Insight

New Proposed Rules Regarding Government Rights in Federally Funded Research

Bayh-Dole Act
AK

Andrews Kurth Kenyon

February 23, 2017 09:02 AM

Currently, the regulations of the Bayh-Dole Act apply to all small business firms and nonprofit organizations, in particular, educational institutions that have entered into a federal funding agreement. However, in light of recent overarching changes to patent law, such as the America Invents Act, a set of proposed rule changes to Bayh-Dole regulations are about to be implemented.

For small business firms and nonprofit organizations that receive federal funding in developing technology and scientific discoveries, the Bayh-Dole Act is intended to make it easier to participate in federally supported programs by guaranteeing the protection of the intellectual property that is created in these firms and organizations. Many educational institutions that receive federal funding for scientific research and development are already aware that the regulations of the Bayh-Dole Act require that the Government has certain rights in inventions developed at least in part with federal assistance. The proposed rule changes will adjust the obligations of these educational institutions, and other organizations that are receiving federal support for work.

The proposed rule changes clarify that Bayh-Dole regulations apply to the first provisional application or nonprovisional U.S. national application, or international PCT application that designates the U.S. The intent of this clarification is to make it less costly and burdensome for small entities to comply with Bayh-Dole regulations. The proposed rule change will enable entities to comply with 37 CFR § 401.14(c)(3), which requires filing a patent application on any prospective invention within one year after election of title to that invention, by simply filing a provisional application. This should have the effect of reducing formatting and other initial formal costs of patent prosecution to small entities when they are pursuing a federally supported invention. However, the proposed rule changes also allow federal agencies to shorten certain time limitations applicable to election of title to a federally supported invention.

At present, the Bayh-Dole regulations require election of title in a federally supported invention within two years of the initial disclosure to a federal agency. The proposed rule changes allow a federal agency to step in and shorten this period of time to protect the government’s interest if need be. In particular, where a proposed invention has been published, publically used or sold in a manner which triggers the one-year period within which a patent application needs to be filed, the election of title can be shortened by the agency to a date that is no more than 60 days prior to the end of the one-year period. The proposed rule changes also give the federal agency the discretion to file an initial patent application on any subject invention at its own expense. The practical effect of these proposed rule changes is that the government may act proactively to ensure that it retains patent rights in inventions which may have been published or sold by a federally funded entity, but the entity itself shows no interest or capability in obtaining patent rights in the invention. The proposed rule changes also heighten the requirement to inform a federal agency if a patent prosecution on a federally supported invention is being discontinued.

Under the current Bayh-Dole regulations, 37 CFR § 401.14(a)(f)(3) requires that a federal agency be informed not less than thirty (30) days before the expiration of the response period required by the patent office in any country in which patent prosecution is being pursued on a federally supported invention. The proposed rule change quadruples this period of time by requiring notice not less than one-hundred-and-twenty (120) days before the expiration of the response period when abandonment of patent prosecution is contemplated. The purpose of this rule is to allow the federal agency more time to determine whether to assume responsibility for patent prosecution of the prospective invention itself. As a practical matter, this will mean educational institutions must make strategic decisions about the continued pursuit of particular patent prosecutions much earlier than currently required. The proposed rule changes also give the federal agency more extensive rights to claim title in an invention if an educational institution fails to elect title or to disclose the invention to the agency.

The proposed rule changes also give the federal agency the discretion to file an initial patent application on any subject invention at its own expense.

Under the current Bayh-Dole regulations, 37 CFR § 401.14(a)(d)(1) requires that an educational institution will convey title in a subject invention to a federal agency if the contractor fails to disclose or elect title to the subject invention. However, conveyance of title is only required if the agency acts within 60 days after learning of the failure of the educational institution to disclose or elect within the specified times (disclosure to the federal agency should be within two months of internal disclosure to the institution; election of title should be within two years of disclosure to the agency). The proposed rule changes entirely remove the limitation to a 60-day period after the agency learns of a failure to disclose the subject invention or to elect title to the invention. The intent of this change is to enhance due diligence and improve the ability of federal agencies to work with outside agencies who are performing federally supported work. Nevertheless, the effect of this rule change is to heighten the importance of diligently meeting the disclosure and election requirements of the Bayh-Dole regulations for any federally supported invention in which an educational institution or other entity may have an interest in pursuing.

Under the current Bayh-Dole regulations, 37 CFR § 401.14(a)(f)(2) demands that educational institutions require their employees/inventors (e.g., research faculty and associates, etc.) disclose any inventions promptly in writing in a manner that will enable filing of patent applications on the subject inventions and establishment of government rights in the subject inventions. The proposed rule change clarifies that employee/inventors must also be required to assign the entire right, title and interest in and to each federally supported subject invention to the educational institution. Since most institutions will have such a requirement in place already as part of their standard employment contracts, the practical implications of this rule change should be fairly minimal. However, to the extent that such requirements may not already be in place, the standard terms and conditions of employment should be adjusted accordingly.

