Page images
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]



[ocr errors]

In accordance with Sections 11(a) (1) and (2) of the Podoral Technologi Cransfor Act of 1906, public lav 99-502, aneuding the Stevenson-Wydlor Tocho olog Innovation Act of 1980, Public Lav 96-480 and Section 1(b)(1) or Brocutive Ordor 12591, dated April 10, 1987, tae outnority:

(1) to enter into cooperative research and development agreements and

(2) to 11cense, assign or vaivo rights to intellectual property doveloped by the laboratorios of ther undor such cooperative research and development agreemento or from within individual laboratories haa doon dologated to the Comandors/Directors of Army laboratories. The authority to disapprove or require modification to the arrangements identified 10 (1) and (2) above jo retained by the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition).

To allow the timely development of Cooperative R&D Agreemento (CRDAs) and Patont License Agreements (PLAS) to advance the purposes of the Pederal Technolog Translor Act of 1986 1n a banner vhich best serves the US public fatorest, the giloving updated version of the latorio guidelines are provided until the reviston of AR 70-57 and the 18guance of other needed regulations can be accomplished.

1 - CRDAs and Plas will be developed by labora tory commanders/directors vith advice from local intellectual property counsel.

2 - The Departwont of Commerce Model Cooperative Research and Development Agreemont, drart dated 4 Nov 87. may be used as a model but the following modifications are required:

The following must be substituted for paragraph 8.1.3 in the


8.1.3 Authority. All prior reviews and approvals required by regulations or lav have been obtained by XYZ prior to the orocution of this As roement. The XYZ official oxecuting this agreement has the requisite authority to do so. No twithstanding the delegation of authority to execute thio agréement to the individual designated, the Secretary of the Army has resorved to tho. Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition) the opportunity provided by 15 United States Code section 37101(c)(5)(a), to disapprove or require the modification of this Agreement vithia 30 days of the dato it is presented to his or her by XY2.


5 • The Program Manager, after assuring receipt of copios by each rovlover vill aclogwledge the receipt of each agroeneat by u letter to the laboratory connandor/director stating a control owbor and log dato vhich officially bogins the 30 day period during which the agreonent may be disapproved or modificatiga required.

6 - The Intol foc tual Property Counsel vill provide logal review and CORRON ts to the Progran Manager within 10 days of the log dato.

7 • Tho Program Manager will provide a review of the CRDA or PLA for Arvy policy loouos along vith the report of legal findings frou the latellectual Property Counsel and, based on all recommendations, vill provide i draft lotter for SARDA to notify the laboratory commandor/director of the approval or disa pproval of the agreement or of any modifications required.

[blocks in formation]


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20350-1000

Jim Turner

JUL 06 1999

The Honorable Doug Walgren
Chairman, Subconnittee on Science,

Research and Technology
Suite 2321
Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I was very pleased to discuss the Navy's efforts toward implementation of the Federal Technology Transfer Act at the Subcommittee's hearing. We believe the Navy is positively responsive to the spirit of the Act.

Enclosed are my responses to the questions posed with your letter of June 9. Thank you for this additional opportunity to present the Navy perspective.


Richard Lumpf




1. To date, has authority been delegated to your laboratory directors to enter into cooperative research and development agreements and to negotiate licensing agreements pursuant to Public Law 96-480 as anended and Executive Order 12791? RESPONSE: Authority to enter into a specific cooperative research and development (CRDA) has been delegated to the Commanding officer of the Naval Research Laboratory. As more CRDA's are negotiated by Navy laboratories and approved, the commanding officers will be given authority to sign. The laboratories for some time have had the authority to negotiate licensing agreements, subject to approval of the office of the Chief of Naval Research.

At the present tine, what review is required at the Navy headquarters level?

RESPONSE: Each CRDA is reviewed for compliance with the law, for compliance with Department of the Navy policy, and for business aspects.

Is the requirement that adverse action on any such negotiations be handled within 30 days from date of receipt by your department being complied with? RESPONSE: Yes. It is a requirenent that the concerned laboratory be notified of the disposition of the CRDA within 30 days.

2. What regulations and instructions still must be promulgated by your service to fully implement the cooperative R&D agreements negotiated by Department of the Navy laboratories? RESPONSE: A Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) instruction and an office of the Chief of Naval Research (OCNR) instruction are currently planned to create the paper trail for cooperative R&D agreement authority. It should be noted that the system is in place and operating. The only thing that will change when these are written is that the chief of Naval Research will no longer request authority to allow the laboratory commanding officer to sign a CRDA. The SECNAV instruction is being coordinated in the Navy Secretariat and should be approved and issued soon. The implementing OCNR instruction is written and is in informal coordination. It will be formally coordinated when the SECNAV instruction is signed.

3. In the next year or so, what level of growth do you expect in the number of cooperative R&D agreements negotiated by the Department of the Navy laboratories?" RESPONSE: I expect that there will be 5 to 10 technology development CRDA's and several more that enable other

cooperative efforts such as testing industry developed equipment on government ranges. It may be important to note here that the majority of Navy-funded research and development is through university, profit and non-profit organizations' contracts that allow those organizations to patent the results. Therefore, although the Navy receives royalty-free license for use, the technology is already available for exploitation by nongovernment activities. A lesser percentage of Navy research and development funds goes to the in-house laboratories.

The Navy cooperative R&D agreements can use only that in-house effort. 4. With regard to Section 11(a) (3), how has your Service insured that technology transfer is being considered positively in laboratory job descriptions, employee promotion policies and evaluation of job performance of scientists and engineers in your laboratories. RESPONSE: The OCNR instruction will instruct all R&D organizations to include technology transfer elements in appropriate job descriptions, employee promotion policies, and job performance evaluation criteria. 5. Have your laboratories established Office of Research and Technology Applications (ORTA'S) and staffed them as required by the law?

RESPONSE: At this time all of the major laboratories (14) have full-time equivalent staffed ORTA'S. The smaller laboratories are establishing ORTA's and designating focal points where they do not already have them. 6. Are there any legislative changes to the law which you believe would be desirable ?

RESPONSE: The ability to copyright software would make it more attractive for commercial development. The present lack of protection inhibits companies from the extensive further development required to turn government-development software into a viable commercial product. Whether the non-copyright policy continues to be in the Government's best interest should be examined.

Potential applicability of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) where government-company developed data could be the subject of a FOIA request by a competitor inhibits some companies from entering into CRDA'S. Specific FOIA exemption might be considered.

Coordination, consolidation, and organization of industrial needs data by a central organzation would be more efficient than individual agency collection. Tasking to a central organization, such as the Federal Laboratory Consortium (FLC) is

« PreviousContinue »