In this month’s interview, we talk to Jess Jankowski, President and Chief Executive Officer, and a Board Director of Nanophase. Mr. Jankowski was elected Chief Executive Officer (Acting) in August of 2008 and was elected President and Chief Executive Officer, and Board Director, in February 2009. He joined Nanophase in November 1995. He was elected Secretary and Treasurer in November 1999, Acting Chief Financial Officer in January 2000, Vice President in April 2002, and Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer in April 2004. From 1990-1995 he served as Controller for two building contractors in the Chicago area, during which time he had significant business development responsibilities. From 1986 to 1990 he worked for Kemper Financial Services. Mr. Jankowski holds a B.S. from Northern Illinois University and an M.B.A. from Loyola University. He was elected to the TechAmerica (formerly AeA) Midwest Board in 2008 and was an active member of the TechAmerica Midwest CFO Committee from 2006 through 2008. He was appointed to the NanoBusiness Advisory Board in 2009. Mr. Jankowski was appointed to the Romeoville Economic Development Commission in 2004 and served in 2010. He has also served on the Advisory Board of NITECH (Formerly WESTEC), an Illinois Technology Enterprise Center focusing on the commercialization of advanced manufacturing technologies from 2003 to 2008. In 2009, Mr. Jankowski was appointed to the Board of Directors of the Northern Illinois Technology Foundation, an economic development and technology transfer entity that is part of Northern Illinois University.

In our interview, we discuss the current state and outlook for innovative nanomaterials. We hope you enjoy the interview with Jess Jankowski. -Steve Waite, Director of Research and Strategy, The NanoBusiness Commercialization Association

SW: Thanks for taking the time to speak with us, Jess. Nanophase has been in business for quite some time. Give us a little background of how the company got started, how it has evolved, and what its mission is today.

JJ: Nanophase is built from an idea that grew out of the Argonne National Laboratory – the ability to make pure metal oxide particles for particular applications at the nano scale. Often, manufacturers are forced to use materials with impurities or with secondary structures that don’t provide the effectiveness they are looking for. With this technology, we can provide metal oxides to manufacturers in any form (dry powder, dispersed in liquid, or dispersed into a plastic flake that is ready to use in their process) with the desired attributes ranging from particle size and shape to particular surface chemistries. It was a better way to provide manufacturers with materials they needed.

SW: What are the primary nanomaterials produced by Nanophase and why is the company focused on those materials?

JJ: The most popular is nano zinc oxide used in personal care applications (such as sunscreens for sensitive skin). Zinc oxide is an excellent, all natural, full spectrum UV ray absorber. Using nano zinc oxide allows that glob of white cream that we used to see decorating so many lifeguard’s noses to be clear today. Zinc oxide is gentler on the skin than many of the organic chemicals used to achieve the same purpose, so we have noticed an uptick in use in both sensitive skin sunscreen applications as well as certain daily wear cosmetics. Our material is also considered an “all-natural” or mineral-based product, which resonates with quality conscious consumers. Just as zinc oxide protects human skin, it also is effective in certain UV protection applications such as for exterior coatings (paints and stains) and many other applications.

Beyond zinc oxide, we have developed a family of aluminum oxide additives to impart a thin layer of scratch resistance to high-end packaging, signage, and consumer electronics products. We also use cerium oxide for polishing applications, from semiconductor and other electronics applications through architectural window solutions. We typically sell chemical additives, but our polishing expertise allowed us to launch our first complete product line for window polishing and restoration under the NanoUltra™ family of products. These are the most common products we sell, but we also sell smaller amounts of several other metal oxides for particular applications. We have a very flexible manufacturing platform that allows us to pursue markets broadly.

SW: There are numerous applications for nanomaterials in the 21st century. Tell us about the applications Nanophase is currently targeting in the market.

JJ: Several areas where we see significant opportunities in the near term are natural UV protection in personal care (e.g., sunscreens and daily wear cosmetics), providing scratch resistance in transparent coatings, UV-resistance in architectural coatings and a series of other applications that are too early-stage to mention. We fully understand that we will increase and decrease our focus in various markets as we grow and gain more commercial feedback. The underlying need for both transparent functional coatings and well-dispersed active materials provides us with more opportunities than we can possibly address simultaneously. For now, focus is the key!

SW: What are the major advantages to a sunscreen product that is produced with your nanomaterials?

JJ: Our nano zinc oxide provides a terrific combination of being very effective while gentle. Unlike many solutions on the market, nano zinc oxide is a full spectrum UV blocker, meaning that it minimizes the effects of UVA and UVB radiation very well. Many products have historically focused on UVB for blocking sunburn, without paying as much attention to UVA, which relates to cellular degradation and skin cancer. New label requirements in Europe, and likely soon to be in the United States (maybe this year), will require this be better disclosed, and you’ve likely already seen products on the shelves that are dealing with these disclosures. Sunscreens with our materials are designed to be long lasting, even when used in water. And zinc oxide tends to be gentle on the skin, more so than many of the organic chemicals commonly used. These reasons explain why our products are often found in sensitive skin products, and also explain why we are a natural choice for daily wear cosmetics.

SW: Please tell us more about the transparent UV resistant coatings for wood that Nanophase is developing. What are its advantages relative to existing products on the market?

JJ: The most effective wood coatings today tend to rely on heavy pigments to achieve UV protection, so that the wood will often look red or orange depending on the pigment being used. There’s nothing wrong with those colors, but many would prefer the natural look of their wood and simply want it to last longer. We have seen that our nanomaterials can improve the effectiveness of coatings significantly, particularly in the transparent and lighter-pigmented semi-transparent applications. We are working with customers to take the basic technology to market in both semi-transparent and completely transparent wood coatings. This is an area where we hold a significant advantage over the tradeoffs that historically had to be made – protection vs. transparency. Our solutions offer the market both.

SW: What are some of the futuristic nanomaterials applications Nanophase is working on that you can share with us?

JJ: Working at a small scale with significant control over the particles has provided potentially huge energy applications that we are working on, although it will take some time to determine viability. Very thin, transparent coatings also present strong potential advantages in plastics applications. We have recently devised a method for adding our materials into several traditional plastics fabrication processes, and are working with alpha customers on different applications. Either of these concept areas could launch a company today, but we are looking at them as additional areas for the strategic growth of our company, which already has a good history and understanding in creating and then manufacturing these solutions.

SW: Do you sense there is a misconception today among policymakers, companies, and the general public about nanomaterials?

JJ: The unknown is inherently scary. People who don’t know what we do often assume that we are making little robots that will take over the world, or unstoppable microbes. What we are really doing is improving the forms, or formats, of materials that have been used for a very long time. The data we see supports the safety of our products, and we believe we meet every available standard of safety in our manufacturing processes. I can only address our products – many companies are creating products at a nano scale for all sorts of applications today that I’m less familiar with, and I’m sure some will have issues and others won’t, just like any other business segment. I believe we’re seeing a softening of this paranoia in the marketplace and in legislative circles.

SW: What kind of testing has Nanophase been involved with over the past decade – either directly or indirectly – with its nanomaterials and what are the results of those tests?

JJ: This is a broad topic that I won’t try to address completely. I think the best way might be to discuss how we at Nanophase handle our Environmental Health and Safety (“EH&S”) program. Given that there aren’t specific rules regarding the evaluation of nanomaterials in the workplace, we have adopted and enhanced the existing safety regimes commonly and effectively used in the chemical industry. We rely on NIOSH and OSHA standards as the starting point for our EH&S program. To their requirements (compliance to chemical exposure rules and Permissible Exposure Limits or “PEL”), we have added a combination of additional tools and techniques to assess, control and monitor exposure to nanomaterials in the workplace. We measure fugitive emissions regularly and, in most cases, measured particulate levels are between one 1% and 5% of the established “PEL” by OSHA. Keep in mind that this standard includes both total and respirable dust. Many of the minimal particulates counted are generated by non-production (meaning, non-nanomaterial) processes. Our results also regularly show that the particle counts inside the production areas are measured lower than the particles present in the outdoor environment, including in the parking lot of the fast food restaurant down the street!

Lastly, on an annual basis, Nanophase executes a facility wide medical evaluation for production, quality, engineering, and R&D employees. The evaluation consists of a medical questionnaire, a pulmonary function test, and a follow-up physical if a need is determined by the company’s physician. The purpose of this evaluation is to monitor and respond to any decline in pulmonary function and to check for any other medical condition related to a single employee or pool of employees. Over the past five years (where our date is readily available), not a single employee has shown a decline in their medical condition that can be related to workplace exposure. I’m proud of our record, I’m proud of our EH&S team, and we continue to focus on strengthening our program whenever we determine additions can be helpful.

SW: Outside of the United States, what other countries are heavily engaged in nanomaterials research and development and how much innovation are we seeing in those countries?

JJ: This is a significant area of concern. The United States has enjoyed being a technology leader for decades. This is changing. Education and employment opportunities outside the United States have been improving at a much faster clip than domestically. Nanotechnology remains largely a “basic science” application, and fewer people are willing to put money behind learning about how things work. This is likely going to get far more imbalanced over time, as other nations promote technologies that will enable the next generation of products, while we struggle with fiscal challenges. While we often compete against non-nano technologies, we see that our most direct competitors are already located outside the United States.

SW: One last question for you, Jess. China moved to restrict its exports of “Rare Earth” minerals. What kind of impact do you think this will have on the nanomaterials business in the future?

JJ: We vaporize metal, so commodities are our raw materials. “Rare Earths” are a classification of materials often used in high end electronics. One member of that class is the cerium oxide we sell for polishing applications. As 97% of Rare Earth materials are exported from China today, the severe export restrictions imposed during 2010 are having a dramatic impact on the market. Many companies can’t get the material they need, and those which have been able to do so, like Nanophase, must pay significantly more than they did a year ago. This hurts our customers, and over time will drive changes in methods and products. We are working very closely with our customers on managing these issues, but they are significant. Our investment in inventory has skyrocketed because our customers need this material. New sources of supply are opening around the world during 2011, 2012, and beyond, but this will remain a significant challenge to many high-tech industries for the foreseeable future.

