Summary Report on 


Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer
 

Agency Approaches; FY 2001 Activity Metrics and Outcomes 

2002 Report to the President and the 

Congress under the Technology Transfer and 

Commercialization Act 

Office of the Secretary 

U.S. Department of Commerce
 

September 2002
 
2002 SUMMARY REPORT: 

FEDERAL LAB TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
 

FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
 

CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . 1
 

1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
 

1.2 Scope of This Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
 

1.3 Principal Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
 

CHAPTER 2. SUMMARY OF FY 2001 AGENCY REPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
 

2.1 Department of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
 

2.2 Department of Commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
 

2.3 Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
 

2.4 Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
 

2.5 Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
 

2.6 Department of Health and Human Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
 

2.7 Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
 

2.8 National Aeronautics and Space Administration . . . . . . . . . . . 52
 

2.9 Department of Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
 

2.10 Department of Veterans Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
 

CHAPTER 3. TRENDS IN FEDERAL LAB TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER . . . . 69
 

3.1 Collaborative Research and Development Relationships . . . . 71
 

3.2 Invention Disclosure and Patenting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
 

3.3 Licensing: Lab Inventions and Other Intellectual Property . . 80
 

3.4 Other Activity Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
 

3.5 Outcomes from Technology Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
 

CHAPTER 4. AGENCY PROGRESS IN STRENGTHENING
 

PERFORMANCE METRICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
 

APPENDIX: STATISTICAL TABLES FY: 1987–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer iii 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
 

Table 2.1. Dept. of Agriculture: Summary Measures of Technology 

Transfer Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 

Table 2.2. Dept. of Commerce: Summary Measures of Technology Transfer Activities . . . 16 

Table 2.3. Dept. of Defense: Summary Measures of Technology Transfer Activities . . . . 23 

Table 2.4. Dept. of Energy: Summary Measures of Technology Transfer Activities . . . . . 31 

Table 2.5. Environmental Protection Agency: Summary Measures of Technology 

Transfer Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 

Table 2.6. Dept. of Health and Human Services: Summary Measures of 

Technology Transfer Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 

Table 2.7. Dept. of the Interior: Summary Measures of Technology 

Transfer Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 

Table 2.8. National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Summary Measures 

of Technology Transfer Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 

Table 2.9. Dept. of Transportation: Summary Measures of Technology 

Transfer Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Table 2.10. Dept. of Veterans Affairs: Summary Measures of Technology

Transfer Activities

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 

Table 3.1. Estimated Budget Resources for Federal Lab R&D Spending, 

FY 1999–2001, Ranked by Budget Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 

Figure 3.1 Active CRADAs, All Federal Labs, FY 1987–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 

Figure 3.2(a) Active CRADAs, by Agency, Selected Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 

Figure 3.2(b) Active CRADAs, by Agency, Selected Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 

Figure 3.3 Invention Disclosure and Patenting, All Federal Labs, FY 1987–2001 . . . . . . . 76 

Figure 3.4(a) Invention Disclosure and Patenting, by Agency, Selected Years . . . . . . . . . . . 77 

Figure 3.4(b) Invention Disclosure and Patenting, by Agency, Selected Years . . . . . . . . . . . 78 

Figure 3.4(c) Invention Disclosure and Patenting, by Agency, Selected Years . . . . . . . . . . . 78 

Figure 3.4(d) Invention Disclosure and Patenting, by Agency, Selected Years . . . . . . . . . . . 79 

Figure 3.4(e) Invention Disclosure and Patenting, by Agency, Selected Years . . . . . . . . . . . 79 

Figure 3.5 Active Licenses, Inventions, and Other Intellectual Property, 

All Federal Labs, FY 1999–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 

Figure 3.6(a) Active Invention Licenses, by Agency, FY 1999–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 

Figure 3.6(b) Active Invention Licenses, by Agency, FY 1999–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 

Figure 3.7 Annual Income from Licenses—Inventions and Other IP, 

All Federal Labs, FY 1999–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 

Figure 3.8 Income Annually from Invention Licenses, All Federal Labs, 

FY 1987–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 

Figure 3.9(a) Annual Income from Invention Licenses, by Agency, Selected Years . . . . . . . 85 

Figure 3.9(b) Annual Income from Invention Licenses, by Agency, Selected Years . . . . . . . 86 

iv 2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Table A.1 Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) 

by Federal Laboratories and Research Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
 

Table A.2 Invention Disclosure and Patenting by Federal Laboratories 


and Research Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
 

Table A.3 Licensing—Inventions and Other Intellectual Property 


by Federal Laboratories and Research Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
 

Table A.4 Income From Licensing by Federal Laboratories 


and Research Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer v 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

FOREWORD 

The sizable and sustained investment that the United States has made in science and technology over the past several decades, coupled with our world-class scientists and entrepreneurial businesses, has paid off handsomely and helped position us well as the 21st century 

starts. Our economy and technology sectors lead the world, thanks in large part to our 

unique innovative capacity. 

With the President’s Trade Promotion Authority and increased trade, however, will come not 

only new economic opportunities but also new policy considerations. The forces of globalization are changing trade, technology sourcing, capital flows, and the movement of technical 

talent in significant ways. Despite our present ascendancy, we are likely in the years ahead 

to face more significant challenges to our innovative capacity and long-term competitiveness 

than ever before. 

America’s Federal lab system, comprising world-class scientists and research facilities, has 

been an important element of the Nation’s infrastructure for innovation. Beyond helping to 

meet the Nation’s defense and international security needs, Federal lab science and technology 

has also been the source of important innovations with wide commercial relevance, such as 

clean room technologies, cell sorting machines, atomic clocks, stronger and lighter materials 

for such things as more fuel efficient cars, and the Global Positioning System (GPS). Our 

Federal labs provide unique, hard-to-duplicate facilities and longstanding relationships with 

top innovators. They offer a critical and fertile resource for early-stage, high-risk research and 

development (R&D)—the kind of work on basic science and basic technology that gives rise 

to revolutionary new technologies with important commercial impacts. 

Effective transfer of Federal technology—that is, diffusing the new knowledge and inventions 

created by Federal R&D funds to American firms and entrepreneurs with the capabilities to 

translate these advances into commercially viable products and processes—is likely to play 

a critical role in sustaining U.S. competitiveness and leadership in the global economy. And 

Congress has mandated that part of the Federal labs’ mission be to promote this transfer as 

well as possible. 

Recognizing the importance of this contribution, Congress has asked the Department of 

Commerce to regularly assess and report on the status of technology transfer by the Federal 

labs. This Summary Report for 2002 responds to that mandate. We hope this report will inform 

policymakers, facilitate feedback and discussion, and help to encourage Federal labs in their 

technology transfer efforts. 

Donald L. Evans 

Secretary of Commerce 

vi 2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Many people contributed to the preparation of this, the first Summary Report on Federal 

Lab Technology Transfer. The Office of Technology Policy, U.S. Department of Commerce 

(OTP/DOC) appreciates the effort and cooperation of senior tech transfer personnel at the 

ten Federal agencies involved: the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Health and 

Human Services, Interior, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs; the Environmental Protection 

Agency; and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; in addition to DOC’s own 

Federal labs. Thanks also is due to the Interagency Working Group on Technology Transfer, 

whose thoughtful efforts to develop a common reporting framework facilitated reporting 

and analysis of the Federal lab tech transfer program statistics and information which are 

the basis of this Summary Report. 

This report was assembled and drafted by the Office of Technology Competitiveness, 

Office of Technology Policy, Technology Administration, Department of Commerce. 

Principal staff 

Karen Laney-Cummings, Acting Director, Office of Technology Competitiveness 

Mark Boroush, Technology Policy Analyst, Office of Technology Competitiveness 

Other Contributors 

John Raubitschek, Patent Counsel, Office of General Counsel 

Questions about the statistics or other content of this report should be directed to Mark 

Boroush, Office of Technology Competitiveness, 202.482.6394. 

Jon Paugh 

We also want to recognize the significant contributions of Jon Paugh, late Director of the Office 

of Technology Competitiveness at the Department of Commerce, both to this report and to U.S. 

technology transfer policy over numerous years. Peers and colleagues throughout the technology transfer community held Jon in the highest regard. In addition to his thoughtful contributions to the development of public policies in federal technology transfer, Jon directed initial 

interagency efforts to improve the Federal labs’ reporting processes—improvements reflected 

in this Summary Report. Jon’s knowledge, wisdom, and character are much missed. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer vii 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

CHAPTER 1 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS 

1.1 Background 

This Summary Report provides a review and analysis of the Federal laboratories’1 utilization 

of the technology transfer authorities opened to them by Federal law.2 It is the first edition 

in a new annual report series for the President and Congress in response to the Technology 

Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-404, signed November 1, 2000). The report 

covers Federal laboratory technology transfer activities through FY 2001. 

Periodic reporting to the President and Congress about the Federal laboratories’ technology 

transfer activities has been a statutory requirement since 1986 under the Stevenson-Wydler 

Technology Innovation Act of 1980.3 From 1987 until recently, the Office of Technology 

Policy (OTP) at the Department of Commerce prepared Biennial Reports in response to this 

requirement.4 

In late 2000, the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act revised and enlarged the existing 

Stevenson-Wydler Act reporting process. Under the new law, reporting responsibilities are 

bifurcated. Each Federal agency that operates or directs Federal laboratories (or engages in 

patenting or licensing of federally owned inventions) is required to provide the Office of 

Management and Budget with an annual report on its technology transfer plans and recent 

achievements as part of its annual budget submission. The Secretary of Commerce then 

1	 “Federal labs” refers to government-owned or -leased/federally staffed facilities for performing 

research, development, or engineering activities relevant to an agency’s missions and interests. 

The government-owned but contractor-operated facilities with a similar purpose also fall under 

the “Federal lab” title. The U.S. Federal lab system presently encompasses more than 700 Federal 

labs and research centers, including the Department of Energy’s “national laboratories.” 

2	 Most notably, the Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (often referred to as the Stevenson-Wydler Act) 

and the University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act of 1980 (often referred to as the BayhDole Act). The Stevenson-Wydler Act (P.L. 96-480, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 3701-3714) and Bayh-Dole Act 

(P.L. 96-517, 35 U.S.C. Sec. 200-211) remain the primary statutory moorings for technology transfer 

between the Federal laboratories and the private sector. Since the mid-1980s, however, there has 

been continuing congressional review of agency experiences in implementing these laws, which 

has resulted in amending legislation to both Stevenson-Wydler and Bayh-Dole. 

3 The Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-502) amended the Stevenson-Wydler Act in
 

several respects, including adding a requirement for the Biennial Report. 


4 The most recent Biennial Report is Office of Technology Policy, U.S. Department of Commerce,
 

Recent Trends in Federal Lab Technology Transfer: FY 1999–2000 Biennial Report, May 2002
 

(http://www.ta.doc.gov/Reports.htm).
 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 1 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

prepares an overall Federal assessment for the President and Congress based on the program 

information in these agency reports.5 

This revised reporting process is being implemented this year (calendar year 2002), in conjunction with the FY 2003 Federal budget cycle, and requires agencies to report on their FY 2001 

technology transfer activities. 

The long-standing—and now expanded—requirement for public reporting broadly reflects 

national policymakers’ interest in facilitating greater use of the considerable scientific and 

engineering resources of the Nation’s Federal laboratory system, in order to hasten promising 

technologies toward commercialization and strengthen the competitiveness of U.S. industries. 

1.2 Scope of This Report 

Ten major Federal agencies have significant Federal laboratory operations. Each of these 

agencies, together with their component organizations and labs, has established programs 

for transferring the technology arising out of their lab science and technology activities. 

This Summary Report provides information and analysis about each of these 10 agencies: 

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Department of Commerce (DOC) 

Department of Defense (DOD) 

Department of Energy (DOE) 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

Department of the Interior (DOI) 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

Department of Transportation (DOT) 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

5 The statutory annual agency report (termed an “agency report on utilization”) is described by 

15 U.S.C. Sec. 3710 (f). The Secretary of Commerce’s report (termed an annual “Summary Report”) 

is described by 15 U.S.C. Sec. 3710 (g)(2). 

