Posts Tagged ‘innovation’

« Older Entries

Manufacturing USA is Working to Rebuild American Manufacturing

Tuesday, March 5th, 2024

The manufacturing sector has an unrivaled ability to boost the nation’s global economic competitiveness. If the United States wants to remain a world leader and super power, it needs a cutting-edge manufacturing sector that is a step ahead of the competition.  This is why the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation was formally established in 2014, now called Manufacturing USA®.

The website states, “Manufacturing USA® is a national network created to secure U.S. global leadership in advanced manufacturing through large-scale public-private collaboration on technology, supply chain and education and workforce development. The network comprises the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Energy and Defense, their sponsored manufacturing innovation institutes, and six additional federal agency partners, creating a whole-of-government, national effort to drive innovation in manufacturing.”

   The following 17 institutes are now part of the Manufacturing USA network:

“While each institute is established by a sponsoring federal agency and has a unique advanced manufacturing technology focus and identity, they also seek to advance the bigger Manufacturing USA network mission to improve American manufacturing’s global competitiveness….Each institute includes members from industry, academia, and state and federal governments with a shared interest in advancing manufacturing [and]…collectively worked with over 2,500 member organizations to collaborate on more than 670 major technology and workforce applied research and development projects and engaged over 106,000 in advanced manufacturing training. “

The website describes the background of why and how it was formed.  “In June 2011, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology recommended the formation of the “Advanced Manufacturing Partnership” (AMP) (report). The partnership was led by Dow Chemical Company President, Chairman, and CEO Andrew Liveris, and MIT President Susan Hockfield. The Advanced Manufacturing Partnership was charged with identifying collaborative opportunities between industry, academia and government that would catalyze development and investment in emerging technologies, policies and partnerships with the potential to transform and reinvigorate advanced manufacturing in the United States. In 2012 it issued its first set of recommendations, “Report to the President on Capturing Domestic Competitive Advantage in Advanced Manufacturing.”

After a nationwide outreach and engagement effort, “The National Network for Manufacturing Innovation: A Preliminary Design,” was issued in January 2013.

In September 2013, an AMP 2.0 final report focused on a renewed, cross-sector, national effort to secure U.S. leadership in the emerging technologies that will create high-quality manufacturing jobs and enhance the United States’ global competitiveness. The steering committee, whose members are among the nation’s leaders in industry, academia, and labor, was a working group of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

In December, 2014, Congress passed the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act (RAMI Act) into law, which gave Congressional authorization to the Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office and authorized the Department of Commerce to hold “open-topic” competitions for manufacturing innovation institutes where those topics of highest importance to industry could be proposed.”

The key initiatives of Manufacturing USA® are:

Advanced Manufacturing Technology Leadership – The institutes “convene private sector companies, academic institutions, government entities, and other stakeholders to pursue collaborative research and development, test applications, and train workers.”

COVID-19 Manufacturing Recovery – It “helped facilitate the production of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and helped empower U.S. manufacturers to reinvent the domestic PPE supply chain.”

Future Manufacturing Supply Chains – “It is engaging in projects that make domestic manufacturing processes more innovative and efficient to strengthen the competitiveness and resilience of U.S.-based manufacturing.”

Manufacturing Workforce Development – It is “helping to define the skills and training needed to satisfy manufacturers’ future requirements…retraining and upskilling the current workforce, and developing STEM talent for the future.”

Clean Energy Manufacturing – “It is fostering the development of energy efficient and clean energy technologies that will lead to major reductions in manufacturing energy costs and increases in innovative new green products in emerging clean-energy industries.”

Manufacturing USA® has developed a national education and workforce development roadmap to revitalize the manufacturing workforce by bringing together the public and private sectors to create opportunities for existing and prospective workers to find their pathways into the advanced manufacturing workforce. The roadmap is bu8ild upon three key priorities:  equip with skills, broaden access, and spark interest.

The February 2024 edition of SME’s Smart Manufacturing magazine featured an article titled “Manufacturing USA, Stronger than Ever” outlining some the of the recent accomplishments of a few of its network institutes.  It also mentioned the Modern Makers campaign that was “launched in 2023 to showcase individuals whose sense of purpose embody the Manufacturing USA mission to secure the future of U.S. manufacturing through innovation, education and collaboration.”

The article reported that “two institutes received significant funding from the Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Agency (EDA) Build Back Better (BBB) initiative, three institutes recently received EDA grants associated with the CHIPS and Science Act, and another institute’s parent organization got a grant from the Department of Defense’s (DoD) funding from the CHIPS and Science Act.”

For example, the Advanced Regenerative Manufacturing Institute (ARMI) received a “BBB grant to create a Robotics Manufacturing Hub and support four innovation accelerators in an 11-county region of Pennsylvania.”

The article reported that “America Makes is a partner in the new Sustainable Polymers Tech Hub, which is led by the Greater Akron (Ohio) Chamber of Commerce… the Akron area has the largest concentration of plastics and rubber manufacturing plants, machines and materials in North America and is positioned to establish global leadership in sustainable technology in those areas.”

In addition, CyManII led the Secure Manufacturing in South Texas Strategy Development Consortium of 13 organizations in San Antonio, Texas and “was awarded a Strategy Development Grant to develop a regional coalition and innovation roadmap to mature cybersecurity and secure manufacturing technologies…CyManII’s efforts are in advancing research through development and testing…[the consortium] will develop an innovation roadmap for cybersecurity and secure manufacturing technologies.”

Also, “PowerAmerica’s home institution, North Carolina State University, received a $39.4 million DoD grant to build the Commercial Leap Ahead for WideBandgap Semiconductors (CLAWS) semiconductor research hub, which will create a semiconductor research foundry to advance next generation chips and fabrication technology. CLAWS is one of eight federal research hubs around the U.S. created from the CHIPS and Science Act.”

The Manufacturing USA institutes are creating a better climate for manufacturers to help them adopt the innovative applications of Industry 4.0 technologies that will strengthen and grow their businesses. The economic development activities of the institutes are designed to strengthen the supply chain and improve the competitive position of U.S. manufacturing companies. In turn, this will provide pathways for Americans seeking rewarding, higher-paying jobs and contribute to stronger local, regional and national communities. Be sure to check out which institute is focused on your industry.

Tags:,
Posted in Economic Development, General, Innovation, Manufacturing | No Comments »

Black Inventors Honored at Black Inventors Hall of Fame

Tuesday, November 28th, 2023

When I attended the US Inventor first annual conference last month, I had the pleasure of meeting James Howard, Executive Director of the Black Inventor’s Hall of Fame (BIHOF).  He had a display panel at his table that showed a collage of pictures of Black inventors.  Because the breaks between sessions were short, I didn’t have time to talk to him as long as I would have liked, so we caught up on Zoom last week.

I told James that I had browsed every page of the Black Inventors Hall of Fame website as well as his LinkedIn profile and was impressed with his background and experience.  We share a few things in common —we were both born in Chicago, are entrepreneurs, and have taught entrepreneurism. Of course, James taught as a professor at the County College of Morris while I only taught teens how to start their business in an after-school and summer camp program for a non-profit called Millennial Entrepreneurs in the early 2000s.

Besides being an inventor himself, Mr. Howard also brings over 25 years of experience as a design professor and has authored a course on Design Thinking and Design History that explores the impact of design on society. His latest venture is Entrepreneurial U, Morris County’s first school of Design Thinking.” Mr. Howard said, “I have over 20 patents, so I understand what an inventor has to go through before finally getting their patent and a functioning model. I have had numerous patented products succeed on the market.  Most notably the AlarmLock access control lock, and the Vital Signs NeoNatal pressure relief valve for resuscitating infants at birth.

I asked why he founded BIHOF, and he replied, “I founded BIHOF to immortalize the pioneering genius of African American inventors for the past 400 years.  We needed “to recognize and tell the story of African American greats such as George W. Carver who in 1941 was referred to as “The Black Leonardo” by Time Magazine for his prolific contributions in the field of agriculture. Yet, nearly 80 years later, Carver was all but ignored by Time in its list of top 100 American inventors of all time. It is time that exceptional inventors are immortalized by being inducted into the Black Inventor’s Hall of Fame. The story of African American Inventors is a sad history of being lost or simply overlooked. Far too often, historical accounts forget to mention the incredible achievements of Black inventors. I am honored to have the privilege of bringing a broad and detailed awareness of the important work of African American inventors, artists and innovators who have inspired and forged ahead against tremendous odds and adversity.” 