There are two mitigating bright spots here:

1) Cerium oxide to allow results to be achieved that are not possible with other materials today, so demand will continue to some extent; and

2) Smaller materials achieve greater functionality “per pound” than larger materials and, therefore, inherently require smaller quantities of materials to achieve a given performance level. This reduces both cost and, ultimately, offers greener alternatives in some cases where fewer byproducts are created for a given process.

SW: Thanks again for your time, Jess. It has been a pleasure speaking with you. We wish you and your colleagues at Nanophase all the best in the future.

You will be able to hear Jess live and in person at our 10th Annual Event.

PLEASE SAVE THE DATE for our 10th Annual NanoBusiness Conference/Nanomanufacturing Summit 2011
September 25-27, 2011
Boston, MA
http://www.internano.org/nms2011/

REGISTER TODAY
Industry/Government:
$400.00; $500.00 after August 26, 2011

University/Academia:
$200.00; $250.00 after August 26, 2011
https://regstg.com/Registration/RegForm.aspx?rid=9363e8fe-34c5-4188-9ecb-f1a5852ef5f3

Seaport World Trade Center, Boston, MA
http://www.seaportboston.com/meetings-and-events/overview.aspx
Hotel: Seaport Hotel (connected to the World Trade Center)
http://www.seaportboston.com/

Regards,

Vincent Caprio “Serving the Nanotechnology Community for Over a Decade”
Executive Director
NanoBusiness Commercialization Association
203-733-1949
vincent@nanobca.org
www.nanobca.org

I would like to share with you a couple of upcoming educational courses titled:

Nanomaterials for Aerospace and Defense: Applications, Issues, Trends and Practices
http://www.caneus.org/course/materials/

NanoBusiness members will be offered the same benefits as CANEUS members with reduced registration fees of $350.

Course 1 – June 28, 2011
Lockheed Martin’s Advanced Technology Center
3251 Hanover Street, Palo Alto, CA 94304
REGISTER
https://ww2.eventrebels.com/er/Registration/RegistrationForm.jsp?ActivityID=5788&ItemID=21424

Course 2 – August 23, 2011
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
8800 Greenbelt Road, Greenbelt, MD, 20771
REGISTER
https://ww2.eventrebels.com/er/Registration/RegistrationForm.jsp?ActivityID=6320&ItemID=23525

One of the course instructors is a familiar friend of the Nanotechnology Community over the past 10 years, Dr. Sharon Smith http://www.caneus.org/course/materials/index.php/instructors1.

NANO NEWS – Spring Edition Volume 2
This spring has brought us many exciting new developments in our Nanotechnology Community. We would like to share with you the following articles:

50 years ago on May 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy announced the U.S. goal of sending an American safely to the Moon before the end of the 60s.
http://history.nasa.gov/moondec.html

Northwestern University Purchases NanoInk’s NLP 2000 Desktop Nanofabrication System
http://www.nanoink.net/press-releases/press-release-3-29-2011.html

U.S. Department of Energy to Invest in Innovalight
http://www.tinytechvc.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=580135

Nanosys Uses Cool Quantum Dot Technology to Make Displays More Colorful
http://www.tinytechvc.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=578893

Harris & Harris Group Notes Sale of Quantum Computing System by D-Wave Systems to Lockheed Martin Corporation
http://www.tinytechvc.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=580990

mPhase Technologies Granted Key U.S. Patent for Multi-Chemistry Battery Architecture
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=e8zakgdab&v=001OOxHMyT1jj1SeQp1TUso_ogiMZiKz1NGb7M8NuTBrZDdsIJlVzDl8VBqs3HnGWtaaqGHs-xdWgjeosxRpdx_QkO0uv7ONY0_iYf4_P4j-bqsRlLWi0DDpg%3D%3D

Testing Nano: How Much Is Too Much?
http://newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/nano_testing/

Nanomedicine, the FDA: Developing science on a case-by-case basis
http://www.medcitynews.com/2011/05/nanomedicine-and-the-fda-developing-science-on-a-case-by-case-basis/

PLEASE SAVE THE DATE for our 10th Annual NanoBusiness Conference/Nanomanufacturing Summit 2011
September 25-27, 2011
http://www.internano.org/nms2011/
Seaport World Trade Center, Boston, MA
http://www.seaportboston.com/meetings-and-events/overview.aspx
Hotel: Seaport Hotel (connected to the World Trade Center)
http://www.seaportboston.com/

Regards,

Vincent Caprio “Serving the Nanotechnology Community for Over a Decade”
Executive Director
NanoBusiness Commercialization Association
203-733-1949
vincent@nanobca.org
www.nanobca.org

This spring has brought us many exciting new developments in our Nanotechnology Community. We would like to share with you the following articles:

Let’s begin with an article written by our friend, Scott Rickert, President, Co-Founder & CEO of NanoFilm:
NANOFILM
Nanotechnology – and all technology – are the bond by Scott Rickert
http://www.industryweek.com/articles/whats_the_world_coming_to_partnership_24555.aspx

Nanofilm and SDG, Inc. Sign Joint Development Agreement for Nanotechnology and Bio-Nano Products http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/5/prweb8383802.htm

All positive news this spring from Harris & Harris – Stock Symbol TINY
RESEARCH 2.0 Initiation of Coverage
Harris & Harris Group: Nanotech Renaissance
http://blog.research2zero.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Harris-Harris-Coverage-Update-Report-April-28-2011.pdf

Harris & Harris Group: Survive to Thrive
http://blog.research2zero.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Harris-Harris-Coverage-Report-January-10-20111.pdf

Updates on Lux Capital portfolio companies. Really cool breakthroughs.
LUX CAPITAL – Spring 2011 News
Startup Kurion Enlisted for Fukushima Cleanup
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/startup-kurion-enlisted-for-fukushima-cleanup/

Cambrios ClearOhm Film Used in Smart Phone
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/06/idUS114178+06-Apr-2011+BW20110406

Interesting Webinar this week
WEBINAR – Thursday, May 19, 2011 1:00pm-5:30pm EST
Nano Governance: The Current State of Federal, State, and International Regulation
http://www2.americanbar.org/calendar/nr1105-nano-governance/Pages/default.aspx

Great report for our Nanotechnology Community
2010 NIST Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST) Report
http://www.nist.gov/cnst/upload/cnst_2010_report.pdf

Attached is a fantastic article that was published in the May 2nd edition of Chemical Engineering News entitled U.S. Nanotech at a Crossroads by Britt E. Erickson.   NNI Hearing Article – CEN

PLEASE SAVE THE DATE for our 10th Annual NanoBusiness Conference
September 25-27, 2011
Seaport World Trade Center, Boston, MA
http://www.seaportboston.com/meetings-and-events/overview.aspx
Hotel: Seaport Hotel (connected to the World Trade Center)
http://www.seaportboston.com/

Regards,

Vincent Caprio “Serving the Nanotechnology Community for Over a Decade”
Executive Director
NanoBusiness Commercialization Association
203-733-1949
vincent@nanobca.org
www.nanobca.org

In this month’s interview, we talk to Dr. J. Steven Rutt, Partner and Chairman of the Nanotechnology Industry Team at Foley & Lardner LLP. Dr Rutt’s practice includes patent counseling, patent prosecution, IP licensing and agreements, including technology transfer carried out under the Bayh-Dole Act, patent landscaping and clearance opinions, due diligence, patent litigation support, trade secrets, and trademarks. Dr. Rutt is a frequent writer and conference presenter with respect to nanotechnology and the law, actively helping to lead and participate in Foley’s Nanotechnology Industry Team. Currently, he is editor of the blog, www.nanocleantechblog.com. He is also the author of a dozen scientific publications and inventor on four patents. His experience includes nine years of hands-on research in polymer synthesis and morphological studies, and his experience in private industry includes two years of corporate chemical research with NTT in Tokyo, Japan. Dr. Rutt’s legal papers have been published widely, including publications such as Nanotechnology Law and Business Journal, Journal of the Patent & Trademark Office Society, The SciTech Lawyer, and the Legal Times.

Dr. Rutt received his law degree from Georgetown University Law Center, his doctorate in chemistry from The Pennsylvania State University, and his bachelor’s degree in chemistry from Goshen College.

In our interview, we discuss intellectual property, the current regulatory environment for nanotech, what kinds of services are in demand currently by the nanotech community, as well as the upcoming Supreme Court case on Bayh-Dole and what the implications might be for the nanotech community. We hope you enjoy the interview with Steven Rutt. – Steve Waite, Director of Research and Strategy, NanoBCA

SW: It’s great to speak with you today, Steve. I would like to begin by having you give us an overview of the nanotech practice at Foley & Lardner (F&L) and tell us about the role you play in the nanotech community.

SR: Foley and nanotech go back a long way. A relatively young, astute Foley lawyer identified nanotech and the NNI early on as an important driver for the future. The firm agreed, rapidly organized a nanotech team, and positioned itself ahead of many other firms. Later, other firms jumped in when nanotech became a buzz. Foley is a relatively large, general practice firm of almost 1,000 lawyers, so the innovative spirit is also coupled with strength and stability. The firm provides closely networked experts in different legal fields including intellectual property, regulatory, corporate, and litigation.

Over the years, we have done many things: sponsored and supported nanotech conferences and organizations, taken part in working with the government and its agencies (including lobbying and the NNI), spoken to media, and participated in journals. All of this is so we are better situated to serve clients and keep pace with the many developments. We also work with regional accelerators as advisors. We have also tried to understand deeply the dynamics of things and how, for example, energy applications of nanotech morph into cleantech. For me, personally, I had a background in chemistry and materials science, so it was a natural fit for me to get involved with nanotech.

