The latest news from academia, regulators
research labs and other things of interest
Posted: May 17, 2011
Interview With Quentin Tannock, Chairman and Co-Founder of CambridgeIP
(Nanowerk News) Six questions with Quentin Tannock, Chairman and Co-Founder of
CambridgeIP Ltd and a speaker at the upcoming NanoMaterials 2011
Q: What does Cambridge IP do and what can you offer to companies in the
Much of our work in the nanotech space involves accelerating the 'time to market' of nanotech
developments for companies of all sizes, and for public sector and private sector investors. In all
of our projects we use Intellectual Property (IP) as a tool and an information resource,
complementing traditional consulting methods. Some examples of our work include, helping
identify and secure the right business partners for a technology and advising clients on securing
best position in emerging value-chains. Sometimes we are asked to undertake IP analysis to
inform freedom to operate exercises, and to help clients navigate their IP Landscapes.
CambridgeIP has a very strong nanotech team with backgrounds in academia, the venture capital
industry and major corporations. Working from the over 100 million science documents in our
databases and other information sources, we help clients identify and prioritise realistic
opportunities and assist in developing strategies and tactics to realise the opportunities. SMEs
and universities usually order fixed price reports containing our analysis and
recommendations. Larger corporations frequently engage with us on a consultative and retainer
Q: You follow new technology development and patent registrations, where are you seeing
most activity for nanomaterials?
Come and see my presentation at the conference! Nanomaterials remains a relatively vibrant
sub-sector of the nano space overall and there are interesting trends within the nanomaterials
Q: A lot of people talk about open innovation - do you see a lot of these types of
collaborations in the nanotech sector?
My view is that success in nanotech, especially for the smaller players and research institutes, is
increasingly about succeeding in 'open innovation'. This noted, the frequency of open innovation
activity including collaborations seems more dependent on the culture in the target industry than
on the nanotechnology being applied.
In the current economic environment the chances of receiving an investment of sufficient workingcapital to take a nanotech research project, scale it up and roll it out commercially are much less
than in the past. This funding squeeze means that smaller players are less likely to be able to
afford to 'do it all in house' and that finding corporate strategic partners with experience, scale
and contacts is even more important at an even earlier stage. Of course we see a fair amount of
nanotech acquired or otherwise brought in-house (e.g. through collaborations) by established
industry players from from SMEs and research institutes. However it must be said that the
frequency of this type of open innovation activity appears to be more dependent on the open
innovation culture in the industry sector and even within specific major corporate partner
organisations than on the technology sub-sector or type of nanotech involved.
Q: Where do you see the biggest opportunities for research establishments pushing R&D
out into industry?
As I said before - come and see my presentation at the conference! Our research with
PraxisUnico (the UK's leading technology transfer training organisation) and our work with
research institutes around the world demonstrates that a key challenge for research institutes in
pushing R&D out into industry is gaining an understanding industry requirements at a very early
stage of R&D and understanding industrial product/application specifications at later stages of
R&D. Turning this challenge around, those research establishments who can understand actual
industry requirements and product/application specifications will realise major industrial
opportunities. Much of our work with Universities and research institutes surrounds providing their
researchers with this 'industrial context'.
Q: Some industry commentators give the impression there's a lot of materials
development in the nanotech sector, but much of it doesn't meet specific applications and
therefore struggles to reach commercial scale - would you agree with this notion?
I would certainly agree that many University originated developments never reach commercial
scale, whether the developments are nanotech or not. Our research and our work with research
institutes, discussed above, suggest that there is a general failure to understand industry
requirements and specifications rather than a problem specific to the nanotech sector. This noted,
clearly some nanotechologies are particularly challenging to scale-up efficiently. Add these two
features together and one can see how many valuable nanotech innovations arising in basic
research institutes will never reach commercial scale.
A CambridgeIP / PraxisUnico survey of leading UK Universities found that much University
research fails to find a home in industry because it does not fulfill a current industrial need. Our
own experience teaches that even if such research does meet a need, the research outputs must
meet industry product / technology system specifications if they are to be taken up by industry. I
am stressing this point because it is so crucial - you must not only develop something industry
wants, but must also do so in a format they can readily adopt. It is worth noting that survey
respondents made mention of these four 'top tips' for marketing intellectual property:
Undertake thorough commercial feasibility analysis very early
Allocate time to marketing and review your progress regularly
Utilise your networks
Take time to build relationships and partnerships with relevant active companies
Q: How can we better foster relationships across the sometimes disparate end use sectors
covered by nanotechnology?
Other technologies have faced similar challenges in the past - take the telecoms sector for
example and consider the disparate technologies successfully applied to disparate end uses
there. Recently CambridgeIP completed a report for the UK IP Office, part of the Hargreaves
Review of IP and Growth, which considered the emerging 'cross-disciplinary' telehealth sector (a
combination of aspects of the telecoms and health sectors) and made policy recommendations. It
strikes me that many nanotechnology applications are similarly 'cross-disciplinary' in terms of
both underlying science and sector of application and that we could take lessons from the
success of technology development and deployment in telecoms, telehealth (and elsewhere) and
apply these lessons to specific nanotech developments and nanotech end-uses more broadly.