Intellectual Assets and Innovation : the SME Dimension.

179 Pages·2012·1.673 MB·English

by  OECD

OECD Studies on SMEs and Entrepreneurship O
E
C
Intellectual Assets and Innovation D
S
t
u OECD Studies on SMEs and Entrepreneurship
d
THE SME DIMENSION ie
s
o
n Intellectual Assets
This series offers policy guidance for governments to foster entrepreneurship and strengthen the performance S
of SMEs and their contribution to growth and development. It provides evidence-based analysis and M
E
policy recommendations on thematic issues such as access to fi nance for SMEs and entrepreneurs, s and Innovation
SME participation in global markets, intellectual assets and innovation, high-growth SMEs and women’s a
n
entrepreneurship. It also includes country reviews of key SME and entrepreneurship issues and policies in d
E
OECD member and non-member countries. n
t THE SME DIMENSION
r
e
p
r
e
Contents n
e
u
Chapter 1. Intellectual asset management, innovation and SMEs r
s
h
Chapter 2. Australia: Intellectual property solutions for innovative SMEs ip
Chapter 3. Italy: Channeling creativity into competitiveness
Chapter 4. Nordic countries: Matching exceptional design and creativity with progressive policy
Chapter 5. The United Kingdom: Intellectual asset management strategies for diverse innovations
Chapter 6. The United States: Balancing robust protection with rapid innovation
In
t
e
lle
c
t
u
a
l A
s
s
e
t
s
a
n
d
In
n
o
v
a
t
io
n
T
H
E
S
Please cite this publication as: M
E
D
OECD (2011), Intellectual Assets and Innovation: The SME Dimension, IM
OECD Studies on SMEs and Entrepreneurship , OECD Publishing. E
N
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264118263-en S
IO
N
This work is published on the OECD iLibrary, which gathers all OECD books, periodicals and statistical databases.
Visit www.oecd-ilibrary.org, and do not hesitate to contact us for more information.
ISBN 978-92-64-11823-2 -:HSTCQE=VV]WXW:
85 2011 02 1 P

