Intellectual Property
Federal Agency Efforts in Transferring and Reporting New Technology Gao ID: GAO-03-47 October 31, 2002The federal government is a primary sponsor of research conducted in the United States, expending during fiscal year 2001 $19.4 billion for research performed by federal employees and $62.2 billion for research conducted under contracts and grants. Some of this research leads to the development of technology that can be patented, licensed, and made available to the public through the introduction of new products and processes. In the past, however, there have been concerns that new technologies developed under federal research projects were not being properly translated into practical use. In response, Congress has made attempts through legislation over the past two decades to ensure that federally sponsored inventions were being transferred to the private sector where they could be commercialized. Federal agencies are identifying, patenting, and licensing inventions created in their own facilities through technology transfer programs that vary in design, approach, and measurable output. With respect to design, some agencies have centralized technology transfer programs, while others have decentralized programs, and still others have components of both. From an approach stand point, the agencies differ on what they will patent and the types of licensing arrangements they will enter. Perhaps the greatest diversity among the agencies is in their output based on statistics provided by the nine federal agencies with internal research budgets of at least $500 million in fiscal year 2001. In total, these agencies reported 3,676 new inventions, 1,585 patents issued, and $74.5 million in licensing revenues during fiscal year 2001. Federal agencies did not fully comply with the requirement of the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000 that they submit reports on their technology transfer activities to the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Commerce as a part of their fiscal year 2003 budget requests. Although four of five agencies reviewed for GAO's 1999 report have taken some steps to improve contractor and grantee compliance with reporting requirements under the Bayh-Dole Act, these efforts have not addressed underlying problems--such as duplication in reporting requirements--GAO noted in that report. Agency officials said that they had not been able to standardize, improve, and streamline the reporting process itself because, as GAO noted in the 1999 report, this would require congressional action.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-03-47, Intellectual Property: Federal Agency Efforts in Transferring and Reporting New Technology
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-47
entitled 'Intellectual Property: Federal Agency Efforts in Transferring
and Reporting New Technology' which was released on October 31, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
October 2002:
Intellectual Property:
Federal Agency Efforts in Transferring and Reporting New Technology:
GAO-03-47:
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Federal Technology Transfer Programs Vary in Design, Approach, and
Output:
Agencies Did Not Fully Comply with the Reporting Requirements of the
Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000:
Agency Actions to Improve Contractor and Grantee Reporting under the
Bayh-Dole Act Do Not Address Underlying Causes of Noncompliance:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Federal Obligations for Research and Development, Fiscal
Year 2001, for Nine Selected Agencies:
Appendix III: Descriptions of Technology Transfer Programs Established
by
Nine Selected Federal Agencies:
Appendix IV: Invention Disclosure, Patenting, and Licensing
Statistics for Nine Selected Federal Agencies,
Fiscal Years 1997-2001:
Appendix V: Summary of Guidelines for Agency Reporting
under the Technology Transfer Commercialization
Act of 2000:
Appendix VI: Statistics Provided by Nine Selected Agencies to the
Department of Commerce under the TTCA of 2000:
Appendix VII: Differences in Statistics Provided under the TTCA
of 2000 and Statistics Provided to GAO by Nine
Agencies:
Appendix VIII: Options to Improve Compliance with Reporting
Requirements
under the Bayh-Dole Act:
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
Appendix X: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Invention, Patenting, and Licensing Statistics by Agency for
Fiscal Year 2001:
Table 2: Invention, Patenting, and Licensing Activity by the
Agricultural Research Service for Fiscal Years 1997-2001:
Table 3: Invention, Patenting, and Licensing Activity by the Department
of the Air Force for Fiscal Years 1997-2001:
Table 4: Invention, Patenting, and Licensing Activity by the Department
of the Army for Fiscal Years 1997-2001:
Table 5: Invention, Patenting, and Licensing Activity by the Department
of Energy for Fiscal Years 1997-2001:
Table 6: Invention, Patenting, and Licensing Activity by the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration for Fiscal Years 1997-2001:
Table 7: Invention, Patenting, and Licensing Activity by the National
Institutes of Health for Fiscal Years 1997-2001:
Table 8: Invention, Patenting, and Licensing Activity by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for Fiscal Years 1997-2001:
Table 9: Invention, Patenting, and Licensing Activity by the Department
of the Navy for Fiscal Years 1997-2001:
Table 10: Invention, Patenting, and Licensing Activity by the U.S.
Geological Survey for Fiscal Years 1997-2001:
Table 11: Summary of Department of Commerce Guidelines for Statistical
Information to be Included in Agency TTCA Reports:
Table 12: Collaborative Relationship for Research, Development, and
Demonstration, Fiscal Year 2001:
Table 13: Invention Disclosure and Patenting, Fiscal Year 2001:
Table 14: New, Active, and Terminated Licenses during Fiscal
Year 2001:
Table 15: Active Licenses That Had Royalty Income, by Type, Fiscal Year
2001:
Table 16: Income from Licenses by Source, Fiscal Year 2001:
Table 17: Characteristics of Earned Royalty Income Received, Fiscal
Year 2001:
Table 18: Disposition of License Income, Fiscal Year 2001:
Table 19: Time Elapsed between Application and License Agreement:
Table 20: Differences in Statistics Provided to U.S. Department of
Commerce and Statistics Provided to GAO for Invention Disclosures,
Fiscal Year 2001:
Table 21: Differences in Statistics Provided to U.S. Department of
Commerce and Statistics Provided to GAO for Patents Issued Fiscal Year
2001:
Table 22: Differences in Statistics Provided to U.S. Department of
Commerce and Statistics Provided to GAO for Newly Executed Licenses,
Fiscal Year 2001:
Table 23: Differences in Statistics Provided to U.S. Department of
Commerce and Statistics Provided to GAO for Licenses That Had Income,
Fiscal Year 2001:
Table 24: Differences in Statistics Provided to U.S. Department of
Commerce and Statistics Provided to GAO for Income from Licenses,
Fiscal Year 2001:
Figures:
Figure 1: Invention Disclosures, Patents Received, and Licenses
Executed by Nine Federal Agencies, Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001:
Figure 2: Total Royalty Income for Nine Federal Agencies, Fiscal Years
1997 through 2001:
Figure 3: Invention Disclosures for Nine Federal Agencies, Fiscal Year
2001:
Figure 4: Patent Applications for Nine Federal Agencies, Fiscal Year
2001:
Figure 5: Patents Issued to Nine Federal Agencies, Fiscal Year 2001:
Figure 6: Patents in Force as of September 30, 2001, for Nine Federal
Agencies:
Figure 7: Type of Licenses Executed by Nine Federal Agencies, Fiscal
Year 2001 by Type of License:
Figure 8: Licenses Executed by Nine Federal Agencies in Fiscal Year
2001 by Type of Property:
Figure 9: Licenses in Force for Nine Federal Agencies as of September
30, 2001:
Figure 10: Licensing Income for Nine Federal Agencies, Fiscal Year
2001:
Abbreviations:
ARS: Agricultural Research Service
CRADA: cooperative research and development agreement
DOD: Department of Defense
DOE: Department of Energy
GAO: General Accounting Office
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NIH: National Institutes of Health
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NSF: National Science Foundation
OMB: Office of Management and Budget
OTT: Office of Technology Transfer
TTCA: Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000
USGS: United States Geological Survey
USPTO: United States Patent and Trademark Office:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
October 31, 2002:
Congressional Committees:
The federal government is a primary sponsor of research conducted in
the United States, expending during fiscal year 2001 $19.4 billion for
research performed by federal employees and $62.2 billion for research
conducted under contracts and grants. Some of this research leads to
the development of technology that can be patented, licensed, and made
available to the public through the introduction of new products and
processes. In the past, however, there have been concerns that new
technologies developed under federal research projects were not being
properly translated into practical use. In response, the Congress has
made attempts through legislation over the past 2 decades to ensure
that federally sponsored inventions were being transferred to the
private sector where they could be commercialized.
In 1980, the Congress passed two landmark pieces of legislation--the
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 and the Bayh-Dole
Act--with the intent of promoting economic development, enhancing U.S.
competitiveness, and benefiting the public by encouraging the
commercialization of technologies developed with federal funding. These
acts generally have been considered a success, because the federal
agencies and their funding recipients now can profit from their
inventions and thus have a greater incentive to produce new technology.
In addition, the technology created is more likely to be made available
to those who can use it.
Although the acts have common objectives, the Stevenson-Wydler Act
focuses on inventions owned by the federal government, while the
Bayh-Dole Act focuses on inventions created under federal contracts,
grants, and cooperative research and development agreements. Under the
Stevenson-Wydler Act, inventions owned by the government remain the
property of the agencies that produced them. However, the act as
amended sets out guidelines and priorities that encourage
commercialization of these inventions through the licensing of
technology to U.S. business. Under the Bayh-Dole Act, inventions
created under contracts and grants normally become the property of the
contractors and grantees, provided they follow certain reporting and
other requirements. Among these requirements are notifying the funding
agency that (1) the invention has been created, (2) the contractor or
grantee has elected to retain ownership, (3) a patent application has
been submitted, and (4) the government has a royalty-free right to use
the invention.
More recently, the Congress passed the Technology Transfer
Commercialization Act of 2000 in an attempt to improve the ability of
federal agencies to license inventions created in federal facilities.
Among other things, the act requires federal agencies with laboratories
and technology transfer functions to provide the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) with reports on their technology transfer programs.
The act also provides for the information to be submitted with the
agencies‘ annual budget requests, beginning with the budget for fiscal
year 2003. The agency reports would include information on operations
and plans as well as statistics on patenting and licensing activities.
In addition, the act requires the Department of Commerce to summarize
these data into an annual, government-wide report to the Congress and
others.[Footnote 1]
As you know, both the Bayh-Dole Act and the Technology Transfer
Commercialization Act of 2000 contain requirements that GAO issue a
report on the implementation of the acts at least once every 5 years.
As agreed with your offices, the primary objective of our current
report was to provide information on how federal agencies had
identified, patented, and licensed inventions created in their own
facilities during fiscal years 1997-2001. We also agreed that we would
determine (1) the extent to which the agencies complied with the
Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000 requirement to submit
reports on their technology transfer activities to OMB and the
Department of Commerce at the time they submit their fiscal year 2003
budget requests and (2) what the agencies have done--since the issuance
of our 1999 report on the issue--to improve compliance with reporting
requirements under the Bayh-Dole Act for inventions created under
contracts and grants.
To obtain information on federal technology transfer programs and to
determine the extent to which agencies complied with the reporting
requirement of the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000,
we analyzed the activities of the nine federal agencies that each had
estimated internal research budgets of at least $500 million in fiscal
year 2001. These agencies were the Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
within the Department of Agriculture; the Department of the Air Force
within the Department of Defense (DOD); the Department of the Army
within DOD; the Department of Energy (DOE); the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA); the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce; the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) within the Department of Health and Human
Services; the Department of the Navy within DOD; and the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) within the Department of the Interior. To
determine what federal agencies had done to improve compliance with
reporting requirements under the Bayh-Dole Act, we analyzed the
activities of the five agencies that were included in our 1999 report
on this issue. That report noted that contractors and grantees were not
always complying with such provisions as reporting new inventions,
confirming that federal agencies had royalty-free licenses to such
inventions, or recording on patent applications that the new
technologies were the result of federal funding.[Footnote 2] The
agencies included in this segment of our work were DOD, DOE, NASA, NIH,
and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Additional details on our
scope and methodology are included in appendix I. Other appendices
provide detailed information on the technology transfer activities of
these nine agencies; these appendices are an integral portion of this
report.
Results in Brief:
Federal agencies are identifying, patenting, and licensing inventions
created in their own facilities through technology transfer programs
that vary in design, approach, and measurable output. With respect to
design, some agencies have centralized technology transfer programs,
while others have decentralized programs, and still others have
components of both. From an approach standpoint, the agencies differ on
what they will patent and the types of licensing arrangements they will
enter. Perhaps the greatest diversity among the agencies is in their
output, based on statistics provided to us by the nine federal agencies
with internal research budgets of at least $500 million in fiscal year
2001. In total, these agencies reported 3,676 new inventions, 1,585
patents issued, and $74.5 million in licensing revenues during fiscal
year 2001. Primarily because of its contractor-operated national
laboratories, DOE had the most new inventions, patents applied for and
received, and licenses executed, but was second by a wide margin in
licensing income to NIH, which received $46.1 million during the fiscal
year. Agency officials cautioned against putting too much emphasis on
statistics. They believed that, while output is an important
measurement, it is not necessarily the best indicator of how successful
an agency has been in creating and transferring technology. Rather, in
their view output must be considered in the context of the agency‘s
mission, the type of research it conducts, the commercial potential of
the inventions produced, and the best method for disseminating the
products and research to those who can use them.
Federal agencies did not fully comply with the requirement of the
Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000 that they submit
reports on their technology transfer activities to the Office of
Management and Budget and the Department of Commerce as a part of their
fiscal year 2003 budget requests. For its part, the Department of
Commerce issued guidelines that established a timeline and format for
the agencies to follow in developing their reports. However, only one
of the nine agencies we reviewed submitted its report on time and,
while all the agencies eventually submitted reports, the reports in
some cases were incomplete, contained statistics that were inconsistent
or inaccurate, and differed in the data elements used to compile
certain statistics. Although submissions by the agencies were too late
to be considered for the President‘s budget for fiscal year 2003
submitted to the Congress in February 2002, at that time the Office of
Management and Budget did not have procedures to ensure that agencies
transmit the information for consideration in the budgeting process.
Furthermore, the Department of Commerce was delayed in preparing its
own report to the Congress on technology transfer activities nationwide
as required by the act. In general, the reporting problems appear to be
largely attributable to the confusion associated with the first year of
the act‘s implementation and agency officials believe reporting should
improve in the future. To improve the consistency and utilization of
the reports, we are recommending that (1) the Department of Commerce
revise its guidelines to clarify the data elements that are to be
included in the agencies‘ reports and (2) the Office of Management and
Budget develop procedures for accumulating the information submitted by
the agencies under the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of
2000 for consideration in the development of the budget.
While four of the five agencies reviewed for our 1999 report have taken
some steps to improve contractor and grantee compliance with reporting
requirements under the Bayh-Dole Act, these efforts have not addressed
underlying problems--such as duplication in reporting requirements--we
noted in that report. NIH said that it has made additional efforts to
educate its contractors and grantees on the importance and mechanics of
reporting technology transfer activities and was redesigning its
monitoring system. DOD said it has not taken agencywide action but that
various units have taken such steps as adopting a new monitoring system
and putting an increased emphasis on reviewing documentation submitted
at the end of research projects to identify unreported inventions. DOE
said it has implemented a new centralized monitoring system that has
reduced its backlog in recording with the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office certain invention notifications submitted to DOE by its
contractors and grantees. NASA said it has implemented a new invention
reporting system and integrated this system with an existing database
and tracking system. NSF said it has made no changes. Agency officials
said that they had not been able to standardize, improve, and
streamline the reporting process itself because, as we noted in the
1999 report, this would require congressional action.
We provided a copy of our draft report to the Department of Commerce
and the Office of Management and Budget for review and comment. The
Department of Commerce, in written comments, stated that the draft
report was ’useful“ and provided a realistic analysis of the first
cycle of the new reporting process under the Technology Transfer
Commercialization Act of 2000. The Department of Commerce also stated
that our recommendations were reasonable and that their adoption would
improve reporting during the next cycle. The Office of Management and
Budget, in oral comments, said that the overall thrust of our
recommendation that the Office develop procedures for accumulating and
considering agency information, as part of the annual budget process,
was reasonable. The Office added that as a result of the information
presented in the draft report, it would consider incorporating guidance
on reporting on technology transfer activities into Circular A-11,
which provides agencies with instructions on preparation and submission
of budget materials to the Office. Both agencies also provided some
technical clarifications that we incorporated as appropriate.
Background:
Prior to 1980, federal agencies generally retained title to any
inventions created under federal research--whether it was conducted by
contractors and grantees or by the agencies in their own facilities--
although specific policies varied among the agencies. Increasingly,
this situation was a source of dissatisfaction, as there was a general
belief that the results of federally owned research were not being made
available to those who could use them. There were also concerns that
technological advances attributable to university-based research
funded by the government were not being utilized because the
universities had little incentive to seek uses for inventions to which
the government held title. Additionally, the complexity of the rules
and regulations and the lack of a uniform policy for these inventions
often frustrated those who did seek to use the research.
In 1980, the Congress addressed these concerns with two landmark pieces
of legislation that changed the direction of federal technology
transfer.[Footnote 3] One was the Stevenson-Wydler Technology
Innovation Act of 1980, which addressed technology transfer of
government-owned inventions primarily created in federal
laboratories.[Footnote 4] The second was the Bayh-Dole Act, which
primarily addressed ownership of technology created under federal
contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements.[Footnote 5]
The Stevenson-Wydler Act articulated a broad role for government in
promoting commercial innovation and established the first major
initiative to proactively transfer technology from federal laboratories
to industry. The act made technology transfer an explicit mission of
the federal laboratories by, among other things, requiring the
establishment of an office in each laboratory to identify technologies
with commercial potential and to transfer that knowledge to U.S.
industry. The
Stevenson-Wydler Act was amended by the Federal Technology Transfer Act
of 1986, which empowered the directors of government-owned laboratories
to enter into cooperative research and development agreements (CRADA)
and to negotiate licensing agreements for inventions created in the
laboratories.[Footnote 6] The scope of the act was affected as well by
the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000, as discussed
below.
The primary purpose of the Bayh-Dole Act was to allow universities,
not-for-profit corporations, and small businesses to patent and
commercialize their federally funded inventions. While contractors and
grantees would retain title to their inventions, the government would
retain a nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up (royalty-
free) license to use it. The contractors and grantees would have to
conform to certain reporting requirements in the Bayh-Dole Act as well
as seek patent protection and attempt commercialization. Additionally,
the Bayh-Dole Act authorized federal agencies to obtain, protect, and
license the government‘s interest in patents on federally owned
inventions, thus empowering the agencies to implement the policy
defined in the Stevenson-Wydler Act. In doing so, restrictions were
imposed on how the government could license its patents, thereby
limiting the government‘s options under both acts. The Bayh-Dole Act
also included a requirement that GAO study and issue periodic reports
on the implementation of the act.[Footnote 7]
The Bayh-Dole Act does not protect the patent interests of large, for-
profit businesses engaged in government research. In 1983, however,
President Reagan issued a memorandum to the heads of executive branch
agencies advising them that, to the extent permitted by law, it would
be the policy of his administration to apply the patent policy of the
Bayh-Dole Act to any invention made in the performance of federally
funded research and development contracts, grants, and cooperative
agreements without regard to the size of the recipient‘s business or
its nonprofit status. On April 10, 1987, the President issued Executive
Order 12591, which, among other things, requires executive agencies to
promote commercialization in accordance with the 1983 memorandum. In
meeting our responsibility to study and issue reports under the Bayh-
Dole Act, we have included implementation of the executive order as
well.
The Congress has passed additional legislation over the years to amend
the Stevenson-Wydler and Bayh-Dole Acts and to enhance technology
transfer by federal agencies. One such law was the Technology Transfer
Commercialization Act of 2000 (TTCA), which was an attempt to make the
technology transfer process for inventions created in federal
laboratories more ’industry friendly“ as well as to simplify technology
licensing.[Footnote 8] In this regard, the Congress sought to remove
existing procedural obstacles and uncertainty, particularly in the
licensing of federally patented inventions created in government-owned,
government-operated research facilities. The act accomplished this by
authorizing the licensing of government owned technology through CRADAs
and by rewriting and streamlining the restrictions imposed on the
government‘s licensing of government-owned inventions. The act
clarified a number of provisions related to the notice required for
exclusive and partially exclusive licenses, receipt and distribution of
royalties, co-ownership of inventions with nonfederal
co-inventors, and assignment of federal employee rights in inventions
to the government.
The TTCA also amended the Stevenson-Wydler Act to require federal
agencies to submit annual reports on their technology transfer
activities to OMB as a part of the budget process. The provision
applies to any agency that either (1) operates one or more federal
laboratories or (2) applies for, obtains, or maintains patents or
licenses or otherwise protects or transfers any technology in which the
federal government has any right, title, or interest. Commerce
officials say that, in effect, this requires reports by all agencies
responsible for technology created in government facilities, regardless
of whether these facilities are operated by the government or by
contractors. Each agency is required to submit its report to OMB as a
part of the agency‘s annual budget submission as well as to Commerce
for the development of a government-wide report.[Footnote 9]
The TTCA requires an agency‘s annual report to include the following:
* An explanation of the agency‘s technology transfer program for the
preceding fiscal year and the plans the agency has for conducting its
technology transfer function, including its plans ’for securing
intellectual property rights in laboratory innovations with commercial
promise“ and ’for managing its intellectual property so as to advance
the agency‘s mission and benefit the competitiveness of United States
industry —“:
* Information on technology transfer activities for the preceding
fiscal year regarding:
* The number of patent applications filed.
* The number of patents received.
* The number of fully-executed licenses that received royalty income,
categorized by whether they were exclusive, partially exclusive, or
non-exclusive, and the time elapsed from the date on which the license
was requested by the licensee in writing to the date the license was
executed.
* The total earned royalty income including such statistical
information as the total earned royalty income, of the top 1 percent, 5
percent, and 20 percent of the licenses, the range of royalty income,
and the median, except where disclosure of such information would
reveal the amount of royalty income associated with an individual
license or licensee.
* Disposition of earned income.
* The number of licenses terminated for cause.
* Additional ’parameters or discussion the agency deems relevant or
unique to its practice of technology transfer.“:
The TTCA did not include instructions to OMB regarding how OMB was to
account for or report the data received from the agencies. However, the
act did require the Secretary of Commerce, in conjunction with the
Attorney General and the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, to
issue an annual report to the Congress, the President, and the United
States Trade Representative. Also, the act required GAO to study and
report on the implementation of the TTCA as a part of its reporting
mandate under the Bayh-Dole Act.
Federal Technology Transfer Programs Vary in Design, Approach, and
Output:
The nine federal agencies we reviewed have each established programs
for identifying, patenting, and licensing inventions created in their
own facilities.[Footnote 10] However, these programs varied in design,
approach, and output. For example, DOE and its contractor-operated
laboratories led all agencies in the number of new inventions
disclosed, patents applied for and received, and licenses executed
during fiscal year 2001. However, NIH was by far the leader in
licensing income. Agency officials cautioned against putting too much
emphasis on output. They said that, while output is important, success
must be considered in the context of an agency‘s mission, the type of
research it conducts, the commercial potential of the inventions
produced, and the best method for disseminating the fruits of its
research to those who could use them.
Agencies Have Designed Programs Tailored to Their Individual Missions
and Objectives:
No single federal agency is responsible for managing technology
transfer activities governmentwide. Rather, each federal agency
involved in technology transfer designs its own program and can tailor
this program to its specific mission and technology transfer
objectives. In this regard, the nine agencies that, as shown in
appendix II, obligated at least $500 million for intramural research
during fiscal year 2001 had established programs that varied widely in
their design, especially in size and the manner in which they were
administered. This variation is illustrated in the following examples:
* NIH has a technology transfer function with both centralized and
decentralized components. From a licensing standpoint, the activities
are centralized, with a single office responsible for negotiating and
administering all licenses. However, such activities as monitoring
invention disclosures and determining when to seek a patent are largely
decentralized, with the individual institutes and centers having their
own technology transfer offices for this purpose. NIH also has a
centralized reporting system for all of its technology transfer
functions and can provide statistics on disclosures, patents, and
licenses from this system.
* Each of the military services within DOD has its own technology
transfer program and each of these is decentralized. While there is
some variation among the services, patenting and licensing decisions
are generally concentrated at the command or research unit level, as is
recordkeeping. None of the services has a unified technology transfer
database and, when statistics are needed, the services must query the
individual commands or units for information.
* DOE has few inventions produced by federal employees in its own
facilities. Instead, most DOE inventions come from national
laboratories operated by DOE contractors, with the inventions becoming
the property of the contractors and each contractor basically making
its own decisions on patenting and licensing. In most cases, DOE must
query the individual laboratories to obtain detailed statistics on
technology transfer activities, although there are some centralized
data on inventions created by DOE employees or acquired by DOE when the
contractor elected not to take title.
* At NASA, the individual NASA centers and laboratories separately
report and account for the inventions created by their employees, but
decisions on patenting are centralized within the Office of Patent
Counsel. Similarly, licensing activities are centralized within the
Office of Aerospace Technology. NASA has a centralized reporting system
that is capable of providing statistical information on its technology
transfer activities. Like DOE, NASA also has a large contractor-
operated laboratory, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The contractor can
retain title to, patent, and license the inventions it creates in this
facility. If NASA needs to obtain statistical information, it must
query the contractor.
* ARS is the principal research agency of USDA and has been delegated
the authority to administer technology transfer activities for the
entire department. All patenting and licensing activities are
centralized within ARS‘ technology transfer office.
