THE ROOTS
`OF INNOVATION
`
`U.S. Chamber International IP Index | Fifth Edition | February 2017
`
`ALL 2107
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127, -01128, -01129, -01130, -01131 & -01132
`
`

`

`R&D
` expenditure
`
`Access to
` venture
` capital
`
`Innovative
` outputs
`
` Access to
` advanced
`technologies
`
` Access to
` licensed music
`outlets
`
` Foreign direct
` investment
`attractiveness
`
` Cutting-edge
` clinical
`research
`
`Increase in
` high-value
` jobs
`
`IP
`
`ALL 2107
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127, -01128, -01129, -01130, -01131 & -01132
`
`

`

`1. Foreword
`
`Welcome to the fifth edition of the U.S. Chamber International IP Index, “The
`Roots of Innovation.” This year’s index recognizes the indispensable role of
`intellectual property (IP), in facilitating innovative and creative activity on a
`socially transformative scale.
`
`Each economy in the Index presents a unique IP profile. As this Index has
`grown from 11 economies in its first edition to 45 in the current publication,
`it has become exceedingly clear that just as elections matter, so do IP policy
`choices. These choices are not simply a matter of East versus West, developed
`versus less-developed, or rich versus poor. Rather, the Index represents a
`broad spectrum of sovereign policy choices. Those choices have important
`consequences for each economy’s innovative and creative success, and for the
`collective welfare of all the world’s citizens.
`
`In many ways, 2016 was a challenging year for global IP policy. New data revealed that the problem of global
`counterfeiting has more than doubled since 2008, amounting to $461 billion annually. A strengthened global
`benchmark for IP standards was delayed by political opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.
`Countries all around the globe—from the most established markets to fledgling new governments—grappled
`with the question of whether to move forward, innovating and evolving in a new era of globalization.
`
`Nevertheless, the record of five editions of the Index clearly shows that countries of every region, size, and income
`level are increasingly investing in IP infrastructure as a tool for development, a stimulus for jobs and economic
`growth, and a catalyst for domestic innovation and creativity.
`
`The roots are well-established—let seven billion flowers of innovation and creativity bloom.
`
`David Hirschmann
`President and CEO
`Global Intellectual Property Center
`U.S. Chamber of Commerce
`
`[ www.uschamber.com/ipindex I ]
`
`U.S. Chamber International IP Index | Fifth Edition
`
`ALL 2107
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127, -01128, -01129, -01130, -01131 & -01132
`
`

`

`2017 Overall Scores
`
`14.83
`
`14.34
`
`15.14
`
`15.22
`
`15.24
`
`13.95
`
`14.06
`
`14.18
`
`13.23
`
`12.70
`
`11.78
`
`9.34
`
`9.38
`
`9.53
`
`9.64
`
`10.05
`
`10.34
`
`10.59
`
`10.97
`
`8.75
`
`8.37
`
`6.88
`
`UAE
`
`Colombia
`
`Chile
`
`China
`
`Peru
`
`Brunei
`
`Ukraine
`
`Kenya
`
`Brazil
`
`South Africa
`
`Philippines
`
`Nigeria
`
`Ecuador
`
`Vietnam
`
`Argentina
`
`Indonesia
`
`Thailand
`
`Egypt
`
`Algeria
`
`India
`
`Pakistan
`
`Venezuela
`
`
`
`[ II www.uschamber.com/ipindex ][ II www.uschamber.com/ipindex ]
`
`35
`
`30
`
`25
`
`20
`
`15
`
`10
`
`5
`
`0
`
`THE ROOTS OF INNOVATION
`
`ALL 2107
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127, -01128, -01129, -01130, -01131 & -01132
`
`