A recent example: we try to work closely with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) which is a short drive from our D.C. offices. Last December, we were at the NNI at Ten conference and met some of our contacts at the PTO. From that informal talk, we agreed to help the PTO organize a cleantech customer partnership meeting this April, including how nanotech has contributed to cleantech. So we try not to sit still.

SW: We are seeing nanotech R&D initiatives bear fruit in terms of product commercialization and job creation. What’s your sense of the support for nanotech-related research and business activity in Washington today, particularly with the changes in Congress we’ve seen recently?

SR: Surprisingly, some common ground exists between the two parties. Hopefully, nanotechnology can continue to be a bi-partisan effort, and we will experience thoughtful leadership rather than crass rancor. There tends to be more agreement in the view that we need to fund defense-related technology. Even DARPA promotes nanotech and cleantech. Also, funding of basic research is an area of common ground. Finding the next nanoscale switch for the electronics/computer industries is vital. Also, no one can deny energy is important when gasoline pump prices go sky high and political tensions erupt around the world. Manufacturing and nanomanufacturing are also common grounds.

The Obama Administration has quietly supported nanotech, including for example the recent $2.1 billion supplemental NNI budget request. Nanotech does not get as much press as cleantech from the Obama administration, but a critical chunk of cleantech is based on nanotech.

Clearly, a compelling policy debate is whether the United States should fund and promote more direct commercialization efforts as found in competing countries like China and Germany (so-called “picking winners and losers” in the marketplace). The two leading parties simply do not agree on this issue. ARPA-E may be the most vivid example of this. Also, if the government supports a loan, and a failure happens, the politics can get hot as accusations fly about government mismanagement (even though failure is inherent to innovation).

Unfortunately, many observers believe that the U.S. is now “falling behind” in vital areas like nanotech and cleantech. Action is needed to catch up, whether from the government or the private sector. If the private sector is not doing it, we should not be surprised if the government steps in, or is at least asked to step in, to fill the vacuum. Venture capital, for example, may be attracted for business reasons to fund social media innovation, but government can also help ensure that innovation in the physical and life sciences also occurs whether or not venture capital funds it.

SW: Intellectual property is clearly an important area for nanotech. What kinds of activity and trends are we seeing in nano-related IP today?

SR: For IP, three lead topics include obtaining patents, licensing patents, and litigating patents. We monitor each week the patents and patent publications emerging which are classified as 977 nanotechnology patents. We are now approaching 7,000 class 977 patents, and more importantly, we have now over 8,000 published nanotech patent applications. We monitor these patents to get a feel for the trends and the types of language used in the claims. Many of these patents relate to electronics and semiconductors. For instance, companies like Samsung are filing in large volume. Unfortunately, fewer patents relate to pharma and biotech which is due to how the USPTO defines the classification. One must go outside of 977 to monitor nanobio; 977 is just a starting point. I have been impressed by the broad, balanced diversity of patent applicants populating 977, ranging from the Samsungs to the lone inventors, from the universities to the mid-sized companies, and from the government labs to the VC-backed start-ups.

Nanotech patent licensing and litigation are alive and well, from our experience. Universities and federal laboratories continue to aggressively market their patent licensing, and will face increasing pressure in coming years to show the government how the government funding for research is translating into jobs. Many companies, of course, want to avoid litigation, but if your product is valuable, competitors will arise, and IP disputes are almost unavoidable at some point – there are so many patents out there. Smart, well-managed companies aggressively manage the risks from the very start, searching for and formulating strategy for competitive patents. Some companies appear to just want to posture, and litigation can’t always be avoided.

New things seem to constantly come up. For example, we monitor deep shale gas drilling patenting and innovation, including Marcellus shale, which will have a profound impact. Now, nanotech patents are starting to appear in this innovation space. Graphene? Metamaterials? Always something new!

SW: You mentioned four areas of focus at F&L – Litigation, Corporate, Intellectual Property (IP) and Regulatory. Let’s discuss regulatory briefly. Generally speaking, how does the current regulatory environment for nanotech look from your perspective? What are the hot topics for nanotech at the EPA and FDA today, for example?

SR: Much has been written about nanotech and EHS, of course – perhaps too much? It seems as if more has been written than actually done. Innovation tends to flow faster than and not wait for regulation. The current climate for budget cutting and promotion of jobs tends to cool the fervor to regulate.

One topic that should receive more attention than it does is connecting innovation and regulation. It can come in several flavors. For example, one form is innovation to facilitate nanotech regulation. If you want to regulate exposure to nanoparticles, how do you measure the exposure? Is there a way to study nanomaterial toxicity without killing larger animals and minimizing animal rights concerns? Other EHS technologies actively do something remedial. As an example, the Department of Energy recently filed a patent application (2011/0039291) related to bioremediation of nanomaterials. EHS is best as an innovation growth area for the coming decade. Inventions can help with or be required for the kinds of regulation we want and make sense.

The EPA is perhaps the most active agency, and we have an active environmental regulation group which works with the EPA (e.g., Foley lawyers Sarah Slack, Dick Stoll, and Steven Chester). The EPA should be issuing TSCA nano-related rules in 2011 including reporting obligations for manufacturers. Another area of activity is regulation of certain public health claims about nanoscale products (e.g., “kill germs”). While we have an active FDA group (e.g., Foley lawyers, David Rosen and Nate Beaver), the FDA has been seemingly less active with nanotech in recent years. Some drug products and medical devices which incorporate nanoparticulate technology have been approved. In FDA’s discussion of looking ahead for the next five years, the FDA recognizes they need to become more involved, and keep abreast of new developments and emerging technologies like nanotech. As for OSHA, not much new for now, in the bigger picture.

One never knows when a crisis might occur to profoundly change the EHS debate. No one predicted too well the BP oil spill or the Japan nuclear crisis. In the meantime, we have slow evolution of regulatory dialog, tempered by the need to allow business to grow in a sluggish economy.

SW: With respect to the corporate services F&L provides, what types of services are most in demand today?

SR: It crosses the gamut. For example, new emerging tech companies, whether they are called nanotech or not, are always forming, expanding, and preparing to take it to the next level such as the next financing round, an IPO, or being bought. They need to be structured and financed through the changes. They need grant money. Employment matters come up. Stock options. Lobbying. IP. Complex agreement issues come up including supply agreements and technical advisory agreements are but some examples. Etc. Multi-disciplinary teams are essential. Finally, international issues are key including China. In particular, our corporate lawyers in such offices as Boston and Silicon Valley are active in these areas (e.g., Foley’s Jim Chapman, Susan Pravda, Julie Lee, Linda Ji, and Ken Duck).

SW: On your blog (http://www.nanocleantechblog.com/) you’ve written about the upcoming Supreme Court decision on Bayh-Dole. Give us some background on the case and tell us what the implications of a ruling in favor or rejection might be.

SR: Briefly, the case is Stanford v. Roche. Oral argument at the Supreme Court was held February 28, 2011, and a decision should issue shortly (sorry, I should avoid saying who will or should win). The fact that the Supreme Court agreed to take the case confirms the importance of IP, innovation, and government funding in the Court’s modern mindset. The Court could issue a broad, sweeping opinion or, more likely, issue a narrowly tailored opinion.

This is an important case because it touches on what can happen when federally funded research at the university is linked to private efforts for commercialization. The case interprets the Bayh-Dole Act, which is the legal regime set up thirty years ago to govern IP rights and licensing for federally funded inventions. These days, most agree that partnering is important for commercialization, and partnering includes individuals visiting other organizations to collaborate and learn. However, this can generate legal problems.

Here, for example, Stanford University fell into dispute with Roche over whether Roche needed to take a license on a Stanford patent. In essence, Roche said it obtained rights in the patent due to activities by a Stanford professor at Roche, and the nature of Stanford’s IP policies and assignments. Stanford says the Bayh-Dole Act preempts the Roche ownership claim.

I would guess the Court will rule narrowly, but they certainly have the option to provide extensive commentary about the complexities of modern innovation involving government funding and collaborations (“thought leadership” in addition to deciding the case).

SW: Your blog covers nanotech and cleantech. What role is nanotech playing today with respect to fostering innovation in cleantech?

SR: Many of the photo and electrical processes at the root of cleantech innovation are at the nanoscale. Examples include batteries, solar cells, and efficient lighting. Mitsubishi Chemical just announced a major initiative for organic solar cells, for example. The NNI has recently identified nanosolar as one of three signature areas to promote. Then there is nanoscale chemical engineering like filtration, passing water through the inside of nanotubes for example.

One particularly recent example was covered by CNN and caught my eye. It relates to rare earth metal magnets. These magnets are critical to defense and cleantech, but something like 97% of the supply comes from China. People also want to make stronger magnets, and ARPA-E has funded work in the area. Nanocrystalline powders turn out to be an important approach. Just recently, I learned one innovative company working in this area is actually located just a mile from where I grew up (which is a small, one red light town two hours away from the closest large city).

It is these sorts of remarkable stories which keep my interest in nanotechnology, including how nanotech continuously fuels cleantech, life sciences, and many other sectors. Nanotech perhaps does not always get enough appreciation by way of name recognition.

SW: You are involved with the Pennsylvania Nanomaterials Commercialization Center. Tell us about the Center and what kinds of activities you are engaged in today.

SR: The PA Nanomaterials Center is an excellent example of more state- or region-oriented efforts as opposed to Federal. The Center also reflects how large companies can come together to encourage innovation in sectors of their interests. I am a member of their Technical Advisory Board. Among its roles, it helps to bridge the “valley of death” through providing grant money. It also provides business counsel and networking opportunities for local companies. Much emphasis is placed on partnering, including for example asking the requestor for their fund money to find a partner to facilitate commercialization. We recently took a day to review a round of grant proposals. We also took a tour of Alcoa and heard some of the latest about defense and nanotechnology. The group brings people together. In reviewing the grants, the group worked very hard to “get it right” and hear all opinions on the merits of the proposals. Washington cannot and should not resolve all the innovation and job creation issues.

