From Research to Innovation

Transcription

1 From Research to Innovation Lessons learnt from the FP7 NMP Materials Call 2013: Substantial steps forward in the industrial use of European intellectual assets, stimulating the use of newly developed materials

2 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Directorate G Industrial technologies Unit G3 Materials anne.debaas@ec.europa.eu RTD-PUBLICATIONS@ec.europa.eu Contact: Anne F. de Baas European Commission B-1049 Brussels 0

3 EUROPEAN COMMISSION From Research to Innovation Lessons learnt from the FP7 NMP Materials Call 2013: Substantial steps forward in the industrial use of European intellectual assets, stimulating the use of newly developed materials Edited by Dr Anne F. de Baas Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Industrial technologies 2013 Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies, Materials and new Production Technologies (NMP) 1

4 EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union Freephone number (*): (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to numbers or these calls may be billed LEGAL NOTICE Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information. The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet ( Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2013 ISBN doi /30838 European Union, 2013 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Image(s) freshidea - # , Source: [Fotolia.com] 2

5 Contents LIST OF ACRONYMS... 4 SUMMARY... 4 PRESENCE AT THE WORKSHOP... 5 AIM OF THE WORKSHOP... 5 LESSONS LEARNT... 5 IP ownership... 5 Recommendations for IP requirements... 6 Technology and Manufacturing Readiness Levels (TRL and MRL)... 7 Recommendations for technology or manufacturing readiness... 7 BUSINESS PLANS... 7 Recommendations for business plan requirements... 7 POSSIBLE FUTURE AREAS WITH HIGH POTENTIAL... 8 Option 1 Joint venture between SME and LE... 8 Option 2 Development of IP from research groups and universities... 8 Option 3 Fail Fast Prototypes (from TRL 2 to TRL 3)... 8 Option 4 Feasibility Grants... 9 Option 5 IP Transfer Network in NMP... 9 Option 6 Manufacturing from prototype to demonstration... 9 Option 7 From pending patents and publications to specific applications... 9 Option 8 New materials design and development (from TRL2 totrl6)... 9 ANNEXES Information on programmes in Member States Definition of TRL and MRL levels Agenda Discussion Note Call Text NMP

6 LIST OF ACRONYMS SME LE TRL MRL IP SCF VCF Small and Medium Enterprises Large Enterprise Technology Readiness Level Manufacturing Readiness Level Intellectual Property Seed capital Fund Venture Capital Fund SUMMARY A workshop was held on June 27th 2013, Brussels with experts from the materials sector, industry, academia, finance and patent offices to discuss the recent FP7 NMP Materials Call on innovation and to draw conclusions and lessons for the future. The following are the observations of the experts participating. Intellectual Property: The previous NMP Call was restricted to Intellectual Property protected with a granted patent. According to the workshop participants the extent of innovation in some patents may be very limited and they suggested that claims should be documented to allow an evaluation of the innovativeness by experts. Other forms of protection were discussed and the experts suggested it would be worthwhile to consider pending patents and peer reviewed publications also. The transfer of ownership from universities to SMEs should, according to the participants, be exclusive in order to meet the requirements of banks put on later stage funding. It was also suggested that the SME must also demonstrate that they are free to operate in the field covered by the project and that they are not infringing on other patents in this domain. They must demonstrate that they will have the rights to exploit the foreground work from the project. Technology and Manufacturing Readiness Levels: Each project should document the Technology Readiness Level but also the Manufacturing Readiness Level both at the start of the project and the targeted levels at the end of the project. Business Plan: Suggestions for the content of the Business Plan at the start of the project and at the end of the project were made with special attention to the attraction of seed and venture capital investments and bank loans. Future Innovation: Possible future innovation areas with high potential were discussed and seven possible activities were suggested. Joint venture between Small & Medium Enterprises (SME) and Large Enterprises (LE) Development of IP from research groups and universities Fail Fast Prototypes (from TRL 2 to TRL 3) Feasibility Grants IP Transfer Network in NMP Manufacturing from prototype to demonstration From pending patents and publications to specific applications New materials design and development (from TRL2 to TRL6) 4