2 1.2 Scope of This Report 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

In general, the content of the agency reports builds on that established over the years by OTP 

and the agencies in preparing the Biennial Reports, as well as responding to the new data 

requirements of the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act. To ensure consistency across 

the agencies in the nature and statistical content of these reports, OTP worked closely with 

them throughout 2001—chiefly through the Interagency Working Group on Technology 

Transfer6

—to develop a common report content and format.7 

The agencies are required to discuss the current content of and plans for their technology 

transfer programs. Each is also asked to provide statistics for a set of core technology transfer 

activity measures, including the incidence of Cooperative Research and Development 

Agreements (CRADAs) and frequently cited indicators of intellectual property management 

such as invention disclosure, patenting, and licensing. The statistics on licensing have been 

expanded in response to the requirements of the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act 

to include greater detail on license management and licensing income. The agencies were 

again asked, in response to strong congressional and administration interest, to provide information about the “downstream outcomes” of their technology transfer activities—such as new 

products in the commercial marketplace or improved private industry production processes. 

In this first cycle of the new process, all the agencies compiled reports, which together provide 

the primary basis for this Summary Report. Most provided reasonably complete information. 

A few agencies provided information on their technology transfer activities beyond the core 

measures. 

A short summary of the report’s key findings follows. Chapter 2 is organized by agency and 

summarizes each agency’s annual report for FY 2001. These summaries discuss the agency’s 

technology transfer programs and plans, tabulate key technology transfer activity statistics, 

and discuss the technology transfer outcome cases submitted by the agency. Chapter 3 analyzes 

the trends in Federal technology transfer activities within and across the Federal lab agencies 

over the past several years and since the late 1980s. Chapter 4 comments on the agencies’ 

recent progress in improving performance metrics for their technology transfer programs. 

The appendix provides detailed tabulations of the complete time series (FY 1987–2001) of 

technology transfer activity statistics collected for this report and past editions of the Biennial 

Report under the Stevenson-Wydler Act. 

6 The Interagency Working Group on Technology Transfer (IWG-TT) is a long-standing committee 

that includes technology transfer principals from most of the Federal science and technology agencies. 

The IWG’s activities are coordinated by the Department of Commerce’s Office of Technology Policy. 

The group meets monthly to discuss policy issues and related topics of significant interest to the 

Federal lab technology transfer community. 

7 The reporting guidelines include a set of core activity measures for all agencies and also provide 

flexibility to the agencies to include information on additional measures each may deem important 

in presenting the nature and current achievements of its technology transfer program. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 3 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

1.3 Principal Findings 

In reviewing the principal findings below and throughout this report, it should be recognized 

that there are considerable differences among agencies in the levels of Federal budget 

resources for laboratory research and development operations. In FY 2001, almost 37% of the 

Federal total was directed toward DOD labs. Federal lab operations at DOE received 19% and 

lab operations at HHS and NASA about 15% each in the same year. USDA and DOC accounted 

for 3% and 2%, respectively. The other four agencies (DOI, VA, DOT, EPA) together received 

the remaining 5%. These differences in resources are important considerations when comparing agencies’ levels of tech transfer activities. 

■ Collaborative Research and Development Relationships. CRADAs remain widely used by 

the Federal labs as a means to establish and conduct research and development (R&D) partnerships with U.S. industry or other non-Federal parties. Over the past 5 years, all Federal labs 

together have executed about 1,000 new CRADAs annually; the total of active CRADAs has 

been between approximately 3,100 and 3,500. In FY 2001, DOD, DOE, and HHS together 

accounted for 84% of all active CRADAs; including USDA and DOC brings this cumulative 

total to 95%. The other five departments (NASA, DOI, VA, DOT, EPA) have active CRADAs 

but account for only a small fraction of the overall total. 

While much greater than the several hundred such agreements in place in the early 1990s, the 

total number of active CRADAs over the past several years has been significantly below the 

FY 1996 peak of 3,688. The FY 2000 data (in the FY 1999–2000 Biennial Report) indicated that the 

overall decline was due primarily to large drops at DOE and DOC, with CRADA utilization at 

the other agencies either continuing to grow or remaining at historically high levels. However, 

the FY 2001 data suggest that the slowdown has extended to other agencies. The reasons for 

this decline appear to involve numerous factors—including a shift toward greater selectiveness 

on the part of the Federal labs in partnering, declining budget resources for partnering, and 

perhaps declining interest by some potential partners owing to perceived logistical/administrative burdens in establishing CRADAs. 

Some of the Federal labs are exploring alternative mechanisms for collaborative R&D relationships with external partners. One such example discussed in this report is the Agricultural 

Research Services’ use of Trust Fund or Reimbursable Cooperative Agreements. Other Federal 

labs, such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology, indicate that program activities such as facility use agreements and the hosting of guest scientists and engineers are collaborative R&D mechanisms that play important roles in the overall technology transfer effort. 

■ Invention disclosure and patenting. The annual level of invention disclosures across the 

Federal labs has generally remained flat since the early 1990s. However, the annual level of 

Federal lab patenting (patents applied for, patents received) appears to be trending gradually 

upward since the late 1990s. DOD and DOE together now account for 65% of all Federal lab 

invention disclosures, 74% of all Federal lab patent applications, and 76% of all Federal lab 

4 1.3 Principal Findings 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

patents received. Adding HHS and NASA activities brings these cumulative shares to 94% 

(invention disclosures), 92% (patent applications), and 94% (patents received). The other six 

agencies disclose inventions and patent, but at much lower levels. 

■ Licensing. The Federal labs’ licensing of intellectual property continues to grow. In FY 2001, 

the total of active licenses for all Federal labs was 4,396—up 4% over the level in FY 2000 and 

9% over the level in FY 1999. The majority were licenses for inventions (e.g., patented technologies), which totaled 3,142 in FY 2001. The Federal labs’ licensing of “Other Intellectual 

Property” (i.e., computer software; tangible research products, such as biological materials; 

and protected data) is also significant, accounting for the 1,254 balance in FY 2001. 

All the Federal lab agencies currently have active invention licenses. Nevertheless, there are 

large differences among the agencies in the comparative levels. HHS and DOE accounted for 

the majority of this licensing activity—37% and 32%, respectively—in FY 2001. NASA (9%), 

DOD (9%), and USDA (8%) accounted for most of the rest. The other five departments 

(DOC, DOI, VA, DOT, EPA) together accounted for 5% of all active invention licenses in 

FY 2001. The licensing of Other Intellectual Property is much less widely spread—DOE (67%) 

and HHS (29%) account for the vast majority. 

Income from Federal lab licensing also continues to increase—$80.3 million (including royalties 

and other payments) across all the Federal labs in FY 2001, up 3% from the FY 2000 level and 

26% above the FY 1999 level. Of the FY 2001 total, $71.1 million resulted from invention licenses, $8.0 million from licensing of Other Intellectual Property. 

Nearly all the agencies currently derive some income annually from invention licenses, and 

most have experienced a rising level of license income throughout much of the past decade. 

However, there are significant differences among the agencies in the amount. Historically, 

HHS invention licenses have predominated, accounting yearly for some 70% of all Federal 

lab invention license income for many of the past 10 years. However, in FY 2001 that majority 

lessened somewhat, with HHS accounting for only about 58%. In the same year, DOE 

accounted for 27% and DOD for 9%. The remaining 6% reflected the income of the other 

seven agencies. 

For the Federal labs as a whole, 2,191 (about 70%) of the 3,142 invention licenses active in 

FY 2001 were royalty bearing. Of these royalty-bearing licenses, 22% were exclusive, 9% 

partially exclusive, and 70% non-exclusive. (However, these percentages vary widely for any 

given agency.) The statistics on the distribution of “earned royalty income” in FY 2001 differ 

widely across the agencies—from licenses yielding several dollars annually to those yielding 

$4.2 million annually, and median values for an agency’s portfolio ranging from a low of 

$4,000 to a high of $75,000 annually. 

With regard to income from Other Intellectual Property licenses, HHS accounted for 68% of 

the Federal lab total in FY 2001; DOE, 23%; NASA, 8%; and DOD, 1%. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 5 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

■ Downstream outcomes from Federal lab technology transfer. As part of the FY 2001 

reporting, all 10 agencies indicated successful downstream outcomes from the transfer of 

their Federal labs’ technologies. Eight provided case histories of these successes as part of 

their reports. When these examples are considered together with the examples submitted 

for the FY 1999–2000 Biennial Report, it is apparent that the Federal technology transfer mechanisms are helping to move science and technology beyond the Federal labs and are having 

useful impacts in the commercial marketplace and on the well-being of U.S. citizens. 

■ Agency progress in improving performance metrics. There has been important progress 

over the past several years in improving the data available on the current activities and 

achievements of Federal lab technology transfer programs. Some of this progress comes from 

the need to respond to new and expanding requirements for statutory reporting; some is the 

result of agency efforts to improve their overall management capabilities, of which technology 

transfer is a part. Nevertheless, there is still a need for further improvement, most notably 

for metrics that can help technology transfer managers better gauge the effectiveness and 

productivity of the programs they operate. 

6 1.3 Principal Findings 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

CHAPTER 2 

SUMMARY OF FY 2001 AGENCY REPORTS 

The primary source of data on Federal lab technology transfer activities for this Summary 

Report is each agency’s Annual Utilization Report submitted earlier this year in accordance 

with 15 U.S.C. Sec. 3710(f). As previously noted, each agency is directed to discuss in these annual 

documents its present plans for technology transfer by its Federal labs, along with information 

about recent program activities. 

This chapter seeks to provide a comparable summary of the content of these ten agency reports. 

Three main topic areas are addressed: 

■	 

■	 

■	 

The agency’s description of its current approach and plans for technology transfer by its 

Federal labs; 

Statistical data on the agency’s technology transfer activity levels for a number of measures (e.g., cooperative research and development relationships, invention disclosure 

and patenting, and intellectual property licensing) over the most recent fiscal years 

(FY 1999–2001) and several other selected comparison years; and 

Reported examples of successful downstream outcomes arising from the agency’s technology transfer activities (such as new products or improved industrial processes available in the marketplace that arise from the transfer and commercialization of Federal lab 

inventions). 

This chapter is not intended to provide an exhaustive account of the information submitted in the 

agencies’ individual reports.1 Readers are encouraged to review the primary agency documents 

for further detail; citations are provided in the sections below. 

2.1 Department of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 

2.2 Department of Commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 

2.3 Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 

2.4 Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 

1 Given the summary nature of this report, the technology transfer statistics in this chapter are provided 

only at the aggregate department/agency level. A number of the agencies’ individual reports provide 

disaggregated figures for agency bureaus/divisions/services/offices, which should be consulted for 

further detail. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 7 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

2.5 Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
 

2.6 Department of Health and Human Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
 

2.7 Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 
 

2.8 National Aeronautics and Space Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
 

2.9 Department of Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
 

2.10 Department of Veterans Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
 

8 Summary of FY 2001 Agency Reports 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

2.1 Department of Agriculture2 

Agency Approach and Plans for Technology Transfer 

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) has been delegated authority by the Secretary of 

Agriculture to administer the patent and license programs for USDA. The ARS Office of 

Technology Transfer (OTT) is assigned the responsibility for protecting intellectual property, 

developing strategic partnerships with outside institutions, and performing other appropriate 

functions that enhance the effective transfer of ARS technologies to users. 

To accomplish this, OTT is organized around four broad function areas. The Administrative/ 

Headquarters Section conducts the day-to-day operations, coordinates the development of technology transfer policy, and signs licenses and Cooperative Research and Development Agreements 

(CRADAs). Patent advisors in the Patent Section assist scientists in protecting intellectual property 

(IP), coordinate invention reports, prepare and prosecute patent applications, and oversee any 

patent applications prepared by contract law firms. The Licensing Section negotiates licenses for 

ARS IP and monitors license performance. The Marketing Section develops, implements, and coordinates targeted marketing strategies to facilitate technology transfer, distributes information on 

ARS technologies that are available for licensing or cooperative partnerships, provides answers 

to stakeholder questions on technology transfer in ARS, and ensures that information about the 

commercial successes of ARS research is made available to the public. 

These objectives are accomplished via written information, reports to stakeholders, trade shows, 

the ARS Information Staff, the National Agricultural Library, meetings with industry and universities, and electronic media. ARS has six regional Technology Transfer Coordinators (TTCs) stationed across the United States that are responsible for facilitating the development and effective 

transfer of USDA technologies. They serve as liaisons with scientists, line and program managers 

in ARS, university partners, users, and the private sector. They also negotiate CRADAs, other 

technology transfer agreements, and some licenses. 

