planning local actions for intellectual property awareness ... · planning local actions for...
TRANSCRIPT
Planning local actions for intellectual property awareness and enforcement services
Summary of the results of Work Package 9
(module 1) of IPeuropAware project
Authors of the report
Éva BakosHungarian Patent Office
Loretta HuszákHungarian Patent Office
www.ipeuropaware.eu PlA
nn
Ing
lO
cA
l A
ct
IOn
S fO
r I
nt
ell
ec
tu
Al
Pr
OP
er
ty
AW
Ar
en
eSS
An
d e
nfO
rc
em
en
t S
er
vIc
eS
IPeuropAwareIn the context of the Lisbon goal of establishing aknowledge-based society, the IPeuropAware proj-ect aims to address EU industry needs in the areaof IPR usage and enforcement issues, especially forSMEs and specific sectors of industry. TheIPeuropAware project has a duration of 3 years,and began in November 2007.
The participation of 20 National Patent Officesboosts the Europe-wide perspective of the project.They provide a voice at a national level in at least20 Member States with the ability to communicatedirectly with national governments, other nationaland regional actors, their members, individuals,businesses and the European Commission.
DisclaimerThis report has been produced as part of theIPeuropAware project, co-financed by theEuropean Union. The views expressed in thisstudy, as well as the information included in it, donot necessarily reflect the opinion or position ofthe European Commission and in no way committhe institution.
This report has been prepared by the HungarianPatent Office (HPO). By compiling the nationalcontribution of the IPeuropAware project partnersregarding the SWOT and NEEDS analyses for moreefficient IP awareness and enforcement with spe-cial regard to the National Patent Offices’ activitiesand services, the authors of this study called onservices of the Foundation for Hungarian BusinessEconomic Research (Magyar VállalatgazdaságiKutatásokért Alapítvány).
The data collection was completed on 30th June2009.
The authors of the report would like to thank thecolleagues of the Hungarian Patent Office, includ-ing Gábor Németh, András Haszonits and PéterPlette, for their support.
Peer-reviewed by: Jenô Kürtössy
Proofread by: Péter Káldos
IPeuropAware project is co-financed by the CIPProgramme, DG Enterprise and Industry of theEuropean Commission.
IPeuropAware project consortium
AUSTRIAAustrian Patent Office (ÖPA)Dresdnerstrasse 87POB 95A-1200 ViennaAustria+43 (1) 534 24 [email protected]
BULGARIAPatent Office of the Republic of Bulgaria (BPO)52b Dr G M Dimitrov Blvd1040 SofiaBulgaria+359 2 9701 [email protected]
CZECH REPUBLICIndustrial Property Office of the Czech Republic (IPOCZ)Antonina Cermaka 2a160 68 Prague 6Czech Republic+420 220 383 [email protected]
DENMARKDanish Patent and Trade mark Office (DKPTO)Helgeshoj Alle 812630 TaastrupDenmark+45 43 50 80 [email protected]
ESTONIAEstonian Patent LibraryOlevimaegi 8/1010123 TallinnEstonia+372 6411 [email protected]
The European Apparel and Textile Organisation (EURATEX)24, rue Montoyer – Box 10B-1000 BrusselsBelgium+32 2 285 48 [email protected]
FINLANDNational Board of Patents and Registration of Finland (NBPRH)Arkadiankatu 6A00100 HelsinkiFinland+358 9 6939 [email protected]
FRANCEInstitut National de la Propriete Industrielle (INPI)26 bis rue de Saint Petersbourg75800 Paris Cedex 08France0820 210 [email protected]
Institut Europeen Entreprise et Propriete Intellectuelle (IEEPI)Parc d’InnovationRue Jean-Dominique Cassini67400 IIIkirch-GraffenstadenFrance+33 3 88 65 50 29
GERMANYGerman Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA)Zweibruckenstrafe 1280331 MunchenGermany+49 89 [email protected]
GREECEHellenic Industrial Property Organisation (OBI)5 Pandanassis Street151 25 Paradissos AmaroussiouGreece+30 210 [email protected]
HUNGARYHungarian Patent Office (HPO)Industrial Property Information and Education Centre1054 Garibaldi u. 2BudapestP.O.Box 552H-1370+36 1474 [email protected]
ITALYUfficio Italiano Brevetti E Marchi (UIBM)Via Molise 1900187 Roma+39 06 [email protected]
Politecnico di TorinoDipartimento Sistemi di Produzione ed Economia Dell’aziendaCorso Duca degli Abruzzi 2410129 TORINOItaly+39 011 564 666www.polito.it
Chamber of Commerce of Venice (CCV)Special Projects Planning and ManagementVia Forte Marghera n.15130173 Mestre – VeneziaItaly+39 041 [email protected]
LUXEMBURGMinistry of Economy and Foreign TradeIntellectual Property DirectorateL-2914 Luxemburg+352 247 [email protected]
Centre de Veille Technologique (CRP Henri Tudor)29, avenue John F. KennedyL-1855 Luxemburg-Kirchberg+352 42 59 [email protected]
Luxinnovation GIE - LuxinnovationNational Agency for Innovation and Research7, rue Alcide de GasperiL-1615 Luxemburg-Kirchberg+352 43 62 63 [email protected]
MALTAIndustrial Property Registrations DirectorateCommerce DivisionMinistry of Finance, the Economy and InvestmentLascaris BastionsValletta – VLT 2000Malta+356 21 22 66 [email protected]
POLANDThe Patent Office of the Republic of Poland (UPRP)Aleja Niepodleglosci 188/192 00-950WarsawPoland0048 22 5790 [email protected]
PORTUGALPortuguese Institute of Industrial Property (INPI PT)Campo das Cebolas1149-035 LisboaPortugal+351 21 881 81 [email protected]
ROMANIAState Office for Inventions and Trademarks (OSIM)Ion Ghica StreetSector 3030044 BucharestRomania+40 21 306 08 [email protected]
SPAINOficina Espanola de Patentes y Marcas (OEPM)Paseo de las Castellana, 7528071 MadridSpain+ 34 902 157 [email protected]
Fundacio Privada CETEMMSA (CETEMMSA)Jaume Balmes 37–39Mataro E08301Spain+34 93 741 91 [email protected]
SWEDENSwedish Patent and Registration Office (PRV)PO Box 5055SE-102 42Stockholm+46 8 782 25 [email protected]
TURKEYTurkish Patent Institute (TPE)Hipodrom Cad No:11506330 Yenimahalle-AnkaraTurkey+90 312 303 10 [email protected]
UNITED KINGDOMThe Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO)Concept HouseCardiff RoadNewportSouth WalesNP10 8QQUnited Kingdom08459 500 [email protected]
University of Alicante (Co-ordinating Partner)(UA)Project Management OfficeIPR-HelpdeskCampus de San VicentePostal Code 03080 – PO Box 99AlicanteSpain+34 965 90 97 [email protected]
Associates to the ProjectCentro Tecnologico das Industrias Textil (CITEVE)Cotance – The European Leather AssociationUEA – European Furniture Manufactures FederationDr Roya Ghafele Independent ExpertVilma Misiukoniene Independent Expert
Table of content
1. Introduction 12
2. Methodological approach 14
3. The changing role of NPOs regarding IP awareness and enforcement 17
4. National Innovation Strategies and IP Strategies in the light of the IPeuropAware project 19
4.1 General remarks on National Innovation Systems / Results of the country contributions 19
4.1.1 Is there any formalised national innovation strategy (NIS) for your country? 194.1.2 Is your NIS a separate policy document or part of a superior strategy one? 194.1.3 What is the time frame of your NIS? 204.1.4 What are the priorities of your NIS? 204.1.5 Does the NIS include an action plan/or establish operative tasks? 224.1.6 If and how often will the priorities included be reviewed and/or amended? 224.1.7 To what extent is the NIS focusing on SMEs? 224.1.8 Is there a separate part in your NIS for IP strategy? 224.1.9 What are the focal points of IP strategy? 224.1.10 Does your IP strategy concern SMEs, as well? 244.1.11 If your IP strategy concerns SMEs, which of the policies listed below are discussed in it? 24
4.2 National Innovation and IP-Strategies/Policies 24
United Kingdom 24Finland 25Germany 27Italy 28Luxemburg 30Austria 30Malta 31Spain 31Portugal 33Greece 34Turkey 34Hungary 35Estonia 36Romania 36Sweden 37Poland 38Bulgaria 38Czech Republic 39France 40
5. The success of IP strategies: SWOT analysis 43
5.1 Strengths 43
5.2 Weaknesses 44
5.3 Opportunities 45
5.4 Threats 47
6. NEEDS for more efficient IP awareness and enforcement with special regard to the National Patent Offices’ activities and services 48
6.1 NEEDS based on countries’ contribution to the IPeuropAware project 48
6.1.1 Providing relevant information and training for SMEs 496.1.2 Improvement of methods 506.1.3 Education, training 506.1.4 Coordination, cooperation 506.1.5 PR of IP 516.1.6 Lobbying 516.1.7 Research 51
6.2 NEEDS based on case studies 51
6.2.1 SIGNO (formarly INSTI SME Patent Action) 526.2.2 IP Pre-diagnosis 526.2.3 Serv.ip 526.2.4 IPscore® 536.2.5 Out-law.com 536.2.6 Think kit 536.2.7 IDEApilot project 53
6.3 NEEDS based on a survey: IP awareness of SMEs 54
6.4 Conclusions of NEEDS analyses 55
7. IP Awareness and Enforcement Services of NPOs – ”Menu” – 57
7.1 Methodology of the ”Menu” 57
7.2 Results of the ”Menu” 58
7.2.1 Existing services 607.2.2 Services selected 65
7.3 Conclusion of the ”Menu” and recommendations 66
8. Summary and Conclusions 70
9. References 74
10. Appendix 80
10.1 Tables of SWOT analyses 80
10.2 Tables of NEEDS 94
10.3 IP Awareness and Enforcement Services of NPOs – “Menu” 104
List of tables
1. Table: Protection methods used by enterprises engaged in innovation activities as percentage of innovative enterprises by size 13
2. Table: Overview of the process of the methodological approach 14
3. Table: Breakdown of national filings – filed directly at the HPO from Hungary and from abroad – by titles of protection 18
4. Table: Time frame of NIS in the analysed countries 20
5. Table: NIS focusing on SMEs 22
6. Table: IP strategy as a part of NIS 22
7. Table: Focal points of IP strategy 22
8. Table: SME-related focus points in IP strategies 24
9. Table: Strengths of IP Policy 43
10. Table: Weaknesses of IP Policy 45
11. Table: Opportunities of IP Policy 46
12. Table: Threats of IP Policy 47
13. Table: NEEDS 48
14. Table: Why is IP protection unimportant? 54
15. Table: Where do you get information on the new developments affecting your activities? 54
16. Table: Have you ever enquired if a certain solution is already protected or not? 55
17. Table: Suggestions of firms as to the NEEDS of SMEs on IP information, services and education 55
18. Table: Competencies of NPO’s 61
19. Table: Matrix of recommended integrated service packages 69
List of Abbreviations
ALICE – Suggestions to strengthen patenting and
licensing R&D (Sweden)
APO – Austrian Patent Office (Austria)
ASAE – Economic and Food Security Authority
B2B – Business to Business
B2C – Business to Consumer
BTYK – Supreme Council of Science and Technology
(Turkey)
CATI – Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing
CEEC – Central and Eastern European Countries
CEIPAR – Consolidation of Innovative Enterprises
in Technological Parks (Spain)
CETMOS – Central European Trade Mark
Observation Service
CNAC – Comité National Anti-Contrefaçon (France)
CoE – Centre for Expertise Programme (Finland)
COTRA – Negotiations with China and the USA
CPUB – Patents Centre of the University of Barcelona
(Spain)
CSIC – Spanish National Research Council
(Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas)
CYTED – Ciencia y Tecnología para el Desarrollo
(Spain)
DIUS – Department for Innovation, Universities
and Skills (United Kingdom)
DKPTO – Danish Patent and Trademark Office
(Denmark)
DPI – Direction de la Propriété Intellectuelle
(Luxemburg)
DTI – Department of Trade and Industry (United
Kingdom)
EC – European Community
EEN – Enterprise Europe Network
eMage – Search engine and databank for
Trademarks and Industrial Designs
eMARKS – international project, co-financed by the EU
ENCYT – National Strategy of Science and
Technology (Spain)
EOI – European Ombudsman Institute
EPC – European Patent Convention
EPN – European Patent Network
EPO – European Patent Organisation
ESPA – Operational Programmes of the National
Strategic Reference Framework (Greece)
EUREKA – European Research Cooperation Agency
FAS – Council for Working Life and Social
Research (Sweden)
GDP – Gross Domestic Product
GNR – National Republican Guard
HEZARFEN – Project of the Turkish Patent Institute
HPO – Hungarian Patent Office (Hungary)
INPI – Institute National de la Propriété indus-
trielle (French Patent Office)
INPI – Portuguese Institute of Industrial Property
(Portugal)
INSTI – INnovation STImulation
IP – Intellectual Property
IP4INNO – Intellectual Property for Innovation
IPR – Intellectual Property Rights
IPS – Intellectual Property Strategy
ISO – International Organisation for Standardisation
IT – Information Technology
LSE – Large Scale Enterprises
MBA – Master of Business Administration
MEAC – Ministry of Economic Affairs and
Communications (Estonia)
MER – Ministry of Education and Research (Estonia)
MITYC’s DGPYME – Ministry of Industry,
General Directorate for SMEs (Spain)
NBAC - National Board Against Counterfeiting
(Hungary)
NGO – Non-governmental organisation
NIP – National Innovation Policy
NIS – National Innovation Strategy
NPD – New Product Development
NPO – National Patent Office
OBI – Hellenic Industrial Property Organisation
(Greece)
OEPM – Spanish Patents and Trademarks Office
(Spain)
OHIM – Office of Harmonisation in the
International Market
OSEO – Special Institute dedicated to the SMEs
(France)
OSIM – State Office for Inventions and
Trademarks (Romania)
OTRI – Office for the Transfer of R&D Results (Spain)
PATLIB Centres – Patent Information Centres
PCT – Patent Cooperation Treaty
PR – Public Relations
PRV – Swedish Patent and Registration Office
(Sweden)
R&D – Research and Development
R&I – Research and Innovation
RDI –Research, Development, Innovation
RDT –Reseaux de développement technologique
(France)
RTD – Research and Technology Development
RTDI – Research & Technological Development
& Innovation
S&T – Science & Technology
SABIP – Strategic Advisory Board for IP Policy
(United Kingdom)
SIGNO – Schutz von Ideen für die bewerbliche
Nutzung (Germany)
SME – Small and Medium Enterprise
STI – Science, Technology and Innovation Policy
SWOT – Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats
T&E Centres – The Employment and Economic
Development Centres
TEKES – National Technology Agency (Finland)
TMview – OHIM’s search engine and databank,
formerly EuroRegister
TPI – Turkish Patent Institute (Turkey)
TRIPS – Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights
UA – Universidad de Alicante (Spain)
UB – University of Barcelona (Spain)
UIBM – Italian Patent and Trademark Office (Italy)
UIMP – Universidad Internacional Menéndez
Pelayo (Spain)
UK IPO – United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office
(United Kingdom)
UPM – Polytechnic University of Madrid (Spain)
USPTO – United States Patent and Trademark Office
(United States of America)
VINNOVA – Swedish Governmental Agency for
Innovation Systems (Sweden)
WIPO – World Intellectual Property Organisation
WP – Work Package
Key messages
The main aim of the present study is to identifyand evaluate the participating Member States’innovation strategies with special regard to the IPawareness level and enforcement practice ofSMEs. Part of this aim is to analyse the existingservices of NPOs in the 20 partner countries inorder to recommend them new awareness raisingand enforcement related services. Through thepreparation of the study we identifed the follow-ing key messages:
1. The first main lesson is that a national IP sup-port or innovation strategy is recommend-ed even if a wide scale of services withhigh efficiency is already offered for enter-prises.1 Such a national IP/innovation strategyidentifies the goals and objectives, sets timeta-bles and frameworks for the cooperation ofthe innovation-support organisations and enti-ties. The action plan, connected to such strat-egy, outlines the responsibilities and financialcapabilities of all institutions that contribute tothe innovation system. In particular, thenational IP/innovation strategy defines the roleof participating institutions regarding innova-tion support and IPR and their fields of action.This can lead to synergies and better utilisationof resources in the interest of the definedgoals. In accordance with this issue, national IPawareness and enforcement strategies andpolicies in the participating countries with spe-cial regard to IP awareness level and enforce-ment practice of SMEs were identified.Chapter 4 contains an analysis of the land-scape of national innovation strategies and IPpolicies.
2. By monitoring the national innovation strate-gies with special regard to IP awareness leveland enforcement practice of SMEs, a wideinstitutional complexity could be identifiedin most participating countries. This institu-tional complexity is broadly referred to as aproblem of innovation support systems and –in more general – of the regulatory system asa whole.
3. The “NEEDS identified” chapter provides prop-osals regarding the changing role of NPOs. Thesummary of identified needs points to the pre-dominance of information, and training withco-ordination ranking second. Also, the gener-al picture of the needs of SMEs for supportservices as outlined by WP1 identified thatthere is a significant need among SMEs formore knowledge on IP rights and how to
apply them. However, awareness of intan-gible assets and knowledge of protectingthem are also needed.2 These conclusionswill be supplemented with the recommenda-tion for a stronger political presence ofNPOs in a form of lobbying, coordinating,and mediating.
4. The existing services of the NPOs in the 20partner countries were analysed separately inorder to recommend new awareness raisingand enforcement related services, reflectingthe diverse strategic priorities, operation envi-ronments, development levels, socio-economicneeds of Member States and scope of partnerNPOs. As a result, Chapter 7 comprises a tablewith recommended integrated service pack-ages, built on partner NPOs’ best practiceexamples and experiences. On the basis of thisrecommendation, it is possible to set up coun-try specific tailor-made packages according tothe local strategic policy environment.
5. Despite the large number of services providedby NPOs, different competencies in thefield of the IP awareness and enforcementsupport issues can be identified among theseorganisations. The most conspicuous illustra-tion for this fact is that not all national NPOsare involved in enforcement support issues.However, the NPOs are focussing increasingattention to raising awareness of enforcementissues.
6. Due to NPOs’ competencies they conduct lessenforcement activities than awareness raisingservices. However, within the scope of enforce-ment support they focus also on organisingseminars, workshops etc. on enforcementissues preferably with judges or other employ-ees of public prosecutor’s offices. Many NPOshave already developed and provide actual B2B(Business to Business) and B2C (Business toCustomer) services, such as web-based searchengines helping the fight against counterfeit-ing. Another quite widely provided service is aspecific website dedicated to IP enforce-ment issues.
7. By compiling the recommendations regardingnew services (Matrix) it had to be taken intoaccount that there is no single solution for“best practice”. Rather, each partner shouldwork out a flexible service package taking intoconsideration the national IP strategy and/orinnovation policy with regard to the IP infor-mation or management needs of SMEs.
101 This key message is in accordance with the findings of the KMU-Forschung Austria team. See: Radauer, A. et al. (2008): SME-IP 1st Review Support Services in the Field of
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) for SMEs in Switzerland. A review. IGE-Technopolis. Bern, p. 77.2 Kjaer, K. (2008): Report on gap analysis. Unpublished project material, IPeuropAware project, WP1, edited by Danish Patent and Trademark Office. Copenhagen, p. 19.
8. A predominating conclusion of the Matrix isthat integration should be strived for, andservices should be offered in integratedpackages to increase the efficiency of NPOpolicies, taking into account the highly com-plex nature of IP. This can be done by genuine-ly integrated services or – in order to makescarce expertise available and to increase visi-bility and accessibility – by referring to otherproviders. The main advantage of integrationis the potential emergence of synergies.A special case of integration is embedded-ness. Embedded services operating in the fieldof IP are part of service portfolios that are notdirectly targeted at IP related issues: they areprovided within other non-IP oriented services.Success itself in this context is of an “embed-ded” nature.
9. NPOs should keep the delicate balancebetween profit-oriented services providedmainly by IPR attorneys - and non-profit orient-ed publicly founded services provided by NPOs.
10. Modelling of a certain complex situation mostlikely helps to find a general package as anapproximate programme recommendation. Foridentifying the level of IP awareness of SMEs,it will be recommended to NPOs to set upintegrated service packages with regard tothe AIDA level of targeted SMEs.
11. As shown in Chapter 8.2, an increased atten-tion to enforcement issues among the NPOscan be identified. In recent years, some partici-pating countries have decided to set up inter-departmental committees to deal with theproblem of counterfeiting and piracy.Therefore, service packages should also containenforcement services (with reference to WP10,11 and 12 of the IPeuropAware project).
12. To provide easy access to information andservices for the public, the services should berolled out to regional/national/local actors,like EEN, innovation- and innovation supportstakeholders, SME support organisations orother NGOs with reference to the list ofnational stakeholders provided for WP5 of theIPeuropAware project. In this way, the effectof the implemented actions can be multiplied.The final aim of the IPeuropAware project is tofoster innovation support service provision,which also lies in the hand of operative net-works. When selecting services it is very impor-tant to examine the possible partners, theirsupport area, service portfolio, customers, andlast but not least, resources.
11
12
European Commission research indicates thatsmall and medium enterprises (SMEs) consistent-ly report less use of formal IntellectualProperty (IP) and non-formal appropriationmethods than large firms in each country (seeTable 1).3 Many companies often still do not fullyexploit the existing possibilities for protecting theirintellectual property. SMEs are often not aware ofhow best to use their patent rights to protect andexploit their inventions. There are indications thatSMEs do not patent or use other intellectual prop-erty rights either because of the lack of qualityassistance, the high cost of patenting or someother reasons. There is general agreement that anintellectual property strategy and/or innovationpolicy for Europe and the individual countries ofthe European Union must, therefore, includeawareness raising activities, highlighting theadvantages and benefits of the industrial propertysystem, in particular for SMEs.
A comparison with large-scale enterprises (LSEs)shows, however, that simultaneously with theexistence of several weaknesses on the resourceside (funding, technical opportunities, lobbypotential, etc.), SMEs have certain advantages interms of flexibility and adaptability. An additionalcharacteristic to be considered is that coming fromthe relatively under-formalised nature of researchand development (R&D) in the SME sector, theprotection of IP tends to rely here, to a relativelygreater extent, on informal instruments.
The focussing of Work Package 9 of theIPeuropAware project on SMEs is explained by thedistinguished role in innovation of this sector. Thefact that SMEs often do not take full advantage ofopportunities to exploit industrial property tools isundesirable. This highlights the need for promptactions in cases where there is lack of aware-ness or support.
Another explanation for a strong focus on theSMEs is the existence in several countries of anextremely strong contrast between LSEs and SMEswith regard primarily to productivity trends andexportability. The relative lagging of SMEs doesnot allow the sufficient exploitation of their poten-tial in employment and innovation. Consequentlythe support they need exceeds the average andinternational experience seems of upmost impor-tance in this respect. The growing role of servicesin globalisation is one more reason to justify thisincreased interest with regard to the greaterweight of SMEs in this field.
The above reasoning was intended to explain ourpreferences when dealing with the subject: aware-ness and enforcement of IPR, with special regardto SMEs.
Based on the national contributions of 20 partici-pating countries this present summary ofIPeuropAware project WP9 is intended to:
– identify national innovation strategies withspecial regard to IP awareness level andenforcement practice of SMEs;
- present the strengths, weaknesses, opportuni-ties and threats of IP policy (based on SWOTanalyses);
- monitor the conditions under which IP aware-ness and enforcement policies can efficientlyprevail with regard to the changes in the roleof National Patent Offices (NPOs) aimed atsupporting these policies (NEEDS analyses) and
- analyse the existing services of the NPOs in the20 partner countries separately in order to rec-ommend new awareness raising and enforce-ment related services, reflecting the diversestrategic priorities, operation environments,development levels, socio-economic needs ofMember States and scope of partner NPOs.
The structure of the study follows these researchaims by using top-down and bottom-up researchmethods. After the introduction, Chapter 2 pro-vides an overview on the methodologicalapproaches used during the comparative analyses.Chapter 3 focuses on the changing role of theNPOs in IP awareness, enforcement and innovationsupport. Chapter 4 contains an analysis of thelandscape of national innovation strategies and IPpolicies. The aim of this chapter is to provide a sys-tematic overview of the innovation strategies ofthe participating countries, their structure andfocus points and the position of IP policy withinthem. Chapter 5 evaluates the success of IP strate-gies in the light of national SWOT analyses, fol-lowed by the analysis of “NEEDS” for more effi-cient IP awareness and enforcement with specialregard to the NPOs’ activities and services.Chapter 7 lists and recommends sustainable goodpractice services related to IP awareness andenforcement for the NPOs. As a result of the ana-lytical work, the IPeuropAware project can provideso called Solution Package. Recommendations totackle different awareness raising and enforce-
1 . I nt roduct ion
3 European Commission (2007): Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Enhancing the Patent System in Europe. COM(2007) 165final. Brussels, p. 10.
13
so called Solution Package. Recommendations totackle different awareness raising and enforce-ment related goals. These recommendationsreflect the diverse strategic priorities, operationenvironments, development levels and socio-eco-nomic needs of Member States and scope of part-ner NPOs, while always keeping in mind the needsof SMEs in the field of IP that intend to improvetheir performance and competitiveness.
In the course of analysing national contributionsmade in the framework of the project we alsorelied on related literature, itemised in the list ofreferences, to the authors to whom we feelindebted.
Country
Patent application Trademark registration Industrial design registration Claimed copyright
10-49 50-249 250- 10-49 50-249 250- 10-49 50-249 250- 10-49 50-249 250-
Employees Employees Employees Employees
5.8 6.9 23.0 14.5 20.9 41.4 5.1 6.5 20.4 3.7 2.7 9.4
2.9 6.9 13.7 6.1 9.5 14.6 17.9 24.5 27.7 5.0 2.4 5.4
14.6 28.5 40.9 22.5 26.8 45.1 8.1 12.9 17.3 7.5 12.1 22.1
5.0 5.3 15.4 1.6 2.4 6.9 15.4 25.0 37.2 2.3 4.0 6.4
12.9 20.7 49.5 14.6 24.5 45.1 7.7 10.9 19.6 2.0 1.1 8.2
15.6 30.1 48.3 28.2 38.9 56.3 15.9 20.6 30.6 8.7 9.6 16.4
12.7 28.0 48.9 13.4 25.7 39.7 11.6 25.3 41.3 6.1 9.8 16.0
2.6 4.3 5.5 4.9 8.7 3.2 22.8 32.4 32.8 7.8 13.9 10.1
5.7 6.0 12.0 4.3 5.7 5.9 6.6 12.7 18.9 2.1 1.1 2.5
9.8 24.3 39.8 5.2 13.9 21.6 12.5 26.3 36.6 1.8 2.6 7.6
5.6 7.9 39.8 5.4 14.0 25.6 16.0 23.1 55.2 12.7 11.2 13.3
6.3 10.7 20.0 6.3 - - - - - - - -
2.9 6.3 11.0 16.8 18.7 29.0 8.0 10.9 15.5 6.8 5.4 10.4
5.5 10.5 11.6 15.7 27.2 29.9 3.6 5.2 9.7 2.7 4.4 7.5
6.1 6.3 11.2 4.4 8.8 15.9 12.9 20.6 26.3 2.3 4.6 5.1
9.9 17.1 24.6 19.6 27.9 28.7 8.9 14.9 15.1 1.3 3.2 4.0
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Italy
Luxemburg
Malta
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Spain
1. Table: Protection methods used by enterprises engaged in innovation activities as percentage ofinnovative enterprises by sizeSource: Eurostat – Community Innovation Survey, 2004.
The aim of this chapter is to describe the processof how the study was carried out. It discusses howqualitative data were collected, analysed and usedfor research purposes.
Step 1 – Elaboration of the guideline forpreparing the national contributions
The first task was to make a guideline for the 20countries participating in the research in order toreceive country data. It was created and distributedto the partners during the Kick-off meeting for WP9of IPeuropAware project, on 11–12 of March 2008,in Budapest. The guideline was intended to giveappropriate instructions in order to analyse and eval-uate each country’s contributions and to serve as abasis for an international comparison, based onqualitative research methods.
Two questions of the guideline were related to thenational innovation strategy and innovation sup-port system as a framework of the national intel-lectual property strategy/policy. The most essentialquestion was whether there is any kind of nation-al IP policy/strategy as a separate document –white book –, or if there is a separate part dedicat-ed to IP within the national innovation strategy,within the 20 countries participating in the proj-ect. The second question in this panel was linkedto the changing role of the NPOs and theirexpanding services to assist IP awareness raisingand enforcement support policies.
The guideline for the country reports was as fol-lows:
1. Map of the structure of the national innova-tion support system
2. Is there a national strategy based on an analysis?(Provide details about this analysis if positive)
3. National IP Policy/Strategy3.1 IP Awareness Policy/Strategy3.2 IP Enforcement Policy/Strategy
4. Main conclusions of the success of the strategy:4.1 Strengths4.2 Weaknesses4.3 Opportunities4.4 Threats4.5 Framework (actors involved, etc)4.6 Challenges4.7 Objectives4.8 Timeframe
5. NEEDS identified (AIDA)
6. Documents used (sources, titles, authors, etc.)
Step 2 – First evaluation of the country reports
The submitted country studies showed consider-able variations in depth and elaboration. As a con-sequence, comparison of these studies proved tobe extremely challenging, due to the uneven leveland size of the country reports. Though mostcountry studies were useful, some were not rele-vant for our purpose. Several participants chose togive references to literature instead of specificanswers. Moreover, while summarising countryreports our work was constrained by long delaysof certain countries’ contributions.
As to question 1 of the guideline: most partici-pants also provided a map of the structure ofnational innovation support systems. Our hypothe-ses were confirmed: the maps were complex andshowed diversity by country. The high (in somecases alarmingly high) number and diversity ofboth public and private institutions in the innova-tion support system made it impracticable to makea comparison between countries. The innovationsupport systems are even more complex anddetailed in countries where regional innovationsystems play an important role (e.g. in France).
In the answers provided to questions 2 and 3,national innovation strategies (NIS) and intellectu-al property strategies (IPS), were quite deficientand unfeasible for a meaningful comparison.Respondents failed to mention priorities of NIS,
14
2 . Methodo log ica l approach
1. Elaboration of the guideline of the research and commu-nication to partners
2. First evaluation of the country reports
3. Completion of questionnaire with additional questionson IP strategies
4. Shortening of the country studies
5. Evaluation of the answers received to the questionnaire
6. Investigation of the related literature
7. Compilation of the IP Awareness and EnforcementServices of NPOs
8. Summary of the main findings and conclusion
Methodological steps
2. Table: Overview of the process of the method-ological approach
15
and yielded rather scarce information on IPS. As towhether the SME sector is mentioned at all in NISand IPS, and if yes, what particular measures aretaken to increase IP awareness and the enforce-ment of SMEs, was almost completely missingfrom the submitted country reports. This fact con-vinced us that we have to repeat the questionsconcerning the SMEs in the NIS and IP strategies.
The fourth question referred to the strengths,weaknesses, opportunities and threats of IP policy(based on a SWOT analysis). In this case answerswere relatively unproblematic to evaluate andcompare. When making the comparison, sometechnical challenges had to be solved that derivedfrom our preference of not having formalised theanswer choices, since some interesting andinformative variations of the answers would havenecessarily been lost otherwise. As a consequence,we received quite a number of rather differentanswers. The essential elements of these answershad to be singled out and re-grouped (for relevantdetails of this process see Annex).
The aim of the fifth question in the guideline wasto identify the conditions under which IP aware-ness and enforcement policies can efficiently pre-vail with regard to the changing role of NPOsaimed at supporting these policies. Concerning“NEEDS Identified”, relevant answers werereceived and proposals regarding the changingrole of NPOs could be drafted. Our purpose was tosummarise and illustrate best practices. However,because of specific conditions of the countries thisintention proved to be difficult to achieve.Nevertheless, becoming familiar with the practiceand variety of services of other NPOs can be usefulfor countries participating in the project. The roleof NPOs as service providers for SMEs (in question5) was the focus of our interest, but most of thereports avoided giving an answer to this question.As a result of this step, a summarised list wasassembled (see Annex).
Step 3 – Additional questionnaire on IP strategies
In order to achieve a higher consistency when com-paring national innovation and IP strategies of the20 countries participating in the project – as the sec-ond round of our research –, we decided to send anew, complementary questionnaire, as follows:
1. Is there any formalised national innovationstrategy (NIS) for your country? If yes, pleaselist the title of the document(s) and the rele-vant Internet links.
2. Is your NIS a separate policy document or partof a superior strategy document?
3. What is the time frame for your NIS (e.g. 2007-2012)?
4. What are the priorities of your NIS?
5. Does the NIS include an action plan/or establishoperative tasks (e.g. certain measurements,action lines indicating the institutions/personsin charge of implementation with institutionsresponsible, deadlines etc.)?
6. Will the priorities included be reviewed and/oramended regularly, ad hoc, or not at all?
7. To what extent is the NIS focusing on SMEs(i.e. are SMEs as target groups particularlymentioned in the strategy etc.)?
8. Is there a separate part in your NIS for IP strat-egy? Which are the focus points?
9. Does your IP strategy concern SMEs, as well?
10. If your IP strategy concerns SMEs, which ofthe policies listed below are discussed in it?
• A: Facilitating SMEs’ knowledge about andaccess to IP protection.
• B: Improving the access of SMEs to disputeresolution procedures.
• C: Quality support for SMEs on managementof IPRs, tailored to their individual needs?
11. National Patent Offices (NPOs) have differentcompetencies in the field of IP enforcementsupport issues. In recent years several coun-tries have decided to set up coordinativeforums with the participation of public bod-ies/NGOs/enterprises to deal with the problemof counterfeiting and piracy. Such nationalentities are for example the Comité NationalAnti-contrefaçon (CNAC) in France and the IPCrime Group in the UK. Please confirmwhether such entity responsible for inter aliapromoting, co-ordinating and monitoring IPRenforcement, working with the police and cus-toms authorities and ensuring an efficientexchange of information between the differ-ent agencies etc. exists in your country. If yes,please describe briefly in what way your NPO isinvolved in the work of this entity.
16
Step 4 – Shortening the country papers
Although many of the country studies submittedwere inadequate and deficient regarding most ofthe aspects set out in the research objectives, theydid contain a lot of valuable information. In orderto preserve this information, the WP9 team elabo-rated a shortened version of each country studyand sent it back to the partners for approval andrevision, if needed.
Step 5 – Evaluation of the answers received tothe additional questionnaire
Most countries answered the questionnaire ontime and in appropriate depth, and their answerswere appropriate for a comparison and an in-depth evaluation. The way questions were formu-lated contributed to this to a great extent. Forexample, in Question 10 (If your IP strategy con-cerns SMEs, which of the policies listed below arediscussed in it?) we asked whether they adoptedthe European Commission’s recommendationstoward innovation support for SMEs, and listedthe possibilities.4 This questionnaire was concise,to the point, answers could be summarised in 2-3pages. Answers given to Question 11 on the prob-lem of counterfeiting and piracy are especiallynoteworthy due to original, novel approaches.
Step 6 – Investigation of related literature
Besides the Guideline and the complementaryquestionnaire, in the course of analysing nationalcontributions made in the framework of the proj-ect, we also relied on related literature, primarilyon the Austrian Benchmarking Study and theGowers Review, and also some other studies (elab-orated by the request of the EuropeanCommission, among others). For more detailabout these studies see References.
Step 7 – Compilation of the IP Awareness andEnforcement Services of NPOS (”Menu”)
Chapter 8 of the study contains a collection of IPAwareness and Enforcement Services of NPOs(”Menu”). The aim of this part of the study is tolist the existing services of the National PatentOffices in the 20 participating countries in order torecommend new activities for the partner NPOs.Menu is the name we gave to this collection ofbest practices. This compilation contains 17proven recommendations from 20 countries forthe development of IP awareness and enforcementservices. It demonstrates the practical ways inwhich National Intellectual/Industrial Property
Offices are working to promote IPR rights andinnovation and provide support to enforcement.
By compiling the Menu with existing and recom-mended new services we applied a specificmethodology. This methodology will be describedin detail in Chapter 7.1.
Step 8 – Sumary of the main findings and con-clusion
4 European Commission (2008): An Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe. Brussels, COM (2008) 465/3.
17
The need for local expertise in the globalisedworld is greater than ever before. In 2003 theEuropean Patent Organisation (EPO) carried out asurvey of patent information in the MemberStates.5 One important result of the survey wasthat companies expect their first contact for ques-tions about patent information to be their nation-al patent office. If users see national offices astheir first contact for support on patent informa-tion matters, they will also see them as the placeto express their views and needs. So, the nationalpatent offices automatically have importantknowledge about users' wishes.
However, in the last years the number of nationalfilings has steadily been decreasing in all MemberStates.6 Table 3 shows the breakdown ofHungarian national filings.
In general, it can be stated that large multination-al companies with sizable and internationalisedR&D activities and large patent portfolios haveincreased the internationalisation of their patent-ing work and application procedures. This has led,all other things being equal, to a decline in thenumber of patent applications received by nation-al patent offices of smaller countries that have ahigh number of large multinational companies,such as Hungary or Sweden.7 The statistics alsoshow that the decline in national filings has takenplace simultaneously with a steady rise in filings inthe USA, Japan and at the EPO. Furthermore, thedecline in the number of patent filings in Swedencan clearly be related to the striking drop of theelectronics sector between 2000 and 2004. Thisphenomenon shows that the patenting frequencyof companies is sensitive to business cycles. Itwould, however, be misleading to assume that theresponsibilities of NPOs have been reduced.
The EPO Programme Committee chose thePATLIB2006 Conference slogan – “PATLIBs servinginnovation“. Following this slogan, they have puttogether a programme focussing on “creating newservices beyond the traditional scope and thusattracting and gaining new customers“. The mes-sage is: NPOs should start thinking of creating andmarketing value added and customer-related serv-ices as well as retaining their present activities inorder to make patent information more valuableand to attract new customers.
In accordance with the objectives of the Madrid dec-laration, the EPO entered into bilateral discussionswith each member state. These discussions areintended to bring together the variety of options tostrengthen and broaden the activities and services ofnational patent offices also with regard to their co-operation with EPO.8 The three pillars of the new co-operation policy are as follows:
• utilisation. The first pillar, “utilisation“, is areview of the work done by any of the patentoffices in the EPO. This pillar looks at the pos-sibilities of utilising this work by other NPOs aswell as by the EPO’s user support;
• user support, will use the opportunities pre-sented by the European Patent Network (EPN)to put in place services that are close to recip-ients. This means that the responsibilities forcarrying out of “standard“ and “special“searches belong to the NPOs;
• partnership. The third pillar is a proposal toexploit existing expertise, competence andinfrastructure to maximise the benefit forindustry in Europe through harmonisingnational practices, long-term training, the util-isation of databases and tools, and the build-ing of patent awareness throughout society.The availability of patent information and ofthe necessary local expertise of SMEs’ supportis to be established in this framework. The aimof the proposal for partnership is to strength-en the role of PATLIB centres.
The new co-operation policy between the EPO andits Member States aims to improve the contribu-tion of the patent system to the innovation capac-ity and economic development of Member States.The policy relies on the creation of synergiesthrough a Europe-wide transfer of knowledge,skills and expertise. In the past, co-operation wasfocussed on patent information and on relevanttraining activities. The new partnership approachis expected to extend co-operation to other areaspromoting the best use of common resources.
