Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

262 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL <strong>PRO</strong>PERTY A high number of companies experienced hampering factors for innovation during the past years (see Graph 156). The rankings towards the single aspects is very comparable to similar IPR support services: TNS users complain mostly about economic risks (for 56 % of high and 24 % of medium relevance), lack of financial resources (for 50 % of high and 28 % of medium relevance) and high innovation costs (for 45 % of high and for further 36 % of medium relevance). Other factors, i.e. regulations and standards or client responsiveness are also considered to be important. TNS users employed a high number of formal IPR protection methods during 2003 and 2005 (see Graph 157). 60 % state that they filed for a patent in that time period; 38 % had a patent granted or valid. Moreover, 48 % used trade marks to protect their IP, 44 % design patterns/ utility models. Regarding informal IPR protection, 28 % tried to maintain a lead time advantage over competitors, 20 % used trade secrets and/or secrecy agreements; 18 % relied on the complexity of design. For TNS users, costs, time issues and unclear cost/benefits of IP protection represent the main internal barriers for using IPR methods (see Graph 158). It can be assumed that the reason why general awareness is considered less relevant is simply that TNS offers complementary services to those companies which are already aware of their IPR. Graph 158 TNS IP–(Internal) barriers to using IP protection mechanisms, percentage of respondents*) % 100 80 60 40 20 0 26 62 Costs of IP protection 38 48 Time to make IP protection work 44 26 30 26 unclear cost/benefit of IP protection *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 50 Lack of qualified personnel 34 18 Lack of info on IP protection high relevance medium relevance 40 30 12 IPR irrelevant in business context Graph 159 TNS IP–(External) barriers to using IP protection mechanisms, percentage of respondents*) % 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 24 48 Lack of info on available support services *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 50 36 34 Lack of accessibility of support services high relevance medium relevance 16 Awareness 32 14 20 6 Organisational issues Lack of quality of available support services
The overall understanding of IPR issues is provided by services like “IP Prédiagnosis”; if companies after such an analysis feel that the best way to protect their IP is filing for a patent, the next logical step would be the usage of “First Patent” TNS. External barriers are perceived to be significant obstacles among TNS users. The lack of information on available support services (high relevance for 48 %, medium for 24 %), the lack of accessibility (for 34 % of high and 36 % of medium relevance) and the lack of quality of available external support services (for 14 % of high and 32 % of medium relevance) show, compared to other IPR support services, high relevance rates and point to little visibility of the service with the user group (see Graph 159). But then again, TNS (and also IP Prédiagnosis) seem to belong to a class of services which try to reach out to companies (i.e., look for them) which have otherwise little knowledge about support services in the field of IPR – and for those companies, which are not actively looking for support themselves, external barriers are perceived to be of higher relevance. User reach-out and satisfaction levels Unsurprisingly, almost half of the TNS users got to know about the service through personal recommendations, 42 % heard about TNS through the service providing organisation itself (the latter again indicating the pro-active role of the TNS service) (see Graph 160). In addition, 28 % also gathered information through consultants and 20 % from agencies. The internet and classical media were ranked rather low Graph 160 TNS IP–Information channels, by which users got to know about the service, percentage of respondents*) % 80 70 60 50 40 30 46 20 42 28 10 22 10 14 18 10 0 2 2 0 Internet Newsletter Information days/conferences General newspaper Professional journal *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 50 Personal recommendation Consultants Commercial banks Graph 161 TNS IP–Satisfaction levels with different aspects of service provision, arithmetic means of grades given by respondents Overall: Service met needs and demands Delivery time Quality of provided material Relevance of provided information Competence of staff 1,4 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,6 *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 50 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 very satisfied unsatisfied Agency TechNet itself Other 263 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:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215: 212 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?