Long time coming, page-28

1)  There has been massive growth in China in local junk filings.  To my knowledge IPH does not have a mainland Chinese practice filing junk patents. Ella Chong was Hong Kong based, and that practice was trade mark focused.  You can count on one hand the number of PCT patents they filed each year, and this includes from Singapore and China.

Try searching on Patentscope, the PCT search engine. All pct patent applications are published at 18 months and list the filing attorney firms. Chinese PCT applications are required to include English translations of bibliographic data which helps when doing these searches. The link is below.

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/structuredSearch.jsf

You can also try searching the SIPO (Chinese patent office), which will give an indication of how many PCT patents Sprusons files into China.

Or have a read of https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/ip-report-2017
China is not even listed as a source of incoming national phase patent filings in Australia. More people file from Switzerland into Australia than from China!

2) I read 0.5% in a report.  Having looked at your WIPO figures I suspect the report writer did not know the difference between filings and grants.

The reports you cited has a key graph on p53. There were only 27,550 outward patents from China and elsewhere you will find that there were over 1 million Chinese patent filings last year.  27,550/1,000,000 =2.7%.  If 1 in 5 go to grant then its 0.5%.  

3) It is not about simulating innovation, it is about paying people to file patents in order to make China look better in the statistics.

4) I would not call the TTIP a paper tiger.  The code of conduct is a statutory instrument and IPH, XIP, QIP and others operate as an incorporated attorney.  If they dont comply they get deregistered.  If they get deregistered they are prohibited from filing patents.

The proposal compels the firms to tell their clients about the ownership structure which highlights potential conflicts.

Chinese walls is another issue.  The proposal has a blanket prohibition against double employment on contentious matters.  Trying to keep the bigger client is tricky if you need consent from both clients, the outgoing client has to agree to it.