7 PRESENCE AT THE WORKSHOP The invited attendees came from the materials sector, industry, academia, finance and patent offices. All attendees gave a brief introduction to their background and expertise relevant to innovation, which is summarised below: Pablo Coca - Technology centre, product development, innovation management Markus Engelhard - Patent attorney, biotech specialist Fred Logue - Intellectual Property and technology transfer consultant Sabine Seidl - Consultancy company, owner of an industrial high tech enterprise Philippe Sontag - Industrial Vice President for science -bring new ideas to market Harry Wijshoff - University expert setting up businesses Not attending, but providing input Cristina Piai - Seed Capital Fund board member Paul Phelan - Research Commercialisation Consultant, SME Mentor Rapporteur and expert Diana Hodgins - Small Enterprise working in innovation in the medical sector AIM OF THE WORKSHOP The aim of the workshop was to consolidate the lessons learnt from the WP2013 Call NMP from research to innovation and to draw conclusions and lessons for the future. The reasons for the Call NMP from research to innovation, a summary and the outcome of the call were presented by Anne F. de Baas, Programme Officer DG RTD Industrial Technologies Materials. Open discussions were invited for the topics: Lessons learnt during Call evaluation Business plans for projects selected in that Call Future EC innovation activities LESSONS LEARNT IP ownership The previous call was restricted to Intellectual Property (IP) protected with a granted patent. This IP could either be owned by a Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) or university, but the exploitation had to be the responsibility of, and to the benefit of the SME. The results from the Call were that only those proposals where the SME owned the IP were selected. The reasons for this were varied but according to the experts this was mostly due to a: Unclear technology transfer of existing IP between the SME and University Lack of clarity of ownership of the IP to be generated in the project (SME or University) Unconvincing market exploitation (probably because a business plan was required as one of the final outcomes of the project and therefore the consortia did not provide an initial one) It was noted that the IP owned by the University is often very early stage and needs a considerable amount of further development. There was concern regarding the technology transfer from academic to SMEs. Most universities have early IP and do not commit to clear licence agreements with SMEs. In addition it is difficult for a SME to estimate the development still necessary without professional support. The lack of a well-defined licence agreement between Universities and SMEs (also in case of SMEs which are spin offs of Universities or of SMEs whose shares are partially or entirely owned by Universities) is a relevant problem for SMEs which look for a financial support (for the development 5

8 of a prototypes) in the form of equity investment from a Seed Capital Fund (SCF). SCF and Venture Capital Funds (VCF) need well-defined licence agreements as far as the right of sharing future revenues or the value of their investments. There was a long discussion on whether a granted patent is a clear indication of ownership of IP. In the call text neither the list of claims, nor a description of how the claims relate to the project, nor a competing patent search was requested. The searches, which are generally but not always carried out at the application stage would give a broad indication as to whether the original application is innovative. By the time the patent is modified in accordance with feedback from the respective patent office examiner and subsequently granted, the claims are considered patentable according to the criteria novelty and inventive step, and may thus possibly qualify as innovative. However, it was also noted that the extent of innovation in some patents may be very limited, certainly if the claims have been substantially reduced in the granting process and an evaluation of experts would still be necessary to judge the innovation potential of the project. It was also noted that a patent only affords protection for 20 years, so if the patent is old there isn't much time left after the end of the development and its innovative character might be outdated. This is an issue for many patents as the granting process can take often 5 years or more. It was also not required in the Call text to explain whether the patent was part of a patent portfolio, where there is generally a high quality core patent and many more less innovative patents. The core patent should also be available to the project. It should be noted that most of the university IP are concerned with early stage results. It was also mentioned that scientists file patent requests as they are judged by their number of patents, but the patenting procedure is stopped before payments need to be made if no cooperation/exploitation partner, e.g. a company, is found. So the need arises for Universities to clearly and efficiently manage licence agreement from the start. The previous call was filtered by targeting only organisations with granted patents. A patent shows that an organisation has made some commitment to the topic, and it is felt that already a patent application is sufficient proof of commitment. An alternative could be to look at other type of IPs that could be developed into products. The different options of innovation protection (agreements, trade secrets, trademarks, copyright, industrial designs, patents and publications) were discussed. The last two, patents and publications, were felt to offer sufficient protection and commitment. Often SMEs cannot afford patents, so indeed another option could be to include peer reviewed publications and other research results. There is a call-based regional funding scheme in Vienna Austria called from science to products, based on this. Research institutes and Universities can participate but cannot lead. The publication or other research result does not need to be their own, but the SME does need to explain how they will co-operate with the authors. Third party rights should be investigated in the proposal to ensure that future work planned in the project would have the potential to be marketed and is not barred from being practiced due to the existence of such third party rights (freedom to operate). Amongst the participants of the workshop it was felt that the burden of proof for such freedom to operate should lie with the applicants, as the EC is not equipped and does not have the resources to perform the necessary analyses. Recommendations for IP requirements It was agreed that IP ownership could be in the form of Patents or Peer Reviewed Publications. If future EC Calls would be patent based then also patents in application status should be eligible. The relevance of the patent to the project should be clearly identified. This could be done by linking the relevant claims to the project goals. If the patent is not owned by the SME who will exploit the project results, then the patent must be assigned to the SME or exclusive rights given. If the patent is not yet granted then the claims and searches should be included. In any case, the burden of proof for an outline of the claims, ownership of the patents etc. should lie with the applicants. For clients a publication on the basic functionalities and their application is often more convincing than a patent. If Peer Reviewed scientific Publications are given then the abstract and journal reference must be provided and the SME must explain the relevance of the publication to the project. Note that the publication need not be their own. In addition the SME must demonstrate ownership of the IP that is referenced in the publication and cooperation with the authors if necessary should be included in the proposal. For both options the SME must also demonstrate that they are free to operate in the field covered by the project and that they are not infringing on other patents in this domain. They must demonstrate that they will have the rights to exploit the foreground work from the project. 6

