NanoPundit -Where Society, Science and the Law get really, really small.

Miller & Barns a Fortune Go-To Firm

2009-02-13T10:08:00.003-05:00

Some self promotional news.

My firm, Miller & Barns, was just named as a "Go-To" law firm by in Fortune Magazine's "The Go- To Law Firms of the World's Leasing Companies."

Yeah, us. I'll provide a link when the 500 issue of Fortune magazine is published.

Never Ask a Luddite to Fix Something

2008-10-14T15:29:00.004-05:00

Professor Reynolds points to this and asks “IS THE PATENT SYSTEM stifling nanotechnology?”

Follow the link and you will find that the article is sourced from the ETC Group. My long time readers (heh) may remember that I consider the ETC Group Luddites and an anti-science group. ETC is known for such howlers as calling for a “mandatory moratorium on synthetic nanomaterials" Looking to the ETC Group for direction on nanotechnology is like looking to the American Communist Party for direction on free market economics.

Professor Reynolds is a libertarian scholar and knows the value of the market. In order to fund research and development one must obtain funding and that funding is based upon the ability to protect the R&D investment. The ETC Group and the “Innovation Partnership” have started an all from war on bio and nanotechnology. This is their strike against the value of the technology.

The patent system has a bunch of problems; the patent offices of the world are slow and have historically had trouble with new technology. The plastics industry and the electronics industry faced these challenges during their early phases; those seem to have been worked out to everyone’s benefit. The U.S. Patent system is the goose that continues to lay golden eggs why should we listen to Luddites to find solutions.

Some of my proposed solutions for fixing the patent system are here. Unfortunately, I came up with these without funding from “governments, industry and NGOs” that help ETC Group and the “Innovation Partnership.” The top three are:

First, identify new technologies early on and develop the infrastructure to rigorously examine patent applications in those areas.

Second, establish meaningful inter partes opposition in the Patent Office that allows the party challenging validity to be fully heard and does not precluding further argument in district court.

Third, establish a unique district court with jurisdiction over patent cases.

Nanotechnology and My Knees

2008-07-14T08:51:00.003-05:00

Cartilage has a pesky habit of not regenerating. Once it is gone, it is gone. Once it starts to go, the rate of degeneration only increases.

So a hearty well done to Thomas Webster at Brown University for his breakthrough on regrowing cartilage. Enhanced chondrocyte densities on carbon nanotube composites: The combined role of nanosurface roughness and electrical stimulation.

A conductive film of highly dispersed carbon nanotubes (CNT) in polycarbonate urethane (PCU) were injected into the knee and then electrically stimulated to increase the growth of chondrocytes (cartilage cells). The CNT/PCU film has improved electrical conductivity to allow low voltage stimulation and the nanoscale roughness provides a hydrophilic surface that improves adhesion of the cartilage cells to the surface.

So Dr. Webster, thanks. And when you are ready to start testing on humans give me a call.

Ohio Entrepreneurial Signature Programs

2008-04-14T10:21:00.003-05:00

If you are a budding nano-entrepreneur in the State of Ohio, I strongly suggest contacting one of the Ohio Third Frontier Entrepreneurial Signature Programs (ESP). The ESP's can provide business counseling and are a source of funds for Ohio companies and entrepreneurs.

The state is divided into regions and each region has different technical specialties based on existing institutions. Contact your local region and if your technology isn’t a specialty, they can direct you to the best region for you.

Northeast
The Northeast Ohio Technology Coalition (NorTech) serving Ashland, Ashtabula, Carroll, Crawford, Columbiana, Cuyahoga, Erie, Geauga, Holmes, Huron, Lake, Lorain, Mahoning, Medina, Portage, Richland, Stark, Summit, Trumbull, Tuscarawas, and Wayne counties.

Northwest
Regional Growth Partnership (RGP) serving Allen, Auglaize, Defiance, Fulton, Hancock, Hardin, Henry, Lucas, Mercer, Ottawa, Paulding, Putnam, Sandusky, Seneca, Van Wert, Williams, Wood and Wyandot counties.

Central
TechColumbus serving Delaware, Fairfield, Fayette, Franklin, Hocking, Knox, Licking, Logan, Madison, Marion, Morrow, Perry, Pickaway, Ross and Union counties.

West Central
Dayton Development Coalition serving Champaign, Clarke, Darke, Greene, Miami, Montgomery, Preble and Shelby counties.

Southwest
Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber serving Butler, Brown, Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton, Highland and Warren counties.

Southeast
Ohio University - Voinovich Center serving Adams, Athens, Belmont, Coshocton, Gallia, Guernsey, Harrison, Jackson, Jefferson, Lawrence, Meigs, Monroe, Muskingham, Noble, Pike, Scioto, Vinton, and Washington counties.

Reporting from the 2008 Ohio Nanotechnology Summit.

2008-04-14T10:19:00.000-05:00

The 2008 Ohio Nanotechnology Summit ran from April 9th to 11th at Great Wolf lodge in Mason Ohio. The striking change between 2008 and 2005 is how far Ohio has come, with the Third Frontier project and the growth of the Ohio Department of Development.

Not only is Ohio’s investment improving but so is the quality of the Nanotechnology Summit. In 2005 the Summit was more of a meet and greet for graduate students presenting posters. in 2008 the Summit has grown up with general managers, business unit presidents and leaders of major technology institutions presenting.

Look for several posting over the next few days.

OHIO NANOTECHNOLOGY SUMMIT

2008-04-03T13:10:00.004-05:00

The 2008 Ohio Nanotechnology summit will be held on April 8th through 11th at Great Wolf Lodge in Mason, Ohio. Bring your swim suit and remember that swimsuits are one area where bigger is better.

Topics Include:

Experimental Methods and Modeling
Entrepreneurial Signature Program from the Ohio Department of Development and Pre-Seed Funds
Technology Transfer
Intellectual Property
An Emerging Technology Forum
Sensor Technology
Nano-Biotechnology

The speakers will include:

Mike Roco -- National Science Foundation

Elliott Liggett -- Lockheed Martin

John Chang -- GrafTech

Asis Banerjie -- Ovation Polymers

Wayne Earley -- PolymerOhio

Dr. Linda Horton -- Oak Ridge National LaboratoryDirector, Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences

Lance Criscuolo -- General Manager Zyvex Performance Materials
David Burton -- General Manager Pyrograf Products

Dr. Sharmila M. Mukhopadhyay -- Director, Center for Nanoscale Multifunctional Materials Wright State University

Carlos Gonzales --Deputy Division Chief, Physical and Chemical Properties Division

George Schatz -- Proffessor Northwestern University

Dr. Melanie Tomczak -- UES Inc.

Dr. Wolf Spendel -- Industry Liaison Miami University, Center for Nanotechnology

US Technological Dominance Threatened

2008-01-16T14:43:00.000-05:00

Professor Reynolds links to Global Advances Challenge U.S. Dominance in Science and quotes:

The United States remains the world leader in scientific and technological innovation, but its dominance is threatened by economic development elsewhere, particularly in Asia, the National Science Board said Tuesday in its biennial report on science and engineering.

The comment "The United States remains the world leader in scientific and technological innovation, but its dominance is threatened by economic development elsewhere, particularly in Asia" strikes me about the same as rich folks complaining that the middle and lower classes are catching up. The United States has been dominant in Science and Engineering since World War II. In the post-war period, Japan and West Germany started to close the gap. If you go back 20 years, to when I was an undergraduate, we saw the beginning of an influx of (mostly Chinese) foreign students. More recently, South Asians and Africans have come to the US for an education. This is far from a problem, the way I figure, the world is better off with more scientists and engineers.

A problem that I have never seen addressed in the media is that of newly minted PhDs wanting to stay in the US but forced out by immigration law. Years ago, I interviewed Masters and PhD students for R&D jobs for a Fortune 500 company. Many of the Chinese, South Asian and African students wanted to stay in the US permanently but had to return home when their student visas expired.

When Bad Thermodynamics Happens to Good People

2007-05-29T10:09:00.000-05:00

Instapundit links to another Perpetual Motion Machine hoax. The nano link here is tenuous so try to follow along. It seems someone was trying to cure cancer with nanotechnology, pie pans and household current and discovered that he could separate hydrogen from oxygen using a radio frequency field. He was experimenting on RF heating of cancerous tissue augmented by “Tiny bits of certain metal . . . injected into a cancer patient.”

As a byproduct of his experimentation, he discovered electrolysis of water. The cancer treatment is not an original idea and “water into fuel” is thermodynamic illiteracy. In fact, without thinking too hard, I would guess that adding the nanoparticles reduces the efficiency of the process because energy is used to heat the nanoparticles rather than disassociate the hydrogen from the oxygen. Bucket brigades at hydroelectric dams is a better idea for producing ‘free’ energy.

I’m a big fan of InstaPundit, as you can tell by my blog name, but man-oh-man does he need a basic understanding of thermodynamics. Using a bunch of energy to separate H from O and then recombining the H’s and O’s back into water and a little bit of energy isn’t going to run anything anywhere. In fact, this is so basic that it didn’t even make the cut for one of those Encyclopedia Brown books.

And for the double bonus irony he takes a shot at creationists in an adjacent post. I can disprove “Water into Fuel” in a lab without any problem. Disproving creationism is a little tougher.

Miller & Barns Website

2005-12-15T07:55:00.000-05:00

As a few of you know I am an attorney with Miller & Barns, a patent law firm specializing in nanotechnology, materials, chemistry and biochemistry.

Our new website is up at www.millerbarns.com and www.millerbarnes.com. Drop by and check it out.

Miller & Barns PLLC is a full service intellectual propery law firm. Miller & Barns specializes in chemicals, materials, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, nanotechnology, and medical devices. We provide clients with assistance in preparation and prosecution of patent applications, portfolio management, clearance, validity and non-infringement opinions, licensing, foreign and domestic trademark prosecution, design around assistance and international patent litigation management. Our partners have a combination of inhouse and big firm experience that allows us to provide levels of service that are typically available only to large corporation with dedicated inhouse intellectual property counsel.

The First Nanotechie Anton van Leeuwenhoek

2005-12-15T07:53:00.000-05:00

I thought this was cool so I cut and pasted from http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2118

Looking through his handmade microscope in 1702, it was Anton van Leeuwenhoek who first described the workings of a nano machine. He observed the rapid contraction of a stalk tethering the cell body of a tiny protozoan, Vorticella convallaria, to the surface of a leaf. Little did van Leeuwenhoek imagine that more than 300 years later, the biological spring that drives Vorticella would set records for speed and power in the nano world of cellular engines. It might also power future generations of nano devices and materials, according to biological engineer Danielle Cook France and colleagues at MIT, the Whitehead Institute, the Marine Biological Laboratory, and the University of Illinois, Chicago. France presented her findings Sunday at the 45th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology in San Francisco.

"The spring in the unicellular Vorticella is a contractile fiber bundle, called the spasmoneme, which runs the length of the stalk. At rest, the stalk is elongated like a stretched telephone cord. When it contracts, the spasmoneme winds back in a flash, forming a tight coil. To find out how fast and how hard Vorticella recoils, France and colleagues used modern microscopes and tools to measure the force and speed of the spring. This is one powerful engine, France reports. The spasmoneme's contraction is measured in nano-newtons of force and centimeters/second of speed in a biological world where the ruler markings are usually in tiny pico-newtons and micrometers/second. Gram for gram, the power of the spasmoneme engine outperforms human muscles and car engines. (Credit: Betterhumans)

NanoCarnival Year End Round Up

2005-11-29T09:52:00.000-05:00

In a blatant bid for traffic and another link on Instapundit, NanoPundit announces the first annual NanoCarnival Year End Round Up. Send links to your favorite, funniest or most important nano-story of the year. There will be a special category for major media stories that demonstrate scientific ignorance. Send a link to your entry to swbarns(at)millerbarns(d*t)com.

