Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

124 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL <strong>PRO</strong>PERTY happened in case the service were absent. This is done in order to isolate a “net effect” as opposed to things which would have happened anyway, despite of the service. Similarly, also other type of changes incurred within the enterprise, as a result of using the service, are to be recorded (these changes are referred to as “behavioural additionality”). Additionality of the INSTI SME Patent Action effects seem to be quite high, given the rather low amount of subsidy (see Graph 34); however, pure deadweight effects are larger than pure additionality effects. 10 % of the undertakings would not have been carried out at all in the absence of support from the SME Patent Action. For a total of 45 %, the service had a catalysing effect: It speeded up the process, allowed for larger scopes or replaced the probable usage of another IP protection instrument. 20 % would have used other sources of finance. 25 % would have carried out their patenting project regardless of the service offerings in the same manner. Further to that, and with respect to the “behavioural additionality” approach, it was also analysed how the support used changed the utilisation level of different IP protection methods (of different degrees of legal formality) and what general effects the service had on IPR-related behaviours of the companies. As a decrease in usage level of a certain IP instrument does not necessarily have to be a negative effect, no judgement can be given whether the changed behaviours are actually improved or better in nature if compared to the situation before using this service. Notwithstanding this, some interesting conclusions can be drawn. Recalling from the goals that the INSTI SME Patent Action – despite of the fact of being designed around a subsidy in nature – aims primarily at creating a better understanding of IPR, and also tackles the issue of improving innovation management, one may rather safely say that the INSTI service succeeded in this goal (see Graph 35). The most prominent changes in business attitudes concern general knowledge on management know-how, patent knowledge in the business environment and general IPR awareness, which increased for 55 %, 38 % and 34 % of the users, respectively. Interesting, and ranking forth, is not an increased usage of patents but rather a higher usage level of trade secrets in the corporate IPR strategy (though the high level of already present patenting activities has to be kept in mind when interpreting the results). Not only is the share of SME users which place more emphasis on patents in the IPR strategy lower than that of firms who focus more on trade secrets (17 % as opposed to 25 %) – SMEs also moved away from their patenting plans more frequently than from using trade secrets (-8 % compared to -2 % for trade Graph 34 INSTI SME Patent Action–Additionality of the financial subsidy, percentage of respondents pure additionality 11% 20% Source: User Survey, n = 53 10% 23% 25% 11% “pure” deadweight losses Undertaking carried out without any change/modification Undertaking carried out at a later stage Undertaking carried out to a smaller scope (e.g. less geographical coverag Undertaking carried out with other sources of finance Undertaking NOT carried out - different IP instrument used instead Undertaking NOT carried out at all
secret users). Together with the fact that using the INSTI SME Patent Action boosted also the usage of other non-patent IP protection methods, one can conclude that the service operators may have done a rather good job at consulting the SMEs about the right IP strategy (i.e., they seemed to have advised those users where patents would have been too risky/costly etc. to use another protection method). Experts attributed this to the fact that the regional partners often have a business-oriented background; they were also rather sceptical, whether a national patent office would have done/achieved the same, if it (or some yet-to be founded regional outlets of the offices) were to operate the service. Interestingly, design pattern and utility model usage, while increased, did not really skyrocket. This comes somewhat as a surprise, given that especially utility models are advertised as low-cost alternatives to patents, with less administrative burdens. Also interesting is the fact, that licensing activities have not increased a lot. This may either be due to the fact that most patents granted with support from the service are too young in order to be turned into money by means of licensing. Or it may also be that the protection goals prevail over other benefits of using IPRs. Users were also asked what they deemed to be the most important elements of a service such as the INSTI SME Patent Action. The results are shown in Graph 36. They underline the importance of the factors competence of staff (for all (!) users a factor of high or medium relevance), timely delivery, 27 ease of access and identification, low administrative efforts and matters of costs. Information on different methods of protecting IP, i.e. on why and why not to patent – while not a primary factor contributing to the success of the service, according to the users – is still of considerable relevance and of more importance than information on “how” to patent. Low referral rates might be related to the integrated approach taken, where INSTI fulfils many functions of a one-stop shop. In this context, however, one should Graph 35 Behavioural additionality of the INSTI SME Patent Action, percentage of respondents Patent knowledge in business environment Design pattern/utility model usage in IPR strategy Reliance on lead-time advantage in IPR strategy Reliance on design complexity in IPR strategy Formal IPR responsibilities within enterprise Source: User Survey, n = 53 Knowledge management Know-How General awareness (Trade) secrecy usage in IPR strategy Patent usage in IPR strategy Trademark usage in IPR strategy Copyright usage in IPR strategy Out-licensing IPR training In-licensing -9 -9 -6 -8 -8 -8 -6 -8 -8 -2 6 27 Timely delivery may become an issue, though, for the future, as the total support period has been shortened to 18 months – which may be too little, given the processing times of patents at the patent office and the fact that the five service packages offered are closely linked with a timetable to different milestones in the patenting process. Some users complained already about too short and/or too rigid time tables in the interviews. -2 -4 -2 -4 4 6 8 8 11 9 9 13 17 25 34 38 -10,0 0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 55 increased decreased % 125 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:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77: 74 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 176 and 177:
174 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIO
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?