Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

234 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL <strong>PRO</strong>PERTY Graph 134 Behavioural additionality of the Foundation for Finnish Inventions, percentage of respondents*), SME users General awareness Patent usage in IPR strategy Knowledge management Know-How Patent knowledge in business environment (Trade) secrecy usage in IPR strategy Formal IPR responsibilities within enterprise Trademark usage in IPR strategy Reliance on lead-time advantage in IPR strategy IPR training Design pattern/utility model usage in IPR strategy In-licensing Out-licensing Reliance on design complexity in IPR strategy -3 -3 -16 Copyright usage in IPR strategy 8 % -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 37 -8 -3 19 19 14 14 14 27 24 22 51 68 62 62 76 increased decreased Graph 135 Key quality factors for a service such as the Foundation for Finnish Inventions, percentage of respondents*), SME users Technical information ("how to patent") Referal to & availability of other services in-house Source: User Survey, n = 37 Comptence of Staff Ease of access & identification Timely delivery Individual contact Information on different IP strategies ("why/why notto patent") Costs Referal to external services Scope of service Administrative efforts Spatial distance 27 32 57 54 62 59 59 68 76 81 81 86 32 35 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 % 100 11 32 30 32 19 32 19 16 19 high relevance medium relevance 14
Similar to the users from SMEs, a rather large share of private inventors tend to consider the extent of the service offerings as too narrow/superficial, but most are satisfied in this respect. Spatial distance is for private inventors not a problem: 10 out of 12 users consider it a low barrier. All private inventors questioned agree that the benefits offered by the service clearly outweigh efforts. Additionality of the service In order to answer the question whether a support service works or does not work, one should inquire into the added value of the service – i. e., what would have happened in case the service were absent. This is done in order to isolate a “net positive effect” as opposed to things which would have happened anyway, despite of the service. Similarly, also other types of changes incurred within the enterprise, as a result of using the service, are to be recorded (these types of changes are referred to as “behavioural additionality”). Additionality effects for the offered financial assistance schemes seem to be rather high (see Graph 133). According to the survey results, 26 % of the undertakings of users from SMEs would not have been carried out without support from the service. On the other hand, 19 % would have carried out the undertakings without any change or modification. The usage of the service portfolio offered by the Foundation, from financial support to marketing and support in commercialization of inventions, seems to have changed the treatment of many IPR-related aspects by the service utilising firms. The most notable changes took place with respect to general awareness on IPR issues and patent usage in the corporate IPR strategy (increased for 76 % and 68 % of the users, respectively) (see Graph 134). The Foundation can thus claim that its services significantly change the attitude of its SME customer base towards the creation of patents. Furthermore, patent and knowledge management know-how has increased considerably. Interestingly, trade secrecy usage in the IPR strategy also received a lot more attention – an indication that the Foundation staff does a rather good job in consulting with regard to general IP management which would cover also informal protection methods. Equally interesting against the background of the services high focus on finding licensees for their inventors is, however, also that licensing activities seem to have increased only for a small share of users. Identified by a high share of users from SMEs, the most important elements of a service portfolio comparable to that of the Foundation are the competence of staff closely followed by the ease of access and identification and timely delivery (see Graph 135). Information on different IP strategies (why or why not to patent) was also considered to be one of the most important key factors. Interestingly, users showed also keen interest in technical information regarding IPR. Administrative efforts and spatial distance received the lowest relevance figures. Private inventors shared the views of the SMEs and seem to place a lot of importance on the existence of individual contacts. As can be seen from the user survey results, private inventors and users from SMEs show very similar needs and wants regarding assistance with IPR issues. Despite the different characteristics, it seems that targeting both groups with one comprehensive portfolio of support measures would work very well for a service comparable to the Foundation. 12.3 Elements of good practice The Foundation for Finnish inventions offers an integrated package of IPR services which exhibit as whole the following success factors (resp. elements of good practise): � Nation-wide offered services with regional outlets (at/with relevant institutions); 235 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:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187: 184 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 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?