RAI Explainer: A Brief History of the International IP Regime

In a globalized economy, businesses rely on rules protecting intellectual property (IP) to safeguard their ideas and products against counterfeiting, piracy, and theft and to forge international partnerships. To this end, the United States and its partners have long invested in a system of multilateral treaties and international organizations to ensure a stable and effective IP system around the world. This system balances IP protections such as patents and copyrights, which are territorially constrained to the country in which they have been granted, with international norms and treaties that encourage cooperation and expand markets. 

In recent years, global events have placed increasing pressure on this global IP system. The COVID-19 pandemic revived long-standing tensions over the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of International Property Rights (TRIPS) as relating to deployment and access of novel vaccines and therapeutics. Amid the global health emergency, several World Trade Organization (WTO) members called for waiving TRIPS protections for COVID vaccines, diagnostics, and therapeutics, while other countries asserted this would undermine innovation and future pandemic preparedness. Though some waivers were ultimately granted to address COVID-19, the protections made possible by TRIPS remain contentious, with Colombia recently calling for a comprehensive review of the agreement. Meanwhile, U.S. lawmakers have proposed bills that could potentially undermine international IP treaties, and China continues to leverage its IP and judicial systems to prioritize domestic inventors in pursuit of its industrial policy and national security objectives.  

The scope and impact of these developments on international cooperation in research and innovation call for greater clarity about the international IP system. This timeline and glossary of key international IP treaties and organizations can help inform this debate. 

The Paris Convention (1883) 

The history of the international IP system stretches back over 500 years to the first patent laws. In 1474, the Venetian Senate established the first codified patent system, which was followed over the next several centuries by laws in England, the United States, France, and Italy, among others. While the growing number of national patent regimes allowed inventors to protect their inventions in more jurisdictions, receiving patent protection across these various jurisdictions became increasingly difficult due to their often-divergent requirements for protection. Further, applications had to be made roughly at the same time across all countries, else the publication of an application in one country would mean the invention was no longer considered “novel” by the other countries. While it was possible to receive patent protection in multiple countries, in practice it was quite difficult. 

As industrial production and international trade boomed throughout 1800s, this lingering issue came to a head. Concerned that competitors would steal their IP, U.S. inventors and manufacturers threatened to boycott the 1873 Vienna Exposition unless Austria updated its patent laws to provide better protection to foreign inventors. Although Austria ultimately did provide temporary protection for foreigners participating in the exhibition, the tension set IP protections on the international diplomatic agenda.  

Following several informal and formal conferences, 11 countries signed the first major international IP agreement in 1883: the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. The Paris Convention sets common rules for consistent international protection of patents, trademarks, and industrial designs, including the two key principles of national treatment and priority rights: 

• National Treatment: Ensures non-discrimination between foreign and local IP owners, meaning a country must grant the same benefits to foreign IP owners as it does to its own citizens. 
• Priority Rights: Allows applicants who file for protection in one member state to apply within 6-12 months (depending on the type of IP) in any other member state, retaining their original filing date.  

Although the premise of the Paris Convention is relatively basic compared to modern IP agreements, its principles remain the foundation of the modern international IP regime. Its core principles remain in effect to this day, with 180 contracting member states. 

Berne Convention (1886) 

The next notable international IP agreement came three years later and centered on copyright protection. The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works—spearheaded by author Victor Hugo and his Association Littéraire et Artistique Internationale—gives copyright holders the right to control and profit from their works internationally for a minimum term of 50 years after the author’s death. The convention currently includes 181 member states and covers a wide range of works, including written materials, music, visual art, and architecture. Key provisions include national treatment and automatic protection: 

• Automatic Protection: Protects authors’ works worldwide, without the need for registration. 

While the Berne Convention’s longevity is a testament to its enduring founding principles, it has not been substantially revised since 1971 and critics contend that it struggles to address the modern challenges of the digital and internet age. However, Berne members cannot easily create new copyright treaties, as the convention prohibits any treaties that conflict with its established principles. Change is further hindered by the right of member states to veto any substantive change. 

BIRPI (1893) 

Initially, the Paris and Berne Conventions were each governed by independent international bureaus. In 1893, however, these two bureaus merged to form the United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property (BIRPI, after the acronym of its French name). BIRPI, a small office of seven people, facilitated member state compliance with the two conventions and ensured the exchange of information, laying the groundwork for the modern IP system.  

