- Email: [email protected]
Innovation Relay Centres and patent protection
The European aspect / World Patent Information 20 (1998) 143±148
147
feasibility phase was 7% A1, 6% A3, 3% B (with comments), 27% B1 and 57% B2. Of the 100 selected proposals, the technical description of 87 among them were such that they could be searched by the EPO. Of those, 30 were classi®ed as being novel. In 57 cases the novelty of the whole project or of parts of it was questioned. The Quick Scan procedure, from sending the original proposals to the EPO to sending the full search results to the contractor for comments, took about 14 weeks. Customized action reports were requested from all proposers. Those in the case of B2 proposals were asked to comment on the relevant documents found and to specify the novelty aspects. In the case of A1 proposals, the requester was asked for more information. The novelty of a project is directly correlated with a success in the selection procedure. The following speci®c results are typical.
4. A UK university proposing the development of software to support a management methodology was made aware of publications of another UK university working in a similar ®eld. The second university joined the advisory board of the project.
1. On a proposal claiming complete novelty, Quick Scan showed that there was recent (1994) and highly relevant prior art from two major international companies. 2. A project proposing development of a speci®c measurement technique was confronted with an alternative solution by Quick Scan (lapsed US patent from an American Company). Proposal withdrawn to redirect the project. 3. A proposal dealing with a process development in the printing of electronic circuit boards was confronted with a development of a competitor and redirected their development towards an alternative, more cost-eective, albeit a technically more risky solution.
Other answers showed that only about 27% of respondents would change their attitude towards the use of intellectual property although 50% had gained new insights on the value of patent/technical searches but only 15% felt that there would be any change in their work programme. The contractors valued the Quick Scan results at between 0 and 5000 ECU. The mean value of 1500 ECU is close to the actual costs of each Quick Scan exercise. It is concluded that Quick Scan is a valuable tool in assessing the innovativeness of R&D projects. It has been proven to be cost-eective and provides additional value to contractors. A number of EU-RTD programmes have expressed their interest in a pilot implementation of Quick Scan.
A questionnaire was sent to the 87 participants in the ®rst round of Quick Scan and of these, 44 replied. This showed that some: · 7% gained information on new applications and/or markets · 2% found information about potential new partners · 50% gained a greater insight into the competitive situation · 9% found new licensing opportunities · 14% found alternative solutions from lapsed patents · 14% found solutions relevant to their project.
W. K utt, M. Schmiemann Technical Assistant Unit, Richardo Hitec Ltd, 11 rue de Bitbourg, 1272 Luxembourg-Hamm, Luxembourg 0172-2190/99/$ ± see front matter Ó 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 7 2 - 2 1 9 0 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 3 9 - 8
Innovation Relay Centres and patent protection Following the presentation by Helen Liord of LANTIS (Lanchester Technical Information Service) to the PATLIB 96 Conference in Aberdeen in May last year, this draws on the experience of the Innovation Relay Centres (IRCs) in seeking cooperation with patent information centres across Europe. There are 53 main IRCs involving over 150 organizations and it was felt that cooperation with other networks would be advantageous. The IRCs received regular enquiries about patents and, in addition, there is a need in CRAFT Stage II projects for: · Patent searches · Literature searches
· Cordis (Community Research and Development Information Service) searches. In general SMEs do not: · Understand the European Union programmes designed to encourage innovation · Understand the signi®cance or methods of obtaining patents · Want to spend money. The CRAFT projects (Cooperative Research Action for Technology) are designed to encourage SMEs into European Union research and technical development programmes. They are carried out in two stages and
148
The European aspect / World Patent Information 20 (1998) 143±148
require novelty veri®cation as part of Stage I. This novelty veri®cation includes: · A full patent search · A full literature search covering the relevant industry databases. The IRCs need to cooperate with patent centres or some similar organization for assistance with CRAFT projects, for answering one-oÕ enquiries about patents from companies, and for advice on intellectual property and its applications. The IRCs should identify patent information centres in their region to discuss: · Mutual cooperation possibilities · Levels of business