Within the partnership framework, the co-opera-tion activities of the EPO will focus on supportingMember States to maintain their national exper-tise. Increased attention is to be paid by EPO tothe countries in which utilisation of the patent sys-
3. The changing role of NPOs regardingIP awareness and enforcement
5 The survey was based on about 2 000 telephone interviews. The survey told us that companies in Europe want patent information for technology watch purposes, for com-petitor watch, and alerting services, and that they want to retrieve their patent information via the Internet. It showed that patent information was not well used among SMEsin Europe, but that when SMEs were made aware of patent information, they found its possibilities very attractive (Usage Profiles of Patent Information Among Current andPotential Users).
6 Georg von Graevenitz és Dietmar Harhoff, WIPO study7 Granstrand, O. (2006): Patents and innovations for growth and welfare. Summary and recommendations of a government policy study. Report No 1.8 Edfjäll, C. (2006): The role of PATLIBs in the strategy of the EPO. Speech held on the PATLIB2006 conference in Prague, 22. May 2006. p. 9.
tem in the innovation process is still in develop-ment. Co-operation may also include activities likethe exchange of best practices among NPOs andother institutions working on patent related mat-ters, and the co-ordination of various innovationsupport activities throughout Europe.9
In 2008, the European Commission published theCommunication “An industrial property rightsstrategy for Europe”.10 The subject of the docu-ment is developing a horizontal and integrat-ed strategy across the spectrum of industrialproperty rights. The Communication encouragesMember States to raise awareness of intellectualasset management for all businesses and stake-holders, including SMEs. Consequently, theCommission’s intention is in line with EPO’s abovementioned new co-operation policy.
18
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2007 (2002 = 100%)
5096 4810 2657 1275 924 791 15,5
444 390 371 262 260 209 47,1
351 316 296 268 285 221 63,0
5944 5677 5119 4174 4237 4246 71,4
2 6 5 0 1 1
0 85 58 19 62 24
0 0 84 21 15 9
12647 11284 8590 6019 5784 5501 43,5
Titles of protection
Patents
Designs
Utility models
Trademarks
Geographical indications
Plant variety protection
SPC
Total
3. Table: Breakdown of national filings – filed directly at the HPO from Hungaryand from abroad – by titles of protectionSource: Hungarian Patent Office Annual Report, 2002 – 2007.
Note: Geographical indications, plant variety protection and SPC are excluded from the comparison.
9 EPO (2006): New Cooperation Policy between the EPO and its Member States. Munich. 10 European Commission (2008): An Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the
European Economic and Social Committee. COM (2008) 465/3. Brussels.
Even a cursory review of national contributionsallows the generalisation that the presentationof strategies, of IPR related activities and of theactions planned is embracing a much wider cir-cle of questions than originally planned. Thiscan be explained by the fact that not only NPOsbut also other national institutions play animportant role in raising IP awareness andenforcement.
Irrespective of their level of development, par-ticipating countries have unanimously beenconsidering innovation to be indispensable inthe improvement of their competitiveness.Most participants have provided a structuralmap of National Innovation Support Systems.Maps are pointing at a high (in some casesalarmingly high) number and diversity of bothpublic and private institutions in the field.Structural differences, the differing sizes of thenational economies involved and a number ofother contextual problems do not allow anyusable comparison of national systems. Evenwithin individual countries, regional differencesmay prevail to an extent that makes the com-parison of innovation support sub-systemsimpossible (see Germany, France or Spain).
In the countries where National InnovationStrategies (NIS) exist (17 out of the 20 projectparticipant countries), they generally includesections specifically focussing on IP awarenessand enforcement. It is commonly agreed thatthese strategies should be primarily focussed onthe SME sector as, compared to larger compa-nies, these organisations are less developedregarding innovation. Also agreed is the factthat this lower level of innovation is a conse-quence of SMEs’ low level of IP awareness andenforcement.
The high level of similarity between strategiesin their formalised dimension is, however, cov-ering strong differences. Opinions on the prac-tices and policies to be adopted to protect IPand creativity may strongly differ.
4.1General remarks on National Innovation Systems / Results of the country contributions
In the first phase of work in WP9 of theIPeuropAware project, we had limited success incollecting relevant information from the partnercountries regarding their National InnovationSystems. That was the starting point whichprompted us to elaborate a questionnaire with 11additional questions – as described in the method-ological part of the study. Despite mainly contex-tual problems and the moderate level of consisten-cy, we believe that the received and evaluatedanswers outline the landscape of European strate-gies on innovation and IP policies.
4.1.1Is there any formalised national innovationstrategy (NIS) for your country?
The overwhelming majority of partners in the proj-ect – 17 out of the 20 – have a National InnovationStrategy. Of the remaining three countries,Denmark is to complete its NIS this year, whileSweden by 2010 (when the new NIS will mostprobably become valid). France is working on itsnew NIS for the end of 2009 using a plurality ofexisting national laws and a number of existingregional and/or national existing institutions. Theimportance of the regional aspect of innovation isincreasingly recognised in other countries, as well.This trend is necessarily more apparent in largercountries (like in Germany, Spain) but smallercountries (Sweden, Denmark and Finland) are notan exception, either.
4.1.2Is your NIS a separate policy document or part of a superior strategy one?
In 8 of the participating countries, a national inno-vation strategy is an integral part of nationaldevelopment strategies and does not assume theform of a separate document. They include France,Italy, Luxemburg, Spain, Portugal, Turkey andRomania.11 The United Kingdom, Denmark (from2009), Sweden (new NIS expected in 2010),Finland, Austria, Malta and the 5 Central and
19
4. National Innovation Strategies and IP Strategies in the l ight of the IPeuropAware project
11 It is important to note that a national innovation strategy as an integral part of national development strategies does not exclude the existence of a specific separate doc-ument. For example, the German “High Tech Strategy für Deutschland” of the BMBF was published in 2006. The German National Innovation Strategy is a part of thisdocument, but constitutess an individual part and can be downloaded as separate document.
Eastern European countries (Bulgaria, Hungary,the Czech Republic, Poland and Estonia) havecompleted or are in the process of completingtheir national innovation strategies as separatepolicy documents.
The fact whether the NIS is part of national devel-opment strategies or comprises an independentdocument does not necessarily have a qualitativedimension. It should be seen, however, that theindependent formulation of the NIS – as it is – inthe smaller innovative economies of Europe – likeDenmark, Finland or Austria – is adding an empha-sis to the importance of the field. It can beassumed with reason, however, that the countriesthat are lagging behind in innovation – typicallythe ones joining the European Union in 2004 andin 2006 – have similar motivation when theyestablish their NIS in the form of a separate docu-ment. These countries would like to speed up theprocess of catching up. It should be added thatthese initiatives are strongly encouraged byBrussels, too.
4.1.3What is the time frame of your NIS?
The time-horizon of national innovation strategiesis a 3-14 year period, with the latter value being asole exception (in the case of Bulgaria). As a reflec-tion on the EU budgeting period, the most fre-quently applied time frame is 7 years between2007–2013. As distinct from the other 19 respon-dents, Finland has followed a philosophy of givingno relevance to the time factor when establishinginnovation strategies. The table below is intendedto visualise these facts.
The establishment of a time frame is obviouslyrequired for accountability, budgeting, etc.
Neglecting the time frame by Finland, for example,may receive support because it tends to expressthat the revision of innovative objectives and relat-ed policies represents a continuum with no timelimit. This cannot be separated from the other dom-inating aspect of this Finnish philosophy; innovationpolicies are not project-, but process-oriented.
4.1.4What are the priorities of your NIS?
The highly general nature of answers on the onehand, and the extreme divergence in their con-tents and size on the other hand, made an aggre-gation in the statistical sense impossible. A few ofthe answers were cut short (or missing altogether),while others are definitely redundant. Contextualproblems add to these difficulties: certain prioritiesare of a functional type, while others are aimed atselected sectors/regions. Regrettably, the scopefor categorisation according to functional or sec-toral/regional priorities is limited due to the factthat priorities differing in this sense tend to beincluded in strategies with equal weight in themajority of cases. We have collected the few coun-tries where the priorities show a more or lessunanimous link to one of these two approaches.
a) Participants with functional-type priorities:
Denmark: the NIS should focus on IP and newways of innovation such as open innovationand user driven innovation.
Finland: emphasis is given to the innovation-based development of productivity of enter-prises and also in the public sector – competi-tiveness in international markets – that com-pensates the declining workforce and highcost levels.
France gives priority to financial support ofinnovative structures (public and SME) andenterprises in order to improve competitive-ness of public research.
In the Czech Republic a dominating and com-prehensive emphasis is on R&D.
Poland’s NIS concentrates on result-orientedresearch and the necessary infrastructural con-ditions of innovation.
b) Participants with sectoral/regional preferences:
In Sweden the focus is on strategic researchareas like medicine, engineering and climate inpolitically important geographic regions.
20
Czech Republic, Luxemburg, Portugal
Germany
Bulgaria
Malta
Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania
Italy
Turkey
France
Spain
Sweden (new NIS suggested for this period)
Finland
Austria, Denmark, UK
2005–2010
2006–2009
2006–2014
2007–2010
2007–2013
2007–2015
2008–2010
2004–2010
2008–2011
2010–2012
No timeframe
No reply
4. Table: Time frame of NIS in the analysed countries
21
Malta and Germany concentrate on the SMEsector (since the majority of Maltese industryfalls into the SME category).
Estonia: prioritised fields of R&D: informationand communication technologies, biotech-nologies, material technologies, energy,national defence and security, health care andwelfare services, environment protection,national culture.
The majority of the remaining countries could notbe classified accordingly. This limited possibility ofclassification should repeatedly call attention to thefact that in the majority of cases strategic objec-tives emerge in different dimensions and con-texts and, therefore, tend to overlap. The very highnumber of priorities with equal weight – as it is inseveral cases – also adds to the complexity of thesituation. The high number of priorities tends toappear in a high number of institutions with over-lapping responsibilities, leading to limited account-ability. An excessively broad spectrum of prioritiesis more characteristic to the less developed, Centraland Eastern and Southern European countries andthis cannot be separated from the proliferation ofinstitutions in these regions. Red-tapism, institu-tional rigidities, delayed decision-making and a rel-atively high level of corruption cannot be separat-ed from this background.
c) Participants with many priorities:
Greece: - promoting innovation in all sectors;
- increasing of and improvement in investmentin knowledge;
- strengthening cooperation for implementing R&Dprojects (European, multilateral, regional etc.);
- networking;
- support: subsidies, venture capital;
- innovation services for SMEs (research, technology);
- incentives for increasing the number ofpatents and their commercialisation;
- attracting Greek researchers back to Greecefrom abroad.
Turkey: - raising awareness of S&T;
- increasing the development of scientists;
- supporting result oriented and quality research;
- better S&T policy;
- better performance in S&T of private sector;
- better infrastructure and research environment.
Bulgaria: - stimulating industrial R&D and the cooperation
between company R&D departments, universitiesand research and technological organisations;
- increasing available financing for innovationthrough establishing mechanisms for attract-ing private investment; encouraging compa-nies to introduce new technologies andimprove their innovation activity;
- encouraging the establishment of clusters intraditional sectors;
- supporting start-ups and well-functioningcompanies in order to increase their innovativepotential;
- building mechanisms for attracting foreigninvestments towards scientific areas.
Romania:- supporting research of companies by financial
instruments;
- stimulating interactions between universitiesand research units for creating common proj-ects and technology transfer;
- developing innovation networks, participatingin scientific and technological platforms;
- supporting entrepreneurship based on innova-tion by developing services in incubators,improvement of access to risk capital andimprovement of innovation management;
- fiscal stimulation of R&D investment;
- increasing access of SMEs to information con-cerning research, financing and cooperationopportunities by dedicated support services.
The overlaps, if institutionalised, are potentialsources of a “joint-decision trap”, leading to inef-ficiency and the waste of public money.
4.1.5Does the NIS include an action plan/or establish operative tasks?
The majority of participants indicated the exis-tence of action plans establishing operative tasks.However, a group of countries including the UK,France, Austria and the Czech Republic did notanswer this question.
4.1.6If and how often will the priorities includedbe reviewed and/or amended?
Most answers show that NISs are regularlyreviewed and corrections are performed ifrequired. Answers received from a number ofcountries, however, are unclear in this respect.Only Bulgaria stressed the importance of financialcorrections in this respect, but we assume that thisis important in the other countries, too. The lackof feedback may jeopardise the priorities of NISand this danger is major in those countries wherethere are too many priorities.
4.1.7To what extent is the NIS focusing on SMEs?
Answers show a remarkable concentration ofnational innovation strategies towards SMEs. 11participants have explicitly formulated prioritiesconcerning this sector while the objectives pre-ferred by four further countries are strongly influ-encing the sector in an indirect way. In the Danishstrategy these indirect efforts are formulated asfollows: “more high-growth start-ups”, “IP-intro-duction package”, “growth houses (in the region-al network of centres)”. Similar efforts in Spain aresummarised accordingly: “enhancing technologytransfer, promotion of technology based enterpris-es, actions for young enterprises, reinforcing thetraditional industrial network.”
4.1.8Is there a separate part in your NIS for IP strategy?
The answers suggest that the importance of IP isnot necessarily reflected by those IP strategies thathave been formulated separately, or only as partof NISs. The unsatisfactory level of IP awarenessmay explain this relative neglect, pointing to theneed for awareness-raising projects by NPOs.
4.1.9What are the focal points of IP strategy?
If we consider the classification applied concerningNIS priorities (Question 4; sectoral/regional vs.functional approach), and use this to classify thefocal points of IP strategy, we only found that oneout of the 11 answers have a strong sectoralfocus. This is Finland, where the IP strategy is pri-marily focussed towards SMEs. In the group ofother surveyed countries, efforts are of a function-al nature. It should be noted that support of SMEs– besides other sectors – has been included in theIP strategy of most of the countries.
The main groups of focal points of a functionalnature are as follows:
22
7. Table: Focal points of IP strategy
Germany, Italy, Greece, Malta, Hungary,Romania, France
France, Malta, Hungary
Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria
Germany, Poland
Portugal, Romania
Poland
Bulgaria, Hungary, Germany
Stronger relationshipbetween science and business
Financial aspects, regulation
Legislative background
Internationalisation
Quantitative objectives
IP management
Awareness raising
UK, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Italy,
Luxemburg, Turkey, Czech Republic,
Poland, Hungary, Romania, Malta, France
Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Greece,
Estonia
Austria, Bulgaria
High priority
Indirectly
Not focusing on SMEs
No reply
UK, Finland, Italy, Greece, Poland,Romania
Denmark, France, Luxemburg, Portugal,Malta, Turkey, Sweden, Spain, CzechRepublic, Hungary, Estonia, Germany12
Austria
IP is a separate part of NIS
Not a separate part of NIS
No reply
Denmark, Portugal, Greece, Malta,France13
Germany, Italy, Greece, Malta, Hungary,Romania, France
Commercialisation ofpatents, etc.
Stronger relationshipbetween science and business
5. Table: NIS focusing on SMEs
6. Table: IP strategy as a part of NIS
12 In case of Germany, the IP strategy is part of the NIS but not one of the 17 main thematic fields that the strategy focuses on.13 In France, procedure fees will be reduced for SMEs in order to increase the number of patents applied by French enterprises.
23
The assessment of these strategic goals of IPstrategies would be unrealistic without knowingthe results in detail of the different IP strategies.However, we can conclude that the facilitationof commercialisation of patents and thestronger relationship between business and sci-ence are the most often mentioned goals of IPstrategies. The more detailed answers given by the coun-tries to these questions are as follows:
Finland
In Finland, a separate IP strategy is currently underconstruction with focus points targeting SMEs.
Denmark
The Danish IP strategy contains two IP-initiatives:
• ”IP marketplace”: Internet-based marketplacefor trading in rights for the purchase and saleof patents, brands and other rights;
• IP-introducing package, which guides lessexperienced IP-users on how to protect inno-vation.
Germany
Outlines raising of IP awareness and acceptance ofIP; improvement of the enforceability of IPR;increasing and improving digital rights manage-ment systems; fostering EU-community patentshand-in-hand with a sound legal framework andtargeting minimised costs; cutting costs for trans-lation of IP rights; bringing copyright law into linewith the digital age.
France
No specific point about IP, except that patents canbe considered as innovation expenses and thus thereduction of taxes can be obtained following thefiling of a patent.
Italy
The main foci are related to the upgrade ofthe IP rights to EU legislation, and the role ofuniversit ies concerning property rights forinventions.
Greece
Supporting patenting with commercial poten-tial with the following objectives: increasingthe number of patents, supporting researcher-
inventors, exploiting patents whose commer-cialisation is considered capable of leading tosustainable, competitive innovative enterprises.
Portugal
The NIS contains objectives and measures for IP(tripling the number of filed patents, doubling thenumber of trademarks, establishment of platformsfor protecting and commercialising IP-rights)
Malta
There are two recommendations in the NIS ofMalta: access to R&I capital and strengtheningbusiness to academia collaboration. In addition tothese, an IP framework for public funded researchis considered essential.
Poland
Support for IP management, support for subjectsfiling patents outside Poland, streamlining processof obtaining protection in the area of IP, promot-ing industrial design as a source of competitiveadvantage.
Bulgaria
There is only a Law about Patents and UtilityModel Registration. Since 1993 it provides for thefostering of public awareness in the field of indus-trial property and promotes the legal protection ofindustrial property and innovation activity.
Romania
The focus points related to IP strategy concernperformance indicators, illustrated by an increasednumber of articles in prestigious science publica-tions, increasing the number of national patentsand international patents originating fromRomania and increasing the number of innovativecompanies.
Hungary
- Creation of a legal environment that aids andgives incentives to capital-investment throughsupport.
- Establishment of spin-off enterprises by aca-demic and publicly financed research-instituteemployees.
- Modification of Hungarian and EU public pro-curement and competition rules, which makesupport possible.
2414 This chapter of the present study in based on the country contributions of IPeuropAware project partners. In order to avoid possible misinterpretations, the authors of
the study did not edit the national contributions.
- Development of the regulation system of intel-lectual property evaluation and management.
- Strengthening of publicly financed researchcentres with an interest in intellectual propertyutilisation.
- Stimulation of IPR awareness among SMEs; theeconomic, business and utilisation skills andknowledge.
- Support the reception and adaptation – in har-mony with intellectual property protection – offoreign technologies, which are important fordomestic SMEs.
4.1.10Does your IP strategy concern SMEs, as well?
As stated above, IP strategies tend to stress theimportance of the SME sector and this is generallyreflected in the NPOs’ activities with an increasedemphasis. Malta is the only participant who indi-cated the absence of a prioritised role of SMEs inits IP strategies. This, however, should be consid-ered in view of the fact that Malta has indicated astrong preference towards its SME sector in itsNIS. The contributions by the UK and Austria didnot touch upon this question. It is primarily finan-cial support that seems to predominate the IPstrategies concerning the SME sector (as indicatedby Germany, France, Luxemburg, the CzechRepublic, Romania and Turkey).
4.1.11If your IP strategy concerns SMEs, which ofthe policies listed below are discussed in it?
• A: Facilitating SMEs’ knowledge about andaccess to IP protection;
• B: improving the access of SMEs to dispute res-olution procedures;
• C: quality support for SMEs on management ofIPRs, tailored to their individual needs.
Four of the partners did not answer this question,while 2 of the 14 answers received were negativeconcerning each of the three fields above (theanswers given by the Czech Republic and Estonia).The number of positive replies given to option A is13, B is only 1, and C is 7. It is important to notethat Finland, Denmark, France, Italy, Greece,Turkey and Germany have given positive replies toA and C, as well. Only Portugal has given a posi-tive answer to policy B, saying that improving theaccess of SMEs to dispute resolution proceduresisn’t tackled in the strategy document, however, itshould be noted that INPI-PT in articulation withother entities has recently created an ArbitrationCentre which intends to solve any conflict regard-ing Industrial Property, domain names, companiesand designations.
4.2National Innovation and IP strategies/Policies14
United Kingdom
The UK has a high-level strategy document whichthe Department for Innovation Universities andSkills (DIUS) in March 2008 published. The evi-dence document ”Innovation Nation – Backgroundanalysis; strengths and weaknesses of the UK wideinnovation system” presents an assessment of theUK innovation system to support the DIUS Scienceand Innovation White Paper and builds on theGovernment’s knowledge economy programmelaunched in 1998, the DTI Innovation Report 2003,the 2004 Science and Innovation InvestmentFramework, the Lord Sainsbury review of Scienceand Innovation policy – the Race to the Top 2007.Andrew Gowers was commissioned specifically byGovernment to undertake a review of the IP systemand his report was published in December 2006.The document sets out a framework for improvingUK’s capacity for innovation across society. TheGovernment’s aim is to make the UK the leadingplace for business.
Strategy documents mentioned above considerthe entire remit of innovation and the need tobuild on UK capacity for economic growth andprosperity. They all make reference to the need foradequate IP awareness and protection in the worldin which to be an innovative business, public sec-tor or third sector organisation. The aim is to buildan Innovation Nation in which innovation thrivesat all levels: individuals, communities and regions.
The main objectives of the IP awarenesspolicy/strategy are as follows:
Denmark, Finland, Germany, France, Italy, Luxemburg,Spain, Greece, Turkey, Poland, Romania, Malta, Hungary
Portugal
Finland, Denmark, France, Italy, Greece, Turkey,Germany
Czech Republic, Estonia
UK, Sweden, Austria, Bulgaria
A
B
C
None
No reply
8. Table: SME-related focus points in IP strategies
25
• Raise awareness and understanding of IPamong UK business through the provision ofguidance and exploitation.
• Ensure that research bodies understand howbest to use IPR to lever commercial successfrom their creativity.
• Make it easier for UK business to make themost of their IP through development of serv-ices that assist decision making and obtainingIP rights.
• Make enforcement more accessible through medi-ation and more information on enforcement.
The impact of the national IP enforcement strate-gy is reflected annually in a National IP CrimeReport. The report for 2007 contained 9 recom-mendations, which illustrated the commitment tofighting IP crime:
• UK IPO in conjunction with the new StrategicAdvisory Board for IP Policy (SABIP) to enhanceco-ordination of IP related research in relationto crime.
• UK IPO should work with the IP Crime Groupto agree an accurate national standard meas-ure of the level of IP crime including industryloss, criminal market size and criminal gain.
• Results of seizures of counterfeit and piratedgoods from all enforcement authorities to bepublished and the results of prosecutions andproceeds of crime actions on an annual basis.
• Use of the Proceeds of Crime Act and FinancialInvestigators to be encouraged when prose-cuting IP criminals.
• Encourage members of the IP rights owningcommunity to provide training and shareexpertise with enforcers to improve their tech-nical knowledge and understanding of IP.
• UK IPO to facilitate a continual national pro-gram of awareness raising with enforcementauthorities within the judicial process with theassistance of brand and trade associationswhere appropriate.
• UK IPO to develop web resources to provideguidelines to identify counterfeit products.
• Disseminate expertise and knowledge relevantto the IP Crime Group.
• UK IPO to engage at corporate level with UKbusiness to inform of the work of the IP crimegroup.
The main function of the DIUS is to develop skillsof people and undertake research; the SABIPadvises ministries and the UK IPO on the develop-ment of IP policy; there are free support servicesavailable locally and online providing all sort ofhelp to new business; the PATLIBs – existing also inother European countries – is a regional networkof patent and IP advice. Several thousands ofpatent attorneys and mark attorneys work in pro-fessional bodies located all over the UK and pro-vide assistance and advice in patents, trade mark,copyright and design.
The UK contribution has emphasised that theenforcement arena has become very crowded withnumerous bodies competing for political space. Asa result resources have been wasted and duplicat-ed. Strong partnerships between enforcers andbusiness bring about greater levels of competenceand have been very successful. The proposals totackle IP crime were set out in a document ”IPCrime a National Strategy.” This recognises thestrengths and weaknesses of existing enforcementstrategies and the needs to bring together differ-ent parts of government, industry stakeholders,policy makers and enforcers, to create a co-ordi-nated approach to intellectual property enforce-ment. The aim is to promote a national strategybringing together government policy makers, busi-ness and enforcers to create a co-ordinatedapproach to intellectual property enforcement.
Finland
Finland’s innovation strategy is being revised withthe aim of safeguarding the quality of the country’sinnovation environment, international competitive-ness and attractiveness. The proposal for the newnational innovation strategy was completed in June2008. The Ministry of Employment and Economydecided on the final form of the strategy and itspresentation to the Government in autumn 2008.The proposal is now under an evaluation process.The evaluation of all organisations involved in inno-vation took place between August 2008 and March2009 to determine the necessary changes for imple-menting the new policy.
The novelty of the final proposal lies in ”the widedefinition of innovation”: besides science and tech-nology, the new approach includes non-scientificand non-technological features such as listingdesign, branding, business concepts and innova-tion in management, production, workplace and
services. The final proposal also takes into accountthe role of users, with a clear market orientation,calling for the creation of ”innovation-friendlymarkets.” This novelty calls for change in nationalpolicies and in particular in the way policies areimplemented in different organisations. As a result,the overall strategy consists of four main blocks:international dimension of innovation, demandand user orientation of innovation, supportinginnovative individuals and communities, and broadmanagement of change.It is worth to note that the new innovation strate-gy mentiones services as a very important exampleof the field of innovation. Services now account foralmost 70% of the gross domestic product inFinland, and a greater proportion of the turnoverof traditional business life is generated from servic-es to be produced for customers. The significanceof the customer and user perspective is growing,while greater competitiveness will come with thedevelopment of service products. Customer needswill guide the development of new products andservices to a greater extent in the future. This willrequire increased expertise in the operations ofvalue chains and networks and the ability to out-line and, in particular, predict changes to the oper-ating environment. The Government’s new strategy on intellectualand industrial property rights, due for completionat the end of the year 2008 reviewed severalissues, including the national and internationaldevelopment needs of the system of intellectualand industrial property rights and presented themeasures that have to be taken in order toenhance the level of competence within enterp-rises concerning these rights.
In Finland there are numerous amounts of publicorganisations supporting SMEs in financing anddelivering consultancy and expert services. Also,there is a lot of developing projects going on inFinland, many of them financed by EuropeanCommission, and aimed to develop better servicesto SMEs. The conclusion was with IdeaPilotProgramme to pick up the most potential organi-sations and projects and to integrate with them,not creating new project to the Finnish project jun-gle, but to build small steps, easy ways of acting ina new way to take into consideration also relevantIP matters. So, IdeaPilot made two differentapproaches: to approach SMEs directly via associa-tions for entrepreneurs (they are covering morethan 60 % of all SMEs in Finland) and via interme-diate organisations (there are about 200 diffe-rent financing and consulting instruments for SMEsin Finland and about 4,500 support persons todeliver these services, there are also a know-howenvironment to be utilised by SMEs, i.e. business
incubators, science parks, consultants, universities,vocational high-schools, etc.)
In Finland, there are four main associations forentrepreneurs:
• The Confederation of Finnish Industries, hav-ing 15,000 members, big and medium-sizedcompanies,
• technology Industries in Finland, having 3,500members, small and medium-sized companies,
• the Federation for Finnish Enterprises, having88,000 members, mainly small companies,
• and the Central Chamber of Commerce andChambers of Commerce in regions, havingabout 17,000 members.
These associations see the importance of the IPsystem and its impact to the company competitive-ness. They also see that the existing practice ofnetworking and co-operating between companiesis a lot easier to live out, if you have practices toprotect your own know-how.
So, we have access to the associations´ informa-tion and training channels, and they are coveringmore than 60 % of all SMEs in Finland. The co-operation with the associations gives us also morecredibility among the SMEs
The relevant public intermediate organisations inthis sense are, among others:
• Tekes, the National Technology Agency, is themain public funding organisation for researchand development in Finland, handles about6,000 business cases per year.
• The Foundation for Finnish Inventions supportsand helps private individuals and small entre-preneurs residing in Finland to develop andexploit invention proposals. They are handlingabout 3,000 cases per year.
• Jobs and Society network is concerned mainlyto consult starting businesses and go through12,000 ideas per year, of which about 4,700new companies are born.
• Technology centers, 22, including about 1,600companies.
• The Centre for Expertise Programme (CoE) net-works top expertise and experts in the univer-sities, polytechnics, industry and public sector
26
27
for joint projects to develop new products andservices and to promote entrepreneurship andemployment in order to strengthen the com-petitiveness of Finnish regions. This pro-gramme covers about 3,000 companies.
• Regional T&E Centres, 15 public organisationsgiving diverse financing and consulting servic-es, about 500 relevant business advisors.
• Regional Business Service Points, 50 earlyphase advisors directing the actors to the rightservices.
• R&D networks, a national project building region-al R&D networks, all of them connected togethervia a nationwide help-desk organisation.
• Universities, vocational high-schools.
• Business consultants.
National Innovation Strategy – Finland 2008 (http://www.innovaatiostrategia.fi/en/overview)
Basic Strategic choices
Traditionally, Finland’s competitive ability has beenstrong and Finland must continue to maintain qual-ity education, sizeable investments by enterprisesand the public sector in R&D, and well-functioninginstitutions. This solid competence basis, created byFinland through investing in education andresearch, must be preserved, and further rein-forced. However, current strengths will not sufficeto meet future challenges.
To attain Finnish strategic goals, the innovationenvironment must be able to create novelty andmake choices. Therefore, this innovation strategyfocuses on completely new topics and measures,or ones requiring a distinct change. The strategyreviews innovation activity and the required devel-opment measures via four basic choices:
• Innovation activity in a world without borders,
• demand and user orientation,
• innovative individuals and communities,
• systemic approach.
All parties implementing innovation policy areresponsible for the implementation of the nationalinnovation strategy. They must pay extensive atten-tion to the basic choices of the strategy in theiroperations. Previously acquired strengths must be
fostered while new ones are developed. First andforemost, national choices steer the renewal ofoperations and changes of focus areas. Essentialprerequisites for the implementation and successof strategy are a high quality national competencebasis and long-term targeting of public resourcesat research, development and innovation.The national innovation strategy does not attemptto describe all of the measures required in theFinnish innovation environment, but highlights tenkey sets of measures derived from the basic choic-es of the strategy, those that are most importantin terms of Finland's success. Furthermore, a sepa-rate action plan is related to the strategy, exten-sively presenting the most important sets of meas-ures, with justifications.
Germany
National strategy of the German governmenttowards attaining a 3% rate of spending on R&Din terms of GDP by 2010. For the first time ever, the German government hasdeveloped a comprehensive national strategy forall its ministries with the aim of putting Germany atthe top of the world's ranks in tomorrow's mostimportant markets. All political sectors that affectresearch and development will be geared to a clear-ly defined goal. This strategy puts innovation policyfront and center in government activities.
It aims to network the research and business com-munities more closely. For 17 fields consideredcritically important for the future, the Germangovernment has devised innovation strategies.Some of the most important fields covered by theHigh-Tech Strategy include climate, health, securi-ty and energy research. Key technologies too, suchas nanotechnology, biotechnology and informa-tion and communication technologies are impor-tant and integral parts of the strategy. In thesefields German research and German industry haveparticularly good cards for the future.
The paths from development to the market are tobe shortened and speeded up. High-tech start-upsand innovative SMEs will receive improved condi-tions. This too is an important cross-sectoral task.All relevant federal ministries are involved. It isintegral part of the High-Tech-Strategy to strength-en the innovation capabilities of SMEs and toimprove the utilisation of IP in particular for SMEs.
As to the institutional framework of IP: there are24 regional patent information centres inGermany which provide information on patentsand other IPRs, provide patent information sourceswhich fit to economic actors, especially start-ups
and private inventors. They execute patent search-es on behalf of clients for a fee. Supplementaryinformation is provided, as well, such as technicaldocuments, technical regulations and norms. Theportfolio of the German Patent InformationCentres includes training possibilities for studentsof technical universities and also for SMEs. TheCentres cooperate closely with the other IPR actorsin the regions in order to offer special services tothe clients. The German SIGNO network is thelargest network in Germany for inventions andpatenting. The 80 Chambers of Commerce are the primebusiness contact network in Germany and they arecooperating closely with the other IPR actors in theregions and offer basic services concerning IP, too.
The German report emphasises
• intensification of cooperation between differ-ent actors at national level;
• arrangement of task sharing between theactors;
• need for public subsidies for special capacitiesrelated to strategic use of the IPR system,enforcement, infringement, combat productand trademark counterfeiting.
Italy
The Italian Government has a National Strategyconcerning IP and fight against counterfeitingand illegal competition.
The main reference in this strategy calls on thegeneral framework of innovation and competitive-ness of Italian enterprises. In order to achieve thisaim, the UIBM has based its action on two funda-mental goals:
• Refining the context of IP in Italy and making itmore accessible to SMEs.
• Improving the context of IP in Italy so that itcan provide stronger titles as an effective com-petitive market tool.
In order to achieve these aims, two differentaction levels have been set up: rationalization andsimplification of the industrial property system andcreation of a favourable setting for exploitingindustrial property rights as recognised asset inorder to have access to credit and risk capital, giv-ing a further added value to the innovative capac-ity of enterprises.
The UIBM’s actions and services that have beenimplemented so far and which are in progress, canbe summarised as follows:
• Creation of a new context that facilitatesaccess to IP for SMEs.
• Rationalization, simplification and unificationsof the law. In 2008 the Regulations weredrawn up for implementing the IndustrialProperty Code, which are now in the final issu-ing phase.
• Set up of an electronic archives which containsinformation regarding trademarks, patentsand designs (operative since 2007).
• Set up of a system allowing online deposit andregistration (operative since 2006).
• Definition of the agreement with Poste ItalianeSpA in order to activate the online payment oftaxes (2008).
• Upgrade of the technological apparatus, officeprocedures and security procedures for patentdatabase, laying the foundations for beginningonline investigations that have converted theUIBM into a paperless office.
• Implementation of a Call Centre Service dedi-cated to enterprises and private individualsthat could also be activated by e-mail.
• Strengthening of national IPRs, further to theintroduction of anteriority research (operativesince 01.07.2008) which is carried out by EPO.
• Increase of the task force of the NationalOffice dedicated to the technical examination.
• Improvement of data flow among the variousplayers.
• New distribution of patent taxes betweeninventors and right holders, with facilities andexemptions for enterprises (first four years)and universities.
• Strengthening of the international cooperationin the field of industrial property through thedevelopment of a dedicated policy and the sig-nature of bilateral agreements (for example, theagreement with France setting up a bilateralItalo–French Anti-Counterfeit Committee, andthose ones with the USA and China, Turkey,Korea, Hungary, Romania and Mexico; beingdefined – with Mexico, India and Canada).
28
29
• Reinforcement the protection instruments forIPRs, considered a leading force for economicdevelopment, research and innovation. In relationto this, 12 specialised sections have been set up inthe Civil Courts and the legislation has beenamended and integrated in order to strongly con-tribute to the fight against counterfeiting.
• Decree 112/08 abolished the High Anti-Counterfeiting Commission and its tasks havebeen assigned to the UIBM which is now partof the Directorate General for CombatingCounterfeiting – UIBM. Since July 2008, thefollowing specific measures have been imple-mented to oppose the phenomenon:
a. Tightening and rationalization of theCriminal Code Regulations relative to coun-terfeiting.
b. Creation of a “Direct Line” call center witha phone, fax number and e-mail address toassist enterprises: set up on 1 July 2008 incooperation with the Guardia di Finanza(body of police officers responsible for bor-der control and for investigating financialand tax fraud).
c. Setting up of the National Anti-CounterfeitCommittee, chaired by a representative ofthe Ministry of Economic Development,where public and private institutions meetto implement common and synergisedactions.
d. Strengthening of cooperation with localauthorities to make the local fight againstcounterfeiting more effective.
e. Implementation of communication cam-paigns against counterfeiting and info-train-ing courses dedicated to officers and to cit-izens (also students in secondary schools)aiming at disseminating IP culture. The firstwide scale public campaigns was imple-mented in 2006 (the slogan that was adopt-ed was awarded during the 2006 edition ofCOM-PA, as the Best European Practice). In2008 an anti-counterfeiting campaign waslaunched in the web.15 Further initiativeshave been planned, given that the real criti-cal factor is awareness building, in coopera-tion with other institutions, such as an insti-tutional information campaign (started inmid April 2009) about the fight againstcounterfeiting both to press and on TV, acampaign addressed to the young, an out-door campaign on urban traffic flows and
video circuits in airports and undergroundstations and an award for the best videoproduction by students in secondaryschools.
f. Implementation of multilateral and bilateralinternational actions, through intense cooper-ation with the Magistrates’ Governing Council(CSM) and with the participation of the lead-ing European agencies (OHIM, EPO, etc.).
g. Setting up of 14 anti-counterfeiting desksplaced in some strategic markets providingsupport to enterprises willing to start a busi-ness in some countries helping them to pro-tect their IP assets and to fight against coun-terfeiting (i.e.: China, India, Turkey, Russia,Republic of Korea, Taiwan, Brazil and theUSA).
Moreover, in order to help enterprises access tofunding also by levering on IP assets, the UIBMhas identified a methodology of analysis sharedby industries, universities, and banks for the eco-nomic evaluation of patents also complying withthe provisions of the National Fund forInnovation. The above mentioned analysis methodis the subject matter of a protocol of intent thatwas signed on 21 October 2008 aiming at improv-ing the quality level of the innovation system inItaly also offering enterprises new competitivemarket tools. The reference framework for theentire programme is the Small Business Act thatproposes the guidelines to push the economicgrowth also by supporting SMEs.
Further actions planned for 2009:
a. Development of a public research database,PatiRis, which is a tool for boosting technolo-gy transfer of the results of public research tothe market and for increasing the demand ofinnovation by enterprises.
b. Creation of a National Innovation Fund, feed-ed by the patent taxes, which aims at stimulat-ing innovation based on industrial propertytitles and implementing actions in favor ofSMEs to fully take part in the industrial proper-ty system.
c. Implementation of training courses in IP inUniversities, in cooperation with EPO, identifi-cation of guidelines for developing modularcourses that will be held in English and settingup of five chairs in Industrial Property (UIBM-EPO chair in IP studies).
15 For more information see: www.noallacontraffazione.it
Luxemburg
In Luxemburg a short/mid-term Intellectual Propertystrategy has been defined. The IP awareness strategyin Luxemburg is focused on three important points:
• to create awareness in SMEs and the public ingeneral of the importance of IntellectualProperty (to organize seminars and events, toproduce publications to promote IP);
• to develop specific training in the intellectualproperty field (for example by implementingnew training sessions at the Luxemburg’sUniversity and by developing new competen-cies in this field);
• to promote IP protection and exploitation inpublic research.
Events:• national celebration of the international day of
intellectual property;
• organisation of public seminars in IP: introduc-tion to IP, patent, trademarks and industrialdesign and copyright;
• implementation of IP awareness measuresdedicated to children;
• luxinnovation will conduct on a regular basis a“Conference cycle in IP”.
Laws and documents:• Adoption of a law on 19th December 2007
related to IP tax advantages.
• Creation of a brochure to promote IP inLuxemburg.
The important problem of counterfeiting is takenin account in Luxemburg with the objective to cre-ate awareness in SMEs and the public of thisgrowing problem worldwide.
Events:• Specific seminar has been organised on 24th
November 2008, to create awareness amongthe public and the enterprises of the growingproblem of counterfeiting.
Laws and documents:• Translation of the enforcement directive of the
European Commission 2004/48/CE inprogress.
Other elements have been taken into account inLuxemburg IP policy:
• to work on the definition of patent indicatorsin order to provide specific studies in innova-tion and have a realistic vision of innovationefforts in Luxemburg;
• to increase the efficiency of the DPI by simpli-fying the filing procedures of IP titles (toincrease administrative efficiency procedures);
• to work on the implementation of evaluationmethodologies in IP (the Public ResearchCentre Henri Tudor has hired people to workon this precise point).
