2018 Canadian Intellectual Property Office Client Satisfaction Survey

From: Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada

Supplier name: Environics Research Group
Contract number: U8020-186395/001/CY
Contract value: $147,083.06
Award date: 2017-11-16
Delivery date: 2018-07-09
Registration number: POR 049-17

2018 Canadian Intellectual Property Office Client Satisfaction Survey – Final Report ( PDF , 2.75 MB )

Executive Summary

A. Background and Objectives

Innovation, Science and Economic Development's (ISED) 2016-2021 Service Management Strategy stipulates that ISED will establish "baseline client satisfaction measures and develop a proposal to measure horizontal client satisfaction" before the end of the 2017-18 fiscal year.

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) Client Satisfaction Survey was developed as a standardized measure of client satisfaction and conducted as a baseline in 2017-18 against which future waves can be compared to assess progress and trends over time. This project also included initial focus groups that informed the questions asked in the quantitative survey.

The objectives of the project were to:

Develop a series of baseline performance measurement metrics relating to customer satisfaction for CIPO;
Outline client priorities for CIPO's service delivery; and,
Collect data to support other business intelligence needs related to CIPO's clients.

B. Methodology

1. Qualitative Phase

Environics Research conducted a series of nine focus groups between December 6, 2017 and January 16, 2018. Seven focus groups were held in person (in Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver) and two were conducted by telephone conference call. The groups were segmented by client type, as follows:

Agents (3 groups: 2 patent/industrial design and 1 trademark) – Agents are Intellectual Property (IP) professionals who prosecute IP applications on behalf of their clients or the companies they work for (in-house counsel)
Unrepresented clients (2 groups: primarily trademark) – Clients who have completed the process to obtain IP without the help of an agent
Represented clients (4 groups: 3 in Canada and 1 in the United States, mixed patent and trademark) – Clients who used an agent to complete the process to obtain IP

Focus group participants were selected according to the Standards for the Conduct of Government of Canada Public Opinion Research – Qualitative Research (Standards for the Conduct of Government of Canada Public Opinion Research – Qualitative Research (PDF: 1.13MB)). More detailed information on qualitative methodology is provided in Appendix A of the full report, along with a copy of the research instruments (Appendices B and C).

Statement of limitations: Qualitative research provides insight into the range of opinions held within a population, rather than the weights of the opinions held, as would be measured in a quantitative study. The results of this type of research should be viewed as indicative rather than projectable to the population.

2. Quantitative Phase

The sample provided by CIPO included three client groups: agents, unrepresented clients and represented clients. The latter two groups of clients were included if, between June 1, 2016 and November 1, 2017, they were: granted/registered IP; their applications were refused/abandoned/ withdrawn; or if their application was still in progress. This survey represents an attempted census of eligible clients for whom email information is available.

The distribution of completed interviews was as follows:
	Patent	ID	TD	Total	Margin of Error*	% Actual**
Agents	113	84	236	433	± 4.7	38%
Unrepresented clients	88	20	476	584	± 4.0	51%
Represented clients	20	3	23	46	± 14.4	10%
Mixed clients***	21	6	46	73	± 11.5
Total	242	113	781	1136	± 2.9	100%
Margin of Error*	± 6.3	± 9.2	± 3.5	n/a

*Margins of sampling error shown are at the 95% confidence level

**Represents the actual proportion of emails in the database provided by CIPO

*** Mixed clients are those who indicated that they sometimes used an agent and sometimes interacted with CIPO on their own behalf in the previous 18 months.

When clients indicated experience with more than one line of business in the past 18 months, the survey programming selected a line of business for respondents to respond about, prioritizing those with fewer sample records (Industrial Design and Patent) to ensure these are sufficiently represented in the data. The data were statistically weighted to the proportions of agents, unrepresented and represented clients having e-mails in the original sample file.

A more detailed description of the quantitative methodology is presented in Appendix A, and the questionnaire is included as Appendix D.

C. Contract Value

The cost of this research was $147,083.06 (HST included).

D. Report

This report begins with an executive summary outlining key findings and conclusions, followed by a detailed analysis of the survey data and a detailed analysis of the focus group. Provided under separate cover is a detailed set of "banner tables" presenting the results for all quantitative survey questions by population segments as defined by client group, IP type, region and other subgroups. These tables are referenced by the survey question in the detailed analysis.

In this report, quantitative results are expressed as percentages unless otherwise noted. Results may not add to 100% due to rounding or multiple responses. Net results cited in the text may not exactly match individual results shown in the tables due to rounding.

E. Use of Findings of the Research

The qualitative research conducted as part of this project was used to develop and finalize the questionnaire content. The CIPO Client Satisfaction Survey is intended to be a standardized measure of client satisfaction, used to establish a baseline in 2017-18 and subsequently updated every three years to assess progress and trends over time.

F. Key Findings – Quantitative Phase

The findings of the quantitative survey reveal moderate satisfaction with CIPO, with substantial room for improvement. Half of clients (51%) are satisfied overall with the service it provides, compared to two in ten (22%) who are neutral and one-quarter (27%) who are dissatisfied. This pattern in client satisfaction (roughly half satisfied, the remainder almost evenly divided between neutral and negative opinions) is remarkably similar across the service aspects measured, including ease of access to service and the time to receive their IP registration or grant.

Where satisfaction is slightly higher is with services related to filing (57% overall among those who filed an application in the past 18 months); satisfaction is slightly lower for services related to examination (48%) and the quality of office actions (46%).
CIPO receives its highest scores for providing services in the clients' official language of choice (87% agree); for an easy to use electronic payment process (73%); and, for the professionalism of its staff (67%), the latter of which was also a key strength raised in the focus groups.
Perhaps not surprisingly, service satisfaction is linked to success at achieving registered/granted IP. Overall satisfaction and satisfaction with specific service aspects is generally higher among those who have received a registration/grant in the past 18 months, and lower among those whose IP was abandoned or refused.

Overall satisfaction with CIPO service is broadly consistent by client type, despite the varying degrees of interaction and experience that agents, unrepresented and represented clients have with CIPO.

Where differences do exist is with respect to filing and examination services. Satisfaction with service received during filing is higher among agents (64%, vs. 55% of unrepresented clients). Notably, agents give higher ratings for the efficiency of the process and that forms are easy to complete than about CIPO's databases being easy to use and giving them the information they need – while the opposite is true for unrepresented clients.
In turn, satisfaction with service received during examination is lower among agents (44%, vs. 50% for unrepresented clients). Compared to unrepresented clients, agents give higher ratings for ease of understanding office actions and verbal discussions with examiners, and lower ratings for the consistency of decisions between examiners and the timeliness of first office actions.
Represented clients are distinguished by a greater tendency to use the "neutral" or "no opinion" categories to describe their views of CIPO, reflecting the fact that they interact primarily with their agent rather than CIPO itself. Otherwise, the relative proportion of positive versus negative views is similar to other client types (i.e., they are no more likely than others to be satisfied or dissatisfied with CIPO's service).

Overall client satisfaction is higher for industrial design (ID) services (68%) than for patent (55%) or trademark (49%) services.

This cannot be attributed to the higher proportion of agents who handle ID because of its complexity (48% of those responding about ID are agents, vs. 22% for patents and 12% for trademarks) – since agents are no more likely than other to report overall satisfaction with CIPO services. Instead, the data points to significantly higher satisfaction with the time to receive a registered ID (67%, vs. 54% for a granted patent and 46% for a registered trademark).
While overall satisfaction is statistically similar for patent and trademark services, views about trademarks are distinguished by higher levels of dissatisfaction. Clients who received trademark services are more likely to be dissatisfied with filing, examination, the quality of office actions and the time to receive to a registered trademark.

Beyond the impact of client type and line of business, client satisfaction tends to be higher among represented and unrepresented clients with more IP experience (as measured by a larger number of applications in the past 18 months) and lower among agents who work with international clients requiring Canadian IP services (compared to agents who work only with domestic clients). Client satisfaction (both overall and with specific aspects of CIPO's services) does not vary in a meaningful way by gender, client location, industry, or company size.

Given the variation in ratings of CIPO's service aspects, overall and by key subgroups, a more in-depth analysis was conducted to determine which service aspects are the key "drivers" or factors influencing clients' overall satisfaction with CIPO service.

Clients are most likely to have a favourable impression if they are satisfied with services provided during filing and examination and with the timeliness of the process. The views of represented and unrepresented clients are also influenced by perceptions that CIPO staff "go the extra mile" to fulfill their needs.
A performance analysis indicates that CIPO receives relatively weaker ratings for the following service aspects: Developing and adjusting filing and examination processes/services with user needs in mind; timeliness, both of office actions and time from initial filing to registered/granted IP; consistency of decisions between examiners (this is a particularly weak perception among agents); and among represented and unrepresented clients, perceptions that CIPO staff go the extra mile. Thus, the extent to which CIPO can address these issues/concerns likely provides the greatest opportunity to improve overall client satisfaction with its services.

CIPO has recently developed a program to raise awareness of and educate Canadians about IP. These services included a range of informational material about IP, seminars and events, as well as access to CIPO staff who can help Canadians better understand the value of IP and discuss their IP strategy. At this early stage in the program, one in five unrepresented and represented clients say they are aware of these services. However, there is widespread agreement (69%) that these types of services are useful to businesses/individuals.

G. Key Findings – Qualitative Phase

The focus groups revealed two main orientations towards CIPO's service, in terms of their expectations and experience:

On one hand are the experts, which includes agents and certain represented clients. This audience wants service customized to their specific needs as high-volume, very experienced users. Service improvements should focus on: enhancing the functionality of the IP search databases (particularly the trademark database); improving the consistency of examination across examiners and time periods, and in relation to laws/regulations; and, improving the consistency of the IP process between the three lines of business.
On the other hand are the laypersons, which mainly includes unrepresented clients and less experienced represented clients. This audience likes the automated, self-service online IP process, but often encounters problems without an advanced level of knowledge about IP. Their priority areas for service improvement are more clarity around information requirements and adequate support that backs up their ability to submit a successful IP application.

There were also common themes related to client service that were raised across client types:

The most consistent praise was for CIPO staff, who were consistently described as professional, courteous and good to work with. Agents were most likely to see further room for improvement, in terms of accessibility (i.e., desire for a direct contact over the general call centre) and knowledge, both among examiners and other support staff (the latter with respect to how their role fits within the larger IP process and why it is important).
Areas for improvement that were consistently raised include: improving CIPO's accuracy and ability to easily and quickly correct mistakes; improving the transparency of where an application is in process; and, developing its online capabilities (e.g., increasing use of email correspondence, putting all documents related to a file online).

One of the goals of the focus groups was to determine the extent to which represented clients can comment on CIPO's service, since contact is typically moderated by an agent. However, the research revealed that a sufficient number expressed the desire to "go it alone" and that some try to do so before encountering problems. Because CIPO's mandate includes helping clients navigate the IP process, represented clients were included in the quantitative survey, together with agents and unrepresented clients.

H. Political Neutrality Statement and Contact Information

I hereby certify as a Vice President of Environics Research Group that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada and Procedures for Planning and Contracting Public Opinion Research. Specifically, the deliverables do not contain any reference to electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate, or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leader.

Sarah Roberton
Vice President, Corporate and Public Affairs
Environics Research
sarah.roberton@environics.ca / 613.699.6884

I Introduction

A. Background

The Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) 2016-2021 Service Management Strategy established specific year 1 & 2 initiatives, including a plan to establish and capture a baseline measure of client satisfaction horizontally across ISED sectors. Specifically, the Service Management Strategy stipulates ISED will establish "baseline client satisfaction measures and develop a proposal to measure horizontal client satisfaction."

The CIPO Client Satisfaction Survey was designed to be a standardized measure of client satisfaction, used to establish a baseline in 2017-18 and subsequently updated every three years to assess progress and trends over time.

The survey incorporated a common set of questions that could be used across ISED to ensure a consistent approach to client satisfaction measurement. This project also included initial focus groups to explore service elements that clients value, as well as priorities for future initiatives. This information was used to develop and finalize the questionnaire content.

B. Research Objectives

CIPO is seeking to better understand clients' needs, prioritize its actions, and demonstrate the impact of its service initiatives and programs. Demonstrating the impact of its programs and services is also essential as new reporting requirements are introduced at the GoC level. For example, new Management Accountability Framework requirements emphasize not only the systematic collection of client satisfaction information, but also require departments to demonstrate how service feedback is used to adjust and improve client service programs. Equally, the Services Fees Act and TBS Policy on Service emphasizes requirements for consulting on service standards as well as the importance of confirming clients level of satisfaction with current levels of service through client feedback and client satisfaction measurement.

The specific objectives of this project were to:

Develop a series of baseline performance measurement metrics relating to customer satisfaction for CIPO;
Outline client priorities for CIPO's service delivery; and,
Collect data to support other business intelligence needs related to CIPO's clients.

The research involved an initial qualitative research phase (focus groups), followed by a quantitative (online) survey. The target audience was clients with at least one official transaction with CIPO's main lines of business (Patents, Trademarks and Industrial Designs) over the past 18 months. Client sample was provided by CIPO. This report begins with an executive summary outlining key findings and conclusions, followed by detailed analysis of the qualitative and quantitative results. A detailed set of "banner tables" is provided under separate cover; this presents results for all survey questions by segments such as client type and line of business.

In this report, quantitative results are expressed as percentages unless otherwise noted. Results may not add to 100% due to rounding or multiple responses. Net results cited in the text may not exactly match individual results shown in the charts due to rounding.

II Detailed Findings – Quantitative Phase

A. Overall and Channel use Satisfaction

1. Overall satisfaction with CIPO's service

Half of clients are satisfied with the service CIPO provided in the past 18 months.

Clients from CIPO's three main clients groups (agents, unrepresented, and represented clients) were asked about their overall satisfaction with CIPO services related to Intellectual Property (IP), that is, patents, trademarks or industrial designs (depending on the line of business used in the past 18 months). Overall, clients are almost twice as likely to be satisfied as dissatisfied. Just over half (51%) express some level of satisfaction (including 15 percent who are very satisfied), while one-quarter (27%) are dissatisfied (12% very dissatisfied). Two in ten are neutral.

Overall level of satisfaction with CIPO service
Respondent type/IP type	Very satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very dissatisfied
Total (n=1,136)	15%	36%	22%	15%	12%
Agents (n=433)	8%	45%	22%	19%	5%
Unrepresented clients (n=584)	17%	35%	19%	15%	14%
Represented clients (n=46)	9%	37%	43%	7%	4%
Mixed clients (n=73)	21%	26%	32%	11%	11%
Trademark (n=781)	15%	34%	21%	16%	13%
Patent (n=242)	15%	40%	23%	13%	9%
Industrial design (n=113)	19%	49%	18%	8%	5%

Q.4 Overall, how satisfied are you with the service provided to you by CIPO related to?

Overall satisfaction (very satisfied and satisfied) is higher among those who received service for an industrial design (68%), compared to patents (55%) or trademarks (49%).

While overall satisfaction is similar by client type, agents are less likely than other clients to be very satisfied, and more likely to just be satisfied. It is also notable that represented clients are the most likely to be neutral (43%), perhaps reflecting a lack of personal experience with CIPO's service. Dissatisfaction is most common among agents (24%) and unrepresented clients (29%), with the latter group most likely to express strong dissatisfaction (14%).

Overall satisfaction is also higher among those who successfully received an IP grant or registration (62%, vs. 40% who did not), and those who did not report an abandonment or refusal (57%, vs. 36% who did). Among represented and unrepresented clients, satisfaction increases as the number of applications increases (from 47% with one, up to 64% with three or more). Satisfaction is also higher among the minority of agents who work only with Canadian clients (67%, vs. 48% who have worked with international clients requiring Canadian IP services).

2. Use of channels

The CIPO website via a desktop computer is the most widely used service channel. The small number using the in-person channel are mainly satisfied. Beyond this, telephone is the channel with the highest level of satisfaction.

Channels used in past 18 months

Clients were shown a list of channels and asked which they had used to access CIPO services in the past 18 months (multiple responses were allowed). By far the most widely used channel is the CIPO website via desktop (86%); eleven percent have also used the CIPO website via mobile device. After the website, the next most popular channel is telephone (53%), followed by email (39%) and regular mail (29%). Relatively few have used other channels (fax, in-person visits).

Channels used to access CIPO products and services in past 18 months
Channel	Total (n=1,136)	Client group
Channel	Total (n=1,136)	Agents (n=433)	Unrepre-sented clients (n=584)	Repre-sented clients (n=46)	Mixed clients (n=73)*
CIPO website – via desktop	86%	93%	86%	70%	86%
Telephone	53%	68%	52%	24%	48%
Email	39%	38%	39%	28%	48%
Regular mail	29%	41%	28%	11%	21%
Fax	13%	39%	8%	2%	10%
CIPO website – via mobile device	11%	18%	9%	15%	10%
In-person visit	3%	5%	3%		1%
None of the above	1%	1%	<1%	22%	3%

Q5 Which of the following channels have you used to access CIPO's products and services related to [IP TYPE: patents / trademarks / industrial designs] in the past 18 months? Select all that apply

* Mixed clients are those who indicated that they sometimes used an agent and sometimes interacted with CIPO on their own behalf in the previous 18 months

Website via desktop is the most used channel across client subgroups. Reported use of each of these channels (except email and in-person) is most widespread among agents and least so among represented clients. There is little differentiation in channel use by line of business.

Reported use of the telephone service channel (58% vs 49% of men) and fax (18% vs 10% of men) are higher among female clients, while use of email is higher among male clients (41% vs. 33% of women).

Satisfaction with channels

Users of each channel were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with it. Majorities of channel users are satisfied with telephone (65%), in-person visits (64%), email (59%) and website via desktop (59%). About half of users are satisfied with fax (50%), regular mail (49%) and website via mobile device (48%). Roughly two in ten in each case are dissatisfied, although this level is inflated for regular mail (27% dissatisfied); the remainder are neutral.

Overall level of satisfaction with CIPO service by channel – among channel users
Users of channels	Very satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very dissatisfied
In-person visits (n=37)	30%	34%	18%	9%	9%
Telephone (n=644)	29%	36%	16%	9%	9%
Email (n=439)	19%	40%	22%	10%	10%
Website – via desktop (n=999)	16%	43%	21%	12%	7%
Fax (n=222)	13%	37%	29%	11%	10%
Regular mail (n=359)	11%	38%	24%	16%	11%
Website – via mobile device (n=146)	10%	38%	31%	14%	7%

Q6 How satisfied are you with the service CIPO provided (by/on)…?

Overall level of satisfaction with CIPO service – by client group and IP type
Channel – number of users and net satisfied (% very + somewhat)	Total	Client group				IP type
	Total	Agents	Unrepresented clients	Repre-sented clients	Mixed clients	Trade-mark	Patent	ID
Website via desktop - # of users	999	403	501	32	63	686	207	106
Net satisfied – website via desktop	60%	59%	59%	66%	60%	59%	63%	60%
Telephone–# of users	644	294	304	11*	35	442	150	52
Net satisfied – telephone	66%	62%	67%	BTS	63%	63%	71%	80%
Email–# of users	439	165	226	13*	35	309	101	29*
Net satisfied - email	59%	58%	59%	BTS	57%	57%	65%	BTS
Regular mail - # of users	359	176	163	5*	15*	227	91	41
Net satisfied – regular mail	49%	61%	47%	BTS	BTS	45%	59%	60%

Q6 How satisfied are you with the service CIPO provided (by/on)…?
* BTS indicates base is too small to report

Satisfaction with service by regular mail or fax is higher among agents (61% and 58%, respectively), and lower among unrepresented clients (47% and 41%), who in turn are more likely than others to say they are dissatisfied with these two channels.

While agents and unrepresented clients are similarly likely to be satisfied with service received by telephone and website via desktop, strong satisfaction ("very satisfied" as opposed to "satisfied") is higher among the latter group.

Satisfaction with several of these channels is linked to overall satisfaction with CIPO services in general. Satisfaction with the website via desktop increases as the number of applications filed increases.

B. Application Process

1. If Applied for IP in Past 18 Months

Over eight in ten agents and seven in ten represented and unrepresented clients submitted an IP application in the past 18 months.

As the survey covered clients in various stages of the IP process, questions were asked to determine who had submitted an IP application in the past 18 months (agents were asked if they had filed applications on behalf of clients in that time period). Seven in ten represented and unrepresented clients, and over eight in ten agents, submitted applications in that time frame.

If submitted IP application [Patent/TM/ID) to CIPO in past 18 months - represented and unrepresented clients (n=703)
	Portion
Yes	70%
No	23%
Note sure	7%

Q7 REP/UNREP (n=703): In the past 18 months, did you submit an IP application for [IP TYPE: a patent(s) / a trademark(s) / an industrial design(s)] to CIPO?

Represented clients are somewhat less likely to have submitted an application in this time period (52% vs. 71% of unrepresented and 73% of mixed clients). Represented and unrepresented clients who are responding about a trademark are more likely to have submitted an application in the past 18 months (74%) than are those reporting about a patent (53%), which may be because the IP process is longer for patents than for trademarks.

Over eight in ten agents have submitted an application for IP on behalf of a client in the past 18 months, and the rate is statistically similar by type of IP (86% trademark, 79% patent and 83% for industrial design). Having submitted an application is higher among agents with international clients (90% vs. 66% without) and increases with length of experience in the IP field (from 73% with 10 or fewer years, up to 90% with 21 years or more).

If submitted IP application [Patent/TM/ID) to CIPO in past 18 months - agents (n=433)
	Portion
Yes	84%
No	16%
Not sure	0%

Q7 AGENT (n=433): In the past 18 months, did you submit an IP application for [IP TYPE: a patent(s) / a trademark(s) / an industrial design(s)] on behalf of a client?

2. Overall Satisfaction with Filing Process Services

More than half who applied are satisfied with CIPO's service during the filing process.

