Get documents about "INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND RIGHTS TO INVENTIONS AND DATA IN
Document Sample
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND RIGHTS TO INVENTIONS AND DATA IN THE COURSE
OF, OR UNDER, A GRANT, COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT, OR LOAN WITH
GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES
Authors: R. Michael Ananian, Partner – Perkins Coie LLP 1
Failop Chu, Student, University of California Hastings College of the Law
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
This document discusses certain rights in data and in inventions and other intellectual
property relative to grants, loan, and other cooperative agreements with the Department of
Energy (DOE), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and Advanced Research Projects
Agency – Energy (ARPA-E). Because of the relatively large scope of this topical area and the
particular regulations that apply as well as exceptions to these regulations, this discussion
should be treated as an introduction and overview to the topic and not as specific legal advice,
which necessarily is highly fact-specific, including depending on such factors as the definition of
the work or project to which a grant or award is made, how an invention and data relates to the
work or project to which the grant or award is made, the nature of the entity receiving the grant
or award, including its status as a small or large business entity, and any parent organization or
subsidiary status that may pertain to the entity.
The definition of "conception" of an invention and of "constructive" reduction to practice
versus "actual" reduction to practice of an invention may also be fact- and circumstance-specific
and may differ in the laws and statutes referenced herein from the meanings of "conception"
and "constructive" reduction to practice and to "actual" reduction to practice of an invention as
used in the patent laws. These differences may be important and should be considered in the
context of the work or project for which the grant, loan, or other cooperative agreement is made
but specific treatment of such differences is beyond the scope of this overview. Consultation
with a patent attorney and reference to the patent statues and case law will be of assistance in
identifying the stage of invention as conception, constructive, or actual reduction to practice.
Reference to the invention and patent here includes multiple inventions and multiple patents as
research and development or other discoveries may involve multiple inventions, patent
applications, and patents.
1
CHAPTER 1: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) GENERALLY
I. Overview
Inventions made by universities, nonprofit institutions, and both large and small
businesses that have received federal money to fund their research are subject to the “Patent
and Data Provisions” of Title 10, Chapter II, Part 600, Subpart D, Section Appendix A.2 Under
a Department of Energy (DOE) award, the government has certain statutory rights in an
invention that is "made under an award."3 An invention “made under an award” is "conceived or
first actually reduced to practice in the performance of a federal grant, contract, or cooperative
agreement” whether the conception or reduction to practice was fully or partially funded by the
federal government.4 The recipient of federal funding grant is generally known as or referred to
as the grantee, and where a contract or other cooperative agreement other than a grant is
involved may be referred to as a contractor. The term grantee will be used here to include both
grantee, contractors and other award recipient categories. Rights in an invention and to a
patent directed to the invention as well as rights to data may generally depend on the
characteristics of the entity receiving the award, any failure to comply with award requirements,
any waivers that may be available and that are granted, and any exceptions that may apply.
A. Patent Rights for Small Business Firms5
The relevant statutes and regulations that pertain to patent rights for small business
firms are 35 U.S.C. Section 200 (“Bayh-Dole Act”), which generally discusses “Patent Rights in
Inventions Made with Federal Assistance,” and 37 C.F.R. Part 401, which discusses the “Rights
to Inventions Made by Nonprofit Organizations and Small Business Firms Under Government
Grants, Contracts, and Cooperative Agreements.”
