News

Nanoethics Group's anthology covers near- and long-term societal impacts of nanotech

August 3, 2007

Small Times

The Nanoethics Group has released a collection of papers that it says is the first to address both urgent and distant issues related to nanotechnology's impact on society. Published by John Wiley & Sons, the 416-page anthology includes papers from nearly 40 contributors worldwide including Mihail Roco (US NSF) and Ray Kurzweil (Kurzweil Technologies.

Titled Nanoethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Nanotechnology it tackles a full range of issues facing nanotechnology, such as those related to: benefits, risk, environment, health, human enhancement, privacy, military, democracy, education, humanitarianism, molecular manufacturing, space exploration, artificial intelligence, life extension, and more. The anthology also reprints seminal articles, such as Bill Joy's "Why The Future Doesn't Need Us" that already had sparked much debate.

The paperback version is priced at $39.95 to encourage university and broader adoption as a way to further public discourse in nanoethics. (for sale on Amazon for £22.00.)

Oncor deters copper wire theft with nanotechnology

August 3, 2007

Small Times

Oncor Electric Delivery, a business that provides power to more than three million homes and businesses in Texas, says it will implement nanotechnology this summer that will both discourage would-be criminals from stealing copper from the company's substations and switchyards and help law enforcement personnel find and prosecute thieves.

The technology marks Oncor equipment and particularly copper wire so that it can be identified after it has been stolen. Oncor says it will work closely with law enforcement in this effort. Areas protected with the technology will also have signs warning that material has been marked with a traceable technology.

"This is a traceable technology that will enable us to not only identify our stolen goods, but also to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law," said Rob Trimble, president and chief operating officer of Oncor. "Substations and switchyards have been the main targets for copper theft. Thieves are literally taking their lives in their hands for some spending money when they remove metal from a high-voltage area."

Not only is safety an issue for thieves, but also for Oncor employees. When protective ground wires are stolen from substations and switchyards, employees may be shocked or injured.

Nano-Proprietary, Mitsui extend relationship for carbon nanotube lighting

July 31, 2007

Small Times

Nano-Proprietary Inc., (NPI) through its subsidiaryApplied Nanotech Inc., announced that Japan based Mitsui & Co., Ltd. has extended its exlusive option regarding royalty-bearing licenses. On behalf of Nano-Proprietary, then, Mitsui will continue to offer companies headquartered in Japan licenses to use NPI's carbon cold cathode intellectual property for the manufacture of lighting devices.

Mitsui reports "remarkable progress" in its discussions with at least five leading companies and says it expects one or more of these companies to be interested in a license. The purpose of the extension is to continue the prospecting process and try to finalize license agreement under the exclusive option agreement. In addition, as a result of the successful collaboration in Japan, the companies also agreed to explore extending the exclusive relationship to other Asian countries such as Taiwan.

Mitsui has various future extension rights, at escalating fee levels, to maintain the right to grant licenses.

CEA/Leti-Minatec and Alcatel to co-develop 3D interconnect processes

July 24, 2007

Small Times

CEA/Leti-Minatec, a European R&D institute specializing in advanced microelectronics, and Alcatel Micro Machining systems, manufacturer of deep reactive ion etch (DRIE) equipment for the MEMS and semiconductor industries, will collaborate to develop industrial process capability in DRIE and LTPECVD for 3D interconnect applications. The collaboration addresses the trend that advanced packaging technologies and chip stacking techniques play an increasing role in the evolution of microelectronics and microsystems.

CEA Leti-Minatec intends to expand its capabilities in 3D integration to include thru-wafer micro vias to allow dense interconnect on both sides of chips. Considering the importance of deep anisotropic etching of silicon and via isolation to the success of the technology, CEA-Leti Minatec will accelerate development by joining efforts with Alcatel Micro Machining Systems, which it calls the world leader in DRIE equipment. The two-year program leverages capabilities made possible by the installation of two new 200mm Alcatel machines for DRIE of silicon and LTPECVD of low temperature oxide isolation. The partners expect to develop and demonstrate a suite of turn-key solutions for integration in advanced electronic systems.