Clients who had filed an application in the past 18 months (n=852) were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with the services CIPO provided during the filing process. More than half (57%) express some level of satisfaction (15% very satisfied); around two in ten are neutral, and one-quarter are dissatisfied (11% very dissatisfied).

Overall level of satisfaction with CIPO's service during IP application among those who submitted an application in the past 18 months
Respondent type/IP type	Very satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very dissatisfied
Total (n=852)	15%	42%	18%	14%	11%
Agents (n=362)	12%	52%	18%	14%	5%
Unrepresented clients (n=413)	16%	39%	17%	15%	12%
Mixed clients (n=53)	8%	42%	23%	11%	17%
Trademark (n=606)	14%	41%	17%	15%	12%
Patent (n=159)	18%	41%	23%	12%	6%
Industrial design (n=87)	14%	47%	23%	8%	8%

Q8 Overall, how satisfied are you with the service provided to you by CIPO during the filing process?

SUBGROUP: Submitted an IP application in past 18 months (n=852)
*NOTE: The base of represented clients is too small to report (n=24)

Satisfaction is higher among agents (64%) than among unrepresented clients (55%) and mixed clients (50%), who in turn are more likely to express dissatisfaction (27% and 28%, respectively).

Satisfaction is similar by type of IP, although dissatisfaction is higher among those reporting on a trademark (27%). It is unclear whether this is due to differences in the application process for trademarks, or because the other types of IP are more linked to agents who presumably have more experience with the process.

Finally, satisfaction with the application process is closely correlated to overall satisfaction with CIPO.

3. Agreement with Statements About Filing Process Services

Among clients who submitted an IP application in the past 18 months, agreement is highest that CIPO's searchable databases are easy to use and contain needed information.

Those with recent application experience were shown a series of statements with respect to filing services and asked to indicate their level of agreement with each. Overall agreement (strongly agree and agree) is highest that CIPO's searchable database contained the information needed (67%) and was easy to use (64%). Agreement is somewhat lower, but close to six in ten, that the filing process was efficient (59%), that applications forms were easy to complete (57%), and that they were informed of everything they needed to do to apply for intellectual property (57%). Agreement is lowest that "the filing process was designed with your needs in mind" (45%).

Level of agreement with statements about CIPO service during IP application among those who submitted an application in the past 18 months
	Strongly agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Cannot say
Searchable database was easy to use	27%	37%	17%	10%	7%	3%
Searchable database contained the information you needed	25%	42%	17%	8%	5%	3%
The application forms were easy to complete	18%	39%	17%	15%	8%	3%
The process of filing an application was efficient	19%	40%	16%	12%	11%	3%
You were informed of everything you had to do to apply for intellectual property protection	15%	42%	17%	11%	10%	4%
The filing process was designed with your needs in mind	14%	31%	24%	16%	11%	3%

Q9 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the service provided by CIPO during the filing process?
Subgroup: Submitted an IP application in past 18 months (n=852)

Level of agreement with statements about CIPO service during IP application – by client group and IP type
Overall agreement (strongly agree + agree) with statements about filing process service	Client group*			IP type
	Agents (n=362)	Unrepresented clients (n=413)	Mixed clients (n=53)	Trade-mark (n=606)	Patent (n=159)	ID (n=87)
CIPO's database contained the information you needed.	59%	70%	53%	69%	57%	57%
CIPO's database was easy to use	56%	67%	49%	65%	59%	55%
The process of filing an application was efficient	66%	59%	47%	59%	56%	60%
The application forms were easy to complete	71%	55%	55%	56%	57%	67%
You were informed of everything you had to do to apply for intellectual property protection	58%	58%	55%	57%	58%	61%
The filing process was designed with your needs in mind	48%	45%	43%	46%	42%	46%

Q9 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the service provided by CIPO during the filing process?
*Note: The base of represented clients is too small to report (n=24)

Subgroup: Submitted an IP application in past 18 months (n=852)

Unrepresented clients are most likely to agree that CIPO's database contained the information they needed (70%) and was easy to use (67%). In turn, the more experienced agents are more apt to agree that the process of filing was efficient and that the application forms were easy to complete.

Mixed clients are less likely than other client types to agree that the filing process was efficient or that the databases were easy to use and contained the necessary information; although it cannot be determined conclusively, this may have contributed to their decision to choose agent representation at some point in their IP journey.

Agreement that the searchable database contains needed information is highest among those who reported on a trademark (69%), contrary to what we heard during the focus groups. This likely reflects the fact that a higher proportion of those reporting on trademarks are unrepresented clients (who express greater satisfaction with CIPO's databases as a whole).

Agreement with most statements is higher among represented and unrepresented clients who sub-mitted three or more applications, compared to those submitting one or two applications. Levels of agreement are generally similar by agents' length of experience, but agents with international clients are less likely to agree that CIPO's databases are easy to use (52%, vs. 75% without international clients) and that the filing process is designed with clients in mind (44% vs. 60%).

C. Examination

1. Overall Satisfaction with Examination Process Service

Just under half are satisfied with CIPO's examination services; the balance is evenly split between neutral opinions and dissatisfaction.

All clients were asked about how satisfied they were with the service provided by CIPO during the process of examining their IP application. Close to half (48%) report being satisfied to some extent (15% very satisfied), while just over one-quarter (27%) are dissatisfied (14% very dissatisfied). Two in ten are neutral, and another five percent cannot say.

Overall level of satisfaction with CIPO's service during the examination process
Respondent type/IP type	Very satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very dissatisfied	Cannot say
Total (n=1,136)	15%	33%	19%	13%	14%	5%
Agents (n=433)	9%	35%	19%	21%	11%	5%
Unrepresented clients (n=584)	17%	33%	18%	12%	16%	4%
Represented clients (n=46)	9%	28%	28%	13%	4%	17%
Mixed clients (n=73)	11%	27%	26%	11%	14%	11%
Trademark (n=781)	14%	33%	19%	14%	16%	4%
Patent (n=242)	20%	29%	20%	11%	11%	10%
Industrial design (n=113)	15%	39%	18%	13%	7%	9%

Q10 The next few questions are about the examination of IP applications. Overall, how satisfied are you with the service provided to you by CIPO during the process of examining an application for [IP TYPE: a patent / a trademark / an industrial design]?

Reported satisfaction with CIPO's examination services is highest among unrepresented clients (50%) and lowest among represented clients (37%), among whom close to half are neutral or cannot say, reflecting their lack of direct experience with the process. Dissatisfaction with examination is the minority opinion, but skews higher among agents.

Overall satisfaction is generally similar by IP type, with those reporting on a trademark being somewhat more likely to be dissatisfied (30%, vs. 22% patent and 20% ID).

Satisfaction with examination is higher in client organizations with fewer than 100 employees (50%) and lower among those working for the largest entities (32% with 500 or more employees). It does not vary by years of agent experience, but is higher among agents who work only with domestic IP clients (57%, vs. 41% who also have international clients). As with other measures, satisfaction with examination services is linked to being satisfied with CIPO overall, to having received a registration or grant, and to not having abandoned or refused IP.

2. Agreement with Statement About Examination Process Service

Clients are most likely to agree that examiners are knowledgeable, and that both examiners and their reports are easy to understand; they are least likely to agree that decisions are consistent across examiners.

Clients were asked their level of agreement with a series of statements about examiners and the examination process. Just under half agree to some extent that examiners were knowledgeable (47%), that their written reports are easy to understand (47%), and that they were easy to understand when spoken to directly (45%). Just under four in ten agree that examiners were easy to reach (37%). One-third or fewer agree with two other statements: that the examination process was designed with their need in mind, and that decisions are consistent between examiners.

Level of agreement with statements about CIPO service during examination
	Strongly agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Cannot say
Examiners were knowledgeable	18%	29%	21%	6%	5%	21%
When you spoke to an examiner(s), they were easy to understand	18%	27%	16%	6%	6%	28%
The examiners' report(s) (i.e. office actions) is/are easy to understand	15%	32%	20%	13%	10%	11%
Examiners were easy to reach	13%	24%	18%	13%	9%	23%
The examination process was designed with your needs in mind	11%	22%	24%	16%	12%	15%
Decisions are consistent from one examiner to the next	9%	18%	21%	11%	9%	32%

Q11 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the service provided by CIPO during examination?

Level of agreement with statements about CIPO service during examination – by client group and IP type
Net agreement (strongly and agree) with statements about CIPO service during examination	Client group				IP type
	Agents (n=433)	Unrepre-sented clients (n=584)	Repre-sented clients (n=46)	Mixed clients (n=73)	Trade-mark (n=781)	Patent (n=242)	ID (n=113)
Examiners were knowledgeable	50%	48%	17%	41%	45%	51%	54%
The examiners' report(s)(i.e. office actions) is/are easy to understand	52%	46%	39%	36%	46%	46%	47%
When you spoke to an examiner(s), they were easy to understand	57%	46%	20%	25%	45%	45%	45%
Examiners were easy to reach	36%	39%	17%	32%	36%	42%	35%
The examination process was designed with your needs in mind	28%	36%	22%	21%	33%	33%	29%
Decisions are consistent from one examiner to the next	21%	30%	17%	16%	27%	28%	29%

Q11 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the service provided by CIPO during examination?

Agreement that examiners and their written reports are easy to understand is higher among agents, while agreement that the examination process was designed with their needs in mind and that decisions are consistent is higher among unrepresented clients. As with other measures, agreement is lower among represented clients because they are the most likely to hold neutral or no opinions.

Agreement with these statements is statistically similar by type of IP.

Agreement with most statements is also higher among represented and unrepresented clients with a higher volume of IP applications in the past 18 months. In common with other measures, agreement with these statements about examination services is linked to being satisfied with CIPO overall, to having received a registration or grant, and to not having abandoned or refused IP.

3. Overall Satisfaction with Written Reports

Just under half are satisfied with the quality of office actions.

Clients were asked about their level of satisfaction with the quality of examiners' written reports (i.e. office actions). Just under half (46%) are satisfied (14% very satisfied) while just under one-quarter (23%) are dissatisfied (10% very dissatisfied); two in ten are neutral and one in ten cannot say.

Overall level of satisfaction with quality of examiners' written report(s)
Respondent type/IP type	Very satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very dissatisfied	Cannot say
Total (n=1,136)	14%	32%	21%	13%	10%	10%
Agents (n=433)	8%	37%	22%	22%	6%	6%
Unrepresented clients (n=584)	17%	31%	18%	12%	12%	9%
Represented clients (n=46)	2%	26%	39%	4%	2%	26%
Mixed clients (n=73)	5%	26%	34%	10%	11%	14%
Trademark (n=781)	14%	32%	21%	13%	12%	8%
Patent (n=242)	16%	27%	22%	14%	5%	16%
Industrial design (n=113)	15%	39%	18%	8%	5%	16%

Q12 Overall, how satisfied are you with the quality of examiners' written report (s) (i.e. office actions)?

Satisfaction with the quality of office actions is highest among unrepresented clients (48%) and lowest among represented clients (28%) who, as before, are the most likely to be neutral or unable to say (two-thirds fall into those two categories) – indicating they may know the outcome but not the details of examination. Overall satisfaction is statistically similar by IP type, although dissatisfaction is somewhat higher among those reporting on a trademark.

Satisfaction with examiners' written reports, as with other measures, is correlated to overall satisfaction with CIPO, and linked to having successfully registered IP and to not having an abandoned or refused application. There is no notable difference in overall satisfaction by number of years of agent experience in IP, or among represented and unrepresented clients, by number of IP applications filed in the past 18 months.

4. Opinions About Timeliness of Office Actions

Overall, close to half agree office actions are received in a reasonable amount of time, compared to three in ten who disagree. However, agents are equally likely to disagree as agree about the timeliness of first office actions.

CIPO clients were asked about the timeliness of first and subsequent office actions. Half (52%) agree to some extent that first office actions are received within a reasonable amount of time, and just under half (47%) agree this is the case for subsequent office actions. Disagreement sits at three in ten in both cases; the balance are neutral or do not have an opinion.

Opinions about timeliness of office actions
	Strongly agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Cannot say
In general first office actions are received within a reasonable amount of time	15%	37%	16%	16%	13%	4%
You received subsequent office actions within a reasonable amount of time	14%	33%	17%	17%	12%	7%

Q13 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? (Base: total sample, n=1136)

Level of agreement with statements about office actions by client group and IP type
Net agreement (strongly agree and agree) with statements about office actions	Client group				IP type
	Agents (n=433)	Unrepre-sented clients (n=584)	Repre-sented clients (n=46)	Mixed clients (n=73)	Trade-mark (n=781)	Patent (n=242)	ID (n=113)
In general first office actions are received within a reasonable amount of time	38%	56%	43%	42%	51%	55%	53%
You received subsequent office actions within a reasonable amount of time	46%	48%	46%	40%	44%	55%	59%

Q13 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Agents are about equally likely to disagree (40%) as agree (38%) that first office actions are received in a timely manner, but their agreement about the timeliness of subsequent office actions is on par with represented and unrepresented clients. Agreement about the timeliness of first office actions is similar by IP type, but those reporting on trademarks are less likely than others to agree subsequent actions are timely.

Among agents, disagreement about the timeliness of first office actions is higher among those who have international IP clients (44%, vs. 27% who do not); views about timeliness of subsequent office actions are similar between the two groups.

In general, agreement about the timeliness of office actions is higher among clients who are satisfied with CIPO services overall and those who have received a registration or grant. Agreement about the timeliness of subsequent office actions is lower among those with abandoned or refused IP (there is no significant variation in opinion for first office actions).

5. Accelerated Examination Services

Four in ten agents and one in ten unrepresented clients have used CIPO's accelerated examination services for patent or ID; two-thirds of users are satisfied with this service.

a) Use of accelerated examination service

Those who were reporting on their experience with a patent or industrial design (n=355) were asked if they used CIPO's premium accelerated examination service in the past 18 months. Two in ten clients have overall, but this skews to agents (39%) compared to unrepresented clients (11%). Use of the service is statistically similar between the two IP types.

Use of accelerated examination service for patent or ID
Respondent type/IP type	Yes	No	Not sure
Total (n=355)	21%	72%	7%
Agents (n=197)	39%	57%	4%
Unrepresented clients (n=108)	11%	81%	7%
Patent (n=242)	23%	70%	8%
Industrial design (n=113)	18%	78%	4%

Q14 In the past 18 months, did you use CIPO's accelerated examination service (a premium service used to fast-track the examination)?
Subgroup: Patent/ID (n=355)
*The bases of represented (n=23) and mixed (n=27) clients are too small to report

Use of the accelerated service is higher among those who report receiving a registration or grant (35% vs 10%) but is similar regardless if someone had an abandonment or refusal. Use is higher among agents with international IP clients (42% with vs. 19% without) and among client organizations with 100 or more employees (36%, vs. 7% of those who are self-employed). Use of this service is not linked to overall satisfaction with CIPO services.

b) Overall satisfaction with accelerated examination service

Those who used the accelerated examination service (n=101) were asked to rate their overall level of satisfaction with it. Two-thirds express satisfaction (two in ten very satisfied). Two in ten are neutral, and 13 percent are dissatisfied.

Satisfaction with CIPO's accelerated examination service for patent or ID - among users of the service
	Portion
Very satisfied	20%
Satisfied	45%
Neutral	21%
Dissatisfied	12%
Very dissatified	1%

Q15 Overall, how satisfied are you with CIPO's accelerated examination service?
Subgroup: Patent/ID and used CIPO's accelerated examination service (n=101)

The subgroup bases for those using this service are generally small and further analysis is not advisable.

D. Registration or Grant

1. Received Registered TM or ID or Granted Patent in Past 18 Months

A majority of clients successfully received an IP registration/grant in the past 18 months; this proportion is higher among agents and among unrepresented/represented clients with a greater volume of applications.

More than half (54%) of clients successfully received a registered trademark or industrial design, or a granted patent, in the past 18 months. This skews strongly to agents (79%), who typically represent multiple clients. The likelihood of successfully receiving IP registration/grant is also higher among represented and unrepresented clients with a higher volume of applications in process (68% of those with three or more applications, vs. 48% with only one or two).

Received a registered TM, granted patent or registered ID in past 18 months
Respondent type/IP type	Yes	No	Not sure
Total (n=1,136)	54%	40%	7%
Agents (n=433)	79%	19%	2%
Unrepresented clients (n=584)	49%	44%	7%
Represented clients (n=46)	50%	35%	15%
Mixed clients (n=73)	49%	45%	5%
Trademark (n=781)	57%	36%	7%
Patent (n=242)	42%	52%	7%
Industrial design (n=113)	56%	39%	5%

Q16 In the past 18 months, did you receive [IP TYPE: a registered trademark(s) / a granted patent(s) / a registered Industrial Design(s)] [AGENTS: on behalf of your clients]?

Among agents, success in receiving IP registration/grant in the past 18 months is linked to a longer experience in the IP field (83% with more than ten years in the IP field, vs. 67% with ten years or less) and having international clients who are pursuing Canadian IP (88% who do, vs. 56% who do not).

Reported success in receiving IP is higher for trademark (57%) and industrial design (56%) registrations than for patent grants (42%).

The likelihood of receiving registered or granted IP in the past 18 months is higher among women, although this is likely because a greater proportion of them are agents and receiving trademark services (vs. being due to their gender per se). The proportion who have received registered or granted IP is lower in the Atlantic provinces (35%) and among those who are self-employed (46%, rising to 80% of those in firms with 100 or more employees).

2. Overall satisfaction with time to receive registered/granted IP

Among those who received their IP registration/grant in the past 18 months, half are satisfied with the length of time it took; satisfaction is higher among industrial design clients.

Half of clients who received their IP registration/grant in the past 18 months are very (11%) or somewhat (38%) satisfied with the length of time it took, while two in ten (21%) are neutral and three in ten (29%) are dissatisfied.

Satisfaction is highest for industrial design (67%) compared to patents (54%) and trademarks (46%). In turn, trademark clients are most likely to be dissatisfied with the length of time it took to receive their registration (34%, vs. 15% for industrial design and 13% for patents).

Satisfaction levels do not vary significantly by client type (agents vs. unrepresented clients).

Overall level of satisfaction with time it took to receive registered TM/granted patent/registered ID among those who received IP registration/grant in the past 18 months
Respondent type/IP type	Very satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very dissatisfied
Total (n=685)	11%	38%	21%	17%	12%
Agents (n=341)	14%	38%	20%	17%	10%
Unrepresented clients (n=285)	11%	39%	19%	17%	15%
Mixed clients (n=36)	8%	28%	42%	19%	3%
Trademark (n=483)	11%	35%	19%	19%	15%
Patent (n=126)	12%	42%	32%	12%	1%
Industrial design (n=76)	9%	58%	19%	10%	5%

Q17 Overall, how satisfied are you with the time it took to receive [Select based on IP type: a registered trademark(s) / a granted patent(s) / a registered Industrial Design(s)]?
Subgroup: Received registered TM, granted patent or registered ID in past 18 months (n=685)
*The base of represented clients is too small to report (n=23)

3. Abandoned or Refused IP Applications

Four in ten represented and unrepresented patent clients, and two in ten represented and unrepresented trademark/ID clients, had IP applications abandoned in the past 18 months. These groups give lower satisfaction ratings with CIPO's overall service.

a) Abandoned patent applications in past 18 months

A patent application becomes abandoned if the client does not request examination and pay the related fee within five years of the Canadian filing date.

Almost four in ten (38%) represented and unrepresented patent clients indicated that they had a patent application abandoned in the past 18 months. This group is considerably less likely to be satisfied with CIPO's overall service related to patents (43%) than those who did not have an abandoned patent application (64%).

If represented and unrepresented clients had a Patent application that was abandoned in past 18 months
Patent - if had an abandoned application in past 18 months	Yes/No/Not Sure
Yes	38%
No	52%
Not sure	10%

Q18 In the past 18 months, did you have a Patent application that was abandoned?
Subgroup: Represented and unrepresented patent clients (n=114)

b) Abandoned or refused TM/ID applications in past 18 months

An application for trademark registration is considered abandoned if the applicant does not finish all the steps in the application process. An application for an industrial design is considered abandoned if the applicant does not reply within the proper timeframe to any notice or report from the Industrial Design Office.

Almost two in ten (18%) represented and unrepresented trademark or industrial design clients had an application abandoned in the past 18 months; the same proportion had an application refused. The subsample size of industrial design clients (n=24) is too small to analyze the results separately by this line of business.

As with a patent abandonment, overall satisfaction with CIPO's service is lower among clients who had a trademark or industrial design application abandoned (35%) than those who did not (59%). Lower overall satisfaction is also evident among those who had a trademark or industrial application refused (36%, vs. 60% who did not).

If represented and unrepresented clients had a TM/ID application abandoned or refused in past 18 months
TM/ID - if had abandoned or refused application in past 18 months	Yes	No	Not sure
TM/ID abandoned	18%	74%	8%
TM/ID refused	18%	73%	9%

Q19 In the past 18 months, did you experience any of the following scenarios?
Subgroup: Represented and unrepresented TM/ID clients (n=536)

E. Additional Service Aspects

1. Perceptions About Aspects of CIPO Service

A majority of clients hold positive opinions about access to CIPO employees and to relevant documents, and signalled that, ultimately, they got the information they needed.

Clients were asked their level of agreement with five statements about aspects of CIPO's service. Just under six in ten (58%) agree (strongly agree and agree) that CIPO provided the information they needed in the end. Over half (55%) also agree they could easily access documents pertaining to their files, and a similar proportion (52%) agree they were able to get through to a CIPO employee using their preferred channel.

Under half (46%) agree it was clear whom to contact to receive CIPO service, and four in ten (40%) agree it was easy to reach the right person. The level of strong agreement is fairly consistent across statements (ranging between 13 and 18 percent), as is net disagreement (ranging from 16 to 25 percent).