IEEE Nano Coming to OHIO

2005-11-18T11:04:00.000-05:00

IEEE-Nano2006 will be in Cincinnati, Ohio on July 16-20, 2006.

The deadline for abstracts if February 28th.

See you there.

Nobel Prize Winner and Homecoming Queen Richard Smalley Dead at Age 62

2005-11-16T11:28:00.000-05:00

If I have seen further . . . it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.
--Sir Isaac Newton

Rice University Professor Richard Smalley is dead after a bout with cancer. Dr. Smalley, with Robert Curl and Sir Harold Kroto, won the Nobel Prize in 1996 for their work in discovering the class of chemicals known as fullerenes (C60).

I saw Dr. Smalley speak earlier this year and he seemed in perfect health. As a speaker he was as earnest as he was entertaining. As a scientist he was without peer and will be missed. The fact that he was elected Rice homecoming queen in 1996 also shows that he was probably a pretty good guy.

More on Drug Costs

2005-07-11T10:57:00.000-05:00

The problem of high cost drugs in the US will not be solved by FDA approval or tort reform. The problem is that the drugs are astronomically expensive to develop and the U.S. carries the development costs for the rest of the world.

Typically it costs over a billion dollars to produce the first pill sold; subsequent pills may be produced for pennies. The billion dollar cost is spread out over every pill that is sold during the life of the patent on the drug compound. You get what you pay for and if there is no profit for the pharmaceutical company their investors will find better uses for their money.

The Canadian Government limits its drug costs by buying in bulk with the threat of a (low cost) mandatory license of patents that protect the pharmaceutical company’s intellectual property rights if the price is too high. The reason a generic drug is cheaper than a branded drug is because the generics do not invest billions of dollars in research and development. Intellectual property rights (the patent system) were developed to protect and encourage R&D Investments, and benefit each of us.

The Canadian Drug Distribution system is not a free market system. It receives cut rate prices by threat of government action. When this happens in the U.S. we call it a 'taking' when it happens in China we call it piracy.

If the people of the United States want to have new drugs available for the cure of everything from viral infections and leukemia to impotence we need to realize that we will pay the development costs. Immense developments are on the horizon and now is not the time to hobble the U.S. pharmaceutical industry.

China is in the process of developing a legal system which respects the intellectual property rights of foreign nationals. Why is it unreasonable to expect Canada and Western Europe to do the same?

Why US Drugs are so Expensive

2005-07-11T09:19:00.000-05:00

The Chicago Tribune reports Brazil just transferred their drug costs to U.S. Citizens. And no, this has nothing to do with nanotechnology. In an action that has been watched by patent geeks for some time Brazil just shook down Abbott Laboratories for lower prices on Kaletra (Generic lopinavir) a protease inhibitor useful in fighting HIV, the virus that causes aids. Kaletra works for those with HIV that is resistant to other protease inhibitors and doesn’t require a complicated cocktail of anti-HIV drugs.

In the U.S. Kaletra costs about $7,000 per patient prior to this agreement Brazilians paid $2,562 a year for the same treatment. Brazil’s government has just strong armed into a lower price (Abbott isn’t saying what the new price is).

Abbott Laboratories’ Heather Mason, Vice President, Specialty Operations Pharmaceutical Products for Abbott Laboratories recognizes that prices have to cover " “It’s allowing us to make investments in future innovations — novel therapies, drugs with less side effects — and to bring those to market so patients have access to more and better medicine.” This quote is out of context and referred to an increase in the price of Norvir another protease inhibitor, but I am pretty sure she would say the same thing about the pricing of Kaletra.

Perhaps Ms. Mason should have added, “We had to raise prices to subsidize citizens of Brazil who refuse to pay their fare share for the development of life saving therapies.

Hing Sham, Ph.D. is one of the coinventors of Kaletra and a pretty smart guy. He could probably work on any project he wants to. I would guess that he works for Abbott because he has interesting projects and makes a pretty decent living. Abbott can pay Dr. Hing because they sell the drugs he invents.

Brazil doesn’t care if he quits and goes to work at the car wash. I care because I want him to invent the next life saving drug. Andrew Sullivan cares because he needs the next lifesaving drug:

It has been imprinted on an entire generation that Big Pharma is the source of all evil. But the only reason I'm writing this blog at all is because of Big Pharma. They're not angels in America. They're capitalists. But the profit motive has been the most progressive force in pioneering specific medical breakthroughs that we have yet found.

Brazil is as Mr. Sullivan says “pursuing policies that will consign many people with HIV to earlier deaths.”

Brazil is not a third world backwater, it has GDP of about $1.5 trillion (2004 estimate) and a per capital GDP of $8,100. Abbott already is subsidizing the cost of Kaletra in Africa. The Republic of Congo has a GDP of $2.3 billion and a per capita GDP of $800. The Congo also has an AIDS rate of about 5% (more than five times Brazil’s 0.7%). Brazil should be able to buy AIDS drugs without forcing the cost onto US citizens and without reducing Abbott’s ability to help those truly in need.

In Memoriam

2005-06-22T10:57:00.000-05:00

Howard Lovy’s Nanobot has gone off the air. It’s a loss for the nanocommunity. I hope he finds what he is looking for. Howard thanks for the effort and the inspiration.

Not Enough Ridicule

2005-06-22T10:41:00.000-05:00

USATODAY weighs in with an opinion piece by Kevin Maney “Scared of nano-pants? Hey, you may be onto something.” The hook is people getting naked in an Eddie Bower store to protest self-replicating nano clothing. I do believe this is a nano nutjob threefer: 1)nanoclothing, 2) naked protesters 3) self replication.

Wow where to begin: 1) the nanoclothing they are protesting is probably not made with nano-anything (its just Teflon); 2) NanoPundit rule number 1 is always ignore naked protesters; 3) “They've heard stories that it could self-replicate until it covers the Earth like a virulent kudzu” Self replicating pants? Are this people nuts?

Maney then goes on to contrast technologies that difficulty being accepted, natural gas, and those that were immediately accepted, dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT). Here is the gem, “In the 1940s, people labeled DDT the wonder pesticide. By the 1960s, Rachel Carlson published Silent Spring, alleging that DDT caused cancer and other environmental problems. The stuff was banned in the USA in 1973.”

**No mention that DDT saved millions of lives during the years of its widespread use.**

Now I’m not saying that nanotechnology is going to save millions of lives. But, it will almost certainly save some. Folks getting undressed in shopping malls are not what I would call rational actors and shouldn’t be steering an important debate on the costs and benefits of important new technologies. They should be ridiculed rather than treated as cute.

Foresight teams up with Battelle

2005-06-22T10:00:00.000-05:00

Foresight and Battelle team up with $250K from The Waitt Family Foundation to develop a “Technology Roadmap for Productive Nanosystems.” They have put together one heck of a team:

Ted Waitt, Chairman of Avalon Capital Group and The Waitt Family Foundation; Alex Kawczak, Vice President, Battelle; Dr. Charles M. Lieber, Professor, Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Division of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University; Dr. William A. Haseltine, President, William A. Haseltine Foundation for Medical Sciences and the Arts; Dr. Mauro Ferrari, Professor of Biomedical Engineering and Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University; Dr. Paul Alivisatos, Chancellor's Professor of Chemistry and Materials Science, University of California, Berkeley, and Director, Materials Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Dr. J. Fraser Stoddart, Fred Kavli Chair in NanoSystems Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, and Director, California NanoSystems Institute; Dr. John Randall, Chief Technology Officer, Zyvex; Dr. Jim Roberto, Chief Research Officer and Deputy Laboratory Director, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Dr. Robert Hwang, Director, Center for Functional Nanomaterials, Brookhaven National Laboratory; and Steve Jurvetson, Managing Director, Draper Fisher Jurvetson.

If they need a NanoPundit (probably not necessary) or a patent lawyer (probably necessary) I am willing to volunteer.

The New Phone Book is Here*

2005-06-22T09:54:00.000-05:00

Just found out that Foresight has me listed on its resources page. I am so pleased. Lots of good links over at http://www.foresight.org/cms/resources/54

* By the way this is a reference to Steve Martin’s “The Jerk” he ad arrived because his name was listed in the new phone book. Of course that’s how the psycho picked him at random.

Monopoly Factory?

2005-06-05T21:54:00.000-05:00

INSTAPUNDIT is all atwitter about reforming the patent office with links to KAUS who links to The Washington Monthly article by Zachary Roth’s article “The Monopoly Factory.”

Most patent folks can quote Abraham Lincoln "The patent system added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius." Fewer can quote old Abe’s “That some should be rich, shows that others may become rich, and, hence, is just encouragement to industry and enterprise.” Kaus states “unjustified patent proliferation forces researchers and innovators to either challenge the patents in court or abandon their work.” Yes, but so does justified patent proliferation. The trick is to fuel the fires of genius and make legitimate inventors rich without flooding the system with improperly granted patents.

Faulty Patents?
I agree with Roth when he recognizes that there are costs to issuing faulty patents:

No one knows how many mistaken patents the office issues each year. But the results of one patent office experiment suggest that, in some areas, as many as half of those issued may be faulty. Faulty patents may be doing immense damage to the economy. They not only allow patent-holding firms to gouge consumers with exorbitant prices, but they also inhibit innovation and research, put a drag on economic growth, and may even create an investment bubble.

However, it is simplistic to say that “raise the bar” and that will solve all issues. What everyone fails to recognize is that there are costs with raising the bar on the standards of patentability, new, useful and non-obvious. Raising the bar will increase costs and diminish the reward. Small time inventors and even fortune 500 companies are limited in what they can spend on patent expenses.

A few days ago INSTAPUNDIT posted Robert A. Heinlein comment “Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded- here and there, now and then- are the work of an extremely small minority. . . Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as ‘bad luck.’ ” Inventors fall into this tiny minority and if they fail to see the benefits they move on to other endeavors and it is indeed our ‘bad luck.’

Smart inventors treat patents as assets and perform a cost benefit analysis before filing. Considerations include: what are the chances of obtaining a patent, how broad a technology will the patent cover, what will competitors learn that they can implement without infringing the patent, what was the cost of developing the technology. Patent office costs are a very small part of this equation. The probability of obtaining a patent is a very large factor, make it more difficult and fewer technologies will be revealed to the public in patent filings.

New Technology
Roth discusses the patent offices problems with business methods and biotechnology patents.

[T]he office created a new set of rules for reviewing “business method” patents—a relatively new category of patentable material, covering non-technical innovations, such as Amazon.com's “one-click” ordering system (the patent protects the idea, not the technology necessary to carry it out). The complexities of these patents were causing problems for many examiners, so the office instituted a “second-set-of-eyes” system, which simply required an additional examiner to review each application. Under the new system, the allowance rate for business method patents was quickly halved. That suggests patents in other complex fields, such as bio-technology, given without a “second set of eyes,” may have similarly higher error rates.

I think he misses a big issue. Problems arise more because business methods and biotechnology were new technologies and the patent office had no frame of reference for examining these technologies. The patent examiner looks at collections of prior art, mainly in the form of previously issued patents, to determine patentabilty. When a new technology hits the office, there is no collection of prior art to use to reject patent applications on the new technology. I expect that this is happening in the nanotechnology area now.
As a new technology develops it is initially classified with the closest existing technology, I think that biotechnology was initially examined by examiners who specialized in organic chemistry. As more applications and prior art are received examiners specialize in the new technology and a digest is created for the prior art. The Patent Office has just created a single digest for nanotechnology, look here for more. Within a few years of a new technology’s introduction the Patent Office is up to speed with well trained examiners and useful systems for determining patentability.

Roth discusses George Selden’s 1879 patent application on a rudimentary car powered by an internal combustion engine. This was a new technology at the time and the patent system did not have the infrastructure in place to rigorously examine Selden’s patent. The Patent Office currently has a number of examiners that specializes in automobiles and all of its components. These folks really know their stuff and have an amazing ability to find relevant prior art. When I was a young examiner I asked my primary examiner if he had seen a specific optical waveguide configuration. He had; he knew what drawer the reference was in; and he knew about how far down in the drawer the reference could be found.