Austria
The main elements of IP Awareness Policy ofAustria are as follows:
• APO´s mandate covers IPR awareness activities;
• Austria’s inventive structure relatively strong innano technology and incrementive inventionespecially in the service sector;
• Special attention for high-potential SMEs (witha high technological potential but a lowerdegree of IPR awareness) is needed.
The IP Enforcement Policy/Strategy includesinternational and domestic measures against prod-uct piracy:
• Austria is part of the EU/EC dialog with Chinaand the US (e.g. in COTRA);
• advice and information exchange: APO andother institutions try to gather informationabout product piracy which are distributed inevents like seminars or workshops;
• implementation of EC-Directive 2004/48/EC;
• guidelines of the Federal Ministry of Financeon “Produktpiraterie”;
• “Kompetenzzentrum für Produktpiraterie”: thecustom authority in Klagenfurt is specialised tocommunicate with and help IP-right holders,which claim to be victims of product piracy.
30
31
Malta
Malta has to date not yet finalised a specificNational IPR Strategy and is still in the earlypreparatory stages of this process which will leadthe country to having it drafted during thecourse of this year but not necessarily publishedbefore 2010.
Spain
The National Strategy of Science and Technology(ENCYT) was adopted in 2007. The ENCYT is translatedinto four-year National R&D&I Plans. The 2008–2011plan was released the 14th of September, 2007 (seehttp://www.micinn.es/files/ plan-nacional-consejo.pdf)and is presently in force. There’s no specific section forIP within the Plan although patents are cited many timesas indicator of the progress of different programs. Thenational IP Strategy is set directly by the Minister ofIndustry, Tourism and Commerce in line with theNational R&D&I Plan.
The main IP strategic guideline provided by theMinister for the term of the present Plan(2008–2011) is to put special focus on SMEs, bothfor IP awareness and IP registration activities. As aresult of this guideline, tighter collaboration isrequested between the OEPM (National PatentOffice) and the MITYC’s DGPYME (Ministry ofIndustry, General Directorate for SMEs). A detailednational IP policy as such is not gathered in any spe-cific paper, but diverse IP policies are spread alongdifferent documents, which are commented below.
Spanish enterprises apply for ten times less EPO patentsper million inhabitants than the EU 25 average, and thenumber of USPTO and triad patents is also low.Although government innovation policy has taken intoaccount the need to support the management anddevelopment of patents and protection of intellectualproperty, the results are below the objectives. For exam-ple, only 0.75% of EPO patents were Spanish in 2005,well below the objective of 1.30%.
The major barriers SMEs are facing when applyingfor international [European] patents include the longdistance to the patent office as well as the workinglanguage, which result in companies having to hiretranslators and expensive law firms to manage theapplications. In order to solve this problem, the gov-ernment has launched a new aid programme toencourage the application for patents abroad(ES_65) and to stimulate the international protectionof technology, especially for SMEs.
There are funding and training measures providingtechnological advice via the technology centers
and the Spanish Patents and Trademarks Office(OEPM). Also, the fees paid when processing theapplications with National or Regional PatentOffices abroad, the translation expenses and feespaid within the framework of international proce-dures are going to be subsidized. Likewise, theongoing programme PETRI (ES_7) will be contin-ued to encourage the transfer of research results.The programme for financial support of the devel-opment of non profit technology transfers officesOTRIs (ES_10) must also be seen in this light.
The OEPM is fully in charge of the present Spanish IPAwareness Policy. The 2008 Annual DisseminationPlan foresees different kinds of activities aimed atreaching diverse target groups focusing on SMEs. Thestrategic reasoning behind the Dissemination Plan is:
• SMEs and intermediaries that get in touch withSMEs managers should be the primary targetgroup of any awareness/dissemination activity.
• SMEs managers only pay attention to theirpeers; therefore a primary means to get tothem is the sharing of success stories told toSMEs managers by SMEs managers.
• Stakeholders claim that IP awareness/dissemi-nation actions have usually a too academic oradministrative focus, lacking appeal for enter-prise managers. Therefore, all awareness/dis-semination activities should be designed with aclear business perspective and approach. In-depth IP awareness and advanced trainingshould cover matters such as international fil-ing (business) strategies, business use of nonregistered and soft IP, IP enforcement, IP valu-ation, IP commercialisation, etc.
• As Regional IP Promotion and PATLIB Centreshave already acquired a basic expertise, basiclevel awareness/dissemination activities deal-ing directly with SMEs in each AutonomousRegion will be performed by the correspondingRegional IP Promotion and PATLIB Centre,whilst the OEPM will keep responsibility for in-depth awareness and advanced training ofintermediaries. Efforts should be made totighten the coordination and collaboration ofthe OEPM with the Regional IP Promotion andPATLIB Centres.
• Very valuable collaboration relationships havebeen developed in the past years with institu-tions such as EOI, UB, UPM and CSIC. New IPawareness/dissemination activities should lever-age on these relationships.
1. Dissemination Sessions:These sessions are aimed at sharing the experi-ence of a company or research institute/groupregarding their (positive) use of the patent sys-tem. In a two hour format, the OEPM uses just20 mins. to explain its PCT and patent informa-tion services, the rest of the time is left to theSME IP real success story of the concernedcompany.Target groups are: SMEs, Chambers ofCommerce, Technological Parks, Techno-logical Development Centres, Techno-scien-tific University Schools and Public ResearchInstitutes.
2. IP Seminars:Also in a two-hour session format, fully cov-ered by OEPM speakers introducing IP andpatent information services. Target groups are: companies participatingin international R&D projects (EUREKA,CYTED), employees of the Spanish ForeignTrade Missions, professional associations,centres of the public health network, cham-bers of commerce.
3. IP Modules in Training Courses:IP modules are taught on demand by OEPMprofessionals as part of different kinds ofoccupational education courses and post-graduate MBAs with EOI, UB, UA, etc. Also, each year, OEPM teachers give athree-hours lecture on IP to students ofIndustrial Rationalization at the IndustrialEngineering School at the UPM (PolytechnicUniversity of Madrid).
In addition, the Polytechnic University ofMadrid and the OEPM developed an e-learn-ing course on Patents and TechnologicalInformation in the last year. It was offeredduring the school year 2007–08 to under-graduate and postgraduate students of thatuniversity, and was followed by 62 pupils. Itis being considered to extend this offeringto other Spanish universities. Participation inSummer Courses on IP at the UIMP and theUPM will be carried out as in previous years.In collaboration with the CPUB (PatentsCentre of the University of Barcelona) atleast 4 Sessions of the “Lunes de Patentes”(Patent Mondays) will be issued coveringedge aspects of the patent system.
4. Quarterly IP Workshops:Once a quarter, 5h workshops will beoffered in the OEPM premises. Based onIP4INNO materials, these workshops will
cover matters such as: patent informationsearch; IPRs enforcement; valuing IPRs; IPRscommercialisation etc. Target groups for this action are: businessintermediaries, Regional IP PromotionCentres, Public Research Institutes, Officesfor the Transfer of R&D Results (OTRIs), etc.
5. Information on industry specific trade fairsand exhibitions
6. IP assessment visits to industrial companies:As part of the CEIPAR program (Consolidationof Innovative Enterprises in TechnologicalParks), the EOI selects a number of companiesto be visited and a rough assessment is madein a two-hour meeting on the company’s IPusage and possibilities. 165 companies arepart of the present CEIPAR program.
7. Publications and leaflets:Continuous update of the existing catalogue.
8. Improving the contents of the OEPM web site:A procedure will be defined for the continu-ous improvement of the web contents,especially improvements on the public DBsaccess and user-friendliness.
9. Special actions regarding public researchinstitutes:Actions aimed at increasing the awarenessof the IP system among public researchers.Two types of actions are foreseen:
• one to two hour sessions where a publicresearcher may explain his/her (positive)experience with the IP system;
• establish an annual price for the bestpatent application related to a researchproject before the results of the projectare disclosed to the public.
10. Activities addressed to secondary schoolteachers & students:Continue disseminating the already devel-oped didactic game on IP, in collaborationwith EOI and the Ministry of Education,Social Policy and Sports.Go on attending specific fairs for this typeof target group: “The Science Week”, etc.
11. Advertising campaigns
The Spanish IP Enforcement Policy is set up by theInter-sectorial Commission Against Activities ofInfringement of IPRs. The OEPM plays its role in
32
33
this scenario and a number of EnforcementActions are considered. The enforcement servicesand actions foreseen in the Plan are:
• participation in the Inter-sectorial Commissionmeetings,
• anti-piracy and counterfeiting web site,
• fast direct information service (by fax or e-mail) for judges, police and customs,
• special training courses for judges,
• regular participation in courses and seminarsfor lawyers and agents assessment for amend-ments of the present legislation, including theCriminal Code.
Portugal
The national IP awareness strategy/policy inPortugal is based on 5 main strategic goals (for2008–2010):
1. Qualification of Human Resources:
Actions:• provision of long term traineeship for patent
examiners,
• creation of an IP Academy,
• establishment of partnerships for qualifica-tion on enterprises and universities.
2. Raising awareness about the importance of IP:
Actions:• strategic reorientation of the IP network,
• implementation of strategic events about IP(National IP Days, Inventor of the Year,International IP day -with WIPO),
• program for secondary schools („IP Generation”),
• traveling IP exhibition,
• participation in seminars, fairs, exhibitions.
3. Providing services for clients:
Actions:• improvement of the web portal of the NPO,
• creation of add value products such as the
inclusion of a written opinion in searchreports, the creation of a provisionalpatent application, the creation of cooper-ation agreements university/enterprise,technology watch,
• patent commercial evaluation,
• financial support to patents internationalisation,
• privileged access to risk capital.
4. Open INPI-PT (NPO) to the civil society
Actions:• creation of the planned actions,
• creation of an informal group of adviceabout IP,
• dynamization of INPI’s library.
5. Continue to internationalize
Actions:• involvement in EU projects concerning IP,
• promotion of joint events INPI-PT/WIPO/EPOabout international and European use ofpatents,
• improvement of database (including trade-mark database),
• translation of the Patent Classification toPortuguese,
• conclusion of the project of automatictranslation machine to Portuguese.
In the framework of the IP enforcementstrategy/policy the five Portuguese public entitieshave constituted an Anti-Counterfeiting group.Some of the actions planned:
• creation of a common database (police, cus-toms, INPI-PT) with information of enforce-ment issues,
• training of the police and customs authorities,
• sharing the experiences and practices of thepolice and customs in order to better actagainst counterfeiting,
• creation of an „Electronic Complaint System”
• realisation of awareness actions on the
34
importance on the IPR enforcement and thedangers of counterfeited products,
• creation of a website dedicated to enforce-ment, involving the several national entitiesof police, costumes, INPI-PT,
- with relevant information to the differentbusiness sectors,
- with alerts to products that can affectpublic health,
- with way of obtaining and share informa-tion about methods used on the counter-feiting activities.
Greece
The main objective of the National Policy forPromotion Research, Technology and Innovationhas been to enhance competitiveness of Greekenterprises and the national economy in general.In this framework, most of the programs promot-ed have a purpose to support enterprises in theimplementation of RTD projects, as well as thenetworking of research with business. In parallel,different actions were also promoted aimed atstrengthening (a) the S&T infrastructures of thepublic and the private sectors, (b) humanresources and (c) entrepreneurship.
In the center of the strategy there are measuresproviding incentives for researchers to establishtheir spin off firms or to organize the provision ofservices to the industry, the development of pri-vate Science and Technology Incubators and Parks,encouraging investors in high technology areasand rewarding investors.
The Ministry of Development supports 5 RegionalPoles of Innovation. Some other programs favorregional innovation (providing information andadvice to SMEs, creating research centers in differ-ent cities of Greece in order to transfer new tech-nologies into regional economy). The Governmenthas expressed interest in Venture Capital activities.The New Economy Fund aims to create new fundsin order to accelerate the development of youngtechnology based firms. The Hellenic Organisationof Small and Medium Sized Enterprises andHandicraft S.A. (EOMMEX S.A.) intends to identifythe potential business angels in Greece andabroad.
The Hellenic Industrial Property Organisation (OBI)that has exclusive competence in Greece amongothers for the protection of inventions and indus-
trial designs and models, as well as for technolog-ical information, offers an IP awareness campaignto the public. OBI’s employees visit companies andoffer seminars on the importance of IP rights andprocedures of IP and also on the importance oftechnological information retrieved from pub-lished patents.
Actions of OBI: • established three regional patent libraries for
promoting locally, awareness of IP issues for aca-demic institutions, enterprises and individuals;
• offers a “one stop shop” service for providinginformation on filing procedures and techno-logical information;
• offers training seminars to universities,research institutes, enterprises on IP matters;
• visits SMEs for informing them on IP system,patent procedure, technological informationthrough patents, in particular in their field ofinterest;
• participates in EU programs related to IP;
• collaborates with the Scientific andTechnological Parks;
• collaborates with EPO, WIPO, OHIM, EU etc.;
• participates in exhibitions, conferences etc.;
• assists applicants, inventors in patenting pro-cedure;
• has an education program for schools on IPmatters;
• publishes printed informative material;
• awards prizes.
Turkey
The National Innovation Strategy (2008–2010)was improved in March 2007. The main objectivesof the S&T strategy are to increase (a) the demandfor R&D, (b) the number and quality of scientistsand (c) the GDP/R&D. An important challenge is toincrease the investments in human resources forinnovation.
The strategic objectives of the Turkish NIS are asfollows:
• raising awareness of science and technology;
• developing scientists;
• supporting result oriented and quality research;
• increasing the effectiveness of national scienceand technology governance;
• enhancing the science and technology per-formance of the private sector;
• developing a research environment and infra-structure and activating national and interna-tional linkages of researchers.
The Turkish Patent Institute (TPI) initially emphasis-es the registration procedures on IPR. Recentlyattaches special importance on introduction andinformation activity that are the basic problemsand shows marked improvement of quality andefficiency of its activity.
A comprehensive strategy has been developed byconsidering the importance of information andconsciousness rising concerning the effective pro-tection and usage of IPR.
One of the projects (HEZARFEN) includes SME con-sultancy, use of IP information in each phase ofinnovation, helping SMEs to understand thestrategic use of IP information – the TPI supportsthe transformation of knowledge into practice.The TPI is planning to develop education modulesfor university students and SMEs and a master pro-gram with a university.
The actions of TPI:• organisation of seminars, symposiums, panels;
• visual media;
• training courses (SMEs, attorneys, universities,government institutions);
• exhibitions.
TPI is organising seminars, workshops and confe-rences about IPR for the institutions which areresponsible for enforcement of intellectual pro-perty (Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Justice,Undersecreteriat for Costumes) and it provides rel-evant information on best practices and enforce-ment in other countries and also publishesenforcement guidebook.
Hungary
The Government’s mid-term STI strategy2007–2013 was renewed in 2008. It presents a
vision of how to drive RTDI activities. The NewHungary Development Plan (2007–2013) togetherwith its Operational Programmes defines a frame-work for using EU resources.
IP awareness policy/strategy: the document “TheGovernment’s mid-term science, technology andinnovation policy (STI) strategy 2007–2013” alsodeals with raising IP awareness. Milestones of theAwareness Policy/ Strategy are:
• Creation of a legal environment, that aids andgives incentives to capital-investment throughsupport mechanisms, with the financial obliga-tion of the state.
• Establishment of spin-off enterprises for aca-demic and publicly financed research-instituteworkers.
• Modification of Hungarian and EU public pro-curement and competition rules, which makespossible the support of domestic innovation.
• Development of the regulation system of intel-lectual property evaluation and management.
• Strengthening of publicly financed research cen-tres’ interest in intellectual property utilisation.
• Stimulation of IPR awareness among SMEs; theeconomic, business and utilisation of skills andknowledge.
• Support of the reception and adaptation – inharmony with intellectual property protection– of foreign technologies, which are importantfor domestic SMEs.
IP enforcement strategy/policy: As a result of thepreparation for EU membership and implementa-tion of the TRIPS Agreement and the IPEnforcement Directive 2004/48/EC, all the reme-dies (both criminal and civil) necessary to fightagainst counterfeiting, piracy and other infringe-ments of intellectual property rights are availableunder Hungarian legislation. Nevertheless, furthermeasures are needed to assist the right holders inenforcing their rights: first of all not by theamendment of the legal environment, but viachange in legal practice.
Pursuant to the decision of the Hungarian govern-ment a National Board Against Counterfeiting(NBAC) was established in Hungary in March2008. In the NBAC the full spectrum of enforce-ment and commercial interests are representedincluding the public administration bodies, public
35
36
prosecutors, police and customs authorities, trade-mark and copyright associations, interest groupsof commerce and industry.
The main activities of the NBAC include, inter alia,the elaboration and the coordination of carryingout of a National Anti-counterfeiting Strategy, thecoordination of the activities of the participatingpublic bodies, NGOs and enterprises, supporttraining for the staff of the enforcement agencies,the raising of consumer awareness through differ-ent programmes and campaigns.
The Strategy adopted by the government consistsof three pillars:
• elaborating statistical methodology, collectingof statistical data, setting up of databases;
• initiating and implementation of awarenessraising and training measures;
• enhancement of enforcement: stocktaking ofways and means to assist right holders inenforcing their rights.
In addition to the horizontal pillars, the Strategyfocuses on three specific sectors: foodstuff and bev-erages, pharmaceuticals, creative and IT industries.The strategy is supplemented by an action plan forthe period of 2008–2010, which consists of 27action lines, which cover the three pillars and thespecific sectors during the implementation period.
Estonia
Estonia has no special IP strategy document. Theinnovation strategy document “Knowledge-basedEstonia. Estonian Research and Development andInnovation Strategy 2007–2013” contains few IP-related issues.
In Estonia IP awareness raising is one of the tasksof the Estonian Patent Office and Estonian PatentLibrary. In January 2006, SME Support Division atthe Estonian Patent Office was founded, whichaims to increase the public awareness and compe-tence in the field of legal protection of IP and toencourage and foster SMEs to make effective useof IP protection system. SME Support Division isactive in organising conferences, seminars, work-shops, exhibitions and fairs. Estonian PatentLibrary is more dedicated to practical patent infor-mation, and hands-on trainings. Patent Officecompiles or translates and publishes most of IPRawareness raising materials and Patent Librarydoes few.
IP enforcement is not the task of the EstonianPatent Office or Estonian Patent Library. EstonianPatent Office has organised seminars whereenforcement issues were in agenda and speakerfrom the customs had a presentation.
Romania
It has been a National Innovation Strategy for2003–2007 based on analysis of the current situa-tion at that time. The strategy for 2008–2013 iscurrently processed, based on an analysis providedby the IPR Working Group. The current analysisreconsiders the legal, economic and social frame-work facing with the challenges of globalization,the institutional capacity, the necessary resources(human and financial) and instruments (coopera-tion, awareness, methodology).
The IP awareness strategy is set up on differentlevels, oriented towards different target groups:
• consumers in order to draw attention to risksthey are exposed to as buyers of counterfeit-ed/pirated goods;
• producers/importers/exporters;
• media, as one of the most important channelof communication.
The strategy is mostly based on public campaigns;events like conferences, seminars, workshops, dis-cussion sessions etc. organised both by private andpublic parties.
The National Patent Office carries out its own IPawareness strategy, through various ways: promo-tion, training, information, dissemination, eventsetc.
There has been cooperation with institutions havingcompetencies in the field of the enforcement of IPRs(Ministry of Justice, Public Ministry and Prosecutor’soffices, National Customs Agency etc.).
The cooperation of concerned institutions has threemain components:
• specialisation/training of prosecutors, judges,officers, customs officers etc. in order to be ableto recognise and take the most operative actionsagainst counterfeiting and piracy;
• building common database and procedures ofaccessing the database;
• building a common methodology of estimationthe rate of counterfeiting and piracy.
Sweden
Papers/documents reflecting innovation policy inSweden as follows:
Governmental directives:
- SOU 2006:80 ”Patent och innovationer förtillväxt och välfärd” (Patents and innovationsfor corporate growth and development) is anofficial report based on a governmental direc-tive (Dir. 2004:55)
- VINNOVA (Swedish Governmental Agency forInnovation Systems)VINNOVA – ”Innovativa små och medelstoraföretag – Sveriges framtid” (Innovative SMEsSwedens future) June 2007
- Innovationsbron:
Innovationsbrons forsknings- och innovation-sstrategi 2009 – 2012 – en satsning på ökadtillväxt ur forskning och innovation(Innovationsbron´s research and innovationstrategy 2009–2012. Efforts to increasegrowth from R&D). December 2007.
- Innovationsbron:
ALICE – Att LICensiera, förslag till förstärkningav patentering och licensiering av svenskforskning. (Licensing, suggestions to strength-en patenting and licensing Swedish R&D)March 2008.
- Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Science:
Nationell policy för forskning och innovation(Göran Pagels-Fick), ”National Policy forresearch and innovation”
- Inno-Policy Trend Chart – Policy Trends andAppraisal Report. Sweden 2007.
Sweden ranks among the highest in the world interms of patented inventions per capita.Traditionally, the Swedish industrial structurehas shown a very clear predominance of largeindustry, a very low number of the companies inSweden – around 1 per cent – employ more than30 per cent of the work force. The high level ofpatenting in Sweden is an effect of the activitiesof large companies. There are over 600,000companies in Sweden; almost 99 per cent ofthem are small or medium sized. However, thereis a built-in difficulty in Swedish industry, sincewhile the large corporations have very good
approaches to IPR, SMEs are still very oftenfound to be dangerously ignorant of how to pro-tect their ideas.
Recently, the Federation of Swedish Industries car-ried out an investigation among SMEs, directed atfinding out views and practices among them withrespect to IPR and the protection of innovations.After analysing the results, the Federation drewthe following conclusions:
1. IP is important for SMEs, in fact extra impor-tant for these, since they have limitedresources to protect their innovations throughother means.
2. The Swedish domestic market is too small forhigh-tech innovations; patenting should there-fore be international.
3. The high costs for obtaining protection – espe-cially costs for translations and representation– are particularly burdensome for SMEs.
4. Conflict resolution must be made cheaper andsimpler.
5. More resources should be mobilized againstpiracy and counterfeiting.
While the large corporations have already realisedthe importance of IPR, and allotted the resourcesnecessary, the SMEs seldom have the resources tospend on this field, even if they were knowledge-able enough. Therefore, if the SMEs are not givenadequate support, the gap between large andsmall companies will widen. And such a gap wouldbe negative for the economy. The support forSMEs should cover a broad spectrum, from design-ing the IPR systems so that also small actors canbenefit, to offering possibilities for raising thelevel of competence in IP.
At the end of 2008, in Sweden a Government bill onresearch and innovation (2008/09:50) has been pre-sented. Said bill will be discussed in the Parliamentduring 2009 and if adopted be in force from 2010.
In the document “Regeringens proposition2008/09:50”16 the Swedeish Government gives itsview on research and innovation policies for the peri-od 2010–2012. In § 8.5.1 especially SMEs are dis-cussed and in § 8.7 IPR and its importance are point-ed out. In § 8.7.1 it is considered to give the SwedishPatent and Registration Office (PRV) commission toincrease its efforts to improve information and sup-port for SMEs especially in the field of patents.
3716 For more information see: http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/11/39/57/2f713bd9.pdf.
Poland
In the last years Poland achieved a fast economicgrowth but this growth is based on market condi-tions and low manufacturing costs of enterprises.Labor productivity, foreign direct investments andinnovation performance were mostly disappoint-ing. But there is a growing recognition thatresearch and innovation are important for thefuture economic growth and welfare of the coun-try. Research and innovation networks are beingdeveloped by the support of the Structural Funds.
Innovation policy has been placed in Poland since1994.17 The development of innovation policy wasthe following:
- 2000 – Innovation Strategy “Increasing theinnovativeness of the Polish economy until theyear 2006”,
Among the priorities of the document were:
a) creating mechanisms and structures insupport of innovation activity;
b) shaping innovative attitudes;
c) increasing the efficiency of implementa-tion of new economic solutions;
d) substituting consumption and productionmodels with models that would contributeto steady and sustainable development.
The document based its implementation system onthat of the Sectoral Operational Programmes.
- 2004 – Sectoral Operational Program –improvement of competitiveness of enterprises
- 2004 – Adoption of the Law on the principlesof financing science
- 2004 – Adoption of the Law on the NationalCapital Fund
- 2005 – Adoption of the Law on certain formsof support for innovative activity
- The National Development Plan for 2004–2006
- 2006 – Adoption of Innovation Strategy by thedocument:“The Strategy for Increasing the Innovativenessof the Economy for 2007-2013”
- 2007 – 2013 Operational Program of Innovative
Economy (co-financed by the EU structuralfunds) within the document “National StrategicReference Framework”
- 2006 – “National Development Strategy 2007–2015”
The innovation strategy has 3 strategic levels:
- strategy for increasing the innovativeness ofthe economy for 2007–2013;
- strategy for science;
- regional innovation strategies.
According to the NIS in Poland, the main recom-mendations to improve Poland’s innovation policyare the following:
- strengthen the science and technology base;focus on excellence and critical mass;
- improve the incentives for business R&D andinnovation;
- foster industry-science linkages;
- strengthen human resources for science andtechnology;
- improve the governance of the innovation system.
Bulgaria
In September 2004 the Government has approvedthe Strategy for Science, Technology andInnovation.18 The Strategy outlined the main chal-lenges Bulgarian companies face in the transitionperiod – their low technological level, low rate ofproductivity, lack of adequate management, andlack of innovation-oriented culture. The weakinnovation performance of the Bulgarian entrepre-neurs stems from the fact, that they follow a strat-egy of survival. In order to survive in an environ-ment of strong competition, enterprises cannotkeep the same position for a long period of time.Bulgarian companies should introduce in theiroperations new products, more efficient ways oforganisation and more efficient technologies.
The task of the Innovation Strategy developed bythe Ministry of Economy is the elaboration of solu-tions to the problems stated above. The mostimportant measures that the Strategy envisions aresummarised in four main directions:19
1. Strengthening the institutions, companies andorganisations operating in the field of develop-
3817 For more information see: www.unece.org/ceci18 For more information see: www.mee.government.bg19 For more information see: www.arc.online.bg
39
ment, transfer and application of new tech-nologies (know-how) which form the NationalInnovation System.
2. Encouraging the cooperation between theR&D sector and the business and at the sametime their cooperation with the Ministry ofEconomy and the Ministry of Education andScience.
3. Establishing a well-functioning mechanism tocoordinate the implementation of theInnovation Strategy.
4. Ensuring financing for the implementation ofthe measures of the Innovation Strategy.
The objectives of this strategy are:
• to stimulate industrial R&D and the coopera-tion between the company R&D departments,universities and research and technologicalorganisations;
• to increase available financing for innovationthrough establishing mechanisms for attract-ing private investments;
• to encourage companies to introduce newtechnologies and to improve their innovationactivity;
• to encourage the establishment of clusters intraditional sectors;
• to support start-ups and well-functioning com-panies in order to increase their innovativepotential;
• to build up mechanisms for attracting foreigninvestments towards scientific areas.
The Innovation Strategy determines the indicativefinancial framework for the period till 2014, whichwill be regularly updated depending on the currenteconomic status during the respective years.According to it the funding will be ensured from thestate budget, from local and foreign investors, aswell as from external financial sources. Law onPatents and Utility Model Registration from 1993provides for stirring public awareness in the field ofindustrial property and promotes the legal protectionof industrial property and the innovation activity.
As from July 1, 2002 Bulgaria is full member of theConvention so taking a well-deserved place in theEuropean patent system and European market. In2002 the Patent Law has been amended in order
to provide legal protection of the Europeanpatents on the territory of Bulgaria as a result ofthe accession to the EPC. The expectations are,that the accession will contribute to the enhance-ment of the interest of the foreign investors inrespect of the development of a number of up-to-date sectors and hence to the influx of foreigncapital in the country.
The adoption in 1999 of the laws on marks, geo-graphical indications, industrial design, topogra-phy of integrated circuits, as well as the amend-ment of the Patent Law were the base for theextension of the existing and the assigning thePatent Office new functions.
Czech Republic
On 24 March 2004 the government approved theNational Innovation Strategy (NIS) of the CzechRepublic20. Based on many analyses, this docu-ment proposes conceptual and system changes inthe Czech Republic’s innovation policy and pro-poses a strategic approach to the creation, deve-lopment, and consolidation of innovation. Thetime frame of the NIS is 2005 – 2010.
The strategy summarizes the strengths and alsothe weaknesses, negative developments in thefield of innovation. According to the experts making the innovationstrategy the strengths of innovation entrepre-neurship include the tradition of industrial produc-tion and the traditional innovation potential of itsworkers, the increasing (but yet not enough) num-ber of small and medium-sized enterprises interest-ed in innovation processes, the use of progressivetechnologies, and the introduction of innovatedproducts into the production range. A key factor isthe development of a functioning network of sci-ence and technology parks meeting the interna-tional conditions of accreditation.The decentralization of public administration andthe transfer of certain powers to a regional andmunicipality level is a boon for innovation enterp-reneurship. The formulation of local priorities anddevelopment policies with a knowledge of localconditions, and with the possibility of directlyinvolving regional development players in the deci-sion-making process leads to the formulation ofstrategic development goals at the level of regionsand towns. International co-operation, includingsupport for innovation strategies, is also beingdeveloped at regional level.
The greatest weaknesses include the persistentlack of financial resources and support of innova-tion by state institutions. The result has been a low
20 For more information see: http://www.mpo.cz/dokument11688.html
40
level of innovation culture in general and a paltrynumber of innovated domestic products placed onthe market. Insufficient support for the realisationof ideas and insufficient support to encourageresourcefulness also play a role here. According tothe European Innovation Scoreboard the mostserious shortcomings in innovation include the fol-lowing phenomena: low number of patent appli-cations per capita; very small number of innova-tion companies; low volume of seed capital; poorfunding of R&D and innovation; weak demand forthe results of research solutions; missing intercon-nections between the research and productionsectors; lacking specialised agencies for the trans-fer of technology.21
Innovation Strategy has four priorities:
1) infrastructure development for industrialresearch, development and innovation;
2) funding, development and co-operation ofinnovation companies;
3) human resources development; and
4) practical implementation of R&D results.
Within the 4. priority, only three short bracketsdeals with the protection of intellectual pro-perty rights. Patenting activity of the Czech busi-ness entities is insufficient. Lacking knowledge inresearch institutions and enterprises about thepatent protection as well as low funding of the sci-ence and research can be the possible reasons.The document states that the protection of theintellectual property rights and consequent tech-nology transfer create nutrient medium for a suc-cessful innovation environment.
The NIS emphasises: An important part of theinnovation process is care for the protection ofindustrial rights. It is necessary to project the rulesof R&D results protection into applicable imple-menting regulations and methodologies in a trans-parent and quick manner. Czech legal regulationsneed to be harmonised, flexibly, quickly and trans-parently, through prepared changes of theCommunity law in this field. By combining suitableuniversity and post-gradual courses, the founda-tions will be laid for better knowledge of the R&Dintellectual property protection legal rules. TheIndustrial Property Office, as the national patentand trademark registration authority, provideslegal protection for the results of technical creativework at the normal European standard.
The Innovation Strategy proposed the followingmeasures:
1. to classify innovation, research, development,and education as top government priorities,
2. to prepare and adopt a National InnovationPolicy for 2005-2008 and subsequently to pro-pose the necessary legislative amendments inthe relevant area promptly,
3. to reduce the bureaucratic burden and costsrequired to set up companies and to do busi-ness in general, and in research, development,and innovation in particular.
Besides the NIS as a whole, there are regionalinnovation strategies, as well, e.g. for PragueRegion. The key mission of the RegionalInnovation Strategy is to foster an environmentconducive to the exploitation of the high scientific,research and knowledge potential of Prague,especially for the small and medium-sized innova-tion enterprises, and as such to help enhance thecapital's competitiveness by developing a know-ledge-based economy.22
The National Innovation Policy (NIP)23 is a partof the whole system of conceptual documentsunder the roof of the (prepared) Economic GrowthStrategy.24 NIP respects the need for technologicaland non-technological innovation in the Czecheconomy, but in the same manner as innovationpolicies of the advanced countries it is mostlyaimed at innovation of technical nature.
The NIP has four objectives:
1. strengthen research and development as asource of innovation,
2. establish well-functioning public private part-nerships,
3. guarantee human resources for innovation,
4. make the performance of the state administra-tion in research, development and innovationmore effective.
Other countries could follow Czech Republic’sexample related to the breakdown of the realisa-tion of NIP. 48 concrete measures are proposedfor achievement of the NIP objectives, includingresponsibilities, deadlines and indicators of theimplementation success. Each objective has tasksdefined necessary for its achievement; tools for
21 INNO-Policy Trend Chart. Policy Trends and Appraisal Report, Czech Republic 2007. http://www.proinno-europe.eu/docs/reports/documents/Country_Report_Czech_Republic_2007.pdf. The INNO-Policy Trend Chart serves the 'open policy co-ordination approach' laid down by the Lisbon Council inMarch 2008. It supports organisation and scheme managers in Europe with summarized and concise information and statistics on innovation policies, performances andtrends in the EU. It is also a European Forum for benchmarking and the exchange of good practices in the area of innovation policy.
22 For more information see: http://www.strast.cz/dokums_raw/ RIS_Prague_en_1501.pdf23 National Innovation Policy of the Czech Republic for 2005–2010. Prague, June 29, 2005. http.www.mpo.cz/dokument11671.html24 It is worth to mention for innovation support the Operational Programme of Industry and Enterprise for the period of 2004-2006. Its major priorities cover the develop-
ment of business environment and the development of the enterprise competitiveness. Based on these priorities there are eleven programs put together supporting thedevelopment of the innovation environment in the Czech Republic.
executing the respective tasks and for each toolthere are measures necessary for its implementa-tion, coordinators and managers, term of imple-mentation, indicators of implementation (success)and method of evaluation. Measures, which wereimplemented during the NIP preparation phase,are retained with regard to the context (similarlyas e.g. in the EU documents) and marked as meas-ures already implemented.
The fulfillment of all objectives, tasks, tools andmeasures of NIP was evaluated in 2007 and updat-ed accordingly. Each year, NIP will be evaluatedwithin the Analysis of the existing state of researchand development in the Czech Republic and acomparison with the situation abroad being pre-sented to the Czech Government.25
Small and medium-sized enterprises are crucialelements of the innovation process in the CzechRepublic. Innovation policy activities are beingdeveloped in the framework of programs for thesupport of small and medium-sized enterprises(SMEs), the relevant sectoral operational pro-grams, industrial co-operation programs (offsetprograms), and integrated pollution preventionand control. SME support programs, funded pri-marily out of the national budget, are not intend-ed directly for the support of the innovationprocess, but can promote innovation, e.g. in theform of loans with reduced interest rates for pur-chases of modern technology, grants to makemarketing more efficient, or the provision of spe-cial-priced consulting services.
Rules for the provision of support to SMEs out ofthe national budget have been drawn up with thegoal of making SMEs more efficient and competi-tive, while alleviating the drawbacks they face dueto their poor economic strength (e.g. Act No299/1992 Coll., No 47/2002 Coll.).The NIP deals with the intellectual propertyrights in part V.1.2 and mentions that very lownumber of patents is one of the reasons why theCzech Republic takes such an unfavorable positionon the European Innovation Scoreboard. There areseveral causes of this state of affairs; the mostimportant are as follows:
1. absence of high-quality research results suit-able for patent protection,
2. low awareness of both research workers andwhole institutions with their management ofthe intellectual property protection purpose;this is reflected in the small importance ofthese (and other similar) indicators in the eval-uation of research workers and whole institu-
tions and when pedagogic and scientificdegrees are being awarded,
3. lacking knowledge in research institutions andenterprises about the patent protection andsmall capacity of technical departments partic-ularly with small and medium-sized enterpris-es,
4. lacking experts for searching and valuating thecommercial potential of R&D results and eval-uating new technologies,
5. insufficient management knowledge and abili-ties of leading representatives of the academicinstitutions disabling effective management ofthe intellectual property (e.g. decision aboutallocation or non-allocation of funds to applyfor and maintain the patents, license contractnegotiations, etc.),
6. financial demands of the patent procedure andin particular high costs of maintaining thegranted patents especially at foreign patentoffices,
7. absence of the so called Community Patent,which could and should make the intellectualproperty protection procedures in EU moreproductive.
To eliminate this situation, there is a proposal of aone-time short-term privilege given to those whowant to protect their so far not published researchresult by a patent application. The aim is to arouseinterest of the general expert public in the knowl-edge protection. A similar tool has been used fora number of years by Hungary, with the responsi-ble authority being the Ministry of Finance.Announcement of a program is suggested that willprovide the selected applicants, after a properpatent novelty search and state of the art, the sup-port at ensuring protection of the so far not pro-tected R&D results. Some providers still make onlya little use of the existing provision of Act No.130/2002 Coll. and its implementing regulationsthat makes possible to include the costs of intel-lectual property protection into eligible costs.
France
Innovation is at the center of debate in Francesince 1999, the date on which the first law forinnovation and research has been enacted. Inaddition, France is implementing a new strategysince 2005 in order to affect 3 % of GDP to inno-vation. Two ministries are particularly in charge toimplement the overall policy on innovation. The
4125 Research and Development Council of the Czech Republic: Analysis of the existing state of research, development and innovation in the Czech Republic and a compari-
son with the situation abroad in 2007. Chapter C discusses issues of innovation and competitiveness, innovation support and international comparison of innovationefficiency according to the European Innovation Scoreboard 2006. See: http://www.vyzkum.cz/FrontClanek.aspx?idsekce=8304
Ministry of Research and Innovation is responsibleto improve and increase the use of IP in researchlaboratories, particularly with regard to public uni-versity laboratories. The Ministry of Economy andIndustry is responsible for facilitating SME accessto IP and for facilitating the convergence of labo-ratories with industry to create a synergy-generat-ing innovation.
To increase the synergy between research labora-tories and enterprises, the French government haspromoted a partnership related to scientific ortechnical themes and given territories. In particu-lar, 71 competitiveness clusters have been formed,each cluster supporting on a given territory, com-panies, research laboratories and training institu-tions to develop synergies and cooperation.Themes of these clusters are mainly concerninghealth, security, energy research or technologiessuch as nanotechnology, biotechnology or infor-mation and communication technologies.
Furthermore, French government has enactedfinancial laws for promoting investment inresearch and innovation. These laws namelyenable to:
- reduce taxes for enterprises which performinvestment in the public research;
- extend credits at a preferential rate to enter-prises that develop new research centres onnew research projects.
One of the main strategic guideline of the Frenchinnovation policy is to promote intellectual proper-ty among SMEs to encourage them to converttheir innovations into intellectual property rights.For this purpose, French government has created aspecific Innovation Agency and an Institute (OSEO)specifically dedicated to the SMEs for helpingthem in finding partnerships and financing funds.
Another important aspect of innovation policyconsists in the awareness of the consumers on therisks they are exposed to as buyers of counterfeit-ed / pirated goods. This enforcement aspect isprincipally done through awareness campaignsdisseminated by different media. To coordinatethe various activities related to counterfeiting, aNational Committee against counterfeiting(CNAC) has been established the role of which isto prepare and plan thematic groups meetings inorder to reinforce the efficiency of anti-counter-feiting mechanisms, maintain a Web site thetheme of which is the enforcement of IPR and pre-pare awareness campaigns. Placed under thesupervision of the Minister of Industry, its
President is a member of Parliament and theGeneral Secretariat is ensured by the NationalInstitute of Intellectual Property (INPI-FR).
