22
Nanotechnology Report 2006
NanotechnologyReport 2006
Contents
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 2
Nanoelectronics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 3
Background
The market
The patent landscape
The key players
The future
Nanotechnology in the health and personal care sectors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 9
Background
The market
The patent landscape
The geographical landscape
The key players
The future
Nanoenergy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 13
The market
The patent landscape
The key players
The future
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 18
Marks & Clerk contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 19
CONTENTS
There can be no doubt about the importance of nanotechnology across many areas of scientific
development. It is not only increasingly recognised as a key enabling technology for many
industry sectors, through the development of novel nanomaterials, but is also poised to provide
many societal advantages. Nanotechnology is leading to many advances in the field of medicine,
such as new techniques in organ regeneration, faster and earlier diagnosis of disease, and in
better targeting of drugs. Nanotechnology also offers environmental benefits, being less
resource intensive (‘more for less’), as well as providing new ways of harnessing renewable
energy and enabling more efficient and effective use of existing techniques.
This report on nanotechnology patenting by Marks & Clerk offers an insight into three critical and exciting areas
where nanotechnology is having a major impact – namely nanoelectronics, nanotechnology in the health and personal care
sectors, and nanoenergy.
These areas mirror the themes of the recent EU-funded NanoRoadMap project (see http://www.nanoroadmap.it/) which provides
useful reading, and helps to put the patent landscape into context.
Trends in nanotechnology patenting are different from any previous patent activity in any other sector to date. It is one area
where, over the last few years, commercially applicable innovations have emerged in quantity from the academic base, often
leading to major technological breakthroughs, applicable in more than one industry sector. So even more reason to keep a watchful
eye on the patent landscape, as one patent may have many important ramifications.
For this very reason, the Marks & Clerk report makes for unmissable reading, while also providing a warning to industry as a whole.
It will come as no surprise to anyone that the levels of innovation and activity in nanotechnology have dramatically accelerated in
the last five years. However, the report provides firm evidence for what we have known for a while: that significant European
investment into nanotechnology research has not been matched by a rush to patent, and therefore benefit commercially, from this
scientific endeavour. In contrast, companies and publicly-funded institutions in the Far East and the US have put their commercial
stake in the ground through IP protection. European organisations lag behind in all three areas examined in the report and greater
co-ordination within Europe is needed to reverse this trend.
In essence, the Marks & Clerk Nanotechnology Report 2006 is timely and useful. At last the nanotechnology community
has valuable data about nanotechnology innovations, measured by patents, as well as sector activity, on which to build a
future strategy.
Ottilia SaxlFounder and CEO, The Institute of Nanotechnology
FOREWORD
page 1
Following on from our two recent Biotechnology Reports published in 2005 and 2006, we are pleased to present the first Marks
& Clerk report investigating patent filing trends in nanotechnology.
Nanotechnology is a notoriously hard subject to search because many of the cutting edge developments in the field extend across
more than one technical discipline. Also, the definition of the term “nanotechnology” has changed over the last 20 years. Initially,
nanotechnology strictly referred to structures with dimensions or manufacturing tolerances of 10 nm or less. Over the years, the
term has gradually been extended to cover structures with dimensions or tolerances of 100 nm and sometimes slightly larger. Our
search strategy, which will be explained for each section, was designed to try to isolate genuine trends in nanotechnology patent
filings as opposed to the changing definition of nanotechnology.
The three focus areas of the report are: nanoelectronics, nanotechnology in the health and personal care sectors, and nanoenergy.
We chose to cover these three areas as they are of current interest but also mirror the three key areas identified in the European
NanoRoadMap (NRM)1. This will allow us to revisit these areas over the coming years to see if the NRM makes a difference to the
European picture.
Nanoelectronics is the most active patenting field at the moment and has been for many years. This is hardly surprising as the
trend in electronics has always been to make things smaller. Many of the developments in other nanotechnology fields, such as
quantum dot bio-sensors, are built on techniques first developed in the electronics industry.
We looked at bionanotechnology in our first Biotechnology Report in 2005. Our Nanotechnology Report 2006 expands on this
field to cover nanotechnology applications in the health and personal care sectors. Our findings include cosmeceuticals and
neutraceuticals as both areas have embraced developments in nanotechnology and potentially many of the inventions in these
areas could be applied to pharmaceuticals. Nanotechnology gives us the situation whereby a cosmetics company may hold a
patent which is of use to a pharmaceutical company.
Finally, we turn to nanoenergy which was ranked number 1 in a report by the Canadian Joint Centre for Bioethics as being the most
promising area for nanotechnology developments2 . For nanoenergy we concentrate on energy storage and production using
mainly electrical methods. We have not covered fuel additives which rely on nanotechnology.
