Wisconsin Legislature to Study Potential Regulation of Nanomaterials

Posted on July 29, 2010 by John C. Monica, Jr.

Following California's lead, Wisconsin's legislature recently formed a special committee to study the potential regulation of nanomaterials from an environmental, health, and safety perspective.   Our readers will be interested in the committee's membership and focus:

Special Committee on Nanotechnology
Chair: Rep. Chuck Benedict
Vice Chair: Sen. Mark Miller
Legislative Council Staff: Mary Matthias, Pam Shannon, and Larry Konopacki
Member List

The Special Committee is directed to examine the human health and environmental concerns related to the manufacture, use, and disposal of nanomaterials and develop legislation to address these concerns. In particular, the Special Committee shall consider the establishment of methods to monitor nanomaterials by use of a nanotechnology registry system or the imposition of other disclosure requirements. The Special Committee shall also develop strategies to facilitate the development of nanotechnology to create and retain jobs in Wisconsin, including ways in which government can help nanotechnology researchers, small firms, and start-ups address potential risks and meet regulatory requirements.
 

You can find prior articles about Wisconsin's prior efforts here and here.  The committee's first meeting appears to be scheduled for September 2010.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Quantum Dot Patent Infringement Lawsuit Resolved

Posted on July 27, 2009 by John C. Monica, Jr.

Readers may be interested in the recent resolution of a quantum dot patent infringement lawsuit between Nanosys and Nanoco/Sigma-Aldrich. 

In April 2009, Nanosys sued Nanoco and Sigma-Aldrich in Wisconsin federal court for allegedly infringing three quantum dot patents owned by MIT which were exclusively licensed to Nanosys.  Nanoco purportedly marketed and sold competing luminous quantum dot nanocrystals under its Lumnidot brand through its U.S. distributor Sigma-Aldrich.  The suit was brought in Wisconsin because that was where the products allegedly infringing the patents were sold.

In the complaint initiating the lawsuit, Nanosys explained that its "technology is covered by a portfolio of over 500 patents and patent applications, including patents in the quantum dot field, that is currently being applied to opportunities in multiple industries including energy, electronics, optoelectronics, life science, and defense. Current application areas of Nanosys technology include flat-panel displays, non-volatile memory, fuel cells, solid-state lighting, chemical analysis chips and medical devices."

The lawsuit was resolved prior to any substantive defense.  In June 2009, the parties told the Court that the case had been settled and that they were drafting the final settlement documentation.  In July 2009, Nanosys voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice as to both defendants -- as to any prior act, or infringement by selling quantum dot nanocrystals having a CdSe/Zns core-shell structure.

According to a Nanoco press release, the parties settled the case without an admission of liability by Nanoco or Sigma-Aldrich. However, as part of the settlement, Nanoco agreed to terminate its U.S. business for heavy metal quantum dots. Nanoco's CEO explained the cost of defending the litigation was unwarranted by the amount of business generated by the product.  He further stated that the company would continue to market its quantum dot products based on heavy metal-free technology, differing from the technology involved in the lawsuit.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

New Study on State Regulation of Nanotechnology

Posted on June 25, 2008 by Michael E. Heintz
Yesterday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel had a front-page story on a new study released by the University of Wisconsin's Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center concerning emerging state regulation of nanomaterials.  The paper, Bottom-Up Risk Regulation? How Nanotechnology Risk Knowledge Gaps Challenge Federal and State Environmental Agencies, is to appear in the next issue of Environmental Management, which is currently in press.

In the paper (find an abstract here), the authors focus on the potential shortcomings of federal regulation of nanomaterials, and ultimately, "suggest some ways government agencies can be better prepared to address nanotechnology risk knowledge gaps and risk management."  The primary thrust of the paper is that state and local government will likely have to address risks and concerns of nanomaterials in the absence of complete information.

State and local regulation of nanomaterials is quickly becoming a favorite topic, and one we've been discussion for a while now (see two of our more recent posts here and here).  And while it appears that Wisconsin may jump into the pond soon on nano regulation, nothing concrete has developed yet.

How states address the risks and concerns of nanomaterials, which at the same time addressing the existing data gap, will be just as important as federal action on the subject.  States are in the precarious position of not wanting to stifle an emerging, and potentially lucrative in terms of jobs and tax revenue, industry, but at the same time they have an obligation to keep their residents safe.  I look forward to reading the full paper and read the suggestions proposed by Maria Powell, Martin Griffin, and Stephanie Tai.
Tags: , , ,