Competitive funding for industrial property rights protection projects.

Contact person 
Monika Usevičiūtė
Institution 
PE "Sunrise Valley"
E-mail 
monika.useviciute@sunrisevalley.lt
Country 
Lithuania
Do you want to share an instrument/policy or a knowledge Transfer practice? 
Innovation instrument(policy)
What are the following keywords/priorities which better fit the instrument/policy?  
Knowledge Transfer (contract research, licences, research and IPR issues in public/academic/non-profit institutes)
Indicate the country from which the instrument (or policy) is 
Lithuania
What is the title/name of the instrument/policy? 
Competitive funding for industrial property rights protection projects.
Indicate the target group/beneficiaries of the instrument/policy 
All companies
Higher education institutions (education function)
Higher educations institutions research units/centres
What is the aim/objective? 
Very low patenting rates, loss of IPR in enterprises. In 2008, for instance, there were 3,77 patent applications per million of habitants to the EPO from Lithuania, a number, which was lower only in Bulgaria and Romania, and more than 30 times lower than the EU27 average (115,52 patent applications per million of inhabitants). Moreover, Lithuanian international patenting rates per one million inhabitants were 36 times lower than the EU27 average. In addition to these rates, the relation between the number of EPO patents registered and the public R&D expenditure of Lithuania was one of the worst among EU27 countries. The EU27 on average generate 10 times more patents for the same level of funding. Although in terms of the numbers of scientific publications Lithuania scored above two other Baltic countries (2,000 scientific papers in 2009), in terms of the impact of these publications, Lithuania with the citation index lower than 0.7 in 2009 scored sharply below the World average. Thus, despite being extensive in its scales, the efficiency of Lithuanian research sector is relatively low and requires major modifications.
Give an overview of the instrument 
The measure aims to facilitate IPR in enterprises via direct support (partially covering the costs of IPR protection). Financial support from national sources is ensured for legal entities and natural persons who aim to protect intellectual property rights. Up to 100% of costs can be covered). In 2008 the Ministry introduced two new ways to support the acquisition of patents – prepayment and payment on accounts. The measure is launched by the Ministry of Economy. Measure is administered by the Agency for Science, Innovation and Technology.
What is the date of creation of this instrument? 
Sunday, January 1, 2006
Is the instrument/policy still active? 
Active
Identify the main outputs/results (quantitative and qualitative) of the implementation of this instrument 
Eligible institutions (private companies and/or research and education institutions) can apply for a grant covering from 50% (for companies) to 95% (for research and education institutions) of patenting expenses (up to €14481). Applications are evaluated by the workgroup launched at the Agency for Science, Innovation and Technology (MITA). The Director of MITA makes the final decision on the list of selected applications. After the introduction of prepayment and payment on accounts procedures, the numbers increased dramatically. In 2011, 14 projects were supported.
What is the co-financing/maximum rate allowed by the instrument/policy (if appl.)? 
N/A
Is this instrument/policy linked to a KT practice? 
No