Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

154 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL <strong>PRO</strong>PERTY customers of Syntens who are now offered an additional service. The innovation agency thus seemingly acts as an entry point to the IPR system. Another indication for that is the low usage levels of patent attorneys (in other countries patent agents play a much larger role as entry points or for marketing/disseminating information on IPR support services). Regarding hampering factors for innovation activities, companies complained mostly about the lack of appropriate sources of finance (of relevance for 56 %), organisational issues (important for 28 %) and lack of qualified personnel and information on markets (important for 10 %, respectively) (see Graph 57). Interestingly, innovation costs and economic risks are reported to be of less critical nature – as are regulations and standards, client responsiveness and lack of technology information. These results have to be interpreted with care, though, as it could wrongly imply that all hampering factors are mostly of an external nature. Between 2003 and 2005, 60 % of the service users stated that they used trade secrets and/or secrecy agreements as most important IP protection method (see Graph 58). Patents were filed by 40 %, and 26 % had a patent granted or valid. Usage levels regarding informal IP protection methods were quite high, too, and even higher than that of formal IPR. This result is in line with other empirical findings. The main internal barrier for using IPR methods is that IP is not considered of particular relevance in the analysed enterprises (for 24 % of high relevance) closely Graph 56 IOI–Usage of different service providers by SMEs, percentage of respondents*) % 100 80 60 40 20 0 76 <strong>National</strong> agency 29 Other 18 External consultants *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 50 Chamber of commerce 8 6 4 4 4 Patent office occasionally Graph 57 IOI–Hampering factors for innovations, 2003 to 2005, percentage of respondents*) % 60 40 20 0 56 Finance 28 Organisational issues 10 10 8 Lack of market info Lack of qualified personnel *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 50 Economic risks Regional agency Patent attorney EU 4 2 2 2 Innovation costs Client responsiveness Lack of technology info Regulations & standards
followed by the costs of IP protection (for 22 % of medium relevance; see Graph 59). The first result maybe due to the approached Syntens user base, which may to a significant extent simply not be prone to IPR usage (e.g., because they are not IPR-affine industries). The on average low barrier levels for all aspects listed are in contrast to empirical findings from other sources – two explanations are possible: Either the companies are truly well aware and professional in the handling of IPR (and that IOI did a pretty good job) – which could be backed up by the high usage levels of different IP protection mechanisms. Or awareness levels of the difficulties encountered are low because very few companies actually engaged in IPR protection in a serious manner, thus they have no experience in dealing with IPR in real life. User out-reach and satisfaction levels Almost 80 % of the users of Innovation by patent Information got to know about the service through the service providing organisation itself (again indicating that Syntens is the entry point for this type of IPR service, and that “classical” Syntens customers may be the first and primary target group); around 20 % received information about IOI from other sources. Other channels (i.e. classical media advertising, internet or agencies) have not played a role at all as a source of information. Graph 58 IOI–IP protection methods employed by service users, 2003 to 2005 *) % 80 60 40 20 0 40 Patents filed 26 28 26 Patents valid and/or granted Design patterns and/or utility models Trademarks *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 50 18 Copyrights 12 Defensive Publishing 60 Trade secrets/secrecy agreements 30 Design complexity Graph 59 IOI–(Internal) barriers to using IP protection mechanisms, percentage of respondents*) 60 40 20 0 % 24 IPR irrelevant in business context 22 Costs of IP protection 10 Organisational issues *) multiple answers allowed .Source: User Survey, n = 50 4 Lack of info on IP protection Awareness Lack of qualified personnel high relevance medium relevance Time to make IP protection work 24 No deliberate IPR strategy unclear cost/benefit of IP protection 155 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:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
100 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIO
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107: 104 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 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?