Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Returning to the Patent Landscapes for Nanotechnology: Assessing the Garden that It Has Grown Into

  • Protocol
  • First Online:
Biomedical Nanotechnology

Part of the book series: Methods in Molecular Biology ((MIMB,volume 1570))

  • 2791 Accesses

Abstract

The patent landscape, like a garden, can tell you much about its designers and users; their motivations, biases, and general interests. While both patent landscapes and gardens may appear to the casual observer as refined and ordered, an in-depth exploration of the terrain is likely to reveal unforeseen challenges including, for example, alien species, thickets, and trolls. As this Chapter illustrates, patent landscapes are dynamic and have been forced to continually evolve in response to technological innovation. While emerging technologies, such as biotechnology and information communication technology have challenged the traditional patent landscape, resulting in the pruning of certain elements here and there, the overarching framework and design has largely remained intact. But will this always be the case? As the field of nanotechnology continues to evolve and mature, the aim of this Chapter is to map how the technology has evolved and grown within the confines of existing structures and underlying foundation of the patent landscape and the implications thereof for the technology, industry, and the public more generally. The Chapter concludes by asking the question whether the current patent landscape will be able to withstand the ubiquitous nature of the technology, or whether nanotechnology, in combination with other emerging technologies, will be a catalyst for governments and policy makers to completely redesign the patent landscape.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Protocol
USD 49.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Graham S, Mowery DC (2003) Intellectual property protection in the U.S. software industry. In: Cohen W, Merrill D (eds) Patents in the knowledge-based economy. Board on Science, Technology and Economic Policy (STEP). The National Academies, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  2. Eisenberg RS (2002) How can you patent genes? Am J Bioeth 2(3):3–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Shapiro C (2000) Navigating the patent thicket: cross licenses, patent pools, and standard setting. Innov Policy Econ 1:119–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Burk DL, Lemley MA (2003) Policy levers in patent law. Va Law Rev 89:1575–1696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Heller MA, Eisenberg RS (1998) Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280(5364):698–701

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lemley M (2005) Patenting nanotechnology. Stanf Law Rev 58(2):601–630

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bessen J (n.d.) Patent thickets: strategic patenting of complex technologies. http://www.researchoninnovation.org/thicket.pdf. Accessed 26 Dec 2009

  8. D’Silva J (2009) Pools, thickets and open source nanotechnology. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1368389. Accessed 13 Dec 2009

  9. Rantanen J (2006) Slaying the troll: litigation as an effective strategy against patent threats. Santa Clara Comput High Technol Law J 23(1):159–210

    Google Scholar 

  10. Magliocca GN (2007) Blackberries and barnyards: patent trolls and the perils of innovation. Notre Dame Law Rev 82(5):1809–1838

    Google Scholar 

  11. Abbott KW, Sylvester DJ, Marchant GE (2010) Transnational regulation of nanotechnology: reality or romanticism? In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 525–543

    Google Scholar 

  12. Marchant GE, Sylvester DJ (2006) Transnational models for regulation of nanotechnology. J Law Med Ethics 34(4):714–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bowman DM, van Calster G (2007) Does REACH go too far? Nat Nanotechnol 1:525–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Marchant GE, Sylvester DJ, Abbott KA, Gaudet LM (2012) International harmonization of nanotechnology oversight. In: Dana DA (ed) The nanotechnology challenge: creating law and legal institutions for uncertain risks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 179–201

    Google Scholar 

  15. Maynard AD, Bowman DM, Hodge GA (2011) The wicked problem of regulating sophisticated materials. Nat Mater 10:554–557

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bowman DM, Gatof J (2015) Reviewing the regulatory barriers for nanomedicine: global questions and challenges. Nanomedicine 10(21):3275–3286

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Foss Hansen S, Maynard AD, Baun A, Tickner JA, Bowman DM (2014) What are the warning signs that we should be looking for? In: Hull M, Bowman DM (eds) Nanotechnology risk management: perspectives and progress, 2nd edn. Elsevier, London

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bowman DM, Ludlow K (2013) Assessing the impact of a ‘for government’ review on the nanotechnology regulatory landscape. Monash Law J 38(3):168–212

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rai AK, Eisenberg RS (2003) Bayh-Dole reform and the progress of biomedicine. Law Contemp Probl 66(1–2):289–314

    Google Scholar 

  20. Caulfield T, Cook-Deegan RM, Kieff FS, Walsh JP (2006) Evidence and anecdotes: an analysis of human gene patenting controversies. Nat Biotechnol 24(9):1091–1094

