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

Tag Archives: Nanotechnology

Nanotechnology for Defense Conference: Celebrating Ten Years, Call for Abstracts, and Some History

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Electronic Devices; General

This year is the ten year anniversary for a leading nanotechnology conference, the Nanotechnology for Defense Conference (NT4D).   The call for abstracts indicates a February 18, 2012 initial deadline.  The conference will be held August 6-10 in Summerlin, Nevada.

Defense is one of the fundamental and perhaps the most stable pillar for nanotechnology commercialization, along with other pillars such as bio nanotechnology and energy.  The history of the Department of Defense’s (DoD) interest in nanotechnology is noted in the Foreward of Ratner and Ratner’s book, Nanotechnology and Homeland Security, 2004 (written by James Murday, Office of Naval Research).  The DoD interest in nanotechnology can be “clearly identified as early as the late 1970′s when its Ultrasubmicron Electronics Research (USER) program.”  The DoD had a long history for research in the miniaturization of electronics.  Early efforts focused on 2 nm structures and led to superlattice technologies.  Programs in the 1980′s sought to exploit new tools like STM and AFM.  In the 1990′s, DARPA initiated an ULTRA program for ultra fast, ultra dense electronics program.  In addition, the Office of Naval Research began a program in nanostructured coatings.  By 1997, the importance of nanotechnology to the DOD led to its designation as a “strategic research area.”  When the NNI was created in 2001, the DoD wan an “enthusiastic supporter.”

Note: Murday also has an article in J. Nanoparticle Research, 1, 501-505, 1999 which outlines the history of the DoD and nanotech, and the interests at DoD in 1999.   Focus is on Air Force, Army, Navy, and DARPA.  Information technology, nanomaterials, and nanobiotechnology are discussed.  One cannot do well with current policy decisions without understand some of the history.  Important policy decisions need to be made now in commercialization of nanotechnology.

The current call for abstracts at the 2012 NT4D Conference focus on (1) Nanotechnology Success Stories, (2) Nanotechnology for Military Coatings Applications, (3) Nanotechnology for Chem-Bio Defense and Battlefield Casualty Care Medical Applications, (4) Nanomaterials Response to Extreme Stimuli, and (5) Nanoelectronics.  However, the scope is broad as topics in the following areas will be considered:

Additional topics that will be considered include:

  • Nano-Manufacturing

  • NanoTech for Elimination & Maintenance

  • Nano-Rheology

  • EM Effects on Nanomaterials

  • Nanograined Metals

  • Logistics of Nanotechnology Development

  • Nanomaterials for Energetics

  • Synergistic Experimentation & Computational Modeling

  • Nanoscale Modeling and Simulation

  • Nanodevices

  • Nanosystems

  • Nano-Biotechnology

  • Nanotechnology in Special Ops

  • Beyond CMOS

  • Sustainable Energy

  • Graphene

  • Nanophotonics/MetaMaterials

  • Laser Processing for Materials and Biological Systems

  • Nanomaterials/Nanoceramics/Nanopowders for High-Energy Optics

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.

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.

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

NNI has Two News Postings in October – More Needed

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Cleantech

It was good to see the NNI webpage www.nano.gov post two news releases in October. This was the first month that two were posted in one month. To date, six have been posted in 2011. More are needed.

Nanotechnology is critical to many areas of technology development including energy, medicine, life sciences, advanced materials, catalysis, sensors, and the like. Hopefully, more NNI news will be posted.

A review of other webpages such as the OSTP webpage, the Department of Energy webpage, and the general NanoWerk webpage confirm there is much to write about on nanotech and government-related research and commercialization.

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.

 

OLED, OLED, OLED – A AAA Hotbed

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Electronic Devices

Significant interesting OLED news seems to be crossing my desk more and more these days. Interest is high both for lighting and displays. OLED is part of the larger subject termed variously as “organic electronics” or “printed electronics.”   