* USGS has a relatively small technology transfer function, befitting
the small number of inventions the agency owns. The technology transfer
program is in the midst of a major reorganization due in part to USGS‘
adoption of a decentralized integrated science approach. According to
an agency official, patenting and licensing in the past have been
handled by a central Technology Transfer Office. Since April 2002, the
Department of Navy has been filing and prosecuting patent applications
for USGS.
* At NOAA, which had the least number of new inventions, patents, and
licenses among the nine agencies we queried, the technology transfer
function is carried out by one person on a part-time basis. There is no
formal tracking system for monitoring inventions, patents, and
licenses.
Agencies Differ in Their Approaches to Patenting and Licensing Their
Technologies:
As with the design of their programs, the federal agencies we reviewed
differ in the way they approach technology transfer in such areas as
deciding what inventions to patent, and when to enter into exclusive
licensing arrangements. In deciding whether to patent an invention,
agency officials said they must weigh such diverse factors as the
commercial potential of the product or process, the costs of obtaining
a patent, and the best method for getting the product or process to
those that can benefit from it.
NIH officials, for example, say they are selective when applying for
patents because of the high costs of obtaining and maintaining them.
Patenting decisions are made at the institute or center level and the
institute or center will be expected to bear the associated costs. NIH
officials said that the decision on whether to pursue a patent can
involve many factors and that a patent is not always the best option.
If the product is a biological material and has only a short productive
life, NIH may license the product without obtaining patent protection.
If the product does not have commercial potential but has some other
value related to research or the public health, NIH may simply
disseminate information through publication.
The military services say they often patent inventions for ’defensive“
purposes. In this regard, the primary concern is protecting their
rights in inventions that may have a military use at some future date.
At the same time, they acknowledge that many of their inventions have
little commercial appeal because there may be limited use for them in
civilian applications. Similarly, DOE officials say that they have
relatively high patent activity because their laboratory contractors
tend to want to retain title to their inventions and, to do so, must
seek patents on them.
An ARS official said that, even though the technology they create may
have significant value to researchers and the agricultural community,
it may not have a broad commercial appeal that would make it attractive
to potential licensees. ARS resolves this situation in many cases by
publishing the information and disseminating it in such a way that it
is put into the hands of those who can use it.
In licensing their technologies, federal agencies have the option of
granting licenses that are exclusive, nonexclusive, or partially
exclusive. Agency officials noted that they may not always have the
choice of granting nonexclusive licenses because it is often difficult
to find even one potential licensee willing to take the risks and
assume the high costs of bringing a new product to market.
Agency Output Varies in Areas Such as New Inventions, Patents,
Licensing, and Income:
Because there is no central database on the technology transfer
activities of all federal agencies, we could not obtain statistics on
measurable output government-wide. Instead, we asked the nine agencies
included in our review to provide output statistics in specified
categories for fiscal years 1997 through 2001. These statistics are
shown in appendix IV, with table 1 providing a comparison of all nine
agencies for fiscal year 2001 and
tables 2 through 10 providing summaries of the individual agencies‘
statistics from fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 2001.
As shown in figure 1, the nine agencies in total had relatively stable
output in terms of new inventions disclosed, patents received, and
licenses executed from fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 2001. As
shown in figure 2, however, licensing income generally increased over
this same period.[Footnote 11]
Figure 1: Invention Disclosures, Patents Received, and Licenses
Executed by Nine Federal Agencies, Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Statistics provided by ARS, Air Force, Army, DOE, NASA, NIH,
NOAA, Navy, and USGS.
[End of figure]
Figure 2: Total Royalty Income for Nine Federal Agencies, Fiscal Years
1997 through 2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Source: Statistics provided by ARS, Air Force, Army, DOE, NASA, NIH,
NOAA, Navy, and USGS.
For purposes of comparing output by individual agencies, the statistics
for fiscal year 2001 are the most recent and comprehensive available.
These statistics show that, while there are wide variations in
individual output categories, the bulk of activity was usually
concentrated in a few agencies. DOE was the leader in most of the
categories for which we obtained statistics, with the most new
inventions, patent applications, patents received, patents in force,
licenses executed, licenses in force, and licenses producing income in
fiscal year 2001. NIH, however, was by far the leader in licensing
income. Similarly, NOAA and USGS, with small technology transfer
programs, had the least measurable output in most categories.
Invention disclosures:
Figure 3 compares inventions disclosed in fiscal year 2001 for all the
agencies included in our review. DOE and NASA were the leaders in
invention disclosures, with 1,479 and 696 respectively, or 59.2 percent
of 3,676 disclosures by all nine agencies for the fiscal year.
Figure 3: Invention Disclosures for Nine Federal Agencies, Fiscal Year
2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Source: Statistics provided by the agencies cited.
Patent applications:
As shown in figure 4, DOE was also the leader in patent applications in
fiscal year 2001, with 1,126 applications. These represented 40.1
percent of the total number of applications filed by the nine agencies.
Figure 4: Patent Applications for Nine Federal Agencies, Fiscal Year
2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Source: Statistics provided by the agencies cited.
Patents issued and in force:
As with disclosures and patent applications, DOE was the leader in
total patents issued in fiscal year 2001, accounting for 586, or 37.0
percent, of the 1,585 patents issued to the nine agencies. Six of the
nine agencies received foreign patents, with NIH receiving the most.
Figure 5 compares U.S., foreign, and total patents for the nine
agencies during fiscal year 2001.
Figure 5: Patents Issued to Nine Federal Agencies, Fiscal Year 2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Source: Statistics provided by the agencies cited.
As shown in figure 6, DOE was also the leader in terms of patents in
force at the end of fiscal year 2001. Patents in force represent those
patents that have been issued to the agency or contractor in the past,
have not expired, and presumably are available for licensing.
Figure 6: Patents in Force as of September 30, 2001, for Nine Federal
Agencies:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Source: Statistics provided by the agencies cited.
Licenses executed:
DOE led the nine agencies in licenses executed, with 583 licenses
executed in fiscal year 2001, followed by NIH with 200. No other agency
had more than 46. Combined, DOE and NIH accounted for 85.1 percent of
all licenses executed during the fiscal year.
The agencies varied widely by type of license executed. As shown in
figure 7, over 75 percent of the licenses executed by the nine agencies
in fiscal year 2001 were nonexclusive. However, this overall ratio was
influenced greatly by DOE, where nonexclusive licenses accounted for
85.2 percent of the licenses it executed, and NIH, where nonexclusive
licenses accounted for 76.5 percent. Nonexclusive licenses accounted
for only 39.4 percent of all licenses executed by the remaining seven
agencies.
Figure 7: Type of Licenses Executed by Nine Federal Agencies, Fiscal
Year 2001 by Type of License:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Source: Statistics provided by the agencies cited.
Over two-thirds of the licenses executed during fiscal year 2001 were
based on patented inventions and, in six agencies, patents were the
only source of licenses. NIH reported a total of 51 licenses that were
based on non-patented research materials, which could include
biological materials. In addition, DOE and NASA reported a total of 253
licenses that were based on other types of properties--such as
copyrights owned by contractors operating government laboratories.
Figure 8 compares licenses executed in fiscal year 2001 by the type of
property licensed.
Figure 8: Licenses Executed by Nine Federal Agencies in Fiscal Year
2001 by Type of Property:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Source: Statistics provided by the agencies cited.
Licenses in force:
DOE and NIH had the most licenses in force at the end of fiscal year
2001, together accounting for over 81.5 percent of all licenses and
96.0 percent of licenses with foreign entities. Figure 9 compares the
number of U.S. and foreign licenses in force at the end of fiscal year
2001 for the nine agencies we reviewed.
Figure 9: Licenses in Force for Nine Federal Agencies as of September
30, 2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Source: Statistics provided by the agencies cited.
A license in force is one where the agreement between the agency or
contractor and the licensee has not expired or been terminated. It does
not necessarily mean the license is ’active“ in the sense of producing
income. To the contrary, not all licenses produce income. As shown in
appendix IV, table 1, DOE had 2,138 licenses in force at the end of
fiscal year 2001, but only 992 licenses produced income during the
year. NIH had 1,357 licenses in force at the end of fiscal year 2001,
with 697 producing income during the fiscal year. In total, the nine
agencies reported 4,286 licenses in force, with 2,056 licenses earning
income during the fiscal year.
Licensing income:
Despite DOE‘s having the most invention disclosures, patents, and
licenses, figure 10 shows that NIH was by far the leader in licensing
income during fiscal year 2001. Of the nine agencies‘ licensing income
of $74.5 million, NIH accounted for $46.1, or 61.9 percent. DOE
accounted for $21.4 million, or 28.7 percent, and the other 7 agencies
accounted for
$7 million, or 9.4 percent, combined. Figure 10 compares licensing
income for the nine agencies.
Figure 10: Licensing Income for Nine Federal Agencies, Fiscal Year
2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Source: Statistics provided by the agencies cited.
Agency officials cautioned against using output statistics as the sole
indicator of the success of their programs. They noted that the
agencies are not comparable in regard to such factors as the likelihood
that research will result in new technology, the degree to which the
technology will require further development before it can be brought to
market, and the commercial potential for the products eventually
brought to market. The agency officials noted that an agency‘s
technology transfer program is successful if the results of the
agency‘s research are being disseminated to those who can benefit.
A Commerce official agreed that comparing agencies with each other was
difficult and that, in some cases, it was even difficult to measure the
same agency against itself from year to year. He noted that conditions
are constantly changing as new technologies enter the marketplace,
patents expire, new licenses are executed, old licenses expire, etc.
Agencies Did Not Fully Comply with the Reporting Requirements of the
Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000:
Federal agencies did not fully comply with the requirement of the
Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000 that they submit
reports on their technology transfer activities to OMB and Commerce as
a part of their fiscal year 2003 budget requests. While the Department
of Commerce issued guidelines that established a timeline and format
for the agencies to follow in developing their reports, these
guidelines were not finalized until December 2001. All nine agencies
eventually submitted reports to OMB and Commerce, but the reports in
some cases were incomplete, contained statistics that were inconsistent
or inaccurate, and differed in the data elements used to compile
certain statistics. Because submissions by the agencies were submitted
in February through July 2002, the information provided by the agencies
was received too late to be considered by OMB in the development of the
President‘s budget for fiscal year 2003, which was submitted to the
Congress in February 2002. At that time, however, OMB did not have
procedures to ensure that agencies transmit the information for
consideration in the budgeting process. Moreover, the Department of
Commerce was delayed in submitting its own report to the Congress on
technology transfer activities nationwide as required by the act.
The reporting problems appear to be largely attributable to the
confusion associated with the first year of the act‘s implementation.
Agency officials believe reporting should improve in the future. A
Commerce official said that the guidelines may need to be refined to
specify what data elements are to be used in accumulating the
statistics to be reported.
Department of Commerce Developed Guidelines for Agency Submissions:
To ensure some commonality and consistency in the reports the agencies
submit to OMB and Commerce, the Interagency Working Group on Technology
Transfer--a group of federal agency personnel involved in technology
transfer programs that holds periodic meetings at and coordinated by
the Department of Commerce--determined a method by which agencies could
meet the TTCA reporting mandate. Based on the discussions by the
Working Group, Commerce issued guidelines entitled ’Annual Reporting on
Agency Tech Transfer in Response to the TTCA 2000--Data Elements of the
Agency Annual Reports.“ In this document, which was issued in final
form on December 11, 2001, Commerce noted that the guidelines ’outline
a common response framework for the new statutory reporting process.“
Commerce also noted that the guidelines, which are voluntary, were
intended to consider and address (1) the annual agency report to OMB
required by the TTCA, (2) the materials needed by Commerce to prepare
its own report under the TTCA, (3) the types of data the agencies had
deemed appropriate in the past in preparing biennial reports[Footnote
12] on technology transfer required by the Stevenson-Wydler Act, and
(4) current policy concerns such as congressional interest in greater
information about the tangible downstream outcomes--such as
commercialized products or processes, strengthened laboratory
capabilities, etc.--resulting from federal technology transfer
policies and programs.
The Commerce guidelines, which were sent to all the federal departments
and agencies known to have laboratories or technology transfer
functions, established an ’annual cycle of events,“ or timeline, for
the agencies‘ reports. In the fall of the year preceding the budget
submission, each agency would assemble data from the most recent fiscal
year, document its plans for both the current and upcoming fiscal year,
and determine how well it had met its plans for the previous fiscal
year. In the following January and early February, the agency would
finalize its report and submit this with its budget proposal for the
upcoming fiscal year. From January to early March, Commerce would
review, organize, and compile all the agency reports, tabulate the
quantitative data into a consistent format, and draft its own report.
Commerce would then submit its report in March or April. Thus, if the
Commerce guidelines were followed, the first annual reports by the
agencies would have been due in February 2002 and would have been based
on the agencies‘ activities in fiscal year 2001.
The data elements in the Commerce guidelines--which are summarized in
appendix V--were organized into three main categories: (1) a
description of the agency‘s present technology transfer programs and
plans, (2) data about the agency‘s technology transfer activities and
performance for the recently closed fiscal year, and (3) illustrative
case information about the outcomes of the agency‘s technology transfer
programs and activities. The information presented was to include all
technology produced in federal facilities, including technology
produced in contractor-operated facilities. Commerce emphasized that
the guidelines were intended to be a working outline for agency
reporting and that each agency should adjust its reporting and present
additional performance measures in ways it expected would best
communicate its activities and achievements. Commerce also said that it
would not specify a particular format for each agency‘s report nor
would it distribute a standard survey instrument for gathering data.
In some cases, the Commerce guidelines asked for more data than
specified in the TTCA. For example, the Commerce guidelines asked the
agencies to report invention disclosures, although this information was
not required by the TTCA. Also, the guidelines requested statistical
data on cooperative research and development agreements. For
statistical data on invention disclosures, patent applications, patent
grants, and licenses, the guidelines provided detailed instructions on
what information was to be provided and in some cases defined terms
that were not specified or defined in the TTCA. A Commerce official
noted that the additional information requested by the guidelines had
been approved by the members of the Interagency Working Group and was
consistent with information the agencies had been providing in the
biennial reports previously required by the Stevenson-Wydler Act.
Agencies Were Late in Submitting Data to the Office of Management and
Budget:
To determine whether federal agencies complied with the TTCA reporting
requirements, we reviewed the reports submitted by the nine agencies
that, as discussed above, had intramural research budgets of at least
$500 million in fiscal year 2001. We found that only ARS among the nine
agencies included in our review submitted its report by early February
2002 as suggested by the Commerce guidelines. DOE and NASA submitted
their reports in April 2002. Commerce, which included NOAA; DOD--which
compiled a consolidated report encompassing the Departments of Army,
Navy, and Air Force, and its other agencies; and NIH submitted their
reports in June. The Department of Interior, which included USGS,
submitted its report in July 2002. The agencies submitted copies of
their reports to Commerce at or about the same time they submitted them
to OMB, although in some cases they had provided Commerce with draft
information while working on their official submissions.
Commerce also sent the TTCA guidelines to three other agencies--the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Veterans Affairs,
and the Department of Transportation--that were not among the agencies
we selected for our review. According to a Commerce official, the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Veterans Affairs
submitted their reports in May and June 2002, respectively. At the time
of our review, the Department of Transportation had not yet submitted a
report.
OMB staff, while acknowledging that the agency did not have any special
procedures to ensure that agencies transmit technology transfer
information for consideration in the budgeting process, explained to us
that submissions received in February through July 2002 would have been
too late to consider in the development of the President‘s fiscal year
2003 budget, which was released in early February 2002. However, they
noted that these submissions could be considered in formulation of the
President‘s fiscal year 2004 budget. The staff also said that OMB is
examining the incorporation of guidance on reporting on technology-
transfer activities into Circular A-11, which provides agencies with
instructions on preparation and submission of budget materials.
Agency Statistics Provided to OMB and Commerce in Some Cases Were
Incomplete, Inaccurate or Inconsistent, or Differed in the Data
Elements Used to Compile Them:
The Commerce guidelines requested that, in submitting the reports
required by the TTCA, the agencies include statistical data on their
technology transfer activities for fiscal year 2001. Specifically, the
agencies were asked to provide information on the number of CRADAs;
number of inventions disclosed, patents applied for and patents
received; number of licenses active and terminated; the number of
active licenses that produced income; amount of income by source;
characteristics of earned royalty income received; disposition of
license income; and the time elapsed in obtaining license agreements.
Tables 12 through 19 of appendix VI summarize the statistics each of
the nine agencies provided in these categories.
We did not independently verify the statistics the nine agencies
provided to OMB. However, we did review the statistics for completeness
and, where possible, for consistency with data the same agencies had
provided us on their technology transfer activities. We found that, in
some instances, the TTCA reports were incomplete. For example, some
agencies did not provide statistics on the disposition of license
income or the average number of days elapsed between the time potential
licensees applied for licenses and the time the licenses were executed.
In five categories, the data requested by the Commerce guidelines
appeared to be identical to the information we had requested from the
agencies and included in appendix IV. These categories were invention
disclosures, patents issued, licenses executed, licenses earning
income, and licensing income received during fiscal year 2001. For each
of these categories, we compared the statistics the agencies provided
to OMB and Commerce with the data they provided us. As shown in tables
20 through 24 of appendix VII, we found that the statistics sometimes
were inconsistent, and we asked the agencies reporting the statistics
to explain the differences. In some cases, we found that the
information provided to OMB and Commerce was inaccurate. For example:
* DOD submitted a consolidated report but listed the services
separately. In comparing the statistics provided to OMB and Commerce
with those provided to us, we noted that the Navy‘s statistics varied
in all five of the categories compared, the Army varied in four, and
the Air Force varied in three. DOD officials said the differences were
the result of the services‘ having accumulated the statistics for their
consolidated report to OMB and Commerce earlier in the year than those
provided to us. They said that the statistics provided to us were
updated and more reliable.
* DOE reported more than twice as many--583 to 226--new licenses
executed during the fiscal year to us than in its TTCA report because,
according to DOE officials, the figures provided to OMB and Commerce
did not include licenses for copyrights and other non-patent types of
intellectual property. DOE also reported more invention disclosures,
patents issued, and licenses with income to OMB and Commerce than it
did to us for reasons that the agency was not able to determine.
We also found that the agencies were not always using the same data
elements in developing statistics for their TTCA reports. In compiling
statistics on patents issued, for example, some agencies may have
included foreign patents while others did not. Similarly, in reporting
the number of newly-executed licenses, some agencies reported licenses
for intellectual property other than patents while other agencies did
not.
To some extent, the reporting problems may stem from a lack of
specificity in Commerce‘s guidelines. For example, the Commerce
guidelines specified that statistics on patent applications should
include both U.S. and foreign applications. The guidelines were silent,
however, on whether the statistics on patents received should include
foreign patents. A Commerce official acknowledged that the guidelines
may need some revision to ensure that the agencies are basing their
statistics on the same data elements.
Commerce Was Delayed in Developing a Consolidated Report:
Because the agencies did not submit their reports under the TTCA
according to the timeline set out in Commerce‘s guidelines, Commerce
was delayed in developing its own consolidated report on federal
technology transfer activities as required by the TTCA. A Commerce
official told us that, even after receiving the agency reports,
Commerce had to (1) collate and summarize information that sometimes
differed in form and detail, (2) contact agencies to resolve or explain
potentially inconsistent or missing data, and (3) coordinate its work
with the Attorney General and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
(USPTO) as required by the TTCA.
Commerce eventually developed its consolidated report entitled Summary
Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer and placed it on the
Department of Commerce‘s Web site on October 16, 2002. A Commerce
official said the agency anticipated having published versions of the
report available for submission to the President and to the Congress
shortly.
Reporting Problems Appear Related to Uncertainties and Confusion During
the First Year of the Act‘s Implementation:
A Commerce official said that the problems in TTCA compliance were
largely due to the uncertainties and confusion associated with the
first year of reporting. One problem was that the guidelines had not
been finalized until less than 2 months before OMB was to present the
overall federal budget. Also, some agencies had difficulties in
defining and accumulating some of the data needed, particularly where
their technology transfer programs were decentralized. DOD, for
example, does not have a centralized data tracking system that allows
the prompt accumulation of such data. Thus, each of the military
services had to query individual research units to obtain data and then
collate these into a summary report. Similarly, DOE had to query its
individual laboratories to obtain data in some cases, even though it
has a centralized tracking system.
Officials from Commerce and other agencies said that the TTCA
compliance problems should be reduced in future years because of the
guidelines that are now in place and the experience gained during the
first year of reporting under the TTCA. However, some officials were
concerned about how the information might be interpreted. They said
that, as discussed earlier, it was inappropriate to compare agencies by
looking solely at statistics. Rather, they believed each agency‘s
technology transfer program must be evaluated in the context of that
agency‘s mission, priorities, and potential. They were concerned that
those wanting to use the data would not be able to put these statistics
into the proper context and might arrive at conclusions about an
agency‘s technology transfer activities that were unfounded.
A Commerce official acknowledged that there had been some confusion in
the agencies‘ interpreting and applying the guidelines for preparing
the reports required by the TTCA, even though (1) the Interagency
Working Group had participated in their development and (2) much of the
information requested was similar to what the agencies had been
reporting under the biennial reports previously required by the
Stevenson-Wydler Act. He said that Commerce would probably revise the
guidelines to make them more specific and to emphasize the need for
each agency to provide complete data.
Agency Actions to Improve Contractor and Grantee Reporting under the
Bayh-Dole Act Do Not Address Underlying Causes of Noncompliance:
In an August 1999 report, we found that contractors and grantees were
not always complying with the reporting requirements of the Bayh-Dole
Act and, by extension, Executive Order 12591.[Footnote 13] Since the
issuance of that report, four of the five agencies we reviewed have
taken some steps to improve compliance. However, these efforts have not
addressed underlying problems we reported, such as duplication in
reporting requirements, that make reporting difficult and cumbersome.
The attempts at improving compliance varied among the agencies. NIH
said that it has made additional efforts to educate its contractors and
grantees on the importance and mechanics of reporting technology
transfer activities and was redesigning its monitoring system. DOD said
it has not taken agency-wide action but that various units have taken
such steps as adopting a new monitoring system and putting an increased
emphasis on reviewing documentation submitted at the end of research
projects to identify unreported inventions. DOE said it has implemented
a new centralized monitoring system that has reduced its backlog in
recording with the USPTO certain invention notifications submitted to
DOE by its contractors and grantees. NASA said it has implemented a new
invention reporting system and integrated this system with an existing
database and tracking system. NSF said it has made no changes. Agency
officials said that they had not been able to standardize, improve, and
streamline the reporting process itself because, as we noted in the
1999 report, this would require congressional action.
GAO Documented Compliance Problems in 1999 Report:
Under the Bayh-Dole Act--and, by extension, Executive Order 12591--
contractors, grantees, and recipients of CRADAs can elect to retain
title to inventions they create under government research projects.
However, they are required to follow specific reporting requirements
regarding the disclosure, election to retain title, application for
patent, licensing, and commercialization of any invention subject to
the act or executive order. Some of the key reporting requirements
include disclosing any new invention within 60 days, electing to retain
title within 2 years, applying for a patent within 1 year of election,
and providing documentation (the ’confirmatory license“) specifying
that the government has rights in the invention.
We issued a report on Bayh-Dole Act compliance in August 1999. We noted
in this report that federal agencies and their contractors and grantees
were not complying with the requirements of the Bayh-Dole Act and
Executive Order 12591. We found that the databases for recording the
government‘s interests in the inventions were inaccurate, incomplete,
and inconsistent and that some inventions were not being recorded at
all. As a result, the government was not always aware of the inventions
to which it had royalty-free rights. We also found that, to some
extent, the problems were systemic, as the contractors and grantees
were being required to submit duplicate reports, that the confirmatory
licenses were filed in a database at the USPTO that was largely
inaccessible and unused, and that the USPTO was not involved in
oversight.
We noted that the Congress might wish to consider enhancing the data
available on federally sponsored inventions by standardizing,
improving, and streamlining the reporting process for inventions
subject to the act and executive order. Specifically, we noted that the
Congress could
(1) require the Secretary of Commerce to develop standardized
disclosure forms and utilization reports for federally funded
inventions, (2) make the patent the primary control mechanism for
reporting and documenting the confirmatory license, and (3) requiring
the USPTO to provide information to the funding agencies to assist them
in monitoring compliance. We also included in the 1999 report some of
the options we had discussed with agency officials and others for
improving compliance. These options are shown again in appendix VIII of
this report.
Agencies Have Taken Limited Actions to Improve Compliance:
The TTCA includes a requirement for utilization reports for inventions
created in federal facilities but does not address the reporting
compliance problems we raised in our 1999 report. Moreover, Commerce
has not addressed these issues through revised regulations. To
determine whether individual funding agencies have taken actions on
their own to address the compliance issues we had raised, we contacted
the five funding agencies that were included in our 1999 report: DOD,
DOE, NASA, NIH, and NSF. We found that all but one of the agencies had
taken some action, but that the actions varied in scope and
application.
DOD:
DOD has taken no agency-wide actions to improve compliance with the
reporting requirements of the Bayh-Dole Act, because the responsibility
for monitoring technology created through extramural research programs
is left to the individual services and agencies. Even at this level,
oversight of compliance is sometimes decentralized. Thus, we asked each
of the military services to outline any changes they have made to
improve compliance with reporting requirements. In this regard, the Air
Force said that it has started using NIH‘s monitoring and tracking
system for grant-related reporting at its Office of Scientific Research
Division.