Level of agreement with statements about aspects of CIPO service
	Strongly agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Cannot say
In the end, CIPO provided you with the information you needed	18%	40%	17%	10%	8%	7%
You were able to get through to a CIPO employee by your preferred channel	17%	35%	16%	9%	7%	15%
You were easily able to access documents pertaining to your file(s)	16%	39%	18%	10%	8%	9%
It is clear who to contact within CIPO to receive service	15%	31%	18%	15%	10%	11%
It is easy to reach the right CIPO employee to address your problem or need	13%	27%	19%	14%	10%	17%

Q20 Still thinking about CIPO's service related to [IP type: patents / trademarks / industrial designs], to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Level of agreement with statements about aspects of CIPO service - by client group and IP type
Net agreement (strongly agree + agree) with statements about CIPO service	Client group				IP type
	Agents (n=433)	Unrepre-sented clients (n=584)	Repre-sented clients (n=46)	Mixed clients (n=73)	Trade-mark (n=781)	Patent (n=242)	ID (n=133)
In the end, CIPO provided you with the information you needed	59%	59%	30%	53%	59%	53%	53%
You were easily able to access documents pertaining to your file(s)	44%	59%	35%	53%	57%	55%	35%
You were able to get through to a CIPO employee by your preferred channel (e.g. phone, email, in- person)	50%	55%	28%	47%	52%	58%	42%
It is clear who to contact within CIPO to receive service	43%	48%	17%	45%	48%	41%	36%
It is easy to reach the right CIPO employee to address your problem or need	36%	43%	13%	36%	40%	42%	41%

Q20 Still thinking about CIPO's service related to [IP type: patents / trademarks / industrial designs], to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Unrepresented clients are more likely than agents to agree they were able to easily access needed documents, and that it is easy to reach the right CIPO employee to address their problem or need. As with other agreement questions, agreement with these items tends to be lower among represented clients, who are in turn the most likely to be neutral or hold no opinion.

Agreement with these statements is generally similar by IP type, but industrial design clients are less likely than others to agree they were able to easily access their documents or that they were able to get through to an employee by their preferred channel – likely reflecting the larger proportion of agents who responded about industrial design services.

Net agreement with these statements tends to be higher among agents who do not have international IP clients. It is also linked to overall satisfaction with CIPO and to having received a registration or grant. Agreement is somewhat higher among those who did not have an abandoned or refused application that they got what they needed in the end (62% vs. 43%), that they were able to get through on their preferred channel (54% vs. 45%), and that it is easy to reach the right person (43% vs. 30%).

2. Overall Satisfaction with Ease of Access to Service

A slim majority are satisfied with their ability to access CIPO's services, while the remainder are equally divided between neutral opinions and dissatisfaction.

Half of clients (51%) are satisfied with the ease of accessing CIPO's services overall (11% very satisfied). One-quarter are neutral and one-quarter are dissatisfied (12% very dissatisfied).

Overall level of satisfaction with ease of access to CIPO's services
Respondent type/IP type	Very satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very dissatisfied
Total (n=1,136)	11%	40%	25%	12%	11%
Agents (n=433)	6%	43%	29%	18%	4%
Unrepresented clients (n=584)	13%	40%	22%	11%	13%
Represented clients (n=46)	2%	35%	48%	13%	2%
Mixed clients (n=73)	11%	38%	27%	10%	14%
Trademark (n=781)	10%	42%	23%	13%	12%
Patent (n=242)	17%	32%	30%	11%	10%
Industrial design (n=113)	7%	47%	29%	11%	6%

Q21 Overall, how satisfied were you with the ease of accessing CIPO's services?

While overall satisfaction with ease of service access is similar for agents and unrepresented clients, the latter are more likely to express extreme views (13% very satisfied, and 13% very dissatisfied). As with similar measures, satisfaction is lower among represented clients, with almost half who say they are neutral (and may be using to register "no opinion", since that answer category was not provided). Satisfaction with ease of service access is generally similar by IP type.

There are few other noteworthy subgroup differences. Satisfaction with access to service is highest among agents with 10 years' experience or less (56%) and decreases as years of experience increases (to 40% with 21 or more years). Satisfaction is also higher among agents without international IP clients (66% vs. 43% with IP clients from outside Canada). Level of satisfaction with ease of access is strongly correlated to level of satisfaction with CIPO services overall, and satisfaction is also higher among those who have received a registration or grant and those who did not have their IP abandoned or refused.

3. Awareness of the Status of the IP Application

Clients are twice as likely to agree as to disagree that they were aware of the status of their IP application throughout, although unrepresented and lower volume clients express less certainty.

One of the findings of the qualitative phase was a desire for greater transparency about the status of their IP application. The survey results indicate that more than half of clients (54%) agree that they were aware of the status of the IP application(s) at all stages of the process, while one-quarter disagree (24% overall; 8% strongly). Just under two in ten are neutral.

Level of agreement that client was aware of the IP application status at all stages of the process
Respondent type/IP type	Strongly agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Cannot say
Total (n=1,136)	14%	40%	18%	16%	8%	4%
Agents (n=433)	9%	45%	24%	15%	4%	3%
Unrepresented clients (n=584)	15%	40%	17%	16%	9%	3%
Represented clients (n=46)	11%	39%	24%	15%	2%	9%
Mixed clients (n=73)	12%	40%	21%	14%	10%	4%
Trademark (n=781)	14%	40%	18%	16%	9%	3%
Patent (n=242)	15%	39%	20%	16%	5%	4%
Industrial design (n=113)	9%	45%	23%	15%	5%	4%

Q22 To what extent do you agree or disagree that: You were aware of the status of the IP application(s) at all stages of the process

Overall agreement that they were aware of the status of their IP application throughout the process is similar by client type; however, unrepresented clients are most likely to disagree (25%), while agents and represented clients are more likely to be neutral. Agreement is also similar by IP type.

Overall agreement is higher among represented and unrepresented clients with a higher volume of applications (66% with three or more applications, vs. 51% with one or two). Net agreement also increases along with an increase in size of firm (from 51% of sole proprietors up to 67% with 500 or more employees). As with many other measures, agreement is linked to having received or been granted IP, and to being more satisfied with CIPO overall.

4. Opinions About CIPO Service Provision Aspects

Clients hold largely positive opinions about CIPO staff, and particularly about their level of professionalism.

Clients were asked to rate their level of agreement about eight statements pertaining to CIPO staff. Agreement is strongest that they received service in their preferred official language (87% net agreement), and two-thirds (67%) agree that CIPO staff were professional.

Just under half of clients agree staff understood their needs (48%), took a reasonable amount of time to respond to requests (48%), and were knowledgeable (47%), while slightly fewer agree that issues were easily resolved (43%). Clients are least likely to agree that staff went the extra mile to ensure they got what they needed (34%); this statement is admittedly hard for clients to assess, as they may not be able to discern what is normal, expected job performance, and what is above and beyond. For each statement, the remaining clients typically hold a neutral or no opinion (the latter represented by choosing "cannot say" on the survey); no more than one-quarter disagreed with any statement.

Level of agreement with statements about CIPO service provision
	Strongly agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree*	Cannot say
You were provided service in the official language of your choice	44%	43%	5%	3%	6%
CIPO staff were professional	27%	40%	14%	5%	14%
CIPO staff (other than examiners), such as frontline and support staff, were knowledgeable	17%	30%	20%	8%	24%
CIPO staff understood your needs	16%	32%	20%	16%	16%
CIPO staff takes a reasonable amount of time to respond to enquiries and requests	15%	33%	19%	21%	13%
CIPO staff understand the importance of their role in the IP process	15%	29%	20%	11%	25%
Any issues that you encountered in the service process were easily resolved	14%	29%	22%	20%	16%
CIPO staff went the extra mile to make sure you got what you needed	14%	20%	24%	23%	19%

Q23 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements when thinking about CIPO's service related to [IP type: patents / trademarks / industrial designs]?

* Data represents net disagree (including strongly disagree and disagree)

Level of agreement with statements about CIPO service provision – by client group and IP type
Net agreement (strongly + agree) with statements about aspects of CIPO service	Client group				IP type
	Agents (n=433)	Unrepre-sented clients (n=584)	Repre-sented clients (n=46)	Mixed clients (n=73)	Trade-mark (n=781)	Patent (n=242)	ID (n=133)
You were provided service in the official language of your choice	87%	89%	54%	77%	88%	83%	81%
CIPO staff were professional	77%	67%	33%	60%	65%	71%	75%
CIPO staff understood your needs	52%	51%	22%	40%	48%	47%	59%
CIPO staff takes a reasonable amount of time to respond to enquiries and requests	47%	49%	28%	42%	46%	52%	55%
CIPO staff (other than examiners), such as frontline and support staff, were knowledgeable	51%	48%	17%	44%	46%	52%	46%
CIPO staff understand the importance of their role in the IP process	45%	45%	20%	40%	42%	51%	44%
Any issues that you encountered in the service process were easily resolved	40%	46%	15%	32%	44%	38%	41%
CIPO staff went the extra mile to make sure you got what you needed	30%	36%	13%	36%	33%	37%	33%

Q23 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements when thinking about CIPO's service related to [IP TYPE: patents / trademarks / industrial designs]?

Agreement levels for agents and unrepresented clients are generally similar, except agents are more likely to acknowledge the professionalism of CIPO staff (77% vs. 67%). Once again, represented clients are less likely than others to agree to any of these statements and more likely to hold no opinion, reflecting the fact that they interact primarily with their agent rather than CIPO staff. Responses are quite similar by IP type.

Positive opinions about the knowledge of CIPO staff and issue resolution are higher among less experienced agents (with 10 or fewer years in IP). Agreement that CIPO staff understand the importance of their role in the IP process among higher-volume represented and unrepresented clients (59% with three or more applications, compared to 40% with one or two).

Agreement with these statements is linked to satisfaction with CIPO overall. Those who did not have IP registered or granted and those who had an application abandoned or refused are as likely as others to report receiving service in their official language of choice, but less likely to agree with other statements about CIPO staff.

5. Online Service

Slight majorities agree information provided via the CIPO website will be protected, it is easy to complete online transactions, that online services are easy to find, and that they meet client needs. For those who say it does not meet their needs, the most common reason is problems locating file history for review/multiple tabs or that the site is not user friendly or easy to navigate.

a) Opinions about CIPO's online services and information offerings

Clients were asked their level of agreement about eight statements regarding different aspects of CIPO's online service. Slight majorities agree (strongly agree and agree) they are confident personal information provided through the CIPO website will be protected (58%), it is easy to complete online transactions (58%), that CIPO's online services are easy to find (58%) and that they meet clients' needs (56%).

Just under half agree that the information they were looking for online was easy to find (48%) and that the CIPO website had information tailored to their needs (48%). Fewer (40%) agree CIPO's website was designed with their needs in mind, or that CIPO's online services are consistent across the business lines (40% among those who have had experience with more than one type of IP). The level of strong agreement ranges from 10 to 20 percent for each statement; total disagreement from 8 to 27 percent.

Level of agreement with statements about CIPO's online service
	Strongly agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree*	Cannot say
You are confident that personal information provided through CIPO's website is protected	20%	38%	20%	8%	14%
It is easy to complete online transactions	17%	41%	18%	20%	4%
CIPO's online services are easy to find	15%	43%	20%	20%	2%
CIPO's online services met your needs	14%	42%	18%	23%	3%
CIPO's website had information tailored to your needs	12%	36%	26%	23%	3%
The information you were looking for online was easy to find	11%	37%	23%	26%	2%
CIPO's website was designed with your needs in mind	10%	30%	27%	27%	5%
CIPO's online services are consistent across the business lines (Subgroup: those with multiple LOB - n=209)	10%	30%	22%	27%	12%

Q24 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
* Data represents net disagree (including strongly disagree and disagree)

Level of agreement with statements about CIPO's online service – by client group and IP type
Net agreement (strongly agree and agree) with statements about CIPO's online service	Client group				IP type
	Agents (n=433)	Unrepre-sented clients (n=584)	Repre-sented clients (n=46)	Mixed clients (n=73)	Trade-mark (n=781)	Patent (n=242)	ID (n=133)
It is easy to complete online transactions	57%	60%	30%	58%	61%	48%	52%
You are confident that personal information provided through CIPO's website is protected	52%	61%	41%	51%	59%	55%	52%
CIPO's online services are easy to find	55%	58%	50%	59%	59%	54%	49%
CIPO's online services met your needs	50%	58%	41%	56%	58%	48%	51%
The information you were looking for online was easy to find	44%	50%	41%	49%	50%	47%	44%
CIPO's website had information tailored to your needs	42%	50%	33%	48%	48%	47%	44%
CIPO's website was designed with your needs in mind	31%	42%	28%	42%	41%	36%	35%

Q24 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

In general, unrepresented clients are more likely than agents to agree with each of the statements, except for the ease of locating online services and completing online transactions (where there is little difference in opinion between the two groups). Agreement is largely similar amongst unrepresented clients and mixed clients. As with other statement batteries throughout the survey, overall agreement is lower among represented clients, who are the most likely to be neutral or have no opinion.

Agreement about CIPO's online services is also generally similar by IP type, but trademark clients are more likely than others to agree it is easy to complete transactions online or that CIPO's online services meet their needs.

Agreement is similar by region, industry and business size, but is higher for most statements among clients who have received a registration/grant and those who have not had an IP abandonment/refusal. Agents with ten or fewer years of experience are more likely to agree that it is easy to complete online transactions, to have confidence that personal information will be protected and that the website was designed with their needs in mind. Agreement also tends to be higher among agents who do not have international IP clients.

b) Why online services have not met needs

Clients who say that their needs are not being met by CIPO's online services (23% of total sample) were asked to elaborate further (open-ended, without providing response options). The main concerns are problems finding/accessing CIPO file history for review (or that records are split into multiple tabs – 18%) or that the website is not user friendly/not easy to navigate (17%). Another common reason for online services not meeting needs is it takes too long time to complete each step of the process (14%). Lack of communication with personnel/slow responses and CIPO insistence on regular mail instead of electronic submissions were cited by 12% each.

Why CIPO's online services have not met needs
Reasons for online services not meeting needs	Those with unmet needs (n=273)
Problem finding history for review/split into multiple tabs	18%
Website not user friendly/hard to navigate/poorly designed	17%
Takes too long to complete steps/similar processes faster in US	14%
Unable to communicate w/ personnel/slow response	12%
CIPO insists on regular mail instead of electronic submission	12%
Very complex/too difficult to understand process	8%
TM DB not user friendly/too many clicks to get basic info	8%
No clear instructions to what to do/steps to follow	8%
Industry pushing to hire TM lawyer to assist in regist. process	8%
CIPO not professional/competent/bad reputation	7%
Too time/money consuming to request copies of the files	7%
Clear drawings downgraded due to CIPO processing	6%
CIPO service category list unsuitable/obsolete	5%
Compared to others (eg USPTO) CIPO online services lacking	4%
Forms too complicated to complete/can't correct a form	4%
CIPO staff not helpful/little effort to assist	4%
Payment related issues (various)	4%
Mistakes by CIPO not rectified/fees not returned	4%
Other (3% or less each)	14%
DK/NA	18%

Q25 You indicated that CIPO's online services have not met your needs. In what ways were your needs not met?
Subgroup: Those who disagreed that CIPO's online service met their needs (n=273)

There are some differences in mentions by client group. Agents are more likely than unrepresented clients to cite concerns about finding/accessing CIPO file histories for review (30% vs. 16%), CIPO's requirements for regular mail for correspondence or documents (26% vs. 9%), that the trademark database is not user friendly (25% vs. 4%) and that CIPO's systems are lacking compared to those of other IPOs (16% vs. 2%). Unrepresented clients are more likely than agents to mention a lack of clear instructions on what to do/steps to follow (10% vs. 2%) or that they feel pressured to hire an agent to assist in the process (7% vs. 1%).

In terms of IP types, problems accessing file history are more prominent for patent and industrial design clients, while concerns about the length of time to complete each step in the process are more common among trademark and industrial design clients. Patent clients are also more likely than others to report payment-related issues, while trademark clients are more likely to raise concerns about the perceived push to hire trademark lawyers to assist in IP registration.

Agents with greater experience (21+ years) are more likely than less experienced agents to express concerns about the time to complete each step of the process, and less likely to mention CIPO's continued reliance on regular mail.

6. Opinions About Payment Process

There is widespread agreement that the electronic payment process is easy to use. There is also more agreement than disagreement that payment questions are answered in a timely manner (among those who have an opinion).

Clients generally agree that CIPO's payment process is easy to use (73%), with three in ten who strongly agree (29%). Few clients disagree with this statement (8%), while a similar proportion cannot say (8%).

When asked if questions about payment status are answered promptly, most clients agree (53%) and few disagree (6%), but a sizeable proportion cannot say (27%; presumably because they did not need to ask any questions) or are neutral – 14%.

Level of agreement with statements about CIPO's payment process
	Strongly agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree*	Cannot say
CIPO's electronic payment process is easy to use	29%	44%	12%	8%	8%
Questions regarding payment status are answered in a timely manner	17%	36%	14%	6%	27%

Q26 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
* Data represents net disagree (including strongly disagree and disagree)

Level of agreement with statements about CIPO's payment process – by client group and IP type
Net agreement (strongly + agree) with statements about payments	Client group				IP type
	Agents (n=433)	Unrepre-sented clients (n=584)	Repre-sented clients (n=46)	Mixed clients (n=73)	Trade-mark (n=781)	Patent (n=242)	ID (n=113)
CIPO's electronic payment process is easy to use	72%	75%	39%	71%	78%	54%	66%
Questions regarding payment status are answered in a timely manner	45%	58%	24%	44%	54%	54%	47%

Q26 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Agreement that the payment system is easy to use is similar by client type, but represented clients are much more likely than others to say they are unable to provide an answer (37% compared to 5% and 13% for agents and unrepresented clients, respectively). Trademark clients are more likely than patent or industrial design clients to agree the process is easy, as are clients who have not had an abandonment or refusal, represented and unrepresented clients with a higher volume of applications, and agents who only work with domestic IP clients.

Agreement that payment questions are answered promptly is higher among unrepresented clients (58%), but a large proportion of every client type does not hold an opinion (between 23% and 54%). Agreement is also higher among agents without international IP clients.

7. Opinions About Consistency and Error Management

The slight majority of clients agree they received a consistent level of service during their interactions with CIPO; fewer indicate CIPO does not make mistakes or that it is easy to have errors corrected.

Clients were asked to indicate their level of agreement with statements pertaining to CIPO's consistency and error management. Agreement is highest when considering consistency in level of service received by CIPO during all interactions, with a majority of clients agreeing (57%) and only a small proportion disagreeing (16%). Level of agreement is lower when asked whether CIPO does not make mistakes/errors when providing services: only a third (33%) agree and one in five (21%) disagree, while a sizeable proportion of respondents provide either a neutral response (21%) or are unable to provide a response at all (24%). Results are similar when clients are asked whether it is easy to have errors corrected by CIPO: many clients appear not to have encountered this issue and, as a result, almost a quarter (22%) provide a neutral response and a third (32%) are unable to answer. A quarter of all clients agree (26%) and one in five disagree (21%).

Level of agreement with statements about consistency and error management
	Strongly agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Cannot say
Overall, you received a consistent level of service during all interactions with CIPO	15%	42%	19%	9%	7%	7%
Overall, CIPO does not make mistakes/errors when providing services	10%	23%	21%	13%	8%	24%
It is easy to have errors corrected by CIPO	7%	19%	22%	12%	9%	32%

Q27 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Level of agreement with statements about consistency and error management – by client group and IP type
Net agreement (strongly agree and agree) with statements about CIPO service aspects	Client group				IP type
	Agents (n=433)	Unrepre-sented clients (n=584)	Repre-sented clients (n=46)	Mixed clients (n=73)	Trade-mark (n=781)	Patent (n=242)	ID (n=113)
Overall, you received a consistent level of service during all interactions with CIPO	50%	60%	35%	48%	59%	53%	46%
Overall, CIPO does not make mistakes/errors when providing services	28%	37%	15%	22%	34%	35%	25%
It is easy to have errors corrected by CIPO	31%	26%	13%	19%	25%	29%	28%

Q27 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

As in other instances, agreement with these statements are lower among represented clients, as this group is the most likely to be unable to provide an answer. Unrepresented clients are somewhat more likely than agents to agree they get a consistent level of service across all interactions with CIPO (60% vs 50%) or that CIPO does not make errors when providing service (37% vs 28%).

Responses are similar for these questions among the different IP types, except trademark clients are more likely than industrial design clients to agree they get consistent levels of service from CIPO (59% vs 46%). Those who received a registration/grant and those who have not had an abandonment or refusal are also more likely to agree with these statements. Agreement that CIPO does not make mistakes or that they get a consistent level of service during their interactions with CIPO is higher among smaller businesses of 100 employees or fewer than for larger businesses.

8. Opinions About Service Cost

Half of clients agree the products and services CIPO provides are worth the cost

A slim majority of clients (51%) agree CIPO products & services are worth the cost (with 15% who strongly agree). One-quarter (26%) are neutral and 17% disagree (including one in ten who disagree strongly).

Level of agreement that CIPO products and services are worth the cost
Respondent type/IP type	Strongly agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Cannot say
Total (n=1,136)	15%	36%	26%	8%	9%	6%
Agents (n=433)	14%	47%	24%	7%	3%	4%
Unrepresented clients (n=584)	16%	35%	25%	8%	11%	5%
Represented clients (n=46)	13%	30%	30%	9%	2%	15%
Mixed clients (n=73)	14%	32%	33%	12%	5%	4%
Trademark (n=781)	14%	36%	26%	9%	10%	5%
Patent (n=242)	18%	39%	23%	7%	7%	7%
Industrial design (n=113)	22%	37%	29%	3%	3%	7%

Q28 To what extent do you agree or disagree that: Products and/or services that CIPO provides are worth the cost

Agents are more likely to agree CIPO offers value than each of the other client groups (although level of strong agreement is virtually identical). Represented clients are more likely to report they cannot say than are the other groups (15%). Overall agreement is similar by IP type.

