Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

220 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL <strong>PRO</strong>PERTY Evaluation and Performance Regular interim and ex-post evaluations are carried out to manage and secure the quality of the programme. Annual financial audits are carried out by external experts. In addition, as part of the measurements of the internal process performance, user surveys are executed to evaluate the satisfaction of the customers. an internal intranet/CRM system is set up to track CVT activities and collect monitoring data (e.g. the number of written search reports etc.). The CVT is an ISO 9001 certified institution. The user group consists of enterprises of all sizes, sectors and industries, research centers, patent attorneys, private inventors as well as public and private organizations representing the interests of different enterprises. The following data was provided concerning customer reach out (reference period: 2005): � CVT has produced 180 search reports, covering enquiries of organisations concerning patenting/technology information (105 reports) and issues concerning regulations and standards (74 reports). � The CVT has, furthermore, contacted 50 companies proactively with the aim to increase their awareness on IPR issues; the aim is to have a fifth of the contacted companies as regular customers of the CVT. Workshops which dealt with how to use patent database information have been very popular around 2000/2001. The demand has since then dropped considerably; the CVT assumes that the majority of the companies in Luxembourg which might be interested in such “how to use” patent information offerings has been reached. This illustrates that finding an adequate number of customers to cover the costs for IPR services of a larger scope within a very small country constitutes a challenge. On the other hand, however, the CVT also believes – with respect to their other offerings e.g. in the field of IPR consulting – that it has a rather low profile among SMEs which need to be adressed by respective marketing activities. International cooperation is seen as the key solution to this problem by the experts interviewed. 11.2 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 20 users were identified and asked about their experience with IPR services offered by the CVT. Furthermore, as the CVT offers various support services targeting different interests, different user groups were included in the sample. For the analysis in this section, the focus is put on a group of 12 users out of the 2033 , who took advantage of special in-depth consulting services regarding IPR issues. Considering the small sample size, great care has to be taken when interpreting the results. Out of the 12 IPR consulting users, half employed not more than 49 employees between 2003 and 2005. During the same time period, 8 service users introduced new or significantly improved products onto the market, 6 came up with process innovations. Regarding innovation activities, 7 conducted intramural R&D, and 50 % were engaged in the acquisition of machinery and equipment as well as training activities. Between 2003 and 2005, 6 out of 12 IPR consulting users made occasional use of national agencies, 5 took at most occasional advantage of the chamber of commerce, and 4 of external consultants (see Graph 119). Patent attorneys were 33 Due to reasons of statistical significance, survey results from the remaining 8 CVT sub-service users are not analysed further.
considered to be important too: 2 service users took frequent advantage of the service offerings of patent attorneys, 3 did so on an occasional basis. Some companies experienced hampering factors for innovation during 2003 to 2005 (see Graph 120): the IPR consulting users complained mostly about economic risks, high innovation costs and lack of financial sources as well as qualified personnel (for 4 users of high relevance, respectively). Regarding the methods of IPR protection, 6 out of the 12 IPR consulting users stated that they used trade secrets and/or secrecy agreements as well as registered trademarks as the most important IP protection method (see Graph 121). In addition, 5 of the service users filed for a patent or had a patent granted or valid between 2003 and 2005. For the 12 IPR consulting users, the cost of implementing IP protection strategies represents the main internal barrier for using IPR methods (see Graph 122). In addition, some service users considered the lack of qualified personnel and the time to make IP protection work as relevant external barriers. These findings are very much inline with those from other services analysed. External barriers are perceived to be obstacles of, by comparison, low relevance: 4 out of 12 service users considered the lack of information on available services relevant as an external barrier. Graph 119 Usage of different service providers by SMEs, number of respondents *), IPR consulting service N 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 6 1 <strong>National</strong> agency 1 Regional agency 5 Chamber of commerce 2 1 Patent office *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 12 3 2 Patent attorney frequently occasionally Graph 120 Hampering factors for innovations, 2003 to 2005, number of respondents *), IPR consulting Service N 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 Economic risks Innovation costs 2 2 Finance Lack of qualified personnel *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 12 4 2 Lack of technology info 1 Lack of market info 4 External consultants 5 3 high relevance medium relevance 2 Organisational issues 2 EU 1 Client responsiveness 1 Other 3 1 2 Regulations & standards 221 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:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173: 170 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIO
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?