Patsy, Who You Callin’ a Patsy?
Roth call the Office “not something to be feared but a patsy.” I work with examiners all the time and few of them could be called patsies. Roth supposes that the examiners as driven by ‘counts.’

While the weight of the workload gives examiners a passive incentive to rubber-stamp patents, the office's worker evaluation system gives them an active one. The size of an examiner's bonus is determined in part by the number of “counts” he amasses. Examiners gain one or more counts each time they open and close a new case. But when examiners reject patent requests, applicants typically adjust the claim and file a “continuation,” denying the examiner a count. So, an examiner concerned about his bonus has a strong incentive to approve the application. “There's a gaming of the system,” says Harold Wegner, a former examiner who now works as a patent attorney with the law firm Foley and Lardner. “You can get a stack of applications and just allow patents and get your [counts] that way.”

I took a course from Hal Wegner while in law school. He knows a lot about patents, and probably as much about the Japanese patent system as anyone in America. But he doesn’t know how to game the system as a patent examiner at the United States Patent Office. The well accepted method of bumping up your counts is not to allow a patent application; one count for one application is for pikers. Allowed applications are also randomly reviewed by quality control so there may be some repercussions to allowing applications. Rejections and new applications are the way to go. No one up the chain will dun you for issuing a rejection.

The trick is to issue a restriction requirement, essentially say the application includes more than one patentable invention and force the inventor to elect a single invention. That leads to new applications being filed on the non-elected inventions and these typically come to the same examiner. Then you beat them about the head and neck with prior art and issue a final rejection on the second action. At this point the inventor has the choice of appealing the rejection (which is expensive and very time consuming) or filing a Continuation.

The fact of the matter is that it is about s much work to follow this route as it is to just do the work. Patent examiners also have pride in their work. The name of the examiner goes on the face of the patent. Examiners are also protective of what gets issued in their technology area. In my years in and out of the patent office I have come up against more cold hearted SOB’s than patsies.

The Biggest Problem
The biggest problem with the U.S. patent system is not the examiners or any incentive to issue patents, it is the god-like status that issued patents have. Under U.S. law a patent is presumed valid and “[T]he burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity.”

This is a heavy burden indeed. A typical patent lawsuit costs in excess of one million dollars but an unrecognized cost is that you cannot bring an invalidity or noninfringement action unless there is a “case or controversy.” There must be both (1) an explicit threat or other action by the patentee, which creates a reasonable apprehension on the part of the declaratory judgment plaintiff that it will face an infringement suit, and (2) present activity which could constitute infringement or concrete steps taken with the intent to conduct such activity." This is legalese for “your fat has to be in the fire before you have the right to spend a million bucks attempting to prove invalidity or noninfringement.”

Another issue that one faces in proving invalidity or noninfringement is that the case can be tried to a jury and typically before a court that sees one or two patent suits a year (the Southern District of New York and Eastern District of Virginia are two exceptions). So you have a judge that sees few patent cases and a jury that has seen none. Neither understand the technology and, therefore; they often defer to the decision made by the examiner in a few hours, possibly without the best prior art or the best arguments for invalidity available.

Look to European Law
Patent litigation is one area where the Europeans have us beat, hands down. In Germany, a nullity action to determine the validity of a patent is heard in the German Patent Office, with an appeal to the Federal Patent Court in Munich (the location of the German Patent Office) and the first non-patent specific court that considers validity is the German Supreme Court (and they do hear patent validity cases).

U.S. law has recently stated to allow the Patent Office to hear inter partes patent reexaminations. The procedure is rarely used because unsuccessful reexamination makes it almost impossible to invalidate the patent in later litigation because estoppel prevents the rehearing of the same issue. No one I know uses the current inter partes reexamination and I cannot think of a situation in which I would be interested in using this. Using the European nullity action as a model would be a huge improvement.

Solutions

First, identify new technologies early on and develop the infrastructure to rigorously examine patent applications in those areas.

Second, establish meaningful inter partes opposition in the Patent Office that allows the party challenging validity to be fully heard and does not precluding further argument in district court.

Third, establish a unique district court with jurisdiction over patent cases.

And don't even get me started on juries for patent cases, I don't thnk it should be an option but that pesky Constitution keeps getiing in the way. I would guess D.A.'s have similar issues.

More on NanoLitigation

2005-05-05T11:16:00.000-05:00

More information on the Nano-Proprietary v. Cannon litigation relating to Surace Conduction Electron Emitter Display (“SED”).

Here is the Complaint.
Here is the License. Scroll down for the text of the license

Go here for a discussion.

More on Abraxane

2005-04-12T11:49:00.000-05:00

NanoPundit’s one and only Instapundit link was related to Abraxane, the instalanche accounts for about half of my traffic to date. Business Week provides an update on Patrick Soon-Shiong’s quest to bring Abraxane to market.

Business Week Online provides the backstory of American Pharmaceutical Partners (APPX ) ten year struggle to bring Abraxane to market. Abraxane is essentially Taxol which is reduced to nanosize and bonded to albumin (a protein found in egg whites). The process avoids the use of solvents which cause adverse reactions in cancer patients and limits dosage.

The story sounds like it could be a made for TV movie with twists and turns including:
strike suits from investors (no word if Bill Lerach was involved)
attacks by short-sellers
fraud accusations

APP stock almost doubled when the FDA approved Abraxane and analysts expect revenues to increase 50%, to $609 million, this year and profits to double, to $120 million.

Helping cancer victims and making big bucks, isn’t that what high technology is all about.

Nano Fabrication

2005-04-12T11:37:00.000-05:00

Bent nanotubes, yes it’s a big deal. Follow the link for a cool picture.

Researchers at UCSD have made carbon nanotubes bent in sharp predetermined angles, a technical advance that could lead to use of the long, thin cylinders of carbon as tiny springs, tips for atomic force microscopes, smaller electrical connectors in integrated circuits, and in many other nanotechnology applications. In a paper published in the April 7, 2005, issue of the Journal of Physical Chemistry B, Sungho Jin, a professor of materials science at UCSD’s Jacobs School of Engineering, reported a technique to create bent nanotubes by manipulating the electric field during their growth and adjusting other conditions.

Joseph AuBuchon, a graduate student in Jin’s group, exploited the strong alignment of nanotube growth with the direction of electric field lines. After growing an aligned array of straight nanotubes, AuBuchon switched the orientation of electric field lines 90 degrees to make L-shaped tubes. He then made more orientation changes to make zigzags.

The simple fact is that nobody knows what uses these may have. The list of possible uses includes cantilevers for atomic force microscopes, and compliant nanocircuit interconnects. The importance of this work is that it adds another technique to the, small but growing, nanofabrication toolkit. Mankind took hundreds of years to learn how to manipulate iron. The first person to learn to bend iron did not contemplate the horseshoe, the bearing or the internal combustion engine but understanding the technique enabled all of them.

NanoOpto Closes Series C

2005-04-12T09:47:00.000-05:00

NanoOpto closes series $12M C funding with a cool mil from Itochu Corporation. This is the latest in $43.5 million in funding with $3.3 million in August2004. Other Series C investors include: leader First Analysis, and previous investors Morgenthaler Ventures, Gotham Ventures, New England Ventures, Harris & Harris Group, and U.S. Trust.

Nano Litigation?

2005-04-12T09:36:00.000-05:00

Nano-Proprietary files Declaratory Judgment Action against Cannon. Whether this related to nanotechnology cannot be determined by the press release but this may be the first big time nanotech lawsuit

Nano-Proprietary is seeking a declaratory judgment that new SED color television products, scheduled to be manufactured by Canon and/or Toshiba beginning in August 2005, are not covered under a 1999 patent license agreement between Canon and Nano-Proprietary. Nano-Proprietary alleges that Canon is improperly using Nano-Proprietary's patented technology to produce surface conductor electron emitter display screens (SED) for a new generation of flat screen color televisions.

Nano-Proprietary also asserts that a joint venture formed by Canon and Toshiba Corporation to produce the SED display screens, SED, Inc., is not a licensed subsidiary under the 1999 agreement and that Canon is improperly transferring its license rights under Nano-Proprietary's patents to the joint venture and Toshiba. Nano-Proprietary also alleges that Canon's representation to the industry that it is licensed violates federal false advertising statutes.

The Nano-Proprietary portfolio includes 3 US Patents and 13 published US Patent Applications. Marc Eller, Chairman and CEO of Nano-Proprietary refers to this as "a very strong and pervasive patent portfolio that applies to several multibillion dollar industries, of which this is one." As I have noted before it is difficult to determine the true size of a patent portfolio because patents may be licensed in or assigned without showing up in the Patent Office database.

Nano-Proprietary, Inc. is a holding company consisting of two wholly owned operating subsidiaries. Applied Nanotech Inc. is a premier research and commercialization organization dedicated to developing applications for nanotechnology with an extremely strong position in the field of electron emission applications from carbon film/nanotubes. Electronic Billboard Technology, Inc. (EBT) possesses technology related to electronic digitized sign technology. Neither Applied Nanotech nor Electronic Billboard Technology is listed as assignee of any U.S. patents.

Hit The Tip Jar at NanoBot

2005-02-25T14:47:00.000-05:00

And yes, this constitutes my donation so it is up to you to donate.

http://nanobot.blogspot.com/2005/02/nanobot-needs-you.html

Lovy's NanoBot is worth a few bucks.

Germany Needs Lawyers Too

2005-02-24T13:28:00.000-05:00

In a resent post I commented on brain drain from developing nations. Small Times reports that Germany doesn’t have enough engineers because “many students opted for less arduous studies such as management.”

The engineer is becoming an endangered species in Germany, threatening the quality of the nation's products and forcing companies to seek staff from abroad.

Europe's biggest economy is short of about 15,000 engineers, says the country's engineering association VDI.

At least they aren’t becoming lawyers.

Ohio Hits the Small Time (Repost)

2005-02-24T10:00:00.000-05:00

The Ohio Nanotechnology Summit (Here is the Governor’s announcement) will be held March 2-3, 2005 at the Hope Hotel and Conference Center, Patterson Air Force Base.Big nano-names are coming; the speakers and presenters include:

Dr. Rick Smalley , Rice University
Dr. Liming Dai, Wright Bros. Institute Chair for Nanomaterials, Univ. of Dayton
Phil Kuekes, Hewlett Packard Labs
Prof. James Lee, Director, NSF NSEC for Affordable Nano Bio Products & Devices
Prof. Mauro Ferrari, OSU/NCI
Mark Cooper, Copernicus Therapeutics
Mark Brandt, The Maple Fund
Art Zucker, Ohio University
Alan Brown, VP, Chief Technology Officer, CAMP Inc.
Scott Rickert, President, CEO NanoFilm
Richard Schorr, President MetaMateria Partners
Roger Avakian, Chief Technology Officer, PolyOne Corp.

The objectives of the meeting are to:-capture a sense of what is happening in nanotechnology around the state in industry, academia and Ohio-based federal labs;-foster and promote collaborations within the state that will lead to positive economic outcomes based on nanotechnology; and-hear a national perspective on nanotechnology from prominent experts in the nanotechnology arena.

The summit will begin with a nanobasics primer or a tour of nanotechnology labs at the Air Force Research Laboratory Materials Directorate (sorry the link may not work). (If you are going on the tour be sure to bring your drivers license and a Passport, Birth Certificate or your Green Card)

I will be there presenting a poster on what nanobusinesses need to do to protect their investment in research and development. The first ten people to track me down and use the word NanoPundit will get a free drink at the hotel bar on Wednesday night.