Agreement is higher among men than women (55% vs 49%). There are no notable regional differences in terms of overall agreement. Level of agreement that CIPO products/services are worth the cost is strongly correlated with level of satisfaction with CIPO services overall. Agreement is also higher among those who have received a registration or grant, and those who did not have IP abandoned or refused. Satisfaction increases along with an increase in business size (number of employees) as well as number of applications (from 43% for represented and unrepresented clients with one application to 69% among those with three or more).

F. Other Services

1. Opposition/Summary Cancellation Proceedings

One in six clients – but more than half of agents - were involved in opposition or summary cancellation proceedings in the past 18 months. A majority of these are satisfied with the service received from CIPO related to the proceedings.

a) Involvement in opposition/summary cancellation proceedings

Clients who have had any experience with trademarks over the past 18 months were asked whether they have been involved in any opposition/summary cancellation proceedings during that time. Overall, more than three quarters (77%) have not had this involvement; fewer than one in five (17%) have. This skews strongly to agents (55%) over unrepresented (9%) and mixed (25%) clients; no represented clients reported this experience.

Involvement in opposition/summary cancellation proceedings in past 18 months
Total (n=947)	17%	77%	6%
Agents (n=339)	55%	44%	1%
Unrepresented clients (n=508)	9%	85%	6%
Represented clients (n=36)	0%	89%	11%
Mixed clients (n=64)	25%	61%	14%

Q29 In the past 18 months, were you involved in any opposition proceedings or summary cancellation proceedings?
Subgroup: Experience with trademarks in past 18 months (n=947)

Involvement in these types of proceedings is more widespread among agents with more experience and those with international IP clients, as well as among represented and unrepresented clients with a higher number of IP applications in process.

b) Overall satisfaction with CIPO service during opposition or summary cancellation proceeding(s)

A majority (52%) of clients who have been involved in opposition/summary cancellation proceedings in the past 18 months are satisfied with the service provided by CIPO during this process. Although fewer than one in ten clients consider themselves very satisfied, a plurality (44%) say they were satisfied; only one in five are dissatisfied (21%). Roughly a quarter rated their experience as neutral (27%). Given the small subgroup sample sizes, only overall results are provided here.

Overall level of satisfaction with CIPO service during opposition or summary cancellation proceeding(s)
	Portion
Very satisfied	8%
Satisfied	44%
Neutral	27%
Dissatisfied	12%
Very dissatified	9%

Q30 Overall, how satisfied are you with the service provided by CIPO during your experience with an opposition proceeding(s) or a summary cancellation proceeding(s)?
Please note: we are interested in your degree of satisfaction with the service you received, rather than with any decision that was made as a result of the proceedings.
Subgroup: Experience with opposition or summary cancellation proceedings (n=248)

2. Experience with Patent Appeal Board

Few clients have experience with the Patent Appeal Board; satisfaction is mixed among those who do.

Overall, very few clients (5%) have had experience with the Patent Appeal Board within the past 18 months. Since dealing with the Board is a more complex undertaking, agents are more likely to have done so than the other client groups; still, only around one in ten agents have done so in the past year and a half (12%). Of the small number who had experience with the board (n=26), two are very satisfied, ten are satisfied, nine are neutral, and five are dissatisfied.

Experience with Patent Appeal Board in past 18 months
Respondent type/IP type	Yes	No	Not sure
Total (n=355)	5%	91%	4%
Agents (n=197)	12%	87%	1%
Unrepresented clients (n=108)	3%	92%	6%

Q31 In the past 18 months, have you had experience with the Patent Appeal Board?
Subgroup: Experience with patents/ID in past 18 months (n=355)
*The bases of represented (n=23) and mixed (n=27) clients are too small to report

Q32 Overall, how satisfied are you with the service provided by CIPO during your experience with the Patent Appeal Board? Please note: we are interested in your degree of satisfaction with the service you received, rather than with any decision that was made by the Patent Appeal Board.
Subgroup: Experience with opposition or summary cancellation proceedings (n=26) Note: very small base size.

G. Information Services

1. CIPO IP Educational Services

a) Awareness of CIPO educational services

There is currently limited awareness of CIPO's IP education services among represented and unrepresented clients.

Represented and unrepresented clients were asked if they knew about the educational services CIPO offers. One in five (19%) are aware that CIPO offers services to raise the awareness of, and educate Canadians about, IP.

If aware of CIPO IP educational services
Respondent type/IP type	Yes, aware	No. not aware	Not sure
Total (n=703)	19%	73%	8%
Unrepresented clients (n=584)	18%	73%	9%
Represented clients (n=46)	33%	59%	9%
Mixed clients (n=73)	19%	77%	4%
Trademark (n=545)	17%	74%	8%
Patent (n=129)	22%	69%	8%

Q33 Before today, were you aware that CIPO offers services to raise awareness of and educate Canadians about Intellectual Property? These services include a range of informational material about IP, seminars and events, as well as access to CIPO staff who can help you better understand the value of IP and discuss your IP strategy.
Subgroup: Unrepresented, represented and mixed clients (n=703)
*The industrial design base is too small to report (n=29)

Awareness of CIPO's IP education services is highest among represented clients (33%) compared to unrepresented (18%) and mixed (19%) clients. Overall awareness is statistically similar by type of IP.

Awareness ranges from a low of 14 percent in the West to a high of 24 percent in Quebec. It is higher among represented and unrepresented clients with three or more applications in the past 18 months, and also increases along with firm size (number of employees).

b) Usefulness of IP educational services

There is widespread agreement among represented and unrepresented clients that CIPO's IP educational services are useful to businesses/individuals.

Regardless of their level of awareness of CIPO's IP education services, represented and unrepresented clients were also asked how useful they believe such services are to businesses like theirs. Overall, seven in ten (69%) either strongly agree or agree that these services are useful, compared to fewer than one in ten (8%) who disagree. The remainder are neutral (15%) or had no opinion (8%).

Level of agreement that IP educational services are useful to businesses/individuals
Respondent type/IP type	Strongly agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Cannot say
Total (n=703)	30%	39%	15%	4%	4%	8%
Unrepresented clients (n=584)	30%	39%	15%	4%	3%	8%
Represented clients (n=46)	30%	28%	22%	9%	2%	9%
Mixed clients (n=73)	29%	42%	16%	3%	7%	3%
Trademark (n=545)	28%	40%	16%	4%	4%	8%
Patent (n=129)	39%	31%	13%	6%	3%	8%

Q34 To what extent do you agree or disagree that these types of IP services are useful to businesses like yours or individuals like you?
Subgroup: Unrepresented, represented and mixed clients (n=703)
*The industrial design base is too small to report (n=29)

Agreement about the usefulness of these educational services is statistically similar across the represented, unrepresented and mixed client types.

Strong agreement is higher among those who received service for a patent (39%) compared to trademarks (28%), although the overall level of agreement is similar for both.

Notably, those who might benefit most from such services – those who did not receive an IP grant or registration, and those who had IP abandoned or refused – are moderately less likely to believe that these educational services would be of use to them.

2. Comments and Suggestions

The most commonly mentioned feedback for CIPO is to reduce the length of time between filing and examination.

At the end of the survey, clients were asked if they had any additional feedback on how CIPO could improve its services and products (open-ended, without providing response options).

A wide range of responses was provided, the most common being to shorten the period between filing and examination to make it more reasonable. Other commonly mentioned suggestions were to allow online/electronic communications and completion of forms (6%), having CIPO walk people through the process so they don't need an agent/lawyer, and overhauling the website to make it more user friendly (5% each).

Comments and suggestions
Other comments/suggestions	Total (n=1,136)
Shorten the period between filing and examination	12%
Allow online/electronic communications, completion of forms	6%
Walk us through process, not force us to hire an agent/lawyer	5%
Overhaul website/make it easy to understand/more user friendly	5%
Simplify the process/make it easy for layman applicant	4%
Thank you for the good service/keep the good work up	4%
Better training for TM examiners/more consistent reports/decisions	3%
Better/more timely/professional customer service should be provided	3%
More timely status update would be very helpful	3%
Look at how other international systems are designed	2%
Better follow up/communication to be provided by personnel	2%
A better patent database/ease of searching/access to files/documents	2%
Make it clearer which forms should be completed/what steps to follow	2%
Should have low/fixed amount of fees instead of pricy process	2%
Protect privacy of information/secured against hackers	2%
Improve product/service categories/make easier to classify	2%
Other mentions (1% or less each)	12%
Not stated/dk/no comments	54%

Q35 Do you have any additional feedback or comments about how CIPO could improve its services and/or products?

Agents are significantly more likely to request either electronic communications/forms or a better patent database than are other client types. Unrepresented and mixed clients are the most likely to request guidance/staff who can walk them through the process, so they can avoid the need for agents/lawyers. Represented clients are significantly more likely to not provide suggestions/feedback (close to three-quarters give no suggestion), most likely because they are more removed from the process.

Responses are generally similar by IP type, but those with trademarks are the most likely to mention needing to shorten the examination period (14%, vs. 8% patent and 4% industrial design).

Clients from large businesses (500+ employees), agents who have more than 20 years of experience and agents with international clients are more likely to request better training for TM examiners to increase their consistency in reports/decisions.

H. Key Driver Analysis

One of the key objectives of the quantitative survey is to determine what service aspects influence or "drive" overall satisfaction with CIPO's services, and particularly those aspects over which CIPO can exert some control (e.g., it is possible for CIPO to improve the timeliness of its responses but it cannot change how many IP applications a client submits nor on their views about the federal government's IP policies).

This analysis was undertaken in three stages:

Factor analysis – A factor analysis identifies groups of survey questions that respondents think about in the same way and to which they provide similar responses.
Key driver analysis – A multivariate statistical technique referred to as "key driver analysis" identifies significant drivers of overall client satisfaction.
Performance analysis – A performance analysis identifies where to focus attention to maximize client satisfaction, by analyzing CIPO's performance on the key drivers of satisfaction.

1. Key Driver Analysis

The key driver analysis identified four statistically significant drivers of how satisfied clients are with CIPO's services overall. These four drivers account for almost half (46%) of the results, or "variance" in clients' overall satisfaction with CIPO.

Examination – the extent to which clients are satisfied with the quality and clarity of written and verbal communications, the knowledge of examiners, and the consistency of decisions at the examination stage.
Filing – satisfaction with the service provided at the filing stage, including that the process was efficient and customized to their needs, forms were easy to complete, and it was clear what was required of them.
Extra mile – perception that CIPO staff go the extra mile to fulfill client needs.
Timeliness of decisions – first and subsequent office actions, as well as the IP registration/grants themselves, are received in a reasonable amount of time.

The image below presents the "beta weight" for each factor, which is a statistical measure of its relative importance in predicting the outcome measure (in this case, overall client satisfaction) - the higher the value, the stronger the influence. The value of the beta weight is in direct proportion to the factor's predictive power, so for instance, views on examination with a beta weight of .27 is more than twice as powerful in predicting overall client satisfaction as satisfaction with timeliness of decisions (with a beta weight of .12).

Service factors driving client satisfaction with CIPO overall

Examination

Overall satisfaction with quality of written reports Examiners were knowledgeable Examiners' reports are easy to understand Decisions are consistent from one examiners to the next When spoke to an examiner, they were easy to understand Examination process designed with your needs in mind Overall satisfaction with services provided during examination

Filling

Process of filing was efficient Application forms were easy to complete Filing process designed with your needs in mind You were informed of everything you had to do to apply for IP protection Overall satisfaction with services provided during filing

Extra mile

CIPO staff went the extra mile to make sure you got what you needed

Timeliness

Overall satisfaction with time to receive registration/grant Received first office action in reasonable amount of time Received subsequent office actions in reasonable amount of time

Three of these factors – examination, filing and timeliness of decisions – are common drivers of satisfaction for both agents and represented and unrepresented clients.

The view that CIPO goes the extra mile is a unique driver of overall satisfaction for represented and unrepresented clients. As we heard in the focus groups, this likely reflects the fact that represented and unrepresented clients are the ones who require CIPO's support when they encounter difficulties (while agents simply want the process to work efficiently).

2. Performance Analysis

The purpose of this part of the analysis is to identify the service attributes with lower performance ratings within each factor that is a significant driver of overall satisfaction. This points to areas where efforts by CIPO to improve performance are most likely to lead to a boost in client satisfaction.

The colour coding in the table below uses blue for mean scores under 3.20, which are service attributes that are strong possibilities for improvement. Green indicates mean scores between 3.20 and 3.39, and thus is the next priority tier.

Overall, this analysis suggests that efforts to develop or adjust filing and examination processes/ services with user needs in mind are changes that would subsequently influence overall satisfaction scores. For agents, it will also be beneficial to address perceptions of consistency of decisions between examiners, which received the lowest mean performance score overall. The other strong possibility for improvement includes addressing the timeliness of first and subsequent office actions, as well as on the overall length of time to receive IP registration/grant.

Performance scores are also relatively low for CIPO staff going the extra mile for both agents and represented and unrepresented clients. However, efforts to improve these perceptions should focus on represented and unrepresented clients, for whom this is a driving factor of overall satisfaction.

Performance (mean scores) on survey questions that load on each factor
Factors and survey items	Total	Agents	Rep/unrep clients
Examination
Examination process was designed with your needs in mind	3.04	2.90	3.07
Decisions are consistent from one examiner to the next	3.12	2.63	3.24
Overall satisfaction with service provided during process of examining an application	3.23	3.12	3.25
Overall satisfaction with quality of examiners' written report(s)	3.29	3.20	3.31
Examiners' report(s) are easy to understand	3.30	3.41	3.28
Examiners were knowledgeable	3.63	3.48	3.66
When you spoke to an examiner, they were easy to understand	3.64	3.76	3.62
Filing
The filing process was designed with your needs in mind	3.21	3.36	3.18
Overall satisfaction with serviced provided during filing process	3.35	3.54	3.30
You were informed of everything you had to do to apply for intellectual property protection	3.42	3.68	3.37
Process of filing an application was efficient	3.44	3.64	3.40
Application forms were easy to complete	3.44	3.82	3.36
Extra mile
CIPO staff went the extra mile to make sure you got what you needed	3.16	3.15	3.16
Timeliness of decisions
Overall satisfaction with time it took to receive IP registration/grant	3.18	3.28	3.15
You received subsequent office actions within a reasonable amount of time	3.21	3.18	3.22
In general, first office actions are received within a reasonable amount of time	3.25	2.82	3.34

I. Client Profile

1. Type of IP by Client Group

Agents and represented clients are more likely than unrepresented clients to have recent experience with Patents.

All client groups are most likely to have experience with trademark services. Experience with patent services is most widespread for represented clients (50%) and agents (41%), and least common among unrepresented clients (16%). Agents are also most likely of all groups to have experience with industrial design services (26%).

LOB in past 18 months
LOB in past 18 months	Total (n=1136)	Client group
LOB in past 18 months	Total (n=1136)	Agents (n=433)	Unrepre-sented clients (n=584)	Repre-sented clients (n=46)	Mixed clients (n=73)
Trademark	85%	78%	87%	78%	88%
Patent	22%	41%	16%	50%	32%
Industrial design	8%	26%	4%	11%	12%

Q3 Which of the following types of Intellectual Property (IP) have you had experience with in the past 18 months?

2. Client Characteristics

Four in ten CIPO clients are located in Ontario; they tend to be small businesses (less than 100 employees) that represent a wide range of sectors. IP clients are most likely to be male.

The largest proportion of CIPO's clients is based in Ontario (41%), with significant proportions in Quebec (22%), BC (18%) and Alberta (12%). Agents are more likely than represented and unrepresented clients to be Ontario-based (48% vs. 40%, respectively); in turn, represented and unrepresented clients are more likely to be based in BC (19% vs. 14% of agents).

Location
Location	Total respondents (n=1,136)
British Columbia	18%
Alberta	12%
Saskatchewan	2%
Manitoba	1%
Ontario	41%
Quebec	22%
Atlantic provinces	3%

Q42 In what province or territory do you live?

CIPO's clients represent a wide range of industry sectors. The most common are retail trade (23%), manufacturing (22%) and professional, scientific and technical services (22%). All of these industry sectors are more widely reported by agents, because they act on behalf of clients across multiple industries.

Industry sectors represented by IP clients
Industry of IP	Total respondents (n=1,136)
NET: Resource/Constr/Secondary	51%
Retail Trade	23%
Manufacturing	22%
Wholesale Trade	10%
Agriculture/Fishing/Hunting/Forestry	7%
Oil/Gas/Mining	6%
Construction	6%
Utilities	4%
Transportation and Warehousing	3%
NET: Other Service	32%
Art, Entertainment, Recreation	15%
Health care and social assistance	9%
Finance and Insurance	6%
Accommodation and Food Services	6%
Educational Services	5%
Real Estate and Rental/Leasing	3%
Professional, Scientific and Technical Services	22%
Information and Cultural Industries	10%
Management of Companies and Enterprises	4%
Admin/Support, Waste Mgmt, Remed. Services	2%
Public Administration	1%
Other services (except public administration)	1%
Other	1%
Prefer not to say	7%

Q39 If agent: What industry sector(s) do you represent most often when acting on behalf of IP clients? Check all that apply
If rep/unrep: What industry sector does your IP relate to? Check all that apply.

Consistent with the general profile of Canadian companies, most clients (84%) can be categorized as small businesses (i.e., fewer than 100 employees), including one-quarter (27%) who are self-employed. Unrepresented clients skew smaller (34% with no employees and a further 33% with only 1-4 employees). Larger organizations with 100 or more employees are most common among agents (30%), followed by represented clients (21%).

Number of employees
Number of employees	Total (n=1136)	Client group
Number of employees	Total (n=1136)	Agents (n=433)	Unrepre-sented clients (n=584)	Repre-sented clients (n=46)	Mixed clients (n=73)
No employees (you are self-employed)	27%	15%	34%	10%	12%
1-4 employees	29%	19%	33%	24%	24%
5-49 employees	24%	27%	22%	21%	35%
50-99 employees	4%	5%	3%	12%	6%
100+ employees	11%	30%	3%	21%	16%

Q38 How many employees work for your company across all locations in Canada? By this, we mean both full-time and part-time staff but not contract staff. Please include part-time staff as the number of full-time equivalents.
Note: Six percent of clients preferred not to answer the question.

Clients are twice as likely to be male (61%) than females (31%), while a small proportion (7%) choose not to say. The gender ratio is more evenly divided among agents (50% male/37% female) than represented and unrepresented clients.

Gender
LOB in past 18 months	Total (n=1136)	Client group
LOB in past 18 months	Total (n=1136)	Agents (n=433)	Rep/unrep clients (n=703)
Male	61%	50%	63%
Female	31%	37%	30%
Prefer not to say	7%	12%	7%

Q44 How do you identify yourself?

Client satisfaction (both overall and with specific aspects of CIPO's services) does not vary in a consistent way by location, industry or company size (as defined by number of employees). The exception is a general pattern by gender whereby extreme opinions (e.g., very satisfied/dissatisfied or strongly agree/disagree) are more common among men, while neutral opinions are more common among women.

3. Agents

The majority of agents have been working in the IP field for over 10 years. Seven in ten have worked with an IP client from outside Canada in the past 18 months.

Most agents are experienced with IP. Seven in ten (72%) have been working in the IP field for more than ten years, including one-third (32%) who have more than 20 years of experience.

Agent experience in IP in years
Years of IP experience	Agents (n=433)
5 years or less	11%
6 to 10 years	17%
11 to 15 years	18%
16 to 20 years	22%
21 years or more	32%

Q40 How many years have you been working in the IP field?
Subgroup: Agents (n=433)

Most agents (72%) have worked with international clients requiring Canadian IP services in the past 18 months, drawing primarily from the U.S. (68%) followed by Europe (57%) and Asia (45%).

Have international clients requiring Canadian IP services
Client locations	Agents (n=433)
Net: Have international clients	72%
United States	68%
Europe	57%
Asia	45%
Other	15%
None of the above	22%
Prefer not to say	6%

Q41 In the past 18 months, have you, yourself, worked with any of the following international clients requiring Canadian IP services?
Subgroup: Agents (n=433)

Generally speaking, satisfaction with CIPO overall and with specific services aspects (e.g., filing, examination, staff quality etc.) does not vary by agents' length of experience, but is lower among agents with international clients than those who only work with domestic clients.

4. Represented and unrepresented clients

The majority of represented and unrepresented clients tend to have only one application underway with CIPO, for IP that is associated only with their company. However, unrepresented clients are more likely to have IP associated with them personally.

Six in ten (61%) represented and unrepresented clients say their IP is associated with their company, although this skews to represented (74%) and mixed (71%) clients. While it is less common for the IP to be associated solely with the client personally (23%), this proportion is higher among unrepresented clients (26%). The remaining 16 percent say that some of their IP is associated with them personally and some with their company.

Represented/unrepresented client use of IP
LOB in past 18 months	Total (n=703)	Client group
LOB in past 18 months	Total (n=703)	Unrepre-sented clients (n=584)	Repre-sented clients (n=46)	Mixed clients (n=73)
Associated with your company	61%	59%	74%	71%
Associated with you personally	23%	26%	9%	10%
Some associated with you personally and some with your company	16%	15%	17%	19%

Q36 Which of the following best describes you? The Intellectual Property that you have applied for and/or had registered/granted is…?
Subgroup: Unrepresented or represented clients (n=703)

The majority of represented and unrepresented clients (58%) have had one application in process with CIPO in the past 18 months, while one in five (19%) have two applications in process and 15 percent have three or more (the remaining eight percent are unsure about the number of applications in process).