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Klein RD (2007) Gene patents and genetic testing in the United States. Nat Biotechnol 25(9):989–990

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Andrews LB (2002) Genes and patent policy: rethinking intellectual property rights. Nat Rev Genet 3(10):803–808

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Dinwoodie GB, Hennessey WO, Perlmutter S (2001) International intellectual property law and policy. LexisNexis, Newark

    Google Scholar 

  24. Eisenberg RS (1989) Patents and the progress of science: exclusive rights and experimental use. Univ Chic Law Rev 56(3):1017–1086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rai AK (1999) Regulating scientific research: intellectual property rights and the norms of science. Northwest Univ Law Rev 94(1):77–152

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Masur JS (2008) Process as purpose: costly screens, value asymmetries, and examination at the patent office. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1105184. Accessed 26 Dec 2009

  27. United States Patent and Trademark Office (2005) General information concerning patents. http://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/index.html#patent. Accessed 15 Dec 2009

  28. Webber PM (2003) Protecting your inventions: the patent system. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2(10):823–830

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Maskus KE (2000) Intellectual property rights in the global economy. Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  30. Grossman GM, Lai EC (2004) International protection of intellectual property. Am Econ Rev 94(5):1635–1653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mandel G (2010) Regulating nanotechnology through Intellectual Property Rights. In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 388–407

    Google Scholar 

  32. Caulfield T, Gold ER, Cho MK (2000) Patenting human genetic material: refocusing the debate. Nat Rev Genet 1(3):27–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Abbott FM (2006) Intellectual property provisions of bilateral and regional trade agreements in light of U.S. federal law. http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/iteipc20064_en.pdf. Accessed 13 Dec 2009

  34. Australian Government (2008) Patentable subject matter—issues paper. Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  35. Drahos P (1999) Biotechnology patents, markets and morality. Euro Intell Prop Rev 21(9):441–449

    Google Scholar 

  36. Bagley MA (2003) Patent first, ask questions later: morality and biotechnology in patent law. William Mary Law Rev 45:469

    Google Scholar 

  37. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. RS-RAE, London

    Google Scholar 

  38. Maynard AD (2007) Nanotechnology: the next big thing, or much ado about nothing? Annu Occup Hyg 51(1):1–12

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Lux Research (2009) Nanotech’s evolving environmental, health, and safety landscape: the regulations are coming. Lux Research, New York

    Google Scholar 

  40. National Nanotechnology Initiative (n.d.) About the NNI-Home. http://www.nano.gov/html/about/home_about.html. Accessed 15 Dec 2009

  41. National Nanotechnology Initiative (2016) Funding. http://www.nano.gov/about-nni/what/funding#content#content#content. Accessed 16 Jan 2016

    Google Scholar 

  42. The White House (2016) Budget of the United States government, fiscal year 2016. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  43. Roco MC (2005) International perspectives on government nanotechnology funding in 2005. J Nanopar Res 7:707–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. European Commission (2005) Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: an action plan for Europe 2005–2009. European Parliament, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  45. Gao Y, Jin B, Shen W, Sinko PJ, Xie X, Zhang H, Jia L (2016) China and the United States—global partners, competitors and collaborators in nanotechnology development. Nanomedicine 12(1):13–19

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Gokhberg L, Fursov K, Karasev O (2012) Nanotechnology development and regulatory framework: the case of Russia. Technovation 32(3):161–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Liu L, Van de Voorde, M., Werner, M., & Fecht, H. J. (Eds.) (2015) Overview on nanotechnology R&D and commercialization in the Asia Pacific region. In: The nano-micro interface: bridging the micro and nano worlds. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp 37–54

    Google Scholar 

  48. Hullmann A, Meyer M (2003) Publications and patents in nanotechnology: an overview of previous studies and the state of the art. Scientometrics 58(3):507–527

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Zucker LG, Darby MR (2005) Socio-economic impact of nanoscale science: initial results and nanobank, (working paper 11181). http://www.nber.org/papers/w11181. Accessed 13 Dec 2009

  50. Zucker LG, Darby M, Furner J, Lieu R, Ma H (2007) Minerva unbound: knowledge stocks, knowledge flows, and new knowledge production. Res Policy 36:850–863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Binnig G, Quate CF, Gerber C (1986) Atomic force microscope. Phy Rev Lett 56(9):930–934