This report was compiled using, in part, patent searching performed on our behalf by CPA analytics.
page 2
INTRODUCTION
1 The European NanoRoadMap is a project funded by the EuropeanCommission to provide a 10 year forecast of the future of nanotechnologywith a view to directing resources and funding to the areas identified by the project.
2 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4421867.stm
NANOELECTRONICS
page 3
Figure 1: Earliest Priority filings for nanoelectronics
Source: Computer Patent Annuities Limited Partnership/Marks & Clerk ©2006
"The field of nanoelectronics is moving extremely
rapidly and understanding the patent landscape is very
important to companies in this field. This report gives
a valuable and timely assessment that should be very
useful to anyone with an interest in nanoelectronics."
Dr. Mike Pitkethly, CEO of Cenamps and co-founder/former
commercial director of QinetiQ Nanomaterials Ltd
BackgroundNanoelectronics is the application of nanotechnology to
electronic devices and processes for manufacturing such
devices. Reducing the scale of electronic devices to the nano
level provides substantial improvements in device speed
and performance, as well as manufacturing capabilities.
Blue-sky research into nanoelectronics holds the promise
of fundamentally new devices, with the potential to
revolutionise the electronics industry in the way that the
invention of the transistor did in the late 1960s.
Of all the areas of nanotechnology covered in this report,
nanoelectronics is the most mature, with significant academic
research being conducted in the mid to late eighties. In recent
years, however, the technology has moved from the lab and
started to shows signs of entering mainstream markets.
Currently, the nanoelectronics applications that are
closest to the market include semiconductor equipment and
manufacture, flat panel displays, integrated circuit
manufacture, data storage and sensors.
Initial research and development in nanoelectronics focused
on single devices. However, the US National Science
Foundation recently reported that much of the work now
being done is moving towards nanostructures and
nanosystems, such as nanoelectromechanical systems
(NEMS), nanobiodevices, transistors, actuators, molecular
motors, plasmonics, nanoscale fluidics, laser emitting devices,
and adaptive nanosensors. Since even this small group of
devices could be incorporated in countless products, it is likely
that the next development phase in nanoelectronics will
yield significant commercial gains.
The marketWorldwide investment in nanotechnology research and
development, as reported by national government
organisations and the European Union, has increased
approximately nine times in the period 1997-2005, from
$432 million to $4.1 billion. This represents an average
annual growth rate of 32%. It is one of the fastest growing
areas of R&D, and is benefiting from almost unprecedented
levels of government funding on a global scale.
In 2000, US President Bill Clinton announced the formation of
the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) to support
long-term nanoscale research and development. In 2003, the
US Government allocated $3.7 billion over a four year period
to nanotechnology research and development. Current
estimates from venture capitalists indicate that the global
government spend for 2006 will be around $6 billion.
According to figures published by the Nanosciences and
Nanotechnology Unit of the European Commission, funding in
2004 for nanotechnology R&D in Europe exceeded $2.4
billion, with $1.7 billion being from the public purse and $0.7
billion being private. The same report estimated that the US
spent $3.6 billion, comprising of $1.5 billion public and $2.1
billion private. In Japan total funding was around $2.8 billion
with $0.9 billion public and $1.9 billion private.
As nanotechnology is still generally in the research
phase, the long-term economic impact is difficult to
quantify. However, the US National Science Foundation
has estimated that the global product and services market
for nanotechnology will be $1 trillion by 2015, with
nanoelectronics accounting for about $300 billion. According
to the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA), this
may be a conservative estimate and the market for
page 4
Figure 2: Earliest priority filings and grants per country in the field of nanoelectronics
Source: Computer Patent Annuities Limited Partnership/Marks & Clerk ©2006
page 5
nanoelectronics will exceed $300 billion by 2008. Even if
these estimates are over optimistic, it is clear that the global
market for nanoelectronics could provide huge commercial
opportunities.
The patent landscapeAlthough one of the first patent applications in this area was
filed by Hitachi in 1988, 80% of all patent filing activity has
occurred since 1999. This is illustrated in Figure 1, which
shows a steep increase in the number of priority patent
applications3 filed from 1999 to 20034, an average growth
rate of 28% per annum. However, we predict that the trend of
increasingly more applications being filed is likely to continue
in coming years.
The countries in which patent applications were first filed are
shown in Figure 2, for the period 2000-2005. This illustrates
that about 37% of applications were filed first in the US, 30%
were filed first in Japan and 13% filed first in Europe. Since
most applications are filed first in the applicant’s country of
origin, this data reflects the significant amount of research
and development being done in the US and Japan.