Together, the Paris and Berne Conventions, as managed by BIRPI, form the basis of the international IP system. 

World Intellectual Property Organization (1967) 

After no major updates were made to the international IP regime during the turbulent first half of the 20th century, attention returned to IP protections in the 1960s as international business and global trade began to rapidly increase. Nations worldwide recognized that BIRPI, first established as an international bureau, was insufficient for the new era. Thus, in 1970 BIRPI was transformed into the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a member state-led, intergovernmental organization. Originally, WIPO’s mission was to manage international treaties and promote IP protection worldwide through cooperation among states. When WIPO became a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) in 1973, this mission expanded to also include promoting creative intellectual activity and facilitating technology transfer to developing countries. 

Today, WIPO works to support IP infrastructure development, capacity-building, and dispute arbitration with 193 member states and 250 non-governmental organizations and intergovernmental organizations with official observer status. Observers include, for example, the Business Software Alliance and Computer & Communications Industry Association, which represent large companies such as TSMC, Google, and Amazon. WIPO helps countries establish and modernize their national IP offices, for instance, by assisting in creating digital filing systems along with training and education programs. It also maintains tools like the PATENTSCOPE database, which allows users to search published patent applications from over 40 countries.  

Over the last several decades, WIPO has increasingly faced criticism for its stance on IP “flexibilities” such as exceptions and waivers. For instance, some view the support of compulsory licensing, a policy mechanism that allows governments to permit third parties to produce patented products without the patent holder’s consent, as a shift away from WIPO’s mission to promote IP protections which risks undermining the global IP system. 

Patent Cooperation Treaty (1970) 

Another change to the international IP regime spurred by globalization was the process of applying for patents in multiple countries. In the 1960s, international commerce and global patenting activity rapidly accelerated, though firms were required to file separate applications based on different laws and procedures in each jurisdiction where they wanted patent protection. Recognizing this growing burden on the time and resources of both firms and patent offices, in 1966 the Executive Committee of the Paris Convention requested a study on how to optimize this process.  

The result was the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), established in 1970 and entered into force in 1978. The PCT streamlines and unifies the international patent process by allowing inventors to initially file a single “international application” rather than filing separate applications in each jurisdiction. The international application, now the largest international IP filing system administered by WIPO, is recognized by 158 member countries.  

Given its efficiency, the PCT has become a popular option for businesses and inventors, with applicants from 127 countries filing over 272,000 PCT applications in 2023. To begin the process, applicants typically submit a national or regional patent application, and then have 12 months to submit an international application under the PCT. During this “international phase,” WIPO works with international authorities to provide an “international search report” assessing the application’s novelty and non-obviousness—two key criteria for patentability. After approximately 30 months, the applicant enters the “national phase,” where national and/or regional patent offices independently review the application and decide whether to grant a patent in accordance with local laws. 

While the PCT is largely recognized as an improvement upon the old system, some argue that the PCT does not make international patent filing easy enough, citing its continued high costs and long waiting period. Given the multi-phased process, obtaining patent protection through the PCT often takes longer than applying directly to patent offices—a lag that can be problematic for certain inventors. Other critics contend that the PCT has had a limited role in encouraging non-resident applicants to seek patent protection abroad, instead citing factors like market size and a country’s inventive capacity as more significant drivers of international patent applications.  

TRIPS (1995) 

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) came into force in 1995 after long negotiations as part of the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO). In essence, TRIPS ties IP standards to international trade: TRIPS sets minimum IP protection standards, including national treatment, that all 166 WTO members must adhere to and enforce domestically. Crucially, TRIPS also allows countries to issue compulsory licenses in certain situations, enabling third parties to use patented products or processes without the owner’s consent. 

TRIPS, which is more extensive and binding than past IP treaties, aims to create a unified, enforceable global IP standard that addresses piracy and counterfeiting while promoting innovation. Supporters contend that TRIPS fosters economic development by attracting foreign investment, facilitating technology transfer, and promoting knowledge exchange. Further, proponents point out that TRIPS takes economic disparities across countries into account through, for instance, exceptions for public health and extended implementation timelines for developing countries. “Least-developed countries,” as defined by the United Nations, are not required to fully adhere to the agreement until 2034. 