Because our mission is to transfer technologies to the private sector for broad beneficial use by 

the public, we pursue patents and licensing only when protection of IP is essential for the transfer 

of technology. This is usually the case when further research and development (R&D) investment 

by the private sector is necessary to commercialize a product, and patent protection is required 

to protect this investment. ARS has Patent Review Committees that meet periodically to review 

invention disclosures and make recommendations to the Assistant Administrator on whether a 

patent is necessary and practical (sufficient scope, enforceable, appropriate for the size of the 

market, etc.). 

2 This section draws on text and statistics in USDA’s FY 2001 “agency report on utilization” under 

15 U.S.C. Sec. 3710(f). For additional details, readers should consult the Department’s report: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture FY 01 Annual Technology Transfer Report TT01.USDA, January 30, 2002 

(submitted by ARS with FY 2004 budget to OMB, July 15, 2002). 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 9 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Other mechanisms of technology transfer include publication of research findings, release of 

germ plasm to the public, and field day activities at various ARS locations. ARS policy is to allow 

researchers and breeders to use any ARS technology freely and without license for research 

purposes. 

Currently, OTT is expanding its capacities to transfer technology through new initiatives as 

follows: 

■	 

■	 

■	 

■	 

■	 

■	 

■	 

■	 

Tech Alerts is a self-subscribing web-based system that allows businesses to be notified 

as new technologies become available for licensing. New subscribers are also actively 

sought at tradeshows, industry meetings, workshops, and targeted mailings. These technologies are grouped into the five broad categories: Biobased Products, Crop Production, 

Food Safety & Health, Natural Resources, and Animal Production. 

Other web-based services are designed to assist the Agency in finding potential CRADA 

partners to complete the process of R&D and commercialization of ARS-generated ideas. 

Technology Showcase Exhibitions are conducted periodically at selected ARS locations. 

These 1-day events provide a venue for corporations and Federal scientists to meet and 

view selected technologies available for licensing or research projects for which privatesector partnership is desired. They also offer businesses the opportunity to see a particular technology firsthand and to gather more information on the commercial potential of 

a particular technology. 

Select Software Model Downloads may be accessed from the OTT web page to facilitate 

the transfer of research models, such as the Cotton Production Model, to private and 

public sector researchers, extension agents, and the growers. 

New in-house database programs are being developed to better manage the development 

and monitoring of CRADAs and license agreements. 

Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) are being developed with various State economic development groups and organizations. They are designed to stimulate new business, improve industrial efficiency, increase employment, enhance U.S. trade, preserve 

the environment, and improve the quality of American life. 

TTCs mail information sheets on specific CRADA and licensing opportunities to select 

companies as another outreach tool. 

Small businesses are invited to participate in special workshops, meetings, and site visits 

to specifically facilitate development of emerging businesses. 

10 2.1 Department of Agriculture 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

FY 2001 Overview of Technology Transfer by the Agency’s Federal Labs 

Table 2.1. Summary Measures of Technology Transfer Activities 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 

I. Collaborative Relationships for R&D 

■ CRADAs, total active in the FY 128 229 298 257 219 

- New, executed in the FY — — 101 69 49 

• Nontraditional(1) CRADAs, total active in the FY — — — — 0 

- New, executed in the FY — — — — 0 

■ Other types of collaborative R&D relationships 

• Trust Fund/Reimbursable Cooperative Agreements 

- New, executed in the FY — — — — 106 

II. Intellectual Property Management 

■ New inventions disclosed 158 133 162 109 118 

■ Patent applications filed 76 80 84 78 83 

■ Patents issued — — 74 64 64 

■ Invention licenses, total active in the FY — — 218 225 255 

- New, executed in the FY 33 21 29 24 31 

■ Licenses for Other IP(2), total active in the FY — — 0 0 0 

■ Elapsed execution time, licenses granted in the FY 

- Range (low-high)/Median (months) — — — — 2-6/3.1 

■ Licenses terminated for cause in the FY — — — — 1 

■ Total income from all active licenses (thousands) — — $2,377 $2,555 $2,622 

• Income from invention licenses (thousands) $559 $1,635 $2,377 $2,555 $2,622 

• Income from Other IP licenses (thousands) — — 0 0 0 

■ Licenses bearing royalty income in the FY — — n/a n/a 120 

- Exclusive/partially exclusive/nonexclusive — — — — 78/19/23 

• Earned royalty income (ERI) in the FY (thousands) — — $1,843 $1,843 $1,409 

- Range of ERI (low-high) — — — — $.08-563 

- Median ERI — — — — $6 

- ERI subtotal from top 1% of licenses — — — — * 

- ERI subtotal from top 5% of licenses — — — — $723 

- ERI subtotal from top 20% of licenses — — — — $1,109 

■ Disposition of income (royalties, other payments) — — — — 

• Income distributed (thousands) — — — — $2,622 

- Inventor awards — — — — 26% 

- Salaries of some tech transfer staff — — — — 41% 

- Patent filing preparation, fees, annuity payments 27% 

- Other tech transfer expenses 6% 

III. Other Activity Measures 

(none cited by the agency) — — — — nr 

The data in this table cover the following departmental bureaus/divisions/services/offices: Agricultural Research Service and other 

Federal lab tech transfer activities across the Department. 

(1) Executed under CRADA authority (15 U.S.C. Sec. 3710a) but used for special purposes, such as material transfer CRADAs or 

technical assistance that may result in protected information. 

(2) “Other Intellectual Property (IP)” includes computer software, tangible research products (such as biological materials), and 

protected data.
 

R&D = research and development; CRADA = Cooperative Research and Development Agreement; FY = fiscal year; ERI = earned
 

royalty income; n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report; — = Data not requested from agency in previous years’
 

reports; nr = Data not relevant: either the agency does not engage in this type of technological transfer activity or the information is
 

not useful in describing the agency’s programs; * = Cannot disclose without revealing proprietary information.
 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 11 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Technology Transfer Outcomes 

USDA’s FY 2001 report provided the following examples of successful downstream outcomes 

arising from the agency’s technology transfer activities: 

■	 

■	 

■	 

■	 

■	 

DragonflyTM is an insect trap that effectively attracts and kills mosquitoes and biting flies. 

The technology, which became commercially available in 2001, represents an environmentally 

friendly alternative to chemical pesticides for mosquito control and broadly supports 

increasing public interest in less toxic pest management practices. The final product was 

a result of a CRADA between ARS’s Center for Medical, Agricultural, and Veterinary 

Entomology (Gainesville, Florida) and BioSensory, Inc. (Willimantic, Connecticut). 

An artificial diet and diet-based insect-rearing system that allows producers to rear beneficial 

insects at reduced costs was successfully transferred to commercial producers. As a result, 

these beneficial insects can now, for the first time, be produced on a large scale. The technology was transferred as a result of a CRADA between ARS’ Biological Control and Mass 

Rearing Research Unit (Mississippi State, Mississippi) and Beneficial Insectary (Redding, 

California). 

AquaVac_ESCTM became the world’s first approved, licensed, and manufactured live fish 

vaccine. The vaccine prevents enteric septicemia (ESC) caused by Edwardsiella. ESC is a 

major catfish disease that costs farmers as much as $60 million a year in losses. This new 

vaccine will help the catfish industry solve a key problem and provides producers with a 

more cost-effective way to raise healthy fish for consumers. The technology resulted from a 

CRADA between the ARS Aquatic Animal Health Research Laboratory (Auburn, Alabama) 

and Intervet, Inc. (Millsboro, Delaware). In 2001, Intervet first launched AquaVac_ESCTM 

and sold about 300 million doses to catfish farmers in the Mid-South area. 

Three ARS-developed soybean varieties, with plant variety protection patents, licensed to three 

companies, reported revenues from sales in FY 2001. Derry, Donegal, and Tyrone are the 

first improved forage-type soybean cultivars bred for animal feed. These new varieties can 

be used for grazing, hay, or silage over a wide geographic area of the United States. The 

varieties differ in maturity dates, disease resistance, and areas where they will grow best. 

Donegal matures earliest and is suited to the Northeast; Derry matures later and is ideal 

for the Midwest; and Tyrone matures last and is best for the South. 

Forty-six plant germ plasm releases to U.S. farmers, nurseries, breeders, and researchers to 

help speed transfer of those technologies to the public. These releases included a new citrus 

rootstock and new wheat, dry pea, potato, soybean, chickpea, lentil, grape raisin, blueberry, 

small dry bean, and plum varieties; as well as several new germ plasm lines (sunflower, 

corn, sugar beet, sweet potatoes, and cotton) with enhanced or improved qualities. 

12 2.1 Department of Agriculture 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

■	 Control of fire ant populations. In a unique technology transfer effort, two USDA agencies 

(ARS and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) and the Florida Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Services set up a 5-year initiative to help Southern States combat 

red imported fire ants, which have increased exponentially since their arrival from South 

America in the 1930s. Under the initiative, Florida’s Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services will mass rear Pseudacteon tricuspis, a phorid fly species that specifically 

parasitizes fire ants. The flies then will be shipped to field sites for release in Southern 

States, including Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. ARS researchers brought the tiny 

fly to their U.S. quarantine facilities several years ago from Brazil and have since mastered 

biological control strategies that use the fly against fire ant populations. 

In addition, ARS has participated in numerous outreach activities to help inform industry 

about Agency objectives, programs, services, and information resulting from ARS research. 

In a pivotal event for the State of Maryland and USDA, ARS, the Maryland Technology 

Development Corporation, and the Prince George’s Economic Development Corporation 

signed a Memorandum of Understanding aimed at fostering economic development in 

Maryland and helping transfer ARS technologies to the public. The event resulted in a cooperative agreement between ARS and Intralytix of Baltimore, Maryland, to further investigate 

food safety. In addition, two more cooperative agreements are under negotiation. OTT has 

participated in several industry and professional meetings to present new technologies 

available for licensing and partnering opportunities. OTT has developed and implemented 

“Technology Alerts” and other strategies for its industry customers to introduce new technology opportunities. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 13 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

2.2 Department of Commerce3 

Agency Approach and Plans for Technology Transfer 

The Department of Commerce works in partnership with businesses, universities, communities, 

and workers to promote U.S. competitiveness. It does this by strengthening economic infrastructure, facilitating the development of cutting-edge science and technology, providing an information base, and managing national resources. 

Technology transfer at the Department relates principally to the activities of three divisions, each 

with Federal lab facilities and R&D activities: the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

NIST’s mission is to develop and promote measurement, standards, and technology to enhance 

productivity, facilitate trade, and improve the quality of life. NIST laboratories develop and disseminate measurement techniques, reference data, test methods, standards, and other infrastructural technologies and services that support U.S. industry, scientific research, and the activities of 

many Federal agencies. In carrying out its mission, NIST works directly with industry partners 

(and consortia), universities, associations, and other government agencies. 

NIST’s technology transfer activities focus on broad dissemination of research results to industry, 

rather than the creation of patents and associated licenses. As such, NIST uses a diverse set of 

mechanisms to transfer the knowledge and technologies that result from its laboratory research. 

Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs), patents, and licensing are part 

of this process. Dissemination of technical publications, Standard Reference Materials (SRMs),4 

3 	 This section draws on text and statistics in the Department of Commerce’s FY 2001 “agency report 

on utilization” under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 3710(f). For additional details, readers should consult the 

Department’s report: Annual Report on Technology Transfer: Programs, Plans, FY 2001 Activities and 

Achievements, June 3, 2002. (Report available on the Internet at 

http://www.ta.doc.gov/reports/TechPolicy/TechTrans_2003.htm.) 

4 Standard Reference Materials (SRMs) are the definitive source of measurement traceability in the 

United States. All measurements using SRMs can be traced to a common and recognized set of basic 

standards that provides the basis for compatibility of measurements among different laboratories. 

NIST produces and disseminates (sells) SRMs to a large and diverse group of customers, including 

private-sector laboratories, universities, and other Federal agencies. NIST’s SRMs support industrial 

materials production and analysis, environmental analysis, health measurements, and basic measurements in science and metrology. 

