Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

192 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL <strong>PRO</strong>PERTY considered as most important information sources. Likewise, no express research user heard about serv.ip through an agency. The users/attendants of the roadshow were, on average, quite satisfied with the service: All aspects (the competence of staff, the quality and relevance of the provided information, etc.) are graded with “2” or better, on a scale from 1 (very satisfied) to 4 (unsatisfied). Around 80 % consider the extent of the roadshow offerings to be adequate, 16 % think it’s too narrow/superficial. Some users complained, though, about “…too much focus on patents as a means to protect IP” (roadshow attendant). Around 60 % state that the benefits are adequate to efforts – 27 % think that the benefits clearly outweigh the efforts. 8 out of 12 express search users consider the extent of the service offerings to be adequate, 3 think it’s too narrow/superficial. As expected for a service which offers its services also via the internet, spatial distance is not a problem: 9 out of 12 users consider it as a low barrier. In addition, 7 out of 12 users claim administrative burdens to be quite low when using the service. Overall, 7 express search users state that the benefits are adequate to the efforts, and 3 users think that the benefits clearly outweigh the efforts. Additionality of the service In order to answer the question whether a support service works or does not work, one should also inquire into the added value of the service – i.e., what would have happened in case the service were absent. This is done in order to isolate a “net effect” as opposed to things which would have happened anyway, despite of the service. Similarly, also other type of changes incurred within the enterprise, as a result of using the service, are to be recorded (these changes are referred to as “behavioural additionality”). According to the user survey, the most prominent behavioural changes induced with roadshow users concern the general knowledge management know-how, general IPR awareness and patent knowledge in the business environment, which increased for 64 %, 52 % and 39 % of the users, respectively (see Graph 95). Overall it seems that the event has not just delivered information about the various forms of IPR usage; the campaign also fostered the usage of non-patent IP Graph 95 Behavioural additionality of the roadshow ideas.well.protected, percentage of respondents*) Knowledge management Know-How 64 General awareness -2 52 Patent knowledge in business environment 39 Design pattern/utility model usage in IPR strategy 25 Trademark usage in IPR strategy -2 25 (Trade) secrecy usage in IPR strategy -2 25 Patent usage in IPR strategy -5 25 IPR training 16 Copyright usage in IPR strategy -2 14 In-licensing 11 Reliance on design complexity in IPR strategy -5 11 Reliance on lead-time advantage in IPR strategy -7 11 Out-licensing 7 Formal IPR responsibilities within enterprise -2 7 % -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 increased decreased *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 44
protection methods and offered an understanding of IPR strategies in selected companies. Identified by almost all roadshow users/attendants, the most important elements of a service comparable to the roadshow are the competence of staff closely followed by the ease of access and identification and timely delivery, meaning in the context of the campaign, to offer compact information within a reasonable period of time (see Graph 96). Information on different IP strategies (why or why not to patent) was also considered to be one of the most important key factors. Technical information and spatial distance received the lowest rankings. Services comparable to the express search should, according to 11 out of 12 users, build on the competence of staff and information on different IPR strategies (for 10 of high relevance). The fact that timely delivery is crucial to such as service (10 agree) is self-explanatory. The significance put on timely delivery may lead to a situation where some firms may have special search strategies implemented, such as having two independent parties conduct patent searches on the same subject: “For us, it is vital to get patent information as fast as possible. If a patent search covers 80 % of the ground in a certain amount of time, it is for us of more use than a search which covers 99 % but takes forever. In practice, we contract two service providers to perform a scan within a specified time period. We then compare the results, and the combined findings are usually much more informative than if we would have contracted only one party and given it more time to perform its task.” (User survey: serv.ip SME user) For 9 users, costs are only of a medium relevance which seems reasonable: Costs may not matter that much when a head start in filing for a patent before a rival can do so is aimed for. Graph 96 Key quality factors for a service such as the roadshow ideas.well. protected, percentage of respondents*) Competence of Staff Ease of access & identification Timely delivery Information on different IP strategies ("why/why not topatent") Administrative efforts Costs Individual contact Technical information ("how to patent") Scope of service Referal to & availability of other services in-house Referal to external services Spatial distance *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 44 14 32 32 30 48 45 57 75 70 39 84 80 86 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 32 57 61 61 43 34 20 25 high relevance medium relevance 14 18 11 % 193 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:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145: 142 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIO
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?