Also, bear in mind the new US PTO fee system activates March 19, 2013.

Then, tonight, President Obama noted new materials and more powerful batteries in the State of the Union Speech. 

Hopefully, we can all agree on the goal to develop safer AND more powerful batteries – and hopefully it won’t take another 20 years.

First, the ExOne IPO had an early surge according to press reports. ExOne is located in North Huntingdon, PA.

Second, the antitrust litigation involving 3D Systems had a major development recently. Apart from the legal analysis, the judge’s opinion (28 pages) has some interesting reading about the markets and technology for 3D printing. By noting this development, we confirm, of course, no implication on the merits or lack thereof for the litigation, for any of the parties, by noting this update for readers.  

Finally, Nanoscribe GmbH continues to market its micro- and nanoscale manufacturing process using laser lithography. Nanoscribe is a “spinout” from the KIT organization. I enjoyed looking at their video.

IBM nanoscale research is noted in this link. IBM has hundreds of granted patents falling into the class 977 nanotechnology class.

IBM symbolizes as well as anyone the convergence revolution of physical sciences, biological sciences, and information technology.

I suspect that in the history of technological development for material things, there are many more examples where important technology is subjected to a lot of patenting, compared to examples where important technology is NOT subjected to much patenting. If you work in patenting long enough, you start seeing the concept of patent jungles being applied to multiple technology sectors (I can, for example, recall hearing about patent jungles with single site polyolefin catalysis or “metallocenes” in the 1990′s).

In a nutshell, the global patent system, as of 2013, has evolved to where one should quickly file patent applications to protect your technology (even the US is moving to a first-to-file system on March 16, 2013 which suggests a need for fast filing). Then, in the shorter and longer term, one should update on-going reviews for freedom-to-operate in the space of your invention, as part of a larger commercialization strategy. Patent jungles are not unique to nanotechnology and one should do IP due diligence as part of commercial investment. Nothing too new or unique here, although this is a more interesting discussion when focused on particular aspects of nanotechnology such as graphene or carbon nanotubes. 

One can try to do business in sectors of the economy which are not directly based on technological development, but if you want to work in a sector for which technology innovation is essential for success, then one cannot ignore the patent system, or alternatively, one cannot wish the patent system would go away. 

I do believe government policy makers should monitor patenting and its impact throughout the economy, including nanotechnology. Such past monitoring helped create the drive for patent reform and the move to a first-to-file system in the U.S.

MakerBot is featured in this article. Ex One is featured here.

The USPTO should be congratulated for putting together this informative, exciting event. The USPTO did not give too much overview of how patenting impacts this, but patenting was frequently noted by the speakers, and the PTO did note that there have been around 6,800 patent applications filed in this area over the past ten years. I was particularly struck by the concept that 3D printing can in some cases make objects which cannot be made by other ways. I would also like to hear more about nanoscale aspects of this including materials, interfaces, and nanoscale resolution. One of the driving forces for nanotechnology and nanomanufacturing is additive manufacturing. This recently published U.S. patent application from Lockheed Martin (2013/0018243) shows use of carbon nanotubes and uses the phrase “bio-additive manufacturing.” We will continue to monitor patent filings in this important area as 2013 progresses. 

In 3D printing, an object is built up layer-by-layer under computer controlled manufacturing. The talks today covered the historical development including the original stereolithography, laser sintering, binder-on-powder printing, and inkjet 3D printing. Today, some of the companies are trying to “democratize” the technology and introduce this wonder to the general public. With 3D printing, everyone can become a creator. Recently media reports on 3D printing have been abundant.  Hopefully, venture capital will be interested. Stay tuned!

The attached link has information for an upcoming nanomedicine conference in April in Spain.

Lets hope more deals are in the works for nanomedicine as 2013 moves ahead into the market place from academic research. Venture capital is an important part of this story.

I reproduced part of the Technology Review article below:

“…, the White House has proposed a series of measures to accelerate advanced manufacturing, including an additional $418 million for advanced manufacturing R&D (a 19 percent increase over current levels); $8 billion in new funding for community colleges to train people with the skills manufacturers need; a bundle of tax breaks for U.S. manufacturers; and a $1 billion program to create 15 national institutes aimed at developing new manufacturing techniques in areas such as 3-D printing and nanotechnology.”

“The government’s approach has a committed chorus of supporters who believe active intervention is needed. In February, the Brookings Institution released a paper arguing for a manufacturing policy similar to that of Germany. That country, which carefully manages its manufacturing sector, still maintains a trade surplus with China and has lost fewer of its manufacturing jobs than the U.S. has.”