Presentation

Alfred Radauer (Senior Researcher, Austrian Institute for SME Research)

Main findings and conclusions of the Benchmarking Study of National and

Regional IPR Support Services for SMEs

The Research Team

3/79

Overview

European Network for Social and Economic Research (ENSR)

Co-ordinatorAustrian Institute for

SME Research (KMFA)Alfred Radauer

Jürgen StreicherSonja Sheikh

Expert andDissemination Pool

Serge QuazzottiRuth Taplin

Monika KrasnySimon Fawcett

Guriqbal Singh-Jaiya

(sub-contractors)

Technopolis Group

project partner

Fritz OhlerKatharina WartaSaverio Romeo

ENSR and European partnerscovering the 31 European countries

(sub-contractors)

non-European research partners

Rosalie Ruegg (USA)Jorge Niosi/Peter Hanl (Canada)

Ruth Taplin (Japan) Elisabeth Webster (Australia)

(sub-contractors)

organisation of the Dissemination Conference

Service-GMBH of the Austrian Federal Chamber of Commerce (WKÖ)

(sub-contractor)

under the patronage of the

Austrian Patent Office

4/79

Austrian Institute for SME Research

• Founded: 1952 (2003: name change to KMU FORSCHUNG AUSTRIA)

• Legal form: independent, private, non-profit association

• Staff: approx. 40 persons

• Member of networks such as the ENSR, the European Council for Small Business (ECSB), European Evaluation Society (EES), etc.

Aim & Function

• Social and economic research focussing on SMEs

• Provision of information and data as a basis for decision making

• Target groups: SMEs and their advisors and institutions for economic policy and business promotion

• Geographic scope: Austria and Europe

6/79

Clients

• International Organisations, e.g.– European Commission

– International Labour Office (ILO)

– European Social Fund (ESF)

• National Organisations, e.g.– Federal Ministries

– Economic Chambers

– Public Employment Service (AMS)

– Austrian National Bank (OeNB)

– State governments

– Regional development agencies

7/79

Stockholm

BrightonAmsterdam

Brussels

Paris Vienna

Technopolis Group

Ankara

8/79

Expertise

• Evaluation • Institutional development • Programme Design & Management • Developing and Newly Industrialising Countries • Technology and Innovation Policy • Information Society & ICT • Training Services • Regional Development & Clusters

9/79

The European Network for Social and Economic Research (ENSR)

• Network of independent research organisations specialised in enterprise and business-related research

• Geographical Coverage: all EU, EEA and candidate countries

• Number of partner institutions: currently 37 nationally operating research institutions

• Number of cooperating researchers: >600

10/79

Fields of Work

• Research Areas: The ENSR conducts research in almost any area related to the business sector, such as

• Everything related to SMEs (as a main focus)• Entrepreneurship and enterprise development • Innovation and technology, Capital and finance • Regional aspects, Sectoral studies • Evaluation, monitoring, benchmarking • Regulatory review and administrative burden

11/79

Clients

• European Commission– DG Enterprise & Industry (e.g., with the project

„Observatory of European SMEs“)– DG Employment and Social Affairs

• European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

• National Governments

The Background

13/79

The “Pro-Patent” Era

Increasing importance of IPR during the last two decades:– Among other things, the development is due to the…

• transition to a information society/knowledge-based economy• growing trend towards internationalisation

– Trends related to IPR• Changes in the legal frameworks• Increasing number of patent applications • Certain technology fields and developing sectors are

especially affected.

Increasing relevance of IP and IP protection mechanisms for SMEs

14/79

Intellectual property protection practices

Type of practice

„Do nothing“ “Informal protection practices“

“Non-registrable legal rights”

“Registrable intellectual property

rights”

Example No conscious strategy to protect IP

Develop high-trust relations with customers, suppliers and employees

Confidentiality clauses and restrictive covenants in customer, supplier and employment contracts

Patents

Maintain lead time advantage over competitors

Prominent copyright notices Registered design

Build specialist know-how into products

Licensing Registered tradeand service marks

Member/user of an organisation which seeks to protect IP

Restricted publication

Unregistered design / design right

►►► Increasing legal formalitySource: Blackburn 2003

15/79

Use of IPR Systems by SMEs

• No data available on patent filings according to company size

• General findings of most studies: SMEs make little use of the IPR-System!