SW: What have been some highlights of your work in and with the nano community?

SR: There have been many. We are always pleased to hear, for example, when clients take it to another level such as an IPO or being bought and come to us to help them get there. Seeing fresh innovation directly and in person is also a treasure, talking to inventors about their latest “baby” and seeing their demos. Also, always good to see the Patent Office finally understand why an invention is patentable and grant the patent. Seeing how IP links in with regulatory, corporate, and litigation issues is also an on-going stimulation. On a personal level, a recent highlight was to see my daughter’s school and county science fairs, where high school students were exploring concepts in cleantech and even nanotech!

One more: feels good also when we are able to help a client finish the year “in budget” – perhaps most, we appreciate the loyalty and trust clients show.

SW: Thanks again for your time, Steven. We wish you and your colleagues at Foley & Lardner, LLP all the best in the future.

Steven and his team will be speaking at our 10th Annual NanoBusiness Conference http://www.ctnanobusiness.org/NanoBCA/our-conference/boston-2011/ at the Seaport World Trade Center in Boston, MA on September 25-27th. Save the dates for Boston.

NANO NEWS

USPTO Budget Reductions Halt Fee-Based Prioritized Examination (Track I) and Other Programs
http://www.foley.com/publications/pub_detail.aspx?pubid=8098

Public sees nanoparticle risk as low
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2011/04/12/Public-sees-nanoparticle-risk-as-low/UPI-66701302655585/

2,500 Products Now Approved under EPA Safer Product Labeling Program
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/eeffe922a687433c85257359003f5340/706954e54731c57d852578790051910b

Regards,

Vincent Caprio “Serving the Nanotechnology Community for Over a Decade”
Executive Director
NanoBusiness Commercialization Association
203-733-1949
vincent@nanobca.org
www.nanobca.org

I had the opportunity to attend the Congressional Science and Technology Subcommittee’s hearing review of The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). At the NNI hearing, Nanotechnology Icon, Dr. Clayton Teague http://www.tappi.org/content/events/08nano/teague.pdf, informed the Subcommittee he was leaving his post as the Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO), a position he has held since April 2003. Dr. Teague has served America in various positions in the US Government for the last 39 years.

Now, for the review of Thursday, April 14th.

House Subcommittee Holds Hearing on NNI Oversight

On April 14, 2011, the House Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Research and Science Education held a hearing entitled “Nanotechnology: Oversight of the National Nanotechnology Initiative and Priorities for the Future.” Witnesses included:

– Dr. Clayton Teague, Director, National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO);
– Dr. Jeffrey Welser, Director, Nanoelectronics Research Initiative, Semiconductor Research Corporation;
– Dr. Seth Rudnick, Chairman of the Board, Liquidia Technologies;
– Dr. James Tour, Richard E. Smalley Institute for Nanoscale Science and Technology, Rice University; and
– Mr. William Moffitt, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nanosphere, Inc.

The witnesses emphasized the need for Congress to continue robust funding for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) to ensure that the US remains the global leader in nanotechnology. Other countries, such as Japan, China, and South Korea have increased their investment in nanotechnology and are showing corresponding increases in publication and patent rates. Dr. Teague noted that by current estimates, the 2010 nanotechnology funding for the European Community totaled $2.6B US, exceeding the NNI total of $1.9B. The witnesses encouraged the Subcommittee to continue supporting basic research while also directly promoting technology transfer, for example through expanded use of public-private partnerships. The speakers from industry noted that NNI investments in their companies have generated handsome returns on investment in the form of private follow-on funding, job creation, and cost-saving product or process improvements.

Representative Mo Brooks (R-AL), Chair of the Subcommittee, thanked Dr. Teague for his eight years of service as Director of the NNCO. Dr Teague’s last day as Director was April 15, 2011.

I have attended four of these types of hearings during the last 10 years. This review was very focused with the witnesses explaining how a variety of products developed through the Science of Nanotechnology have impacted America.

Another take away from the hearing is that 2011-2012 US NNI funding is budgeted for $2.1 Billion and the European Union funding is budgeted for $2.6 Billion. I spoke at the German House in NYC http://www.germany.info/Vertretung/usa/en/__events/GKs/NEWY/2011/04/13__Nanovation.html on Wednesday night April 13th and I saw first-hand the progress they are making in Germany.

The NanoBusiness Commercialization Association would like to thank Dr. Teague for his service to the NNI and America. We offer Dr. Teague and his family Best Wishes on the next chapter in his life.

Regards,

Vincent Caprio “Serving the Nanotechnology Community for Over a Decade”
Executive Director
NanoBusiness Commercialization Association
203-733-1949
vincent@nanobca.org
www.nanobca.org

The 2011 NanoBusiness NYC Conference began with a reception Wednesday evening (April 6th) co-hosted with our friends from the New York Biotechnology Association http://www.nyba.org/.

The technical sessions began the following morning at 9:00am with introductory remarks by NanoBCA Executive Director Vincent Caprio. Next, Dr. AJ Malshe, Founder, Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of NanoMech http://www.nanomech.biz/, discussed his company’s philosophy and pipeline. NanoMech has received considerable media attention recently, due in part to a well-publicized visit by treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. NanoMech is currently pursuing product lines based on 4 technologies, each of which is “making atoms work harder and smarter”. TuffTek is a cubic boron nitride (BN) coating which increases the life of machine tooling and saw blades. BN is extremely hard and long-wearing and, unlike diamond, is chemically compatible with steel. AJ showed data indicating that TuffTek-coated tool inserts last 10 times as long as conventional cutters, and at least twice as long as competitive titanium-aluminum-nitride-coated inserts, with which they are cost-competitive. Other NanoMech technologies include Nanoglide, a line of lubricant products which can save energy use in heavy machinery by reducing friction while enhancing durability; the polymer-based antibacterial Nguard line; and ElementX, a proprietary method for forming nanoparticles from evaporable elements or alloys. Nanoglide is being used in a major Department of Energy-sponsored wind turbine improvement program, as recently featured on the General Electric’s Edison Desk http://ge.geglobalresearch.com/blog/making-machines-tick-longer-with-nanolubrication/ blog. ElementX technology was originally developed in Canada and recently acquired by NanoMech. AJ emphasized that NanoMech has not rushed to market but has built its product lines slowly and carefully. A key strategy has been developing materials and processes for integration with existing high-volume manufacturing equipment. He also gave substantial credit to support from local, Arkansas-based businesses and individuals, including his current CEO, James Phillips, who began as an investor.

Longtime nanotechnology advocate, NanoBCA co-founder, and Lux Capital http://luxcapital.com/ Managing Partner, Josh Wolfe, described his investment philosophy and gave us an update on the Lux portfolio. Lux invests in core technologies with broad market applications, biomedical technologies, and materials for the energy market. In all three areas, it looks to differentiate itself by identifying special situations or identifying and investing in outstanding people. The company takes a contrarian perspective when they have a strong thesis suggesting that the herd is wrong—in energy, for example, Lux is staying out of the crowded solar field and sees biofuels as a regressive approach based on an outdated agrarian model. On the other hand, they have been looking carefully at nuclear energy for a decade. One of their portfolio companies, Kurion http://www.kurion.com/, has been developing technologies for safely handling nuclear waste and for cleaning up contaminated sites like Hanford, WA. Their technologies are now being evaluated for use at the earthquake-damaged Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan. Another investment Lux recently unveiled, along with heavy hitters Google Ventures and Kleiner Perkins, is Transphorm. It is the latest company from UCSB Professor and serial entrepreneur Umesh Mishra. Transphorm technology uses gallium nitride semiconducting devices to increase the efficiency of voltage converters, with potential applications all along the electricity chain from power plants to wall warts. As our electric grid becomes ever more complex, the opportunities for employing this energy-conserving technology will only grow. Those of you who missed our recent interview http://www.vincentcaprio.org/nanobusiness-interview-josh-wolfe-co-founder-managing-partner-lux-capital-management with Josh can read it online for more information about Lux’s nanotech investments.

We then moved on to a series of presentations on nanomedicine, chaired by Livingston Securities’ health care guru Mostafa Analoui. First, Mostafa introduced Anil Diwan, Chairman and President of NanoViricides http://nanoviricide.com/. NanoViricides is a publicly traded company whose nanoparticle technology attacks a wide variety of virus particles. A distinguishing characteristic is a flexible component that spreads out on the lipid-based exterior of virus particles, disrupting their structure and ultimately causing them to fall apart. In laboratory tests, the current generation NanoViricides shows about an eightfold improvement in performance compared to its predecessor. In mouse studies of H1N1 influenza, for example, the occurrence of lung lesions was reduced 15 to 30 times compared to untreated subjects. While NanoViricides’ most promising results so far are with HIV and influenza viruses, the technology is also appropriate for fighting Ebola, rabies, and even Dengue fever. Dengue is particularly difficult to treat due to its unusual ability to be more virulent on a second exposure, a phenomenon known as antibody-dependent enhancement. Anil noted that pharmaceutical development costs remain a difficult obstacle, and reported that his company’s analysis indicated that it would be less expensive for them to proceed with private funding than to devote substantial resources to obtaining and managing grants.

Next, Edith Mathiowitz of Perosphere and Brown University discussed her work with polymers that are engineered to adhere to tissue. By increasing bioadhesion and decreasing particle size, Edith noted that the long-standing quest to deliver more medications orally has often been frustrated by a simple fact: the human body is designed to absorb only certain biologic compounds, and to reject most others. By dispersing biologics in sticky biopolymers and taking advantage of the high surface area of nanoparticles, Perosphere believes they can overcome this obstacle. Preliminary results for orally administered insulin are promising.

