Country Focus: Pakistan - Towards an Integrated Management of Intellectual Property

Pakistan has made significant achievements in updating its intellectual property (IP) system in recent years. However, policymakers in this South Asian country of 161 million view them as only first steps, necessary but not sufficient. They have recently turned their focus to a sweeping, institutional approach to better centralize and modernize their IP system, with an eye toward more fully integrating it into the country’s development objectives and policy planning.

In recent years the country carried out a wide ranging review and revision of its IP laws to better align them with international instruments. While this effort was successful, those involved in the work came to realize that it was adversely affected by the fragmented nature of the institutions dealing with IP in Pakistan. Until recently, three different IP offices (Trademarks, Patent Office, Copyright Office) existed; these offices came under three different ministries (Ministries of Commerce, Industries, and Education, respectively). In addition, another government agency was responsible for initiating and coordinating IP activities with external partners.

This institutional arrangement led to a less than optimal functioning of the IP system. First, it made it difficult for the government to take an integrated, strategic view of IP. As management of IP issues was spread over several offices and ministries, proper consideration could not be given to developing an effective means to promote a broad use of IP tools to enhance trade and investment, promote technology development, foster cultural industries or leverage IP to achieve crucial social objectives, such as in the areas of health and education.

Second, the lack of an "IP hub" in the government resulted in difficulties in analyzing issues which cut across various IP disciplines, such as the protection of software, traditional medicines and folklore. These and other issues often require assessment in a broader IP context rather than from a specific patent, trademark or copyright perspective. A more "holistic" approach was clearly necessary, but this was not easily carried out by a collection of offices dealing exclusively in their own areas of IP. Third, even the traditional services to be provided by the three IP Offices – receiving applications and granting rights – were negatively affected. As these offices were not integrated into overall development planning – and therefore not seen to be contributing...