	Low
ES Spain	Medium
GB United Kingdom	Medium	Not previously prioritised
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	Medium
HU Hungary	High
IB (PCT)	High
IT Italy	High
JP Japan
MX Mexico	Low
NO Norway	High
NZ New Zealand	High
RU Russian Federation	High
SE Sweden	High
SK Slovakia	Medium
US United States of America	High	The United States already provides this service.
UY Uruguay	Medium
UZ Uzbekistan

21. R23 - IPOs are encouraged to provide their authority file or the link to their website of authority file to the IB. How would you rank the priority of the R23 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	Medium
AU Australia	Medium
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Low
BH Bahrain	High
CA Canada	High
CL Chile	Medium
CZ Czechia	High
EC Ecuador	Low
EE Estonia	Medium
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	Low	Patents are not managed in EUIPO
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	High	EPO agrees that availability of authority files should be pursued since it will help to improve the completeness of patent documentation collections
ES Spain	Low	La OEPM ya ha proporcionado su Authority File, accesible en el portal de OMPI y actualizado mensualmente.
GB United Kingdom	High	Not previously prioritised
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	Low
HU Hungary	High
IB (PCT)	High
IT Italy	High
JP Japan	High
MX Mexico	Low
NO Norway	High
NZ New Zealand	Medium
RU Russian Federation	High
SE Sweden	Medium
SK Slovakia	Low
US United States of America	High
UY Uruguay	Medium
UZ Uzbekistan

22. R26 - Develop further a new recommendation on a signed electronic package format for priority documents, including application bodies in full text formats (where available) and bibliographic data in XML format as a part of WIPO Standards. The new format could be exchanged via WIPO DAS or directly between applicants and IPOs. How would you rank the priority of the R26 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	Medium
AU Australia	Low
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Low
BH Bahrain	High
CA Canada	Medium
CL Chile	Medium
CZ Czechia	Medium
EC Ecuador	Medium
EE Estonia	Medium
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	Medium
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	Medium
ES Spain	Medium
GB United Kingdom	High
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	Medium
HU Hungary	Low
IB (PCT)	High
IT Italy	High
JP Japan	Medium
MX Mexico	Low
NO Norway	Low
NZ New Zealand	Low
RU Russian Federation	Medium
SE Sweden	Medium
SK Slovakia	Low
US United States of America	Medium
UY Uruguay	Medium
UZ Uzbekistan

23. R27 - Encourage the wider use of existing standardized data exchange mechanisms, promote wider use of electronic filing and prioritize creation of additional electronic forms to improve the quality and reliability of data received from applicants, thereby reduce the errors caused by data content and format inconsistencies. How would you rank the priority of the R27 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	High
AU Australia	Medium
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Medium
BH Bahrain	High
CA Canada	High
CL Chile	High
CZ Czechia
EC Ecuador	High
EE Estonia	Medium
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	High
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	Medium
ES Spain	Medium	Esta iniciativa forma parte de la práctica habitual en la OEPM.
GB United Kingdom	Medium
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	High
HU Hungary	High
IB (PCT)	High
IT Italy	High
JP Japan	High	The JPO supports the proposal for developing recommendations for Authority File regarding trademarks and industrial designs
MX Mexico	Medium
NO Norway	High
NZ New Zealand	High
RU Russian Federation	High
SE Sweden	High
SK Slovakia	Low
US United States of America	High
UY Uruguay	High
UZ Uzbekistan

24. R32 - The quality of exchange between IPOs and with the IB would be improved if IPOs move to using WIPO Standard ST96 for Hague-related XML components. How would you rank the priority of the R32 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	Medium
AU Australia	Low
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Medium
BH Bahrain	High
CA Canada	High
CL Chile	Low
CZ Czechia	Low
EC Ecuador	High
EE Estonia	Low
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	Medium
EP European Patent Office (EPO)		N/A
ES Spain	Low
GB United Kingdom
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	Medium
HU Hungary	Medium
IB (PCT)
IT Italy	Medium
JP Japan
MX Mexico	Low
NO Norway	High
NZ New Zealand	Low	NZ not a Hague member
RU Russian Federation	High
SE Sweden	Medium
SK Slovakia	Low
US United States of America	High
UY Uruguay	Medium
UZ Uzbekistan

