Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

202 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL <strong>PRO</strong>PERTY in the absence of support from the service. In addition, 24 % would have been carried out but to a smaller scope, another 24 % would have been carried out their project at a later stage. By contrast, around 23 % would have carried out their patenting project, regardless of the availability of the service. Although IPAS does not embody the typical general awareness raising measure, the most significant changes in attitudes towards the protection of IPR took place in general awareness (increased for 78 %) and knowledge management know-how (increased for 61 %). Attention to the degree of formal IPR responsibilities and patent knowledge in business environment has increased in both cases by 51 % (see Graph 106). Compared to these findings, the attitude towards other formal IPR protections methods, i.e. trademarks, design or copyrights, has also increased, but to a lesser degree. The usage of trade secrets did not diminish very noticeably. The surveyed users underline the importance of the factors competence of staff (for 90 % of high, for 5 % of medium relevance) timely delivery (high relevance for 71 %, medium for 22 %) and individual contact (for 68 % of high, and for 17 % of medium relevance) for a service similar to IPAS (see Graph 107). The high relevance given to the individual contact may be due to the very selective pro- Graph 105 IPAS–Additionality of the financial subsidy, percentage of respondents pure additionality 13% 7% 24% Source: User Survey, n = 41 9% 23% 24% "pure" deadweight losses Undertaking carried out without any change/modification Undertaking carried out at a later stage Undertaking carried to a smaller scope (e.g. less geographical coverage) Undertaking carried out with other sources of finance Undertaking NOT carried out - different IP instrument used instead Undertaking NOT carried out at all Graph 106 Behavioural additionality of IPAS, percentage of respondents*) General awareness Knowledge management Know-How Formal IPR responsibilities within enterprise Patent knowledge in business environment Patent usage in IPR strategy IPR training (Trade) secrecy usage in IPR strategy Out-licensing Reliance on design complexity in IPR strategy In-licensing Reliance on lead-time advantage in IPR strategy Design pattern/utility model usage in IPR strategy Trademark usage in IPR strategy -7 -7 Copyright usage in IPR strategy -2 12 % -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 41 -2 -2 -5 -2 -2 -10 -2 -2 20 20 17 17 15 15 27 22 41 51 51 61 78 increased decreased
cedure and thus the expressed interest to help a smaller number of companies intensively. Low relevance rates are given to internal and external referral possibilities (which is surprising) and spatial distance. 9.3 Elements of good practice IPAS exhibits the following good practice elements: � Experience of Enterprise Ireland’s IPU staff, who are able to give advice not only on patent protection but also how enterprises should seek patent protection in those countries which offer the best prospects for their invention; � “Honest broker” role: assisting SMEs to understand the advice that they may have received from patent attorneys in relation to intellectual property; � Integration into a major SME funding organisation and the availability of complementary services and business know-how within Enterprise Ireland (not only related to R&D and IPR but also in terms of marketing and management development); � Organisation mode of EI in general: Central institution with regional offices, expertise pooled at headquarter level; � Uniqueness: Only service of its kind in Ireland; � Collaboration with patent attorneys: the scheme may act as a marketing tool and entry point for the service of patent agents; less crowding out of private service providers; � High selectivity (but not primarily due to budget restrictions); � Royalty agreements (where the company has to pay back a share of its income form the successfully commercialised patent to cover the subsidy costs), as Graph 107 Key quality factors for a service such as IPAS, percentage of respondents*) Competence of Staff Timely delivery Individual contact Ease of access & identification Scope of service Costs Information on different IP strategies ("why/why not topatent") Technical information ("how to patent") Administrative efforts Referal to & availability of other services in-house Referal to external services Spatial distance *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 41 5 12 20 17 37 59 59 59 56 68 66 41 71 44 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 49 27 29 27 29 17 27 22 high relevance medium relevance 5 % 203 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:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155: 152 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIO
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?