Global Nano Meeting Misses the Point Entirely

2005-02-22T10:33:00.000-05:00

The International Centre for Science and High Technology of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (ICS-UNIDO) recently called a meeting in Trieste Italy to discuss the role that international organisations - and ICS-UNIDO in particular - could play in helping developing nations tackle this emerging field of technology. A report is here. Some of the reported conclusions are:

[D]eveloping countries were doing enough in terms of nanotechnology research and education. . . a forum of gathering entrepreneurs in the South and companies in the North would be valuable.

[F]unding agencies such as UNIDO help to obtain US$2 million a year for five years to fund a capacity-building project in the South that would give equal importance to research and entrepreneurial training.

[U]nless the industrial sector is brought on board "there will be no house for the research and development that we do, no home for the inventions".

My opinion is that these folks have missed the point entirely. The problem with developing nations and nanotechnology is that they lack the financial and industrial infrastructure to take advantage of nanotechnology developments.

Just as nations with developed shipping and railroads were able to take advantage of the internal combustion engine and build mighty automotive industries; countries with developed financial and entrepreneurial systems are in position to take advantage of the coming nanotechnology revolution. Government funding and international meetings will not build this foundation.

Money and equipment are fungible and flow across national borders to where they can be put to the best use. Right now cash isn’t flowing into developing nations because the risks are high and governmental inertia is often overwhelming. The answer is not government spending, it is government getting out of the way so entrepreneurs can get rolling.

The most critical problem developing nations need to solve is the so-called “brain drain.” Over the last 15 years working in patent law I have met some genius scientists and engineers from South Asia, Africa and South America all of whom were working in the United States. I have also spoken on the phone and traded faxes with some genius scientists and engineers from European and Japanese. The difference is that the Europeans and Japanese can stay in their native land and have rewarding careers.

New York Times Goes Nano

2005-02-22T09:06:00.000-05:00

The New York Times goes nano with Tiny Is Beautiful: Translating 'Nano' Into Practical. It is mostly nanomedicine with a bit of nano-environmental engineering. There is only a small amount of fear mongering with a brief reference to brain damaged fish.

I find the NYT science reporting is generally more horror story* than science so I am pleased that the story is generally positive. It lays out lots of potential benefits to society with a reasonable warning about the risks. I have written dismissively about nanoshirts, nano-stain fighting is great but it is not the kind of killer application that drives a society to change or accept any risk. We need to get out to the hustings and teach people about the potential benefits of nanotechnology. Lets push breast cancer cures, fuel cells and terabyte memory, not shirts. Society is not going to accept a risk of brain damaged fish for stain resistant shirts so I am glad the NYT is talking about cures rather than pouring cups of coffee on its nano-pants like CBS did a few weeks ago.

It seems that the New York Times Rolodex is full of the PR agents for:

Quantum Dot Corporation
Nanospectra Biosciences Inc.
Altair Nanotechnologies

It will be interesting to watch if this article will cause a bounce in the values of these stocks. Publicity never changed the long term value of a company or increased its sustainable competitive advantage but the power of the NYT can send these companies on a bumpy ride for the next few weeks.

There is also a medieval nano technology story that I haven’t seen in a major publication (and in fact, I did not know that the gold particles in ruby glass were ~25 nanometers). Of course by this definition Otto Diesel is probably the most successful nanotechnologist the world will ever create. His invention “diesel soot” contains a huge amount of nanomaterials.

*I think that The New York Times science reporting is mostly left wing environmental orthodoxy, worst case scenario, numerators without denominators and extrapolation of short term data far beyond any reason. “It is two degrees warmer today than yesterday, at this rate the oceans will be boiling by April.”

It's a Nano-World

2005-02-18T10:19:00.000-05:00

Interesting news from around the world (or at least countries strating with I).

Ireland
Israel
India and India again.

The last link mentions the group ETC Group:

The ETC Group - a Canadian non-governmental organisation - has expressed concern that the new industry could be dominated by developed nations (through patents, for example) that would increase the gap between rich and poor nations, a phenomenon labelled the 'nano-divide'.

The worst thing that could happen to developing nations is that they listen to groups like ETC.

Tune in next week for countries starting with J.

Miniature Golf??

2005-02-18T10:05:00.000-05:00

This strikes me as a load of C®@P.

As part of the reestablishment of the Wilson Staff line celebrating the company's 90th anniversary, it has introduced driver heads, balls and shafts with molecular nanotechnology - the same nanotechnology the U.S. Department of Defense and NASA have been researching and developing for use in their military and aerospace products.

"It's the biggest news in golf you can't see," said Wilson territory manager John White. "We've been working on it for 2½ years and we're the first equipment company to use it. It's going to allow us to make titanium obsolete, or at least give it a run for its money."

The process involves controlling individual molecule-building reactions to form complex molecular structures. Nanotechnology bonds materials together and eliminates microscopic separations, theoretically making the product lighter, stronger and more stable while transferring energy efficiently.

The technology is present in two Wilson Staff drivers, fairway wood heads, the core of three ball designs, and the bottom third of graphite shafts in Wilson Staff drivers, fairway woods and irons.

Maybe George Mannes was right.

You Aren’t Short You’re 1.5 Billion Nanometers Tall

2005-02-18T09:42:00.000-05:00

South Carolina discovers nano. It’s for kids but looks like fun. This must be South Carolina’s attempt to break the tie and take over sole possession of Lux Research's ranking of U.S. states for economic development from nanotechnology.

Cypress Dump's MRAM

2005-02-16T13:38:00.000-05:00

Cypress Semiconductor to dump MRAM (Magnetic Random Access Memories) unit.

"Based on our latest calculations at Cypress, we no longer believe that the 1T-1MTJ MRAM technology will be able to successfully attack the SRAM market, leaving MRAM as a niche technology with higher bit pricing than that of SRAM. While a niche MRAM business could be a profitable addition to Cypress's portfolio of products, we currently have more attractive places to invest than in the capital-intensive MRAM business.”

Wow. I’m shocked that they are moving out of this market. The folks a Cypress are pretty smart so there must be some pretty substantial barriers to lowering the cost/bit in MRAM.

MRAM technology leader NVEC took a pretty big hit on the news.

Reasons for the Venture Funding Drop

2005-02-16T09:44:00.000-05:00

Technology Review on the drop of venture funding for nanotechnology dropped from $386 million in 2002 to $200 million in 2004.

That means nanotech startups are finding it harder to do research in areas that could have tremendous long-range impact: new nanomaterials for optics and chip-cooling systems; biological diagnostics based on ultrasensitive nanosensors; and smart, automated delivery systems for protein drugs. "Over the years, the financial community has pushed for shorter-term results," says Peter Garcia, chief financial officer of Nanosys, a nanotech startup based in Palo Alto, CA. "There are projects that are more long term technically that have the greatest potential to change how products are made, but the funding is not there."

Move over to page two for a graph showing a precipitous drop in venture funding since 2000. the totals from all funding rounds peaked in 2000 and dropped every year until 2003. Also note that the big bucks are in the “later round” category (third and later). “Later round” funding is always larger than earlier round funding; products are ready for commercialization, risk is lower, payoff is closer. These later rounds are triggered by seed and first round funding that take place previously. The drop in funding in 2001-3 has left a gap in companies ready for “later round” funding. This gap is being filled with new investments and I expect to see a dramatic upsurge in funding as these nanostarts mature.

Page two also includes a graph that includes a legend “more than $50 billion in venture capital raised since 2000 remains unspent.” This venture capital is not making them any money and as the pain from 2000 goes away it will come into the market and fund all sorts of new companies. Then nano will be competing for venture dollars with bio, IT, security and who knows what else. It will be interesting and fun to watch.

The best line is about internet companies and their funding "Twenty-four months ago, they couldn’t get any love from venture guys. Now they’re beating down their door." Is it time for nanotech to get some love? It’s going to happen, I’m just glad I’m not trying to go public right now.

Methinks I Protest Too Much

2005-02-15T16:53:00.000-05:00

George Mannes at theStreet.com is making fun of nanotechnology, or at least Steve Forbes and his Nanotech Report.

In an article entitled “The Five Dumbest Things on Wall Street This Week” nanotech hits number 1 with “Is That a Sugar Cube in Your Pocket or Are You Just Happy to See Me?”

Forbes' new Nanotech Report, a $295-a-year newsletter intended to guide your investments in nanotechnology, which we at the research lab formally define as "the science of itty-bitty things."

Nanotechnology is "the next, next big thing!" writes Steve. As in, a cash-out-all-your-shares-of-Microsoft (MSFT:Nasdaq - news - commentary - research - analysis)-and-invest-in-this opportunity. As in, get-in-on-the-ground-floor-before-it's-too-late hot.

Among the "theoretically feasible" applications for nanotech, according to Wolfe:
"Engineered molecules" that can be "the key to curing diseases."
"A sugar-cube-sized supercomputer capable of storing everything in the Library of Congress."
"Smart combat fatigues" that detect biological weapons, secrete "the appropriate blocking agent" and change colors like a chameleon.
"Bathrooms that never need cleaning."
"Automobile tires that never go flat."

These claims raise a number of questions -- chief among them, how long have people at Forbes been dropping acid?

We may not have learned much from the dot-com bubble, but we have learned that if someone promises that a new technology will cure cancer, improve homeland security, shrink a library to the size of a sugar cube and clean your toilet, the whole thing is probably a scam.

I think that Mr. Mannes is still angry that his scene from The Graduate hit the cutting room floor. You know, right after Mr. Maguire says “Plastics” Mannes piped in “No, asbestos is the future.” Other Mennes quotes include:

A machine that flies like a bird, impossible.
Electricity, If I can’t see it I don’t need it.
I’ll get the 20MB hard drive; no one could ever fill up 40MB’s.
De. . . deox. . . deoxynuculear, aw if I can’t say it I ain’t going to invest.
Microsoft at 120 and rising, this is too good to miss.

As all six of my regular readers know, nanotechnology is the science of manipulating materials on the atomic level and it is going to open up huge new areas of endeavor. If the analogy is plastics, nanotech is still in the Bakelite era. There is money to be made in nanotechnology. I think that 80% of the market is overvalued, but the market as a whole is undervalued. I have said it before, people way smarter than me are trying to figure out where the money is and somebody is going to get rich.

Fear and Greed

2005-02-15T08:30:00.000-05:00

Technology Review writes about the concentration on later-stage technologies from research universities.

Industry doesn’t seem to be as interested in fundamental breakthrough technologies in areas such as nanotech; instead it favors more short-term and less risky technologies that are closer to commercialization and have clear markets and customers, says Katharine Ku, director of Stanford University’s technology licensing office.

University of Texas at Austin is actively trying to spin off more companies, rather than licensing technologies to existing companies. "We are aggressively doing startups," says Neil Iscoe, director of the University of Texas’s office of technology licensing. "We have to change our approach to get more things out," he adds. "How do you market a disruptive technology? You do it through a startup."

I think that part of the emphasis on later stage technologies is that the risk is substantially lessened with a marketable technology. As with all investments the reward is less as well. MIT’s Lita Nelsen sees "more folks realize there’s not much money in late-stage deals." and has noticed a dramatically increased interest in technologies, even early-stage ones, related to security.

As we get further from the tech bubble we will see increased interest in partnering with universities and institutes to bring earlier stage technologies to market. Risk taking brings bigger benefits to society and this is where the big money is.

Shakeup at HP

2005-02-10T08:46:00.000-05:00

Carly get the boot. Bet the farm on Compaq and lost. This probably will not effect HP’s nanotech efforts. I think HP was a great company that got bogged down in personal computers and inkjet printers when they should have been on the cutting edge of science where they got their start. Hey HP, monetize those cash cows and get back to your “core competency.”

NanoClarity to NanoRank

2005-02-10T08:37:00.000-05:00

NanoClarity announces a rating of all nanotech companies. The companies will be rated on: company business model, where a company is on the nanovalue chain, the need for additional investment and other measures. NALA rates the next 2 – 4 years of company operation. This looks interesting but probably falls into NanoBot’s “that's how you build buzz and sell paper” category. You can subscribe to NanoClarity here. Everybody’s doing it.

