[Ip-health] IPR & competitiveness [Job and Growth Initiative] - EU Memo]
Michelle Childs
michelle.childs@cptech.org
Wed May 3 09:57:01 2006
--
Below is a long Memo from the EU Commission which sets out what the EU is
doing on IPR- with most focus on patents. Main message more patents=3D more
innovation therefore the job of the Commission is to encouraging
patenting.
The meom was headed: 'Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) at the heart of
the Commission's job and growth initiative '
Michelle
It makes a number of interesting statements:
<snip> The European Innovation Scoreboard 2005 provides empirical evidence
that a lower level of patenting to a large extent accounts for the
difference in innovation performance between EU countries and to the
innovation gap between Europe, the US and Japan.
Also some stats:
<SNIP>
Statistics on patent applications in 2005
In absolute numbers Germany has by far the highest number of patent
applications with over 23 000 in 2005. France follows with 8 034 and The
Netherlands with nearly 7 800, while the UK only put in 4 649 applications
in 2005.
The top 25 applicants[to the EPO] represent about 18% of the patent
applications filed with the EPO. On average, 69% of the applicants at the
EPO are granted one patent per year (US: 63%, Japan: 66%). 1% of the
applicants receive more than 50 patent grants per year (US: 1%, Japan
2%).
It also sets out a number of upcoming studies on IPR usage and projects
such as PROTON:
<snip>.The objective of PROTON is to boost the commercial uptake of
publicly funded R&D throughout Europe by further developing the
professional skills of their technology interface structures with
industry.
EU MEMO Text
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=3DMEMO/06/181&f=
ormat=3DHTML&aged=3D0&language=3DEN&guiLanguage=3Den
MEMO/06/181
Brussels, 3 May 2006
Part II
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) at the heart of the Commission's job
and growth initiative
There is a very close link between IPR and the competitiveness of the EU
economy. A proper, affordable IPR system is important to foster
innovation. The European Inventor of the Year event offers an opportunity
to highlight the achievements of European inventors. Knowledge and
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are core elements
of the revised growth and jobs initative. On this occasion the following
ongoing key Commission policies regarding IPR should be highlighted (see
IP/558):
Innovation performance: Europe falls back vis-=E0-vis the US and Japan
The European Innovation Scoreboard 2005 provides empirical evidence that a
lower level of patenting to a large extent accounts for the difference in
innovation performance between EU countries and to the innovation gap
between Europe, the US and Japan. However, leading Member States have a
patenting activity similar to US one; they register twice as much EPO
patents as the US, and the US registers twice as much USPTO patents as
them. The available data clearly shows that patent indicators are highly
correlated to countries global innovation performance. Countries doing
well in terms of innovation performance also score high in patenting.
Figure: Innovation performance vs patenting activity
[Graphic in PDF & Word format]
The available data clearly shows a strong correlation between a strong
IPR-culture and good innovation performance.
Statistics on patent applications in 2005
In absolute numbers Germany has by far the highest number of patent
applications with over 23 000 in 2005. France follows with 8 034 and The
Netherlands with nearly 7 800, while the UK only put in 4 649 applications
in 2005.