14 2.2 Department of Commerce 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Standard Reference Data (SRDs),5 calibration services,6 facility use agreements, and the hosting of 

guest scientists and engineers also are important aspects of the overall technology transfer effort. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOAA’s primary mission is to transfer environmental data on a wide range of time and space 

scales in order to protect life and property and provide industry and government decision-makers 

with a reliable base of scientific information. As part of this mission, nearly half of the organization works to produce the daily weather forecast, which advises and warns the general public 

and, at the same time, provides a base of scientific and technical information for engineers and 

managers in Federal and State governments and in the heating, construction, manufacturing, 

transportation, and health industries. 

NOAA’s approach to technology transfer involves licensing intellectual property, establishing 

cooperative research relationships with industry, and establishing direct means of transfer. NOAA 

works with each of its laboratories based on its ability to provide the necessary resources. 

National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

NTIA’s Institute for Telecommunication Sciences (NTIA/ITS) supports Agency telecommunications objectives such as promoting advanced telecommunications and information infrastructure 

development in the United States, enhancing domestic competitiveness, improving foreign trade 

opportunities for U.S. telecommunications firms, and facilitating more efficient and effective use 

of the radio spectrum. NTIA/ITS also serves as a principal Federal resource for solving the 

telecommunications concerns of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, private 

corporations and associations, and international organizations. 

NTIA/ITS engages in technology transfer and commercialization by fostering cooperative 

research with industry where benefits can directly facilitate U.S. competitiveness and market 

opportunities. NTIA/ITS’s principal mechanisms for technology transfer include CRADAs, 

patents and licenses, and telecommunications analysis services. 

5 Standard Reference Data titles (SRDs) provide numeric data to scientists and engineers for use in 

technical problem solving, research, and development. NIST produces and makes available (sells 

or distributes for free) many SRDs. NIST’s SRD databases cover many areas of science, including 

analytical chemistry, atomic and molecular physics, biotechnology, and materials science. 

6 NIST laboratories provide physical measurement services for their customers, including calibration, 

special tests, and measurement assurance programs. Calibration services and special tests are characterizations of particular instruments, devices, and sets of standards with respect to international 

and national standards. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 15 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

FY 2001 Overview of Technology Transfer by the Agency’s Federal Labs 

Table 2.2. Summary Measures of Technology Transfer Activities 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 

I. Collaborative Relationships for R&D 

■ CRADAs, total active in the FY 82 407 275 221 188 

- New, executed in the FY — — 67 46 26 

• Nontraditional(1) CRADAs, total active in the FY — — — — 0 

- New, executed in the FY — — — — 0 

■ Other types of collaborative R&D relationships 

NIST 

• Facility use agreements, in effect at end of FY — — — — 372 

• Guest scientists/engineers, during the FY — — — — 1,200 

II. Intellectual Property Management 

■ New inventions disclosed 46 65 38 34 26 

■ Patent applications filed 28 35 30 20 12 

■ Patents issued — — 28 16 22 

■ Invention licenses, total active in the FY — — 41 41 39 

- New, executed in the FY 0 4 7 4 5 

■ Licenses for Other IP(2), total active in the FY — — 0 0 0 

■ Elapsed execution time, licenses granted in the FY 

- Range (low-high)/Median (months) — — — — 2-8/5 

■ Licenses terminated for cause in the FY — — — — 7 

■ Total income from all active licenses (thousands) — — $422 $159 $269 

•	 Income from invention licenses (thousands) $52 $42 $422 $159 $269 

•	 Income from Other IP licenses (thousands) — — 0 0 0 

■	 Licenses bearing royalty income in the FY — — 19 17 21 

- Exclusive/partially exclusive/nonexclusive — — — — 13/5/3 

•	 Earned royalty income (ERI) in the FY (thousands) — — $422 $159 $269 

- Range of ERI (low-high) — — — — $1-136 

- Median ERI — — — — n/a 

- ERI subtotal from top 1% of licenses — — — — n/a 

- ERI subtotal from top 5% of licenses — — — — n/a 

- ERI subtotal from top 20% of licenses — — — — n/a 

■ Disposition of income (royalties, other payments) — — — — 

•	 Income distributed (thousands) 
 — — — — $269 

- Inventor
 — — — — 39% 

- Agency
 — — — — 61% 

III. Other Activity Measures 

NIST	 — — 

•	 Standard Reference Materials available — — 1,288 1,292 1,335 

•	 Standard Reference Materials sold — — 33,347 34,020 31,985 

•	 Standard Reference Data titles available — — 60 63 65 

•	 Items calibrated — — 3,118 2,969 3,192 

• Technical publications	 — — 2,270 2,250 2,207 

The data in this table cover the following departmental bureaus/divisions/services/offices: National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Telecommunications and Information Administration. 

(1) Executed under CRADA authority (15 U.S.C. Sec. 3710a) but used for special purposes, such as material transfer CRADAs or 

technical assistance that may result in protected information. 

(2) “Other Intellectual Property (IP)” includes computer software, tangible research products (such as biological materials), and 

protected data. 

R&D = research and development; CRADA = Cooperative Research and Development Agreements; FY = fiscal year; ERI = earned 

royalty income; n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report; — = Data not requested from agency in previous 

years’ reports. 

16 2.2 Department of Commerce 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Technology Transfer Outcomes 

DOC’s FY 2001 report provided the following examples of successful downstream outcomes 

arising from the agency’s technology transfer activities: 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

■	

■	

■	

CRADA: Integrated Services Digital Network. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new 

advanced technology known as Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) promised to 

revolutionize the telecommunications industry worldwide, offering immense potential 

benefits to government, industry, and personal users with its ability to exchange voice, 

data, and image information concurrently over telephone lines. Before the full potential 

of ISDN could be realized, however, government and industry needed to collaborate to 

overcome barriers to the widespread acceptance and use of ISDN technology. Pinpointing 

the barriers in both the national and international arenas had been difficult because of 

the complexity and rapid development of the technology. NIST collaborated with industry in 1988 to establish the North American ISDN Users Forum (NIUF). A CRADA with 

industry was established in 1991 to govern the management of the forum. The purpose 

of NIUF was to create a strong user voice in the implementation of ISDN applications. 

NIUF provided users of ISDN technology with the opportunity to work with implementers to ensure that users’ needs were met in the ISDN design process. Through NIUF, 

users and manufacturers concurred on ISDN applications, the selection of options from 

standards, and conformance tests, enhancing the strength of the U.S. telecommunications 

industry in the world marketplace. The last NIUF meeting was held June 1999. NIST and 

other NIUF members have agreed that NIUF has accomplished the purposes and goals 

for which it was created. 

Standard Reference Materials: Health Care. Diagnosing and treating cardiovascular disease 

requires accurate measurements of cholesterol and its constituents. Since 1966, NIST has 

developed and disseminated measurement methods, standards, and SRMs needed to 

ensure the accuracy of cholesterol tests. As a result of NIST’s work, clinical laboratories 

and other users have adopted increasingly accurate measurement techniques and have 

significantly reduced uncertainties in cholesterol measurement results. As a result of 

better measurements, fewer patients have been misdiagnosed, public health has been 

improved, and health care costs have been lowered significantly. 

Standards and Conformance Tests: Data Encryption Standard. The electronic transactions 

occurring routinely today in business and in our personal lives have their basis in technological developments of just a few decades ago. These developments include vastly 

improved computing power, increased accessibility to communications through the 

development of the Internet, and the implementation of “behind the scenes” infratechnologies and associated standards that ensure the privacy and security of these various 

transactions. Encryption algorithms and methods are among the infratechnologies that 

are less transparent to casual or business users but are central to virtually every funds 

transfer, business-to-business data transfer, or internal company data input and output. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 17 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

In the early 1970s, markets for encryption products were just emerging and fragmented. 

No industry-wide standard existed to guide industry development efforts. Multiple and 

incompatible products resulted, a situation that discouraged their widespread use. In 

response, NIST formally issued the Data Encryption Standard (DES) in 1977. NIST also 

developed and implemented conformance tests for DES users to help ensure correct 

functioning of their DES implementations. From 1977 to 1994, NIST offered conformancetesting services to encryption hardware manufacturers and software producers. Products 

found to be in conformance with various cryptographic standards were listed as “validated.” 

Such validation greatly increased their marketplace acceptance. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

■	 

■	 

■	 

Suite of digital raster nautical charts. The NOAA/National Ocean Service’s Office of Coast 

Survey created a bundle of technology, intellectual property, expertise, and collaboration 

to permit a private company, Maptech, Inc., to develop a national suite of digital raster 

nautical charts. These charts are used by commercial mariners, recreational boaters, the 

U.S. Navy, and the Coast Guard in shipboard, computer-based navigation systems. A 

CRADA was used to transfer the government files to Maptech, which then developed 

a commercial system, which includes an Internet-based Mapserver that gives limited 

free distribution to the public. In addition to 200 domestic licenses, the NOAA/Maptech 

technology has been licensed to companies or governments in Argentina, Australia, 

Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, 

Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Technology arising under the CRADA 

between NOAA and Maptech also strengthened the capabilities of the NOAA laboratory 

when quality control software developed by Maptech was transferred back to NOAA 

for use in its paper nautical chart production process. 

A new type of radar that can run continuously and inexpensively for years, and automatically measure all types of clouds that occur in the atmosphere, was transferred by a 

CRADA from NOAA’s Environmental Technology Laboratory to Radian International 

Corporation, which then developed a commercial version. The prototype radar has been 

run unattended by NOAA for several years. The commercial version has been sold to 

the Department of Energy for its Atmospheric Radiation Measurement program. It is 

also being considered by the Federal Aviation Administration for better icing warnings 

and for finding cloud-free airspace for increased airplane safety, and by the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for better missile launch decisions. 

Acoustic scintillation liquid flow measurement system. Technology was licensed by NOAA to 

the Canadian Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans, which licensed it to ASL Environmental 

Sciences, Inc., a Canadian company that made commercially available an acoustic scintillation liquid flow measurement system for use in dams, hydroelectric plants, ports, harbors, 

and irrigation canals. 

18 2.2 Department of Commerce 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

■	 

■	 

■	 

■	 

Personal communication services (PCS). Much of NTIA/ITS’s work in PCS, over several 

years, has been accomplished through CRADAs with partners such as U.S. WEST, Bell 

South, Telesis Technology Laboratory, and Motorola. PCS has now been commercialized 

worldwide, and new developments continue as PCS is extended to a third generation 

and beyond. NTIA/ITS has continued this work in FY 2001 through a CRADA with 

Lucent Technologies’ Bell Laboratories that is investigating multiple-input/multipleoutput antenna arrays, a technology that is targeted to dramatically increase the capacity 

of PCS systems and, therefore, reduce the problem of spectrum crowding. This technology 

is 3 to 5 years from commercial application. 

Local multipoint distribution services (LMDS). NTIA/ITS has been a premier laboratory in 

millimeter wave research for two decades. CRADAs with private industry have enabled 

NTIA/ITS to apply this unique expertise while conducting research into radio propagation considerations for LMDS. LMDS will provide broadband wireless communications 

for business and residential applications and is now being commercialized. Deployment 

of systems is beginning in the United States, and a number of U.S. companies are exporting systems and services. Research into LMDS has been conducted with CRADA partners 

such as Hewlett Packard, U.S. WEST, and Lucent Technologies. Data derived from these 

CRADAs provided a foundation for domestic and international standards development 

and efficient allocation of radio frequency spectrum resources. Major contributions to 

PCS and LMDS technologies have been and will continue to be carried out under these 

CRADAs to aid U.S. efforts to rapidly introduce new communications technologies for 

the benefit of society. 

Digital video communication research. In FY 2001, NTIA/ITS performed research with two 

university CRADA partners (University of Pennsylvania and East Carolina University) 

that provided the laboratory with access to Internet 2 capabilities and medical imaging, 

which would not have been otherwise available to it. Through these CRADAs, NTIA/ITS 

continued related research in digital video communication performance, addressing such 

emerging and future applications as video telephony and teleconferencing, telemedicine, 

and interactive video distribution. The lab was also able to continue its development of 

multimedia test capabilities. These user-oriented test capabilities are extremely valuable 

in implementing and optimizing the national and international information infrastructure, including the Next Generation Internet. 