Figure 3: Patent applications over time for nanoelectronics
Source: Computer Patent Annuities Limited Partnership/Marks & Clerk ©2006
Figure 4: Patent grants over time for nanoelectronics
Source: Computer Patent Annuities Limited Partnership/Marks & Clerk ©2006
3 Our strategy for searching in this field has relied on a combination ofkeywords and classifications awarded by the patent offices. The “nano” prefixwas used during the search, but care was taken to ensure that logic operatorswere used during keyword searching to ensure that the search was asaccurate as possible. Also, other terms used to demote nanoelectronics such
as “quantum dot” etc were implemented. Where keyword searching was used,whole patent documents were searched and not just the abstract and claims.
4 Full year data is only available up until the end of 2003, because of the 18month delay between filing and publication of a patent application.
page 6
Having said this, some large companies have a strategy of
filing first in the US, regardless of where they are based, and
so this may lead to an over estimate of the filing activity of
US based applicants. However, our raw data indicates that
this would not have a significant impact on the figures. In
contrast, the number of patent applications being filed first in
Europe is surprisingly low considering the high levels of
public and private funding.
Figure 3 shows the number of patent applications filed over
the period 2000-2003. This illustrates in more detail the sharp
increase in filing rates over the past few years. As would be
expected, the number of patents granted over the period
2000-2005 has also increased significantly, as can be seen
from Figure 4. Interestingly, the data for 2005 suggests that
whilst the number of patents granted in this field outside the
US continued to increase, the number of US grants was slightly
less than for 2004. It is not clear why this would be the case,
although the current backlog in the US Patent Office is causing
some delays, which would have an impact on the number of
patents granted. According to US Patent Office statistics,
across the board 12% fewer US patents were granted in 2005
than in 2004. Hence, although there is a slight decrease in US
grants in the nanoelectronics field, this is significantly less
than the overall drop for 2005.
The key playersFigure 5 shows the top thirty patent applicants in the
nanoelectronics field over the period 2000-2005 and
based on a count of the number of patent families filed. Of these,
18 are based in the Far East, 10 are based in the US and 2 are
based in Europe. Overall, Fujitsu has filed the most, with 62
nanoelectronics patent families. Samsung, incorporating data for
the two companies Samsung Electronics and Samsung SDI, is a
close second with 35 patent families in the name of Samsung
Electronics and 21 families in the name of Samsung SDI.
Whilst Fujitsu has filed most families, Figure 6 shows that in
the past few years, the most active players are Samsung,
Hewlett Packard, Hitachi, Japan Science and Technology
Agency/Corporation, Infineon Technologies and Philips. The
increased activity of players based in the Far East reflects a
general shift in levels of patent filing activity from the
traditionally IP savvy US corporates to, in particular, Japanese
companies. In recent years, this shift has been seen across the
board for all patent applications. For example, in 2005
six of the top ten filers of US patent applications were
Japanese companies.
In terms of filing strategies, all of the top thirty players file in
the US, Japan and Europe. Beyond these core regions tactics
seem to vary. For example, Samsung and the Korean
Advanced Institute of Science & Technology file in Korea, as
may be expected, since that is their home territory. However,
none of the other top thirty file in Korea. In China, only
Samsung, Infineon, Philips and IBM have filed patent
applications, and in Australia, only Philips, IBM, Agilent,
Nantero and the University of California have filed.
Most of the top ten filers in nanoelectronics are large corporate
players, four based in Japan, two based in the US and two in
Europe. The exceptions to this are the Japan Science and
Technology (JST) Agency/Corporation, which is funded by the
Japanese Government, and the Industrial Technology Research
Institute, which is funded partly by the Taiwanese
Government. Looking beyond the top ten reveals the Korean
Electronics & Telecommunications Research Institute, the
Japanese Agency of Industrial Science and Technology, the
National Institute for Materials Science (Japan), and the Korea
Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, all in the top
thirty filers. These are all government funded bodies. The fact
that they are so active in this area underlines the huge
investment that governments in the Far East are making in
research and development for nanoelectronics, and the
increasing interest in the Far East in protecting that
investment via the patent system. Interestingly, the only US
based players in the top ten are Hewlett Packard and the
University of California, and the only European players are
Infineon Technologies and Philips.
The top thirty players account for about 48% of the total
number of patent families in our nanoelectronics data set for
the period 2000-2005. For the top thirty, around 8% of
families were filed by European applicants. The low level of
patent filing by European applicants is surprising given the
amount of money that is being invested in nanotechnology. It
is tempting to conclude that the focus in Europe is not on
nanoelectronics but instead is on other areas of
nanotechnology. However, this is not borne out by the results
in the other two sections of this report. Another explanation is
that although committing significant amounts of public money
to nanotechnology, Europe is not protecting its investment.