The Navy responded that it has done nothing agency-wide except work
with other federal agencies to establish uniform reporting requirements
for reporting inventions under Federal Assistance Agreements in
response to the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act
of 1999.[Footnote 14] One Navy official said he expected to have a
Federal Register Notice policy letter on this subject in the near
future. Within the agency, the Office of Naval Research had undertaken
two initiatives. One was to contract with two retired Navy patent
attorneys to check the accuracy of inventions reported on forms
submitted by contractors and grantees at the close of their research
projects. This initiative has resulted in the identification of several
unreported inventions. The second initiative concerns a study of ways
to modify procurement procedures to improve the probability of
technology transitions, including the identification of inventions.
The Army also has made no agency-wide changes in response to our 1999
report. However, the patent attorneys assigned to individual Army
commands and units reported changes they have made. Some of the changes
include revising filing systems to improve followup on invention
disclosure reports, making specific requests for contractors to
complete confirmatory licenses, submitting information to contractors
related to the rights they and the government have in inventions,
instituting a new database for recording confirmatory licenses,
requiring contractors to report through NIH‘s ’Interagency Edison“
(iEdison) system, improving training in inventions reporting, and
establishing a Web site for contractors that outlines reporting
requirements.
DOE:
DOE officials said they have reduced the backlog in their filing of
confirmatory licenses with the USPTO through the implementation of two
efforts to improve tracking. The first was the implementation of a
centralized DOE database, with data entry being done by the applicable
field office. This system includes codes showing when confirmatory
licenses are required, have been received, have been sent to
headquarters for filing, and have been sent to the USPTO for recording.
The second effort involved a change in the database to be able to
verify that a contractor or grantee has elected to retain title to an
invention within the required period and to show that the USPTO has
recorded the confirmatory license.
NASA:
A NASA official said NASA has taken several steps to improve compliance
since our 1999 report was issued. First, NASA adopted a policy to
clarify within the agency that software created by or for NASA was a
valuable technology and was to be reported and administered as any
other invention, discovery, improvement, or innovation. Second, NASA
implemented a Web-based system--integrated into its tracking and
monitoring system--that contractors and grantees can voluntarily use to
report inventions. Third, NASA issued new policy guidance to formalize
existing NASA policies on reporting new technologies and innovations.
NIH:
NIH noted that our report had not led to any formal changes to
reporting regulations but that, nonetheless, NIH has taken action by
actively engaging in outreach and contractor/grantee education and by
refining the agency‘s electronic monitoring and tracking system to
reinforce the importance of Bayh-Dole Act reporting. From an outreach
standpoint, NIH began, in fiscal year 2000, a series of proactive site
visits ’intended to facilitate dialogue regarding NIH policies and
statutory regulations in a non-crisis, non-adversarial manner.“ These
site visits were also seen as a ’means to enhance administrative
oversight of sponsored research and enhance compliance.“:
Each NIH site visit consisted of interviews with key staff and a
seminar where specific reporting requirements and compliance topics
were discussed. NIH conducted 10 such visits in fiscal year 2000 and an
additional 8 visits in fiscal year 2001. The fiscal year 2001 visits
were expanded to include invitations to contractors and grantees within
the same geographic area. NIH also put together, on its Web site, a
compendium of observations and comments from the fiscal year 2000 site
visits. In addition, NIH expanded its outreach through presentations on
reporting compliance at NIH-sponsored conferences.
NIH also said that it has taken steps to improve compliance with
reporting requirements by redesigning its iEdison electronic invention
tracking and monitoring system. NIH unveiled Edison in 1995 and the
system was regarded as a success. However, concerns recently have been
raised that it is using old technology in some cases. Thus, in fiscal
year 2001, NIH began a substantial redesign of Edison, incorporating
suggestions and refinements offered by a working group of institutional
administrators. The new system is scheduled for deployment in the fall
of 2002. NIH has also undertaken efforts to encourage more federal
agencies to employ iEdison as its own monitoring and tracking system.
NIH noted that an additional eight agencies have joined iEdison since
our 1999 report and said it was obtaining input from these agencies as
a part of the iEdison redesign project.
NIH noted that its efforts to improve compliance have led to a
substantial increase in the number of inventions and patents being
reported. By using iEdison, the entire reporting process--with the
exception of three documents required by law to be in writing--is now
electronic. Although the increase in reporting under iEdison has
created a backlog in NIH‘s acknowledgement of receipt of documents, NIH
has added support staff to address the problem.
NSF:
NSF officials said they have made no changes in response to our 1999
report.
Agency Officials Say Correcting Underlying Causes May Require
Congressional Action:
We did not attempt to determine whether the actions taken unilaterally
by the agencies have improved Bayh-Dole Act reporting compliance by
contractors and grantees. However, the actions have not addressed the
systemic problems--such as duplicate reporting--that we noted in our
1999 report.
Officials from the five funding agencies contacted told us that, while
they have taken and will continue to take actions to improve compliance
by contractors and grantees, they are not in a position to make some of
the changes suggested by our 1999 report, such as duplication in
reporting requirements, making the patent the sole instrument for
documenting the confirmatory license, and involving the USPTO in the
oversight function. Thus, while they generally believed the options we
raised in our 1999 report had merit, they believed the options required
congressional action to implement. Department of Commerce officials
agreed with this assessment.
Conclusions:
To be useful to the Congress, the annual reports the Technology
Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000 requires federal agencies to
submit to OMB and the Department of Commerce must be timely, complete,
accurate, consistent in the data elements that make up the statistics,
and presented in a meaningful way. In some cases, these characteristics
were missing in the first year of reporting under the act. The agencies
were late in reporting; the reports were sometimes incomplete,
inconsistent, or inaccurate; and the statistics reported were not
always based on the same data elements. Moreover, OMB did not have any
special procedures in place for accumulating the data so that such data
could be considered in developing the President‘s annual budget
submission to the Congress.
Officials from the Department of Commerce and the agencies submitting
reports under the act believe that the lessons learned in the first
year should improve future reporting. While this may be the case, we
believe that the Department of Commerce and OMB need to take additional
steps to ensure that the reports received are consistent in the data
they contain and that they are made a part of the annual budget
process. In this regard, the Department of Commerce needs to revise its
guidelines to clarify what data should be included in the reports and
how the data should be presented. In addition, OMB needs to develop
procedures for accumulating the information so that it can be
considered in developing the President‘s budget.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretary of Commerce revise the guidelines
issued to agencies for use in preparing the annual reports to be
submitted to OMB and Commerce as required by the Technology Transfer
Commercialization Act of 2000. The guidelines should clarify the
precise data elements to be included in each of the statistical
categories, thereby improving the level of precision in and
comparability of the agency reports.
We also recommend that the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget develop procedures for accumulating and considering, as a part
of the annual budget process, data submitted by federal agencies in the
annual reports on technology transfer required by the Technology
Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a copy of our draft report to the Department of Commerce
and the Office of Management and Budget for review and comment.
Commerce made favorable comments about the draft report, saying that it
was ’useful“ and provided a realistic analysis of the first cycle of
the new reporting process under the Technology Transfer
Commercialization Act of 2000. Commerce said that our recommendations
were reasonable and that their adoption would improve reporting during
the next cycle.
Commerce noted that its own summary report mandated by the act would
discuss technology transfer activities governmentwide. Commerce was
concerned some persons might be confused if they tried to compare the
statistics in the Commerce report with those in our report, which
addressed the activities of a ’selected subset“ of nine agencies, and
recommended that we ’note this discrepancy.“ While we agree that the
reports have different statistical bases, we believe our report is
clear on this point; thus, we made no changes in this regard. Commerce
also noted that it had worked closely with federal agencies providing
statistics for its summary report, that it would be including
information in some categories where GAO said the statistics were ’not
provided,“ and that it would be pleased to provide us with its most
current agency data. We obtained the updated statistics and, where
appropriate, revised our report to include these as well as certain
other minor clarifications suggested by the Commerce official providing
the data.
Commerce agreed with our recommendation dealing with the guidelines.
Commerce also noted that it had devoted substantial effort to preparing
the earlier guidelines but that the ’detail of the data requested, the
importance of clear definitions, and the evolving state of the federal
labs‘ databases concerning their technology transfer activities
emphasize the importance of continuing review of data collection
procedures.“ In this regard, Commerce said it had already included this
topic on its agenda for near-term discussion with the Interagency
Working Group on Technology Transfer so that the necessary changes
could be made before the next cycle of agency reporting gets underway.
Finally, Commerce agreed with our recommendation that OMB play a larger
role in developing procedures for accumulating, collating, and
reporting the data required by the Technology Transfer
Commercialization Act of 2000. Commerce noted that uncertainties about
the submission process were a contributing factor to agencies‘ being
late in submitting their reports during the first year of the act‘s
implementation and said that, even though the agencies submitting
reports to OMB and Commerce should have some flexibility, specific
guidance from OMB would clarify what the reporting agencies are to do.
The full text of the comments provided by the Department of Commerce is
included as appendix IX.
OMB, in oral comments, said that the overall thrust of our
recommendation that it develop procedures for accumulating and
considering agency information, as part of the annual budget process,
was reasonable. OMB added that as a result of the information presented
in the draft report, it would consider incorporating guidance on
reporting on technology transfer activities into Circular A-11, which
provides agencies with instructions on preparation and submission of
budget materials to OMB. OMB also provided some technical
clarifications that we incorporated as appropriate.
We conducted our work from October 2001 through September 2002 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix I contains the details of our scope and methodology.
We will send copies of this report to the appropriate House and Senate
committees; interested Members of Congress; the Secretary of Commerce;
and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also make
copies available to others upon request. The report will also be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If
you have any questions about this report, please call me at (202) 512-
6225. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix X.
John B. Stephenson
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Signed by John B. Stephenson
List of Committees:
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
Chairman
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate:
The Honorable Ron Wyden
Chairman
The Honorable George Allen
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Science, Technology,
and Space
Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation
United States Senate:
The Honorable Howard Coble
Chairman
The Honorable Howard L. Berman
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and
Intellectual Property
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Vernon J. Ehlers
Chairman
The Honorable James A. Barcia
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology,
and Standards
Committee on Science
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
As required by the Bayh-Dole Act and the Technology Transfer
Commercialization Act of 2000 (TTCA), we conducted our periodic review
on the implementation of both acts. In discussions with staff from the
appropriate committees, we agreed to provide information on how federal
agencies had identified, patented, and licensed inventions created in
their own facilities during fiscal years 1997-2001. We agreed that we
would also determine (1) the extent to which the agencies complied with
the TTCA requirement to submit reports on their technology transfer
activities to the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of
Commerce at the time they submit their fiscal year 2003 budget requests
and (2) what the agencies have done--since the issuance of our 1999
report on the issue--to improve compliance with reporting requirements
under the Bayh-Dole Act for inventions created under contracts and
grants.
For our first objective, we reviewed reports on research funding
prepared by the National Science Foundation (NSF) showing estimated
intramural and extramural research obligations for each federal agency
for fiscal year 2001. Using these reports, we selected nine agencies
that had obligated at least $500 million in intramural research funds
during the fiscal year. These agencies were the Agricultural Research
Service (ARS) within the Department of Agriculture; the Department of
the Air Force within the Department of Defense (DOD); the Department of
the Army within DOD; the Department of Energy (DOE); the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce;
the National Institutes of Health (NIH) within the Department of Health
and Human Services; the Department of the Navy within DOD; and the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) within the Department of the Interior. For
each of these agencies, we interviewed officials and reviewed
documentation to obtain information on the design and approach of their
programs for transferring technology created in the agencies‘
facilities by agency employees and contractors. We also asked each
agency to provide (1) statistics on its technology transfer output or
activities for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 to the extent such
statistics were available and (2) specific examples of the types of
technologies it had developed.
For our second objective, we obtained the guidelines developed by the
Department of Commerce, in conjunction with the Interagency Working
Group on Technology Transfer, to assist federal agencies in preparing
annual reports required by the TTCA. We then contacted each of the nine
agencies we had selected under our first objective to determine how
those agencies had complied with the TTCA reporting requirements. In
this regard, we obtained the agencies‘ reports where available,
compared these to the data we obtained from the agencies under the
first objective, attempted to resolve any anomalies in the data with
the agency officials, and met with officials to determine what problems
they encountered in complying with the TTCA requirements and the
Commerce guidelines. We also held discussions with Commerce and Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) officials regarding overall compliance
and the use that these agencies were making of the individual agency
reports in fulfilling their own requirements under the TTCA.
For our third objective, we analyzed the activities of the agencies
that were included in our 1999 report on the Bayh-Dole Act entitled
Technology Transfer: Reporting Requirements for Federally Sponsored
Inventions Need Revision (GAO/RCED-99-242, Aug. 12, 1999). These
agencies were DOD, DOE, NASA, NIH, and NSF. We contacted each of these
agencies and asked them to provide information on what they had done to
improve compliance by contractors and grantees under the Bayh-Dole Act
since the issuance of our report:
We did not independently verify the statistical information provided by
the agencies. However, we did ask for clarification in cases where the
statistics we obtained for our first objective appeared to conflict
with statistics that the same agencies provided to OMB and Commerce
that we reviewed as a part of our second objective.
We conducted our work from October 2001 through September 2002 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Federal Obligations for Research and Development, Fiscal
Year 2001, for Nine Selected Agencies:
Dollars in millions[A].
Agency.
Agricultural Research Service; Total[B]:
$968.7; Research type: Extramural: $40.8;
Research type: Intramural: $927.9;
[Empty]; Character of work: Basic:
$523.1; Character of work: Applied: $358.4;
Character of work: Development: $87.2.
Air Force; Total[B]: 13,745.6;
Research type: Extramural: 12,662.1;
Research type: Intramural: 1,083.5;
[Empty]; Character of work: Basic:
206.9; Character of work: Applied: 590.9;
Character of work: Development: 12,947.8.
Army; Total[B]: 5,310.7;
Research type: Extramural: 3,238.3;
Research type: Intramural: 2,072.4;
[Empty]; Character of work: Basic:
204.3; Character of work: Applied: 639.0;
Character of work: Development: 4,467.4.
Department of Energy; Total[B]: 6,793.5;
Research type: Extramural: 5,922.4;
Research type: Intramural: 871.0;
[Empty]; Character of work: Basic: 2,383.6;
Character of work: Applied: 2,140.0;
Character of work: Development: 2,269.8.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Total[B]: 9,602.4; Research type: Extramural:
7,105.5; Research type: Intramural: 2,496.9;
[Empty]; Character of
work: Basic: 1,898.3; Character of work:
Applied: 2,802.7; Character of work:
Development: 4,901.4.
National Institutes of Health; Total[B]:
17,870.4; Research type: Extramural: 14,789.8;
Research type: Intramural: 3,080.7;
[Empty]; Character of work: Basic:
10,397.1; Character of work: Applied: 5,115.5;
Character of work: Development: 2,357.8.
Navy; Total[B]: 8,748.6;
Research type: Extramural: 5,402.6;
Research type: Intramural: 3,346.0;
[Empty]; Character of work: Basic:
396.1; Character of work: Applied: 532.8;
Character of work: Development: 7,819.7.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
Total[B]: 591.2; Research type:
Extramural: 86.0; Research type: Intramural:
505.2; [Empty];
Character of work: Basic: 5.2; Character of
work: Applied: 562.9; Character of work:
Development: 23.1.
United States Geological Survey; Total[B]:
553.8; Research type: Extramural: 36.8; Dollars
in Research type: Intramural: 517.0;
[Empty]; Character of work: Basic:
55.4; Character of work: Applied: 463.8;
Character of work: Development: 34.6.
Total for nine agencies[B]; Total[B]:
$64,184.9; Research type: Extramural:
$49,284.3; Research type: Intramural:
$14,900.6; [Empty];
Character of work: Basic: $16,070.0; Character
of work: Applied: $13,206.0; Character of work:
Development: $34,908.8.
Total for all agencies[B]; Total[B]: $81,526.2;
Research type: Extramural: $62,173.6; Dollars
in Research type: Intramural: $19,352.4;
[Empty]; Character of work: Basic:
$20,274.4; Character of work: Applied:
$18,413.7; Character of work: Development:
$42,838.1.
[A] Statistics are based on preliminary estimates.
[B] Totals may vary because of rounding.
Source: National Science Foundation.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Descriptions of Technology Transfer Programs Established
by Nine Selected Federal Agencies:
There is no single agency overseeing technology transfer in the federal
government. Rather, each agency with laboratories or otherwise involved
in technology transfer establishes its own program tied to its mission,
objectives, and priorities. The following are brief descriptions of the
research and technology transfer programs of nine federal agencies with
intramural research obligations of at least $500 million in fiscal year
2001.
Agricultural Research Service:
The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the principal in-house
research agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. ARS‘ mission is
to conduct research to develop and transfer solutions to agricultural
problems of high national priority; provide access to and disseminate
information to ensure safe food and other high-quality agricultural
products; assess the nutritional needs of Americans; sustain a
competitive agricultural economy; enhance the natural resource base and
the environment; and provide economic opportunities for rural citizens,
communities, and society as a whole.
ARS also works to ensure the timely transfer of new knowledge and
technologies to potential users. In this regard, ARS seeks to broaden
public understanding of the value of agriculture and agricultural
research to ensure the continued primacy of U.S. agriculture in the
21st century.
Research:
ARS conducts research at over 100 locations across the country and at
four overseas laboratories. ARS‘ research is organized into 22 national
programs. These programs are intended to bring coordination,
communication, and empowerment to the more than 1,200 research projects
carried out by ARS. The programs focus on the relevance, impact, and
quality of ARS research.
In fiscal year 2001, ARS obligated a total of $968.7 million for
research and development. Of this amount, $523.1 million, or 54
percent, went to basic research; $358.4 million, or 37 percent went to
applied research; and the remaining $87.2 million, or 9 percent, went
to development. Most of this funding was obligated for ARS‘ own
laboratories, with $927.9 million, or 95.8 percent, for intramural
research, and $40.8 million, or 4.2 percent, for extramural research.
Technology Transfer:
The Secretary of Agriculture has delegated ARS the authority to
administer the technology transfer program department-wide. ARS has
centralized its technology transfer activities in its Office of
Technology Transfer (OTT), which is responsible for protecting
intellectual property, developing strategic partnerships with outside
institutions, and performing other appropriate functions to enhance the
effective transfer of ARS technologies to users.
OTT is organized into four sections:
* The administrative/headquarters section coordinates the development
of technology transfer policy and signs licenses and cooperative
research and development agreements (CRADA).
* The patent section assists scientists in protecting intellectual
property, coordinates invention reports, prepares and prosecutes patent
applications, and oversees patent applications prepared by contract law
firms.
* The licensing section conducts marketing for selected technologies
and negotiates licenses for intellectual property.
* The marketing section conducts targeted marketing and distributes
information on technologies that are available for licensing or
cooperative partnerships and publicizes information about the
commercial successes of ARS research.
Technology Transfer Coordinators are located at field locations and are
responsible for facilitating the development and effective transfer of
technologies. They serve as liaison with the agency‘s own scientists
and managers as well as universities and the private sector. They also
have the authority to negotiate CRADAs, licenses, and other technology
transfer agreements.
As shown in table 1 of appendix IV, ARS received $2.6 million from
licensing income during fiscal year 2001, ranking behind only National
Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Energy (DOE) among the
nine agencies included in our review. However, an ARS official said
that generating income is not the primary objective of their technology
transfer program. He said that, while intellectual property protection
may be required to justify the cost of commercial development by a
licensee, many excellent original ideas are best transferred to those
who need the information by using scientific publications or other
methods--such as electronic media, field days, demonstration projects
or public release--that do not involve patenting. If protection is
needed, it generally is achieved through applying for a patent. In
deciding whether to seek a patent, ARS‘ first consideration is to
determine if protection would enhance the likelihood that the
technology will be transferred to the private sector.
ARS generally grants exclusive or partially exclusive licenses. Of the
31 new licenses executed in fiscal year 2001, for example, 21 were
exclusive and 7 were partially exclusive. An ARS official said that
most companies would not spend the resources necessary to develop and
market a product unless they are granted a license with some degree of
exclusivity. License fees and royalties are negotiated on a case-by-
case basis and depend upon several factors, including the scope of
rights granted, the size of the potential market, and the time and
financial investment required by the licensee to bring a product to
market. Negotiated royalty rates are based upon the anticipated profit
margins for the product to be marketed by the licensee.
ARS license income is distributed in compliance with the Federal
Technology Transfer Act of 1986. Government inventors collectively
divide, as an incentive award, the first $2,000 of income received by
ARS from each license and 25 percent of the income over $2,000 each
year up to a maximum of $150,000 per inventor each year.
Examples of Technologies Developed:
ARS has had a number of successful technology transfer outcomes. For
example, ARS received royalties from three of its patented soybean
varieties, which have been licensed to three different companies. The
varieties are the first improved forage-type soybean cultivars bred for
animal feed and can be used for grazing, hay or silage over a wide
geographic area of the United States. ARS also made 46 plant germplasm
releases to U.S. farmers, nurseries, breeders, and researchers to help
speed transfer of those technologies to the public.[Footnote 15] The
releases included a new citrus rootstock and new wheat, dry pea,
potato, soybean, chickpea, lentil, grape, raisin, blueberry, small dry
bean, and plum varieties as well as several new germplasm lines with
enhancements or improved qualities.
ARS is also working with another U.S. Department of Agriculture agency
and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services on a
5-year initiative to help U.S. southern states combat Red Imported Fire
Ants. Under the initiative, Florida‘s Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services will rear a special fly species that specifically
parasitizes fire ants. The flies will then be shipped to state-managed
field sites for release in southern states. ARS researchers brought the
fly to their U.S. facilities several years ago from Brazil, and have
since mastered biological control strategies using the fly to attack
fire ant populations.
Department of the Air Force:
The mission of the Department of Air Force is to defend the United
States and protect its interests through aerospace power. Achieving
this mission requires competencies in aerospace superiority, global
attack, rapid global mobility, precision engagement, information
superiority, and agile combat support.
Research:
The Air Force‘s primary research arm is the Air Force Research
Laboratory, which itself is a component of the Air Force Materiel
Command. The Air Force Research Laboratory‘s mission is to lead the
discovery, development, and integration of affordable war-fighting
technologies for the aerospace forces. The laboratory conducts and
sponsors research and development through nine technology directorates
devoted to specific research areas and located throughout the United
States.
In fiscal year 2001, the Air Force obligated a total of $13.7 billion
for research and development, with $206.9 million, or 1.5 percent, for
basic research; $590.9 million, or 4.3 percent, for applied research;
and
$12.9 billion, or 94.2 percent, for development. The majority of the
research and development budget went to contractors and grantees, with
$12.6 billion, or 92.1 percent, spent on extramural projects and $1.1
billion, or 7.9 percent, spent on intramural projects.
Technology Transfer:
The Air Force Research Laboratory manages the Air Force‘s technology
transfer program for intramural research. However, the program itself
is decentralized, with each directorate having its own technology
transfer focal point and intellectual property team. The technology
transfer program team‘s primary objective is to enhance management of
technology transfer through streamlining the program execution and
providing guidance. Decisions on patenting and licensing are handled at
the directorate level. If the intellectual property team in a
directorate decides an invention should be patented, the Air Force
Research Laboratory pays for the costs of obtaining the patent as well
as the first maintenance fee.[Footnote 16] Thereafter the directorates
elect whether to pay the second and third maintenance fees. Similarly,
the individual teams in the directorates are responsible for attempting
commercialization and executing licenses for the technologies.
According to an Air Force official, the Air Force seeks patent
protection on inventions that have significant military potential or
commercial value. In this regard, the Air Force is ensuring that the
government‘s rights in federally funded technologies are protected for
future use by the Department of Defense (DOD). The official said that
the Air Force seeks to develop and exploit its inventions through
CRADAs and patent licenses, with one of its objectives being the
potential cost savings to DOD and the public that can be realized
through higher volume production. He also noted, however, that the Air
Force has had limited success in translating inventions developed
primarily for military purposes into commercial products.
The Air Force has no centralized database or monitoring system for Air
Force inventions. Rather, the inventions are tracked by the
directorates that created them. The Air Force is in the process of
implementing an information management system originally developed by
the Navy. When operational, this system will serve as a centralized
database and tracking system for intramural inventions Air Force-wide.
Example of Technologies Developed:
As one example of a commercially successful invention, Air Force
officials cited their creation of a less costly and more
environmentally friendly system for removing snow from airplanes. In
the past, ethylene glycol and propylene glycol were used to de-ice
airplanes. However, after being sprayed onto aircraft, these chemicals
typically escape onto the pavement, where they can contaminate streams
and ground water. Consequently, the Environmental Protection Agency
established limits for these materials in surface water, and airports
must employ costly procedures to retain and dispose of the glycol
runoff. The snow removal system developed by the Air Force uses
compressed air to blow snow and unattached ice off airplane wings. It
then puts a thin film of heated glycol on the cleaned wing to melt any
residual ice. The new, forced-air technology often cleans a wing in a
single step without using any glycol and, even when glycol is required,
the amount needed can be 70-90 percent less than when heated glycol
alone is used. The Air Force estimates that its invention can save
$21,000-$27,000 per plane over the previous method.
