Oct. 4, 2005 – Advance Nanotech Inc. (OTC.BB:AVNA), a provider of financing and support services to drive the commercialization of nanotechnology discoveries, announced financing for BiMAT.

BiMAT is developing integrated, low cost and disposable sensors and sensor arrays for point of care diagnostics, clinical monitoring and biomolecular research. BiMAT sensors will incorporate thin film polysilicon transistors deposited on lightweight, inexpensive substrates. Two patent filings cover the sensor detection mechanism and a special thin film transistor (TFT) structure that enables integration and separate optimization of the electronic and sensor functions.

One of the key applications for the BiMAT technology will be to enable first responders – medics, EMTs and doctors – to analyze microscopic amounts biological material for specific diseases on site. The company says the technology could eliminate the need to send samples to specialized laboratories, speeding treatment and reducing problems of handling, storage, mislabeling and treatment delay.

The investment in BiMAT was made in partnership with The Center for Advanced Photonics and Electronics (CAPE) at the University of Cambridge in the UK. The amount of the financing was not disclosed.

Oct. 3, 2005 – The National Cancer Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health, today announced that it has made first year awards totaling $26.3 million to help establish seven Centers of Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence.

The centers are:

• Carolina Center of Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, N.C. This center will focus on the fabrication of “smart” or targeted nanoparticles and other nanodevices for cancer therapy and imaging.

• Center of Nanotechnology for Treatment, Understanding, and Monitoring of Cancer at University of California in San Diego, Calif. This center will focus on a smart, multifunctional, all-in-one platform capable of targeting tumors and delivering payloads of therapeutics. The principal investigator is Sadik Esener of UCSD.

• Emory-Georgia Tech Nanotechnology Center for Personalized and Predictive Oncology in Atlanta, Ga. This center will aim to innovate and accelerate the development of nanoparticles attached to biological molecules for cancer molecular imaging, molecular profiling and personalized therapy. The principal investigators are Shuming Nie of Emory and Jonathan Simons of Georgia Institute of Technology.

• MIT-Harvard Center of Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence in Cambridge, Mass. This center will focus on diversified nanoplatforms for targeted therapy, diagnostics, noninvasive imaging, and molecular sensing. The principal investigators are Robert Langer of MIT and Ralph Weissleder of Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital.

• Nanomaterials for Cancer Diagnostics and Therapeutics at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill. This center plans to design and test nanomaterials and nanodevices to improve cancer prevention, detection, diagnosis and treatment. The principal investigator is Chad Mirkin of Northwestern.

• Nanosystems Biology Cancer Center at California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, Calif. This center will focus on the development and validation of tools for early detection and stratification of cancer through rapid and quantitative measurement of panels of serum and tissue-based biomarkers. The principal investigator is James Heath of California Institute of Technology.

• The Siteman Center of Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo. This center has a comprehensive set of projects for the development of nanoparticles for in vivo imaging and drug delivery, with special emphasis on translational medicine. The principal investigator is Samuel Wickline of Washington University.

In addition, the National Cancer Institute announced that it would be announcing twelve other 5-year awards this month. Known as Cancer Nanotechnology Platform Partnerships, the awards are intended to support the development of new products in a variety of cancer technology areas.

Oct. 3, 2005 – Australian bio-nanotech company pSivida Limited (NASDAQ:PSDV) announced that it has entered into a definitive merger agreement to acquire Control Delivery Systems Inc., a private U.S. drug delivery company located in the Boston area. The company said the acquisition is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2005 and is subject to Australian regulatory and pSivida shareholder approvals, as well as other customary closing conditions.

pSivida said the acquisition is an integral part of its ongoing U.S. growth strategy and will bring additional development and regulatory expertise to pSivida’s management team. This combination also provides pSivida with an operating base in the Boston biotech hub, enhancing its overall visibility as well as access to the U.S. scientific and investment communities.

