Francisco Castro interview: The blurring of biotechnology and semiconductor technology

Francisco Castro interview: The blurring of biotechnology and semiconductor technology

Industry expert speaks about the merging of the two technologies

BY JEFFREY BAUSCH

With most of his days spent advising clients in the fields of nanotechnology, telecommunications, imaging, photonics, and semiconductors, Francisco Castro, Ph.D., who specializes in patent prosecution and counseling, knows a thing or two about the tech industry.

Legal expert Francisco Castro.

As a matter of fact, prior to joining the McAndrews, Held & Malloy Law Office, Castro was a Principal Staff Research Engineer at Motorola, where he developed innovative solid-state image sensor architectures and advanced imaging systems. He also worked as a Member of the Technical Staff at Lucent Technologies, designing and testing systems for high-speed optical switching.

Recently, Castro published a paper that caught our eye. Entitled “As Line Blurs Between Semi and Bio, Attorneys Need to be Prepared,” his thesis explored the gradual merging of bio and semiconductor technologies — two entirely separate fields that in recent years have come together to bring us some of the most quickly developed and impactful technologies to date — and what it means from a legal standpoint.

It’s an interesting perspective to take on the matter, and something that everyone can benefit from learning a little more about. We certainly did, as is evident from the following exchange:

Electronic Products: Can you describe exactly what you mean by a blurring of the two technologies? Would you be able to cite specific examples where this is taking place?

Francisco Castro: I wrote about how some novel technologies are relying on the interaction between semiconductor structures and biological materials at the nanometer scale. To be more specific, I addressed the challenges that such developments in products and product technologies could present to engineers, managers, scientists, technologists, and other professionals in the electronics industry, in addition to intellectual property practitioners, like attorneys and examiners at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. One example I described was about solid-state membranes used for DNA sequencing. In these devices, a small pore is made through the semiconductor membrane and a strand of DNA is pulled through the pore to determine the order of the nucleotides in the strand. The operation, or functionality, of a sensing structure in the semiconductor membrane is not divorced from the physical properties of the biological material and/or the solution in which the material is immersed. They all work together, which makes their interactions terribly complex. As a result, computational modeling and simulation are typically needed to optimize the design and performance of these devices. These issues are also likely to arise in biologically-inspired technologies such as molecular computing.

With that in mind, the “blurring” I am referring to is now occurring because the distinction that once existed between semiconductor technology and biotechnology is not as clear in some circumstances anymore. The multifaceted and interrelated nature of how these novel technologies operate requires knowledge in many different areas, including engineering, physics, materials science, biology and chemistry. There are few scientists, technologists, engineers, managers, or other professionals in the electronics industry (and also intellectual property practitioners!) who have such breadth of skills to be able to always correctly identify the highly technical complexity of this new semi/bio combination. As a result, whole teams of experts are needed to effectively develop these types of technologies. Imagine what a challenge this blurring becomes for an electronics professional or a patent attorney or who is used to dealing with a single area of science or engineering.

Electronic Products: Do you believe that this blurring of two separate technologies is beneficial to the technology community as a whole? Please explain why / why not.

Francisco Castro: To be clear, the blurring between these technologies is the outcome of a large effort by the technology community to characterize, analyze, and manipulate biological materials at the nanometer scale by using semiconductor technology. Therefore, this blurring is the result of a coordinated effort that, from the beginning, has had the intent of producing great benefits not only to the technology community, but eventually to society as a whole. We are now on the verge of being able to reduce the cost, increase the availability and improve the accuracy and throughput of diagnostics and therapeutic techniques, all by exploiting the nanometer-scale interactions between semiconductor structures and biological materials. Therefore, this is clearly going to have a great impact in the fields of biology and medicine.

That said, if we want to make these benefits reach all of society, we need to create a path that leads towards successful commercialization. Commercial success depends on many factors that go beyond whether the technology is plausible or whether it is suitable for manufacturing. It is here that I believe the value of a strategic patent portfolio can be of great help by securing the support, financing and partnerships that are needed to move these novel technologies from the lab to the market.

Electronic Products: In your opinion, is this all the result of the rapid advancement of nanotechnology and the limitations of silicon-based technology, or rather the advancement of research technology, which has led to a better understanding of the possibilities associated with biotechnology?

Francisco Castro: This is a difficult question to answer because it is not always clear what falls within the term “nanotechnology.”

Nanotechnology typically refers to nanoscale science, engineering and technology, and covers areas such as engineered materials, devices and systems that have fundamentally new properties and functions. Many silicon-based technologies already fall within the scope of nanotechnology. For example, the 22-nm CMOS process is now being used to make memory devices while nanoelectromechanical systems (NEMS) devices are used for chemical detection.

Nevertheless, there are some limitations to the properties and functions that can be achieved with silicon-based technologies. In this situation, new nanostructures such as carbon nanotubes, and new nanomaterials such as graphene, are being integrated with silicon-based technologies to achieve those new properties and functions. Therefore, silicon remains a viable platform onto which new nanotechnology structures and materials are being implemented.