He added, “Every year we induct extraordinary Black inventors into the Black Inventor’s Hall of Fame to permanently recognize their innovative contributions to society. The website serves as a platform telling the story of talented African American innovators.  We include and highlight notable advancements and projects from academia, manufacturing and agriculture to advancements in medicine and the sciences. Our goal is to identify entrepreneurial leaders who have invented and produced groundbreaking technological advancements that improve the quality of life around the world.”  

Mr. Howard said, “What you invent you have to make before you can finalize your model.  It is the basis for innovation, and if we don’t invent, we don’t have products to be made by manufacturers.  There is a link between inventing and entrepreneurism. That is why I started my school of entrepreneurism to help long term unemployed learn new job skills and a new way to achieve a good life. “

He explained, “In our community, we appreciate the importance of inventing and innovation. Finding new ways to do something or make something is woven into our DNA. However, many African Americans have great ideas but they don’t have the benefit of having a “rich uncle” to finance their venture. They have to try to finance it themselves, and the majority don’t succeed.” 

I said I realize that there are nearly 400 inventors listed in Henry Baker’s list of Black Inventors, but this list was published in 1894, so I wondered if he would highlight a few more recent inventors featured in his Hall of Fame.

He responded, “I would feature Dr. Hadiyah-Nicole Green.  She has developed a revolutionary cancer treatment that uses lasers and nanotechnology to eliminate cancer.” Her bio states, “She is a STEM pioneer, leader, humanitarian, and entrepreneur who is introducing the world to the next generation of cancer treatments, cancer charities, and affordable healthcare. She is one of the nation’s leading medical physicists and one of a short list of African American women to earn a Ph.D. in Physics. Dr. Green developed a revolutionary cancer treatment that uses lasers and nanotechnology to eliminate cancer in mice after only one 10-minute treatment in just 15 days with no observable side effects. To ensure the affordability of this treatment, she founded a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, the Ora Lee Smith Cancer Research Foundation (OraLee.org), to raise the funding for human clinical trials.”

He said he would also include the late Dr. Patricia Bath, who invented “laserphaco, a new device and technique to remove cataracts. It performed all steps of cataract removal: making the incision, destroying the lens and vacuuming out the fractured pieces. She is recognized as the first Black woman physician to receive a medical patent.”

He also mentioned Lonnie G. Johnson, who is a former Air Force and NASA engineer who invented the #1 top selling water toy of all time, theSuper Soaker®.  Coincidently, my husband and I had just watched an episode of The Toys ThatMade America on the History channel featuring the Super Soaker®.   The show told how it took Mr. Johnson eight years to find a Toy company, Hasbro, willing to make a deal to produce and market this toy, which has generated well over $1 billion in sales over its lifetime. The show mentioned that Mr. Johnson’s longtime research focuses on energy technology, and his toy resulted from his work on an environmentally friendly heat pump. His bio states, “He currently holds over 100 patents and has over 20 more pending on products and processes ranging from toys and consumer products to advanced technology energy. He is president and founder of Johnson Research and Development Co., Inc., a technology development company, and its spin off companies, Excellatron Solid State, LLC; Johnson Electro- Mechanical Systems, LLC; and Johnson Real Estate Investments, LLC.”

I told him that when I browsed the website, I saw that he is planning a museum for BIHOF, and he replied, “Yes, we are raising money to build a museum, which we envision to be a 31,000 sq. ft. facility with state of the art, tuition free STEAM classrooms, theater, Metaverse library, startup incubator, and a Legends Hall featuring the top Black inventors of the Golden Era in this country. The BIHOF Museum and STEAM Learning Center is planned to be located in New Jersey. BIHOF is a 501c3 organization, so donations to help build the museum are tax deductible. “

I encourage everyone reading this article to consider making a donation to BIHOF so that Black inventors will receive the recognition they deserve and future inventors will be helped to succeed in the business incubator.

I told James that I was a managing member of a business incubator in the late 1990s and actually wrote my first book on business incubators in 1997 after visiting and researching incubators around the country for five years.  I think the idea of having an incubator for businesses started by Black inventors is a great idea because incubators and the new Makerspaces are very helpful in accelerating successful businesses. 

We both agreed that it is hard enough for any inventor to get a patent, raise the money to make and market a product, or get a licensing deal, but current broken patent system makes it even harder to be successful for both white and Black Americans.  We urgently need the patent reform recommended by US Inventors.  

Tags:,
Posted in Inellectual Property, Innovation | No Comments »

US Inventor Conference Was an Amazing Success!

Tuesday, November 14th, 2023

US Inventor’s First Annual Conference was held on October 19th and 20th at the U.S. Patent office facility in Alexandria, VA to celebrate 10 years of work to achieve its mission “to restore the patent system to what it once was and to empower inventors to succeed.”  About 150 people attended all or part of the two-day event.  It was a resounding success and truly a remarkable event!

I had the pleasure of attending this event because I have been a board member of the San Diego Inventors Forum since 2014 and have been the liaison between our club and US Inventor, which is the only organization representing small inventors, businesses, and startups to enact change that supports inventors.

The conference was preceded by a day at the Capital where about 30 of us broke up into small groups to meet with the staff of Congressional Representatives in Congress to discuss how to fix the broken patent system. The afternoon included a networking event held in the Rayburn building Gold Room to which Congressional staffers were invited to see the new documentary, Innovation Race, directed by Luke Livingston.  Mr. Livingston attended the whole USI conference and handled the live streaming and recording of the event.

US Inventor founder, Paul Morinville, began the conference Friday morning by saying that he started walking the halls of Congress to advocate for Inventor Rights in 2013 after his aspirations of achieving both the Inventor’s Dream and the American Dream were cut short by the America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) and establishment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). He was joined by Randy Landreneau in January 2014.  Paul incorporated US Inventor as a 501(c)(4) non-profit corporation on March 17, 2015 to put a stop to H.R. 9, the Innovation Act. After visiting the offices of every senator, the Innovation Act died in committee in  2016 during the 114th Congress (2015-2016). When Josh Malone joined them in 2017, it greatly helped their efforts.

Space doesn’t permit me to give a full recap of the conference, so I am providing highlights from my notes.  The panels both days were interspersed by the stories of inventors who have had their patents infringed or invalidated by the PTAB.  These stores were heartbreaking, and I could mot do justice to them in writing; you had to hear the stories to get the full impact. 

Next, former USPTO Director, Andrei Iancu, discussed “The Importance of Innovation”, saying in part that “patents and inventions ae part of the American fabric. We should stop and think what the world was like before the U.S. patent system…Every change that we use today was backed by a patent…Patents and the right to have patens are incorporated in the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8. He added that “without the patent system, it is very difficult to raise the money needed to produce and market new products.  There is an inextricable link between IP and innovation and without a secure patent system, innovation is stagnating…Inventors have always been the backbone of the American economy and American dream.”

Paul discussed “Where Did our Patent System Go?” He explained that even before the American Invents Act AIA) was passed in 2011, the Supreme Court decision of “Ebay vs. Merexchange” in 2006 “changed Intellectual property from a personal property to a ‘tort’ or “public franchise” and created a “public interest test’ in order for inventors to receive injunctive relief from infringement.” Injunctive Relief stops an infringer from making selling, or using a patent, but it has become difficult for an inventor to pass the “public interest test” against a large corporation that has saturated the market with the product based on the patent they infringed.

The AIA created the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). It is a nonjudicial administrative tribunal within the USPTO. A panel of lawyers are appointed “Administrative Patent Judges” and granted bonuses to revoke patents.  There is no jury and no due process of law.  The PTAB is funded by fees of the petitioner (usually a large corporation that is infringing the patent they are challenging for review).  Currently, the PTAB is invalidating 84% of the patents they review.  