OECD Studies on SMEs and Entrepreneurship
Intellectual Assets
and Innovation
THE SME DIMENSION
This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The
opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official
views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries.
This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or
sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries
and to the name of any territory, city or area.
Please cite this publication as:
OECD (2011), Intellectual Assets and Innovation: The SME Dimension, OECD Studies on SMEs and
Entrepreneurship, OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264118263-en
ISBN 978-92-64-11823-2 (print)
ISBN 978-92-64-11826-3 (PDF)
Series: OECD Studies on SMEs and Entrepreneurship
ISSN 2078-0982 (print)
ISSN 2078-0990 (online)
Photo credits: Cover : © PhotoAlto/Getty Images, © David Wasserman/Brand X Pictures/Getty Images,
© Tim Pannell/Corbis, © Andersen Ross/Photodisc/Getty Images.
Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.
© OECD 2011
You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and
multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable
acknowledgment of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should
be submitted to [email protected]. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be
addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at [email protected] or the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC)
at [email protected].
FOREWORD
Foreword
I
nvestment in intellectual assets is growing rapidly in the global economy, as firms, industries and
national economies develop new modes of innovation and search for new sources of growth. The
management of intellectual assets is critical for turning the innovation potential of firms into a real
engine for growth and job creation. Channelling new ideas and creativity into competitiveness is a
challenge, in particular for new businesses and small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs), which
rely strongly on the exploitation of intellectual capital in their business models. However innovative
SMEs develop strategies to manage their intangible assets, including access to Intellectual Property
(IP) systems, to a much smaller extent than large firms. This is a critical concern for policy makers
responsible for strengthening SMEs’ contribution to high-wage employment creation and economic
growth. In order to develop appropriate policy responses, there must be greater knowledge of SME
practices to manage intellectual assets in a rapidly changing market and technological environment.
Improved understanding of the impact of IP regulation is also needed.
This report examines the relationship between SMEs’ management of intellectual assets,
innovation and competitiveness. It is the result of analysis carried out by the OECD Working Party
on SMEs and Entrepreneurship (WPSMEE), as part of the follow up to the OECD Innovation Strategy.
Looking at different national contexts, the study provides insights into the methods used by SMEs for
managing intellectual assets and their ability to access and utilise the IP system. The report
highlights recent and ongoing reforms in regulatory frameworks and investigates the effectiveness of
programmes and policy measures to support SMEs’ access to IPRs. Policy recommendations are
proposed to support national efforts aimed at reducing barriers to SME growth which are related to
intellectual property regulation and management. These include making the IPR system overall more
“SME-friendly”; raising awareness among the broad SME population about the strategic
opportunities offered by IPRs; addressing SMEs’ financial constraints while bringing services and
expertise closer to their working environment; improving cross-border IP co-ordination; and
strengthening enforcement for SMEs operating internationally.
The study covers selected manufacturing and service industries in nine countries: Australia,
Italy, the Nordic Group (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden), the United Kingdom and
the United States. Each country study has a sectoral focus, in which the role of SMEs is relevant for
innovation, employment creation and growth, and in which the management of intellectual assets is
a key strategic issue.
The country studies were articulated in three steps: i) analysis of IP regulations, supported by
interviews of IP experts (legal professionals, policy makers, other groups of interest); ii) in-depth case
studies of selected SMEs; and iii) surveys of SMEs in some of the participating countries.
The study benefited from the collaboration and substantive contributions of several national
teams comprised of researchers and experts. Chapter 2 (Australia) was prepared by Dr. Richard
Seymour, Mr. Jarrod Ormiston and Dr. Maria Rumyantseva (University of Sydney Business School).
Chapter 3 (Italy) by Dr. Daniela Carosi and Dr. Massimo Marnetto (Italian Ministry of Economic
Development); the following experts also contributed to the chapter: Mario Barbuto, Pierpaola
INTELLECTUAL ASSETS AND INNOVATION © OECD 2011 3
FOREWORD
D’Alessandro, Daniela Della Rosa, Fabrizio De Benedetti, Sara Giordani, Andrea Granelli, Marcella
Panucci, Antonio Paris and Alberto Piantoni; Chapter 4 (Nordic Countries) by Dr. Christina Wainikka
(Swedish Patent Office); Chapter 5 (United Kingdom) by Prof. Birgitte Andersen (Big Innovation
Centre at the Work Foundation, London) and Dr. Federica Rossi (Birkbeck College, University of
London); and Chapter 6 (United States) by Mr. Rohit Shukla, Dr. Don Oparah and Ms. Tanya
Kiatkulpiboone (Larta Institute, Los Angeles). We also acknowledge the kind support of the Merck
Foundation in funding Chapter 5 of this study, as well as the general support of the European Union.
This report was prepared under the supervision of Ms. Miriam Koreen, Deputy Director of the
OECD Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs and Local Development (CFE). Chapter 1 was prepared by
Ms. Lucia Cusmano (Senior Economist, SMEs and Entrepreneurship Division, CFE, OECD) and
Mr.Benjamin Dean (Consultant, SMEs and Entrepreneurship Division, CFE, OECD).
I would like to express sincere appreciation to Mr. Guriqbal Jaiya (World Intellectual Property
Organisation) for his extensive inputs during the course of this study; Mme. Marie-Florence Estimé,
former Deputy Director of the OECD Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs and Local Development, for
her support and dedication to this study; and Ms. Mariarosa Lunati (Head of the Business,
Entrepreneurship and Globalisation Section, Statistics Directorate, OECD) for her role in launching
the study.
Sergio Arzeni
Director, OECD Centre for Entrepreneurship
Head, OECD LEED Programm
4 INTELLECTUAL ASSETS AND INNOVATION © OECD 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TTaabbllee ooff CCoonntteennttss
Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Chapter 1. Intellectual Asset Management, Innovation and SMEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Objective and method of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Summary of key findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
SME intellectual asset management practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Policy recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Chapter 2. Australia: Intellectual Property Solutions for Innovative SMEs. . . . . . . . . . . 37
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Intellectual property regulation in Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Empirical evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Policy implications and recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Annex 2.A1. Clean Technology and Appropriability Regime. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Chapter 3. Italy: Channelling Creativity intoCompetitiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Intellectual property regulation in Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Empirical evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Policy implications and recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Annex 3.A1. Statistical Tables for Innovaton in Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Chapter 4. Nordic Countries: MatchingExceptionalDesign andCreativity
withProgressivePolicy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Intellectual property regulations in Nordic countries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
SME issues and challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Empirical evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Policy implications and recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Annex 4.A1. Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
INTELLECTUAL ASSETS AND INNOVATION © OECD 2011 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 5. United Kingdom: IntellectualAssetManagement Strategies
for Diverse Innovations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Intellectual property regulation system in the United Kingdom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Empirical evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Policy implications and recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Chapter 6. The United States: BalancingRobustProtection withRapidInnovation. . . 141
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Intellectual property regulation in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Empirical evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Policy implications and recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Annex A. SME Case Studies: Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Annex B. Survey Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Box
1.1. Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Tables
1.1. Profile of case studies across participating countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.1. Australian intellectual property institutional framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.2. Intellectual property rights available in Australia and their characteristics. . . 41
2.3. Innovation patent with regard to standard patent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.4. Fees for selected intellectual property protection in Australia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.5. Summary of innovative activity in Australian business, key indicators,
2007-08 and 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.6. Summary of innovative activity in Australian business,
byemployment size, 2008-09. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.7. Barriers to innovation, by innovation status, 2007-08 and 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.8. Innovation active businesses: barriers to innovation,
byemploymentsize 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.9. Innovation active businesses: barriers to innovation, by
employmentsize, 2008-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.10. Innovation active businesses: intellectual property protectionmethods,
by employment size, 2008-09. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.11. Types of expenditure for innovation purposes, by employment size, 2008-09. 50
3.1. Italy: Profile of case studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.1. Nordic countries: Profile of case studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
5.1. Types of intellectual property and governance forms investigated
through the UKNOW questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
5.2. Benefits from intellectual property exchange. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
5.3. Obstacles to intellectual property exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5.4. Details of companies interviewed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
5.5. Size distribution of population and interviewed firms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
6 INTELLECTUAL ASSETS AND INNOVATION © OECD 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5.6. Firms’ exchange of different types of intellectual property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
5.7. Combinations of intellectual property protection mechanisms. . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
5.8. Engagement in intellectual property governance forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
5.9. Strategic benefits derived from engagement in different forms
ofintellectual property rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
5.10. Strategic benefits from the exchange of different forms ofintellectual
property rights (SMEs only) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
5.11. Obstacles encountered when exchanging different forms ofintellectual
property rights (SMEs only) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
5.12. Use of intellectual property and firm performance (average turnover
per employee, in thousand GBP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
5.13. Use of intellectual property and internationalisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
6.1. Timing: from patent filing to issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
6.2. Costs: From filing and prosecution fees to litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
6.3. Public disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
6.4. Effective enforcement: combating infringement and infringement allegations. . 148
6.5. Clarity of patentable subject matter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
6.6. Competing and Industry-specific considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
6.7. Summary of case studies in the United States report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
6.8. SME best and worst practices identified in the case studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
6.9. Summary of major intellectual property issues and key corresponding
recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
INTELLECTUAL ASSETS AND INNOVATION © OECD 2011 7