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

Tag Archives: Cleantech

President’s Proposed Budget Provides 4.1% Increase for NNI: Energy Way Up; Defense Way Down

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Cleaning Up Hydraulic Fracturing; Cleantech; EPA; Licensing

We have been reviewing the President’s budget proposals announced yesterday, February 13, 2012 (fiscal year 2013 President’s Budget). In particular, we are looking at impact on nanotech and cleantech. Some highlights:

First, the NNI was given a 4.1% increase (NNI is National Nanotechnology Initiative). The total would rise to $1.8B.

Second, within the NNI heavy cuts are slated for defense, including  DOD (down 20%) and Homeland Security (down 14%).

Third, within the NNI, heavy increases are proposed for Energy (up 40%) and the EPA (up 12%).

Interesting that in the webinar provided explaining the rationale, a research program can be cut for failure for lack of good future prospects. Alternatively, however, a research program can be cut if it is commercially successful and transitioning to the private sector. Hence, the input from government is for those programs in the middle.

The webinar also featured the administration continues to assert that the federal government had a major impact over the past thirty years on shale gas developments.

Natural Gas, Cleantech, and 2012

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Cleaning Up Hydraulic Fracturing; Cleantech; Patent

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu visited Pittsburgh today to review energy, natural gas, and innovation. In his remarks, he spoke of using shale natural gas as a balancing tool for wind and solar power. Chu also stressed the role of patents in innovation.

I noted discussion today at a Nanobusiness Commercialization Association meeting re role of nanotech in shale gas technology and its relationship to cleantech. So awareness of the connections are growing.

Interesting that the administration continues to push that the federal government’s shale gas research of the late 1970′s, in the Jimmy Carter era (and also Gerald Ford), has an important connection with 2012 events in deep shale drilling. Some recent blog activity noted this.

Possibly, or necessarily, shale gas and cleantech can and should arrive at a synergistic relationship. 

Of course, for those who know Pittsburgh, competing with Chu in Pittsburgh today for attention was the Steelers introducing their new offensive coordinator. There is always something new.

Patent Reform Moving Ahead – Debates Continue, PTO Rules Emerging,… Price Outrage?

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

Two items of note today:

1) The US PTO today finally issued its proposed rules to implement its novel procedure called supplemental examination.  Bad news; and maybe outrage to follow.  They will charge a PTO fee of $5,180.00 “for processing and treating a request for supplemental examination.”  They will also charge a whopping fee of $16,120.00 “for ex parte reexamination ordered as a result of a supplemental examination proceeding.” !

Even more, to file a request for reexamination will cost $17,750.00 in PTO fees.

The public has two months to comment (to express their outrage?).

2) Also, I participated in a panel at American University today on patent reform and post-grant review processes.  I tried to express the need, conveyed by clients, that the complexities of the patent system need to be held in check, particularly for small business innovators.  Now it also appears that costs also appear to be in need of holding in check in the new US PTO.  One can only guess the PTO fees for things like inter partes review or post-grant review.  Numbers like $40,000 were noted on rumor-like basis.

The humor was along the lines of one can buy a nice car with these fees!?

Innovation, Basic Research, Clean Energy – Obama’s State of the Union Vision

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Cleantech; Patent

President Obama delivered his state of the union address tonight. He hit many points of interest to those of us monitoring the high tech ecosystems: innovation, start-ups, basic research, federally-financed labs, universities, clean energy, etc. etc.

Killing cancer cells but leave healthy ones, he said. Sounds like nanotech.

Lightweight vests for cops and soldiers that can stop any bullet, he said. Sounds like advanced materials and/or nanotech.

Curious it was to hear him say that public research dollars were used to develop the technologies to extract natural gas from shale rock. Really? Not sure about that one. We can research more but am dubious from patent literature surveys.

Finally, do not forget his high tech batteries – more nanotech.

Also, the OSTP webpage on the State of Union speech noted more about Dr. Hiroyuki Fujita’s achievements with high tech companies QED and eQED.

The patent system apparently was not stated – a disappointment. Patent system’s regulations in view of reform are increasing heavily these days, which is at odds with his concept to cut regulation. 

Nevertheless, the vision is a good one for cleantech and nanotech.  Time to make it happen; cut through it time. Vision not enough.

DOE Features Ames’ Lead-Free Solder Patent and License Income

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Cleantech; Patent

The Department of Energy (DOE) recently featured lead-free solder innovation and licensing from the Ames National Laboratory and Iowa State University. Apparently, $39M of licensing income has been received to date, which makes it now the highest royalty producing patent(s) at Ames. The lead-free compositions are based on tin, silver, and copper mixtures (alloys). 