A panel discussion of “PTAB vs. Federal Court:  Comparing the Two Forums” followed that was moderated by Warren Tuttle.  Panelists were Rob Sterne, Adam Mosoff, and Molly Metz. A few comments were:

Adam Mosoff – “The PTAB hasn’t lived up to its expectations. I had told people that the ‘first to file’ vs. ‘first to invent’ and PTAB would be problematic. The PTAB didn’t put in any protections for inventor’s rights. PTAB was characterized as easier for people and faster, but they set up a system that was ultimately faster to lose rights.

Molly Metz – “I spent over $400,000 and it took four years, so it wasn’t cheaper or faster.” (Molly had share he heartbreaking story of her patent infringement and invalidation after Paul’s introduction.)

Rob Sterne – “We need a system that is really faster and fair for people.  The way PTAB law is applied isn’t anything like the way it was supposed to be.  It has put a real damper on investment and innovation in this country.”

The Friday afternoon session included a discussion of “Bleeding You Dry:  The Court’s Misuse of Injunctive” by Thomas Woolsten, founder of Mercexchange and main inventor of 30 patents. He said, “The current system provides strong incentives for patent infringement.  No patent of importance is going to get to the injunctive stage.”

The highlight of the afternoon was “The Great Debate: PREVAIL, PERA, and New Legislation.” Moderated by Paul Morinville.  The panelists were:  Judge Paul Michel, Scott McKeown, Rudy Fink, and Steve Daniels. Judge Michel said, “About 50% of American venture capital is now going overseas to China and other countries…The anti-patent lobby is very large and well-funded.” He supports PERA because “it takes the courts out of the issue of eligibility and solves 80-85% of the problems with patents.”

S. 2140: Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023 (PERA) introduced by Senators Thomas Tillis (R-NC) and Christopher Coons (D-DE) on 6/22/2023 was discussed in my article “Inventor Rights Still Being Threatened.”

S. 2220: PREVAIL Act was introduced on Jul 10, 2023 by Senator Christopher Coons (D-DE) – “A bill to amend title 35, United States Code, to invest in inventors in the United States, maintain the United States as the leading innovation economy in the world, and protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the economy of the United States, and for other purposes.”

Friday’s event concluded with remarks from Judge Pauline Newman, followed by a networking cocktail reception.

There isn’t enough space in this article to permit a recap of the topics covered at the Saturday event. The following topics were discussed:

“Does ‘Any” mean ‘Any’? Ask Alice” presented by Robert Greenspoon.

Why and How 97% of IP Portfolio Owners Destroy Most of their Portfolios” discussed by panelists Evan Langdon, Jack Lu, and Russ Genet and moderated by Steve Taylor

“How to Survive the Patent System” discussed by Jeff Hardin, Josh Malone and Paul Bartkowski that was moderated by Eli Mazour.

“New Solutions for New Problems:  Freezing Assets of Online Infringers on Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, and the Internet” presented by Joel Rothman.

The afternoon concluded with a discussion of “Advocating for a Stronger Patent System” by panelists Paul Morinville, Molly Metz, Cliff Maloney, Justin Greiss, and Randy Landreneau.

An awards ceremony and dinner took place that evening at the Holiday Inn Carlyle in Alexandria, VA where attendees stayed. Awards presented were:  Michael Kintner: The Inventor; Molly Metz: The Advocate; John Murray: The Warrior; Jeff Hardin: The Veteran.

In closing, Paul said, “We are honored to have such a significant turnout for our first event and incredibly grateful to our members, speakers, and sponsors for making this event possible. We have so much work to do, and I hope the event, discussions, panels, and presentations allowed USI members to feel empowered and motivated to enact change.”

Tags:, ,
Posted in Inellectual Property, Innovation, Legislation, Patent Reform | No Comments »

Are Southern California Trade Shows Recovering from Pandemic Shutdowns?

Tuesday, October 3rd, 2023

There have been four trade shows in Southern California that I have either attended or participated as exhibitor this year. The first show I attended was the five in-one show, MD&M West, WestPack, ATX West, D&M West, and Plastec West held February 7-9, 2023 at the Anaheim Convention Center in Anaheim, CA. 

These shows take up all of the halls in the largest building of the Anaheim Convention Center complex.  Besides the several hundred companies exhibiting in the show, it also offers educational conferences held by the various trade shows concurrently with the show.

There were five free education stages on the show floor that provided in-depth discussions and instructions from industry experts on the latest need-to-know information for their industry. In addition, there were paid conference sessions in meeting rooms on the second floor.  I attended the IME West conference on February 8th and gave a presentation titled, “The Future of Manufacturing.” I discussed how manufacturing revitalization has been hindered by misperceptions, what is happening in our current period of creative disruption, and what vibrant opportunities exist now and in the future.  I also attended all of the other conference sessions held that day, and they were all well attended.   

When I walked the show on the 7th, it seemed to be as well attended as a pre-pandemic show.  The plastic molding company we represent, Hi-Rel Plastics, exhibited in the MD&M show and was happy with the quantity of their show leads, but the quality of the leads wasn’t as good as pre-COVID shows.

The second show was the Del Mar Electronics & Manufacturing Show held April 26th & 27th at the Del Mar Fairgrounds in San Diego County.  My company, ElectroFab Sales, has exhibited in the show since 1997, and this year, we had two exhibit booths featuring the fabrication services of four of the ten companies we represent.  I also gave a presentation on the first morning of the show on “How to Select the Right Processes and Sources for your Products.”

This show has an extensive free conference schedule both days of the show and also features a free reception at the end of the first day of the show which encourages late afternoon attendees to stay for the reception and skip the worst of rush hour traffic to go home. Another added benefit for attendees is free parking for the show.

We had very good traffic the first day of the show, and more traffic than some previous years on the second day of the show. The second day of the show ends at 3:00 PM so there is less time to collect show leads. We got about 50 leads from our exhibit which was about 30% higher than 2022.  However, there were very few leads from well-established or larger companies.  Most of the leads were entrepreneurs with new products or from small companies designing a new product. 

Show manager, Connor Good, told that the number of booths was up by 25% and attendance was up by 30% over 2022.  He said, “What felt like a long time coming the first year back after the pandemic, attendee numbers were promising. It showed us the industry is ready to get back to business and people are eager to network face to face.”

The third show of the year was the Design-2-Part Show, held September 13th & 14th at the Ontario Convention Center.  This show alternates between held in Long Beach, Pasadena, and Ontario in Southern California. The Design-2-Part shows have been held for 42 years and feature only American manufacturers; no reps or distributors are allowed to exhibit.  An average of 10-11 shows have historically been held around the country each year.

President, Rober Eichner, “We were even able to conduct a show in Texas in 2020 and conducted nine shows around the country in 2021 and 10 shows in 2022.  We have held 11 shows this year and 12 shows are scheduled for 2024.  Show attendance at many of the shows this year approached attendance levels of 2018 and 2019. We purchased the AMCON shows last year, so we plan on holding shows in Denver, CO and Novi, MI in 2024.  We also skipped doing the Santa Clara show last spring, but plan on being back there in 2024.”

This makes these shows the most efficient place to meet hundreds of high-quality American suppliers of custom parts, stock parts, and manufacturing services.

I attended the show on Thursday, September 14th to do booth duty for the rubber molding company we have represented for 29 years, Century Rubber Company.  My husband and partner had done booth duty at the show on the 13th.  He said the show was very busy the first day.  The second day is never as busy because it ends at 3:00 PM, but I thought it was busier than the second day of the Long Beach show in October 2022. 

The last show I attended was the Anaheim Electronics & Manufacturing Show held September 27th & 28th at the Anaheim Convention Center in Anaheim, CA.  

This show featured hundreds of companies exhibiting in the following categories:

  • Telecom Manufactures
  • Defense Contractors
  • Plastic and Rubber Molders
  • Medical Device Companies
  • Electronics OEM’s
  • Bio-Pharma Device Manufactures
  • Sports Products Developers
  • Coil Winding
  • Machine Shops
  • Castings
  • Sheet metal fabrication
  • 3D printing…. and More

This show is owned by the same owner as the Del Mar Electronics & Manufacturing Show and allows reps and distributors to exhibit. The same benefits of free parking and a free reception at the end of the first day of the show encourages show attendance.