Frank Bedu-Addo of PDS Biotechnology http://www.pdsbiotech.com/ described Versamune, a nano-based immunotherapy technology. Immunotherapies, which fight disease by activating the body’s own defender T cells, are only now starting to deliver on their promise; Dendreon’s Provenge received the industry’s first FDA approval last year. Most immunotherapies exhibit low potency, so adjuvants have traditionally been used to enhance their effectiveness. But available adjuvants have poor safety profiles, and the added complexity approaches with separate adjuvants increases cost. In contrast, Versamune safely acts as an adjutant activator itself, has higher potency, and is a simpler system. They have completed preliminary animal trials incorporating a protein which targets human papilloma virus. These trials showed striking remission of HPV-associated head and neck tumors. PDS plans to enter clinical trials with this drug candidate within a year, followed by a related compound targeting melanoma in 2013. They have raised $11M in capital to date with minimal dilution, and have received $5M in-kind service contributions from NIH.

We shifted from therapeutic drugs to diagnostic testing with Moritz Beckmann, CEO of XinRay Systems http://www.xinraysystems.com/. XinRay, a joint venture of UNC-spinout Xintek and diagnostic powerhouse Siemens, uses carbon nanotubes to build X-ray emitters. The compact, rugged CNT-based sources allow XinRay to build imaging systems that are not practical with traditional X-ray generators, which Beckmann compared to incandescent light bulbs in their sophistication and fragility. XinRay designs use an array of emitters, so the X-ray beam can be steered electrically instead of swinging a single source mechanically. Medical applications in development range from mammography to image-guided radiotherapy (in which rapid 3-D imaging is used to help surgeons place radioactive implants precisely in diseased tissue). Future possibilities include dental imaging systems. This 3-D imaging approach, called tomosynthesis, is a variant of computer-aided tomographic (CT) scanning. It trades off some resolution for speed, reduced X-ray exposure, and low cost. Non-medical applications include airport baggage screening (in development) and non-destructive testing of structural materials (future).

Joel Friedman described his work building a nanobiotechnology center at Albert Einstein Medical College. They are striving to create the kind of open, collaborative research environment that once thrived at Bell Laboratories, with a “bench to bedside and back” mission – start with basic research on nanoparticles, develop technologies to deliver diagnostics or therapies based on these particles, and apply them in focused healthcare situations. Then take the results right back to the basic research and iterate. They presently have two technology thrusts, each with multiple healthcare applications. The first is hybrid materials combining hydrogels with glassy nanoparticle; the second is gadolinium oxide nanoparticles and techniques for coating them with various substances.

Tony Green, Director of The Nanotechnology Institute, closed out the nanomedicine panel with a description of NTI’s relationship with Ben Franklin Technology Partners. As one of four independent regional entities in the Ben Franklin model, NTI has been a leader in developing multi-institutional IP agreements and moving university-developed IP into companies. They work with many partner companies in Southeastern Pennsylvania and beyond, with restrictions in place to keep most of the money in state. In the past few years the State has shifted more emphasis to funding clean energy, following a very similar model, while cutting back somewhat on their nanobio and other life science investments.

We rejoined our NanoBCA colleagues for lunch, which included a keynote presentation from PhARMA CEO John Castellani. The nano track continued afterward with Jeff Rosedale of Woodcock Washburn surveying the nanomedicine intellectual property landscape. To get a big picture of the situation, Jeff compared the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Nanotechnology Cross-reference Class (Class 977) with the A1 international class for medical patents. He came up with 2,900 patents, 2,300 of them independent, in both classes. Three out of four describe compositions of nanomaterials or methods for making them. Diagnostic devices, imaging devices, bandages, and stents were also common. The largest patenters, not surprisingly, are big corporations – Proctor and Gamble, L’Oreal, and Elan. The University of California is fourth. Jeff used a few just-issued patents to illustrate the true state of the art. Last Tuesday’s new announcement included the following:

7,919,699 Nanotubes as mitochondrial uncouplers
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=3&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=977%2F$.CCLS.&OS=CCL/977/$&RS=CCL/977/$ and

7,919,113 Dispersible concentrate lipospheres for delivery of active agents
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=dispersible.TI.&s2=concentrate.TI.&OS=TTL/dispersible+AND+TTL/concentrate&RS=TTL/dispersible+AND+TTL/concentrate

from the University of Kentucky and Hebrew University respectively. The UK patent is a variation on an 80-year-old idea for altering metabolism, with applications from weight loss to healing brain injuries. While the basic mechanism is demonstrated, it has been very difficult to control. As in many other similar applications, the inventors believe nanotechnology will give them the ability to fine-tune the process safely. Jeff continued that major pharma manufacturers do have nano patent portfolios, including AstraZeneca’s supercritical process for dispersing protein particles; Bristol-Myers Squibb’s conjugated MRI contrast agents; Ethicon’s fluorescent markers to aid surgeons; and Abbott’s stent which eludes nanoparticles that are both bioactive and contrast-enhancing, so standard imaging techniques can see when the medicine has all eluted. GE, as might be expected, has many nano patents throughout the biomedical imaging field. But with all this activity only one set of patents has made it into the FDA orange book, which lists patents of composition or method that are generally recognized as safe and effective. That’s Elan’s TriCor portfolio, which is based on ball milling- far from a modern technology! Moving on to patenting strategies, Jeff suggested that inventors should generally focus more on “what” and less on “how”, since competitors can often find a different way to make something. Claim what they need to take (steal) from you. And claim something that is verifiable – i.e., that you can measure. Rosedale reminded us that trademarks, trade secrets, and agreements can be just as important as patents. Small companies in particular should be very sure that employees and consultants have proper agreements assigning rights to the company. One good basic strategy for balancing these components is to patent your basic compositions, consumables, devices, and tests, while keeping non-critical details and improvements as trade secrets. When conflicting or overlapping IP claims appear, what should a company do? A good way to start is by asking a patent attorney for a freedom to operate study. Their recommendations may range from licensing to requesting re-examination of patents based on new-found prior art to seeking a declaratory judgment invalidating a patent to, as a last (and expensive) resort, doing battle in court.

Our good friend Scott Livingston http://www.livingstonsecurities.com/about.php followed Jeff with an update on the investment outlook. Scott had just been in Boston for the annual meeting of the National Venture Capital Association, which he said was the hottest in several years. He met with leading partners from 20 major VC firms – they are all looking to get their money working again in companies, and IPOs are regaining favor. The political landscape is also promising. Scott noted President Obama’s emphasis on innovation in the State of the Union address, Secretary Geithner’s recent travels to high tech companies including NanoMech, and plenty of interest in innovation on the other side of the aisle – he reminded us that the re-emergent Newt Gingrich has a long history as a champion of innovation (and friend of the NanoBCA). Livingston Securities http://www.livingstonsecurities.com/ expects to continue to be in upcoming quality IPO deals, hoping to following on recent successes like Neophotonics and Gevo. But business as usual on Wall Street is a risk. The big investment firms are not focused on the needs of high tech companies and are pushing them too hard. It is especially bad in healthcare. Biotech deals are getting canceled or requiring companies to give up too many shares at too low a price, leaving them underfunded and unhealthy. He described Tesla’s much talked about 2010 offering as a different model. Sentiment was strong and highly mixed. By offering “friends and family” deals to owners of their first generation Roadster or people on the waiting list, they had 1/3 of their deal done, with engaged investors, before going to the big banks. Scott sees small investment banks like Livingston Securities as playing a similar role for nanotech companies. About 2,500 people are participating in Scott’s investor network. He is looking for more, and more active, members who will add to the group’s collective smarts, proselytize for innovation, and increase its attractiveness to IPO dealmakers. Scott has been hosting state-level webinars around the country, pushing regional connections. Eventually, he would like to move his company up from being the #3,4, or 5 firm on $100M dollar deals to leading $30M deals. Governors, senators, and Presidential hopefuls will be cutting ribbons around the country for the next 18 months, so Scott says get in now.

Harris and Harris http://www.tinytechvc.com/ Chairman and CEO Doug Jamison gave us the VC perspective on the investment landscape. While Doug continues to see some disarray in the community, he is optimistic about the direction in which things are moving. H&H believes that, as a publicly traded VC firm, it offers investors a unique combination of liquidity, transparency, and multi-industry exposure. There are now 32 companies in the portfolio, principally in cleantech, electronics, and healthcare. H&H is able to be more patient than traditional firms since it has permanent capital; some exits are pushing 8, 9, and even 10 years. But the successes are starting to come. BioVex was recently acquired by Amgen for $425M plus up to $575 in future performance payments. Neophotonics completed a successful IPO in February. A third exit is expected soon. Harris and Harris’ portfolio has pipelines of early, middle, and late stage companies, so this is just the beginning. Doug agrees with Scott that smaller IPOs make sense for a lot of companies, though in some fields (healthcare, for example) there is the opposite problem – the current median size for mergers and acquisitions, < 100M, is not sufficient. But he is not sure the NVCA really understands this or has a clue what to do about it. H&H’s attitude is that you want to know who you are selling to – when they make a Series A investment, they already know who they would like to have involved in Series B. Finally, Doug reminded us that nanotechnology is succeeding, with lots of product wins and plenty of interest in the business press. Two examples Doug highlighted which you can buy now are Contour long life lithium carbon fluoride batteries and Sephora’s Algenist skin cream utilizing alguronic acid from biofuel innovator Solazyme. Algenist sold out in 8 minutes in its debut on QVC.