Origin=09Total
Austria=091 053=090,82%
Belgium=091 658=091,29%
Bulgaria=0911=090,01%
Switzerland=095 027=093,91%
Cyprus=0935=090,03%
Czech Republic=0973,06%
Germany=0923 789=0918,49%
Danmark=091 174=090,91%
Estonia=093=090,00%
Spain=09972=090,76%
Finland=091 514=091,18%
France=098 034=096,24%
United Kingdom=094 649=093,61%
Hellas=0967=090,05%
Hungary=0981=090,06%
Ireland=09311=090,24%
Iceland=0928=090,02%
Italy=094 199=093,26%
Lithuania=09152=090,12%
Latvia=091=090,00%
Luxemburg=09181=090,14%
Latvia=097=090,01%
Monaco=0915=090,01%
Netherlands=097 799=096,06%
Poland=09111=090,09%
Portugal=0941=090,03%
Romania=098=090,01%
Sweden=092 486=091,93%
SIovenia=0987=090,07%
Slovakia=0916=090,01%
Turkey=0968=090,05%
EPC =0963 650=0949,46%
Japan=0921 461=0916,68%
USA=0932 738=0925,44%
Other=0910 830=098,42%
non EPC=0965 029=0950,54%
Total=09128679=09100,0%
Top applicants at the EPO
Among the ten largest applicants at the EPO there are four European
companies, three companies from Japan, two from Korea and one from the US:
Top Applicants at the EPO in 2005
Rank=09Company=09Count=09Share
1=09KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.=094173=093,2%
2=09SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT=091548=091,2%
3=09MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.=091194=090,9%
4=09SONY CORPORATION=09964=090,7%
5=09ROBERT BOSCH GMBH=09845=090,7%
6=09NOKIA CORPORATION=09683=090,5%
7=09FUJITSU LIMITED=09672=090,5%
8=09BASF AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT=09669=090,5%
9=09MICROSOFT CORPORATION=09645=090,5%
10=09SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.=09617=090,5%
11=09PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS GMBH=09571=090,4%
12=093M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY=09507=090,4%
13=09INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION=09491=090,4%
14=09THOMSON LICENSING=09479=090,4%
15=09GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY=09462=090,4%
16=09L'OREAL S.A.=09448=090,3%
17=09CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA=09437=090,3%
18=09DSM IP ASSETS B.V.=09390=090,3%
19=09DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.=09388=090,3%
20=09LG ELECTRONICS INC.=09385=090,3%
21=09SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION=09383=090,3%
22=09DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG=09367=090,3%
23=09THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY=09356=090,3%
24=09RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED=09353=090,3%
25=09NEC CORPORATION=09342=090,3%
The top 25 applicants represent about 18% of the patent applications filed
with the EPO. On average, 69% of the applicants at the EPO are granted one
patent per year (US: 63%, Japan: 66%). 1% of the applicants receive more
than 50 patent grants per year (US: 1%, Japan 2%).
More information on the EIS, European innovation scoreboard:
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=3DIP/06/21&form=
at=3DHTML&aged=3D1&language=3DEN&guiLanguage=3Den
More information on the EIS, European innovation scoreboard:
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=3DIP/06/21&form=
at=3DHTML&aged=3D1&language=3DEN&guiLanguage=3Den
Europe needs an effective IPT system
It is therefore demanding that the EU works upon its weaknesses and turns
them into strengths. Even though the concrete scope and shape of IPR
protection at the EU level is debateable, a sound and effective IPR
framework should aim to contribute to:
*=09Better economic performance, through giving firms the right incentives
to make new inventions and the financial strength to continue to develop
further innovation;
*=09More efficient dissemination of new knowledge and ideas, through
encouraging intellectual property owners to publish their ideas and place
their inventions on the market;
*=09Better products and services, through continuous product development,
whilst at the same time safeguarding health and safety and environmental
protection through conformity with market regulations.
Community framework for patents is lacking
Proposals have been made, including one on the Community Patent, and
another on Computer Implemented Inventions. However, they have not yet
received sufficient political support to ensure their adoption. The
adoption of the Community patent would reduce the costs of patenting as
well as increase legal security for European enterprises in general. This
would certainly contribute to a better protection of intellectual property
in Europe. The Commission has recently started a consultation exercise on
the Community patent and possible alternatives, such as the development of
a "European Patent Litigation Agreement" or the closer harmonisation and
mutual recognition of Member State patents.
Reinforcing the IPR-culture throughout Europe
More also needs to be done however on awareness raising and supporting
enterprises, especially SMEs in valorising their intellectual property and
using intellectual property rights. The Commission strives to encourage
SMEs to valorise their intellectual property and make use of IPRs.
The Commission is undertaking a number of actions to assess what other
support measures can be taken. An Expert Group will draft policy
recommendations by end 2006, as part of the Commission's IPR-Initiative
announced in the Industrial Policy Communication of autumn 2005. The
recommendations will focus on how barriers to the use of IPR can be
removed and how the relation between IPR and innovation can be
strengthened. A specific TrendChart Workshop will validate these policy
recommendations.
The policy recommendations will have three building blocks.
*=091. A special statistical report on IPR usage will further analyse how
companies use IPR in different sectors, building upon the results of the
European Innovation Scoreboard. This report is foreseen for May 2006.