`

`32.39
`
`32.62
`
`31.92
`
`30.87
`
`30.99
`
`31.29
`
`29.86
`
`28.62
`
`28.31
`
`27.48
`
`27.73
`
`27.07
`
`25.39
`
`24.05
`
`23.00
`
`22.27
`
`21.44
`
`20.59
`
`17.19
`
`16.87
`
`15.80
`
`15.98
`
`15.53
`
`U.S.
`
`UK
`
`Germany
`
`Japan
`
`Sweden
`
`France
`
`Switzerland
`
`Singapore
`
`South Korea
`
`Italy
`
`Spain
`
`Australia
`
`Hungary
`
`New Zealand
`
`Poland
`
`Israel
`
`Canada
`
`Taiwan
`
`Malaysia
`
`Mexico
`
`Saudi Arabia
`
`Turkey
`
`Russia
`
`[ www.uschamber.com/ipindex III ]
`
`U.S. Chamber International IP Index | Fifth Edition
`
`ALL 2107
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127, -01128, -01129, -01130, -01131 & -01132
`
`

`

`2. Executive Summary
`
`The world’s leading economies view intellectual
`property (IP) standards as essential to the success of
`any 21st century economy. IP provides the living and
`growing roots that stimulate innovation and bolster
`growth. And those with the strongest IP systems stand
`to reap the greatest economic rewards.
`
`Over the past five years, the U.S. Chamber’s
`International IP Index has provided a valuable tool by
`which to gauge the global IP environment. Now, the
`fifth edition of the Chamber’s Index, “The Roots of
`Innovation,” offers a roadmap for policymakers and
`thought leaders to enhance their competitiveness
`through stronger IP. It is a playbook for those looking
`to attract the world’s best and brightest.
`
`The 2017 Index benchmarks the IP standards in 45 global economies,
`representing roughly 90% of global GDP:
`
`Asia
`
`Latin America and
`the Caribbean
`
`Africa and
`Middle East
`
`Europe and
`Central Asia
`
`North America
`
`Australia
`
`Argentina
`
`Brunei
`
`China
`
`India
`
`Indonesia
`
`Japan
`
`Malaysia
`
`Brazil
`
`Chile
`
`Colombia
`
`Ecuador
`
`Mexico
`
`Peru
`
`Algeria
`
`Egypt
`
`Israel
`
`Kenya
`
`Nigeria
`
`Saudi Arabia
`
`South Africa
`
`France
`
`Germany
`
`Hungary
`
`Italy
`
`Poland
`
`Russia
`
`Spain
`
`New Zealand
`
`Venezuela
`
`United Arab Emirates
`
`Sweden
`
`Canada
`
`U.S.
`
`Pakistan
`
`Philippines
`
`Singapore
`
`South Korea
`
`Taiwan
`
`Thailand
`
`Vietnam
`
`Switzerland
`
`Turkey
`
`UK
`
`Ukraine
`
`[ IV www.uschamber.com/ipindex ]
`
`THE ROOTS OF INNOVATION
`
`ALL 2107
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127, -01128, -01129, -01130, -01131 & -01132
`
`