Sam Brauer of Nanotech Plus http://www.nanotechplus.net/ brought the meeting in to the home stretch with his talk on the state of cancer diagnostics. Sam pointed out that diagnostics are less than successful in today’s approach to cancer, nor are therapies successful for many cancers. In fact, the major advance against cancer in the last 50 years has been prevention, most notably by reducing smoking. Consider four of the most highly used screening diagnostics – the pap smear, mammogram, prostate-specific antigen test, and colonoscopy. Too often, Pap smears come back negative when diseased cells are present. Skilled clinicians seem to have lower false negative rates, but this variability is a major problem. PSA tests have the opposite problem – antigen levels are often elevated even though no cancer is present. Mammography also has a high false positive rate. Among these common tests, only colonoscopy is generally considered to have good accuracy and sensitivity – but it is expensive and invasive. Testing overall is about a $4.3B market. We spend almost 10 times that much on chemotherapy drugs. And about 80% if cancer deaths are from metastases, which are not really addressed by the major diagnostic screens. Can we do better by using targeted molecular diagnostics instead of broad screens? The science supporting this approach has been developing for more than 30 years, but may still be inadequate. Over 400 genes are already known to be involved in malignancy, and many researchers believe that all cancer-related genes will be identified within 10 years. But the pattern of gene expression in individual cancers is highly variable – Dr. James Heath, for example, found nearly as many expression patterns as he had patients in a study of the brain tumor known as glioblastoma. Heath’s conclusion is that we need protein screens rather than gene screens. But this is a much less developed area. In colon cancer, for example, only 3 proteins have been identified and none of them seems to be a driving force in the development of the disease. There are particular areas where the path forward seems a little clearer, such as leukemia, where Sam cited a recent paper on resistance to the drug Gleevec that many researchers think provides a roadmap to understanding how the disease progresses. But overall, the field faces scientific obstacles and a challenging business environment. Pharmaceutical companies show little interest in diagnostics, which they see as less profitable than therapeutics. They are also skeptical about providing diagnostics when appropriate companion therapies are not available. While GE’s Jeffrey Immelt foresees a shift of $250B from treatment to diagnosis over the next decade, he seems to be in the minority among healthcare experts. To make real progress, business issues such as research for funding and payment models must be addressed along with technology issues such as the identification of reliable DNA-based (genetic) or protein-based disease markers and the development of inexpensive, robust instruments for measuring them.

Our session closed with a summary dialogue between NanoBCA board members Steve Waite and Philip Lippel. Steve reminded us that nanotechnology is built on scientific discoveries dating back to the early twentieth century, with individual scientists and investors playing critical roles in turning research into innovative products. Phil noted that some of the hype (both positive and negative) around nanotechnology seems to be in decline. He expressed the hope that we are entering a phase where all stakeholders acknowledge that new technology development involves both benefits and risks and attempt to assess both realistically.

Thanks to all of our speakers and attendees for another successful event. Our 10th Annual NanoBusiness Conference will be held at the Seaport World Trade Center http://www.ctnanobusiness.org/NanoBCA/our-conference/boston-2011/ in Boston, MA on September 25-27th. Our 2011 Annual Conference will be organized with our strategic partner The National Nanomanufacturing Network http://www.internano.org/ and it will be a must attend event. For speaking opportunities, please send me your proposals and abstracts to vincent@nanobca.org.

Regards,

Vincent Caprio “Serving the Nanotechnology Community for Over a Decade”
Executive Director
NanoBusiness Commercialization Association
203-733-1949
vincent@nanobca.org
www.nanobca.org
www.vincentcaprio.org

In this month’s interview, we talk to William Moffitt, President and Chief Executive Officer of Nanosphere. Mr. Moffitt became president and CEO of Nanosphere in 2004. Moffitt is a 30+ year veteran of the diagnostics and medical device industry, having spent the last 20 years developing novel technologies into products and solutions that have helped shape the industry and generate significant shareholder value. Prior to Nanosphere, he served as President and CEO of i-STAT Corporation, a developer, manufacturer and marketer of diagnostic products that pioneered the point-of-care blood analysis market. Moffitt led i-STAT from an early stage private company through commercialization, an IPO in 1992 and its acquisition by Abbott Laboratories in 2003. Prior to i-STAT, Moffitt held increasingly responsible executive positions from 1973 through 1989 with Baxter Healthcare Corporation, a $7 billion manufacturer and distributor of healthcare products, and American Hospital Supply Corporation, a $3.5 billion diversified manufacturer and distributor of healthcare products, which Baxter acquired in 1985. Mr. Moffitt earned a B.S. in zoology from Duke University.

In our interview, we discuss Nanosphere’s diagnostics technology and the impact of nanotechnology on health care diagnostics. We hope you enjoy the interview. -Steve Waite

SW: Thanks for taking time to speak with us today, Bill. I thought we would begin by discussing the current state of diagnostics technology. What types of advances in diagnostics technology have we seen over the past decade?

WM: We have seen three significant advances in diagnostics in recent years and with them the potential for real, measurable improvements in patient treatment. First, continued discovery of new biomarkers for disease including genetic markers and gene expression ranging from RNA to protein markers. These new biomarker discoveries help advance diagnostics and provide physicians and patients with clinically actionable information that can lead to better outcomes.

Second, although the term personalized medicine created a significant degree of hype and early expectations, there is great progress being made in understanding the mechanisms of action and genetic implications for various therapeutic agents. This will result in a new era for the treatment and prevention of disease using therapies that are more appropriately targeted to an individual. To paraphrase William Osler, a father of modern medicine, “it is more important to know what patient a disease has than what disease a patient has.”

Third, new technologies have emerged that enable complex genetic and protein tests to be performed in virtually any health care setting, thus enabling these new advances to be incorporated into mainstream medicine on a practical and cost effective basis.

SW: What role is nanotechnology playing in advancing diagnostics in health care?

WM: Breakthroughs in nanotechnology have enabled Nanosphere to develop a testing platform – the Verigene System – that can perform both nucleic acid and ultra-sensitive protein assays in a very simple and cost-effective format; and, one that can put molecular diagnostics into any health care setting. Nanotechnology eliminates the complexity and high cost of testing found with other technologies when performing genetic assays for human disease or infectious disease. Moreover, nanotechnology provides a level of sensitivity for protein biomarkers not found in other technologies, which in turn leads to earlier detection of disease. For example, we have in development a test for cardiovascular disease which has already proven to be far more sensitive in detecting heart attacks and acute coronary syndromes. Recent data also suggest that this assay has great value in monitoring patients with chronic heart failure to more appropriately adjust therapy for this life threatening condition. We have also demonstrated the ability to detect recurrent prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy months and years earlier than tests available today. Most oncologist would agree, today the best weapon medicine has to fight cancer is early detection.

SW: Tell us more about your Verigene System and how it is being used today by customers.

WM: The heart of the Verigene System is the nanoparticle probe, which due to its selectivity enables us to format assays on a microarray. The microarray printed on a simple glass slide is incorporated into a unit-use disposable test cartridge that contains the reagents necessary to perform a test. Three very important characteristics arise. First, the microarray gives us the ability to probe for dozens of biological targets in a single test at one time. This makes it possible to perform very complex panels of tests such as an infectious disease assay where any number of bacteria or viruses may be the underlying cause. Second, the unit-use disposable cartridge format makes it economically feasible to run one patient sample at the place and time the physician requests the test. Other technologies rely on batch processing many patient samples at one time in order to lower the cost of any single test. This is not conducive to providing critical patient information when and where it is required. Third, operation of the system is so simple that it can be used in virtually any health care setting. After the user inserts a sample, the Verigene System performs all functions required to provide a test result. The system also incorporates an on-board quality control system to ensure accurate results.

SW: Nanosphere is pioneering the use of gold nanoparticles in diagnostics technology. Why gold?

WM: We functionalize the surface of gold nanoparticles with oligonucleotides or antibodies to create probes for genetic and protein assays. On the nanoscale, gold exhibits the perfect properties for creating high selectivity and sensitivity in biological probes, two attributes critical for the development of assays that must detect the smallest quantities of biological materials. Moreover, the catalytic properties of gold enable rapid amplification schemes, which in our case is the attachment of silver to the particle in the detection phase of the assay. This enlarges the particle and increases its light scattering properties. Gold’s stability at the nanoscale enables us to create reagents with a long shelf life, a property that is important in commercializing products for global distribution.

SW: Who are the primary customers for your nano-enabled diagnostics technology and what kind of feedback are you getting from the market?

WM: Our primary customers are hospital-based clinical laboratories, regional reference laboratories and other professional health care settings. Feedback has been very encouraging as our customers are excited about the ability to perform complex genetic and infectious disease tests when and where they are needed and in a format that is very simple to operate. The Verigene System is enabling testing in locations that could otherwise not perform such diagnostic tests.

SW: What kinds of efficiencies and cost savings are you able to deliver to the market today and how might that evolve in the foreseeable future?

WM: One of the greatest efficiencies delivered to the market is speed to patient diagnosis. Enabling tests to be performed at the point of care and as requested by the physician generates critical diagnostic information when and where it is required. The high cost and complexity of genetic tests has been eliminated through nanotechnology. Nanotechnology has enabled the development of a molecular diagnostics platform that operates in a very simple format thus eliminating the need for highly specialized labor. Moreover, the underlying cost of the consumable test cartridge is very inexpensive, which allows for pricing that is in line with any number of other routine diagnostic tests – tens of dollars as opposed to hundreds or thousands.

SW: We are seeing a tremendous decline in the cost of mapping human genomes. What kind of impact will this have on the diagnostics landscape and how do you see it impacting your company in the future?

WM: Genetic research will continue to advance the discovery of genetic biomarkers for disease and the metabolic pathways of various drugs. Medicine will continue to march toward true personalization. The effect on Nanosphere is very positive as such research programs provide the content for our business. As new genetic markers are discovered, we can incorporate them into our testing platform and rapidly and broadly disseminate the use of these new diagnostic tests.

SW: How do you see the regulatory climate evolving with respect to nanotech in diagnostics?