I attended the show on Thursday, September 28th to walk the show and give a presentation at 1:00 PM on “How to Select the Right Processes and Sources for Your Products”

Assistant Show Manager, Connor Good, told me that the number of booths this year was up 30% from the fall 2022 show, and attendance the first day was 20% higher than the both days last year.  He said, “The show was held in the convention center’s newest hall, the ACC North. We tried to combine the easy going and stress-free environment of the Del Mar show with the professionalism and company dense area of Anaheim. We encouraged business development of all sizes and opportunities through free attendance and parking even if signing up on show day.”

There is one more trade show coming up in Southern California this fall

WESTEC/AeroDef

Tuesday, November 7 through Thursday, November 9

Long Beach Convention Center
300 East Ocean Boulevard
Long Beach, CA 90802

I have been to WESTEC many, many times starting in 1990 when I attended comprehensive technical sessions on manufacturing processes such as investment casting. The amount of time you spend there is well worth the effort. You can literally spend hours and not take in all that there is to offer.

WESTEC has been providing solutions to manufacturing challenges for 58 years. You can see more than 400 exhibitors, face-to-face, at WESTEC — all in one place, over a three-day period. WESTEC gives you face-to-face access to hundreds of experts in critical industries such as aerospace, medical, industrial machinery and consumer goods. You can find new manufacturing technology to make your vision a reality. The variation at WESTEC is vast. Here’s just a small sampling of what you’ll discover at WESTEC:  aerospace manufacturing, castings, forgings, CNC Machining, Waterjet, Advanced Materials, 3D printing, and much more.

WESTEC has manufacturing education sessions that focus on teaching you about new technologies, new processes, and trends that can transform your business. All show floor education is included with the show floor pass. Attendees come from a variety of industries including aerospace, medical, industrial machinery, automotive, and more.

You can sign up to attend at no charge at the official website  www.westeconline.com 

Trade shows are even more important than they once were because most large companies eliminated “vendor days” decades ago where sales reps could schedule appointments with buyers in their purchasing departments.  In addition, many buyers and even engineers are not back to working full-time at their offices and may still be working remotely from home two-three days a week, making it very difficult to connect with them.  Meeting a potential customer at a trade show is the first step in developing a relationship to become a regular vendor for a manufacturer.  Trade shows also provide the opportunity for inventors and entrepreneurs to explore the possible sources for parts, assemblies, and fabrication services for their new products.  Be sure to make it a priority in your schedule to attend a trade show next year.

Tags:,
Posted in General, Manufacturing | No Comments »

Inventor Rights Still Being Threatened

Tuesday, September 5th, 2023

During the 117th Congress (2021-2022), several bills were introduced with the purported purpose of restoring inventors’ rights and fixing some of the problems generated by that Act Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011. None of these bills were passed by both the House and Senate, and most didn’t even get out of committee for a vote. A few of these bills would have actually made matters worse, so it was a good thing they didn’t pass. Only one bill was supported by the top inventors’ group, US Inventor.

The bills not supported by US Inventor were:

S.2774 – Pride in Patent Ownership Act was introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) on  09/21/2021.  This bill looked good for either being passed by the Senate separately before Congress recesses for the holidays or passed by being attached to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The NDAA is “must pass” legislation funding the military at a time when there are credible threats of wars around the world. Attaching the Pride in Patent Ownership Act to the NDAA means it would certainly have become law. Fortunately, neither of these predictions came true.

S. 2891, The Restoring the America Invents Act, introduced by and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) into the Senate on September 29 2021 and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, but was not voted on by the Senate before the end of the 117th Congress.

HR 5902, The Clear Patents Act, introduced by Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) on 11/05/21 to the House. This bill was also referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, but was not voted on by the House before the final recess at the end of 2022.

S.4734 – Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022  was introduced by Senator Thomas Tillis (R-NC) on 08/02/2022.  This bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, but was not voted on by the Senate before the end of the 117th Congress.

The only bill supported by US Inventor was:

HR 5874, Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2021 (RALIA), was introduced into the House by Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) on 11/04/2021 and referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet. US Inventor supported this bill because it was “designed to restore to Americans a patent system “as the Constitution of the United States originally envisioned it.”

Representative Massie’s press release stated, “The RALIA legislation restores to Americans a patent system as the Constitution of the United States originally envisioned it,” said Congressman Massie. “In Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers gave Congress the authority to protect the discoveries of inventors. Specifically, they created a patent system to ‘promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.’  I am sad to say that this bill was also not voted on by the House before the end of the 117th Congress.

The above bills introduced in 2021 were discussed in more detail in my blog article, “Inventors Rights Must be Restored” published by Made in America Movement in January 2022.

What many people do not realize is that bills not passed by the end of the Congressional session, in this case the 117th, are considered “dead” and must be reintroduced in the session of the next Congress, which is now the 118th Congress (2023-2024).

Thus far, none of these bills have been reintroduced by their sponsors, but one of the bills introduced in the 117th Congress has been re-introduced recently.

S. 2140: Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023  was introduced by Senators Thomas Tillis (R-NC) and Christopher Coons (D-DE) on 6/22/2023. The brief description states, “To amend title 35, United States Code, to address matters relating to patent subject matter eligibility, and for other purposes.”

The need for this bill was provided in the “Findings” section:

  1. “patent eligibility jurisprudence interpreting section 101 of title 35, United States Code, requires significant modification and clarification….
  • the Supreme Court of the United States and other courts created judicial exceptions to the wording of that section, thereby rendering an increasing number of inventions ineligible for patent protection…
  • Efforts by judges of district courts and courts of appeals of the United States to apply the exceptions described in paragraph (2) to specific circumstances have led to extensive confusion and a lack of consistency— throughout the judicial branch of the Federal Government and Federal agencies; and among patent practitioners…
  • Many judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and of various district courts of the United States have explicitly expressed the need for more guidance with respect to the meaning of section 101 of title 35…”

“Under this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, the state of the law shall be as follows:

(A) All judicial exceptions to patent eligibility are eliminated.

(B) Any invention or discovery that can be claimed as a useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any useful improvement thereof, is eligible for patent protection, except as explicitly provided in section 101 of title 35, United States Code, as amended by this Act, as described in subparagraphs (D) and (E) of this paragraph.”

The statements describing what the bill will do sound good at first reading, but the “devil is in the details” of subparagraphs (D) and (E), as well as the amendments to Section 3 of the bill – Patent Eligibility.

This bill was reviewed in detail during weekly Zoom meetings held by US Inventor for several weeks after the bill was introduced in June.  These reviewers included retired judges, patent attorneys, and inventors.  As a result of this intensive review, US Inventor released a policy paper, titled “PERA Starts by Making Nearly All Inventions Implemented in Software Patent Ineligible:” 

“PERA abrogates all judge-made exceptions, including the abstract idea in its preamble (however,

not in the law), yet it introduces new exceptions disqualifying entire swaths of technology as ineligible for patent protection. An invention is ineligible if:

‘‘(B)(i) Subject to clause (ii), a process that is substantially economic, financial, business, social, cultural, or artistic, even though not less than 1 step in the process refers to a machine or manufacture.’

Nearly any invention can be categorized as economic, financial, business, social, cultural, or artistic. Most inventions implemented in software are claimed as a process. This extraordinarily broad language means that inventions implemented in software are ineligible for patent protection right from the starting gate.” 

According to the U S Inventors end of the year report, “The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has cancelled claims in 84% of the 2,500+ patents reviewed since 2011 and most inventors do not have a half a million dollars necessary to fund a legal defense.”

This is why US Inventor policy paper states, “PERA Must Remain a Vehicle for Section 101 Debate.

Judge-made law regarding Section 101 eligibility is severely restricting U.S. innovation, allowing our adversaries like China as well as others to take the lead in global innovation. This is severely damaging U.S. national and economic security.

Congress must fix Section 101 correctly. The influence of powerful lobbies must be leveled by arguing the merits of the legislation openly and transparently in Congress.

The authors of PERA must provide a clear and sound public policy justification for making such huge swaths of technologies ineligible for patent protection where there are no similar restrictions in other countries.

Once Congress agrees to a public policy position on Section 101, then the words of PERA must be precisely defined to ensure that the policy is effectuated in legislation, leaving no ambiguity for judge-made law to override it.”