`

`Economies are scored against 6 categories of IP
`protection: patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade
`secrets and market access, enforcement, and
`ratification of international treaties. The 2017 Index
`includes 5 new indicators to better capture an
`economy’s overall IP environment in a continuously
`evolving digital age. Additionally, the fifth edition
`includes an analysis of the standards included in
`the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
`Rights (TRIPS) agreement and the final text of
`the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) against the
`benchmarks included in the Index. This analysis
`illustrates the ways that trade agreements have
`progressively raised the bar for IP standards around
`the world in a 21st century global marketplace.
`
`Key Findings
`
`The 2017 Index reveals a number of IP trends that
`emerged over the past year. In a difficult global
`environment, countries continue to make a conscious
`policy decision to invest in stronger IP. Even countries
`that have historically viewed IP negatively are
`implementing nuanced changes to their IP systems.
`This illustrates the continued importance of IP
`investment for countries across all regions and levels
`of economic development. Positive IP developments
`highlighted in the Index include the following:
`
`• A number of countries, ranging from China and
`Pakistan to the UAE and Sweden, introduced
`new enforcement mechanisms and specialized IP
`courts to better combat counterfeiting and piracy.
`
`• Free trade agreements (FTAs), including the
`TPP and the Comprehensive Economic Trade
`Agreement (CETA), were signed in 2016, as
`well as a number of bilateral FTAs that helped
`raise the bar for protection of life sciences IP,
`copyrighted content online, and enforcement
`against IP theft.
`
`• Multiple governments undertook a review of
`their IP laws, recognizing that such laws must
`keep pace with the emerging challenges IP
`owners face. In South Korea, amendments to
`the Patent Law helped streamline and expedite
`the patent examination process. Likewise, the
`government of Taiwan began a review of its
`IP laws, in an effort to better comply with the
`standards included in the TPP.
`
`• Economies recognized the value of leveraging
`international partnerships through Patent
`Prosecution Highways (PPH). Countries that
`signed PPH agreements in 2016 include
`Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, the
`Philippines, and Vietnam.
`
`• A pack of global IP leaders emerged among
`the 2017 Index rankings, with the U.S., UK,
`Japan, and European Union (EU) economies
`ranked more closely together than ever. Notably,
`Japan’s score increased by 10% since 2016 due
`to the ratification of TPP and accession to the
`treaties covered in the Index.
`
`Despite these positive developments, some countries
`took steps to restrict IP rights in 2016:
`
`• Ecuador, Russia, and South Africa introduced
`new requirements for local production,
`procurement, and manufacturing.
`
`[ www.uschamber.com/ipindex V ]
`
`U.S. Chamber International IP Index | Fifth Edition
`
`ALL 2107
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127, -01128, -01129, -01130, -01131 & -01132
`
`

`

`Conclusion
`
`In a changing global landscape, IP standards serve as
`the lasting, vibrant roots of innovation that will enable
`us to solve the world’s problems and meet future
`challenges. They are the standards that governments
`can bank on and that will allow industries to bloom.
`
`• While the Indian government issued the
`National Intellectual Property Rights Policy in
`2016, IP-intensive industries continued to face
`challenges in the Indian market with regard
`to the scope of patentability for computer-
`implemented inventions, Section 3(d) of the
`Indian Patent Act, and the recent High Court
`of Delhi decision regarding photocopying
`copyrighted content.
`
`• A number of governments attempted to limit
`the scope of patentability via both judicial
`decisions and legislation. While the Canadian
`government continued to apply the heightened
`patent utility standard, the Indonesian
`Patent Law introduced a heightened efficacy
`requirement for patentability and outlawed
`second use claims.
`
`• Both individual governments and representatives
`of the multilateral institutions encouraged
`public officials to utilize compulsory licenses
`and expanded exceptions and limitations in the
`name of increasing access. In Colombia, the
`government threatened to use a compulsory
`license in an attempt to drive down the price
`of innovative medicine, while in South Africa
`draft copyright amendments proposed the
`introduction of a fair use system.
`
`[ VI www.uschamber.com/ipindex ]
`
`THE ROOTS OF INNOVATION
`
`ALL 2107
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127, -01128, -01129, -01130, -01131 & -01132
`
`

`

`Contents
`
`1. Foreword .......................................................................................................................I
`
`2. Executive Summary ...................................................................................................IV
`
`3. Overview of the International IP Index Fifth Edition ...........................................3
`
`4. An Innovation Life-Cycle Perspective of the Benefits of IP Rights:
`
`From Laboratory to Market .....................................................................................7
`
`5. Assessing International Benchmarks and Standards Relative to the Index ....12
`
`5.1 Benchmarking the TRIPS and TPP treaties against the Index ..........................12
`
`5.2 TRIPS from the perspective of the Index ...........................................................12
`
`5.3 TPP from the perspective of the Index ..............................................................12
`
`6. Global IP Policy in 2017 – Heading in Different Directions ...............................14
`
`6.1 Overall results ......................................................................................................18
`
`7. Economy Overviews .................................................................................................25
`
`Algeria .........................................................................................................................26
`
`Argentina .....................................................................................................................28
`
`Australia .......................................................................................................................30
`
`Brazil ............................................................................................................................32
`
`Brunei ...........................................................................................................................34
`
`Canada ........................................................................................................................36
`
`Chile .............................................................................................................................38
`
`China ............................................................................................................................40
`
`Colombia .....................................................................................................................43
`
`Ecuador .......................................................................................................................45
`
`Egypt ............................................................................................................................47
`
`France ..........................................................................................................................49
` Germany ......................................................................................................................51
`
`Hungary .......................................................................................................................53
`
`India .............................................................................................................................55
`
`Indonesia .....................................................................................................................57
`
`Israel .............................................................................................................................59
`
`Italy ...............................................................................................................................61
`
`Japan ...........................................................................................................................63
`
`Kenya ...........................................................................................................................65
` Malaysia .......................................................................................................................67
` Mexico .........................................................................................................................69
` New Zealand ...............................................................................................................71
`
`[ www.uschamber.com/ipindex 1 ]
`
`U.S. Chamber International IP Index | Fifth Edition
`
`ALL 2107
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127, -01128, -01129, -01130, -01131 & -01132
`
`