42
With regard to the random distribution of theirsources, the 18 available SWOT analyses may pro-vide a sufficient base for generalisation. A prob-lem of a technical nature is the one produced bythe high diversity of answers. This is mainlymethodological and is based on the absence ofanswering according to the pre-determined prio-rities. An overview of the priorities emphasised,however, shows this diversity to be mainly formal.The contents of the answers show a much lowerlevel of divergence. This allows the concentra-tion of answers similar in content into groups thatrepresent a dimensional identity.
The resulting possibility of generalisation allows thedrawing certain conclusions with regard to the focalpoints of IP and IPR in Europe. Subjective elementsare, however, unavoidably inherent in such a classi-fication. For controllability, the Appendix of thestudy (Tables of SWOT analyses) includes the 1ststages of answer processing in the most detailedmanner possible, and as a result conclusions can betraced back. In our assumption, minor correctionsas to the interpretation of individual factors wouldnot remarkably modify our conclusions.
Coming from the very nature of the SWOT analy-ses, the main issues of the IP landscape tend to bereflected in each of the four components of thenational contributions. To give an illustration: the
presence of co-ordination of the factors, activities,policies and institutions related to IP matters maybe quoted as a strength on the one hand, whilethe absence of such a co-ordination is clearly aweakness. Further on: the weakening of coordina-tion is obviously a threat, while its improvement isan opportunity to enhance innovation.When evaluating national contributions, attentionwas also paid to salient notions and to the signs ofa disregard of certain aspects that may seemimportant in a broader context.
5.1Strengths
Ranked first among the strengths of national IPpolicies is the presence of strong co-operation andgood harmonisation. The number of notions ofthis type was 24 out of the 69 notions classified.Notions on co-operation and harmonisationshowed a dimensional differentiation:
“fully harmonised framework with European legis-lation“ (each country);
“good cooperation of institutions involved in theIP protection field” (France, Czech Republic,Estonia);
“active and reactive government for IP matters”(Luxemburg);
43
5. The success of IP strategies: SWOT analysis
Focal points of concerning notions
Strong cooperation, good harmonisation
The availability ofseminars, trainingcourses etc.
Good infrastructure(judicial and technical)
The existence of IP network
A strong political/social presence
High social reputationof NPOs
Total
Serial numbers of notions(to identify them by source)
9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,15,16,22,22,22,29,32,32,37,42,46,57,67,70,72,72
4,6,12,23,23,23,23,28,28,28,31,31,34,36,38,38,74
35,43,44,47,48,48,48,53,54,77
21,21,21,21,21,21,73,73
1,25,31,39,50,68,75
3,19,30
24 34,7
17 24,6
10 14,5
8 11,6
7 10,1
3 4,3
69 100,0
Aggregated frequenciesNumber %
9. Table: Strengths of IP PolicyNumber of notions, total: 77Number of notions classified: 43
44
“close cooperation with some universities andpublic research institutes” (Spain);
“good cooperation between institutions involvedin innovation promotion, such as the nationalagency for SMEs” (Portugal);
“agreement between science, business and politi-cal sectors on IP innovation strategy” (Germany);
“solid pool of international contacts on innovationpolicy and good framework for transnationallearning” (Estonia).
Despite these dimensional differences, however,each of the notions quoted is pointing at the impor-tance of the institutional/organisational aspect.
The second in ranking dimension or focal point ofstrengths is the high level of information andtraining services (17 notions). A few notions forillustration:
“information available over a highly regardedwebsite” (UK, Greece);
“business focussed literature which is constantlymoving forward” (UK);
“courses and seminars adapted to companyrequirements” (Sweden);
“tailor-made courses and workshops” (Denmark)
“information on the competitors” (Sweden)
“workbook for SMEs to make IP strategy”(Finland)
“information on public subsidies available” (Italy);
“series of dissemination materials, services”(France, Portugal, Romania);
“spreading of information is quicker” (Luxemburg);
“diverse seminars, conferences organised on IP”(Luxemburg).
The analysis shows that compared with developedcountries, the availability of information as astrength is emphasised more by the Mediterraneanand Nordic countries and by the countries ofEastern Europe. A generally lower level of aware-ness in the latter two groups may give an explana-tion: in the absence of awareness other factors areunidentified.
The third in ranking was the high quality ofrelated infrastructure (10 notions), the existenceof a national IP network (8 notions) and astrong political presence (7 notions). A furtherthree out of those completing the SWOT-formpointed out the high social reputation of NPOsto be strength at a national level.
Due to its remarkably limited representationamong the notions, the reference to the existenceof venture capital as strength (by the Swedishparticipant) may deserve attention. Anothernotion (by Turkey) to go beyond the implicit con-ceptual framework of the research is the consider-ation of the entrepreneurial attitude of societyas strength.
As to differences in the priorities established by indi-vidual countries no characteristic observation can bemade concerning this SWOT component. Notionsquoting good co-operation and harmonisation as amajor strength are predominating this field.
5.2Weaknesses
As a logical reflection to strengths, the one rankedfirst among weaknesses (18 out of the 64 classi-fied notions) is also of a political nature, namelythe lack of co-ordination and the lack of a strate-gy (9 out of the 18 notions pertain to the lack ofa strategy). It is especially the latter which raisesquestions concerning a solely formal evaluation:strategies may exist in a formal sense, but they canbe absent, however, in the operative one (or con-versely, of course). The simultaneous existence ofdeclared IP strategies and of the relatively wide-spread notion that strategies (mainly in their co-ordinating quality) are absent may generatedoubts concerning the reality of formalisednational strategies in a number of cases. Such anassumption is strongly supported by the followingnotions:
“weak global strategy” (Austria);
“need to develop a coherent and holistic NationalIP Strategy” (Malta);
“lack of coordination between policy and STI policy”(Hungary).
Notions in the forthcoming parts of national cont-ributions, however, are making national strategiesindirectly sizeable. Coming from their highly generalnature, priorities cannot be questioned. Other partsof the national contributions can be more informa-tive on national strategies in an implicit way.
Second to this group is the weakness derivingfrom limited IP knowledge/awareness (17 notions),as pointed out by the notions below:
“public perception on awareness remains low” and
“insufficient IP knowledge of SMEs” (a number of countries).
The weakness ranked third is the inactivity of theSMEs concerning IP (11 notions):
“poor intention to innovate and use IP” (Greece,Portugal);
“resistance to change” (Turkey);
“a low number of applications coming from SMEs”(France, Italy, Portugal, etc.).
The lack of resources and available expertise areranked next (9 and 7 notions, respectively). A fewof a typical nature are:
“limited human resources devoted toawareness/dissemination activities” (Spain);
“IP valuation, commercialisation and enforcementare the missing points in any IP training activity”(Spain);
“lack of proper indicators to measure the impactof the awareness activity” (Spain);
“A lack of adequate financial and human IPresources as well as a lack of sufficient IP aware-ness among the general and SME public”(Malta, Turkey);
“important tools and methods are not used toassist decision-preparatory and decision-makingprocesses” (Hungary);
“no segmentation of target groups for effectivedissemination activities” (Spain).
The next of the weaknesses was the lack of sup-port for the SMEs (4 notions). Observations includ-ed: ”few support measures helping SMEs to devel-op IP strategies” (Luxemburg); “lack of explicitsupport for IP matters in innovation strategy”(Spain); and “not having systematic special servic-es tailor-made to SMEs” (Finland). The last grouppoints out the exaggerated complexity to be theweakness of the national innovation system.
Non-classified notions made by the Turkish partic-ipant pointing to “resistance to change” and thelack of language skills as remarkable weaknessesmay enrich the picture by turning the attention tothe social or soft factors of the IP field. Quotinglimited language skills as a weakness is callingattention to high translation costs that makepatenting in Europe as a whole much more expen-sive than it is in the United States.
5.3Opportunities
Being directly related to the overall objectives andstrategic thinking, the study of opportunitiesdeserves particular attention. Similarly to strengthsand weaknesses, the notions regarding this com-ponent show a strong concentration on issuesrelated to co-operation and co-ordination (21notions out of the 56 classified ones). Indeed, the12 notions directly pointing to the concentrationof efforts on SMEs as a major opportunity can beadded to this number. A few examples from SWOTto illustrate this:
45
Focal points of concerning notions
Lack of coordination,lack of strategy
Limited IPawareness/knowledge
Inactivity of SMEs
Lack of resources
Lack of availableexpertise
An overly high complexity of system
Total
Serial numbers of notions(to identify them by source)
11, 18, 19, 21, 22, 26, 39, 46, 48,55, 56, 59, 60, 60, 62, 64, 65, 66
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 14, 14,14, 33, 36, 53
12, 12, 15, 29, 30, 30, 31, 32, 35, 37, 42
6, 6, 6, 6, 24, 24, 28, 28, 67
25, 38, 43, 49, 52, 61, 63
10, 13
18 28,1
17 26,6
11 17,2
9 14,0
7 10,9
2 3,1
64 100,0
Aggregated frequenciesNumber %
10. Table: Weaknesses of IP PolicyNumber of notions, total: 77Number of notions classified: 45
46
“confirm and enhance links between innovationand IP” (UK);
“foster links with science and industry”(Germany);
“agreement between science, industry and thepolitical sector on connected strategies”(Germany);
“links the relevant actors in the field of enforce-ment: decision makers, governments, administra-tions at home and abroad” (Germany);
“good coordination between IP-support actors likePATLIBs” (Luxemburg);
“collective efforts of IPR experts, industry and thepolitical sector on efficient and practically usefulstrategies” (Austria);
“cooperation of NPO, universities, the Chamber ofCommerce in order to promote the use of IP”(Spain);
“IP organisations collaborate with authorities deal-ing with SMEs, such as scientific parks etc.”(Greece, Turkey).
An equally important group of opportunities is thefinancial support of R&D and patent application(12 notions), irrespective of the source of support:
“the institutions’ involvement in European proj-ects, attracting European funds” (France,Bulgaria);
“more financial resources to support innovation,patent application” (Turkey).
Next to this group, the opportunities inherent inimproved education and information areembraced (9 notions):
“better knowledge through education and infor-mation” (Sweden);
“information and training in co-operation withtechnical universities and colleagues to make tech-nical engineers aware of the IPR system”(Germany);
“easy access to IP specific information by usingmodern means of training and communication”(Portugal);
“enhancing IP awareness by using the IP organisa-tions’ websites, helpdesks, seminars, exhibitions,prize awards, visits to companies etc.” (Greece);
“to increase the number of highly talented graduates”(Turkey);
“media use” (Turkey, Malta);
“adding IP modules to entrepreneurship curricula”(Turkey);
“enhancing the capacity of information centres”(Turkey);
“training on IP matters among police forces”(Italy).
“pro-active, open communication between serviceproviders and companies” (Finland);
Focal points of concerning notions
Improvement of co-operation and co-ordination
A concentration ofefforts on SMEs
Financial support forR&D and patenting (e.g.EU-projects)
The improvement of education and information
The enforcement of thelegal framework of IPprotection
Total
Serial numbers of notions(to identify them by source)
2, 9, 11, 15, 15, 15, 23, 23, 25,26, 30, 33, 39, 41, 44, 54, 61,65, 68, 72, 73
3, 10, 14, 16, 17, 21, 24, 27, 35,37, 38, 38
7, 18, 36, 36, 36, 36, 47, 60,60, 60, 60, 64
5, 6, 6, 6, 12, 29, 34, 46, 71
13, 20
21 37,5
12 21,4
12 21,4
9 16,1
2 3,6
56 100,0
Aggregated frequenciesNumber %
11. Table: Opportunities of IP PolicyNumber of notions, total: 73Number of notions classified: 44
“interactive services according to the knowledgelevel and needs of users” (Finland).
Two other notions emphasise the role of animproved framework of protecting IP. The consideration of the existence of venture cap-ital initiations by banks as an opportunity (Turkey)is one of the total two cases within the analyses,which hint at a possible role of venture capitalconcerning the IP field.
5.4Threats
As distinct from the preceeding three componentsof the SWOT analysis, notions concerning theweight of factors that threaten progress in con-nection with politics concerning IP seem to be evenmore moderate. The explanation is mainly given bythe relatively high importance attributed to thedanger inherent in the scarcity of resources (9notions) that can be deployed for the promotion ofIP. Nonetheless the threat of the inability of co-ordination ranks equally (9 notions).
Interestingly, the social or soft factors of the IPfield seem to show a remarkably stronger presenceconcerning threats than in respect of the otherthree preceding components. This is shown by thenumber of those interpreting the absence of insti-tutional reputation as a threat (3), while in differ-ing contexts, 2 of the participants pointed to cul-tural factors representing a threat. The percep-tion of IP as a legal matter as a threat – as notedby the Turkish participant –, can also be added tothis group of soft factors. Wishful thinking embod-ied in unrealistic development objectives canalso be a threat (Estonia). The total number ofnotions identifying soft factors as a threat is 8.
Five notions point to limited public visibility and4 at the time-factor (the lack of speed or timeli-ness). Three other notions concern political rigid-ity or instability and the lack of a politicalcommitment, respectively.
Focal points of concerning notions
Scarcity of resources
Inability of co-ordination
Soft factors
The time factor
Limited visibility
Political problems: rigidity,instability, lack of commit-ment
Total
Serial numbers of notions(to identify them by source)
6, 11, 11, 15, 22, 30, 31, 32, 50
3, 7, 9, 25, 29, 34, 47, 48, 49
2, 14, 16, 35, 38, 39, 43, 46
5, 13, 40, 51, 52
8, 10, 12, 33
1, 43, 45
9 23,7
9 23,7
8 21,0
5 13,1
4 10,5
3 7,9
38 100,0
Aggregated frequenciesNumber %
12. Table: Threats of IP PolicyNumber of notions, total: 52Number of notions classified: 37
6.1NEEDS based on countries’ contributionto the IPeuropAware project
The “NEEDS Identified” chapter, compiled byusing the methodology of national contributiondescribed in Chapter 2, provides the most relevantproposals regarding the changing role of NPOs. Asdistinct from the findings of SWOT, the summaryof identified “NEEDS” is pointing at the predomi-nance of the concise category of information andtraining with co-ordination ranking second. A log-ical explanation to this incongruity can be that theneeds for information and training are of a morecommon, everyday nature, while those for theimprovement of co-ordination are more general,they may have strong political implications andtherefore in practical terms they may seem beyondreach. Questions considered with regard to institu-tional complexity try to explain the background inmore detail.
The method introduced by the Danish Patent andTrademark Office – within WP1 of IPeuropAwareproject – to explore the needs of SMEs regardingIPR support services aims to utilise the AIDAapproach in a quite sophisticated way.26
Information was collected by the CATI method(Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing). Theanswers from 320 interviews were classified byfour levels showing how IP aspects have been
intergrated into enterprise management and bythe altogether 15 “topics” describing individuallevels (the ”AIDA grid”). This classification isadmittedly subjective on the one hand while onthe other, the spatial congruity of the supply ofand the demand for services is not definitely clearand this should be considered with regard to the“gap analysis” introduced. Therefore, the authorssuggest interpreting this gap between supply anddemand as background information at the meta-level. For this reason we only try to utilise the sim-ple “NEEDS”aspect of the working paper.
The general picture of the needs of the SMEs forsupport services as outlined by WP1 shows thatthere is a large need for services on the first twolevels (characterised by a relatively low level ofenterprise IP policies). A large need for moreknowledge on all topics was identified at AIDAlevel 1. It is not only knowledge about IP rights andhow to apply them but also awareness of intangi-
ble assets and knowledge of protecting them thatare required. An overview of where to find relevantinformation seems to be highly asked for. At higher levels (characterised by the predomi-nance of IPR management over IP protection) thepicture established in the interviews becomesmore blurred. Though, with a relatively weakeremphasis, a sizeable need for IP evaluation can beobserved here. It should be noted, however, thatIP evaluation is predominantly the domain of pri-vate service providers, while the research was lim-ited to public services.
48
6. NEEDS for more efficient IP awareness and enforcement with special regard to the National Patent Offices’ activities and services
Focal points of concerning notions
Information, training
Coordination
Enforcement of IPR
Total
Serial numbers of notions(to identify them by source)
1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 19, 21, 22, 23, 29,30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37,40, 41, 45, 46, 47, 50, 53,54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 65, 66, 67,68, 71, 72, 73, 80, 81, 82, 83,85, 87, 88
5, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17, 24, 25,27, 28, 36, 44, 48, 49, 51, 51,64, 84
11, 12, 13, 26, 59, 60, 70, 75,86, 89
13. Table: NEEDS Number of notions, total: 89Number of notions classified: 72
44 60,3
19 26,0
10 13,7
73 100,0
Aggregated frequenciesNumber %
26 Kjaer, K. (2008): Analysis on demand for support services, IPeuropAware project, WP1, edited by Danish Patent and Trademark Office. Copenhagen and Kjaer (2008):Report on gap analysis …
49
Even a perfunctory glance at the table below canbe sufficient to show that despite the differingmethods used in the surveys, there exists a clearharmony between the findings of the Danishresearch and those of the present survey.
6.1.1Providing relevant information and training for SMEs
Information is clearly a predominant dimension ofIP and IPR. The provision of information in itsdirect or indirect forms belongs within the tradi-tional responsibilities of NPOs. A part of the poli-cies applied to meet this responsibility are passiveones, while another part of them is active. As gen-erally agreed, the identification of intellectualassets and of the tools for protecting them is dis-proportionately limited in the SME sector – a cir-cumstance underlining the role of possessing rele-vant information. It is also agreed that this insuffi-ciency of information is hampering the exploita-tion of IP assets. Improved information wouldclearly result in increased IP awareness. SMEsshould realise that IP is a valuable component ofbusiness and it is in fact a commercial asset, whichcan be used – if properly managed – to provideadditional revenue streams through licensing andexploitation.
The need for improved exploitation of the poten-tial offered by new information techniques hasbeen pointed out in several country contributions.The presentation of relevant success stories in TVseries or the generation of publicity for targetedevents (fairs, conferences) through the publicmedia can be efficient tools to achieve a wide-spread recognition of the centrality of IPR (seecases of Malta and Turkey).
The fact that the internet has created an easy andunbroken availability of information has beenstressed by several participants (see the U.K. orGreece). The penetration of e-learning into the IPfield is certainly a major opportunity (Portugal). Thetraditional role of personal contacts in the provi-sion of information by the NPOs, however, contin-ues to have great importance.Regarding the segmentation of SMEs, regionalnetworks of IP information centres play an espe-cially important role in providing information.There is a increasing role for regional offices ofNPOs in providing patent related expertise, great-ly needed for the knowledge transfer process.
The establishment of one-stop-shops of informa-tion and other support services for both SMEs andindividual inventors has proved to be a useful tool.
Free of charge, customised, in-depth consultingand advisory services operate mainly in highlydeveloped countries like the UK, France, Finland,Denmark and Luxemburg.
In particular, small and medium sized enterpriseshave limited capacity to use available informationservices as compared to large enterprises.Finland’s case draws attention to the fact that fur-ther research is needed to determine how the useof patent information could be integrated andutilised in SMEs´ innovation processes. The find-ings of our research point out that SMEs must alsobe convinced about the usefulness of informationand they must be taught to exploit it. As a conse-quence of an exceedingly high institutional com-plexity, however, the unmanageable diversity ofinformation and institutional overlaps tend to be asource of complaints in many cases. As a whole,this necessarily results in a low level of the effi-ciency of services.
As a divergence from their traditional responsibil-ities, NPOs are also faced with the challenge ofraising IP awareness in the SME sector, especiallyregarding the informal tools of protecting IP(such as trade secrets, etc.). With regard to thecentrality of informal tools in IP protection bySMEs, related questions should not remain unan-swered. Though examples of such practices innational contributions are absent, the need forprogress in this field is quite clear. Indeed, thisseems to be a field where NPOs may be com-pelled to revise their potential bias for formalisedsolutions. The fact that the provision of informa-tion on “why and why not to patent” has strong-ly been preferred by SMEs to the availability ofinformation on “how to patent” justifies thisassumption.
In particular, the types of information needed bythe countries participating in the IPeuropAwareProject are as follows:
• information on public subsidies;
• information on EU-projects (in order to avoid aproject-jungle);
• information on trainings, seminars, fairs, exhi-bitions;
• information on venture capital;
• information on technological progress;
• information of non-formal rights, such as tradesecrets;
50
• information on enforcement.
It should be recalled that the 2003 annual EPOsurvey27 shows NPOs to be the entry points forenterprises if they are in need of patenting infor-mation. Consequently NPOs are the largest poolsof information on users’ views and needs. Thedecrease at the national level in patent filings andin other types of formalised protection does nottend to change this circumstance. A necessaryreliance on national languages and a betterknowledge of local culture and of local ways-and-means represent a comparative advantage forNPOs in this respect and their related activitiesclearly contribute to the expansion of patenting atthe international level.
6.1.2Improvement of methods
While the issues treated so far concern the ques-tion of “what” (in the sense that what are theNEEDS and what are the tools to meet them), anumber of the notions reflect the question of“how”. The notions speak for themselves:
“simple tools for enterprises to monitor their IPR”(Portugal)
“simple means for enterprises to report their com-plaints” (Portugal)
“providing a service to companies for getting sys-tematic information on their competitors as wellas on new published patents relevant for them”(Greece)
“providing help on exploitation of a patentedinvention” (Greece)
A poor supply and a limited specialisation of sup-port services may explain these notions. Anotherexplanation is that services exist, but they arepractically invisible. This latter explanation is point-ing at the emphasised need in a group of countriesfor a pro-active approach. Visibility is of a doublenature and it requires “to see, and to be seen”.
6.1.3Education, training
Notions in this group are addressing different lev-els and types of training and education, making ageneralisation practically impossible. However,“integration” itself may nevertheless prove to be akey-word as IP awareness and enforcement issuesshould be combined with existing subjects in thecurricula of education institutions. For this reason
NPOs should provide support for the integration ofIP related education materials into the sector spe-cific curricula of individual institutions. This shouldbe a strong guideline for NPOs when choosingfrom policy options. A few of the concerningnotions are as follows:
“educate SMEs on how to become innovative andhow to include IP strategy in their business plan”(Greece)
“in depth business oriented training for OEPM andRegional centres' speakers on ‘soft IP’, patentdrafting, international procedures, IP valuation, IPlicensing & commercialisation, ‘selling’ IP to SMEs,enforcement strategies” (Spain)
“improving university teachers and students train-ing on IP” (Spain);
“IP managerial skills to accompany business modelwith IP strategy” (Spain).
6.1.4Coordination, cooperation
As discussed mainly in the context of institutionalcomplexity, at least a part of related problems,complaints and needs tend to gain a politicaldimension and overall solutions would require astrong political commitment based on an agree-ment between competing parliamentary parties.As a consequence, strivings for co-ordination andharmonisation have to be limited to the co-ordina-tion and concentration of the lobby-efforts by allthe actors on the scene. A particular aspect of thequestion is treated by the Gowers Review withregard to the duplication of efforts due to institu-tional overlaps.28
“NPO management commitment to coordinate allawareness/enforcement actions within the Office”(Spain)
“intensification of regional cooperation” (Germany)
“arrangement of task sharing” (Germany)
“support and harmonisation of the activities ofdifferent chambers of commerce in the field of IPRpromotion, in particular of trade marks” (France)
“international cooperation, dialogue with China etc.”(Austria, Germany)
“promotion of SMEs’ integration in internationalnetworks/projects” (France)
27 Doornbos, R. et al. (2003): Usage Profiles of Patent Information among Current and Potential Users. Report on the main results of the survey, commissioned by theEuropean Patent Office. Amsterdam.
28 HM Treasury (2006): The Gowers Review. London, p. 77.
“regional network with public institutions or half-public institutions in industrial development, tech-nology transfer” (France)
“creation of a body of IPR experts (of the Chamberof Commerce, the Technological Centres etc.) thatcould provide advice and give high quality servicesto the SMEs” (Spain)
“identification of new ways of dissemination inorder to reach “hidden” SMEs” (Spain)
“closer cooperation with other national andEuropean actors of IPR. Creation of an internation-al network for exchange of information etc.”(Spain)
“promotion and protection of universities’ andpublic research centres’ R&D results” (Spain)
“strengthening the links between universities andSMEs by promoting commercialisation of researchresults based on IPR“ (Portugal).
6.1.5PR of IP
This topic was relatively under-represented in theanswers of the partners. The two notions belowsummarise the answers received.
“presenting success stories based on IP protectionand promotion” (Romania)
“presenting the advantages offered by IPR protec-tion as well as the disadvantages that couldappear by treating them with no respect”(Romania).
6.1.6Lobbying
Notions here are expressing a demand for astronger political presence of NPOs. This is recogni-tion of the fact that IP policies cannot be successfulin the absence of a strong political commitment.The view that, due to their traditions and impartial-ity, NPOs are enjoying a high social esteem isreflected in these notions. The lobbying as a soleactor or as member of pressure groups for objec-tives coming from the dedication of NPOs is clearlyan option of expanding traditional responsibilities.
“lobbying vis-à-vis national government, parlia-ment, EU-Commission, in the area of strengthen-ing trade mark law, organising conferences focus-ing on the importance of IP in commerce” (France)“NPO should be a major actor of NIS” (Portugal).
6.1.7Research
Due to the nature of SWOT, its components mutu-ally reflect eachother. Opportunities can be turnedinto strengths, the lack of strength is also a weak-ness, etc. The one and only group of factorsremaining without reflection by other SWOT com-ponents – despite its remarkable presence amongthreats – are of a social or soft nature. This turnsattention to the conclusions of the research on theregional dimension of innovation. The findings ofrelated research demonstrate a strong role of softfactors in the success of innovative regionsthroughout the world. This may justify furtherresearch to explore the innovative potentials ofsuch factors with regard to IP policies. NPOs arecertainly in a position to induce such research.
6.2NEEDS based on case studies
The circle of needs implicitly included in nationalcontributions as a whole is clearly larger thanthose explicitly expressed by the notions concern-ing the chapter „NEEDS”. Therefore, we have triedto enrich the variety of responses to meet needs ina broader circle in a subjective way by identifyingpractices that in our judgement can be of interestby their special saliencies. We searched for prac-tices with distinctive features that may deserveparticular attention. In our interpretation, thestrongest criterion for a best practice was that theidentified successful national practice (or elementsof practice) had to be suitable for introduction inother European NPOs.
The remarkable work done by the Austrian Studypresents 15 cases of good practice in differentEuropean countries. We used the findings of thisstudy and selected 4 out of these 15 cases, whichhave their origin in IPeuropAware partner coun-tries. Beyond this source we further identified 2other cases. In the following we will introduce atotal of 6 cases of good practice.
6.2.1SIGNO (formarly INSTI SME Patent Action)29
The German service “SIGNO” (formarly “INSTI SMEPatent Action”) is an IPR related initative from theGerman Ministry of Economy which pools stake-holders in the IPR field and raises the awareness forIPR related grant schemes of the government espe-cially for SMEs (with the subsidy being paid out tocover part of patenting costs for first-time SMEpatentees). It was chosen as a case study forexhibiting quite a range of elements of good prac-
5129 Radauer, A. (2007): Benchmarking National and Regional Support. Services for SMEs in the Field of Intellectual and Industrial Property. Final Benchmarking Report.
Edited by KMU Forschung Austria, Austrian Institute for SME Research. Luxemburg, p. 121
tice: Amongst others, it was carefully planned andset up, is offered nationwide with regional outlets,has a high degree of customer-specific advice built-in and is integrated into a wider range of other IPR-related SIGNO services. User survey and evaluationresults indicate a very favourable ratio of investedresources with respect to achieved output. Thecase-study also illustrates a positive interactionbetween patent attorneys and the serviceproviders, which seems to be an important successfactor for the service. Challenges arise mainly interms of marketing needs.
The SIGNO SME patent action aims to supportSMEs and enterprise starters who intend to protecttheir R&D results through IPRs (patents and utilitymodels only) for the first time or whose last IPR-related application was filed more than five yearsago. The service has the following specific goals:
• to reduce barriers in SMEs with respect to theuse of patents and to optimise SMEs' innova-tion management;
• to increase the number of qualified patentapplications by SMEs;
• to make SMEs aware of the economic aspectsand the exploitability of an invention;
• to improve the use of patent information bySMEs and
• to improve the conditions in SMEs for the com-mercialisation of patents.
The main instruments used by this initiative are SMEgrant schemes: Eligible costs for tasks related topatent applications may be reimbursed by up to 50%.
6.2.2IP Pre-diagnosis30
Provided by the National Industrial PropertyInstitute (INPI – Institute national de la propriétéindustrielle; the French Patent Office), the overallaim of IP Pre-diagnosis is to analyse SMEs as awhole with regard to their IP and IPR usage. Theservice is thus not focused on a particular projector invention. Experts undertake an in-depth analy-sis of the IPR management in participating compa-nies to evaluate the importance of IPRs and theirprotection. The service addresses enterprises thathave not registered a patent before (within thepast 5 years) and usually do not possess an IPRstrategy and/or relevant IP management. The serv-ice was selected as a case study in the scope of theunderlying research for a number of reasons, most
notably for its broad approach towards IP protec-tion, its excellent interaction with other services(1st patent from OSEO Innovation) and the wellestablished collaboration patterns between theservice-offering patent office and the technolo-gy/development agencies.
The overall objectives of IP Pre-diagnosis are:
• to increase the overall awareness and under-standing of IPRs among SMEs,
• to assess the status and potential of the IPwithin a specific company and,
• to offer information and advice to support theestablishment of an IPR strategy.
During an IP pre-diagnosis (which can lastbetween 1.5 to 2 days) the service provider (an IPrights expert) discusses the company’s situationwith its manager in order to identify the enter-prise’s needs, wants and expectations in the fieldof IPR. The intended benefits are to raise enterpris-es’ awareness of their IP and of all the tools thatthey can use in order to protect their IP and/or toput it to best use. Thus, formal IPR (such aspatents) as well as informal IP protection methodsare the subjects of the advice given.
6.2.3Serv.ip31
The Austrian service serv.ip was chosen as a casestudy in the scope of the underlying benchmarkingexercise especially because of its organisationalset-up. Having its roots in the Austrian PatentOffice, the service is actually an outsourced sub-sidiary (a “partial legal entity”) of the patentoffice, operating on a non-profit – but self-suffi-cient cost-covering – basis, and is structured like aprivate company. By taking this step, serv.ip canoperate in much more customer-oriented manner(it has, for example, to pay less attention tobureaucratic procedures). Service activities them-selves focus on the provision of tailor-made patentdatabase search services and pro-active awarenessraising activities (road shows, seminars/trainings).The objectives of serv.ip are in particular:
• to offer information on IPR and respective sup-port to companies, especially SMEs, which areinterested in IPR issues,
• to provide technical information regarding IPR(patent, trademark and utility model searches),
• to organise workshops and (pro-active) aware-
5230 Radauer (2007): Benchmarking …, p. 17131 Radauer (2007): Benchmarking …, p. 204
53
ness raising campaigns, especially the road show“gedanken.gut.geschützt“ (ideas.well.protected)in cooperation with the Austrian Patent Office,
• to make patent information, publications,information folders and other resources avail-able on the internet,
• to offer additional services, i.e. monitoring ofpatents and/or trademarks, referring to otherparties (i.e. the Austrian Patent Office), copy-ing and translation services.
6.2.4IPscore® 32
The software tool IPscore® (Danish Patent andTrademark Office) provides a thorough evaluationof patents and technological development proj-ects. IPscore® focuses on five categories (legal sta-tus, technology, market conditions, finance andstrategy) and walks the participant througharound 40 assessment factors to identify the valueof a project idea and to deliver the basis for pro-fessional IP-management.
It has to be mentioned, though, that the DKPTOholds the rights for IPscore® in Denmark but decid-ed to assign international rights to the EuropeanPatent Office. As experts state, the DKPTO feltthat this step was important, since the value of thetool increases with the amount of companies thatmake use of it.
6.2.5Out-law.com33
This is a mediation service introduced by the UKPatent Office to help companies and individualsresolve intellectual property disputes withoutresorting to litigation. The service is intended tocover all types of IPR.
In general, mediation is a means of resolving a dis-pute by mutual agreement without taking itthrough a civil court process. It uses an independ-ent, third party to guide negotiations, which canbe helpful in diffusing difficult situations. In manycases, mediation can be cost effective, discreetand provide certainty to partners. This new serviceoffered by the Patent Office gives parties thechoice of using a Patent Office mediator or anexternal provider. Either way, the parties can useaccommodations provided by the Patent Office forthe purposes of the mediation.
6.2.6Think kit34
Think kit is a free educational resource of the UKIntellectual Property Office aimed at Key Stage 4students, although it can also be used for otherage groups. The resource highlights the four areasof IP using case studies of well-known individualsand organisations.
It looks at IP real-life scenarios by relating real sto-ries about people and their journey to success. Inpractical use, the information contained within thepack also proved to be of benefit to a wider audi-ence, as the materials have been scaled up anddown dependent on the recipients. Business start-ups and would-be entrepreneurs, in particular,have found the contents useful as the case studyapproach provides practical guidance on the com-mercial reality of IPR.
6.2.7IDEApilot project
The target of the Finnish IDEApilot project is tocreate good practice for bringing the IP systemand its services to the use of SMEs. The IP systemhas to be seen broadly as an essential part of thebusiness process during the whole company lifecycle. It is a robust and ingenious system generat-ed to back-up business processes from the begin-ning to the end, from the idea to the market, bothin protection and as a source of information. Inthe framework of the IDEApilot project, researchwas conducted on how patent information couldbe integrated and utilised by the SMEs in NewProduct Development (NPD) processes. The studydealt with the knowledge management practicesin SMEs, especially in New Product Development,and the role and possibilities of patent informationas a source of new knowledge. Another objectivewas to provide practical guidelines about how theNPD processes could be developed to fully benefitfrom available patent information.
After being convinced that the IP system is useful,the company requires a simple way to use theservices. For this purpose they need a very practi-cal approach to the IP system built into their busi-ness process. A workbook was created for thispurpose that goes through the business process ofSMEs and asks simple, relevant questions concern-ing IP matters. Having answered these simplequestions, the company has laid the cornerstoneto their IP strategy. In the Internet version of theworkbook, the users can find paths to actual serv-ices either on the Internet or in the nearest servicepoint, e.g. an innovation agent at a T&E Centre ordetailed guidance to information retrieval.
32 Radauer (2007): Benchmarking …, p. 28033 For more information see: www.out-law.com34 For more information see: www.ipo.gov.uk
6.3NEEDS based on a survey: IP awareness of SMEs35
The Hungarian Patent Office conducted a survey onIP awareness in SMEs in 2006. Researchersassumed that in the absence of an efficient IP pro-tection, the success of innovative efforts maybecome jeopardised. Among the objectives of theresearch was to explore the actual state of IP, theIP activities of enterprises and the factors having animpact on the level of IP. Based on the findings ofthe study, the establishment of recommendationswas expected with regard to the improvement ofthe management of intellectual property. A ques-tionnaire was completed by more than 400 enter-prises with the assistance of an IP information serv-ice established by the HPO in co-operation with theHungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
The knowledge about titles of IP protection in thefirms interviewed was rather deficient. About half ofthe respondents knew patents and trademarks as thebest-known titles of protection. Utility models anddesigns were known by 17% of company managers,while geographical indications were practicallyunknown to respondents. Some referred to titles ofprotection that do not have anything to do with titlesof intellectual property protection (e.g. the emblemfor “excellent quality goods” or the ISO quality man-agement system). Such a result is stressing, especiallywith regard to the fact that a vast majority of respon-dents (93%) considered industrial property necessary.According to the companies, the most important ben-efits of IPR prevail in ensuring fair conditions for com-petition, in the provision of legal guarantees for thereturns of R&D expenses, in the provision of exclusiverights for the utilisation of R&D results; and in the riseof the value of the company by protecting its intellec-tual assets.12% of the firms interviewed said that they wereengaged in IP activities, a further 21% said they hadheld protection previously or at the time of the survey.Moreover, a further 7% purchased a licence in thecourse of their operation. In total, 40% of the businessorganisations surveyed were directly affected by IP.
There seems to be a very strong relationship betweenR&D and IP activities. The share of companies engagedin both IP and R&D activities was five times higher thanthose not engaged in R&D activities.
29% of companies responding that IP is notimportant possessed no identified knowledge con-cerning innovation. They were certainly right: ifthere is nothing to get protection for, there is nosense in applying for protection. Other companiesin this circle complained particularly about the factthat IP administration is complicated, time-con-suming and costly, and costs do not wholly return.It is also quite alarming to see that according to athird of respondents, IPR is unable to preventinfringements. This opinion raises a fundamentalissue, that of the enforcement of laws, and it pres-ents quite a negative image in this respect.
As a consequence, 40% of the firms questionedthought that it was worth keeping an innovationsecret until filing the application for patent ordesign protection, or even until the protection wasgranted.37
The questionnaire also raised an open question aimedat comparing the options of protecting IP by keepingit secret or by obtaining formalised protection. Respondents summarised the benefits of for-malised protection as follows:
- innovation does not get stolen, it providesexclusive rights;
- R&D costs may return;
- market benefit is provided;
- protection may provide permanent marketbenefit;
- protected products are better known;
54
Why is IP protection unimportant?(Frequency of mentioning, in percentage of
those replying to the given question, Survey onDoing Business, Innovativeness, IP Knowledge
and Application of Hungarian SMEs)36
Administration is complicated 39
Ideas made available to the public get stolen 34
Costs of industrial property do not return 32
There are few or no developments that are worth being protected 29
Hampers utilisation of new ideas 2
14. Table: Why is IP protection unimportant?
Where do you get information on the new deve-lopments affecting your activities?
(Frequency of mentioning, in percentage ofthose replying, additional information from:
Survey on Doing Business, Innovativeness, IPKnowledge and Application of Hungarian SMEs)38
Internet 60
Periodicals, gazettes 56
Hungarian Patent Office 6
Media 13
Professional contacts 66
Study visits 30
Professional fairs 46
Other 4
15. Table: Where do you get information on thenew developments affecting your activities?
35 Hungarian Patent Office (2006): Survey on Doing Business, Innovativeness, IP Knowledge and Application of Hungarian SMEs. Budapest.36 See: Hungarian Patent Office (2006): Survey on…37 It is worth noting here that publication (making ideas public) is a goal for researchers, which means recognition and professional success for them, but publication
before the patent application destroys the novelty of a technology and so excludes the technology from patenting. These days the tendency for publication is increasingamong researchers. A smart publication is made following the patent application.
38 See: Hungarian Patent Office (2006): Survey on …
- protection means a competitive advantage.
The possible disadvantages mentioned were as follows:
- protection only provides short-term advantages;
- protection can be circumvented by legal practices;
- obtaining protection is costly;
- court procedures are not effective in IP litigation.
Half of the respondents did not make use of anyassistance when turning for protection, a quarterof them were helped by patent attorneys, about asixth of them were helped by a lawyer, while therest solved the problem by other means.
The choice among the sources of information oninnovation can well describe general IP orienta-tion. The findings of the survey are pointing atprofessional contacts, Internet, and professionalmedia (periodicals, gazettes) to be the mainsources of information with other sources having anegligible role.
As a source of information, the HPO was primarilyimportant for firms engaged in IP activities and forthose having some type of formalised protection.However, since 44% of respondents found designprotection to be important, and a further 18%identified utility model application as a need, quitea number of firms can be considered as “potentialsubjects” for IPR. They represent a potential clien-tele for the HPO with regard to information andtraining services.
43% of the respondent business organisationssaid that they have done research concerning theformalised protection of IP in Hungary or abroad,while the remaining 57% of the firms in the sam-
ple never did so. Larger companies tend to carryout research to a greater extent. The followingtable shows the relationship between IP practicesand enquiring about protection.