The paper concludes, “For the foregoing reasons, US Inventor opposes PERA as written, but PERA should not die. It presents a valuable opportunity to initiate open and transparent debate in Congress so that the U.S. public policy regarding patent eligibility can be properly formed, and legislation can be crafted to effectuate that public policy.”

If you support patent rights you can sign the Inventors’ rights Resolution here.  You can also join US. Inventors as a supporting member here.  If you have the time, you can also attend US Inventor’s first annual conference in Washington, D.C. on October 19-21, 2023 to celebrate years 10 years of work.  There are over twenty confirmed speakers, and the plan is to bring you an event full of presentations, panel discussions, and plenty of networking opportunities. The tickets include access to all presentations, discussions, and informative opportunities, as well as access to event receptions, breakfasts, and dinner.  More Details and Register: www.usinventor.org/usi-conference

Tags:, ,
Posted in Inellectual Property, Legislation, Patent Reform | No Comments »

Inventors’ Rights under Threat Again

Monday, December 12th, 2022

Inventor Rights are being threatened by the Pride in Patent Ownership Act, S.2774, sponsored by Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. (D-VT).  Sen. Leahy was the co-sponsor of the America Invents Act of 2011 that adversely changed the patent system from the best in the world to one that has eroded inventors’ rights.

The bill is looking good for either being passed by the Senate separately before Congress recesses for the holidays or passed by being attached to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The NDAA is “must pass” legislation funding the military at a time when there are credible threats of wars around the world. Attaching the Pride in Patent Ownership Act to the NDAA means it would certainly become law.

“This bill requires disclosure of certain patent-related information, including information about ownership and funding. Under the bill, if a foreign or domestic governmental entity provides funding for fees related to a patent application or for paying an attorney (or patent agent) to prosecute the patent application, the application must disclose the amount and source of such funding.

Similarly, if any governmental entity provides funding for paying a patent’s maintenance fees or for paying an attorney (or patent agent) to submit such maintenance fees, the patent owner must submit a statement disclosing the amount and source of such funding.

The bill also requires patent owners to record information about the ownership of a patent with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Patent owners must also update this information when certain rights or interests in the patent have been conveyed to another individual or entity. A patent owner may not receive increased monetary damages for infringement of that patent that occurred while the owner was out of compliance with this ownership information recording requirement.”

This bill doesn’t sound as harmful at first glance, but a closer examination shows just how harmful it is.  As a board member for the San Diego Inventors Forum, I am the liaison between our group and the national organization US Inventor, Inc., an inventor organization in Washington D.C. that advocates strong patent protection for inventors and startups.

Last week’s newsletter stated: “This bill would make gargantuan penalties for not registering a change in patent ownership in a timely enough manner. The patent owner would lose the ability to collect increased damages for willful infringement. Increased damages are about all that remain to discourage the theft of patented technologies.

The bill would also let the infringer off if the mistake in registering is considered to have been done with the intent to deceive, which every opposing attorney will argue and make you spend more time and money that you don’t have. There are other angles on this bill, like giving Big Tech an early heads up on what patents to attack using the PTAB.”

Paul Morinville, former president and founder of US Inventor wrote an article published on October 12, 2022 by IP Watchdog , titled, “The Pride in Patent Ownership Act is Big Tech Boondoggling”

“The Pride in Patent Ownership Act requires those who acquire patents to publicly register their ownership assignments with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) within 120 days. Thus, it serves to identify potential patent infringement plaintiffs.

If the patent holder misses the 120-day deadline, this bill would make gargantuan penalties for not registering a change in patent ownership in a timely enough manner. The patent owner would lose the ability to collect increased damages for willful infringement. Increased damages are about all that remain to discourage the theft of patented technologies.

The bill would also let the infringer off if the mistake in registering is considered to have been done with the intent to deceive, which every opposing attorney will argue and make you spend more time and money that you don’t have. There are other angles on this bill, like giving Big Tech an early heads up on what patents to attack using the PTAB.”

He explains, “Patent infringement is about stealing technology protected by a patent – it is not about who owns the patent. Because patent applications are made public by the USPTO, fair notice is given to would-be-thieves that an invention is protected by a patent.

The patent holder is irrelevant to an infringer’s decision to steal an invention, so identifying the owner can only lead to gamesmanship, especially if the patent holder is too small to defend themselves”

He asks, “Why is Congress pushing the Pride in Patent Ownership Act through by attaching it to the NDAA? His answer: “Identifying future plaintiffs and gaming the system so Big Tech can steal patented inventions unfettered is the real reason behind the Pride in Patent Ownership Act.”

He adds, “What really matters to Big Tech incumbents is that a well-placed invention can disrupt their multibillion dollar markets and that disruption is a threat to their relevance in that market. A little guy with a big idea can truly threaten the very existence of their monopolies. Think back to Google and how their patented search algorithm sent the search icons of the day, Yahoo and Alta Vista, into the dustbin of history.”

He explained that the Supreme Court decision on” eBay v. MercExchange opened the floodgates to willful infringement by effectively eliminating injunctive relief – the ability to take the invention away from an infringer. In eBay’s public interest test, a patent holder must prove that they have a product on the market and the ability to distribute the product at the level of the infringer.

But if Big Tech steals the invention and, by leveraging their huge customer base, existing infrastructure, and endlessly deep pockets, massively commercializes the invention, no small entity will be able to pass the eBay test.

Treble damages stand as the only remaining deterrent to willful infringement. But the Pride in Patent Ownership Act will eliminate treble damages if you make an administrative error.”

Remember that besides changing our patent system from a “first to invent” to a “first to file,” the America Invents Act also created the Patent Trial and Review Board (PTAB) that has nearly destroyed inventors’ rights.  According to the U S Inventors end of the year report, “The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has cancelled claims in 84% of the 2,500+ patents reviewed since 2011 and most inventors do not have a half a million dollars necessary to fund a legal defense.”

We don’t need another bill taking away the last right that inventors have to protect their patents.

I urge you to take the time to call the Washington office of your Senators and tell them that the Pride in Patent Ownership Act is bad for American innovation, startups, and inventors.

When you call, you could say, “My name is _____ and I am a concerned constituent. The Pride in Patent Ownership Act is bad for American Innovation. It creates an unthinkably huge penalty for a clerical error in registering patent ownership. It provides the attorneys of huge corporations with more arguments to use against American inventors and startups. It creates another barrier for inventors and startups. It will help Big Tech gain more power and will make it harder to compete with China. 

Senator _____ needs to oppose The Pride in Patent Ownership Act including any effort to amend it into the National Defense Authorization Act. This is important for the future of America. Tell your Senators to oppose this bill.”

If they want to know more, tell them to contact the current president of US Inventor, Randy Landreneau at Randy@USInventor.org.”

Tags:,
Posted in General, Legislation | No Comments »

ITIF Report Assesses Competitiveness of North American States

Tuesday, July 5th, 2022

On June 21, 2022, the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation conducted a webinar entitled, “Assessing the Competitiveness of North America: The North American Subnational Innovation Competitiveness Index,” based on a report by Luke Dascoli and Stephen Ezel of ITIF, and prepared in collaboration with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, Fundación IDEA, and the Bay Area Economic Council Institute.

I was unable to attend the webinar, but later read the 49-page report with the goal of identifying examples of the vision of Industry Reimagined 2030 to convert the narrative of American manufacturing from one of “inevitable decline” to “vibrant opportunities.”

The purpose of the report was “to identify economic differences among states and provinces and highlight regions needing more federal attention, identify cross-national innovation performance, and track the continent’s overall competitiveness in the innovation-driven global economy.”

A vibrant opportunity was identified in the first paragraph of the Overview: “North America—Canada, Mexico, and the United States—represents one of the world’s most economically vibrant regions, accounting for 28 percent of global economic output. The region also forms one of the world’s largest free trade zones, with deeply integrated supply chains…the three nations form a high-wage/low-wage partnership, bringing complementary labor forces, infrastructure, innovation capacities, and industry strengths together to create a highly competitive economic region. This relationship is poised to make North American manufacturing value chains globally cost competitive with Asian ones and thus make North America a leading global innovation and manufacturing powerhouse.”