– Exceptions: selected high-tech sectors

European Patent Office (EPO) estimates: 25% of the patent applications stem from SMEs.

16/79

Reasons for the limited use of the existing IPR-System (I)

• Lack of Awareness:– Insufficient knowledge about the (possible) impact of

Intellectual Property Rights and the patenting on a company’s overall business strategy

• Charges and Fees:– Patent office fees (application and registration fee,

publication fees) – Costs for legal advice; translation costs– Overall costs for obtaining a European patent

protection: approx. € 40.000,- (Source: Roland Berger)

In addition: Costs arise before the product/service is on the market and/or the patent owner receives any revenues

17/79

Reasons for the limited use of the existing IPR-System (II)

• (Perceived?) enforceability of patent rights– How to handle and avoid patent infringements– Lack of financial resources

• Long lead times– Increased applications to national and international patent offices

are producing a growing backlog

• (Perceived?) practice of granting patents– The share patents granted to SMEs (in terms of the number of

applications) is generally lower, if compared to larger companies

– Possible Reasons: Better reputation of large companies? ORBetter IPR management in large companies?

18/79

Possible benefits of patents

• Traditional function:– Insurance against copying

• “Newer” functions:– Reputation building

• For marketing purposes• In negotiations with VC funds (in the absence of reference projects)

– Strategic uses• Scare potential competitors off• Misguide competitors• Force competitors to design around• Create freedom to operate (e.g., by cross-licensing)• Facilitation of inter-firm collaboration

– Direct income generation• By licensing• New business models within existing industries• Entirely new business models (“patent trolls” as indicators herefore)

19/79

The Case for IPR Management (I)

• Learning from large firms: LSEs often employ dedicated IP strategy/policy – To create and manage IP portfolio

• For securing the firms developments• For creating freedom to operate• For generating additional income

– To identify potentially harmful IPR (and be able to react early on)

– To use IPR as a source of technological information IPR management instead of „simple“ IP (patent)

protection

20/79

The Case for IPR Management (II)

• IPR management makes use of all formal IPR tools AND informal IP protection mechanisms for good reason

• „Disadvantages“ of patents:– Given by barriers (real or not) described before– Patents protect only for a limited amount of time– Patent provides blueprints for unlawful copiersUsage of patents can be in some instances only waste

of money, in others even harmful to the business

21/79

Alternative IPR strategies for SMEs

• Alternative IPR might prove often more useful– Trademarks, designs, …

• Usage of informal IP protection strategies may be also feasible:– “Do nothing”

– “Maintenance of lead advantage”

– “Trade secrets” and/or usage of rules against unfair competition

– “Defensive Publishing”: Publishing in journals in order to avoid patenting of one’s own invention by competitors

– Hybrid strategies

Usage of the different IP protection tools depends on market standing of a company (which might lower the significance of the business size issue)

22/79

The Case of IPR management (III)

IPR management should be integrated into innovation management

Grundlagen

Kosten

Patent utilisation

Recommended actionCross-Licensing

In-Licensing

Cross-Licensing with net income generation

Inhibiting

Product clearing

Appeal/objection

Acquire patent

Strengthen patent portfolio

Optimize patent processes

leading

same

following

following same leading

Patent standing

Technology standing

Source: Pecham 2006/Siemens Corporation

23/79

Usage of different IP protection instruments *)

54

3428

48

19

45

2632

128

134

1410

1911

01020304050607080

Pat

ents

file

d

Pat

ents

val

idan

d/or

gra

nted

Des

ign

patte

rns

and/

or u

tility

mod

els

Tra

dem

arks

Cop

yrig

hts

Tra

dese

cret

s/se

crec

yag

reem

ents

Des

ign

com

plex

ity

Lead

-tim

ead

vant

age

User survey (ALL) CIS III (all companies, countries covered by case studies)

%

Source: 3rd Community Innovation Survey (CIS III), Austrian Institute for SME Research (SME-IIP user survey)*) multiple answers allowed

Given the number of companies and the number of patent applications, CIS data looks still over-optimistic

24/79

IPR as a means to increase competitiveness?

25/79

First conclusions

• The corporate usage of patents should depend on… – the overall corporate strategy of the enterprise,– the corporate structure and the sector(s) the enterprise operates – an efficient management of IPR issues.