9 Technology and Manufacturing Readiness Levels (TRL and MRL) It was felt that many of the projects selected in this Call were well advanced in their development and a commercial need for the products targeted was clearly identified and judged to have a good chance to lead to commercial products. Whilst the Technology Readiness and Manufacturing Readiness (see Annex) for the start and end points of a project were not asked for, the change in levels would clearly identify and quantify where the project innovation will occur. An innovation Call should target results that allow products be brought to market in a reasonable short time after the project and should thus require that both the technology readiness and the MRL are increased to an appropriate level. In any case proposals should be able to provide a rough estimate of the time to market and the amount of financial resources (equity or lending together with their time table) since these are the most relevant issues a dialogue with investors must cover. There is e.g. a need for new materials in the industry, while these are not being developed to a sufficient TRL and MRL and this is a general concern of the materials producing industry. It was suggested to do an analysis of the proposals that have been chosen for funding to see whether they focus on technology development, manufacturing development or both. It seems that selected proposals were marrying both aspects, but this should be confirmed. The project named Multi Key Enabling Technologies Pilot Lines (MKET) (funded by EC- DG Enterprise and Industry) is now running with the aim of setting a common understanding and consensus for future actions in Europe focused on multi-kets pilot lines as a tool for bridging the "Valley of Death" to upscale new KET technology based prototypes to commercial manufacturing. It would be advisable to know in depth the outcomes of this project in order to combine conclusions with those obtained in the current report. Recommendations for technology or manufacturing readiness The call should state that the project can focus on technology or manufacturing development or both. The aim at the end of the project should be for the product to have reached a readiness in both the technology and manufacturing corresponding to level 6. Starting points should be defined, but could be very low for specific targeted Calls, like e.g. the design of new materials. BUSINESS PLANS A Business Plan (BP) enables the judgement whether the project is sound. The Call requested a BP at the end of the project, but it is felt that a first early stage BP should already be included in any innovation proposal. Such early stage business concepts can have higher technology risks and a number of hypotheses. According to the evaluators in many of the proposals the outline description of the business to be addressed and how to approach this was poor, despite the fact that the call text requested certain information. In the recent Call it was e.g. not clear whether projects planned for full scale pilot line and whether they had planned the costs. The proposal should demonstrate the SME have a true appreciation of how to market their product, which is especially important for innovative products which normally have a high barrier to entry. Later stage business plans (like at the end of the project) should address the hypotheses/ assumptions in the original plan and be based on proven the hypotheses and have identified markets. It was noted that the EC provide a service that would help partners develop a business plan at the end of the project and the projects should be encouraged to make use of this service. Recommendations for business plan requirements The proposal should include a Business Plan (BP) to demonstrate that it makes sense to start the project (that is the ROI need only be a very first guess) and should contain a description of the following: the business and business model (strategic goals) the product or service the market to be addressed (market need, size, prospects) 7

