The time for nanotechnology has come and a classic technological revolution is unfolding. According to the National Science Foundation, by 2015 the annual global market for nano-related goods and services will top $1 trillion, making it one of the fastest growing industries in history. If these figures prove to be accurate, nanotechnology will become a larger economic force than the combined telecommunications and information technology industries at the beginning of the technology boom of the late 1990s.

However, history has shown that forecasting technological advances is fraught with difficulty and, consequently, devising policies for them almost impossible. Many products that will be developed early on may remain within existing markets or established sectors, and thus, may not be marketed as nanoproducts.
Although the process of converting basic research in nanoscience into viable market products will be long and difficult, governments across the globe are impressed by nanotechnology’s potential and are staking their claims and doling out billions of dollars, euros and yen for research. In 2002, worldwide government funding of research and development in nanotechnology exceeded $2 billion, with the US government alone spending $604 million (it increased to $774 million in 2003). In fact, funding from the US government has surged almost sevenfold in the last six years, starting at $116 million in 1997 to a budgeted $847 for 2004.

Although the US accounts for almost a third of global nanotechnology spending, about 40 countries have set up similar initiatives. In December 2003, the US Congress passed the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) of 2000 into law and recommended appropriating $3.7 billion for the next four years for the creation of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office along with funding for various federal nanotechnology initiatives and programs.
The European Union has earmarked $1 billion from 2002 to 2006, while Japan has increased funding from $120 million in 1997 to nearly $750 million in 2002. Note that it is impossible to accurately determine the total funding in nanotechnology since these figures do not include private funding.

Some additional statistics from Nanotech Report 200322 are summarized below:

• Public and private companies will spend close to $3 billion worldwide on nanotechnology R and D in 2003.
• The US government has appropriated $2 billion for nanotechnology since 2000, putting it on track to be the largest US government funded science initiative since the Apollo Mission.
• Presently, more than 700 companies are involved in nanotechnology.
• 40,000 US scientists are currently capable of working in nanotechnology.
• In the past four years, more than 1,700 small tech jobs have been created from venture capital funding.
• $900 million in venture capital funding has gone to nanotechnology startups since 1999, with $386 million invested in 2002.

Despite an overall decline in total venture capital from 2001 to 2002, venture investments in nanotechnology have increased (251% in electronics, 211% in industrial products and 313% in life sciences).

Critics question the wisdom of investing such large amounts for a technology that has generated few products, and charge that politicians have been cleverly sold unrealistic economic benefits of nanotechnology. In any case, we should not overestimate what can be achieved within the next five years nor underestimate what can be done by the year 2015. Time will tell if this technology will be a “disruptive technology” and revolutionize worldwide markets.

Searching Nanopatents

Since nanotechnology by definition covers a broad class of materials and systems, searching for nanotechnology-related patents and publications is complicated relative to other technology areas. At present, global patent classification systems are neither sufficiently defined nor descriptive enough to accommodate many of the unique properties that nanotechnology inventions exhibit. There is no formal classification scheme for US nanotechnology patents.
Additionally, the PTO lacks effective automation tools for nanotechnology “prior art” searching.

The fundamental nature of nanotechnology is part of the challenge for effectively mapping the patent landscape. Many patent applications may result from a single nanotechnology invention; hence, a single patent may generate many products or markets.

Published patents that are truly nanotechnological in nature may not use any specific nanorelated terminology. Often patents are written “not to be found” in order to keep potential competitors at a “knowledge” disadvantage. Conversely, there are business savvy inventors and assignees that might use key terms incorporating a nano prefix for the sake of marketing their invention or concept.

Therefore, part of the challenge in finding truly nanotechnology related patents is the judicious use of key terms and class codes while searching the patent databases. This searching, along with the additional filter of subject area expertise (which can be used to review patents for the problem being solved and the technology applied) is the most reliable way to find nanotechnology patents at the present time. A subject area expert can ultimately provide the judgment in determining whether a patent pertains to nanotechnology.