IPR in innovation management matters!!Policy makers should take a broader

approach towards IPR and not be too patent-centric

Availability of qualified staff to deal with the challenges may be the key issue

26/79

Policy Areas

• IPR framework– Laws governing IPR (Community Patents)– Laws governing competition (competition policy)

• RTDI Support – Addressing universities and researchers– Addressing businesses and SMEs directly

• Human Capital Policy– Education of the general public– Education within universities (business schools, technical universities)– Education and vocational training for stakeholders („train the

trainers“)– Education targeted at SME managers („Training“)

• (Foreign Policy):– New Trend: Programmes concerning IPR protection in China for SMEs No track record so far….but vehicle to promote IPR with all?

Study focus

27/79

What´s ahead…

Questions for the study (and the rest of the presentation and subsequent discussion):►Are the currently offered IPR support services

adequate with respect to the needs of SMEs, resp. the challenges described?

►Is there a mismatch between demand and supply?►Are there differences in service provision in

Europe and overseas countries?►Is the vision of a broader approach to IP usage

(instead on the number of patent applications only) workable in the context of IPR support?

The Project

29/79

Study “SME-IIP” in a nutshell

Aim: The study aimed to identify, analyse, classify and benchmark support services in the area of IPR for SMEs

• The project was carried out in three phases:– Phase 1: Identification and analysis of existing support services

– Phase 2: Benchmarking of relevant support services; development of a

short list for a “Good-Practice” analysis

– Phase 3: In-depth analysis of selected services with “Good Practice”- elements; examination of survey results; development of case studies

– Geographical coverage: Mostly EU-27 and some overseas countries (USA, Japan, Australia, Canada)

30/79

Study design and methodology

279 services (Europe: 224)

72 services benchmarked

15 services exhibiting “good practice” characteristics

Field work (by partner network)

Field work (by partner network)

Results validation

Results dissemination

Core Research Team:

- Analysis

- Guide-lines

- Selection processS

tudy

IP

R E

xper

t G

roup

31/79

Response rates for user survey

Nr. title of the service address pool (1)

contacted users

executed interviews

response rate

1 INSTI SME Patent Action (GER) 3000 460 52 11 %

2 Patent Information Centre Stuttgart (GER) 132 132 35 27 %

3 IK2 (SWE) 85 81 50 62 %

4 IOI (NLD) 200 94 50 53 %

5 IP Prédiagnosis (FRA) 82 82 30 37%

6 What’s the key? Campaign (UK) 15 14 13 93 %

7 IA Centre Scotland (UK) 256 136 46 34%

8 serv.ip (AUT) 542 95 56 59 %

9 Intellectual Property Assistance Scheme (IRE)

53 53 41 77 %

10 VIVACE (HUN) 4000 450 50 11 %

11 SME Services of the Research Centre Henri Tudor (LUX)

47 41 20 49 %

12 Foundation for Finish Inventions (FIN) 138 85 49 58 %

13 Promotion of Industrial Property (ESP) 154 90 53 59 %

14 SME services of the Danish patent office (DK) 79 79 35 44 %

15 Technology Network Service PTR (1er brevet) (FRA)

385 253 50 20 %

TOTAL 630

(1) Number of available contacts

*) The case studies are presented in lose order – the numbering does not represent a ranking of any type and is used only for easier referencing.

Source: Austrian Institute for SME Research

Towards good practices:Identification process (Phase 1)

33/79

Selection criteria for identifying relevant support services

Selection criteria

• Source of funding– Inclusion of only publicly funded services

• SMEs as target group– Explicitly– Implicitly, if the service has significance for SMEs

• Service design– Service targeted as a whole or in (analysable) parts at IPR

• Degree of legal formality– Focus on registrable IPR (esp. patents)– Inclusion of other IPR with less legal formality, if a country does not have a high enough

number of services targeting registrable IPR

• Geographical coverage: national and/or regional

Another (informal) selection criterion in some (few) instances: willingness of the service provider to collaborate and provide information

34/79

Overview of available support services (I)

• In total, 224 support services for SMEs in the field of IPR in Europe have been identified.– database listing: 279 services (incl. overseas)– high variation among countries– number of services identified overseas: 55

• Only 35% of the services were explicitly dedicated services for SMEs.

• Most services (80%) were offered nationwide, the rest at a regional/local level.