Number of different IP applications in past 18 months - represented/unrepresented clients
Number of IP applications in provess in past 18 months	Clients (n=703)
One	58%
Two	19%
Three	6%
Four	3%
Five or more	6%
Not sure	8%

Q37 Over the past 18 months, how many different [IP TYPE: patent / trademark / industrial design] applications do you have in process with CIPO?
Subgroup: Unrepresented or represented clients (n=703)

Unrepresented clients are most likely to have only one application in process (61%). The proportion with three or more applications underway is lowest among unrepresented clients (13%) and increases to one-quarter (23%) of represented clients and one-third (32%) of mixed clients.

In general (although not for every survey item), represented and unrepresented clients with three or more applications underway express greater satisfaction with CIPO, both overall and with respect to specific service areas such as filing, examination and staff quality. This suggests that, among represented and unrepresented, experience contributes to greater satisfaction with the IP process.

III Detailed Findings – Qualitative Phase

A. Overall Views of CIPO Service

At the beginning of each focus group, participants were asked about what "service" means in the context of interacting with CIPO, and what those interactions have looked like from a service viewpoint. The three client types have different perspectives on CIPO's service, and consequently, each identify different pain points.

Agents

Agents are Intellectual Property (IP) professionals who prosecute a large volume of IP applications. They have mixed views about CIPO's service. They are most consistently positive about CIPO staff, describing them as professional, courteous, polite and respectful. CIPO employees are viewed as good people trying to do their best ("I've never had an interaction where they weren't trying to help you"), but often hampered by CIPO's systems.

Agents' frustrations lie primarily in their desire for service customized to their specific needs as high-volume, very experienced users. The most commonly raised areas for service improvement were:

The online experience, especially the transition from paper to digital correspondence (e.g., too many errors, online access to some documents but not others) and the quality of the IP search databases (the trademark database in particular was described as "functionally useless").
The lack of consistency between the lines of business ("There are three different CIPOS… you are dealing with three different departments"), which makes it more difficult to navigate the process (e.g., different forms, varying requirements, different locations on the website for information).
A perceived lack of consistency in examination, which they generally attribute to a lack of examiner knowledge and training. Beyond making it more difficult for them to successfully prosecute their clients' IP applications, they point out it has the potential to negatively impact Canada's reputation.

Unrepresented Clients

Unrepresented clients have chosen to navigate the IP process without an agent. These clients describe a reasonably positive, successful service experience, primarily because of CIPO's website and helpful phone support.

They want and expect a great online experience, similar to Amazon ("Any improvement should have the consumer be self-sufficient. Don't force me to go to an agent"). To meet this expectation, they feel CIPO could do a better job in two main areas:

Clarifying the information required for a successful application ("we'll do the work if [CIPO] can clarify what the expectations are"); and,
Improving transparency, in terms of their application's status ("where am I in the process?") and when they can expect things to happen. The second point is particularly important to inform their business planning and strategy.

Represented Clients

The clients in these groups represent a range of situations and reasons for being represented.

Some represented clients outsource their IP needs to an agent without question. They have the resources to hire an agent, find their time better spent elsewhere, and/or have "always done it this way." Often, these are experienced clients with a higher volume of IP needs. These clients have very little in terms of direct service interactions with CIPO. A top service priority for these clients is CIPO's quality and consistency of examination.

There is another group of represented clients who would have liked to or tried to negotiate the system themselves. However, they found it intimidating or abandoned their attempts when they encountered problems or complications. Generally, these seem to be less experienced clients with a lower volume of IP needs. For these clients, a main service concern is the lack of clarity in the process: what is the "secret sauce" to getting IP registered or granted? When they have to provide information or answer CIPO's questions, they want it to be clear what CIPO is looking for. As with unrepresented clients, this group is open to a do-it-yourself, primarily online process, but with service that backs up their ability to produce a successful application.

Finally, there are clients who have a mix of both represented and unrepresented experiences. One participant described a situation where an agent helped trademark a logo but not a name. The client chose to proceed without an agent when trademarking the name, and was ultimately successful ("I thought why did I even bother going to an agent in the first place?").

For some represented clients, the focus group discussion piqued their interest in doing future filings on their own.

B. Lead up to Filing

After discussing overall views of CIPO's service, focus group participants walked through a step-by-step customer journey, from the lead up to filing, to filing the application, through examination and registration or grant, and asked about their experiences and priorities at each stage.

Agents

A widespread source of frustration for agents is the lack of functionality of CIPO's IP search databases. Agents described these search tools as "laborious," "abysmal" and "an exercise in extreme frustration." The criticism was most substantial for the trademark database, with agents wanting either a major overhaul or to go back to the previous version (before it was updated). Views about the patent database were more mixed, with some comments about the fact that documents are not presented intuitively or that it is difficult to follow the history of an application from start to finish. There were no specific complaints about the industrial design database. A few agents mentioned that their difficulties with the CIPO databases mean they use a paid service to supplement their search.

Unrepresented Clients

Unrepresented clients used the CIPO website as their main source of information prior to filing. Typically there was no phone or in-person interaction at this stage; online is clearly the default and participants don't appear to have even considered alternate options.

Unrepresented clients describe the website as efficient and navigable (i.e., it works, even if it's not "sexy"). They appreciate that it is clearly Government of Canada-branded, which avoids confusion with non-official sites. These clients were reasonably happy with the trademark search database, found it helpful and informative, and felt they got what they needed.

There were a small number of comments about wanting access to a phonetic search, and wishing the website was more integrated with the GC's business registration site.

Represented clients

Represented clients prepare for filing in different ways: some go on the CIPO website, some do a Google search (which may or may not take them to the CIPO site), and some do nothing themselves and rely entirely on an agent.

Those who do go to the CIPO website describe it as basic/simple, straightforward and easy to navigate, and say it contains good information (if text heavy). They appreciate that it is "non-flashy" and "what you see is what you get." Notably, one participant who was considering applying for IP themselves at this stage (but ultimately used an agent) commented on how they were deterred by the website recommendations to engage a third party.

There are mixed views about the search databases. Some do a preliminary search and then go to an agent to confirm and/or enhance the results. In part this may be a lack of confidence in their ability to interpret the results; one participant consulted an agent because she didn't believe it when there were no hits on her search. Some more experienced represented clients use third party software or US or European databases before the Canadian versions, because they contain a bigger data set including global patents. One more experienced client also indicated he found the trademark database more confusing than the patent database. US represented clients preferred the US PTO databases over the CIPO equivalents for ease of use and functionality.

C. Filing an Application

Agents

In terms of channels, most agents choose to file online. A few prefer to submit hard copies by mail, fax or, in at least one case, in person. Typically, agents who choose hard copy delivery have encountered situations where CIPO has lost documents, making them more comfortable with a manual rather than a digital approach.

Agents expressed mixed views about the online filing service. Some described it as straightforward, routine and non-controversial. Positive comments included:

The speed of receiving a filing receipt (typically within 24-48 hours) and the accuracy of that receipt (because of the electronic/automated nature of the process).
Mistakes or errors made and identified at the filing stage (before examination) can be corrected relatively easily.

Some agents, on the other hand, reported frustrations with the online filing service, including:

A lack of consistency in the filing process between the lines of business (e.g., one system allows immediate payment upon filing and another acknowledges receipt of the filing but does not allow payment; forms require different information in different places). For at least one participant, this inconsistency leads them to file applications by different channels depending on the line of business (e.g., online for trademark, on paper for patent).
The filing process is not effortless, but requires knowing the idiosyncrasies and where problems can occur, as well as tricks to get around those problems.
Not having access to a dedicated CIPO support person (rather than the general call centre) if the agent encounters a problem or glitch in the online filing process.

Unrepresented clients

Unrepresented clients all chose to file their application online. Online filing was their preferred approach, mainly for reasons of convenience (e.g., can file in the middle of the night, if need be), and they did not express a desire for other alternatives.

Generally, they found the application process "easy to start, but hard to complete." Most encountered a problem or got stuck at some point while filling out the application. Most often this difficulty related to the "art" of submitting an application that is going to be accepted without problems; there was also recognition that IP is more valuable the broader it is defined, and that this is challenging for unrepresented clients.

Other types of difficulties that clients encountered in filing were:

Trouble interpreting the questions or the language in the application form. A few mentioned a lack of clarity about what language/wording needs to be used (i.e., language that needs to be followed exactly).
The interactive online application form allowed an incorrect response, which one client didn't learn until they received a letter from CIPO six months later. Forms should be intuitive and fool-proof.

When they encountered problems, unrepresented clients called CIPO. They typically found someone picked up when they called and were very pleased with how well the CIPO contact was able to easily and quickly guide them or answer their questions, so that ultimately, they were successfully able to file.

Represented clients

Represented clients who hired an agent as their intermediary found the application process straightforward and routine, with no difficulties or problems. There was no direct contact with CIPO at this stage.

For represented clients who initially tried filing on their own, it was usually at the application stage where they encountered problems. They like the online, self-serve, automated process and found it was well laid out. Typically, they encountered problems related to providing the correct information (e.g., description of good and services; correct codes or classifications for the core business) for a successful application.

At this point, some would decide to hire an agent. At least one participant in this situation decided to work with an agent after being contacted by someone soliciting unrepresented clients listed on the CIPO website.

Others would first choose to try to resolve the problem by reaching out to CIPO by phone. They found staff to be kind, courteous and professional, but ultimately were not able to resolve their questions or concerns without an agent. One individual recalled being told by CIPO staff that CIPO was here to assist him, but not to tell him what to put in his application/description.

D. Examination

Agents

Aside from the search databases, the other key area of concern for agents is the examination phase. The primary issue is a perceived lack of consistency, whether between different examiners looking at the same application; positions changing from one time period to another; or, differences in how laws and court decisions are interpreted. One agent commented that, "what was accepted six months ago, is not accepted now. Every time we make a submission, they find something they want changed."

Other potential areas for improvement related to examiner's reports include:

More detail in examiner's reports, and specifically more explanations or arguments supporting the rejection of an application (similar to level of detail provided by the US PTO). Some agents indicated they are not interested in abridged reports for sake of brevity; they want as much detail as possible.
The opportunity to deal directly with examiners on minor changes or corrections, and that the US PTO examiners seem to have more flexibility in negotiating over the phone.

On the positive side, some agents indicated that they appreciate examiners' reports are not "final" and can be debated and evolved.

In terms of the lines of business, comments were most positive about the examination with respect to industrial design and least so for trademarks. The few agents with specific industrial design experience typically found examination for that line of business to be simple and easy, and that small corrections were quite easily made. Trademark agents, on the other hand, perceive declining quality in examiners' reports.

Agents also offered both positive comments and areas for improvement with respect to examiners themselves. On the whole, agents find examiners to be professional, polite and courteous in their interactions. Agents suspect the lack of consistency in examination relates back to a lack of experience and training among examiners, and potentially a lack of mentoring (due to a loss of senior people within CIPO).

Other concerns relate to difficulty accessing examiners. Agents often find them difficult to reach by phone and that they take too long to return phone calls. Also, the quality of the phone connection is sometimes poor enough to hamper communication; agents speculate that examiners are now often working from home on their cell phones.

Agents hold positive views about CIPO's accelerated examination service. They consider it a good service that delivers on what it is designed for (i.e., fast-track or speed up examination). There were a few comments about the cost, including that it can be cost prohibitive for smaller clients and that the value is not entirely evident (i.e., if CIPO can do examination that fast, why not do it all the time without charging for it?)

Unrepresented clients

The main concern of unrepresented clients at this stage is the length of time of the entire process, and that they never really knew the status of their application or what came next. They felt they were missing key information from a business planning perspective: when can I start building my product or open my business, and when can I start marketing and public relations? One individual commented that "this is the phase where you go bankrupt." This prompted suggestions that CIPO provide: (a) status updates (i.e., here's where you are in the process), and (b) a "roadmap" to clarify the steps involved and how long each step typically takes (to help with business planning).

As in the application filing stage, some unrepresented clients reached out to CIPO by telephone during examination. They described CIPO's telephone support staff as competent, courteous, excellent, helpful and accessible. In a few cases, clients were told exactly what information to provide to get their application approved.

A few clients were aware of CIPO's accelerated examination service, but they didn't have a clear idea of the timeframe involved, and none had experience with it.

Represented clients

Experienced (higher-volume) represented clients hold positive views about examination, remarking that they find examiners more reasonable and office actions more consistent than the US PTO. One comment was that they would like to see all office actions posted on the website, like in the U.S. One individual had had good experiences with the accelerated examination service, to the extent that his organization plans its filing strategy around it.

Less experienced (lower-volume) represented clients had no comments (positive or negative) about CIPO service at the examination stage.

E. Registration or Grant

Agents

For agents, the actual process of receiving the registration or grant is straightforward and seamless, mainly because it is automated and online ("not much to it").

The main comment for improvement related to accuracy, and specifically to providing the opportunity to check and correct the description prior to advertisement. An example was given of an agent pointing out an error to CIPO three separate times during examination, but the error was missed in the final document and corrections cannot be made following registration. The suggestion was to allow corrective steps to be taken without clients having to file again from scratch or take the issue to federal court.

Another comment was made that it would be nice to be able to print a hard copy of the final document (i.e., the declaration of use) for their clients.

Unrepresented clients

For unrepresented clients, this stage involves receipt of notification about registration or grant; there is no other direct interaction with CIPO. Two areas for improvement were raised:

Desire for a more official final document or registration/grant letter – one participant tossed it aside because the document did not look important enough.
Automating the payment and renewal processes. Once they have received the grant/registration, they still have to log onto the CIPO website to pay. Similarly, they have to monitor the renewal deadline to ensure they pay on time. Clients would be interested in having CIPO automate these services, and at least one client said they would be willing to pay a small fee.

Represented clients

At this stage, represented clients receive notification of registration or grant through their lawyer; they have no direct interaction with CIPO (including payment, which is handled by their agent) and thus not comments on service.

F. Other Services

Agents

Agents hold uniformly positive views about the service provided by the trademark opposition board and patent appeal board. At that level, agents find themselves dealing with very experienced examiners (the "pros"). One agent expressed concern about a perceived decline in quality (i.e., knowledge) of the examiners on the patent appeal board.

Unrepresented/represented clients

Unrepresented clients in the focus groups had no experience with the trademark opposition board or the patent appeal board. Only one represented client had experience with the trademark opposition board; they felt the process was open ("nothing was hidden") but intimidating, and not something to try to navigate on your own.

G. Key Service Attributes

Having explored the various elements of the customer journey, participants were asked to consider the key criteria on which they evaluate CIPO's service. They were presented with a list of criteria, and discussed how they interpret each criteria (i.e., what it means), their relative priority, and whether any key criteria were missing. This input was used to decide which variables related to client satisfaction to include in the quantitative survey.

Accessibility of service

Agents

Agents tended to distinguish between accessibility to CIPO through the online channel versus telephone, but in both cases, they are looking for service customized to their specific needs.

From an online perspective, agents expressed a desire for an agent-specific web portal tailored to the features and/or links they use on a regular basis. They recognize that CIPO has increased the website content tailored to unrepresented clients, but do not want to have to search through that content to find what they need. Agents have "learned tricks" to make their lives easier when navigating the CIPO site; if they have not bookmarked the "professional" content, it can be difficult and time-consuming to search for.

From a person-to-person perspective, agents would prefer a direct line to the person responsible for the service, rather than a general customer service (call centre) phone number. There is desire for direct access both to examiners (to discuss and resolve issues in examination) and to support staff (who can answer specific questions where an answer is needed "today").

Unrepresented clients

Unrepresented clients express a strong preference for online interaction. The CIPO website is their first and main point of interaction.

They turn to telephone when they need help, and are largely pleased with the service they have received through this channel (e.g., getting through to someone when they call, individual can answer their questions).

Represented clients

For less experienced (lower-volume) represented clients who would have liked to have handled their own IP application, accessibility to service is a concern when they encounter problems. They are happy with a "self-serve" approach but don't necessarily feel CIPO is there to back them up when needed ("It feels like you are on your own, like a department store – hello, is anyone out there?")

Common themes (across client types): Clients express a desire for greater online accessibility to service, in two key ways:

Improve electronic access to their file/account and documents. For agents, this means being able to view/download all documents related to an application and not just some; being able to download an entire application as one file rather than multiple files; and, improving the tags that specify the nature of specific documents online (e.g., "amendment" or "prosecution" can refer to many different types of documents). For clients, this is more about being able to check on the status of their application.
Replace fax or regular mail with email correspondence. Examples include: avoiding situations where CIPO mails a notice requesting a response within one month, but the notice is in the mail for a week, thereby reducing the client's available response time; allowing agents/clients to submit questions of clarification to examiners by email, rather than always having to make a formal submission.

Information was clear and easy to understand

Agents

The clarity of information was not an area of concern for agents, given their depth of knowledge about the IP process.

Unrepresented clients and Represented clients

Both unrepresented and less experienced represented clients generally felt it was not clear what information was required from them to successfully file or register their IP rights without errors or problems (e.g., confusing or unclear instructions in the application form; paperwork returned to the client where it was unclear what needed to be corrected).

Common themes (across client types): Agents and clients alike both expressed a desire for more transparency about where an application is in the process (i.e., a status update).

Timeliness of service

Agents

Agents discussed two main aspects of "timeliness." First, they find that examiners do not always respond to enquiries in a timely manner. Agents suspect a possible reason is that some examiners may be intimidated by agents' degree of knowledge, which may delay their response.

A second and very important aspect is the timeliness of the overall process in generating the final product (i.e., a grant or registration), because of its impact on business planning. Agents discussed how clients want a decision as soon as possible and are sometimes surprised it takes so long. At least one agent commented that CIPO's timeframes for the first examiners report in trademark (8-9 months) compares poorly to their experience with the US PTO (3-4 months)

Others commented that they are willing to wait for a quality product ("I don't mind it taking extra time if it's brilliant").

Unrepresented clients

Unrepresented clients are unclear what takes the process so long from start to finish, but more importantly, what the timing means for their business plans. They feel this could be mitigated by telling clients where they are at (status update) and what to expect next (process roadmap with timing).

Represented clients

Timeliness was less often raised as an issue by represented clients, although there were some questions about the overall length of the process.

Common themes (across client types): It was noted that timeliness of service is linked to accuracy. If CIPO or the agent/client makes mistakes at any point, it compounds the overall length of process. Also, there were comments from agents/represented clients that they sometimes choose to file with the US PTO first, which then speeds up the CIPO examination.

Employee interactions

Agents

Agents distinguish between professionalism/courtesy and knowledge when they discuss their interactions with CIPO employees.

By all accounts, CIPO employees are courteous, respectful and polite. However, some agents expressed concerns about the level of knowledge/training among examiners. There were also some comments that support staff (other than examiners) are not knowledgeable about IP and the importance of their part of the process. Agents would like support staff to better understand how their piece fits within the bigger process, why the final product is important and how errors and delays reflect on the country's reputation. Some agents also pointed out that a lack of knowledge among CIPO staff also impacts timeliness when questions cannot be answered and must be referred onwards.

There is a perception among some agents that examiners and other support staff will "bend over backwards" to help unrepresented clients, but don't feel obligated to help agents to the same extent ("if you don't know, I'm not going to help you").

Unrepresented clients

Unrepresented clients find CIPO employees to be very helpful and "bend over backwards" to the extent of providing clients with the language to use to get their application through.

Represented clients

Represented clients have relatively little (if any) direct interaction with CIPO employees to be able to comment on the level of service.

Consistency of service

Agents

Agents' comments about consistency of service fall into two main categories:

Often agents feel they are dealing with three different CIPOs, since each line of business have a slightly different process (e.g., where to find things on the online application form; what information needs to be provided; payment process).
Agents are most aware of inconsistencies in examination. As described in section C, agents have experienced inconsistent service between examiners, time periods and in relation to the interpretation of regulations/law. Often this is linked back to a perceived lack of training for and inexperience among examiners.

Unrepresented clients

Unrepresented clients in the focus groups generally did not have sufficient volume of IP experiences to comment on consistency of service.

Represented clients

One very experienced represented client commented on the greater consistency of CIPO office actions than in the U.S. Otherwise, most represented clients were unable to comment.

Accuracy

Agents

Errors on CIPO's part are a well-known problem among agents. Examples include typos, lost documents and mailings gone astray. Agents comment that they have to be able to rely on the accuracy of CIPO's products, and raise the concern that inaccuracies can reflect on Canada's reputation abroad.

Unrepresented clients and Represented clients

Errors on CIPO's part may be less evident to unrepresented clients (because they are less frequent users) and represented clients (because errors are handled by their agent). However, they can nonetheless have substantial implications. For example, one unrepresented client had a notification expire because it was sent to an incorrect mailing address and she never received it.

Common themes (across client types): Both agents and clients find it difficult and time-consuming to get CIPO to correct even relatively simple errors.

The main criteria that was deemed to be missing from what was presented to them was cost or value for money, particularly for accelerated services. Participants did not identify any other criteria on which they would evaluate CIPO's client service.

H. Information Needs and Gaps

Agents

Agents acknowledge that there is good general IP information available on the CIPO website, which they consider to be generally helpful although not vital for agents. Agents appreciate that CIPO is trying to promote the importance of IP "to the masses" and any further efforts in this area are generally seen as positive. They don't identify anything they need to support them in better serving their clients or educating their clients about the IP process.

Unrepresented clients

Unrepresented clients raised three types of information needs:

Information to help them successfully navigate the process – what does a typical application look like? What have others in their industry done?
Developing their IP expertise – in what ways does a trademark or patent protect the owner (or not)? What is involved in extending IP rights internationally?
Unrepresented clients find themselves the target of solicitations and scams when their contact information gets published on the CIPO website. They would like to be warned in advance that this may happen, as well as receive advice or tips so they are well-prepared to deal with it.

Represented clients

Particularly for less experienced represented clients, the suggestion is to build awareness of the information available on CIPO's website that might allow clients to navigate the IP process themselves.

I. Comparison to Other IPOs

Agents

For agents, the CIPO website is the main starting point for comparisons to IPOs in other countries. CIPO's website is generally considered to have a friendly look and feel and to contain good information. However, the website is considered weaker in terms of functionality – more difficult to use, navigate or search - compared to the US or Europe.

Unrepresented clients

Very few made comparisons between CIPO and other IPOs. For example, there are single comments each about CIPO introducing phonetic search similar to Mexico; the CIPO site looking more official than in Germany; and, can there be more links between countries (e.g., why does IP have to be registered separately in all NAFTA countries?)

Represented clients

Among experienced represented clients, there are mixed views about CIPO by comparison to the US PTO. Positive comparisons include that CIPO's examiners are more reasonable and consistent than in the US. Some say the US PTO is faster when applications are filed in both countries at the same time; others say they tend to file in the US first which ultimately speeds up the Canadian process. US represented clients found CIPO faster than expected.

IV. Conclusions

CIPO offers exacting and complex Intellectual Property services to some of the most knowledgeable and sophisticated clients in Canada in their respective fields, including lawyers (both agents and in-house legal counsel) and companies that recognize the value of IP for their business. Among its specialized clientele, CIPO has achieved a modest level of satisfaction, both overall and with specific aspects of the service it provides, with substantial room for service improvement. The results of the qualitative and quantitative research are generally consistent in pointing to the service aspects that clients would most like to see addressed and are most likely to lead to improvements in overall satisfaction.

A central opportunity to improve service delivery is to design or adjust filing and examination processes with user needs in mind. There is a wide range of experience levels among CIPO's clients, but ultimately, they fall into two main groups: experts (agents and experienced represented and unrepresented clients) and laypersons (represented and unrepresented clients with limited IP experience). Experts want a highly efficient service customized to their needs as high-volume users; while laypersons also want an automated, self-serve approach, their lack of experience means that they need greater support from CIPO to successfully achieve IP protection. It is likely for this reason that perceptions about efforts by CIPO staff to go the extra mile to meet their needs are a key driver of overall satisfaction for represented and unrepresented clients.

The second main area for improvement is around timeliness. Efforts to reduce the time between filing, first office actions and registered/granted IP would be well-received by clients of all types, particularly since it will support business planning in a competitive business environment. Finally, improving agents' perceptions of the consistency of decisions between individual examiners is likely to boost overall client satisfaction with CIPO.

This research has been conducted in support of a comprehensive on-going client satisfaction measurement program. Much has changed since CIPO's 2008 client satisfaction survey, including the sample design (no longer includes copyright clients), survey methodology (online instead of telephone), question items and scale wording, as well as the real-world context (e.g., client expectations around online service delivery). For this reason, this report does not look back at historical comparisons, but focuses instead on the current data – which will serve as a robust baseline for tracking changes over time in response to CIPO's future service initiatives.

Appendix A - Methodology

1. Qualitative Research

The qualitative phase of this research project was designed to provide insight into client experiences, expectations and priorities, information which was used in the development of the quantitative questionnaire.

The target audience was clients who have been granted a patent or registered a trademark or industrial design in the past 12 months. Groups were conducted with three client types:

Agents: IP professionals who prosecute IP applications on behalf of their clients or the companies they work for (in-house counsel)
Unrepresented clients: Clients who have completed the process to obtain IP without the help of an agent
Represented clients: Clients who used an agent to complete the process to obtain IP. This group was included to understand the extent of their interactions with CIPO and determine if they are a suitable target audience to include in the quantitative research (i.e., are the questions relevant to them and will they be able to answer).

A series of nine focus groups was conducted across Canada from December 6, 2017 to January 16, 2018. Seven of the groups were conducted in-person; two were conducted by telephone conference call. Each group lasted between 90 and 120 minutes.

Group Composition

The table below presents the composition of the groups. This design was developed to:

Include the three client types
Include clients with experiences in each of CIPO's lines of business (Patents, Trademarks and Industrial Design), where client numbers allow
Provide geographic distribution across Canada (Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Vancouver), as well as including Represented clients in the U.S.

Composition of the groups
Date	Client Group	Line of business	City
In-person groups
Dec 6, 2017 5:30pm	Unrepresented clients	Primarily Trademark	Toronto
Dec 6, 2017 8:00pm	Represented clients	Trademark	Toronto
Dec 11, 2017 5:30pm	Agents	Trademark	Vancouver
Dec 11, 2017 8:00pm	Represented clients	Patent/Industrial design	Vancouver
Dec 12, 2017 5:30pm	Agents	Patent/Industrial design	Ottawa
Dec 13, 2017 5:30pm	Agents	Patent	Montreal (French)
Dec 13, 2017 8:00pm	Unrepresented clients	Primarily Trademark	Montreal (French)
Telephone groups
Dec 14, 2017 4:00 pm EST	Represented clients (USA)	Patent	Across the USA
Jan 12, 2018 5:00pm EST	Represented clients (CAN)	Mix	Across Canada

A total of 62 participants was recruited and 52 attended. The focus groups with represented clients in Vancouver, Toronto and the U.S. phone group were challenging to recruit and not well-attended; thus, an additional telephone group with represented clients in Canada was conducted.

Recruitment

Environics developed the recruitment screener and finalized it in collaboration with CIPO and ISED representatives. Participants were recruited from client lists provided by CIPO, based on the eligibility requirements outlined in the screener and screened to ensure a mix of genders and that they would be comfortable voicing their opinions in front of others.

Agents were also screened to ensure the groups included a mix of years in the IP field, and a mix of independent agents and those who are part of a firm. Unrepresented and represented clients were screened to include a mix of those whose IP is associated with a company or an individual, company sizes (small/medium/large), industry type and IP volume.

Canadian participants were offered an honorarium of $180 CAD to encourage participation and thank them for their commit¬ment; U.S. participants were offered $200 USD.

Moderation

All groups were video and audio recorded for use in subsequent analysis by the research team. During the recruitment process and at the session sign-in, participants were asked to consent to such recording.

Derek Leebosh, Vice President, Environics, and Rick Nadeau moderated the sessions. All qualitative research work was conducted in accordance with the professional standards established by the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association (MRIA) and applicable PIPEDA legislation.

Statement of limitations

Qualitative research provides insight into the range of opinions held within a population, rather than the weights of the opinions held, as would be measured in a quantitative survey. The results of this type of research should be viewed as indicative rather than projectable.

2. Quantitative Research

The quantitative phase of this research project involved an online survey with 1,136 clients of CIPO, from February 21 to April 22, 2018. The margin of error for the total sample of 1,136 is +/- 2.9 percentage points, at the 95% confidence level (margin of error is greater for subgroups). Data is reported only for base sizes of n=30 or higher (margin of error for a sample of 30 is +/-17.8 percentage points, at the 95% confidence level).

Background and Purpose

Target Audience

CIPO provided lists of agents and represented and unrepresented clients, which were pulled based on the following criteria:

Criterias
Transaction phase or outcome	Line of business	Source & Selection criteria
Granted or registered for represented and unrepresented clients	Trademarks Industrial Design Patents	Granted or registered anytime between June 1, 2016 and November 30, 2017 (18 month period)
Refused/Abandoned/Withdrawn for represented and unrepresented clients	Trademarks Industrial Design Patents	Refused, Abandoned or Withdrawn anytime between June 1, 2016 and November 30, 2017 (18 month period)
Applied and still in progress for represented and unrepresented clients	Trademarks Industrial Design Patents	IP is laid open within the June 1, 2016 and November 30, 2017 period and still active.
Agents	Trademark Agents and Patent Agents as found on Agent lists	All agents currently listed as active with CIPO.

Environics compiled the lists, de-duplicated the records, and filtered to those with e-mail addresses. The following table provides the distribution of unduplicated records with e-mail addresses available for the survey:

Distribution of unduplicated records
	Patent	ID	TD	Total
Agents	36%	0%	64%	16%
Unrepresented clients	5%	1%	94%	73%
Represented clients	22%	2%	76%	11%
Total	12%	1%	88%	100%

In addition, Environics conducted telephone lookups with agents and represented and unrepresented clients for whom the lists did not contain email addresses. This generated 85 additional email addresses for agents and 383 for represented and unrepresented clients.

The survey screened for clients who had had interactions with CIPO in the past 18 months. When clients indicated experience with more than one line of business in the past 18 months, the survey programming selected a line of business for respondents to respond about, prioritizing those with fewer sample records (Industrial Design and Patent) to ensure these are sufficiently represented in the data.

The final distribution of completed interviews by client type and line of business is as follows:

Distribution of completed interviews by client type and line of business
	Patent	ID	TD	Total	Margin of Error*	%Actual**
Agents	113	84	236	433	± 4.7	38%
Unrepresented clients	88	20	476	584	± 4.0	51%
Represented clients	20	3	23	46	± 14.4	10%
Mixed clients***	21	6	46	73	± 11.5
Total	242	113	781	1136	± 2.9	100%
Margin of Error*	± 6.3	± 9.2	± 3.5	n/a

*Margins of sampling error shown are at the 95% confidence level
**Represents the actual proportion of emails in the database provided by CIPO
*** Mixed clients are those who indicated that they sometimes used an agent and sometimes interacted with CIPO on their own behalf in the previous 18 months.

The final data were weighted to match the proportions of agents, unrepresented and represented clients having e-mails in the sample file.

Questionnaire design

The questionnaire was designed by Environics to address the objectives of the research, drawing on the results of the focus groups to identify service elements to incorporate. Feedback was sought from the CIPO Executive Team and the Steering Committee, prior to finalizing the instrument. Upon CIPO's approval, Environics translated the questionnaire into French.

Data collection

Environics programmed the English and French versions of the questionnaire into its online survey software. The programming has checked by Environics and CIPO staff. The initial soft launch was broadcast February 21. No questionnaire changes were required following the soft launch.

The full launch took place on February 26 and field closed on April 22. An extended field period and six reminder emails (March 2, 9, 16 and 23 and April 6 and 13) were used to generate the desired number of interviews. All six reminders generated a substantial boost in response (100+ completed surveys over the subsequent weekend), which is atypical (typically each reminder generates diminishing returns). CIPO also supported recruitment efforts through posts on its website and Twitter account, and through an email blast on April 5-6.

All research work was conducted in accordance with the professional standards established by the MRIA, as well as applicable federal legislation (PIPEDA) and to the Privacy Act and Treasury Board and PSPC privacy policies, directives and standards. The survey was registered with the National Survey Registration System, as is done as a matter of policy for all Environics surveys, and the research met all federal government and industry standards.

Response rate

The initial survey invitation was broadcast to 12,788 contacts. 1,136 responses were received, for a calculated response rate of 11% overall. The response rate is shown below.

The response rate of the initial survey invitation
Email disposition	Total (N)
Total number invited to participate	12,788
- Invalid (undelivered)	946
Broadcasts delivered	11,842
UNRESOLVED (U)	10,081
- Did not respond	10,081
IN SCOPE NON-RESPONDING (IS)	510
- Qualified respondent break-off	510
IN SCOPE RESPONDING (R)	1,251
- Disqualified	115
- Quota filled	0
- Completed	1,136
CONTACT RATE [(R+IS) / (U + IS + R)] - %	15%
RESPONSE RATE [R / (U + IS + R)] - %	11%

Weighted Sample Profile

The table below presents the weighted sample profile for agents and represented and unrepresented clients by key characteristics.

Weighted sample profile for agents, represented and unrepresented clients by key characteristics
Profile categories	Agents (n=433)	Rep/unrep clients (n=703)
LOB experience in past 18 months
Trademark	78%	87%
Patent	41%	19%
Industrial design	26%	5%
Location
Atlantic provinces	2%	4%
Quebec	21%	22%
Ontario	48%	40%
West	29%	34%
Gender
Male	50%	63%
Female	37%	30%
Prefer not to say	12%	7%
Years of experience in IP field (agents)
5 years or less	11%
6-10 years	17%
11-15 years	18%
16-20 years	22%
21+ years	32%
Location of clients (agents)
Domestic IP clients only	22%
Any international IP clients (net)	72%
US	60%
Europe	57%
Asia	45%
Other	15%
Prefer not to say	6%
IP associated with…(rep/unrep clients)
Your company		61%
You personally		23%
Some with company/some you personally		16%
Number of IP applications in process in past 18 months (rep/unrep clients)
One		58%
Two		19%
Three or more		15%
Not sure		8%

Appendix B – Focus Group Screeners

November 21, 2017

Environics Research Group Limited
Client Satisfaction Research - Agents
CIPO

Recruitment for Group Discussion

Respondent Name:

Business #:

Group #:

Recruiter:

Recruitment for Group Discussion
Group 1	Group 2	Group 3
Ottawa	Montreal (French)	Vancouver
December 12 6:00-8:00 pm	December 13 5:30-7:30 pm	December 11 5:30-7:30 pm
Patent/ID agents	Patent agents	Trademark agents

Recruit 8 participants per group for minimum of 6- 8 shows. NB: All participants must be an intellectual property agents with experience in registering patents, trademarks or industrial designs.

Get mix of sizes of firms – small (1-10 employees), medium (11-25 employees) and large (over 25 employees). Please recruit only one agent per firm. Ideally also to include at least one woman per group.

Hello, I'm from Environics Research. We are a professional public opinion research firm that gathers opinions from people. We are conducting a series of focus group discussions on behalf of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, an agency of the Government of Canada among patent, trademark and industrial design agents who secure intellectual property rights on behalf of clients.

A. Do you personally fit into that category?

Yes, am responsible for securing intellectual property for clients

Continue
Ask

No "If your firm does intellectual property, can you direct me to someone else who does this type of work?"

Yes [Take contact information / transfer to person, start from beginning]

Continue
Thank & terminate

1. May I ask you some questions to see if you qualify for this research project?

Continue
Thank and terminate

When speaking with desired participant:

I would like to invite you to participate in a discussion about the services provided by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, known as CIPO (Pronounced: CEE-PO). This will be an in-person session in downtown (location).

Your participation in the research is completely voluntary and your decision on whether to participate will not affect any dealings you may have with CIPO or with any other part of the Government of Canada. The session will last about two hours and you will receive a cash honorarium of $180 for participating in the session. You will not be asked any questions dealing with proprietary client information.

NB: If asked by potential recruits – cite the following:

If asked - Privacy and confidentiality - The focus group is confidential and anonymous. Your comments will be protected in accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act.

[Repeat introduction as necessary when speaking with potential target respondent]

2. Which of the following categories best corresponds to your total personal annual income, before taxes, for 2017? First, do you or any member of your household or your immediate family work for either a market research company or any media company (print, radio, tv.)?

If yes, thank and terminate call
If no, continue

If refused, thank and terminate call

3. Have you registered at least one of the following in Canada on behalf of a client in the past 12 months? RECORD ALL THAT APPLY

Patent
Trademark ensure matches group requirements – get at
Industrial design least 3 industrial design in Ottawa
None in past 12 months terminate

4. What is your primary line of business?

Patent
Trademark
Industrial design

5. Do you operate as an independent agent or are you part of a company?

Operate as independent agent
Part of a company get mix

6. Record gender

Male
Female try to get some female representation

7. How long have you been working as an agent securing intellectual property rights for clients?

Up to five years
Five years or more get mix if possible

8. Participants in group discussions are asked to voice their opinions and thoughts; how comfortable are you in voicing your opinions in front of others? Are you…

Very comfortable min 50% of very comfortable & comfortable per group
Comfortable
Fairly comfortable
Not very comfortable thank and terminate
Very uncomfortable thank and terminate

All

Interviewers: Tell respondent that it is a small group and anyone who does not show or cancels at the last minute will compromise the project. Make sure they know we feel their opinions are valuable and we are serious about finding out what they have to offer.

Note: please tell all respondents that they will receive a confirmation call the day prior to the session. if for some reason they have not heard from us they should contact us at. if their name is not on the attendance form they will not be admitted to the group.

The group discussion will last approximately one and a half hours and we offer each participant a $180.00 cash gift as a token of our appreciation. I should also tell you that the groups will be audio - taped for research purposes and members of the research team will be observing the discussion from an adjoining room. Everything you say will be kept confidential.

[ ] Check to indicate you have read the statement to the respondent.

If you require reading glasses, please remember to bring them with you, as you may be required to read some materials during the session. You will be required to turn off all electronic devices during the discussion.

Recruiter – Terminate if participant appears uncomfortable with reading requirement

Recruiter - Tell participant that it is a small group and anyone who does not show or cancels at the last minute will compromise the project. Make sure they know we feel their opinions are valuable and we are serious about finding out what they have to offer.

Length of group: 2 hours

Location:

Recruitment for Group Discussion - Groups 1 to 3
Group 1	Group 2	Group 3
Ottawa	Montreal (French)	Vancouver
December 12 5:30-7:30 pm	December 13 5:30-7:30 pm	December 11 5:30-7:30 pm
Patent agents Stratcom 100 Sparks Street 8^th Floor, Suite 802	Patent/ID agents CRC Research 1610 St. Catherine's Street W 4^th floor, Suite 411	Trademark agents Vancouver Focus 1080 Howe Street 5^th floor, Suite 503

Please arrive 15 minutes prior to group

November 21, 2017

Environics Research Group Limited
Client Satisfaction Research - CLIENTS
CIPO

Recruitment for Group Discussion

Respondent Name:

Business #:

Group #:

Recruiter:

Recruitment for Group Discussion - Groups 4 to 8
Groupe 4	Groupe 5	Groupe 6	Groupe 7	Groupe 8
Montreal (French)	Toronto	Toronto	Vancouver	US (Telephone)
December 13 8:00 – 10:00 pm	December 6 5:30 – 7:30 pm	December 6 8:00 – 10:00 pm	December 11 8:00 – 10:00 pm	December 14 4:00-6:00 pm EST
Unrepresented clients	Unrepresented clients	Represented clients	Represented clients	Represented clients
Mix/primarily trademark	Mix/primarily trademark	Trademarks	Patents/industrial design	Mix (trademark/patent/ID)

Recruit 8 participants per group for minimum of 6- 8 shows. NB: All participants must deal with registering intellectual property on behalf of their firm and should have knowledge of registering IP in Canada.

Get mix of sizes of firms – small (1-19 employees), medium (20-99 employees) and large (over 100 employees). Would also like a mix of length of time company has been securing UP Ideally also to include at least one woman per group.

Hello, I'm from Environics Research. We are a professional public opinion research firm that gathers opinions from people. We are conducting a series of focus group discussions on behalf of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, an agency of the Government of Canada, with people or companies that have secured intellectual property rights – that is, patents, trademarks or industrial designs - in Canada.

A. If represented client: We would like to speak to the person in your organization who makes decisions about securing intellectual property rights in Canada, and not an agent you used to register the IP rights. Are you that person?

If unrepresented client: Are you the person best able to take part in a discussion about securing intellectual property rights?

Yes, am responsible for IP in Canada

Continue
Ask "Can you direct me to someone else in your firm who does this type of work?"

Yes [Take contact information / transfer to person, start from beginning]

Continue
No - Thank and terminate
Refused - Thank and terminate

1. May I ask you some questions to see if you qualify for this research project?

Yes – Continue
No – Thank and terminate

When speaking with desired participant:

Your participation in the research is completely voluntary and your decision on whether to participate will not affect any dealings you may have with CIPO or with any other part of the Government of Canada. The session will last about (Canada: two hours/US: one and a half hours) and you will receive an honorarium of (Canada: $180/US: $200) for participating in the session. You will not be asked any questions about proprietary intellectual property information; this is about the service received during the process of registering intellectual property in Canada.

If asked by represented clients: You do not have to have had direct dealings with CIPO to participate in the group.

NB: If asked by potential recruits – cite the following:

If asked - Privacy and confidentiality - The focus group is confidential and anonymous.

Canada: Your comments will be protected in accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act.

[Repeat introduction as necessary when speaking with potential target respondent]

2. First, do you or any member of your household or your immediate family work for either a market research company or any media company (print, radio, tv)?

If yes, thank and terminate call
If no, continue
If refused, thank and terminate call

3. Have you or your company registered at least one of the following in Canada in the past 12 months? Record all that apply

Patent
Trademark ensure matches group requirements
Industrial design
None in past 12 months terminate

4. [Unrepresented list only] Did you represent yourself or did you use an agent to secure this intellectual property right?

Represented myself recruit to unrep group in Toronto/Montreal (4 and 5)
Used an agent recruit to rep group if Toronto (group 6) / in Montreal, terminate

5. Is this particular intellectual property associated with you personally or with the company you work for? Get mix if possible

Self skip to Q.9
Company

6. [If company:] About how many employees does your business have?

Note: Size category below and try to get a mix of small, medium and large companies.

Small – 1-100 employees
Medium – 100-499 employees get 1-2 in each category
Large – 500+ employees

7. [If company:] How long has your firm been operating?

Up to five years

Five or more years get mix if possible

8. [If company:] How long have you personally been involved in securing intellectual property rights, including for your current organization or previous employers?

Up to five years
Five or more years get mix if possible

9. In which of the following industries do you/does your business primarily operate? Get mix if possible

Manufacturing
Construction
Transportation, accommodation, food services
Wholesale and retail trade
Financial, insurance, real estate, information or communications
Other

10. How many intellectual property filings have you/has your company done in Canada?

1-5
6-20 get mix if possible
21+

11. Record gender

Male
Female try to get some female representation

12. We have been asked to speak to participants from all different ages. Could you please tell me in which age group you fit?

18-34
35-49 get mix if possible
50+

13. Participants in group discussions are asked to voice their opinions and thoughts; how comfortable are you in voicing your opinions in front of others? Are you…

Very comfortable min 50% of very comfortable & comfortable per group
Comfortable
Fairly comfortable
Not very comfortable thank and terminate
Very uncomfortable thank and terminate

All

Note: Please tell all respondents that they will receive a confirmation call the day prior to the session. if for some reason they have not heard from us they should contact us at. If their name is not on the attendance form they will not be admitted to the group.

