Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

196 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL <strong>PRO</strong>PERTY Background and Resources IPAS was originally developed in the 1970s by a predecessor organisation to Enterprise Ireland and was based on similar IPR support found at that time in the UK and Denmark. Legislation passed by the Irish parliament had allowed for the provision of support in relation to inventions (IPAS was originally called the Inventions Assistance Scheme). Apart from its name change, the only major change in the operation of the IPAS has been its focus on indigenous owned companies in the manufacturing and internationally traded service sectors employing more than 10 employees. Enterprise Ireland may also provide support to enterprises employing less than 10 employees if they are considered to have high growth potential. IPAS is the smaller of the two IPR dedicated schemes operated by Enterprise Ireland. As noted above, the Intellectual Property Unit (IPU) of Enterprise Ireland also provides the Higher Education Sector Patent Protection Scheme (HESPSS) which seeks to provide advice to researchers in the higher education sector on IPR matters, and to fund IPR for inventions that have a potential for commercial development. The HESPPS service is of much more recent origin than the IPAS service (start date: July 1998). The Intellectual Property Unit is operated by an experienced team (3 full-time equivalents [FTE]), all of whom have extensive experience (10+ years) in assisting SMEs in relation to patent protection. The same personnel operate both the IPAS and the HESPPS schemes. However, retirements have brought the workforce down to currently one person. The total annual budget for the two schemes is estimated at € 1.3 mio (2006) of which the IPAS scheme accounts for € 0.3 mio. The budget for the two schemes is exclusively for financial assistance towards patent protection; staff salaries and overheads are not included in this figure. Modes of operation The IPAS scheme has three distinctive elements: � Advice on IPR in general, covering also copyright, trademark and other IP protection instruments; � Advice on what patent agents/attorneys can do for the SME and in which countries the SME should initially seek patent protection; � A subsidy to be paid out to the patent attorney undertaking the patent protection service on behalf of the SME. The eligibility criteria for the IPAS scheme are quite strict: Enterprise Ireland must be convinced that the invention is capable of patent protection, technically feasible and that there are plans for commercial exploitation. According to official documents, funding will be provided not for initial filing costs but for costs later incurred in the patenting process which are usually higher. Patenting costs can be covered to 100 %, whereby national and international (in relevant countries) filings are considered. The subsidy can amount up to € 30,000 towards the cost of preserving their initial patent application. This funding can be apportioned over a number of years, e.g. € 10,000 in year 1, € 10,000 in year 2 and € 10,000 in year 3. Companies that are considered to have a high growth potential may be eligible for a higher level of support under IPAS as part of an integrated support package. Companies in this category may be eligible for IPAS funding of patent protection costs of up to a maximum of € 150,000. The payment of the IPAS subsidy is made directly by Enterprise Ireland to the eligible company’s patent attorney. Some users commented favourably upon this aspect of the scheme as it assisted their cash-flow situation. Under the terms of the IPAS scheme, companies may be required to pay Enterprise Ireland a share of the royalty income resulting from the successful exploitation of the invention. However, such royalty agreements (which are usually drafted on an individual basis with the supported SME) are only intended to cover the subsidy
costs plus a small interest (source: IPAS brochure). The IPAS measure thus does not operate on a per-profit basis; this is considered difficult to administer. In case the invention is unsuccessful, the investment by Enterprise Ireland is written off. Another important aspect of the IPAS scheme is that the IPU team can help the SME to interpret the legal advice that they may have received from their patent attorney (“honest broker” role”). While, for example, the patent attorney may advise on the merits of patent protection in a number of countries the IPU team may help the company to understand the importance of prioritising protection in those countries where its invention will be initially sold. Thus, the company may not only benefit from the IPAS subsidy but also from the “honest broker” advice from the IPU team. With respect to marketing, the Enterprise Ireland web site, brand creation activities and information provided to companies by other Enterprise Ireland executives have been used mostly to disseminate information about the service. In addition, the IPU manager has made presentations to County Enterprise Boards which are responsible for the development of enterprises employing less than 10 employees. Experts believe that IPAS is perfectly placed with Enterprise Ireland (as opposed to having it operated by the patent office or another institution) which is offering complementary services not only related to R&D and IPR but also management and could not be provided in the same way by any other IPR player, i.e. the Irish Patent Office. The Irish PO is, compared to other <strong>Europe</strong>an POs, a relatively small organisation with limited resources and solely focused on patent registration. Compared to Enterprise Ireland, the Irish PO does not have the same level of connections with SMEs. It should be noted, however, that the Irish PO provides a range of information to SMEs on a spectrum of intellectual property rights issues through its two information centres and its web site. The Office also makes presentations to both SMEs and micro-enterprises (those employing less than 10 employees). Experts suggested that if the Irish Patent Office were to provide financial assistance to SMEs towards the cost of patent protection, a potential conflict of interest may arise (i.e. the Irish Patent Office may not be sufficiently independent given that it generates revenues from the registration of patents). Evaluation and performance The performance of the service is difficult to interpret. First, and most strikingly, the IPAS scheme does not have any quality assurance mechanisms in place, and most notably, no evaluations were carried out during the lifetime of the service. This can be seen as a disadvantage, not only in terms of performance measurement, but also in terms of governance of the scheme. It should be noted, however, that the IPAS scheme is a relatively small scheme within the context of the total support offered by Enterprise Ireland to its client companies in the manufacturing and internationally traded services sectors (in the year ending December 31, 2005, Enterprise Ireland provided € 130 mio in financial supports to client companies). In terms of available output indicators, the following data was given. � 100 applications for funding were received in 2005; 90 of those stemmed from SMEs, the rest from individuals (private inventors); � Within this sample of the 100 applications, 15 firms (new support cases) were provided financial support; � The average amount of subsidy given in 2005 was € 9,000 to each company. It is important to note that firms may be approved for IPAS financial support in year 1 but the timing of the payments may be made over 1-3 years. It is also important to note that the IPU may reject an application from a SME for IPAS funding for an initial patent filing but accept a renewed application at a later date for funding to cover the later stages of patent protection. Thus while only 15 % of SMEs are successful in applying for IPAS financial support in any one year, those that are unsuccessful may re-apply in the following years. 197 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:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149: 146 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIO
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?