Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

230 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL <strong>PRO</strong>PERTY Characteristics of the user group In the course of the user survey, 12 private inventors and 37 users from SMEs were interviewed. The inclusion of private inventors was done in order to analyse whether it is feasible to include SMEs and private inventors in one target group and treat them both alike or, alternatively, whether both groups have different needs and perceptions of the services which should be accounted for. One hypothesis regarding private inventors in this context could be that they might be future founders of successful start-ups and therefore worthwhile to foster. On the other hand, private inventors are often associated with people working on commercially useless inventions just for the fun of inventing – in such a case extending support would be hard to argue for. Within the group of the interviewed SMEs around 98 % employ less than 9 employees and are thus micro-enterprises; the remaining companies have at most 10 to 49 employees. A focus of the Foundation on very small organisational sizes (even in the group of SMEs) is thus apparent. Between 2003 and 2005, 60 % of the SME users introduced product innovations (new or significantly improved products) onto the market; and around 35 % came up with process innovations. As can bee seen from Graph 126, a high number of enterprises were engaged in innovation activities across a number of mentioned categories. Around 65 % of the service users from SMEs conducted intramural R&D. On average, about 84 % of the staff works in R&D. The private inventors Graph 126 Foundation for Finnish Inventions–Innovation activities in interview sample, 2005, percentage of respondents*), SME users % 100 80 60 40 20 0 65 Intramural research & experimental development (R&D) 59 Acquisition of R&D (extramural R&D) 54 54 Acquisition of machinery and equipment *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 37 Training 68 Market introduction of innovations Graph 127 Foundation for Finnish Inventions–Usage of different service providers by SMEs, percentage of respondents*), SME users 100 % 80 60 40 20 0 46 46 <strong>National</strong> agency 51 8 Regional agency 3 6 Chamber of commerce 41 38 Patent office *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 37 22 14 Patent attorney frequently occasionally 30 16 External consultants 51 Design 8 3 EU 46 Other preparations for production/deliveries 23 Other
questioned see themselves as highly innovative, too, and stated for the most part (11 out of 12 responses) that they are engaged in R&D. Users from SMEs take most frequently advantage of the service offerings of national agencies and the patent office (see Graph 127). Interestingly, foundation users utilise more often the services of external consultants than those of patent attorneys – findings with other services would on one hand indicate that external consultants play less of a role in overall innovation support, while patent attorneys are among the service providers which are used the most. At the same time, SME users of the Foundation often take advantage of the services of the patent office. Regarding hampering factors for innovation activities, companies complained mostly about high innovation costs (for 62 % of high and for further 22 % of medium relevance), economic risks (for 59 % of high and 22 % of medium relevance) and the lack of appropriate sources of finance (of high relevance for 49 %, medium for 24 %, see Graph 128). The statements given by the private inventors show a similar picture. These findings are very much in line with other support services offered in the field of IPR. Graph 128 Foundation for Finnish Inventions–Hampering factors for innovations, 2003 to 2005, percentage of respondents*), SME users % 100 80 60 40 20 0 22 22 62 59 Innovation costs Economic risks 24 49 Finance 41 22 22 14 11 8 Lack of market info *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 37 Client responsiveness Lack of qualified personnel high relevance medium relevance 5 22 Regulations & standards 16 8 3 5 Graph 129 Foundation for Finnish Inventions–IP protection methods employed by service users, 2003 to 2005, percentage of respondents*), SME users % 100 80 60 40 20 0 92 Patents filed 54 Patents valid and/or granted 22 Design patterns and/or utility models 43 Trademarks *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 37 14 Copyrights 19 Defensive Publishing 81 Trade secrets/secrecy agreements 30 Design complexity Lack of technology info 76 Lead-time advantage Organisational issues 22 No deliberate IPR strategy 231 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:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183: 180 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 283 and 284:
Nr. B* Country Title of the Service
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?