Department of the Army:
The Department of the Army‘s mission is to organize, train, and equip
its forces to fight and win the nation‘s wars and achieve directed
national objectives. In this regard, the Army has a multi-billion
dollar research and development program that involves varied research
efforts to improve defensive and offensive capabilities. These efforts
include developing new materials, equipment, and systems to enhance the
Army‘s military capabilities.
Research:
In fiscal year 2001, the Army obligated $5.3 billion for research and
development, with $204.3 million, or 3.8 percent, for basic research;
$639.0 million or 12.0 percent, for applied research; and $4.5 billion,
or
84.1 percent, for development. The bulk of this funding went to
contractors and grantees, with $3.2 billion, or 60.9 percent, for
extramural projects and $2.1 billion, or 39.1 percent, for intramural
projects.
Technology Transfer:
Army officials said that their technology transfer activities are
intended to work in synergy with U.S. industry to strengthen the
military and the nation‘s economy. The Army recognized that a common
military and private sector production base increases military strength
and bolsters the private sector economy. Thus, the technology transfer
program began with transferring ’spin-off‘ technology from military
research to private industry. It has evolved to include ’dual-use“ and
’spin-on“ technology to transfer technology between the military and
the private sector. Some Army officials believe that licensing Army
technology to private industry results in economies of scale that will
decrease the Army‘s procurement costs.
The Army‘s technology transfer function is decentralized in that there
is no one group or office that oversees intellectual property. Rather,
each command is responsible for managing the property it has created.
The Domestic Technology Transfer Program Office, under the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research Technology, provides
interpretation of DOD technology transfer regulations and issues
additional policy guidance to the field as necessary. The Army has also
designated an Intellectual Property Counsel to provide supervision,
guidance and assistance in intellectual property matters.
The Army has established an Office of Research Technology Applications
at 43 Army research facilities. Office of Research Technology
Applications personnel, in addition to other duties, market and
commercialize Army inventions. The Army also has patent counsels
located at 13 facilities. The patent counsels provide guidance on the
patentability of inventions, prepare and file patent applications, and
provide legal assistance in preparation of patent license agreements.
Office of Research Technology Applications personnel and the patent
counsels can negotiate license agreements. Each command or facility is
responsible for monitoring and tracking its own inventions, patents,
and license agreements. There is no centralized database at the service
level. Thus, if the Army wishes to develop statistics on technology
transfer, it must query the individual Office of Research Technology
Applications and patent counsels.
Twelve Army research units reported technology transfer activities
during fiscal year 2001, but they differed significantly in the level
of these activities. Three units, for example, accounted for 81.8
percent of the $845,472 in licensing income the Army received in fiscal
year 2001. The Corps of Engineers‘ Humphreys Engineer Center was by far
the largest, accounting for 47.2 percent of all licensing income,
followed by the Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center
with
21.3 percent and the Army Medical Research and Materiel Command with
13.4 percent.
Examples of Technologies Developed:
Army officials pointed to several technologies they viewed as
successful. For example, researchers at the Engineer Research and
Development Center have developed a concrete armor unit that can reduce
the cost of breakwater construction by nearly half. This invention has
been patented and trademarked in the United States and foreign
countries. The Army has awarded multiple licenses for the technology,
which is gaining acceptance in the coastal engineering community.
The Army Research Laboratory developed a new ceramic material with both
military and commercial applications. This ferro-electric ceramic
material should increase communications capabilities and reduce cost.
One of the applications includes low-cost tunable scanning antennas for
communications satellites. The Army licensed the patents that are the
heart of this ceramic material technology to a private company. The
company has since grown from 4 to 90 employees and has developed the
technology for use in areas such as cell phones and direct satellite
communications systems. Army officials expect the technology to attract
$8 million in private research and development funds in research areas
of direct interest to the Army and also anticipate substantial royalty
income. They also believe that the licensing will lead to dual-use
production that will benefit the civilian and military sectors in the
area of broadband wireless communications.
Researchers at the Army‘s Edgewood Chemical Biological Center invented,
developed, and patented a new method for detecting, measuring, and
identifying viruses and nanoparticles in near real time. Using this
technology, viruses can be counted and identified using only physical
properties without the use of complicated chemistry or reagents. The
Army expects the technology to be useful in developing new products
such as vaccines. In addition, the technology may help researchers
develop a wide range of materials such as paints, coatings, and
transparent films. This technology could benefit the computer industry
by leading to more complex devices with improved nanometer-sized
separations and tolerances. According to the Army, commercialization of
this new technology may result in $200 million in new instrumentation,
enhance scientific advancement, and increase our understanding of
viruses.
Department of Energy:
The Department of Energy (DOE) manages the government‘s energy-related
research and development efforts and oversees a large portion of its
scientific and technological infrastructure. DOE‘s five-fold mission is
to (1) foster a secure and reliable energy system that is
environmentally and economically sustainable; (2) be a responsible
steward of the nation‘s nuclear weapons; (3) clean up DOE‘s nuclear
facilities; (4) lead in the physical sciences and advance the
biological, environmental, and computational sciences; and (5) provide
premier scientific instruments for the nation‘s research enterprise.
Research:
Research and development are at the heart of DOE‘s mission. In fiscal
year 2001, DOE obligated a total of $6.8 billion dollars for research
and development with $2.4 billion, or 35.1 percent, for basic research;
$2.1 billion, or 31.5 percent, for applied research; and $2.3 billion,
or
33.4 percent, for development. Extramural research--mostly conducted by
DOE‘s government-owned, contractor-operated laboratories--accounted
for $5.9 billion, or 87.2 percent, of the total research budget, while
intramural research accounted for $871.0 million, or 12.8 percent.
Technology Transfer:
Recognizing that its scientific advances must be paired with effective
technology transfer mechanisms, DOE has authorized 24 of its facilities
to engage in technology partnering activities such as licensing
arrangements; CRADAs; and the development, transfer, and exploitation
of federally owned or originated technology. In addition, DOE
administers a number of programs aimed at advancing science through
accelerating and ensuring the widespread use of new technologies. For
example:
* Within the Office of Environmental Management, the Office of
Technology Applications facilitates the application of new
technologies, processes, and knowledge to environmental management
problems and develops initiatives, policies, and procedures that unite
end users, regulators, stakeholders, technology vendors, and technology
developers.
* The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy‘s Office of
Industrial Technologies strives to deliver advanced energy technology
through partnerships with industry, government, and non-governmental
organizations.
* The Office of Science‘s Laboratory Technology Research program
focuses on establishing cost-shared partnerships with the private
sector.
* DOE offers a number of programs that promote small business‘s role in
the development and commercialization of federally funded technologies.
As shown in table 1 of appendix IV, DOE had more invention disclosures,
patent applications, patents issued, patents in force, licenses
executed, licenses in force, and licenses earning income in fiscal year
2001 than any of the eight other agencies included in our review. Also,
DOE was second only to NIH in licensing income, with $21.4 million
received during the fiscal year.
Most of the inventions produced from DOE funds are developed at DOE‘s
contractor-operated facilities. In fiscal year 2001, for example,
contractor-operated facilities obtained patents for approximately 540
inventions and received about $21 million in licensing royalties.
According to a DOE official, some inventions developed at contractor-
operated facilities are exempt from patenting since they include
technologies--such as those involving nuclear reactors--that cannot be
made available to the public. For various reasons, DOE contractors on
occasion choose not to apply for patents on the technologies they have
created. When this happens, DOE can elect to retain title to the
invention and to apply for a patent. If DOE elects not to pursue a
patent, it may be possible for the inventor to file a patent
application in his or her own name. In any event, the technology is
also frequently published in the scientific literature.
DOE officials said that they produce relatively few inventions in the
laboratories DOE itself operates. In addition, they said that the
inventions that are created in DOE laboratories involve technologies
that are not easily commercialized.
All DOE sites, regardless of their intramural or extramural status,
submit invention disclosure information to DOE through an automated
data system. The system tracks the status of each invention and has the
capability of providing a complete record of the invention‘s status.
Licensing activities are concentrated in the individual laboratories,
and the contractors have the responsibility for attempting
commercialization of their DOE-funded inventions. DOE itself does not
normally become involved in the licensing negotiations nor does it
maintain statistics on specific licenses executed by the individual
laboratories.
DOE‘s licenses cover various types of property, with patents accounting
for 55.4 percent, copyrights accounting for 38.4 percent, and other
properties, accounting for 6.2 percent of licenses executed in fiscal
year 2001. Most licenses are nonexclusive, accounting for 85.2 percent
of the licenses executed in fiscal year 2001.
Examples of Technologies Developed:
DOE facilities have produced and successfully transferred many
inventions DOE believes have technical significance, uniqueness, and
promise of real-world application. For example, one invention based on
DOE-funded research, the CombiSep MCE 2000, is poised to become a
leading chemical separation instrument. This invention employs
multiplexed capillary electrophoresis using absorption detection to
rapidly separate samples of complex chemical or biochemical
mixture.[Footnote 17] It has the ability to decipher an individual‘s
entire genetic code faster, more accurately, and less expensively than
conventional instrumentation. The director of Ames Laboratory‘s
Chemical and Biological Sciences Program developed the multiplexed
capillary electrophoresis technology and subsequently helped establish
a start-up company to turn his discoveries into a commercial
instrument. Within 9 months, the company had designed, tested, and sold
the first instrument.
Technologies related to a new catalyst for fuel cell development have
also been transferred successfully. Developed at DOE‘s Argonne National
Laboratory, the new fuel cell technology is the key component of a fuel
processor that efficiently converts methanol, ethanol, natural gas,
gasoline, and diesel into hydrogen that can be fed to a fuel cell to
produce electricity. This fuel flexibility, a shorter startup time, and
lower operating temperatures will help make fuel-cell-powered
automobiles practical and may accelerate bringing ultra-efficient,
environmentally friendly electric cars into the marketplace. The
technology will be manufactured and distributed under a licensing
agreement between the Argonne National Laboratory and a private
company.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was created to
undertake civilian research, development, and flight activities in
aeronautics and space to maintain the country‘s preeminence in those
areas. NASA conducts its research through laboratories in headquarters,
nine field installations, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory--the
agency‘s only government-owned, contractor-operated facility--operated
by the California Institute of Technology.
Research:
In fiscal year 2001, NASA obligated $9.6 billion for research and
development, with $1.9 billion, or 19.8 percent, for basic research;
$2.8 billion, or 29.2 percent, for applied research; and $4.9 billion,
or
51 percent, for development. NASA obligated $7.1 billion, or 74
percent, for extramural research and $2.5 billion, or 26 percent, for
intramural research.
Technology Transfer:
NASA has both an intellectual property program and a commercial
technology program. NASA‘s Office of General Counsel administers its
intellectual property program. The office develops policy and
establishes operations necessary to protect, maintain, license, use,
and dispose of intellectual property rights in inventions, discoveries,
innovations, writings, etc. that are created, acquired or used in the
performance of NASA programs. The program is intended to (1) stimulate
the creation, identification, and use of new technology in NASA
programs; (2) foster the widest practical and appropriate dissemination
and commercial utilization of new technology arising out of agency
programs; (3) protect the government‘s interests in intellectual
property; (4) respect private interests in intellectual property; and
(5) recognize and reward innovation.
NASA‘s commercial technology program, which is a part of the Office of
Aerospace Technology, includes commercial programs, technology
transfer agents, and the Small Business Innovation Research Program.
The purpose of the commercial programs is to share the harvest of
NASA‘s technology program with the U.S. industrial and scientific
community. The technology transfer agents facilitate the transfer of
NASA and other federally sponsored research and technology to the U.S.
private sector for commercial application, thereby enhancing U.S.
industrial growth and economic competitiveness. The goal of NASA‘s
Small Business Innovation Research Program is to promote the widest
possible award of NASA research contracts to the small business
community as well as to promote commercialization of the results of
this research by the small business community.
NASA uses its TechTracS data system for monitoring and tracking
intramural inventions. Invention disclosures are sent to the Office of
Patent Counsel, where decisions are made about whether patent
applications should be filed. If a patent application is filed,
commercial program personnel are tasked with the marketing effort.
Commercialization efforts are varied. New technologies are featured on
NASA‘s website. On occasion, NASA uses direct marketing through email.
Also, inventors may provide leads to technology transfer professionals
who, in turn, contact industry associates to inform them of new
inventions.
Like other contractors working on federally sponsored research, the
California Institute of Technology has the first option to retain title
to inventions developed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and is
entitled to receive 100 percent of the royalties from patent licenses.
However, NASA is entitled to patent any inventions that the California
Institute of Technology declines and has assigned a patent counsel to
its management office at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory to handle these
inventions.
Many of NASA‘s licenses have some degree of exclusivity because of the
amount of money that is normally required to bring one of NASA‘s
inventions to market. NASA officials said that venture capitalists
often require some exclusivity in order to loan money to the licensees.
Normally there is not a lot of competition in licensing. If more than
one party wants to license the same technology, NASA will usually try
to license it to both parties and divide it by the field of use. About
95 percent of NASA‘s licenses are issued to small businesses.
NASA shares its licensing income with the inventors. In addition to an
award of $500 when a regular patent application is filed, an inventor
receives the first $5,000 of the royalties collected and 25 percent of
the balance accumulated each fiscal year under each license. However,
no one inventor can receive more than $150,000 per calendar year
without presidential approval. A slightly different formula is used if
there is more than one inventor.
Examples of Technologies Developed:
In order to maintain awareness of successful transfer and application
of technology by industry and the public, NASA compiles ’success
stories“ showing examples of how its technology is utilized. In one
such example, NASA researchers at the Langley Research Center developed
a method of producing two distinct wavelengths from a single laser. The
technology was discovered and developed in support of one of the
agency‘s remote sensing programs as a method of measuring the wind
speed or the density of atmospheric constituents. In the past,
applications that demanded more than one wavelength required building a
system with multiple laser cavities, which greatly increased the cost
and complexity of a laser device. When officials from a New Jersey
start-up company learned of the invention, they believed it could be
used to develop a dental laser that would break the price barrier that
has kept painless laser dentistry out of reach for most dentists and
their patients. A company scientist will be working to refine the
inventions in the NASA Langley Research Center Laboratory. The goal of
this work is to produce the two specific wavelengths that have been
approved by the FDA for use in dentistry. One of these wavelengths is
effective on hard tissue, such as teeth, and will replace the dentist‘s
drill. The other wavelength is effective on soft tissue, such as gums,
and will replace the scalpel for gum surgery.
As a second example, NASA scientists at the Marshall Space Flight
Center developed Video Image Stabilization and Registration, a system
that improves the clarity of video footage by correcting distortion
caused by adverse conditions. A video processing algorithm is used to
co-align video image fields by analyzing the picture pixel and removing
the effects of translation, magnification, and rotation. The system was
successfully used to assist the FBI in analyzing video footage of the
deadly 1996 Olympic Summer Games bombing in Atlanta, Georgia. An
Alabama company has employed this technology to develop its trademark
Video Analyst System, which offers broadcast-quality analysis features
on Intel-based hardware. Several law enforcement organizations have
purchased the system. It also can be used in tollbooths, airports, and
emergency vehicles. The military can use this technology for
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.
The National Institutes of Health:
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) cites its mission as ’science
in pursuit of fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of
living systems and the application of that knowledge to extend healthy
life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability.“ In this regard,
NIH seeks to (1) foster fundamental creative discoveries, innovative
research strategies, and their applications as a basis to advance
significantly the nation‘s capacity to protect and improve health; (2)
develop, maintain, and renew scientific human and physical resources
that will assure the nation‘s capability to prevent disease;
(3) expand the knowledge base in biomedical and associated sciences to
enhance the nation‘s economic well-being and ensure a continued high
return on the public investment in research; and (4) exemplify and
promote the highest level of scientific integrity, public
accountability, and social responsibility in the conduct of science.
Research:
NIH conducts and supports research in the causes, diagnosis,
prevention, and cure of human diseases; in the processes of human
growth and development; in the biological effects of environmental
contaminants; in the understanding of mental, addictive and physical
disorders; and in directing programs for the collection, dissemination,
and exchange of information in medicine and health, including the
development and support of medical libraries and the training of
medical librarians and other health information specialists. In fiscal
year 2001, NIH obligated $17.9 billion for research and development,
with $10.4 billion, or
58.1 percent, for basic research; $5.1 billion, or 28.6 percent, for
applied research; and $2.4 billion, or 13.2 percent, for development.
Most of the budget went to contractors and grantees, with $14.8
billion, or
82.8 percent, obligated for extramural research and $3.1 billion, or
17.2 percent, obligated for intramural research. NIH conducts and
sponsors its intramural research through 27 institutes and centers
devoted to diverse areas of public health.
Technology Transfer:
As both a sponsor of and participant in biomedical research, NIH is an
aggressive proponent of technology transfer, noting that it ’has a dual
interest in accelerating scientific discovery and facilitating product
development.“ NIH‘s technology transfer program for intramural research
has both decentralized and centralized features. For example the agency
has centralized, within the OTT in the Office of the Director, the
coordination of all policies affecting technology transfer and
intellectual property matter, including the review of all proposed
CRADAs. The agency has decentralized activities regarding the
development and implementation of CRADAs, Clinical Trial Agreements,
and Material Transfer Agreements, however, by assigning these to the
institutes and centers. The individual institutes and centers are
responsible for advising their staff on technology transfer issues and
assisting them in determining when to disclose new technology by filing
Employee Invention Reports. The institutes and centers also provide the
OTT with their views on proposed patenting and licensing strategies and
the authorization of institute or center funds to pursue patenting
activities through the OTT. The OTT is funded through a special budget
review process and funds authorized are provided on a formula basis
from each institute and center that uses OTT services.
OTT has developed its own automated tracking system for monitoring
technology transfer activities for NIH‘s intramural research programs.
This system is separate from the iEdison system NIH uses for the
reporting of inventions under its extramural research programs. NIH
officials said that the intramural monitoring system is becoming
outdated and that they plan to replace it with NIH TechTracS, an
invention tracking system initially developed by NASA. After
significant modification by NIH staff, the new system will be the
official NIH technology transfer data system for fiscal year 2003
technology transfer activities.
NIH consistently leads all federal agencies in licensing income. As
shown in table 1 of appendix IV, NIH received $46.1 million in income
during fiscal year 2001, or 61.9 percent of the income received by all
9 agencies we reviewed. NIH had more than twice the income received by
DOE, the second largest agency in terms of income, and more than 17
times the income received by ARS, the third largest. Licensing income
varied widely among NIH‘s 27 institutes and centers, with three
institutes--the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute for
Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the National Heart, Lung, and
Blood Institute--accounting for the vast majority of revenues.
NIH receives licensing income from a variety of sources. The largest is
earned income based on the royalty schedules in the licensing
agreements. Other sources of income include ’execution“ fees charged
licensees upon entering the licensing agreements, ’minimum annual“ fees
required of licensees for remaining in their agreements with NIH, and
reimbursements by the licensees for NIH‘s costs of obtaining patents.
NIH officials said that the agency has become more selective in the
inventions they choose to patent. In this regard, they follow the
Public Health Services Technology Transfer Policy Manual, which
provides that patents on biomedical technologies should be sought only
when a patent would facilitate the availability of the technology to
the public for preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic, or research use or
other commercial use. Some institutes and centers have internal review
groups that provide opinions as to whether particular technologies
should be patented. In addition, the OTT conducts a detailed evaluation
of each technology and provides the information to the institute or
center with a recommendation. Ultimately, however, the decision on
whether to spend an institute‘s or center‘s funds to support the
patenting of a particular technology is the responsibility of the
institute or center. Even if the decision is not to patent, NIH may
seek to transfer the technology through other mechanisms. For example,
if the invention would be informative to those engaged in research or
otherwise beneficial to the public health but probably would not have a
sufficient commercial appeal, NIH might simply give notice through
publication. If the invention was a biological material that had
commercial appeal that would last for a relatively short time, NIH
might license it without seeking a patent. Patenting would be reserved
for inventions that require further research and development to protect
a substantial investment to be made by the licensee. In fiscal year
2001,
149 of the 200 licenses NIH executed were based on patented inventions
and the other 51 were based on nonpatented biological materials.
NIH officials said that it is NIH‘s policy to pursue nonexclusive or
co-exclusive licenses whenever possible. This allows more than one
company to develop products that use the same technology and may
ultimately compete with each other in the marketplace. They noted that
this practice is consistent with the agency‘s objective of
disseminating the results of its research as widely as possible and
fostering competition. For fiscal year 2001, NIH executed 153
nonexclusive, 44 exclusive, and 3 partially exclusive licenses among
the 200 licenses the agency executed in total.
The OTT has designated staff responsible for billing for royalties due
and reviewing income reports to ensure that licensees are paying the
appropriate amounts. When inconsistencies are found, the matter is
referred to OTT‘s Audit and Infringement group for resolution. In
addition, the Audit and Infringement group--which currently consists of
two persons--reviews audit reports that are submitted to the OTT in
accordance with license requirements and requests audits when necessary
to resolve questions regarding the payments the licensees make to NIH.
OTT contracts for these audits with private firms, with the costs borne
by the institute or center that is a party to the license.
Examples of Technologies Developed:
NIH has numerous technologies that have been successful in the
diagnosis and treatment of diseases and other medical conditions. For
example:
* Magnetic Resonance Imaging is a very popular non-invasive technique
in the radiologist‘s toolkit. However, it suffers from many
limitations, including insufficient resolution and the difficulty of
obtaining real-time pictures. Recent developments such as saturation
transfer techniques, which were developed at the NIH, have dramatically
improved both the spatial and temporal resolution of Magnetic Resonance
Imaging pictures. In saturation transfer, the exchange of protons
between tissue molecules and the water that surrounds them is examined.
Such measurements provide a wealth of information that can then be
analyzed for many different parameters including tissue structure,
motion, and viability. A number of major manufacturers have made
magnetization transfer a standard feature on Magnetic Resonance Imaging
machines, thus providing the users with the ability to push forward the
diagnostic utility of this technology.
* Licensed non-exclusively to a large number of companies, the NIH-
developed AIDS test kit can be credited with single-handedly increasing
the safety of the human blood supply and bringing about sharp declines
in AIDS cases due to blood transfusion. The original patent dealt with
the isolation, purification, characterization and scale-up of HIV, the
causative agent of AIDS. The potential of these discoveries were very
quickly realized with the rapid development of a blood test for AIDS.
NIH hopes that this patent, which describes the structure and
properties of HIV, will one day also lead to the development of
effective vaccines that can prevent the spread of this deadly scourge.
* Hepatitis A is probably the most widespread of viral hepatitis
diseases, and is endemic among the children of underdeveloped
countries. NIH scientists were the first to develop a strain of this
virus, HM-175, which could be grown in cell culture. This opened a
totally new way to understand and halt the spread of this disease. The
technology itself has been non-exclusively licensed to GlaxoSmithKline,
which has successfully developed and commercialized a vaccine for this
disease.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is an agency
of the Department of Commerce. Its mission is to describe and predict
changes in the Earth‘s environment and conserve and manage the nation‘s
coastal and marine resources.
Research:
NOAA conducts research primarily through the Office of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research, which focuses on enhancing our understanding of
environmental phenomena such as tornadoes, hurricanes, climate
variability, solar flares, changes in the ozone, El Nino/La Nina
events, fisheries productivity, ocean currents, deep sea thermal vents,
and coastal ecosystem health. NOAA has about 50 laboratories
nationwide, with 12 of these in the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research‘s network.
In fiscal year 2001, NOAA obligated a total of $591.2 million for
research and development, of which $5.2 million, or 0.9 percent, was
for basic research; $562.9 million, or 95.2 percent, was for applied
research; and $23.1 million, or 3.9 percent, was for development. Most
of this funding went to NOAA‘s own researchers, with $505.2 million, or
85.5 percent, obligated for intramural research and $86.0 million, or
14.5 percent, obligated for extramural research.
Technology Transfer:
NOAA does not have a large technology transfer program, ranking ninth
among the nine agencies we surveyed in every category of measurable
output in fiscal year 2001. As shown in table 1 of appendix IV, NOAA
disclosed 2 inventions, applied for 3 patents, was issued 1 patent, and
had 10 patents in force. None of these applications or patents was
foreign. Similarly, NOAA executed only one license and had only one
license in force in fiscal year 2001. That license was exclusive, was
with a domestic licensee, and was based on a patent. The patent on
which the license is based will expire in 3 years. Total licensing
income was $1,500 during the fiscal year.
NOAA‘s technology transfer office is the Office of Research and
Technology Applications within the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research. One NOAA official is assigned to the task of technology
transfer on a part-time basis, with the remainder of his time devoted
to the Small Business Innovation Research Program, a far larger program
at NOAA.[Footnote 18] NOAA officials said that the agency‘s technology
does not easily lend itself to marketable inventions and that this was
the main reason they did not have more licenses. They also
acknowledged, however, that the agency needed to be more aggressive in
identifying technologies that could be developed and licensed and is
looking for ways to improve its technology transfer program. They said
that this would require a larger staff, more funds, more training, and
a new commitment on the part of the laboratories.
NOAA‘s technology transfer policy is explained in an administrative
order. Among other things, the order contains the procedures for
disclosing, patenting, and licensing an invention. NOAA has also taken
a number of steps to educate and inform its scientists on technology
transfer and CRADAs.
When a NOAA employee creates new technology, the inventor is
responsible for preparing and forwarding an invention disclosure
statement and a completed questionnaire to the appropriate laboratory
director. The NOAA laboratory director forwards the invention
disclosure statement and questionnaire to the Department of Commerce
Patent Counsel with (1) a recommendation on whether the Department of
Commerce should pursue a patent and (2) a statement indicating whether
the laboratory will negotiate a license on the invention if a patent
application is filed. The Department of Commerce Patent Counsel
initiates the filing of any patent application and handles any
licenses. The individual NOAA laboratories are responsible for any
costs associated with the patent application process and fees for
invention management services. The laboratories are also responsible
for marketing the inventions. NOAA inventors receive at least 30
percent of the royalties or other income from their inventions.
NOAA officials said that, in the past, the laboratories have varied in
deciding what to do with their inventions. Sometimes they published
their research and did not pursue a patent. In other cases, they simply
provided the information to those who needed it without bothering to
get a patent or a license. The officials said that there usually is
little interest in trying to market NOAA inventions because they seldom
have commercial appeal. They also said that NOAA laboratories cite the
high cost of obtaining patents as a major obstacle to patenting their
technologies.
Examples of Technologies Developed:
One of NOAA‘s more successful inventions involved a method for
producing fishmeal from fish processing waste. Employees at one of
NOAA‘s laboratories initiated the research project after a fishmeal
producer asked for assistance in modifying fishmeal to meet the minimum
specifications required by the animal feed industry. The researchers
then developed a new technique for producing high-quality fishmeal by
adapting equipment used to remove seeds from fruit and vegetables.
Although this technique was not patented, two companies have
subsequently incorporated the new technology into their processes. The
technique is considered a success because it results in the production
of fishmeal that has a higher nutritive and economic value while at the
same time increasing the utilization of marine fisheries resources.
Also, NOAA officials said that the invention helped to reduce
unemployment in two villages.
NOAA‘s only active license is for an acoustic scintillation liquid flow
measurement system. The technology can be used in dams, hydroelectric
plants, ports, harbors, and irrigation canals. NOAA licensed the
invention to the Canadian Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans, which, in
turn, licensed it to a Canadian company. The co-inventor works for the
Ministry of Fisheries and was instrumental in locating the company that
licensed the technology after no U.S. firms responded to NOAA‘s notice
in the Federal Register that the technology was available for
licensing.
Department of the Navy:
The Department of the Navy‘s mission is to maintain, train, and equip
combat-ready naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring
aggression, and maintaining freedom of the seas. To support its
efforts, the Navy has a multi-billion dollar research and development
program aimed at improving the defensive and offensive capabilities of
air, surface, and undersea weapons systems.
Research:
The Navy‘s research efforts include developing new materials,
equipment, and systems to enhance the Navy‘s military capabilities. The
Navy also conducts biomedical research to enhance the health, safety,
performance and readiness of military personnel. In fiscal year 2001,
the Navy obligated a total of $8.7 billion for research and
development, with $396.1 million, or 4.5 percent, for basic research;
$532.8 million, or 6.1 percent, for applied research; and $7.8 billion,
or 89.4 percent, for development. Of this funding, $5.4 billion, or
61.9 percent, was obligated for extramural projects and $3.3 billion,
or 38.2 percent, was obligated for intramural projects.
Technology Transfer:
The Navy‘s technology transfer program for intramural research is, for
the most part, decentralized. The Navy‘s Office of Naval Research is
responsible for the supervision, administration, and control of
activities related to patents, inventions, trademarks, copyrights, and
royalty payments. However, the Navy‘s invention disclosure, patenting,
and licensing activities are decentralized within the local facilities
or commands performing these tasks. Aside from the Office of Naval
Research, there are 17 Navy offices or facilities that have assigned
patent counsels. Each Navy facility monitors its own invention
disclosures, determines what technologies will be patented, and pays
for these activities with its own funds. Technology transfer personnel
at the facilities, assisted by local patent counsel, are responsible
for marketing the inventions, negotiating licenses, and executing the
license agreements. Royalty payments are centralized in that all
license royalty payments are sent to the Office of Naval Research‘s
Patent Counsel for processing.
The Office of Naval Research has developed its own automated reporting
and tracking system for monitoring technology transfer activities for
its intramural research programs. This system is known as the
Intellectual Property Management Information System and includes such
information as the name of the reporting office, the inventor‘s name,
the title of the invention, the invention abstract, the name of the
assigned attorney, the dates on which invention evaluations are due and
dates they are completed, authorization status of the invention, and
information on patent filing and prosecution. The Intellectual Property
Management Information System is evolving, and it may eventually have
additional modules for reporting patent grants and trademarks. The Navy
plans to move the Intellectual Property Management Information System
data to a web-based mode and the system may become a DOD-wide system.
The Air Force has agreed to use the Intellectual Property Management
Information System and the Army has indicated that it favors signing on
to this system.
As shown in table 1 of appendix IV, the Navy collected $1.2 million in
royalties in fiscal year 2001. Three Navy sites accounted for 79.1
percent of this income. The Naval Research Laboratory was by far the
largest, accounting for 56.2 percent of all licensing income, followed
by the Naval Medical Research Center with 12.6 percent, and one of the
Naval Surface Warfare Centers with 10.2 percent.
Navy officials said that decisions to patent often are defensive
decisions, rather than decisions based on the likelihood of
commercialization. In this regard, the Navy may obtain a patent merely
to ensure that it controls technology that could have a part in the
nation‘s defense mission. Navy officials said that patenting and
licensing inventions also helps the Navy meet its mandate to facilitate
technology transfer and that commercialization of Navy inventions
provides for increased production for the civilian market and reduces
the unit cost of military procurement.
The decision on whether to obtain a patent on an invention is made at
the facility where the invention was created. In addition to the need
to patent to protect the technology for the Navy‘s own possible use in
the future, Navy personnel consider such factors as the military and
consumer market for the invention, the amount of additional research
that would be needed to develop the invention, the invention‘s likely
cost and performance in the marketplace compared to alternative
products, the invention‘s technical merit, and the interest expressed
by potential licensees.
Examples of Technologies Developed:
The Navy has produced some successful inventions in its facilities. For
example, researchers at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center developed a
digital image enhancement technology to better identify small objects,
such as mines, in a cluttered underwater environment. Believing that
this technology also might be used to assist physicians looking for
microcalcifications in a mammogram, the Navy signed a license agreement
with a company to transfer the Navy undersea mine hunting technology to
the public medical arena. Navy officials believe the digital image
enhancement will increase success in detecting early-stage breast
cancer and save thousands of lives.
As another example, the Naval Research Laboratory developed an
environmentally safe anti-biofouling coating system for ship hulls and
pipeline applications. The coating system provides a surface to which
organisms such as barnacles, mussels, and algae find it hard to adhere.
This anti-fouling action is accomplished without using metals and other
chemicals that may be harmful to aquatic life and humans. The coating
system has been licensed and is marketed for use on commercial and
government-owned ship hulls and power plant water intake systems. The
Navy estimates that the electric power industry will save up to $5
billion a year in reduced costs to clean water intake pipes. In
addition, use by the fishing industry will reduce the loss of line,
nets and other equipment due to biofouling.
U.S. Geological Survey:
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the major science agency for the
Department of the Interior. Its mission is to provide reliable
scientific information to describe and understand the earth; minimize
loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage water,
biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and protect our
quality of life.
Research:
In fiscal year 2001, USGS obligated a total of $553.8 million dollars
for research and development, of which $55.4 million, or 10 percent,
was for basic research; $463.8 million, or 83.7 percent, was for
applied research; and $34.6 million, or 6.2 percent, was for
development. The vast majority of the total research funding was for
in-house activities, with $517 million, or 93.4 percent, obligated for
intramural research and $36.8 million, or
6.6 percent, obligated for extramural research.
Technology Transfer:
USGS produces few inventions as a byproduct of its research. As shown
in table 1 of appendix IV, for example, USGS disclosed only four new
inventions, received four patents, and executed two licenses--both
nonexclusive--during fiscal year 2001. One of the licensees agreed to
pay a limited annual fee pending the company‘s demonstrated ability to
develop the technology. Total licensing income for the fiscal year was
$220,000, ranking USGS seventh among the nine agencies included in our
review. Of this amount, $20,000 was directly attributable to current
licenses and $200,000 was received as final partial year payments on a
recently expired reverse osmosis patent.
USGS is in the process of reorganizing its technology transfer program.
The reorganization is part of a larger effort based on the agency‘s
adoption of a decentralized integrated science approach.
Currently, USGS uses several products and separate systems to track
products and their budgets. In fiscal year 2003, it plans to adopt a
centralized web-based system for project planning and budgeting. In
April 2002, USGS and the Navy signed a Memorandum of Understanding that
provides for Navy patent counsel to apply for patents on behalf of
USGS. The objective of the consolidation is to streamline USGS‘s
invention disclosure and the patent application process and reduce
duplicative costs. USGS‘s Technology Transfer Office handles licensing
activities for USGS and several sister agencies within the Department
of the Interior.
Inventors are entitled to a minimum of 33 percent of the royalties from
their inventions. They receive the first $2,000 in royalties and have a
maximum royalty cap of $150,000 per year. When the patent application
is filed, the inventor is awarded $500. The inventor receives an
additional $800 after the patent is issued.
Although its license agreements contain a provision allowing USGS to
audit a licensee‘s records to ensure that the licensee is paying the
proper amount of royalties, the agency has no staff, funds, or formal
process for monitoring its licensees. On one occasion, USGS received an
allegation that one of its licensees was not reporting the proper
amount of royalty income. It turned the matter over to its Office of
Inspector General, which eventually asked the Department of Justice to
intervene. The matter is still in litigation.
Examples of Technologies Developed:
USGS has developed several successful technologies. Under a cooperative
agreement with the National Stone and Gravel Association, USGS
developed software containing maps and other data. This software was
used to rescue nine people who were trapped in a mine in Pennsylvania
in July 2002. The product is being marketed by a collaborator, and USGS
will receive a portion of the income from the sales.
USGS is currently engaged in a series of field test demonstrations
aimed at improving the real-time water quality information available to
coastal community water departments. The USGS technology, termed ’robo-
well,“ is capable of continually monitoring the ground or surface water
source for predetermined contaminants. Furthermore, the technology can
be preprogrammed to send alert messages to a centralized location when
established contaminant parameters are exceeded. Although the current
Environmental Protection Agency standards for monitoring contaminants
are only periodic rather than continual, the USGS technology is
developing a niche in the drinking water community. The technology is
on-line or being installed in two Massachusetts water departments and
has one commercial licensee.
[End of section]
Appendix IV Invention Disclosure, Patenting, and Licensing Statistics
for Nine Selected Federal Agencies, Fiscal Years 1997-2001:
Table 1: Invention, Patenting, and Licensing Statistics by Agency for
Fiscal Year 2001:
Activity:
Invention disclosures; Agency: ARS: 118; Agency: Air Force: 139;
Agency: Army: 270; Agency: DOE: 1,479; Agency: NASA: 696; Agency: NIH:
379; Agency: NOAA: 2; Agency: Navy: 589; Agency: USGS: 4; Total: 3,676.
Patent applications; Agency: ARS: [Empty]; Agency: Air Force: [Empty];
Agency: Army: [Empty]; Agency: DOE: [Empty]; Agency: NASA: [Empty];
Agency: NIH: [Empty]; Agency: NOAA: [Empty]; Agency: Navy: [Empty];
Agency: USGS: [Empty]; Total: [Empty].
U.S.; Agency: ARS: 96; Agency: Air Force: 118; Agency: Army: 272;
Agency: DOE: 933; Agency: NASA: 285; Agency: NIH: 174; Agency: NOAA: 3;
Agency: Navy: 394; Agency: USGS: 16; Total: 2,291.
Foreign; Agency: ARS: 22; Agency: Air Force: 0; Agency: Army: 71;
Agency: DOE: 184; Agency: NASA: 17; Agency: NIH: 156; Agency: NOAA: 0;
Agency: Navy: 57; Agency: USGS: 0; Total: 507.
Total; Agency: ARS: 118; Agency: Air Force: 118; Agency: Army: 343;
Agency: DOE: 1,126[A]; Agency: NASA: 302; Agency: NIH: 330; Agency:
NOAA: 3; Agency: Navy: 451; Agency: USGS: 16; Total: 2,807[A].
Patents issued; Agency: ARS: [Empty]; Agency: Air Force: [Empty];
Agency: Army: [Empty]; Agency: DOE: [Empty]; Agency: NASA: [Empty];
Agency: NIH: [Empty]; Agency: NOAA: [Empty]; Agency: Navy: [Empty];
Agency: USGS: [Empty]; Total: [Empty].
U.S.; Agency: ARS: 64; Agency: Air Force: 114; Agency: Army: 161;
Agency: DOE: 545; Agency: NASA: 152; Agency: NIH: 99; Agency: NOAA: 1;
Agency: Navy: 327; Agency: USGS: 4; Total: 1,467.
Foreign; Agency: ARS: 12; Agency: Air Force: 0; Agency: Army: 3;
Agency: DOE: 41; Agency: NASA: 7; Agency: NIH: 46; Agency: NOAA: 0;
Agency: Navy: 9; Agency: USGS: 0; Total: 118.
Total; Agency: ARS: 76; Agency: Air Force: 114; Agency: Army: 164;
Agency: DOE: 586; Agency: NASA: 159; Agency: NIH: 145; Agency: NOAA: 1;
Agency: Navy: 336; Agency: USGS: 4; Total: 1,585.
Patents in force[B]; Agency: ARS: [Empty]; Agency: Air Force: [Empty];
Agency: Army: [Empty]; Agency: DOE: [Empty]; Agency: NASA: [Empty];
Agency: NIH: [Empty]; Agency: NOAA: [Empty]; Agency: Navy: [Empty];
Agency: USGS: [Empty]; Total: [Empty].
U.S.; Agency: ARS: 619; Agency: Air Force: 2,344[ C]; Agency: Army:
1,130; Agency: DOE: 4,769; Agency: NASA: 1,302; Agency: NIH: 1,383;
Agency: NOAA: 10; Agency: Navy: 2,295; Agency: USGS: 42; Total: 13,894.
Foreign; Agency: ARS: [D]; Agency: Air Force: 0; Agency: Army: 10;
Agency: DOE: 450; Agency: NASA: 66; Agency: NIH: 641; Agency: NOAA: 0;
Agency: Navy: 29; Agency: USGS: 0; Total: 1,196.
Total; Agency: ARS: 619[D]; Agency: Air Force: 2,344[C]; Agency: Army:
1,140; Agency: DOE: 5,219; Agency: NASA: 1,368; Agency: NIH: 2,024;
Agency: NOAA: 10; Agency: Navy: 2,324; Agency: USGS: 42; Total: 15,090.
Licenses in force[B]; Agency: ARS: [Empty]; Agency: Air Force: [Empty];
Agency: Army: [Empty]; Agency: DOE: [Empty]; Agency: NASA: [Empty];
Agency: NIH: [Empty]; Agency: NOAA: [Empty]; Agency: Navy: [Empty];
Agency: USGS: [Empty]; Total: [Empty].
U.S.; Agency: ARS: [E]; Agency: Air Force: 63; Agency: Army: 89;
Agency: DOE: 1,866; Agency: NASA: [E]; Agency: NIH: 1,152[F]; Agency:
NOAA: 1; Agency: Navy: 99; Agency: USGS: 6; Total: 3,276.
Foreign; Agency: ARS: [E]; Agency: Air Force: 0; Agency: Army: 12;
Agency: DOE: 272; Agency: NASA: [E]; Agency: NIH: 205[F]; Agency: NOAA:
0; Agency: Navy: 7; Agency: USGS: 0; Total: 496.
Undetermined; Agency: ARS: 245; Agency: Air Force: 0; Agency: Army: 0;
Agency: DOE: 0; Agency: NASA: 269; Agency: NIH: 0; Agency: NOAA: 0;
Agency: Navy: 0; Agency: USGS: 0; Total: 514.
Total; Agency: ARS: 245; Agency: Air Force: 63; Agency: Army: 101;
Agency: DOE: 2,138; Agency: NASA: 269; Agency: NIH: 1,357[F]; Agency:
NOAA: 1; Agency: Navy: 106; Agency: USGS: 6; Total: 4,286.
Licenses executed by type of license; Agency: ARS: [Empty]; Agency: Air
Force: [Empty]; Agency: Army: [Empty]; Agency: DOE: [Empty]; Agency:
NASA: [Empty]; Agency: NIH: [Empty]; Agency: NOAA: [Empty]; Agency:
Navy: [Empty]; Agency: USGS: [Empty]; Total: [Empty].
Exclusive; Agency: ARS: 21; Agency: Air Force: 8; Agency: Army: 8;
Agency: DOE: 48; Agency: NASA: 12; Agency: NIH: 44; Agency: NOAA: 1;
Agency: Navy: 6; Agency: USGS: 0; Total: 148.
Partially exclusive; Agency: ARS: 7; Agency: Air Force: 0; Agency:
Army: 0; Agency: DOE: 32; Agency: NASA: 4; Agency: NIH: 3; Agency:
NOAA: 0; Agency: Navy: 6; Agency: USGS: 0; Total: 52.
Nonexclusive; Agency: ARS: 3; Agency: Air Force: 7; Agency: Army: 6;
Agency: DOE: 497; Agency: NASA: 23; Agency: NIH: 153; Agency: NOAA: 0;
Agency: Navy: 13; Agency: USGS: 2; Total: 704.
Other; Agency: ARS: 0; Agency: Air Force: 2; Agency: Army: 0; Agency:
DOE: 6; Agency: NASA: 7; Agency: NIH: 0; Agency: NOAA: 0; Agency: Navy:
1; Agency: USGS: 0; Total: 16.
Total; Agency: ARS: 31; Agency: Air Force: 17; Agency: Army: 14;
Agency: DOE: 583; Agency: NASA: 46; Agency: NIH: 200; Agency: NOAA: 1;
Agency: Navy: 26; Agency: USGS: 2; Total: 920.
Licenses executed by type of property; Agency: ARS: [Empty]; Agency:
Air Force: [Empty]; Agency: Army: [Empty]; Agency: DOE: [Empty];
Agency: NASA: [Empty]; Agency: NIH: [Empty]; Agency: NOAA: [Empty];
Agency: Navy: [Empty]; Agency: USGS: [Empty]; Total: [Empty].
Patent; Agency: ARS: 31; Agency: Air Force: 17; Agency: Army: 56;
Agency: DOE: 304; Agency: NASA: 38; Agency: NIH: 149; Agency: NOAA: 1;
Agency: Navy: 26; Agency: USGS: 2; Total: 624.
Research materials; Agency: ARS: 0; Agency: Air Force: 0; Agency: Army:
0; Agency: DOE: 0; Agency: NASA: 0; Agency: NIH: 51; Agency: NOAA: 0;
Agency: Navy: 0; Agency: USGS: 0; Total: 51.
Other; Agency: ARS: 0; Agency: Air Force: 0; Agency: Army: 0; Agency:
DOE: 245[G]; Agency: NASA: 8; Agency: NIH: 0; Agency: NOAA: 0; Agency:
Navy: 0; Agency: USGS: 0; Total: 253.
Total; Agency: ARS: 31; Agency: Air Force: 17; Agency: Army: 56;
Agency: DOE: 549; Agency: NASA: 46; Agency: NIH: 200; Agency: NOAA: 1;
Agency: Navy: 26; Agency: USGS: 2; Total: 928.
Licenses earning income during fiscal year; Agency: ARS: 120; Agency:
Air Force: 12; Agency: Army: 28; Agency: DOE: 992; Agency: NASA: 114;
Agency: NIH: 697; Agency: NOAA: 1; Agency: Navy: 87; Agency: USGS: 5;
Total: 2,056.
Licensing income (in thousands); Agency: ARS: $2,622.0; Agency: Air
Force: $99.0; Agency: Army: $845.5; Agency: DOE: $21,387.5; Agency:
NASA: $1,971.2; Agency: NIH: $46,100.0; Agency: NOAA: $1.5; Agency:
Navy: $1,245.6; Agency: USGS: $220.0; Total: $74,492.3.
Legend:
ARS = Agricultural Research Service:
DOE = Department of Energy:
NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
NIH = National Institutes of Health:
NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
USGS = United States Geological Survey:
[A] Agency did not explain why total applications reported are greater
than sum of U.S. and foreign applications reported.
[B] In force at the end of the fiscal year.
[C] The Air Force estimates that about 1,000 patents have fully paid-up
maintenance fees.
[D] Foreign statistics were unavailable; total includes U.S. patents
only.
[E] Data for U.S. and foreign licenses were not broken out.
[F] Estimate.
[G] Other includes 211 copyrights.
Source: Statistics provided by agencies listed.
[End of table]
Table 2: Invention, Patenting, and Licensing Activity by the
Agricultural Research Service for Fiscal Years 1997-2001:
Activity: Invention disclosures; Fiscal year: 1997: 130; Fiscal year:
1998: 104; Fiscal year: 1999: 122; Fiscal year: 2000: 109; Fiscal year:
2001: 118.
Activity: Patent applications; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal year:
1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000: [Empty];
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 56; Fiscal year: 1998: 64; Fiscal
year: 1999: 113; Fiscal year: 2000: 107; Fiscal year: 2001: 96.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: [A]; Fiscal year: 1998: [A];
Fiscal year: 1999: [A]; Fiscal year: 2000: [A]; Fiscal year: 2001: 22.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 56; Fiscal year: 1998: 64; Fiscal
year: 1999: 113; Fiscal year: 2000: 107; Fiscal year: 2001: 118.
Activity: Patents issued; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal year:
1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000: [Empty];
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 35; Fiscal year: 1998: 57; Fiscal
year: 1999: 74; Fiscal year: 2000: 64; Fiscal year: 2001: 64.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: [A]; Fiscal year: 1998: [A];
Fiscal year: 1999: [A]; Fiscal year: 2000: [A]; Fiscal year: 2001: 12.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 35; Fiscal year: 1998: 57; Fiscal
year: 1999: 74; Fiscal year: 2000: 64; Fiscal year: 2001: 76.
Activity: Patents in force[B]; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal year:
1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000: [Empty];
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: [A]; Fiscal year: 1998: [A]; Fiscal
year: 1999: [A]; Fiscal year: 2000: [A]; Fiscal year: 2001: 619.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: [A]; Fiscal year: 1998: [A];
Fiscal year: 1999: [A]; Fiscal year: 2000: [A]; Fiscal year: 2001: [C].
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: [A]; Fiscal year: 1998: [A]; Fiscal
year: 1999: [A]; Fiscal year: 2000: [A]; Fiscal year: 2001: 619[C].
Activity: Licenses in force[B]; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal
year: 1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000:
[Empty]; Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: [A]; Fiscal year: 1998: [A]; Fiscal
year: 1999: [A]; Fiscal year: 2000: [A]; Fiscal year: 2001: [D].
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: [A]; Fiscal year: 1998: [A];
Fiscal year: 1999: [A]; Fiscal year: 2000: [A]; Fiscal year: 2001: [D].
Activity: Undetermined; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1998:
[Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000: [Empty]; Fiscal
year: 2001: 245[D].
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: [A]; Fiscal year: 1998: [A]; Fiscal
year: 1999: [A]; Fiscal year: 2000: [A]; Fiscal year: 2001: 245.
Activity: Licenses executed by type of license; Fiscal year: 1997:
[Empty]; Fiscal year: 1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal
year: 2000: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: Exclusive; Fiscal year: 1997: 21; Fiscal year: 1998: 23;
Fiscal year: 1999: 29; Fiscal year: 2000: 24; Fiscal year: 2001: 21.
Activity: Partially exclusive; Fiscal year: 1997: [A]; Fiscal year:
1998: [A]; Fiscal year: 1999: [A]; Fiscal year: 2000: [A]; Fiscal year:
2001: 7.
Activity: Nonexclusive; Fiscal year: 1997: [A]; Fiscal year: 1998: [A];
Fiscal year: 1999: [A]; Fiscal year: 2000: [A]; Fiscal year: 2001: 3.
Activity: Other; Fiscal year: 1997: [A]; Fiscal year: 1998: [A]; Fiscal
year: 1999: [A]; Fiscal year: 2000: [A]; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 21; Fiscal year: 1998: 23; Fiscal
year: 1999: 29; Fiscal year: 2000: 24; Fiscal year: 2001: 31.
Activity: Licenses executed by type of property; Fiscal year: 1997:
[Empty]; Fiscal year: 1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal
year: 2000: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: Patent; Fiscal year: 1997: 21; Fiscal year: 1998: 23; Fiscal
year: 1999: 29; Fiscal year: 2000: 24; Fiscal year: 2001: 31.