Alternatively, it is possible that in Europe the wrong
investment choices are being made.
In contrast to the low level of filing activity in Europe, 24% of
the total number of patent families in the top thirty were filed
by US based applicants, and around 51% were filed by
Japanese based applicants. This difference between the US
and Japan is slightly surprising as our data suggests that
overall levels of patent filing activity by US applicants is
higher than for applicants based in the Far East. However,
differences between business strategies in the US and Japan,
and indeed the Far East more generally, provide a possible
explanation. In the US, activity is spread over a relatively large
number of players, all of whom are actively protecting
nanoelectronics innovations, whereas in the Far East activity
is focused on a relatively small number. Our data suggests
that a significant amount of the patent filing activity in
nanoelectronics in the US is by universities and small or start-
up companies, for example, SouthWest Nanotechnologies and
Nantero, which both make it into the top thirty. In contrast, in
Japan, Korea and Taiwan much of the activity is by a few large,
established companies and a relatively small number of
government funded bodies. No non-US based small or start-up
companies are in the top thirty.
page 7
Figure 5: Top 30 patent applicants over time for nanoelectronics
Source: Computer Patent Annuities Limited Partnership/Marks & Clerk ©2006
The differences in the profiles of the nanoelectronics players
in Europe, the US and the Far East indicate fundamentally
different business approaches. Europe is investing a lot, but
protecting very little, the US is investing and protecting, but
with the focus on nurturing more small companies, and the Far
East is supporting its existing corporate entities and a
relatively small number of well-funded government institutes.
Whilst the total levels of patent filing activity are significant in
both the US and the Far East, our data indicates that there are
more players in the US. The impact of this is that available
funding is spread relatively thinly and competition for this is
high, whereas in the Far East funding is more concentrated in
the hands of a few. It remains to be seen which approach will
be the more successful in the long run.
The futureThe commercial potential for nanoelectronics is huge.
Many of the big players in the electronics arena are already
seeking ways to exploit the advantages that nanoscale
devices could provide.
We predict that activity in the Far East will remain at high
levels, and is likely to rise as nanoelectronics moves from its
current research phase increasingly towards product
development, with Japanese companies likely to be at the
front of the pack. The US market holds the promise of some
stellar start-ups, with huge investment potential. Europe is in
danger of missing the boat.
page 8
Figure 6: Highly active and emerging players for nanoelectronics
Source: Computer Patent Annuities Limited Partnership/Marks & Clerk ©2006
Figure 7: Earliest priority filings for nanotechnology in health and personal care
Source: Computer Patent Annuities Limited Partnership/Marks & Clerk ©2006
BackgroundNanotechnology is making significant inroads into the
health and personal care sectors. Nanomedicine related
technologies are far-reaching and include, for example, drug
encapsulation and delivery, diagnostic techniques and
imaging, surgical aids, implantable devices including sensors
and prostheses and implantable materials to aid, such as
tissue and bone repair. As some companies/institutes are
developing products for use in the field of cosmetics, for
example in the dermatological field, and the US now has
some doctor endorsed cosmetic brands, this section also
covers nanotechnology when applied to cosmetics.
The marketThe potential scope in terms of applications and products in
the health and personal care sectors is almost limitless, with
new ideas and applications being developed, on a daily basis.
In terms of economic impact, an analysis of the market
segments for medical devices and drugs and pharmaceuticals
provides an insight into the potential market. These two
market segments represented in 2003 an end-user value of
€535 billion and globally this has been growing at 7-9%
annually5. The global cosmetics industry was valued at €230
billion in 20046. Therefore, even if nanotechnology related
applications were to account for only a portion of this figure,
the potential economic impact the sector may provide, is
enormous. Thus, it is very appropriate to consider the patent
landscape in this area and how this may develop in the future.
The patent landscapeOther reports have shown that patents and scientific papers
in the nanotechnology field have grown at a near exponential
rate for the past 20 years. It is interesting to see if this trend
is mirrored in the health and personal care sectors.
page 9
NANOTECHNOLOGY IN THE HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE SECTORS
5 European technology platform on nanomedicine, September 2005
6 Euromonitor: "Cosmetics & toiletries: world market overview and key trends"In-cosmetics conference 2005
7 The health and personal care data was generated by combining the resultsfrom a number of different searches using search strings which employed"nano" as a prefix to terms, such as capsule, particle, polymer, powder,enabled, medicine, and the like, as well as other terms such as molecularelectronics, dental, hair, quantum dot, smart material.
