APPENDIX I APPENDIX I To obtain an overview of the status of the implementation of the 1986 act, we attended the FLC's November 1988 conference on the implementation of the Federal Technology Transfer Act. To gain a perspective on the act and the problems or barriers being encountered, we examined past reports on the subject and the act's legislative history. To ascertain the status and problems encountered in delegating to laboratories the authority for entering into CRDAS, we spoke with officials from each agency and one or more of its laboratories. We verified that delegations had been made by obtaining copies of relevant documents. We obtained information on the number of CRDAS entered into from the agencies and laboratories, focusing on CRDAs entered into under the authority of the 1986 act. At the time we initially interviewed agency and laboratory officials, we obtained copies and listings of CRDAs to validate that CRDAs had been entered into. However, those interviews took place at various times, and to provide more recent and consistent time frames, we obtained updates from responsible officials without further verification. To ascertain the extent to which agencies and laboratories have implemented the royalty and cash award incentives for federal inventors, as well as publicized their incentives programs, for the period October 1986 through September 1988, we interviewed laboratory and agency officials and reviewed documents they APPENDIX I APPENDIX I provided.8 However, because extensive time would be required to examine the relatively large number of accounting systems involved, we did not independently verify the accuracy of the information provided. To ascertain the status of the reports mandated by the act, we obtained copies of the reports issued by the various agencies and discussed them with agency officials. We obtained a brief description of laboratories' ORTAs from each agency and discussed their organization and function with each of the laboratories included in our review. We We obtained agencies' and laboratories' views on barriers to CRDAS through interviews with agency and laboratory officials. followed up on problems or barriers mentioned in our March 1988 report. 9 To gain additional perspective, we reviewed past reports on this issue by the Congressional Research Service, Commerce, the FLC, and others. We interviewed agency and laboratory officials for their views on the FLC. To understand the FLC's objectives and scope of activities, we also spoke with the FLC's Washington, D.C., representative and reviewed documents provided. 8On October 24, 1988, the National Institute of Standards and Technology Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1989 (P.L. 100-519) amended the royalty provision to include any inventor that assigns his or her rights to an invention to the United States. Although this provision was made retroactively effective to October 20, 1986, royalties discussed in this report are those for federal inventors. 9Technology Transfer: Constraints Perceived by Federal Laboratory and Agency Officials (GAO/RCED-88-116BR, Mar. 4, 1988). APPENDIX I APPENDIX I We also obtained views on incentives for seeking foreign patent protection through interviews with agency officials. Because many of the agencies included in our review rely on Commerce's National Technical Information Service for obtaining patents, we interviewed patent officials at that Service and at Commerce's Patent and Trademark Office, as agreed with the requesters' offices. We discussed the information included in this report with agency officials, who agreed with the accuracy of the facts presented. However, as instructed by the requesters' offices, we did not obtain official agency comments on this report. As noted above, we did not fully verify the information the agencies provided. Our review was performed in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards between June 1988 and March 1989. APPENDIX II APPENDIX II AGENCIES' DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO LABORATORIES As of February 1989, 10 of the 12 agencies we visited had delegated authority to their laboratories to enter into CRDAS under the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986. Of the 25 laboratories in our study, 15 had been delegated authority to enter into CRDAS, 5 were not considered laboratories by their agencies, and 5 laboratories belonged to agencies that had not delegated CRDA authority to the laboratory level. Some of the agencies that had made delegations defined laboratories to be headquarters offices, which are at higher organizational levels than field laboratories or research centers.1 For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture considered its Agricultural Research Service to be a laboratory. According to Agriculture officials, the Service's approximately 120 research laboratories and facilities lack the expertise or resources needed to enter into CRDAS. Two agencies, NASA and the Navy, have not delegated authority to their laboratories to enter into CRDAS. NASA, which had a technology transfer mission before the 1986 act was passed, historically has worked with industry using collaborative agreements entered into under its Space Act authority. to continue its technology transfer activities under this authority rather than to delegate any authority under the 1986 act. According to Navy officials, the Navy has not delegated authority to its laboratories because, in their view, the laboratories do not NASA opted 1For provisions of the act pertaining to CRDAs, the 1986 act defines "laboratory" as a facility or group of facilities owned, leased, or otherwise used by a federal agency, a substantial purpose of which is the performance of research, development, or engineering by federal employees. APPENDIX II APPENDIX II have the expertise to address potential liability issues that might arise. A more detailed discussion of the delegation of authority by the agencies in our study follows. AGRICULTURE On May 11, 1987, the Secretary of Agriculture delegated, through the respective Assistant Secretaries (Science and Education and Natural Resources and Environment), authority to enter into CRDAs to the Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service and the Chief of the Forest Service. For purposes of the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986, the U.S. Department of Agriculture decided that the Agricultural Research Service and the Forest Service met the definition of "laboratory." Agriculture does not believe the act intended small field activities to be entering into CRDAS and has not delegated such authority to the Agricultural Research Service's approximately 120 field locations. According to an Agriculture Research Service official, the Service's large research facility at Beltsville, Maryland, also has not been delegated authority to enter into CRDAS. This official explained that because the facility lacks the needed expertise and is located at the Service's headquarters office, Agriculture decided not to duplicate capabilities at Beltsville. COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology The Secretary of Commerce delegated all of the Department of Commerce's authorities under the 1986 act to the Under Secretary |