35/79

Overview of available support services (II)

Degree of legal formality of IPR covered by identified services, by services *)

*) multiple answers allowed Source: Identification process, n=279

Regardless of selection criteria, most public funded services target registrable IPR (esp. patents)

90

69 67

18

37

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

patents designs trademarks otherregistrable IPRs

non-registrableIPRs

informalprotectionpractices

%

36/79

Overview of available support services (III)

Phase of IPR usage targeted, by services *)

*) multiple answers allowed Source: Identification process, n=279

Most services address the process of development/registration of IPR Multiple phases covered by many services

49

74

37

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

research on innovativeprojects and related IPRs

process ofdevelopment/registraton of

IPRs

acquisition of existing IPRs utilisation of IPRs

%

37/79

Overview of available support services (IV)

• Issue: multiple counting– e.g., “consulting services” are often also “information services”

• Number of categories• Issue: Embedded services vs. integrated services

– Embedded services: Service part of another service or service portfolio which is not targeted at IPR

– Integrated services: Services part of a portfolio of IPR-related services

Review of classification system, taking into account Qualitative service descriptions Comparisons between countries Other classification systems (OECD/WIPO etc.)

38/79

Overview of available support services (V)

Evidence-based “functional” classification:

1. (Pro-active) awareness raising services & Public Relations

actively address SMEs and/or promote the usage of the IPR system

2. (Passive) Information provision services

(passively) offer information to interested parties, partly for research purposes

3. Training

Educational measures where SMEs do benefit to a larger proportion

4. Customized in-depth consulting and advisory services/points

broader scope

5. Financial assistance & legal framework

Subsidies for patent filings, tax credits…

39/79

Overview of available support services (VI)

*) multiple counts allowed Source: Identification process

Functional classification, by services *)

39

8

15

3031

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Finance & legalframew ork

Customised in-depthconsulting services

Informationprovision services

Proactiveaw areness raising

Training

%

Towards good practices:Benchmarking (Phase 2)

41/79

Towards Good Practices: Benchmarking Indicators (I)

• Development and Design:– Type and scope of preparatory activities– Time of preparation activities– …..

• Implementation:– Budgets and resources used– Governance

• Evidence of an effective administration • Existence of quality assurance mechanisms

– Marketing activities employed– …

42/79

Towards Good Practices: Benchmarking Indicators (II)

• Performance:– Existence and values of any performance measures– Assessment of added value/additionality– Assessment of impacts– Strengths and weaknesses– …

Strong focus of the respective guidelines

43/79

Towards Good Practices: Selection criteria for the benchmarking phase

1. Clearness of the objectives stated

2. Clearness of the service design and service offerings

3. Scope of the service offerings

4. Level of innovation of the instruments employed

5. Take-up by SMEs and/or other available performance measures

6. Country context

7. Policy context

44/79

Towards Good Practices: Overview of benchmarked services

• In total, 72 services were subjected to benchmarking.– In the end: comprehensive data gathered from

66 services.

Overall: “good practices” as a whole were hard to spot!

Plenty of opportunities to learn about “elements of good practice”

45/79

Towards Good Practices: Organisations offering IPR support services for SMEs

*) multiple counts allowed Source: Benchmarking process, n=66

Type of service offering institutions of benchmarked services, by services *)

30

8

39

14

36

9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Nationalgovernmental

body

Regionalgovernmental

body

Patent off ice Nationaldevelopment

agency

Regionaldevelopment

agency

Others (e.g.,associations)

%

46/79

Towards Good Practices: Institutional map

• High/increased activity levels from the National Patent Offices:– seem to look for new new roles – active in (pro-active) awareness raising activities and in

(technical) information provision (e.g., patent searches)– Most of the time new in the innovation policy landscape– Challenges

• Technology/development agencies – cover IPR, but IPR services there are often marginalised

• National governmental bodies– Have their IPR services often implemented by organisations

other (“Other” category) than the PTO or technology/development agencies

47/79

Towards Good Practices: Evaluation culture (I)

*) multiple counts allowed Source: Benchmarking process, n (benchmarked services) = 66, n (Good Practices) = 15

Quality assurance mechanisms in place, by services *)