· Promotion of patent information centres at their events · Funding. The patent information centres locate their local IRCs by: · Consulting a WhoÕs Who of IRCs published in 1996 · Speaking to regional government oces · Telephoning the European Commission for the name of local IRCs · Looking on the World Wide Web page. The Midlands Innovation Relay Centre always uses the local PATLIB member LANTIS. It promotes LANTIS at all events and has always received a good patent information service. A. Inglis Midlands Innovation Relay Centre Techno Centre, Puma Way Coventry CV1 2TT, UK
0172-2190/99/$ ± see front matter Ó 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 7 2 - 2 1 9 0 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 4 0 - 4
EPO information policy I can give you a few more details about the EPO patent information policy although no de®nitive statement can be expected before the administrative council meeting in 2 weeks time (Dr Newton asked if it would be possible to debate this matter before the ®nal decisions were made ± but, this was considered unlikely.) The new policy is based on the results of two two-day meetings held in 1996. The subjects covered were: · Pricing · Product distribution and customer contacts · Cooperation between the member states and the EPO. There had been a considerable amount of agreement with regard to pricing. The patent oces of each member state would receive all information without charge. Similarly, regional centres would receive up to two copies of CD-ROM products free of charge. All
others will receive the data at marginal cost ± this would inlude the cost of the blank support, the computer costs involved in copying the data and the costs of the experts working time. There would be no royalties or costs toward establishing databases. As far as distribution is concerned, it is considered that the EPO should withdraw from contact with users and, possibly, even reduce its commitment to PATLIB. The EPO would remain a producer and wholesaler of their databases. Distribution would be left to regional centres. All the comments made at HEARING' 97 in March have been sent to the administrative council for consideration and they have been stored in the proceedings which are available in book form. It is clear that the users broadly agree with the proposed policy for pricing and for involving regional centres. The dierences arise in the proposals for distribution. I do not know what will happen. Gerard Giroud European Patent Oce A-1072, Vienna, Austria
0172-2190/99/$ ± see front matter Ó 1999 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 7 2 - 2 1 9 0 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 2 3 - 4
147
feasibility phase was 7% A1, 6% A3, 3% B (with comments), 27% B1 and 57% B2. Of the 100 selected proposals, the technical description of 87 among them were such that they could be searched by the EPO. Of those, 30 were classi®ed as being novel. In 57 cases the novelty of the whole project or of parts of it was questioned. The Quick Scan procedure, from sending the original proposals to the EPO to sending the full search results to the contractor for comments, took about 14 weeks. Customized action reports were requested from all proposers. Those in the case of B2 proposals were asked to comment on the relevant documents found and to specify the novelty aspects. In the case of A1 proposals, the requester was asked for more information. The novelty of a project is directly correlated with a success in the selection procedure. The following speci®c results are typical.
4. A UK university proposing the development of software to support a management methodology was made aware of publications of another UK university working in a similar ®eld. The second university joined the advisory board of the project.
1. On a proposal claiming complete novelty, Quick Scan showed that there was recent (1994) and highly relevant prior art from two major international companies. 2. A project proposing development of a speci®c measurement technique was confronted with an alternative solution by Quick Scan (lapsed US patent from an American Company). Proposal withdrawn to redirect the project. 3. A proposal dealing with a process development in the printing of electronic circuit boards was confronted with a development of a competitor and redirected their development towards an alternative, more cost-eective, albeit a technically more risky solution.
Other answers showed that only about 27% of respondents would change their attitude towards the use of intellectual property although 50% had gained new insights on the value of patent/technical searches but only 15% felt that there would be any change in their work programme. The contractors valued the Quick Scan results at between 0 and 5000 ECU. The mean value of 1500 ECU is close to the actual costs of each Quick Scan exercise. It is concluded that Quick Scan is a valuable tool in assessing the innovativeness of R&D projects. It has been proven to be cost-eective and provides additional value to contractors. A number of EU-RTD programmes have expressed their interest in a pilot implementation of Quick Scan.