For example, UDC has been announcing a variety of new updates which resulted in a recent stock surge. On the IP front, OLED patenting is exploding. Academic work in the area is strong also as reflected in the recent SPIE meeting in San Diego with increased attendance and the upcoming fpi10 meeting in Beijing. In Russia, Plastic Logic is set to test their e-readers in schools (not OLED, but important development in organic electronics nevertheless). Finally, the Department of Energy continues to support OLED work.

Nanotechnology plays a significant role in OLED. For example, the OLED patent explosion is also evident in the US 977 nanotechnology patent literature. In this class, 229 patent publications (out of 9,741 as of today) refer to “OLED” or “organic light emitting diode.” Among these, two-thirds were published in 2010 and 2011 (152/229).  Only 25 were published through 2007. That is a remarkable explosion. In addition, 12% were published with the government interest clause (27/229).

Nanotech and …. Earthquake Innovation?

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Patent

This week, an unusually large earthquake struck DC quite unexpectedly.  The question arises how has nanotechnology impacted earthquake technology?  A quick search of the US patent publication literature showed not much when the search is limited to the 977 nanotech class.  Only a handful of the publications show use of the term "earthquake" and, of these, the term does not appear in the claims or abstract.  Earthquakes are a potential application for sensors and new materials, for example.  See, for example, US Patent Publication Nos. 2008/0314149; 2009/0179523; 2009/0220767; and 2010/0132465.  Perhaps the international patent literature would reveal more.

Perhaps a next search for next possible natural disaster in the DC area:  hurricanes?  See, US Patent Publication 2008/0016819 for a hurricane door (with nanocomponents).

 

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

The Controversial Myriad Case and Nanotech: Some Thoughts

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Patent

The impact of the controversial Myriad gene patent litigation is not yet fully known, despite Friday’s Federal Circuit panel ruling which is being covered extensively in the general and legal media.  Quite possibly, the full Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court will weigh in on the case, so we must wait and see for what the full impact will be.  For now, however, in this most recent appellate decision, the Federal Circuit panel upheld the ability to consider isolated gene types of composition claims as potentially patentable subject matter.  The Court rejected the notion that such claims were, per se, not eligible for patent protection.  In forming its opinion, the Federal Circuit panel also recognized the settled property rights of the biotechnology industry formed over the past several decades.  Other aspects of the opinion such as the Myriad method claims and the so-called Bilski test are beyond the scope of this short blog.  Rather, this blog notes a nanotech angle to these controversies.

This Myriad litigation has many implications for and connections to nanotechnology, nano biotechnology, and nanomedicine.  One of the central themes of nanotechnology has been borrowing concepts and materials from nature.  This shows up in patenting.  For example, among the current crop of 977 nanotech patents (there are 7,113 of them as of today), 4.5% of them refer to sequence ID information for DNA sequences (317).  Hence, much innovation is occurring in the nanotech space related to DNA sequences of one form or another.  Nanotechnologists can use nucleic acid sequences to build nanostructures, diagnose issues early and at low analyte levels, and in general create and control useful processes.  So-called "DNA nanotechnology" was recently featured in Science Magazine.  In DNA nanotechnology, the DNA (or other nucleic acids) is used as a structural, building material more than an informational material.  Also, in Congressional testimony just several weeks ago re funding of nanotechnology, early diagnostic tests using nucleic acid nanotechnology were stressed as "blockbluster" applications of nanotech.  Hence, the nanotechnology community should monitor the Myriad litigation for possible impact on nanotech commercialization.

While time is needed to fully digest this Myriad ruling, some preliminary comments are offered.  For example, I appreciated, in particular, Judge Moore’s concurrence in the Friday opinions.  For context, my technical background includes polymer chemistry.  This Moore opinion quickly cuts to the heart of the matter:  "DNA is a chemical polymer.  In principle, a polymeric DNA sequence is no different than any other well known polymer, for example, nylon"   Correct: polymer chemists have been tinkering with the nuances of polymeric microstructure for many decades and gaining patents on the innovations.  Technologists have long looked to materials of nature for inspiration and guidance to solve practical problems and patent the solutions.  So Man can make a material inspired by nature such as building a DNA molecule from scratch.  Alternatively, Man can take nature’s materials and purify, isolate, and otherwise chemically modify them.  Both are fair game for patenting compositions.  In particular, Judge Moore noted the role of the polymer’s terminal groups in giving the DNA composition useful utility and differences over the nature-made material.  For the polymer chemist, for example, the nature of the terminal or "end groups" can impact the polymer properties heavily and be a source of innovation.  So it was good to see one of the judge’s getting to the essence of things from a polymer chemistry perspective. 