50

31

23

59

47

12

3629

24

35 35 35

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Regularmonitoringexercises

Interimevaluations

Ex-postevaluations

Regular audits Other qualityassurance

mechanisms

No qualityassurance

mechanisms

Benchmarked services "Good Practice" elements exhibiting services

%

48/79

Towards Good Practices: Evaluation culture (II)

• Only around 5 out of 10 services are subject to formal evaluation exercises

• 23% stated that they had no form of quality assurance mechanisms in place

– Issue seemingly more with services from the PTOs

– Evaluated services perform better than non-evaluated ones

– Lack of evaluation culture has implications… …in terms of customer (need) orientation …in terms of accountability

49/79

Towards Good Practices: Evaluation culture (III)

IPR support services are, in terms of investigated implemented innovation policy instruments, to a large extent uncharted

territory!

Systems failure!

50/79

Key quality factors for the provision of IPR services, user perceptions

14

26

29

40

42

44

47

49

51

67

67

77

31

35

35

25

31

33

24

26

31

19

17

12

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Spatial distance

Referal to external services

Referal to & availability of other services in-house

Technical information ("how to patent")

Administrative efforts

Scope of service

Information on different IP strategies ("w hy/w hy notto patent")

Individual contact

Costs

Timely delivery

Ease of access & identif ication

Competence of Staff

high relevance medium relevance

%

Source: Austrian Institute for SME Research

Aggregated answers for all services,Services considered = 15

n = 630

51/79

Towards Good Practices: Human resources

• Core success factor: Competence of staff

– Underlined explicitly in around 60% of the benchmarked services as a success factor.

– Also underlined in user surveys in the good practice analysis.

– Reason: IPR matters are usually more complicated and require technical, legal and business/strategic knowledge

52/79

Towards Good Practices: Human resources and educational offerings

Serious issue: Availability of qualified staff

Calls for senior staff with experience

Not every local and regional service can offer sufficient number of experts

Issue of reward schemes

Literature indicates lack of educational offerings in this respect

A good IPR service has to have a minimum scope (otherwise: referral)

53/79

Towards Good Practices: Networking and service portfolios

• The level of integration/networking with other services matters.– Services integrated into a portfolio of other

services perform better than isolated ones. Synergy effects in terms of competence available

and built throughout service operation achieve minimal size of service easier

However, no service can cover the whole spectrum of IPR issues! referral activities important

54/79

Towards Good Practices: Visibility

• Another important success factor: Ease of identification

– A weakness with many services

– Many support services are more easily identifiable, because they are the only service of their kind in the country/region (uniqueness as a success factor).

55/79

Towards Good Practices: Patent Focus vs. IP protection in general

• Scope of the service offers:

– Most services are patent-centric (with some provisions for trademarks)

– Issue: Information on „why“ and „why not“ to patent

Who (from the service advisers) would advise Coca-Cola to go for a trade secret regarding its recipe if it were patentable?

Lack of services covering all different IP protection instruments!

56/79

Towards Good Practices: National or regional approaches? (I)

Because of the success factors explained before: Preference for a nationwide offered integrated service (package) with regional outlets.

Central unit can have the (otherwise scarce) expertise.

Regional outlets refer to the central unit

High visibility

Networking with other institutions required (but there are limits to networking)

57/79

Towards Good Practices: National or regional approaches? (II)

Services of smaller scope and/or operated only at a regional level can also make sense…

…if they complement nationwide offerings

…if they have clear goals and targets and respective service designs in the regional context

…if they are also networked enough

Issue of critical mass!

58/79

Towards Good Practices: Private or public service offerings? (I)

15 11 412 18

8

35 37

22

34 27

24

11 133 20

20

40

60

80

100N

atio

nal

agen

cy

Reg

iona

lag

ency

Cha

mbe

r of

com

mer

ce

Pat

ent

offic

e

Pat

ent

atto

rney

Ext

erna

lco

nsul

tant

s

EU

Oth

er

f requently occasionally

%

*) multiple answers allowedSource: User Survey, n = 630

Usage frequency of different types of service providers for innovation projects,

percentage of (good practice) service users *)

59/79

Towards Good Practices: Private or public service offerings? (II)

• Issue “Crowding out of private service providers” By extending public service offerings (esp. by the PTOs) conflicts

may arise with private offerings

Has to be looked into further!!

