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

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

Navigating the patent landscapes for nanotechnology: English gardens or tangled grounds?

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

What does the history of technology regulation teach us about nano oversight?

As policy makers struggle to develop regulatory oversight models for nanotechnologies, there are important lessons that can be drawn from previous attempts to govern other emerging technologies. Five such lessons are the following: (1) public confidence and trust in a technology and its regulatory oversight is probably the most important factor for the commercial success of a technology; (2) regulation should avoid discriminating against particular technologies unless there is a scientifically based rationale for the disparate treatment; (3) regulatory systems need to be flexible and adaptive to rapidly changing technologies; (4) ethical and social concerns of the public about emerging technologies need to be expressly acknowledged and addressed in regulatory oversight; and (5) international harmonization of regulation may be beneficial in a rapidly globalizing world.

Transnational models for regulation of nanotechnology.

Like all technologies, nanotechnology will inevitably present risks, whether they result from unintentional effects of otherwise beneficial applications, or from the malevolent misuse of technology. Increasingly, risks from new and emerging technologies are being regulated at the international level, although governments and private experts are only beginning to consider the appropriate international responses to nanotechnology. In this paper, we explore both the potential risks posed by nanotechnology and potential regulatory frameworks that law may impose. In so doing, we also explore the various rationales for international regulation including the potential for cross-boundary harms, sharing of regulatory expertise and resources, controlling protectionism and trade conflicts, avoiding a "race to the bottom" in which governments seek economic advantage through lax regulation, and limiting the "nano divide" between North and South. Finally, we examine some models for international regulation and offer tentative thoughts on the prospects for each.