Video quality assessment system. A CRADA during FY 2001 was targeted at research relating 

to the development of a Windows-based video quality assessment system. The Windowsbased system will provide a user-friendly video quality assessment system that will be 

usable by anyone concerned with video quality, without the need for large computer 

systems. This CRADA provided the laboratory with a computer system for this development and software that was developed by the CRADA partner, greatly increasing the 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 19 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

capabilities of the laboratory. The Windows-based video quality assessment system that 

will be developed under this CRADA will incorporate technology covered by two patents 

and one patent application owned by NTIA/ITS. It is targeted for commercial development, 

with the potential of producing a royalty income for the laboratory within 2 years. 

20 2.2 Department of Commerce 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

2.3 Department of Defense7 

Agency Approach and Plans for Technology Transfer 

The Department of Defense’s (DOD) Technology Transfer Program is implemented through a 

decentralized process. Each Service (Army, Navy, Air Force) and participating Defense Agency 

(such as the National Security Agency, the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences) 

has implementing guidance, Offices of Research and Technology Application (ORTA), and patent 

attorneys located at various sites with appropriate authority to transfer technology both into and 

out of the laboratory. In FY 2001, DOD had over 100 ORTAs and patent attorneys throughout the 

Services and Agencies involved in the transfer of technology to enhance both DOD’s mission 

capabilities and the economic competitiveness of U.S. industry. This decentralized approach 

allows the local technology transfer processes, procedures, and projects to fall within the specific 

mission-related activities of the local laboratories. Nonetheless, overarching DOD guidance is in 

place to ensure common policy and objectives. 

DOD is a prime user of the technologies it is interested in developing and helping to transition 

into production. Accordingly, DOD views technology transfer as much more than a means to 

enable industry to access the technologies of DOD laboratories. Technology transfer is a way for 

DOD to enhance its mission capabilities. Transferring technology from DOD laboratories into the 

private sector and from the private sector into DOD systems are both key elements of DOD’s 

technology transfer approach. 

DOD would like to buy better capability at reduced costs. Technology transfer is one way to 

accomplish this. Technology transfer mechanisms provide DOD laboratories with ways to strategically facilitate spin-offs, spin-ons, and dual-use development of technologies. They provide a 

variety of tools with the potential to leverage outside resources and the possibility of reducing 

the development and acquisition costs of technology products. 

DOD’s focus areas in the next year for improving its technology transfer activities include the 

following: 

■	 Make technology transfer efforts a more integral part of the planning, budgeting, and execution 

of science and technology (S&T) programs within DOD. Doing so is important to ensure 

that the productivity of DOD’s S&T programs is maximized. For example, the Air Force 

Research Laboratory has established 5-year strategic goals for its technology transfer 

programs as follows: 

(1) Integrate technology transfer into the acquisition strategy—technology transfer 

programs need to be integrated into the laboratory’s technology roadmaps to 

bridge resource gaps; 

7 This section draws on text and statistics in DOD’s “Report to Congress on the activities of the 

DOD Office of Technology Transition,” February 2002 (prepared in response to 10 U.S.C. 2515). 

(Report available at http://www.dtic.mil/techtransit/refroom/docs/ar02/index.html.) 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 21 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

(2) Identify technologies for commercial application; 

(3) Market resources and technologies; 

(4) Promote technology transfer training; and 

(5) Share Air Force technology with the private and public sectors. 

■	 

■	 

■	 

■	 

■	 

Continue and expand the use of partnership intermediaries to highlight top technologies and aid 

in finding potential CRADA and licensing partners. A good example of a partnership intermediary is the TechLink program, which DOD began to sponsor in July 1999. TechLink 

is established at Montana State University (Bozeman, Montana) to facilitate technology 

transfer between companies across the TechLink region and all the DOD laboratories for 

development, transfer, and commercialization of new technologies. The TechLink region 

includes Montana, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, and 

South Dakota. TechLink focuses on industries important to this region: principally, 

advanced materials, aerospace, agriculture, biomedicine and biotechnology, electronics, 

environmental technologies, software and information technology, photonics, and 

sensors. TechLink’s accomplishments in FY 2001 included assistance to approximately 

70 companies, assistance in creating 6 new companies, and facilitation of over 15 

patent license agreements between companies and DOD laboratories. 

Increase use of DOD R&D databases as a means to identify potential collaborators. DOD’s 

Defense Technical Information Center maintains a large database with project description 

and financial information about independent research and development (IR&D) efforts 

conducted by defense contractors. Currently, this database covers a very large fraction 

of these contractor efforts. The database has potential to help match private-sector R&D 

initiatives with DOD laboratory R&D activities for mutual benefit through cooperation. 

Strengthen marketing outreach. This goal needs to include not only those technologies 

identified to have high commercial potential, but also other laboratory resources such 

as unique facilities, specialized equipment, and in-house expertise. 

Increase the scientific and engineering staff’s knowledge of technology transfer issues and options. 

The goal is to educate DOD’s scientists and engineers on what to patent and how to 

patent to ensure maximum protection for DOD-owned intellectual property. DOD’s 

scientists and engineers must be educated about the licensing process, including what 

to expect and the pitfalls and time involved. 

Incorporate technology transfer in job descriptions. For those labs where it is not already 

present, technology transfer should be made a part of the position descriptions of 

laboratory directors, managers, scientists, and engineers. 

22 2.3 Department of Defense 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

FY 2001 Overview of Technology Transfer by the Agency’s Federal Labs 

Table 2.3. Summary Measures of Technology Transfer Activities 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 

I. Collaborative Relationships for R&D 

■ CRADAs, total active in the FY 113 845 1,350 1,364 1,965 

- New, executed in the FY — — 449 425 459 

• Nontraditional(1) CRADAs, total active in the FY — — — — 330 

- New, executed in the FY — — — — 82 

■ Other types of collaborative R&D relationships 

• Educational Partnership Agreements, other–total 

active in FY 

— — — — 

217 

- New, executed in the FY 81 

II. Intellectual Property Management 

■ New inventions disclosed 1,383 1,168 1,060 991 1,005 

■ Patent applications filed 

■ Patents issued 

807 

— 

759 

— 

703 

547 

774 

553 

809 

619 

■ Invention licenses, total active in the FY — — 177 189 283 

- New, executed in the FY 15 34 61 67 49 

■ Licenses for Other IP(2), total active in the FY 

■ Elapsed execution time, licenses granted in the FY 

■ Licenses terminated for cause in the FY 

- Range (low-high)/Median (months) 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

n/a 

— 

— 

n/a 

— 

— 

5 

n/a 

2 

■ Total income from all active licenses (thousands) — — $2,005 $2,213 $6,465 

■ Licenses bearing royalty income in the FY — — 42 29 113 

• Income from invention licenses (thousands) 2,005 $2,213 $6,383 

• Income from Other IP licenses (thousands) — — 0 0 $82 

- Exclusive/partially exclusive/nonexclusive — — — — 42/22/49 

• Earned royalty income (ERI) in the FY (thousands) — — $865 $672 $6,383 

- Range of ERI (low-high) — — — — $6-4,231 

- Median ERI — — — — $75 

■ Disposition of income (royalties, other payments) — — — — 

- ERI subtotal from top 1% of licenses — — — — $4,235 

- ERI subtotal from top 5% of licenses — — — — $4,352 

- ERI subtotal from top 20% of licenses — — — — $4,593 

• Income distributed (thousands) $6,383 

- To inventors 20% 

- To other rewards and additional R&D 80% 

III. Other Activity Measures 

(none cited by the agency) — — — — nr 

The data in this table cover the following departmental bureaus/divisions/services/offices: the statistics for FY 2001 include the 

activities of the Air Force, Army, Navy, Defense agencies (National Security Agency, National Imagery and Mapping Agency), and the 

Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. Prior-year figures include the activities of only the Air Force, Army, and Navy. 

(1) Executed under CRADA authority (15 U.S.C. Sec. 3710a) but used for special purposes, such as material transfer CRADAs or 

technical assistance that may result in protected information. 

(2) “Other Intellectual Property (IP)” includes computer software, tangible research products (such as biological materials), and 

protected data. 

R&D = research and development; CRADA = Cooperative Research and Development Agreements; FY = fiscal year; ERI = earned 

royalty income; n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report; — = Data not requested from agency in previous 

years’ reports; nr = Data not relevant: either the agency does not engage in this type of technological transfer activity or the information is not useful in describing the agency’s programs. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 23 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Technology Transfer Outcomes 

DOD’s FY 2001 report included the following examples of successful downstream outcomes from 

the department’s technology transfer activities: 

Army 

■	 

■	

■	

Testing of tafenoquine, an antimalarial drug developed at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research 

(WRAIR), began in pediatric populations. Glaxo Smith Kline has licensed all of WRAIR’s technology on live attenuated dengue vaccines and initiated a CRADA with WRAIR to identify 

the most suitable live virus tetravalent combination to produce a vaccine for commercial 

use. WRAIR entered into a unique licensing arrangement with Iomai, a spin-off company. 

The technology license is a technique that allows the transdermal delivery of vaccines and 

drugs by applying the materials to bandages, thereby eliminating the need to use needles. 

New state-of-the-art ceramic material for communications and radar applications. A team of Army 

Research Laboratory (ARL) scientists has developed a new ceramic material technology, 

with far-reaching possibilities for both military and commercial communications and radar. 

Using a unique ferro-electric ceramic material, the team designed low-cost, tunable scanning antennas for satellite communications, voltage tunable filters and devices, and ultrafast scanning phase shifters. The Army’s belief in the team’s abilities, along with its significant need to reduce the size, weight, and cost of existing ferrite phase shifters, resulted in 

its funding of this successful effort for more than 6 years. Four members of the team created a private firm, called Paratek, for the purpose of licensing the patents that are the heart 

of the ceramic material technology; two members of the team remained at ARL to work on 

the military application of the technology. An exclusive license was negotiated by ARL and 

signed by Paratek in late 1999, marking the first time in Army history that an employee 

inventor team licensed the technology it invented. Since its startup, Paratek has grown 

from 4 employees to 90, and the products the company is preparing for production range 

from new to revolutionary. The company’s ceramic material technologies will be used in 

personal communication devices, cell phones, and home and office direct satellite communication systems as enabling technology that can both reduce cost and expand capability. 

This technology has far-reaching consequences, not only for critical military needs, but also 

for an estimated billion-dollar commercial field of broadband wireless communication systems. 

Recycled plastic railroad ties for public transit. The Army Construction Engineering Research 

Laboratory (CERL) has been conducting developmental research on recycled plastic railroad 

ties for several years. In 1998, the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) tested a few of these 

plastic composite railroad ties in its elevated track. The performance was so satisfactory that 

the CTA is going out for open bid for 21,500 recycled plastic composite ties to be placed on 

both elevated and ballasted track. CERL helped the CTA develop the procurement specifications for this project. In support of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Region 5 Office, 

CERL will help monitor the performance of these new ties and publicize the results. 

24 2.3 Department of Defense 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Navy 

■	 

■	 

■	 

Navy center for government/industry/academia teaming partnerships. The Navy’s Space and 

Warfare System Center (SPAWARSYSCEN) has established a Center for Commercialization of Advanced Technology (CCAT). This is a teaming partnership among government, 

industry, and academia in the San Diego, California, area. A cooperative agreement was 

signed between SSC-San Diego (SSC-SD) and San Diego State University. The purpose 

of CCAT is to identify technologies that have commercial and/or dual-use potential for 

DOD. Technologies are assessed early in their development to identify candidates for 

market analysis, linking to a commercial company for production and support in the 

form of business and market plan development, as well as funding. The first solicitation 

for technologies resulted in the identification of 14 government technologies from SSC-SD 

and 85 industry and academia technologies. 

High-performance microdisplay. A Space and Naval Warfare Center (SPAWAR) scientist 

invented a novel, high-performance microdisplay that allows high-performance microelectronic circuitry to be fabricated within and adjacent to a transmissive liquid crystal 

display. The result is a high-resolution and high-brightness display that eliminates the 

need for millions of interconnections between the display and its control circuitry. The 

technology offers improved imaging and video in virtual presence applications for 

warfighter and emergency service personnel, as well as in advanced devices such as 

hand-held computers and cellular phones. To transfer the technology, an innovative 

process was used that involved a coalition of government and industrial partners. 

SPAWAR entered into a CRADA with Proxima Corporation to market the technology. 

