“Nanotechnology Patents: A Boon or a Bane for Innovation?”

Nanotechnology Patents: A Gold Rush or a Stifling Thicket?

As we usher in 2013, the question on everyone’s mind is whether nanotechnology will continue to dominate the scientific headlines, just as it has over the past decade. The surge in nanotechnology activity in recent years, reflected in an ever-increasing number of patents, suggests that it will.

In 2012, the US patent office published a record 4000 patents under its class ‘977 – nanotechnology’. This was a significant increase from 3439 the previous year, 2770 in 2010, and 1449 in 2009. But do these figures signal an exciting dawn of technological innovation based on components measured at the atomic and molecular scale?

Joshua Pearce, who runs the Open Sustainability Technology lab at Michigan Technological University in the US, argues otherwise. He believes that the rush to patent potentially lucrative new discoveries has resulted in a forest of broad and overlapping patents filed by commercial and academic researchers worldwide. This patent thicket, he argues, is stifling innovation.

Stifled at Birth

‘In nanotechnology we have a major problem because the patent feeding frenzy started from the very beginning,’ says Pearce. ‘Advances are being stifled at birth because downstream innovation almost always infringes early broad and overlapping patents. Hyperactive nanotechnology patenting is increasing costs for innovators, slowing technological development and locking away fundamental knowledge from use.’

Quentin Tannock, of UK-based technology analysts CambridgeIP, recognises the scenario. ‘It’s sometimes called a patent “gold rush” or patent “land grab”,’ Tannock says. ‘Lots of people all over the world file patents like mad in early-stage, technology-intensive areas, such as carbon nanotubes or graphene, where there is perceived to be significant commercial potential.’

Navigating the Thicket

Despite the potential problems posed by patent thickets, Tannock is less pessimistic about their impact on innovation. He believes that while patent thickets have grown in nanotechnology, researchers should not be deterred from continuing their work. He encourages researchers to investigate whether a patent thicket issue exists and, if so, to strategize on how best to navigate it.

Del Stark, chief executive of Del Stark Technology Solutions, shares Tannock’s optimism. He does not believe that the density of nanotech patents has hindered research across the field. Instead, he suggests that when key breakthroughs are made and new technologies start to become profitable, that’s when there may be an explosion of legal activity among the various holders of broad and overlapping patents.

It’s a Jungle Out There

However, not everyone shares this optimism. Knut Egelie from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology has experienced the stifling effect of patent thickets. He recounts an instance where a project had to be abandoned due to the overwhelming number of broad patents covering nanotubes. Despite this, a spin-off company launched by the university in 2012, CrayoNano, had a relatively smooth passage through the patent jungle, suggesting that the impact of patent thickets may vary depending on the specific area of nanotechnology.

Despite the mixed experiences, Pearce remains adamant that the patent thickets in nanotechnology will soon become a ‘quagmire’, bogging down progress to the extent that the field will be unable to advance to ‘anywhere near its potential’. He proposes a moratorium on patents arising from publicly funded research, arguing for an open source model of technological development.

As the debate continues, one thing is clear: the landscape of nanotechnology patents is complex and evolving. Whether it will prove to be a gold rush or a stifling thicket remains to be seen.