Taylor Wessing Global Intellectual Property Index 2009
- Home
- Overview of GIPI 2 Results
- GIPI 2 Press and Articles
- Introduction
- Background
- Analysis and Commentary
- Trade mark Index
- Patent Index
- Copyright Index
- Design Index
- Domain Names Index
- Jurisdiction Analysis
- Appendix A: Questionnaire
- Appendix B: Assessment Details
- Appendix C: Instrumental Factors
- Methodology
- Download the GIPI 2 report
- Download the GIPI 1 report
- Press release
- Taylor Wessing IP Website
- Contact
- Link to survey
Introduction
The GIPI has been developed by Taylor Wessing in association with the Z/Yen Group, who have expertise in developing similar indices in other areas.
A detailed overview of the methodology used to create the GIPI can be found in the methodology section of this website. In summary, the GIPI ratings for each jurisdiction are calculated using a "factor assessment model" applied to two distinct sets of information:
Jurisdiction assessments
These come from respondents to an online questionnaire (see Appendix A). Respondents separately assess a jurisdiction's regime for obtaining, exploiting, enforcing and attacking the relevant type of IP (trade marks, patents, copyright, designs and domain names). Only those assessing three or more jurisdictions were given statistical weight and the effect of bias towards respondents’ home jurisdiction is down-weighted. The online questionnaire runs continuously to keep the GIPI up-to-date with people’s changing assessments.
Instrumental factors
These are drawn from external sources. These include data on the number of specialist IP judges and lawyers relative to the population, the number of patent or trade mark filings and the number of patents or trade marks granted and in force. In GIPI 2 we used 50 instrumental factors (up from 43 in GIPI 1).
For the GIPI 2 model, 495 senior respondents – CEOs, IP lawyers, in-house counsels, law firm partners - gave 18,091 individual jurisdiction assessments. The respondents came from a range of jurisdictions, primarily based in Europe and North America, but with sufficient numbers from Asia and Pacific Rim, Latin American and EMEA countries to give statistical accuracy. Guidance was given on the factors that may impact on their assessments. These were tailored for each question for each IP right, but included speed and cost of procedures and proceedings, availability of specialist advisors and judges, certainty and fairness and the preponderance of 'red tape'.
The factor assessment model combines these two different sets of input, to generate 16 sub-indices from which five IP area indices (trade marks, patents, copyright, designs and domain names) are derived. These IP area indices are fully scored and ranked. The overall GIPI combines these results, leading to the ratings, ranks and tiers identified.
We will continue to identify additional instrumental factors and welcome suggestions. However, to serve as such, data is needed for enough of the 24 jurisdictions analysed to be statistically valid. Unfortunately, judgments and statistics on case outcomes are not available for most of the 24 jurisdictions analysed. This means that, whilst we have gathered such information for patent cases in some countries, no specific weight was given to it. However, trends in case outcomes, to the extent perceived, will no doubt have been reflected in respondents' answers to the enforcing and attacking IP questions. As it is, bald statistics as to wins and losses can help identify some trends but, without analysing the underlying facts and issues, they are necessarily artificial.