Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

134 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL <strong>PRO</strong>PERTY structure of its user groups. The existing data pool features mostly enterprises that have long-term relations with the PIC Stuttgart which are mainly, according to the service providers, rather larger-sized enterprises. It does not reflect the actual composition of users. Indeed, an analysis of user groups conducted in 2005 by the Centre showed that 43 % of users are private inventors, 25 % SMEs, 15 % enterprise starters and 17 % self-employed/liberal professions. Due to the small sample size and the considerable high share of larger companies, results should be interpreted with great care when it comes to making conclusions for SMEs. Between 2003 and 2005, service users were very innovative: Around 91 % users introduced product innovations (new or significantly improved products), while 57 % were able to introduce process innovations. 94 % conducted intramural R&D, 76 % were engaged in innovation activities related to design, and 68 % in the market introduction of innovations (see Graph 38). The interviewed PIC Stuttgart users most frequently take advantage of the service offerings of patent attorneys (see Graph 39), followed by the patent office (however, with much less frequent use). The importance of patent attorneys in IPR service provision in Germany is thus once again underlined (see also the case study on the SME Patent Action service). Graph 37 PIC Stuttgart–Company size distribution in interview sample, 2005, percentage of respondents 35% 32% 0 to 9 employees 10 to 49 employees 50 to 249 employees 250 and more employees Source: User Survey, n = 35 23% Graph 38 PIC Stuttgart–Innovation activities in interview sample, 2005, percentage of respondents*) % 100 80 60 40 20 0 94 Intramural research & experimental development (R&D) 41 Acquisition of R&D (extramural R&D) 59 Acquisition of machinery and equipment *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 34 56 Training 68 Market introduction of innovations 76 Design 38 Other preparations for production/deliveries
A high number of companies experienced hampering factors for innovation during 2003 to 2005, most complained about economic risks (for 31 % of high and for further 34 % of medium relevance), high innovation costs (for 26 % of high and 40% of medium relevance) and finance issues (high relevance for 26 , medium for 17 %) (see Graph 40). It can be said that nearly all listed hampering factors are somehow of importance. Regarding the methods of IPR-protection, most users (77 %) registered design patterns and/or utility models between 2003 and 2005, filed for a patent or had a patent granted or valid in that time period (both shares amounted to 74 %, see Graph 41). A relatively high number of users employed also informal protection methods, i.e. 71 % relied on trade secrets, 63 % tried to maintain a lead time advantage over competitors. The importance of using the full spectrum of IP protection methods, depending on the company context, is thus again underlined. The costs stemming from implementing IP protection strategies (for 43 % of high and medium relevance), cost/benefit considerations (high relevance for 40 %, medium for 20 %) and the time to make IP protection work (for 34 % of high, and for 29 % of medium relevance) are perceived to be the main barriers for using IPR (see Graph 42). General awareness and organisational issues were considered less relevant. External barriers towards the availability of support services are perceived Graph 39 PIC Stuttgart–Usage of different service providers by users, percentage of respondents*) % 100 80 60 40 20 0 25 39 Patent attorney 21 Regional agency 42 48 8 4 4 4 Chamber of commerce Patent office *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 35 28 External consultants 19 <strong>National</strong> agency frequently occasionally Graph 40 PIC Stuttgart–Hampering factors for innovations, 2003 to 2005, percentage of respondents*) % 100 80 60 40 20 0 34 31 Economic risks 40 17 26 26 Innovation costs Finance 29 17 Regulations & standards *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 35 34 14 10 EU 11 9 6 6 6 Lack of qualified personnel Client responsiveness high relevance medium relevance 14 Other 37 34 31 Lack of technology info Organisational issues Lack of market info 135 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:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87: 84 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 186 and 187:
184 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIO
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?