INNOVATION DEVELOPMENT TENDENCIES IN EUROPE

1
INNOVATION DEVELOPMENT TENDENCIES IN EUROPE

• Maris Elerts, head of the UL IC
• December 15, Riga

2
1961 2000

• Is there difference?

3
Creating an Innovative Europe
Report of the Aho Group
Mr. Esko AhoChairman of the Aho Group on
Innovation Policy President of SITRAFinnish
National Fund for Research and DevelopmentHelsink
i, Finlandesko.aho_at_sitra.fi
4
Negative trends

• Productivity falling behind
• Failing to capitalise on the application of ICT
• Losing out as large firms globalise their RD
• Locked into unmodernised traditional sectors and
  under-investing in services RD
• Rising demographic challenges

5
Four-pronged strategy

• Simultaneous and synchronous actions are needed
  at all levels in
• Creation of a market for innovative products and
  services
• Providing sufficient resources for RD and
  innovation
• Improving the structural mobility of Europe, and
• Building positive attitudes and a culture
  favourable towards entrepreneurship and risk
  taking

6
Pact for research and innovation

• Builds on the achievements and on-going actions
  under the revised Lisbon Strategy and National
  Reform Programmes
• Much stronger commitment is needed to adapt the
  European economy to the new paradigm of an
  Innovative Europe - a joint process!
• Independent panel to monitor progress
• A route which resonates strongly with the origins
  of the European Union, the Single Market and the
  Common Currency - Before its too late!

7
Structural Funds Latvia case(ESF ERDF)

• Education research - 19
• Research and Development - 9
• Innovation - 8
• Competitiveness - 5
• Access to finance - 5
• IT infrastructure - 7,8
• TOTAL FOR COMPETITIVENESS 54

8
VALENCIA DECLARATION

• Innovation friendly environment
• Innovation in srvices will support the
  competitiveness of the EU economy
• EC and member states to promote collaboration
  between University researchers and business
  sector
• Promote cross-border investment by VC and
  business angels
• Structural funds key means of supporting RDI
  capacity
• Member states to put research institutes in
  closer contact with business incubators
• EU must acquire a cost effective and
  user-friendly system of IP protection
• Regional innovation policies need to be developed
  strengthening regional innovation systems and
  fostering trans-regional cooperation
• Reform EU, national and regional state aid rules
• Member states stimulate innovation through
  improved state aid practices

9
VALENCIA DECLARATION

• EC to establish a Pan-European Innovation
  Platform for start-ups in knowledge intensive
  services, linking universities, incubatorsand the
  financing community
• Better use opportunities that the areas of
  eco-innovation and sustainable development are
  offering
• Public policies to support closer cooperation of
  industrial clusters Europe, globally
• Networking of innovation players to be supported
• Member states to cooperate to foster mobility of
  innovators
• Standardisation bodies reduce burdens
• Community patent needed single jurisdiction,
  languages
• Cluster managers concept to be promoted
• European Institute of Technology to be established

10
PHILIPS

• Open Innovation practical examples policy
  implicationsDr. Jan J.H. van den BiesenVP
  Public RD Programs, Philips Research

11
From Closed to Open Innovation
from . to.
Internal supply
12
(No Transcript)
13
High Tech Campus offers residents numerous
advantages

• Save on capital investments
• Outsourcing capabilities
• Technology solutions
• Value Network

• The Facilities
• The Services
• The Experts
• The Others

14
MiPlaza

• World-class RD infrastructure for Micro, Nano,
  Bio
• Offering professional facilities, services and
  expertise to the RD community
• Enabling innovation in the domains of
  microsystems, nanoelectronics and Life Sciences
• Providing open innovation network for private and
  public RD organisations

26-08-2005
15
Current State aid assessment of research-industry
links

• Existing EU State aid rules (article 2.4) assume
  no State aid if industry pays full cost for
  project or market price for IPR
• Article 2.4 is commonly used to impose undue IPR
  restrictions and industry payments
• Preventing industry to benefit from
  research-industry links
• Making industry pay even for IPR from own
  inventions in project
• Article 5.8 is hardly used to determine
  permissible State aid
• Total aid from direct government support and
  contributions from research organisations should
  not exceed permissible aid intensity