Activity: Research materials; Fiscal year: 1997: [A]; Fiscal year:
1998: [A]; Fiscal year: 1999: [A]; Fiscal year: 2000: [A]; Fiscal year:
2001: 0.
Activity: Other; Fiscal year: 1997: [A]; Fiscal year: 1998: [A]; Fiscal
year: 1999: [A]; Fiscal year: 2000: [A]; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 21; Fiscal year: 1998: 23; Fiscal
year: 1999: 29; Fiscal year: 2000: 24; Fiscal year: 2001: 31.
Activity: Licenses earning income during fiscal year; Fiscal year:
1997: [A]; Fiscal year: 1998: [A]; Fiscal year: 1999: [A]; Fiscal year:
2000: [A]; Fiscal year: 2001: 120.
Activity: Licensing income; Fiscal year: 1997: [A]; Fiscal year: 1998:
[A]; Fiscal year: 1999: [A]; Fiscal year: 2000: [A]; Fiscal year: 2001:
$2,622,000.
[A] Current database does not track these data for this year.
[B] In force at the end of the fiscal year.
[C] Foreign statistics were unavailable; total includes U.S. patents
only.
[D] Data for U.S. and foreign licenses were not broken out.
Source: Agricultural Research Service.
[End of table]
Table 3: Invention, Patenting, and Licensing Activity by the Department
of the Air Force for Fiscal Years 1997-2001:
Activity: Invention disclosures; Fiscal year: 1997: 124[A]; Fiscal
year: 1998: 125[A]; Fiscal year: 1999: 122; Fiscal year: 2000: 174;
Fiscal year: 2001: 139.
Activity: Patent applications; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal year:
1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000: [Empty];
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 114; Fiscal year: 1998: 164; Fiscal
year: 1999: 116; Fiscal year: 2000: 108; Fiscal year: 2001: 118.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: 1; Fiscal year: 1998: 0; Fiscal
year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 115; Fiscal year: 1998: 164; Fiscal
year: 1999: 116; Fiscal year: 2000: 108; Fiscal year: 2001: 118.
Activity: Patents issued; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal year:
1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000: [Empty];
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 85; Fiscal year: 1998: 88; Fiscal
year: 1999: 85; Fiscal year: 2000: 80; Fiscal year: 2001: 114.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998: 0; Fiscal
year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 85; Fiscal year: 1998: 88; Fiscal
year: 1999: 85; Fiscal year: 2000: 80; Fiscal year: 2001: 114.
Activity: Patents in force[B]; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal year:
1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000: [Empty];
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 2,472[C]; Fiscal year: 1998:
2,401[C]; Fiscal year: 1999: 2,362[C]; Fiscal year: 2000: 2,352[C];
Fiscal year: 2001: 2,344[C].
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998: 0; Fiscal
year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 2,472[C]; Fiscal year: 1998:
2,401[C]; Fiscal year: 1999: 2,362[C]; Fiscal year: 2000: 2,352[C];
Fiscal year: 2001: 2,344[C].
Activity: Licenses in force[B]; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal
year: 1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000:
[Empty]; Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 28; Fiscal year: 1998: 38; Fiscal
year: 1999: 43; Fiscal year: 2000: 48; Fiscal year: 2001: 63.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998: 0; Fiscal
year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 28; Fiscal year: 1998: 38; Fiscal
year: 1999: 43; Fiscal year: 2000: 48; Fiscal year: 2001: 63.
Activity: Licenses executed by type of license; Fiscal year: 1997:
[Empty]; Fiscal year: 1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal
year: 2000: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: Exclusive; Fiscal year: 1997: 2; Fiscal year: 1998: 3; Fiscal
year: 1999: 3; Fiscal year: 2000: 3; Fiscal year: 2001: 8.
Activity: Partially exclusive; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998:
0; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Nonexclusive; Fiscal year: 1997: 4; Fiscal year: 1998: 7;
Fiscal year: 1999: 3; Fiscal year: 2000: 3; Fiscal year: 2001: 7.
Activity: Other; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998: 1; Fiscal
year: 1999: 4; Fiscal year: 2000: 1; Fiscal year: 2001: 2.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 6; Fiscal year: 1998: 11; Fiscal
year: 1999: 10; Fiscal year: 2000: 7; Fiscal year: 2001: 17.
Activity: Licenses executed by type of property; Fiscal year: 1997:
[Empty]; Fiscal year: 1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal
year: 2000: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: Patent; Fiscal year: 1997: 6; Fiscal year: 1998: 11; Fiscal
year: 1999: 10; Fiscal year: 2000: 7; Fiscal year: 2001: 17.
Activity: Research materials; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998:
0; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Other; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998: 0; Fiscal
year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 6; Fiscal year: 1998: 11; Fiscal
year: 1999: 10; Fiscal year: 2000: 7; Fiscal year: 2001: 17.
Activity: Licenses earning income during fiscal year; Fiscal year:
1997: 14; Fiscal year: 1998: 11; Fiscal year: 1999: 13; Fiscal year:
2000: 15; Fiscal year: 2001: 12.
Activity: Licensing income; Fiscal year: 1997: $190,000; Fiscal year:
1998: $197,800; Fiscal year: 1999: $156,000; Fiscal year: 2000:
$80,616; Fiscal year: 2001: $99,038.
[A] Estimate.
[B] In force at the end of the fiscal year.
[C] The Air Force estimates that about 1,000 patents have fully paid-up
maintenance fees.
Source: U.S. Air Force.
[End of table]
Table 4: Invention, Patenting, and Licensing Activity by the Department
of the Army for Fiscal Years 1997-2001:
Activity: Invention disclosures; Fiscal year: 1997: 290; Fiscal year:
1998: 263; Fiscal year: 1999: 293; Fiscal year: 2000: 233; Fiscal year:
2001: 270.
Activity: Patent applications; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal year:
1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000: [Empty];
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 241; Fiscal year: 1998: 221; Fiscal
year: 1999: 266; Fiscal year: 2000: 288; Fiscal year: 2001: 272.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: 46; Fiscal year: 1998: 43; Fiscal
year: 1999: 58; Fiscal year: 2000: 64; Fiscal year: 2001: 71.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 287; Fiscal year: 1998: 264; Fiscal
year: 1999: 324; Fiscal year: 2000: 352; Fiscal year: 2001: 343.
Activity: Patents issued; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal year:
1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000: [Empty];
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 130; Fiscal year: 1998: 135; Fiscal
year: 1999: 141; Fiscal year: 2000: 131; Fiscal year: 2001: 161.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998: 1; Fiscal
year: 1999: 4; Fiscal year: 2000: 4; Fiscal year: 2001: 3.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 130; Fiscal year: 1998: 136; Fiscal
year: 1999: 145; Fiscal year: 2000: 135; Fiscal year: 2001: 164.
Activity: Patents in force[A]; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal year:
1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000: [Empty];
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 1,032; Fiscal year: 1998: 1,089;
Fiscal year: 1999: 1,094; Fiscal year: 2000: 1,115; Fiscal year: 2001:
1,130.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: 8; Fiscal year: 1998: 8; Fiscal
year: 1999: 9; Fiscal year: 2000: 12; Fiscal year: 2001: 10.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 1,040; Fiscal year: 1998: 1,097;
Fiscal year: 1999: 1,103; Fiscal year: 2000: 1,127; Fiscal year: 2001:
1,140.
Activity: Licenses in force[A]; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal
year: 1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000:
[Empty]; Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 68; Fiscal year: 1998: 73; Fiscal
year: 1999: 75; Fiscal year: 2000: 82; Fiscal year: 2001: 89.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: 6; Fiscal year: 1998: 9; Fiscal
year: 1999: 9; Fiscal year: 2000: 11; Fiscal year: 2001: 12.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 74; Fiscal year: 1998: 82; Fiscal
year: 1999: 84; Fiscal year: 2000: 93; Fiscal year: 2001: 101.
Activity: Licenses executed by type of license; Fiscal year: 1997:
[Empty]; Fiscal year: 1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal
year: 2000: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: Exclusive; Fiscal year: 1997: 7; Fiscal year: 1998: 7; Fiscal
year: 1999: 6; Fiscal year: 2000: 8; Fiscal year: 2001: 8.
Activity: Partially exclusive; Fiscal year: 1997: 6; Fiscal year: 1998:
2; Fiscal year: 1999: 1; Fiscal year: 2000: 1; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Nonexclusive; Fiscal year: 1997: 9; Fiscal year: 1998: 6;
Fiscal year: 1999: 6; Fiscal year: 2000: 8; Fiscal year: 2001: 6.
Activity: Other; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998: 0; Fiscal
year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 22; Fiscal year: 1998: 15; Fiscal
year: 1999: 13; Fiscal year: 2000: 17; Fiscal year: 2001: 14.
Activity: Licenses executed by type of property; Fiscal year: 1997:
[Empty]; Fiscal year: 1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal
year: 2000: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: Patent; Fiscal year: 1997: 51; Fiscal year: 1998: 48; Fiscal
year: 1999: 47; Fiscal year: 2000: 52; Fiscal year: 2001: 56.
Activity: Research materials; Fiscal year: 1997: 3; Fiscal year: 1998:
3; Fiscal year: 1999: 3; Fiscal year: 2000: 4; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Other; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998: 0; Fiscal
year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 54; Fiscal year: 1998: 51; Fiscal
year: 1999: 50; Fiscal year: 2000: 56; Fiscal year: 2001: 56.
Activity: Licenses earning income during fiscal year; Fiscal year:
1997: 21; Fiscal year: 1998: 23; Fiscal year: 1999: 20; Fiscal year:
2000: 24; Fiscal year: 2001: 28.
Activity: Licensing income; Fiscal year: 1997: $273,235; Fiscal year:
1998: $239,185; Fiscal year: 1999: $244,315; Fiscal year: 2000:
$550,640; Fiscal year: 2001: $845,472.
Note: Table does not include data from one command.
[A] In force at the end of the fiscal year.
Source: U.S. Army.
[End of table]
Table 5: Invention, Patenting, and Licensing Activity by the Department
of Energy for Fiscal Years 1997-2001:
Activity: Invention disclosures; Fiscal year: 1997: 1,311; Fiscal year:
1998: 1,382; Fiscal year: 1999: 1,519; Fiscal year: 2000: 1,483; Fiscal
year: 2001: 1,479.
Activity: Patent applications; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal year:
1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000: [Empty];
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 743; Fiscal year: 1998: 764; Fiscal
year: 1999: 954; Fiscal year: 2000: 853; Fiscal year: 2001: 933.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: 234; Fiscal year: 1998: 244;
Fiscal year: 1999: 229; Fiscal year: 2000: 228; Fiscal year: 2001: 184.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 986[A]; Fiscal year: 1998:
1,014[A]; Fiscal year: 1999: 1,192[A]; Fiscal year: 2000: 1,090[A];
Fiscal year: 2001: 1,126[A].
Activity: Patents issued; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal year:
1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000: [Empty];
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 364; Fiscal year: 1998: 465; Fiscal
year: 1999: 496; Fiscal year: 2000: 526; Fiscal year: 2001: 545.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: 45; Fiscal year: 1998: 57; Fiscal
year: 1999: 62; Fiscal year: 2000: 54; Fiscal year: 2001: 41.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 413[A]; Fiscal year: 1998: 533[A];
Fiscal year: 1999: 568[A]; Fiscal year: 2000: 583[A]; Fiscal year:
2001: 586.
Activity: Patents in force[B]; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal year:
1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000: [Empty];
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 3,187; Fiscal year: 1998: 3,563;
Fiscal year: 1999: 3,916; Fiscal year: 2000: 4,345; Fiscal year: 2001:
4,769.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: 209; Fiscal year: 1998: 264;
Fiscal year: 1999: 306; Fiscal year: 2000: 417; Fiscal year: 2001: 450.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 3,396; Fiscal year: 1998: 3,827;
Fiscal year: 1999: 4,222; Fiscal year: 2000: 4,762; Fiscal year: 2001:
5,219.
Activity: Licenses in force[B]; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal
year: 1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000:
[Empty]; Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 1,067; Fiscal year: 1998: 1,166;
Fiscal year: 1999: 1,346; Fiscal year: 2000: 1,509; Fiscal year: 2001:
1,866.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: 73; Fiscal year: 1998: 87; Fiscal
year: 1999: 92; Fiscal year: 2000: 110; Fiscal year: 2001: 272.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 1,242[A]; Fiscal year: 1998:
1,377[A]; Fiscal year: 1999: 1,624[A]; Fiscal year: 2000: 1,839[A];
Fiscal year: 2001: 2,138.
Activity: Licenses executed by type of license; Fiscal year: 1997:
[Empty]; Fiscal year: 1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal
year: 2000: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: Exclusive; Fiscal year: 1997: 61; Fiscal year: 1998: 55;
Fiscal year: 1999: 51; Fiscal year: 2000: 34; Fiscal year: 2001: 48.
Activity: Partially exclusive; Fiscal year: 1997: 21; Fiscal year:
1998: 17; Fiscal year: 1999: 25; Fiscal year: 2000: 19; Fiscal year:
2001: 32.
Activity: Nonexclusive; Fiscal year: 1997: 383; Fiscal year: 1998: 359;
Fiscal year: 1999: 361; Fiscal year: 2000: 354; Fiscal year: 2001: 497.
Activity: Other; Fiscal year: 1997: 7; Fiscal year: 1998: 1; Fiscal
year: 1999: 1; Fiscal year: 2000: 2; Fiscal year: 2001: 6.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 483[A]; Fiscal year: 1998: 446[A];
Fiscal year: 1999: 442[A]; Fiscal year: 2000: 412[A]; Fiscal year:
2001: 583.
Activity: Licenses executed by type of property; Fiscal year: 1997:
[Empty]; Fiscal year: 1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal
year: 2000: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: Patent; Fiscal year: 1997: 190; Fiscal year: 1998: 167;
Fiscal year: 1999: 307; Fiscal year: 2000: 210; Fiscal year: 2001: 304.
Activity: Research materials; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998:
0; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Other[C]; Fiscal year: 1997: 232; Fiscal year: 1998: 173;
Fiscal year: 1999: 204; Fiscal year: 2000: 221; Fiscal year: 2001: 245.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 422; Fiscal year: 1998: 340; Fiscal
year: 1999: 511; Fiscal year: 2000: 431; Fiscal year: 2001: 549.
Activity: Licenses earning income during fiscal year; Fiscal year:
1997: 646; Fiscal year: 1998: 711; Fiscal year: 1999: 763; Fiscal year:
2000: 855; Fiscal year: 2001: 992.
Activity: Licensing income; Fiscal year: 1997: $7,265,033; Fiscal year:
1998: $9,972,023; Fiscal year: 1999: $10,971,837; Fiscal year: 2000:
$14,592,452; Fiscal year: 2001: $21,387,512.
[A] Agency did not provide a break out for all patent applications,
patents issued, or licenses in the total figure.
[B] In force at the end of the fiscal year.
[C] Other includes copyrights.
Source: Department of Energy.
[End of table]
Table 6: Invention, Patenting, and Licensing Activity by the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration for Fiscal Years 1997-2001:
Activity: Invention disclosures; Fiscal year: 1997: 1,144; Fiscal year:
1998: 1,201; Fiscal year: 1999: 1,389; Fiscal year: 2000: 1,318; Fiscal
year: 2001: 696.
Activity: Patent applications; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal year:
1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000: [Empty];
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 253; Fiscal year: 1998: 269; Fiscal
year: 1999: 299; Fiscal year: 2000: 279; Fiscal year: 2001: 285.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: 12; Fiscal year: 1998: 13; Fiscal
year: 1999: 21; Fiscal year: 2000: 21; Fiscal year: 2001: 17.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 265; Fiscal year: 1998: 282; Fiscal
year: 1999: 320; Fiscal year: 2000: 300; Fiscal year: 2001: 302.
Activity: Patents issued; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal year:
1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000: [Empty];
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 111; Fiscal year: 1998: 137; Fiscal
year: 1999: 125; Fiscal year: 2000: 150; Fiscal year: 2001: 152.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998: 1; Fiscal
year: 1999: 4; Fiscal year: 2000: 17; Fiscal year: 2001: 7.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 111; Fiscal year: 1998: 138; Fiscal
year: 1999: 129; Fiscal year: 2000: 167; Fiscal year: 2001: 159.
Activity: Patents in force[A]; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal year:
1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000: [Empty];
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 1,267; Fiscal year: 1998: 1,237;
Fiscal year: 1999: 1,227; Fiscal year: 2000: 1,236; Fiscal year: 2001:
1,302.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: [B]; Fiscal year: 1998: 1[C];
Fiscal year: 1999: 28[C]; Fiscal year: 2000: 22[C]; Fiscal year: 2001:
66.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 1,267; Fiscal year: 1998: 1,238;
Fiscal year: 1999: 1,255; Fiscal year: 2000: 1,258; Fiscal year: 2001:
1,368.
Activity: Licenses in force[A]; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal
year: 1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000:
[Empty]; Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: [D]; Fiscal year: 1998: [D]; Fiscal
year: 1999: [D]; Fiscal year: 2000: [D]; Fiscal year: 2001: [E].
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: [D]; Fiscal year: 1998: [D];
Fiscal year: 1999: [D]; Fiscal year: 2000: [D]; Fiscal year: 2001: [E].
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: [D]; Fiscal year: 1998: [D]; Fiscal
year: 1999: [D]; Fiscal year: 2000: [D]; Fiscal year: 2001: 269.
Activity: Licenses executed by type of license; Fiscal year: 1997:
[Empty]; Fiscal year: 1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal
year: 2000: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: Exclusive; Fiscal year: 1997: 21; Fiscal year: 1998: 24;
Fiscal year: 1999: 20; Fiscal year: 2000: 18; Fiscal year: 2001: 12.
Activity: Partially exclusive; Fiscal year: 1997: 5; Fiscal year: 1998:
3; Fiscal year: 1999: 4; Fiscal year: 2000: 5; Fiscal year: 2001: 4.
Activity: Nonexclusive; Fiscal year: 1997: 19; Fiscal year: 1998: 26;
Fiscal year: 1999: 26; Fiscal year: 2000: 28; Fiscal year: 2001: 23.
Activity: Other; Fiscal year: 1997: 1; Fiscal year: 1998: 6; Fiscal
year: 1999: 5; Fiscal year: 2000: 14; Fiscal year: 2001: 7.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 46; Fiscal year: 1998: 59; Fiscal
year: 1999: 55; Fiscal year: 2000: 65; Fiscal year: 2001: 46.
Activity: Licenses executed by type of property; Fiscal year: 1997:
[Empty]; Fiscal year: 1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal
year: 2000: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: Patent; Fiscal year: 1997: 37; Fiscal year: 1998: 37; Fiscal
year: 1999: 43; Fiscal year: 2000: 44; Fiscal year: 2001: 38.
Activity: Research materials; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998:
0; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Other; Fiscal year: 1997: 9; Fiscal year: 1998: 24; Fiscal
year: 1999: 12; Fiscal year: 2000: 21; Fiscal year: 2001: 8.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 46; Fiscal year: 1998: 61; Fiscal
year: 1999: 55; Fiscal year: 2000: 65; Fiscal year: 2001: 46.
Activity: Licenses earning income during fiscal year; Fiscal year:
1997: 84; Fiscal year: 1998: 100; Fiscal year: 1999: 105; Fiscal year:
2000: 111; Fiscal year: 2001: 114.
Activity: Licensing income; Fiscal year: 1997: $1,106,331; Fiscal year:
1998: $1,226,263; Fiscal year: 1999: $1,359,310; Fiscal year: 2000:
$1,775,010; Fiscal year: 2001: $1,971,218.
[A] In force at the end of the fiscal year.
[B] The number of foreign patents in force was not available for fiscal
year 1997.
[C] Except for one facility, the number of foreign patents in force was
not available for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000.
[D] Current database does not track this data for this year.
[E] Data for U.S. and foreign were not broken out.
Source: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
[End of table]
Table 7: Invention, Patenting, and Licensing Activity by the National
Institutes of Health for Fiscal Years 1997-2001:
Activity: Invention disclosures; Fiscal year: 1997: 333; Fiscal year:
1998: 344; Fiscal year: 1999: 341; Fiscal year: 2000: 381; Fiscal year:
2001: 379.
Activity: Patent applications; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal year:
1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000: [Empty];
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 160; Fiscal year: 1998: 151; Fiscal
year: 1999: 198; Fiscal year: 2000: 196; Fiscal year: 2001: 174.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: 156; Fiscal year: 1998: 167;
Fiscal year: 1999: 104; Fiscal year: 2000: 165; Fiscal year: 2001: 156.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 316; Fiscal year: 1998: 318; Fiscal
year: 1999: 302; Fiscal year: 2000: 361; Fiscal year: 2001: 330.
Activity: Patents issued; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal year:
1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000: [Empty];
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 158; Fiscal year: 1998: 177; Fiscal
year: 1999: 171; Fiscal year: 2000: 130; Fiscal year: 2001: 99.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: 96; Fiscal year: 1998: 90; Fiscal
year: 1999: 97; Fiscal year: 2000: 93; Fiscal year: 2001: 46.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 254; Fiscal year: 1998: 267; Fiscal
year: 1999: 268; Fiscal year: 2000: 223; Fiscal year: 2001: 145.
Activity: Patents in force[A]; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal year:
1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000: [Empty];
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: [B]; Fiscal year: 1998: 1,140;
Fiscal year: 1999: 1,236; Fiscal year: 2000: 1,365; Fiscal year: 2001:
1,383.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: [B]; Fiscal year: 1998: [B];
Fiscal year: 1999: [B]; Fiscal year: 2000: [B]; Fiscal year: 2001: 641.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: [B]; Fiscal year: 1998: [B]; Fiscal
year: 1999: [B]; Fiscal year: 2000: [B]; Fiscal year: 2001: 2,024.
Activity: Licenses in force[A]; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal
year: 1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000:
[Empty]; Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: [B]; Fiscal year: 1998: [B]; Fiscal
year: 1999: [B]; Fiscal year: 2000: [B]; Fiscal year: 2001: 1,152[C].
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: [B]; Fiscal year: 1998: [B];
Fiscal year: 1999: [B]; Fiscal year: 2000: [B]; Fiscal year: 2001:
205[C].
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: [B]; Fiscal year: 1998: [B]; Fiscal
year: 1999: [B]; Fiscal year: 2000: [B]; Fiscal year: 2001: 1,357[C].
Activity: Licenses executed by type of license; Fiscal year: 1997:
[Empty]; Fiscal year: 1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal
year: 2000: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: Exclusive; Fiscal year: 1997: 28; Fiscal year: 1998: 26;
Fiscal year: 1999: 35; Fiscal year: 2000: 31; Fiscal year: 2001: 44.
Activity: Partially exclusive; Fiscal year: 1997: 1; Fiscal year: 1998:
1; Fiscal year: 1999: 2; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 3.
Activity: Nonexclusive; Fiscal year: 1997: 182; Fiscal year: 1998: 184;
Fiscal year: 1999: 170; Fiscal year: 2000: 157; Fiscal year: 2001: 153.
Activity: Other; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998: 0; Fiscal
year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 211; Fiscal year: 1998: 211; Fiscal
year: 1999: 207; Fiscal year: 2000: 188; Fiscal year: 2001: 200.
Activity: Licenses executed by type of property; Fiscal year: 1997:
[Empty]; Fiscal year: 1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal
year: 2000: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: Patent; Fiscal year: 1997: 164; Fiscal year: 1998: 147;
Fiscal year: 1999: 157; Fiscal year: 2000: 147; Fiscal year: 2001: 149.
Activity: Research materials; Fiscal year: 1997: 47; Fiscal year: 1998:
64; Fiscal year: 1999: 50; Fiscal year: 2000: 41; Fiscal year: 2001:
51.
Activity: Other; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998: 0; Fiscal
year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 211; Fiscal year: 1998: 211; Fiscal
year: 1999: 207; Fiscal year: 2000: 188; Fiscal year: 2001: 200.
Activity: Licenses earning income during fiscal year; Fiscal year:
1997: 490; Fiscal year: 1998: 563; Fiscal year: 1999: 621; Fiscal year:
2000: 600; Fiscal year: 2001: 697.
Activity: Licensing income; Fiscal year: 1997: $35,700,000; Fiscal
year: 1998: $39,600,000; Fiscal year: 1999: $44,600,000; Fiscal year:
2000: $52,000,000; Fiscal year: 2001: $46,100,000.
[A] In force at the end of the fiscal year.
[B] Agency did not provide data.
[C] Estimate.
Source: National Institutes of Health.
[End of table]
Table 8: Invention, Patenting, and Licensing Activity by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for Fiscal Years 1997-2001:
Activity: Invention disclosures; Fiscal year: 1997: 4; Fiscal year:
1998: 3; Fiscal year: 1999: 3; Fiscal year: 2000: 2; Fiscal year: 2001:
2.
Activity: Patent applications; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal year:
1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000: [Empty];
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 3; Fiscal year: 1998: 2; Fiscal
year: 1999: 2; Fiscal year: 2000: 2; Fiscal year: 2001: 3.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998: 0; Fiscal
year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 3; Fiscal year: 1998: 2; Fiscal
year: 1999: 2; Fiscal year: 2000: 2; Fiscal year: 2001: 3.