1. Policy and Purpose of the Bayh-Dole Act
In enacting the Bayh-Dole Act,6 Congress' legislative purpose in providing financial
support was to ensure that the funding federal agency, as well as the public, benefited from the
research7. As set forth in the Bayh-Dole Act,8 the policy and purpose is:
2
"… to promote the commercialization and public availability of
inventions made in the [U.S.]; to ensure that the Government
obtains sufficient rights in federally supported inventions to meet
the needs of the Government and protect the public against
nonuse or unreasonable use of inventions . . . "
In no uncertain terms, the government will be able to retain certain rights to use
federally-supported inventions for government purposes while the public benefits from the
accessibility and commercialization of these inventions. A specific reference is particularly
made in the legislative text to nonprofit organizations and small business firms wherein the
Bayh-Dole Act aims to “encourage maximum participation of small business firms in federally
supported research and development efforts” "without unduly encumbering future research and
discovery."9 As such, the underlying policy favors the retention of patent rights by small
business firms (cf. large business firms); however, it should be appreciated that large
businesses can also benefit.10
The grantee may elect to retain the entire right, title, and interest to each invention
submitted for a patent throughout the world, subject to the provisions of the patent rights clause
defined in the award and in the Bayh-Dole Act. Under the statutory framework of the Bayh-Dole
Act, a grantee must comply with specific conditions in the funding agreement in order to elect to
retain title (See Section (I)(A)(2): Failure to Comply and Divestiture of Patent Rights). Although
the grantee may elect to retain title, the funding agency retains a “nonexclusive,
non-transferable, irrevocable, paid-up right to practice or have practiced the invention on behalf
of the U.S. throughout the world.”11 In addition, even if the small business firm complies with
every condition, the government nevertheless may acquire title under certain circumstances.12
Obviously, the small business recipient or grantee must take steps to perfect patent rights and
title to such patent rights, such as by preparing and filing patent applications in the U.S. and
internationally, as the rights available to the small business entity (or to large business or other
entities) do not otherwise vest in the recipient solely by virtue of the Bayh-Dole Act or other acts
discussed here. The circumstances under which the government will acquire title despite a
grantee’s compliance are listed and discussed infra in Section (I)(A)(3): Circumstances Under
Which the Government Will Acquire Title.
3
2. Failure to Comply and Divestiture of Patent Rights
The small-business firm grantee is required to comply with conditions set forth in
Section 202 of the Bayh-Dole Act. For example, a grantee must disclose the subject invention
to the DOE within two months of a written report to the administrative personnel responsible for
patent matters within the small business firm; otherwise the government may receive title13 to
the subject invention.14 However, the failure to disclose is curable and the grantee may retain
title if the invention is disclosed at a later date, provided that the federal agency has an
additional sixty days in which to determine whether to take title.15 The grantee must also
separately comply with the U.S. and international filing requirements including any statutory
deadlines as a result of publication, commercialization, or public use.16
This condition exemplifies an ambiguity in the specified requirements.17 One issue that
may arise in litigation is what ought to happen when the grantee-patentee fails to comply with
disclosure, but the federal agency has yet to determine whether it has an interest in taking
title.18 If the grantee-patentee were to assert the patent, the defendant could argue that the
grantee-patentee’s failure to comply with the required disclosure agreements renders the patent
unenforceable. In response, the patentee may respond that the federal agency’s inaction in not
receiving title implicitly means the title vests with the grantee-patentee. Thus, this potential
ambiguity in the conditions could substantially impact the inventor’s patent rights, especially
during later patent litigation.
Some courts have addressed this issue.19 In TM Patents v. IBM, failure to comply with
35 U.S.C. § 202 divests title from the grantee-patentee and thus “results in the Government
acquiring title." 121 F. Supp. 2d 349, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). Similarly, the Federal Circuit in
Campbell Plastics Engineering & Mfg., Inc. v. Brownlee upheld the transfer of title to the U.S.
Army upon the grantee-patentee’s failure to comply with the invention disclosure provisions of
35 U.S.C. § 202.20 389 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Accordingly, these cases could stand for the
proposition that a lack of compliance with the specified conditions in the Bayh-Dole Act denies
the grantee-patentee (along with any assignees) title and the ability to enforce the patent.21
Thus, compliance with the terms and conditions of the funding agreement under the Bayh-Dole
Act is essential in protecting patent rights.
Other conditions specified in the Bayh-Dole Act also trigger an uncertainty in patent
rights should the failure to comply arise. 22 One condition requires the grantee to establish in
4
writing the right of the funding agency to have a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable,
paid-up license to practice the invention throughout the world. Another regulation necessitates
the insertion of requisite language in a patent application stating that the invention was made
with government support and that the government has certain rights in the invention. These
conditions, among others, illustrate the several unresolved ambiguities as to the consequences
of failing to comply.
