Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

The distribution of the TNS user sample confirms that the service targets mostly
micro-enterprises: 75 % of the SMEs in the sample have at most 9 employees;
20 % have 10 to 49 employees; only 5 % are larger companies with up to 249
employees (see Graph 153).
Looking at the development activities, the study reveals that TNS users were very
innovative during the last years (see Graph 154). Between 2003 and 2005, 68 %
of the service users introduced new or significantly improved products onto the
market. During the same time, more than 36 % delivered product innovations to
customers. As concerns R&D, 78 % of the service users conducted intramural R&D.
In addition, 58 % of the surveyed users were engaged in the acquisition of
machinery and equipment.
Between 2003 and 2005, TNS users made frequent use of external consultants
(20 %), patent attorneys (18 %) and the chamber of commerce (18 %; see Graph
155). The high usage of patent attorneys underlines – as with other services
throughout Europe – the importance of this profession for IPR service provision. By
contrast, the rather high share of external consultants used seems to relate to the
fact that the service supports the usage of external experts by offering financial help
for an (technical/legal) IP audit.
Graph 156 TNS IP–Hampering factors for innovations, 2003 to 2005, by SMEs,
percentage of respondents*)
100
80
60
40
20
0
%
24
56
Economic risks
28
50
Finance
36
42
Innovation
costs
36
28
36 34
Regulations &
standards
*) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 50
Client
responsiveness
32
24
Lack of market
info
high relevance medium relevance
20
18
Lack of
qualified
personnel
30
Lack of
technology info
24
8 6
Graph 157 TNS IP–IP protection methods employed by service users, 2003 to
2005, percentage of respondents*)
%
80
60
40
20
0
60
Patents filed
38
Patents valid
and/or granted
44
Design patterns
and/or utility
models
48
Trademarks
*) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 50
6
Copyrights
16
Defensive
Publishing
20 18
Trade
secrets/secrecy
agreements
Design
complexity
28
Lead-time
advantage
Organisational
issues
2
No deliberate
IPR strategy
261
ANNEX I – CASE STUDIES