Getting back to the question, yes, I believe that the rapid advancement in nanotechnology is allowing novel diagnostics and therapeutics to come to fruition. The point I would like to make is that silicon-based technologies, and other semiconductor technologies for that matter, remain an important component of any development effort since they provide a platform for those nanotechnology structures or devices that are used for biological interactions. A great example of this are functionalized carbon nanotubes which, when used for medical diagnostics, still need an appropriate semiconductor substrate for structural mounting and signal processing.

Electronic Products: Can you explain some of the complexities that experts are seeing with the combined technologies? How can IP practitioners and engineers better adapt themselves to these anticipated changes?

Francisco Castro: As you can imagine, each application or device that relies on the interaction between semiconductor structures and biological materials at the nanometer scale will have its own set of complexities and challenges. In the nanopore sequencing example I mentioned before, the nucleotide structure, the ion concentration in the fluid carrying the DNA strand, the pulling potential and the doping levels of the sensing structure in the semiconductor, all have to be carefully considered to be able to generate signal readings with signatures that can reliably represent the sequence of nucleotides. For such technology to be successful, you really need to have engineers, scientists and others with expertise in at least solid-state devices, biophysics and chemistry contributing and working together.

I believe that intellectual property practitioners are going to have to work in a similar manner as research and development groups. We need to be able to collaborate closely with other IP colleagues that have different technical backgrounds. To do so, we have to proactively bridge any knowledge gaps by learning about each other’s specialties. One way to do this is to read about other areas in technical journals, web portals or blogs. Another approach, and one that I have found to be very effective, is to attend a workshop or conference in technical areas that may be somewhat different than mine. Participating in these workshops allows me to learn about new developments in areas I may not be familiar with and then comfortably discuss them with colleagues. Despite which approach you take, it takes time and hard work to be able to gain a sufficient level of competence in another field. Regardless of whether you are an electrical engineer or an intellectual property attorney with an electrical engineering background, you need to start learning more about biology, chemistry and materials science.

Electronic Products: A bit more specifically, would you explain how this technology overlap affects nanometer applications and product manufacturing?

Francisco Castro: Regarding product manufacturing, it is a very difficult challenge. Not being a manufacturing expert or a technologist, I cannot address these challenges in detail, but it is safe to say that the precision needed for these novel technologies to work properly presents a real hurdle in the way they need to be made.

From an intellectual property practitioner’s perspective, however, these challenges also present an opportunity since they may lead to the development of ground-breaking manufacturing processes that may require intellectual property protection.

What is your role in this whole process? How can you help those in the community with this new area of technology?

My role is to help companies, universities, and individuals protect and monetize their innovations in this new area of technology by developing an intellectual property strategy that typically includes the preparation, filing and handling of patent applications. By working closely and early on with clients, it is possible to develop an intellectual property strategy that is suited for their business objectives and one that can adapt as those objectives change. More importantly, because I understand the nuances and complexities of these technologies, I am able to interact with clients easier, minimize the costs associated with learning about the technologies and develop a strategy with a broad and effective scope of protection.

Electronic Products: Do you foresee any possible barriers that might delay the further blending of these two technologies? What solutions would you recommend for these issues?

Francisco Castro: I am not aware of any barriers that are of particular concern at this point. Some of the technical challenges that exist today for these novel technologies are still being worked out, so future technical challenges are perhaps not yet in the picture.

That being said, I do foresee barriers in terms of regulatory ambiguities; such uncertainties could delay the development of diagnostic and therapeutic techniques that exploit the nanometer-scale interactions between semiconductor structures and biological materials. At a recent conference one of the discussions raised the issue of how many regulatory bodies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), are having difficulties in dealing with nanotechnology in general. These difficulties result from regulatory ambiguities in definition and classification that make it hard to identify the proper rules and procedures that need to be followed to clear a product for use, sale, manufacturing or handling. While an intellectual property practitioner may not be able to assist directly on these matters, he or she can identify the appropriate person to handle these issues and, in many instances, work closely with such a person to clarify any technical issues that may be the cause of the ambiguity.

Electronic Products: In your opinion, is this the beginning of the end for silicon technology?

Francisco Castro: Not really. As I noted before, silicon-based technologies still present the best known platform on which to implement nanostructures and nanomaterials for interaction with biotechnology. While it is true that for some applications there may not be a need for a platform, such as nanoparticle-based drug delivery systems, many applications still need one. For such applications, silicon continues to provide a cost-effective and widely understood enabling technology.

Electronic Products: Do you have a closing message for those in the technology community who are either already or otherwise will be affected by this change?

Francisco Castro: For anyone who is interested or is already involved in this area as an engineer, manager, scientist, technologist or other professionals, including intellectual property practitioners, the message is simple: these novel technologies are extremely complex and we need to learn more and work in collaboration with others. Only then can we provide society with the opportunities and the potential afforded by these technologies. ■