Developing IPR support services in the context of co-operating regions – the IPR for South East Europe project Alfred Radauer (Senior Consultant, Technopolis Group Austria) SEVENTH ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICES AND OTHER RELEVANT INSTITUTIONS IN THE ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD) COUNTRIES Geneva, Sep

2 The South East Europe Programme (I) Aims to develop transnational partnerships on matters of strategic importance in order to improve the territorial, economic and social integration process to contribute to cohesion, stability and competitiveness of the region. 13 such cooperation projects in the EU in ; SEE is one of the largest and also with most diverse countries

The South East Europe Programme (II) Priority Axis or the funded projects Priority Axis 1 : Facilitation of innovation and entrepreneurship Priority Axis 2: Protection and improvement of the environment Priority Axis 3: Improvement of the accessibility Priority Axis 4: Development of transnational synergies for sustainable growth areas Managing authority: National Development Agency (Hungary) 3

The IPRforSEE project (I) Background for the Intellectual Property Rights for SEE Project (IPRforSEE) Project SME under-usage (non-adequate usage) of IPR Regional disparities Regional white spots in service provision Aims and activities of the project Analysis of gaps existing between local/SMEs needs and services available and development of five innovative service proposals(with related tools) based hereunder; These new services shall be organized in an innovative way and e-learning modules for the training of service operators developed; 9 pilot actions involving about 300 SMEs, from different economic sectors, aiming at testing these new services; An independent Evaluation Committee (composed by NPOs and EPO) will evaluate the results according to a methodology and a set of indicators; Agreement for sustainability of those services will be signed by the partners; Communication/dissemination activities, in view to widen involvement and improve linkage with National and EU networks 4

The IPRforSEE Project (II) Embedded within the South East Europe Programme in the following way Priority: Facilitation of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Area of intervention: Develop the enabling environment for innovative entrepreneurship Project budget Overall project budget: ,00 ERDF contribution: ,00 IPA contribution: ,00 ENPI contribution: 0,00 Project start date / end date: / Technopolis contracted in August 2009 for its tasks Running time for Technopolis tasks: up until February

The IPRforSEE Project (III) Lead partner CCIAA VE - Chambers of Commerce Industry Craft and Agriculture of Venice ERDF partners AWS - Austria Wirtschaftsservice GesmbH CCINA - Chamber of Commerce, Industry, Shipping and Agriculture of Constanta CCI KILKIS - Kilkis Chamber of Commerce and Industry KETAEPIRUS - Centre of Entrepreneurial and Technological Development of Epirus CHIC - Central Hungarian Innovation Centre NpC. VKIK - Veszprem Chamber of Commerce and Industry CCIAA AN - Chamber of Commerce Industry Craft and Agriculture of Ancona O.U.C. - Ovidius University of Constanta AS.FOR.M. - Transnational Association for Training and Vocational Mobility RCC-UZICE - Uzice Regional Chamber of Commerce Several partners in an observer role (mostly national patent offices of the region, the EPO) 6

The assignment for Technopolis Supporting AWS in carrying out WP3 on Identifying service needs and development of service concepts (AWS is leader of WP3), and hereby help answer the following questions: 1.What type of support services are already in place (or planned) in the countries under investigation? 2.What are the specific needs of SMEs in SEE in order to have them use the IPR system more effectively and where are the gaps that need to be addressed by innovative pilot projects? 3.Which are the five most promising requirements and design elements for pilot projects which are to be implemented in subsequent work packages of the project? Outcome: Study report detailing findings and five innovative service concepts, to be taken up by the following work packages 7

Methdological approach taken Action 3.1: Analysis of available IPR support services (identification and benchmarking) Desk research (using identification guideline) Interviews with service providers (using benchmarking guideline) Action 3.2: Analysis of SME specific IPR needs in the regions Interviews with service operators (intermediaries) and SMEs Semi-standardised interview guidelines Action 3.3: Definition of innovative IPR services Clustering of SMEs Concept of service designs, related tools and training modules Usage of logical framework analysis Methodology draw strongly on proven and enhanced methods of earlier studies conducted by Technopolis 8

Our thinking (I) Reference projects 1.Benchmarking National and Regional Support Services in the Field of Industrial and Intellectual Property, commissioned by EC, DG Enterprise and Industry (PRO Inno paper no. 4) (Radauer et al. 2007) [most important source] 2.Support Services in the Field of IPR for SMEs in Switzerland - A Review, commissioned by the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (Radauer & Streicher 2008) 3.On the growing significance of IPR for German SMEs and the diminishing importance of physical assets, commissioned by the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (Blind, Cuntz, Köhler & Radauer (2008)) 4.Supporting the improvement of existing and development of new IPR support services for Swiss SMEs, on behalf of Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (Radauer 2009) 9

Our thinking (II) Key quality factors for the provision of IPR services, user perceptions 10 Source: Radauer et al Aggregated answers for all services, Services considered = 15 n = 630

Our thinking (III) Behavioural additionality 11 Changes in/of attitude/behaviour with regard to IP issues, due to using a support service, Accompanied Patent Search service, Switzerland, SMEs in % Service activities affect a range of IP-relevant aspects. Source: Radauer & Streicher 2008, n = 61

Our thinking (IV) Important criteria making up successful IPR services Clear reasoning for existence for service packages (market failure argument), and thus division line to private industry offerings Sound target system Competence of staff Integrated offerings (all IPR out of one hand) Governance structures Evaluations and quality control Working cooperation structures with stakeholders from the innovation system Ease of identification/Visibility Timely delivery NOT NECESSARILY: IPR Service in every locality 12

Some working hypotheses for the IPRforSEE project Regional disparities may be a strong factor explaining SME needs and types of service to be installed Country-specific approach necessary (account also for different industry structure) Some countries are less developed (disadvantage), but can have also a fresh start (advantage) Existing services seem in many countries dominated by patent information centres But is classic patent information really what SMEs in this region need? Anecdotal evidence suggests that SMEs approach IPR services with general business questions, maybe also trademarks, but only to a small part patents Stay tuned for the results… 13

14 Thank you For questions, please contact: Technopolis Group has offices in Amsterdam, Ankara, Brighton, Brussels, Paris, Stockholm, Tallinn and Vienna.