Main findings and conclusions of the
Benchmarking Study of National and
Regional IPR Support Services for SMEs
Presentation
Alfred Radauer (Senior Researcher, Austrian Institute for SME Research)

Technopolis Group project partner
Fritz Ohler
Katharina Warta
Saverio Romeo
European Network for Social and
Economic Research (ENSR)
Co-ordinator
Austrian Institute for
SME Research (KMFA)
Alfred Radauer
Jürgen Streicher
Sonja Sheikh
ENSR and European partners covering 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
ServiceGMBH of the Austrian Federal Chamber of Commerce (WKÖ)
(sub-contractor) under the patronage of the
Austrian Patent Office
Expert and
Dissemination Pool
Serge Quazzotti
Ruth Taplin
Monika Krasny
Simon Fawcett
Guriqbal Singh-Jaiya
(sub-contractors)
3/79

• 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.
4/79

• 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

• 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
6/79

Stockholm
Brighton
Amsterdam
Brussels
Paris Vienna
Ankara
7/79

• Evaluation
• Institutional development
• Programme Design & Management
• Developing and Newly Industrialising Countries
• Technology and Innovation Policy
• Information Society & ICT
• Training Services
• Regional Development & Clusters
8/79

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
9/79

• 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
10/79

• 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
11/79

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
13/79

Intellectual property protection practices
Type of practice
Example
„Do nothing“
No conscious strategy to protect IP
“Informal protection practices“
Develop high-trust relations with customers, suppliers and employees
Maintain lead time advantage over competitors
“Non-registrable legal rights”
“Registrable intellectual property rights”
Patents Confidentiality clauses and restrictive covenants in customer, supplier and employment contracts
Prominent copyright notices Registered design
Registered trade and service marks
Build specialist know-how into products
Member/user of an organisation which seeks to protect IP
Licensing
Restricted publication
Unregistered design / design right
►►► Increasing legal formality
Source: Blackburn 2003
14/79

• 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.
15/79

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
16/79

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? OR
 Better IPR management in large companies?
17/79

• 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)
18/79

• 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
19/79

• 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 copiers
 Usage of patents can be in some instances only waste of money, in others even harmful to the business
20/79

• 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)
21/79

Patent standing
Grundlagen
Kosten
Patent utilisation leading same following
Recommended action
Cross-Licensing
In-Licensing
Cross-Licensing with net income generation
Inhibiting
Product clearing
Appeal/objection
Acquire patent
Strengthen patent portfolio
Optimize patent processes following same leading
Technology
Source: Pecham 2006/Siemens Corporation standing

IPR management should be integrated into innovation management
22/79

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
%
54
11
Usage of different IP protection instruments *)
34
12
28
8
48
13
19
4
45
14
26
10
32
19
23/79
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

IPR as a means to increase competitiveness?
24/79

• 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 patentcentric
 Availability of qualified staff to deal with the challenges may be the key issue
25/79

26/79
• IPR framework
– Laws governing IPR (Community Patents)
– Laws governing competition (competition policy)
• RTDI Support
– Addressing universities and researchers
– Addressing businesses and SMEs directly
Study focus
• 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?

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?
27/79

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: Indepth 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)
29/79

Core
Research
Team:
- Analysis
279 services
(Europe: 224)
Field work (by partner network)
72 services benchmarked
- Guidelines Field work (by partner network)
- Selection process
Results validation
Results dissemination
15 services exhibiting “good practice” characteristics
30/79

Nr. title of the service address pool
(1) contacted users executed interviews response rate
1
2
3
4
5
INSTI SME Patent Action (GER)
6
7
8
Patent Information Centre Stuttgart (GER)
IK2 (SWE)
IOI (NLD)
IP Prédiagnosis (FRA)
What’s the key? Campaign (UK)
IA Centre Scotland (UK) serv.ip (AUT)
9 Intellectual Property Assistance Scheme
(IRE)
10 VIVACE (HUN)
11 SME Services of the Research Centre Henri
Tudor (LUX)
12 Foundation for Finish Inventions (FIN)
13 Promotion of Industrial Property (ESP)
14 SME services of the Danish patent office (DK)
15 Technology Network Service PTR (1er brevet) (FRA)
3000
132
85
200
82
15
256
542
53
4000
47
138
154
79
385
460
132
81
94
82
14
136
95
53
450
41
85
90
79
253
52
35
50
50
30
13
46
56
41
50
20
49
53
35
50
77 %
11 %
49 %
58 %
59 %
44 %
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
11 %
27 %
62 %
53 %
37%
93 %
34%
59 %
31/79

