Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

92 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL <strong>PRO</strong>PERTY change the structure of the user group and attract SMEs which would otherwise not use patent search services. Another significant factor for this type of IPR service is timely delivery: 45 % of the users assert that this aspect is highly relevant, another 9 % see it as moderately relevant. The importance given to timely delivery is due to the prioritising concept of IPR: For example, whoever files first (in <strong>Europe</strong>, Japan) or whoever invents first (USA) is the one who will be granted the patent. But also in litigation cases or stop and go decisions regarding R&D projects, deadlines have to be adhered to. There is of course a trade-off between conducting a very thorough patent scan and receiving results as early as possible. And, as with many such trade-offs, the law of increasing marginal costs and decreasing marginal utility applies. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some SMEs may mitigate the losses incurred by the described trade-off by contracting two separate parties to conduct a patent search: “For us, it is vital to get patent information as fast as possible. If a patent search covers 80 % of the ground in a certain amount of time, it is for us of more use than a search which covers 99 % but takes forever. In practice, we contract two service providers to perform a scan within a specified time period. We then compare the results, and the combined findings are usually much more informative than if we would have contracted only one party and given it more time to perform its task.” (User survey: serv.ip SME user) With respect to the remaining key quality factors scrutinised, two things are in particular noticeable: First, costs are rather low on the priority list of the users. Second, spatial distance is given low significance. This reaction to costs can be interpreted as meaning that as long as the costs are not excessive, and the quality of the search results is reasonable, SMEs would be willing to pay a certain amount of money for good patent search services. As other studies have underlined the importance of low cost patent search possibilities for SMEs (see Hall, Oppenheim & Sheen, 2003), these results may sound contradictory. It should be noted, though, that the user survey specifically addressed existing and probably experienced users of patent search services. Such users might have overcome an initial anxiety about costs and gained a different perception of the cost/benefit ratio. In addition, it can be expected that the costs experienced for patent attorneys acting as intermediaries for SMEs may play a role in the SME views, too (i.e., patent searches may be considered costly as the patent attorneys who conduct searches on behalf of SMEs cost a lot). This perception is also in line with the findings of Hall, Oppenheim & Sheen (2003) who state that “patent attorneys may…present a professional barrier rather than an enabling function.” The reaction to spatial distance is in line with the findings for other IPR support services. It can be taken as a clear indication that it is likely unnecessary to establish patent database search services in every locality. It seems very likely that successfully implemented user friendly online search possibilities will even lower such a demand in the future. Taken together, it is difficult to assess whether patent information services should be the main vehicle to foster IPR usage by SMEs. Most likely, though, they should be preceded by offerings educating SMEs on subjects of general IP and IPR management. In such an environment patent search services would be an element of the IPR service portfolio and not its main pillar. Having said that, it seems that some level of knowledge on the benefits and the mechanics of conducting patent searches should nonetheless be established in SMEs. Besides the key quality factors described above, one important issue needs to be addressed: Namely, to what extent SMEs can conduct patent searches by themselves and at which point additional help with interpretation should be provided. Future technologies (such as semantic patent analysis) (Walter, Brusch &
Hartung, 2007) may make it easier for SMEs to perform patent scans on their own. In the meantime, SMEs who decide to use the services of a patent attorney should make sure that they chose a patent attorney with profound technical and legal know how in the SME business environment. Policy makers should be aware that by introducing value-added search services they may enter the theatre of private services providers (patent attorneys and others). It appears that public provision of search services has the potential of conflicting with private-sector provision of these services, but, at the level of the patent attorney, also offers complementarities. These issues will be dealt with in the next section. 5.5 The interaction between private and public support services The underlying benchmarking study set out to analyse the performance and effectiveness of the system of public support given to SMEs in the field of IPR on a national and regional level – private sector offerings were thus not directly subject to scrutiny. Notwithstanding this, it seems necessary to comment on existing private services and how they do (or should) interact with public measures. In this context, it should be first recalled that public intervention should ideally only be carried out if a market failure can be identified. As has been shown in the preceding chapters, the existence of a market failure can be argued, as SMEs may face more barriers in putting their IP to use than large companies. However, if services offered by the private sector are up the task and meet the needs of small and medium-sized firms to the full extent, the introduction of public measures would only lead to unwanted displacement and crowding out effects. The following discussion relies to a large extent on anecdotal evidence, expert opinions gathered through the course of the study and some literature sources (Lagemaat & Frackenpohl, 2005; ACIP, 2003; Ebersole, 2003). As a consequence, it will not be able to answer the question on an empirically firm basis, as private service offerings have not been under scrutiny in the scope of the underlying study. Yet it should provide a starting point for further discussions and analysis. The private sector of IPR service providers seems to mainly comprise two groups of professionals/companies: patent attorneys (resp. patent agents) and commercial patent information providers (which includes companies such as Derwent, Europatent, INCOM and IFI Claims). These commercial patent information providers run added-value search services and operate self-designed databases with patent information. In addition, external business consultants and lawyers may also play a role when it comes to issues related to marketing/trade marks or general knowledge management. 93 TOWARDS GOOD PRACTICES – THE REAL WORLD OF IPR SUPPORT SERVICES
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:
22 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 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: 44 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGION
Page 102 and 103: 100 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIO
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 144 and 145:
142 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIO
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?