3. Circumstances Under Which the Government Will Acquire Title
The government may take title when specific exceptions arise regardless of the
grantee's compliance with the funding conditions. One example is when the grantee’s patent
rights are subject to the government's “march-in rights”. March-in rights allow a funding agency
to force a grantee to grant an exclusive, partially exclusive, or nonexclusive license in any field
of use to any "responsible applicant or applicants," upon reasonable terms.23 If the grantee
refuses, the federal agency is authorized to grant additional licenses upon a showing of certain
conditions, regardless of the small business firm’s acquisition of title.24 Although this
"compulsory license" theoretically carries the most profound implications for patent rights, no
federal agency to date, has asserted march-in rights against a grantee, although some petitions
for march-in rights have been filed.25 Another example of an exception is when there is an issue
of national security or public health.26 Other possible exceptions occur when there is a
preference for U.S. manufacture of products incorporating subject inventions and when there is
a government-use license involving the operation of a government-owned, grantee-operated
facility. The specific details of these and other exceptions are outside the scope of this
document; however for more information, please refer to 35 U.S.C. § 202(a).
To sum up, the Bayh-Dole Act permits a private grantee or contractor to retain title to
patented or patentable subject matter developed through federal funding from the DOE so long
as the entity, within a specified time period, makes a written election to retain title. In addition,
the grantee or contractor must, among other things, disclose the subject invention to the federal
agency. The government, nevertheless, can acquire a nonexclusive license to practice the
subject invention or have others practice it on behalf of the U.S., even if the grantee or
contractor complies with all requirements for election, disclosure, and other provisions.
Therefore, despite a small business' best efforts to retain patent rights, the government, as well
as private entities and even direct competitors of the patent owner, may be able to practice the
5
subject invention. One suggested course of pre-emptive action is to segregate the government
funds for basic research from the research leading to product development and patented
inventions.27 In consultation with counsel, a patent strategy may be developed from an analysis
of research and product development plans and an understanding of the terms and conditions
associated with the funding.
B. Patent Rights for Large Business Firms
The patent rights for large business firms are governed by 42 U.S.C. Section 5908,
which vests "the entire right, title, and interest" to federally-funded inventions in the funding
agency.28 As such, unless the agency waives title in favor of the recipient, the DOE owns the
patent rights to all subject inventions made under the award by large business firms. All the
conditions and exceptions discussed above in Section (I)(A)(2)-(3) pertaining to small business
firms also apply to large business firms. However the statute contains a “Special Provision”
section (e.g., 10 C.F.R. § 600.325(3)) in which a federally-funded invention typically will not
include a provision requiring the licensing of background data and patents (e.g., inventions
already patented at the time of the application).29
Large business recipients or grantees may petition the government for its waiver of title
using the form "Advance Waiver of Patent Rights Under 10 C.F.R. Part 784" and then,
submitting the application to the DOE Patent Counsel.30 The waiver modifies the patent rights of
a large business recipient. However, the recipient's data rights are unchanged because the
government typically retains an unlimited right to the data.31 Thus, when the patent waiver is in
effect, a large business firm’s patent rights are substantially similar to the patent rights of small
business firms discussed in Section I. (Details of the waiver can be found at 10 C.F.R.
Part 784).
C. Rights in Data Generally
In contrast to rights in inventions where there is a uniform federal regime across
agencies provided in part by the Bayh-Dole Act, rights to data is specifically defined by
agency-specific policies and regulations. In the DOE, the definition of "data" is "recorded
information, regardless of form or the media on which it may be recorded . . . includ[ing]
technical data [e.g., data that is scientific or technical in nature] and computer software.”32
6
The outlay of federal funds on a project generally allows the DOE "unlimited rights" in
data that is created under a government agreement. The framework to data rights grants the
government an unlimited right to use, disclose, reproduce, prepare derivatives, perform publicly,
and display publicly33 (1) data first produced in the performance of the government agreement,
(2) "form, fit, and function" data, (3) manuals or instructional and training materials, and (4) all
other data delivered and not marked as limited or restricted rights.34
Otherwise, 10 C.F.R. § 600D Appendix A, Rights in Data – General (b)(2)(i) outlines the
recipient’s right to data. For example, the recipient has the right to use, release to others,
reproduce, distribute, or publish any data first produced or specifically used by the recipient in
the performance of the agreement.35 However, the recipient's rights in this data are subject to
federal export control and to national security laws and regulations.36 When it comes to data
delivered, but not first produced in the performance of a federal contract such as computer
software, the government has negotiated rights in the data, and the grantee must seek the
permission of the DOE to assert copyright ownership in the computer software first produced.37
D. Rights in Data—Programs Covered Under Special Data Statutes
The DOE sometimes includes requirements for grantees or contractors to license
governmental and third-party use of "limited rights data" (e.g., data, other than computer
software, developed at private expense and embodying a trade secret or any data that is
commercial or financial and confidential or privileged) or "restricted computer software" (e.g.,
computer software developed at private expense and embodying a trade secret, is commercial
or financial and confidential or privileged, or published and copyrighted).38 For example,
Section (f)(1) requires grantees or contractors to affix a "Limited Rights Notice" or risk the
presumption that the data is delivered with unlimited rights. As another example, Section (g)
designates data formatted as a computer database to be protected as limited rights data.39
CHAPTER 1A: DOE'S LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM
The DOE's Loan Guarantee Program encourages the commercial use of new or
improved energy technologies to help foster clean energy projects. With the passage of The
American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009, the process of issuing loans within the DOE
is expedited under the “Temporary Program for Rapid Development of Renewable Energy and
Electric Power Transmission Projects.”40 In light of current impetus to deploy funding, the DOE
7
specifies that the Loan Guarantee Agreement must "ensur[e] [the] availability of all intellectual
property rights, technical data including software, and physical assets necessary . . . to
complete, operate, convey, and dispose of the defaulted project. (Emphasis added.)41
However, a loan guarantee contract under the DOE can opt to waive the intellectual
property rights of the applicant-grantee. On one occasion, the DOE limited the loan guarantee
terms to exclude any research, demonstration, and development costs incurred during the
project’s development. Because the applicant-grantee assumed the bulk of the research and
development risks, any intellectual property rights developed under the loan guarantee were
likely to remain with the applicant/grantee, even in the event of a default.42
CHAPTER 2: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF)
I. Overview
The NSF policies, procedures, and clauses that govern the disposition of rights to
inventions made in performance of NSF-assisted research are set forth in 45 C.F.R.
Sections 650, et seq. The NSF, for the most part, implements the "Standard Patent Rights
Clauses" (37 CFR § 401.14) of the Bayh-Dole Act (35 U.S.C. § 200 et seq.) in "every funding
agreement [e.g., contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements43] awarded by the [NSF] . . .
unless a special patent clause has been negotiated."44 The NSF has also provided a Proposal
and Award Policies and Procedures Guide45 (“Proposal”) to potential grant applicants that
highlights key points in the NSF's Patent Policy and the Standard Patent Rights Clauses.
A. Invention Rights to the Grantee/Awardee
Unless a special patent clause has already been negotiated46 or the NSF determines
that some other provision would better serve the purposes of the Bayh-Dole Act or the interests
of the U.S. and the general public, the Standard Patent Rights Clauses will apply to all NSF
funding agreements for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work.47
The language of the Standard Patent Rights Clauses specifically targets the "grantee" or the
"awardee," which does not necessarily include the inventor(s). It may be noted that the inventor
may be the individual or individuals that made the invention and that this or these individuals
may be different from the grantee or awardee, even when they are employed by or otherwise
8
associated with the grantee or awardee. However, the Proposal’s guidelines encompass both
the grantee or awardee and inventor.48
Generally, the NSF has adopted a policy of allowing grantees or awardees and inventors
the ability to retain principal legal rights to the intellectual property funded by the NSF (including
copyright in data and software) in order to provide incentives for the development and
dissemination of inventions, software, and publications.49 For example, even if a grantee or
awardee elects not to retain a right to an invention, the NSF still allows the inventor(s) to retain
principal patent rights unless the grantee or awardee, or the inventor’s employer, if other than
the grantee or awardee, shows that it would be harmed by that action.50 In contrast, the NSF
also promotes the dissemination of information to the scientific and technical community. For
instance, any patent right that a grantee or awardee elects to waive is dedicated to the public.