Alan Shalleck, publisher of NanoClarity, the new nanotechnology monthly newsletter, announced today that NanoClarity will rate each promising nanotechnology company on its outlook for “sustainable profitability” using NanoClarity’s proprietary “NALA* Index” rating system. NanoClarity is distributed over the Internet at www.nanoclarity.com. A company’s NALA* Index will be available only to NanoClarity’s subscribers. Mr. Shalleck said, "To date no one has evaluated investment in nanotech companies based on “sustainable profitability” … the only evaluation that makes investing sense. I expect a company’s NALA* Index to become a standard measure for all nanotechnology investors.”

Biodegradable NanoParticles?

2005-02-10T08:28:00.000-05:00

The Washington Times has a story on developments at the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute (ONAMI). The story is mostly the standard “fuel cells” and human hair metaphors but there was one section that caught my eye about health effects and interesting way to reduce the fear about grey goo, biodegradable nano-particles.

Nanoscale particles generally have increased toxicity because they are highly reactive. To eliminate hazards, Oregon institutions are working on benign versions of nanoparticles that contain cellulose and biodegrade in six months. ONAMI is developing a portable factory where nanoparticles are made in microreactors exactly where they are needed. "It completely eliminates the dangers of making them in a factory in one place and shipping to the point of use," Mr. Drost said.

Very interesting. A lot of nanotech work relies on the interesting structures that can be formed of carbon so biodegradability is not a complete solution.

Japanese to Study Nano Health Efffects

2005-02-07T10:53:00.000-05:00

Yomiuri Shimbun has a story out on how the Japanese Government will evaluate the safety of nanotech materials. UPI has a brief English language story here. The effect of nanotech materials on human health and the environment will be studied with the thrust being toward the creation of environmental, health and safety regulations. Carbon nanotubes and fullerenes get a specific mention. The story states: “This will be the first time that the [Japanese – Ed. any?] government examines the effects of a new technology before it goes into practical use.”

I applaud the Japanese government for taking on this difficult task. This will be the most important study relating to nanotechnology, and I hope that the Japanese do it right. Any reported health effects, no matter how minute, will be used as a cudgel against the budding nano-industry. I hope they do these studies right.

Business Week Discovers Nano

2005-02-04T08:16:00.000-05:00

Business Week Magazine has a number of articles on nanotechnology.

Nanotech's Heartland Lift
Cleveland's Five Star Technologies is the kind of new company that's proving the Rust Belt can become part of the Next Big Thing

Why the Old Rules Don't Apply
At the nano scale, familiar materials can do things they couldn't do before

Rebuilding Things "Atom by Atom"
Nanoscience expert Chad Mirkin discusses the promise of supersmall materials, what breakthroughs are likely, and what's just hype

The Skinny on Nanotubes
Theoretically perfect for the chips of tomorrow, these complex carbon structures have a problem: They're almost impossible to work with

The Vast Potential of Very Small Things
Nanotechnology promises medical care tailored explicitly and exactly to the individual, says the physicist and entrepreneur Michael Roukes

Nanotech: Universe In A Grain Of Sand
Scientists are finding that ultratiny materials behave in unexpected ways.

Mega Questions About Nanotech
Rice's Kristin Kulinowski on the thorny biological and environmental issues

Nanotech: Beyond the Hype -- and Fear
Kristen Kulinowski's job at the Center for Biological & Environmental Nanotechnology is "to draw attention to proactive, responsible development"

Disease Detection and NanoBio Sensors

2005-02-03T08:57:00.000-05:00

One of the most exciting areas of nanotechnology is the use of nanosensors, especially in the area of protein detection. Alzheimer’s, cancer, coronary artery disease and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (Spongiform Encephalopathy; Mad Cow) all produce disctinctive protiens. Sufficiently sensitive protien sensors will be able to detect these protiens and make an early diagnosis of these and other diseases. Currently, Alzheimer’s Disease may only be definitively diagnosed post mortem.

Nanosphere, is working with Northwestern University to further develop a bio-barcode assay which is 100,000 times to one million times more sensitive than other available tests in the detection of a protein in the brain linked to Alzheimer's disease. The more sensitive tests will allow earlier diagnosis and treatment of these diseases. These tests may also speed the development of new treatments for disease by providing feedback as to the efficacy of an experimental treatment.

The bio-barcode assay was developed by researchers at Northwestern University and is now exclusively licensed to Nanosphere. Nanosphere reports that they have provided research laboratories with a manual version of the technology and will provide an automated form later this year.

As regular readers know (all twelve of you) one of my concerns is that the real benefits of nanotechnology will be lost among stories of self cleaning glass and stain resistant shirts and that the Luddites among us will force impossible levels of regulation on the nanoindustry. As for me I am not worried about regulations on self cleaning glass but lets rush the cancer detection to market.

More Comments on State Rankings

2005-02-01T14:26:00.000-05:00

As usual, Howard Lovy over at Nanobot has a good take on state rankings by those in the media. I wish I was as smart as him.

Yeah, I know, that's how you build buzz and sell paper and all that -- by getting regions and states to brag about their rankings and buy the reports and mags that rank them.

and

I think any state would be hard-pressed to point to any economic benefit yet.

Nanometer Schmanometer

2005-02-01T08:59:00.000-05:00

Jim Jones and Sharon Wienbar at Electronic Business Online have an interesting article about MEMS (microelectromechanical systems) and how in the rush to nano how they are being ignored. Since this is NanoPundit rather than MicroPundit, I am guilty of the same thing.

The article mentions JDS Uniphase and their difficulty with “a downturn in capital spending by telecom carriers and low MEMS product yields due to packaging challenges.” The article goes on to discuss the industry overcoming some of these problems and the MEMS market growing to $5B in 2004 with the potential to reach $10B by 2008.

What is unmentioned is the wild ride the JDS investors took. I expect that the NanoIndustry will face similar challenges and selected stocks will go on similarly wild rides. I just hope I am smart enough to by at $2 and sell at $160 rather than the other way around.

Q: How do you become a millionaire investing in nanotechnology?
A: Start as a billionaire and . . . (BaDumBump)

MEMS (microelectromechanical systems) are complex semiconductor-like devices in which electrical circuits; mechanical structures; and other physical structures such as valves, gears, mirrors, pumps and actuators, are integrated onto a single device tailored for a specific application. Many people are now familiar with MEMS as the basic technology behind accelerometers, which control the air bags in your car. But they may not realize that half a dozen MEMS devices in a new car are monitoring and controlling the tire pressure, antitheft systems, active suspension and fuel.

Five years ago, the electronics industry was abuzz with the promise of MEMS to manipulate light in optical switches (for an earlier article on MEMS, see "At Long Last MEMS," February 1, 2002). The hype and expectation for success in optical networking culminated in the acquisition of MEMS foundry Cronos by JDS Uniphase in 2000 for approximately $750 million. Two fundamental issues ultimately stopped this momentum: a downturn in capital spending by telecom carriers and low MEMS product yields due to packaging challenges.

Small Times Reads the VC Tea Leaves

2005-02-01T08:38:00.000-05:00

Small Times has an interesting article on the drop in VC funding of Nanostarts and finds more but smaller companies being funded. Not surprising in view of the large funding rounds acquired in 2003.

At first glance, private nanotechnology funding appears to be contracting. But that's not necessarily the case. By the end of the third quarter, only $122.1 million had been invested in the field in the U.S., according to a Small Times analysis of the MoneyTree Survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers, Thomson Venture Economics and the National Venture Capital Association. That puts funding on track to be well below $200 million for the year, a far cry from the $301 million invested in 2003.

While the dollar amount has come down significantly, there has actually been a dramatic uptick in deal volume. By the end of the third quarter, investors had already invested in 30 nano companies, on pace to significantly outstrip the total of 34 funded during the entire year of 2003.

Beneath those numbers are essentially two generations of startups. The more mature of the companies founded in 2001 and 2002 raised fat rounds in late 2003 in anticipation of a possible exit window in 2004 or 2005. Consequently, they had no need to raise venture dollars last year.

Spintronics Makes the News Again

2005-01-31T09:01:00.000-05:00

Spintronics leader NVE Corporation announced that the Magnetoresistive Random Access Memory (MRAM) alpha samples recently announced by Cypress Semiconductor are covered by NVE's technology agreement with Cypress. MRAM uses electron spin to store data. Cypress Semiconductor previously announced it had provided 256-kilobit alpha samples. Jeffrey K. Kaszubinski, president and CEO of Cypress' Silicon Magnetic Systems subsidiary company -a single-chip, fast write, low power, fail safe, high-reliability
nonvolatile memory."

In the NanoPundit survey (just invented to predict what the break-through nanotech product will be), MRAM has just taken over the lead. None of the Forbes Top Ten list is even close.

Sorry About the Nano-Outage Friday

2005-01-31T08:53:00.000-05:00

If you came here on Friday looking for wit and wisdom on the nanotech front, I'm sorry there was nothing. The NanoPundit (please leave a comment if you thing this third person thing sounds pompous) had a brief business trip in the macroworld. The NanoMom noticed even if no one else did.

If anyone has questions or stories they want told or if you disagree with me please leave comments. Right now I have about 10 regular readers so please leave a comment or send me an email and I can just about guarantee I will respond.

Major Media Goes Nano

2005-01-31T08:49:00.000-05:00

The Washington Post discusses:

The Fantastic Voyage,
Quantum Dots,
Nanogels,
Nanotubes, and
Photo-Thermal Nanoshells.

You should read this because it is one of the most sophisticated treatments of nanotechnology I have seen by a major news publication. This tied with the CBS story reported below shows me that major media is starting to understand nanotechnology and are no longer reporting grey goo and self replicating monsters (or even using the human hair analogy). Are investors starting to understand nanotechnology as well. Typically people with some skin in the game are far ahead of the newsies but I still see the only big bucks coming from VC’s. This is probably evidence that investor understand the risks and the rewards of nanotechnology and have determined that the risks are still great.

Nanosys - Sharp Deal is no Cure-All

2005-01-27T09:14:00.000-05:00

The Motley Fool reports on the collaborative agreement between Sharp Corporation and Nanosys to develop fuel cells for use in electronic devices such as laptop computers, cell phones and cameras. The Fools comment on the failed Nanosys IPO:

Its last attempt at going public didn't meet with an enthusiastic crowd of investors, but will the next attempt encounter the same skepticism? What story could you put forward for a company that has publicly announced it wouldn't have a commercial product of its own on the market until 2006?

We're expecting the second time to be the charm for Nanosys and are looking forward to a powerful initial public offering.

My thought is that another joint development agreement does not a successful company make. My experience is that about half of all of this type of collaborative agreements end as disappointments. Until Nanosys gets closer to a commercialized product only the V.C.’s should have their wallet out. There is lots of money to made in the nanotech sector, there is also lots of money to be lost. As I have said before there are lots of folks smarter than me trying to figure it out. Most of the smart ones also have much deeper pockets than I.

More State Rankings

2005-01-26T08:11:00.000-05:00

Lux Research ranks U.S. states on their ability to develop their economies through nanotechnology, The states are ranked on 16 criteria to assess each states' level of nanotechnology activity -- including metrics like state nanotech spending, the status of a state nanotech initiative, companies active in nanotechnology in the state, and in-state nanotech patents -- as well as states' general technology development strength, which includes metrics like R&D inputs, size of technology and science workforce, concentration of high- tech companies, and corporate taxation and regulatory burdens. States were ranked on a relative basis according to their populations

Yahoo News reports all 50 state rankings. I found it interesting to compare the small times and the Lux rankings. Yes it’s apples to oranges since Lux’s emphasis is on state actions. Found it interesting that Small Times ranks Michigan 4 while Lux brings them in at (18), similarly Ohio is at 10 (Small Times) while Lux puts them down at (29). The relative rankings are shown below:

Lux Research ............................... Small Times
1 Massachusetts ...........................Califonia
2 California ....................................Massachusetts
3 Colorado ......................................New Mexico
4 Virginia .......................................Michigan (18)
5 New Mexico ...............................New York
6 New Jersey ................................New Jersey
7 Connecticut, Maryland (tie) ....Texas (14)
8 .....................................................New Hampshire
9 Illinois ........................................Connecticut
10 New York ................................Ohio (29)

Update: Sorry about the columns, Blogger is not kind to tables.