The group discussion will last approximately (Canada: two hours/US: one and a half hours) and you will receive a (Canada: $180 cash gift/US: $200 honorarium) as a token of our appreciation. I should also tell you that the groups will be audio - taped for research purposes and members of the research team will be (Canada: observing the discussion from an adjoining room/US: auditing the phone session). Everything you say will be kept confidential.

[ ] Check to indicate you have read the statement to the respondent.

Canada: If you require reading glasses, please remember to bring them with you, as you may be required to read some materials during the session. You will be required to turn off all electronic devices during the discussion.

Recruiter – Terminate if participant appears uncomfortable with reading requirement

Length of group: 2 hours

Recruitment screener for clients - Group 4 to 8
Group 4	Group 5	Group 6	Group 7	Group 8
Montreal (French)	Toronto	Toronto	Vancouver	US (Telephone)
December 13 8:00 – 10:00 pm	December 6 5:30 – 7:30 pm	December 6 8:00 – 10:00 pm	December 13 8:00 – 10:00 pm	December 14 4:00-6:00 pm EAST
Unrepresented clients Mix/primarily trademark CRC Research 1610 St. Catherine's Street West, 4^th floor, Suite 411	Unrepresented clients Mix/primarily trademark CRC Research House 1867 Yonge St 2^nd Floor, Suite 200	Represented clients Trademark CRC Research House 1867 Yonge St 2^nd Floor, Suite 200	Represented clients Patents/industrial design Vancouver Focus 1080 Howe Street, Suite 503	Rep clients Mix (patent/TM/ID) DIAL IN INFORMATION TBD

Canada: please arrive 15 minutes prior to group

US: please call in five minutes prior to the telephone group

Appendix C – Focus Group Discussion Guides

December 8, 2017

Environics Research
Focus Groups on Client Service/Satisfaction
CIPO Discussion Guide - Agents

1.0 Introduction to Procedures (10 minutes)

Hello, my name is Derek and I work for Environics Research, which is a public opinion research firm. I'd like to welcome you to this focus group. As you know we have been engaged by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (otherwise known as CIPO) to conduct this research project on client service. We want to hear your opinions so please feel free to agree or disagree. You don't have to direct all your comments to me; you can exchange ideas and arguments with each other too.

CIPO is a special operating agency of the Government of Canada so I would like to assure, first of all, that anything you say here will remain confidential and anonymous and any comments you make will not be linked to you by name in any reporting we do on this project, nor will it affect any dealings you may have with CIPO or with the Government of Canada.

There are also some observers watching the session on the other side of the one-way mirror and they are part of CIPO's research team. We are also video-taping this session to help me write my report. The video will only be used internally to analyse the research and will not be released to anyone else. I may take some notes during the group discussion to remind myself of things also.

The host/hostess will pay you your incentives at the end of the session.

Please turn off any cell phones, pagers.

Let's go around the table so that each of you can tell us your first name and a little bit about yourself, such as the type of firm or organization you work for, your IP speciality, and very broadly, what kinds of clients you represent when you deal with CIPO. As well, tell us broadly how you interact with CIPO?

2.0 Overall views (15 minutes)

Our objective in this research project is to explore how you feel about the service that you have received from CIPO. It is important to keep in mind that we are focusing on service this evening, rather than on the programs being delivered. We don't want to get sidetracked with discussions covering larger issues surrounding intellectual property (IP) and government policies with respect to how patents, trademarks or industrial designs are registered / filled / granted.

For example, one might receive a decision or information from CIPO that disappoints them, or they do not agree with. That decision or information itself has to do with the government policy, program or regulation in question. The service surrounding these have to do with how long it took to obtain service, how easy it was to access the service, how well the program or application form was explained, whether one was treated with respect and courtesy etc. It is these service aspects that we want to focus on.

When we talk generally about "service" at CIPO, what do you think about? (Go around the table to get broad opinions).

Prompt if needed: How would you describe CIPO as a service organization? Do you enjoy working with CIPO? Or do you find it frustrating?

Now, let's focus now on your most recent interaction with CIPO. Can you describe that interaction from a service perspective?

Probe: Were you trying to deal with someone in-person, on the phone or online?

I'd like you to each jot down on paper, what you thought was positive about the service you received from CIPO and also jot down what was negative or needed improvement, if anything. Then we will go around the table and hear from each of you about your opinions on this.

How satisfied were you overall with the service you received from CIPO?

What area(s) of service stood out as most positive?

What area(s) of service stood out as needing improvement?

Probe: What, if anything, bothered or concerned you about the service you received? Would you say that you received a service consistent with other experiences that you have had with CIPO? Why or why not?

What is the #1 improvement you would make to how CIPO delivers it service?

Why do you say that?

3.0 IP Application process (10 minutes)

Now that we talked about your overall impressions of your service experience at CIPO, let's talk about some common service provisions. I understand that there are differences in these processes for Patents, Trademarks and Industrial Design; however I want us to focus on the common service elements throughout these processes such as timeliness, communications, accessibility of services, consistency of service, etc.

Now, let's talk about the filing of an application for a patent or to register a trademark, or industrial design.

Thinking about a recent application that you have submitted on behalf of a client, How would you describe this process from a service perspective? Did you experience any client service issues and if so, how were they resolved?

What was positive about the service? What aspects of service could be improved?

Prompt if necessary: How did you apply? Was it all online or on paper? Or fax?
Prompt: Prior to or during the application process, was it easy to reach someone to discuss the application or to ask questions about the process?
Prompt: Did you consult the website or talk to anyone at CIPO? How would you describe that experience? Was the information clear? Was it easy to find?

Probe: Did you use any of the search databases online or at CIPO's office? How would you describe that experience? Prompt: Did you find what you were looking for? Were these databases easy to use?

At the application stage, did CIPO meet your expectations in terms of client service? Why or why not (i.e., how/in what ways)?

Prompt as needed:

Was the application process timely?
Was the process clear?
Were you able to find all the information you needed using your preferred channel?
Was the information clear and easy to understand?
What about the staff you dealt with? Were they knowledgeable, courteous, respectful? Did you feel that staff went the extra mile to help?

4.0 Examination (10 minutes)

Now let's move on to the examination process.

I know that the process is somewhat different for Trademarks, Patents and Industrial Designs, but thinking about your last service experience where you dealt with an examination; can you describe to me what this process looks like from a service perspective?

Prompt: For example, did you receive documentation; did you meet with or talk to CIPO staff to discuss the examination?

How would you describe your experience in dealing with CIPO during this process?

Did CIPO meet your expectations in terms of client service during the examination process? Why or why not (i.e., how/in what ways)?

CIPO provides options for accelerating or fast-tracking the examination phase. Have any of you used these services on behalf of a client? If yes: How would you describe your service experience with this service?

Prompt as needed:

Was the examination process timely?
Was the process clear?
Were you able to find all the information you needed using your preferred channel?
Was the information, like the examination report, easy to understand, clear and accurate?
What about the staff you dealt with? Were they knowledgeable, courteous, and respectful? Did you feel that staff went the extra mile to help?

5.0 Registration or grant (10 minutes)

Let's turn our attention now to the part of the process where you receive notice that the trademark, industrial design or patent application has been approved. Thinking about your last service experience with the registration of an Industrial Design or Trademark or the granting of a Patent, what did this process look like from the client service perspective?

How would you describe your experience in dealing with CIPO during this period?

Did they meet your expectations in terms of client service? Why or why not (i.e., how/in what ways)?

Prompt as needed:

Was this part of the process timely?
Was the process clear?
Were you able to find all the information you needed using your preferred channel?
Was the information easy to understand, clear and accurate?
What about the staff you dealt with? Were they knowledgeable, courteous, and respectful? Did you feel that staff went the extra mile to help?

5.0 Other Services (10 minutes)

Let's talk a little now about other IP services that you do for clients that require you to interact with CIPO.

Trademark: Have you ever participated in proceedings at the Trademark Opposition Board?
Patents and industrial designs: Have you ever appealed a decision?

How would you describe your experience in dealing with CIPO for these services?

Did CIPO meet your expectations in terms of client service? Why or why not (i.e., how/in what ways)?

Were there any service gaps in delivering these services? If yes, what gaps?

Prompt as needed:

Were these services delivered in a timely manner?
Was the process clear?
Were you able to find all the information you needed using your preferred channel?
Was the information easy to understand, clear and accurate?
What about the staff you dealt with? Were they knowledgeable, courteous, respectful? Did you feel that staff went the extra mile to help?

6.0 Key measures and prioritization (15 minutes)

Now that we've had a chance to discuss and think through the variety of service interactions with CIPO, I'd like you to rate CIPO on each of these criteria. Distribute handout.

Accessibility of service, i.e. - ability to access service via multiple channels
Information was clear and easy to understand
Timeliness of the service provided
- CIPO staff provided timely service throughout
- Timeliness of notifications/decisions at each part of the process
Employee interactions (i.e knowledgeable staff, courteous, respectful, staff went the extra mile, etc)
Consistency of service received across all channels and all services
Accuracy/doesn't make mistakes

Are there any of these criteria that you had difficulty rating? If so, why?

Are there any other criteria you would add to this list?

Which of these criteria is the most important to you?

What do you think of service received from CIPO through different channels – Web, phone, in-person? Does it vary?

Are there services that could be improved if they were provided through a different channel (e.g., in-person services better provided by Web)?

How would you compare CIPO to other Canadian government agencies that you may have dealt with for business reasons? PROMPT: Would you say that CIPO is on par with other government organizations? Why or Why not?

7.0 Comparative IPO questions (5 minutes)

Have you ever conducted business on behalf of IP clients with other Intellectual Property Offices (IPOs) in other countries?

PROMPT: United States Patent Office (USPTO)? Intellectual Property Australia (IP Australia)? European Patent Office? Japan Patent office?

Overall, how does CIPO's service provision compare?

In which ways, if any, does CIPO provide better service?

In which ways, if any, does CIPO provide poorer service?

8.0 Tools and products (5 minutes)

Where do you typically go when you want more information on a particular IP-related topic?

Are there any IP topics where you feel there is a gap in the information available?

Are there any other tools or specific services you would like see related to IP?

How would you most like to access this information, tools or services? How would it be most accessible and useful to you? Probe: online, in-person sessions, printed brochures, mobile app etc.

Do you have any suggestions for information or tools that CIPO could develop to help you better serve and educate your clients about the IP process?

9.0 Wrap up (5 minutes)

Do you have any final comments? Are there any other aspects of CIPO's client service that we haven't yet touched on but should?

Thanks for your participation

December 8, 2017

Environics Research
Focus Groups on Client Service/Satisfaction
CIPO Discussion Guide – Represented clients

1.0 Introduction to Procedures (10 minutes)

Hello, my name is Derek and I work for Environics Research, which is a public opinion research firm. I'd like to welcome you to this focus group. As you know we have been engaged by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, otherwise known as CIPO, to conduct this research project on client service. We want to hear your opinions so please feel free to agree or disagree. You don't have to direct all your comments to me; you can exchange ideas and arguments with each other too.

CIPO is a special operating agency of the Government of Canada so I would like to assure you that anything you say here will remain confidential and anonymous and any comments you make will not be linked to you by name in any reporting we do on this project, nor will it affect any dealings you may have with CIPO or with the Government of Canada.

There are also some observers watching the session on the other side of the one-way mirror and they are part of the research team at CIPO. We are also video-taping this session to help me write my report. The video will only be used internally to analyse the research and will not be released to anyone else. I may take some notes during the group discussion to remind myself of things also.

The host/hostess will pay you your incentives at the end of the session.

Please turn off any cell phones, pagers.

Let's go around the table so that each of you can tell us your first name and a little bit about yourself, such as what type of organization you work for or own and very broadly, what you do that brought you into contact with CIPO whether indirectly through your agent or directly.

2.0 Overall views (15 minutes)

Our objective in this research project is to explore how you, the users of CIPO's services, feel about the service that you have received from CIPO. It is important to keep in mind that we are focusing on service this evening, rather than on the programs being delivered. We don't want to get sidetracked with discussions covering larger issues surrounding intellectual property (IP) and government policies with respect to how patents, trademarks or industrial designs are registered / filled / granted.

First of all, how familiar would you say each of you are with the IP process? Each of you are here because you recently registered a trademark or Industrial design or were granted a patent via your Agent. Was this your first time registering a Trade-mark or Industrial Design or receiving a granted patent or do you have previous experience?

What about your experience with CIPO? Have any of you dealt with CIPO in the past directly or have you only worked with your agent?

When we talk about "client service" at CIPO, what does it consist of? (Go around the table to get broad opinions).

Prompt if needed: How would you describe CIPO as a service organization? Do you enjoy working with CIPO? Or do you find it frustrating?

Now let's focus now on your most recent interaction with CIPO. Can you describe that interaction from a service perspective?

Probe: Were you trying to deal with someone in-person, on the phone or online?

How satisfied were you with the service you received from CIPO?

What area(s) of service stood out as most positive?

What area(s) of service stood out as needing improvement?

Probe: What, if anything, bothered or concerned you about the service you received? Did you feel that you received a service consistent with other experiences that you have had with CIPO? Why or why not?

What is the #1 improvement you would make to how CIPO delivers it service?

Why do you say that?

3.0 Lead-up to filing an application (10 minutes)

As you all know, there are many steps and processes to getting your IP registered or granted. Many of these you may have worked directly with your agent and for others you may have dealt with CIPO directly. We would like to hear about those experiences.

We are going to discuss each step of the "journey" that you each would have experienced with the IP process, and to think about the client service that you received from CIPO at each step.

First, let's go back to the lead up to your decision to file an IP application. This is before you even filled out the application. Did you interact with CIPO or use their services in any way before applying? Can you describe that experience for us?

Probe: Did you visit the website? How would you describe that experience?

Prompt: Did you receive the information you were looking for? Was the information clear? Was it easy to find?

Probe: Did you use any of the search databases online or at CIPO's office? How would you describe that experience?

Prompt: Did you find what you were looking for? Were these databases easy to use?

Probe: Did you call or visit in person? If so, who did you talk to? (Probe: The call centre? (Otherwise known as the Client Service Centre or a Business Development Officer / IP advisor in your region?) Did you attend a seminar? How would you describe that experience?

Prompt if necessary: Did you receive the information you were looking for? Was the information clear? Was it easy to find? Was the CIPO staff member helpful? Knowledgeable? Courteous?

Did CIPO meet your expectations in terms of client service? Why or why not (i.e., how/in what ways)?

Prompt as needed:

Did you receive these services in a timely manner?
Was the process clear?
Were you able to find all the information you needed using your preferred channel?
Was the information easy to understand?
What about the staff you dealt with? Were they knowledgeable, courteous, respectful? Did you feel that staff went the extra mile to help?

4.0 Application process (10 minutes)

Thinking about a recent application that you submitted either directly or through your agent, how would you describe the service received from CIPO directly, if any? Did you experience any client service issues and if so, how were they resolved?

What was positive about the service? What aspects of the service could be improved?

Prompt: Was it easy to reach someone to discuss the application or to ask questions about the process?

Prompt: Did you consult the website or talk to anyone at CIPO? How would you describe that experience? Was the information clear? Was it easy to find?

At the application stage, did CIPO meet your expectations in terms of client service? Why or why not (i.e., how/in what ways)?

Probe if needed: Did you expect the process to be straightforward or onerous?

Prompt as needed:

Was the application process timely?
Was the process clear?
Were you able to find all the information you needed using your preferred channel?
Was the information easy to understand?
What about the staff you dealt with? Were they knowledgeable, courteous, respectful? Did you feel that staff went the extra mile to help?

5.0 Examination (10 minutes)

Now let's move on to the examination process.

I know that the process is somewhat different for Trademarks, Patents and Industrial Designs, but thinking about your last service experience where you dealt with an examination; can you describe to me the service you received from CIPO directly, if any?

Prompt: For example, did you receive documentation; did you meet with or talk to CIPO staff to discuss the examination?

How would you describe your experience in dealing with CIPO during this process?

Did CIPO meet your expectations in terms of client service during the examination process? Why or why not (i.e., how/in what ways)?

I know that CIPO provides options for accelerating or fast-tracking the examination phase. How would you describe your service experience with this service?

CIPO provides options for accelerating or fast-tracking the examination phase. Did you take advantage of these services? Have any of you used these services? If yes: How would you describe your service experience with this service?

Prompt as needed:

Was the examination process timely?
Was the process clear?
Were you able to find all the information you needed using your preferred channel?
Was the information easy to understand, clear and accurate?
What about the staff you dealt with? Were they knowledgeable, courteous, and respectful? Did you feel that staff went the extra mile to help?

6.0 Registration or grant (10 minutes)

Let's turn our attention now to the part of the process where you received a notice that your trademark, industrial design or patent application has been approved. Thinking about the registration of your IP, did you interact with CIPO personally? What did that look like from a service perspective?

Did they meet your expectations in terms of client service? Why or why not (i.e., how/in what ways)?

Prompt as needed:

Was this part of the process timely?
Was the process clear?
Were you able to find all the information you needed using your preferred channel?
Was the information easy to understand, accurate?
What about the staff you dealt with? Were they knowledgeable, courteous, and respectful? Did you feel that staff went the extra mile to help?

7.0 Other Services (10 minutes)

Let's talk a little now about other IP services that CIPO provides.

Trademark: Have you ever participated in proceedings at the Trademark Opposition Board?

Patents and industrial designs: Have you ever appealed a decision?

How would you describe the service you received directly from CIPO, if any?

Did CIPO meet your expectations in terms of client service? Why or why not (i.e., how/in what ways)?

Were there any service gaps in delivering these services? If yes, what gaps?

Prompt as needed:

Were these services delivered in a timely manner?
Was the process clear?
Were you able to find all the information you needed using your preferred channel?
Was the information easy to understand, clear and accurate?
What about the staff you dealt with? Were they knowledgeable, courteous, and respectful? Did you feel that staff went the extra mile to help?

8.0 Key measures and prioritization (15 minutes)

Now that we've had a chance to discuss and think through the variety of service interactions with CIPO, I'd like you to rate CIPO on each of these criteria. Distribute handout.

Accessibility of service, i.e. - ability to access service via multiple channels
Information was clear and easy to understand
CIPO staff provided timely service throughout
Timeliness of notifications/decisions at each part of the process
Employee interactions (i.e. knowledgeable staff, courteous, respectful, staff went the extra mile, etc.)
Consistency of service received across all channels and all services
Accuracy/doesn't make mistakes

Are there any of these criteria that you had difficulty rating? If so, why?

Are there any other criteria you would add to this list?

Which of these criteria is the most important to you?

What do you think of service received from CIPO through different channels – Web, phone, in-person? Does it vary?

Are there services that could be improved if they were provided through a different channel (e.g., in-person services better provided by Web)?

How would you compare CIPO to other Canadian government agencies in terms of services provided to businesses or entrepreneurs? PROMPT: Is CIPO on par with other government organizations? Why or why not?

9.0 Comparative IPO questions (5 minutes)

Have you ever filed or registered IP rights with other Intellectual Property Offices (IPOs) in other countries?

Prompt: United States Patent Office (USPTO)? Intellectual Property Australia (IP Australia)? European Patent Office? Japan Patent office? How does CIPO's service provision compare?

In which ways, if any, does CIPO provide better service?

In which ways, if any, does CIPO provide poorer service?

10.0 Tools and products (5 minutes)

Where do you typically go when you want more information on a particular IP-related topic?

Are there any IP topics where you feel there is a gap in the information available?

Are there any other tools or specific services you would like see related to IP?

How would you most like to access this information, tools or services? How would it be most accessible and useful to you? Probe: online, in-person sessions, printed brochures, mobile app etc.

11.0 Wrap up (5 minutes)

Do you have any final comments? Are there any other aspects of CIPO's client service that we haven't yet touched on but should?

Thanks for your participation

December 8, 2017

Environics Research
Focus Groups on Client Service/Satisfaction
CIPO Discussion Guide – Unrepresented clients

1.0 Introduction to Procedures (10 minutes)

Hello, my name is Derek and I work for Environics Research, which is a public opinion research firm. I'd like to welcome you to this focus group. As you know we have been engaged by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, otherwise known as CIPO, to conduct this research project on client service. We want to hear your opinions so please feel free to agree or disagree. You don't have to direct all your comments to me; you can exchange ideas and arguments with each other too.

The host/hostess will pay you your incentives at the end of the session.

Please turn off any cell phones, pagers.

2.0 Overall views (20 minutes)

Our objective in this research project is to explore how you feel about the service that you have received from CIPO. It is important to keep in mind that we are focusing on service this evening, rather than on the programs being delivered. We don't want to get sidetracked with discussions covering larger issues surrounding intellectual property (IP) and government policies with respect to how patents, trademarks or industrial designs are registered / filled / granted.

When we talk generally about "service" at CIPO, what do you think about? (Go around the table to get broad opinions).

Prompt if needed: How would you describe CIPO as a service organization? Do you enjoy working with CIPO? Or do you find it frustrating?

Now let's focus now on your most recent interaction with CIPO. Can you describe that interaction from a service perspective?

Probe: Were you trying to deal with someone in-person, on the phone or online?

I'd like you to each jot down on paper what you thought was positive about the service you received from CIPO and also jot down what was negative or needed improvement, if anything. Then we will go around the table and hear from each of you about your opinions on this.

How satisfied were you with the service you received from CIPO?

What area(s) of service stood out as most positive?

What area(s) of service stood out as needing improvement?

What is the #1 improvement you would make to how CIPO delivers it service?

Why do you say that?

3.0 Lead-up to filing an application (10 minutes)

As you all know, there are many steps and processes from the time you first approach CIPO to getting your IP registered or granted. We are going to discuss each step of the "journey" that you each would have experienced with the IP process, and to think about the client service that you received from CIPO at each step.

Probe: Did you visit the website? How would you describe that experience?

Prompt: Did you receive the information you were looking for? Was the information clear? Was it easy to find?

Probe: Did you use any of the search databases online or at CIPO's office? How would you describe that experience?

Prompt: Did you find what you were looking for? Were these databases easy to use?

Probe: Did you call or visit in person? If so, who did you talk to? The call centre? (Otherwise known as the Client Service Centre or a Business Development Officer / IP advisor in your region)? Did you attend a seminar?

How would you describe that experience?

Prompt if necessary: Did you receive the information you were looking for? Was the information clear? Was it easy to find? Was the CIPO staff member helpful? Knowledgeable? Courteous?

Did CIPO meet your expectations in terms of client service? Why or why not (i.e., how/in what ways)?

4.0 Application Process (10 minutes)

Now let's talk a little about the application. I understand that there are differences in these processes for Patents, Trademarks and Industrial Design; however I want us to focus on the common service elements throughout these processes such as timeliness, communications, accessibility of services, consistency of service, etc.

Thinking about a recent application that you submitted, how would you describe this process from a service perspective? Did you experience any client service issues and if so, how were they resolved?

What was positive about the service? What aspects of the service could be improved?

Prompt: Was it easy to reach someone to discuss the application or to ask questions about the process?

Prompt: Did you consult the website or talk to anyone at CIPO? How would you describe that experience? Was the information clear? Was it easy to find?

At the application stage, did CIPO meet your expectations in terms of client service? Why or why not (i.e., how/in what ways)?

Probe if needed: Did you expect the process to be straightforward or onerous?

Prompt as needed:

Was the application process timely?
Was the process clear?
Were you able to find all the information you needed using your preferred channel?
Was the information easy to understand?
What about the staff you dealt with? Were they knowledgeable, courteous, respectful? Did you feel that staff went the extra mile to help?

5.0 Examination (10 minutes)

Now let's move on to the examination process.

Prompt: For example, did you receive documentation; did you meet with or talk to CIPO staff to discuss the examination?

How easy was it to talk to someone about the examination process or to discuss the information that you received? Was it clear what to do next?

How would you describe your experience in dealing with CIPO during this process?

Did CIPO meet your expectations in terms of client service during the examination process? Why or why not (i.e., how/in what ways)?

CIPO provides options for accelerating or fast-tracking the examination phase. Have any of you used these services?

If yes: How would you describe your service experience with this service?

Prompt as needed:

Was the examination process timely?
Was the process clear?
Were you able to find all the information you needed using your preferred channel?
Was the information easy to understand, clear and accurate?
What about the staff you dealt with? Were they knowledgeable, courteous, and respectful? Did you feel that staff went the extra mile to help?

6.0 Registration or grant (10 minutes)

Let's turn our attention now to the part of the process where you received a notice that your trademark, industrial design or patent application has been approved. Thinking about the registration of your IP, what did this process look like from the client service perspective?

How would you describe your experience in dealing with CIPO during this period?

Did CIPO meet your expectations in terms of client service? Why or why not (i.e., how/in what ways)?

Prompt as needed:

Was this part of the process timely?
Was the process clear?
Were you able to find all the information you needed using your preferred channel?
Was the information easy to understand, accurate?
What about the staff you dealt with? Were they knowledgeable, courteous, and respectful? Did you feel that staff went the extra mile to help?

7.0 Other services (10 minutes)

Let's talk a little now about other IP services that CIPO provides that you may have had interactions with.

Trademark: Have you ever participated in proceedings at the Trademark Opposition Board?

Patents and industrial designs: Have you ever appealed a decision?

How would you describe your experience from a service perspective?

Did CIPO meet your expectations in terms of client service? Why or why not (i.e., how/in what ways)?

Were there any service gaps in delivering these services? If yes, what gaps?

Prompt as needed:

Were these services delivered in a timely manner?
Was the process clear?
Were you able to find all the information you needed using your preferred channel?
Was the information easy to understand, clear and accurate?
What about the staff you dealt with? Were they knowledgeable, courteous, respectful? Did you feel that staff went the extra mile to help?

8.0 Key measures and prioritization (20 minutes)

Now that we've had a chance to discuss and think through the variety of service interactions with CIPO, I'd like you to rate CIPO on each of these criteria.

Distribute handout.

Accessibility of service, i.e. - ability to access service via multiple channels
Information was clear and easy to understand
CIPO staff provided timely service throughout
Timeliness of notifications/decisions at each part of the process
Employee interactions (i.e. knowledgeable staff, courteous, respectful, staff went the extra mile, etc.)
Consistency of service received across all channels and all services
Accuracy/doesn't make mistakes

Are there any of these criteria that you had difficulty rating? If so, why?

Are there any other criteria you would add to this list?

Which of these criteria is the most important to you?

What do you think of service received from CIPO through different channels – Web, phone, in-person? Does it vary?

Are there services that could be improved if they were provided through a different channel (e.g., in-person services better provided by Web)?

How would you compare CIPO to other Canadian government agencies in terms of service to businesses? PROMPT: Is CIPO on par with other government organizations? Why or why not?

9.0 Comparative IPO questions (5 minutes)

Have you ever filed or registered IP rights with other Intellectual Property Offices (IPOs) in other countries?

Prompt: United States Patent Office (USPTO)? Intellectual Property Australia (IP Australia)? European Patent Office? Japan Patent office?

Overall, how does CIPO's service provision compare?

In which ways, if any, does CIPO provide better service?

In which ways, if any, does CIPO provide poorer service?

10.0 Tools and products (5 minutes)

Where do you typically go when you want more information on a particular IP-related topic?

Are there any IP topics where you feel there is a gap in the information available?

Are there any other tools or specific services you would like see related to IP?

How would you most like to access this information, tools or services? How would it be most accessible and useful to you? Probe: online, in-person sessions, printed brochures, mobile app etc.

11.0 Wrap up (5 minutes)

Do you have any final comments? Are there any other aspects of CIPO's client service that we haven't yet touched on but should?

Thanks for your participation

Appendix D – Survey Questionnaire

Environics Research Group
February 16, 2018

Canadian Intellectual Property Office
2018 Client Satisfaction Survey

Final Questionnaire

[Square brackets indicate question previously asked in 2008]

Online survey conducted with n=1100 agents/unrepresented clients plus up to 300 represented clients (Canada only), sample permitting; 15-minute average length

E-mail invitation

Subject line: Canadian Intellectual Property Office Satisfaction Survey

Dear [Client Name],

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), an agency of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, is the federal authority responsible for registering or granting intellectual property (IP) rights including trademarks, patents and industrial designs. As a client of CIPO, we are inviting you to participate in an online survey about your use of and satisfaction with their services.

CIPO has retained Environics Research, an independent research firm, to conduct the survey. The purpose is to learn more about what clients think about CIPO and what their experiences have been. Your feedback is vital and will help CIPO improve the services it provides.

The survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. Your participation in this survey is voluntary and your responses will be kept absolutely confidential. Your decision on whether to participate will not affect any dealings you may have with CIPO or with any other part of the Government of Canada.

Participate to the survey

If you don't have time to complete the survey in one sitting, you can return to it by clicking on the link above again.

If you have any questions or concerns, or if you encounter technical difficulties while filling out this survey, please email onlineresearch@environics.ca. Should you have questions about the purpose of the survey, please call CIPO at 1-866-997-1936.

This survey is registered with the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association.

We appreciate your support and thank you for your valuable opinions.

Landing page

Please select your preferred language for completing the survey.

English
French

Welcome to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) Client Satisfaction Survey. This survey is designed to give us a better understanding of clients' service experiences with CIPO. It should take approximately 15 minutes to complete. Your participation in this survey is voluntary and your responses will be kept absolutely confidential.

Environics Research is conducting this survey on behalf of CIPO, an agency of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.

Programming note: All questions are mandatory.

Eligibility

Note to readers: Headings will not be shown on-screen to respondents. They are simply to organize the content for the research team.

1. The first few questions are to identify the main way you have interacted with CIPO in the past 18 months.

Are you an Intellectual Property (IP) agent who interacts with CIPO on behalf of clients?

Yes agent – skip to Q.3
No ask Q.2

2. Which of the following best describes your interactions with CIPO in the past 18 months?

Select one only.

An agent interacts with CIPO on your behalf Rep
You sometimes use an agent and sometimes interact with CIPO on your own Mixed
You interact with CIPO on your own on all matters concerning your Intellectual Property. Unrep
None of the above thank and end survey: This survey is for clients who have handled at least one IP application in the past 18 months

3. Which of the following types of Intellectual Property (IP) have you had experience with in the past 18 months?

Select all that apply.

Patent
Trademark
Industrial design
None of the above thank and end survey: This survey is for clients who have had experience with any of these three IP types in the past 18 months.

Note to readers: The focus for remaining questions will be on one type of IP with which they have had experience in the past 18 months.
Priority as follows: (1) Industrial design, (2) Patent and (3) Trademark. Priority reflects the relative availability of sample/emails (to ensure we have enough responses for each LOB).

IP type selection

For the remainder of the survey (unless otherwise indicated), please answer the questions thinking about your CIPO service experience in the past 18 months with respect to [Patents / Trademarks / Industrial Designs].

Priority as follows:

Industrial design (Q3=03)
Patent (Q3=01)
Trademark (Q3=02)

If rep/mixed: If you are unable to answer a question because that aspect of your IP application was managed by your agent, please choose the "not applicable" option.

Overall satisfaction and channel use/satisfaction

4. Overall, how satisfied are you with the service provided to you by CIPO related to [IP type: patents / trademarks / industrial designs]?

Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very satisfied

5. Which of the following channels have you used to access CIPO's products and services related to
[IP type: patents / trademarks / industrial designs] in the past 18 months?

Select all that apply.

Telephone
CIPO website - accessed from desktop
CIPO website – accessed from a mobile device
In-person visit
Email
Regular mail
Fax
None of the above [Single punch]

6. How satisfied are you with the service CIPO provided…?

Select one response for each item

Only show items selected at Q5

By telephone
On its website – accessed from a desktop
On its website – accessed from a mobile device
During your in-person visit(s)
By email
By regular mail
By Fax

Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very satisfied

IP application

The next few questions are about the process of filing an IP application.

7. Rep/unrep: In the past 18 months, did you submit an IP application for [IP type: a patent(s) / a trademark(s) / an industrial design(s)] to CIPO?
Agent: In the past 18 months, did you submit an IP application for [IP type: a patent(s) / a trademark(s) / an industrial design(s)] on behalf of a client?

Yes
No Skip to next section
Not sure Skip to next section

8. Overall, how satisfied are you with the service provided to you by CIPO during the filing process?

Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very satisfied

9. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the service provided by CIPO during the filing process?

Select one response for each item

Grid - Randomize

You were informed of everything you had to do to apply for intellectual property protection [Q17A1]
The application forms were easy to complete
CIPO's searchable [IP type: patents / trademarks / industrial designs] database was easy to use
CIPO's searchable [IP type: patents / trademarks / industrial designs] database contained the information you needed.
The process of filing an application was efficient
The filing process was designed with your needs in mind

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Cannot say

Examination

Ask section of total sample

10. The next few questions are about the examination of IP applications. Overall, how satisfied are you with the service provided to you by CIPO during the process of examining an application for [IP type: a patent / a trademark / an industrial design].

Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very satisfied
Cannot say

11. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the service provided by CIPO during examination?

Select one response for each item

Grid - Randomize

Examiners were knowledgeable
Examiners were easy to reach
When you spoke to an examiner(s), they were easy to understand
The examiners' report(s) (i.e. office actions) is/are easy to understand [Q54A8]
Decisions are consistent from one examiner to the next
The examination process was designed with your needs in mind

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Cannot say

12. Overall, how satisfied are you with the quality of examiners' written report (s) (i.e. office actions)? [Q55]

Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very satisfied
Cannot say

13. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Select one response for each item

Grid – Show in order

In general first office actions are received within a reasonable amount of time ("First office action" refers to the first official written communication received from CIPO on the merits of your application) [Q23A1]
You received subsequent office actions within a reasonable amount of time.

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Cannot say

14. Patent/id only: In the past 18 months, did you use CIPO's accelerated examination service (a premium service used to fast-track the examination)?

Yes
No Skip to next section
Not sure Skip to next section

15. Patent/id only: Overall, how satisfied are you with CIPO's accelerated examination service?

Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very satisfied

Registration or grant

16. In the past 18 months, did you receive [IP type: a registered trademark(s) / a granted patent(s) / a registered Industrial Design(s)] [Agents: on behalf of your clients]?

Yes
No Skip to Q18
Not sure Skip to Q18

17. Overall, how satisfied are you with the time it took to receive [Select based on IP type: a registered trademark(s) / a granted patent(s) / a registered Industrial Design(s)]?

Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very satisfied

18. Unrep/rep only if iptype=patent: In the past 18 months, did you have a Patent application that was abandoned?

Yes
No
Not sure

19. Unrep/rep only if iptype=trademark or ID: In the past 18 months, did you experience any of the following scenarios?

Your [IP type: trademark / industrial design] application was abandoned
Your [IP TYPE: trademark / industrial design] application was refused

Yes
No
Not sure

Additional service aspects

Ask section of total sample

20. Still thinking about CIPO's service related to [IP type: patents / trademarks / industrial designs], to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Select one response for each item

Grid - Randomize

It is clear who to contact within CIPO to receive service [Q12A1]
It is easy to reach the right CIPO employee to address your problem or need [Q12A3]
In the end, CIPO provided you with the information you needed [Q12A4]
You were able to get through to a CIPO employee by your preferred channel (e.g. phone, email, in-person)
You were easily able to access documents pertaining to your file(s)

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Cannot say

21. Overall, how satisfied were you with the ease of accessing CIPO's services?

Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very satisfied

22. To what extent do you agree or disagree that:

You were aware of the status of the IP application(s) at all stages of the process

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Cannot say

23. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements when thinking about CIPO's service related to [IP type: patents / trademarks / industrial designs]?

Select one response for each item.

Grid - Randomize

CIPO staff were professional
CIPO staff (other than examiners), such as frontline and support staff, were knowledgeable
CIPO staff understood your needs
CIPO staff understand the importance of their role in the IP process
Any issues that you encountered in the service process were easily resolved
You were provided service in the official language of your choice
CIPO staff went the extra mile to make sure you got what you needed
CIPO staff takes a reasonable amount of time to respond to enquiries and requests

[Q23A3 – Revised Wording]

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Cannot say

24. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Select one response for each item.

Grid - Randomize

CIPO's online services met your needs
CIPO's website had information tailored to your needs
CIPO's online services are easy to find
It is easy to complete online transactions
You are confident that personal information provided through CIPO's website is protected
The information you were looking for online was easy to find
CIPO's website was designed with your needs in mind
Ask if multiple mentions at Q3: CIPO's online services are consistent across the business lines (i.e., Patent, Trademark, Industrial Design)

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Cannot say

25. If code 1-2 AT Q24a: You indicated that CIPO's online services have not met your needs. In what ways were your needs not met?

Open-ended text box

Prefer not to say

26. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Select one response for each item.

Grid - Randomize

CIPO's electronic payment process is easy to use
Questions regarding payment status are answered in a timely manner [Q28A3]

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Cannot say

27. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Select one response for each item.

Grid - Randomize

It is easy to have errors corrected by CIPO
Overall, CIPO does not make mistakes/errors when providing services
Overall, you received a consistent level of service during all interactions with CIPO

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Cannot say

28. To what extent do you agree or disagree that:

Products and/or services that CIPO provides are worth the cost [Q31/2008 revised wording]

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Cannot say

Other services

Please answer the next questions thinking about your CIPO service experience in general.

29. Ask if any experience with trademarks (if Q3=2): In the past 18 months, were you involved in any opposition proceedings or summary cancellation proceedings?

Yes
No Skip to Q31
Not sure Skip to Q31

30. If Q29=01: Overall, how satisfied are you with the service provided by CIPO during your experience with an opposition proceeding(s) or a summary cancellation proceeding(s)?

Please note: we are interested in your degree of satisfaction with the service you received, rather than with any decision that was made as a result of the proceedings.

Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very satisfied

31. Ask if any experience with patent or ID (If Q3=1 or 3) In the past 18 months, have you had experience with the Patent Appeal Board?

Yes
No Skip to next section
Not sure Skip to next section

32. If Q31=01: Overall, how satisfied are you with the service provided by CIPO during your experience with the Patent Appeal Board?

Please note: we are interested in your degree of satisfaction with the service you received, rather than with any decision that was made by the Patent Appeal Board.

Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very satisfied

Information Services

Ask unrep and rep clients only – If agent, skip to next section

33. Before today, were you aware that CIPO offers services to raise awareness of and educate Canadians about Intellectual Property? These services include a range of informational material about IP, seminars and events, as well as access to CIPO staff who can help you better understand the value of IP and discuss your IP strategy.

Yes, aware
No, not aware
Not sure

34. To what extent do you agree or disagree that these types of IP services are useful to businesses like yours or individuals like you?

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Cannot say

Wrap-up

35. Do you have any additional feedback or comments about how CIPO could improve its services and/or products?

Open-ended text box

No comment

Respondent Profile

Now just a few last questions that will help us to classify your responses for analysis purposes only.

36. Unrep and rep only: Which of the following best describes you? The Intellectual Property that you have applied for and/or had registered/granted is…?

Select one only.

Associated with you personally
Associated with your company
Some associated with you personally and some with your company

37. Unrep and rep only: Over the past 18 months, how many different [IP type: patent / trademark / industrial design] applications do you have in process with CIPO?

1
2
3
4
5+
Not sure

38. If agent or (Q36=02-03 for rep/unrep): How many employees work for your company across all locations in Canada? By this, we mean both full-time and part-time staff but not contract staff. Please include part-time staff as the number of full-time equivalents.

No employees (you are self-employed)
1-4 employees
5-49 employees
50-99 employees
100-199 employees
200-499 employees
500 or more employees
Prefer not to say

39. If agent: What industry sector(s) do you represent most often when acting on behalf of IP clients? Check all that apply

If rep/unrep: What industry sector does your IP relate to? Check all that apply.

Agriculture/Fishing/Hunting/Forestry
Oil/Gas/Mining
Utilities
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation and Warehousing
Information and Cultural Industries
Finance and Insurance
Real Estate and Rental/Leasing
Professional, Scientific and Technical Services
Management of Companies and Enterprises
Administrative and Support, Waste Management, Remediation Services
Educational Services
Health care and social assistance
Art, Entertainment, Recreation
Accommodation and Food Services
Public Administration
Other (Specify)
Prefer not to say

40. Agents only: How many years have you been working in the IP field?

0-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
16-20 years
21+ years

41. Agents only: In the past 18 months, have you, yourself, worked with any of the following international clients requiring Canadian IP services?

Select all that apply

Clients in the United States
Clients in Europe
Clients in Asia
Other (Specify)
None of the above
Prefer not to say

42. In what province or territory do you live?

Select one only.

British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
New Brunswick
Nova Scotia
Prince Edward Island
Newfoundland and Labrador
Yukon
Northwest Territories
Nunavut

43. How do you identify yourself?

Select one only.

Female
Male
Other
Prefer not to say

This completes the survey. Should you wish to provide feedback on other CIPO services, please contact Melanie Morris-Jenkins, Director Business Analysis CIPO at melanie.morris-jenkins@canada.ca.

On behalf of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, thank you for your valuable input.

In the coming months, the results of this survey will be available on the CIPO website.

2018 Canadian Intellectual Property Office Client Satisfaction Survey – Final Report

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

A. Background and Objectives

B. Methodology

1. Qualitative Phase

2. Quantitative Phase

C. Contract Value

D. Report

E. Use of Findings of the Research

F. Key Findings – Quantitative Phase

G. Key Findings – Qualitative Phase

H. Political Neutrality Statement and Contact Information

I Introduction

A. Background

B. Research Objectives

II Detailed Findings – Quantitative Phase

A. Overall and Channel use Satisfaction

1. Overall satisfaction with CIPO's service

2. Use of channels

B. Application Process

1. If Applied for IP in Past 18 Months

2. Overall Satisfaction with Filing Process Services

3. Agreement with Statements About Filing Process Services

C. Examination

1. Overall Satisfaction with Examination Process Service

2. Agreement with Statement About Examination Process Service

3. Overall Satisfaction with Written Reports

4. Opinions About Timeliness of Office Actions

5. Accelerated Examination Services

D. Registration or Grant

1. Received Registered TM or ID or Granted Patent in Past 18 Months

2. Overall satisfaction with time to receive registered/granted IP

3. Abandoned or Refused IP Applications

E. Additional Service Aspects

1. Perceptions About Aspects of CIPO Service

2. Overall Satisfaction with Ease of Access to Service

3. Awareness of the Status of the IP Application

4. Opinions About CIPO Service Provision Aspects

5. Online Service

6. Opinions About Payment Process

7. Opinions About Consistency and Error Management

8. Opinions About Service Cost

Half of clients agree the products and services CIPO provides are worth the cost

F. Other Services

1. Opposition/Summary Cancellation Proceedings

2. Experience with Patent Appeal Board

G. Information Services

1. CIPO IP Educational Services

2. Comments and Suggestions

H. Key Driver Analysis

1. Key Driver Analysis

Service factors driving client satisfaction with CIPO overall

Examination

Filling

Extra mile

Timeliness

2. Performance Analysis

I. Client Profile

1. Type of IP by Client Group

2. Client Characteristics

3. Agents

4. Represented and unrepresented clients

III Detailed Findings – Qualitative Phase

A. Overall Views of CIPO Service

Agents

Unrepresented Clients

Represented Clients

B. Lead up to Filing

Agents

Unrepresented Clients

Represented clients

C. Filing an Application

Agents

Unrepresented clients

Represented clients

D. Examination

Agents

Unrepresented clients

Represented clients