The larger themes at stake in this Myriad litigation also relate to issues where nanomaterials may be found in nature, albeit in a different form from a commercially useful form.  Some nanomaterials might be (well, are) found in space or in the earth, for example.  The courts are looking to see if there is a difference between the natural form and the commercially useful form.  Is one merely purifying something found in nature?  Also important, however, is how the claim is drafted.  The word selection in claim drafting might determine if the patentee wins or loses.  The Myriad litigation flows from a specific set of claims, and other context at the PTO or in court litigation may provide alternative claim language strategies used by patentees to navigate the patent system.

In sum, a per se exclusion from patenting of isolated DNA materials which have unique structural aspects such as end groups would seem inconsistent with the larger body of chemical patent law.  If the composition is new, whether it is isolated from nature or man-made, then the seminal issue becomes whether it is non-obvious.  A composition which is man-made and a composition isolated or derived from nature can be the same and both can be patented.  To hedge their bets, patentees may do well to include alternative claims which are free from the product-by-process types of words like "isolated." 

We wait with keen interest as this Myriad litigation continues to play out and as patent claim strategies evolve over the months, years, and decades.

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. 

Updates in NanoEHS

Posted by Sarah A. Slack on Posted in Nanotech Regulation

NNI’s Website, www.nano.gov, is showing some additional activity that may indicate the site is finally awake and active for good. NNI posted four reports today that are the products of a series of workshops the government hosted in 2009 and 2010. 

According to NNI, the workshops that were the basis for these reports, in conjunction with advice from National Academies and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), were used to develop an updated EHS Research Strategy for the NNI, which is intended to guide the responsible development of nanotechnology.

Continue reading this entry

A Billion Dollars to Invest to Create Demand for Shale Gas; Technology Including Nanotech Key

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Cleantech

What is a billion dollars? Consider this if you are reflecting:

Because of domestic shale gas drilling, natural gas prices have been low, making gas drilling less profitable than some would like. Chesapeake Energy recently announced (per AP article attached) that it would spend a billion dollars in technologies designed to increase demand for natural gas over the next ten years. Examples of initial investments are to develop a technology that will use natural gas and plant material to make diesel and gasoline. Chesapeake’s $155M investment in Sundrop Fuels is one leading part of this story. Other themes include using unconventional technology to stimulate US oil production and building out a national supply system (e.g., truckers can drive coast-to-coast on natural gas). In a nutshell, the goal is that the natural gas supply revolution is now met also with a natural gas demand revolution.

The point  is made by industry that the US leads the world in unconventional gas/oil extraction technology. Certainly, it is hard to argue with this when one looks at the patent literature. For example, review of US patent literature on hydraulic fracturing technology reveals that most of the inventors are from the US. And most of these are from Texas! In 2011, for example, the US PTO published 197 patent applications as of July 14 which referred to “hydraulic fracturing.” Of these, 114 (over half!) feature at least one inventor from Texas. The primary non-US country appears to be Canada, but Canada provides inventors for only 16 of the 197 publications (less than 10% mention a Canadian inventor).

A nanoscale understanding of the shale gas extraction process, including the natural rock and the fluids used for extraction, will be an important element of this commercialization drive. In the July 14 Senate hearing on reauthorization of the NNI, for example, one witness spoke of this point with respect to drilling fluid. 

The hope is that (nano)technology will solve far more problems than it creates, and that the law will help in this regard, including the patent system. We will continue to monitor this.

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.

 

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.