However, critics have argued since its inception that TRIPS disproportionately burdens developing countries. They contend that TRIPS primarily benefits advanced economies and large corporations, leading to a wealth transfer from technology-importing countries to technology-exporting countries, while diverting resources from essential needs like health and education. In 2001, spurred by debates on the subject, the Doha Declaration clarified the scope of TRIPS, emphasizing that the agreement does not and should not prevent member governments from acting to protect public health. Still, especially given debates over TRIPS waivers during COVID-19, many advocates have urged a more flexible, tiered approach to IP that better reflects the developmental needs of each country. 

Additional Treaties 

While the treaties and organizations highlighted above form the core of the international IP regime, several other treaties provide additional IP protections to the world’s inventors and creators. 

IP for Biological Organisms 

• UPOV Convention (1968): The International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV Convention) aims to provide and promote an effective system of plant variety protection to encourage innovation in the agrisciences. New plant varieties, for instance, can resist droughts and pesticides or provide additional nutrients. Nevertheless, some critics claim that IP protections on plant varieties limit farmers’ traditional practices of saving, exchanging, and replanting seeds that they have grown. As of December 2021, two intergovernmental organizations and 76 countries were members of UPOV.  
• Budapest Treaty (1977): The Budapest Treaty simplifies the patenting process for microorganisms by allowing a single deposit with an “international depositary authority” (IDA), instead of separate deposits in each country. The treaty has 89 member countries as of 2023, with 51 IDAs located across 26 countries. Some countries, such as India, continue to weigh signing the treaty due to concerns that the ambiguous definition of “microorganism” creates uncertainty regarding what can be patented. 
• GRATK Treaty (2024): The WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (GRATK Treaty), adopted in 2024, requires patent applicants, when relevant, to disclose the country of origin and/or local communities providing the sources and knowledge behind the patent. The treaty emerged from biotechnology and IP debates from the 1980s over concerns that biodiversity-rich developing countries, indigenous peoples, and local communities were not properly attributed or compensated. 

Trademark Treaties 

• Madrid Protocol (1891): Established in 1891, the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks procedurally allows trademark owners to protect their marks across multiple countries with a single application in one language and one set of fees. 
• Trademark Law Treaty (1994): The Trademark Law Treaty (TLT), signed in 1994, aims to simplify and harmonize the trademark registration procedures across different national and regional jurisdictions. By the 2000s, however, some of the Trademark Law Treaty’s terms had become outdated due to the rise of the Internet.  
• The Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademark (2006): The Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademark, established in 2006, expanded the scope of the TLT to include various types of marks (such as holograms and non-visible marks), updated rules for electronic communications, introduced required relief measures for missed deadlines, added guidelines for recording trademark licenses, and established a Trademark Assembly to manage future treaty changes. 

Industrial Designs 

• Hague Agreement (1999): The Hague Agreement Concerning the International Deposit of Industrial Designs, established in 1999, established an international system for registering industrial designs. The agreement allows applicants to protect up to 100 industrial designs in 96 contracting countries, though, like the PCT, applicants must meet each individual countries’ local requirements. 

Procedural Treaties 

• Patent Law Treaty (2000): The Patent Law Treaty (PLT), introduced in 2000, aims to harmonize and streamline formal procedures for national and regional patents and patent applications. There are 43 contracting parties to the treaty, which provides the maximum set of requirements that a patent office can mandate. 
   
  The PLT, though generally well-received, faces criticism for potentially lowering patent quality through harmonization as countries adopt more lenient formality requirements. Less stringent procedures make it easier for entities to secure a patent regardless of the invention's substantive quality. The proposed Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT) would extend beyond formal procedures to harmonize substantive requirements such as novelty, non-obviousness, industrial applicability, and utility. Different views reportedly emerged among developed and developing countries on what should be the objectives of substantive harmonization of patent laws, including whether it was an appropriate goal. SPLT negotiations have been placed on hold since 2008. 

The international IP system has taken on growing geopolitical significance in recent decades. Research and development efforts have spread rapidly around the world, and many countries are becoming increasingly interested in IP protection norms as they start to generate more IP themselves. Simultaneously, many emerging technologies depend on cross-border collaboration to mature and achieve scale. As innovation-based national competition heats up, IP will be a crucial component of the policy agenda, both domestically and abroad. 

Julie Heng is a research associate of Renewing American Innovation at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Arrizka Faida is a former research intern with Renewing American Innovation at CSIS. Christopher Borges is a program manager and associate fellow with the Economics Program and Scholl Chair for International Business at CSIS.