Figure 7 shows that the number of patent applications filed
over the last 10 years has increased at an almost
exponential rate7. However, the number of applications filed
in 2003 is only slightly higher than 2002. The apparent
slowing in 2003 filings may simply be down to a reflection of
difficult financial times in relation to the funding of
technology companies in general, at that time. It may be the
case that young and developing companies, which are likely
to be important bodies with regards to the nanomedicine
field, had to channel their finances into areas other than
patenting. It will therefore be interesting to see if the filing
numbers increase significantly in 2004 and 2005, now that
financing from various sources, including venture funds and
government sources, have increased significantly in the past
few years.
The geographical landscapeIn terms of where patent applications are being filed, the US
can be seen as having by far the largest numbers of priority
applications and granted patent publications (Figures 8 and
9), but China is also a significant first filer. Nevertheless,
international PCT (WO) applications account for nearly as
many publications compared to the US, showing perhaps the
global importance of this technology and that applicants are
looking to potentially get a broad geographical coverage of
protection for their inventions.
In Europe, in accordance with other aspects of nanotechnology,
Germany has the most priority filings. However, France has
almost as many priority filings, although this is due in part to
the significant filings by L'Oréal (see Figure 10).
As can be seen in Figure 9, patents granted in the health and
personal care arena, increased year on year from 2000 to
2004, but paradoxically, there was a decrease in 2005. Most
notably, there was a decrease in granted patents in the US and
countries listed as "other", which represents all countries not
otherwise listed and hence grouped togther. Why this should
be is difficult to speculate on, but one possibility may be that
the various patent offices are looking more carefully at the
scope of the patent applications and not awarding grant for a
variety of reasons. In 2005, the US Patent Office granted 12%
less patents than it did in 2004. Thus, the drop in granted US
nanotech patents does not seem to be a nanotech issue.
page 10
Figure 8: Earliest priority filings and grants per country in the health and personal care sectors
Source: Computer Patent Annuities Limited Partnership/Marks & Clerk ©2006
Reverting back to Figure 8 it can be seen that the US has
granted the most cases, year on year, but the European
Patent Office (EPO), and notably the Russian Patent Office,
has also granted a significant proportion. Although China and
Japan account for the second and third highest numbers of
priority applications, these would not appear to be following
through to grant, at least as yet. In the case of Japan, this is
simply due to the delayed examination procedure adopted in
Japan, but this is not so for China. Looking at some of the
Chinese data, we can see that some applications appeared to
be jumping on the "nano" bandwagon and related to the
reformulation of a drug, at a nano-scale. The Chinese patent
examination process is quite rigorous and so maybe such
applications simply did not hold up on closer scrutiny in terms
of lacking inventiveness.
The key playersThe key players, as shown in Figure 10, come from a
varied background and include universities/government
bodies, small-to-medium sized enterprises and large
multinational companies.
L'Oréal are found to be the top patent filer in the health
and personal care fields and this is due in no small part to
the significant R&D L'Oréal conducts into nanocapsule
technology for delivering agents into the skin. L'Oréal have
observed that nanocapsules have the ability to deliver
agents such as vitamin A and retinol into deeper layers of the
skin. Agent delivery is one of the most important applications
of nanotechnology at the present time, as can be seen with
Elan Corp coming in second when this technology is applied
to pharmaceuticals as opposed to cosmeceuticals. Elan is
obviously looking to maintain its strength in the drug delivery
field and their technology has been licensed to a number of
other pharmaceutical companies.
However, it is not just about drug delivery with players like
Boston Scientific (medical devices), MIT and Philips
(diagnostics) also appearing in the top filers list. Nevertheless,
distributed throughout the list are a significant number of
publicly/government funded bodies, perhaps showing that a
great deal of the technology in the health and personal care
sectors, drug delivery aside, is very much at the early stage.
The key players are fairly split between Europe, the US and
the Far East with India also making an appearance in the top
10. Although the US has the largest number of filings, its
organisations are well represented amongst the top 10, but it
does not dominate the top 10.
The futureSo what does the future hold for nanotechnology applied to
the health and personal care sectors? Table 1 shows the
highest cited US publications for the health and personal care
sectors. The results would appear to suggest that agent
delivery and diagnostic applications are still very much to the
fore. Although universities and other publicly funded bodies
appear to be important players for now, we may see a shift to
small nanotechnology companies, in a similar fashion to that
seen in the biotech industry. Thus, early indications are that
page 11
Figure 9: Patents granted over time for nanotechnology in the health and personal care sectors
Source: Computer Patent Annuities Limited Partnership/Marks & Clerk ©2006
the power balance in nanotechnology in the health and
personal care sectors will be more fragmented than the
power balance of nanotechnology in the electronics industry,
which is concentrated within the well-established
“conventional” technology companies.