The acquisition will be funded through the issue of approximately 16 million pSivida American Depositary Shares to Control Delivery stockholders, representing approximately 40 percent ownership of the combined company.

Based on a price of $6.50 per pSivida ADS, the transaction would represent a purchase price of approximately $104 million and an implied market capitalization of about $250 million for the combined company.

Oct. 3, 2005 — NeoPhotonics, a San Jose, Calif.-based maker of optical components, modules and subsystems, introduced its new small form factor PLC power splitter product line intended for fiber-to-the-home applications.

The company said the splitters combine the performance of its standard size devices with the benefits of an ultra compact package that measures 4 x 4 x 40 mm. The splitters are available in 1×4, 1×8, 1×16 and 1×32 configurations.

By Greg Mayer
Small Times Guest Columnist

Oct. 3, 2005 – Three aspects of H.R. 2795 — the House bill on patent reform — are particularly troubling to independent inventors and small businesses: the change to a first-to-file system, the limitations on patent holders seeking an injunction against an infringer and the new post-grant opposition proceedings.

First, the bill contains provisions that make a fundamental change to our country’s patent system, to take it from the present “first-to-invent” system to a “first-to-file” system.

This is likely to favor large corporate interests. Being able to quickly file well-drafted patent applications is a luxury that independent inventors and small businesses are not positioned to afford. One of the arguments for going to a first-to-file system is that, on balance, the present interference process — where disputes over who is first to invent a given invention are currently resolved — do not favor large corporations.

However, the current first-to-invent scheme supplies many ways besides the interference process for a first inventor to prove that he or she is entitled to a patent. For example, an inventor may in many cases prove he or she was the first inventor by providing additional facts supporting an earlier invention date. Interferences — the process by which one party challenges a patent — are only declared in a very small number of cases relative to the volume of patents issued every year. Accordingly, the statistics often cited in support of changing to a “first-to-file” system are of questionable significance.

Regardless of statistics, there is also a fundamental question of whether going to a first-to-file system comports with the Constitution’s statement in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, that “The Congress shall have Power ¿ to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

It would seem that there is at least a plausible argument that an exclusive right to an inventor’s discovery necessarily requires that the inventor is the first to invent, since an “inventor” is commonly defined as “one who produces something new” (both in our era and in the 1780s) and “discovery” implies that the inventor has found something not found before.

A second important aspect of the patent reform proposals embodied in H.R. 2795 has to do with the limitations of a patent holder’s right to obtain a permanent injunction to stop infringing activity after infringement has been found by a federal court.

Changes originally proposed in H.R. 2795 were decidedly slanted toward large corporate interests. Currently, the threat of an injunction is the most powerful ammunition that a small patent holder has when faced with infringement by a large corporation.

A weakening of the right of a patent holder to obtain a permanent injunction is likely to result in a reduction in the number of patent disputes that are resolved by a negotiated settlement. Corporate infringers may simply budget for the costs of patent litigation and the possibility of paying damages if unsuccessful in the patent litigation.

In addition, this aspect of patent reform would also face strong opposition based on constitutional grounds, as a diminished right to an injunction may not provide inventors with “an exclusive” right to their discoveries. It was a positive step that these changes were removed from a late-July revision of H.R. 2795 but it remains to be seen whether they will resurface.

A third aspect of H.R. 2795 that may favor large corporate interests is the provision creating a post-grant opposition proceeding. Although post-grant opposition proceedings are likely to cost much less than patent litigation in federal district court, the difference between spending hundreds of thousands of dollars versus millions of dollars is meaningless to small entities and small individual inventors who can ill-afford either such ranges of expenses.

However, to a corporation such savings are significant and make patent opposition proceedings much more attractive than litigating over validity issues in federal district courts.

Independent inventors groups, such as The Professional Inventors Alliance USA, have voiced strong opposition to H.R. 2795, based in part on the aspects of the legislation noted above. In view of the foregoing, it is unlikely that H.R. 2795 will become law in its present form.