`

` Nigeria .........................................................................................................................73
`
`Pakistan ........................................................................................................................75
`
`Peru ..............................................................................................................................77
`
`Philippines ...................................................................................................................79
`
`Poland ..........................................................................................................................81
`
`Russia ...........................................................................................................................83
`
`Saudi Arabia ................................................................................................................85
`
`Singapore ....................................................................................................................87
`
`South Africa .................................................................................................................89
`
`South Korea .................................................................................................................91
`
`Spain ............................................................................................................................93
`
`Sweden ........................................................................................................................95
`
`Switzerland ..................................................................................................................97
`
`Taiwan ..........................................................................................................................99
`
`Thailand .....................................................................................................................101
`
`Turkey .........................................................................................................................103
`
`Ukraine .......................................................................................................................105
`
`United Arab Emirates ...............................................................................................107
`
`United Kingdom .......................................................................................................109
`
`United States .............................................................................................................111
`
`Venezuela ..................................................................................................................113
`
`Vietnam ......................................................................................................................115
`
`Annex: Category Scores, Methodology, Sources, and Indicators Explained ......117
`
`Endnotes ..........................................................................................................................135
`
`Tables and Figures
`
`Table 1: Fifth Edition Index Economies by World Bank Region ..............................3
`
`Table 2: Fifth Edition Index Economies by World Bank Income Group .................4
`
`Table 3: New Indicators Added in 2017 ....................................................................5
`
`Table 4: Economic Benefits of Improving IP Protection: Findings from
`
`
`
` 21 Correlations ............................................................................................10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1: The Innovation and Creativity Life-Cycle ....................................................8
`Figure 2: Approximating TRIPS on the Index ...........................................................14
`Figure 3: Approximating TRIPS and TPP on the Index ............................................16
`Figure 4: 2017 Overall Scores ....................................................................................19
`
`[ 2 www.uschamber.com/ipindex ]
`
`THE ROOTS OF INNOVATION
`
`ALL 2107
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127, -01128, -01129, -01130, -01131 & -01132
`
`