16
Desired State aid assessment of research-industry
links

• First assess whether research-industry link
  contains any aid
• On basis of article 2.4, adapted to clarify
  existing ambiguities
• If State aid exists, check whether aid intensity
  is permissible
• On basis of article 5.8, extended with
  operational guidelines
• If direct indirect aid exceeds permissible aid
  intensity, industry has two options
• Pay compensation to research organisation
  equivalent to excess aid
• Pay compensation for IPR from research
  organisation at market rate with discount
• Increase bonus for research-industry links from
  10 to 25
• Leave IPR provisions for partners to decide

For more details see backup slides
17
New EU rules on RDI as of January 1, 2007
/-

• More clarity and latitude provided for
  research-industry links
• Ambiguities removed in requirements for no State
  aid (former article 2.4)
• Industry clearly not obliged to pay for IPR from
  own inventions
• Also no State aid if consortium agreement is
  sufficiently balanced
• Bonus for research-industry links increased from
  10 to 15
• Criterion of total permissible aid intensity
  maintained (former article 5.8)
• No reaction yet on proposed compensation in case
  of excess State aid
• Certain innovation activities included as
  eligible for State aid
• Linear innovation model maintained as basis for
  defining RDI stages
• Obsolete and incompatible with Open Innovation
  processes
• - Incentive effect maintained as criterion
• Additionality is difficult to prove in practice

18
Fostering Open Innovation through
research-industry links

• Member States should make good use of new
  possibilities for research-industry links in new
  EU rules on State aid rules for RDI
• Member States have 12 months to adapt their aid
  schemes
• Partners in research-industry links should be
  free to decide on IPR
• Without undue government restrictions
• With guidance from Responsible Partnering
  principles and forthcoming European guidelines
• Public-private mobility of researchers should be
  further promoted
• Marie Curie (FP7) and similar schemes at national
  level
• Segregation of large firms, SMEs and research
  organisations into separate schemes should be
  avoided
• Complementary actors in Open Innovation

19

• Build strong Public Private Partnerships
• High-risk investors demand higher returns and
  provide less capital. And because of extreme
  risk, little private money is available at
  incubation stage.
• Public money stops at invention stage, creating a
  gap in funding - Death Valley
• Successful innovation systems must provide ways
  to bridge the gap

20

• Understand the Innovation System
• Matching system matches problems and solutions,
  creating new products concepts
• Incubation system reduces risks until they are
  acceptable to venture investors
• Value system supports startups and spinouts until
  liquidity

21
SBIR and STTR Program Descriptions

• SBIR Set-aside program for small business
• concerns to engage in federal RD --
• with potential for commercialization.
• STTR Set-aside program to facilitate
• cooperative RD between small
  business concerns and U.S. research
  institutions -- with potential for
  commercialization.

22
SBIR/STTR Historical Relationships
2000
1982
23
SBIR/STTR 3-Phase Program

• PHASE I
• Feasibility study
• 100K and 6 months (SBIR)
• or 12 months (STTR)

• PHASE II
• Full R/RD
• 2-Year Award and 750K (SBIR)
• or 500K (STTR)

• PHASE III
• Commercialization Stage
• Use of non-SBIR Funds

24
Procedures

• Under fixed-price contracts (both
  firm-fixed-price, and firm-fixed-price,
  level-of-effort term), the contract should
  provide for periodic payments as portions of the
  work are completed. FAR 32.102 (d) allows for
  these payments. Progress payments (see paragraph
  4. below), which are a method of contract
  financing, may be appropriate under fixed-price
  RD contracts however, other methods, such as
  partial payments as portions of the work are
  completed, are usually appropriate and more
  practicable for SBIR contracts.
• SECTION G - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA
• G-1. INVOICING AND VOUCHERING
• d. The contractor may submit public
  vouchers/invoices not more frequently than
  bi-weekly, based on the level of effort expended
  under this contract. The voucher/invoice shall
  be computed based on the composite rate per hour
  specified in Section B-2 of this contract. The
  last or final voucher/invoice will not be paid
  until the Technical Monitor has accepted the
  final report.