Dendritic Nanotechnologies Picks Up Dendrimer Portfolio From Dow

2005-01-26T08:10:00.000-05:00

Dendritic Nanotechnologies (DNT) reports that Dow has licensed its entire dendrimer portfolio to in exchange for a ‘significant’ equity stake (reportedly 31%). Dendrimers are interesting to pharmaceutical companies because of their drug delivery capabilityies. Starpharma, which held a 42% interest in DNT, will make an additional cash equity investment in DNT in exchange for exclusive rights to DNT and former Dow intellectual property for polyvalent, dendrimer-based pharmaceutical applications.

DNT’s portfolio includes more than 30 dendrimer patents and Dow has added 196 patents (41 patent families). Mike Pirc, Dow’s manager of intellectual stated “This move consolidates a great amount of the important intellectual property in the dendrimer field into one company.”

This strikes me as a perfect storm of technology companies coming to gether to advance the technology. Dow develops a pioneering new technology, DNT is an entrepreneurial company with some technology and a link to an end user and Starpharma can bring the technology to market to the benefit of everyone in the chain.

Pixel Dust

2005-01-25T09:26:00.000-05:00

Digital Times has run a three part series Part I Part II Part III on carbon-nanotube field-emission displays. It is way technical but concisely discusses the problems with thin film transfer liquid crystal displays, and organic light emitting diodes. Some companies to look for in the field are Teco and Delta Optoelectronics.

Taiwan’s Electronics Research and Service Organization of the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ERSO/ITRI) recently announced the development of a 20-inch carbon nanotubes backlight unit and Digital Times interviews Dr. CC Lee, deputy director of flat-panel development at ERSO/ITRI.

Good and essential reading but the degree of reading difficulty is increased by the incessant use of alphabet soup.

Here is a glossary:

CCFL - cold-cathode fluorescent lamp (used for backlighting a screen)
CNT-FED - Carbon-nanotube field-emission display
CNT-BLU - CNT backlight unit
ERSO/ITRI - Electronics Research and Service Organization of the Industrial Technology Research Institute
ICP-CVD - Inductively-coupled plasma chemical vapor deposition technique
OLED – Organic light emitting diode
TFT-LCD - Thin film transfer liquid crystal displays
VFD - Vacuum Fluorescent Display

-----UPDATED 14 July 2005----
Here is the answer to Chill:

The FED is a self emissive matrix, arranged in a grid, which function individually to generate electrons to stimulate emission from a phosphor. See Here.

FED CNT addresses the power issue as they are intrinsically very efficient using the same phosphor as the old CRT technology and as result use substantially less power than plasma displays. Generating visible light from the surface of a plasma display is a three-step process that requires a gas to be ionized, which in turn emits ultraviolet light that stimulates a phosphor to produce visible light. FED CNT allows for the elimination of the energy-hungry ionization step by stimulating the phosphors directly with electrons emitted by carbon nanotubes.

The central element of the carbon nanotube field emission display (CNT-FED) television is the field-emission cathode, which works by combining the phenomenon of quantum tunneling with the operating principle of a traditional lightning rod. In essence, as in a regular CRT, a cathode is induced to emit electrons, but unlike a regular CRT, field emission does not rely on heating the cathode to boil off electrons. Cathodes can therefore be packed close together with their supporting electronics without causing the entire display to overheat. The assembly of cathodes can then be placed close enough to the glass face of the display. Instead of using one traveling electron beam to address a pixel (a dot on the display), the CNT FEDs can have an electron beam for each pixel and as a result the bulky electromagnetic beam-steering setup used in a CRT can be eliminated

The BLU emits light which is subsequently manipulated by another device such as a liquid crystal array. See here:

The CNT-BLU developed by ERSO adopts planar electronic field as the backlight emission base, resulting in even luminance on the backlight surface that is suitable for application in large-area LCDs. Using carbon nanotubes coated on the backlight plate is the electron source for field emission provides good luminescence efficiency and requires simpler process. The ERSO-developed CNT-BLU has great improvement in both process simplification and cost reduction compared with the current technology of using CCFL backlight. The technology will be a helpful solution for the local manufacturers to enter large-area display market with competitive capabilities.

Our Nano is Bigger than your Nano

2005-01-25T09:18:00.000-05:00

The Times of India has an interesting article on India, China and South Korea emerging as front runners among developing nations in nanotechnology (Ed.—I thought that South Korea was pretty well developed). My favorite quote is that the government of India has “allocated Rs One billion ($22.8 million) under its 10th five year plan (2002-07).”

While I think that it is great that developing nations are working on nanotechnology, a government five year plan is not the way to develop any new technology. My humble advice is to keep the bureaucrats away from any and all developing technology.

Small Times Calls California the Biggest in Nano

2005-01-25T08:37:00.000-05:00

The good folks at Small Times rank the states that are biggest in nanotechnology. Specific numbers were listed for California (100), Massachusetts (88.27), with the rest of the top ten between 20-40 (in order, New Mexico, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, Texas, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Ohio). The rankings were based on:

-Industry, which measures the amount of micro and nanotechnology business that exists in a state

-Research, which measures the amount of research activity in a state as well as its resources.

-Venture capital, or the amount and number of private financing deals in a year.

-Innovation, which includes patenting and success at landing federal funding for commercializing products.

-Work force, which examines the quantity and quality of the labor pool.

-Costs, which encompasses salaries, commercial rents and other factors that affect business costs.

Small Times accounts for the overwhelming size of California by using business density as a factor in the rankings. While California twice the micro and nano companies, Massachusetts wins out in terms of business density.

It will be interesting what reaction state governments have and what efforts are made to improve a states standing. My thought is that outside California and Massachusetts V.C. funding is a major barrier for moving up in the rankings and state action is not a reasonable remedy.

The full results will be in the March issue of Small Times. If you subscribe online you can get the March issue in print. (And no, I get nothing for providing this link.)

CBS the New NanoNetwork?

2005-01-23T13:51:00.000-05:00

CBS Sunday Morning’s David Pogue did a story on nanotechnology. The NanoMom called me to let me know the story was on (Thanks Mom). They didn’t introduce anything new to the folks who read NanoPudit. The was a very interesting VC guy who down played the grey goo angle and stated that medical nanorobots and biological machines were 50-100 years out. I think that some of that is science fiction and will remain so a lot longer than 100 years.

My favorite part was CBS used a comparison of Pogue’s height to the thickness of a nickel, to the size of a red blood cell to a nanometer. Much more nteresting and effective than the 1/1,000th the width of a human hair cliché.

CBS linked to:

dfj.com
research.ibm.com/nanoscience
forbesinc.com/newsletters/nanotech
nanokids.rice.edu

Another Nanomerger Anounced

2005-01-21T10:28:00.000-05:00

The nanoindustry saw a second big nanomerger announced today. Nanometrics Incorporated (Nasdaq:NANO) and August Technology Corporation (Nasdaq:AUGT) intend to merge to form August Nanometrics Inc.

This follows on the heals of the recently announced merger of Carbon Nanotechnologies and C Sixty.

The reasons announced for these mergers are the R&D synergies and new channels to market and Patent Portfolios. All are good reasons to merge. We will see more mergers as technology based companies learn that it takes more than a killer application to win market share. The entry of larger companies move into the nanomarket will spur acquisitions of nano-nanocompanies by the big guys and also the combination of nanostarts so that they can compete with the big guys entering the market.

Sorry for the Morkian nano-nano reference, at least I didn’t use the human hair analogy.

Nanocatalyst Discovery

2005-01-21T09:37:00.000-05:00

More big nanonews, this may be the biggest news in the catalyst industry since the discovery of metallocenes.

Researchers at Georgia Institute of Technology and the Technical University of Munich have found evidence of electrical charging of a nano-sized catalyst. This has the potential to substantially lower plastics manufacturing costs.

Studying nano-sized clusters of gold on a magnesium oxide surface, scientists found nanoparticulate gold to The research will appear in the 21 January, 2005, issue of the journal Science.

The study finds that gold nanoclusters Au(8) to Au(24) are a very effective catalyst. The gold clusters to take on a highly reactive three-dimensional structure which removes an electron taking on a slight negative charge and subsequently transfers the electron to the reacting molecules, weakening the chemical bonds that keep them together and lowering the energy required for the reaction.

"It is possible to tune the catalytic process not only by changing the composition of the materials, but also by changing the cluster’s size atom by atom," explained Ueli Heiz, professor of chemistry at Technical University Munich.

"And all this happens at low temperatures," said Heiz. Typically, reactions requiring catalysts need heat or pressure to get the reaction going, and that adds to the cost of manufacturing, but that isn’t the case here. Since the properties of the catalytic beds can increase the rate of reactions for nanocatalysts, new and better low-temperature catalysts may be found.

In 1991, Exxon first introduced its Exxpol catalysts and produced metallocene-based polymers, the metallocene polymer market is now a multibillion dollar industry. For a good background on metallocene’s you can look here.

I don’t know that these catalysts are ready for prime time, it is still lab scale and theoretical, but if I had a couple million bucks worth of VC money I would probably be looking for a nanostart coming out of Georgia Tech with the rights to this discovery.

Crazy ELF

2005-01-20T10:18:00.000-05:00

The Auburn Journal publishes a letter from the Earth Liberation Front claiming responsibility for recent fire bombings. What caught my eye was “nanotechnology can rid the world of everything natural and replace it with machines.” Well there you go, anti-technology terrorists with fire bombs. I guess nanotechnology has made the big time.

Just What We Need

2005-01-20T09:09:00.000-05:00

Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Lockdown is complete with a nanotech virus. This is from the guy who wrote about the use of airliners as weapons of terror, collimated light used to blind pilots and bring down military planes and Arab terrorist smuggled across the Mexican border. Well he also wrote about a war in Europe between NATO and the Warsaw Pact (remember them?) and a competent CIA.

I have my doubts about the efficacy of a nanovirus (Ed.-- aren’t all viruses nano?).

Forbes Names Top Ten NanoProducts

2005-01-19T17:46:00.000-05:00

Forbes Magazine reports its TOP 10 NanoProducts and they are a big disapointment. They include:

Dental Adhesive (3M)
Super Hydrophobic Spray (BASF)
Nanosilver Wound Dressing
Foot Warmers
Washable Bed Mattresses
Golf Balls and a “Nano” Driver
Automotive Glass Treatment
Military Grade Disinfectant
Joint & Muscle Pain Cream
Nano Skin Care

Aside from the first three on the list, I refer to my comment below:

[An] important point is to introduce the American public to the benefits of nanotechnology. As I write I am wearing a nanoshirt, nano-stain fighting is great but it is not the kind of killer application that drives a society to change or accept any risk. We need to get out to the hustings and teach people about the potential benefits of nanotechnology. Lets push breast cancer cures, fuel cells and terabyte memory, not shirts.

Spintronics Leader NVE Reports Earnings

2005-01-19T17:23:00.000-05:00

Spintronics leader NVE reports earnings:

Net income for the third quarter was $375,172, compared with net income of $577,156 for the prior-year quarter. Earnings per share were $0.08 per share, compared to $0.12 per share for the prior year quarter. Revenue was $2.56 million, compared to $3.12 million for the prior-year quarter, a decrease of 18 percent.

For the nine months ended December 31, 2004, net income was $1,282,141, compared to net income of $1,318,050 for the nine months ended December 31, 2003. Earnings per share were $0.26 per share compared to $0.28 per share in the prior year period. Revenue for the first nine months of fiscal 2005 was $8.54 million, compared to $8.80 million reported in the first nine months of fiscal 2004, a 3 percent decrease.