WM: As with any new science or technology, it will take time for the various regulatory agencies to fully understand the implications of products based on nanotechnology. As nanotechnology replaces the underlying technologies of diagnostic tests, it will be important for the regulatory agencies to develop a better understanding of this new science, which in many instances may eliminate problems associated with other older technologies.

SW: If you look out over the next decade, what kind of impact do you think nanotechnology overall will have on health care?

WM: Nanotechnology will impact both diagnostics and therapeutics. Nanoparticles are powerful constructs for the conveyance of biological substances, whether those substances are to probe for a particular target, as in the case of a diagnostic assay, or block the expression of a particular gene within a cell as a therapeutic agent. The best way to look at what nanotechnology can do is to consider the fact that these particles, which exhibit different functional characteristics on the nanoscale than on the macroscale, operate on the same size scale as the biology. Matching these nanoscale properties to the biology will lead to new discoveries in both diagnostics and therapeutics.

SW: Last question for you today, Bill. What do you think are the major risks for nanotech innovation in diagnostics and health care in general?

WM: Nanotech is having and will continue to have a significant impact on many aspects of medicine and on many established technologies and businesses. One risk is simply the adoption curve and how quickly new technologies are accepted in health care. The process can often be daunting, from clinical trials to the demonstration of not only medical efficacy but also economic sense.

For in vivo applications, manufacturers and developers are going to have to understand the biological and environmental impact and provide data to support safety, but this is really not different from proving the safety of any therapeutic drug or device.

SW: Thanks again for your time, Bill. We wish you and your colleagues at Nanosphere all the best in the future.

Regards,

Vincent Caprio “Serving the Nanotechnology Community for Over a Decade”
Executive Director
NanoBusiness Commercialization Association
203-733-1949
vincent@nanobca.org
www.nanobca.org

In this month’s interview, we talk to Josh Wolfe, Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Lux Capital Management. Mr. Wolfe manages Lux’s investments in Nanosys, Cambrios, Siluria and serves on the Board of Directors of Kurion, Silicon Clocks, Crystal IS and Lux Research. Before forming Lux Capital, he worked in Salomon Smith Barney’s Investment Banking group, in capital markets at Merrill Lynch on its Financial Futures & Options/Government Strategy desk and at Prudential Securities in Municipal Finance.

Prior to venturing into the financial world, Mr. Wolfe published cutting-edge AIDS-immunopathology research in Cell Vision and The Journal of Leukocyte Biology, in leading medical-immunology journals. He serves as co-founder and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Coney Island Prep, the first charter school in his native Coney Island, Brooklyn, and has been actively involved with the East Harlem School at Exodus House for over a decade. The son of a public school teacher, Josh is passionate about science, inner-city education and kids having a deep desire to learn and the right heroes.

Josh is a columnist with Forbes, Editor for the Forbes/Wolfe Emerging Tech Report and host of a show on the Forbes Video Network. He has been an invited guest to the White House and Capitol Hill to advise on nanotechnology and emerging technologies, a lecturer at MIT, Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Columbia and NYU, and a frequent guest on CNBC and CNN. Mr. Wolfe graduated from Cornell University with a B.S. in Economics and Finance.

In this interview, we talk to Josh about Lux Capital’s approach to venture capital investing and discuss some of the firm’s investments in nano and other advanced technology. We hope you enjoy the interview. – Steve Waite

SW: It’s great to be speaking with you today, Josh. Thanks for spending some time with us. You mentioned investing in nuclear. Nuclear technology was derided by environmentalists decades ago, but several prominent and outspoken activists have changed their tune. How big is the opportunity in nuclear today?

JW: There’ve been two things holding back nuclear: fear and waste. On the former it’s a remarkable shift. Environmentalists, once vociferous opponents, have become voracious proponents. To favor carbon reduction is to favor nuclear production. It’s the only rational way to have zero-carbon, not just low carbon, but zero-carbon base-load electricity production. 20% of US electricity is from nuclear, 80% of France, 16% globally and rising.

Remarkably, many people don’t know this, but because of a program called Megatons to Megawatts, about half the uranium our domestic reactors consume comes from Russian nuclear warheads. So amazingly, roughly one in every ten electrons you are consuming right now comes from dismantling of Cold War weapons. Anyway, Lux spent a year scouting the entire fuel cycle, from uranium miners to modular reactors to fuel enrichment, and determined that for a variety of reasons, none of them were venture-backable. The single biggest unsolved problem, particularly in the US was nuclear waste.

SW: Dealing with nuclear waste is obviously a major issue. What kinds of solutions exist today to deal with nuclear waste that weren’t available in the past?

JW: The first thing to know is there are two kinds of nuclear waste: spent fuel, which are the rods inside our 104 domestic reactors and the 440 global reactors. What we call waste, France calls fuel because they reprocess the spent fuel rods; 95% of the fuel is still in them, but proliferation is a concern so since Jimmy Carter’s reign, we have a once-through fuel cycle that stores the rods in casks, basically giant caskets waiting for burial in a some geological repository like Yucca Mountain, in Nevada. But for political reasons that will be trapped in purgatory for years or decades. So there really isn’t a market to go after here.

But the other more important and widely unknown market which has an urgent pain is the defense clean up waste. Most people have never heard of a place called Hanford. It’s in the State of Washington, the size of the State of Delaware and has hundreds of millions of gallons of radioactive waste. Just think about that. That’s bigger than the BP oil spill and twice the cost. And what is most surprising: despite all the rhetoric and punditry on ‘cleantech’ and ‘greentech’ from our political leaders and the media, one out of every four dollars, 25% of the entire DOE (Department of Energy) budget is not spent on solar, batteries, or wind – but on nuclear waste cleanup. This is hands-down the single largest economic opportunity in energy and environment that almost nobody knows or talks about. So we recruited veteran all-stars from the nuclear industry, from government, even Patrick Moore, Greenpeace founder and huge nuclear convert and quietly started and funded a company called Kurion, named after Madame Curie who discovered radiation. They went on to lock-up the most important technical breakthroughs and can grab the worst radioactive elements and permanently capture and isolate waste from the environment. If the team is successful, this will be one of the most important things I do in my life and one of the most financially lucrative things I’ve done for our investors.

SW: While we are on the topic of investing in energy, what is your view of prospects for digital power over the next 3-5 years?

JW: This is another critical area and one where like nuclear, Lux had a variant perception, a differing view. Everyone believes in energy efficiency. But I think they’re crazy. Everyone believes if things were more energy efficient we’d use less energy but they have it exactly and completely backwards. I wish I’d discovered the reason why but credit goes back two centuries to Jevon’s Paradox which shows that while individual devices may get more efficient, without any debate, those devices become cheaper and more available. You can do more for the same cost or less. So demand for them goes up and with near certainty, the aggregate energy use goes up. Even Energy Secretary Steven Chu and I have debated this. He hails fridges as energy efficient devices, to which I say amen. But what he misses is that a fridge today while being 75% more efficient than fridges 30 years ago, also are 20% larger and cost 60% of what they did. And the aggregate number of fridges and the aggregate energy demand is way higher. Individual devices get more efficient, aggregate energy goes up. Think of it in Internet terms: if I gave you an efficient T-1 line you’d be doing video conferencing, streaming music, and sending large files. If I put you on a terribly inefficient 56k baud modem you’d pull your hair out!

The secret paradox is that if you want to reduce energy demand: you make things more INEFFICIENT, NOT more efficient. That’s if you believe we should be reducing energy demand, which I am in the minority opposition. Physics and the laws of thermodynamics tell us that life itself is a fight against entropy, disorder – and the only way to prevent entropy is to add energy to a system. The more energy, the more order and the more utility we have. The highly ordered photons in a laser are hugely valuable to society from eye surgery to photonics, whereas the highly entropic photons of a campfire give off heat and nobody will pay much for that. The trick is ordering the photons in a laser requires an enormous amount of energy and a huge amount of waste is chucked over the side.

We have recently announced an investment in Transphorm Inc. that we’re hugely excited about. Transphorm has developed the world’s most energy efficient power conversion technology – eliminating up to 90% of all electric conversion losses. The ability to convert electricity without loss may be to digital power what Intel was to digital logic.

SW: Are there any nano-enabled energy technologies that look attractive to Lux?

JW: The basis of our nuclear waste remediation company, Kurion was born in sophisticated chemistry and material science at the nanoscale. So too our soon to be announced power conversion digital power company coming out of stealth. All of these are based on ever increasing precision control over and ordering of matter at the nanoscale.

SW: I want to go back to your investment process. The second way Lux Capital invests is based on people. Can you give us a few examples of people-driven investments you have made and some insight into the thinking behind them?

JW: Yes, the first is thesis driven. We try to look where others are not looking, seeking out where capital and attention are scarce because that’s usually where valuations are low and future returns high. It’s intellectually gratifying to do these but very risky as we really part from the herd and we have to make sure we do our work and aren’t being contrarian for unfounded reasons. A second way we make our investments is special-situations, finding capital market dislocations where we can invest often times as the last dollars in but lowest average price per share – being a liquidity provider or helping companies when their other investors may be unable to continue financing them. And our third and favorite style is people-driven as you say. As Lux partner Larry Bock says, we bet on two-legged mammals. Darwin was misquoted. It isn’t survival of the fittest, but survival of the most adaptable. So we find the brilliant galvanizing scientist-entrepreneurs-operators, usually some combination of two of those three are embodied in one person. They are the ones that can adapt and turn on a dime, can passionately recruit, can paint a vision on a blank canvas that makes investors want to write checks and employees want to plunge in and take career risk. A phenomenal individual is just that a phenom – a spinning force that pulls people in. The most important thing we can do as a firm is have the good judgment in finding and picking these people and convincing them that Lux is their partner for the next 5 or 10 years. Our investors trust us to allocate their capital and we have to trust these entrepreneurs to do the same for us.