With an ever-ageing population and significant drug patents
expiring, we would expect the pharmaceutical companies to
look closely at the nanomedicine market. This is both in terms
of trying to reformulate their blockbusters, in order to extend
market exclusively, and to look at completely new therapeutic
regimes and processes.
There are concerns that litigation is likely to ensue in some
areas of the nanomedicine field and this may lead to a lack of
confidence in the field. This may turn out to be true, but does
not appear to have occurred as yet.
On the cosmetics side, the nanocosmetics field is being led by
the specialist cosmetic companies, such as L’Oréal, and our
data shows that this trend is likely to continue.
In many areas, nanotechnology in the health and personal
care sectors is still in its infancy, but we expect an explosion
of work and patents being filed in the short to medium term.
page 12
Figure 10: Top 24 patent applicants over time for nanotechnology in the health and personal care sectors
Source: Computer Patent Annuities Limited Partnership/Marks & Clerk ©2006
Table 1: Highest cited US publications for the health and personal care sectors
Company/University Publications Families
Japan Science and Technology Corp 25 10
GeneSegues, Inc 16 2
Salvona LLC 11 3
Max-Planck Society 11 6
University of Michigan 13 6
3M 13 6
University of California 8 6
The marketInternational concerns regarding global warming and the
potential exhaustion of fossil fuel supplies have drawn public
attention to the need to use our current energy resources more
efficiently, as well as seek alternative energy sources.
Governments in most developed countries are investing heavily
in energy research. For example, the Department of Energy is
the single largest Federal Government supporter of basic
research in the physical sciences in the US, providing more than
40% of total Federal funding to what is perceived by the US
Government to be a vital area of national importance.
Nanoenergy is the application of nanotechnology or
nanomaterials within energy applications. Nanoenergy
shows promising potential in all segments of the energy
sector: production, storage, distribution and use. The ability
to precisely control matter at atomic and molecular level can
be used to not only increase efficiency and reduce cost of
existing energy generation and conversion systems, but can
also provide new ways to create energy.
Successes have been reported in a number of areas. So far,
nanotechnology is starting to play a key role in solar cells,
thermoelectricity, batteries and fuel cells, and insulation.
Such successes encourage research across the whole spectrum
of nanoenergy. Solar cells containing nanolayers or nanorods
could significantly increase the amount of electricity converted
from sunlight by using nanostructured surfaces as more
effective light absorbers (variation of the absorbing wavelength
by quantum dots) and nanoporous electrodes. Nanomaterials of
this type can be combined with plastic electronics to develop
semiconductor polymer photovoltaics, which are both
lightweight and flexible. Research by a large range of
institutions into solar cells is ongoing, stimulating collaborations
such as that announced in 2005 between Leonhard Kurz GmbH
& Co (a German R&D company and manufacturer of polymer
electronic technology) and Konarka Technologies, with Konarka
previously having acquired Siemens’ organic photovoltaic
research activities in September 2004.
The patent landscapeAs the research activities into nanoenergy increase, there is
a corresponding increase in the relevant companies and
research institutions seeking to protect their innovations
using the patent system. Figure 11 illustrates that the
number of nanoenergy applications8 filed has steadily
risen in recent years, with over three times more patent
applications being filed in 2003 than in 20009.
The number of applications filed in the US and Europe has
increased steadily year on year, reflecting the importance of
such markets to the nanoenergy sector. The largest growth
appears to be in the filing of international (WO) patent
applications, with nearly five times as many international
patent applications being filed in 2003 than in 200010.
Presumably, this is due to many applicants using the PCT
system so as to delay the decision date regarding in which
countries to proceed, potentially reflecting the commercial
uncertainty associated with nanoenergy research.
The majority of patent applicants first file a priority
application in their own country, prior to filing foreign
applications within the 12-month priority period. Figure 12
illustrates the geographic spread of priority patent
application filings, and thus provides a good indication of the
degree of innovation within each country. The main country
in which priority applications are filed is overwhelmingly the
US, reflecting the significance of the US as a source of
innovation. Additionally, the US figure is affected by a
number of non-US applicants filing priority applications in the
US, due to the importance of the US market.
page 13
8 To search this field we used a combination of classification searching toisolate patent applications concerned with energy and then used keywordsearching within these classes to identify nanotech patents.
9 Due to the 18 month lag in publishing most patent applications, the dataonly extends up to 2003 as complete data is not yet available for 2004.
10 An International or PCT patent application is a single application whichallow an applicant to obtain provisional coverage in over 100 countries for, ingeneral, up to 30 months from the priority date. At the 30 month stage theInternational application must be converted into separate nationalapplications in the countries where the applicant requires patent protection.