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Sabety T (2004) Nanotechnology innovation and the patent thicket: which IP policies promote growth? Albany Law J Sci Technol 15:477–516

    Google Scholar 

  53. Johnson HA (2004) Wright patent wars and early American aviation. J Air Law Commer 69(1):21–64

    Google Scholar 

  54. Mueller JM (2001) No dilettante affair: rethinking the experimental use exception to patent infringement for biomedical research tools. Wash Law Rev 76(1):1–66

    Google Scholar 

  55. Sylvester DJ, Menkhus E, Granville KJ (2005) Innovation law handbook. Available at SSRN. http://ssrn.com/abstract=999451. Accessed 26 Dec 2009

  56. ETC Group (2005) Nanotech’s “second nature” patents: implications for the Global South. ETC Group, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  57. Lux Research (2006) Nanotech battles worth fighting. Lux Research, New York

    Google Scholar 

  58. Harris DL, Hermann K, Bawa R et al (2004) Strategies for resolving patent disputes over nanoparticle drug delivery systems. Nanotechnol Law Bus 1:372–390

    Google Scholar 

  59. Maynard AD (2006) Nanotechnology: a research strategy for addressing risk. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  60. Lux Research (2005) The nanotech intellectual property landscape. Lux Research, New York

    Google Scholar 

  61. Thomas JR (2001) Collusion and collective action in the patent system: a proposal for patent bounties. Univ Ill Law Rev 1:305–353

    Google Scholar 

  62. Tegart G (2004) Nanotechnology: the technology for the twenty-first century. Foresight 6(6):364–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Guston G (ed) (2010) Encyclopedia of nanoscience and society. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  64. United States Patent and Trademark Office (2012) Class 977 nanotechnology cross-reference art collection. http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/classification/class_977_nanotechnology_cross-ref_art_collection.jsp. Accessed 11 Jan 2016

  65. Ferrari M (2005) Cancer nanotechnology: opportunities and challenges. Nat Rev Cancer 5:161–171

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Miele E, Spinelli GP, Miele E, Tomao F, Tomao S (2009) Albumin-bound formulation of paclitaxel (Abraxane® ABI-007) in the treatment of breast cancer. Int J Nanomed 4:99–105

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Marinova D, McAleer M (2003) Nanotechnology strength indicators: international rankings based on US patents. Nanotechnology 14:R1–R7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Huang Z, Hu R, Pray C (2003) Longitudinal patent analysis for nanoscale science and engineering: country, institution and technology field. J Nanopart Res 5:333–363

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Huang Z, Chen H, Chen ZK, Roco MC (2004) International nanotechnology development in 2003: country, institution, and technology field analysis based on USPTO patent database. J Nanopart Res 6:325–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Huang Z, Chen H, Li X, Roco MC (2006) Connecting NSF funding to patent innovation in nanotechnology (2001–2004). J Nanopart Res 8:859–879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Bawa R (2004) Nanotechnology patenting in the US. Nanotechnol Law Bus 1(1):31–51

    Google Scholar 

  72. Koppikar V, Maebius SB, Rutt JS (2004) Current trends in nanotech patents: a view from inside the patent office. Nanotechnol Law Bus 1:24–30

    Google Scholar 

  73. Heinze T (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnology in Europe: analysis of publications and patent applications including comparisons with the United States. Nanotechnol Law Bus 1(4):1–19

    Google Scholar 

  74. Chen H, Roco MC (2008) Mapping nanotechnology innovations and knowledge. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  75. Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto (2014) 2014 findings on USPTO contested proceedings. http://www.postgranthq.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/PostgrantHQ_Reporter.pdf. Accessed 6 Feb 2016

  76. Mullins S (2009) Are we willing to heed the lessons of the past? Nanomaterials and Australia’s asbestos legacy. In: Hull M, Bowman DM (eds) Nanotechnology environmental health and safety: risks, regulation and management. Elseiver, New York, pp 49–69

    Google Scholar 

  77. Poland CA, Duffin R, Kinloch I, Maynard AD, Wallace W et al (2008) Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nat Nanotechnol 3(7):423–428

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (2007) Opinion on safety of nanomaterials in cosmetic products, SCCP/1147/07. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  79. Mu L, Sprando RL (2010) Application of nanotechnology in cosmetics. Pharm Res 27(8):1746–1749

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Gulson B, McCall MJ, Bowman DM, Pinheiro T (2015) A review of critical factors for assessing the dermal absorption of metal oxide nanoparticles from sunscreens applied to humans, and a research strategy to address current deficiencies. Arch Toxicol 89(11):1909–1930

