Griffith Hack Clean & Sustainable Technologies

The Australian Patent Office has stated that it is willing to expedite applications in the field of “green technology”. This is likely to be interpreted broadly by the Australian Patent Office, and would most likely include any technology that arguably mitigates an environmental problem.

Expedited exam has been available for many years in Australia, and not just for green technologies. Officially, a reason must be given as to why expedited exam is requested but in practice the Australian Patent Office does not usually insist on this. I recommend not giving a reason at first instance to keep the public record clean. The reason “The application relates to a green technology” should be sufficient for the Australian Patent Office. Another popular reason is that a third unspecified party is or is expected to infringe the claims of the application and so it is in the interest of all parties to provide clarity. It is important not to name the third party as this may give the third party grounds to sue for unjustified threats, drawing the applicant into litigation.

An Australian patent application is examined only after a Request for Examination is filed and so this is the first step that should be taken to expedite examination of any application. Currently, there is a delay of between 12 and 24 months, depending on the base technology, between the request for examination being made and the issuance of a first examination report. A request for expedited examination of the application can be filed at any time after filing the application. There is no fee. The examiner may check that the reason given is consistent with the application and thus it is preferable not to give a reason in the first instance.

A first examination report will issue in around 4 to 8 weeks after the request for expedited examination is made. It is then up to the applicant to respond accordingly. Prosecution of the application does not necessary proceed at a faster than usual rate after the issuance of the first report, although the Australian Patent Office may be receptive to requests for a quick turn around.

It may be beneficial to apply for expedited exam if the applicant is seeking to enforce patent rights or if an investor requires a granted patent before they invest. Not applying for expedited exam provides the applicant with time to develop and plan the commercialization and marketing of their invention, and determine whether their invention is commercially viable before making the financial commitment that comes with patent prosecution. Australian patent examiners often look at the prosecution history of the corresponding US and European cases and thus if the application is accepted before exam reports issue against these applications then it is likely that broader claims will be realized.

Justin Blows

Cleantech AustralAsia (CTA) and Terrapinn are pleased to invite companies to apply to present at the AustralAsian Cleantech Forum Investment Showcase which is the premier platform in Australia that connects public and private clean technology companies with investors and corporate partners.

□    Are you a company with a clean technology seeking to raise capital?

□    Are you seeking JV or investment partners for commercialisation expansion or technology export?

□    Do you have a clean technology product that reduces emission impacts and increases resource efficiency?

□    Do you have a proven technology solution to tackle climate change ready for commercial deployment?

□    Do you have a cleantech product that can generate economic and environmental benefits with financial returns?

If you answered YES to any of the above then we invite you to APPLY now.

Application Due Date: 19th February 2010

To Apply: Complete this APPLICATION FORM and email to jeff@cleantechnology.com.au

According to this report, Areva SA of France predicts the global use of solar-thermal power will grow by about 30-fold this decade

Justin Blows

According to this report, the assets of Solar Systems have been bought by Sydney based Silex Systems. 

Solar systems was to build a AU$420 million solar PV power station in Victoria, Australia, before it went into receivership. It appears that Silex wishes to continue this project. 

The media release by Silex is available on their web site.  It appears that Silex is paying AU$20 million for the deal  but I note that Solar Systems spent AU$150 million developing its technology.

Solar Systems has an extensive patent portfolio.

Justin Blows

According to this report, solar thermal equipment manufacturer AUSRA has been bought by the French company AREVA, a company known for nuclear technology.

Justin Blows

Here is a video about a machine that turns 40 sheets of office paper into a roll of toilet paper in 30 min.  Is this the prefect addition to the environmentally sensitive office?  It is allegedly covered by patent applications, too!

Justin Blows

According to this report, US wind power capacity grew more than 39 percent in 2009.

Justin Blows

I came across an article suggesting that clean technologies, with particular reference to hybrid cars, will initially be too expensive for wide spread adoption – but there will be demand from those seeking status.  

Simply put, the purchase would be a status thing.   Read here how the TOYOTA PRIUS (TM) is the car for Hollywood stars – a group of people usually known for spending big on fashion.   Perhaps Cleantech branding is closer to fashion branding, for example, than we might have expected. The well off may purchase well know brands to elevate their status.    

One way of protecting a brand is by a registered trade mark. The PRIUS (TM) is a great example – you know that brand, don’t you? It is a really strong green brand that is heavily protected by trade marks.  For retailed goods, like the PRIUS, many would argue that a strong trade mark portfolio is just as important as a strong patent portfolio.   