"We are satisfied with our financial results in light of industry conditions," said Daniel A. Baker, Ph.D., NVE's president and chief executive officer. "We reported a solid profit in the third quarter despite a decline in revenues due to an anticipated sales reduction with St. Jude Medical and an industry-wide inventory glut. We expect new sensors and couplers, as well as MRAM devices and royalties, to drive future growth."

Frankly, I am surprised that any company that relies on nanotechnology for a substantial part of its earnings shows positive earnings per share. NVE reports that they hold 32 US Patents and 13 published US patent applications. I also think that it must be a great company to list its patents and applications on its website. I don’t know why all start-up technology firms wouldn’t do this.

Massachusetts Biggest in Nano

2005-01-19T10:12:00.000-05:00

Boston Globe Says “Mass. tops in nano, but execs worry.” The article states , Massachusetts ranks as the biggest state in the nation for nanotechnology activity as reported by Lux Research Inc. The study rates the Massachusetts number 1 in terms of “number of nanotech companies, patents, research activity, commercial applications and other factors.” California and Colorado follow in the spots 2 and 3. I would guess that Massachusettts leadership is in large part due to nanostarts from MIT.

The article appears to be planted by the Massachusetts Nanotech Exchange (sorry no link) to press for construction of a prototype fabrication center.

local industry officials, nervous about Massachusetts losing its lead, are in the early stages of pushing the fabrication center, where prototype nanotech products can be built and tested before commercial manufacturing.

Mass. is inevitably going to loose its dominant position. They got the jump on the rest of the country through the work at MIT. The National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network gets up to speed with centers for:

Electron transport in Molecular Nanostructures- Columbia University
Nanoscale Systems in Information Technologies- Cornell University
Nanoscience in Biological and Environmental Engineering- Rice University
Integrated Nanopatterning and Detection- Northwestern University
Nanoscale Systems and Their Device Applications- Harvard University
Directed Assembly of Nanostructures- Rensselaer
Nanobiotechnology- Cornell University
Scalable and Integrated Nano Manufacturing- UCLA
Templated Synthesis and Assembly at the Nanoscale- University of Wisconsin- Madison
Molecular Function at the NanoBio Interface- University of Pennsylvania
High-Rate Nanomanufacturing- Northeastern University
Affordable Nanoengineering of Polymer of Polymer Medical Devices- The Ohio State University
Integrated Nanomechanical Systems- U.C., Berkeley
Probing the Nanoscale- Stanford University

Nanosys Intellectual Property Update

2005-01-18T16:07:00.000-05:00

Below, in commenting on the withdrawal of the Nanosys IPO I stated

The Nanosys portfolio seems a bit thin at this point with no issued patents and 11 published applications. It is of course possible that Nanosys has patent rights beyond what I have found through licenses or assignments that don’t show up on the PTO database.

I’m glad I included that line about “licenses or assignments that don’t show up on the PTO database.” With a little more research I found that Nanosys is infact the “Nkuku wa za Banga” (Translation: "all conquering warrior, who goes from triumph to triumph") of nanotechnology licensing. Nanosys currently has licensing deals with Massachusetts Institute of Technology, UCLA, University of California, Berkeley, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Ohio Hits the Small Time

2005-01-14T10:10:00.000-05:00

The Ohio Nanotechnology Summit (Here is the Governors announcement) will be held March 2-3, 2005 at the Hope Hotel and Conference Center, Patterson Air Force Base

Big nano-names are coming; the speakers and presenters include:
Dr. Rick Smalley , Rice University
Dr. Liming Dai, Wright Bros. Institute Chair for Nanomaterials, Univ. of Dayton
Phil Kuekes, Hewlett Packard Labs
Prof. James Lee, Director, NSF NSEC for Affordable Nano Bio Products & Devices
Prof. Mauro Ferrari, OSU/NCI
Mark Cooper, Copernicus Therapeutics
Mark Brandt, The Maple Fund
Art Zucker, Ohio University
Alan Brown, VP, Chief Technology Officer, CAMP Inc.
Scott Rickert, President, CEO NanoFilm
Richard Schorr, President MetaMateria Partners
Roger Avakian, Chief Technology Officer, PolyOne Corp.

The objectives of the meeting are to:

-capture a sense of what is happening in nanotechnology around the state in industry, academia and Ohio-based federal labs;
-foster and promote collaborations within the state that will lead to positive economic outcomes based on nanotechnology; and
-hear a national perspective on nanotechnology from prominent experts in the nanotechnology arena.

The summit will begin with a nanobasics primer or a tour of nanotechnology labs at the Air Force Research Laboratory Materials Directorate (sorry the link may not work).

I will be there (hopefully presenting a poster on what nanobusinesses need to do to protect their investment in research and development). The first ten people to track me down and use the word NanoPundit will get a free drink at the hotel bar on Wednesday night.

Big Business Models for Nano Companies

2005-01-13T09:31:00.000-05:00

Neil Gordon has an article in Small Times on the need for a business model in addition to great technology for the emerging nanobusiness. “When management’s sole focus is on the development of technology at the exclusion of other business activities that can generate revenue, at some point cash reserves will dwindle and the company will be at risk of a meltdown.” He draws analogies from the biotech industry of 5-10 years ago. Thankfully, he doesn’t analogize to the internet bubble.

My thoughts are that, like the biotech industry, there are a lot of overvalued companies that are never going to generate cash. Also, like the biotech industry, the nanotech segment as a whole is undervalued because there are undiscovered gems which will be enormously profitable in the next 5-10 years. People smarter than me are working day and night to sort out the gems.

Patent Office Simplifies Protection of Joint Developments

2005-01-13T09:11:00.000-05:00

The Patent Laws have changed (HTML) to simplify protection of multiparty research. If I were giving advice, I would suggest adding a new section to any Joint Development Agreement or R&D contract to include: “This Agreement is a “Joint Research Agreement” for the purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 103(c).”

This change will improve the ability of companies to protect intellectual property developed with third party researchers. This is going to come in handy when corporations collaborate with universities or other research institutions by removing prior art (published less than one year prior to the filing date of the patent application) held by one of the researchers if they are bound by a “Joint Research Agreement. This is particularly useful when two parties with experience in an area come together to solve a problem which may be considered obvious in view of the parties prior work.

From 70 Fed Reg 1818:

The Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004 (CREATE Act) amends the patent laws to provide that subject matter developed by another person shall be treated as owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person for purposes of determining obviousness if three conditions are met: The claimed invention was made by or on behalf of parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the date the claimed invention was made; the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; and the application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is revising the rules of practice in patent cases to implement the CREATE Act.

The 35 U.S.C. § 103(c) provides:

(1) Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as prior art only under one or more of subsections (e), (f), and (g) of section 102 of this title, shall not preclude patentability under this section where the subject matter and the claimed invention were, at the time the claimed invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
(2) For purposes of this subsection, subject matter developed by
another person and a claimed invention shall be deemed to have been owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person if--
(A) The claimed invention was made by or on behalf of parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the date the claimed invention was made;
(B) The claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; and
(C) The application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.
(3) For purposes of paragraph (2), the term ``joint research agreement'' means a written contract, grant, or cooperative agreement entered into by two or more persons or entities for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work in the field of the claimed invention.

European NanoThoughts

2005-01-12T16:45:00.000-05:00

A European Nanoforum revealed the following common attitudes among participants:

-nanotechnology will have a strong impact on European industry and its citizens within only ten years from now;

-the US is seen as the leader whereas Europe lags behind in both nanosciences and the transfer of nanotechnology to industry;

-nanotechnologies are believed to have the strongest impact on: chemistry and materials, information and communications technologies and healthcare;

-strong support for a significant increase in research funding for nanotechnologies via the framework programme;

-support for creation of European infrastructures in the field and a number of suggestions stressing the need for cross-disciplinary infrastructures;

-a shortage of skilled research personnel foreseen in 5-10 years and there is a need for interdisciplinary skills;

-health, safety and environmental risks should be integrated early into research;
-the societal impact of nanotechnology needs to be taken account from an early stage and more communication and dialogue is needed;

-an international ‘code of good conduct’ would be welcomed.

These thoughts were gleaned from 750 responses 93% Europe with one third from Germany and the UK.

Nanoregulations (or Let Them Wear Shirts)

2005-01-12T15:54:00.000-05:00

The US needs regulations on the budding nanotechnology industry. Don’t get me wrong, I am probably as anti-regulation as anyone you will find. The fact is that the nano-industry will be regulated and those regulations will go beyond what the chemical industry as a whole is bound by. The U.S. nano-industry needs to come to grips with the fact that regulations are inevitable and get out in the lead so that reasonable and necessary regulations are enacted. If we don’t we should prepare for unreasonable and unnecessary regulations.

Mitsubishi Chemical, through its nanocarbon arm, Frontier Carbon, is working with the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry to determine what existing regulations can be applied to fullerenes and what new regulations are needed to protect from exposure to nanomaterials. (Source MIT’s Technology Review, Jan 2005, sorry no link). US corporations need to get to the plate and work with federal agencies on this as well.

In the recently released National Nanotechnology Initiative, which is a must read for anyone in the industry, the areas of interest by the DOE, DOD, EPA NIH, NIOSH AND NSF include:

-Size-dependent and surface coating-dependent disposition of quantum dots when applied to the skin, ingested or instilled into the respiratory tract

-Toxic effects of carbon nanotubes or fullerenes instilled into the respiratory tract compared to the effect of inhalation exposure

-Role of particle core and surface composition in the immunotoxicity of quantum dots and fullerenes

-Dermal penetration and phototoxicology of nanoscale metal oxide particles, such as titanium dioxide used in sunscreens

Sounds scary. The nano-industry must get involved in answering these questions and leading these efforts. The primary function of regulators is to regulate and they will regulate beyond belief unless industry takes the lead.

Another important point is to introduce the American public to the benefits of nanotechnology. As I write I am wearing a nanoshirt, nano-stain fighting is great but it is not the kind of killer application that drives a society to change or accept any risk. We need to get out to the hustings and teach people about the potential benefits of nanotechnology. Lets push breast cancer cures, fuel cells and terabyte memory, not shirts.

Welcome Instapundit Readers

2005-01-11T08:41:00.000-05:00

Thanks to the Blogfather for the link. Please look around and leave a comment.

I am looking forward to the Instalanche (Instalaunch for my new blog).

Big Nano News from the FDA

2005-01-11T07:56:00.000-05:00

In the biggest nanonews of the year, American Pharmaceutical Partners and American Bioscience report that their New Drug Application for Abraxane has been accepted for filing with standard review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA has determined that the application is sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. Abraxane is made up of injectible albumin-bound paclitaxel nanoparticles for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Links here, here, here and here.

Even in FDA speak this is by far the biggest news of the year. The market reacted accordingly and APPX stock jumped approximately 50% on the announcement.

American BioScience, Inc. is a privately held biotechnology company focused on the discovery, development and delivery of next-generation therapeutic moieties including biologically active molecules already existing within the human biological system, for the treatment of life-threatening diseases. American Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. is a majority owned subsidiary of American BioScience, Inc.American Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. (APPX) is a specialty pharmaceutical company that fulfills an important need in the medical community as a reliable provider of a broad portfolio of primarily injectable pharmaceutical products, including difficult to manufacture, sterile, urgently needed medical products.

APPX’s business is profitable and growing. For the first six months in 2004, the company reported net sales of $187 million, and net income of $21 million, equal to $0.29 per fully diluted share. The company completed its initial public offering in December 2001 and the overallotment was exercised in full in January 2002, raising approximately $154 million in proceeds and providing the company with a sound financial position. (Source: http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=APPX&script=2100 )

UPDATE: Thanks to all who have come through Instapundit, Crain’s Cleveland, Brandmalasia and Motley Fool. I sure appreciate the links, readership and comments. For more go to www.millerbarns.com .

