Griffith Hack Clean & Sustainable Technologies

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

According to this report, 99 percent of batteries for current hybrid cars and other vehicles are made in Japan.

Justin Blows

According to this report, Suntech solar, an company based in Asia, is looking to build a solar tower generating around 200 MW in northwest Victoria.

Justin Blows

According to this report, solar companies walked away with $1.2 billion in venture capital in 2009, the largest amount for a sector, although down 64% from the previous year, according to Cleantech Group and Deloitte. Companies that make electric vehicles, advanced batteries, fuel cells and other transportation equipment attracted $1.1 billion in venture capital, while energy efficiency companies snagged $1 billion.

Justin Blows

In recent times, there has been a shift in public focus from a desire for Australian science to address human health and medical conditions, to climate change issues.  The Australian government has in recent years reinforced the need to focus on sustainability, encompassing climate change mitigation/adaption, through its identification of “an environmentally sustainable Australia” as a National Research Priority.  In 2009, the Government has reinforced this focus when setting its Innovation Agenda to 2020, through identifying “climate change mitigation and adaption” as a national innovation priority, and provided funding for clean energy initiatives in the 2010 budget, amongst other things. 

Where does this leave the Australian biotech company or research organization?  Are there opportunities for you to slightly adjust your positioning to plug into this area of national interest, and possibly open up avenues to tap into previously unavailable funding?  There is an opportunity to learn from the experiences of overseas companies and multinationals.  In this article we report on the observations we have made through following the activities of one organization, and reviewing trends in patent filings in one specific branch of this broad-ranging area – biofuels.  We also suggest some areas that are ripe for biotech companies in Australia to address the needs that still exist in this specific field. 

The Shell Story

Shell is not your traditional “biotechnology” company, nor has it historically been a company with a focus on climate change mitigation.  However, Shell has been working for some time to address depletion of fossil fuel supplies, which will eventually see its core business contract.  Shell sees biofuels as a necessary part of their future, and as a consequence they are expanding their operations to cover research into ways they can adapt their business to the flow-on consequence of climate change.  The core science they are relying on to address this need is biotechnology. 

Patent data shows that some work in biotechnology is conducted in Shell’s R&D facilities, while other projects have been progressed through research agreements with Universities around the world, and through joint ventures/collaborations with other organizations.  In 2008 Shell announced six new biofuels research agreements with 6 universities in the UK, China and USA in 2008.  Shell has also been involved as part-owner, collaborator or a joint-venture partner in a number of new biofuel-specific businesses.  These include joint ventures with Choren (involving production of “SunFuel”, a biomass-to-liquid, or BTL fuel), Codexis (involving the development of better enzymes for the conversion of non-food biomass into next generation biofuels) and Virent (involving the development of a biofuel that avoids the need to convert the engine to run on it).

One of Shells’ joint venture projects with Cellana in Hawaii is at an advanced stage, with a pilot plant for the production of fuel oils from algae being completed.  Nevertheless, there are recognized areas where improvements or solutions to problems are required.  These include addressing the need for the algae to be exposed to sunlight, which results in enormous shallow pond areas to enable production of the volumes of oil required.  Other areas for optimization involve avoiding contamination of the active species, maximizing the oil yield as a percentage of the dry mass of the cells, and maximizing the extraction of that oil from the cells.  These problems being faced by Cellana/Shell demonstrate that as work in biofuels technologies continues, problems arise that require a solution to be developed by biotechnology specialists having experience with these problems in different contexts.  Cellana may be using their microorganisms to achieve a different outcome compared to the typical biotechnology business, but both businesses may share the same problems.  It is open to Australian Biotech companies to identify solutions to these problems for possible licensing to companies like Shell.  Such focused research on these areas of sustainable technology may also open up the avenue to receiving government funding through previously unavailable funds, such as the Climate Ready Grant.

Shell is also a part-owner of Iogen Energy Corporation in Canada, where waste lignocellose/plant material is used as a starting material for producing biofuels.  Compared to the controversial use of food crops for fuel, the use of waste materials such as wheat stems avoids the fuel/food competition seen to be a barrier to first generation biofuels.  Iogen’s pilot plant has been operating for 5 years, but there are still issues to be faced in increasing the scale of operations to produce large volumes of fuels.  For Iogen, the problems are not pure biotech problems: they relate to the volume of material and consequent costs of collection and dealing with low yields of fuel compared to the plant throughput volumes. 

Others in Biofuels

It is interesting to observe that the patent data relating to the number of “biofuels” patent applications filed over the last 11 ½ years (publication year January 1998 to September 2009) shows that Shell is well down the list in filing numbers.  The top filers in this field are UTS Biogastechnik GmbH (a German company, with almost double the number of patent families compared to the next top filer), Chevron US Inc, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (India), BASF and Petroleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras, of Brazil).  The main players just under these top filers are predominantly US and German companies.  The number of filings over the last 11 ½ years have increased significantly in this area, and there are 842 individual patent applicants in this time period, indicating a wide spread of applicants with few patent applications to each. 

Final Comments

Sustainable technologies extend to many other areas that rely on biotechnology or chemistry as a core component to enable the technology to become a commercial reality.  Such areas include drought-tolerant (and other forms of stress-resistant) plants for crops, to account for anticipated low water falls as a consequence of climate change, genetically modified plants that produce better yields per crop area, enzymes for bioleaching and bioremediation, biological and chemical CO₂ sequestration, chemical components for solar cells for alternative energy production, chemical components for new battery technologies and so forth.  Analysis of the current projects underway in these other fields of sustainable innovation may also reveal avenues for Australian biotechnology and general chemical companies to apply their current knowledge to address unresolved problems in these fields.

Janelle Borham