A second CRADA was established with Optron Systems, a display and component 

manufacturer. Both CRADAs resulted in licensing agreements for the invention. In 

addition, Radiant Images (a spin-off company from Optron Systems) will produce 

the first commercial version of the microdisplays within the next year. The initial 

beneficiaries of the technology will be DOD and emergency service personnel. As 

the technology becomes commercially available, it will have the greatest impact on 

portable information technology devices. 

Improved processing of bathymetric data. In the first year of a CRADA with Interactive 

Visualization Systems (IVS), the Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command 

(NAVOCEANO) was able to eliminate an 18-month bathymetric data validation backlog. 

This CRADA combined IVS’s 3-D visualization software for ocean mapping of large 

data sets with NAVOCEANO’s multibeam sonar data processing application, Area 

Based Editor. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 25 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Air Force 

■	 

■	 

■	 

■	 

Application of Conformal Fuel Tanks on the F-16. A CRADA between the Air Force’s Air 

Armaments Command (AAC) and Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems, directed 

at development of the conformal fuel tank (CFT) for F-16 application, was established 

in FY 2001. This cooperative effort explored and evaluated the use of CFTs on the F-16. The 

Air Force will gain an instrumented test aircraft with the ability to conduct conformal fuel 

tank testing. Lockheed will gain the use of an Air Force instrumented aircraft for test flights. 

The results of this CRADA will improve AAC’s ability to conduct future planned tests with 

CFTs. Lockheed’s foreign military sales program will benefit, making it more competitive in 

a worldwide market. 

Improved composite structure tooling method. Engineers and scientists at the Air Force Research 

Laboratory’s (AFRL) Materials and Manufacturing Directorate, the Defense Advanced 

Research Project Agency, and Boeing-St. Louis have successfully developed and demonstrated a new way of significantly reducing the cost of tooling for composite structures. This 

new method lowers overall bond tool family costs by minimizing the total number of tools 

in a family, thus reducing fabrication cycle times. This new approach is already being 

used in prototype aircraft programs and could eventually be applied to other major aircraft development and production programs, saving millions of dollars while dramatically improving the quality of composite structure tooling. Application of this method 

may also lead to significantly reduced tool fabrication costs and span times. Use of this 

approach is already widespread at Boeing-St. Louis. 

Transfer of “brake by wire” technology to the automotive industry. A CRADA has been established between the AFRL Propulsion, Materials and Manufacturing, and Air Vehicles 

Directorates and Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC, to transfer the AFRL’s “brake by wire” 

technology to the automotive industry within the next 2 years. Brake by wire is a nextgeneration braking system that stops vehicles by electrical signals instead of the conventional hydraulics systems on today’s cars. The Air Force’s interests are in validating the 

technology on high-temperature power applications, control theory, and reliable wiring 

and connectors for applications on aircraft and other aerospace systems. Cost reduction 

for the Air Force system is another benefit, because the auto industry would build large 

quantities, lowering the cost. Federal, State, and industry dollars are coming together to 

make this project a fiscal success. 

Holographic polymer-dispersed liquid crystals. Research by a team of scientists at the AFRL 

Materials and Manufacturing Directorate has led to significant technological advancements 

in the development of a wearable holographic display that allows pilots to keep their 

eyes on the action while viewing data and color images projected directly into the retina. 

Holographic polymer-dispersed liquid crystals (H-PDLCs) allow complex optics to be 

designed into lightweight thin films whose optical properties can be changed by applying a 

modest electrical field similar to that used in watch and calculator displays. This technology 

replaces bulky and relatively heavy lenses by reducing component weight and size. The 

26 2.3 Department of Defense 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

effort to transfer this technology took shape when the AFRL team partnered with Science 

Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to license the H-PDLC. After achieving initial 

success and discovering the vast commercial outlets in which the technology could be used, 

SAIC became interested in securing the intellectual property rights to H-PDLC and marketing it. A dual-use cost-share program was utilized to move the technology even further. On 

the basis of the success of the technology transfer efforts, a startup company was created— 

DigiLens of Sunnyvale, California—which has an exclusive agreement with SAIC to develop the technology commercially. The lightweight high-resolution optical display may someday provide the warfighter with an added advantage in combat situations. The H-PDLC 

will also enable next-generation cellular phone displays for the Internet; wearable displays 

for videos, game devices, and personal computers; and improvements in rear-projection 

high-definition television. 

■

■

	 

	 

Process for in-situ densification of carbon-carbon composites. A research team at the AFRL 

Propulsion Directorate has developed a low-cost, rapid processing route for the production 

of high-quality carbon-carbon composite material. The use of carbon-carbon composites is 

crucial to the construction of aerospace equipment, including aircraft brakes, rocket nozzles, 

exit cones, and nose tips. Significant costs are associated with manufacturing equipment 

using these composites, as well as lead times as long as 6 to 8 months. There is a long-standing need for carbon-carbon composites that not only have a uniform density, but can also be 

fabricated in thick pieces. Also, as the composites are used in additional applications, there 

will be interest in producing them at a lower cost. The team’s in-situ densification places 

matrix material between the carbon fibers and produces composite materials in 5 to 25 percent of the time and at 10 to 50 percent of the cost of current commercial processes. In addition to being more rapid and less expensive than commercial ones, the in-situ process can 

produce carbon-carbon composites that no other technology can. Once the team developed 

this technology, they entered into a CRADA with B.F. Goodrich Aerospace, the world’s 

largest manufacturer of aircraft brake material. As a result of the CRADA, Goodrich has 

been able to incorporate the lab’s densification process into its production cycles. Another 

technology transfer partnership involves SMJ Carbon, a spin-off company, which negotiated 

an exclusive license to manufacture carbon-carbon products for all markets except aircraft 

brakes. Currently, both technology transfer partnerships are still in progress and are proving 

to be successful for all parties involved. 

Second-generation high-temperature superconducting wire. A scientist at the AFRL Propulsion 

Directorate has developed several technologies that make it possible to manufacture yttrium 

barium copper oxide (YBCO) coated conductors for applications in high-temperature superconducting (HTS) applications. (YBCO allows generators to be significantly lighter and 

more compact.) A key aspect of the research was discovery of a previously unknown 

substrate grain boundary effect in coated conductors, which has a strong influence on 

the critical current that the HTS film can carry. Development of the technology was facilitated by a CRADA partnership among Intermagnetics General Corporation (IGC), the 

Materials Laboratory, and AFRL. One result of this relationship was a new company, IGC 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 27 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

SuperPower, LLC, which will use AFRL-developed technology to produce YBCO-coated 

conductors. In June 2000, IGC SuperPower opened a new YBCO-coated conductor manufacturing facility. Also, a research partnership between the AFRL Superconductivity Group 

and the University of Wisconsin Applied Superconductivity Center resulted in the discovery 

of a grain boundary effect that sets a standard for substrate grain alignment for production 

of the textured substrate used in HTS coated conductors by industry. Discovery of the grain 

boundary effect has helped the entire HTS coated conductor industry develop improved 

products. All of these technologies improve the coated conductor samples currently made 

and help in the development of the long-length coated conductor that is needed in the 

power utility market and the high-power generators used by the military. Complete development of the technology will lead to industrial commercialization of the YBCO-coated 

conductor in such electric power applications as transformers, transmission cables, motors, 

fault current limiters, and generators. 

Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences 

■	 Antibody technology. Two proprietary vaccines arising under a CRADA (initiated in 1989) 

are now sold worldwide. Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) 

inventors were the source of the underlying technology. The CRADA involved USUHS, the 

Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, and a startup 

biotech company created by the inventors. 

28 2.3 Department of Defense 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

2.4 Department of Energy8 

Agency Approach and Plans for Technology Transfer 

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) five-part mission is to 

(1) Foster a secure and reliable energy system that is environmentally and economically 

sustainable; 

(2) Be a responsible steward of the Nation’s nuclear weapons; 

(3) Clean up DOE’s facilities; 

(4) Lead in the physical sciences and advance the biological, environmental, and computational sciences; and 

(5) Provide premier scientific instruments for the Nation’s research enterprise. 

To achieve this mission, and for the public benefit, the Department’s 11 national laboratories 

and 13 other facilities that have research or technology development programs are authorized to 

engage in technology partnering activities, including Cooperative Research and Development 

Agreements (CRADAs), with other Federal and non-Federal entities. The purposes of these 

authorities are to 

■	 

■	 

■	 

Facilitate the efficient and expeditious development, transfer, and exploitation of federally 

owned or originated technology to non-DOE entities; 

Leverage DOE resources, through its programs and facilities, through partnering; and 

Ensure fairness of opportunity, protect the national security, promote the economic 

interests of the United States, prevent inappropriate competition with the private sector, 

and provide a variety of means to respond to private-sector concerns and interests 

about facility technology partnering activities. 

Fundamental scientific discoveries and technologies supporting DOE mission areas can play 

an important role as building blocks for new commercial opportunities. DOE facilities and 

resources may be made available for industrial partners to reduce their technical risk and to 

offer them access to facilities and experts with skills outside the normal scope of their own 

workforce. At the same time, the Department can strengthen its mission-oriented R&D and 

8 This section draws on text and statistics in DOE’s FY 2001 “agency report on utilization” under
 

15 U.S.C. Sec. 3710(f). For additional details, readers should consult the Department’s report:
 

Annual Report on Technology Partnering Activities at National Laboratories and Other Departmental
 

Facilities for Fiscal Year 2001, March 1, 2002.
 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 29 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

keep vital technological capabilities at the leading edge. Successful collaborations benefit 

industry and the DOE laboratories by saving money and by providing access to each other’s 

talent, technology, knowledge, and facilities. 

DOE encourages its facilities to enter into technology partnering activities using a variety of 

mechanisms, including CRADAs, Work for Others (WFO), Licensing, User Facility Agreements, 

and others, in order to encourage research partnerships with non-Federal organizations. 

DOE expects its facilities to 

■

■

■

■

■

Recognize that technology transfer, through partnering in all its forms, is a mission of 

DOE and its facilities, consistent with the provisions of legislation and as directed by 

Congress; 

Carry out technology partnering activities in accordance with their applicable laws and 

authorities; 

Carry out policy and assign roles and responsibilities for the oversight, management, 

and administration of DOE facility technology partnering activities; 

Ensure the consistent development and application of policy and procedures in planning 

and conducting technology partnering activities at DOE facilities; and 

Ensure the availability of timely and accurate technology partnering data and information to monitor, evaluate, and describe DOE technology partnering activities. 

30 2.4 Department of Energy 
FY 2001 Overview of Technology Transfer by the Agency’s Federal Labs 

Table 2.4. Summary Measures of Technology Transfer Activities 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 

I. Collaborative Relationships for R,D&D 

■ CRADAs, total active in the FY 1 1,392 715 687 558 

- New, executed in the FY — — 240 151 204 

• Nontraditional(1) CRADAs, total active in the FY — — — — nr 

- New, executed in the FY — — — — nr 

■ Other types of collaborative R,D&D relationships — — — — nr 

II. Intellectual Property Management 

■ New inventions disclosed 1,335 1,758 1,474 1,371 1,527 

■ Patent applications filed 366 571 850 788 792 

■ Patents issued — — 525 515 605 

■ Invention licenses, total active in the FY — — 981 1,094 1,162 

- New, executed in the FY 62 140 202 169 226 

■ Licenses for Other IP(2), total active in the FY — — 941 976 843 

■ Elapsed execution time, licenses granted in the FY 

■ Licenses terminated for cause in the FY 

- Range (low-high)/Median (months) — 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

n/a 

60 

■ Total income from all active licenses (thousands) — — $11,764 $15,840 $21,403 

• Income from invention licenses (thousands) $2,560 $3,455 $10,199 $12,710 $18,922 

• Income from Other IP licenses (thousands) — — $1,545 $2,836 $1,870 

■ Licenses bearing royalty income in the FY — — 193 220 1,012 

- Exclusive/partially exclusive/nonexclusive — — — — 174/112/726 

Earned royalty income (ERI) in the FY (thousands) — — $1,975 $2,228 $7,832 

- Range of ERI (low-high) — — — — $.002-1,585 

- Median ERI — — — — $4 

- ERI subtotal from top 1% of licenses — — — — $2,699 

- ERI subtotal from top 5% of licenses — — — — $5,272 

■ Disposition of income (royalties, other payments) — — — — 

- ERI subtotal from top 20% of licenses — — — — $7,163 

• Income distributed (thousands) $16,356 

- Royalty sharing to inventors 36% 

- Royalty sharing for other purposes 64% 

III. Other Activity Measures 

(none cited by the agency) — — — — nr 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

The data in this table cover the following departmental bureaus/divisions/services/offices: DOE’s government ownedgovernment operated (GOGO) and government owned-contractor operated (GOCO) laboratories. The vast majority of DOE’s 

technology transfer activities is conducted at its GOCO laboratories. These laboratories license their technology under the general 

guidance of 35 U.S.C. 202, rather than the authority for government licensing set forth in 35 U.S.C. 207-209. Unlike laboratories 

comprised of government employees (GOGOs), these GOCO laboratories are able to assert copyright and license software they 

produce. In addition, they generally have more flexibility than GOGO laboratories on matters such as royalty sharing and exclusive licensing. 