The relationships displayed above do not need muchexplanation. Conscious IP activities can be seen here,too. The number of spin-off companies from knowl-edge centres and the availability of seed capital signif-icantly influence the level of licensing and know-how.
6.4Conclusions of NEEDS analyses
IP awareness or the knowledge and use of rel-evant tools should be an organic part of busi-ness culture. Through the improvement of gener-al business culture there is hope for improved IPpractices, however, this may take a longer time.
The 2006 survey of HPO on Doing Business,Innovativeness, IP Knowledge and Application ofHungarian SMEs showed that while the vastmajority of respondents acknowledged the needfor IP, more than a third of them did not have anyspecific information on the issue.40
A better understanding of the situation alsorequires considering the respondents’ aversionstowards IPR enforcement. Many of those askedthought that IP administration was complicated,time-consuming and costly. Besides, severalrespondents mentioned that these costs were notto return. According to research on cost structure,it is not the fees for IP procedures and services thatare thought to be high, but those paid to patentattorneys and to professional translators.However, for small and medium-sized enterprises,which typically do not employ professionals withthe relevant expertise, it is expedient to turn topatent attorneys for filing their applications. Theirbad experiences with regard to IPR enforcement,
55
Relationship between IP practicesand the usage of IP information(frequency of mentioning, in percent-age of those replying to the givenquestion, Survey on Doing Business,Innovativeness, IP Knowledge andApplication of Hungarian SMEs)39
Companies engaged in IP practices
Companies not engaged in IP practices, activities
Companies having a legal protection
Companies not having any legal protection
Companies possessing licences
Companies not in possession of licences
Companies that have already sold licences
Companies that have not sold any licences
Yes No
68 32
39 61
68 32
35 65
48 52
42 58
53 47
44 56
16. Table: Have you ever enquired if a certainsolution is already protected or not?
Proposals to improve theoperation of IP informationpoints
Easy to understand business-oriented information materials
Organisation of trainings
Preparation of a database including both investors and innovative firms
Finding patent agents to help toprepare IP applications
Monitoring of competitors
Monitoring of IP rights infringements
Frequency of men-tioning in percent-age of those reply-
ing to the givenquestion41
62
36
27
24
17
12
17. Table: Suggestions of firms as to the NEEDS ofSMEs on IP information, services and education
39 See: Hungarian Patent Office (2006): Survey on …40 See: Hungarian Patent Office (2006): Survey on …41 See: Hungarian Patent Office (2006): Survey on …
their difficulties to prevent the infringements bylarger companies, the costliness and limited resultsthereof, as well as the sometimes differing inter-ests of foreign owners tend to discourage SMEsfrom patenting their innovative solutions.Moreover, some respondents thought that IP wasnot capable of preventing infringements.
IP awareness and the related practices show a rel-atively close connection. Awareness of the firmsactive in this field is significantly higher than thatof those being inactive. There is no benefit fromthe availability of different channels of IPinformation if SMEs do not have an interest toexploit them.
Aside from the generally weak export-orientationof SMEs, the low number of foreign filings may beexplained by high costs (assumed or real) that arepresent despite existing subsidies. Interestingly,research has revealed that subsidy options aremostly unrecognised by the SMEs, which are inac-tive with regard to enforcement. The elimination ofsuch deficiencies should be considered by NPOs,when expanding the scope of their activities.
In addition analysing the answers of respondents,the 2006 survey of HPO on Doing Business,Innovativeness, IP Knowledge and Application ofHungarian SMEs also had the opportunity to makeproposals to improve the operation of IP informa-tion points. According to almost two thirds of theanswers, it is business-oriented informationthat is most needed. The emergence of thisaspect as the strongest one was quite general; adifferentiation by groups of companies could notbe observed. A few pointed at the need to alsomake information materials available through theInternet, free of charge and regularly updated.
56
The aim of this part of the present study is to listthe existing services of the National Patent Officesin the 20 partner countries in order to recommendnew activities for the partner NPOs. We call thiscollection of best practices a “Menu”. This compi-lation contains 17 proven recommendationsfrom 20 countries for the development of IPawareness and enforcement services. It demon-strates the practical ways in which NationalIntellectual/Industrial Property Offices are workingto promote IPR rights and innovation and providesupport for enforcement.
The “Menu“ is a powerful tool for:
• analysing current trends and emerging issues;
• service-development including new tools andmethods;
• technical cooperation through recommendingproven services and experiences;
• network-building within the NationalIntellectual/Industrial Property Offices.
The Hungarian Patent Office has been responsiblefor WP9 of the IPeuropAware project and carriedout the data compilation necessary for the Menu.HPO has also been in charge of sorting the goodpractices as well as the selection of new IP aware-ness and enforcement services and activities inaccordance with the national IP strategies andinnovation policies for each partner.
The partner NPOs all have a central source ofinformation with regard to what is actually provid-ed in the partner countries and which services canbe implemented in the future – considering sus-tainability. The Final Benchmarking Report for thestudy “Benchmarking Regional and NationalSupport Services in the Field of Intellectual andIndustrial Property”, compiled by Austrian Institutefor SME Research within the initiative PRO INNOEurope, also analysed more than 270 publiclyfounded IPR support services offered on a nation-al and/or regional level.42 The report maps the sup-port services available in each participating coun-try. However, sustainability was not a selection cri-terion of the Benchmarking study.
The Technopolis study “Effects of counterfeitingon EU SMEs and a review of various public and pri-vate IPR enforcement initiatives and resources“furthermore lists a number of services focusing onenforcement.43 Information gathered in this proj-ect has also been taken into account.
7.1Methodology of the “Menu“
In an earlier phase of the IPeuropAware project,within WP5, a list of the main national intermedi-aries/actors has been compiled.44 This list of insti-tutions and key actors of the Project provided helpto describe the institutional landscape for aware-ness-raising and enforcement issues. Also veryhelpful was the Gap analysis completed withinWP1 of the IPeuropAware project, in which gapsand thereby SMEs’ current needs for IP awarenessand enforcement services were identified.45 Theoverall purpose of WP1 was to provide a coherentset of documents to add direction to the subse-quent actions within the IPeuropAware project.For this reason, already existing documents con-taining information about services available toSMEs (supply side) and the SME’s need for servic-es (demand side) were collected and mapped. Theconclusion of this analysis was that the supply ofsupport services is focusing on what can be calleda “more defensive way of using the IPR system”.Service providers also offer elements of “moreoffensive and strategic use of IPR”, albeit to amuch lesser extent. Examples of services having amore offensive and/or strategic focus are servicesteaching SMEs aspects of commercialisation andsetting up an IP strategy.46 The general picture ofthe need for support services is that there is alarge need for services on the first two AIDA lev-els47 (when SMEs are aware of IP and when theyare protecting IP on a more or less regular and sys-tematic basis). The data reveal that the SMEs havea great need for more knowledge on IP rights andhow to apply for them but also awareness ofintangible assets and knowledge on how to pro-tect these assets.
The needs identified and investigated on aEuropean level in WP1 have been further analysedand validated in WP9. As part of the work withinWP1, “support services” have been defined inorder to secure a uniform understanding of thewording. In accordance with the definition of the
57
7. IP Awareness and EnforcementServices of NPOs – „Menu” –
42 See: Radauer (2007): Benchmarking …,43 See: Technopolis (2007): Study: “Effects of counterfeiting on EU SMEs and a review of various public and private IPR enforcement initiatives and resources”. Final report.44 Christina Nordström (2008): Main actors/intermediaries in Europe in the field of IPR-Innovation-SMEs. Unpublished project material, IPeuropeAwaree project, WP5, edited
by Swedish Patent and Trademark Office, p. 17.45 Kjaer (2008): Report on gap analysis …46 Kjaer, K. (2008): Analysis of supply of support services. Unpublished project material, IPeuropAware project, WP1, edited by Danish Patent and Trademark Office, p. 17.47 For AIDA see Chapter 6.
European Commission, published in the 2001 staffworking paper “Creating top-class business sup-port services”48 , the following definition of sup-port services was adopted:
”Business support services refers to those services,originating in a public policy initiative, that aim toassist enterprises or entrepreneurs to successfullydevelop their business activity and to respondeffectively to the challenges of their business,social and physical environment”.49
This definition is also used in the Austrian reportfrom 2007, ”Benchmarking National and RegionalSupport Services for SMEs in the Field ofIntellectual and Industrial Property”, with the fol-lowing addition:
“These services have to be IPR-related, accordingto the definition of IPR provided by WIPO.”50
In accordance with the above-mentioned defini-tions and the objectives of the IPeuropAware proj-ect, services selected for the Menu had to fulfil thefollowing selection criteria:
1. The service has to be offered by at least oneNational Patent Office, participating in theIPeuropAware project.
2. The services have to be publicly funded. Theservices, identified as good elements of prac-tices for the „Menu”, have already beenimplemented by National Patent Offices aspublic institutions, a fact which guaranteesthese services’ compatibility with public fund-ing regulations.
3. The services have to target SMEs, either explic-itly or implicitly.
4. The service has to target IPR issues as a wholeor in analysable parts (both registrable IPR andother methods like copyright or soft rights).
5. The services have to be sustainable (imple-mented continuously at least till the end of theIPeuropAware project).
6. Since the strategic objective of IPeuropAwareis to raise SMEs’ interest and knowledge aboutIP issues, the selected services must not focusonly on registrable IPR, but should also cover„soft IP”51 and IP management issues.
As already mentioned above, NPOs carry out sig-nificantly different activities in the field of IPawareness and enforcement. It is important to
study how these activities fit into the current IPawareness and enforcement strategies and nation-al innovation support systems. In order to learnand map these actually implemented services,partner institutions sent reports on the currentnational IP awareness and enforcement strategiesand innovation support system to the WP leader.HPO summarised the received information andcompiled a provisional „Menu” with NPOs’ IPawareness and enforcement activities. This provi-sional „Menu” was sent to the partners for verifi-cation and confirmation.
With regard to the technical composition of the„Menu”, it was constructed upon the followingstructure:
- contains columns for services which arealready applied in each country;
- contains columns for appropriate services forselection to extend the NPOs’ individual servicepackages in each country.
In the first step, partner NPOs sent informationon services they already apply. In the secondstep, they were asked to select two services fromthe listed sustainable and recommended serv-ices. When selecting the new services for intro-duction, partners had to take into considerationthat in a later phase of the IPeuropAware project,within WP11 and 12 they might adopt theseactions (in accordance with IPeuropAware projectdescription).
In order to make the future efforts comparable andfor quality control reasons, the „Menu” also con-tained a column with specifications for each serv-ice. As already mentioned, all the recommended serv-ices have already been applied in at least one of theIPeuropAware project partner countries. If some ofthe project partners (or even external players) seekfurther detailed information about the services, theyhave the possibility to contact either the relevant part-ner NPO directly, via the HPO as the WP leader or theproject coordinator.
7.2Results of the „Menu”
During the preparation work of the „Menu”, it had tobe taken into consideration that the partner NPOshave different competencies in the fields of the IPawareness and enforcement support issues. TheIP awareness raising activities promote the benefits ofIP, which in turn encourages innovation. All 20 partic-ipating IP Offices carry out such information providingactivities. However, National Intellectual/Industrial
5848 European Commission (2001): Creating Top-Class Business Support Service. Commission Staff Working Paper. SEC(2001) 1937. Brussels. 49 Kjaer (2008): Analysis of supply …50 See: Radauer (2007): Benchmarking … p. 49. 51 Soft IP refers to know-how management and trade secrecy. For more information see: IP4INNO project,
http://www.ip4inno.eu/index.php?id=203&L=1&tx_cmsip4inno_pi1 %5BcriteriaId %5D=2
Property Offices are in general not responsible forenforcing intellectual property, as they are not prose-cuting agencies. For this reason, not all national NPOsare involved in enforcement support issues.Nevertheless, they can provide further information onthese issues for enforcement bodies and thoseengaged in combating counterfeiting and piracy. Insome cases they operate as mediation centres or havemediation initiatives.
Besides these, an increased attention to enforce-ment issues among the NPOs can be identified. Insome of the participating countries in recent years,interdepartmental committees have been set up todeal with the problem of counterfeiting and piracy. Inthese committees a wide spectrum of enforcementand commercial interests are represented, includingpublic administration bodies like National PatentOffices, public prosecutors, police and customsauthorities, trademark and copyright associations,and interest groups from commerce and industry. Themain activities of the committees include, inter alia,the elaboration and the coordination of carrying outa National Anti-counterfeiting Strategy, promotionand monitoring of IPR enforcement support meas-ures, cooperation with the police and customsauthorities and support of an efficient informationexchange between the different agencies etc., exist-ing on national level.
As a result of such committees’ activities, several newmeasures can be identified in order to raise awarenesson enforcement issues and to offer effective means ofcombating counterfeiting. Moreover, the collabora-tion between the participating entities might increasesignificantly. By far the best example to illustrate thelatter is the National IP Crime Report in the UnitedKingdom’s IP enforcement strategy. The 9 recom-mendations in the 2007 report tend to express astrong commitment to fight IP crime. Practically, theserecommendations may outline in a comprehensiveway the options of the NPOs’ involvement in thisrespect.
Eight other national contributions support this trendin Europe. The cases below are intended to outlinethe landscape in this respect:
• The Permanent Interdepartmental CounterfeitingNetwork was established in Denmark as part ofthe implementation of the strategy against coun-terfeiting and piracy adopted in 2008. The net-work is a forum for coordination of variousnational activities related to anti-counterfeitingand anti-piracy work. The Danish NPO (PTO) car-ries out the function as secretariat for the net-work.
• Similarly, the French NPO hosts the GeneralSecretariat for the CNAC (The NationalCommittee against counterfeiting). One out ofthe three thematic issues in the framework ofCNAC is to maintain dialogue and elaborate pro-posals to improve relevant legislation.
• The Italian NPO (UIMB) has a distinguished rolein the country’s national strategy against counter-feiting and IP infringement. The existing activitiesof UIMB include – among others – the prepara-tion of new IP legislation as well as the establish-ment of specialised courts for industrial and intel-lectual property rights.
• As a stakeholder in the Inter-sectoral Commissionagainst Activities of Infringement of IPRs theSpanish NPO (OEPM) takes part in the elaborationof proposals for training activities addressed to theState Security Forces, Local Police and the Courts.
• In Portugal, there is an Anti-CounterfeitingGroup in which the Portuguese NPO (INPI-PT) isrepresented. This Group was created in 2007 asan informal group, with the aim of identifying themain problems in the combat against counterfeit-ing in Portugal, and the measures that these enti-ties could undertake, in order to raise awarenesson enforcement issues and to offer effectivemeans of combating counterfeiting.
• On the initiative of Malta’s National IP Office, anAlliance between the IP Office, Customs, Policeand the Attorney General was created for greatercollaboration in the enforcement of IPRs.
• In Romania, OSIM participates in the IPR Groupwith support for any enforcement action, work-ing on a regular basis with police, customsauthorities, border police and others, in order toexchange information in an efficient manner. A common B2B database has been created andimplemented among several institutions con-cerned in IP enforcement fields.
• In Hungary the National Board AgainstCounterfeiting (HENT, established in March 2008)has been commissioned to elaborate and co-ordi-nate the National Anti-Counterfeiting Strategywith the participation of the national NPO.Considering that all remedies (both civil and crim-inal) to fight IP offences are available underHungarian legislation, the emphasis is being laidon the improvement of relevant legal practices.
If National Patent Offices are members in such anti-counterfeiting committees, they mostly receive addi-tional responsibility for enforcement matters like
59
60
coordination of the activities of participating publicbodies, NGOs and enterprises, support training forthe staff of the enforcement agencies, raising of con-sumer awareness through different programmes andcampaigns etc. As a consequence, enforcement alsobecomes a more prioritised area in NPOs’ IPR activities– without them becoming a prosecution agency.
Within the competencies of the NPOs, the followingdifferences were identified:
• Competencies in awareness raising issues regard-ing IP but not in the field of enforcement,
• Competencies both in awareness raising and IPenforcement support issues (via coordinativeforums with the participation of publicbodies/NGOs/enterprises) to deal with the prob-lem of counterfeiting and piracy. Such entities areresponsible for inter alia promoting, co-ordinatingand monitoring IPR enforcement, working withthe police and customs authorities and ensuringan efficient exchange of information between thedifferent agencies etc.
The following table provides an overview of the com-petencies of partner NPOs in IPR awareness andenforcement issues. The table also contains addition-al information about the way NPOs are involved in thework of national anti-counterfeiting committees.
7.2.1Existing services
Due to its complexity it is possible to show a widerange of different existing implementable and sus-tainable IP services offered to SMEs by the NPOs. Theaim of the ”Menu” has been to help the partnerNPOs improve their services by learning from otherNPOs. For this reason, all partners validated the list ofexisting services and made recommendations toother partner NPOs. The input for discussions on thisissue was prepared by the WP-leader and communi-cated to the partners. The identified services andactions meet all the selection criteria (sustainable;publicly funded; targeting SMEs and IPR issues).
All the recommended services have already beenapplied in at least one of the partner countries. The„Menu” contains the name of the NPO with theirservices, so if the partners are considering introduc-ing a new activity from the list and seek for furtherdetailed information on the services, they can easilycontact the relevant partner NPO.
The following service categories were selected forthe ”Menu”:
61
Sw
eden
Czech
Rep.
Fra
nce
Germ
any
Turk
ey
Esto
nia
Spain
Port
ugal
Fin
land
Luxem
-burg
Italy
Denm
ark
U.K
.Bulg
aria
Pola
nd
Gre
ece
Rom
ania
Austr
iaM
alta
Hungary
Co
mp
eten
-ci
esin
awar
enes
sY
es No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
(bu
tcl
ose
coo
per
a-ti
on
bet
wee
ng
ove
rn-
men
tal
bo
die
s,co
ord
i-n
ated
by
Cze
chN
PO)
Yes
(via
Co
mit
éN
atio
nal
An
tico
n-
tref
aco
n,
coo
rdi-
nat
edb
yIN
PI-F
R)
Yes
(via
Inte
r-se
cto
ral
Co
mm
is-
sio
nA
gai
nst
Act
ivit
ies
of
Infr
ing
e-m
ent
of
IPR
s)
Yes
(via
An
ti-
Co
un
ter-
feit
ing
Gro
up
,es
tab
-lis
hed
2007
)
Yes
(via
Nat
iona
lCo
unte
r-fe
itin
gCo
mm
it-
tee,
coor
di-
nate
dby U
IBM
)
Yes
(via
Perm
anen
tIn
terd
epar
t-m
enta
lCo
unte
r-fe
itin
gN
et-
wor
k,D
KPT
Oha
sth
ese
cre-
tari
at)
Yes
(via
The
Ant
i-Co
unte
r-fe
itin
gG
roup
(ACG
)
No
(dra
ftA
nti-
coun
ter-
feit
Stra
tegy
)
No
(Ant
i-pi
rate
Coal
itio
nex
ists
but
Polis
hN
POis
not
am
embe
r)
Yes
(via
IPR
grou
p)Y
es(v
ia“A
llian
ceag
ains
tco
unte
r-fe
itin
g”on
the
init
iati
veof
Mal
tese
NPO
)
Yes
(via
HEN
T)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Co
mp
eten
-ci
esin
awar
enes
sA
ND
enfo
rcem
ent
Countr
y/P
art
ner
18
.Ta
ble
:C
om
pet
enci
eso
fN
PO’s
Sou
rce:
con
sort
ium
par
tner
s’co
ntr
ibu
tio
n
7.2.1.1Already applied awareness services
As a basis of the knowledge economy and a keyelement in promoting strong and competitive mar-kets, one of the primary aims of the NPOs is tomanage an effective system for the protection ofIPRs. Another aim is to stimulate innovation andenhance the international competitiveness ofnational industry and commerce through the pro-motion and awareness of these rights. They havean invaluable role in industrial and intellectualproperty activities and in intellectual propertyawareness raising. In order to raise SMEs’ IPawareness and consciousness, and to developdemand-driven services for them to improve theirbusiness performance, NPOs carry out a widerange of different activities. The following serviceshave been selected for the „Menu”:
1. Realisation of public actions (like roadshows, information campaigns)
Road shows include application of best prac-tice recommendation in the field of IP. Roadshows travel in some regions of the country,and are organised preferably jointly with othergovernmental organisations or NGOs.Countries where this service has already beenapplied: SE, FR, DE, EE, PT, FI, LU, IT, DK, UK, PL, MA.
2. Media advertising
Extensive coverage in different media includ-ing printed press, TV, radio and Internet mag-azines is desirable. Press should include nation-al press, economic publishing, and press tar-geting SMEs next to the industry specific sub-cultural media. TV and radio programmesshould contain different types of programmes,like: IP day relevant broadcasts, Inventor of theday, Plagiarius award, innovation and econo-my related talk-shows, morning discussions,commenting news spots, etc.
Countries where this service has already beenapplied: FR, DE, ES, PT, FI, IT, MA, HU.
3. Information services on IPR issues (like“Helpdesk”)
Providing assistance for SMEs in the frame-work of information/customer service on thetools of intellectual property in order toenhance their competitive edge, or to avoidcostly lawsuits from infringement and/or pira-cy. Assistance should include support to decideon the right title of protection, information on
IPR and obligations arising from the differenttitles of protection; on the ways, tools andprocesses of gaining protection; on calls forapplication supporting acquisition of rights; oncopyright in general and on the related inter-national treaties. Statistics about the operationof the helpdesk should be maintained. A web-site segment within the office's homepageshould be set up for the helpdesk, where con-tacts, opening hours, location, including infor-mation materials, FAQs, and other useful con-tents are integrated.
Countries where this service has already beenapplied: FR, DE, EE, ES, PT, FI, LU, IT, DK, GR, HU.
4. Regional information service points on IPR issues
For many citizens the location of the nation-al patent offices is too far to ask for a per-sonal interview for help on IP information.Therefore, the co-operation of other institu-tions like chambers of commerce, EnterpriseEurope Network (EEN) members, regionalinnovation agencies, etc. may improveaccessibility of personal contacts and infor-mation. The regional information servicepoints can help find information about IPrights, located near to the clients. Theregional service providers should acquirestandardised training in IPRs and their com-mercialisation. The regional info-relay cen-tres52 should distribute patent office infor-mation materials, operate an IP specifichomepage-segment on their own website,and be open for client visits.
Countries where this service has already beenapplied: FR, DE, ES, PT, FI, IT, DK, PL, GR, RO, HU.
5. Training courses (graduate/academic education)
Although these courses target university students,we think they should be considered as an invest-ment into the future managers of SMEs. Serviceshould include elements like offering partnershipprograms for universities. Within the regular part-nership and IP education programme-training,courses on intellectual property should be provid-ed for university students. Courses should havean average duration of 8-10 lectures and beworked out in collaboration with the universityfaculties, and departments. Trainers can comefrom the departments of the NPO, and from theuniversity staff. The universities should providethe infrastructure of the training.
6252 These Info Relay Centres (IRC) are now members of EEN.
Countries where this service has already beenapplied: FR, DE, ES, PT, LU, IT, PL, RO, HU.
6. Training courses (non-academic adult education)
Following the concept of life-long learning,NPOs should offer a training course system ofIP for SMEs. The basic course should consist ofaround 8-16 hours of study in one or two daysand provide general knowledge on intellectualproperty. The knowledge obtained during thecourse would enable enterprises to recognisethe possibilities lying in the IP protection oftheir own intellectual properties, as the firstlegal step of the innovation cycle. Beside regis-tered IP protection these courses should alsoprovide knowledge on soft IP.
Countries where this service has already beenapplied: SE, FR, DE, EE, ES, PT, FI, LU, IT, DK, RO, HU.
7. Training courses (e-learning)
E-learning at its best is a cutting-edge technol-ogy tool of education, which broadens theavailability of the target groups. This is intend-ed to be one of the most important forms ofeducation to be provided by the NPOs in thefuture. This tool can reach SMEs countrywidewith a high degree of flexibility regarding SMEs’demands. E-learning modules should cover atleast the following topics: Basic information onIP rights; alternative toolbars for IP rights pro-tection; the benefits and sources for informa-tion on IP rights; the commercialisation of IP.
Countries where this service has already beenapplied: FR, PT, FI, LU, PL, HU.
8. Services to assist SMEs in identifying IPassets (e.g. pre-diagnosis …)
This type of service targets SMEs which maynot be aware of the potential of their IP assetsand which may not have adequate individual IPstrategies. It is intended to assist in identifyingIP assets, provide support in their protectionand align their utilisation with business andoperational milestones. The quality controlindicators are the number of analyses complet-ed. By the end of the project the analysesmethodology should be adapted and at leastthree “diagnoses“ completed.
Countries where this service has already beenapplied: FR, ES, PT, LU, IT, DK, RO.
9. Copyright registry
Copyright is a form of protection provided bylaw to the authors of “original works ofauthorship,” including literary, dramatic, musi-cal, artistic, and certain other intellectualworks. This protection is available to both pub-lished and unpublished works. Copyright reg-istration is a legal formality intended to makea public record of the basic facts of a particu-lar copyright. Through copyright registration acopy or copies of the work will be registeredand “deposited” with the NPO.
Countries where this service has already beenapplied: ES (Copyright registry under theSpanish law is provided by the Ministry ofCulture; OEPM does just signposting), HU.
7.2.1.2Already applied enforcement services
Current trends indicate that new forms of IPRinfringement, such as via the internet involving allmanners of digital products, have replaced tradi-tional methods of IPR infringement, while the salesof counterfeit brand-name products via the sameplatform is also plentiful.53 The best practice proj-ect “Strengthening the IPR Enforcement of EUIndustry and SMEs”, co-financed by the EuropeanCommission, has also been based on the percep-tion that although there is now an increasing pro-vision for small and medium enterprises to helpthem develop their intellectual property, there isstill a need for better support arrangements forsmall firms when they find that their intellectualproperty rights are being disregarded or abused.54
To provide a quick and effective response to thisnew wave of crime, encourage the denouncementand report of such acts by the public, an increas-ing number of NPOs also provide support withenforcement issues.55 It is desirable that NPOsemphasise their commitment to future efforts inIPR protection, and – built on the success of exist-ing IPR protection policies – provide vigorous assis-tance to law enforcement to investigate and toprotect legal operations while combating illegaloperations. At the same time, NPOs preferably callupon all citizens to respect and protect IPR, in ajoint effort to establish a healthy IPR protectionenvironment.
Specific enforcement measures applied in the partic-ipating countries and selected for the „Menu” are:
63
53„Counterfeiting and piracy is an enormous phenomenon which is thought to be growing in absolute value and proportionally to global GDP in line with trends in inter-national trade. There is, therefore, an acute need for intensified action, both within the EU and in third countries, to protect European companies and their investmentsin innovation.” European Commission (2008): An Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, theCouncil and the European Economic and Social Committee. Brussels, COM(2008) 465/3, p. 13.
54 Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services (ed.): Best Practice Project: Strengthening the IPR Enforcement of EU Industry and SMEs. Draft Final Report. Unpublishedworking paper, p. 1.
55 Enforcement is one of the key issues for the IPeuropeAwaree project. It is foreseen that a “Synthesis Report on Enforcement Support Services” will be completed soonwithin WP10 of the project (WP leader: DKPTO).
1. Negative or positive award (like“Plagiarius”56 in Germany or ”TheCreativity Trophy” in Romania)
Annual award media campaign for a betterprotection and enforcement of IPR with weeksof joint media presence. Possible breakingcommunications:
• white paper on international/national piracyand counterfeiting,
• survey on the socio-economic effect ofcounterfeited products,
• loss of tax-income due to illegal importationof branded/patented products etc.
Countries where this service has already beenapplied: DE, RO.
2. Publishing enforcement guidebook forselected branches
Recommended content:
• a guide to what to do in case of suspectedinfringement, either on behalf of the IPowner or customer,
• "decision making tree" on what to do whenfacing infringement,
• easy to understand presentations and com-parisons of the different alternatives ofactions and dispute settlement optionsavailable,
• enforcement map depicting the stakeholderagencies like chambers of commerce, medi-ation agencies and governmental organisa-tions (like police, customs, consumer pro-tection organisation, NPO, court), thedescription of their IP enforcement relatedfunctions and services,
• communication of joint enforcement pro-grams, activities of the above bodies with asector specific focus.
Countries where this service has already beenapplied: IT, UK.
3. Developing specific enforcement trainingtools (like interactive training packages)
Sharing the experiences and practices of thepolice and customs in order to act more effec-
tively against counterfeiting, in cooperationwith the police and customs authorities etc.
Countries where this service has already beenapplied: CZ, FR, UK, MA.
4. Creation of common database (withPolice, Customs etc.)
Different databases of different institutionsinvolved in fighting against counterfeiting con-tain different data. Their purposes are to servedifferent functions based on the perspective ofthe organisation and the aim of the database.Recommendable is a common/integrated data-base, joining relevant and useful contents ofseparate databases together (e.g. trademark,validity data from trademark registry, mostusual misleading signs used in relation to themark inputted by customs/police/mark owner,companies already caught as breaching thebrand inputted by police/customs, etc.).
Countries where this service has already beenapplied: CZ, PT, UK, RO, PL.
5. Organising seminars, workshops etc. onenforcement issues preferably with judgesand/or attorneys
By necessity intellectual property law has to beabstract, both because it deals with intangiblesubject matters (inventions, works, etc.) andbecause this branch of law has, in practical life,to cover a great number of situations which areimpossible to foresee in advance within a legaltext. Therefore, court practice has traditionallyplayed an important role in the practical opera-tion of IPRs in the economic and cultural fabricof a society. The training modules can beworked out in co-operation with WIPOWorldwide Academy, OHIM, EPO etc.
Countries where this service has already beenapplied: SE, CZ, FR, DE, PT, IT, GR, RO.
6. Creation of website dedicated to IP enforcement
Recommended contents:
• a guidance for what to do in case of suspectedinfringement, either on behalf of the IP owneror customer,
• ”decision making tree” on what to do whenfacing infringement,
6456 „Plagiarius” does not fulfil all the selection criteria (see chapter 6.1), as it is a private funded service and not a NPO’s offer. For more information on “Plagiarius” see:
http://www.plagiarius.com/aktion_plag.html.
• easy to understand presentation and compar-ison of the different alternatives of actionsand dispute settlement options available,
• enforcement map depicting the stakeholderagencies like chambers of commerce, medi-ation agencies, and governmental organisa-tions (such as police, customs, consumerprotection organisation, NPO, court), thedescription of their IP enforcement relatedfunctions and services,
• communication of joint enforcement pro-grams, activities of the above bodies,
• user-uploadable database on counterfeitedproducts etc.
Countries where this service has already beenapplied: FR, DE, ES, PT, IT, DK, HU.
7. Creation of an “Electronic Complaint System”
The Electronic Complaint System is a centralsystem, based on the Internet, through whichan individual, enterprise or other organisationcan present a complaint concerning an infrac-tion to their or others` IPRs. The "ElectronicComplaint System" should be availablethrough a specific website created for anti-counterfeiting activities. The ComplaintSystem should be operated through the coop-eration of several governmental organisationssuch as NPOs, policy authorities and customs.
Countries where this service has already beenapplied: SE, PT, IT.
8. Development/implementation of B2B and B2C services
The copying of existing patents, logos andindustrial designs undoubtedly damages theeconomy. Several programmes (e.g. TMViewProgram,57 CETMOS,58 eMage/eMARKS59) exist orare currently under development aiming tocreate a common search engine tool to allowusers to consult registers of the EU nationaloffices as well as international organisationslike OHIM, WIPO etc. These are intelligentweb-based solutions, which help to fightagainst counterfeiting and to make companiesaware of existing registered patents, logos anddesigns.
Countries where this service has already beenapplied: CZ, PT, IT, DK, UK, BG, PL, RO, AT, HU.
7.2.2Services selected
Project partner NPOs selected appropriate ele-ments of the „Menu” for use in their individualstrategies. Within WP11 and WP12 ofIPeuropAware project, actions selected in WP9 willbe tested in each country with targeted groups ofSMEs following a predetermined procedure.
Important criteria of the selection of the services were:
a. to get a broader list for supplying IP awarenessraising and enforcement services and activities,implemented in a sustainable manner in theparticipating European countries by the end ofthe project;
b. to be in line with the financial, technical andoperative capacities of the participating NPOs,providing a guarantee of efficiency. This factoris important because most of the NPOs partic-ipating at the project are public institutions,financed by public funds.
Partner NPOs have selected the following services:
7.2.2.1Awareness services selected
- realisation of public actions (like road shows,information campaigns): PT;
- media advertisement: SE;
- information service on IPR issues (like“Helpdesk”): SE, PL;
- training courses (graduate/academic educa-tion): SE, DE;
- training courses (non-academic adult educa-tion): FI, PT, ES, BG;
- training courses (e-learning): CZ, SE, ES;
- services to assist SMEs in identifying IP assets(e.g. pre-diagnosis): EE, CZ, SE, TR, ES, BG,HU, AT, PT, FI.
7.2.2.2Enforcement services selected
- negative or positive award: UK;
- publishing enforcement guidebook for select-ed branches: DE, IT;
65
57 The TMview programme (formerly EuroRegister), which is currently being developed as part of OHIM’s commitment to the technical cooperation issues decided on inJuly 2005, aims to create a common trade mark search engine tool to allow users to consult registers of the EU national offices as well as OHIM’s register.
58 CETMOS offers businesses a survey of trademarks in force or pending in the participating nine Central and East European countries. The Austrian and the HungarianPatent Offices run it jointly. See: http://www.cetmos.eu/
59 The eMage/eMARKS projects, which were cofinanced by the European Commission, were aimed to market validate and initially deploy a service that will optimise theprotection of Trademarks and Industrial Designs by offering a reliable, effective and user-focused search service, based on images and augmented with natural languageand multi-lingual semantic indications on the categories of interest. See: http://emarks.iisa-innov.com/
- developing specific enforcement training tools(like interactive training packages): IT;
- creation of common database (with Police,Customs etc.): PT;
- organising seminars, workshops etc. onenforcement issues preferably with judges: EE,FI, GR, TR, UK, MT, HU, AT, ES, BG, PL;
- creation of website dedicated to IP enforce-ment: RO;
- creation of an “Electronic Complaint System”: DK;
- development/implementation of B2B and B2Cservices: FR, MT.
7.3Conclusion of the ”Menu” and recommendations
Globalisation has turned IPR awareness andenforcement into fixed policy goals within theagendas of national governments. The main actorsin this field are mostly the National Patent Offices.However, the role of NPOs as service providers forthe SMEs is relatively new in many EU countries,especially in the new EU Member States that for-merly belonged to the socialist bloc. The aim ofthe „Menu” was to show which IPR awarenessand enforcement support services NPOs haveactually been providing and, in terms of prac-tice, which activities they recommend forother NPOs with regard to IP awareness andenforcement.
By compiling the „Menu” it had to be taken intoaccount that there is no single solution for “bestpractice”. Each partner should rather work out aflexible service package taking into considerationthe national IP strategy and/or innovation policywith regard to the IP information or managementbased needs of SMEs.
The analyses of the services already applied at par-ticipating NPOs resulted in the finding that,regarding IPR awareness, the offices focus oneducational projects in 12 of the 20 countries. Inthese countries, training courses on intellectualproperty (non-academic adult education) arealready provided. The importance of training activ-ities is also highlighted in the conclusion of theBenchmarking report of the KMU ForschungAustria [“As a precondition to fostering IPR usage,it seems necessary to foster educational initiativesat universities (business faculties and technical fac-ulties, a “train the trainer” issue), but also – in
terms of general awareness – at high school level(“educate the public” issue)].”60 Informationservices on issues of IP rights and their protec-tion (like "National Patent Office Helpdesk") areprovided in the majority of the partner countries,and NPOs are strongly active in the field of open-ing up regional information service points onissues of IP rights and their protection. Publicactions (like road shows/campaigns) on theimportance of IPR awareness and the dangers ofcounterfeited products have also been realised inmany participating countries (in 12 of the 20).
Due to their mission and vision, NPOs are lessactive in enforcement activities than in provid-ing awareness raising services, however, theyalso focus within the scope of enforcement sup-port on organising seminars, workshops etc. onenforcement issues preferably with judges orother employees of public prosecutor’s offices. 10of the 20 NPOs have already developed and pro-vide actual B2B and B2C services such as web-based search engines helping the fight againstcounterfeiting. Another quite widely provided serv-ice is a specific website dedicated to IP enforce-ment issues (existing in 6 of the 20 countries).
In more general terms, the types of services that arethe dominant activity fields of NPOs are as follows:
• pro-active awareness raising through educa-tional services,
• information provision via help-desk, website orinformation campaigns,
• continually growing number of B2B and B2Cservices, provided by NPOs for SMEs withregard to IP awareness and enforcement.
Recommendations
The services actually available cover different levelsof IP awareness. However, in accordance with thefindings of the gap analysis, carried out withinWP1 of the IPeuropAware project, services provid-ed by the National Patent Offices have beenfocussing mainly on the first two AIDA levels(when SMEs are aware of IP and when they areprotecting IP on a more or less regular and system-atic basis). The focus on the more defensiveaspects of support services are often the result ofyears of effort to teach European SMEs about IPRsand to explain to them the benefits of using them.Knowing the IPR system and how to use rights isthus an important aspect. As noted in the conclu-sion of the document “Analysis of supply of sup-port services”, compiled within WP1 of the
6660 See: Radauer (2007): Benchmarking …, p. 106.
IPeuropAware project, this could be a reason whypublic authorities in Europe for many years havehad a more defensive approach. However, inrecent years (possibly due to the increase in theusage of IP rights) handling various aspects of aninfringement situation and commercialisation hasalso become important. “While in Europe thefocus of the public service providers seems to pre-viously have been on the more defensive protec-tion aspect, authorities in countries like Korea,China and Japan have worked hard on creatingmore strategic approaches for “IP based econom-ic growth”. If European SMEs want to avoid beingcaught up and overtaken by these new globalplayers a shift in focus to a more strategic andoffensive usage of IP is necessary.”61
Concerning the future development of IP serv-ices provided by NPOs, the following recom-mendations can be made:
• Modelling of a certain complex situation mostlikely helps to find a general package as anapproximate programme recommendation. Forthis reason, it will be recommended to NPOs toset up integrated service packages with regard tothe AIDA level of targeted SMEs.
• As shown in Chapter 7.2, increased attentiontowards enforcement issues can be identifiedamong the NPOs. In recent years some participat-ing countries decided to set up interdepartmentalcommittees to deal with the problem of counter-feiting and piracy. Therefore, service packagesshould also contain enforcement services (withreference to WP10, 11 and 12 of IPeuropAwareproject).
• To provide easy access to information and toserve the public, the services should be rolledout to regional/national/local actors, like EEN,innovation and innovation support stakehold-ers, SME support organisations or other NGOswith reference to the list of national stake-holders provided for WP5 of IPeuropAwareproject. In this way the effect of the imple-mented actions can be multiplied. The finalaim of the IPeuropAware project is to fosterinnovation support service provision, whichalso lies in the hands of operative networks.When selecting services it is very important toexamine the possible partners, their supportarea, service portfolio, customers, and last butnot least, their resources.
It is helpful for each stakeholder to learn fromother partners’ good-practices according to theirparameters, operating environments, other services
and actions, clientele, etc. However, there is noone-size-fits-all solution that can be recommend-ed. Thus general recommendations can be madebased on the aims that certain consortia partnerswish to reach. Eight package recommendationswere set up based on different possible targets tak-ing into account the following parameters:
• short-term vs. long term,
• direct vs. indirect effect,
• supply vs. demand driven actions,
• AIDA level.