10 Routes to market Competition and SWOT analysis (Outline of) operations (manufacturing, marketing) plan Description of the supply chain Legal, societal and market dependencies Financial model and funding requirements (reasonable and coherent analysis of production costs, sales, revenues necessary external investments) The business plan to be produced at the end of the project should address the issues raised in the initial outline plan. All sections should be strengthened, using the results from the project. The BP should include clear milestones. Ideally the final BP would also include a sensitivity analysis, which addresses scenarios for variations in market share, scalability, ability to expand across national borders, capital intensity and the engagement of the partners. The above should be provided for different application options. The SME should be encouraged to think on how to provide short term (during the project) and midterm (after the end of the project) finance for the necessary commercial follow-up. Seed capitalist investors (who in contrast to banks accept some reasonable risk) should be sought. Seed capitalist do all of the above checks and their commitment would be very convincing. Of course the increased value of the company (net present value) would also be a nice indicator. If developments will be necessary in the future these should be discussed. POSSIBLE FUTURE AREAS WITH HIGH POTENTIAL Option 1 Joint venture between SME and LE SMEs do not often licence to large enterprises (LE), while the SME can often not carry the risk and the cost of further development of IP due to a lack of investment. This Call should address development of the SME owned IP so that the results can be used in/together with a LE product. The SME may work with a number of LEs addressing different markets. The SME should benefit from the (licence or) joint venture. It would be a short term project where the partners would be funded to develop and transfer their technology and/ or manufacturing process into the LE. It would also enable the LE to develop a suitable business plan and plan the introduction of the product in to their portfolio. Due patent diligence would also be covered. This would be a business-to-business activity with a supply chain up to the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM, a company that acquires a product or component and reuses or incorporates it into a new product with its own brand name.) Option 2 Development of IP from research groups and universities Call based on IP from research groups and universities. (This was part of the existing call but did not result in any funded projects. Some IP is of high potential but the drive to commercialise the product is not always evident and disentangling the IP proved difficult.) To prove commitment from the University to exploitation the beneficiary in the EU project should be a spin out company from the University. (The IP should be sold to the SME without restricting clauses so that investors (business angels, seed and venture capital funds) will be ready to invest further, and banks will be ready to lend. This would also ensure the IP transfer and the commercialisation route are properly addressed. Option 3 Fail Fast Prototypes (from TRL 2 to TRL 3) It is noted that venture capitalist do not invest in development at a stage before market studies and this Call should fill this gap. Short 2 year programme to develop good working prototypes and test the hypotheses of the BP by soliciting feedback from (paid) customers, and adapt technical characteristics based on improved product specs. 8

11 These short term project will help SMEs to move from proof of concept and a BP based on hypotheses to a later stage credible business plan based on verified data. Option 4 Feasibility Grants This would be a scheme along the lines of the Irish Commercial Case Feasibility Grant. The aim would be the creation of technology based start-up companies and the transfer of innovations, developed in Higher Education Institutions and Research Performing Organisations, to industry. The Feasibility Project would be short (up to 3 months) to develop the commercial case for their innovation. Support would be provided to perform a market analysis and validation, profile the competitor landscape, perform patent landscaping and develop the IP strategy, investigate potential routes to exploitation to the economic benefit, understand relevant regulatory issues or other barriers/hurdles to commercialisation and to create a small demonstration or early prototype. Option 5 IP Transfer Network in NMP In this Call technology transfer centres would create a database of recent NMP results and would scout SMEs who could introduce a core NMP technology into their product portfolio. Adaptation of the technology and manufacturing would be part of the projects. In cooperation with investor associations or/and the IEF/EIB match-making events could be organised to identify the projects of interest for investors. This would ensure that consortia will develop projects which can attract investors in the further development stages. Option 6 Manufacturing from prototype to demonstration Support for early pilot line and validation of production methods. This Call should target the difficulties companies experience once a first pilot line is installed but the product is not yet fully adapted to the market; the so-called B round of capital venture is not available. Option 7 From pending patents and publications to specific applications Call based on pending patents and peer reviewed scientific publications with focus on an application, e.g. renewable energy or medical systems. This would be a way of limiting the number of proposals to compensate for the extension to cover patents applied for and publications. Option 8 New materials design and development (from TRL2 totrl6) This Call would start with new materials (TRL2) for which initial applications are identified. These materials are to be further developed to TRL6 (prototype system verified). 9