But trade marks are often overlooked until well down the innovation chain.  In the case of the car branded PRIUS, while the patented technology may have played a major role in building the brand, it is the trade mark that holds the accrued brand value.  And people being people buy brands, not obscure patented technology.    

Technology comes and goes but the brand lives on – the PRIUS is now in its third generation and a lot of the technology in the current generation is not shared with the original PRIUS.  But the commercial value derived from the use of the earlier patented technology is now held by the PRIUS trademark.

A registered trade mark is particularly valuable as it is easier to enforce the trade mark against others who would use it without consent of the trade mark owner.  A registered trade mark can also be sold or licenced and thus adds commercial value to the enterprise holding one.  How much do you think the PRIUS brand is worth?   Surely a brand like that is worth protecting.  

 Justin Blows

According to this report, Professor Robert Henry of the Bioenergy Research Institute at Southern Cross University in Lismore says biofuels can replace a significant amount of Australia’s reliance on fossil fuels without eating into too much valuable farming land.

He says that the world could replace all its dependence on oil by planting 100 million hectares of prime agricultural land to biofuel crops – equivalent to about a seventh of Australia’s landmass.

Justin Blows

The Griffith Hack Clean & Sustainable Technologies group are pleased to invite you to a seminar not to be missed!  

‘Copenhagen 2009: Reflections and Possibilities’

Please see the attached invitation for further details.
CleanTechSeminar_Feb5_2010 

Pete Gorton, Secretary of the International Solar Energy Society based in Germany, will provide an overview of the conference from his perspective of being there for the full two weeks, and provide some comments on the future possibilities that may arise from the event. 

Date:    Friday 5 February 2010 

Venue: Griffith Hack Offices in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth                                       

Time:   Sydney & Melbourne: 12.45pm
                 Brisbane: 11.45am
                 Perth: 9.45am

RSVP:  To Anna McCabe by: Monday 1 February 2010
                Ph: (02) 9925 5962
                Email: anna.mccabe@griffithhack.com.au

According to this report, the Toyota Prius, a hybrid-petrol vehicle, was the best-selling car in Japan in 2009.

As previously reported by us, Toyota has an absolutely amazing patent and trade mark portfolio relating to the Prius. We are sure this helped.

Justin Blows

After much hue and cry, the Copenhagen negotiations over intellectual property and climate change ended in a stalemate and an impasse. There was a gulf between the views of intellectual property maximalists who demanded strong protection of intellectual property rights in respect of clean technologies; and nation states and civil society groups calling for special measures to facilitate technology transfer.

As a result, the Copenhagen Accord did contain any text on intellectual property and climate change. Nonetheless, the Copenhagen Accord does, though, contain an important compromise. The text provides for a technology mechanism, which envisages a network of Climate Innovation Centres to facilitate collaboration on clean technologies between the private sector and the public sector, developed countries, and developing nations.

The Copenhagen negotiations were characterised by strong divisions between developed countries, BRICS nations (comprising Brazil, India, China and South Africa), developing countries, least developed countries, and small Island states.

The first option suggested that ‘Technology development, diffusion and transfer [shall] be promoted by operating the intellectual property regime in a balanced manner.’

Under Option 2, countries could take a range of measures to ‘address adaptation or mitigation of climate change’ – including the use of compulsory licensing, the creation of a patent pool, and the sharing of publicly developed technology.

Under Option 3, least developed states and countries vulnerable to climate change could exclude environmentally sound technologies to adapt to and mitigate climate change.

Under Option 4, ‘The Executive Body on Technology should establish a committee or an advisory panel or designate some other body to proactively address patents and related intellectual property issues to ensure both increased innovation and increased access for both mitigation technologies and adaptation technologies.’

Under Option 5, ‘Parties may compulsorily license specific technologies for the purpose of mitigation and adaptation to climate change.’

During the Copenhagen negotiations, the Contact Group on Enhanced Action on Development and Transfer of Technology further refined the options to deal with the question of intellectual property and climate change. 

In response, developed countries, such as the United States, Japan, Australia and the members of the European Union resisted the inclusion of such options in any agreement, and pushed for the strong protection of intellectual property rights. The so-called Danish text reflected this intellectual property maximalist ideology. Paragraph 18 provided: ‘Parties commit to enable the accelerated large-scale development, transfer and deployment of environmentally sound and climate friendly technologies across all stages of the technology cycle, respecting IPR regimes including protecting the legitimate interests of public and private innovators.’ Such language echoes the ‘messaging’ used by key business groups.