(1) Executed under CRADA authority (15 U.S.C. Sec. 3710a) but used for special purposes, such as material transfer CRADAs or 

technical assistance that may result in protected information. 

(2) “Other Intellectual Property (IP)” includes computer software, tangible research products (such as biological materials), and 

protected data. 

R&D = research and development; CRADA = Cooperative Research and Development Agreements; FY = fiscal year; ERI = earned 

royalty income; n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report; — = Data not requested from agency in previous years’ 

reports; nr = Data not relevant: either the agency does not engage in this type of technological transfer activity or the information 

is not useful in describing the agency’s programs. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 31 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Technology Transfer Outcomes 

DOE’s FY 2001 report provided the following examples of successful downstream outcomes arising from the agency’s technology partnering activities: 

■	

■	

■	

Separations technology for biology and chemistry. It is anticipated that the MCE 2000, an 

“R&D 100 Awards” winning separations technology based on multiplexed capillary 

electrophoresis (MCE) and using absorption detection, will eventually replace highperformance liquid chromatography (HPLC). (HPLC has been one of the most successful 

commercial instruments to date for chemical separations in both biology and chemistry 

laboratories.) The MCE technology was developed by Edward S. Yeung, Director of Ames 

Laboratory’s Chemical and Biological Sciences Program. MCE makes it possible to rapidly 

separate samples of complex chemical or biochemical mixtures and can decipher an individual’s entire genetic code faster, more accurately, and less expensively than conventional 

instrumentation—a feat that could potentially revolutionize the diagnosis of diseases and 

the development of treatments. In an effort to turn the MCE technology into a commercial 

instrument and accelerate development, a new spin-off company was launched in 2001, 

CombiSep Inc. (located in Ames, Iowa), with licensed technology from Iowa State 

University. In only 9 months, CombiSep designed, developed, tested, and sold the first 

instrument (the MCE 2000). 

A new catalyst for fuel cell development. A new catalyst, which forms the heart of a component that will allow fuel-cell-powered cars to run on conventional fuel, was developed 

by Michael Krumpelt and his colleagues of the Chemical Technology Division at DOE’s 

Argonne National Laboratory. This catalyst is expected to accelerate entry of ultraefficient, environmentally friendly electric cars into the marketplace. The catalyst has 

been named one of the top 100 technological innovations of the preceding year by R&D 

100 Magazine in its “R&D 100 Awards.” As a result of this work, Argonne and SüdChemie, Inc. (formerly United Catalysts Inc.) have signed a licensing agreement under 

which Süd-Chemie Inc. will manufacture and distribute a partial oxidation catalyst 

developed and patented by Argonne. 

Nuclear medicine on the go. Digirad, Inc., a small business based in California, began the first 

significant number of deliveries of its award-winning 2020tc Imager at the beginning of 

FY 2001. The 2020tc Imager is based on licensed Berkeley Lab photodiode technology first 

developed for astrophysics use. It is the world’s first solid-state digital gamma camera for 

nuclear medicine. Digirad received the 100th order for its 2020tc Imager in June 2001; the 

imager is poised to replace the vacuum tube technology that is the current industry standard for nuclear medicine. The 2020tc Imager serves clinical applications not open to traditional cameras because of bulkiness, lack of mobility, and comparatively inferior performance (the 2020tc Imager weighs only 425 pounds while a standard stationary vacuum tube 

camera weighs 1.5 to 2.5 tons). Digirad also offers mobile nuclear cardiology in 13 States 

throughout the United States. This imaging service is also based on the Berkeley Lab tech32 2.4 Department of Energy 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

nology. As of November 2001, Digirad was performing approximately 22,000 diagnostic 

patient studies on an annualized basis. 

■	

■	

■	

Energy-efficient insulation and packaging. Gas-filled panels (GFPs) were conceived in the early 

1990s by Berkeley Lab as a new thermal-insulation material that could be used as an alternative to chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) and hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) blown foams. 

Unlike CFC or HCFC foams, GFPs are environmentally safe. GFPs are made from thin, 

infrared-reflecting, multilayer, aluminized plastic baffles. The baffles are enveloped by a 

sealed barrier and filled with a low-conductivity inert gas or air. Cargo Technology, Inc., 

a San Diego-based small business, licensed the GFP technology from Berkeley Lab to make 

insulated packaging materials for shipping perishable cargo (including foods and pharmaceuticals). Cargo Tech introduced its GFP product, AirLiner, in December 2000. Beyond 

offering superior thermal performance, AirLiner is an inexpensive replacement for polystyrene foam containers, which are bulkier, more cumbersome, more prone to cracking 

and leaking, and result in a larger volume of solid waste than GFPs. New advances in 

GFP production arising from development of the AirLiner have opened the door for 

many other uses of the technology. Berkeley Lab already has optioned GFPs for building 

insulation and is working with other companies on other thermal-insulation applications 

such as appliances (refrigeration) and transportation (airplanes and automobiles). 

Extreme ultraviolet lithography program for next-generation computer chips. Lithography is the 

process by which complex integrated circuit designs are miniaturized and transferred to 

semiconductor wafers, or computer chips. It is an essential technology that has enabled the 

growth of a trillion-dollar computer and information technologies industry. Of all the manufacturing steps required in the production of integrated circuits, lithography is the most 

costly and technologically difficult to develop and implement, with each new generation of 

equipment requiring almost a billion dollars of investment. Lithography that uses extreme 

ultraviolet (EUV) light, which has a very narrow wavelength, enables the manufacture of 

much smaller circuits with many more transistors. As a result of a cooperative technology 

partnering program between the semiconductor industry and several of DOE’s national 

laboratories, EUV lithography has emerged as the leading solution for the manufacture of 

advanced chips. In April 2001, the technology achieved a major milestone by demonstrating a prototype machine called the Engineering Test Stand. With this machine, laboratory 

researchers were able to print, for the first time, full field images with features less than 100 

nanometers in size. This lithography technology will be introduced into manufacturing by 

the middle of the decade and will serve the semiconductor industry for the next 15 years. 

Combustion control and diagnostics sensors. In May 2000, researchers at the National Energy 

Technology Laboratory (NETL) filed a patent titled “Flashback Detection Sensor for Lean 

Premix Fuel Nozzles.” The Flashback Detection Sensor (FDS) relates to lean premix combustion systems in general, and to the detection of a flashback condition in lean premix fuel 

nozzles of gas turbine combustion systems in particular. It is believed that this technology 

will monitor and help meet stringent emission regulations for gas combustion design and 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 33 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

operation, which use some form of lean-premix combustion, enabling a significant reduction of thermal nitrogen oxides formation. With additional research, focused on flame ionization for in-situ monitoring, the inventors realized the potential for FDS embodiment to be 

used for both control and diagnostics. As a result of this new information, the name of the 

technology was changed to Combustion Control and Diagnostics Sensors (CCADS). From 

May 2001 until the present, the inventors began testing CCADS at turbine conditions. A 

leading independent designer and manufacturer of gas turbine controls later signed a 

CRADA. NETL and the industrial partner will jointly develop the in-situ monitoring device 

for gas turbine systems and are currently discussing possible strategies for licensing the 

patented technology. 

■

■

Identification technology. The radio-frequency (RF) identification (ID) system developed at 

DOE’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and marketed by a technology transfer spinoff company known as Wave ID is based on small, inexpensive RF tags that can identify, 

locate, and determine the condition of any item to which they are attached. The RF tag is 

programmed with information that can be read by a hand-held reader (or interrogator) and 

sent to a computer. Tags can be read at a rate of 500 tags per second, and at a distance of up 

to 600 feet, which is 10 times greater than similar products. The new system is the only one 

that can pinpoint the exact coordinates of a tagged item. The tags are being used to locate, 

secure, and deactivate equipment; locate injured soldiers and send information to medical 

units; inventory and track weapons, tools, and clothing (the antitheft hard plastic tags 

attached to merchandise in stores are RF tags); locate tools left in aircraft engines during 

maintenance; monitor aircraft brake temperatures and rocket motor health; inventory and 

control shipyard supplies; monitor nuclear reactors and material; monitor and inventory 

munitions; monitor emissions from vehicles; and track honeybees for detecting landmines. 

The small size of the tags (2.5 x 0.75 x 0.5 in.) makes them easy to use. Unlike other tags, 

the RF tags work well within highly metallic environments, such as ships and airplanes. 

Current global security concerns will likely increase the demand for these products. The 

ability to track and deactivate items such as military equipment and weapons may become 

an important aspect of security in the war against terrorism. 

Radiation-hardened Pentium processors for space and defense. The Pentium® processor, one of the 

most widely used computer chips in the world, was developed by Intel Corporation at an 

estimated cost of more than $1 billion. The Pentium’s speed, flexibility, and reliability made 

it a valuable resource for critical government applications. Radiation-hardening helps to 

protect such chips and other critical-system components from the harsh effects of cosmic 

and nuclear radiation, ensuring reliable performance. DOE has used five generations of 

radiation-hardened (rad-hard) chips in earth satellites, space probes, missiles, nuclear 

weapons, and other applications that contain electronics that could be damaged by radiation. In a technology partnering agreement between Sandia National Laboratories and Intel 

Corporation, Sandia was granted a no-fee license to redesign the Pentium processor into a 

rad-hard chip for space and defense uses. The agreement allows the government to own the 

34 2.4 Department of Energy 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

rights to this rad-hard version of a top-quality commercial microprocessor design, and 

allows Sandia to fabricate the chips if no industry source can be developed. 

■	 Modeling of tire stress dynamics produces dual-use benefits. Sandia National Laboratories and 

the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company teamed up in 1993. Goodyear hoped that Sandia 

could bring its computer modeling and simulation capability to bear in a way that would 

help the company design and manufacture better tires. Sandia scientists and engineers 

hoped that the work would challenge them to test their computer modeling tools and 

sharpen their skills in materials development and analysis. Neither partner expected the 

agreement to yield more than a simple technology transfer. Simulating the performance 

of laminated tire structures, consisting of fabric, steel, and various rubber compounds, 

was a particularly difficult modeling challenge. Sandia brought its substantial computing 

power and insights to the partnership; Goodyear contributed its expertise and experience 

in polymer sciences. Ultimately, the combination of capabilities produced breakthroughs 

that not only provided insight into tire design, but also were applicable to weapons design 

and manufacturing. As Goodyear applied Sandia’s computer code innovations to better 

optimize tire performance for new car platforms, Sandia began to utilize the feedback 

acquired from the work to streamline its own processes. Sandia was able to improve its 

neutron generator manufacturing and to develop more accurate computer models of polymer stresses, deformations, and aging effects, which in turn helped to improve the fidelity 

of its weapon-system models. Over time, the partners recognized and pursued other common interests in areas as diverse as manufacturing, fluid dynamics, vibration, acoustics, 

materials, and chemical-separations technologies. Currently, Sandia and Goodyear are 

working together through a sixth CRADA, exploring low-energy technologies to separate 

hydrocarbon monomers for synthetic rubber production. If successful, the work will 

reduce energy consumption in petrochemical processes and advance chemical separation 

technologies for other uses. This partnership is one part of Sandia’s broader business 

development effort to partner with U.S. industries. What started earlier as technology 

transfer has become an integral part of Sandia’s strategy to fulfill its national mission by 

engaging in partnering activities that bring added expertise to the process from outside 

the laboratory. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 35 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

2.5 Environmental Protection Agency9 

Agency Approach and Plans for Technology Transfer 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the principal Federal agency responsible for monitoring and regulating environmental quality. EPA’s mission is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment, air, water, and land, upon which life depends. 