12 ANNEXES Information on programmes in Member States Definition of TRL and MRL levels Agenda Discussion Note Call Text NMP

13 Information on programmes in Member States In Vienna (Austria) there is regional a Call from science to products 2013 which is based on peerreviewed scientific publications and other research results. Only companies or founders can apply. RTDs und HEs only in cooperation with the companies: In Italy the Patent Office uses an Evaluation Grid for a new National Innovation Fund, which is also used by some banks and financial institutions dealing with innovative SMEs projects. It contains 86 patent indicators. Free online training course for economic evaluation of a patent is provided. 1=1050&tipoVisualizzazione=S&mostracorrelati=1&partebassaType=2&showCat=1&idmen u=11721&ordinamento=1&idarticolo= &menumaintype=menudossier 1=1053&tipoVisualizzazione=S&mostracorrelati=&partebassaType=2&showCat=1&idmenu =11726&ordinamento=3&idarticolo= &menuMainType=menuDossier&lang=it In Ireland there is an activity for Commercial Case Feasibility Grants Commercialise-Research/Commercialisation-Fund-Programme-Commercial-Case-Feasibility- Grant.html 11

14 Definition of TRL and MRL levels 12

15 Agenda COV2 Room: (Floor: 4, Room number: 4.190) 27/6/ :00-10:30 Presentation of the Call "NMP from research to innovation" and its results Anne de Baas, programme officer DG RTD Industrial Technologies Materials 10:30-12:30 Presentations and Discussion by participants I) Lessons learnt and recommendations for patent based innovation activities 1) How to demonstrate you are in possession of an innovative concept? 2) How to demonstrate a proposal will have impact? 3) How to demonstrate IP transfer, if applicable Pablo Coca Sabine Seidl Diana Hodgins Markus Engelhard 13:30-15:30 Presentations and Discussion by participants II) Business Plan for selected projects What should the Business Plan at the end of the project look like? Philippe Sontag Sabine Seidl III) Future EU Innovation activities in the Materials domain IIIa) Future EU Innovation activities in the Materials domain: Topics and Activity type What should the coverage of the EC innovation project portfolio be? What are your recommendations for EC future calls? Pablo Coca Sabine Seidl Diana Hodgins Philippe Sontag IIIb) Future EU Innovation activities in the Materials domain: Players: What type of players should be on board in EC projects on innovation? What should the interplay between EC and other funding agencies be? What are the roles of European and national patent offices in EC activities? 15:30 Closing remarks 13

16 Discussion Note Background Recently the EC DG R&I industrial technology programme (Nano-Materials-Production) have executed a call "NMP From research to innovation: substantial steps forward in the industrial use of European intellectual assets, stimulating the use of newly developed materials and materials technologies by the industry" (see Annex I for full text). 49 proposals have been received and 6 have been evaluated positively and will presumably be financed if negotiation is successful. Total grant is 25M and total budget more than 34M. Summary of preliminary findings Experts who evaluated the submitted proposals judged that the call addressed a topic which is very important for Europe. The call specifically addresses steps to overcome the so called "valley of death". The call topic can represent a precedent also beyond materials science and engineering. Such calls can become more and more important in the future, particularly seen the financial gaps in funding of the complex steps necessary to prepare new ideas for market entry and future commercialisation. The Call contributes to an uptake of results by industrial enterprises. The experts even recommended that for these types of Calls a specific evaluation criterion for exploitation should be added. Proposed discussion topics To kick-start the discussion here are some questions and statements you could (dis)agree with: 1) How to demonstrate you are in possession of an innovative concept? Background info The Call text required "The consortium should demonstrate ownership of or exclusive rights to use the relevant IPR; the relevant IPR should be in the form of patents granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) or by national patent offices established in EU Member States or in Associated Countries. Proposers should demonstrate that the overall IPR situation is compatible with future commercialisation of their technology" However the evaluators argued that the innovativeness of patents is not guaranteed and that if the scope of a patent is limited then so is often also the innovativeness. The patent does not say anything about the strength of the patent unless patent searches are added that document the state of the art and the position of competitors. Statements Granted patents are a good basic request but details regarding the content of these should also be presented in future innovation proposals. Presented claims should state how these are linked to the technical objectives of the proposal. Patent searches should be added in future innovation proposals to document the state of the art and the position of competitors. If the patent is not owned by the SME, access for the SMEs to the background IP (patents) and any corresponding technology transfer should be described in detail. If the IP is not owned by the SME then the transfer of ownership must be clearly explained and technology transfer tasks should be included. Specifically, clear IPR arrangements on how to exploit the new products/technologies based on the existing patent (s) so as not to block commercialisation by the end-user SMEs involved. The conditions for access to the background (existing) knowledge should be clearly specified The case of Italy and Spain, which did not adhere to the European patent initiative, might deserve particular attention. 14