Business Briefs

27 July 2007

Nanotechweb.org

Industrial NanoTech reports that its Nansulate LDX coating is being applied at a Pacific US Navy facility by a military contractor to encapsulate existing lead-based paint. The firm explains that its environmentally safe, water-based, lead abatement coating can be applied to any substrate, forming a barrier coat to seal highly toxic lead paints.

An initiative to develop a "Responsible NanoCode" for businesses working with nanotechnologies has been launched by the Royal Society, Insight Investment, the Nanotechnology Industries Association and the Nanotechnology Knowledge Transfer Network. Confirmed members of the working group so far include – amongst others – BASF, Unilever, Smith & Nephew, the consumer group Which?, development NGO Practical Action, and Amicus.

Company news

Carl Zeiss SMT has acquired 100% of the shares of ALIS Corporation, Peabody, USA for its Nano Technology Systems Division (NTS). ALIS´ newly developed helium ion microscopy technology will add an important building block to Carl Zeiss SMT´s existing portfolio of charged-particle technologies aimed at nano-scale imaging, structuring and analysis applications. The acquisition of ALIS Corporation further expands Carl Zeiss SMT´s global leadership position as enabler for industrial nanotechnology solutions and academic research.

http://www.smt.zeiss.com/nts

Raith GmbH has been developing and selling high-tech systems in the domain of nanotechnology worldwide.

Latest News
Raith User Meeting

Next User Meeting will be held on 20th September 2005 at the "MNE 2005" taking place from 19th to 22nd September in Vienna, Austria.

Raith Training Courses

LTC-I: EBL Basics and Software Training date: June 7th - 9th, 2005

LTC-II: User Workshop and Advanced Topics date: June 28th - 30th, 2005

For further information please see Raith website

Product categories

• Etching & lithography equipment
• Microscopy
• Software

http://www.raith.com

26.07.2007

TNTlog

Nanotechnology consortium to be created in Kazakhstan

ALMATY. July 26. KAZINFORM /Aigul Turysbekova/ - Education and Science Minister of Kazakhstan Zhanseit Tuimebayev is going to meet with Zhores Alfyorov, the vice president of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Nobel laureate and the leading Russian scientists on July 27 in Almaty.
The main purpose of the visit of the Russian scientists to Kazakhstan is to support the breakthrough infrastructural and innovative projects.

During the meeting, Zhanseit Tuimebayev and Zhores Alfyorov will sign a Memorandum on creation of the scientific-educational innovation consortium Nanotechnology in Kazakhstan.

From IPO's to Fire Sales

Tim Harper

What a number of investors didn’t want me to mention is that nanotech companies are falling like ninepins at the moment. As an example, this announcement from API Nanotronics fails to mention that NanoOpto closed the doors some time ago, pretty much around the time that they were mentioned as a possible IPO candidate in the ForbesWolfe report report. Rumour is that the assets went for a million or two which is hardly a great return on the $60 million invested.

Rather than a bunch of IPO’s we may see another raft of closures this year as investors lose patience, companies fail to make that big sales or technical breakthough, and the assets are stripped out. I have seen a number of ‘nanotech’ companies that simply shouldn’t exist as a corporate entity, fear and greed meant that they were spun out of the lab way too fast, and after a few years spent generating and protecting intellectual property, many are finding IP no substitute for a product that generates revenues.

Neuftec Statement Regarding Oxonica Dispute

18 Jul 2007

Author : Neuftec Limited

From Earth Times.org

ROSEAU, Commonwealth of Dominica, July 18 /PRNewswire/ -- Following a press statement issued by Oxonica on 12 July 2007 Neuftec Limited(1) ("Neuftec") seeks to clarify the position in respect of the events surrounding the ongoing dispute between Oxonica Energy Limited ("Oxonica Energy") and Neuftec.

Neuftec, a research and development company, registered in the Commonwealth of Dominica, is currently party to an ongoing dispute with Oxonica Energy Limited, the energy division of Oxonica Plc ("Oxonica"), an AIM listed nanotechnology company.

Termination of the Licence Deed by Neuftec

The primary issue in dispute between the parties is in relation to the definition of "Licensed Products" in the Licence Deed entered into between Oxonica and Neuftec on 7 December 2001, Oxonica contend that only products falling within the scope of claims in the Neuftec patent attract royalties. Neuftec, relying on the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in the Licence Deed, contend on the other hand that a product is a "Licensed Product" as long as it falls within the scope of claims of either the Licensed Application or the Licensed Patent.

As a result of Oxonica refusing to pay royalties which Neuftec say are due under the terms of the Licence Deed (which was drafted by Oxonica's lawyers), that license to market or sell Envirox(TM) using Neuftec's intellectual property was terminated by Neuftec in February 2007.

Oxonica subsequently commenced legal proceedings in the High Court seeking a declaration in respect of the intellectual property rights. In response, Neuftec filed a Defence and Counterclaim. One of Neuftec's counterclaims at the time was for a declaration from the court that the provisions of a non-compete restriction, that Oxonica had sought to enforce following termination of the contractual arrangements between the parties, did not apply.

The Second Source Product

In October 2006, Oxonica first informed Neuftec that it had produced a 'second source product', which had been successfully tested and worked as well as the technology licensed from Neuftec. In January 2007, Oxonica stated that the coating on the product was different from the one which was claimed in Neuftec's granted European patent. It further stated that "...the Envirox(TM) manufactured by the alternative supplier falls outside the scope of the Licence so that royalties are payable to Neuftec in respect of the ANO supplied product only...".

The fact that a simple change in the coating of the product would disentitle Neuftec to royalties under the Licence Deed came as a surprise to Neuftec. From the outset of the Licence Deed, Oxonica and Neuftec were jointly involved in further developments of the technology and were experimenting with, amongst other things, different coatings. Such further work and testing on the product were fully supported by Neuftec as this was seen as a positive effort to improve the product and enhance the intellectual property owned by Neuftec and licensed to Oxonica.

In order for Neuftec to ascertain that the 'second source product' did indeed fall outside the scope of the Neuftec patent, Neuftec made repeated requests for further information to Oxonica. They received the following reply: "Oxonica does not know the detailed composition of the second source product...".

Despite Neuftec's efforts in early 2007 to try and reach a resolution to the escalating dispute, without notice to Neuftec, Oxonica commenced legal proceedings in the London High Court.

After almost 5 months of protracted correspondence between the parties' lawyers, Neuftec finally learned the composition of the 'second source product' which fell outside the scope of the Neuftec patent but nonetheless seemed to derive from part of the know how licensed from Neuftec.

Notwithstanding this, it has always been Neuftec's primary case that the 'second source product' still came within the definition of a Licenced Product as this was the understanding of the parties. Furthermore, it is Neuftec's case that it was the plain effect of the wording in the Licence Deed and that accordingly royalties were still payable by Oxonica for its sale.

Infringement of Neuftec's Patent

The primary issue is whether the 'second source product' attracts royalties payable by Oxonica. The premise of the dispute between the parties was never about infringement of the Neuftec patent. From the outset, infringement of Neuftec's European patent was a secondary issue for Neuftec.

Infringement of the Neuftec patent was never a central feature largely due to the fact that Neuftec did not know what the composition of the 'second source product' was.

Over a month ago and shortly after finally receiving the composition of the 'second source product', Neuftec informed Oxonica in clear and unconditional terms that Neuftec was prepared to accept the accuracy of the composition statement at face value and accordingly did not consider its patent to have been infringed by the 'second source product'. As such, Neuftec asked Oxonica to confirm that it was withdrawing that claim from the court proceedings to avoid parties wasting time and costs on the issue.

However, Oxonica refused to drop the non-infringement claim and during the course of the last month has insisted that Neuftec make further admissions as to the nature and composition of the 'second source product' which in Neuftec's view are not necessary. Given that the further admissions sought were of facts not within Neuftec's knowledge, Neuftec has refused to provide these.

It is Neuftec's view that Oxonica's press release dated 12 July 2007 attaches undeserved importance to an issue which was never central to the dispute with Neuftec and in relation to an issue which Neuftec had ceased to challenge more than a month ago. Inconsistently with their press release, Oxonica continued to maintain their claim for a declaration by the court that the 'second source product' does not infringe Neuftec's European patent. It was only on 17 July 2007 that Oxonica finally agreed to withdraw its claim.

Outstanding Issues

Contrary to Oxonica's statement that the only issue that remains is a "narrow technical argument by Neuftec..." there remain outstanding issues between Oxonica and Neuftec relating to:

The audit verification. Oxonica continues to resist allowing Neuftec to exercise its contractual right under the Licence Deed to verify royalties paid in respect of the first source product. Neuftec first issued notice to verify the royalties in February 2007 and Oxonica agreed to permit such exercise to be carried out. More than 5 months later that verification exercise has still not commenced. Oxonica continue to impose numerous terms and conditions outside the terms of the Licence Deed, which has effectively prevented the audit from taking place. Neuftec has now placed Oxonica on notice that unless matters progress in substance, Neuftec will have no choice but to commence fresh legal proceedings against Oxonica in the next 24 hours.

Discrepancies in financial figures. Neuftec have queried a number of apparent discrepancies between Oxonica Energy's reported revenues and the figures provided to Neuftec by Oxonica in the royalty statements. In particular in the Neuftec Royalty Statement for 2006, the "Sales value for Oxonica Energy Group" for 2006 was stated as GBP6,668,836.72. However, on page 15 of the Preliminary Results under the heading "Segmental Information", the turnover for the Energy business segment is stated to be GBP8,933,000. In the Neuftec Royalty Statement for 2006, a deduction of GBP4,379,064.10 was made in respect of "POAS sales using an alternative supplier". However, in the Presentation at slides 3 and 10, Oxonica disclosed that revenue of Petrol Ofisi sales in the second half of 2006 was GBP7,600,000. Oxonica have not provided any explanations to date for the apparent discrepancies.

Infringement of Neuftec's Australian patent by Oxonica. Following the termination of the Licence Deed, it came to Neuftec's knowledge that Oxonica infringed the terms of Neuftec's Australian patent by collecting a shipment of Envirox without the knowledge, consent or authorization of Neuftec. This stock is estimated by Neuftec to have a resale value of approximately US$1.8 million and cannot be used or sold without Neuftec's permission. It currently is stored in a warehouse in Australia.

Existing stock of Neuftec-licensed Envirox in the UK. Similarly, according to Oxonica, it currently holds approximately US$4m of Neuftec-licensed Envirox which it is similarly unable to use or sell without Neuftec's permission. Several months ago, Neuftec invited Oxonica to put forward details of the precise quantity, composition and intended terms of sale as well as proposals as to royalties but Oxonica have failed to respond in substance.

Future sales of Envirox(TM). Oxonica can no longer market or sell the first version Envirox(TM) which relies on intellectual property owned by Neuftec and manufacturing processes employed by ANO. This is because Neuftec has terminated the Licence Deed and secondly ANO they have now entered into an exclusive supply agreement with Energenics of Singapore.

Contrary to what Oxonica say in their press release of 12 July 2007, Neuftec believes that it has a strong case on the merits. The case will be ultimately decided by the court and a trial is likely to take place early next year.

Neuftec are represented by Watson, Farley & Williams LLP and by Richard Hacon of 11 South Square, a set of barristers with particular expertise and experience with intellectual property disputes. BDO Stoy Hayward have been retained by Neuftec as independent accountants to conduct the verification of royalties.

History of the Dispute

In December 2001, Neuftec entered into an agreement with Oxonica Energy Ltd (an operating division of AIM-listed Oxonica Plc) to licence its technology in return for royalty and milestone payments.

Oxonica had no prior experience in the fuel additive market but capitalised on Neuftec's technical and commercial experience by employing Neuftec founder, Ronen Hazarika to help commercialise the technology. Oxonica used this technology to manufacture a product which has been sold as Envirox(TM). Envirox(TM) reduces fuel consumption and emissions and helps conserve energy.

One of Oxonica's founding investors is Richard Farleigh of Dragon's Den, who remains a significant shareholder, post the AIM floatation in Summer 2005.

Following extensive testing, in 2004, Stagecoach signed an agreement to adopt Envirox(TM) for its bus fleets in the UK and New Zealand and has reported fuel savings in excess of 5%.