Conserning AIDA though level ”A1” and level ”I”services are naturally overpowering the upper levelservices, we took great care not to offer unequalised”AI-heavy / DA-light” package portfolio set-ups, buttried to foster them to be close-to-business, and aspractical as possible. When setting up the differentpackages great care was allocated to pair up servic-es, which strengthen the effect of each other.
The situation is even more complex, as NPOs in dif-ferent countries might be in dissimilar position interms of their mandate, manoeuvrability, and cata-lyst role. Just to give an example, some NPOs areresponsible for industrial property areas, while oth-ers also have competence and mandate on copy-right issues as well. Some have operative contactwith enforcement bodies as a result of national pol-icy preferences (as shown in Chapter 7.2), whileothers operate more on an isolated basis. Thesefeatures have to be taken into consideration whenselecting the optimal package, or services.
Examples for integrated services packages:
I. Level (A1): Basic information on IP
• Training courses on IP (basic level)
• Media campaigns on the importance of IPRawareness and the advantages of trainingcourses– with focus on e-learning
• Helpdesk, info service points
• Guidebooks
• PR activities like negative awards
II. Level (I): Protection of IP
• Workshops, educational programs for „softIP” tools
6761 See: Kjaer (2008): Analysis of supply ..., p. 17.
68
• Seminars concerning enforcement issues
• Media campaigns on the importance of IPRawareness and the dangers of counterfeitedproducts
III. Level (D): Management of IP
• B2B, B2C services
• Website dedicated to IP enforcement
• Electronic complaint system
• Media campaigns on the advantages of IP-related services in business life provided byNPOs. Continuous communication with thepublic through the media is elemental for thesuccess of the services
• Score services to assist SMEs in identifying IPassets – like IP Pre-diagnosis
IV. Level (A2): Exploitation of IP
Enterprises working at the highest level ofawareness employ their own industrial proper-ty consultants, attorneys and/or departments.The strategic handling of their intellectualproperty is always a top priority. For theseorganisations, the up-to-date readiness,tractability and flexibility of data available fromthe industrial property databases found at thenational patent offices is of high importance.The fusion and development of database serv-ices providing different types of data means asignificant expansion of services.
Having collected the data contributed by the part-ner NPOs, a “Matrix of recommended integratedservice packages” has been compiled. This Matrix(Table 19) provides an overview of the integratedservice packages, which will be recommended forthe partner NPOs.
69
P1:Q
uic
kre
spo
nse
awar
enes
sra
isin
g
Pack
ages
Cam
paig
nsN
egat
ive/
po
siti
veaw
ard
Med
iaad
sH
elp
des
kIn
fose
rvic
ep
oin
ts
Aca
dem
iced
uca
tio
nN
on
-ac
adem
iced
uca
tio
n
E-le
arn
ing
Ind
ust
rysp
ecif
icgu
ideb
ook
Trai
nin
gto
olo
nen
forc
e-m
ent
Wo
rksh
op
on
enfo
rce-
men
t
Spec
ific
web
site
IP-
valu
atio
n/
dia
gn
osi
s
Co
pyr
igh
tre
gis
try
Enfo
rce-
men
td
atab
ase
E-co
mp
lain
tsy
stem
B2B
,B2C
serv
ices
A1
AID
Ale
vel
A1
A1 I I D D A2
P2:C
apac
ity
bu
ildin
gaw
aren
ess
rais
ing
P3:I
nve
stm
ent
ined
uca
tio
n–m
idte
rm
P4:I
nve
stm
ent
ined
uca
tio
n–l
on
g-t
erm
P5:P
ract
ical
nee
d-r
aisi
ng
edu
cati
on
P6:A
ctio
nra
ng
ew
iden
ing
P7:S
up
ply
sid
eca
pac
ity
and
issu
eb
uild
ing
P8:S
ervi
ceb
oo
stin
g
Prom
otio
nClie
nt
serv
ice
Educatio
nServic
ebuildin
g
IPeuro
pA
ware
Serv
ice
Package
Recom
mendati
ons
tota
ckle
dif
fere
nt
aw
are
ne
ssra
isin
ga
nd
en
forc
em
en
tre
late
dg
oa
lsre
fle
ctin
gth
ed
ive
rse
stra
teg
icp
rio
riti
es,
op
era
tio
ne
nv
iro
nm
en
ts,
de
ve
lop
me
nt
lev
els
,so
cio
eco
no
mic
ne
ed
so
fM
em
be
rS
tate
sa
nd
sco
pe
of
pa
rtn
er
NP
Os
19
.Ta
ble
:M
atri
xo
fre
com
men
ded
inte
gra
ted
serv
ice
pac
kag
esTh
eab
ove
pac
kag
esar
eb
uilt
on
each
oth
er's
resu
lts.
Ther
efo
re,
itis
reco
mm
end
edto
follo
wth
eir
ord
er.
Itis
po
ssib
leto
set
up
cou
ntr
ysp
ecif
icp
acka
ges
tailo
r-m
ade
toth
elo
cal
stra
teg
icp
olic
yen
viro
nm
ent.
Itis
also
po
ssib
leto
sele
ctd
iffe
ren
tp
acka
ges
inIP
Aw
aren
ess
and
Enfo
rcem
ent,
asth
ed
evel
op
men
to
fso
ciet
y,n
eed
s,an
dp
refe
ren
ces
mig
ht
be
dif
fere
nt
inb
oth
area
s.Pa
ckag
e7
ism
ost
lysu
pp
ort
ing
go
vern
men
tal
and
inte
r-o
ffic
eco
-op
erat
ion
that
has
tosa
tisf
yth
en
eed
sg
ener
ated
by
the
soci
ety.
Alt
ho
ug
h,
con
sort
ium
par
tner
sh
ave
less
dir
ect
effe
cto
nth
isst
rate
gy
elem
ent,
they
can
pla
ya
cata
lyti
cro
le.
Globalisation and technological progress arereshaping the world economy. In Europe, tradi-tional comparative advantages for advancedeconomies have mostly vanished and innovation isincreasingly becoming the sole response to thechallenge of globalisation. It is this imperativeneed for innovation that has turned IntellectualProperty into a central issue. Recently we have tocope with a global economic crisis. Innovation canlead to economic recovery, intellectual propertycan become an effective tool to reorganisingnational economics.
Europe’s innovation landscape is controversial. Arough estimate shows that the continent as awhole is lagging behind the United States, despitethe fact that R&D spending in a few Europeancountries approaches or even exceeds US figuresand the weight of business participation in R&D isnot lower. Five EU countries – Denmark, Finland,Germany, Sweden and the UK – continue to havevery strong performance, as world innovative lead-ers alongside the US and Japan.62 Unfavourableoverall figures can mostly be attributed to themodest performance of the countries partly inSouthern, and mostly in Eastern Europe, where amore limited business participation is adding togenerally lower spending on R&D. Considering thestrong interrelation between innovation and theprotection of IP, there is a good reason to assumethat this lagging in innovation can also beexplained by a more limited awareness andenforcement of IPR in Europe than in the UnitedStates. However, a similar lagging appears to existwithin Europe. The gap analysis completed within WP1 of theIPeuropAware project, in which gaps and therebySMEs’ current needs for IP awareness and enforce-ment support services were identified,63 hasshown the following results: with regards to theincreasing demand for support services and to thediversity on the supply side, the assessment of theefficiency of services is becoming more and moreimportant. By assessing the SME’s need for servic-es (demand side) the analysis points out that SMEsare generally aware of the advantages and disad-vantages with regard to finding the right serviceproviders for particulars.
The most relevant tool to address this need is theprovision of in-depth, individually tailored consult-ing services. NPOs are potential providers, the lim-ited availability of relevant expertise, however, is astrong hampering factor.
Compared with patenting records as indicators,the changes induced by IP services in the behav-iour of the SMEs utilising them may prove moreinformative in many cases. In these analyses,changes are expressed in terms of behaviouraladditionality – a term expressing the relativechange induced by services in the behaviour con-cerning individual IP or IPR components.
Analyses of this type are widely applied by theAustrian Benchmarking study.64 A rough picture ofthe 15 selected cases shows that most of thechanges induced by the services took place withrespect to general awareness and in the category of“general knowledge management know-how” (anincrease of 55%). Interestingly, and despite thepatent-centricity of most IPR services, patent usagewithin company IPR strategies only increased in 27%of the companies reviewed. Displacement effects(informal protection instruments being substitutedby formal IPR) are rather small, while the lowestbehavioural effects can be seen in the field of licens-ing. This may indicate that the services concernedprimarily focus on the first phases of IPR usage anddevelopment and less on successive ones.
The findings of related research demonstrate theusefulness of IP related services. Behaviouralchanges can be induced on a wide range of aspectsrelated to the usage of IPR and/or informal IP pro-tection methods. The co-operation of public servic-es with private service providers is clearly strength-ening the business mindedness of the former.
Apart from the reasons, the fact that SMEs oftendo not take full advantage of opportunities toexploit industrial property rights calls for promptactions. The focussing by Work Package 9 of theIPeuropAware project on SMEs can be explained bythis recognised restraint of the SME sector con-cerning innovation and IPR.
Based on the 20 national contributions of partici-pating countries this present summary ofIPeuropAware project WP9 has achieved followinggoals:
• National IP awareness and enforcementstrategies and policies with special regard toIP awareness level and enforcement practice ofSMEs have been identified. Chapter 4 containsan analysis of the landscape of national innova-tion strategies and IP policies.
70
8 Summary and Conclusions
62 European Commission (2008): European Innovation Scoreboard. Comparative analysis of innovation performance. PRO-INNO Europe. Brussels, p. 15f.63 See: Kjaer (2008): Report on gap analysis …64 See: Radauer (2007): Benchmarking …, p. 65.
• The strengths, weaknesses, opportunitiesand threats of IP policy (based on SWOTanalyses) have been presented. Chapter 5 eval-uates the success of IP strategies in the light ofnational SWOT analyses.
• The conditions under which IP awareness andenforcement policies can efficiently prevailhave been successfully monitored with regardto the changes in the role of NationalPatent Offices aimed at supporting these poli-cies (NEEDS analyses). Chapter 6 provides ananalysis of needs for more efficient IP aware-ness and enforcement with special regard tothe NPOs’ activities and services.
• The existing services of the NPOs in the 20 part-ner countries separately have been analysed inorder to recommend new awareness raisingand enforcement related services, reflectingthe diverse strategic priorities, operation envi-ronments, development levels, socio-economicneeds of Member States and scope of partnerNPOs. As a result, Chapter 7 comprises a withrecommended integrated service packages,built on partner NPOs best practice examplesand experiences. On the basis of this recom-mendation, country specific packages may beset up, tailor-made to the local strategic policyenvironment.
In the remainder of this concluding chapter, con-clusions, findings and lessons learned are thusorganised along the structure of the study: thestrategy level, the IPR demand and supply side leveland the service level. Some of the conclusions arelisted in more than one part.
1. National Innovation Strategies
By monitoring the national innovation strategieswith special regard to IP awareness level andenforcement practice of SMEs, a wide institution-al complexity could be identified in most partici-pating countries. This institutional complexity isbroadly referred to as a problem of innovation sup-port systems and – in more general – of the regu-latory system as a whole. Associated key words inthe related literature are overlapping, institutionalrigidities and lock-in, the joint decision trap as aconsequence of the former etc. and the term„garbage can model”65 is frequently cited. At min-imum, a rough treatment of the problem seems tobe pressing. Institutional adjustments, however,tend to have strong political implications and theirintroduction, therefore, would require the agree-ment of competing parties.
European efforts towards and practices of decreas-ing the administrative burdens imposed by regula-tion on business actors may nevertheless give astrong impetus to institutional changes. In thisrespect NPOs can potentially become members ofpressure groups to enforce corrections aimed atthe increased coherence of the institutional IPRenvironment.
The implications of the institutional framework maywell go beyond the responsibilities of NPOs.Nevertheless, they certainly touch upon the futuredevelopment of their role. More visible are the con-sequences of the recently emerging European trendof criminalising IPR offences and concentrating onthe protection of IP in a global dimension with aparticular attention to the role played by China.
The questions of institutional complexity and thegrowing demand for stronger enforcement viacriminalisation are pointing at the need for a betterunderstanding of the overall policy environment.The fields to be primarily included are innovationsupport, education and cooperation amonginvolved institutions. The clear parallels betweenthese activity fields should be identified and syner-gies should be exploited.
The first main lesson is that a national IP sup-port or innovation strategy is recommendedeven if a wide scale of services with high effi-ciency is already offered to enterprises.66 Sucha national IP/innovation strategy fixes the goals andobjectives, sets timetables and frameworks for thecooperation of the innovation support organisa-tions and entities. The action plan, connected tosuch a strategy, outlines the responsibilities andfinancial capabilities of all institutions that con-tribute to the innovation system. In particular, thenational IP/innovation strategy defines the role ofparticipating institutions regarding innovation sup-port and IPR and their fields of action. This can leadto synergies and better utilisation of resources inthe interest of the defined goals.
2. SWOT, NEEDS: IPR demand and supply side level
A few aspects of social behaviour that may strong-ly help or threaten the progress of IPR are cited inthe national SWOT analyses reviewed and sum-marised in this paper. It would be difficult to char-acterise in terms of numbers the influences exertedby these „soft factors” concerning the awarenessand enforcement of IPR.
Soft (mainly social and historical) factors areassumed to have a major role concerning the inno-
7165 See: Radauer (2007): Benchmarking …, p. 91)66 Alfred Radauer et al. (2008): SME-IP 1st Review Support Services in the Field of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) for SMEs in Switzerland. A review. IGE-Technopolis.
Bern, p. 77.
vative environment – an environment to encourageinnovative efforts and entrepreneurship. Despitenot being directly included in the recent conceptu-al framework, several notions collected in thecourse of the survey have pointed at their role. Thisfact, however, tends to be ignored both in for-malised strategies and the strengths, weaknessesand opportunities of SWOT analyses. At the sametime, interestingly, the quotation of such factors asthreats is remarkable.
A possible explanation is that these factors are usu-ally thought to be beyond reach and therefore can-not be influenced. Whether or not this is true, theyare clearly present, and their effects should beexplored, and opportunities for influencing them ina generally agreed direction should be searchedfor. The requirement here is that the possibleactors to implement the policies concerned areidentified, and the coherence of the policiesare established. The role of NPOs in this con-text needs consideration.
In this context, one of these factors disproportion-ately burdening most of the new Member States isthe destructive heritage originating in these coun-tries from the long-lasting restriction of privateownership – both tangible and intangible. This pol-icy of weakening or neutralising market forces wasaccompanied by a systematic undermining, on anideological level, of the values inherent in the mar-ket economy and its related categories – primarilyentrepreneurship. The resulting distortion of publicthinking is of a lingering nature, and makes theidentification of IPR as the ”sine qua non” of inno-vation even more difficult. Institutional rigidity andlock-in tend to prolong this problem and in thisrespect produce an additional challenge for theleading executives of NPOs.
3. The changing role of NPOs
As a matter of fact, globalisation has turned aware-ness into a public good, the provision of which – atleast in its general form – is the responsibility of thestate. Assigned by the state, the main actors in thisfield are mostly the national patent offices. However,making IP awareness and enforcement broadlyaccepted and recognised as a quality public goodbrings about the need for a stronger political pres-ence of NPOs in a form of lobbying, coordinat-ing, mediating. Similarly, the predominating weightof policy-type factors (co-ordination and harmonisa-tion) in the national contributions of the recent proj-ect tends to outline a potentially stronger role ofNPOs among the actors of economic policy. This polit-ical dimension of the changing role of NPOs touchesa variety of issues. Our question here and now is that,
against the above backdrop, what may, can, orshould NPOs do with regard to IP awareness andenforcement support in terms of practice. This israising the question of the division of labour betweenpatent offices and other institutions, primarily innova-tion agencies and a variety of private actors.
The role of NPOs as service providers for the SMEsis relatively new, at least in most of the countriesparticipating in IPeuropAware project. Technology/development agencies, on the contrary, have abetter knowledge of innovation and R&D supportpractices and also a better knowledge of business.However, their IPR know-how is necessarily limit-ed. These circumstances may provide the founda-tion for a harmonic co-operation betweenNPOs and intermediaries to raise SMEs’ inter-est about IP.
One out of the two basic options is the scalingdown of NPOs to their basic competence. Theother option is to turn NPOs into “institutes ofintellectual property” by enriching them with notonly patent filing and database searches, but alsosimultaneous IPR services with the relevant finan-cial and managerial expertise.67 At the same timethere are NPOs which intend to keep away fromenriching their service portfolio with “addedvalue” patent search services.68
IPR attorneys generally agree that NPOs shouldconcentrate on basic services and on creating andmaintaining framework conditions, leaving moresophisticated services to private providers. In moreparticular terms, the types of services that shouldbe the domain of NPOs or other public serviceproviders are as follows:
• pro-active awareness raising through educa-tional services,
• information provision via help-desk, website orinformation campaigns,
• the types of training where SMEs benefit to alarger extent,
• continually growing number of B2B and B2Cservices, provided by NPOs for SMEs withregard to IP awareness and enforcement.
• subsidies and legal framework (subsidies main-ly for the registration of patents and tax provi-sions from which SMEs can benefit as laiddown in national legal frameworks).
For this reason NPOs should keep the delicate bal-ance between profit-oriented services provided
7267 This latter option is favoured by The Gowers Review: „It would be useful to connect regional agencies together to provide one coherent source of what is available so
that businesses can be directed to the relevant agencies by the Patent Office and other organisations.” HM Treasury (2006), p. 93. 68 The US Patent Office, for instance, prefers an alternative option of creating quality standards for a would-be private market with the Patent Office acting as a central
quality assuring institution. See: Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (2003): Report on a review of the Patenting of Business Strategies. Woden Act, p. 17.
mainly by IPR attorneys – and non-profit orientedpublicly founded services provided by NPOs.
4. Menu, services
The large number of services and elements of prac-tice actually provided by NPOs were described forthe ”Menu”. The two categories of analyses andpossible actions were awareness and enforcement.It was one of the most challenging tasks for theleader of WP9 to make a pre-selection among thesereported services. Generally agreed principles ofselection gave assistance, but this cannot competewith the mobilising potential inherent in best prac-tices. Thereby it must be noted – in accordance withthe conclusions of the comprehensive AustrianBenchmarking Study intended to identify the bestpractices of IP related services69 – that:
• for mostly contextual reasons “best practices” ofservices do not exist in the sense that theycould be successfully applied elsewhere in acomplex way. Elements of good practices,however, can be adopted, but the opportuni-ties to rely on practices leading to success else-where have to be limited to their individual ele-ments, and practices as a whole cannot be copied;
• despite the large number of services NPOs pro-vide, different competencies in the field of theIP awareness and enforcement support issuescan be identified among these organisations. Themost conspicuous illustration for this fact is thatnot all national NPOs are involved in enforcementsupport issues (see Table 18). However, the ten-dency shows an increasing attention toenforcement issues among the NPOs.
The aim of the ”Menu” was to show which IPRawareness and enforcement support services NPOshave actually been providing and, in terms of prac-tice, which activities they recommend for otherNPOs with regard to IP awareness and enforcement.
The analyses of the services already applied at theparticipating NPOs resulted in the finding thatregarding IPR awareness, the offices focus on edu-cational projects. The importance of training activ-ities is also highlighted in the conclusion of theBenchmarking report of the KMU ForschungAustria.70 The instrument of awareness raising byintegrating IP modules into formalised education iswidely reported in the country papers. It is worthmentioning for instance that a major success storyof the British NPO in 2005/2006 was the launch ofversion 2 of THINK Kit and its take up in 81% ofschools (described under Chapter 6.2.6).71
Information services on issues of IP rights andtheir protection (like ”National Patent OfficeHelpdesk”) are also provided in the majority of thepartner countries, and NPOs are strongly active inthe field of opening up regional information serv-ice points on issues of IP rights and their protec-tion. Public actions (like road shows/campaigns)on the importance on the IPR awareness and thedangers of counterfeited products have also beenrealised in many participating countries.
NPOs have less enforcement activities thanawareness raising services. However, they focuswithin the scope of enforcement support onorganising seminars, workshops etc. onenforcement issues preferably with judges orother employees of public prosecutor’s offices.Many NPOs have already developed and provideactually B2B and B2C services such as web-basedsearch engines to help the fight against counter-feiting. Another quite widely provided service is aspecific website dedicated to IP enforcement issues.While the set of optional policies is necessarilydetermined by contextual factors, the selection ofnew services within this set of policies is left toNPOs. Benchmarking studies are unanimouslypointing at the opportunities inherent in integra-tion. A predominating conclusion of the Menu isthat integration should be strived for, and serv-ices should be offered in integrated packagesto increase the efficiency of NPO policies, takinginto account the highly complex nature of IPR. Thiscan be done by genuinely integrated services or –in order to make scarce expertise available and toincrease visibility and accessibility – by referring toother providers. The main advantage of integrationis the potential emergence of synergies.
A special case of integration is embeddedness.Embedded services operating in the field of IPR areparts of service portfolios that are not directly tar-geted at IP related issues: they are provided withinother non-IPR oriented services. Success itself inthis context is of an “embedded” nature.
Another possible approach is to focus at the mini-mum responsibilities that partly or wholly belongto the competencies of NPOs. As far as specificexpertise is concerned, for example, not all NPOshave the same level of scientific/technical, legaland business expertise, and it is especially the lat-ter that requires particular attention.
As a confirmation of the above appraisal, theMatrix on table 19 provides an overview on therecommended integrated service packages.
7369 See: Radauer (2007): Benchmarking …, Conclusions.70 See: Radauer (2007): Benchmarking …, p. 106.71 UK Patent Office (2006): Corporate Plan 2006. Newport, p.18.
74
General References
Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (2003): Report on a review of the Patenting of Business Strategies. Woden Act. (Cited 11 June 2007; available at: http://www.acip.gov.au/library/bsreport.pdf)
Borsi, B. – Viszt, E. (2007): Innovative companies on the role of state. Research paper. GKI Co. Budapest.
Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services (ed.): Best Practice Project: Strengthening the IPR Enforcement of EU Industry and SMEs. Draft Final Report.Unpublished working paper.
Doornbos, R. et al. (2003): Usage Profiles of Patent Information among Current and Potential Users. Report on the main results ofthe survey commissioned by the European Patent Office. Amsterdam.
Edfjäll, C. (2006): The role of PATLIBs in the strategy of the EPO. PATLIB2006 Conference, 22–24 May. Prague.
European Commission (2001): Creating Top-Class Business Support Service. Commission Staff Working Paper. SEC(2001) 1937. Brussels.
European Commission (2007): Enhancing the Patent System in Europe. Communication from the Commission to the EuropeanParliament and the Council. COM (2007) 165 final. Brussels.
European Commission (2008): An Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe. Communication from the Commission to the EuropeanParliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. COM (2008) 465/3. Brussels.
European Communities (2008): Science, Technology and Innovation in Europe. Eurostat Statistical Books. Luxemburg.
European Patent Academy (2007):Innovation and IP Management. Follow-up Study Module 5; ISTP Innovation Support Training Program. Lille.
Graevenitz, G. von/Harhoff, D. (2002):The Impact of Recessions on the Utilization of Intellectual Property; First Report. WIPO-study. München.
Granstrand, O. (2006): Patents and innovations for growth and welfare. Summary and recommendations of a government policy study. CIM report No. 2006:01. Göteborg.
HM Treasury (2006): The Gowers Review of Intellectual Property. London.(www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/govers-review)
Kjaer, K. (2008): Analysis on demand for support services, IPeuropAware project. Unpublished project material, WP1, edit-ed by Danish Patent and Trademark Office. Copenhagen.
9. References
75
Kjaer, K. (2008): Analysis of supply of support services. Unpublished project material, IPeuropeAwaree project, WP1, edit-ed by Danish Patent and Trademark Office. Copenhagen.
Kjaer, K. (2008): Report on gap analysis. Unpublished project material, IPeuropeAwaree project, WP1, edited by DanishPatent and Trademark Office. Copenhagen.
Nordström, Ch. (2008): Main actors/intermediaries in Europe in the field of IPR-Innovation-SMEs. Unpublished project material, IPeuropeAwaree project, WP5, edited by Swedish Patent and TrademarkOffice. Stockholm.
Philippon, T. – Vern, N. (2008): Financing Europe’s Fast Movers. Brugel policy brief 2008/1. Brussels.
Pompidou, A. (2006):Welcome address. PATLIB2006 Conference, 22-24 May. Prague.
PRO-INNO Europe (2008): European Innovation Scoreboard. Comparative analysis of innovation performance. (http://www.proinno-europe.eu/doc/EIS2006_final.pdf)
Radauer, A. (2007): Benchmarking National and Regional Support. Services for SMEs in the Field of Intellectual and IndustrialProperty. Final Benchmarking Report. Edited by KMU Forschung Austria, Austrian Institute for SMEResearch. Luxemburg.
Radauer, A.(2008):SME–IP • 1st ReportSupport Services in the Field of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) for SMEs in Switzerland – A Review
Technopolis (2007): “Effects of counterfeiting on EU SMEs and a review of various public and private IPR enforcement initia-tives and resources”. Final report.
References for the countries participated in the project
1) AustriaACIP (2003): Austrian Benchmark Study.
2) BulgariaStrategy for Science, Technology and Innovation - Bulgaria. (www.arc.online.bg)
Conception for the institutional, structural and functional development of the Patent Office of theRepublic of Bulgaria, 2006-2009.(www.mee.government.bg)
3) Czech RepublicIng. Jasansky, J. (2004): Innovation Strategy of the Czech Republic. Prague. (http://www.mpo.cz/dokument11688.html)
Ing. Holub, P. (2005): National Innovation Policy of the Czech Republic for 2005–2010. Prague. (http.www.mpo.cz/dokument11671.html)
The Office of the Czech Republic Government Research and Development Councel (2007): Analysis ofthe existing state of research, development and innovation in the Czech Republic and a comparison withthe situation abroad in 2007. Prague.(http://www.vyzkum.cz/FrontClanek.aspx?idsekce=8304)
´
76
European Comission (2007):INNO-Policy Trend Chart. Policy Trends and Appraisal Report, Czech Republic 2007. Brussels.Mutual cooperation between governmental bodies engaged in enforcements of IP rights. A portal(www.dusevnivlastnictvi.cz) has been launched to facilitate mutual cooperation.
4) DenmarkThe Danish Government (2006): Progress, Innovation and Cohesion. Denmark in the Global Economy. Copenhagen. (http://www.globalisation.dk)
Ministry of Economic and Business Affairs (2008): Competitiveness report. Copenhagen.(http://www.konkurrenceevne.dk/sw634.asp)
5) EstoniaEngelbrecht, P. et al. (2007): Knowledge-based Estonia. Estonian Research and Development and Innovation Strategy 2007-2013. Tartu.(http://www.hm.ee/index.php?0&popup=download&id=6175)
European Communities (2007): Evaluation of Estonian RTDI Policy Mix. Tallinn.
Center for Policy Studies PRAXIS - Hill & Knowlton (2005): Estonia. Innovation and Estonian opinion leaders.Pilot study for identifying the needs of the target groups of innovation awareness programme. Tallinn.(http://www.eas.ee/vfs/3086/Innovatsioon_ja_arvamusliidrid_2005.pdf)
Country Report Estonia 2007. (www.proinno-europe/eu/docs/reports/documents/)
6) FinlandFinnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation.(http://tekes.fi/eng/)
Finnish Ministry of Employment and the Economy (2008): Proposal for Finland’s National InnovationStrategy. Helsinki. (http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download_en/finland_national_innovation_strategy.pdf)(http://www.innovaatiostrategia.fi/files/download/Nationalinnovationstrategy_EN.pdf)
Peltonen, P. (2008): Finland’s New Innovation Strategy and its Contribution to the ERA. Helsinki. (http://www.tekes.fi/eng/events/InnovativeEurope/Peltonen.pdf)
EurActiv.com (2008): Finland goes ”from words to deeds” on innovation (interview). (http://www.euractiv.com/en/innovation/finland-goes-words-deeds-innovation/article-173674)
Loikkanen, T. – Konttinen, J. – Hyvönen, J. – Ruotsalainen, L. – Tuominen, K. – Waris, M. – Hyttinen, V.– Ilmarinen, O. (2008): Acquisition and utilisation of external knowledge and information services in inno-vation activities of SMEs. VTT Tiedotteita – Research Notes. Tampere.
Copyright Information and Anti-piracy Centre (CIAPC).(http://www.antipiracy.fi/inenglish/)
7) FranceMinistry of Economy and Industry (2003): Cahier industries n°86 INDUSTRIE. Paris.(http://www.industrie.gouv.fr/biblioth/docu/kiosque/cahiers/pdf/c0086.pdf)
Ministry of Economy and Industry (2009): Lettre d’information de la DGIS Paris.(http://www.industrie.gouv.fr/poles-competitivite/brochure.pdf)
General Secretariat for the CNAC (The National Committee against counterfeiting.(www.contrefacon-danger.com)
77
8) GermanyFederal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (2006): High-Tech Strategy for Germany. Bonn. Berlin. (http://www.bmbf.de/pub/bmbf_hts_en_kurz.pdf)Comission of Expert Studies (2008): Future Technologies: Strong Engine – but Germany is lacking per-formance. Berlin. (http://www.e-fi.de/fileadmin/Gutachten/Gutachten_Upload.pdf)
9) GreeceHellenic Republic Ministry of Development General Secretartiat for Research and Technology (2007):Strategic Plan for the Development of Research, Technology and Innovation under the NSRF 2007-13.Athens. (http://www.gsrt.gr/default.asp?V_ITEM_ID=4699)
Management and Control System (MCS). (http://www.espa.gr/English/Documents.aspx?docid=120)
Hellenic Republic Ministry of Economy and Finance (2005) National Reform Programme for Growth and Jobs 2008-2010. Athens.(http://www.mnec.gr/en/economics/reform_programme_2005-2008/)
10) HungaryHungarian Patent Office Annual Reports. Various issues.
Hungarian Patent Office in co-operation with the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (2006):Survey on doing business, innovativeness, IP knowledge and application of Hungarian SMEs. Budapest. (http://www.mszh.hu/English/ip_survey/)
European Comission: Pro-Inno Europe, Inno Actions, report on Hungary.(http://www.ip4inno.eu/index.php?id=338)
Hungarian Ministry of Economy and Transport (2007): The Government’s mid-term (2007-2013) science,technology and innovation policy (STI) strategy. Budapest. (http://www.mta.hu/fileadmin/2007/07/tti.pdf)
Foundation for Hungarian Buisness Economics - GKI Economic Research Co. on behalf of the Ministry ofEconomy and Transport (2003): Az innováció és a technológiapolitika szempontjából fontos intézményekés vállalkozások jegyzéke, tevékenységi körük és tervezett fejlesztési koncepciójuk, várakozásuk bemu-tatásával (List of institutions and companies which are important for innovation and technology policy,their production and development plans). Budapest.
11) ItalyNIS is Industria 2015. (http://www.industria2015.ipi.it/)
Competitiveness Fund. (http://www.industria2015.ipi.it/?id=3)
Corporate Finance Fund. (http://www.industria2015.ipi.it/?id=11)
Economic-financial valuation of Patents. (http://www.uibm.gov.it/it/news/)
National Data Base regarding Patents. (http://www.uibm.gov.it/dati/)
78
12) LuxemburgLe Gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxemburg (2005): Plan national pour l’innovation et le pleinemploi. Luxemburg.(http://www.eco.public.lu/documentation/publications/pnr/PNR_Luxemburg_FINAL.pdf)
This national plan has been recently updated:(http://www.odc.public.lu/publications/pnr/Rapport_Plan_national_2008.pdf)
13) MaltaMalta Council for Science and Technology (2006): Building and Sustaining the Research and Innovation(R&I) Enabling Framework. Kalkara.(http://www.mcst.gov.mt/page.aspx?id=38)
14) PolandInnovation policy in Poland. (www.unece.org/ceci)
Polish Ministry of Economy (2006): The Strategy for Increasing the Innovativeness of the Economy for2007–2013. Warsaw. (http://www.mg.gov.pl/NR/rdonlyres/90AF42C4-A420-4BF9-9CE8-C28B8E4FFE/50361/KierunkiENG.pdf)
Polish Ministry of Regional Development (2006): National Development Strategy 2007–2015. Warsaw. (http://www.mrr.gov.pl/srk/Strony/srk_0715.aspx)
Polish Ministry of Regional Development (2007): National Strategic Reference Framework 2007–2013.National Cohesion Strategy. Warsaw. (http://www.mrr.gov.pl/english/National%20Cohesion%20Strategy/Documents/c30b064a07e94abeb83fd8f6268b76e3NSRO_an_20_07.pdf)
15) PortugalTechnological Plan, 2005. (http://www.planotecnologico.pt/default.aspx?idLang=2)
Reinforcement of the Use of the National Patent System, 2008, INPI, Portugal.
16) Romania Romanian Government – Ministry of Education and Research (2006): National Strategy of Research,Development and Innovation 2007-2013. Bucharest.(http://www.mct.ro/img/files_up/1188314177strategia%20ro.pdf)
Romanian Government - Ministry of Education and Research: National Action Plan of NIS.(http://www.mct.ro/index.php?action=view&idcat=228)
SMEs dedicated portal. (www.immromania.ro)
17) SpainSpanish Science and Technology Foundation (2007): National Strategy of Science and Technology.Madrid.(http://web.micinn.es/05_Investigacion/01@APoliticas/02@Encyt/Encyt.pdf)
Ministry of Science and Innovation (2007): National R&D&Innovation Plan 2008-2011. Madrid. (http://www.micinn.es/files/plan-nacional-consejo.pdf)
Anti-piracy and counterfeiting website. (http://www.oepm.es/cs/Satellite?c=Page&cid=1179489519322&classIdioma=_es_es&idPage=1179489519322&pagename=OEPMSite %2FPage %2FtplHomePirateria)
18) SwedenEdling, J. – Hermansson, K. – Nilsson, R. – Nordborg, J. (2007): Innovativa små och medelstora företag –Sveriges framtid. Strategi från VINNOVA för ökad innovationskraft. Stockholm. (http://www.vinnova.se/upload/EPiStorePDF/vp-07-01.pdf)
Innovationsbron (2007): Innovationsbrons forsknings- och innovationsstrategi 2009–2012 -en satsningpå ökad tillväxt ur forskning och innovation. Stockholm.(http://www.innovationsbron.se/Uploads/Files/146.pdf)
Innovationsbron (2008): ALICE. Att LICEnsiera. Stockholm.(http://www.innovationsbron.se/Uploads/Files/174.pdf)
(http://www.iva.se/templates/Page.aspx?id=4981)
European Comission (2007): INNO-Policy TrendChart – Policy Trends and Appraisal ReportSweden. Brussels. (http://www.proinno-europe.eu/docs/reports/documents/Country_Report_Sweden_2007.pdf)
19) Turkey(http://www.tubitak.gov.tr/tubitak_content_files//BTYPD/btyk/18/18btyk_karar.pdf)
(http://www.tubitak.gov.tr/home.do?ot=1&sid=470&pid=468)
(http://vizyon2023.tubitak.gov.tr)
(http://www.dpt.gov.tr/DocObjects/Download/1968/plan9.pdf)
20) United KingdomUK Patent Office (2006): Corporate Plan 2006. Newport. (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/about-plan2006.pdf)
UK–IPO (2007): Intellectual Property Crime Report 2007. London. (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipcreport.pdf)
80
1.No.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
16.
17.
18.
19.
STRENGTHS
Wid
era
ng
eo
fin
itia
tive
sin
volv
ing
an
um
ber
of
Go
vern
men
td
epar
tmen
tsfo
cuss
ing
on
awar
enes
san
den
forc
emen
t
Am
inis
ter
app
oin
ted
wit
hso
lere
spo
nsi
bili
tyfo
rIP
issu
es–
avo
ice
atth
eh
eart
of
Go
vern
men
t
Rec
og
nis
edb
ran
dw
hic
hh
asb
een
esta
blis
hed
ove
r15
0ye
ars
Info
rmat
ion
avai
lab
leo
ver
ah
igh
lyre
gar
ded
web
site
Bu
sin
ess
focu
ssed
liter
atu
rew
hic
his
con
stan
tly
mo
vin
gfo
rwar
d
Wel
lest
ablis
hed
IP-l
egis
lati
on
nat
ion
ally
Fully
har
mo
niz
edfr
amew
ork
wit
hEu
rop
ean
leg
isla
tio
n
Sup
po
rtfr
om
inte
rmed
iate
sw
elle
stab
lish
ed
Sup
po
rtfr
om
org
anis
atio
ns
avai
lab
le
Trai
nin
gco
urs
esav
aila
ble
Ven
ture
cap
ital
exis
ts
Inco
rpo
rate
sal
lnec
essa
ryp
artn
ers
Bff
ers
spec
iala
dva
nta
ges
for
SMEs
Info
rmat
ion
on
pu
blic
sub
sid
ies
avai
lab
le
Hig
hq
ual
ifie
dst
aff,
hig
hre
pu
tati
on
Free
init
ialc
on
sult
atio
nfo
rin
ven
tors
and
SMEs
wit
hlo
cal
14.
Shap
ing
gen
eral
par
amet
ers
for
inn
ova
tio
nin
on
eco
mp
reh
ensi
vein
no
vati
on
po
licy
15.
All
dec
isio
ns
bei
ng
take
nac
ross
ab
road
ran
ge
of
po
licy
fiel
ds
will
be
exam
ined
tod
eter
min
eth
eir
imp
licat
ion
sfo
rre
sear
chan
din
no
vati
on
con
dit
ion
sin
Ger
man
y
Acc
red
ited
and
resp
ecte
daw
aren
ess
pro
gra
mw
hic
his
del
iver
edth
rou
gh
ara
ng
eo
fp
artn
ers
Res
pec
ted
del
iver
yp
rog
ram
sw
hic
hco
ver
man
yd
iffe
ren
tro
ute
sto
mar
ket
Str
ength
sof
IPstr
ate
gie
s.Com
piled
via
nati
onalcontr
ibuti
on.
Sequencin
gfo
llow
sth
era
ndom
ord
er
of
the
countr
ies.
UK
SDK
FIN
DE
FR
ITLUX
AT
EPT
GR
MT
TR
CZ
PL
HU
EE
BG
RO
10.A
ppendix
10.1
Table
sof
SW
OT
analy
ses
81
16.
17.
18.
19.
Inco
rpo
rate
sal
lnec
essa
ryp
artn
ers
Bff
ers
spec
iala
dva
nta
ges
for
SMEs
Info
rmat
ion
on
pu
blic
sub
sid
ies
avai
lab
le
Hig
hq
ual
ifie
dst
aff,
hig
hre
pu
tati
on
IPn
etw
ork
exis
ts
Ase
rie
of
dis
sem
inat
ion
mat
eria
ls&
serv
ices
by
INPI
Act
ive
and
reac
tive
go
vern
men
tfo
rIP
mat
ters
Go
od
coo
per
atio
no
fth
ein
stit
uti
on
sin
volv
edin
the
IPp
rote
ctio
nfi
eld
Act
ive
par
tici
pat
ion
top
rom
oti
on
alev
ents
(pre
dia
gn
osi
s,tr
ain
ing
s,se
min
ars,
fair
s,ex
hib
itio
ns
etc.