Protecting the intellectual property (IP) rights of [technology] firms and inventors will be critical to both incentivizing their continued investments, and helping spread the knowledge gained from such research and development.  Negotiators from the United States and other nations consistently reiterated this pro-IP position during negotiations over the past year, and worked together to protect IP from efforts to weaken existing laws and norms. Their steadfast support of IP rights and innovation should be commended.[1]

Esper bemoaned the efforts by developing countries and least developed countries to address intellectual property in the Copenhagen negotiations: ‘Although no climate change agreement emerged from Copenhagen, efforts by some nations to craft political statements and treaty provisions s designed to weaken IP rights leaves much room for concern’. He warned: ‘Efforts to undermine IP protections will not stop, and anti-IP activists already have their sights set on the next round of talks’.  Esper told his constituency: ‘As such, it is important that we remain engaged and vigilant if we are to address climate change in a timely and effective manner’.

The United States Chamber of Commerce, though, was less than impressed by the intervention of the culture-jamming group, The Yes Men. Cheekily, The Yes Men impersonated officials from the United States Chamber of Commerce, and suggested that the peak body had changed its position from climate scepticism to one of climate justice. The somewhat dour and humourless United States Chamber of Commerce has taken legal action against The Yes Men for copyright infringement, trade mark infringement, trade mark dilution, unfair competition, and cyber-squatting. The Electronic Frontier Foundation are defending The Yes Men, claiming that they are protected under the defence of fair use and the First Amendment.

Furthermore, the Yes Men impersonated representatives from Coca-Cola, performing a mea culpa for ‘greenwashing’. The group capped off an eventful year by mocking the Canadian delegation over its excess emissions during the Copenhagen negotiations.

The Copenhagen Accord

The minimalist Copenhagen Accord was reached on the 18 December 2009.[2] Tove Iren S. Gerhardsen reported that ‘Intellectual property issues were again discussed in a smaller group during one of the last days, but are not mentioned in the final text, which is entitled the “Copenhagen Accord.’[3] Nonetheless, there is some discussion in the text about the infrastructure required for technology transfer. Paragraph 11 observed: ‘In order to enhance action on development and transfer of technology we decide to establish a Technology Mechanism to accelerate technology development and transfer in support of action on adaptation and mitigation that will be guided by a country-driven approach and be based on national circumstances and priorities.’ The Technology Mechanism consists of a Technology Executive Committee, and a network of Climate Innovation Centres.

India and the Carbon Trust based in the United Kingdom promoted the idea of Climate Innovation Centres as a means of facilitating technology development and collaboration. Cath Bremner, the head of international development at the Carbon Trust, argued:

Our answer at the Carbon Trust, developed with the Indian Institute of Technology and Climate Strategies, is to establish a global network of Climate Innovation Centres in developing countries, funded by the international community, national governments, local and global businesses. These centres would build local capacity, encourage enterprise and provide finance to roll out the technologies we have today and develop the ones we’ll use tomorrow. [4]

The innovation model is elaborated in an influential paper entitled, ‘Climate Innovation Centres: A partnership approach to meeting energy and climate challenges’ in the Natural Resources Forum.[5]

Some commentators are hopeful that the model of Climate Innovation Centres will be a productive one. Rajiv Tikoo observed: ‘While the centres may not deliver breakthrough technologies in geo-engineering or carbon capture and storage, they are expected to deliver utilitarian technologies like development of cleaner cooking ranges and deployment of energy efficient lighting solutions, catering to the existing market and beyond.’[6]

It remains to be seen whether the model of a network of Climate Innovation Centres will be an effective means of promoting technology development, innovation, and diffusion. Unfortunately, the model does not address any of the underlying intellectual property issues relating to climate change, or to collaborations between nation states, and the public and private sectors. As can be seen in Australia, collaborations between government, the public sector, and the private sector under the framework of Co-Operative Research Centres can sometimes be fraught and complicated affairs.

Arguably, though, the outstanding question of intellectual property and climate change needs to be revisited in a number of international fora – including the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change, the World Trade Organization, and the World Intellectual Property Organization.

Intellectual property plays a critical role, especially in determining who owns clean technologies, who benefits from clean technologies and who has access to clean technologies.

There is a desperate need to reform the intellectual property system to properly address environmental concerns. The current ‘technology-neutral’ approach provides incentives for polluting and clean technologies alike, without discrimination. Any future agreement should provide workable mechanisms for access to clean technologies – including technology transfer, compulsory licensing, patent pools, sharing of publicly funded technology and even exclusions of intellectual property rights for those countries worst affected by climate change.