Although the NSF allows other federal agencies interested in the relevant technology to review
and patent the invention, this is subject to the condition that the dissemination of research
results is not inhibited.51
B. Invention Rights for Grants Affected by International Agreements
A special case arises when the funding agreements are covered by international
cooperative treaties or agreements that require an allocation of rights different from that
provided by the Standard Patent Rights Clauses. If these funding agreements require that an
international organization, foreign government, foreign research institute, or foreign inventor(s)
own or share rights to the invention and patent, the NSF has the right to direct the inventor to
convey to any foreign participant such patent rights as are necessary to comply with the
applicable treaty or agreement.52 Due consideration must be given to U.S. export controls and
to U.S. national security laws and regulations.
CHAPTER 3: ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY — ENERGY (ARPA-E)
I. Overview 53
ARPA–E is a relatively new DOE organization through which the DOE will be offering at
the time of this writing $150 million to sponsor long-term high-risk research and development in
innovative clean energy technologies.54 A goal of ARPA-E is to develop energy technologies
that reduce emissions, improve energy efficiency, and minimize reliance on foreign-sources of
9
energy.55 The ARPA–E funding aims to invest in newly-emerging companies with promising,
but uncertain, technology such that commercial development is possible. The structure of the
funding may be in the form of a grant, a cooperative agreement, or a Technology Investment
Agreement (TIA) that offers more flexibility in terms of patent rights and financial management
systems.56 A Technology Investment Agreement (TIA) is also available under some other DOE
grant and other transactions and cooperative agreement programs.57
A. Patent Rights
ARPA-E has adopted a patent policy that is relatively favorable to applicant-recipients.58
The apportionment of patent rights for domestic small businesses, universities, or nonprofit
entities is in accordance with the Bayh-Dole Act, which allows the recipient to retain title to the
patent subject to the compliance conditions and exceptions discussed supra. For other
recipients not subject to the Bayh-Dole Act, ARPA-E does not incorporate the standard
patents rights clause provided by the DOE, but uses an alternative patent clause (found at
http://www.gc.doe.gov/documents/patwaiveclau.pdf).59 As set out in 42 U.S.C. Section 5908,
this patent rights clause offers a “class waiver”, or an option to retain title to the recipient’s
invention, subject to certain conditions.60 It also grants a continuing right to the recipient to
request a class waiver, but requires the grant recipient to manufacture the new technology in
the U.S.61 The intellectual property rights under a TIA may be negotiated on a case-by-case
basis subject to the guidance of DOE regulations.62
B. Data Rights
For rights in technical data produced under an ARPA-E agreement, the provisions of
"Special Protected Data Rights" (discussed supra) apply.63 As such, the disclosure or use of
data that embodies a trade secret, or financial or commercial information that is privileged or
confidential, is prohibited for a period of five years.64 The specifics of the government's rights to
technical data may be modified on a case-by-case basis.65
10
1
R. Michael Ananian is a Partner in Patent Prosecution Group of the Menlo Park, CA office of
Perkins Coie LLP. He holds BSE(EE) and MSE(EE) degrees from the University of Michigan and a JD
from Santa Clara University, and can be reached by email at mananian@perkinscoie.com. Additional
information on the firm and on his intellectual property and patent practice as well as the firms federal
grants practice may be found at http://www.perkinscoie.com/mananian/ and at
http://www.perkinscoie.com/federal_grants_loans/.
2
10 C.F.R. § 600D App A (2009), Appendix A to Subpart D of Part 600—Patent and Data Provisions,
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/janqtr/10CFR600DAppA.htm.
