Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

178 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY 10 to 49 employees and only 7 % are larger companies with up to 249 employees (see Graph 78). In recent years, a significant number of innovative activities have been launched by users of the IA Centre service portfolio. Between 2003 and 2005, around 56 % of the service users introduced product innovations onto the market; more than 38 % developed process innovations. Around 74 % were engaged in training activities, 67 % conducted intramural R&D (see Graph 79). The IA Centre users most frequently take advantage of the service offerings of regional and national agencies (see Graph 80), underlining the high involvement of these organisations in supporting Scottish business. In this context, the strong cooperative links of the IA Centre with the development agencies can be considered an element of good practice. Some enterprises also made use of patent attorneys and external consultants but to a much lesser extent than was observed with other services analysed (e.g. the German INSTI Patent Action). This might be in part due to the very broad approach to intellectual assets of which IPR is a part, (which does, in the case of the IA centre, not necessarily lead to patenting). Services offered by the UKIPO, Chambers of Commerce or the European Union were not used very often. However, there may have been a masking of this activity as the IA Centre has a full-time secondment from the UKIPO to offer advice. This may mean that many companies have had UKIPO advice but may not have been aware of it. Graph 78 IA Centre–Company Size distribution in interview sample, 2005, percentage of respondents 10% 7% 2% 0 to 9 employees 10 to 49 employees 50 to 249 employees 250 and more employees Source: User Survey, n = 45 Graph 79 IA Centre–Innovation activities of IA users, 2005, percentage of respondents % 80 74 67 60 60 40 20 0 Intramural research & experimental development (R&D) 36 Acquisition of R&D (extramural R&D) 33 Acquisition of machinery and equipment *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 45 Training 81% 38 Market introduction of innovations Design 24 Other preparations for production/deliveries
As regards factors hampering innovation activities, the users complained mostly about high innovation costs (for 53 % of high and for further 24 % of medium relevance), economic risks (for 49 % of high and 18 % of medium relevance) and financial sources associated with innovation projects (for 47 % of high and 20 % of medium relevance) (see Graph 81). By contrast, the lack of qualified personnel, regulations and standards, client responsiveness or organisational issues are considered to be less important. This picture is in line with findings from other services. Regarding the methods of IPR-protection, a large mix of different formal and informal methods were used between 2003 and 2005. 60 % of the users stated that they used trademarks to protect their IP, the main formal IPR instrument utilised by IA Centre users; users also employed informal methods to a rather large extent, especially trade secrets (58 %). Copyrights were utilised by more than half of the users (51 %). These findings (i.e. high share of informal methods used; moderate number of users filed for a patent (29 %) or had a patent granted or valid (11 %) again demonstrate the role of the IA Centre to foster the whole range of IA/IP protection instruments (see Graph 82). For the IA Centre users, the costs of IP protection (for 58 % of high and for another 9 % of medium relevance), general awareness issues (for 20 % of high and 31 % Graph 80 Usage of different service providers by SMEs, percentage of respondents*) % 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 20 National agency 23 38 Regional agency 17 Chamber of commerce *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 45 27 3 Patent office 19 27 10 10 Patent attorney frequently occasionally External consultants 3 4 Graph 81 IA Centre–Hampering factors for innovations, 2003 to 2005, percentage of respondents*) 100 80 60 40 20 0 24 53 49 47 Innovation costs 18 20 Economic risks Finance 22 29 Lack of market info *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 45 22 11 Lack of technology info 11 18 Regulations & standards high relevance medium relevance EU Other 20 9 9 Lack of qualified personnel 9 13 11 Organisational issues Client responsiveness 179 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:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131: 128 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIO
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?