Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

252 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL <strong>PRO</strong>PERTY (see Graph 146). In addition, about 45 % of the staff works in R&D. PVSonline users were innovative as well: 8 out of 10 delivered product innovations to customers; 7 users developed process innovations. IP course users/attendants most frequently take advantage of the service offerings of patent attorneys and, not surprisingly, the patent office itself (see Graph 147). The high usage of patent attorneys seems not surprising if the high share of large companies is taken into consideration. Having said that, the prevalence of patent attorneys as service providers points to the important role they play in the context of IPR service provision. Interestingly, the services offered by external consultants were used very often between 2003 and 2005. Almost the same results were found for the PVSonline users, where the usage of patent attorneys and the DKPTO stand out. Some IP course users/attendants experienced hampering factors for innovation during 2003 to 2005, mostly complaining about economic risks (for 40 % of high and for further 12 % of medium relevance), high innovation costs (for 36 % of high and 12% of medium relevance) and sources of finance (high relevance for 32, medium for 16 %; see Graph 148). Even though the IP course findings are in line with the results from similar service offerings, the high share of large companies in the user sample should be considered. Almost the same results were found for Graph 147 DKPTO–Usage of different service providers by SMEs, percentage of respondents*), IP course users % 100 80 60 40 20 0 37 11 6 <strong>National</strong> agency 24 12 Regional agency 12 Chamber of commerce 29 43 Patent office *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 25 14 62 Patent attorney frequently occasionally 27 41 External consultants 30 20 Graph 148 DKPTO–Hampering factors for innovations, 2003 to 2005, percentage of respondents*), IP course users % 100 80 60 40 20 0 12 12 16 40 36 32 Economic risks Innovation costs Finance 24 20 12 8 16 4 16 4 16 4 12 4 Lack of market info *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 25 Lack of qualified personnel Client responsiveness high relevance medium relevance Lack of technology info 15 EU Organisational issues 20 Other Regulations & standards
PVSonline users; only regulations and standards were considered to be even more important (for 3 out of 10 users of high, for 2 of medium relevance). Regarding the methods of IPR-protection, most IP course users/attendants (72 %) filed for a patent between 2003 and 2005; 32 % already had a patent granted or valid (see Graph 149). 60 % of the users stated that they used trade marks to protect their IPR. On the other hand, some enterprises also employed informal IPR protection methods, i.e. trade secrets and/or secrecy agreements (60 %) or relied on lead time advantage (32 %). For the PVSonline users, similar results were found: 6 out of 10 filed for patents; also 6 utilised trade marks as a protection method. Some enterprises who used PVSonline stated that they employ also informal protection mechanisms; 6 out of 10 focused on a competitive lead time advantage. For the IP course users/attendants, general awareness issues (for 24 % of high, and for 16 % of medium relevance) and cost/benefit considerations (high relevance for 20 %, medium for 24 %) are perceived to be the main internal barriers for using IPR (see Graph 150). Except organisational issues and human resources, all categories were considered relevant for a total of 30 % and more. Considering these findings, a broader IPR management counselling could help to lower these barriers. For the PVSonline users, cost issues and the time to make the IP protection work were considered to be relevant. Graph 149 DKPTO–IP protection methods employed by service users, 2003 to 2005, percentage of respondents*), IP course users % 80 60 40 20 0 72 Patents filed 32 Patents valid and/or granted 24 Design patterns and/or utility models 60 Trademarks multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 25 16 Copyrights 24 Defensive Publishing 60 Trade secrets/secrecy agreements Graph 150 DKPTO–(Internal) barriers to using IP protection mechanisms, percentage of respondents*), IP course users % 100 80 60 40 20 0 24 16 20 unclear cost/benefit of IP protection 24 Awareness 28 20 24 12 12 16 12 16 Time to make IP protection work Costs of IP protection *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 25 Lack of info on IP protection high relevance medium relevance IPR irrelevant in business context 24 Design complexity 32 Lead-time advantage 8 No deliberate IPR strategy 12 8 4 4 Lack of qualified personnel Organisational issues 253 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:
Page 204 and 205: 202 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?