25. R33 - Technical issues related to the acceptance of moving images need to be considered, alongside the associated preparations with regards to integrity in terms of transmission and storage - as well as publication and sharing. How would you rank the priority of the R33 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	Medium
AU Australia	Low
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Low
BH Bahrain	High
CA Canada	High
CL Chile	Low
CZ Czechia	Medium
EC Ecuador	Medium
EE Estonia	Low
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	High
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	Low
ES Spain	Medium
GB United Kingdom	Medium	Previously prioritised as Low
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	Medium
HU Hungary	High
IB (PCT)
IT Italy	High
JP Japan
MX Mexico	Medium
NO Norway	High
NZ New Zealand	Low
RU Russian Federation	High
SE Sweden	Medium
SK Slovakia	Low
US United States of America	Low
UY Uruguay	Medium
UZ Uzbekistan

26. R35 - Enhance international cooperation among IPOs and the IB to adhere to agreed settlement timetables, the use of web-forms for data collection and the adoption of standardized electronic filing systems. How would you rank the priority of the R35 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	High
AU Australia	Low
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Low
BH Bahrain	High
CA Canada	High
CL Chile	Medium
CZ Czechia	Low
EC Ecuador	Medium
EE Estonia	Medium
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	Medium
EP European Patent Office (EPO)		N/A
ES Spain	Medium
GB United Kingdom
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	Medium
HU Hungary	Low
IB (PCT)	Low
IT Italy	Medium
JP Japan
MX Mexico	Low
NO Norway	Medium
NZ New Zealand	Low
RU Russian Federation	High
SE Sweden	High
SK Slovakia	Medium
US United States of America	Medium
UY Uruguay	Medium
UZ Uzbekistan

27. R36 - Agree on an international standard for information security such as ISO/IEC 27001 as a means to demonstrate reasonable assurance of internal control effectiveness by Offices. Where Offices are required to comply with their own national information security standard, a mapping to the international standard can be provided to demonstrate a healthy information security management system. For external Cloud service providers, agree on minimum certification and independent audits against standards prescribed by the Cloud Security Alliance STAR or SSAE (ISAE) SOC II Type 2 as a means of information security assurance in the Cloud. How would you rank the priority of the R36 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	High
AU Australia	High
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Low
BH Bahrain	High
CA Canada	Low
CL Chile	High
CZ Czechia	Medium
EC Ecuador	High
EE Estonia	Medium
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	High
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	Medium
ES Spain	High
GB United Kingdom	Low
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	High
HU Hungary	High
IB (PCT)	High
IT Italy	Medium
JP Japan	Medium
MX Mexico	Low
NO Norway	High
NZ New Zealand	Medium
RU Russian Federation	Low
SE Sweden	High
SK Slovakia	Low
US United States of America	High
UY Uruguay	High
UZ Uzbekistan

28. R37 - Consider standardized security mechanisms as part of the review of data exchange protocols. How would you rank the priority of the R37 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	High
AU Australia	High
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Medium
BH Bahrain	High
CA Canada	Low
CL Chile	High
CZ Czechia	Medium
EC Ecuador	High
EE Estonia	Medium
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	High
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	Medium
ES Spain	Medium
GB United Kingdom	Medium
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	High
HU Hungary	High
IB (PCT)	Medium
IT Italy	High
JP Japan
MX Mexico	Low
NO Norway	High
NZ New Zealand	Medium
RU Russian Federation	Low
SE Sweden	High
SK Slovakia	Low
US United States of America	High
UY Uruguay	Medium
UZ Uzbekistan

29. R38 - Improved methods should be explored for integration with international systems and for centralized systems. Create a centralized service, as a demonstration/prototype, with open and standard APIs, for dissemination of classification and standards data and for transactional data exchange between IPOs and regional/international IP systems. How would you rank the priority of the R38 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	Medium
AU Australia	High
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Low
BH Bahrain	Medium
CA Canada	Medium
CL Chile	Medium
CZ Czechia	High
EC Ecuador	High
EE Estonia	Medium
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	High
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	Low
ES Spain	Medium
GB United Kingdom	Low
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	High
HU Hungary	Medium
IB (PCT)	Low
IT Italy	Medium
JP Japan
MX Mexico	Low
NO Norway	Medium
NZ New Zealand	Medium
RU Russian Federation	Medium
SE Sweden	High
SK Slovakia	Low
US United States of America	High
UY Uruguay	High
UZ Uzbekistan

30. R39 - Share information about online services (filing, subsequent transactions, etc) with the aim of identifying common transactions and services that could be made available through APIs to enable interoperability of systems, including systems developed by third party solution providers. How would you rank the priority of the R39 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	Medium
AU Australia	High
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Medium
BH Bahrain	High
CA Canada	Low
CL Chile	Medium
CZ Czechia	Medium
EC Ecuador	Low
EE Estonia	Low
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	Medium
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	High	EPO support sharing information amongst IPOs about online services
ES Spain	Medium
GB United Kingdom	Medium
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	Medium
HU Hungary	Low
IB (PCT)	Medium
IT Italy	Medium
JP Japan
MX Mexico	Medium
NO Norway	High
NZ New Zealand	Medium
RU Russian Federation	Medium
SE Sweden	Medium
SK Slovakia	Medium
US United States of America	High
UY Uruguay	High
UZ Uzbekistan