`

`3. Overview of the International IP Index Fifth Edition
`
`Now in its fifth edition, the U.S. Chamber’s
`International IP Index continues to provide an
`important industry perspective on the IP standards
`that influence both long- and short-term business
`and investment decisions. The Index is a unique and
`continuously evolving instrument. Not only does it
`assess the state of the international IP environment,
`it also provides a clear roadmap for any economy
`that wishes to be competitive in the 21st century
`knowledge-based global economy. Large, small,
`developing, or developed—economies from across
`the world can use the insights about their own national
`IP environments as well as that of their neighbors
`and international competitors to improve their own
`performance and better compete at the highest levels
`for global investment, talent, and growth.
`
`What’s new in the fifth edition?
`More economies included
`
`The Index continues to grow and now covers
`45 economies. Together, these economies represent
`both a geographical cross-section of the world and
`close to 90% of global economic output calculated on
`a current basis per the World Bank.i
`
`The new economies included in the fifth edition of
`the Index are Egypt, Hungary, Kenya, Pakistan, the
`Philippines, Saudi Arabia, and Spain.
`
`As Table 1 shows, the Index includes economies
`from all major regions of the world and is truly a
`global measure.ii
`
`Table 1: Fifth Edition Index Economies by World Bank Regioniii
`
`Latin America and
`the Caribbean
`Argentina
`Brazil
`Chile
`Colombia
`Ecuador
`Mexico
`Peru
`Venezuela
`
`Africa and
`Middle East
`Algeria
`Egypt
`Israel
`Kenya
`Nigeria
`Saudi Arabia
`South Africa
`UAE
`
`North America
`
`Canada
`U.S.
`
`Europe and
`Central Asia
`France
`Germany
`Hungary
`Italy
`Poland
`Russia
`Spain
`Sweden
`Switzerland
`Turkey
`UK
`Ukraine
`
`Asia
`
`Australia
`Brunei
`China
`India
`Indonesia
`Japan
`Malaysia
`New Zealand
`Pakistan
`Philippines
`Singapore
`South Korea
`Taiwan
`Thailand
`Vietnam
`
`Source: World Bank (2016)
`
`[ www.uschamber.com/ipindex 3 ]
`
`U.S. Chamber International IP Index | Fifth Edition
`
`ALL 2107
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127, -01128, -01129, -01130, -01131 & -01132
`
`

`

`In addition to geographic diversity, the Index also
`contains economies from a broad spectrum of income
`groups as defined by the World Bank. Table 2 provides
`
`an overview of all 45 economies sampled in the fifth
`edition of the Index according to income group as
`defined by the World Bank.
`
`Table 2: Fifth Edition Index Economies by World Bank Income Groupiv
`
`Lower-Middle-Income
`Economies
`
`Upper-Middle-Income
`Economies
`
`High-Income Economies
`
`High-Income OECD
`Members
`
`Brunei
`
`Saudi Arabia
`
`Singapore
`
`Taiwan
`
`UAE
`
`Venezuela
`
`Egypt
`
`India
`
`Indonesia
`
`Kenya
`
`Nigeria
`
`Pakistan
`
`Philippines
`
`Ukraine
`
`Vietnam
`
`Algeria
`
`Argentina
`
`Brazil
`
`China
`
`Colombia
`
`Ecuador
`
`Malaysia
`
`Mexico
`
`Peru
`
`Russia
`
`South Africa
`
`Thailand
`
`Turkey
`
`Venezuela
`
`Australia
`
`Canada
`
`Chile
`
`France
`
`Germany
`
`Hungary
`
`Israel
`
`Italy
`
`Japan
`
`New Zealand
`
`Poland
`
`South Korea
`
`Spain
`
`Sweden
`
`Switzerland
`
`UK
`
`U.S.
`
`Source: World Bank (2016)
`
`[ 4 www.uschamber.com/ipindex ]
`
`THE ROOTS OF INNOVATION
`
`ALL 2107
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127, -01128, -01129, -01130, -01131 & -01132
`
`

`

`Five new indicators
`
`A significant new feature of the fifth edition of the
`Index is the addition of five new indicators bringing
`the total number of indicators included in the Index to
`35. Consequently, the maximum possible score on the
`Index has also increased from 30 to 35.
`
`These indicators include new areas of IP, such as
`design rights, as well as growing areas of concern
`to rights-holders including patent opposition
`proceedings and barriers to licensing agreements.
`Below Table 3 provides an overview of the five new
`indicators and the Index categories to which they have
`been added.
`
`Table 3: New Indicators Added in 2017
`
`Index Category
`
`New Indicator
`
`Category 1: Patents, Related Rights,
`
`and Limitations
`
`Patent opposition
`
`Category 3: Trademarks, Related
`
`Rights, and Limitations
`
`Industrial designs term of protection
`
`Legal measures available that provide necessary exclusive rights
`to redress unauthorized use of industrial design rights
`
`Category 4: Trade Secrets &
`
`Market Access
`
`Regulatory and administrative barriers to the commercialization
`of IP assets
`
`Category 5: Enforcement
`
`Transparency and public reporting by customs authorities of
`trade-related IP infringement
`
`The new indicators are defined and described in full
`in the Methodology section included in the Annex at
`the back of this report. Below is a summary overview of
`each new indicator and what they seek to measure.
`
`The first indicator added relates to patent opposition
`proceedings. Specifically, the indicator measures the
`availability of mechanisms for opposing patents in
`a manner that does not delay the granting of a
`patent (in contrast to a right of opposition before the
`patent is granted) and ensures fair and transparent
`opposition proceedings.
`
`The second and third new indicators are from a new
`area of IP covered in the Index: industrial design
`rights. These indicators measure the maximum term
`of protection being offered (including renewable
`periods) for design rights and the extent to which
`economies have in place and apply laws and
`procedures that provide necessary exclusive rights
`(including making, marketing, trading, and use of an
`industrial design), respectively.
`
`[ www.uschamber.com/ipindex 5 ]
`
`U.S. Chamber International IP Index | Fifth Edition
`
`ALL 2107
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127, -01128, -01129, -01130, -01131 & -01132
`
`

`

`The fourth new indicator relates to the actual
`commercialization and use of IP assets. This
`indicator seeks to measure the extent to which
`regulatory or administrative mechanisms allow IP
`owners the “freedom to operate” as part of their
`commercialization and exploitation activities. This
`freedom includes the avoidance of barriers or undue
`burdens on interacting parties such as “blanket”
`requirements for forced disclosure of technologies
`without the consent of the IP owner, governmental
`preapproval for any licensing agreement between
`parties, predetermined licensing terms, restrictions on
`commercializing IP by publicly funded research bodies,
`and discriminatory conditions affecting the licensing of
`technologies by foreign IP owners.
`
`The final added indicator relates to border measures.
`Specifically, this indicator seeks to measure the
`extent to which customs authorities in a given
`economy publish statistics and data on trade-related
`IP infringement. This indicator measures both the
`extent to which data are published on a regular and
`systematic basis and the level of detail of these data.
`
`[ 6 www.uschamber.com/ipindex ]
`
`THE ROOTS OF INNOVATION
`
`ALL 2107
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127, -01128, -01129, -01130, -01131 & -01132
`
`

`

`4. An Innovation Life-Cycle Perspective of the Benefits of IP
`Rights: From Laboratory to Market
`
`The debate on intellectual property (IP) rights and
`their impact on innovation, access to technologies
`and economic growth raged on in 2016, with
`developments underscoring ongoing skepticism at
`both the multilateral and national levels regarding
`the utility of IP rights and a persistent view that IP
`protection amounts to a tax on access to innovation.
`A United Nations High-Level Panel on Access to
`Medicines report that encouraged broad use of
`TRIPS “flexibilities” to work around IP rights was but
`one high-profile example. The fifth edition of the
`U.S. Chamber International IP Index (“the Index”)
`highlights a number of other developments in different
`economies, including a narrowing of patentability
`criteria, use of compulsory licensing, and erosion of
`IP enforcement, that promote the limiting of IP rights
`as a means to encourage local economic activity and
`increase access to technologies.
`
`Yet the empirical evidence on the impact of IP rights
`on economic activity continues to suggest that such
`views are misguided. The most up-to-date data on
`the benefits of IP protection reveals that IP is, in fact,
`a critical instrument for countries seeking to enhance
`access to innovation, grow domestic innovative
`output, and enjoy the dynamic growth benefits of an
`innovative economy. Conversely, weak IP protection
`stymies long-term strategic aspirations for innovation
`and development. The past three editions of the
`Index have included a dedicated section that explores
`the relationship between national IP environments
`and the development of innovative and competitive
`economies by comparing the Index scores with a wide
`range of economic variables using correlations analysis
`(statistical measures of the likelihood of two elements
`
`occurring together). This edition’s Annex expands on
`the data and discussion included in the fifth edition
`report as well as previous editions of the Index to
`provide a fuller picture of the relationship between IP
`rights and a wide range of socioeconomic benefits.
`
`Taken together, the 21 correlations included in
`this Annex present a clear picture: IP protection
`goes hand in hand with the aspirations topping
`government agendas around the world. As Table 1
`suggests, a robust national IP environment correlates
`strongly (having a strength of 0.6 or above) with a
`wide range of macroeconomic indicators that fall
`under the umbrella of innovation and creativity –
`the very same indicators that are found in national
`strategies for economic development of many
`economies today. This message has only become
`stronger over the past 3 editions of the Index: adding
`several new variables each year and expanding the
`sample size by 50% (from 30 to 45 economies), the
`strength of the relationship between IP rights and
`crucial economic activities has grown.
`
`This edition of the Annex amplifies these findings
`about the benefits of IP protection by examining the
`correlations (both those from the previous editions
`plus new correlations) from the perspective of an
`“innovation and creativity life-cycle”. This is because
`maximizing the benefits of IP rights is not just about
`understanding the outcomes they help to generate
`but also how they do so. Effective innovation
`strategies comprise policies that account for not
`only the end objectives but also the path that leads
`to these outcomes, the way in which innovation and
`creativity occur, and the necessary enabling factors.
`
`[ www.uschamber.com/ipindex 7 ]
`
`U.S. Chamber International IP Index | Fifth Edition
`
`ALL 2107
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127, -01128, -01129, -01130, -01131 & -01132
`
`