Preventing the introduction of lead into the environment is an important, classic example of cleantech. I can remember in the 1990′s working on patent technologies for lead-free bullets and lead-free paint. A brief search of granted U.S. patents shows 577 granted patents have “lead-free” in the claim and, even more, 838 granted patents have “lead-free” in the claims. Lead-free technology is a leading example of how environmental concerns can drive innovation. For example, some of the lead-free solders apparently have advantages over the lead-containing solders. Some additional, commercally important lessons from this cleantech story:

  • government regulation, particularly in the European Union in 2006, apparently was a leading factor in increasing the license income;
  • time – roughly a decade – was needed before the licensing income started increasing and maturing;
  • the inventions apparently flowed from basic research efforts;
  • U.S. patents with Ames inventor Iver Anderson related to this technology include US Patent Nos. 5,527,628 and 6,231,691. These patents used the important claim strategy for materials technology, use of “consisting essentially of”;
  • several recent 977 nanotech patent publications show nanoparticle aspects of the technology (see, for example, US Patent Publication 2010/0031848 to Samsung);
  • even though foreign filing apparently was not carried out, licensed from companies outside the U.S. apparently were forthcoming

Diamond, One Important Arrow in the 2012 Advanced Materials Arsenal, Patent Efforts Increasing

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Cleantech; Nano Biotechnology; Patent; Water

One subject to watch in 2012 is diamond. Synthetic diamond is one important arrow in the arsenal of advanced materials and is an essential part of the carbon based nanomaterials scene including familiar materials in the press such as fullerenes, carbon nanotubes, and graphene. Synthetic diamond films and powders, however, are also an important part of nanotechnology 2012, as it can have grain sizes at the nanoscale. Indeed, class 977 nanotech patent efforts on diamond seems to be increasing. In 2011, a record number of class 977 patent applications – 28 – included diamond in the title or abstract. In 2010, that number was only 18 and the year before was only 11. Some important diamond applications lead to energy savings and better electrodes, so it is also an important material for energy and cleantech. Biosensor applications also exist.

An excellent historical treatment of the development of synthetic diamond technology is Robert M. Hazen’s book, The Diamond Makers, 1999. A major player in the field was General Electric, which continues to this day to be a leading force in advanced materials, nanotech, and cleantech.

In the conception of manufacturing at an atomic, molecular, or nanoscale, inventors and futurists have always thought of building the perfect material: diamond.

PTO to Terminate its Successful Greentech Patent Program in Favor of Track I (Curiously)

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Cleantech; Patent

Some curious end-of-year activity for one government agency: the US PTO announced on December 15, 2011 through the Federal Register that it will extend – but also terminate – the Greentech accelerated examination program. The program was set to expire at the end of December but it will be extended to March 30, 2012. If, however,  they accord 3,500 greentech applications a special status before then, the program will terminate at number 3,500. Currently, the PTO web page statistics show the count is at 2,913. They may or may not hit 3,500. The program previously was supposed to hit 3,000 – but not there yet.

So, this is it !? Irony: the program is being terminated in view of its “success,” according to the PTO. Well, if a program is successful, why terminate….(well, never mind!). Heavy budget ax times may be ahead.

The alternative, according to the PTO, is the new Track I program. While this strategic insight from the US PTO is appreciated, the PTO neglects to warn users about the hefty fee the Track I program costs.

The new patent reform statute also has provisions for priority technologies – time will tell how that is used and if greentech will be a player.

Thanksgiving Day’s Bumper Crop of Nanotech 977 Patent Publications

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Cleantech; Patent

While Thanksgiving this year was a holiday for most of us, filled with visiting relatives, turkey, and football, the US PTO quietly published a bumper crop of nanotech 977 patent applications on Thanksgiving Day – 62 to be precise! Some of my “favorites” include those with applications in cleantech and bionanotech. In addition, the intersection of polymer science and nanotechnology is clearly evident and commercially significant in the nanotech patent literature. Polymeric nanoparticles are an important type of nanoparticle, supplementing inorganic nanoparticle systems like quantum dots.
Continue reading this entry

OLED Updates: “Dawning of an OLED era”?