SW: We’ve seen a lot of activity in nanomedicine over the past decade. How does Lux view the potential of nanotech in medicine and health care overall?

JW: It’s as big as energy. The growing trend from big pharma is continued outsourcing to biotechs, academic institutions and embracing external R&D. And the pace of innovation is remarkable. We’ve spun out companies like Genocea in rapid vaccine discovery from Harvard and Berkeley. From MIT in the case of Cerulean and Visterra, focused respectively on nanotech in cancer and pandemic flu. And from Johns Hopkins in using nanotech to deliver drugs through mucus, with MIT legend Bob Langer and his star protégé Justin Hanes in a new company called Kala – which is Hawaiian for passageway.

SW: Returning to the other piece of Lux’s trilogy investment process, what kinds of special situations have you invested in that you are enthused about?

JW: The most interesting might be Everspin. We were founding investors who approached Freescale Semiconductor, which was previously Motorola Semi. They were struggling with a huge debt load from private equity investors after a buyout. And we made them an offer to spin-out their entire advanced memory division which developed non-volatile memory, instant-on memory and help free up their cash flow. It was a win-win for everyone and the company has been growing at triple-digit percentages.

SW: Nanotech is crucial to the future of semiconductors and electronics. How does Lux Capital go about evaluating technologies and companies in this space?

JW: The key particularly in a cyclical industry like semis is who actually is capturing the value. There’s also a secular component with the rise of Asia, contract manufacturing and fab-less models. The only intelligent thing we felt we could do was to avoid the capital intensive businesses and invest after all the capital was invested at the trough of the cycle. In three of our companies over $100 million was invested by either other investors or a corporate parent and we were able to invest at a valuation that was one-tenth, one-quarter or one-third capital invested – and at a time when product was shipping and tech risk was eliminated. These opportunities are rare but are almost surely to present themselves in energy and healthcare too.

SW: It’s been difficult in the venture capital space given the turmoil in financial markets over the past several years. Do you see the pendulum swinging back in favor of venture capital in the years ahead?

JW: I do. I have a self-serving bias here but VC has been the second worst performing asset class for the past decade, save for the S&P. There has been a flood of capital out of equity capital markets into debt markets, which has driven yields of bonds from governments to munis to corporate low and dividend yields of equities high. What I think you’re likely to see is a reversion of capital flows from debt markets into equities. People and institutions and investment advisors will tire of earning 0.5%, 2.5% or 3.5% respectively on 2,10 or 30 year Treasuries. Municipalities are likely to see serious headwinds and retirees who once thought these were tax advantaged vehicles to preserve capital will see them as capital confiscation and maybe even defaults. My speculation would be capital flows first into large-cap blue-chip high-quality dividend yielding US multi-nationals, almost like a Nifty Fifty of yesteryear. Until that gets overdone. Then investors are likely to seek high-growth unlevered equities and that is exactly what creates a new issue, IPO market. For ten years investors have shunned stakes in high-tech startups. The Facebook, Groupon, Twitter, Zynga phenomena are changing that, with blue-chip institutions clamoring to get allocations. It’s possible, if not probable, this trickles into broad demand for tech companies, which tend to be good inflation hedges as technology is broadly deflationary force with non-commoditized offerings and pricing power. So if Fed printing or debasing our dollars to get out of debt leads to inflation, one could see a resurgence of IPOs. Meanwhile, corporations have restructured balance sheets, refinanced debt, extending maturities and lowering coupons and have record amounts of cash on their balance sheets, ripe for M&A. There is always a five-year investment psychological bias, everyone wants to be invested today where they should’ve been five years ago and I think VC is ripe for five plus years of outperformance.

SW: We’ve seen IPO activity pick up over the past year. Should we expect to see some nanotech IPOs in the near future?

JW: Capital markets are setting themselves up for a reversion of capital flows out of bonds (low yielding sovereigns, munis, corporate in the presence of a non-zero inflationary risk) and into equities. First high-quality multi-national dividend yielding equities, then high-growth, unlevered small and mid-cap tech (also a natural deflationary force against inflation risk from central bank paper printing). It will be an IPO picker’s market: meaning, I’m skeptical we’ll see wholesale sectors see a rising tide of investor demand, but individual companies with either the fundamentals or overwhelming buzz (a la current social media phenomenon of Facebook, Groupon, Twitter, LinkedIn) will see strong demand.

SW: Looking ahead, what are the key investment areas that Lux Capital will be focused on?

JW: Two areas we’re in thesis construction mode are what we call “unmet needs for unmanned systems” and “distributed healthcare.” Both are about emerging technology shaking up both defense and demographic trends in the former and healthcare in the latter.

SW: One last question for you, Josh. What have been the three biggest investment lessons you’ve learned since co-founding Lux Capital.

JW: Not sure I can limit it to three, but I’d say that the only certainty is uncertainty – every company is a roller-coaster ride. That being early is the same thing as being wrong. That in tough investments, deal terms can matter more than the price you pay and in great ones, neither really matters. That good investment team processes are as or more important than outcomes. That people not technology are the single most important thing we invest in. That human nature is a constant and greed and fear and all sorts of well catalogued behavioral biases drive people who drive markets and while markets aren’t predictable, group behavior often is. That rational allocation and irrational misallocation of time and capital define all opportunities in investing.

SW: Terrific! Thanks again for your time, Josh. We wish you and your colleagues at Lux Capital all the best in the future.

I have been friends with Josh for 10 years and every time I speak with him I learn about a breakthrough in energy technology. Thank you Josh for your contributions to our Nanotechnology Community and we look forward to seeing you at one of our Conferences in 2011.

Regards,

Vincent Caprio “Serving the Nanotechnology Community for Over a Decade”
Executive Director
NanoBusiness Commercialization Association
203-733-1949
vincent@nanobca.org
www.nanobca.org

Having successfully completed our first decade of servicing the nanotech community, I am writing you with some exciting news that I hope will provide a solid foundation upon which to serve you and other members in the decade ahead. As the researchers at the NSF and NNI note, nanotechnology is evolving into a second foundational phase that will see a ten-fold increase in the value of nano-enabled products and mass use of nanotechnology. Given the evolutionary path of nanotechnology in the decade ahead, the NanoBusiness Alliance (NbA) is changing its name and refocusing its efforts to be of maximum value to the nanotech community.

Our new name is the NanoBusiness Commercialization Association or NanoBCA, for short. We are in the process of launching a new website: www.nanobca.org. The website will be a comprehensive source of everything we do at the NanoBCA and we hope members find it to be an excellent resource in the future.

From the beginning, the NbA has always had business as its main focus. Our membership and community includes some of the finest business minds in the world. The addition of commercialization to our name reflects the new era into which we are moving whereby a decade of intense scientific research gives way to fundamentally new products that will likely change the way we live, work and play. As billions and trillions of dollars of new nano-enabled products enter the marketplace, there will be a growing interest and focus on nanotech innovation and commercialization. The NanoBCA will be positioned to be the voice of nanotech innovation and commercialization in the decade ahead.

One of the new of the new initiatives undertaking by the NanoBCA, through the support and involvement of its members, will involve monitoring and promoting nanotech innovations and commercialization in the private sector. Steve Waite steve@nanobca.org, our new Director of Strategy and Research, will be assisting me with this initiative. We believe it will be important for our members to stay on top of what is expected to be an acceleration and mass proliferation of nanotech innovations in the future. We hope to create a vibrant and interactive community whereby our members can share information with us and where we can help educate and promote their new products to policymakers, researchers, analysts, the financial community and other interested parties.

Our vision for the NanoBusiness Commercialization Association is clear and focused. The Association seeks to ensure that the United States – its companies, universities and people – are global leaders in the burgeoning nanotechnology field. And the Association ventures to ensure the safe, secure and beneficial use of nanotechnology and nanoscience for all people.

Our mission at the NanoBCA in the coming decade is three-fold:

1. Promote the Commercialization of products designed and developed through the Science of Nanotechnology.

2. Advocate continued U.S. spending through the National Nanotechnology Initiative. America must continue the funding of NNI from R&D to commercialization.

3. Inform membership with regard to EHS regulation from Federal (EPA and FDA) and State Governments. Monitor proposed legislation from Federal and State government.

We are proud of the accomplishments of the NbA over the past decade having successfully lobbied for the creation of The National Nanotechnology Initiative in January, 2000. Backed by our supportive members, our efforts have helped produce over $12 billion of funding, which has created a community of about 150,000 contributors in the U.S., along with a flexible R&D infrastructure consisting of about 100 large nanotechnology oriented R&D centers, networks, and user facilities, and an expanding industrial base of about 3,000 companies producing nanotech-enabled products. Despite all this fabulous growth in activity, we are still only in an early stage of development with nanotechnology. There is much work ahead and we know that we cannot do it without the support of our members.

We are very excited to be returning to NYC for our conference being held at the Marriott Marquis Times Square on April 6-7th. The conference begins with an opening reception on the evening of Wednesday, April 6th. We have an entire day of programming on April 7th (details to follow).

REGISTRATION $400
To register, please complete the attached form 2011 NanoBCA NYC Reg Form and fax to 480-275-3662

HOTEL INFORMATION
New York Marriott Marquis Times Square
212-398-1900
http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/nycmq-new-york-marriott-marquis/
$269 per night
Room block code: NYBA

We appreciate your continued support and look forward to working with and serving our members in what promises to be an exciting decade ahead for nanotechnology and the nanotech community. It has been a pleasure representing the collective voice of the nanotechnology community. I look forward to serving you in the next exciting decade.

Here’s to much success in the Nano Decade ahead!

Regards,

Vincent Caprio “Serving the Nanotechnology Community for Over a Decade”
Executive Director
NanoBusiness Commercialization Association
203-733-1949
vincent@nanobca.org
www.nanobca.org
www.vincentcaprio.org