31. R07 - Explore the possibility of AI-powered automatic classification tools to enhance the use of, and control the quality of, classification symbols allotted to IP applications. How would you rank the priority of the R07 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	High
AU Australia	High
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Low
BH Bahrain	Medium	relevant to CWS activity now and near future
CA Canada	High
CL Chile	High
CZ Czechia	High
EC Ecuador	Low
EE Estonia	Medium
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	Medium
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	High	AI-Powered automatic CPC classification is an EPO priority
ES Spain	High
GB United Kingdom	High	Not previously prioritised
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	Medium
HU Hungary	Low
IB (PCT)	Low
IT Italy	Medium
JP Japan
MX Mexico	Medium
NO Norway	Medium
NZ New Zealand	High
RU Russian Federation	High
SE Sweden	Medium
SK Slovakia	Medium
US United States of America	Medium	The United States believes consideration of the use cases of automatic classification should also be considered, as this may impact the AI approaches undertaken during auto-classification.
UY Uruguay	High
UZ Uzbekistan

31: :R07 - Explore the possibility of AI-powered automatic classification tools to enhance the use of, and control the quality of, classification symbols allotted to IP applications. How would you rank the priority of the R07 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)
AU Australia
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina
BH Bahrain
CA Canada
CL Chile
CZ Czechia
EC Ecuador
EE Estonia
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
EP European Patent Office (EPO)
ES Spain
GB United Kingdom
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)
HU Hungary
IB (PCT)
IT Italy
JP Japan
MX Mexico
NO Norway
NZ New Zealand
RU Russian Federation
SE Sweden
SK Slovakia
US United States of America
UY Uruguay
UZ Uzbekistan

32. R08 - Strengthen international cooperation for internationally coherent practices of using international classifications and for the provision of technical support to make local language versions of international classifications available. How would you rank the priority of the R08 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	High
AU Australia	Low
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Medium
BH Bahrain	Medium	relevant to CWS activity now and near future
CA Canada	High
CL Chile	High
CZ Czechia	High
EC Ecuador	Low
EE Estonia	Medium
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	High
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	High	EPO is supporting the diffusion of CPC
ES Spain	Low
GB United Kingdom	Low	Not previously prioritised
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	Medium
HU Hungary	High
IB (PCT)	Low
IT Italy	Low
JP Japan	High
MX Mexico	Low
NO Norway	High
NZ New Zealand	Medium
RU Russian Federation	High
SE Sweden	Low
SK Slovakia	Medium
US United States of America	Low
UY Uruguay	High
UZ Uzbekistan

33. R24 - Explore the possibility of an international Fund-in-Trust voluntarily contributed by IPOs to enhance international cooperation for digitizing IP data as a global public good. How would you rank the priority of the R24 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	High
AU Australia	Medium
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Low
BH Bahrain	Medium
CA Canada	Low
CL Chile	Medium
CZ Czechia	Low
EC Ecuador	Low
EE Estonia	Low
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	Medium
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	Low
ES Spain	Low
GB United Kingdom
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	Medium
HU Hungary	Low
IB (PCT)	Low
IT Italy	Low
JP Japan
MX Mexico	Low
NO Norway	Low
NZ New Zealand
RU Russian Federation	Low
SE Sweden	Low
SK Slovakia	Low
US United States of America	Low	The United States believes that WIPO initiatives should be funded and/or considered through the normal WIPO Planning and Budgeting process. Further, there may be laws/regulations that may limit the IPOs' ability to participate in these types of initiatives.
UY Uruguay	High
UZ Uzbekistan

34. R25 - IPOs should consider the use of WIPO DAS, particularly for processing patent and design applications. How would you rank the priority of the R25 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	High
AU Australia	Low
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Low
BH Bahrain	High	relevant to CWS activity now and near future
CA Canada	High
CL Chile	High
CZ Czechia	Low
EC Ecuador	High
EE Estonia	Medium
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	Medium
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	Low
ES Spain	Low	La OEPM ya usa DAS para el depósito/recuperación de documentos de prioridad.
GB United Kingdom	High	Not previously prioritised
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	Low
HU Hungary	Low
IB (PCT)	Medium
IT Italy	High
JP Japan
MX Mexico	Low
NO Norway	Low
NZ New Zealand	High
RU Russian Federation	High
SE Sweden	Medium
SK Slovakia	Low
US United States of America	High
UY Uruguay	Medium
UZ Uzbekistan