U.S. Patent Office Recognizes Nanotechnolgy

2005-01-10T14:14:00.000-05:00

The U.S. Patent and Trademark office has opened a new classification for NANOTECHNOLOGY . Class 977 includes patents and other disclosure documents:

a. related to research and technology development at the atomic, molecular or macromolecular levels, in the length of scale of approximately 1-100 nanometer range in at least one dimension, and

b. that provides a fundamental understanding of phenomena and materials at the nanoscale and to create and use structures, devices, and systems that have novel properties and functions because of their small and/or intermediate size.

Class 977 currently includes only a single digest (DIG 1) and as of 10 January 2005 includes only 413 patents. A number of the patents appear only marginally related to nanotechnology, but do use the word ‘nano’ in the claims.

When faced with a new technology, the Patent Office creates initial collections of prior art called “digests.” The digests are only a rough collection and are not further categorized. A patent search for a method of making fullerenes and a search for a micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) would require a review of all of the patents in the digest. Once the Patent Office acquires a larger collection of documents, and sees a need for a more sophisticated categorization, the digest will be broken down into subclasses that may be independently searched.

The digest is a step in the right direction for the Patent Office in terms in increasing the speed and reliability of patent searches. The new nanotechnology classification will be much more useful when it is further refined into subclasses.

We’re Number 21

2005-01-08T11:51:00.000-05:00

CNN is out with their list of the 25 top innovations in the last 25 years. Nanotechhnology is number 21 between Space Shuttle (ed. “The space shuttle?”) and Flash Memory. CNN has not named number 1 (ed. “the internet”). The rest of the list is:

2. Cell phone *
3. Personal computers *
4. Fiber optics *
5. E-mail
6. Commercialized GPS *
7. Portable computers *
8. Memory storage discs *
9. Consumer level digital camera *
10. Radio frequency ID tags *
11. MEMS *
12. DNA fingerprinting *
13. Air bags
14. ATM
15. Advanced batteries *
16. Hybrid car *
17. OLEDs *
18. Display panels *
19. HDTV *
20. Space shuttle
21. Nanotechnology *
22. Flash memory *
23. Voice mail
24. Modern hearing aids
25. Short Range, High Frequency Radio*

Twenty five years from now nanotechnology will be number one because it will have made all those marked with an asterisk smaller, faster, cheaper.

Napoleon’s Flatware

2005-01-07T10:11:00.000-05:00

Napoleon III used aluminum tableware at state dinners, and gave aluminum ornaments as gifts. Such was the value of aluminum that only the most wealthy could even contemplate its use. The first aluminum was refined from anhydrous aluminum chloride using dilute potassium amalgam. This Wöhler process was laborious and expensive. The cost of aluminum in 1855 was $113 per pound, about $8,000 in 2004 dollars. The Washington Monument was capped with aluminum

In 1886 Paul Louis Toussaint Héroult (France) and Charles Martin Hall (USA) (U.S. Patent No. 400,664 Issued April 02, 1889) individually and nearly simultaneously invented the electrolytic process fro production of aluminum. The Hall-Héroult process is the basis for all aluminum production today. Since the discovery of the Hall-Héroult process annual production has sky rocketed.

1900 - 8 thousand tons.
1913 - 65 thousand tons.
1920 - 128 thousand tons.
1938 - 537 thousand tons.
1946 - 681 thousand tons.
1999 - 24 million tons.

Aluminum is now used for everything from pots and cans to semiconductors and mirrors, in your bathroom and in optical telescopes.

Nanotechnology is still operating on the equivalent of the Wöhler process and producing materials which are exorbitantly expensive. As was the case with aluminum, the raw materials for production of carbon based fullerenes are virtually free. At some point in the near future will there be a transformative technology that will change the economic and technical fundamentals of the nanotechnology industry?

What will be the uses of nano technology when buckyballs and nanotubes are being produced by the ton with technology that looks like an oil refinery or asphalt plant?

$17 Billion Dollar Nanosensor Market

2005-01-06T13:26:00.000-05:00

NanoMarkets has a new report out claiming the Global Nanosensor Market to Reach $17.2 Billion by 2012 and lists the players as:

Altair NanoMaterials
Ambri
Applied Nanotech/Nano-Proprietary
Biophage Pharma
Cantion
GeneFluidics
NanoHorizons
NanoMix
Nanosphere
Nanosys
NVE
Smiths Detection/Cyrano Sciences
Synkera

Nanosys IPO Withdrawn

2005-01-06T08:38:00.000-05:00

Interesting article from the good folks at Small Times magazine on valuation of nanocompanies. The article discusses the withdrawal of the Nanosys IPO and the difficulty in establishing an enterprise value for nanostarts stating:

“discounted cash-flow models and models focusing on earnings before interest and taxes, price-to-earnings, price-to-revenues, etc . . . . may be particularly difficult to forecast due to greater technical complexity and product uncertainty.”

Valuation of startup companies has always been difficult and required some (small) degree of faith on the part of the investor. Most of the folks who would otherwise be interested in investing in nanostarts are still recovering from the collapse in internet and telecom stocks.

Small Times touches on the value of intellectual property to the overall valuation of the nanostart:

“The scope of the intellectual property (IP) position: Does the company have a defensible portfolio of patents? Does it have the resources to defend its IP estate?”

The Nanosys portfolio seems a bit thin at this point with no issued patents and 11 published applications. It is of course possible that Nanosys has patent rights beyond what I have found through licenses or assignments that don’t show up on the PTO database.

Valuing a company on the basis of patent applications adds a level of uncertainty on top of the economic uncertainty discussed by the Small Times article.

Patent Quality Assistance Act of 2004

2005-01-05T15:06:00.000-05:00

Rep. Howard L. Berman (D. Calif.) recently introduced The Patent Quality Assurance Act (H.R. 5299) which would establish a European style post-grant opposition procedure. U.S. Patents carry a presumption of validity and "the burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity."

This burden is places significant limitations on the rights of third parties to practice inventions that are claimed by patents of questionable validity. Patents are often granted in new or rapidly developing technologies because the U.S. Patent Office relies primarily on its established body of patents during examination.

Members of the nano–community should contact their respective Representatives to support H.R. 5299.

More Studies Needed

2005-01-05T11:14:00.000-05:00

In evaluating the danger to humans, the questions to ask are:
(1) will the particle be absorbed or is it respirable?
(2) what is the dosage?
(3) what is the biopersistence of the particle?
(4) what is the physiological effect of the particle on human tissue?

With absolutely no data, I believe that the answer to question one is “yes.” I also believe that the answer to question 2 is “it doesn’t matter.” And by “it doesn’t matter” I mean that any amount of toxicity will be used as a cudgel against the nanoindustry no matter what dosages are required. If rats drown in fullerenes we can expect that to used as a sign of unacceptable risk. How long till we see hippies dressed as buckyballs protesting at World Trade Organization meetings.

The answers for questions 3 and 4 are what really matter and will determine whether nanotechnology is the asbestos of the new millennia.

Asbestos causes induced pulmonary fibrosis and thoracic neoplasms in lungs because it is biopersistent (has a very low dissolution rate constant ‘Kdis’), that is unless the scilia in your lungs can transport the fiber it will be there forever. As far as I know there has been no research on the biopersistence of nanomaterials. I assume that biopersistence is strongly related to structure and chemistry but someone needs to figure this out.

The good folks at Rice University, Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN) are hard at work in the salt mines of toxicity studies. Data from a recently released study indicates that surface modification of fullerenes dramatically reduces toxicity. Very interesting.

In my humble opinion toxicity studies and basic science on biopersistence is a niche that the federal government and federally funded university research are ideally suited to fill.

I Hate To Use The Word Luddite

2005-01-05T09:01:00.000-05:00

New technology raises hopes for some fears for others. Nanotechnology is no different. Eric Drexler, nanotech hero and bete-noir brainstormed an industry then launched a meme that others are using to sink it. Some people are drawn to the worst case scenario and Drexler gave them Grey Goo, a feared result of self replicating nanobots run amok. Drexler has since backed away stating “runaway replicators, while theoretically possible according to the laws of physics, cannot be built with today’s nanotechnology toolset.”

As Mark Twain said, "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." In the case of nanotechnology, the truth is still putting on its shoes.

"If enough misinformation spreads, I think there's a tremendous potential to generate a social backlash" said Bo Varga, executive director of NanoSIG, a group based at NASA's Ames Research. Right now the voices in the wilderness are out in force to put a the brakes on nanotechnology. Talk to the folks working on GM foods if you don't think it can happen here. If electricity and the internal combustion engine face this kind of coordinated opposition, I would be writing this by candlelight after shoveling out my stable.

The anti-science ETC Group has added nanotechnology to genetic engineering as a second windmill to at which to tilt. "There's a huge regulatory vacuum looking at the potential toxicity of materials at the nanoscale," said Hope Shand, research director of the ETC Group, an advocacy group based in Canada. "If there are studies that have been done, we haven't seen them. We feel at this point there needs to be a mandatory moratorium on synthetic nanomaterials until we can see laboratory protocols to protect workers and protect the environment."

There are risks involved in all new technologies. Nanotechnology is no different. Does our society want 97% efficient lighting and 50 MPG cars that give consumers the size and safety they demand? The answer to this is self evident and the technology is out there. Unless someone takes action the nano-baby might be thrown out with the bath water.

In the words of Gregg Easterbrook "We’re All Gonna Die" but it ain’t going to be nanotechnology that kills us.

Nano Patents

2005-01-05T08:59:00.000-05:00

The Nobel Prize is nice but commercial value is important too. In order to protect an investment in research and development companies, universities and governments patent their inventions and discoveries. A list of early patents on fullerenes is below:
5,227,038 - Electric arc process for making fullerenes
5,300,203 - Process for making fullerenes by the laser evaporation of carbon
5,393,955 - Preparation of fullerenes and apparatus therefor
5,487,831 - Recognition and separation of carbon clusters
5,493,094 - Preparation of fullerenes and apparatus therefor
5,494,558 - Production of fullerenes by sputtering
5,510,098 - CVD method of producing and doping fullerenes
5,538,763 - Method of preparing carbon cluster film having electrical conductivityThe technology stepping stone to the formation of fullerenes is the deposition of diamond coatings

Nano Precursors

4,767,608 -Method for synthesizing diamond by using plasma
4,915,977 -Method of forming a diamond film

Foundations of Nanotechnology

2005-01-05T08:58:00.000-05:00

The 1996 Nobel Prize for Chemistry was awarded jointly to Robert F. Curl, Jr. , Sir Harold W. Kroto , and Richard E. Smalley for their discovery of fullerenes.Fullerenes are formed when vaporized carbon condenses in an atmosphere of inert gas. The gaseous carbon is obtained e.g. by directing an intense pulse of laser light at a carbon surface. The released carbon atoms are mixed with a stream of helium gas and combine to form clusters of some few up to hundreds of atoms. The gas is then led into a vacuum chamber where it expands and is cooled to some degrees above absolute zero. The carbon clusters can then be analyzed with mass spectrometry.Curl, Kroto and Smalley performed this experiment together with graduate students J.R. Heath and S.C. O’Brien during a period of eleven days in 1985. By fine-tuning the experiment they were able in particular to produce clusters with 60 carbon atoms and clusters with 70. Clusters of 60 carbon atoms, C60, were the most abundant. They found high stability in C60, which suggested a molecular structure of great symmetry. It was suggested that C60 could be a "truncated icosahedron cage", a polyhedron with 20 hexagonal (6-angled) surfaces and 12 pentagonal (5-angled) surfaces. The pattern of a European football has exactly this structure, as does the geodetic dome designed by the American architect R. Buckminster Fuller for the 1967 Montreal World Exhibition. The researchers named the newly-discovered structure buckminsterfullerene after him.Source (http://nobelprize.org/chemistry/laureates/1996/press.html)