T OF SARD-TR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY 8 July 1988 P.04 REVISED INTERIN GUIDELINES FOR PREPARATION AND REVIEW OF COOPERATIVE In accordance with Sections 11(a) (1) and (2) of the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986, Public Law 99-502, ameuding the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, Public Law 96-480 and Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 12591, dated April 10, 1987, the authority: (1) to enter into cooperative research and development agreements and (2) to license, assign or waive rights to intellectual property developed by the laboratories either under such cooperative research and development agreements or from within individual laboratories The has been delegated to the Commanders/Directors of Army laboratories. authority to disapprove or require modification to the arrangements identified in (1) and (2) above is retained by the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition). To allow the timely development of Cooperative R&D Agreements (CRDAs) and Patent License Agreements (PLAS) to advance the purposes of the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 in a manner which best serves the US public interest, the following updated version of the interim guidelines are provided until the revision of AR 70-57 and the issuance of other needed regulations can be accomplished. 1 CRDAS and PLAS will be developed by laboratory commanders/directors with advice from local intellectual property counsel. 2 The Department of Commerce Model Cooperative Research and Development Agreement, draft dated 4 Nov 87, may be used as a model but the following modifications are required: Bodel: a. 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 law have been obtained by XYZ prior to the execution of this Agreement. The XYZ official executing this agreement has the requisite authority to do so. No twithstanding the delegation of authority to execute this agreement to the individual designated, the Secretary of the Army has reserved to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition) the opportunity provided by 15 United States Code section 3710a (c)(5)(A), to disapprove or require the modification of this Agreement within 30 days of the date it is presented to him or her by XYZ. REVISED INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR PREPRATION AND REVIEW OF COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS (CRDAS) AND PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENTS (PLAs) 5 The Program Manager, after assuring receipt of copies by each reviewer will acknowledge the receipt of each agreement by a letter to the laboratory commander/director stating a control number and log date which officially begins the 30 day period during which the agreement may be disapproved or modification required. 6 - The Intellectual Property Counsel will provide legal review and comments to the Program Manager within 10 days of the log date. 7 The Program Manager will provide a review of the CRDA or PLA for Army policy issues along with the report of legal findings from the Intellectual Property Counsel and, based on all recommendations, will provide a draft letter for SARDA to notify the laboratory commander/director of the approval or disapproval of the agreement or of any modifications required. +h. & Bisi Dr. Hamed M. El-Bisi Deputy Director for Research 1 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. Enclosure Sincerely, Richard £ humpf RICHARD L. RUMPF Acting QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 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 amended 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. laboratories for some time have had the authority to negotiate licensing agreements, subject to approval of the Office of the Chief of Naval Research. The At the present time, 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 requirement 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. implementing OCNR instruction is written and is in informal coordination. It will be formally coordinated when the SECNAV instruction is signed. The 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 |