Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

198 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL <strong>PRO</strong>PERTY 9.2 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 benchmarking study, the results of which are presented below. Characteristics of the user group 41 companies who used the support of the Intellectual Property Assistance Scheme were surveyed about their experiences. 69 % of the interviewed companies employ not more than 9 persons, 24 % have 10 to 49 employees; only 7 % are larger SMEs with up to 249 employees (see Graph 97). Regarding development activities, service users have been very innovative between 2003 and 2005: 68 % introduced product innovations (new or significantly improved products), 22 % were able to introduce process innovations in the same time. As concerns R&D, almost 81 % conducted intramural R&D, 66 % were engaged in innovation activities related to design, and 63 % in the market introduction of innovations. On average, about 60 % of the staff works in R&D. IPAS service users primarily utilised the service offerings of national agencies (most notably Enterprise Ireland, which is not surprising giving the strong role of EI in Ireland as a service provider and also noting that IPSAS is an EI service) and patent attorneys followed by the Patent Office and external consultants (see Graph 98). The high usage levels of patent attorneys might be explained by the fact that this profession benefits to a rather large extent from the granted subsidies by IPAS; as a matter of fact, IPAS also works as an entry point for patent attorney services by maintaining and marketing its list of registered patent attorneys. Between 2003 and 2005, a considerable share of service users experienced hampering factors for innovations. Companies complained mostly about the lack of appropriate sources of finance (of high relevance for 61 %, medium for 24 %), high innovation costs (for 44 % of high and 37 % of medium relevance) and economic risks (for 32 % of high and for further 32 % of medium relevance; see Graph 99). Insufficient flexibility of regulations and standards, a lack of information on technologies and organisational issues are reported to be of less critical nature. Regarding the methods of IP protection, and not surprisingly for users of a subsidy service for patent costs, most users (85 %) filed for a patent between 2003 and 2005, or had a patent granted or valid in that time period (54 %, see Graph 100). Graph 97 IPAS–Company size distribution in interview sample, 2005, percentage of respondents 24% 7% 69% 0 to 9 employees 10 to 49 employees 50 to 249 employees Source: User Survey, n = 41
Graph 98 IPAS–Usage of different service providers by SMEs, percentage of respondents*) % 100 80 60 40 20 0 60 33 <strong>National</strong> agency 33 11 Regional agency 7 Chamber of commerce *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 41 56 20 Patent office 48 42 Patent attorney frequently occasionally Graph 99 IPAS–Hampering factors for innovations, 2003 to 2005, percentage of respondents*) % 100 80 60 40 20 0 24 61 Finance 37 44 Innovation costs 32 32 Economic risks 39 29 24 12 Lack of qualified personnel *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 41 20 Lack of market info 22 Client responsiveness 52 17 External consultants 20 7 EU 11 Other 20 20 24 12 7 2 Regulations & standards high relevance medium relevance Graph 100 IPAS–IP protection methods employed by service users, 2003 to 2005, percentage of respondents*) % 100 80 60 40 20 0 85 Patents filed 54 Patents valid and/or granted 7 Design patterns and/or utility models 27 24 Trademarks Copyrights *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 41 2 Defensive Publishing 41 Trade secrets/secrecy agreements 37 Design complexity Organisational issues 29 Lead-time advantage Lack of technology info No deliberate IPR strategy 199 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:
Page 150 and 151: 148 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIO
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?