Such flexible measures are already recognised and permitted under the TRIPS Agreement in the World Trade Organization.

---

* Matthew Rimmer, BA (Hons)/ LLB (Hons) (ANU), PhD (UNSW), is a Senior Lecturer and the Associate Director of Research at the Australian National University College of Law, and an Associate Director of the Australian Centre for Intellectual Property in Agriculture (ACIPA). He is a member of the ANU Climate Change Institute.

[1]        Esper, M. (2009), ‘IP and Copenhagen: Final Thoughts’, United States Chamber of Commerce, 18 December, http://www.chamberpost.com/2009/12/ip-and-copenhagen-final-thoughts.html

[2]        http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_15/application/pdf/cop15_cph_auv.pdf

[3]        Gerhardsen, T.I.S. (2009), ‘IP References Left Out Of Last-Minute, Weak Global Climate Deal In Copenhagen’, Intellectual Property Watch, 19 December.

[4]         Bremner, C (2009), ‘Technology Transfer to Developing Countries is an Impossible Dream: Collaboration Between Private Investors and Public Sector is the Only Way to Introduce Low-Carbon Technology to Poor Countries’, The Guardian, 9 December, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/dec/09/technology-transfer

[5]         Sagar, A., C. Bremner, and M. Grubb (2009), ‘Climate Innovation Centres: A Partnership Approach to Meeting Energy and Climate Challenges’, Natural Resources Forum, 33 (4), 274-284.

[6]         Tikoo, R. (2009), ‘Innovation centres to develop clean technologies: India’, Financial Express, 14 December.

According to this report, International Energy Agency executive director Nobuo Tanaka believes that wind has the potential to supply 12% of world electricity by 2050, the biggest markets being in China and Europe.

Solar photovoltaic (PV) has the potential to supply 11% of the world electricity by that date.

These figures represent astonishing growth predictions – an additional US$10.5 trillion of investment will be needed to reach the 450 ppm scenario.

Non-OECD countries will account for 93% of the increase in global energy demand by 2030, driven largely by China and India – so make sure you file patents in these countries!

Justin Blows

According to this report, Toyota (TM) plans to double production of its hybrid cars by 2011 to 1 million units.

Justin Blows

According to this report, the US International Trade Commission (ITC) has reversed its previous decision that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries would infringe GE’s patents by importing wind turbines into the US.  The previous decision had been set to stop Mitsubishi from importing wind turbines into the US.

My report on the previous decision is here.

Justin Blows

New Scientist (5 December 2009) reported how much various things would go up in the UK for a 80% cut in carbon dioxide emissions. Food, cars, tobacco, alcohol, clothing and electronics rise by an insignificant amount – less then 2%. But electricity goes up 15% and air travel goes up a whopping 140%.

There are currently very few alternatives to using jet fuel derived from fossil resources and thus the carbon price is likely to fall heavily on aviation.

Perhaps turning our food scraps into jet fuel is the answer? According to this report, that is what Qatar is partnering up with Airbus to do. The project is to develop ways to convert plants or biodegradable waste into energy.

In October 2009, Qatar Airways, as part of an effort to develop alternative fuel, powered a commercial flight from London to Doha with gas-to-liquid, or GTL, fuel.

Also, according to this report, the fish farms in the area of Abu Dhabi could soon be used to produce jet fuel.  This is asspciated with the new super-green Masdar city.

The project, developed by The Masdar Institute of Science and Technology, Honeywell UOP, Boeing and Ethiad Airways, will be based around the oily plant Salicornia (also referred to as pickleweed or sea asparagus).

While the fish are harvested for food, Salicornia will be harvested for oil. The Silicornia will absorb fish waste, which normally runs into the sea and pollutes it.

The oil from this salt-water plant can be converted into jet fuel or biodiesel, as well as reducing carbon dioxide emissions and the level of waste ending up in our oceans.

After the oil has been extracted, Salicornia can be used to produce fish food or the straw of the plant could get burned in a biomass reactor to produce electricity.

However, Scott Kennedy, associate professor at the Masdar Institute, explains that this plant has not been grown for human use before and the challenges of growing it in copious amounts is yet unknown.

‘The challenge is a systems integration problem’, said John Perkins, the director of the Masdar Institute.

Justin Blows

According to this report, India plans to install 20 million solar lights and 20 million square meters of solar thermal panels to generate 20,000 megawatts by 2022 as part of its National Solar Mission, formally launched Monday.

Justin Blows

According to this report, a European energy company says north Australia could become one of the world’s leading biofuel energy producers.

Justin Blows