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: