development of technology transfer in university industry linkage in India. .... university spin offs, Indian universities that come in the top technology transfer ...
1
Exploring University-Industry Technology Transfer in India: Two Models Francis Kuriakose, Deepa Kylasam Iyer September 2016
Abstract The purpose of this paper is to understand the influence of policy environment on development of technology transfer in university industry linkage in India. This study reviews literature on design perspectives of university spin offs including large scale survey of Indian universities, cross national comparisons and analysis of documents from professional bodies. There is evidence that policy environment is composed of structures that influence the implementation of a design. There is a policy shift that favoured indigenous state led technology transfer to private partnership in technology transfer in India. The opening of the Indian economy introduced policy environment favouring entrepreneurship. Two models of technology transfer in university-industry are proposed. The type I model is a technology push process that results in an IPR based regime where as the type II is a business pull model that favours university spin offs. Unlike the linear model of growth of technology transfer in the West, there has been a persistent divide between the sub systems of intellectual property and entrepreneurship in India. Research into the environment that designs a policy outcome in academic entrepreneurship may offer a template for a system that co-opts both IPR and entrepreneurship. Indian universities have been analysed for performance based on their traditional role in academics. The non traditional roles like technology transfer have been evaluated only through comparative case studies. This research fills the gap by giving an overview of the Indian scene and proposes theoretical models to understand them. Keywords- Academic entrepreneurship, University spin offs, Technology transfer JEL Code: O31, O32, O33
2
1. Introduction Traditionally, universities have been engaged in teaching and basic research and were seen as a source of scientific knowledge. It is only after the Second World War that universities began to be re-imagined as agents of local economic development by investing in commercial technology on large scale1. The investment of resources toward inventions with commercialising potential led to property rights claims on intellectual outcome at an unprecedented level 2 . This challenge was responded through the enactment of intellectual property regulations including copyrights, trade secrets protection, licensing, patents and more recently university spin offs. A new class of regulatory regime that was conventionally applied to industries became involved with a different breed of institution like universities and laboratories. This has called for refashioning regulatory regime of intellectual property in a contextspecific manner to universities.
University spin offs or spinout companies are a class of firms that ‘exploit intellectual property created in an academic institution’ (Shane, 2004). They are a sub set of start ups in the sense that they nurture the commercialisation of intellectual property (for example technology) produced within the university through a business venture. Spin offs may be firms started by public sector researchers like university faculty,
1
After the Second World War, traditionally industrialised nations lost out to emerging industrialisation especially Japan. This led to United States enacting the Bayh-Dole Act 1980 and Federal Technology Transfer Act 1986 to enable universities to commercialise scientific knowledge through granting intellectual property rights. For more, see Shane, 2004. 2 The emerging intellectual property regime dealt with the ‘technology transfer’ aspect of academic spin offs. The property rights claim had two main components to it- ownership of technology and mode of revenue sharing.
3
staff or students, start ups licensed with public funded technologies or a firm in which public funded university has equity investment. This class of firms may be a natural outcome in a field like biotechnology or information technology where the product coming out of university may be directly used for commercial benefits without processing3. However, it is more common to find universities performing incubating role at the inception of technology and an advisory role at the stage of commercial development. This is because spin offs have the same risks of market failure associated with start ups like information asymmetry and absence of entrepreneurial competencies in university that lead to high mortality rate (Fini et al, 2011) 4 . Furthermore, it has been found that the performance of spinoffs once the start up becomes functional has also been mixed (Franco and Filson, 2000; Klepper and Sleeper, 2005; Stadler et al, 2008)5. Despite these empirical evidences, spin offs are increasingly taken as an option for commercializing technology intensive fields by universities over other arrangements of technology transfer like research publication and joint collaborative research with industries. It is perceived that spin offs create economic value, generate jobs, help the local economy diversify and encourage investment in technology (WIPO, 2007). For instance, according to Association of American Technology Managers, American universities created $33.5 billion worth of spin offs between 1980 and 1996 since the 3
Processing used in this sense is the steps that lead from basic discovery to commercial application. Fini et al, 2011 have explored the specific risks associated with university spin offs that result from economic reasons as well as that of new technology. They identify credit rationing, absence of risk assessment by specialists and information asymmetry as three predominant risks associated with university spin offs. 5 These studies have performed evaluation of performance of spin offs with established companies as well as university spin offs with other kinds of de novo start ups. The performance varies considerably based on the nature of industry, product and linkages with the parent industry. 4
4
enactment of Bayh-Dole Act 1980, National Cooperative Research Act 1984 and Federal Technology Transfer Act 1986 averaging 83 jobs per spin off. Spin offs are also seen increasingly as a novel way to attract research funding. 2. Developing University Spin Offs In this context, it is interesting to explore the environment that promotes or stifles the growth of university spin offs. The relation between technology transfer and development of regional economy is well established. Caiazza et al (2015) have attempted to integrate knowledge spill over and the process of development by comparing the impact of knowledge generated on firms and regional economy. They argue that spill over effects of knowledge drive the regional competitive advantage in countries. Furthering this argument, Audretsch and Caiazza (2015) bring out the relationship
between
technology
transfer,
entrepreneurship
and
economic
development in a cross national setting. This perspective that connects technology transfer and economic growth leaves two possible structures through which the process can take place. Primarily, there can be regulatory structures surrounding university spin off that determines the environment in which the benefits are shared and risks are offset. Secondly, there is the influence of
entrepreneurship
culture
that
initiates
technology
transfer
and
its
commercialisation. Robert and Malone (1996) have systematically identified two types of environment that nurtures university spin offs in a selectivity-support typology. The top down approach to technology transfer called selectivity approach
5
involves contractual arrangement of labour transfer, laws, policies, rules and regulations specific to research and development that govern intellectual property rights, concerns of ownership of technology and revenue sharing. The bottom up process of support to technology transfer would on the other hand cater to an academic
culture
that
nourishes
entrepreneurial
skills
of
networking
and
championing with local support systems of ventures and network with industries. Drawing on the Robert and Malone system, Degroof and Roberts (2004), Clarysse et
al (2005) and Powers and McDougall (2005) have examined the strategies of commercialization of technology in world class universities. They argue that low selectivity low support system may be suitable for entrepreneurially developed environments where as high selectivity high support mechanism would favour low entrepreneurial regions. Breznitz et al (2008) have analysed two American universities - MIT and Yale University - as case studies to test this hypothesis with positive results. MIT, they bring out, has an entrepreneurial culture that encourages university members to conduct nationally visible research with industrial partners. Relevant skills are nurtured by Technology Licensing Office (TLO), entrepreneurship centres and entrepreneurship programs within the university. Simultaneously the Boston area where the university is placed is a natural incubation centre with trained lawyers, accountants and realtors spinning technology out from university to the real world. Yale on the other hand has taken a top down approach through Technology Transfer Office (TTO), creating science parks and identifying areas of technology transfer. These studies bring out two fundamental categories of structures in
6
regulating system of university spin offs - cultural elements of entrepreneurship and contractual elements of laws and policies. Burg et al (2007) have further deliberated on the design principles that emerge out of creating university spin offs through a comparison of European universities. They conclude that creating spin offs comprises an emergent initial phase of creating infrastructure for spin offs and subsequent deliberate phase that looks into support activities. The first phase is when the collaborating network of partners is created through training in venturing skills and the second phase looks into regulating practices that go into the particular spin off like fair practices. In other words, in low entrepreneurial environments, the spin offs are first selected and then supported where as in high entrepreneurial environment supporting entrepreneurship embeds helping particular spin offs. Public policies that target technology transfer have assumed significance in this context. Caiazza (2015) puts forth the premise that it is innovation diffusion that acts as knowledge spill over contributing to both firm’s profitability and regional economic growth. She examines the policy environment in this context and concludes that simultaneous policy intervention that promotes multiple innovation diffusion shows better results than isolated ones. Therefore it is important to focus on multiple barriers to developing innovation diffusion. The Indian setting in this conceptual context offers an interesting scenario with respect to technology transfer. Individual and comparative case analyses between
7
universities that nurture innovation and technology transfer is explored at great length in the Indian context highlighting the different ways in which universities responded to and modified policy environment (Basant and Chandra, 2007; Anand, 2008; Bulsara et al, 2010; Gupta and Rathore, 2015). Similarly, theoretical drawings on how environment influence the development of an entrepreneurial university has also been explored (Vang et al, 2007; Gupta, 2008). This paper attempts to take an overview of these kinds of university innovation development to give a theoretical perspective by exploring the models of development that has evolved in India to support university spin offs. The history of science policy in India is first analysed to give a perspective on regulatory environment. Using the Roberts and Malone approach of ‘technology push’ and ‘business pull’ models of development of university spin offs, Indian universities that come in the top technology transfer scene are then examined as a process. A two model scenario is proposed as two emerging ways in which university spin offs would operate in the Indian case. 3. Tracing the Policy Environment of Indian Technology Transfer Indian higher education has focussed on the two pronged growth model of fulfilling traditional obligations of teaching and academic research and non traditional role of economic development through technology transfer simultaneously. Table 1 gives a brief overview of the hierarchy and extent of the Indian higher education system.
8
Table 1 Number of Higher Education Institutions by Type (2013-14)
Universities
Central University
42
State Public University
310
Deemed University
127
State Private University
143
Central Open University
1
State Open University
13
Institution of National
68
Importance Institutions under State
5
Legislature Act Others
3
Total
712
Colleges
Stand Alone Institutions
36671 Diploma Level Technical
3541
PGDM
392
Diploma Level Nursing
2674
Diploma Level Teacher
4706
Training Institute under Ministries
132
Total
11445
Source: Ministry of Human Resource Development (2014). Education Statistics at a Glance, Government of India
Kuriakose and Iyer (2016) have analysed the problems that Indian higher education system of universities and colleges face in the contemporary era of globalisation in
9
the realm of traditional role. They argue that the traditional role of teaching and academics have faced challenges of enrolment, expansion and maintaining quality of basic research. This assumes further importance in the new roles that universities refashion themselves in. Examining the efficacy of policy to incentivise teaching faculty to perform better, Wad (2016) presents a qualitative comparison of performance appraisal policy of faculty in teaching and research that was enacted in 2010. He argues that ‘measurable’ and ‘manageable’ criteria of performance appraisal in the universities lead to a ‘pragmatisation context’ in which increasing market orientation of academics lead to the trading of values, priorities and social distinction through the language of performance6.
This ‘pragmatisation context’ also affects the non traditional role of the universities. Contrasting the linear model of development of technology transfer from traditional to non traditional role, the framework of innovation systems, triple helix and knowledge economy7 is to understand the non traditional role fulfilled by Indian universities vis a vis technology transfer. A number of works explore the development of technology transfer in this light (Basant and Chandra, 2007; Anand, 2008; Chandra and Krishna, 2010) that examine the shift of Indian universities from expansion of basic science in the 1940s to applied mission based science projects since Indian independence from
6
Wad distinguishes the context of identity as distinction caused by an academic position as well as the context of complaisance that shows deference to position in which market values of performance through efficiency is seen. We use a similar argument to explain why traditional and nontraditional role developed simultaneously but separately in the higher education context in India. 7 The triple helix model argues that the government, industry and university work in a network to foster innovation
10
the British colonial rule in 1947. The science policy of India travels through three distinct phases where the objectives shift dramatically. In the first phase from 1947 to the mid 1970s, science was seen as panacea to solve the development problems of the country like food security8. The selection of a group of elite scientists to solve the country’s problems was countered by bottom up science movements and international crisis situation like war and oil price fall in the 1970s. There was a realisation that India’s import substitution policy that prevents free diffusion of technological advancement was hampering the ability of Indian science to solve real world problems. The second phase of India’s science policy in which the failure of science to solve development led to a more indigenous approach to science and technology policy building. The emphasis on indigenous technology local research and import substitution policy of industrial growth was reflected in the science policy and the way the role of universities was envisioned. If the early 1950s saw just 30 universities with 8774 students and 11 million rupees in research and development (RD), by 1971, 1396 million Indian rupees was invested in research and development in 105 universities with 150379 students. (Chandra and Krishna, 2010) Finally with the opening of market in 1991, Indian education scene was connected more than ever before to the markets of the world and the new role of creating and diffusing technology for industrial growth and local economic development became
8
Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of independent India, laid the foundation of science based policy making in which scientists and statisticians were called in to formulate economic policies and setting up of policy institutions that were public funded.
11
more pronounced than before. The new industrial policy also encouraged private sector involvement and investment in technology sectors like biotechnology, information technology and pharmaceuticals. The entire outline of science based policies and programs were the institutional basis for the development of technology transfer in India as outlined in table 2. Table 2 Outline of Science Based Policy in India: 1947-2016 Sl No
Name of the Policy
Year of
Major Provisions
Enactment 1
Industrial Policy Resolution
1948
Introducing the mixed economy model of development by categorising industries as private and public funded
2
Science Policy Resolution
1958
Developing personnel and infrastructure in science to solve developmental problems
3
Science and Technology Plan
1974
Foster indigenous technology, local research in compliance with import substitution
4
Establishment of National
1982
Science and Technology
To foster entrepreneurship through innovation diffusion
Entrepreneurship Development Board 5
Science and Technology Policy
1983
Understanding the limitations of indigenous methods, moving towards increasing diffusion of
12
technology through transfer 6
Technology Development
1983
Policy
To develop technology to meet the social aspirations of people
7
New Industrial Policy
1991
Opening up private investment in technological fields
8
Technology Development
1995
Board Act
Establishment of a statutory body, to promote development and commercialization of indigenous technology and adaptation of imported technology for wider application.
9
Science and Technology
2003
Policy
To establish an IPR regime to provide a strong, supportive and comprehensive policy environment for speedy and effective domestic commercialisation of technical innovations
10
Amendment to Science Policy
2009
Researchers in universities can hold equity shares in spin offs
Source: Authors’ compilation
4. The Two Emerging Models of University Spin Offs Institutions of transfer were conceived as soon as the role of universities for technology transfer to industries became more apparent. Traditional ways of
13
diffusing technology was already present through publication of research results. New forms of collaboration such as consultancy, research park, funding, sponsored research and spin offs began as a result of deliberate policy prompted by institutional response, i.e., the informal practices emerging out of universities performing technology transfer were formalised through law and policy9. A simplified traditional system model of technology transfer is depicted in figure 1. Figure 1 System Model of Technology Transfer Knowledge Exploration Subsystem (technology transfer office)
Knowledge Exploitation Subsystem (business incubators, entrepreneurial cells)
Source: Authors’ compilation based on Vang et al (2007)
Indian universities seem to have a higher research output compared to degree of innovation transfer. Innovation system approach suggests the presence of two subsystems to foster technology transfer - technology exploring and technology exploiting subsystem as depicted in figure 1. An IPR regime that has relevant laws, regulation and policy that fosters patent filing, licensing and revenue sharing is part of the technology exploring sub system that results in strong patents. An entrepreneurial regime that regulates firm, helps in seed capital and venturing is part
9
Metcalfe, 1995 has argued that institutional practices inform government to form policies to regulate innovation systems
14
of the technology exploiting sub system that results in spin offs. However, in the Indian scenario a strong informal arrangement of technology transfer takes place through research publication, sponsored projects, conference presentation of research results, consultancy and joint research collaboration. We argue that the presence of an informal arrangement in technology transfer points to the absence of a completely formed formal system as in the developed countries. Instead, Indian universities engage in an ‘entrepreneurial process’. The absence of a technology exploring subsystem that functions through relevant policies such as the Bayh-Dole Act 1986 of the US and institutional incentives like TTO were the first set of reasons for the development of informal arrangement. The lack of research orientation among local firms and identification of appropriate technology were the second set of reasons that resulted in a poorly conceptualised technology exploiting subsystem. What works on ground is an entrepreneurial process that combines the technology and business part of academic entrepreneurship. On a survey of case histories of the top ten research institutes engaged in technology transfer (WIPO, 2007), two kinds of entrepreneurial processes emerged. While there was a top down or bottom up process leading to academic entrepreneurship in the cases reviewed from the US and Europe, the Indian scenario showed a divergent result. Because of a predominantly science invested policy regulation environment, there was a lot of emphasis on research publication and joint collaboration. In predominantly science based institution, this led to a patenting regime geared towards an IPR based entrepreneurial process. This is a typical
15
example of high end research oriented university as seen in Indian Institute of Science (IISc). Other than academic research, the university contributes to technology transfer through in-house research and industry-sponsored projects. A high degree of publishing activity has been geared toward patenting through TTO with mixed results. Incubation for entrepreneurship is still nascent. The second case was that of institutes that could work with a research agenda that led to venturing. The presence of a strong entrepreneurial culture in the university through pedagogy and infrastructure led to in house availability of expertise, seed capital avenues and entrepreneurial skills. The presence of incubation infrastructure (entrepreneurial incubators and entrepreneurial cells) as found in Indian Institute of Technology (IITs) and Indian Institute of Management (IIMs) belong to this category. The process is initiated by setting a research agenda and identifying the type of research that could give in to commercialisation. This step is followed by strategic networking of partners to invest in commercialisation through existing firms or the start up of new firms. A rudimentary infrastructure that provides venturing skills and links university-industry partnership is established.
16
The analysis is displayed in table 3. Table 3 A Two Model Typology of Entrepreneurial Process
Research setting
Type I: Technology Push
Type II: Business Pull
Process
Process
Research agenda based
Entrepreneurial agenda based
Research outcome
Research outcome leading Research outcome leading
objective
to publishing and
to venturing
patenting
Entrepreneurial process
Presence of network of
Presence of Incubation
partners for venturing
centres, Entrepreneurial cells
Type of Technology
IPR Protected Regime
Spin Off Based Regime
Transfer Source: Authors’ compilation
5. Discussion and Conclusion From the review of technology transfer in India, it emerges that India has a strong scientific output and a weak innovation system. In the early 1950s, India began with a science policy on creating basic science outputs that had impact on local development. The technological diffusion at this stage was hampered by barriers like import substitution and limited local participation. This also discouraged local entrepreneurship from taking off. Following this phase, there was deliberate policy level intervention to foster entrepreneurship in the scientific community in the 1980s. Opening of the Indian markets in 1991 integrated the disparate structures of
17
technology innovation and commercialisation. The different structures of technology transfer including universities, governments and industry are working in linked environment with the ushering in of the knowledge economy climate. In India, spinoffs from academic institutions are still a nascent phenomenon. In Indian innovation system the boundary between the academic and the commercial sphere is not equally permeable due to two major reasons. One is the institutional incapacity in IPR system that translates as absence of former mechanism of knowledge transfer through TTOs and patent filing. The second is the absence of an entrepreneurial system that helps with seed capital, identifying appropriateness of research for commercialization, and institutional regulations to set up firms. Knowledge transfer between university and industry is instead bridged by ‘entrepreneurial process’. This process can be of two types- research agenda led (technology push) or entrepreneurship led (business pull). The research agenda led model identifies the appropriate research fields of collaboration and forms strategic networks with partners for commercialisation. The entrepreneurship model forms incubators that encourage venturing and channelizing technological diffusion of various types through incubators and entrepreneurship cells. These models correspond roughly to technology pull and business push of ‘Roberts and Malone’ classification. The manner in which the Indian entrepreneurial process deviates from the systemic model is by accommodating existing structures of organisation like laws, policies, office and personnel to perform new functions or by initiating formal arrangements between actors in the absence of structures. By incremental
18
formalisation
of
regulations
in
technology
diffusion
and
entrepreneurship
development, India seems to be moving toward a more formal regulatory regime. References Anand, M., (2008), ‘Changing Landscape of Innovation Systems in India: Collaboration and Entrepreneurship in Emerging Technology’, Centre for Studies in Science Policy, Jawahar Lal Nehru University, New Delhi. Audretsch D.B. and Caiazza R. (2015), ‘Technology transfer and entrepreneurship: Crossnational analysis’, The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 41, No. 6, pp. 1.13. Basant, R. and Chandra, P. (2007), ‘University-Industry Links and Enterprise Creation in India: Some Strategic and Policy Issues’, in ed. Yusuf, S. and Nabeshima, K., How
Universities Promote Economic Growth, World Bank, Washington. Breznitz, S.M., O’Shea, R.P. and Allen, T.J. (2008), ‘University Commercialization Strategies in the Development of Regional Bioclusters’, The Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 129-142. Bulsara, H.P., Gandhi, S. and Porey, P.D. (2010), ‘A Comparative Study of Enterprising Tendency with the help of Select Cases in India’, International Journal of Trade,
Economics and Finance, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 392-399. Caiazza R. (2016), ‘A cross-national analysis of policies effecting innovation diffusion’, The
Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 41, No. 6, pp. 1-14. Caiazza R., Richardson A., Audretsch D.B. (2015), ‘Knowledge effects on competitiveness: From firms to regional advantage’, The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol, 40, No. 6, pp. 899-909. Chandra, N. and Krishna, V.V. (2010), ‘Academia-industry links: modes of knowledge transfer at the Indian Institutes of Technology’, International Journal of Technology
Transfer and Commercialisation, Vol. 9, No.1-2, pp. 53-76. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., de Velde, E.V. and Vohra, A. (2005), ‘Spinning out new ventures: a typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 183-216.
19
Degroof, J.J. and Roberts, E.B. (2004), ‘Overcoming Weak Entrepreneurial Infrastructures for Academic Spin-Off Ventures’, The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 29, No.3, pp. 327-352. Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., Santoni, S. and Sobrero, M. (2011), ‘Complements or substitutes? The role of universities and local context in supporting the creation of academic spinoffs’,
Research Policy, Vol. 40, pp. 1113-1127. Franco, A.M. and Filson, D. (2000), ‘Knowledge Diffusion through Employee Mobility’,
Claremont Colleges Working Papers in Economics, No. 2000-61. Gupta, A. (2008), ‘Entrepreneurial University: India’s Response’, Centre for Studies in Higher Education, University of California Berkeley Working paper Series, No. CHSE 2.08. Gupta, K.L. and Rathore, S. (2015), ‘Study of Incubation Centres & Its Role In Fostering Entrepreneurship In India With Special Reference To Centres Set Up In IIMs/IITs’, Paper presented at National Conference on Make in India – Emerging Trends in
Trade & Innovations for Effective Entrepreneurship, New Delhi, April 17-18. Klepper, S. and Sleeper, S. (2005), ‘Entry by Spin Offs’, Management Science, Vol. 51, No. 8, pp. 1291-1306. Kuriakose, F. and Iyer, D.K. (2016), ‘India of Ideas: Mapping the status of Higher Education in India and mobilising discourse towards a quest for Equity and Excellence’, Higher
Education for the Future, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 213-226. Metcalfe, J.F. (1995), ‘Technology systems and technology policy in an evolutionary framework’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 19. No. 1, pp. 25-46. Ministry of Human Resource Development (2014), ‘Education Statistics at a Glance’,
Government of India. Powers, J.B. and McDougall, P. (2005), ‘University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: a resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship’ Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 20, No.3, pp. 291-311. Roberts, E.B. and Malone, D.E. (1996), ‘Policies and Structures for Spinning Off New Companies from Research and Development Organizations’, R&D Management, Vol.26, No.1, pp. 17-48. Shane, S.A. (2004), Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spin Offs and Wealth Creation, New Horizons in Entrepreneurship, Virginia.
20
Stadler, I.M., Castrillo, D.P. and Veugelers, R. (2008), ‘Designing Contracts for University Spin-Offs’, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.185218. Van Burg, E., Romme, A.G.L., Gilsing, V.A. and Reymen, I.M.M.G (2012), “Creating University Spin Offs: A Science-Based Design Perspective”, The Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 25, No.2 pp. 114-128. Vang, J., Chaminade, C. and Lars, C. (2007), ‘Learning from the Bangalore Experience: The Role of Universities in an Emerging Regional Innovation System’, Lund
University Working Paper Series, No.2007/04. Wad, S.V. (2016), ‘Whither Professoriate? A Critical Inquiry into the Enactment of Faculty Appraisal Policy’, Unpublished Dissertation, National Law School of India University, Bangalore. WIPO (2007), ‘Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property and University-Industry Partnerships: The Experience of China, India, Japan, Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand’, World Intellectual Property Organisation.