17 Alternative IP protection could be considered as SMEs are not as good at using patents as larger enterprises. For example patent filed with searches available (which states if the patent office considers it to be innovative and if there are other relevant patents). Know how, if the SME can demonstrate how it has protected it and what it is. Copyright or design rights could also be considered. For each of these alternatives, some way of assessing the IP would need to be identified in the call text and in the evaluation procedure. For these alternative forms of IP protection it could also be considered that a milestone is added part way through the project to ensure that the IP protection is still valid and if a patent has been filed whether the granting process can be shortened. 2) How to demonstrate a proposal will have impact? Background info Most proposals in this Call had varying degrees of weaknesses for the impact section and this could be explained by the applicants' common understanding that they are submitting a proposal in a research programme and the call text required a business plan at the end of the project only and did not explicitly request details for the exploitation strategy. Statement The economic viability for the consortium members, i.e. their exploitation strategy, should be described in detail. Attention should be given to cost of development, cost of sales, ROI, profit etc. Furthermore, issues like funding the exploitation, both during and after the project, should be addressed in innovation proposals. 3) What should the coverage of the EC innovation project portfolio be? Background info There were a number of proposals in this Call addressing the integration of new nano-materials for new or existing applications. Others target the up-scaling of IPR-protected technologies for production of nanotechnology based products for diverse applications. Sectors addressed are Automotive, Aerospace, Manufacturing, Medical, Buildings and the electronics industry Some proposals were purely industry-oriented with IPR originating from highly innovative SMEs and IPR protected results for each of the targeted applications. Others came from IP owned by research organisations, who grant access rights to the SMEs to exploit the results. Some proposals had important societal and economic implications and contributed to improving quality of life and eliminating costly microbiological analysis while also reducing treatment hospital costs. Some of the proposed technologies were clearly novel and open new perspectives for cost savings at the European level and provide sustainable solutions to clearly identified needs of the market or industries. Others invent new applications to use their IPR protected knowledge without demonstrating clearly the commitment and benefits for the SMEs. Additional applications were often identified but not put into the context of future exploitation plans. Statements Future Calls on innovation should focus on transfer of university owned patents to SMEs. Future Calls on innovation should focus on particular application sectors. Future Calls on innovation should focus on combination of existing IPs. Future Calls on innovation should focus on. 4) What type of players should be on board in EC projects on innovation? Background info 15

18 The participation of SMEs was generally high, and in some proposals SMEs represented more than 50% of the consortium. The SMEs had different roles, ranging from researcher, demonstrator to end user. In the consortia there was generally a good mix of EU member states as well as Universities, research centres, SMEs and some LEs. Statements The SMEs should be the owner of the project generated IP. Technology transfer players should be on board to widen the scope beyond the consortium and beyond a particular application. SMES applying the results in different applications should be on board. 5) What should the interplay between EC and other funding agencies be? Background info According to the evaluators the EC call followed a very efficient structure, where work load is in positive relation to the outcome and the expected success rate (motivation for SMEs). In combination with other funding schemes like the risk sharing facility it can be a contribution to solve the European Paradox. Statements For the potential benefit of future calls emphasis should be put on consortia's ownership of intellectual property. It would be advantageous if call texts required detailed descriptions of the status and position all intellectual assets additional to patents that are relevant to the industrial technologies. It is customary for both industry and academia to protect intellectual achievements that result from monetary investments and research and development efforts by all available means. This means that a novel technology may be protected by patenting, but it may also be that related know-how is protected under trade secret law, or that technical solutions may be incorporated in software that is protectable under copyright law (and under patent law depending on the application). The description of the consortia's intellectual property should also be accompanied by a due and diligent account of how these assets will interplay with and underpin the technology development towards the market, and how the societal and economic impact would be increased as a result. 6) What are your recommendations for EC future calls? Should the approach taken in the NMP call be extended to any other topic under the EU R&D framework within Horizon 2020? Standardisation activities and inclusion of a partner in the consortium with standardisation expertise could be considered. 7) What are the roles of European and national patent offices? 8) What is the role of standardisation? 16

