Cleantech & Nano Blog Timely insight on emerging legal and business development

Category Archives: Legislation

Lamar Smith New Chair of House Committee on Science, Space and Technology; Impact on NNI?

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Legislation; U.S. Patent Reform

In a move which could favorably impact the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), House Congressional Republicans recently selected Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) to chair the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. Rep. Smith has been a supporter of nanotechnology, having sponsored legislation such as HR 5940 to improve the National Nanotechnology Initiative. A statement released by Rep. Smith on his Web site reads as follows:

Chairman Smith:

“As Chairman of the Science Committee, I will be an advocate for America’s innovators by promoting legislation that encourages scientific discoveries, space exploration, and the application of new technologies to expand our economy and create jobs for American workers.

“Over 80% of the Committee’s $39 billion budget touches on research and development. We can’t have innovation without research and development. And the purpose of the Science Committee is to encourage the R&D that leads to new innovations.

“The Science Committee can play an exciting part in the discoveries of science, the exploration of space and the development of new technologies. I appreciate the confidence of my colleagues and look forward to chairing the Committee next Congress.”

House Speaker John Boehner supported Smith’s appointment.

Speaker Boehner:

“Throughout his tenure on the House Judiciary Committee, Lamar has been a strong leader on important issues facing the American people. He is dedicated to promoting economic growth to help put Americans back to work, encouraging innovation and promoting national security. I am confident that he will bring the same strong leadership and work ethic to the Science Committee as Chairman, and I look forward to working with him in the 113th Congress.”

Established in 1958, the Science, Space and Technology Committee has jurisdiction over all non-defense federal scientific research and development. Specifically, the Committee has partial or complete jurisdiction over the following federal agencies: NASA, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, FEMA, the U.S. Fire Administration, and United States Geological Survey, among others.

The Committee has five subcommittees – the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, and the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation.

As chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Smith has spearheaded the patent-reform legislation known as the America Invents Act. He has also worked to increase opportunities for foreign graduates with science and engineering degrees to remain in the United States.

Important Update re: Bayh-Dole Law and Policy: Another “March-In” Petition

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Legislation; Licensing; Patent; Uncategorized

Another “march-in petition” has been filed recently as part of the on-going implementation of the Bayh-Dole system. The attached web page provides access to the petition, cover letter, and broader context. Now, several groups are seeking march-in against a series of AIDS/HIV related drug patents. Funding for the underlying inventions was provided by the NIH. 

No march-in petition has ever been granted during the 32 years of the Bayh-Dole system. If one were granted, the grant would likely have a major impact on the Bayh-Dole system, extending beyond the particular case at hand. Best I can tell, the last march-in petition was filed about two years ago, but the petition failed (see our prior blog entry).

Review of the patent literature confirms that many nanotechnology and clean tech inventions arise from federal funding and invoke the Bayh-Dole system. Funding comes from the NNI and Department of Energy, for example. However, it is not unusual to find investors and executives in these areas to be relatively unaware of the Bayh-Dole system and its legal implications.

I will note briefly that I found the petition dialog interesting for attempting to legally separate out what appears to be (1) a primary use of the patented invention, from (2) secondary uses of the patented invention, or what is called a “dependent technology.”

NanoBiz Conference, September 4-6, 2012, Boston, Critical Patent Updates

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Legislation; Patent; U.S. Patent Reform; Uncategorized

The 11th Annual Nanobusines Conference will be held September 4-6, 2012 in Boston, in conjunction with the Nanomanufacturing Summit.

We are planning a session on patenting and important updates with patent reform. Last year’s panel provided for a lively conversation as the new patent law was reviewed. Now, new developments have surfaced one year later as critical regulations are being implimented. We hope you can attend.

Updates on Cleantech and Nanotech Venture Capital

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Cleantech; Financing Strategies; Legislation; Uncategorized

The National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) is participating in a statement responsive to the “No More Solyndras Act.”  The gist is to not “throw the baby out with the bathwater” in “fixing” the government programs that led to the Solyndra problems.

NVCA also reports life sciences investing (biotech and medical devices) was down in Q2, the fourth quarter in a row for decline (see press release on home page for nvca re Q2).

In comparison with life sciences, cleantech was modestly up and featured some of the largest deals in Q2, falling within the “Industrial/Energy” group, including investment deals with Fisker Automotive, Bloom Energy, Harvest Power, and SunRun, Inc. Clean technology is said to cross industries – remains a bit of a mystery what is an industry versus a sector – distinction without difference? Many technologies cross industries. Just explain why a particular classification system is chosen. For many years, it has been said that ”nanotechnology is not an industry,” but I am not sure what is the point of saying that as many things seem to not be industries (e.g., cleantech)?  Have not heard a good explanation despite asking a number of persons who make the point.

Also, good to see the Wall Street Journal provide a nanotechnology commercialization story recently. A nanotechnology renaissance could be, indeed, a boom to the economy if the government and venture capitalists can figure out a better model for investing in the physical sciences.

Patent Reform: Obama Speaks, Obama Signs

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Legislation; U.S. Patent Reform

President Obama finally signed the America Invents Act for patent reform and also provided interesting remarks before signing.  A video of his remarks and his signing is available, including opening comments from a Thomas Jefferson student who has a patent already.

In addition, in the middle of the President’s remarks, he made some brief remarks about a new center at the NIH related to commercializing pharmaceutical drugs, about a hundred or more universities working together in new programs to commercialize research, and the commercialization of biotechnology generally which also links to cleantech.  These vague remarks were fleshed out more in a White House press release provided today.

Technology innovation is tremendously important to our society, and tuning the patent system is important.  One can argue our society will rise or fail depending on technology innovation.  Few if any presidents, captured as they are by political intrigue rather than substance, have truly captured the innovation spirit.  Obama seems to be trying and doing as well as anyone of them in modern times at least.

 

Nanotechnology as a Gift, Senate Hearing Held Today

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Legislation

A Senate subcommittee held a hearing today generally praising nanotech and discussing its future.  The hearing title was "National Nanotechnology Investment: Manufacturing, Commercialization, and Job Creation."  The attached link provides two plus hours of the hearing.  Good to see past nanotechnology investment maturing and becoming an increasingly positive force, despite the climate of tough budget decisions.  Past basic research strategies can be continued; now, commercialization can be expanded.  The NNI should not just be reauthorized but expanded.

 

Patent Reform Legislation & PTO’s Green Tech Accelerated Examination

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Cleantech; Legislation; Patent; U.S. Patent Reform

Last week, the House passed complex patent reform legislation, HR 1249.  In considering how this might be reconciled with a Senate version passed earlier this year, PTO fee diversion is a key issue.  Many in the high tech community, including cleantech and nanotech, would like to see fee diversion end so as to promote a stronger US patent system.  However, another issue was noted by Erin Coe’s article in IPLaw360 which links to the PTO’s green tech accelerated examination program.  Coe writes:

"Another measure only mentioned in the House bill authorizes the USPTO to grant priority examinations to technologies that are critical to the U.S. economy.

The USPTO already has a pilot program in place allowing a certain number of green technology patent applications to take priority over other patent applications, but this provision would give the USPTO director broader authority to declare other technologies important and allow those patent applications to go to the front of the line, Bloch said.

“That’s a power that could be abused and it could be controversial in the reconciliation process,” he said. “If semiconductor technologies are promoted, the pharmaceutical industry or the automobile industry may ask why their technologies are not important to American competitiveness.”"
 

The text of the bill at issue, section 26, is provided below:

SEC. 26. PRIORITY EXAMINATION FOR TECHNOLOGIES IMPORTANT TO AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS.

 

Section 2(b)(2) of title 35, United States Code, is amended–

 

(1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ‘and’ after the semicolon;

 

(2) in subparagraph (F), by inserting ‘and’ after the semicolon; and

 

(3) by adding at the end the following:

 

‘(G) may, subject to any conditions prescribed by the Director and at the request of the patent applicant, provide for prioritization of examination of applications for products, processes, or technologies that are important to the national economy or national competitiveness without recovering the aggregate extra cost of providing such prioritization, notwithstanding section 41 or any other provision of law;’.

 

Congress Hears Nano Testimony

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Legislation; Nanotech Regulation

A leading House subcommittee, Research and Science Education, heard testimony on April 14, 2011 on nanotechnology funding. A few brief highlights:

  • The testimony was more product oriented compared to past testimony.
  • Should EHS funding be increased? One person testified no.
  • Some say the Department of Energy funding and ARPA-E could be targets for scrutiny.
  • The ongoing debate is how can federal investment in nano strengthen the economy and create jobs without the government "picking winners and losers"?
  • Testimony was given by Dr. Clayton Teague (NNCO), Dr. Jeffrey Welser (Semiconductor Research Corporation); Dr. Seth Rudnick (Liquidia Technologies), Dr. James Tour (Rice University), and Mr. William Moffitt (Nanosphere).
     

More Insights on Nano and President Obama’s Budget – Defense Source of Agreement?

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Legislation

The NNI has posted the 2012 Budget Supplement (56 pages) with the following note: 

The NNI is pleased to announce the release of the NNI Supplement to the President’s 2012 Budget. As indicated in this document, the total investment in nanotechnology R&D by NNI member agencies for 2012 is $2.1 billion, an increase of $200 million over the 2010 actual NNI investments. Among the highlights are: (1) increased funding for the three Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives first announced in the 2011 Budget, for a total of over $300 million in the 2012 request; (2) a large increase in the nanotechnology R&D investments at the Department of Energy; and (3) increased funding for nanoscale devices and systems R&D, while maintaining funding for fundamental nanotechnology research.

Continue reading this entry

NNI’s New Strategic Plan Released As Budget Negotiations Over Innovation Intensify

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Legislation

The NNI has now released its February 2011 strategic plan. One goal is of particular interest: Goal 2 continues to be: "Foster the Transfer of New Technologies into Products for Commercial and Public Benefit." In addition, DOE contributions in this strategy focus on solar, energy storage, alternative fuels, and energy efficiency. Signature Initiatives continue to be: nanomanufacturing, nanosolar, and nanoelectronics. These themes have been discussed and publicized over the past half-year or so in preparation for this new plan.

The commercialization strategy under Goal 2 continues to be vague, however, with general reference to a STAR METRICS project and OECD Innovation Strategy to measure things. The federal government research programs (ok, now call them innovation programs) excel in funding grants, leading to patents and publications. However, where are the jobs and private sector profits (in the United States)? How far will funding go to establish production? What is becoming of the impact of Bayh-Dole funding dollars on jobs? These metrics will be critical in coming months as budget negotiations deepen. The OECD Innovation Strategy speaks of government funding new technologies like cleantech during times of recession, but then rebalancing as the economy recovers. But is that enough for cleantech and nanotech commercialization?

The new strategic plan issues as President Obama’s Administration launches its latest budget proposals. Innovation is a strong theme for spending increases, including clean energy and the Start-up America program.

Federal Government Clarifies “March-In” Rights Under Bayh-Dole System

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Legislation

In the 09-742 GAO report addressing the government’s right to assert ownership over federal funded inventions, the government produced an important survey on the current understanding among leading federal research agencies about march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole system.  This report has considerable implications for cutting edge nano and clean technologies, which often are based on cutting-edge research stemming from universities and federal agencies.

In a march-in situation, the government can force a compulsory license to a patent which stemmed from federally funded research dollars.  However, a march-in had never been completed in the thirty or so years of Bayh-Dole, although several attempts have been started (three march-in petitions were filed with the NIH, one in 1997 and two in 2004).  Organizations such as PUBPAT, which tend to attack the patent system for "undeserved patents," undoubtedly will continue to monitor the potential use of march-in rights.

Clearly, those associated with commercializing federally funded inventions should be aware of potential issues surrounding the march-in authority of the federal government.  Their 09-742 report provides a useful update for consideration.  Although a march-in right has never been exercised, organizations such as PUBPAT will consider its use in attacking patents they believe could harm the public. The ongoing controversial Myriad litigation, over gene patents, illustrates the potential outcomes.

 

Navigating Public Policy: NanoBusiness Alliance’s 9th Annual Washington D.C. Roundtable

Posted by Leon Radomsky on Posted in Cleantech; Legislation; Nanotech Regulation

The 9th Annual Washington D.C. Roundtable, the official public policy forum of the NanoBusiness Alliance, will take place on March 15 – 17, 2010, with informative legislative meetings as well as networking among nanotechnology industry leaders.

In particular, the March 17th Federal Roundtable session is expected to draw business leaders, investors, venture capitalists, scientists, engineers, government officials and visionaries who are driving the success of nanotechnology. The full day agenda will stimulate dialogue between NanoBusiness Alliance Members and Federal Agencies, explore the latest on regulatory policy/impending regulatory actions and federal research initiatives, and familiarize guests with federal product approval authorities, processes, and innovation strategies, with an emphasis on pending developments.

For those navigating through public policy to advance their nanotechnology, this forum has proved to be a helpful and insightful tool. Also, stay tuned for developments on the annual NanoBusiness Alliance Conference slated for September 27 – 29, 2010 in Chicago, Illinois.

New Nano Regulations?

Posted by Bruce Wu on Posted in Legislation

- By Richard G. Stoll

Activists claim that EPA’s recently-released interim report on its voluntary nanomaterials information collection program “all but concedes mandatory reporting and testing are needed,” because the program provides scant data on new nanomaterials and received little participation by industry.

 

For more information regarding the report and the interim report, please go to http//:insideepa.com.