In August 2006, Oxonica Plc publicly announced that "...it has reached agreement with Petrol Ofisi A.S., the leading national oil company in Turkey with sales of US$8.8 billion in 2005, to supply its EnviroxTM fuel borne nanocatalyst, for use in diesel fuel across Petrol Ofisi's nationwide distribution network." Oxonica's claim of product efficacy to Neuftec in January 2007 in relation to the 'second source product' appeared contradictory to subsequent press reports in March 2007 that the field trials had produced negligible impact on fuel efficiency in the Turkish high-sulpur diesel. Oxonica had informed Neuftec that in respect of Envirox(TM) sold in 2006, about 83-85% was from the alternative supplier.

On 23 February 2007, Oxonica Energy Limited filed a claim in the Patents Court for declarations against Neuftec Limited that it was not obliged to pay royalties on the sale of the 'second source product' and that its dealings with the 'second source product' did not infringe the Neuftec patent.

On 26 February 2007, Panmure Gordon (Oxonica's Nomad) issued a Buy Recommendation in its Analysts Research Report.

The announcement of the 'second source product' trial failure was followed shortly by the reported termination by Petrol Ofisi of their contract with Oxonica. The subsequent financial uncertainty caused by the termination by Petrol Ofisi led to the suspension from trading of Oxonica's shares.

In March 2007, Neuftec filed its Defence and Counterclaim asking the court for an order that Oxonica pay royalties for sales of the 'second source product', to permit Neuftec to conduct an audit of those sales as well as a declaration that the non-competition restrictions did not apply.

In May 2007, Oxonica subsequently confirmed that they would not enforce the non-compete provision and confirmed unconditionally that Neuftec was free to compete in the fuel additive business.

Oxonica PLC announced 2006 results on 19 March 2007

Oxonica Plc's Annual Report and Accounts 2005, it is stated that of its total sales for the year (GBP1.247 million) "(t)he majority of the sales revenue consisted of Envirox(TM)". The recently announced Petrol Ofisi deal for the supply of Envirox(TM) had a projected sales value of US$12.7 million for 2006 alone.

The 2006 results reported revenues of GBP10.2m - which indicated the impact of Envirox(TM) and the Petrol Ofisi deal on Oxonica Plc's overall business. The Petrol Ofisi contract alone therefore represents a five-fold increase in the value of Oxonica Plc's sales in 2005 and 64% of 2006 revenues.

Petrol Ofisi Trials Announcement: 28 March 2007

Nine days after Oxonica's annual results announcement, the company made a further announcement stating the the Petrol Ofisi trials had been inconclusive and that this had the potential to jeopardise the Petrol Ofisi deal.

(i) Panmure Gordon then issued a revised forecast on 29 March 2007 and downgraded the company shares to Hold following their Buy note put out the previous week.

(1) Neuftec is a research & development company that owns patents in the fuel catalyst technology sector used in the production of the first version of Envirox(TM) that was manufactured by Advanced Nanotechnology ("ANO") of Australia under a manufacturing licence granted by Oxonica with authorization from Neuftec.

For further information please contact: Melanie Riley Director Bell Yard Communications www.bell-yard.com Direct line: +44-(0)20-7936-2022 Mobile : +44-(0)777-55-912-44

Neuftec Limited

For further information please contact: Melanie Riley, Director, Bell Yard Communications, Direct line: +44-(0)20-7936-2022, Mobile : +44-(0)777-55-912-44

The good and the bad - in the very tiny

Jun 30, 2007

The Straits Times

By Emma Philpott

Nanoparticles may be a boon to mankind and are common in products - yet little is known about their effects on humans and the environment

THE word 'nano' generally means very small. Scientifically, a nanometre is one-thousand millionth of a metre, or one-hundred thousandth the width of a human hair.

Nanoparticles are a description for very small particles that are less than 100 nanometres in size. This is about the same size as a virus or the size of a kink in a DNA chain. Very, very, small indeed.

Scientists are excited because, at these kinds of sizes, materials often begin to behave differently. Many of the ways we assume particles should behave, and are taught about in physics and biology lessons at school, simply do not occur at these sizes.

The reasons why this should be are not really understood at the moment, but much of it has to do with the fact that some of these nanoparticles consist of only a few atoms and so most of them are on the material's surface.

Even the larger nanoparticles have very large surface areas compared to their volume.

Some of these strange effects result in materials that have immense strength, virtually no resistance to electricity, incredible reactivity, or that can even emit light of specific colours when ultraviolet light is shone on them.