19 Call Text NMP NMP From research to innovation: substantial steps forward in the industrial use of European intellectual assets, stimulating the use of newly developed materials and materials technologies by the industry Technical content/scope: We know that innovation may lag behind after research results have been achieved. In particular, SMEs may miss opportunities of business; this is because of various reasons: undercapitalisation, lack of suitable human resources etc. In other cases, research brokers may be needed who scout and advise SMEs on existing IPR and who can prepare economic and technical scenarios to help the SMEs to improve their product(s) and/or production. The complex path from research to innovation needs boosted impetus. Often original research has been co-funded by the EU Framework Programmes or by European National schemes, so that missing the exploitation of research results might represent an underperformance for public expenditures. Moreover, significant untapped innovation potential may exist in research carried out in Member States of more recent accession to the European Union. This call aims to stimulate and support the use of newly developed and IPR protected materials and materials technologies, fostering innovation and their integration into future industrial production. The proposals should involve innovation-oriented research in materials and materials technologies, further developing existing IPR-covered results, scaling them up to a prototyping or pilot stage. The consortium should demonstrate ownership of or exclusive rights to use the relevant IPR; the relevant IPR should be in the form of patents granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) or by national patent offices established in EU Member States or in Associated Countries. Proposers should demonstrate that the overall IPR situation is compatible with future commercialisation of their technology and prove the technical and economic viability of their approach. The consortium should also demonstrate appropriate knowledge on materials science and engineering as well as on the ways to manufacture the materials. Successful projects should prove the technological and economical viability of the solutions proposed. A business plan should be part of the final report. One or more of the following ancillary activities may also be included in the project this list is not exhaustive, and is only given as an example: detailed market studies, scouting of SMEs or research organisations, evaluation of the success factors in the industries involved, educational courses, infrastructure use, insertion of qualified personnel (at least from the post-graduate level) into SMEs, specific regulatory survey, clinical trials, insurance issues, life cycle assessment studies etc. In order to ensure the largest possible impact, proposers should soundly detail the market perspectives and the potential for economic growth and jobs, and this will be reflected in the evaluation under the criteria Implementation and Impact. Funding Scheme: SME-targeted collaborative projects Expected impact: One or more of the following: (i) Realise cases where research results are used by new or existing industries; and/or the 'European paradox'20 and the 'valley of death'21 are overcome; (ii) Creation of new businesses in Europe; (iii) Exploitation of research results; and (iv) Growth and jobs. 17

20 18

21 European Commission From Research to Innovation - Lessons learnt from the FP7 NMP Materials Call 2013: Substantial steps forward in the industrial use of European intellectual assets, stimulating the use of newly developed materials Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union pp. [format, e.g x 25.0] cm ISBN doi /30838

22

23 How to obtain EU publications Free publications: via EU Bookshop ( at the European Commission's representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details on the Internet ( or by sending a fax to Priced publications: via EU Bookshop ( Priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal of the European Union and reports of cases before the Court of the Justice of the European Union): via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union (

24 KI EN-N A workshop was held on June 27th 2013, Brussels with experts from the materials sector, industry, academia, finance and patent offices to discuss the recent FP7 NMP Materials Call on innovation and to draw conclusions and lessons for the future. The following are the observations of the experts participating. Intellectual Property: The previous NMP Call was restricted to Intellectual Property protected with a granted patent and the experts suggested it would be worthwhile to consider pending patents and peer reviewed publications also. Technology and Manufacturing Readiness Levels both at the start of the project and the targeted levels at the end of the project would be informative. Business Plan: Suggestions for the content of the Business Plan at the start of the project and at the end of the project were made with special attention to the attraction of seed and venture capital investments and bank loans. Future Innovation: Possible future innovation areas with high potential were discussed and seven possible activities were suggested. Joint venture between Small & Medium Enterprises (SME) and Large Enterprises (LE) Development of IP from research groups and universities Fail Fast Prototypes (from TRL 2 to TRL 3) Feasibility Grants IP Transfer Network in NMP Manufacturing from prototype to demonstration From pending patents and publications to specific applications New materials design and development (from TRL2 totrl6) Studies and reports ISBN