Patents, PCAST, & Pittsburgh – A Lot Going on in Innovation This Summer

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Patent

These are busy times for those following innovation law and policy including nanotech and cleantech.  Manufacturing and patents are central themes. 

First, I was in Pittsburgh Friday when President Obama visited Carnegie Mellon University and announced the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP) (text attached below).  AMP flows from the attached "Report to the President on Ensuring American Leadership in Advanced Manufacturing," June 2011, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) (also attached below). 

In addition, on Thursday, the House finally passed a bill on patent reform, following the Senate’s passage earlier in the year. 

The PCAST Report featured several angles on nanotechnology.  The Report discussed areas where promising, useful technologies face potential market failure, which suggests government should play a stronger role in promoting the technology through, for example, public-private partnerships.  Several specific examples were discussed including nano-scale carbon materials, nanotechnology enabled medical diagnostics, flexible electronics, and next-generation optoelectronics.  The Report also comments on the criticality of nanoelectronics.  The PCAST Report noted only briefly the role of patents, noting China has a strong patent initiative.

Furthermore, another new initiative from the Obama Administration is the Materials Genome Initiative (also attached).  The gist is to use computational and combinatorial methods to speed up materials commercialization. 

What will be next?  One new development linked to all of this is that the Pennsylvania Nanomaterials Commercialization Center, with offices in Pittsburgh, has announced a new round of funding focusing on energy applications (Idea Submission deadline, July 20, 2011,  http://www.pananocenter.org/)  Pittsburgh is also a center for the western Pennsylvanian Marcellus Shale commercialization push.  While innovation is a national issue, Pittsburgh certainly is a leading point of focus in current innovation and econonmic issues.  This explains the President’s visit.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11175/1155972-53.stm?cmpid=relatedarticle

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-advanced-manufacturing-june2011.pdf

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/materials_genome_initiative-final.pdf

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

A General Practice Firm Obtains Many Nanotech Patents

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Patent

I was curious about which law firms obtain the most class 977 nanotech patents. 

So I searched the US PTO public database for granted patents focusing on the legal representative search field combined with the 977 classification search field.  I searched firms which, from my experience, seemed to be active with nanotechnology.  Also, I searched the top 25 patenting firms listed in Intellectual Property Today each year.

Best I can tell, as of June 21, 2011, four firms "float to the top" with having more than one hundred class 977 nanotechnology patents.  Three of the four are large IP "boutiques" (Oblon, Spivak (176 patents); Fitzpatrick, Cella (174 patents, with virtually all of them listing the same company as assignee); and Fish & Richardson (112 patents).

The fourth firm is the only general practice firm: Foley & Lardner (109 patents, sponsor of this blog).

Congratulations to these firms for their contributions to nanotechnology patenting.

Also, most likely, the PTO will grant the 8,000th class 977 nanotech patent next Tuesday, June 28.

Nanotech Revolutionizing Construction: Commercial Products Hitting the Shelf

Posted by J. Steven Rutt on Posted in Patent

We were pleased to see the cover story for the June 12, 2011 Chemical & Engineering News featured nanotechnology in the construction industry (pages 12-17, http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/89/8924cover.html).  For example, nanostructured titanium dioxide in cement can be used to keep structures white despite air pollution.  Other applications include addressing cleantech or sustainability.  For example, use of nanoparticulate silica can increase ability to use fly ash in cement which helps the environment.

The article mentions BASF’s work in this area.  We noted BASF has a recently published 977 patent application for titanium dioxide nanoparticles (2011/0143923, published June 16, 2011).  Indeed, adding to our past blog comments, 81 new 977 nanotech patent applications published this week, continuing a strong trend.  The article also highlights nanostructured steel and window glass.

A BASF executive is quoted as saying: "The nanotechnology ideas finding their way into construction in a practical way are probably now starting to gain momentum because the first commercial products have finally hit the shelves."

Nanotechnology in construction was already featured in this attached 2006 report (56 pages): http://www.innovationsgesellschaft.ch/images/fremde_publikationen/nov06_nanoforum.pdf.  See also recent article on same: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nn100866w

 

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.