NANOENERGY
page 14
"In terms of patents, the Japanese should learn from
this report that Japan's investment in nanotechnology
in the health and personal care sectors is not as
effective as other countries, while Japan does better in
other nanotechnology fields such as nanoelectronics
and nanomaterials."
Masahiro Takemura, Senior Researcher, Nanotechnology
Researchers Network Center of Japan (Nanonet)
The next largest number of filings is made in Japan, with the
number of first filings being approximately 70% of the filings
within the US. As the population of Japan is less than half of
that of the US, this means that Japan has the largest number
of patent filings in this sector per head of the population
which is an indication of how significant the sector is seen to
the Japanese economy. The lack of Japan’s own oil reserves
may be a factor for the country’s commitment to emerging
energy technology. In general, the Far East dominates the
nanoenergy sector with South Korea (77) and China (43) both
having significant numbers of priority filings.
Europe is rather poorly represented in the nanoenergy league
with the highest number of first filings from Germany (35),
ahead of both the UK (18) and France (10). In addition to the
European figures shown in Figure 12, there were 28 priority
filings at the EPO for the same period. Adding together the
total number of priority filings for Europe, the total is less
than 40% of the total number for Japan. However, on a
positive note, Europe’s slow start in this rapidly developing
field is being monitored and the European Commission has
focused on nanoenergy as one of its three key areas for
driving nanotechnology in Europe.
Nanoenergy spans such a wide range of technologies that it
is not sensible to assume that every energy field which may
benefit from nanotechnology, will actually benefit. Some of
the patents filed now will be deemed to be worthless, but
some will prove to be of great value. A valuable patent in an
emerging technology takes time to establish itself.
However, an early indication of a valuable patent is the
number of times the patent is used to prevent others from
obtaining their patents i.e. the number of times it is cited
during the examination procedures for other patents.
Already there are certain patents relating to photoelectric
devices, fuel cells and catalysts in batteries using
nanotechnology which are being cited more frequently than
others. These patents may prove to be of great value to those
who own them.
Figure 11: Patent applications over time for nanoenergy
Source: Computer Patent Annuities Limited Partnership/Marks & Clerk ©2006
The key playersThe key applicants for nanoenergy related patents are
shown in Figure 13. Surprisingly, none of the well-known
conventional energy companies feature in the top 20.
Although the application of nanotechnology to the energy
industry tends to complement the electronics side as
opposed to the fossil fuel side of the industry, many of
the fossil fuel energy companies are now trying
to portray themselves as dealing in all forms of energy.
Therefore, we would have expected at least one of
these companies to feature somewhere in the top 20.
Also, many of the applications relate to improvements in
battery technology, but the well-known western battery
manufacturers are also missing from our top 20.
However, our results cannot identify if a well-established
energy company is directly or indirectly investing in
start-ups.
The two dominant countries in nanoenergy are the US and
Japan. However, the dominant players in the nanoenergy field
show that both countries have a considerably different
approach to the nanoenergy sector. The key player list is
dominated by large Japanese multinational companies,
whereas the highest placed US applicant is Californian
Institute of Technology.
Japan is really trying to drive nanoenergy applications forward
with many of the well-known Japanese multinationals having
page 15
Figure 12: Priority countries for nanoenergy
Source: Computer Patent Annuities Limited Partnership/Marks & Clerk ©2006
significant filings in this field and Japanese companies
representing 3 of the top 5 filers. Sony Corporation has filed
over 50 nanoenergy patent families since 2000. Many of the
Sony applications relate to improvements in fuel cells,
reflecting the perceived demand for improved fuel cells within
both the automobile and aircraft industries.
Although the US has a higher number of priority filings than
Japan, the US nanoenergy patent landscape is very
fragmented, but this may be due to the popularity of venture
funds in the US. It has been estimated that 41 out of the top
50 R&D companies in the US are either originally venture-
backed or are major acquirers of venture-backed companies11.
In second place in our key player list is the Korean giant,
Samsung. South Korea is the third in our country list, but there
are still five times as many US priority applications than South
Korean priority applications. Thus, the fact that a South
Korean multinational is comfortably in second place ahead of
all US companies is surprising. As for nanoelctronics, the
Samsung data comprises both that of Samsung Electronics
(11 patent families) and Samsung SDI (17 patent families).
Treating both Samsung companies as separate entities would
still have seen both companies feature in our top 10.