*=092. A report on barriers to the effective use of IPR will be produced by
the Commission's Europe INNOVA. Sectoral Innovation Panels by June 2006.
This Report will identify the reasons for companies using or not using
intellectual property rights and possible policy measures in response.
*=093. A benchmarking study on publicly-funded IPR support services was
launched in January 2006. It will identify all existing regional and
national support measures for companies in the field of IPR, assess their
efficiency and identify good practices.
Based on these elements, it will be possible to identify where companies
experience difficulties, whether government measures address these issues
and propose points for improvement.
Furthermore, a number of specific IPR initiatives in support of
enterprises will be launched under PRO INNO Europe, which supports
trans-national cooperation, including the European Design Prize and the
project led by the European Patent Office on "training the trainers" in
IPR support services.
PROTON Europe is a network of technology transfer offices linked to Public
Research Organisations and Universities. It is supported by the EC under
the Gate2Growth initiative. A significant amount of top research with
current or potential commercial relevance is undertaken in universities
and research institutions in Europe. The objective of PROTON is to boost
the commercial uptake of publicly funded R&D throughout Europe by further
developing the professional skills of their technology interface
structures with industry.
More information: www.protoneurope.org/
The IPR Helpdesk provides free-of-charge basic guidance on intellectual
property issues to the stakeholders. Its main achievements are a range of
multilingual tools: website, newsletter, topic documents. It also manages
a fast-reply helpline for individual queries.
More information: http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/index.htm
Enforcing IPR in the fight against counterfeiting and product piracy
Counterfeiting is one of the major problems that the Commission has to
cope with. From 2000 to 2005, customs seizures have increased by 1000%,
while counterfeiting is no longer limited only to fashion and design
articles, but is extended to medicines and electrical equipment. The
enforcement of intellectual property rights in third countries is more
than ever critical. The Commissions actions include:
*=09Close cooperation between Member States and the Commission must go on t=
o
continuously improve our custom control system.
*=09Speedy and reliable information exchange between authorities from
different Member States remains an important issue.
*=09Intensive cooperation between right-holders and customs authorities
*=09Activities are ongoing under the Commission's action plan for an
efficient customs response to counterfeiting and piracy.
*=09The Commission has just proposed to introduce criminal law provisions t=
o
combat intellectual property offences .
- IP/06/532
<http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=3DIP/06/532&fo=
rmat=3DHTML&aged=3D0&language=3DEN&guiLanguage=3Dfr>
--
Michelle Childs -Head of European Affairs
Consumer Project on Technology in London
24, Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX,UK.
Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252.
Mob:+44(0)790 386 4642. Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607
http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA .Tel.:
+1.202.332.2670,Fax: +1.202.332.2673
Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva
1 Route des Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 791 6727
--
[ Converted text/html to text/plain ]
FYI
E
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=3DMEMO/06/181&f=
ormat=3DHTML&aged=3D0&language=3DEN&guiLanguage=3Den[1]
MEMO/06/181
Brussels, 3 May 2006
Part II
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) at the heart of the Commissions job and
growth initiative
There is a very close link between IPR and the competitiveness of the EU
economy. A proper, affordable IPR system is important to foster innovation.
The European Inventor of the Year event offers an opportunity to highlight =
the
achievements of European inventors. Knowledge and Intellectual Property Rig=
hts
(IPR) are core elements of the revised growth and jobs initative. On this
occasion the following ongoing key Commission policies regarding IPR should=
be
highlighted (see IP/558):
Innovation performance: Europe falls back vis-=E0-vis the US and Japan
The European Innovation Scoreboard 2005 provides empirical evidence that a
lower level of patenting to a large extent accounts for the difference in
innovation performance between EU countries and to the innovation gap betwe=
en
Europe, the US and Japan. However, leading Member States have a patenting
activity similar to US one; they register twice as much EPO patents as the =
US,
and the US registers twice as much USPTO patents as them. The available dat=
a
clearly shows that patent indicators are highly correlated to countries glo=
bal
innovation performance. Countries doing well in terms of innovation
performance also score high in patenting.
Figure: Innovation performance vs patenting activity
[Graphic in PDF & Word format]
The available data clearly shows a strong correlation between a strong
IPR-culture and good innovation performance.