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
33/79

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 .
34/79

Overview of available support services (II)
Degree of legal formality of IPR covered by identified services, by services *)
%
100
90
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
69
67
41
37
18
0 patents designs trademarks other non-registrable informal registrable IPRs IPRs protection
*) multiple answers allowed practices
Source: Identification process, n=279
 Regardless of selection criteria, most public funded services target registrable IPR (esp. patents )
35/79

Overview of available support services
(III)
Phase of IPR usage targeted, by services *)
%
80
74
70
60
50
40
30
49
37
20
10
0 research on innovative projects and related IPRs
*) multiple answers allowed
Source: Identification process, n=279 process of development/registraton of
IPRs acquisition of existing IPRs
 Most services address the process of development/registration of IPR
 Multiple phases covered by many services
60 utilisation of IPRs
36/79

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.)
37/79

Overview of available support services (V)
Evidencebased “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…
38/79

Overview of available support services
(VI)
Functional classification, by services *)
45
%
39
40
35
31 30
30
25
20
15
10
5
15
0
Finance & legal framew ork
Customised in-depth consulting services
*) multiple counts allowed
Source: Identification process
Information provision services
Proactive aw areness raising
8
Training
39/79

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
– …
41/79

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
42/79

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
43/79

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”
44/79

Towards Good Practices: Organisations offering IPR support services for SMEs
Type of service offering institutions of benchmarked services, by services *)
45
%
39
40
36
35
30
30
25
20
15
10
5
9
0
National governmental body
Regional governmental body
*) multiple counts allowed
Source: Benchmarking process, n=66
Patent office
14
National development agency
8
Regional development agency
Others (e.g., associations)
45/79

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
46/79

Towards Good Practices: Evaluation culture (I)
Quality assurance mechanisms in place, by services *)
%
70
59
60
50
47
50
40
36
35 35
29
30
24
20
10
0
*) multiple counts allowed
Source: Benchmarking process, n (benchmarked services) = 66, n (Good
Practices) = 15
Regular monitoring exercises
Interim evaluations
Ex-post evaluations
Regular audits
31
35
Other quality assurance mechanisms
Benchmarked services "Good Practice" elements exhibiting services
23
12
No quality assurance mechanisms
47/79

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
48/79

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!
49/79

Key quality factors for the provision of
IPR services, user perceptions
Competence of Staff
Ease of access & identification
Timely delivery
Costs
Individual contact
Information on different IP strategies ("w hy/w hy not to patent")
Scope of service
Administrative efforts
Technical information ("how to patent")
44
42
40
51
49
47
67
67
77
33
25
31
26
24
31
17
19
12
Referal to & availability of other services in-house
Referal to external services
Source: Austrian Institute for SME Research
Aggregated answers for all services,
Services considered = 15 n = 630
29
26
35
35
Spatial distance 14 31
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% high relevance medium relevance
50/79

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
51/79

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)
52/79

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
53/79

• 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).
54/79

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!
55/79

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)
56/79

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!
57/79

Towards Good Practices: Private or public service offerings? (I)
Usage frequency of different types of service providers for innovation projects, percentage of (good practice) service users *)
100
%
80
60
40
20
0
35
15
37
11
22
4
34
12
27
18
24
8
11
3
13
2
58/79 frequently occasionally
*) multiple answers allowed
Source: User Survey, n = 630

Towards Good Practices: Private or public service offerings? (II)
59/79
• 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?

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
60/79

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!
61/79

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
62/79

• 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
64/79

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
65/79

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
66/79

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
67/79

Canada
68/79
Source: Canadian Intellectual Property Office

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.
69/79

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
70/79

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!
71/79

• 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
72/79

Towards good practices:
Good practices elements overview and analysis
(Phase 3)

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
74/79

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
75/79

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
76/79

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)
77/79

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 underaverage 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
78/79

• Further approved projects
 Services for SMEs in the Field of Intellectual Property Rights
(IPR) in Switzerland - A review
 on 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
79/79

Thank you for your attention!
You can download the report at http://www.proinno-europe.eu
/
Website: http:// www.kmuforschung.ac.at
E-Mail: a.radauer@kmuforschung.ac.at