These new properties can be used to do some very 'cool' things.

For example, already in the shops are products such as underwear containing nanoparticles of silver which have been found to kill bacteria effectively.

Also, nanoparticles of iron can be pumped into land contaminated with persistent toxic chemicals in ground water, where they break down and effectively 'clean up'' the chemicals.

As we move to products still being developed, the possibilities get more amazing: carbon nanotubes are fibres made of carbon (the same material as coal and soot). These fibres are hollow and thinner than 100 nanometres across, and yet their strength can be 100 times that of steel.

Not only that, they can conduct both heat and electricity with hardly any resistance at all. Once these can be reliably mass-produced, we will get incredibly lightweight, strong composite bodies for use in cars and aircraft.

Using nanotechnology, it is thought we will also get solar cells that are much more efficient, batteries that store more power, and fuel that gives off almost no harmful emission when burnt.

Nanoparticles and nanotechnology, many people believe, are the future hope for realistic renewable energy and climate stability.

Possibilities get even more remarkable when we move to bio-products. Unlike larger particles, it has been found that some nanoparticles can easily move through membranes in the body. Thus, they can pass through the lungs into the blood, into the brain or right into the middle of human cells of a living person.

Scientists can attach clever little things onto these nanoparticles which could, in theory, either target and kill cancer cells or, once inside a cell could actually repair deformed DNA or other cell deformities.

This could revolutionise medicine and bring hope to millions of people suffering from countless diseases. This is not far-off science fiction - it is thought that it will actually become possible within the next 10 years.

The potential for nanoparticles being used for the good of humankind is endless and researchers from most fields of science are very excited about this area of science. If all these possibilities are already within reach, how many more amazing ways can we use nanoparticles as we begin to understand them better?

However, unfortunately, there is a flip side to these miraculous properties.

As people get more excited about the properties of nanoparticles, markets open up, companies are set up and people get keen to make money.

More and more nanoparticles are in consumer products now: nanosilver in washing machines, fullerenes (special nanoparticles of carbon) in face creams, nanotitanium-dioxide in sunscreen, and there are tonnes and tonnes of nanoiron particles being pumped into contaminated ground in the United States. All this is happening.

Meanwhile, science and research is way behind the enthusiasm of business, and is desperately trying to catch up.

Many research groups across the world are just starting to look at what effects these nanoparticles will have on the human body and the environment.

Some scientists have found that it is probably less important what the particles are actually made of and more important to know what their surface area is.

This starts to get into some pretty complex ideas about toxicity - but the upshot is that most researchers think that at least some of the nanoparticles may be very harmful to humans and the environment but no one knows which ones or what to look for yet.

There is little research or understanding about what happens to all the nanoparticles when they get into the environment and what they will do to plants, animals and friendly bacteria which we need in our finely balanced eco-system.

We know that some nanoparticles (we are not yet sure which ones) can pass through skin and lungs and also membranes in the body - so they can move into the blood and into cells and even into the brain. It is thought that they can interact with DNA.

Yet a growing variety of nanoparticles are already in the cosmetics which we smear over our skin every day. The sad fact is that cosmetics companies are not required, in any country, to state what goes into their products.

If the bulk material has not been used before, the companies have to state that they have tested it and found it to be safe. The test methods, however, do not have to be declared and as mentioned above, the nanoparticles probably do not behave in the same way as the bulk material anyway.

At the moment, scientists do not fully understand what makes a harmful nanoparticle or what they actually do to the body or environment, and there is absolutely no regulation about them at all. This is not just in South-east Asia - there is no regulation anywhere in the world!

However, we should remember that lawsuits are the most effective kind of regulation, especially in the US, and as a result, no company will release anything onto the market which it knows is harmful.

Here in Singapore, the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*Star), the National University of Singapore and Spring Singapore are taking this subject seriously.

They are leading the way in South-east Asia to develop standardisation and regulation as well as funding research to increase the understanding. However, it will take years before any regulation comes into effect.

Consumers need to be aware about the possible risks and rewards of nanoparticles so they can make their own informed decisions.

Meanwhile, the next time you are shopping, take a look at the products. Think twice about the ones advertising that they contain nanoparticles.

The writer is general manager of Cientifica Singapore, a nanotechnology consultancy and information company.