35. R28 - Establish a self-service, centralized transaction processing model wherein users and IPOs connect to a central IB platform for data services. This will change the paradigm from one based around batch transmission of forms and responses to one of real-time updates to the International Register entered directly by the parties concerned. How would you rank the priority of the R28 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	Low
AU Australia	High
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Low
BH Bahrain	Medium
CA Canada	Medium
CL Chile	Medium
CZ Czechia	Medium
EC Ecuador	Low
EE Estonia	Medium
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	High
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	Low
ES Spain	Medium
GB United Kingdom	High	Not previously prioritised
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	Medium
HU Hungary	Low
IB (PCT)	High
IT Italy	Low
JP Japan
MX Mexico	Low
NO Norway	Low
NZ New Zealand	Medium
RU Russian Federation	Medium
SE Sweden	Medium
SK Slovakia	Low
US United States of America	High	This would also help ensure consistency of the data utilized.
UY Uruguay	Low
UZ Uzbekistan

36. R29 - Promote wider sharing of data concerning terms of goods and services that are acceptable or not by IP Offices to further reduce the need for costly and time-consuming processes (irregularity and refusal processes). How would you rank the priority of the R29 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	Medium
AU Australia	Medium
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Low
BH Bahrain	High
CA Canada	Medium
CL Chile	Low
CZ Czechia	Medium
EC Ecuador	Medium
EE Estonia	Low
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	High
EP European Patent Office (EPO)		N/A
ES Spain	Low
GB United Kingdom
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	Medium
HU Hungary	High
IB (PCT)	Low
IT Italy	Medium
JP Japan	Medium
MX Mexico	Low
NO Norway	Low
NZ New Zealand	High
RU Russian Federation	Medium
SE Sweden	Medium
SK Slovakia	Low
US United States of America	Low
UY Uruguay	Medium
UZ Uzbekistan

37. R30 - Create a more comprehensive, user-friendly and machine accessible database of terms of goods and services that could reduce irregularities. How would you rank the priority of the R30 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	Low
AU Australia	Medium
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Low
BH Bahrain	High	relevant to CWS activity now and near future
CA Canada	Medium
CL Chile	Medium
CZ Czechia	Medium
EC Ecuador	High
EE Estonia	Low
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	High
EP European Patent Office (EPO)		N/A
ES Spain	Low
GB United Kingdom
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	High
HU Hungary	High
IB (PCT)	Low
IT Italy	High
JP Japan	Medium
MX Mexico	Low
NO Norway	Low
NZ New Zealand	High
RU Russian Federation	High
SE Sweden	Medium
SK Slovakia	Medium
US United States of America	Low
UY Uruguay	High
UZ Uzbekistan

38. R31 - IPOs should continue and expand their use of standard grounds of refusal. How would you rank the priority of the R31 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	Low
AU Australia	Low
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Low
BH Bahrain	Medium
CA Canada	Low
CL Chile	Medium
CZ Czechia	Low
EC Ecuador	Low
EE Estonia	Low
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	Medium
EP European Patent Office (EPO)		N/A
ES Spain	Low
GB United Kingdom
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	High
HU Hungary	Low
IB (PCT)	Low
IT Italy	Medium
JP Japan	Medium
MX Mexico	Low
NO Norway	Low
NZ New Zealand
RU Russian Federation	Low
SE Sweden	Medium
SK Slovakia	Low
US United States of America	Medium
UY Uruguay	Low
UZ Uzbekistan

39. R34 - IPOs are encouraged to consider participating in DAS as depositing and accessing IPOs for design priority documents, which would potentially reduce costs and risk with regard to provision of certified copies in respect of Hague international registrations. How would you rank the priority of the R34 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	Medium
AU Australia	Low
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Low
BH Bahrain	High
CA Canada	High
CL Chile	Low
CZ Czechia	Low
EC Ecuador	Medium
EE Estonia	Medium
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	Medium
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	Low
ES Spain	Low
GB United Kingdom	High	Not previously prioritised
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	Medium
HU Hungary	Low
IB (PCT)	Low
IT Italy	High
JP Japan	Medium
MX Mexico	High	IMPI México ya forma parte de DAS.
NO Norway	High
NZ New Zealand	High
RU Russian Federation	High
SE Sweden	Medium
SK Slovakia	Low
US United States of America	High
UY Uruguay	Low
UZ Uzbekistan

40. R40 - Explore the possibility of global joint projects to capitalize on common interests and synergy of IPOs. How would you rank the priority of the R40 recommendation?