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Bauer MW, Gaskell G (eds) (2002) Biotechnology: the making of a global controversy. Cambridge University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  82. Jasanoff S (2005) Designs on nature: science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  83. Clarkson G, DeKorte D (2006) The problem of patent thickets in convergent technologies. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1093:180–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Lee A (2006) Examining the viability of patent pools for the growing nanotechnology patent thicket. Nanotechnol Law Bus 3:317–328

    Google Scholar 

  85. Harris DL (2008) Carbon nanotube patent thickets. In: Allhoff F, Lin P (eds) Nanotechnology & society: current and emerging ethical issues. Springer, New York, pp 163–186

    Google Scholar 

  86. Miller J, Serrato R, Represas-Cardenas JM, Kundahl G (2005) The handbook of nanotechnology: business, policy, and intellectual property law. John Wiley & Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  87. Bastani B, Fernandez D (2004) Intellectual property rights in nanotechnology. Fernandez & Associates, Menlo Park

    Google Scholar 

  88. Clark J, Piccolo J, Stanton B, Tyson K (2000) Patent pools: a solution to the problem of access in biotechnology patents? USPTO, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  89. Lakhani KR, von Hippel E (2003) How open source software works: “free” user-to-user assistance. Res Policy 32(6):923–943

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Economist (2004) An open-source shot in the arm? Economist 10 June, 17

    Google Scholar 

  91. Munos B (2006) Can open-source R&D reinvigorate drug research? Nat Rev Drug Discov 5(9):723–729

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Bruns B (2001) Open sourcing nanotechnology research and development: issues and opportunities. Nanotechnology 12:198–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Kelty C, Lounsbury M, Yavuz CT, Colvin VL (n.d.) Towards open source nanotechnology: arsenic removal and alternative models of technology transfer. http://opensourcenano.net/images/GRC-Poster2.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2009

  94. Prisco G (2006) Globalization and open source nano economy. kurzweilai.net. http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0659.html. Accessed 12 Apr 2009

  95. Peterson CL (2008) Citizen-controlled sensing: using open source and nanotechnology to reduce surveillance and head off Iraq-style wars. http://www.opensourcesensing.org/proposal.pdf. Accessed 12 Apr 2009

  96. Pearce JM (2013) Open-source nanotechnology: solutions to a modern intellectual property tragedy. Nano Today 8(4):339–341

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. World Intellectual Property Organization (2016) Patent Cooperation Treaty (PTC). http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/registration/pct/. Accessed 7 Jan 2016

  98. Rantanen J, Petherbridge L (2011) Toward a system of invention registration: the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. Mich Law Rev 110:2012–2101

    Google Scholar 

  99. Sedia AJ (2007) Storming the last bastion: The Patent Reform Act of 2007 and its assault on the superior first-to-invent rule. DePaul J Art Technol Intell Prop Law 18:79–107

    Google Scholar 

  100. Abrams D, Wagner RP (2013) Poisoning the next apple? The America Invents Act and individual inventors. Stanf Law Rev 65:517

    Google Scholar 

  101. EurActiv.com (2009) Germany opposed to ‘nano’ label for cosmetics, 24 November. http://www.euractiv.com/en/enterprise-jobs/germany-opposed-nano-label-cosmetics/article-187583. Accessed 15 Dec 2009

  102. European Patent Office (2013) Nanotechnology and patents. http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/623ECBB1A0FC13E1C12575AD0035EFE6/$File/nanotech_brochure_en.pdf. Accessed 16 Jan 2016

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for the Study of Law, Science and Technology, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University, 877906, Tempe, AZ, 85297, USA

    Diana M. Bowman, Douglas J. Sylvester & Anthony D. Marino

Authors
  1. Diana M. Bowman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Douglas J. Sylvester
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anthony D. Marino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diana M. Bowman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Chemistry and International Institute for Nanotechnology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA

    Sarah Hurst Petrosko

  2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, USA

    Emily S. Day

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media LLC

About this protocol

Cite this protocol

Bowman, D.M., Sylvester, D.J., Marino, A.D. (2017). Returning to the Patent Landscapes for Nanotechnology: Assessing the Garden that It Has Grown Into. In: Petrosko, S., Day, E. (eds) Biomedical Nanotechnology. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 1570. Humana Press, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6840-4_22

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6840-4_22

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-6838-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-6840-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Protocols

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation