Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

120 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL <strong>PRO</strong>PERTY As can be suspected, service users are very innovative: 4 out of 5 users of the INSTI SME Patent Action introduced product innovations (new or significantly improved products) onto the market between 2003 and 2005 onto the market. 48 % introduced process innovations in the same time frame. As concerns R&D, 87 % of the SMEs conduct intramural R&D, and, on average, about half of the staff works in R&D. These far-above country average figures concerning the level of innovative activities can also be observed with the users of the other services analysed in the scope of this study. INSTI SME Patent Action users most frequently take advantage of the service offerings of patent attorneys (see Graph 27). This may be to a point explained by the fact that the patenting process is of utter importance for the companies in their specific phase of development (bearing the high share of enterprise starters in mind), but it is still interesting to note that development agencies (with national agencies being almost on par with the patent office in terms of usage frequency) and, even more so, private consultants play a much lesser role for the companies as service providers in the field of innovation than one could have anticipated. As regards factors hampering innovation activities, the companies mostly mentioned high innovation costs (for 49 % of high and for further 40 % of medium relevance), difficulties concerning access to finance (for 40 % of high and 32 % of medium relevance) and economic risks associated with innovation projects (for a total of 76 % of relevance) (see Graph 28). Graph 27 INSTI SME Patent Action–Usage of different service providers, percentage of respondents *) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 49 19 Patent attorney 36 32 12 11 <strong>National</strong> agency Patent office *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 53 36 Regional agency 22 31 5 4 3 3 3 Other frequently occasionally Graph 28 INSTI SME Patent Action–Hampering factors for innovations, 2003 to 2005, percentage of respondents *) % 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 40 49 Innovation costs 32 40 40 Finance 36 Economic risks 26 34 11 11 Lack of qualified personnel *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 53 Regulations & standards 21 Lack of market info Chamber of commerce 26 8 6 high relevance medium relevance Client responsiveness 26 External consultants 17 EU 26 11 0 0 Organisational issues Lack of technology info
By contrast, lack of qualified personnel, regulations and standards, client responsiveness or organisational issues play much less of a role. These figures can be considered as important hints for the significance of subsidies for patenting costs. An important question in the context of the study is to what extent SME users employ different IP protection methods. As can be seen from Graph 29, and not surprising for users of a subsidy service for patent costs, most companies (77 %) filed for a patent between 2003 and 2005, or had a patent granted or valid in that time period (37 %). But it can also be observed that 4 to 6 out of 10 companies also employ informal protection mechanisms (trade secrets, maintenance of lead time advantage and/or reliance on the complexity of the design of their inventions), and 47 % utilise trade marks. The main internal barriers perceived for using IPRs are, by far, the costs of IP protection (for 64 % of high and for another 23 % of medium relevance) and the time to make IP protection work (for 45 % of high, and for 28 % of medium relevance) (see Graph 30). Nonetheless, cost/ benefit considerations (i.e. the question Graph 29 INSTI SME Patent Action–IP protection methods employed, 2003 to 2005, percentage of respondents % 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 77 Patents filed 37 Patents valid and/or granted 25 Design patterns and/or utility models 47 Trademarks *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 53 11 11 Copyrights Defensive Publishing 60 Trade secrets/secrecy agreements Graph 30 INSTI SME Patent Action–(Internal) barriers to using IP protection mechanisms, percentage of respondents *) % 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 23 64 Costs of IP protection 28 45 Timetomake IP protection work 42 26 unclear cost/benefit of IP protection 23 Lack of qualified personnel *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 53 25 9 9 Lack of info on IP protection 43 Design complexity 21 25 57 Lead-time advantage 6 4 2 Awareness high relevance medium relevance Organisational issues 11 No deliberate IPR strategy 15 IPR irrelevant in business context 121 ANNEX I – CASE STUDIES
Page 1:
PRO INNO Europe paper N° 4 BENCHMA
Page 4 and 5:
PRO INNO Europe The innovation poli
Page 7 and 8:
Contents Executive Summary 9 1 Intr
Page 9 and 10:
4. Case Study: Innovation by patent
Page 11 and 12:
Executive Summary Background 1. The
Page 13 and 14:
under all circumstances), but rathe
Page 15 and 16:
overall policy level, which primari
Page 17 and 18:
the fact that the business perspect
Page 19:
and evaluation). Hence, there is a
Page 22 and 23:
20 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGION
Page 24 and 25:
Page 27 and 28:
3 SMEs in the IPR world 3.1 SMEs an
Page 29 and 30:
amount of time (mostly up to 20 yea
Page 31 and 32:
In contrast to arrangements for pat
Page 33 and 34:
3.3 Usage Patterns of IP protection
Page 35 and 36:
industries of the ICT sector. These
Page 37 and 38:
In a study conducted by Kingston (K
Page 39 and 40:
Care must be taken that statements
Page 41 and 42:
The first step to ensure that IP ma
Page 43:
The patent troll as an SME-affine e
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73: 70 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGION
Page 102 and 103: 100 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIO
Page 113 and 114: 7. References Abbot, A. (2006): Pat
Page 115 and 116: http://www.european-inventor.org/pd
Page 117: ANNEX I - CASE STUDIES The case stu
Page 172 and 173:
170 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIO
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 271 and 272:
Table 10 Overview of public availab
Page 273 and 274:
Nr. B* Country Title of the Service
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285:
European Commission Benchmarking na
Page 288:
ISBN 978-92-79-06926-0 NB-AX-07-004
show all

Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?