Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

170 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL <strong>PRO</strong>PERTY Background and resources IPR awareness among SMEs in the British system of innovation has been set as key priority for the UK Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS). As part of national policy, the UKIPO was instructed to develop an entry-level information scheme addressing the issue of IP management to SMEs. WITK has been prepared over a period of 12 months; inputs for the set up have been derived from various sources and activities, i.e. an exploration of user needs and involvement of stakeholders and external consultants. Moreover, a survey has been undertaken to assess the SMEs’ perception of the importance of IP, and its relevance to their business. The campaign has been managed by a specialised team of 4 staff [FTE], within the Awareness, Information & Media team in the UKIPO. The team is composed of people with extensive experience in discussions with SMEs about Intellectual Property rights and other critical issues for business growth. However, there are (strategic) partnerships and informal networks with other actors (national/regional authorities) which had the opportunity to present their business support services at these events. Between 2005/2006, the budget earmarked for WITK amounted to € 375,000, whereas the costs of the operational management (overheads) covered a share of about € 70,000, around € 6,500 were spent for two publications. The rest has been allocated to customer surveys, press activities, radio days, enewsletters and supporting PR. Modes of operation Each event of the campaign offers advice on business support regionally available from regional development agencies and regional Business Links, an overview of the possibilities of the Intellectual Property System from the UK Intellectual Property Office, the experience of local entrepreneurs who used the IP system, and an explanation of patent and trade mark law from the Charted Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) and the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys (ITMA). At the end, some events offer the possibility to win a free Intellectual Property Audit. With the aim to reach and attract a larger audience (of SMEs), the overall presentation on protecting and managing intellectual assets served as a platform for the regional development agencies and regional Business Links, which had the opportunity to present their business support services. Likewise, the Charted Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) and the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys (ITMA) presented their services. As the scheme was designed mainly for SMEs, the organisers of WITK came up with the idea of showing realistic examples of how a company can benefit from securing their IPR. Therefore, the experiences of local entrepreneurs were presented using case studies, i.e. “How developing their IP strategy helped company ABC to increase the value of their company and ease the sale of one business area” or “…Helped protect their idea internationally allowing the product to be marketed internationally, especially in the large American market.” Between 2005 and 2006, around 20 entrepreneurs were invited to illustrate their experience with managing their intellectual assets. In addition, the campaign offered its own dedicated website (now closed). While online, companies simply had to register and were able to receive free consultation with a patent or trademark specialist, a pack of free information regarding IPR issues, updated details of seminars and events in their areas, and news, views, and case studies about intellectual assets. Regarding marketing activities, the campaign has been promoted by using several tools and approaches. Evaluation and performance The WITK campaign has been the object of several quality assurance mechanisms. Particularly, regular monitoring exercises have been carried out at the end of each event by the core team of the scheme. At the end of each event SMEs were invited to fill in a feedback form. These forms were analysed later and used to improve the service. The answers suggested that the events were very well organised and
eneficial for the attendees. The administration of the events was seen very positively, partly because of the core team which was perceived to be very dedicated to the subject matter. An ex-post evaluation was undertaken at the end of the campaign in order to understand if the events have been able to enhance the understanding of IP by companies. This evaluation was carried out by an external evaluator. An indication on the added value of the scheme can be drawn from the following results: at the beginning of the campaign, 36 % of SMEs stated that IP is not an issue; an additional 28 % said that IP is an issue, but they do not know how deal with it. The post-campaign survey reveals that 25 % of SMEs said that they had already taken action to improve the management of their IP; another 55 % planned to take action. In general terms, the survey revealed that the events were beneficial for the SMEs and that attendees would be reviewing their IP practices based on the advice they had received. Regarding audits, 250 invitations were sent to SMEs to inform them that a representative from CIPA or ITMA would be offering them a free IP audit. 26 audits were completed. In other cases, SMEs declined to proceed with their audit because they declared to have a basic understanding of IP after attending the campaign. Between 2005 and 2006, 19 events were organised which took place in different regions in the UK. Almost 1,700 people, mostly representatives of SMEs, benefited from this service. The wide spread of visitors between 50 i.e. in Yorkshire up to 200 in Scotland should be considered. The website of the service achieved a hit rate of 180,473 between 2005 and 2006 (an average of over 15,000 hits per month). 1,550 SMEs registered their details on the website; 110 questions were received and answered. 6.2 The user’s view In order to get an idea on how the service is perceived by its users and customers, a user survey was carried out in the scope of the underlying study, the results of which are presented below. Characteristics of the user group In the UK and Ireland, the handling and disclosure of personal data is governed by the so-called Data Protection Act. Due to this regulation, it was difficult to assemble a comprehensive list of WITK participants; exceptions could only be made for certain cases. As a result, only 13 WITK users could be identified willing to share their experiences by completing the survey. Considering the small sample size, great care has to be taken when interpreting the results. Out of the 13 WITK users, 9 shared information about the actual company size. Based on the received information, only 2 enterprises had employed more than 9 employees between 2003 and 2005. 4 out of 13 firms introduced new or significantly improved products onto the market during the respective timeframe. The same applies to process innovations: 4 out of 13 were able to come up with process innovation activities. 6 WITK users conducted intramural R&D, 6 were engaged in training activities and 5 in the acquisition of machinery and equipment between 2003 and 2005 (see Graph 75). Between 2003 and 2005, 9 out of 13 WITK users stated that they never used any support and/or funding from public or private innovation support providers; only one makes frequent use of services offered by national agencies. This result underlines that, at least in the case of the surveyed companies, the awareness raising function of WITK found its target audience of “unexperienced” firms (as far as the usage of support services is concerned). Regarding the methods of IPRprotection, 6 out of 13 IP service users stated that they used trademarks as most important formal means of IPR protection. On the other hand, 5 used trade secrets and/or secrecy agreements and 4 used registered copyrights and relied on leadtime advantage. 3 users filed for a patent between 2003 and 2005. Even though 171 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:
Page 110 and 111:
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 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123: 120 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIO
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?