Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

210 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL <strong>PRO</strong>PERTY Graph 108 Company size distribution in interview sample, 2005, percentage of respondents 30% 6% 28% 0 to 9 employees 10 to 49 employees 50 to 249 employees 250 and more employees Source: User Survey, n = 50 Graph 109 Innovation activities in interview sample, 2005, percentage of respondents % 100 80 60 40 20 0 68 Intramural research & experimental development (R&D) 20 Acquisition of R&D (extramural R&D) 56 Acquisition of machinery and equipment *) multiple answers allowed, Source: User Survey, n = 50 34 Training 40 Market introduction of innovations Graph 110 Usage of different service providers by SMEs, percentage of respondents*) % 100 80 60 40 20 0 38 19 <strong>National</strong> agency 16 4 Regional agency 30 9 Chamber of commerce 78 18 Patent office *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 50 32 38 Patent attorney frequently occasionally 36% 30 Design 17 21 9 6 External consultants EU 12 Other preparations for production/deliveries 5 Other
employees and 30 % are larger companies with up to 249 employees (see Graph 108). As expected, users and/or participants of the VIVACE programme performed a considerable number of innovative activities. Between 2003 and 2005, around 70 % introduced product innovations (new or significantly improved products), 50 % were able to introduce process innovations in the same time period. As concerns R&D, almost 68 % conducted intramural R&D. Interestingly, 56 % of the users were engaged in the acquisitions of machinery and equipment (see Graph 109). VIVACE users made most use of the service offered by the HPO: 18 % frequently, 78 % at least on an occasional basis (see Graph 110). The reason for the high usage of patent attorneys may be a large share of users representing long-term customers of the HPO which file for patents more often than others do. Regarding hampering factors for innovation activities, companies complained mostly about high innovation costs (for 46 % of high and for further 12 % of medium relevance), the lack of appropriate sources of finance (of high relevance for 46 %, of medium relevance for 12 %) and economic risks (for 28 % of high, for 30 % of medium relevance; see Graph 111). Very unusual in this context: Regulations and standards are reported to be obstacles, too. Client responsiveness and organisational issues are reported to be of a less critical nature. Graph 111 Hampering factors for innovations, 2003 to 2005, percentage of respondents*) % 100 80 60 40 20 0 38 26 Regulations & standards 12 12 46 46 Finance Innovation costs 30 28 Economic risks *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 50 28 18 16 14 12 8 10 10 6 4 Lack of qualified personnel Lack of technology info high relevance medium relevance Graph 112 IP protection methods employed by service users, 2003 to 2005, percentage of respondents*) % 80 60 40 20 0 Patents filed Patents valid and/or granted 44 Design patterns and/or utility models 34 Trademarks *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 50 8 Copyrights 30 Defensive Publishing 52 Trade secrets/secrecy agreements Lack of market info 28 Design complexity Organisational issues 36 Lead-time advantage Client responsiveness 14 No deliberate IPR strategy 211 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:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163: 160 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIO
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?