Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

156 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL <strong>PRO</strong>PERTY Overall speaking, users were, on average, very satisfied with key aspects of the offered services by IOI. As can be seen from Graph 60, all aspects (delivery time, the competence of staff, the relevance of the provided information, etc.) are graded with “1.8” or better, on a scale from 1 (very satisfied) to 4 (unsatisfied). 60 % of the users rate the extent of the service offerings to be adequate. On the other hand, a rather large share of users (40 %) thinks it is too narrow/ superficial. Nearly all users consider spatial distance (for 50 % a very low-level barrier and for another 46 % a factor considered to be at least acceptable) not to be a problem. 64 % think that the benefits of using this service clearly outweigh the efforts. On the other hand, 22 % state that the benefits are clearly below efforts. Additionality of the service A closer look at the changes in attitudes toward IPR protection among users reveals that IOI was able to achieve its aims rather well (see Graph 61). Keeping in mind the strong overall focus of the IOI-programme on patents and not so much on other IPR tools such as trade marks and also the fact that trade secrets and/or Graph 60 IOI–Satisfaction levels with different aspects of service provision, arithmetic means of grades given by respondents Delivery time Quality of provided material Relevance of provided information Competence of staff 1,5 1,5 1,6 *) multiple answers allowed,. Source: User Survey, n = 50 1,8 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 very satisfied unsatisfied Graph 61 Behavioural additionality of IOI, percentage of respondents*) Patent knowledge in business environment General awareness Formal IPR responsibilities within enterprise IPR training Patent usage in IPR strategy Out-licensing In-licensing Copyright usage in IPR strategy Design pattern/utility model usage in IPR strategy Knowledge management Know-How Reliance on design complexity in IPR strategy Reliance on lead-time advantage in IPR strategy (Trade) secrecy usage in IPR strategy Trademark usage in IPR strategy % -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 50 8 6 18 16 36 78 74 increased decreased
secrecy agreements are (or at least were) the most important IP protection methods for the users of IOI, it seems not surprising that the most significant changes took place with respect to patent knowledge in the business environment (increased for 78 %) and general IPR awareness (74 %). Compared to these findings, the attitude towards other formal IPR protections methods, i.e., trade marks, design or copyrights, has not changed. Interestingly, also, the usage of trade secrets etc. did not diminish. It seems that most users used the patent information scans not so much for patenting purposes, but rather to inform themselves about the possibilities of such tools and about the patenting environment of their businesses. Between these interesting insights, the rise in patent awareness and the preexisting good knowledge about other formal IPR protection, no change was detected in attitudes concerning general knowledge management know-how. This outcome seems plausible: the IOI programme is simply not meant to offer consulting on IPR-strategies and IP management and has a narrow patent focus. In case customers are not interested in patents, they are most likely referred to other services and departments within Syntens which means that they never actually used IOI. In this light, external experts stated that the first screening of SME requests by Syntens is often done without the necessary focus on the current situation and the actual needs of the company towards IPR protection. This would indicate a blind spot towards the subject of IP management and the usage of other IP protection instruments. For the users of IOI, the most important elements of a service comparable to IOI are the ease of access and identification and matters of costs (see Graph 62). Competence of staff and timely delivery were also considered as key factors. The Graph 62 Key quality factors for a service such as IOI, percentage of respondents*) Ease of access & identification Comptence of Staff Timely delivery Scope of service Spatial distance Costs Administrative efforts Referal to & availability of other services in-house Referal to external services Individual contact Information on different IP strategies ("why/why not to patent") Technical information ("how to patent") *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 50 2 2 2 2 16 16 22 44 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 % 100 high relevance medium relevance 157 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:
Page 108 and 109: 106 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 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?