“This report assesses how prepared North American states are to compete in today’s increasingly innovation-driven economy. The North American Subnational Innovation Competitiveness Index (NASICI) uses 13 measures across 3 categories to quantify the extent to which each state’s economy is knowledge based, globalized, and innovation ready and form composite scores (between 0 to 100) that identify each state’s level of performance in the innovation economy.”

Knowledge Economy

•Immigration of knowledge workers – number of highly educated foreign-born residents as a share of total state population
•Workforce Education – total workforce finishing postsecondary education (including universities, trade schools, and colleges)
•Professional, scientific, tech – total employment enrolled in professional, scientific,
and technical activities

•Manufacturing Gross Value Added per worker – measures the average GVA per manufacturing worker

Globalization

•Inward foreign direct investment – flow of funds into a state from foreign-based enterprises to purchase that state’s existing facilities or to develop new ones
•High tech exports – (NAICS 333, 334, & 335) as a Share of GDP

Innovation Capacity

•R & D Intensity – Total R&D Investment Relative to GDP
•R & D Personnel – as a Share of Total State Employment
•Patents (per capita) – PCT Patents Issued per Million Persons
•Venture Capital Investment – shows a state’s total VC investment (based on VC-receiving firms located therein) relative to the size of its GDP.
•Broadband telecommunications – Share of all Households Subscribing to Broadband Internet

•Decarbonization (CO2 emissions) – Tons of CO 2 Emissions per Capita

The Composite NASICI scores for the top ten states/provinces are:

RankingState/ProvinceCountryNASICI SCORE
1MassachusettsUnited States91.5
2CaliforniaUnited States83.9
3OntarioCanada75.2
4MarylandUnited States75.0
5WashingtonUnited States74.2
6British ColumbiaCanada70.4
7New JerseyUnited States70.2
8New MexicoUnited States68.3
9QuebecCanada68.1
10OregonUnited States66.0


Notice that Canada has three provinces in the top ten, but Alberta was the only other Canadian province to rank in the top 30. Arkansas, Mississippi, and South Dakota came in last for U. S. states, with South Dakota at number 60.  The ranking of Mexico’s states was “concentrated at the low-scoring end of the subnational index (61–92).”

The report commented that “Massachusetts ranks first due to the state’s massive network of software, hardware, and biotech firms in the Greater Boston area. Boston also holds one of the country’s most densely populated clusters of top-performing research universities, many of which focus on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. California places second due to its bustling tech economy of Silicon Valley and other southern Californian innovation hubs with access to leading research universities such as Stanford, Caltech, and the University of California, San Diego. Maryland earns its spot due to the state’s abundance of D.C.-commuting knowledge workers employed in scientific, technical, and professional activities, alongside its R&D and innovation activities attributable to a plethora of federal contracts. Washington state ranks fifth because of its high-tech exports, cutting-edge tech businesses bringing in foreign investment, patent generation in areas such as artificial intelligence (AI) and cloud computing, and digitalization of the service sector.”

The report goes into some detail regarding the rankings in the 13 subcategories which are too complex for this article to cover. With regard to high tech exports, it discusses the successful cross-border region of the Pacific Northwest states of Oregon and Washington with the Canadian province of British Columbia, as well as the cross-border regions of California, Arizona, and Texas with the Mexican states of Chihuahua, Baja California, and Tamaulipas…These Mexican “states include the major manufacturing cities of Ciudad Juarez, Tijuana, and Matamoros, which together comprise most of Mexico’s
“maquiladora” manufacturing plants.”

The report makes the following policy recommendations for the United States:

Expand the R&D Tax Credit to Be Competitive with Canada – Canada’s “overall federal subsidy rate of 19.1 percent on business R&D investment” is “above the 16.6 percent median among 34 developed countries observed” and considerably higher than the U.S. “sub-median federal-state subsidy rate of 9.5 percent.”

Build Globally Competitive North American Supply Chains – This recommendation advocates the partnering of companies in the U.S. and Canada with the low-wage states of Mexico to “nearshore their production of innovative goods and the low-tech complementary manufacturing of products in high-tech industries into Mexico….This collaboration of complementary labor forces would help North American supply chains perform as a region that’s globally competitive with the supply chains of Asian low-cost competitors.”

Promote Industry-University Partnerships – “Firms on the cutting edge of new research can benefit from tapping the skills of the next generation of scientists and engineers early on by collaborating with neighboring universities via internships, fellowships, and other resource sharing with academic institutions. As federal funding for intramural research in states/provinces lags behind, industry investment in university research is increasingly important.”

Expand Collaborative Research Between U.S. and Canadian Leaders – “Firms engaging in international research collaboration tend to generate more valuable research than firms not collaborating in research or only collaborating among domestic firms do… Firms of U.S. and Canadian states/provinces should thus pursue greater research collaboration and co-patenting, given the proven benefits in international research collaboration and diversifying with new research partners. Doing so would help expand the network of shared research knowledge to drive more frequent and impactful innovations for both U.S. and Canadian states.”

Fully Embrace USMCA’s Commitments to Create a Free-Flowing North American   Digital Economy – The USMCA provided stronger rules for digital services across industries such as finance, e-
commerce, and software, for cross-border data transfers. The United States, Canada, and Mexico must “utilize the full economic value of data and remain competitive in the global digital economy.”

Expand National Place-Based Development Projects – The report recommends thatnational and regional policymakers should use the NASICI rankings to identify regions or states that are lagging behind in economic development.  The authors note that the efforts of the U. S. Economic Development Agency and regional commissions have “fallen off” and that the EDA’s budget had been reduced over time.  “Federal investment to build up economic attractiveness for underperforming states can improve their competitive edge and reduce economic hardships for the populations of those states.”

Improve Economic Indicator Data Availability Among North American States – “…the NASICI, ITIF and its Canadian and Mexican partners were only able to identify 13 indicators for which data was uniformly and readily available across North America’s 92 subnational regions. Statisticians from Canada, Mexico, and the United States should collaborate to make more such indicators available.”

In conclusion, the report states: “Today’s 21st-century economy has different success markers than the post-war economy experienced in the latter half of the 20th century. There are many more global competitors in the space of advanced technology production, R&D, and digital services.”  For the United States, “NASICI scores are helpful to bring to light regions needing more federal attention to support innovation competitiveness.”

Th9is report confirms that the narrative of the “inevitable decline” of American manufacturing of American manufacturing is no longer true and “vibrant opportunities” already exist.  These “vibrant opportunities” need to be expanded to be achieve the goal of fostering 50,000 more world-class companies and creating five million more manufacturing jobs by 2030.

Tags:,
Posted in Economic Development, Manufacturing | No Comments »

Imperial Capital Conference Highlights Vibrant Opportunity for Advanced Manufacturing Sector

Tuesday, April 26th, 2022

The non-profit Industry Reimagined 2030 was pleased to speak at the second annual Imperial Capital Advanced Manufacturing & Supply Chain Conference, held on April 13-14 in Santa Monica, CA and sponsored by Moss Adams, The Association for Manufacturing Technology, Smart Room, and Marsh.

On April 14th, presentations during breakfast were given by Kevin Frisch, Managing Director and Head of Industrial Investment Banking, Imperial Capital, Brian Ruttenbur, Institutional Research Managing Director, Imperial Capital, and Guy Knuf, Partner, Moss Adams.

Mr. Frisch explained that Imperial Capital, LLC is a full-service investment bank offering a uniquely integrated platform of comprehensive services to middle market companies and institutional investor. He said,” We have approximately 150 employees worldwide, across 10 offices throughout the United States and Europe. Our comprehensive and integrated service platform, expertise across the global capital structure, and deep industry sector knowledge enable us to provide clients with research driven ideas, superior advisory services, and trade execution. We have a dedicated focus in Advanced Manufacturing, including additive manufacturing, robotics, automation, laser components, specialty metals, specialty chemicals, semi-conductor equipment, optics/photonics, industrial software, and subtractive manufacturing.”

He provided a brief overview of the $26.3 trillion global Advanced Manufacturing market.