3
The exploration of how an invention is "made under a[ ] [Federal] award" for funding purposes in
comparison to how an invention is "conceived," "constructively reduced to practice," and "actually reduced
to practice" for patentability (in accordance to United States Patent and Trademark Office, Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 2138.04-05/patent case law) is beyond the scope of this overview.
4
Council On Governmental Relations (COGR), The Bayh-Dole Act: A Guide to the Law and Implementing
Regulations, October 1999; http://www.cogr.edu/docs/Bayh_Dole.pdf.
5
A "small business firm" is defined in section 2 of Pub. L. No. 85-536 (15 U.S.C. § 632) as an individual,
a small business with less than 500 employees, a nonprofit organization, or educational institution
(generally known as a "contractor"). 35 U.S.C. § 200 et seq (2006); Q&A Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy FY 2009 Congressionally Directed Projects (CDP) (Mar. 2009),
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=BROWSE&TITLE=35USCPII&PDFS=YES .
6
10 C.F.R. § 600D App A (2009), Appendix A to Subpart D of Part 600—Patent and Data Provisions;
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/janqtr/10CFR600DAppA.htm.
7
Scott D. Locke, Patent Litigation over Federally Funded Inventions and the Consequences of Failing to
Comply with Bayh-Dole, 8 Va. J.L. & Tech. 3 (2003), at 3.
8
35 U.S.C. § 200 (2006). Policy and objective.
9
35 U.S.C. § 200 (2006).
10
Executive Order 12591 - Facilitating access to science and technology, of Apr. 10, 1987, appear at 52
FR 13414, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 220, http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-
order/12591.html
11
Council On Governmental Relations (COGR), The Bayh-Dole Act: A Guide to the Law and
Implementing Regulations, October 1999; http://www.cogr.edu/docs/Bayh_Dole.pdf
12
Scott D. Locke, Patent Litigation over Federally Funded Inventions and the Consequences of Failing to
Comply with Bayh-Dole, 8 Va. J.L. & Tech. 3 (2003), at 4-5
13
10 C.F.R. § 600D App A (2009), Appendix A to Subpart D of Part 600—Patent and Data Provisions,
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/janqtr/10CFR600DAppA.htm. 10 C.F.R. § 600(b); 35 U.S.C. §
202(c)(1).
14
35 U.S.C. § 202(c)(1) (2006).
15
37 C.F.R. § 401.14(a) (2008).
16
Council On Governmental Relations (COGR), The Bayh-Dole Act: A Guide to the Law and
Implementing Regulations, October 1999; http://www.cogr.edu/docs/Bayh_Dole.pdf
17
Scott D. Locke, Patent Litigation over Federally Funded Inventions and the Consequences of Failing to
Comply with Bayh-Dole, 8 Va. J.L. & Tech. 3 (2003), at 6.
18
Id.
19
Id. at 10.
11
20
35 U.S.C. § 200 (2006), Bayh-Dole Act, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh-Dole_Act.
21
Scott D. Locke, Patent Litigation over Federally Funded Inventions and the Consequences of Failing to
Comply with Bayh-Dole, 8 Va. J.L. & Tech. 3 (2003), at 11.
22
Id. at 7-8.
23
35 U.S.C. § 203(a) (2006)
24
Id.
25
“Petitions for march-in rights,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh-Dole_Act
26
35 U.S.C. § 202(a) (2006).
27
Tamsen Valoir, The Bayh-Dole Act: Eight Points that Every Technology Company Should Know,
Intellectual Property Today (2001) at p. 3, http://www.bakernet.com/NR/rdonlyres/A4DD2727-EE2C-
431C-92CA-675AE5D0C71E/0/TheBayhDoleAct.pdf
28
10 C.F.R. § 600D App A (b) (2009), Appendix A to Subpart D of Part 600—Patent and Data Provisions:
Patent Rights (Large Business Firms)
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/janqtr/10CFR600DAppA.htm.