A questionnaire was sent to the 87 participants in the ®rst round of Quick Scan and of these, 44 replied. This showed that some: · 7% gained information on new applications and/or markets · 2% found information about potential new partners · 50% gained a greater insight into the competitive situation · 9% found new licensing opportunities · 14% found alternative solutions from lapsed patents · 14% found solutions relevant to their project.
W. K utt, M. Schmiemann Technical Assistant Unit, Richardo Hitec Ltd, 11 rue de Bitbourg, 1272 Luxembourg-Hamm, Luxembourg 0172-2190/99/$ ± see front matter Ó 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 7 2 - 2 1 9 0 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 3 9 - 8
Innovation Relay Centres and patent protection Following the presentation by Helen Liord of LANTIS (Lanchester Technical Information Service) to the PATLIB 96 Conference in Aberdeen in May last year, this draws on the experience of the Innovation Relay Centres (IRCs) in seeking cooperation with patent information centres across Europe. There are 53 main IRCs involving over 150 organizations and it was felt that cooperation with other networks would be advantageous. The IRCs received regular enquiries about patents and, in addition, there is a need in CRAFT Stage II projects for: · Patent searches · Literature searches
· Cordis (Community Research and Development Information Service) searches. In general SMEs do not: · Understand the European Union programmes designed to encourage innovation · Understand the signi®cance or methods of obtaining patents · Want to spend money. The CRAFT projects (Cooperative Research Action for Technology) are designed to encourage SMEs into European Union research and technical development programmes. They are carried out in two stages and
148
The European aspect / World Patent Information 20 (1998) 143±148
require novelty veri®cation as part of Stage I. This novelty veri®cation includes: · A full patent search · A full literature search covering the relevant industry databases. The IRCs need to cooperate with patent centres or some similar organization for assistance with CRAFT projects, for answering one-oÕ enquiries about patents from companies, and for advice on intellectual property and its applications. The IRCs should identify patent information centres in their region to discuss: · Mutual cooperation possibilities · Levels of business
· Promotion of patent information centres at their events · Funding. The patent information centres locate their local IRCs by: · Consulting a WhoÕs Who of IRCs published in 1996 · Speaking to regional government oces · Telephoning the European Commission for the name of local IRCs · Looking on the World Wide Web page. The Midlands Innovation Relay Centre always uses the local PATLIB member LANTIS. It promotes LANTIS at all events and has always received a good patent information service. A. Inglis Midlands Innovation Relay Centre Techno Centre, Puma Way Coventry CV1 2TT, UK
0172-2190/99/$ ± see front matter Ó 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 7 2 - 2 1 9 0 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 4 0 - 4
EPO information policy I can give you a few more details about the EPO patent information policy although no de®nitive statement can be expected before the administrative council meeting in 2 weeks time (Dr Newton asked if it would be possible to debate this matter before the ®nal decisions were made ± but, this was considered unlikely.) The new policy is based on the results of two two-day meetings held in 1996. The subjects covered were: · Pricing · Product distribution and customer contacts · Cooperation between the member states and the EPO. There had been a considerable amount of agreement with regard to pricing. The patent oces of each member state would receive all information without charge. Similarly, regional centres would receive up to two copies of CD-ROM products free of charge. All
others will receive the data at marginal cost ± this would inlude the cost of the blank support, the computer costs involved in copying the data and the costs of the experts working time. There would be no royalties or costs toward establishing databases. As far as distribution is concerned, it is considered that the EPO should withdraw from contact with users and, possibly, even reduce its commitment to PATLIB. The EPO would remain a producer and wholesaler of their databases. Distribution would be left to regional centres. All the comments made at HEARING' 97 in March have been sent to the administrative council for consideration and they have been stored in the proceedings which are available in book form. It is clear that the users broadly agree with the proposed policy for pricing and for involving regional centres. The dierences arise in the proposals for distribution. I do not know what will happen. Gerard Giroud European Patent Oce A-1072, Vienna, Austria
0172-2190/99/$ ± see front matter Ó 1999 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 7 2 - 2 1 9 0 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 2 3 - 4