Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

250 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY participant through around 40 assessment factors to identify the value of different business products and to deliver the basis for professional IP-management. IPscore will be delivered as a software package (CD-Rom) with a user’s manual; the costs for the service pack amount to € 2,400. It has to be mentioned, though, that the DKPTO holds the rights for IPscore® in Denmark but decided to assign international rights to the European Patent Office. As experts state, the DKPTO felt this step was important, since the tools value increases with the amount of companies that use it. Trainings courses and seminars The DKPTO also provides a large number of targeted IPR courses. The various departments of the DKPTO send their experienced personnel to hold seminars to the public in a wide range of IPR related areas, also in IP management. However, the average course is a one-day event, typically about patents (what products can be patented and how, general introduction, assistance with patentability evaluations, application formulations etc). More than 40 courses and seminars are offered every year. As the user group is very heterogeneous, the DKPTO arranges customised courses and seminars. Apart from companies that seek knowledge about IPR in relation to their products, there are also courses targeting IPR agencies and patent agents. Around 95 % of the courses are held at the DKTPO’s premises in Taastrup, Copenhagen. At the end, the courses are evaluated by an evaluation tool (called ‘customer logic’ from Analyse Denmark). Service experts report that the overall feedback from participants is generally very good. Evaluation and Performance A number of instruments and quality assurance mechanisms are in place to further increase efficiency and service quality. Customer satisfaction, response time and delivery time are benchmarked and analysed to improve performance. In this context, the service provider underlines especially the high level of customer satisfaction evidenced in annual surveys. The focus of the performance measures seems to be on the core operating field of IPR filing and processing – information regarding the assessment and performance measurement of the other services available was, except for fact that IPR courses are evaluated using the “customer logic” tool, not available. In 2004, the DKPTO processed around 2,000 Danish patent applications, 5,100 applications were filed in the field of trade marks. By contrast, Danish design applications have seen a steady decline during the last years (2002: 2,100 applications; 2004: 700 applications). As the 2004 Annual Report of the DKPTO outlines, this development is basically due to the fact that companies chose to use new possibilities of applying for a design protection offered at European level instead of filing with the DKPTO only. As the DKPTO operates under the auspices of the Danish Ministry of Economics and Business Affairs, the DKPTO is required to carry out performance measurements which entail assessments of such targets as processing time for patent applications and trade marks registrations. In 2006, the processing time for patent applications was considered to be “satisfactory” by the users, as around 96 % of the applications were processed within the defined time limit. On the other hand, users rated the processing time for trade mark registration in 2006 as “not satisfactory” as almost 30 % of the applications were not processed within the time limit. Based on official information from the DKPTO, the latter result was due to internal reorganisation processes. DKPTO’s website is considered to be a main entry point for customers with monthly hit rates ranging to 120,000 hits. In addition, it is estimated that the DKPTO handles about 150 telephone inquiries daily.
14.2 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. The focus of the survey lied on users that made use of the website or have attended an IPR course. Characteristics of the user group In total, 35 users were surveyed about their experiences with the DKPTO: 25 made use of the specialized IP courses, 10 took advantage of the PVSonline electronic access service. Thus, for the accuracy and closure of the survey, these service users were split into two groups and analysed separately. However, considering the small user sample size, care has to be taken when interpreting results. As can been seen from Graph 145, users/attendants of the IP course are spread very evenly across all company sizes; 27 % had also more than 249 employees. By contrast, half of the questioned PVSonline users are micro-enterprises with less than 9 employees. Service experts confirm this user-take up as representative. Between 2003 and 2005, IP course users/attendants were very innovative: around 92 % introduced new or significantly improved products onto the market; more than 60 % came up with process innovations. 96 % of the IP course users/ attendants conducted intramural R&D, 88 % were engaged in training activities Graph 145 DKPTO–Company Size distribution in interview sample, 2005, percentage of respondents*), IP course users 27% 32% 0 to 9 employees 10 to 49 employees 50 to 249 employees 250 and more employees Source: User Survey, n = 25 Graph 146 DKPTO–Innovation activities in interview sample, 2005, percentage of respondents*), IP course users % 100 80 60 40 20 0 96 Intramural research &experimental development (R&D) 63 Acquisition of R&D (extramural R&D) 83 Acquisition of machinery and equipment *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 25 88 Training 9% 79 Market introduction of innovations 32% 54 Design 38 Other preparations for production/deliveries 251 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:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203: 200 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?