The trending Industry Segments

  • Specialty Materials – new light-weight materials, nanotechnology and carbon fibers and new applications are reducing waste and increasing efficiency
  • Aerospace & Defense – Light-weighting demand for planes, rockets, spacecraft will continue to drive demand for superior materials, AM production and other break-throughs
  • Medical – This industry drives demand for superior material advances and new technologies like AM, advanced laser manufacturing as well as design software etc.
  • Optics & Photonics – This industry cuts across the Advanced Manufacturing landscape
  • MR&O demand
  • Increased Reshoring/near shoring in all sectors

Trending Manufacturing Processes

  • Faster product development and shorter product life
  • Internet of Things – data acquisition and AI-enabled features
  • Digital Factory – data integration and overall productivity increasing
  • Reshoring/next shoring
  • Mass customization in production
  • Faster product development and shorter product life
  • New technologies – 3D printing, software, robotics
  • Light-weighting material demand
  • Internet of Things
  • Reshoring/next shoring
  • New Materials – nanotechnology, carbon fibers, powders
  • Mass customization in production
  • MR&O demand

Sector Valuation and Vibrancy

Deal volume for capital markets and M&A activity hit a record high at the end of 2021, the dramatic increase in deal flow was driven by optimistic executives, cheap financing and a stock market rebound from the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. “U.S. Private Equity deal making is expected to continue at high levels. Mega-funds are predicted to raise $250 billion in 2022, including some of the largest ever buyout funds.”

Brian Ruttenbur, Managing Director of the Institutional Research Group of Imperial Capital covered macro trends in Advanced Manufacturing that influence their security and industrial research coverage.

Demand for manufactured products is up across most end-markets and private and public valuations have remained solid. The challenge to meet demand is inflation and material price increases, a tight and expensive labor market, and overall supply chain disruption. Industry is adapting through:

  • Automation to alleviate labor shortage issues
  • Niche players filling gaps
  • Rethinking Onshoring or Nearshoring driven by advanced manufacturing technologies, logistics complexity and national health and security sourcing.
  • On-time delivery and just-in-case supply chain resilience are commanding a premium

Guy Knuf, Partner, Transaction Services, Moss Adams was the third speaker covering “The Modern Quality of Earnings (QoE).  He said the “drivers of change are:

  • More intense buy-side process
  • Increased multiples
  • Drive for efficiency
  • RWI [Reps and Warrants Insurance]
  • Credibility”

The benefits of working with a QoE provider are: “maximize value, mitigate surprises, speed (more efficient & effective), prepare management team for buy-side diligence, and credibility.”

After breakfast, the period from 9:00 – 11:50 was divided into Sector Focused Panel Discussions. The presenters in advanced manufacturing technology were:

3DEO Inc. – one of the highest volume metal 3D printing companies in the world

ADDMAN Engineering LLC – metal and polymer 3D printed parts, precision machining to make parts for aerospace and defense, space, medical, and automotive, including niobium parts for hypersonics

Humtown Products – manufacturer of conventional and 3D printed sand cores and molds for the foundry industry

Optomec, Inc. – offers a full range of Additive Manufacturing systems, including their patented Aerosol Jet Systems for printed electronics

Clinkenbeard – specialized expertise in engineering, advanced machining, fabrication and foundry tooling capabilities come together to form a unique mix of services to serve Aerospace, Defense, Heavy Truck, Power Gen and Automotive applications

HB Aerospace Holdings, LLC – provides high quality, specialized aerospace products and value-added services that includes hardware, shims, spacers, handles, brackets, and rubber products such as grommets, seals and gaskets

Tribus Aerospace Corporation – provides precision machining of complex components and assemblies primarily, but not exclusively, for “Power, Propel, Control” applications for turbine engines, auxiliary power units, motion control and flow control

Valence Surface Technologies – provides a comprehensive set of metal processing capabilities and approvals for high-value, mission-critical parts, including NDT, sot peen and blast, chemical processing, plating, painting, and spray coatings

FormAlloy Technologies, Inc. – provides 3D metal additive manufacturing using the Directed Energy Deposition process for making parts, repairing parts, and cladding existing parts

Optomec, Inc. – provides a full range of Additive Manufacturing systems, including their patented Aerosol Jet Systems for printed electronics

pureLiFi – LiFi is high speed bi-directional and fully networked light communications and pureLiFi is the world leader in Light Fidelity (LiFi) innovation

Syntec Optics – offers injection molding, diamond turning, precision machining, optical assembly and coating services for optics and photonics

I was especially delighted to be reunited with Melanie Lang, CEO of FormAlloy as I had the pleasure of being one of her company’s mentors in the CONNECT Springboard program for startup companies in 2017.  I was very proud to hear of the progress the company had made, going from a startup with only two customers in 2017 to doing over $4 million in sales last year.

Tim Shinbara Jr, Vice President & Chief Technology Officer, The Association for Manufacturing Technology, delivered the lunch keynote on “The State of U.S Manufacturing –A Macro Analysis.” He reported that manufacturing technology orders were the highest in two decades for first two months of 2022. The key market trends are higher automation, increased reshoring, and Made in America supply chain focus. The industry segments for 2022 growth are: motor vehicles, agriculture implements, metal valves, and medical equipment and supplies. AMT is predicting increasing demand for commercial aerospace and decreasing demand for defense aerospace. Deliveries are improving with suppliers at 70% capacity.

The afternoon sessions were devoted to single company presentations in two tracks. Each presentation was 25 minutes long, starting at 1:15 PM and ending at 4:15 PM

I gave my own presentation on Industry Reimagined 2030: transforming the prevailing worldview of American manufacturing from ‘inevitable decline’ to one of ‘vibrant opportunity’ brought the theme of the conference home.  The U.S. has a window of opportunity to recognize the importance of manufacturing and to revitalize our investment in plant, equipment and workforce. The common thread of all companies participating in the panels and individual company presentations was one of vibrant opportunity. We can feasibly imagine having 50,000 world class manufacturers by 2030 if the adoption of these trends and technologies crosses the chasm from early adopters to the mainstream of manufacturers.

Tags:, ,
Posted in General | No Comments »

Manufacturing is the Engine of American Technology Development and Innovation

Tuesday, July 7th, 2020

The fourth reason why manufacturing is important is that American manufacturers are responsible for more than two-thirds of all private sector R&D, which ultimately benefits other manufacturing and non-manufacturing activities. Nearly 60 percent of new patents derive from the manufacturing sector and the closely integrated engineering and technology-intensive services.

Manufacturing R&D is conducted in a wide array of industries and businesses of all sizes. The heaviest R&D expenditures take place in computers and electronics, transportation equipment, and chemicals (primarily pharmaceuticals).

The competitive status of U.S. manufacturing had been increasingly challenged by the state-of-the-art technologies being developed by established nations such as Japan, Germany, Korea, and Taiwan. China has acquired advanced manufacturing capability through R&D tax incentives, incentives for direct foreign investment, and theft of intellectual property.

According to the 2018 annual survey conducted by the Industrial Research Institute (IRI), 59 percent of the companies responding said they plan to increase R&D spending in 2018; only 29 percent reported anticipating little or no change, and 13 percent are expecting a decrease in total R&D spending.” Note:  This is the last year that the report is available for free, 2019 and 2010 reports now cost $51.)

“The State of U.S. Science and Engineering 2020” report by the National Science Board of the National Science Foundation states, “Although the levels of federal R&D funding rose across performing sectors between 2000 and 2017, the share of total U.S. R&D funded by the federal government declined from 25% to 22%…By type of R&D, the shares of federal government funding for basic research and experimental development declined since 2000 despite rising levels of funding. The federal government is a major funder of basic research, and between 2000 and 2017, the share of basic research funded by the federal government declined from 58% to 42%. Federally funded applied research was an exception during this period, as both the level and share rose.”

America’s manufacturing innovation process leads to investments in equipment and people, to productivity gains, the spreading of beneficial technology to other sectors, and to new and improved products and processes. It is an intricate process that begins with R&D for new goods and improvements in existing products. As products are improved in speed, accuracy, ease of use, and quality, new manufacturing processes are utilized to increase productivity. Education and training of employees is required to reap the benefits of such improvements in manufacturing processes.

Innovation is the hallmark of U.S. manufacturing, and it requires a certain mass of interconnected activities, which, like a snowball rolling downhill, grows in size as it proceeds toward end users. Substantial R&D is required to keep the ball rolling to ensure more successes than failures.