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Electronic Devices

Following OLED commercialization updates is becoming pretty interesting. See, for example, www.OLED-info.com. Some recent news featured there include, for example:

  1. Universal Display Corp. (UDC) recently reported its first profitable quarter. See, also, the UDC web page update.
  2. Samsung Electronics plans to launch flexible OLED panels next year (perhaps starting with mobile phones, followed by tablets and other portable devices). See this YouTube video where allegedly one of these can survive a hammer pounding.

Continue reading this entry

What Will the US PTO Do with Its Greentech Patent Program?

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Cleantech; Patent

The US PTO is running its greentech accelerated examination program through December 31, 2011, or until 3,000 grantable petitions are reached. The grantable petition number now stands at 2,518 based on current PTO statistics. The PTO also recently announced that it has granted 552 greentech patents, and that at least 116 of these went to General Electric. Indeed, GE obtained patent #500.

The US PTO currently is heavily involved in implementing regulations for patent reform legislation enacted September 16, 2011. What will it do with its greentech program, and how will it find the time to decide? Many would like to know more details about how this program has progressed and who has benefited.

Staying Awake on Best Mode as Patent Reform Steams Ahead to Enactment

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

One of the central aspects of the recently passed patent reform in Congress is the elimination of the best mode defense by amendment to 35 USC Section 282.  However, Congress did not in parallel eliminate the best mode from the requirements of 35 USC Section 112.  In other words, the US PTO is still supposed to grant patents which satisfy the best mode requirement, but if that does not happen, this violation is not a defense in litigation.  In past practice, the US PTO has not sought to evaluate best mode as part of examination.

Best I can tell, the odd legislation as passed represents two competing goals:  (1) Congress likes a high-quality disclosure of the invention (hence, it did not amend section 112) ; (2) Congress does not want abusive litigation tactics based on best mode (hence, it amended section 282). 

Note: the amendment to Section 282 also appears to remove best mode as a basis for an inequitable conduct defense.  Also, best mode cannot be used as a basis for a post-grant opposition.

Quite possibly, the US PTO will provide further guidance on how it will treat best mode and what it expects from applicants in this new legal era.  Also, some countries (e.g., Australia) may still require a best mode disclosure.  One can check with an expert in each country.  If one eliminates the best mode, one might eliminate something essential, which could impact enablement.  In some cases, disclosure of the best mode might provide useful support for a non-obviousness position. 

Hence, patent applicants need to stay awake.  In particular, those working in the chemical, nanotech, and cleantech arts frequently encountered best mode issues.  For example, a chemical patent was found by the Federal Circuit earlier this year to have been in violation of the best mode.  However, one suspects that the US PTO will have its hands so full dealing with the new law that it will not have time to deal effectively with best mode issues.

Finally, the new best mode law is effective on the date of enactment and shall apply to proceedings commenced on or after that date.  News reports and rumors have the President signing the legislation this Friday, September 16, 2011.

 

Patent Reform to Impact Cleantech/Nanotech: Historic Vote Today

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

The Senate – finally – will vote on patent reform today at 4 p.m.  President Obama – finally – will sign the legislation soon after.  The President’s speech on jobs is set for this evening, and patent reform may be mentioned in the speech.  However, no one quite knows with certainty what the impact will be on the current unemployment rate.

Amendments to the bill were discussed yesterday, but it appears likely amendments will not impact the final bill.

Some media reports are concluding that the bill favors larger companies over start-up companies.

Cleantech and nanotech companies need to immediately understand the impact of this reform on their strategy.  Perhaps the only certainty is that companies, universities, federal labs, and other entities, that do not understand the patent reform will be at a disadvantage compared to those that do.

 

Patent Reform: Cleantech and Nanotech View of the Scene

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

Current wisdom noted by some if not many pundits (and/or lawyers) is that patent reform could be passed as early as September.  One rationale for the September push is job creation.  Certainly, patent lawyers will be kept busy based on the complexities of the issues at hand.  Patent applicants and the whole innovation ecosystem will have to react quickly when final legislation passes. 

Over a half dozen categories of reform are dealt with based on current legislations passed by the House and the Senate earlier in 2011.  These categories range from PTO fee issues to litigation defenses; from first-to-file system to post-grant opposition of patents.  Special interest pecularities are sprinkled in as well.  One possible outcome is that final legislation will mirror the current House version.

