Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

38 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL <strong>PRO</strong>PERTY � Facilitating R&D collaboration: IPR may be used to provide the framework of working relations between companies engaging in mutual R&D projects; IPR might thus help to overcome concerns on losing company know-how to the research partners. All in all, it becomes clear that a range of benefits or opportunities are available by using IPR, only one of which is insurance against unlawful copying. On the other hand, there are also challenges present which result from the barriers described above. These challenges indicate the risks of IPR: providing blueprints of an invention to competitors; the inability to protect against infringement; losing the freedom to operate by being patented out of the market; sunk costs because of IPR of no commercial value or unsustainable costs for litigating and/or maintaining IPR. Last but not least, there are a number of IP protection instruments to chose from – each with its own benefits and risks. And there is always the option of doing nothing, which could be more useful than doing the wrong thing under specific circumstances. To manage all the challenges and risks, many large companies have developed IP strategies which basically serve three goals (Peham, 2006): 1. To create a patent and IP portfolio, where the cost/benefit ratio is maximised. Such a portfolio (sometimes also called a patent pool) serves to secure the firm’s own development and market activities, creates freedom to operate and generates additional income (as opposed to the classical method of producing and selling products to end users only). 2. To identify potentially harmful IPR owned by competitors and be able to react to this early on. 3. To use IPR as a source of technological information (e.g., by monitoring patent databases). Such a strategy provides the basis for taken action, for example, regarding the usage of certain IP protection instruments. The extent to which IP protection instruments are employed depends on many factors: The technological standing of the company regarding certain products and, the strength of the patent and IPR portfolio are two examples. The matrix shown below in Graph 5 is, for example, used by SIEMENS as decision guidance. The findings of Matthews, Pickering and Kirkland suggest that integrating the IPR strategy into wider management considerations in a coherent and structured manner may be viewed as a prerequisite for successful implementation (Matthews et al., 2003). The collaboration of researchers, patent managers and attorneys, lawyers, and commercial managers is thus by-and-large considered to be crucial. Graph 5 Matrix for the usage of different IP protection methods, depending on market position/standing Patent utilisation Source: Peham, 2006 leading same following PPatent standing following same leading TTechnology standing RRecommended action CCross-Licensing IIn-Licensing CCross-Licensing with net income generation IInhibiting PProduct clearing AAppeal/objection AAcquire patent SStrengthen patent portfolio OOptimize patent processes
The first step to ensure that IP management is integrated into day-to-day business operations is generally to write down and codify the IPR strategy in a respective document. This document explains what procedures are to be followed when important aspects concerning the IP of the firm arise and/or sets out responsibilities for different IPR-related tasks. For the latter, many companies have set up dedicated IP departments. Some of them were former patent departments, and the name change alone indicates the higher significance of focussing on IP protection instruments as a whole rather than only on patents. Though the organisational embedding and the level of autonomy assigned to these departments vary greatly, it is on average acknowledged that clear lines of responsibility are needed. Following the establishment of an adequate IPR supporting structure, the challenge is to raise awareness on IPR matters throughout the company. To this end, company-internal trainings are the primary instrument of choice – distributing the IPR strategy documents alone may not be sufficient as the documents may end up as “…weighty volumes…used…as door stops” (Matthews et al, 2003: 46). In day-today business operations, it is eventually important to “think IP” and act accordingly. This entails a process of continual learning, revision and refinement, based on company-internal observations and also on intelligence concerning the activities of competitors. The income-generating function revisited – The significance of business models The income generating function of IPR is, in addition to the marketing/ reputation creating functions of IPR, worth a more detailed look in the IPR management context, as it may have consequences for the whole organisation of a business. Such changes in corporate organisational structures can be especially observed in the manufacturing industries of the ICT sector. The ICT manufacturing industries are nowadays characterised by very short product life cycles, very low production costs and low profit margins. At the same time, however, there is also high pressure regarding the development of new innovations, which is in turn mostly associated with high R&D costs. Many products are made up of a variety of technologies, whereby each of the technologies may be protected by their own range of patents. A key factor in the context of IPR: open innovation Traditionally operating companies may not be flexible enough to cope with the challenges presented by such a business environment. 8 A possible, and widely chosen, alternative way to tackle this issue is to open up the R&D departments and enter in joint-venture agreements with other companies (mostly other large competitors, but also SMEs) in order to share development costs (Elevald, 2007). This is often done on a per-innovation or per-technology basis, and the nature of such agreements entails a range of different forms of co-operation – sometimes loose R&D cooperation agreements, sometimes membership in an alliance (e.g., the alliance on a particular DVD format), but often also separate legal bodies (“joint” spin-offs). As a result of this open innovation approach, the rigid onecompany/one R&D department model tends to break down into a conglomerate of larger firms and SMEs, characterised by mutual trade interests and complicated mutual ownership structures involving also competitors. In this environment, revenue is only to a small extent created by having end-users pay a margin on top of development and production costs. Instead, the primary source of income is derived from licensing to other producers who sell the endproduct under different brands to consumers. The inherent risk of litigation resulting from patent infringements (considering, as stated before, that many ICT products employ technologies protected by many different patents) is reduced by 8 Traditionally operating companies would in this context denote companies with a single large R&D department which works only for the firm it is part of, which develops the innovations, has them patented, and hands them over to production and marketing, from where they are sold with a profit margin to end-users. 39 SMEs IN THE IPR WORLD
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 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: Care must be taken that statements
Page 43: The patent troll as an SME-affine e
Page 90 and 91:
88 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGION
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:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 271 and 272:
Table 10 Overview of public availab
Page 273 and 274:
Nr. B* Country Title of the Service
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
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?