Some thinking: Type 1 (awareness) to Type 3 (training): public Type 3 (training) & Type 4: private (Type 3 partly public) Type 5 (subsidy): public

Cooperation with private multipliers a (necessary) success factor Important role of patent attorneys! ( often act directly as an entry

point for IPR support services, or promote such services) (Time-limited) public support services as igniters for private offerings?

60/79

Towards Good Practices: Organisational focus (I)

• Who should offer publicly funded IPR support services for SMEs?

Depends on the design of the innovation (support) system and historic context.

PTOs Have abundant knowledge on technical and legal matters

concerning registrable IPR Are perceived to be “independent” and “reliable” (yet slow)

Development agencies Well known/accepted by SMEs in terms of general and

innovation support available Better knowledge of business context, wider service portfolios

but less IPR know-how

61/79

Towards Good Practices: Organisational focus (II)

General know-how gap with both organisations in terms of unregistrable IPR and informal protection practices?

Two options:a. Scale down PTOs on core competence of patent filings and searches,

enrich development agencies with IPR know-how & link both more together

b. Enrich PTOs further and create “institutes of intellectual property”, but link them with development agencies, anyway

In any way: Linkage/permeability seems important!

Development/technology agencies should act as entry points, not the PTOs!

62/79

Towards Good Practices: Other success factors and Good Practice elements

• Other important success factors (and good practice elements):

• Timely delivery In the context of IPR (patents) especially of relevance (“who is

first gets the patent”)

• The role of costs IP protection costs are considered to be the major obstacle by

SMEs existence of well-designed financial subsidy can help, but in

other ways one might initially think of subsidies cannot compensate for a cheaper European patent

Towards good practices: Lessons learned from overseas countries

64/79

Overseas Experiences (I)

• Overseas experiences with support services for SMEs in the field of IPR:– USA– Canada– Australia– Japan

• Furthermore, interesting developments registered in Korea, Israel, China, … but not covered in the study

65/79

Overseas experiences (II)

USA• Some services seemingly rely stronger on work done on a

“pro bono” basis• i.e. Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE), a service

offering business counseling on a free or low-cost basis to small businesses; among the volunteers are also those specialized in IPR protection

• Social phenomenon: It is well seen if rich people/retired executives volunteer for a good cause for free

• Patent filings are less expensive• Small entity act lowers filings costs even further

66/79

Overseas experiences (III)

Australia:• IPR “embedded” in different (thematic)

programmes• i.e. “BioStart” programme

• Programme aims to support Bio start-up companies

• IP advice is offered between “Proof-of-concept” and business planning

• i.e. “Market Ready Commercialisation Programme”• Series of facilitated workshops providing successful applicants

(inventors) with 10 days of free professional assistance

• Covers information on IP protection and development strategies

67/79

Overseas experiences (VI)

Australia

• Regional activities, strong branding

• i.e. “Smart Start” programme

• Smart Start workshops are held all over Australia to introduce interested people to basic IP concepts

• Awareness of the service is considered to be a key strength

• Covers also trade secrets!

• Wide range of referral activities, also to venture capitalists

68/79

Source: Canadian Intellectual Property Office

Overseas experiences (V)

Canada

69/79

Overseas experiences (VI)

Canada

• “IP Tool-Kit”: on the internet, provides information that covers the life cycle of the IP from start up to financing, searching and filing.

• “Bank of Speakers”: pool of trained experts on IP available across Canada volunteer their time to deliver a IP Awareness presentation.

70/79

Overseas experiences (VII)

Japan• Broad policy initiatives work on multiple levels at the

same time• Goal: To ignite private sector (retail banking, insurances) and

have them pay more attention to IPR

• Broad educational initiatives

• Technology License Offices• Similar to what licensing offices do in European universities, but

seemingly more successful

• Core element of IPR support to SMEs (more than in Europe technology transfer institutions)

• IPR used as collateral more than in Europe or the US, however usage on a broad level (e.g., by private retail banks) seems to be still in its infancy

71/79

Lessons learned from overseas experiences

• Services offered in other countries than Europe are not significantly different, but …

• People and institutions matter• Broader policy initiatives surrounding IPR create

an IPR friendly environment• Volunteering seems to be an effective way of

providing IPR services (really? also in Europe?)

• What about other countries?• Korea: strong in e-learning• China: also interesting services developed Not part of the study, but should be looked into!