How will this legal revolution impact cleantech and nanotech?  The lobbying debates over this legislation, which stretch back for years, has not focused on cleantech or nanotech.  The general debate has been between pharma and "tech" companies.  While cleantech and nanotech covers a broad swath of commercial entities, in general, cleantech and nanotech likely falls closer to the pharma side.  Many technologies in cleantech and nanotech will take a decade or more to reach market fruition, much like pharma.  A strong patent system is needed to encourage investment.  Like any innovation community, cleantech and nanotech companies will need to file strong patent applications from the start to benefit fully from the patent system.

Our June 27, 2011 blog noted section 25 which would allow for priority examination of cases related to technologies of national economic importance.  Cleantech would certainly fall into that category, at least under the Obama administration.  However, the US PTO already has an accelerated examination system for cleantech.  At last count, as of August 11, the US PTO had granted 435 greentech patents (resulting from accelerated examination) and granted 2,250 accelerated examination petitions.

The forces leading to a possible September resolution are perhaps now set after years of lobbying and compromising.  Nevertheless, the PTO is taking your comments as it will need to pass rules to adapt to the new law.   Cleantech and nanotech will watch and respond quickly to the new law, if and when enacted.  The new Congressional budget cutting "Super Committee" may also influence spending aspects of the changes including PTO fee diversion.

Whatever the legal wrangles, its time for America to invent more, faster, and better.  Hopefully, the law will encourage that outcome.  Hopefully, it will not just be a "legal employment act."  We will plan to monitor patent reform and be ready to discuss it as needed at our panel at the 10th Annual NanoBusiness/Nanomanufacturing Summit, to be held in Boston September 25-27.

The New Materials Genome Initiative … and Captain Kirk

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Cleantech; General

It has now been about seven weeks since the Materials Genome Initiative (MGI) was announced by the Obama Administration.  Not too much public activity appears to have happened over these seven weeks (the University Materials Council, not surprisingly, endorsed the MGI in a July 27, 2011 letter).  We noted the MGI in our June 25, 2011 blog, and will attempt to follow MGI developments particularly as applied to nanotech and cleantech.  The Obama administration is apparently seeking $100M for FY 2012 funding and will begin "roadmap" work to develop the ideas more.

The MGI is summarized in an 18 page "white paper," and relates to …

Continue reading this entry

From Millions to Billions: Importance of Government Funding in Patenting Nanotech and Cleantech Innovation

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Cleantech; Patent

Patent literature is one important metric for the impact of government research funding on commercializing research.  For example, patent applications which result from inventions funded with federal research contracts/grants are supposed to include a federal funding clause.  The relative use of this clause can be researched.  We find a large impact on nanotech and cleantech patent activities.  The goal for federal funding by many is that a million dollars of government research will stimulate billions of dollars in economic impact.

Overall, for US patent publications, only 1.74% of the published applications show the government funding clause. For nanotech class 977 patent publications, however, the rate is much higher, 11%.

Consider lithium ion batteries, a seeming favorite of the Obama administration and the subject of a recent patent report.  Nanotech is having a major impact on lithium ion batteries.  This is a product market that moved from the millions to the billions.

We did a number of searches to review 977 nanotech patent publications directed to lithium ion batteries.  The searches turned up approximately 100-225 patent publications, depending on the degree of screening out of less related patents.  These searches revealed (i) a high percentage, 20%, resulted from federal funding, and (ii) 95% and higher patent publications published in 2008 to the present (less than 5% were published in 2007-2001).  A sharp transition is evident from 2007 to 2008 for increased patenting, and this transition was also noted in the recent patent report noted above.  We also noted from these searches that the most common country for the inventors by far was the United States, having four times the count of South Korea and ten times the count of Japan or China.  Nevertheless, much product development and manufacturing in this area is assocated with East Asia.

Hence, nanotech’s impact on lithium ion battery innovation is coming out of the US.  Will the jobs also arise in the U.S.?

Data are taken as of publications through July 21, 2011. 

Thermoelectrics Again in the News for Sustainability

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Cleantech; Patent

"Thermoelectrics Make a Comeback" was the title of a recent C&EN article (June 20, 20110, pages 33-35).  We previously reported how nanotechnology is providing new thermoelectric technology which could be used for solar.  This latest C&EN article confirmed (1) the vital role of nanotechnology in developing thermoelectrics, and (2) the applicability of thermoelectrics to cleantech.  The gist of the article is that, after being dormant for decades, thermoelectric science and technology is becoming much more widely recognized as a topic of important interest.

Nanotechnology is woven throughout the article.  For example, one of the key events which helped to reawaken the thermoelectric field was a theoretical paper in the 1990′s (MIT Professor Mildred Dresselhaus) in which the critical ZT thermoelectric property was shown to increase with thinner and thinner films.  Then the concept was applied to one dimensional nanowires.  The concept of nanoscale confinement was born, and verifying experiments were carried out.  Discussion is found in the article about nanoscale materials, nanowires, nanometer-sized crystallites, and the like.

The Department of Energy is sponsoring a multi-year project funded by the DOE, according to the article.  General Motors is developing prototype devices that use automobile exhaust heat to produce electricity for onboard use.  Thermoelectrics are needed which can work at high temperatures.

Patent filings are also apparently rapidly increasing in the thermoelectric field.  Since 2001, 1,865 US patent applications have published which mention thermoelectric in the abstract.  In those ten years, the annual number has risen steadily – and first doubled and has now almost tripled (data are below under read more).  If 2011 continues in the second half as in the first half, a record number of patent applications will publish in 2011, clearing 300 per year for the first time.  In addition, 31 of these are classified under 977 nanotechnology, with most of those being in the past three years.

 

Continue reading this entry

PTO Today Grants 7,000th Class 977 Nanotechnology Patent

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Cleantech; Patent

Patents are much in the press these days with respect to patent reform legislation, recently passed by the House and Senate.  More quietly on the patent front, however, the US PTO today granted its 7,000th class 977 nanotechnology patent (patents grant each Tuesday, and the total count for 977 patents now stands at 7,001).  The grant is part of the larger drive where soon the PTO will grant its 8,000,000th patent!

The 7,000th nanotech patent is US Patent No. 7,968,609 assigned to Prototech AS, a Norwegian company.  The patent relates to sol-gel processing to make mixed gels and nanoparticles (sol-gel is a critical aspect of nanotechnology).  Application in the ’609 patent focuses on the solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC).  Hence, it is a cleantech patent.  The patent is also assigned the subclass 773 which is for nanoparticle patents.

The US PTO now grants many more 977 patents than they have in the past (roughly double the number).  This year (prorated), the PTO is granting at a rate of 770 per year.  Last year saw 780 patents grant.  In contrast, the numbers is past years were far less (2009: only 530;   2008: only 431;   2007:only 344;   2006: only 276).

In the past, many commentators have discussed the potential for a nanotechnology patent thicket.  This useful PTO program for classifying 977 nanotechnology patents can help interested parties efficiently sort through the patent literature and avoid that thicket. 

 

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;’.

 

Updates on ARPA-E, Obama, and the Arena

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Cleantech

Two contrasting new items caught my eye regarding cleantech and the role of government in cleantech funding. 

First, in a positive, optimistic tone, ARPA-E recently released its 2010 report. ARPA-E, according to the report, has now funded 121 projects for over $350 million dollars. The report also has some interesting reading about technology’s development stages and the use of federal government spending to leverage private investment. The report also summarizes the geographical distribution of the funding and the type of receipient.

We also noted 20 of the 121 projects directly refer to "nano" in their summaries. Numerous others relate to nano without using the term "nano." Quietly, nanotechnology is a leading force in cleantech.

On a more "down" tone, flavored with pessimism, the Washington Post reported this morning about concerns over President Obama’s extensive focus on cleantech including visits to cleantech companies. Some of the issues include how much due diligence is carried out before the visit and how many jobs cleantech is creating. For example, the article reports:

"Obama’s unwavering focus has helped him fulfill a campaign pledge to push clean tech, from solar energy and wind power to electric vehicles. But it also has come with political exposure: By emphasizing a sector in which the risks are high, the president has prompted questions on Capitol Hill and from industry about the wisdom of his singular strategy and his political ties to some of the companies chosen for federal attention."

Ok. It appears difficult to make everyone happy!? After all, many have concluded that the U.S. is "falling behind" Europe and East Asia in cutting edge sectors such as cleantech and nanotech. We are now entering presidential election season, and it will be more-and-more interesting to see how cleantech will be debated by those in the arena.

Snapshot View of More Hydraulic Fracturing Patents

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Cleantech; Patent

Hydraulic fracturing patenting continues to grow, including technology related to nanotech and cleantech.  For example, on last Thursday, June 23, 2011, the US PTO published 13 new US patent applications which refer to hydraulic fracturing.  That brings the total to 184 for 2011, which prorated annually is 383 for 2011 - far higher than the average for the past six years (259).  Nine of the 13 publications focus on chemistry and materials.

Two patent publications list General Electric as assignee and relate to separating oil from water (2011/0147316 and 2011/0147306).