Innovation and production are intertwined. You need to know how to make a product in order to make it better. “Most innovation does not come from some disembodied laboratory,” said Stephen S. Cohen, co-director of the Berkeley roundtable on the International Economy at the University of California, Berkeley. “In order to innovate in what you make, you have to be pretty good at making – and we are losing that ability.”

Manufacturing is an incubator for technology and science, which require proximity to facilities where innovative ideas can be tested and worker feedback can fuel product innovation. Without this proximity, the science and technology jobs, like customer service jobs, follow the manufacturing jobs overseas.

The ability to fund R&D comes largely from the profits that a company can invest back into its business. Thus, the available cash flow of manufacturing companies is closely linked to their ability to conduct R&D as well as make capital investments.

The process through which R&D promotes economic prosperity is complex and multi-faceted. First, there are direct benefits to firms from their own R&D investments. Second, other companies derive benefits from the R&D of the innovating company in a “spillover” effect. Third, the feedback from R&D and its spillovers improves other products, processes, and distribution networks. Fourth, one industry’s investment has a beneficial effect on other industries and the U.S. economy as a whole. “Spillover” effects are increased through sales transactions and knowledge transfers when the parties involved are interdependent and closer in geographic proximity.

Consumers have benefited greatly from the large selection and quality of manufactured goods available as a result of the innovative new products resulting from R&D. U.S. consumers now have a dizzying array of products from which to choose. Quality improvements in manufactured goods have also reduced the frequency of repair and reduced the cost of operation.

The maintenance of an effective U.S. R&D network is essential for attracting domestic and foreign R&D funds and the subsequent manufacturing that results from the innovation process, which increases U.S. value added, resulting in economic growth.

The problem today is that with the offshoring of so much manufacturing, certain tiers in the high-tech supply chain have disappeared in the U.S. When a tier in a supply chain has been moved offshore, domestic research and other supporting infrastructure are degraded, which can be a major problem for U.S. manufacturers transitioning to the next product life cycle.

In the past, technology would flow from new domestic R&D-intensive industries into the remainder of the economy, boosting overall national productivity. Today, such emerging technologies are flowing at least as rapidly to the innovators’ foreign partners or suppliers.

In the report “The Case for a National Manufacturing Strategy,” authors Ezell and Atkinson wrote, “manufacturing, R&D, and innovation go hand-in-hand.” They concur with my argument that “the process of innovation and industrial loss becomes additive. Once one technological life cycle is lost to foreign competitors, subsequent technology life cycles are likely to be lost as well.”

They add “[T]here is a deeply symbiotic, interdependent relationship between the health of a nation’s manufacturing and services sectors: the health of one sector greatly shapes the health of the other. In particular, the technology-based services sector depends heavily on manufactured goods.”

In my opinion, it doesn’t matter whether American companies do their R&D within their own facility or hire it to be done by outside American consultants or product development firms, but it does matter whether the R&D is done within America. We need to keep innovation within our country if we want to remain on the cutting edge of technology and maintain the critical mass of our manufacturing industry. Outsourcing R&D to China is like a mayor giving the key to his city to a would-be conqueror. We need to protect the key to our future security as a nation and keep R&D and manufacturing within the United States.  

This intricate process of R&D and product development generates greater growth and higher living standards than any other economic sector. But it requires a critical mass to generate this wealth. If the U.S. manufacturing base continues to shrink at its present rate, the critical mass will be lost. The manufacturing innovation process will shift to other global centers, and a decline in U.S. living standards will be the result.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Inellectual Property, Innovation, Manufacturing, Technology | 1 Comment »

Upcoming Southern California Events

Wednesday, January 16th, 2019

We have a busy first few months of trade shows and conferences for 2019. I will be attending the following shows for at least one day to keep up with the latest technologies and industry news for writing future articles.

I’m also beginning the year with several webinars in January – March.  I am giving two webinars on “How to Return Manufacturing to the U.S. Using Total Cost of Ownership Analysis” on two dates, Tuesday, January 22nd (Register here) and Wednesday, January 30th (Register here).

Then, I’m giving one Tuesday, February 12th, on “How We Can Solve the Skill Shortage and Attract the Next Generation of Manufacturing Workers.” Register here.

On February 5-7, 2019, the UBM Advanced Manufacturing Expo & Conference

will be held at the Anaheim Convention Center, Anaheim, CA

This conference will be part of the five shows being held concurrently at the Center.

Register Here

 Register Here

Expo Hours for all shows:

 February 5, 10:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.

February 6, 10:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.

February 7, 10:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

 

AFCEA/USNI WEST Conference
Registration Center
11208 Waples Mill Road, Suite 112
Fairfax, VA 22030
(888) 273-5706 / (703) 449-6418
Register

Why Attend AFCEA:

Attend three days of open discussions with defense and maritime leaders. Gain a better understanding of the impacts and implications of the new National Security Strategy. Hear about the current set of challenges facing the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard, and be a part of the dialogue on the opportunities and solutions to address these concerns.

CONNECT

Spend time with military, government and industry ‘out of the office’ and ‘outside of the beltway.’ Engage with speakers, attendees and exhibitors and discuss ideas and insights. Afternoon happy hours on the exhibit floor provide an opportunity to network with thought leaders.

INNOVATE

Explore and experience the latest platforms, leading edge technologies and state-of-the-art networking capabilities that support the Sea Services operations. Visit over 300 maritime exhibits.

 

IPC APEX EXPO 2019 is a five-day event like no other in the printed circuit board and electronics manufacturing industry. Professionals from around the world come together to participate in the Technical Conference, Exhibition, and Professional Development, Standards Development and Certification programs. These activities offer seemingly endless education and networking opportunities that impact your career and company by providing you the knowledge, technical skills and best practices to address any challenge you face.

Exhibition Hours

Tuesday, January 29           10:00 am–6:00 pm

Wednesday, January 30     9:00 am–6:00 pm

Thursday, January 31         9:00 am–2:00 pm

About IPC

IPC is a global trade association dedicated to furthering the competitive excellence and financial success of its members, who are participants in the electronics industry. In pursuit of these objectives, IPC will devote resources to management improvement and technology enhancement programs, the creation of relevant standards, protection of the environment, and pertinent government relations.

Register Here

Conference: April 29 – May 2, 2019 | Exhibits: April 30 – May 1

Long Beach Convention Center, 300 East Ocean Blvd, Long Beach, California

Conference Hours:

Tuesday, April 30, 2019 | 10:30 AM – 4:00 PM

Wednesday, May 1, 2019 | 10:30 AM – 4:00 PM

Thursday, May 2, 2019 | 9:00 AM – 12:00 PM

Exposition:

Tuesday, April 30, 2019 | 10:00 AM – 5:30 PM

Wednesday, May 1, 2019 | 10:00 AM – 5:30 PM

Dates and times for workshops, tours, and networking receptions are being determined. Check back for updates.

Register Now

 

For those of you in San Diego County, you may also want to attend the free Economic Roundtable on Thursday, January 17, 2019.

What does the San Diego County economy look like for 2019 and beyond? Join  the lively discussion with a panel of experts covering the future of the economy, housing/homelessness, military, and diversity and inclusion. Experts will provide predictions and their perspective on what may be in store for San Diego County.

Session One:

Ray Major, Chief Economist, SANDAG

Ryan Ratcliff, Associate Professor of Economics, USD School of Business

Sarah Burns, Director of Research and Evaluation, San Diego Workforce Partnership

Session Two:

Housing/Homelessness: Stephen Maduli-Williams, Community Development Program Manager, City of San Diego

Military: Jesse Gipe, Senior Manager, Economic Development, San Diego Regional Development Corporation

Diversity and Inclusion: Dwayne Crenshaw, CEO and Co-Founder, RISE San Diego

Date: Thursday, January 17, 2019

Time:

Networking: 8–8:30 a.m.

Program: 8:30 a.m.–noon

Location:

University of San Diego—Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace & Justice

5998 Alcala Park, San Diego, CA 92110

Cost: Free

Save Your Seat

 

 

Tags:,
Posted in Economy, Innovation, Manufacturing | No Comments »

« Older Entries