72/79

Overview of good practice elements

• Expert staff (!!!)

• Emphasis on the whole of IP protection instruments, not only patents (IPR Management)

• Integration instead of autonomy with permeable and sound entry points

• Ease of identification

• If regional: complementary and very specific tasks

• Cooperation between relevant stakeholders, networking & referral activities

• Timely delivery and costs

• Evaluation culture and governance of services

• Support by private IPR service providers, no crowding out of private sector

Towards good practices:Good practices elements overview and analysis

(Phase 3)

74/79

Services displaying good practice elements (I)

1. INSTI SME Patent Action (GER) Integrated service offering a financial subsidy Nationwide coverage offered by central institution with regional

partners Broad impacts with rather little resources

2. Patent information centres (GER) one-stop shop for information/research on patents Integrated approach (workshops, SME working group, etc.) Large number of users

3. IK2 (SWE) IPR within general innovation support; access to IPR supported by

specialised staff Extensive networking Integration into a portfolio of general innovation support schemes

75/79

Services displaying good practice elements (II)

4. IOI (Innovation by patent information) (NLD) Programme involving cooperation between development agency and

national PTO Issue of patent searches Positive evaluation results

5. IP Prédiagnosis (FRA) One expert assesses, within 2 days, the state of the art of IPR usage

in a SME (free of charge) Part of a portfolio of INPI services Regional networking, expert staff, standardised tools

6. What is the key? (UKPTO) Successful awareness raising campaign, Collaboration with external stakeholders and agencies Part of a larger IPR service portfolio of UKPTO (integrated approach) Example of what a national PTO can do

76/79

Services displaying good practice elements (III)

7. Intellectual Assets Business Service (IA Centre Scotland, UK) Unique service that focuses on Intellectual Asset Management

(rather than a specific IPR protection tool such as patents) Events, advise, publications, standardised tools/checklists Integrated service, expert staff, IAM instead of “patent-only”

8. Serv.ip (AT) Patent search services, awareness raising for SMEs and training Spin-out of the Austrian PTO, organised as a company ( another

example of how PTOs can evolve) expert staff, timely delivery, take-up with SMEs

9. IP Assistance Scheme (Enterprise Ireland) Financial subsidy for patent applications Integrated approach & uniqueness

77/79

Services displaying good practice elements (IV)

10. VIVACE (Action Plan Promoting Industrial Property Competitiveness of Entrepreneurs) (HUN)

Example of what can work in the EE context Extensive collaboration with EPO, contractual agreements with expert staff Broad approach Little historic burdens to cope with

11. SME IPR services of the Henri Tudor centre (LUX) Integrated approach: trainings, awareness raising, publication (LIIPS) Example of what can be done in a small country expert staff trainings course (DIPS) deals with IPR management on a broad level

12. Foundation for Finish Inventors (FIN) One-stop shop for inventors and patenters Offers its service in regional centres, delivered by expert staff Organisational approach (broad, integrated)

78/79

Services displaying good practice elements (V)

13. Promotion of Industrial Property (SEGAPI Galicia) (ESP) Example of what can work in regional context Financial subsidy for patent applications in a region with under-

average patent usage Complements some other IPR support measures

14. Selected SME services of the Danish PTO High activity levels of the Danish PTO in this respect Renown and comprehensive website devlopped “IP Score” (IT-based IP assessment tool) Trainings courses

15. Technology Network Service/First Patent application (FRA) Operated using a network of experts, with regional outlets Subsidy for 5-days in-depth consulting regarding IPR management

and/or first patent application, carried out by appointed expert

79/79

Further current & related projects

• Further approved projects Services for SMEs in the Field of Intellectual Property Rights

(IPR) in Switzerland - A reviewon behalf of the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI)

On the role of IPR in R&D collaboration between SMEs and large companies (LCOs)

Cooperation with University of Bremen

Transatlantic IPR – A review of policies in the US and the EU towards counterfeiting, including an analysis of ecoomic damages caused by such conduct.

Partner, for the study side, of a consortium comprising the Austrian technolgy agency „aws“ and a number of international chambers of commerce

Thank you for your attention!

You can download the report athttp://www.proinno-europe.eu/

Website:

http://www.kmuforschung.ac.atE-Mail:

a.radauer@kmuforschung.ac.at