Statistics on patent applications in 2005
In absolute numbers Germany has by far the highest number of patent
applications with over 23 000 in 2005. France follows with 8 034 and The
Netherlands with nearly 7 800, while the UK only put in 4 649 applications =
in
2005.
Origin Total
Austria 1 053 0,82%
Belgium 1 658 1,29%
Bulgaria 11 0,01%
Switzerland 5 027 3,91%
Cyprus 35 0,03%
Czech Republic 73,06%
Germany 23 789 18,49%
Danmark 1 174 0,91%
Estonia 3 0,00%
Spain 972 0,76%
Finland 1 514 1,18%
France 8 034 6,24%
United Kingdom 4 649 3,61%
Hellas 67 0,05%
Hungary 81 0,06%
Ireland 311 0,24%
Iceland 28 0,02%
Italy 4 199 3,26%
Lithuania 152 0,12%
Latvia 1 0,00%
Luxemburg 181 0,14%
Latvia 7 0,01%
Monaco 15 0,01%
Netherlands 7 799 6,06%
Poland 111 0,09%
Portugal 41 0,03%
Romania 8 0,01%
Sweden 2 486 1,93%
SIovenia 87 0,07%
Slovakia 16 0,01%
Turkey 68 0,05%
EPC 63 650 49,46%
Japan 21 461 16,68%
USA 32 738 25,44%
Other 10 830 8,42%
non EPC 65 029 50,54%
Total 128679 100,0%
Top applicants at the EPO
Among the ten largest applicants at the EPO there are four European compani=
es,
three companies from Japan, two from Korea and one from the US:
Top Applicants at the EPO in 2005
Rank Company Count Share
1 KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V. 4173 3,2%
2 SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT 1548 1,2%
3 MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD. 1194 0,9%
4 SONY CORPORATION 964 0,7%
5 ROBERT BOSCH GMBH 845 0,7%
6 NOKIA CORPORATION 683 0,5%
7 FUJITSU LIMITED 672 0,5%
8 BASF AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT 669 0,5%
9 MICROSOFT CORPORATION 645 0,5%
10 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 617 0,5%
11 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS GMBH 571 0,4%
12 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY 507 0,4%
13 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION 491 0,4%
14 THOMSON LICENSING 479 0,4%
15 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 462 0,4%
16 L'OREAL S.A. 448 0,3%
17 CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA 437 0,3%
18 DSM IP ASSETS B.V. 390 0,3%
19 DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 388 0,3%
20 LG ELECTRONICS INC. 385 0,3%
21 SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION 383 0,3%
22 DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG 367 0,3%
23 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY 356 0,3%
24 RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED 353 0,3%
25 NEC CORPORATION 342 0,3%
The top 25 applicants represent about 18% of the patent applications filed
with the EPO. On average, 69% of the applicants at the EPO are granted one
patent per year (US: 63%, Japan: 66%). 1% of the applicants receive more th=
an
50 patent grants per year (US: 1%, Japan 2%).
More information on the EIS, European innovation scoreboard:
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=3DIP/06/21&form=
at=3DHTML&aged=3D1&language=3DEN&guiLanguage=3Den[2]
More information on the EIS, European innovation scoreboard:
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=3DIP/06/21&form=
at=3DHTML&aged=3D1&language=3DEN&guiLanguage=3Den[3]
Europe needs an effective IPT system
It is therefore demanding that the EU works upon its weaknesses and turns t=
hem
into strengths. Even though the concrete scope and shape of IPR protection =
at
the EU level is debateable, a sound and effective IPR framework should aim =
to
contribute to:
Better economic performance, through giving firms the right incentives to m=
ake
new inventions and the financial strength to continue to develop further
innovation;
More efficient dissemination of new knowledge and ideas, through encouragin=
g
intellectual property owners to publish their ideas and place their inventi=
ons
on the market;
Better products and services, through continuous product development, whils=
t
at the same time safeguarding health and safety and environmental protectio=
n
through conformity with market regulations.