ST.3 Code	Response	Comments
AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO)	High
AU Australia	Medium
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina	Medium
BH Bahrain	Medium
CA Canada	High
CL Chile	High
CZ Czechia	Low
EC Ecuador	Medium
EE Estonia	Medium
EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	High
EP European Patent Office (EPO)	Low
ES Spain	Medium
GB United Kingdom	High	Not previously prioritised
GC Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office)	Medium
HU Hungary	Low
IB (PCT)	High
IT Italy	High
JP Japan
MX Mexico	Medium
NO Norway	High
NZ New Zealand	High
RU Russian Federation	High
SE Sweden	High
SK Slovakia	Low
US United States of America	Medium	While the United States agrees in principle on the exploring global joint projects, further discussion and identification of the appropriate levels of cooperation and mechanisms of collaboration would be needed.
UY Uruguay	High
UZ Uzbekistan

Survey on ICT Strategy Recommendations

Collated Results (2021)

Notes

Related documents

Survey Contents

Survey respondents

2. R02 - In introducing an online data exchange protocol, implement appropriate policies and consider ICT systems in use by IP applicants and IP agents to facilitate their use of the protocol to submit high quality IP data. How would you rank the priority of the R02 recommendation?

3. R03 - Back-file capturing of IP data by OCR conversion of image data should be properly undertaken in accordance with good quality control and relevant WIPO Standards. How would you rank the priority of the R03 recommendation?

9. R11 - IPOs should share information on ICT solutions for records management, in particular on the appropriate use of standard ICT packages and the solutions for guaranteeing authenticity of digital records, signatures, etc. How would you rank the priority of the R11 recommendation?

11. R13 - IPOs to work towards increasing the degree of exchanging standardized fully XML based data with the IB, considering synchronous models such as ePCT machine to machine services. How would you rank the priority of the R13 recommendation?

12. R14 - The IB and IPOs should begin consultations on a standardized model for data exchange for the traditionally bilateral paper exchanges in the PCT, taking into account investments in assuring security requirements are optimized. How would you rank the priority of the R14 recommendation?

20. R22 - IPOs need to share and disseminate patent information and data without any barriers and free-of-charge or at a marginal cost. How would you rank the priority of the R22 recommendation?

21. R23 - IPOs are encouraged to provide their authority file or the link to their website of authority file to the IB. How would you rank the priority of the R23 recommendation?

24. R32 - The quality of exchange between IPOs and with the IB would be improved if IPOs move to using WIPO Standard ST96 for Hague-related XML components. How would you rank the priority of the R32 recommendation?

25. R33 - Technical issues related to the acceptance of moving images need to be considered, alongside the associated preparations with regards to integrity in terms of transmission and storage - as well as publication and sharing. How would you rank the priority of the R33 recommendation?

26. R35 - Enhance international cooperation among IPOs and the IB to adhere to agreed settlement timetables, the use of web-forms for data collection and the adoption of standardized electronic filing systems. How would you rank the priority of the R35 recommendation?

28. R37 - Consider standardized security mechanisms as part of the review of data exchange protocols. How would you rank the priority of the R37 recommendation?

31. R07 - Explore the possibility of AI-powered automatic classification tools to enhance the use of, and control the quality of, classification symbols allotted to IP applications. How would you rank the priority of the R07 recommendation?

31: :R07 - Explore the possibility of AI-powered automatic classification tools to enhance the use of, and control the quality of, classification symbols allotted to IP applications. How would you rank the priority of the R07 recommendation?

33. R24 - Explore the possibility of an international Fund-in-Trust voluntarily contributed by IPOs to enhance international cooperation for digitizing IP data as a global public good. How would you rank the priority of the R24 recommendation?

34. R25 - IPOs should consider the use of WIPO DAS, particularly for processing patent and design applications. How would you rank the priority of the R25 recommendation?

36. R29 - Promote wider sharing of data concerning terms of goods and services that are acceptable or not by IP Offices to further reduce the need for costly and time-consuming processes (irregularity and refusal processes). How would you rank the priority of the R29 recommendation?

37. R30 - Create a more comprehensive, user-friendly and machine accessible database of terms of goods and services that could reduce irregularities. How would you rank the priority of the R30 recommendation?

38. R31 - IPOs should continue and expand their use of standard grounds of refusal. How would you rank the priority of the R31 recommendation?

40. R40 - Explore the possibility of global joint projects to capitalize on common interests and synergy of IPOs. How would you rank the priority of the R40 recommendation?