)
Rel
ativ
ely
clo
sed
ialo
gu
ew
ith
stak
eho
lder
s,w
ith
feed
-bac
kfr
om
pra
ctic
alex
per
ien
ce
NPO
rep
uta
tio
nas
NPO
and
PCT
auth
ori
ty,
stea
dy
incr
ease
inp
aten
tfi
lin
gs
ove
rth
ela
st10
year
s
Act
ive
par
tici
pat
ion
inp
rom
oti
on
alev
ents
(tra
inin
gs,
sem
inar
s,fa
irs,
exh
ibit
ion
set
c.)
Clo
seco
op
erat
ion
wit
hso
me
un
iver
siti
esan
dw
ith
som
ep
ub
lic
rese
arch
inst
itu
tes
Go
od
coo
per
atio
nb
etw
een
inst
itu
tio
ns
invo
lved
wit
hin
no
vati
on
pro
mo
tio
n(m
ain
lyw
ith
nat
ion
alag
enci
esfo
rSM
Es)
20.
21.
22.
23.
25.
Easy
coo
rdin
atio
no
fac
tivi
ty26.
Spre
adin
go
fin
form
atio
nis
qu
icke
r27.
Alo
to
fse
min
ars,
con
fere
nce
so
rgan
ized
inIP
Part
icip
atio
nin
exp
ort
fair
so
rgan
ised
by
ICEX
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
Tech
wat
chb
ulle
tin
sw
ith
OPT
Ioff
ered
for
year
s34.
Ho
tlin
efo
ren
forc
emen
tis
sues
35.
Trai
nin
gA
cad
emie
36.
Seri
eso
fd
isse
min
atio
nm
ater
ials
&se
rvic
ep
rovi
ded
by
INPI
38.
Act
ive
par
tici
pat
ion
inp
rom
oti
on
alev
ents
(tra
inin
gs,
39
37.
24.
Free
init
ialc
on
sult
atio
nfo
rin
ven
tors
and
SMEs
wit
hlo
cal
pat
ent
atto
rney
s
and
inn
ova
tio
nco
nd
itio
ns
inG
erm
any
82
Go
od
coo
per
atio
nb
etw
een
inst
itu
tio
ns
invo
lved
wit
hin
no
vati
on
pro
mo
tio
n(m
ain
lyw
ith
nat
ion
alag
enci
esfo
rSM
Es)
Tech
wat
chb
ulle
tin
sw
ith
OPT
Ioff
ered
for
year
s34.
Ho
tlin
efo
ren
forc
emen
tis
sues
35.
Trai
nin
gA
cad
emie
36.
Seri
eso
fd
isse
min
atio
nm
ater
ials
&se
rvic
ep
rovi
ded
by
INPI
38.
Red
uct
ion
of
gra
nti
ng
tim
eso
fal
lIP
rig
hts
40.
Stro
ng
coo
per
atio
nw
ith
inst
itu
tio
ns
invo
lved
inIP
issu
es46.
Ah
igh
volu
me
of
inte
rnat
ion
alIP
rig
ht
ho
lder
s50.
Sup
po
rto
fPr
esid
ent
for
IPaw
aren
ess
51.
Spec
ific
bu
dg
etfo
rp
rom
oti
on
allo
cate
dto
TPE
52.
Skill
edan
dd
ynam
icyo
un
gex
amin
ers
avai
lab
le53.
Exce
llen
tp
hys
ical
infr
astr
uct
ure
and
tech
nic
aleq
uip
men
t54.
36in
form
atio
nce
nte
rsac
ross
cou
ntr
ylin
ked
toin
term
edia
ries
(new
and
imp
rovi
ng
)55.
Act
ive
par
tici
pat
ion
inp
rom
oti
on
alev
ents
(tra
inin
gs,
sem
inar
s,fa
irs,
exh
ibit
ion
set
c.)
39.
Incr
easi
ng
app
licat
ion
sfo
rtr
adem
arks
and
oth
ertr
ade
dis
tin
ctiv
esi
gn
san
dp
aten
tsin
the
last
year
s41.
The
leg
alfr
amew
ork
isfu
llyh
arm
on
ised
wit
hth
ele
gis
lati
on
keep
ing
atr
ack
of
any
chan
ges
/dev
elo
pm
ents
42.
Alo
ng
esta
blis
hed
leg
alfr
amew
ork
alig
ned
wit
hn
atio
nal
,Eu
rop
ean
and
glo
bal
stan
dar
ds
An
incr
easi
ng
leve
lof
inve
stm
ent
inth
em
od
ern
isat
ion
and
up
gra
din
go
fth
en
atio
nal
IPse
rvic
es
47.
48.
An
effe
ctiv
eIP
enfo
rcem
ent
and
jud
icia
lin
fras
tru
ctu
resa
feg
uar
din
gIP
rig
hts
ho
lder
s49.
The
pro
per
dev
elo
pm
ent
of
web
site
sw
ith
alln
eces
sary
info
rmat
ion
and
too
lsh
elp
sto
incr
ease
the
IPaw
aren
ess
of
the
pu
blic
for
nat
ion
alan
din
tern
atio
nal
IPm
atte
rs43.
The
„in
no
vace
ss”
po
rtal
asw
ella
sth
eo
ne
sto
psh
op
serv
ice
of
OB
I(lo
calh
elp
des
k)p
rovi
de
hel
pin
dev
elo
pin
gfu
rth
erth
eIP
awar
enes
so
fth
ep
ub
lic44.
All
law
yers
are
com
pet
ent
for
filin
gan
yap
plic
atio
nfo
rIP
pro
tect
ion
.Th
ere
isal
soa
sep
arat
eg
rou
po
fce
rtif
ied
by
the
EPO
atto
rney
sfo
rfi
ling
the
Euro
pea
np
aten
ts45.
37.
83
Spec
ific
bu
dg
etfo
rp
rom
oti
on
allo
cate
dto
TPE
52.
Skill
edan
dd
ynam
icyo
un
gex
amin
ers
avai
lab
le53.
Exce
llen
tp
hys
ical
infr
astr
uct
ure
and
tech
nic
aleq
uip
men
t54.
Exce
llen
tre
lati
on
&o
ng
oin
gw
ork
wit
hin
term
edia
ry56.
Join
tly
form
ula
ted
visi
on
and
mis
sio
nto
go
od
resu
lts
58.
Entr
epre
neu
rial
sou
lof
Turk
ish
peo
ple
59.
RD
Ias
ap
rio
rity
fiel
dd
efin
edat
the
leve
lof
go
vern
men
t63.
Exis
ten
ceo
fR
DIv
isio
nan
dst
rate
gy
and
fin
anci
alp
lan
64.
Inst
itu
tio
nal
fram
ewo
rkfo
rR
DIp
olic
ym
akin
gan
dim
ple
men
tati
on
65.
Esta
blis
hed
pra
ctic
esin
pro
gra
mm
eev
alu
atio
nan
du
pd
ates
70.
IPat
torn
eys
net
wo
rk72.
Go
od
coo
per
atio
no
fin
stit
uti
on
sin
volv
edin
the
IPp
rote
ctio
n73.
Net
wo
rko
fIP
pro
tect
ion
pro
mo
tio
n74.
Ase
ries
of
dis
sem
inat
ion
mat
eria
ls&
serv
ices
ren
der
edb
yO
SIM
75.
Inte
nse
com
mu
nic
atio
nb
etw
een
po
licym
aker
san
dp
olic
yim
ple
men
tati
on
s68.
Esta
blis
hed
pra
ctic
eso
fu
sin
gta
rget
gro
up
san
dex
per
ts(lo
cal,
fore
ign
)in
po
licy
des
ign
and
eval
uat
ion
69.
Solid
po
olo
fin
tern
atio
nal
con
tact
so
nin
no
vati
on
po
licy
and
go
od
fram
ewo
rkfo
rtr
ansn
atio
nal
lear
nin
g71.
36in
form
atio
nce
nte
rsac
ross
cou
ntr
ylin
ked
toin
term
edia
ries
(new
and
imp
rovi
ng
)55.
Mo
tiva
ted
on
3ye
arIP
awar
enes
sex
per
ien
ce(v
arie
tyo
fac
tio
ns
&ev
ents
)57.
Ab
road
ran
ge
of
adeq
uat
ete
chn
olo
gy
po
licy
sch
emes
and
ag
row
ing
nu
mb
ero
fin
no
vati
on
po
licy
mea
sure
sar
ein
pla
ce60.
Rec
ent
leg
isla
tio
nai
med
atp
rovi
din
ga
favo
rab
leo
vera
llle
gal
and
fin
anci
alfr
amew
ork
for
RTD
Iact
ivit
ies
–b
ut
som
ew
eakn
esse
sin
imp
lem
enti
ng
them
61.
The
firs
tev
erST
Ipo
licy
stra
teg
yo
fth
eg
ove
rnm
ent
and
the
rela
ted
Act
ion
Plan
app
rove
din
Mar
chan
dA
ug
ust
2007
,res
pec
tive
ly62.
Will
ing
nes
sto
dev
elo
pa
stro
ng
sup
ra-m
inis
teri
alo
rgan
izat
ion
for
the
pu
blic
RD
Ifu
nct
ion
66.
Co
mp
reh
ensi
veen
terp
rise
sup
po
rtag
ency
,in
clu
din
gim
ple
men
tati
on
of
the
RD
Isu
pp
ort
pro
gra
mm
es67.
84
Esta
blis
hed
pra
ctic
esin
pro
gra
mm
eev
alu
atio
nan
du
pd
ates
70.
IPat
torn
eys
net
wo
rk72.
Go
od
coo
per
atio
no
fin
stit
uti
on
sin
volv
edin
the
IPp
rote
ctio
n73.
Net
wo
rko
fIP
pro
tect
ion
pro
mo
tio
n74.
Ase
ries
of
dis
sem
inat
ion
mat
eria
ls&
serv
ices
ren
der
edb
yO
SIM
75.
Acc
ess
ton
atio
nal
and
inte
rnat
ion
ald
atab
ase
78.
(loca
l,fo
reig
n)i
np
olic
yd
esig
nan
dev
alu
atio
n
Solid
po
olo
fin
tern
atio
nal
con
tact
so
nin
no
vati
on
po
licy
and
go
od
fram
ewo
rkfo
rtr
ansn
atio
nal
lear
nin
g71.
Act
ive
par
tici
pat
ion
top
rom
oti
on
alev
ents
(tra
inin
gs,
sem
inar
s,fa
irs,
exh
ibit
ion
set
c.)
76.
Net
wo
rko
fIP
hel
pd
esks
wh
ich
op
erat
eo
nm
arke
tsfe
atu
rin
ga
po
ten
tial
inte
rest
for
Ital
ian
ente
rpri
ses
(Ch
ina,
Ind
ia,B
razi
letc
.)77.
85
Pub
licp
erce
pti
on
on
IPaw
aren
ess
rem
ain
slo
w
Mar
ket
isn
ot
seg
men
ted
2.
ÍInd
ust
ryre
qu
irem
ents
no
td
efin
edw
hic
hre
sult
sin
mix
edm
essa
ges
and
con
flic
tsfo
rre
sou
rces
3.
SMEs
'in
suff
icie
nt
IPkn
ow
led
ge
4.
Pro
ble
ms
go
ing
fro
mid
eato
com
mer
cial
pro
du
cts
5.
Lack
of
tim
ean
dre
sou
rces
6.
Insu
ffic
ian
tkn
ow
led
ge
abo
ut
com
pet
ito
rs7.
Dif
ficu
ltie
so
ffo
llow
ing
com
pet
ito
rs'd
evel
op
men
tw
ork
8.
Har
dto
see
use
fuln
ess
inp
rote
ctin
gIP
-rig
hts
9.
Ver
yco
mp
lex
syst
em10
.
Flex
ible
and
qu
ick
reac
tio
ns
are
limit
edb
ecau
seo
fth
efe
der
alst
ruct
ure
of
Ger
man
y11.
Alo
wn
um
ber
of
app
licat
ion
sco
min
gfr
om
SMEs
12.
Too
man
yin
no
vati
on
inst
itu
tio
ns,
less
visi
bili
tyfo
rSM
Es13
.
Insu
ffic
ien
tIP
kno
wle
dg
eam
on
glo
calm
anag
ers
14.
Alo
wd
egre
eto
turn
ing
the
gra
nte
dri
gh
tsin
tom
arke
t15
.
Few
sup
po
rtm
easu
res
hel
pin
gSM
Esto
dev
elo
pIP
stra
teg
ies
16.
Lack
of
sup
po
rtm
easu
res
for
fig
hti
ng
agai
nst
cou
nte
rfei
tin
g17
.
Wea
kg
lob
alst
rate
gy
18.
Wea
kco
ord
inat
ion
wit
hlo
calp
artn
ers/
stak
eho
lder
s19
.
Lack
of
exp
licit
sup
po
rtfo
rIP
mat
ters
inin
no
vati
on
stra
teg
y20.
Insu
ffic
ien
tco
ord
inat
ion
of
inst
itu
tio
ns
invo
lved
inIP
fiel
d:
ove
rlap
pin
g,i
nco
mp
lete
inp
ut
for
SMEs
21.1.No.W
EAKNESSES
Weaknesses
of
IPstr
ate
gie
s.Com
piled
via
nati
onalcontr
ibuti
on.
Sequencin
gfo
llow
sth
era
ndom
ord
er
of
the
countr
ies.
UK
SDK
FIN
DE
FR
ITLUX
AT
EPT
GR
MT
TR
CZ
PL
HU
EE
BG
RO
86
Wea
kg
lob
alst
rate
gy
18.
Wea
kco
ord
inat
ion
wit
hlo
calp
artn
ers/
stak
eho
lder
s19
.
Lack
of
exp
licit
sup
po
rtfo
rIP
mat
ters
inin
no
vati
on
stra
teg
y20.
No
ten
ou
gh
coo
rdin
atio
n/c
oo
per
atio
no
fd
iffe
ren
tin
stit
uti
on
s22.
No
seg
men
tati
on
of
targ
etg
rou
ps
for
effe
ctiv
ed
isse
min
atio
nac
tivi
ties
23.
Lim
ited
hu
man
reso
urc
esd
evo
ted
toaw
aren
ess/
dis
sem
inat
ion
acti
viti
eso
nn
atio
nal
and
reg
ion
alle
vel
24.
IPva
luat
ion
,co
mm
erci
alis
atio
nan
den
forc
emen
tar
eth
em
issi
ng
po
ints
inan
yIP
trai
nin
gac
tivi
ty26.
Lack
of
bu
sin
ess
exp
erti
sein
alla
war
enes
s/d
isse
min
atio
n25.
Wea
kin
vest
men
tin
R&
D28.
Poo
rin
ten
tio
nto
inn
ova
tean
du
seIP
29.
Few
nu
mb
ero
fp
aten
tap
plic
atio
ns,
esp
ecia
llyfr
om
SMEs
30.
Low
deg
ree
totu
rnin
gth
eg
ran
ted
rig
hts
into
mar
ket
cap
ital
31.
Ther
eis
ag
apb
etw
een
the
eco
no
mic
infr
astr
uct
ure
and
the
nu
mb
ero
fp
aten
tap
plic
atio
ns
32.
Low
nu
mb
ero
fp
aten
tap
plic
atio
ns
fro
mre
sear
chse
cto
ran
dn
osu
ffic
ien
tst
atis
tics
on
it37.
Ab
sen
ceo
fex
per
ien
ced
firm
slik
e"p
aten
tag
ents
"fo
rd
raft
ing
the
app
licat
ion
sfo
rth
eu
sers
38.
Low
per
form
ance
inex
po
rts
of
hig
h-t
ech
pro
du
cts
and
inth
ed
evel
op
men
to
fn
ewp
rod
uct
s39.
Wea
kpr
oduc
tion
base
,con
sistin
gof
SMEs
that
are
used
totr
ansf
erte
chno
logy
from
abro
adra
ther
than
deve
lopi
ngte
chno
logy
inho
use
40.
Ver
ysm
alls
ize
of
mo
sten
terp
ises
inG
reec
ed
on
ot
allo
wth
ed
isp
osi
tio
no
fh
um
anan
dfi
nan
cial
reso
urc
esfo
rb
ein
g41
Insu
ffic
ien
tIP
kno
wle
dg
eam
on
gSM
Em
anag
ers
33.
Low
per
form
ance
of
VC
34.
Lack
of
entr
epre
neu
rsh
ipin
rese
arch
com
mu
nit
y35.
Insu
ffic
ien
tIP
kno
wle
dg
eo
fm
anag
ers
36.
Lack
of
pro
per
ind
icat
ors
tom
easu
reth
eim
pac
to
fth
eaw
aren
ess
acti
viti
es27.
Insu
ffic
ien
tco
ord
inat
ion
of
inst
itu
tio
ns
invo
lved
inIP
fiel
d:
ove
rlap
pin
g,i
nco
mp
lete
inp
ut
for
SMEs
21.
87
and
no
suff
icie
nt
stat
isti
cso
nit
37.
Ab
sen
ceo
fex
per
ien
ced
firm
slik
e"p
aten
tag
ents
"fo
rd
raft
ing
the
app
licat
ion
sfo
rth
eu
sers
38.
Low
per
form
ance
inex
po
rts
of
hig
h-t
ech
pro
du
cts
and
inth
ed
evel
op
men
to
fn
ewp
rod
uct
s39.
Wea
kpr
oduc
tion
base
,con
sistin
gof
SMEs
that
are
used
totr
ansf
erte
chno
logy
from
abro
adra
ther
than
deve
lopi
ngte
chno
logy
inho
use
40.
Ver
ysm
alls
ize
of
mo
sten
terp
ises
inG
reec
ed
on
ot
allo
wth
ed
isp
osi
tio
no
fh
um
anan
dfi
nan
cial
reso
urc
esfo
rb
ein
gin
form
edp
rop
erly
on
allE
uro
pea
nm
atte
rs41.
No
coh
eren
tIP
stra
teg
y42.
No
nat
ion
alIP
net
wo
rk43.
Lack
of
trai
nin
go
pp
ort
un
itie
sfo
rlo
calI
Pst
akeh
old
ers
44.
Ver
ylo
wle
velo
flo
calI
Pri
gh
th
old
ers
45.
Lack
of
pro
acti
veIP
advi
sory
serv
ices
46.
Res
iste
nce
toch
ang
e47.
Insu
ffic
ien
tfo
reig
nla
ng
uag
esk
ills
48.
Pro
mo
tio
nst
aff
and
serv
ices
lack
the
kno
wle
dg
eo
fo
vera
llst
rate
gy,
pla
ns
etc.
49.
The
bu
dg
etis
spen
tin
effi
cien
tly
50.
IPaw
aren
ess
isn
ot
ap
rio
rity
51.
Pub
licat
ion
sar
en
ot
pro
fess
ion
al52.
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
for
med
iaar
ed
iffe
nt
53.
Lack
of
med
iare
lati
on
s54.
Insu
ffic
ien
tst
aff
inp
rom
oti
on
un
it55.
Lack
of
kno
wle
dg
efr
om
IPco
stu
mer
s56.
Lack
of
an
atio
nal
IPin
fras
tru
ctu
re57.
Focu
so
nsc
ien
cean
dn
ot
on
inn
ova
tio
n58.
Bad
com
mu
nic
atio
nst
rate
gy
and
mar
keti
ng
59.
Ther
ear
en
ot
easy
tou
seto
ols
for
low
qu
alif
ied
per
son
nel
60.
Ther
eis
no
tco
stu
mer
rela
tio
nsc
hem
eat
NPO
61.
Lack
of
coo
rdin
atio
nb
etw
een
po
licy
and
STIp
olic
y62.
88
Lack
of
an
atio
nal
IPin
fras
tru
ctu
re57.
Focu
so
nsc
ien
cean
dn
ot
on
inn
ova
tio
n58.
Bad
com
mu
nic
atio
nst
rate
gy
and
mar
keti
ng
59.
Ther
ear
en
ot
easy
tou
seto
ols
for
low
qu
alif
ied
per
son
nel
60.
Ther
eis
no
tco
stu
mer
rela
tio
nsc
hem
eat
NPO
61.
Lack
of
coo
rdin
atio
nb
etw
een
po
licy
and
STIp
olic
y62.
No
ten
ou
gh
emp
has
iso
nin
no
vati
on
po
licy
issu
es63.
Wea
kin
no
vati
on
po
licy
com
mu
nit
y64.
Insu
ffic
ien
tco
op
erat
ion
wit
ho
ther
min
istr
ies
etc.
68.
Insu
ffic
ien
tfi
nan
cial
reso
urc
eso
fN
PO
Polic
ym
akin
gp
roce
sses
are
no
ttr
ansp
aren
tb
ecau
seo
fth
ela
cko
fd
ialo
gs
wit
hst
akeh
old
ers
and
exp
erts
65.
Imp
ort
ant
too
lsan
dm
eth
od
sar
en
ot
use
dto
assi
std
ecis
ion
-pre
par
ato
ryan
dd
ecis
ion
-mak
ing
pro
cess
es66.
Polic
ysc
hem
esch
ang
efr
equ
entl
yan
dth
esa
me
ob
ject
ives
are
sup
po
rted
ind
iffe
ren
tw
ays
67.
Lack
of
syst
emo
fp
olic
yev
alu
atio
n
70.
69.
89
Incr
ease
GD
Pof
UK
econ
omy
with
adop
tion
ofm
ore
robu
stIP
stra
tegy
Co
nfi
rman
den
han
celin
ksb
etw
een
inn
ova
tio
nan
dIP
2.
Incr
ease
crea
tio
no
fsp
in-o
ffs
fro
mu
niv
ersi
ties
3.
Incr
ease
reve
nue
stre
amst
hrou
ghbu
sines
slic
enci
ngba
sed
onIP
hold
ings
4.
Bet
ter
kno
wle
dg
eth
rou
gh
edu
cati
on
and
info
rmat
ion
5.
Easi
erac
cess
toIP
spec
ific
info
rmat
ion
thro
ug
hIn
tern
et6.
Op
po
rtu
nit
ies
toap
ply
for
fin
anci
alsu
pp
ort
for
R&
D7.
Low
erIP
cost
s(L
on
do
nA
gre
emen
t)8.
Lin
ksb
etw
een
scie
nce
and
ind
ust
ry9.
Esta
blis
hmen
tof
inno
vati
onfr
iend
lyco
ndit
ions
espe
cial
lyfo
rSM
Es
Ag
reem
ent
bet
wee
nsc
ien
ce,i
nd
ust
ryan
dth
ep
olit
ical
sect
or
on
con
nec
ted
stra
teg
ies
11.
Ag
ain
stp
rod
uct
pir
acy
imp
rove
dd
egre
eo
fle
gal
cert
ain
tyfo
rin
vest
ors
by
adap
tio
no
fG
erm
anR
ule
of
IPR
Law
stan
dar
ds
13.
Lin
ksth
ere
leva
nt
acto
rsin
the
fiel
do
fen
forc
emen
t:d
ecis
ion
mak
ers,
go
vern
men
ts,a
dm
inis
trat
ion
sat
ho
me
and
abro
ad15
.
Info
rmat
ion
and
trai
nin
gin
co-o
per
atio
nw
ith
tech
nic
alu
niv
ersi
ties
and
colle
ges
tom
ake
tech
nic
alen
gin
eers
awar
eo
fth
eIP
Rsy
stem
12.
10.
Enab
ling
SMEs
tod
evel
op
effe
ctiv
eco
nce
pts
agai
nst
pir
acy
14.
Esta
blis
hm
ent
of
inn
ova
tio
n-f
rien
dly
con
dit
ion
sfo
rSM
Es
Gro
win
gin
tere
sto
fth
eSM
Es'm
anag
ers
tow
ard
sth
eIP
Rfi
eld
16.
17.
Qu
ick
imp
lem
enta
tio
no
fn
ewm
easu
res
19.
Go
od
leg
alfr
amew
ork
for
IP(n
ewla
win
IPta
xad
van
tag
es)
20.
Go
vern
men
tin
stit
uti
on
san
dau
tho
riti
eske
epcl
ose
toSM
E's
and
the
pu
blic
21.1.No.Opport
unitie
s
The
inst
itu
tio
ns'
invo
lvem
ent
inEu
rop
ean
pro
ject
s,im
plic
itly
,Eu
rop
ean
fun
ds
attr
acte
d18
.
Opport
unit
ies
of
IPstr
ate
gie
s.Com
piled
via
nati
onalcontr
ibuti
on.
Sequencin
gfo
llow
sth
era
ndom
ord
er
of
the
countr
ies.
UK
SDK
FIN
DE
FR
ITLUX
AT
EPT
GR
MT
TR
CZ
PL
HU
EE
BG
RO
90
Esta
blis
hm
ent
of
inn
ova
tio
n-f
rien
dly
con
dit
ion
sfo
rSM
Es
Gro
win
gin
tere
sto
fth
eSM
Es'm
anag
ers
tow
ard
sth
eIP
Rfi
eld
16.
17.
Qu
ick
imp
lem
enta
tio
no
fn
ewm
easu
res
19.
Go
od
leg
alfr
amew
ork
for
IP(n
ewla
win
IPta
xad
van
tag
es)
20.
Will
ing
nes
so
fth
eac
tors
inIP
tow
ork
tog
eth
er22.
Go
od
coo
rdin
atio
nb
etw
een
IPsu
pp
ort
acto
rse.
g.P
ATL
IBce
ntr
es23.
Enh
ance
dse
rvic
ee.
g.o
fA
PO(P
aten
tO
ffic
e)24.
Go
vern
men
tin
stit
uti
on
san
dau
tho
riti
eske
epcl
ose
toSM
E's
and
the
pu
blic
21.
Co
llect
ive
effo
rts
of
IPR
exp
erts
,in
du
stry
and
the
po
litic
alse
cto
ro
nef
fici
ent
and
pra
ctic
ally
use
fuls
trat
egie
s25.
The
avai
labi
lity
ofne
wne
twor
ks,c
oope
rati
onof
EOI,
univ
ersi
ties
,th
eCh
ambe
rof
Com
mer
cein
orde
rto
prom
ote
the
use
ofIP
R26.
Incr
ease
dco
llab
ora
tio
nw
ith
the
Min
istr
yo
fIn
du
stry
SME
Dir
ecto
rate
ino
rder
tore
ach
ind
ust
rial
SMEs
27.
Regi
onal
IPpr
omot
ion
&PA
TLIB
cent
erst
ota
keov
erre
spon
sibili
tyfo
rbas
icaw
aren
esss
ervi
cesa
swel
last
rain
ing
oflo
calt
rain
erso
nIP
28.
Leve
rag
eto
use
of
the
Pate
nt
Off
ice'
web
site
for
self
mad
ese
arch
esan
dac
cess
tod
ocu
men
ts29.
The
new
MIC
INN
Min
istr
ym
ayp
rio
riti
seIP
awar
enes
sas
par
to
fth
eN
atio
nal
Stra
teg
yo
fSc
ien
cean
dTe
chn
olo
gy.
The
Pate
nt
Off
ice
sho
uld
esta
blis
hco
nta
cts
wit
hth
en
ewM
inis
try
30.
Tore
view
and
imp
lem
ent
new
acti
on
san
din
dic
ato
rsb
ased
on
IPeu
rop
Aw
are
and
oth
erEu
rop
ean
pro
ject
s31.
Intr
od
uci
ng
sim
plif
icat
ion
mea
sure
sin
IPp
roce
du
res
bas
edo
nn
ewve
rsio
no
fth
eIn
du
stri
alPr
op
erty
Co
de
32.
The
avai
lab
ility
of
the
invo
lved
acto
rsto
coo
per
ate
ino
rder
top
rote
ctIP
R33.
Easy
acce
ssto
the
IPsp
ecif
icin
form
atio
nb
yu
sin
gm
od
ern
mea
ns
of
trai
nin
gan
dco
mm
un
icat
ion
34.
The
inst
itu
tio
ns'
invo
lvem
ent
into
Euro
pea
np
roje
cts,
imp
licit
ly,
Euro
pea
nfu
nd
sat
trac
ted
36.
Port
ug
alIn
ova
NEt
–a
pro
ject
inth
eEn
terp
rise
Euro
pe
Net
wo
rki
td
tff
SME
tk
ith
it
td
i37.
Gro
win
gin
tere
sto
fth
eSM
Esm
anag
ers
tow
ard
sth
eIP
Rfi
eld
s35.
The
inst
itu
tio
ns'
invo
lvem
ent
inEu
rop
ean
pro
ject
s,im
plic
itly
,Eu
rop
ean
fun
ds
attr
acte
d18
.
91
Easy
acce
ssto
the
IPsp
ecif
icin
form
atio
nb
yu
sin
gm
od
ern
mea
ns
of
trai
nin
gan
dco
mm
un
icat
ion
34.
The
inst
itu
tio
ns'
invo
lvem
ent
into
Euro
pea
np
roje
cts,
imp
licit
ly,
Euro
pea
nfu
nd
sat
trac
ted
36.
Port
ug
alIn
ova
NEt
–a
pro
ject
inth
eEn
terp
rise
Euro
pe
Net
wo
rk–
inte
nd
sto
off
erSM
Ea
net
wo
rkw
ith
inte
gra
ted
serv
ices
37.
Enha
ncin
gIP
awar
enes
sby
usin
gth
eIP
orga
nisa
tion
web
site
,he
lpde
sk,s
emin
ars,
exhi
biti
ons,
priz
eaw
ards
,vis
its
toco
mpa
nies
ect.
40.
IPo
rgan
isat
ion
colla
bo
rate
wit
hau
tho
riti
esd
ealin
gw
ith
SMEs
like
scie
nti
fic
and
tech
no
log
ical
par
kset
c.41.
Usi
ng
op
po
rtu
nit
ies
toch
ang
eal
lth
eid
enti
fied
IPw
eakn
esse
sin
toIP
stre
ng
ths
42.
Bet
ter
use
of
inte
rnat
ion
alte
chn
ical
coo
per
atio
n,e
xper
tise
,tre
atie
sth
rou
gh
bet
ter
use
of
hu
man
,fin
anci
alan
dti
mel
yIP
reso
urc
es44.
The
mo
rera
pid
and
bet
ter
valu
ead
ded
dev
elo
pm
ent
of
loca
lre
sear
ch,t
ech
no
log
y,cr
eati
vity
,in
no
vati
on
and
com
pet
itiv
enes
s45.
Hig
hn
um
ber
of
you
ng
tale
nte
dg
rad
uat
es46.
Mo
refi
nan
cial
reso
urc
eto
sup
po
rtin
no
vati
on
,pat
ent
app
licat
ion
(TU
BIT
EKb
ud
get
)47.
Larg
eR
&D
acti
vity
has
maj
or
po
ten
tial
for
IPu
tilis
atio
n(T
UB
ITEK
)48.
Asp
irat
ion
tob
eco
me
glo
bal
pu
shes
toa
hig
hle
velI
Psy
stem
49.
Go
vern
men
tp
rog
ram
on
crea
tivi
tyan
din
no
vati
on
50.
Ven
ture
cap
ital
init
iati
ves
by
ban
ks51.
Med
iau
se52.
Enh
anci
ng
cap
abili
ties
of
info
rmat
ion
cen
ters
53.
Usi
ng
po
siti
veIP
incl
inat
ion
of
LSEs
,th
ere
lati
on
of
LSEs
and
SMEs
54.
Mak
eu
seo
fg
eog
rap
hic
alco
nce
ntr
atio
no
fin
no
vati
vein
du
stry
55.
The
intr
oduc
tion
ofne
w,m
ore
pro-
activ
ean
dm
ore
IT-b
ased
IPse
rvic
es43.
Ther
eis
aco
llab
ora
tio
nin
volv
edin
IPm
atte
rsw
ith
acto
rs,
inst
itu
tio
ns
wh
ich
are
sup
ervi
sed
by
the
sam
em
inis
try.
Syn
erg
ies
for
iden
tify
ing
furt
her
nee
ds
for
SMEs
.38.
All
auth
ori
ties
wh
ich
are
com
pet
ent
inIP
issu
estr
yto
dis
sem
inat
ep
rop
erly
any
info
rmat
ion
/to
olf
rom
allt
he
pro
ject
sin
wh
ich
they
are
ing
aged
in.U
niv
ersi
ties
and
rese
arch
inst
itu
tio
ns
are
mo
reac
tive
ing
etti
ng
invo
lved
inEu
rop
ean
pro
ject
s.
39.
Gro
win
gin
tere
sto
fth
eSM
Esm
anag
ers
tow
ard
sth
eIP
Rfi
eld
s35.
92
Asp
irat
ion
tob
eco
me
glo
bal
pu
shes
toa
hig
hle
velI
Psy
stem
49.
Go
vern
men
tp
rog
ram
on
crea
tivi
tyan
din
no
vati
on
50.
Ven
ture
cap
ital
init
iati
ves
by
ban
ks51.
Med
iau
se52.
Enh
anci
ng
cap
abili
ties
of
info
rmat
ion
cen
ters
53.
Usi
ng
po
siti
veIP
incl
inat
ion
of
LSEs
,th
ere
lati
on
of
LSEs
and
SMEs
54.
Mak
eu
seo
fg
eog
rap
hic
alco
nce
ntr
atio
no
fin
no
vati
vein
du
stry
55.
Tran
sfer
ing
qu
alif
ied
staf
fto
oth
erim
po
rtan
tIP
R-r
elat
edp
osi
tio
ns
56.
Ad
din
gIP
mo
du
les
toen
terp
ren
eurs
hip
curr
icu
la58.
Cre
ate
anin
no
vati
on
pla
tfo
rm59.
Dev
elo
pin
ga
syst
emat
icfo
resi
gh
tp
ract
ice
inth
ein
no
vati
on
syst
em62.
Dev
elo
pin
ga
reg
ula
rp
olic
yev
alu
atio
np
ract
ice
inth
ein
no
vati
on
syst
em63.
Ben
chm
arki
ng
No
rdic
nei
gh
bo
urs
inb
uild
ing
up
the
inn
ova
tio
nsy
stem
and
rais
ing
the
com
pet
ence
of
stak
eho
lder
s66.
Stra
teg
icco
mp
eten
ce-b
uild
ing
atth
eR
DC
and
the
Esto
nia
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Fun
d67.
The
dis
po
nib
ility
of
the
invo
lved
acto
rsto
coo
per
ate
ino
rder
top
rote
ctIP
R68.
The
mar
ket
"rip
enin
g"
asfo
llow
sth
eac
cess
ion
toth
eu
niq
ue
Euro
pea
nm
arke
t69.
Co
mp
leti
ng
the
new
RD
Istr
ateg
yvi
ala
un
chin
gn
atio
nal
R&
Ðan
dte
chn
olo
gy
pro
gra
mm
esto
crea
tea
bas
efo
rre
gu
lar
com
mu
nic
atio
ns
bet
wee
nre
leva
nt
min
istr
ies
and
agen
cies
65.
Follo
win
gth
est
ate
fin
anci
alp
lan
sto
sup
po
rtR
DI
64.
Mo
reaw
aren
ess
and
trai
nin
go
nIP
mat
ters
amo
ng
po
lice
forc
es70.
Usi
ng
IPo
rgan
isat
ion
'co
mp
eten
cyto
issu
eIP
reg
ula
tio
ns
wit
ho
ut
len
gth
yp
roce
du
res
57.
Effe
ctiv
eu
seo
fth
eEU
fun
ds
and
inst
rum
ents
pro
vid
edb
yth
eSt
ruct
ura
lFu
nd
sin
2007
–201
3,th
eFP
7an
dth
eC
om
pet
itiv
enes
san
dIn
no
vati
on
Pro
gra
m60.
Exp
loit
ing
the
vari
ou
sEU
sch
emes
tod
evel
op
the
STI
dec
isio
n-m
akin
gca
pab
iliti
esan
dsy
stem
s("
san
dw
ich
"p
rog
ram
mes
,tec
hn
ical
assi
stan
ce,e
tc.)
,att
end
ing
the
rele
van
tm
eeti
ng
san
dw
ork
sho
ps
org
anis
edfo
rp
olic
ymak
ers,
taki
ng
par
tin
inte
rnat
ion
alp
olic
y
61.
93
The
dis
po
nib
ility
of
the
invo
lved
acto
rsto
coo
per
ate
ino
rder
top
rote
ctIP
R68.
The
mar
ket
"rip
enin
g"
asfo
llow
sth
eac
cess
ion
toth
eu
niq
ue
Euro
pea
nm
arke
t69.
Furt
her
imp
rove
men
to
fIP
info
rmat
ion
serv
ices
bas
edo
nex
tern
alu
ser
inp
ut
71.
Co
llab
ora
tio
no
fN
POw
ith
tech
no
log
ytr
ansf
ero
ffic
escu
rren
tly
set
up
inu
niv
ersi
ties
73.
Incr
ease
din
volv
emen
tofi
nstit
utio
ns(m
inist
ries)
inIP
prot
ectio
nfie
ld72.
Mo
reaw
aren
ess
and
trai
nin
go
nIP
mat
ters
amo
ng
po
lice
forc
es70.
94
Chan
geof
polit
ical
emph
asis
may
redu
cece
ntra
lgov
ernm
ent
supp
ort
Co
nsu
mer
relu
ctan
ceto
acce
pt
enfo
rcem
ent
stra
teg
ies
2.
Inab
ility
toco
-ord
inat
ecr
oss
go
vern
men
tac
tivi
ties
3.
Incr
easi
ng
com
pet
itio
nm
ean
sd
ecre
asin
gm
arke
t4.
Sho
rter
life
cycl
ele
ads
toh
igh
erd
egre
eo
fR
&D
5.
Incr
easi
ng
cost
sm
ean
sm
ore
limit
edre
sou
rces
for
R&
D6.
Fiel
ds
of
inn
ova
tio
np
olic
yst
ayu
nco
nn
ecte
db
ecau
seo
fth
eco
nst
rict
edin
stit
uti
on
alp
oin
to
fvi
ewo
fac
tors
7.
Un
suff
icie
nt
pu
blic
ity
8.
Leve
lof
frag
men
tati
on
inre
sear
chan
din
no
vati
on
po
licy
9.
Vis
ibili
tyo
fSM
Es10
.
Rel
ativ
ely
limit
edfi
nan
cial
reso
urc
es
Vis
ibili
tyo
fth
ese
rvic
ein
the
gen
eral
inn
ova
tio
nsu
pp
ort
aren
a
Lon
gp
roce
ss,n
oq
uic
ksu
cces
s
Dif
fere
nt
trad
itio
ns
and
cult
ure
s
Rel
ativ
ely
limit
edre
sou
rces
of
SMEs
cau
sep
rod
uct
-in
teg
rate
dco
py
pro
tect
ion
No
ten
ou
gh
valo
risa
tio
no
fth
eIP
Rim
po
rtan
ceth
atca
use
less
app
licat
ion
fro
mSM
Es
No
tef
fici
ent
def
ense
of
IPri
gh
t,p
rin
cip
ally
for
SMEs
,in
oth
erem
erg
ent
cou
ntr
y(l
ike
Ch
ina)
Lack
of
kno
wle
dg
eo
fen
forc
emen
tm
ech
anis
ms
by
Span
ish
Rep
uta
tio
no
fth
eex
hib
itio
no
rgan
iser
The
mis
use
so
fth
en
ewla
wre
late
dto
IPta
xad
van
tag
es
Tran
sit
cou
ntr
yfo
rev
entu
alco
un
terf
eite
dp
rod
uct
s
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
1.No.
UK
SDK
FIN
DE
FR
ITLUX
AT
EPT
GR
MT
TR
CZ
PL
HU
EE
BG
RO
Thre
ats
of
IPstr
ate
gie
s.Com
piled
via
nati
onalcontr
ibuti
on.
Sequencin
gfo
llow
sth
era
ndom
ord
er
of
the
countr
ies.
THREATS
OF
IPSTRATEGIE
S
95
pp
No
tef
fici
ent
def
ense
of
IPri
gh
t,p
rin
cip
ally
for
SMEs
,in
oth
erem
erg
ent
cou
ntr
y(l
ike
Ch
ina)
Lack
of
kno
wle
dg
eo
fen
forc
emen
tm
ech
anis
ms
by
Span
ish
SMEs
may
crea
tea
def
ense
less
feel
ing
infr
on
to
fA
sian
tig
ers
pir
acy
and
cou
nte
rfei
tin
gp
ract
ices
Trai
nin
gs
and
wo
rksh
op
sar
eu
sual
lyto
osh
ort
inti
me
tog
ive
ind
epth
IPb
usi
nes
so
rien
ted
edu
cati
on
;sta
keh
old
ers
har
dly
app
lyfo
rm
ore
-th
an-o
ne-
day
trai
nin
gco
urs
es
Too
man
yd
isse
min
atio
nac
tivi
ties
may
lead
toa
bac
klo
gin
the
gra
nti
ng
pro
ced
ure
asw
ella
sin
spec
ials
earc
hes
and
oth
erva
lue
add
edse
rvic
essu
chas
ITPs
Lack
of
app
rop
riat
ere
spo
nse
by
the
Reg
ion
alIP
Pro
mo
tio
n&
PATL
IBce
ntr
esm
ayle
adto
ano
verl
oad
on
the
OEP
Mse
rvic
es
Rel
ativ
ely
scar
cefi
nan
cial
/hu
man
reso
urc
esal
loca
ted
toIP
awar
enes
sac
tivi
ties
No
ten
ou
gh
valo
risa
tio
no
fIP
Rim
po
rtan
ce,c
ausi
ng
less
app
licat
ion
sfr
om
SMEs
No
tef
fici
ent
def
ense
of
IPri
gh
ts,p
rin
cip
ally
for
SMEs
The
mis
use
so
fth
en
ewla
wre
late
dto
IPta
xad
van
tag
es
Tran
sit
cou
ntr
yfo
rev
entu
alco
un
terf
eite
dp
rod
uct
s
18.
19.
20.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Wro
ng
per
cep
tio
no
fb
ein
gad
equ
atel
ysa
feg
uar
ded
by
the
gen
eral
law
on
secr
ecy
and
con
fid
enti
alit
y28.
Dif
ficu
lty
ines
tab
lish
ing
aco
her
ent
app
roac
hco
mb
inin
gn
atio
nal
and
reg
ion
alin
no
vati
on
po
licy
app
roac
hes
29.
Lim
ited
fin
anci
alre
sou
rces
allo
cate
dto
inn
ova
tio
nan
dp
rote
ctio
no
fR
&D
resu
lts
30.
Ab
sen
ceo
fg
ove
rnm
enta
lfin
anci
alsu
pp
ort
for
the
exp
loit
atio
no
fp
rote
cted
inve
nti
on
s31.
Dim
inis
hin
gle
vels
of
adeq
uat
eh
um
an,f
inan
cial
and
tim
ely
reso
urc
esav
aila
ble
toal
llo
calI
Pst
akeh
old
ers
32.
Part
icip
atio
nin
exp
ort
fair
so
rgan
ised
by
ICEX
33.
Dif
ficu
ltie
sto
wo
rkw
ith
TUB
ITA
K34.
Lack
of
inn
ova
tive
cult
ure
amo
ng
pu
blic
/SM
E35.
Bu
rocr
atic
ob
stac
les
fro
mm
inis
trie
s37.
Pro
mo
tio
nsy
stem
of
acad
emic
sd
oes
no
tsu
pp
ort
pat
ent
app
licat
ion
&IP
use
36.
27.
21.
96
reso
urc
esav
aila
ble
toal
llo
calI
Pst
akeh
old
ers
Part
icip
atio
nin
exp
ort
fair
so
rgan
ised
by
ICEX
33.
Dif
ficu
ltie
sto
wo
rkw
ith
TUB
ITA
K34.
Lack
of
inn
ova
tive
cult
ure
amo
ng
pu
blic
/SM
E35.
Bu
rocr
atic
ob
stac
les
fro
mm
inis
trie
s37.
Poo
rim
age
of
pu
blic
inst
itu
tio
ns
38.
IPis
per
ceiv
edto
be
ale
gal
mat
ter
39.
Log
del
ays
inco
urt
rulin
gs
("ju
stic
ed
elay
ed,j
ust
ice
den
ied
")40.
Key
area
sd
efin
edin
Vis
ion
2023
do
no
tm
atch
wit
hTu
rkis
hin
du
stry
inn
ova
tio
nd
irec
tio
n41.
Co
mp
eten
tyo
un
gst
aff
can
no
tb
eg
iven
resp
on
sib
lep
osi
tio
ns
inti
me,
bec
ause
of
"at
leas
t10
year
so
fex
per
ien
cere
qu
ired
"42.
Pres
sure
fro
mth
eEC
tom
ech
anic
ally
pu
rsu
eth
e"B
arce
lon
ata
rget
"(e
.g.i
nth
efo
rmo
f"b
ench
mar
kin
gex
erci
ses
and
bila
tera
lco
nsu
ltat
ion
s"):
focu
sin
go
nR
&D
spen
din
gas
anen
d43.
Even
low
erp
olit
ical
stat
us
and
wea
ker
infl
uen
ceo
fth
ein
no
vati
on
po
licy
com
mu
nit
yo
nm
ajo
rg
ove
rnm
ent
dec
isio
ns,
du
eto
seve
rem
acro
eco
no
mic
pre
ssu
res
44.
Lack
of
po
litic
alco
mm
itm
ent
top
rovi
de
suff
icie
nt
fin
anci
alre
sou
rces
toim
ple
men
tth
eST
Ipo
licy
Act
ion
Plan
45.
Ove
rest
imat
ing
the
po
licy-
mak
ing
cap
acit
yin
com
ple
tin
gth
eR
DIs
trat
egy
47.
Lack
of
com
mo
nu
nd
erst
and
ing
and
con
sen
sus-
bu
ildin
gb
etw
een
min
istr
ies
48.
Frag
men
tati
on
and
lack
of
resp
on
sib
ility
inst
rate
gic
po
licy
mak
ing
49.
Lim
ited
fin
anci
alre
sou
rces
allo
cate
dto
inn
ova
tio
n,R
&D
resu
lts
pro
tect
ion
The
acto
rsn
ot
fast
-en
ou
gh
adap
tati
on
toth
em
arke
tev
olu
tio
n
50.
Hig
hco
sts
and
lon
g"w
aiti
ng
tim
e"co
uld
lead
toan
incr
easi
ng
mis
tru
stin
the
IPR
pro
tect
ion
inst
rum
ents
52.
51.
Ove
rly
amb
itio
us
pla
ns
inth
eR
DIs
trat
egy
46.
Pro
mo
tio
nsy
stem
of
acad
emic
sd
oes
no
tsu
pp
ort
pat
ent
app
licat
ion
&IP
use
36.
97
Targ
eted
acit
ivit
ies:
atte
nd
ance
atex
hib
itio
ns
and
con
fere
nce
s,p
rovi
sio
no
fsp
ecif
icd
etai
led
advi
ceth
rou
gh
wo
rksh
op
sta
rget
edat
dif
fere
nt
sect
ors
Inte
rest
isg
ener
ated
by
info
rmin
gSM
Eso
fth
eva
lue
attr
ibu
ted
toIP
that
isa
valu
able
com
po
nen
to
fb
usi
nes
san
dth
atit
isin
fact
aco
mm
erci
alas
set
wh
ich
ifm
anag
edp
rop
erly
can
be
use
dto
pro
vid
ead
dit
ion
alre
ven
ue
stre
ams
thro
ug
hlic
ensi
ng
and
exp
loit
atio
n
Ro
bu
stIP
po
licie
sw
hic
hen
han
ceb
usi
nes
sst
and
ing
and
pro
vid
eco
mm
erci
alad
van
tag
ear
eo
fin
crea
sin
gim
po
rtan
ceto
SMEs
.Tr
ain
ing
isp
rovi
ded
thro
ug
hw
ork
sho
ps
for
bu
sin
ess
and
bu
sin
ess
advi
sors
also
thro
ug
hth
eac
adem
icco
mm
un
itie
sin
un
iver
siti
es
Wo
rksh
op
san
dp
rom
oti
on
alac
tivi
ties
are
inre
gu
lar
use
and
wh
ere
reso
urc
esp
erm
itfa
ceto
face
and
on
eto
on
ed
iscu
ssio
n.M
emb
ers
of
the
pro
fess
ion
are
invo
lved
aso
ften
asp
oss
ible
Nat
ion
aln
etw
ork
of
IPin
form
atio
nce
ntr
es
Inte
nsi
fica
tio
no
fre
gio
nal
coo
per
atio
n
Arr
ang
emen
to
fta
sksh
arin
g
The
Hig
hTe
chSt
rate
gy
ten
ds
toco
ord
inat
em
easu
res
and
po
licie
sb
etw
een
the
fed
eral
and
the
fed
eral
stat
ele
vel
Inte
rnat
iona
lmea
sure
saga
inst
prod
uctp
iracy
:Ger
man
–Chi
nese
Rule
ofLa
wD
ialo
gue;
are
gula
rfor
umfo
rDia
logu
ew
ithCh
ina
onIP
prot
ectio
n;co
oper
atio
nw
ithm
ore
than
30co
untr
ieso
nva
rious
IPiss
ues
Info
rmat
ion
bo
okl
ets,
info
rmat
ion
pac
ks1.No.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Ded
icat
edw
ebsi
tew
ith
ala
rge
amo
un
to
fd
etai
led
info
rmat
ion
NEEDS
identi
fied.Com
piled
via
nati
onalcontr
ibuti
on.
Sequencin
gof
NEEDS
follow
sth
era
ndom
ord
er
of
the
countr
ies.
NEEDS
UK
SDK
FIN
DE
FR
ITLUX
AT
EPT
GR
MT
TR
CZ
PL
HU
EE
BG
RO
12.
Pro
mo
tio
no
fre
sear
chp
roje
cts
bet
wee
nco
mp
anie
san
dre
sear
chin
stit
ute
s,it
focu
ses
on
pro
du
cers
of
cap
ital
go
od
s–
dev
elo
pin
gco
nce
pts
agai
nst
pir
acy
13.
Wo
rkin
gag
ain
stb
ran
dan
dtr
adem
ark
pir
acy
pro
mo
tin
gaw
aren
ess
of
the
con
seq
uen
ces
of
pir
acy
and
cou
nte
rfei
tin
g
14.
Clo
ser
coo
pe
rati
on
be
twe
en
IPR
act
ors
wit
hd
iffe
ren
tsp
eci
ali
zati
on
15.
Co
mm
on
qu
alit
yst
and
ard
sfo
rIP
R–
pro
cess
eslik
ere
sear
ch,
tech
no
log
ical
and
eco
no
mic
eval
uat
ion
16St
ron
ger
con
sid
erat
ion
of
eco
no
mic
dim
ensi
on
of
IPR
10.2
Table
sof
NEED
S
98
12.
Pro
mo
tio
no
fre
sear
chp
roje
cts
bet
wee
nco
mp
anie
san
dre
sear
chin
stit
ute
s,it
focu
ses
on
pro
du
cers
of
cap
ital
go
od
s–
dev
elo
pin
gco
nce
pts
agai
nst
pir
acy
13.
Wo
rkin
gag
ain
stb
ran
dan
dtr
adem
ark
pir
acy
pro
mo
tin
gaw
aren
ess
of
the
con
seq
uen
ces
of
pir
acy
and
cou
nte
rfei
tin
g
14.
Clo
ser
coo
pe
rati
on
be
twe
en
IPR
act
ors
wit
hd
iffe
ren
tsp
eci
ali
zati
on
15.
Co
mm
on
qu
alit
yst
and
ard
sfo
rIP
R–
pro
cess
eslik
ere
sear
ch,
tech
no
log
ical
and
eco
no
mic
eval
uat
ion
17.
Sup
po
rtan
dh
arm
on
izat
ion
of
the
acti
viti
eso
fd
iffe
ren
tch
amb
ero
fco
mm
erce
also
inth
efi
eld
of
IPR
pro
mo
tio
n,i
np
arti
cula
ro
ftr
ade
mar
ks
18.
Lob
byi
ng
vis-
a-vi
sn
atio
nal
go
vern
men
t,p
arlia
men
tan
dEU
Co
mm
issi
on
inth
ear
eao
fst
ren
gth
enin
gtr
ade
mar
kla
w,
org
aniz
ing
con
fere
nce
sfo
cusi
ng
on
the
imp
ort
ance
of
inte
llect
ual
pro
per
tyin
com
mer
ce
19.
Info
rmat
ion
cou
nci
lsin
the
fiel
do
fIP
20.
Sup
po
rto
fd
evel
op
men
to
fn
ewp
rod
uct
s
21.
Ale
rto
nth
eri
sks
of
cou
nte
rfei
tin
g
22.
Info
rmat
ion
on
EUp
rog
ram
so
nal
lasp
ects
of
"tec
hn
olo
gic
alin
telli
gen
ce"
inn
ova
tio
n
24.
Net
wo
rkw
ith
pu
blic
inst
itu
tio
ns,
or
hal
f-p
ub
licin
stit
uti
on
sin
ind
ust
rial
dev
elo
pm
ent,
tech
no
log
ical
tran
sfer
in22
reg
ion
s
26.
Taki
ng
into
acco
un
tth
ein
tern
atio
nal
dim
ensi
on
(e.g
.pat
ent
enfo
rcem
ent
inC
hin
a)
27.
Cle
arp
olic
yg
uid
elin
esfr
om
go
vern
men
ten
do
rsin
gIP
wit
hin
the
NIS
,im
pro
vem
ents
inle
gis
lati
on
and
the
jud
ical
syst
em
28.
29.
NPO
(OEP
M)
man
agem
ent
com
mit
men
tto
coo
rdin
ate
all
awar
enes
s/en
forc
emen
tac
tio
ns
wit
hin
the
Off
ice
Ind
epth
bu
sin
ess
ori
ente
dtr
ain
ing
for
OEP
Man
dR
egio
nal
cen
ters
'sp
eake
rso
n"s
oft
IP",
pat
ent
dra
ftin
g,i
nte
rnat
ion
alp
roce
du
res,
IPva
luat
ion
,IP
licen
cin
g&
com
mer
cial
izat
ion
,"s
ellin
"IP
toSM
Es,e
nfo
rcem
ent
stra
teg
ies
Oth
erag
ents
wh
oad
vise
SMEs
on
IPm
ust
,bes
ides
info
rmin
go
nth
ep
aten
tin
gp
roce
sses
and
its
req
uir
emen
ts,t
ran
sfer
toth
eo
rgan
izat
ion
sth
eir
advi
ceo
nth
eim
po
rtan
ceo
fth
em
anag
emen
tan
dp
rote
ctio
np
olic
ies
of
IPas
sets
thei
r
25.
Bet
ter
and
inte
gra
ted
IPR
serv
ice
23.
Res
earc
her
s’fo
rmat
ion
and
info
rmat
ion
16.
Stro
ng
erco
nsi
der
atio
no
fec
on
om
icd
imen
sio
no
fIP
R
99
29.
30.
31.
32.
Ind
epth
bu
sin
ess
ori
ente
dtr
ain
ing
for
OEP
Man
dR
egio
nal
cen
ters
'sp
eake
rso
n"s
oft
IP",
pat
ent
dra
ftin
g,i
nte
rnat
ion
alp
roce
du
res,
IPva
luat
ion
,IP
licen
cin
g&
com
mer
cial
izat
ion
,"s
ellin
"IP
toSM
Es,e
nfo
rcem
ent
stra
teg
ies
Iden
tify
new
way
so
fd
isse
min
atio
nin
ord
erto
reac
h"h
idd
en"
SMEs
;be
cap
able
of
reac
hin
gal
lth
eco
mp
nai
esan
dp
erfo
rman
asw
ide
asp
oss
ible
dif
fusi
on
of
the
IPR
po
ten
tial
asa
too
lof
man
ager
ialm
anag
emen
t.Se
gm
enta
tio
no
fSM
Esin
view
of
thei
rp
ote
nti
alu
seo
fth
eIP
syst
em
Ide
nti
fica
tio
no
fre
leva
nt
case
stu
die
s/su
cce
ssst
ori
es
of
SME
s&
IPR
33.
Cre
ate
ab
od
yo
fIP
Rex
per
tsth
atco
uld
advi
cean
dg
ive
hig
hva
lue
add
edse
rvic
esto
SMEs
35.
Iden
tifi
cati
on
of
rele
van
tca
sest
ud
ies/
succ
ess
sto
ries
of
SMEs
37.
Imp
rovi
ng
un
iver
sity
teac
her
san
dst
ud
ents
trai
nin
go
nIP
38.
Pro
mo
tio
nan
dp
rote
ctio
no
fu
niv
ersi
ties
'an
dp
ub
licre
sear
chce
nte
rs'R
&D
resu
lts
39.
Incr
ease
the
tech
no
log
ytr
ansf
eru
sin
gIP
fro
mth
eu
niv
ersi
ties
toth
eb
usi
nes
sse
cto
r
40.
SMEs
awar
enes
sab
ou
tst
rate
gic
man
agem
ent
of
IPR
imp
ort
ance
41.
Tech
no
log
yw
ach
serv
ices
42.
Co
mm
erci
alev
alu
atio
no
fIP
R
43
Pate
ntre
late
dex
pert
ise
need
edfo
rth
ekn
owle
dge
tran
sfer
proc
ess
36.
Clo
ser
coo
per
atio
nw
ith
oth
ern
atio
nal
and
Euro
pea
nac
tors
inIP
Rs.
Cre
atio
no
fan
inte
rnat
ion
aln
etw
ork
of
enti
ties
that
per
form
acti
viti
esin
the
fiel
do
fth
eIP
Ran
dg
ive
sup
po
rtto
the
com
pan
ies
(fo
rex
chan
ge
of
info
rmat
ion
,co
op
erat
ion
bet
wee
nit
sm
emb
ers,
dif
fusi
on
of
inn
ova
tio
ns
and
acti
viti
eso
nIP
Ret
c.)
34.
Ind
enti
fyn
eww
ays
of
dis
sem
inat
ion
ino
rder
tore
ach
"hid
den
"SM
Es.S
egm
enta
tio
no
fSM
Esin
view
of
thei
rp
ote
nti
alu
seo
fIP
syst
em
Oth
erag
ents
wh
oad
vise
SMEs
on
IPm
ust
,bes
ides
info
rmin
go
nth
ep
aten
tin
gp
roce
sses
and
its
req
uir
emen
ts,t
ran
sfer
toth
eo
rgan
izat
ion
sth
eir
advi
ceo
nth
eim
po
rtan
ceo
fth
em
anag
emen
tan
dp
rote
ctio
np
olic
ies
of
IPas
sets
,th
eir
stra
teg
icva
lue
and
the
imp
ort
ance
of
mak
ing
pro
fit
fro
mth
ein
vest
men
tas
soci
ated
by
mak
ing
pro
fit
fro
mth
ein
vest
men
tas
soci
ated
by
mak
ing
sud
ies
oft
he
effe
ctiv
enes
so
fth
ein
du
stri
alan
din
telle
ctu
alp
rop
erty
po
rtfo
lio.C
reat
ea
(rec
ord
ed)
bo
dy
of
IPR
exp
erts
(in
Ch
amb
ers
of
Co
mm
erce
,TE
chn
olo
gic
alC
ente
rset
c.)
that
cou
ldad
vice
amd
giv
eh
igh
valu
ead
ded
serv
ices
toth
eSM
Es
100
37.
Imp
rovi
ng
un
iver
sity
teac
her
san
dst
ud
ents
trai
nin
go
nIP
38.
Pro
mo
tio
nan
dp
rote
ctio
no
fu
niv
ersi
ties
'an
dp
ub
licre
sear
chce
nte
rs'R
&D
resu
lts
39.
Incr
ease
the
tech
no
log
ytr
ansf
eru
sin
gIP
fro
mth
eu
niv
ersi
ties
toth
eb
usi
nes
sse
cto
r
44.
Imp
rove
men
to
fth
ein
ter-
con
nec
tio
ns
bet
wee
np
ulic
enti
ties
invo
lved
inth
eIP
Ren
forc
emen
t
45.
Info
rmat
ion
toen
terp
rise
sab
ou
th
azar
ds
of
cou
nte
rfei
tan
dth
ew
ays
ho
wto
pre
ven
tit
48.
Stre
ng
then
ing
the
links
bet
wee
nu
niv
ersi
ties
and
SMEs
by
pro
mo
tin
gco
mm
erci
aliz
atio
no
fre
sear
chre
sult
s,b
ased
on
IPR
40.
SMEs
awar
enes
sab
ou
tst
rate
gic
man
agem
ent
of
IPR
imp
ort
ance
41.
Tech
no
log
yw
ach
serv
ices
42.
Co
mm
erci
alev
alu
atio
no
fIP
R
43.
Pate
ntre
late
dex
pert
ise
need
edfo
rth
ekn
owle
dge
tran
sfer
proc
ess
46.
Sim
ple
too
lsfo
ren
terp
rise
sto
mo
nit
or
thei
rIP
R
47.
Sim
ple
mea
ns
toen
terp
rise
sto
rep
ort
abo
ut
thei
rco
mp
lain
ts
49.
Co
op
erat
ion
bet
wee
nSM
Esan
din
term
edia
ries
inin
no
vati
on
issu
es
50.
Kn
ow
led
ge
abo
ut
tech
no
log
ytr
ansf
er
51.
NPO
sho
uld
be
am
ajo
rac
tor
of
NIS
52.
Pro
mo
tio
no
fSM
Es'i
nte
gra
tio
nin
inte
rnat
ion
aln
etw
ork
s/p
roje
cts
55.
Co
nti
nu
eaw
aren
ess
acti
viti
esin
com
pan
ies
59.
Esta
blis
hb
ette
ren
forc
emen
tp
roce
du
res
57.
Pro
vid
ea
serv
ice
toth
eco
mp
anie
sfo
rg
etti
ng
mo
resy
stem
atic
info
rmat
ion
on
thei
rco
mp
etit
ors
asw
ella
so
nn
ewp
ub
lish
edp
aten
tsre
leva
nt
for
them
58.
Dev
elo
pfu
rth
erth
eco
nsu
ltat
ion
so
fco
mp
anie
so
nb
oth
tech
nic
alan
dec
on
om
icis
sues
or
IPR
rig
hts
Esta
blis
hh
elp
on
go
vern
men
tsu
bsi
die
sfo
rp
rote
ctin
g
53.
Dev
elo
pto
ols
for
incr
easi
ng
awar
enes
so
fyo
un
g(p
rim
ary/
seco
nd
ary
sch
oo
l)
54.
Co
nti
nu
eaw
aren
ess
acti
viti
esin
alll
evel
so
fA
cad
emia
(un
iver
siti
eset
c.)
56.
Edu
cate
SMEs
on
ho
wto
bec
om
ein
no
vati
vean
dh
ow
toin
clu
de
IPst
rate
gy
inth
eir
bu
sin
ess
pla
n
101
59.
Esta
blis
hb
ette
ren
forc
emen
tp
roce
du
res
61.
Pro
vid
ein
form
atio
no
nn
on
-fo
rmal
rig
hts
,lik
etr
ade
secr
ets
62.
Pro
vid
eh
elp
on
the
exp
loit
atio
no
fa
pat
ente
din
ven
tio
n
64.
Pro
vid
eh
elp
inIP
valu
atio
n
65.
Pro
vid
ing
bu
sin
ess-
ori
ente
din
form
atio
nm
ater
ials
66.
Org
aniz
atio
no
ftr
ain
ing
67.
Edit
ing
bu
sin
ess
per
iod
ical
s
72.
Pro
vid
ing
tailo
r-m
ade
con
sult
atio
ns
73.
Mo
nit
ori
ng
calls
for
ten
der
74.
Faci
litat
ing
tech
no
log
ytr
ansf
er
75.
Rea
lrep
rese
nta
tio
no
fri
gh
tsan
dle
gal
def
ence
76.
All
stat
ein
stit
utio
nsin
volv
edm
ake
effo
rts
toin
crea
seIP
Raw
aren
ess
thro
ugh
allw
ays
asIP
Ris
sues
are
gene
rally
unde
rest
imat
ed
77.
Fin
anci
alsu
pp
ort
nee
dis
iden
tifi
edan
dso
me
sup
po
rtfe
atu
res
are
pro
vid
ed
78.
IPm
anag
emen
tn
eed
isac
kno
wle
dg
edb
yso
me
big
ger
ente
rpri
ses,
awar
enes
sin
this
sect
or
islo
w
79.
IPex
plo
itat
ion
nee
dis
ackn
ow
led
ged
by
som
eb
igg
eren
terp
rise
s,aw
aren
ess
inth
eal
lpo
ssib
leIP
Rin
stru
men
tis
low
,alit
tle
bet
ter
ini
ih
dk
dd
i
57.
Pro
vid
ea
serv
ice
toth
eco
mp
anie
sfo
rg
etti
ng
mo
resy
stem
atic
info
rmat
ion
on
thei
rco
mp
etit
ors
asw
ella
so
nn
ewp
ub
lish
edp
aten
tsre
leva
nt
for
them
58.
Dev
elo
pfu
rth
erth
eco
nsu
ltat
ion
so
fco
mp
anie
so
nb
oth
tech
nic
alan
dec
on
om
icis
sues
or
IPR
rig
hts
60.
Esta
blis
hh
elp
on
go
vern
men
tsu
bsi
die
sfo
rp
rote
ctin
gan
inve
nti
on
63.
Prov
ide
help
inho
wto
deal
bett
erw
ithlic
enci
ngag
reem
ents
,tra
nsfe
rof
tech
nolo
gyet
c.,s
oas
toin
crea
sebe
tter
thei
rIP
reve
nues
68.
Prep
arin
ga
dat
abas
ein
clu
din
gb
oth
inve
sto
rsan
din
no
vati
veu
nd
erta
kin
gs
69.
Fin
din
gp
aten
tag
ents
toh
elp
top
rep
are
IPap
plic
atio
ns
71.
Esta
blis
hin
gth
emat
icn
etw
ork
sfo
rp
rofe
ssio
nal
sh
ori
zon
tally
and
vert
ical
lyo
rgan
ised
70.
Regi
stra
tion
ofin
frin
gem
ents
,coo
pera
tion
with
the
auth
oriti
esfo
rco
stum
erpr
otec
tion,
cost
umsa
ndta
xin
orde
rto
sele
ctco
unte
rfei
ted
prod
ucts
and
thos
epr
oduc
edw
ithtr
adem
ark
infr
inge
men
t
102
75.
Rea
lrep
rese
nta
tio
no
fri
gh
tsan
dle
gal
def
ence
76.
All
stat
ein
stit
utio
nsin
volv
edm
ake
effo
rts
toin
crea
seIP
Raw
aren
ess
thro
ugh
allw
ays
asIP
Ris
sues
are
gene
rally
unde
rest
imat
ed
77.
Fin
anci
alsu
pp
ort
nee
dis
iden
tifi
edan
dso
me
sup
po
rtfe
atu
res
are
pro
vid
ed
78.
IPm
anag
emen
tn
eed
isac
kno
wle
dg
edb
yso
me
big
ger
ente
rpri
ses,
awar
enes
sin
this
sect
or
islo
w
80.
Dra
win
gat
ten
tio
nb
yd
isse
min
atio
no
fIP
info
rmat
ion
inal
lm
edia
,by
alla
vaila
ble
mea
ns
82.
Pres
enti
ng
succ
ess
sto
ries
bas
edo
nth
eIP
Rs’
pro
tect
ion
and
pro
mo
tio
n
83.
Sett
ing
the
rig
ht
inst
rum
ents
(ser
vice
s,d
atab
ases
,res
ou
rces
)in
ord
erto
get
IPin
form
atio
no
fg
oo
dq
ual
ity,
ind
ue
tim
e(A
)
84.
Easy
acce
ssto
IPsy
stem
atn
atio
nal
,co
mm
un
ity
and
inte
rnat
ion
allk
evel
85.
IPm
an
ag
eri
al
skil
lsto
acc
om
pa
ny
bu
sin
ess
mo
de
lw
ith
an
IPst
rate
gy
88.
NP
Om
ust
be
com
ea
nim
po
rta
nt
act
or
of
tra
inin
ga
nd
ed
uca
tio
nsy
ste
min
IPfi
eld
87.
Imp
rove
dq
ua
lity
an
dsh
ort
er
exa
min
ati
on
tim
eo
fN
PO
,im
pro
vein
form
ati
on
syst
em
ea
nd
da
tab
asi
s,im
pro
veN
PO
'so
rga
niz
ati
on
,g
oo
din
form
ati
on
serv
ice
86.
An
effe
ctiv
eIP
Rs
enfo
rcem
ent
on
the
par
to
fp
ub
licin
stit
uti
on
s
89.
NPO
sho
uld
faci
litat
eth
een
forc
emen
eto
fIP
Rag
ain
stin
frin
gem
ents
81.
Pres
enti
ng
mai
nly
the
adva
nta
ges
off
ered
by
the
IPR
pro
tect
ion
,as
wel
las
the
dis
adva
nta
ges
that
cou
ldap
pea
rb
ytr
eat
them
wit
hn
ore
spec
t
79.
IPex
plo
itat
ion
nee
dis
ackn
ow
led
ged
by
som
eb
igg
eren
terp
rise
s,aw
aren
ess
inth
eal
lpo
ssib
leIP
Rin
stru
men
tis
low
,alit
tle
bet
ter
inco
nn
ecti
on
wit
htr
adem
arks
and
do
mai
nn
ames
103
104
Measures which try to createawareness in the form of anintroduction to the IPR system
Realisation of public actions (like roadshows/campaigns) on the importance onthe IPR awareness and the dangers ofcounterfeited products
Aw
ere
ness
1.
Information service on issues of IP rightsand their protection (like "NationalPatent Office Helpdesk")
3.
Development of regional Informationservice points on issues of IP rights andtheir protection
4.
Provide training courses on intellectualproperty (graduate/academic education)
5.
Provide training courses on intellectualproperty (e-learning)7.
Services to assist SMEs in identifying IP assets(diagnosis, audit)8.
Copyright registry9.
Provide training courses on intellectualproperty (non-academic adult education,like "IP4SME")
6.
Media advertisement2.
Pro
tect
Managem
ent
Exploitation
Sw
eden
Czech
Republic
Fra
nce
Esto
nia
Spain
Port
ugal
Finland
Luxem
bourg
Italy
Denm
ark
U.K
.
Bulgaria
Poland
Gre
ece
Rom
ania
Austr
ia
Malta
Hungary
Germ
any
Turk
ey
* Copyright registry under the Spanish law is provided by the Ministry of Culture.The OEPM does just signposting.
AIDA-level
*
Method(s) already appliedin following partner country(s):
Method(s) partners planto implement
Method(s) already appliedin following partner country(s):
Method(s) partnersplan to implement:
Awereness
10.3 IP Awareness and Enforcement Services of NPOs – “Menu”
105
Road shows should include application of best practice recommendation in the field of IP.Road shows should travel in some regions of the country, preferably organized jointly withother governmental organizations or NGOs.
For many citizens in the country, the location of the national patent offices is too far to askfor a personal interview for help with IP information. Therefore, other co-operating NGOssuch as chambers of commerce, Europe Enterprise Network members, Regional innovationagencies, etc. might improve accessibility of personnel contact and information. Theregional Information service points can help find information about IP rights, located nearto the clients. The regional service providers should acquire standardised training in IPRsand their commercialisation. The regional info-relay centres should distribute patent officeinformation materials, operate an IP specific homepage-segment on their own website, andbe open for client.
Service should include elements like offering partnership programs for universities. Within theregular partnership and IP education programme-training courses on intellectual propertyshould be provided for university students. Courses should have an average duration of 10lectures and be worked out in collaboration with the university faculties, and departmentsthereof. Trainers can come from departments of the NPO, and from the university staff. Theuniversities could provide the infrastructure of the training.
E-learning at its best is a cutting-edge technology tool of education, which broadens theavailability of the target groups. This is intended to be one of the most important forms ofeducation to be provided by the NPOs in the future. This tool can reach SMEs countrywidewith a high degree of flexibility. E-learning modules should cover at least the following topics:Basic information on IP rights; alternative toolkits for IP rights protection; the benefits andsources for information on IP rights; the commercialisation of IP.
Services targeting SMEs which may not be aware of the potential of their IP assets and whomay not have adequate individual IP strategies. It is intended to assist in identifying IPassets, provide support in their protection and align their utilisation with business andoperational milestones. The quality control indicators are the number of “diagnoses“completed. By the end of IPeuropAware the methodology should be adapted and at leastthree "diagnoses" completed.
Copyright is a form of protection provided by law to the authors of “original works ofauthorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works.This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Copyright registration isa legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright.By copyright registration a copy or copies of the work will be registered and “deposited” withthe NPO.
Following the concept of life-long learning, NPOs should offer a training course system of IPfor SMEs. The basic course should consist around 8-16 hours of study in one or two days andprovide general knowledge on intellectual property. The knowledge obtained during thecourse would enable enterprises to recognise the possibilities lying in the IP protection oftheir own intellectual properties, as the first legal step of the innovation cycle.
Providing assistance for SMEs in the framework of information/customer service on the toolsof intellectual property in order to enhance their competitive edge, or to avoid costly lawsuitsover infringement and /or piracy. Assistance should include support to decide on the righttitle of protection, information on IPR and obligations arising from the different titles ofprotection; on the ways, tools and processes of gaining protection; on calls for applicationsupporting acquisition of rights; on copyright in general and on the related internationaltreaties. A statistics on the helpdesk operation should be maintained. Development ofinformation materials, organising trainings choosing as second activity could also be useful.A web site segment within the office's homepage should be set up for the help desk, wherecontacts, opening hours, location, including information materials, FAQs, and other usefulcontents are integrated.
Extensive coverage on different media incl. press, TV, radio and internet magazines. Pressshould include national press, economic publishing, and press targeting SMEs next to theindustry specific sub-cultural media. TV and radio programs should contain different types ofprograms, e.g.: IP day relevant broadcasts, Inventor of the day, Plagiarius award, innovationand economy related talk-shows, morning discussions, commenting news spots, etc.
Specification
106
Measures intending to raiseawareness on enforcement issuesand to offer effective means ofcombating counterfeiting*
1. Negative or positive award (like“Plagiarius” in Germany or "TheCreativity Trophy" in Romania) to informthe public about the problem of fakesand plagiarisms and the negative impactsthey have not only on the economy as awhole, but also on small companies
Aw
ere
ness
1.
Specific enforcement training tools (likeinteractive traing packages onCD/DVD/E-learning) for enforcers andthose engaged in combatingcounterfeiting and piracy
3.
Creation of a common B2B/B2C database(Police, Customs, national Patent Offices),with information relative to enforcementissues
4.
Organising – preferably jointly withjudges – seminars, workshops andconferences on IPR rights andenforcement
5.
Creation of an “Electronic Complaint System”7.
Development/implementation of B2Band B2C services helping fight againstcounterfeiting
8.
Creation of a website dedicated to IPenforcement, under involvement ofseveral national entities in charge ofcombating counterfeiting (Police,Customs, national Patent Offices), withrelevant information for differentbusiness sectors on how to obtain andshare information about counterfeitingmethods
6.
Publishing enforcement guidebook forselected branches of industry
2.
Pro
tect
Managem
ent
Exploitation
Sw
eden
Czech
Republic
Fra
nce
Esto
nia
Spain
Port
ugal
Finland
Luxem
bourg
Italy
Denm
ark
U.K
.
Bulgaria
Poland
Gre
ece
Rom
ania
Austr
ia
Malta
Hungary
Germ
any
Turk
ey
*: National Intellectual/Industrial Property Offices are in many partner countries notresponsible for enforcing intellectual property, as they are not prosecuting agencies. However,they can provide further information on these issues for enforcers and those engaged incombating counterfeiting and piracy. In some cases they operate as mediation centres or havemediation initiatives.
AIDA-levelEnforcement Method(s) already appliedin following partner country(s):
Method(s) partners planto implement
Method(s) already appliedin following partner country(s):
Method(s) partnersplan to implement:
107
Annual award media campaign for a better protection and enforcement of IPR with weeks ofjoint media presence. Possible breaking communications:– White paper on international/national piracy and counterfeiting,– survey on the socio-economic effect of counterfeited products,– loss of tax-income due to illegal importation of branded/patented products etc.
Different databases of different institutions involved in fighting against counterfeitingcontain different data; serve different functions based on the perspective of the organisationand the aim of the database. Thus a common/integrated database joining relevant and usefulcontent of those (e.g. trademark, validity data from trademark registry, most usualmisleading signs used in relation of the mark inputted from customs/police/mark owner,companies already caught as breaching the brand inputted by police/customs, etc.
By necessity intellectual property law has to be abstract, both because the subject matter dealswith intangible subject matters (inventions, works, etc.) and because that branch of law has, inpractical life, to cover a great number of situations which are impossible to foresee in advancein a legal text. Therefore, court practice has traditionally played an important role in thepractical operation of IPR in the economic and cultural fabric in a society. The trainings moduleshould be worked out in co-operation with WIPO Worldwide Academy, OHIM, EPO etc.
The Electronic Complaint System is a central system, based on the internet, through which anindividual, enterprise or other organisation can present a complaint concerning an infractionto his or others IPR. The "Electronic Complaint System" should be available through a specificwebsite created for anti counterfeiting activities. The Complaint System should be operated incooperation of several governmental organisations like NPOs, policy authorities and customs.
The copying of existing patents, logos and industrial designs undoubtedly damages theeconomy. Several programmes (e.g. TMView Program, CETMOS, eMage) exist or are currentlyunder development aiming to create a common search engine tool to allow users to consultregisters of the EU national offices as well as international organisations like OHIM, WIPO etc.These are intelligent web-based solutions helping fight against counterfeiting and to makecompanies aware of existing registered logos and designs.
Recommended contents:– A guidance for what to do in case of suspected infringement, either on behalf
of IP owner or customer,– "decision making tree" on what to do if meeting infringement,– easy to understand presentation and comparison of the different alternatives of actions
and dispute settlement options available,– enforcement map depicting the stakeholder agencies such as chambers of commerce,
mediation agencies, and governmental organisations (like police, customs, consumerprotection organisation, NPO, court), the description of their IP enforcement relatedfunctions and services,
– communication of joint enforcement programs, activities of the above bodies,– user-uploadable database on counterfeited products etc.
Sharing the experiences and practices of the police and customs in order to act moreeffectively against counterfeiting, in cooperation with the police and customs authorities etc.
Recommended content:– A guidance for what to do in case of infringement suspected, either on behalf of IP owner or customer,– "decision making tree" on what to do if meeting infringement,– easy to understand presentation and comparison of the different alternatives of actions and
dispute settlement options available,– enforcement map depicting the stakeholder agencies such as chambers of commerce, mediation
agencies, and governmental organisations (like police, customs, consumer protection organisation,NPO, court), the description of their IP enforcement related functions and services,
– communication of joint enforcement programs, activities of the above bodies with a sector specific focus.
Specification
Planning local actions for intellectual property awareness and enforcement services
Summary of the results of Work Package 9
(module 1) of IPeuropAware project
Authors of the report
Éva BakosHungarian Patent Office
Loretta HuszákHungarian Patent Office
www.ipeuropaware.eu PlA
nn
Ing
lO
cA
l A
ct
IOn
S fO
r I
nt
ell
ec
tu
Al
Pr
OP
er
ty
AW
Ar
en
eSS
An
d e
nfO
rc
em
en
t S
er
vIc
eS