Pharma firms failing the creativity challenge, says report

Despite recognising the importance of creativity in the economy as highlighted in the recent report on UK competitiveness for the Department of Trade and Industry by Professor Michael Porter, pharmaceutical businesses are still failing to capture innovation and ideas for commercial gain, according to a study by Marks & Clerk, the leading firm of patent and trade mark attorneys in the UK and Europe.

The survey was carried out by The Survey Shop, on behalf of Marks & Clerk, and consisted of 202 anonymous interviews with companies with an annual turnover in excess of £5m. It found that while 77% of UK pharmaceutical companies believe that it is very important for the success of their business that new ideas and creativity are exploited for commercial gain, only 36% have a budget dedicated to capturing these ideas, and over half have no specific process in place.

The pattern is similar when it comes to safeguarding ideas and creativity, with 89% of company directors in pharmaceutical companies recognising the importance of protecting their firm's inventions from imitation by competitors, but only 39% having a specific process for protection in place. Even fewer - 30% - have a designated budget for intellectual property protection.

The research also found significant confusion as to how new product ideas and inventions should be protected. More than half (57%) of those surveyed would apply for a patent to protect their invention. However, 20% aim to keep their inventions secret for as long as possible and 5% of directors said they would do nothing. Incredibly, 16% even stated that they would rely on the Official Secrets Act to protect their inventions from the competition.

According to the survey, creativity and innovation are climbing higher up the agenda in the pharmaceutical sector, with 73% of those questioned believing it has grown in importance over the past 10 years, and a further 80% expecting this trend to continue over the next decade.

'The Porter report has quite rightly highlighted the importance of r&d and the need to transform Britain's innovation into hard commercial successes,' said Tim Andrews, partner at Marks & Clerk. But he pointed out that without the protection of a patent, competitors in other countries as well as the UK can capitalise on inventions.

'When it comes to securing IP rights, there is also a strong case for UK pharmaceutical companies to get back to basics. Those who think that intellectual property can be protected by the Official Secrets Act could be in for a nasty surprise,' he warned. 'It is true that directors can take precautions against the leaking of information through tighter employee contracts, but these are much more difficult to enforce than a patent.'