Nanotechnology can perhaps connect with mainstream society and its imaginations through the fancifulness of metamaterials and the potential for invisible cloaks (e.g., see Harry Potter movies). Hopefully, this new strain of technology can also capture the interest of those that commercialize things, including venture capital. It certainly is now showing up in the patent filings as an explosion. Cool stuff this is.
Monthly Archives: November 2010
Putting Green Claims Under the Microscope (but where is the Nanoscope?)
Posted in CleantechThe environmental group, Friends of the Earth, has recently published an 88 page report called "Nanotechnology, Climate, and Energy: Over-Heated Promises and Hot Air?" Condensing a review of 88 pages into a brief blog post is no easy challenge, but let me try. The report purports to identify hot air. But is the report itself hot air? That is the question.
A good starting point to review this 88 page tome is its executive summary statement:
In this report, for the first time, Friends of the Earth puts the ‘green’ claims of industry under the microscope. Our investigation reveals that the nanotechnology industry has over-promised and under-delivered.
Clearly, this report is not friendly to nanotech. Clearly, the group needs a nanoscope, not a microscope. Is there any new technology under the sun which does not in some sense "over-promise" and "under-deliver" – is that not inherent in new technology as societies figure out what it means?
Nanotech, Cleantech, and Lerner’s Book: Give Thanks for What Government is Doing?!
Posted in Book Reviews; Cleantech; International IP Issues; PatentLast year, Josh Lerner published another provocative book, Boulevard of Broken Dreams, Why Public Efforts to Boost Entrepreneurship and Venture Capital Have Failed – and What to Do About It (Princeton University Press, 2009). Why bring this up now? Two reasons include:
- The ten year anniversary of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is at hand, and
- The thirty year anniversary of the Bayh-Dole Act is also at hand. Both are subject to “celebrations” in Washington DC in coming days and weeks. Both involve government playing strong roles in innovation and jobs.
In addition, the recent election further makes for important political debate about the role of the government in stimulating job creation. Will the new Congress continue to fund nanotech? How long will cleantech be a ”darling” of politicians and venture capitalists (or flavor of the month)?
Nano 977 Patents Continue to Show Balance; Federal Funding in nano biotechnology
Posted in PatentToday, a new crop of 16 nano patents issued which are classified under the 977 nanotech class. Nanotech patenting continues to show balance in a number of ways.
For example, 11 out of 16 are U.S. origin; five stem from outside the U.S. (four from East Asia, Taiwan, Japan, S. Korea).
Two of the 16 reflect federal funding (under NASA and Department of Energy contracts) including both research institute research and university research.
$24 Million this Week for Nanopharmaceuticals: More to Come for Nano Biotechnology?
Posted in InvestThis week’s feature: a VC arm of big pharma, Lilly Ventures, led a new round of $24 M in financing for nanopharmaceutical company Cerulean Pharma (Cambridge, MA-based), per media reports. The round was termed a C-round, and the total raised to date is reported to be $56 M.
One of the central ideas for this technology is to limit harmful side effects through nanoscale approaches to drug delivery and efficacy. For example, if a prior drug was not put into the market because of side effects, those side effects could be reduced or eliminated by nanoscale engineering. Hence, the nano approach can help recoup past investments in developing drugs which seemingly “failed” due to side effects.
Nanotech’s Signature Initiatives: Solar, Nanomanufacturing, and Nanoelectronics are Good but where is Nano Biotechnology?
Posted in GeneralThe NNI’s draft strategic plan is available now at www.nano.gov. One of the most interesting aspects of the report (about 40 pages) is the set of three "signature initiatives" near the end, which include:
(1) Nanotechnology for Solar Energy Collection and Conversion
(2) Sustainable Nanomanufacturing – Creating the Industries of the Future
(3) Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond
Nanotech Patents and Obviousness: Fire Away with Teaching Away
Posted in PatentThis posting relates to nanotech patents and non-obviousness. Some updated comments on how to win debates with examiners over non-obviousness are noted, based on a combination of practical experience with nanotech patents and the case law.
First, one of the fundamental aspects of patenting is "obviousness": the notion that a patentable invention must not reflect mere ordinary skill (i.e., obvious) but something more was invented so that the invention is "nonobvious". The line between what is ordinary skill and what is "nonobvious" is frequently blurry, and reasonable minds can/do differ. The Supreme Court weighed in on the subject several years ago with its KSR ruling, and many feared the KSR ruling would make it harder to obtain patents because, potentially, more inventions could be found to be obvious. Fortunately, patents have continued to issue despite the somewhat scariest implications of KSR.
Nano a Million Dollar Winner in the Federal Government i6 Challenge
Posted in Press ReleaseWinners were recently announced, and nano was there. The federal government (Department of Commerce, Economic Development Agency) recently announced six “winners” for the best ideas for technology commercialization and entrepreneurship. Congratulations to these winners! This is particularly interesting to see how development is occuring outside of the traditional Silicon Valley powerhouse. An important issue for the U.S. in the coming decade, including the next two years, is how can Silicon Valley replicated?
Jobs, Jobs: Celebrate Bayh-Dole at 30 by Accelerated Examination of Bayh-Dole Patent Applications?
Posted in PatentYou may have heard that the celebrated Bayh-Dole Act is coming up to its 30 year anniversary in December, 2010. How to celebrate? Here is an idea: the US PTO can (should) provide the option for patent applications which are covering federally funded inventions to experience accelerated examination. More than a celebration, this could be a job creator?
Why do this? First, the Kappos-run PTO seems to like accelerated examination programs and (whether right or wrong) links the concept with stimulation of investment and jobs. Bayh-Dole is all about just that: stimulating investment and jobs. Hence, it makes sense to align accelerated examination and Bayh-Dole. The theory is a granted patent will better be able to attract investment currencies (not just dollars these days) than a mere pending application.
USPTO’s Expansion of Green Technologies Pilot Program Broadens Expedited Examination Opportunities
Posted in PatentAs of November 10, 2010, the USPTO has further expanded the scope of its Pilot Program for expediting the handling of patent applications for environmentally friendly technologies. In particular, the Green Technologies Expedited Examination Pilot Program (Pilot Program) will now include applications filed on or after December 8, 2009. The Pilot Program was previously limited to applications filed before December 8, 2009. The expansion also includes a duration extension until December 31, 2011, rather than the prior December 8, 2010 deadline.
Although the expansion will allow applicants to strategically request expedited examination for newly filed applications, the original 3,000 application limit of the Pilot Program has not been expanded. Those interested in the Pilot Program should file petitions for inclusion as soon as possible.
Just Another Patent Tuesday: Nanotech Patents Continue to Roll
Posted in PatentEach Tuesday, including today, November 9, 2010, a fresh crop of new patents are published by the US PTO. Today, for example, 16 new nanotechnology class 977 patents issued. To date, 2010 has been a bumper year for the 977 type of nanotech patents, as the PTO has granted 674 nanopatents with seven Tuesdays to go. That is a very large increase over 2009 (530 nanopatents); 2008 (431 nanopatents); 2007 (344 nanopatents); and 2006 (276 nanopatents). There are 6,510 of these 977 nanopatents as of today.
Who is patenting?
Nanotech Party Brewing? The NNI at Ten, at the Gaylord in DC
Posted in GeneralIt looks like a pretty good "party" is being planned at the Gaylord in Washington, DC, over three days, December 8-10. The event is to celebrate and otherwise discuss the NNI at ten years. See impressive speaker list and program at http://www.nsti.org/events/NNI/program/.
Perhaps a theme for the event can be the twin engines of creativity and patient, hard work? Nanotech should not lose its creative imagination as the "cry for jobs" grows, particularly in view of the recent election results.
I would also respectfully submit, for example, that among the many nanotech patents filings, a variety of economic jewels are present. It will take creativity and patient, hard work to find them and make a buck, if not a job.
Bayh-Dole Hits the Supreme Court: Stanford v. Roche
Posted in General; PatentBayh-Dole has made it now to the Supreme Court, based on a decision today by the Supreme C. to grant cert. In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether patents on inventions that arise from federally funded research must go to the university, Stanford University, where the inventor worked.
Because federal funding via the NNI is a major force in nanotech and cleantech, this case has many implications. Also, the era of government and private sector joint development is here, further making this case important. Perhaps Stanford’s locale in Silicon Valley adds further spice to the case and high tech research. Indeed, one client in the area sent an email as soon as the decision to grant cert was announced.
Going back to the start of litigation, Stanford sued pharmacutical giant Roche, alleging infringement of technology for detecting HIV levels in a patient’s blood. However, the university said it owns the technology because its discoverer worked at Stanford. Complicating this "mess": Roche says Stanford researcher Mark Holodniy also signed a contract that gave the company the patent to anything that resulted from their collaboration.
See, Stanford University v. Roche, 09-1159. The 1980 Bayh-Dole Act allows universities to retain the rights to research funded by federal grants.
This is not a simple case. To the extent the Supreme Court likes to soar to the heights of complicated legal and policy analysis, it has found a nice case to chew on!