Although we have noted that Europe was lagging behind
both the Far East and US, there are signs of a change in
Europe when looking at key players. Both Philips and the
Hahn-Meitner-Institut Berlin filed more applications in the
past two years than many of the higher placed key players.
page 16
Figure 13: Top patent filers for nanoenergy related applications
Source: Computer Patent Annuities Limited Partnership/Marks & Clerk ©2006
11 http://www.nvca.org/pdf/VentureImpact2004release.pdf
Figure 14: Highly active and emerging players for nanoenergy
Source: Computer Patent Annuities Limited Partnership/Marks & Clerk ©2006
page 17
The futureOur results show that the power balance in nanoenergy is
predominantly held by the large electronics companies from
the Far East. If nanoenergy lives up to its promise then the
world may see the power balance in our energy supplies shift
from the US to the Far East.
Figure 14 illustrates how six of the most significant
companies are filing relevant patent applications at an
increasing rate, emphasizing the increased commercial
significance attached to the nanoenergy technology area by
such companies. The technology promises much across a
range of applications, and has potential to change the way
we convert, store and utilise the world’s energy supply. The
increasing rate of patent filings from these companies shows
that they will continue their dominance in this field.
Europe is lagging behind the rest of the world by some
margin in the nanoenergy field. To ensure that European
companies are not left behind, the European commission has
identified nanoenergy as one of its key three areas. This may
already be having an effect as European companies are
starting to fight back.
The rapid growth of patenting in the nanoenergy sector
suggests that many see nanotechnology as a means for
addressing some of the world’s energy problems. Our results
suggest that the conventional energy companies are possibly
being left behind in the race to patent nanoenergy. This could
be an early indicator that the power of the existing energy
giants is starting to wane. However, it is also possible that
many of the current giants of the industry are investing in
start-ups.
This report has shown that the dominant country for both filing patents and granting patents in all three sectors is the US.
However, the Far East and especially Japan is not far behind in both nanoelectronics and nanoenergy.
The power balance of nanotechnology in the US and the Far East is very different. In both nanoenergy and nanoelectronics, the
large Japanese electronic companies and the Korean giant Samsung dominate the patent landscape. In the US, the market is split
between start-ups and universities with some notable exceptions such as Hewlett Packard.
The picture for nanotechnology in the health and personal care sectors is far more fragmented than that for nanoelectronics
and nanoenergy. Although again the US has the highest number of filings, European companies feature strongly amongst the
key players.
Our results suggest the continued dominance of the Far East giant companies over the coming years, but the start-ups from the
US should not be ignored. Thirty years ago Microsoft was a US start-up and is now the world’s largest software company with a
current market value of approximately $280 billion12. Unlike a software company, a nanotechnology company must invest heavily
in R&D to progress. Patents provide security for R&D investment and we expect to see a steady rise in the number of
nanotechnology patents over the next few years.
page 18
12 April 2006 http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/18/Rank_1.html
CONCLUSIONS
If you have any questions about this report, or would like more information, contact one of the authors from our
Nanotechnology Group:
Dr. Rhian Granleese Dr. Paul Chapman
UK & European Patent Attorney UK & European Patent Attorney
90 Long Acre 19 Royal Exchange Square
London, WC2E 9RA, UK Glasgow, G1 3AE, UK
T: + 44 (0)207 420 0000 T: +44 (0)141 221 5767
E: [email protected] E: [email protected]
Dr. Maureen Kinsler Neil Parkinson
UK & European Patent Attorney UK & European Patent Attorney
19 Royal Exchange Square Sussex House
Glasgow, G1 3AE, UK 83-85 Mosley Street
T: +44 (0)141 221 5767 Manchester, M2 3LG, UK
E: [email protected] T: +44 (0)161 233 5800
About Marks & ClerkMarks & Clerk is recognised internationally as one of the leading firms of patent and trade mark attorneys. Our highly
qualified attorneys advise clients in all sectors on acquiring, securing and registering intellectual property (IP) rights and
managing IP portfolios. They have notable expertise and experience in both traditional and cutting edge technologies from
biotechnology and nanotechnology to electronics and engineering.
With a network of offices in the UK (12 locations), Europe, North America and the Far East and long-established
relationships with other leading IP firms worldwide, Marks & Clerk is well placed to meet clients’ IP requirement locally
and globally.
Winner of the Managing Intellectual Property Global Award for Leading Firm in Europe for Patents 2006
Ranked the no.1 firm in the UK for patents in the Managing Intellectual Property World IP Annual Survey 1997-2006
www.marks-clerk.com
MARKS & CLERK CONTACTS
page 19
© Copyright Marks & Clerk 2006
Fron
t co
ver
imag
e: s
trip
ed e
lect
rical
nan
owire
s, S
TEM
, sup
plie
d by
the
Sci
ence
Pho
to L
ibra
ry.
www.marks-clerk.com