One patent publication from Schlumberger Technology Corp relates to nanotechnology, "Delivery of Nanodispersions Below Ground" (2011/0146974).  Last week also featured another filing on use of graphene (2011/0144386, June 16, 2011, from Professor James Tour et al. and Rice University).

Other listed assignees include Baker Hughes, Halliburton Energy, and Petro-Hunt.

The abstract for the Schlumberger patent publication on nanodispersions is below.

Continue reading this entry

Brussels Report: U.S. Venture Capital Flowing Toward Europe?

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Cleantech; Invest

The International Herald Tribune today (June 14, 2011) presented an important article called "U.S. Venture Capital Flowing Toward Europe."  This caught my eye, in particular, as I am writing from Brussels this week.  In areas like cleantech and nanotech, many seem to "worry" that Europe as a region has taken the lead from the United States.

The gist of this important article can be found in its conclusion that "U.S. venture capitalists, later-stage technology investors and software companies are paying more attention to targets in London, Paris, and Munich, upping their exposure to a region some had all but written off." 

The goal in looking to Europe is to find "hidden" investment gems.  Also, we note that central to U.S. innovation is Silicon Valley, a regional sector for which Europe has no counterpart.  A question often arises: how can one reproduce Silicon Valley innovation in other regions?  In the U.S., part of the answer usually refers to the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs’ willingness to fail in the longer term goal to innovate.  So I read with irony in this important article where, with respect to Europe, a founder of Skype said, "The biggest obstacle we have is cultural.  People are afraid of failure."

Perhaps failure is something that should be feared in certain contexts?  But we should appreciate those that take the risks, whatever the outcomes.   Whether for the US or Europe, or any other region like East Asia, the various degrees of risks can be balanced so both cutting edge innovation (revolutionary innovation) and more mundane improvement innovation (evolutionary innovation) can be achieved.   We certainly appreciate how Europe has pushed cleantech commercialization, including allowing US companies to find markets and partners.

Water Technology U.S. Patent Landscape Report

Posted by Barry L. Grossman on Posted in Water

Foley’s 2010 Water Technology U.S. Patent Landscape Report Executive Summary highlights key water technology trends from our full review of 584 patents issued in 2009 in the United States among seven different water technology categories:

  • Purification
  • Desalination
  • Metering
  • Irrigation
  • Treatment
  • Groundwater
  • Conservation

Building upon our 2009 analysis, the 2010 Report provides further perspective on primary areas of investment and development as well as possible opportunities for future investment and innovation.

For more information or a copy of the full 2010 Water Technology U.S. Patent Landscape Report, please contact me at bgrossman@foley.com.

Nanotech Innovation: Patents and Staying Awake at Night

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Patent

In Budapest today, a conference is being held under the theme of "What is keeping nanotech innovation policymakers awake at night?" (ObservatoryNANO workshop). Good question. The Budapest discussion themes include "measurable indicators." Patents, of course, are one critical measurable indicator, and the U.S. innovation policy makers should be watching patents carefully.

Later this year, the USPTO is expected to grant its 7,000th class 977 nanotechnology patent. The 977 patent count as of Tuesday May 31, 2011 stood at 6,937. The USPTO granted twelve more nanotech 977 patents yesterday.

The twelve patents granted yesterday reflect the diversity of the nanotech innovation ecosystem.

For example, nanotech is influencing cleantech as seen in USP 7,952,105 for efficient LED lighting. This patent is apparently owned by Global OLED Technology LLC and relates to quantum dot technology. The patent was originally with Eastman Kodak but sold to LG Electronics and owned now by Global OLED. Reportedly, Idemitsu Kosan owns a significant stake in Global OLED. The IP flow from Kodak to LG Idemitsu has important long-term policy implications for manufacturing which should be monitored.

Continue reading this entry

Nanotech, Cleantech, and Printed Electronics Technology News

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Cleantech; Nano Biotechnology

I was impressed recently by all of the truly exciting innovations and science policy issues which are now reported in the media so fast that it has become difficult to keep up. Recall the saying: so many books; so little time!

For example, nanotech, cleantech, and printed electronics were all featured in the last Economist Technology Quarterly (March 12, 2011). First, use of nanopores for rapid DNA sequencing was highlighted (pages 13-14). In addition, flexible electronic circuits also were noted (pages 15-16). Finally, Vinod Khosla’s controversial ideas re cleantech were explored (pages 22-23).

Continue reading this entry