`

`For example, IP rights display a strong relationship
`with the growth of knowledge-intensive jobs (0.72)
`and the development of competitive local high-tech
`sectors (0.80). But the correlations also reveal that
`IP drives the research, partnerships, and technology
`
`development that support these sectors. In fact, the
`correlations shows that IP plays a role in facilitating
`many of the necessary “inputs” to the knowledge-
`based economy. On this basis the correlations are
`divided into four themes or phases of the innovation
`and creativity life-cycle (as illustrated in Figure 1):
`
`Figure 1: The Innovation and Creativity Life-Cycle
`
`Resources
`dedicated to
`innovation
`
`A dynamic economy
`
`R&D and creative
`activities
`
`Access to
`technologies and
`creative content
`
`Source: Pugatch Consilium
`
`1) Resources dedicated to innovation: The
`correlations in this theme show that IP protection
`is a key enabling factor of R&D, working in
`tandem with other factors such as financing
`(including spending directed to R&D and
`a vibrant venture capital and private equity
`
`market), human capital (like researchers and
`technicians), and technological infrastructure.
`Economies that provide a robust IP environment
`are also more likely to embrace policies that
`create a complete innovation “ecosystem” by
`investing in other key building blocks.
`
`[ 8 www.uschamber.com/ipindex ]
`
`THE ROOTS OF INNOVATION
`
`ALL 2107
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127, -01128, -01129, -01130, -01131 & -01132
`
`

`

`create high-value jobs, and raise income and
`productivity. Here, as in the other themes,
`IP is strongly related to measures of foreign
`direct investment (FDI), business and industrial
`growth, jobs, and gross domestic product
`(GDP), ultimately providing the basis for
`re-investment of resources as the virtuous
`cycle begins anew.
`
`The correlations within each theme examine
`the impact of IP on the overall economy
`as well as for specific IP-related sectors,
`including the biomedical, information and
`communications technology (ICT), and
`creative content sectors. This not only allows
`for a clear picture of the wider socioeconomic
`benefits of a supportive IP environment
`overall but also illustrates the advantages for
`key high-tech sectors when specific rights
`important for a given sector are provided.
`
`Table 4 presents the main findings of the
`analysis in this Annex.
`
`
`
`
`
`2) R&D and creative activities: The correlations
`in this theme indicate that IP rights are
`linked to actual innovation—to discovery,
`development, and production of new
`technologies and creative works. Economies
`that exhibit a steady buzz of innovation and
`creativity are, with few exceptions, those that
`have put in place strong IP environments—
`both generally and for specific high-tech
`sectors. The opposite is also true: on the
`whole, those economies with relatively weaker
`IP environments do not tend to experience
`the levels of R&D and r