Activity: Patents issued; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal year:
1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000: [Empty];
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 4; Fiscal year: 1998: 1; Fiscal
year: 1999: 2; Fiscal year: 2000: 3; Fiscal year: 2001: 1.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998: 0; Fiscal
year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 4; Fiscal year: 1998: 1; Fiscal
year: 1999: 2; Fiscal year: 2000: 3; Fiscal year: 2001: 1.
Activity: Patents in force[A]; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal year:
1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000: [Empty];
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 14; Fiscal year: 1998: 12; Fiscal
year: 1999: 11; Fiscal year: 2000: 9; Fiscal year: 2001: 10.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998: 0; Fiscal
year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 14; Fiscal year: 1998: 12; Fiscal
year: 1999: 11; Fiscal year: 2000: 9; Fiscal year: 2001: 10.
Activity: Licenses in force[A]; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal
year: 1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000:
[Empty]; Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: [B]; Fiscal year: 1998: [B]; Fiscal
year: 1999: [B]; Fiscal year: 2000: [B]; Fiscal year: 2001: 1.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: [B]; Fiscal year: 1998: [B];
Fiscal year: 1999: [B]; Fiscal year: 2000: [B]; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: [B]; Fiscal year: 1998: [B]; Fiscal
year: 1999: [B]; Fiscal year: 2000: [B]; Fiscal year: 2001: 1.
Activity: Licenses executed by type of license; Fiscal year: 1997:
[Empty]; Fiscal year: 1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal
year: 2000: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: Exclusive; Fiscal year: 1997: [B]; Fiscal year: 1998: [B];
Fiscal year: 1999: [B]; Fiscal year: 2000: [B]; Fiscal year: 2001: 1.
Activity: Partially exclusive; Fiscal year: 1997: [B]; Fiscal year:
1998: [B]; Fiscal year: 1999: [B]; Fiscal year: 2000: [B]; Fiscal year:
2001: 0.
Activity: Nonexclusive; Fiscal year: 1997: [B]; Fiscal year: 1998: [B];
Fiscal year: 1999: [B]; Fiscal year: 2000: [B]; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Other; Fiscal year: 1997: [B]; Fiscal year: 1998: [B]; Fiscal
year: 1999: [B]; Fiscal year: 2000: [B]; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: [B]; Fiscal year: 1998: [B]; Fiscal
year: 1999: [B]; Fiscal year: 2000: [B]; Fiscal year: 2001: 1.
Activity: Licenses executed by type of property; Fiscal year: 1997:
[Empty]; Fiscal year: 1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal
year: 2000: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: Patent; Fiscal year: 1997: [B]; Fiscal year: 1998: [B];
Fiscal year: 1999: [B]; Fiscal year: 2000: [B]; Fiscal year: 2001: 1.
Activity: Research materials; Fiscal year: 1997: [B]; Fiscal year:
1998: [B]; Fiscal year: 1999: [B]; Fiscal year: 2000: [B]; Fiscal year:
2001: 0.
Activity: Other; Fiscal year: 1997: [B]; Fiscal year: 1998: [B]; Fiscal
year: 1999: [B]; Fiscal year: 2000: [B]; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: [B]; Fiscal year: 1998: [B]; Fiscal
year: 1999: [B]; Fiscal year: 2000: [B]; Fiscal year: 2001: 1.
Activity: Licenses earning income during fiscal year; Fiscal year:
1997: [B]; Fiscal year: 1998: [B]; Fiscal year: 1999: [B]; Fiscal year:
2000: [B]; Fiscal year: 2001: 1.
Activity: Licensing income; Fiscal year: 1997: [B]; Fiscal year: 1998:
[B]; Fiscal year: 1999: [B]; Fiscal year: 2000: [B]; Fiscal year: 2001:
$1,500.
[A] In force at the end of the fiscal year.
[B] Agency did not provide data.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
[End of table]
Table 9: Invention, Patenting, and Licensing Activity by the Department
of the Navy for Fiscal Years 1997-2001:
Activity: Invention disclosures; Fiscal year: 1997: 666; Fiscal year:
1998: 748; Fiscal year: 1999: 715; Fiscal year: 2000: 670; Fiscal year:
2001: 589.
Activity: Patent applications; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal year:
1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000: [Empty];
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 449; Fiscal year: 1998: 419; Fiscal
year: 1999: 389; Fiscal year: 2000: 424; Fiscal year: 2001: 394.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: 22; Fiscal year: 1998: 24; Fiscal
year: 1999: 56; Fiscal year: 2000: 52; Fiscal year: 2001: 57.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 471; Fiscal year: 1998: 443; Fiscal
year: 1999: 445; Fiscal year: 2000: 476; Fiscal year: 2001: 451.
Activity: Patents issued; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal year:
1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000: [Empty];
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 290; Fiscal year: 1998: 358; Fiscal
year: 1999: 304; Fiscal year: 2000: 372; Fiscal year: 2001: 327.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998: 3; Fiscal
year: 1999: 9; Fiscal year: 2000: 8; Fiscal year: 2001: 9.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 290; Fiscal year: 1998: 361; Fiscal
year: 1999: 313; Fiscal year: 2000: 380; Fiscal year: 2001: 336.
Activity: Patents in force[A]; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal year:
1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000: [Empty];
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 2,184; Fiscal year: 1998: 2,245;
Fiscal year: 1999: 2,158; Fiscal year: 2000: 2,241; Fiscal year: 2001:
2,295.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: 6; Fiscal year: 1998: 8; Fiscal
year: 1999: 12; Fiscal year: 2000: 30; Fiscal year: 2001: 29.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 2,190; Fiscal year: 1998: 2,253;
Fiscal year: 1999: 2,170; Fiscal year: 2000: 2,271; Fiscal year: 2001:
2,324.
Activity: Licenses in force[A]; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal
year: 1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000:
[Empty]; Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 62; Fiscal year: 1998: 71; Fiscal
year: 1999: 80; Fiscal year: 2000: 87; Fiscal year: 2001: 99.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: 2; Fiscal year: 1998: 2; Fiscal
year: 1999: 4; Fiscal year: 2000: 5; Fiscal year: 2001: 7.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 64; Fiscal year: 1998: 73; Fiscal
year: 1999: 84; Fiscal year: 2000: 92; Fiscal year: 2001: 106.
Activity: Licenses executed by type of license; Fiscal year: 1997:
[Empty]; Fiscal year: 1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal
year: 2000: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: Exclusive; Fiscal year: 1997: 5; Fiscal year: 1998: 5; Fiscal
year: 1999: 4; Fiscal year: 2000: 5; Fiscal year: 2001: 6.
Activity: Partially exclusive; Fiscal year: 1997: 1; Fiscal year: 1998:
2; Fiscal year: 1999: 5; Fiscal year: 2000: 2; Fiscal year: 2001: 6.
Activity: Nonexclusive; Fiscal year: 1997: 4; Fiscal year: 1998: 9;
Fiscal year: 1999: 4; Fiscal year: 2000: 8; Fiscal year: 2001: 13.
Activity: Other; Fiscal year: 1997: 4; Fiscal year: 1998: 1; Fiscal
year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 1.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 14; Fiscal year: 1998: 17; Fiscal
year: 1999: 13; Fiscal year: 2000: 15; Fiscal year: 2001: 26.
Activity: Licenses executed by type of property; Fiscal year: 1997:
[Empty]; Fiscal year: 1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal
year: 2000: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: Patent; Fiscal year: 1997: 14; Fiscal year: 1998: 15; Fiscal
year: 1999: 13; Fiscal year: 2000: 15; Fiscal year: 2001: 26.
Activity: Research materials; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998:
0; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Other; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998: 0; Fiscal
year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 14; Fiscal year: 1998: 15; Fiscal
year: 1999: 13; Fiscal year: 2000: 15; Fiscal year: 2001: 26.
Activity: Licenses earning income during fiscal year; Fiscal year:
1997: 57; Fiscal year: 1998: 69; Fiscal year: 1999: 61; Fiscal year:
2000: 65; Fiscal year: 2001: 87.
Activity: Licensing income; Fiscal year: 1997: $477,970; Fiscal year:
1998: $917,836; Fiscal year: 1999: $676,555; Fiscal year: 2000:
$698,897; Fiscal year: 2001: $1,245,629.
[A] In force at the end of the fiscal year.
Source: U.S. Navy.
[End of table]
Table 10: Invention, Patenting, and Licensing Activity by the U.S.
Geological Survey for Fiscal Years 1997-2001:
Activity: Invention disclosures; Fiscal year: 1997: 4; Fiscal year:
1998: 4; Fiscal year: 1999: 5; Fiscal year: 2000: 9; Fiscal year: 2001:
4.
Activity: Patent applications; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal year:
1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000: [Empty];
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 2; Fiscal year: 1998: 0; Fiscal
year: 1999: 4; Fiscal year: 2000: 4; Fiscal year: 2001: 16.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998: 0; Fiscal
year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 2; Fiscal year: 1998: 0; Fiscal
year: 1999: 4; Fiscal year: 2000: 4; Fiscal year: 2001: 16.
Activity: Patents issued; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal year:
1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000: [Empty];
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 1; Fiscal year: 1998: 2; Fiscal
year: 1999: 1; Fiscal year: 2000: 2; Fiscal year: 2001: 4.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998: 0; Fiscal
year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 1; Fiscal year: 1998: 2; Fiscal
year: 1999: 1; Fiscal year: 2000: 2; Fiscal year: 2001: 4.
Activity: Patents in force[A]; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal year:
1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000: [Empty];
Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 35; Fiscal year: 1998: 37; Fiscal
year: 1999: 38; Fiscal year: 2000: 38; Fiscal year: 2001: 42.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: 10; Fiscal year: 1998: 10; Fiscal
year: 1999: 10; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 45; Fiscal year: 1998: 47; Fiscal
year: 1999: 48; Fiscal year: 2000: 38; Fiscal year: 2001: 42.
Activity: Licenses in force[A]; Fiscal year: 1997: [Empty]; Fiscal
year: 1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2000:
[Empty]; Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: U.S.; Fiscal year: 1997: 10; Fiscal year: 1998: 11; Fiscal
year: 1999: 4; Fiscal year: 2000: 4; Fiscal year: 2001: 6.
Activity: Foreign; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998: 0; Fiscal
year: 1999: 8; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 10; Fiscal year: 1998: 11; Fiscal
year: 1999: 12; Fiscal year: 2000: 4; Fiscal year: 2001: 6.
Activity: Licenses executed by type of license; Fiscal year: 1997:
[Empty]; Fiscal year: 1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal
year: 2000: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: Exclusive; Fiscal year: 1997: 2; Fiscal year: 1998: 0; Fiscal
year: 1999: 2; Fiscal year: 2000: 2; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Partially exclusive; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998:
0; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Nonexclusive; Fiscal year: 1997: 8; Fiscal year: 1998: 11;
Fiscal year: 1999: 8; Fiscal year: 2000: 2; Fiscal year: 2001: 2.
Activity: Other; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998: 0; Fiscal
year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 10; Fiscal year: 1998: 11; Fiscal
year: 1999: 10; Fiscal year: 2000: 4; Fiscal year: 2001: 2.
Activity: Licenses executed by type of property; Fiscal year: 1997:
[Empty]; Fiscal year: 1998: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 1999: [Empty]; Fiscal
year: 2000: [Empty]; Fiscal year: 2001: [Empty].
Activity: Patent; Fiscal year: 1997: 8; Fiscal year: 1998: 11; Fiscal
year: 1999: 12; Fiscal year: 2000: 4; Fiscal year: 2001: 2.
Activity: Research materials; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998:
0; Fiscal year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Other; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998: 0; Fiscal
year: 1999: 0; Fiscal year: 2000: 0; Fiscal year: 2001: 0.
Activity: Total; Fiscal year: 1997: 8; Fiscal year: 1998: 11; Fiscal
year: 1999: 12; Fiscal year: 2000: 4; Fiscal year: 2001: 2.
Activity: Licenses earning income during fiscal year; Fiscal year:
1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998: 11; Fiscal year: 1999: 12; Fiscal year:
2000: 8; Fiscal year: 2001: 5.
Activity: Licensing income; Fiscal year: 1997: 0; Fiscal year: 1998:
$2,500,000; Fiscal year: 1999: $2,000,000; Fiscal year: 2000: $850,000;
Fiscal year: 2001: $220,000.
[A] In force at the end of the fiscal year.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Summary of Guidelines for Agency Reporting under the
Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000:
Among other things, the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of
2000 (TTCA) requires agencies with laboratories or technology transfer
functions to report annually on their operations to the Office of
Management and Budget and the Department of Commerce. With the
assistance of the Interagency Working Group on Technology Transfer, the
Department of Commerce issued guidelines on December 11, 2001, for
agencies to use in developing and submitting these annual reports.
Table 11 summarizes certain statistical data requested by Commerce,
with additional information in some cases detailing the specific data
elements to be used in the development of the statistics.
Table 11: Summary of Department of Commerce Guidelines for Statistical
Information to be Included in Agency TTCA Reports:
[See PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Annual Reporting on Agency Tech
Transfer in response to the TTCA 2000--Data Elements of the Agency
Annual Reports (Dec. 11, 2001).
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Statistics Provided by Nine Selected Agencies to the
Department of Commerce under the TTCA of 2000:
Table 12: Collaborative Relationship for Research, Development, and
Demonstration, Fiscal Year 2001:
[See PDF for image]
[A] Active as of the end of the fiscal year.
[B] Executed during the fiscal year.
[C] For the Air Force 73 of 81 are Educational Partnership Agreements.
[D] DOE officials said that DOE does not enter into non-traditional
cooperative research and development agreements.
Source: Agencies cited and U.S. Department of Commerce.
[End of table]
Table 13: Invention Disclosure and Patenting, Fiscal Year 2001:
Agency: Agricultural Research Service; Invention disclosures: 118;
Patent applications: 83; Patents issued: 64.
Agency: Air Force; Invention disclosures: 85; Patent applications: 101;
Patents issued: 114.
Agency: Army; Invention disclosures: 292; Patent applications: 262;
Patents issued: 156.
Agency: Department of Energy; Invention disclosures: 1,527; Patent
applications: 792; Patents issued: 605.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Invention
disclosures: 696; Patent applications: 151; Patents issued: 159.
Agency: National Institutes of Health; Invention disclosures: 379;
Patent applications: 179; Patents issued: 99.
Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Invention
disclosures: 1; Patent applications: 3; Patents issued: 1.
Agency: Navy; Invention disclosures: 573; Patent applications: 421;
Patents issued: 320.
Agency: U.S. Geological Survey; Invention disclosures: 4; Patent
applications: 16; Patents issued: 4.
Agency: Total; Invention disclosures: 3,675; Patent applications:
2,008; Patents issued: 1,522.
Source: Agencies cited and U.S. Department of Commerce.
[End of table]
Table 14: New, Active, and Terminated Licenses during Fiscal Year 2001:
Number of licenses: Active licenses on inventions: Department of
Energy: 255; Newly executed licenses on inventions: Department of
Energy: 31; Licenses on other intellectual property[A]: Department of
Energy: 0; All licenses terminated for cause: Department of Energy: 1.
Number of licenses: Active licenses on inventions: Department of
Energy: 62; Newly executed licenses on inventions: Department of
Energy: 15; Licenses on other intellectual property[A]: Department of
Energy: 0; All licenses terminated for cause: Department of Energy: 0.
Number of licenses: Active licenses on inventions: Department of
Energy: 101; Newly executed licenses on inventions: Department of
Energy: 8; Licenses on other intellectual property[A]: Department of
Energy: 0; All licenses terminated for cause: Department of Energy: 0.
Number of licenses: Active licenses on inventions: Department of
EnergyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration: 1,162; Newly
executed licenses on inventions: Department of EnergyNational
Aeronautics and Space Administration: 226; Licenses on other
intellectual property[A]: Department of EnergyNational Aeronautics and
Space Administration: 843; All licenses terminated for cause:
Department of EnergyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration: 60.
Agency: Agricultural Research Service: Air Force: Army: Department of
Energy: National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Number of
licenses: Active licenses on inventions: 292; Newly executed licenses
on inventions: 42; Licenses on other intellectual property[A]: 36; All
licenses terminated for cause: 23.
Agency: Agricultural Research Service: Air Force: Army: Department of
Energy: National Institutes of Health; Number of licenses: Active
licenses on inventions: 977; Newly executed licenses on inventions:
200; Licenses on other intellectual property[A]: 355; All licenses
terminated for cause: 9.
Agency: Agricultural Research Service: Air Force: Army: Department of
Energy: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Number of
licenses: Active licenses on inventions: 1; Newly executed licenses on
inventions: 1; Licenses on other intellectual property[A]: 0; All
licenses terminated for cause: 0.
Agency: Agricultural Research Service: Air Force: Army: Department of
Energy: Navy; Number of licenses: Active licenses on inventions: 102;
Newly executed licenses on inventions: 25; Licenses on other
intellectual property[A]: 0; All licenses terminated for cause: 2.
Agency: Agricultural Research Service: Air Force: Army: Department of
Energy: U.S. Geological Survey; Number of licenses: Active licenses on
inventions: 6; Newly executed licenses on inventions: 2; Licenses on
other intellectual property[A]: 0; All licenses terminated for cause:
0.
Agency: Agricultural Research Service: Air Force: Army: Department of
Energy: Total; Number of licenses: Active licenses on inventions:
2,958; Newly executed licenses on inventions: 550; Licenses on other
intellectual property[A]: 1,234; All licenses terminated for cause: 95.
[A] Other intellectual property includes software, tangible research
products (such as biological materials), and protected data.
Source: Agencies cited and U.S. Department of Commerce.
[End of table]
Table 15: Active Licenses That Had Royalty Income, by Type, Fiscal Year
2001:
Type of license: Exclusive: Department of Energy: 78; Non-exclusive:
Department of Energy: 23; Partially exclusive: Department of Energy:
19; Total: Department of Energy: 120.
Type of license: Exclusive: Department of Energy: 8; Non-exclusive:
Department of Energy: 3; Partially exclusive: Department of Energy: 0;
Total: Department of Energy: 11.
Type of license: Exclusive: Department of Energy: 13; Non-exclusive:
Department of Energy: 11; Partially exclusive: Department of Energy: 4;
Total: Department of Energy: 28.
Type of license: Exclusive: Department of EnergyNational Aeronautics
and Space Administration: 174; Non-exclusive: Department of
EnergyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration: 726; Partially
exclusive: Department of EnergyNational Aeronautics and Space
Administration: 112; Total: Department of EnergyNational Aeronautics
and Space Administration: 1,012.
Agency: Agricultural Research Service: Air Force: Army: Department of
Energy: National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Type of license:
Exclusive: 57; Non-exclusive: 44; Partially exclusive: 13; Total: 114.
Agency: Agricultural Research Service: Air Force: Army: Department of
Energy: National Institutes of Health; Type of license: Exclusive: 100;
Non-exclusive: 583; Partially exclusive: 13; Total: 696.
Agency: Agricultural Research Service: Air Force: Army: Department of
Energy: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Type of
license: Exclusive: 1; Non-exclusive: 0; Partially exclusive: 0; Total:
1.
Agency: Agricultural Research Service: Air Force: Army: Department of
Energy: Navy; Type of license: Exclusive: 15; Non-exclusive: 34;
Partially exclusive: 17; Total: 66.
Agency: Agricultural Research Service: Air Force: Army: Department of
Energy: U.S. Geological Survey; Type of license: Exclusive: 0; Non-
exclusive: 6; Partially exclusive: 0; Total: 6.
Agency: Agricultural Research Service: Air Force: Army: Department of
Energy: Total; Type of license: Exclusive: 446; Non-exclusive: 1,430;
Partially exclusive: 178; Total: 2,054.
Source: Agencies cited and U.S. Department of Commerce.
[End of table]
Table 16: Income from Licenses by Source, Fiscal Year 2001:
Agency: Agricultural Research Service[C]; Income[A]: Invention
licenses active during fiscal year: $2,622,000; Other intellectual
property[B]: 0; Total: $2,622,000.
Agency: Air Force; Income[A]: Invention licenses active during fiscal
year: 99,038; Other intellectual property[B]: 0; Total: 99,038.
Agency: Army; Income[A]: Invention licenses active during fiscal year:
855,500; Other intellectual property[B]: 0; Total: 855,500.
Agency: Department of Energy; Income[A]: Invention licenses active
during fiscal year: 18,921,843; Other intellectual property[B]:
$1,870,071; Total: 21,403,362[D].
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Income[A]:
Invention licenses active during fiscal year: 1,318,864; Other
intellectual property[B]: 651,855; Total: 1,971,218[D].
Agency: National Institutes of Health; Income[A]: Invention licenses
active during fiscal year: 40,700,000; Other intellectual property[B]:
5,400,000; Total: 46,100,000.
Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Income[A]:
Invention licenses active during fiscal year: 1,600; Other intellectual
property[B]: 0; Total: 1,600.
Agency: Navy; Income[A]: Invention licenses active during fiscal year:
1,240,630; Other intellectual property[B]: 0; Total: 1,240,630.
Agency: U.S. Geological Survey[E]; Income[A]: Invention licenses active
during fiscal year: 220,000; Other intellectual property[B]: 0; Total:
220,000.
Agency: Total; Income[A]: Invention licenses active during fiscal year:
$65,979,475; Other intellectual property[B]: $7,921,926; Total:
$74,513,348.
[A] Income includes all licensing income including license issue fees,
minimum annual royalties, paid-up license fees, earned royalties, etc.
[B] Other intellectual property includes software, tangible research
products (such as biological materials), and protected data.
[C] Does not include U.S. Forest Service.
[D] Totals provided by the agencies are greater than the sum of the
columns.
[E] Agency received $200,000 in fiscal year 2001 as final partial-year
payments on expired patents.
Source: Agencies cited and U.S. Department of Commerce.
[End of table]
Table 17: Characteristics of Earned Royalty Income Received, Fiscal
Year 2001:
Agency: Agricultural Research Service; Earned royalty income: Total:
$1,409,252; Range: Minimum: $78; Maximum: $563,320; Distribution:
Median: $5,723; Top 1 percent: Not provided[A]; Top 5 percent:
$723,167; Top 20 percent: $1,109,051.
Agency: Air Force; Earned royalty income: Total: Not provided; Range:
Minimum: 1,500; Maximum: 17,500; Distribution: Median: 12,038; Top 1
percent: $17,500; Top 5 percent: 17,500; Top 20 percent: 17,500.
Agency: Army; Earned royalty income: Total: Not provided; Range:
Minimum: 100; Maximum: 225,000; Distribution: Median: 7,800; Top 1
percent: 229,000; Top 5 percent: 346,000; Top 20 percent: 580,000.
Agency: Department of Energy; Earned royalty income: Total: 7,832,481;
Range: Minimum: 2; Maximum: 1,584,922; Distribution: Median: 3,889; Top
1 percent: 2,699,134; Top 5 percent: 5,271,631; Top 20 percent:
7,162,951.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Earned royalty
income: Total: 521,164; Range: Minimum: 71; Maximum: 232,159;
Distribution: Median: 21,735; Top 1 percent: Not provided; Top 5
percent: Not provided; Top 20 percent: 419,867.
Agency: National Institutes of Health; Earned royalty income: Total:
35,990,362; Range: Minimum: 8; Maximum: 11,000,000; Distribution:
Median: 2,200; Top 1 percent: Not provided[A]; Top 5 percent:
32,728,556; Top 20 percent: 35,516,006.
Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Earned royalty
income: Total: 1,600[B]; Range: Minimum: Not applicable; Maximum: Not
applicable; Distribution: Median: Not applicable; Top 1 percent: Not
applicable; Top 5 percent: Not applicable; Top 20 percent: Not
applicable.
Agency: Navy; Earned royalty income: Total: Not provided; Range:
Minimum: 75; Maximum: 76,085; Distribution: Median: 1,283; Top 1
percent: 76,085; Top 5 percent: 76,085; Top 20 percent: 83,274.
Agency: U.S. Geological Survey; Earned royalty income: Total: 220,000;
Range: Minimum: 2,000; Maximum: 20,000; Distribution: Median: Not
provided; Top 1 percent: Not provided; Top 5 percent: Not provided; Top
20 percent: Not provided.
[A] Not provided because the agency believed the information might
reveal income associated with an individual licensee.
[B] Earned royalty income is from one license; thus, there is no range.
Source: Agencies cited and U.S. Department of Commerce.
[End of table]
Table 18: Disposition of License Income, Fiscal Year 2001:
Agency: Agricultural Research Service; Inventor awards: $681,700;
Salaries: $1,075,000; Patent fees: $707,900; Other: $157,300; Total:
$2,621,900.
Agency: Air Force; Inventor awards: [A]; Salaries: [A]; Patent fees:
[A]; Other: [A]; Total: [A].
Agency: Army; Inventor awards: [A]; Salaries: [A]; Patent fees: [A];
Other: [A]; Total: [A].
Agency: Department of Energy; Inventor awards: 5,942,497; Salaries: Not
provided; Patent fees: Not provided; Other: 10,413,555; Total:
16,356,052.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Inventor awards:
615,558; Salaries: Not provided; Patent fees: Not provided; Other:
835,431[B]; Total: 1,450,989.
Agency: National Institutes of Health[C]; Inventor awards: Not
provided; Salaries: Not provided; Patent fees: Not provided; Other: Not
provided; Total: Not provided.
Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Inventor
awards: 1,600; Salaries: 0; Patent fees: 0; Other: 0; Total: 1,600.
Agency: Navy; Inventor awards: [A]; Salaries: [A]; Patent fees: [A];
Other: [A]; Total: [A].
Agency: U.S. Geological Survey; Inventor awards: 11,000; Salaries: Not
provided; Patent fees: Not provided; Other: 209,000; Total: 220,000.
Agency: Total; Inventor awards: $7,252,355; Salaries: $1,075,000;
Patent fees: $707,900; Other: $11,615,286; Total: $20,650,541.
Note: The Department of Commerce guidelines asked the agencies to
provide statistics on the disposition of royalty income but did not
specify the categories into which the statistics were to be subdivided.
Four agencies--the Air Force, the Army, the National Institutes of
Health, and the Navy--did not provide any data. The other five agencies
varied in the disposition categories listed.
[A] According to a Department of Commerce official, the Department of
Defense did not provide separate statistics for the individual military
services. However, the Department of Defense generally, provides 20
percent of license income to the inventors and the remaining 80 percent
is used for other awards and additional research and development.
[B] Figure includes $223,119 to National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Centers, $246,035 to the U.S. Treasury and $366,277 to
the California Institute of Technology.
[C] Income was distributed according to the law to inventors and was
used to support technology transfer operations and conduct further
research.
Source: Agencies cited and U.S. Department of Commerce.
[End of table]
Table 19: Time Elapsed between Application and License Agreement:
Average elapsed days: All licenses: Department of Energy[B]: 106;
Exclusive license: Department of Energy[B]: 88[A]; Non-exclusive
license: Department of Energy[B]: 65[A]; Partially exclusive license:
Department of Energy[B]: 166[A].
Average elapsed days: All licenses: Department of Energy[B]: Not
provided; Exclusive license: Department of Energy[B]: Not provided;
Non-exclusive license: Department of Energy[B]: Not provided; Partially
exclusive license: Department of Energy[B]: Not provided.
Average elapsed days: All licenses: Department of Energy[B]: Not
provided; Exclusive license: Department of Energy[B]: Not provided;
Non-exclusive license: Department of Energy[B]: Not provided; Partially
exclusive license: Department of Energy[B]: Not provided.
Average elapsed days: All licenses: Department of Energy[B]National
Aeronautics and Space Administration: Not provided; Exclusive license:
Department of Energy[B]National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
Not provided; Non-exclusive license: Department of Energy[B]National
Aeronautics and Space Administration: Not provided; Partially exclusive
license: Department of Energy[B]National Aeronautics and Space
Administration: Not provided.
Agency: Agricultural Research Service: Air Force[B]: Army[B]:
Department of Energy[B]: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Average elapsed days: All licenses: 439; Exclusive license: Not
provided; Non-exclusive license: Not provided; Partially exclusive
license: Not provided.
Agency: Agricultural Research Service: Air Force[B]: Army[B]:
Department of Energy[B]: National Institutes of Health; Average elapsed
days: All licenses: Not provided; Exclusive license: 267; Non-exclusive
license: 148; Partially exclusive license: 582.
Agency: Agricultural Research Service: Air Force[B]: Army[B]:
Department of Energy[B]: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration; Average elapsed days: All licenses: 240[C]; Exclusive
license: 240[C]; Non-exclusive license: Not applicable; Partially
exclusive license: Not applicable.
Agency: Agricultural Research Service: Air Force[B]: Army[B]:
Department of Energy[B]: Navy[B]; Average elapsed days: All licenses:
Not provided; Exclusive license: Not provided; Non-exclusive license:
Not provided; Partially exclusive license: Not provided.
Agency: Agricultural Research Service: Air Force[B]: Army[B]:
Department of Energy[B]: U.S. Geological Survey; Average elapsed days:
All licenses: 105; Exclusive license: Not applicable; Non-exclusive
license: 105[D]; Partially exclusive license: Not applicable.
[A] Figure is for two licenses.
[B] Data were not collected or readily available; however, the agency
plans to address this reporting requirement in the future.
[C] Figure is for one license. The elapsed time was given as 8 months
from date of formal license application to date of license execution.
[D] Figure is for two licenses. The elapsed time for one license was 3
months and elapsed time for the other license was 4 months.
Source: Agencies cited and U.S. Department of Commerce.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Differences in Statistics Provided under the TTCA of 2000
and Statistics Provided to GAO by Nine Agencies:
Appendix IV of this report provides statistics on technology transfer
activities provided directly to us by nine agencies whose activities we
reviewed, while appendix VI summarizes the statistical information
provided to the U.S. Department of Commerce by these same nine agencies
under the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000. In some
cases, the statistics disagreed, even though the data requested were
seemingly the same. The tables below show the differences and the
agencies‘ explanations for why they occurred.
Table 20: Differences in Statistics Provided to U.S. Department of
Commerce and Statistics Provided to GAO for Invention Disclosures,
Fiscal Year 2001:
Agency: Air Force; Statistics provided to Commerce: 85; Statistics
provided to GAO: 139; Difference: -54; [Empty]; Explanation: DOD had a
February cut-off date for data to OMB/Commerce. The GAO data are
updated data..
Agency: Army; Statistics provided to Commerce: 292; Statistics provided
to GAO: 270; Difference: 22; [Empty]; Explanation: One command
overstated disclosures to Commerce..
Agency: DOE; Statistics provided to Commerce: 1,527; Statistics
provided to GAO: 1,479; Difference: 48; [Empty]; Explanation: Not
determined..
Agency: NOAA; Statistics provided to Commerce: 1; Statistics provided
to GAO: 2; Difference: -1; [Empty]; Explanation: Data provided to GAO
are correct. The data provided to OMB/Commerce are in error..
Agency: Navy; Statistics provided to Commerce: 573; Statistics provided
to GAO: 589; Difference: -16; [Empty]; Explanation: DOD had a February
cut-off date for data to OMB/Commerce. The GAO data is updated data..
Source: Agency reports to the U.S. Department of Commerce on agency
technology transfer for fiscal year 2001 and statistics provided to GAO
by the agencies cited.
[End of table]
Table 21: Differences in Statistics Provided to U.S. Department of
Commerce and Statistics Provided to GAO for Patents Issued Fiscal Year
2001:
Agency: ARS; Statistics provided to Commerce: 64; Statistics provided
to GAO: 76; Difference: -12; [Empty]; Explanation: May not have
included foreign patents in OMB/Commerce data..
Agency: Army; Statistics provided to Commerce: 156; Statistics provided
to GAO: 164; Difference: -8; [Empty]; Explanation: DOD had a February
cut-off date for data to OMB/Commerce. The GAO data are updated data..
Agency: DOE; Statistics provided to Commerce: 605; Statistics provided
to GAO: 586; Difference: 19; [Empty]; Explanation: Not determined..
Agency: NIH; Statistics provided to Commerce: 99; Statistics provided
to GAO: 145; Difference: -46; [Empty]; Explanation: May not have
included foreign patents in OMB/Commerce data..
Agency: Navy; Statistics provided to Commerce: 320; Statistics provided
to GAO: 336; Difference: -16; [Empty]; Explanation: DOD had a February
cut-off date for data to OMB/Commerce. The GAO data is updated data..
Source: Agency reports to the U.S. Department of Commerce on agency
technology transfer for fiscal year 2001 and statistics provided to GAO
by the agencies cited.
[End of table]
Table 22: Differences in Statistics Provided to U.S. Department of
Commerce and Statistics Provided to GAO for Newly Executed Licenses,
Fiscal Year 2001:
Agency: Air Force; Statistics provided to Commerce: 15; Statistics
provided to GAO: 17; Difference: -2; [Empty]; Explanation: DOD had a
February cut-off date for data to OMB/Commerce. The GAO data are
updated data..
Agency: Army; Statistics provided to Commerce: 8; Statistics provided
to GAO: 14; Difference: -6; [Empty]; Explanation: DOD had a February
cut-off date for data to OMB/Commerce. The GAO data are updated data..
Agency: DOE; Statistics provided to Commerce: 226; Statistics provided
to GAO: 583; Difference: -357; [Empty]; Explanation: The figure
provided to OMB/Commerce did not include licenses for copyrights and
other non-patent types of intellectual property..
Agency: NASA; Statistics provided to Commerce: 42; Statistics provided
to GAO: 46; Difference: -4; [Empty]; Explanation: OMB/Commerce data
included only patents..
Agency: Navy; Statistics provided to Commerce: 25; Statistics provided
to GAO: 26; Difference: -1; [Empty]; Explanation: DOD had a February
cut-off date for data to OMB/Commerce. The GAO data are updated data..
Source: Agency reports to the U.S. Department of Commerce on agency
technology transfer for fiscal year 2001 and statistics provided to GAO
by the agencies cited.
[End of table]
Table 23: Differences in Statistics Provided to U.S. Department of
Commerce and Statistics Provided to GAO for Licenses That Had Income,
Fiscal Year 2001:
Agency: Air Force; Statistics provided to Commerce: 11; Statistics
provided to GAO: 12; Difference: -1; [Empty]; Explanation: DOD had a
February cut-off date for data to OMB/Commerce. The GAO data are
updated data..
Agency: DOE; Statistics provided to Commerce: 1,012; Statistics
provided to GAO: 992; Difference: 20; [Empty]; Explanation: Not
determined..
Agency: NIH; Statistics provided to Commerce: 696; Statistics provided
to GAO: 697; Difference: -1; [Empty]; Explanation: Not determined..
Agency: Navy; Statistics provided to Commerce: 66; Statistics provided
to GAO: 87; Difference: -21; [Empty]; Explanation: DOD had a February
cut-off date for data to OMB/Commerce. The GAO data are updated data..
Agency: USGS; Statistics provided to Commerce: 6; Statistics provided
to GAO: 5; Difference: 1; [Empty]; Explanation: The OMB/Commerce figure
included one license with income other than royalties..
Source: Agency reports to the U.S. Department of Commerce on agency
technology transfer for fiscal year 2001 and statistics provided to GAO
by the agencies cited.
[End of table]
Table 24: Differences in Statistics Provided to U.S. Department of
Commerce and Statistics Provided to GAO for Income from Licenses,
Fiscal Year 2001:
Agency: Army; Statistics provided to Commerce: $855,500; Statistics
provided to GAO: $845,472; Difference: $10,028; [Empty]; Explanation:
One laboratory reported to GAO the amount received by the laboratory,
but did not include the amount received by the inventors..
Agency: DOE; Statistics provided to Commerce: 21,403,362; Statistics
provided to GAO: 21,387,512; Difference: 15,850; [Empty]; Explanation:
May be due to confusion as to ’earned income“ and ’total income.“.
Agency: NOAA; Statistics provided to Commerce: 1,600; Statistics
provided to GAO: 1,500; Difference: 100; [Empty]; Explanation: Data
provided to GAO are correct. The data provided to OMB/Commerce are in
error..
Agency: Navy; Statistics provided to Commerce: 1,240,630; Statistics
provided to GAO: 1,245,629; Difference: -4,999; [Empty]; Explanation:
DOD had a February cut-off date for data to OMB/Commerce. The GAO data
are updated data..
Source: Agency reports to the U.S. Department of Commerce on agency
technology transfer for fiscal year 2001 and statistics provided to GAO
by the agencies cited.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Options to Improve Compliance with Reporting
Requirements
under the Bayh-Dole Act:
In August 1999, we issued a report entitled Technology Transfer:
Reporting Requirements for Federally Sponsored Inventions Need
Revision.[Footnote 19] Among other things, we noted in that report that
the Congress might wish to consider standardizing, improving, and
streamlining the reporting process for inventions subject to the Bayh-
Dole Act and Executive Order 12591. In appendix IV of that report, we
outlined some specific options available if the Congress did consider
such changes. Because we refer to these options in our current report,
we repeat them below.
Options for Standardizing, Streamlining, and Improving Reporting
Requirements Under the Bayh-Dole Act and Executive Order 12591:
In this report, we state that the Congress may wish to consider
amending the Bayh-Dole Act to standardize, improve, and streamline the
reporting process for inventions subject to both the act and Executive
Order 12591. Specifically, such changes could include (1) requiring the
Secretary of Commerce to develop standardized disclosure forms and
utilization reports for federally sponsored inventions, (2) making the
patent the primary control mechanism for reporting and documenting the
government‘s rights and the only written instrument for confirming the
government‘s royalty-free license, and (3) requiring the Patent and
Trademark Office (PTO) to provide information to the funding agencies
to assist them in monitoring compliance.
During our meetings with representatives from federal funding agencies,
contractors, and grantees, we discussed options for changes to the
reporting requirements. The officials generally agreed that the types
of changes suggested below could improve the quality of data available
and reduce the reporting burden. Officials from PTO told us that they
did not disagree with these suggestions. However, they pointed out that
an international treaty is being negotiated that would standardize
patent applications and could affect the types of information that
could be required on a patent application.
The options we discussed are as follows:
* Eliminating the requirement that the contractor or grantee submit a
confirmatory license as a separate written instrument on each
invention. These instruments are not always submitted or used, and the
license itself can be more easily documented on and accessed from the
patent itself. In effect, this change would appear to eliminate the
need for the Government Register.
* Requiring the Department of Commerce to develop, and by regulation
require the use of, a standardized invention disclosure form for all
federal agencies, contractors, and grantees. Under the current
procedures, each contractor or grantee generally has its own form. A
standardized form would make the procedure uniform and consistent among
all the agencies, contractors, and grantees.
* Making the patent the only instrument for documenting the
confirmatory license. This would entail eliminating the current
requirement that the contractor or grantee file a separate election to
retain title. Instead, within 2 years of disclosure (or within 1 year
if publication, sale, or public use of the invention has initiated the
1-year statutory period in which valid patent protection can be
obtained in the United States), require the contractor or grantee to
file a patent application with PTO. This would reduce a step in the
process for both the applicant and the agency and, in most cases,
shorten the time between the date the contractor or grantee realizes it
has an invention and the date it applies for a patent.
* Requiring that the government interest statement on the patent
application include the name of each specific agency that funded the
research, the contract or grant number(s) under which the invention was
created, and a provision stipulating that the government has a
nonexclusive, paid-up, royalty-free right to the use of the invention.
* Requiring that the contractor or grantee provide a copy of each
patent application--including divisionals, continuations, and
continuations-in-part--to the funding agency.[Footnote 20] This would
inform the funding agency that the contractor or grantee has filed the
application within the required time and that the agency has a record
of all patent applications related to the original invention
disclosure. Since patent applications are standard for all applicants,
this also means that all funding agencies receive standardized forms.
* Requiring PTO to (1) inform each funding agency named in a government
interest statement that PTO has received a patent application on the
invention and (2) provide the serial number of the application to the
agency. This provides a cross-check for the funding agency to ensure it
has received the patent application. Also, the agency has the serial
number if it needs to interact with PTO.
* Requiring PTO to inform the funding agency of major events--such as
the abandonment of an application--that would affect the government‘s
rights during the applicant‘s prosecution of the patent. This would
allow the funding agency to take timely action at any point its rights
to the invention are threatened.
* Requiring PTO to show in its Patent Gazette--the official journal on
patents and trademarks--that the issued patent is subject to a
government interest. This would provide notice to the funding agency
and the public that the patent has been issued and that the government
has rights to the invention. Anyone wanting more information could then
access the patent from PTO‘s Internet Web site or official patent
files.
* Permitting PTO to charge the applicant a fee for an application that
contains a government interest section. The fee should be commensurate
with PTO‘s additional costs for its services under the revised
requirements. This is in keeping with PTO‘s position of being self-
sufficient through fees. The fee would be paid by the applicant and
would be one additional factor the contractor or grantee would need to
consider in deciding whether to file a patent application. However, the
additional cost of the government interest fee should be offset to some
extent by the reduced costs of the lesser reporting burden on the
contractor or grantee.
* Requiring the Department of Commerce to develop a uniform utilization
report whereby contractors and grantees holding title to federally
sponsored inventions must report annually on the utilization of each
invention. These utilization reports could be used to provide
information on the status of development, the date of first commercial
sale or use, and the gross royalties received by the contractor or
grantee. The regulations already allow--but do not mandate--agencies to
require their contractors and grantees to provide these types of data.
Among other things, a utilization report on every invention would help
the funding agency to determine whether the contractor or grantee is
actively pursuing development and commercialization of the invention--
one of the agency‘s oversight responsibilities for inventions subject
to the Bayh-Dole Act and Executive Order 12591.
Some of these changes could be made by the Department of Commerce
through revisions to the existing regulations. However, the Congress
may need to consider changes to the law because (1) the changes need to
be made in conjunction with each other and (2) such actions as
eliminating the need for the Government Register, establishing
additional requirements for inventions created under Executive Order
12591, and placing additional requirements on PTO require congressional
action.[Footnote 21] Also, the Congress may wish to consider the impact
of any treaty--such as the one now being negotiated--that would affect
the types of information that could be required on the patent
application.
[End of section]
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
Washington, D.C. 20230:
OCT 16 2002:
Mr. John Stephenson Director:
Natural Resources and Environment U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Stephenson:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the General Accounting
Office (GAO) draft report entitled, ’Intellectual Property: Federal
Agency Efforts in Transferring and Reporting New Technology (GAO-03-
47).“:
Enclosed are the Department‘s comments on the draft report. We hope
these comments strengthen your final report and assist you in
addressing this important issue.
Thank you again for requesting the Department‘s views on the draft
report.
Signed by Donald L. Evans
Enclosure:
Comment and Recommendation changes on GAO‘s Draft Report GAO-03-47:
Intellectual Property: Federal Agency Efforts in Transferring and
Reporting New Technology:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft of
GAO‘s report; ’Intellectual Property: Federal Agency Efforts in
Transferring and Reporting New Technology (GAO-03-47).“:
Overall, we would like to commend GAO for a useful report. Over the
past year, the performance reporting process was in its first cycle
under the revised requirements of the Technology Transfer
Commercialization Act of 2000 (TTCA), some aspects of which differed
significantly from the prior procedures under the Stevenson-Wydler Act.
From DOC‘s perspective, the GAO report generally provides a realistic
analysis of the first cycle of the new reporting process. We believe
that the report‘s recommendations are reasonable and their adoption
would help improve performance in the next reporting cycle, this fall.
We note that DOC is beginning to implement many of them.
Our comments are directed at the portion of the GAO report that
addresses the implementation in 2002 of the revised federal lab
technology transfer reporting requirements under the TTCA. As your
report indicates, the Department of Commerce (DOC) had several
significant roles in this process.
We have several comments to make about the specifics of the text:
1. As your report notes (pages 2, 5, and elsewhere), a Summary Report,
prepared by the Secretary of Commerce, is the second stage of the
revised annual reporting process for the federal labs under the TTCA.
The DOC has now completed its work on the 2002 edition of that report,
which we expect to publish and transmit to the President and the
Congress shortly: Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology
Transfer: 2002 Report to the President and the Congress under the
Technology Transfer and Commercialization Act.
2. The federal agency statistics cited in DOC‘s 2002 Summary Report are
more complete in some places than those listed in the GAO report‘s
Appendix VI tables. In preparing the 2002 report, DOC‘s Office of
Technology Policy (OTP) worked closely with the federal agencies to
review and clarify the information submitted in their individual agency
reports. As a result, some of the items the GAO tables describe as ’not
provided“ are, in fact, included in the DOC‘s Summary Report. We have
indicated to the GAO report authors that we would be pleased to provide
them with the most current agency data that we have.
3. A related observation is that the federal-wide statistical totals
reported by OTP in recent Biennial Reports, as well as the forthcoming
annual Summary Report include a more comprehensive set of federal
agencies than the set of agencies included in GAO‘s present report.
GAO‘s use of a selected subset of agencies with federal labs, as well
as describing totals across
this subset, is certainly reasonable, given the study design. This may,
however, cause some confusion if readers compare the GAO statistics
with those of DOC‘s continuing series of reports on federal lab
technology transfer. We urge GAO to note this discrepancy and explain
the reason for it in this report.
4. GAO‘s recommendation (pages 5, 41-42) that, as needed, the
Department of Commerce revisit, review, and refine the December 2001
guidelines for data elements included in the agencies‘ reports is
noted. The detail of the data requested, the importance of clear
definitions, and the evolving state of the federal labs‘ databases
concerning their technology transfer activities emphasize the
importance of continuing review of data collection procedures. This
topic is already on the agenda for near-term discussion with the
Interagency Working Group members, before the next cycle of the agency
reporting commences later this fall.
We would also note that substantial effort was devoted in 2001 by DOC‘s
OTP, in extended discussion with the Interagency Working Group on
Technology Transfer, to prepare detailed guidelines about the activity
data and other program information essential for agencies‘ 2002
reporting.
5. We believe that GAO‘s recommendation (pages 5, 42) that the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) play a role in developing procedures
’for accumulating, collating, and reporting the information submitted
by the agencies under the TTCA has merit. It appears that uncertainty
about the submission process was a contributing factor to agencies‘
late submissions of their technology transfer reports in 2002. While we
believe that flexibility should be afforded to agencies in the
substance of reporting under the TTCA, guidance from OMB that clarifies
how agencies‘ technology transfer reports should be submitted to OMB as
part of the budget process would be of great help to agencies.
We would be happy to discuss these observations with the GAO project
staff in greater detail, should that be useful.
Note: Page numbers in the draft report may differ from those in this
report.
[End of section]
Appendix X: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
John P. Hunt, Jr. (404) 679-1822
Frankie Fulton (404) 679-1805:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, Gene Barnes, Bert Japikse, Deborah
Ortega, Paul Rhodes, and Lynne Schoenauer made key contributions to
this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] While we refer to the consolidated report as being the
responsibility of the Department of Commerce, the act actually requires
that the Secretary of Commerce issue the report.
[2] U.S. General Accounting Office, Technology Transfer: Reporting
Requirements for Federally Sponsored Inventions Need Revision, GAO/
RCED-99-242 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 12, 1999).
[3] Technology transfer has been defined as ’the sharing of technology
or technical knowledge across different organizations“ and commonly
refers to that process where one party enters into a licensing
arrangement with another party to confer the right to exploit
commercially a patented or otherwise proprietary technology.
[4] P.L. 96-480, Oct. 21, 1980.
[5] P.L. 96-517, Dec. 12, 1980.
[6] P.L. 99-502, Oct. 20, 1986.
[7] Originally, GAO was to issue annual reports. However, in 1991, the
act was amended to require a report at least every 5 years. Our last
report in response to this mandate was Technology Transfer:
Administration of the Bayh-Dole Act by Research Universities, GAO/
RCED-98-126 (Washington, D.C.: May 7, 1998).
[8] P.L. 106-404, Nov. 1, 2000.
[9] The act also requires the agency to provide a copy of its report to
the Attorney General; however, Commerce is supposed to develop the
summary report from these submissions, with the Attorney General‘s
consultation.
[10] Intramural research is that research conducted in federal
facilities by federal employees and is contrasted with extramural
research, which is research conducted by federal contractors and
grantees.
[11] The values shown on these and other figures and tables in this
report are actual and have not been adjusted for inflation.
[12] The Stevenson-Wydler Act was amended in 1986 to require the
Department of Commerce to develop biennial reports to the President and
Congress on federal laboratories‘ utilization of the technology
transfer authorities opened to them by federal law. The biennial report
requirement was superceded by the reporting requirement of the
Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000.
[13] U.S. General Accounting Office, Technology Transfer: Reporting
Requirements for Federally Sponsored Inventions Need Revision, GAO/
RCED-99-242 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 12, 1999).
[14] P.L. 106-107, Nov. 20, 1999.
[15] Genes necessary for crop improvement are contained in a broad
array of plant materials that, when used in breeding or genetic
research, are termed ’germplasm.“
[16] Fees for maintaining in force a patent based on an application
filed on or after
December 12, 1980.
[17] Capillary electrophoresis involves the use of an electrical
current that causes the molecules in the sample under investigation to
migrate at different speeds, according to size and charge.
[18] NOAA is in the process of hiring a full time employee.
[19] GAO/RCED-99-24 2.
[20] The original application for a particular patent is referred to as
the parent. Subsequent applications may relate back to the parent
either as a divisional, a continuation, or a continuation-in-part. A
divisional is a later application that is carved out of a pending
application and discloses or claims only subject matter disclosed in
the earlier application. A continuation is a second application for the
same invention claimed in a prior application that discloses and claims
only subject matter disclosed in prior applications and introduces into
the case a new set of claims. A continuation-in-part repeats some
substantial portion or all of the earlier application but adds matter
not disclosed in the earlier case.
[21] The Government Register is maintained by the USPTO for the purpose
of recording the ’confirmatory licenses“ agencies receive from
contractors and grantees confirming that the government has rights in
the inventions in question. It is a separate record from the
’government interest“ section on the patent itself, which also shows
that the invention was created with government support and that the
government may have rights in the invention.
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