The proposed rule changes also include a number of other adjustments to the Bayh-Dole regulations, such as expanding their applicability to organizations of any size or regulations regarding inventions by government employees. However, the rule changes will not change key areas such as exercise of government march-in rights (37 CFR § 401.6), contractor employee inventor rights retention (37 CFR § 401.9), background patent rights licensing (37 CFR § 401.12) or appeals (37 CFR § 401.11).

The federal civil servants working on the proposed rule have received guidance that the recent Presidential executive order on new rules, which mandates that two federal rules be revoked for every new federal rule issued, does not apply because the proposed rule is revising an existing regulation, rather than creating a wholly new regulation. However, the implementation of the rule is delayed because of the requirement that all proposed regulations be reviewed by the Presidential transition teams. It is hoped that a clearer picture will emerge regarding the timing of the implementation of the final rule in the next several weeks.

Article by Jeff C. Dodd, Ping Wang, M.D., Michael Xuehai Ye, Ph.D., and John Murray, Ph.D.

Trending Articles

Johnny Depp and Amber Heard: The Best Lawyers Honorees Behind the Litigation


by Gregory Sirico

Best Lawyers takes a look at the recognized legal talent representing Johnny Depp and Amber Heard in their ongoing defamation trial.

Lawyers for Johnny Depp and Amber Heard

The Real Camille: An Interview with Johnny Depp’s Lawyer Camille Vasquez


by Rebecca Blackwell

Camille Vasquez, a young lawyer at Brown Rudnick, sat down with Best Lawyers CEO Phillip Greer to talk about her distinguished career, recently being named partner and what comes next for her.

Camille Vasquez in office

Announcing The Best Lawyers in The United Kingdom™ 2023


by Best Lawyers

The results include an elite field of top lawyers and firms from the United Kingdom.

The Best Lawyers in The United Kingdom 2023

Announcing The Best Lawyers in France™ 2023


by Best Lawyers

The results include an elite field of top lawyers and firms from France.

Blue, white and red strips

Announcing The Best Lawyers in Germany™ 2023


by Best Lawyers

The results include an elite field of top lawyers and firms from Germany.

Black, red and yellow stripes

Education by Trial: Cultivating Legal Expertise in the Courtroom


by Margo Pierce

The intricacies of complex lawsuits require extensive knowledge of the legal precedent. But they also demand a high level of skill in every discipline needed to succeed at trial, such as analyzing technical reports and deposing expert witnesses.

Cultivating Legal Expertise in the Courtroom

Announcing the 2022 Best Lawyers® in the United States


by Best Lawyers

The results include an elite field of top lawyers listed in the 28th Edition of The Best Lawyers in America® and in the 2nd Edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America for 2022.

2022 Best Lawyers Listings for United States

Announcing The Best Lawyers in Belgium™ 2023


by Best Lawyers

The results include an elite field of top lawyers and firms from Belgium.

Black, yellow and red stripes

Announcing the 2022 Best Lawyers™ in France


by Best Lawyers

The results include an elite field of top lawyers and firms, including our inaugural Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch recipients.

Announcing the 2022 Best Lawyers™ in France

We Are Women, We Are Fearless


by Deborah S. Chang and Justin Smulison

Athea Trial Lawyers is a female owned and operated law firm specializing in civil litigation, catastrophic energy, wrongful death and product liability.

Athea Trial Law Female Leadership and Success

Choosing a Title Company: What a Seller Should Expect


by Roy D. Oppenheim

When it comes to choosing a title company, how much power exactly does a seller have?

Choosing the Title Company As Seller

What If Johnny Depp and Amber Heard Had a Premarital Agreement?


by John M. Goralka

Oh, the gritty details we’re learning from the latest court battle between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. This unfortunate airing of dirty laundry may have been avoided with a prenup. Should you think about getting one yourself?

What If Johnny Depp & Amber Heard Had Prenup?

Announcing the 2022 Best Lawyers™ in Germany


by Best Lawyers

The results include an elite field of top lawyers and firms, including our inaugural Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch recipients.

Announcing the 2022 Best Lawyers™ in Germany

U.K. Introduces Revisions to Right-to-Work Scheme and Immigration Rules


by Gregory Sirico

Right-to-Work Scheme and Immigration Rules in

What the Courts Say About Recording in the Classroom


by Christina Henagen Peer and Peter Zawadski

Students and parents are increasingly asking to use audio devices to record what's being said in the classroom. But is it legal? A recent ruling offer gives the answer to a question confusing parents and administrators alike.

Is It Legal for Students to Record Teachers?

Destiny Fulfilled


by Sara Collin

Was Angela Reddock-Wright destined to become a lawyer? It sure seems that way. Yet her path was circuitous. This accomplished employment attorney, turned mediator, arbitrator and ADR specialist nonpareil discusses her career, the role of attorneys in society, the new world of post-pandemic work and why new Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson represents the future.

Interview with Lawyer Angela Reddock-Wright