29
Paul Gottlieb, Asst. General Counsel for Tech. Transfer & IP, PPT Presentation, Government Practices
In Purchasing R&D: Intellectual Property Provisions at the Department of Energy.
30
Q&A Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy FY 2009 Congressionally Directed Projects (CDP) (Mar.
2009) at p. 16.
31
Id.
32
10 C.F.R. § 600D App A (2007), Appendix A to Subpart D of Part 600—Patent and Data Provisions:
Rights in Data—General, https://www.acquisition.gov/far/current/html/52_227.html
33
Id.
34
10 C.F.R. § 600D App A (2009), Appendix A to Subpart D of Part 600—Patent and Data Provisions:
Rights in Data—General, http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr&sid=4ea68b9683fb79e5344cc67e2a6cfd7f&rgn=div9&view=text&node=10:4.0.1.3.9.4.25.37.4
&idno=10
35
Id.
36
Id.
37
Id.
38
Id.
39
Id.
40
U.S. DOE, Office of Public Affairs, “Obama Administration Announces Billions in Lending Authority for
Renewable Energy Projects and to Modernize the Grid” (July 29, 2009),
http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov:/press/072909.pdf
41
10 C.F.R. § 609.10(d)(11)(1999).
42
Email to lgprogram@hg.doe.gov, http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/nopr-comments/comment31.pdf
43
45 C.F.R. § 650.1, p. 176 (2008), http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-
cfr.cgi?TITLE=45&PART=650&SECTION=4&TYPE=PDF.
44
45 C.F.R. § 650.4(a), p. 177 (2008), http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-
cfr.cgi?TITLE=45&PART=650&SECTION=4&TYPE=PDF.
12
45
Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide: Part II of the Award & Administration Guidelines,
Doc. No. N.S.F. 09-29 (Apr. 2009), http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf09_29/nsf0929.pdf
46
45 C.F.R. § 650.4(a), p. 177 (2008), http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-
cfr.cgi?TITLE=45&PART=650&SECTION=4&TYPE=PDF. See also 45 C.F.R. § 650.5: Special patent
provisions, p. 181.
47
45 C.F.R. § 650.2(a) (2008), p. 177, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-
cfr.cgi?TITLE=45&PART=650&SECTION=4&TYPE=PDF.
48
Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide: Part II of the Award & Administration Guidelines,
Doc. No. N.S.F. 09-29 (Apr. 2009) at p. VI-5--VI-6,
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf09_29/nsf0929.pdf
49
Id.
50
Id.
51
Id.
52
45 C.F.R. § 650.2(b) (2008), p. 177; 45 C.F.R. § 650.4(b) (2008), p. 178,
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=45&PART=650&SECTION=4&TYPE=PDF.
53
For more information about ARPA-E, visit http://arpa-e.energy.gov/index.html.
54
Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy Techline, High Interest in ARPA-E’s Initial Funding
Opportunity for Transformational Energy Technology, (July 8, 2009), http://arpa-e.energy.gov/news.html,
http://arpa-e.energy.gov/Auth.html, Section 5012(b): Advanced Research Projects Agency, http://arpa-
e.energy.gov/public/excerpt-pl-110-69.pdf
55
Section 5012(c)(1)(A): Advanced Research Projects Agency, http://arpa-e.energy.gov/public/excerpt-pl-
110-69.pdf
56
U.S. D.O.E., “Financial Assistance Funding Opportunity Announcement,” (July 28, 2009) at p. 8,
http://arpa-e.energy.gov/foa/FOA-7-28-09.PDF
57
Title 10 CFR Part 603 – Technology Investment Agreements, http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr&sid=25282b4822796adcf8b939752f0c4363&rgn=div5&view=text&node=10:4.0.1.3.12&idno=10
58
U.S. D.O.E., “Financial Assistance Funding Opportunity Announcement,” (July 28, 2009) at p. 37,
http://arpa-e.energy.gov/foa/FOA-7-28-09.PDF.
59
Id.
60
Id.
61
Id. at p. 37-38.
62
Id.
63
Id. at p. 38.
64
Id.
65
Id.
13
Related docs
