Transcript Developing IPR support services in the context of co-operating regions – the IPR for South East Europe project Alfred Radauer (Senior Consultant, Technopolis.

Developing IPR support services in the context of
co-operating regions – the IPR for South East
Europe project
Alfred Radauer (Senior Consultant, Technopolis Group Austria)
SEVENTH ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND SMALL
AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICES
AND OTHER RELEVANT INSTITUTIONS IN THE ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC
COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD) COUNTRIES
Geneva, Sep 14 2009
The South East Europe Programme (I)
•
Aims
• to develop transnational
partnerships on matters of
strategic importance
• in order to improve the
territorial, economic and
social integration process
• to contribute to cohesion,
stability and competitiveness
of the region.
•
13 such cooperation projects in
the EU in 2007-2013; SEE is
one of the largest and also with
most diverse countries
2
The South East Europe Programme (II)
•
Priority Axis or the funded projects
•
•
•
•
•
Priority Axis 1 : Facilitation of innovation and entrepreneurship
Priority Axis 2: Protection and improvement of the environment
Priority Axis 3: Improvement of the accessibility
Priority Axis 4: Development of transnational synergies for
sustainable growth areas
Managing authority: National Development Agency (Hungary)
3
The IPRforSEE project (I)
•
Background for the Intellectual Property Rights for SEE Project
(IPRforSEE) Project
•
•
•
•
SME under-usage (non-adequate usage) of IPR
Regional disparities
Regional white spots in service provision
Aims and activities of the project
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Analysis of gaps existing between local/SMEs needs and services
available and
development of five innovative service proposals(with related tools)
based hereunder;
These new services shall be organized in an innovative way and e-learning
modules for the training of service operators developed;
9 pilot actions involving about 300 SMEs, from different economic sectors, aiming
at testing these new services;
An independent Evaluation Committee (composed by NPOs and EPO) will evaluate
the results according to a methodology and a set of indicators;
Agreement for sustainability of those services will be signed by the partners;
Communication/dissemination activities, in view to widen involvement and
improve linkage with National and EU networks
4
The IPRforSEE Project (II)
•
Embedded within the South East Europe Programme in
the following way
• Priority: Facilitation of Innovation and Entrepreneurship
• Area of intervention: Develop the enabling environment for
innovative entrepreneurship
•
Project budget
•
•
•
•
•
Overall project budget: 1.366.471,00 €
ERDF contribution: 1.076.500,00 €
IPA contribution: 85.000,00 €
ENPI contribution: 0,00 €
Project start date / end date: 2009-01 / 2011-06
• Technopolis contracted in August 2009 for its tasks
• Running time for Technopolis tasks: up until February 2010
5
The IPRforSEE Project (III)
•
Lead partner
•
•
CCIAA VE - Chambers of Commerce Industry Craft and Agriculture of Venice
ERDF partners
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
AWS - Austria Wirtschaftsservice GesmbH
CCINA - Chamber of Commerce, Industry, Shipping and Agriculture of Constanta
CCI KILKIS - Kilkis Chamber of Commerce and Industry
KETAEPIRUS - Centre of Entrepreneurial and Technological Development of
Epirus
CHIC - Central Hungarian Innovation Centre NpC.
VKIK - Veszprem Chamber of Commerce and Industry
CCIAA AN - Chamber of Commerce Industry Craft and Agriculture of Ancona
O.U.C. - Ovidius University of Constanta
AS.FOR.M. - Transnational Association for Training and Vocational Mobility
RCC-UZICE - Uzice Regional Chamber of Commerce
 Several partners in an observer role (mostly national patent offices of the
region, the EPO)
6
The assignment for Technopolis
•
Supporting AWS in carrying out WP3 on ‚Identifying service
needs and development of service concepts‘ (AWS is leader of
WP3), and hereby help answer the following questions:
1. What type of support services are already in place (or planned) in
the countries under investigation?
2. What are the specific needs of SMEs in SEE in order to have them use
the IPR system more effectively and where are the gaps that need to
be addressed by innovative pilot projects?
3. Which are the five most promising requirements and design
elements for pilot projects which are to be implemented in
subsequent work packages of the project?