Community framework for patents is lacking
Proposals have been made, including one on the Community Patent, and anothe=
r
on Computer Implemented Inventions. However, they have not yet received
sufficient political support to ensure their adoption. The adoption of the
Community patent would reduce the costs of patenting as well as increase le=
gal
security for European enterprises in general. This would certainly contribu=
te
to a better protection of intellectual property in Europe. The Commission h=
as
recently started a consultation exercise on the Community patent and possib=
le
alternatives, such as the development of a European Patent Litigation
Agreement or the closer harmonisation and mutual recognition of Member Stat=
e
patents.
Reinforcing the IPR-culture throughout Europe
More also needs to be done however on awareness raising and supporting
enterprises, especially SMEs in valorising their intellectual property and
using intellectual property rights. The Commission strives to encourage SME=
s
to valorise their intellectual property and make use of IPRs.
The Commission is undertaking a number of actions to assess what other supp=
ort
measures can be taken. An Expert Group will draft policy recommendations by
end 2006, as part of the Commissions IPR-Initiative announced in the
Industrial Policy Communication of autumn 2005. The recommendations will fo=
cus
on how barriers to the use of IPR can be removed and how the relation betwe=
en
IPR and innovation can be strengthened. A specific TrendChart Workshop will
validate these policy recommendations.
The policy recommendations will have three building blocks.
1. A special statistical report on IPR usage will further analyse how
companies use IPR in different sectors, building upon the results of the
European Innovation Scoreboard. This report is foreseen for May 2006.
2. A report on barriers to the effective use of IPR will be produced by the
Commissions Europe INNOVA. Sectoral Innovation Panels by June 2006. This
Report will identify the reasons for companies using or not using intellect=
ual
property rights and possible policy measures in response.
3. A benchmarking study on publicly-funded IPR support services was launche=
d
in January 2006. It will identify all existing regional and national suppor=
t
measures for companies in the field of IPR, assess their efficiency and
identify good practices.
Based on these elements, it will be possible to identify where companies
experience difficulties, whether government measures address these issues a=
nd
propose points for improvement.
Furthermore, a number of specific IPR initiatives in support of enterprises
will be launched under PRO INNO Europe, which supports trans-national
cooperation, including the European Design Prize and the project led by the
European Patent Office on training the trainers in IPR support services.
PROTON Europe is a network of technology transfer offices linked to Public
Research Organisations and Universities. It is supported by the EC under th=
e
Gate2Growth initiative. A significant amount of top research with current o=
r
potential commercial relevance is undertaken in universities and research
institutions in Europe. The objective of PROTON is to boost the commercial
uptake of publicly funded R&D throughout Europe by further developing the
professional skills of their technology interface structures with industry.
More information: www.protoneurope.org/[4]
The IPR Helpdesk provides free-of-charge basic guidance on intellectual
property issues to the stakeholders. Its main achievements are a range of
multilingual tools: website, newsletter, topic documents. It also manages a
fast-reply helpline for individual queries.
More information: http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/index.htm[5]
Enforcing IPR in the fight against counterfeiting and product piracy
Counterfeiting is one of the major problems that the Commission has to cope
with. From 2000 to 2005, customs seizures have increased by 1000%, while
counterfeiting is no longer limited only to fashion and design articles, bu=
t
is extended to medicines and electrical equipment. The enforcement of
intellectual property rights in third countries is more than ever critical.
The Commissions actions include:
Close cooperation between Member States and the Commission must go on to
continuously improve our custom control system.
Speedy and reliable information exchange between authorities from different
Member States remains an important issue.
Intensive cooperation between right-holders and customs authorities
Activities are ongoing under the Commissions action plan for an efficient
customs response to counterfeiting and piracy.
The Commission has just proposed to introduce criminal law provisions to
combat intellectual property offences .
- IP/06/532[6]
=3D=3D=3DReferences:=3D=3D=3D
1. http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=3DMEMO/06/=
181&format=3DHTML&aged=3D0&language=3DEN&guiLanguage=3Den
2. http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=3DIP/06/21=
&format=3DHTML&aged=3D1&language=3DEN&guiLanguage=3Den
3. http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=3DIP/06/21=
&format=3DHTML&aged=3D1&language=3DEN&guiLanguage=3Den
4. http://www.protoneurope.org/
5. http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/index.htm
6. http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=3DIP/06/53=
2&format=3DHTML&aged=3D0&language=3DEN&guiLanguage=3Dfr
--