• Outcome: Study report detailing findings and five innovative
service concepts, to be taken up by the following work packages
7
Methdological approach taken
•
Action 3.1: Analysis of available IPR support services
(identification and benchmarking)
• Desk research (using identification guideline)
• Interviews with service providers (using benchmarking guideline)
•
Action 3.2: Analysis of SME specific IPR needs in the regions
• Interviews with service operators (intermediaries) and SMEs
• Semi-standardised interview guidelines
•
Action 3.3: Definition of innovative IPR services
• Clustering of SMEs
• Concept of service designs, related tools and training modules
• Usage of logical framework analysis
 Methodology draw strongly on proven and enhanced
methods of earlier studies conducted by Technopolis
8
Our thinking (I)
Reference projects
1. „Benchmarking National and Regional Support Services in the Field of
Industrial and Intellectual Property“, commissioned by EC, DG
Enterprise and Industry (PRO Inno paper no. 4) (Radauer et al. 2007)
[most important source]
2. „Support Services in the Field of IPR for SMEs in Switzerland - A
Review“, commissioned by the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual
Property (Radauer & Streicher 2008)
3. „On the growing significance of IPR for German SMEs and the
diminishing importance of physical assets“, commissioned by the
German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (Blind, Cuntz,
Köhler & Radauer (2008))
4. „Supporting the improvement of existing and development of new IPR
support services for Swiss SMEs“, on behalf of Swiss Federal Institute of
Intellectual Property (Radauer 2009)
9
Our thinking (II)
Key quality factors for the provision of IPR services, user perceptions
77
Competence of Staf f
Source: Radauer et al. 2007
Aggregated answers for all services,
Services considered = 15
Ease of access & identif ication
67
Timely delivery
67
Costs
51
Individual contact
49
12
17
19
31
n = 630
Inf ormation on dif f erent IP strategies ("w hy/w hy not
to patent")
26
47
Scope of service
24
44
Administrative ef f orts
42
Technical inf ormation ("how to patent")
40
Ref eral to & availability of other services in-house
33
31
25
29
Ref eral to external services
35
26
Spatial distance
35
14
31
%
0
10
20
high relevance
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
medium relevance
10
Our thinking (III)
Behavioural additionality
Changes in/of attitude/behaviour
with regard to IP issues, due to
using a support service,
52
Patent knowledge in business environment
50
General awareness
48
Patent usage in IPR strategy
Accompanied Patent Search
service, Switzerland, SMEs in %
Knowledge management Know-How
30
Formal IPR responsibilities within enterprise
22
Reliance on lead-time advantage in IPR strategy
-4
19
(Trade) secrecy usage in IPR strategy
17
Reliance on design complexity in IPR strategy
13
IPR training
-2 13
Trademark usage in IPR strategy
11
Service activities affect a
range of IP-relevant aspects.
No Change
9
Copyright usage in IPR strategy
7
Out-licensing
-2 6
Design patterns in IPR strategy
6
In-licensing
Source: Radauer & Streicher 2008, n = 61
-42
%
-40
-20
0
20
increased
40
60
80
decreased
11
Our thinking (IV)
Important criteria making up successful IPR services
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Clear reasoning for existence for service packages (market
failure argument), and thus division line to private industry
offerings
Sound target system
Competence of staff
Integrated offerings (all IPR ‘out of one hand’)
Governance structures
Evaluations and quality control
Working cooperation structures with stakeholders from
the innovation system
Ease of identification/Visibility
Timely delivery
NOT NECESSARILY: IPR Service in every locality
12
Some working hypotheses for the IPRforSEE project
•
Regional disparities may be a strong factor explaining SME
needs and types of service to be installed
• Country-specific approach necessary (account also for different
industry structure)
• Some countries are less developed (disadvantage), but can have also
a fresh start (advantage)
•
Existing services seem in many countries dominated by patent
information centres
• But is classic patent information really what SMEs in this region
need?
• Anecdotal evidence suggests that SMEs approach IPR services with
general business questions, maybe also trademarks, but only to a
small part patents
 Stay tuned for the results…
13
Thank you
For questions, please contact:
[email protected]
Technopolis Group has offices in Amsterdam, Ankara, Brighton,
Brussels, Paris, Stockholm, Tallinn and Vienna.
14