To support this broad mission and related regulatory authority, EPA conducts R&D in relevant 

areas of science and technology, both through its own system of laboratories and through sponsoring external research by industry, universities, and other research performers. Environmental 

research is critical for developing the scientific understanding and technological tools to allow the 

Nation to enhance environmental quality for current and future generations. This investment provides a scientific basis for developing cost-effective environmental policies, creates the knowledge 

base for citizens to make wise environmental decisions, and enables new and better approaches to 

environmental protection. 

EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) maintains research facilities around the country, including the National Center for Environmental Assessment, the National Exposure Research 

Laboratory, the National Health & Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, and the National 

Risk Management Research Laboratory. In addition, research is conducted by the Office of Air and 

Radiation; the Office of Water; the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances; and the 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. This work is performed pursuant to a series of 

research strategies and plans addressing important environmental issues. Presently, these strategies address ecological research, environmental monitoring and assessment, global change, particulate matter, pollution prevention, and waste research. 

Technology transfer at EPA seeks to capitalize on the scientific developments of Federal laboratories to promote the technical and economic growth of the United States. In implementing the 

Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (FTTA) and Executive Order (EO) 12591, ORD seeks relationships with industry, universities, and State and local governments to conduct cooperative 

research and development and to commercialize environmental technologies. 

ORD’s activities under FTTA involve development and implementation of Cooperative Research 

and Development Agreements (CRADAs) and development and oversight of the implementation 

of licensing agreements. Specific activities include identifying appropriate technologies and 

opportunities for CRADAs and licensing agreements, negotiating specific terms of such agreements, reviewing agreements to ensure conformance with the requirements of FTTA and EO 

12591, fulfilling EPA’s responsibilities under such agreements, and monitoring the activities of outside cooperators and licenses under these agreements. EPA has two Centers that assist the private 

sector in licensing of EPA patents. 

9 This section draws on text and statistics in EPA’s FY 2001 “agency report on utilization” under 15 U.S.C. 

Sec. 3710(f). For additional details, readers should consult the agency’s report: TTCA Report, May 2002. 

36 2.5 Environmental Protection Agency 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

FY 2001 Overview of Technology Transfer by the Agency’s Federal Labs 

Table 2.5. Summary Measures of Technology Transfer Activities 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 

I. Collaborative Relationships for R&D 

■ CRADAs, total active in the FY 11 30 38 44 48 

- New, executed in the FY — — 13 10 19 

• Nontraditional(1) CRADAs, total active in the FY — — — — 3 

- New, executed in the FY — — — — 1 

■ Other types of collaborative R&D 

relationships — — — — nr 

II. Intellectual Property Management 

■ New inventions disclosed 12 15 5 11 17 

■ Patent applications filed 6 24 15 10 7 

■ Patents issued — — 8 6 12 

■ Invention licenses, total active in the FY — — 17 18 19 

- New, executed in the FY 1 1 2 3 4 

■ Licenses for Other IP(2), total active in the FY — — 0 0 0 

■ Elapsed execution time, licenses granted in the FY 

- Range (low-high)/Median (months) — — — — 3–10/ n/a 

■ Licenses terminated for cause in the FY — — — — 0 

■ Total income from all active licenses (thousands) — — n/a n/a $544 

• Income from invention licenses (thousands) $3 $110 n/a n/a n/a 

• Income from Other IP licenses (thousands) — — n/a n/a 0 

■ Licenses bearing royalty income in the FY — — n/a n/a 19 

- Exclusive/partially exclusive/nonexclusive — — — — 6/1/12 

• Earned royalty income (ERI) in the FY (thousands) — — n/a n/a n/a 

- Range of ERI (low-high) — — — — n/a 

- Median ERI — — — — n/a 

- ERI subtotal from top 1% of licenses — — — — n/a 

- ERI subtotal from top 5% of licenses — — — — n/a 

- ERI subtotal from top 20% of licenses — — — — n/a 

■ Disposition of income (royalties, other payments) 

• Income distributed (thousand $) — — — — n/a 

III. Other Activity Measures 

(none cited by the agency) — — — — nr 

The data in this table cover the following departmental bureau/division/service/office: Office of Research and Development. 

(1) Executed under CRADA authority (15 U.S.C. Sec. 3710a) but used for special purposes, such as material transfer CRADAs or 

technical assistance that may result in protected information. 

(2) “Other Intellectual Property (IP)” includes computer software, tangible research products (such as biological materials), and 

protected data. 

R&D = research and development; CRADA = Cooperative Research and Development Agreements; FY = fiscal year; ERI = earned 

royalty income; n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report; — = Data not requested from agency in previous 

years’ reports; nr = Data not relevant: either the agency does not engage in this type of technological transfer activity or the information is not useful in describing the agency’s programs. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 37 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Technology Transfer Outcomes 

EPA’s FY 2001 report provided the following examples of successful downstream outcomes 

arising from its technology transfer activities: 

■ MI Agar is a new technology that provides an improved way to test for coliforms and 

E. coli. The method provides both enumeration of total coliforms and E. coli and presence/ 

absence determinations. Results are available in 16 to 24 hours, and some positives may 

be detected in as little as 9 hours. MI Agar’s ability to provide both quantitative and 

qualitative results is an advantage over the simple presence/absence tests presently 

used in the food, drinking water, and beverage industries. 

The MI Agar technology resulted from a CRADA. The technology has been licensed (nonexclusively) to a pair of companies (one small, one large). 

■	 Fungal Detection System. This is a new system—based on the polymerase chain reaction 

(PCR) method for rapidly copying DNA sequences—for detecting and quantifying more 

than 100 species or groups of species of potentially problematic fungi (including black 

mold). 

Samples can be analyzed in a matter of hours, as opposed to days or weeks with other 

methodologies. Up to 96 analyses can be run at one time. This new methodology provides for 

both the identification and quantification of mold species, taking subjective bias out of the 

heretofore usual microbial identification approaches. 

The methodology was developed via a CRADA. The technology has been licensed (nonexclusively) to three large companies. This new test system has also strengthened EPA’s ability to 

assist local, State, and Federal government officials with rapid detection abilities for black mold. 

38 2.5 Environmental Protection Agency 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

2.6 Department of Health and Human Services10 

Agency Approach and Plans for Technology Transfer 

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the principal agency for protecting 

the health of Americans and providing essential human services. HHS carries out this mission 

through more than 300 programs in such areas as medical and social science research, preventing the outbreak of infectious disease, ensuring food and drug safety, managing the Medicare 

and Medicaid health insurance programs, running the Head Start program, and managing 

many other programs for low-income families, children, and older Americans. 

A key aspect of HHS’s overall mission is to protect and improve public health. This objective 

frequently requires the availability of new and more powerful therapeutic drugs, vaccines, 

therapies, diagnostic tools, and medical devices brought to the commercial marketplace by 

private-sector companies. These new products and services often depend directly on research 

work supported by HHS and on subsequent transfers of technologies to the private sector for 

further development and commercialization. Research conducted by HHS’s Public Health 

Service components—particularly the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA), and the Centers for Disease Control—generally has the greatest potential for yielding new technologies. 

National Institutes of Health 

NIH is one of the world’s foremost medical research centers, currently composed of 27 separate Institutes and Centers (such as the National Cancer Institute, National Institute for 

Allergies and Infectious Diseases, National Institute on Aging, National Human Genome 

Research Institute, and National Library of Medicine). NIH annually conducts around 2,000 

projects at its own (intramural) laboratories and funds some 35,000 research grants to nonFederal scientists in universities, medical schools, hospitals, and other research institutions 

throughout the country and abroad. The majority of NIH’s annual budget is used to support 

external (extramural) research activities; about 10 percent supports intramural research. 

Scientific discoveries arise each year from NIH’s intramural laboratories. These discoveries 

then begin their journey on the road to benefiting the public and improving the global research 

enterprise. Most of NIH’s inventions are drugs, vaccines, medical instruments, and diagnostic 

tests, or methods of making or using them. These technologies require extensive clinical testing 

and ultimately regulatory approval by the FDA prior to market entry. NIH relies on industry 

10 This section draws on text and statistics from the following HHS reports: National Institutes of 

Health, “Sec. 10 Reports on Utilization of Federal Technology, Technology Transfer Commercialization 

Act: FY 2001 Activities,” June 2002; Food and Drug Administration, “Sec. 10 Reports on Utilization of 

Federal Technology, Technology Transfer Commercialization Act: FY 2001 Activities,” June 2002; 

Centers for Disease Control, “Sec. 10 Reports on Utilization of Federal Technology, Technology 

Transfer Commercialization Act: FY 2001 Activities,” June 2002. For additional details, readers should 

consult these reports. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 39 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

partners to provide the stewardship for postdiscovery activities, including drug development, 

scale-up, clinical testing, marketing, and distribution. Professionals at NIH’s Office of 

Technology Transfer are dedicated to maintaining this vital link, through patenting, marketing, 

and licensing inventions that originate from research in NIH laboratories. This link between 

discovery and the marketplace supports NIH’s primary mission of improving public health. 

Food and Drug Administration 

The FDA seeks to promote and protect the public health by ensuring that safe and effective products reach the market in a timely way and by monitoring products for continued safety after they 

are in use. The FDA has two R&D investment programs: Orphan Products Development and 

FDA Research Grants. In addition, components of the FDA’s Centers also conduct scientific studies that support the FDA’s regulatory policy and decision-making processes. 

Scientific discoveries arise each year out of the FDA’s intramural laboratories. As technology 

transfer is part of its mission, the FDA has been delegated authority by the Secretary of HHS to 

enter into CRADAs and to administer patent and licensing activities. FDA Technology Transfer 

is charged with protecting intellectual property, developing and entering into partnerships 

with outside institutions, and performing other functions to enhance the effective transfer 

of FDA technologies to users. Under terms of an interagency agreement, NIH’s Office of 

Technology Transfer represents the FDA in licensing FDA-patented technologies for commercialization. Partnering under CRADAs, as well as patenting and licensing of inventions that 

originate in FDA laboratories, supports the FDA’s mission to promote and protect the public 

health; it also benefits the competitiveness of U.S. industry. 

Centers for Disease Control 

The mission of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is to promote health and 

quality of life by preventing and controlling disease, injury, and disability. CDC works toward 

that mission by working with partners throughout the Nation and world to monitor health, 

detect and investigate health problems, conduct research to enhance prevention, develop and 

advocate sound public health policies, implement prevention strategies, promote health behaviors, foster safe and healthful environments, and provide leadership and training. CDC has 

developed and sustained many vital partnerships with public and private entities that improve 

service to the American people. 

Each year, scientific discoveries arise out of CDC’s intramural laboratories, a number of which 

represent new inventions with potential for practical application for the benefit of the public. 

Most of the CDC inventions are vaccines, medical and occupational safety devices, and diagnostic tests, or methods of making or using them. Many of these technologies require extensive 

clinical testing and ultimately FDA approval prior to reaching the market. CDC relies on 

industry partners to provide the stewardship for post-discovery activities, including commercial drug development, scale-up, clinical testing, marketing, and distribution. The professionals 

at the Technology Transfer Office (TTO) are dedicated to making this vital link happen by 

patenting, marketing, and licensing inventions that originate from research in CDC laboratories. 

40 2.6 Department of Health and Human Services 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Ultimately, this vital link between discovery and the market supports CDC’s primary mission 

of improving the health and quality of life for the American public. 

As CDC’s licensing activities continue to increase, the TTO will continue to expand its staff to 

increase the monitoring of our licensee activities to ensure compliance with license terms. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 41 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

FY 2001 Overview of Technology Transfer by the Agency’s Federal Labs 

Table 2.6. Summary Measures of Technology Transfer Activities 

nr

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

(none cited by the agency) — — — — nr

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 

I. Collaborative Relationships for R&D 

■ CRADAs, total active in the FY 110 152 468 438 490 

- New, executed in the FY — — 136 125 137 

• Nontraditional(1) CRADAs, total active in the FY — — 231 194 209 

- New, executed in the FY — — 78 75 76 

■ Other types of collaborative R&D relationships — — — — 

II. Intellectual Property Management 

■ New inventions disclosed 215 307 328 375 434 

■ Patent applications filed 239 166 241 263 255 

■ Patents issued — — 180 132 119 

■ Invention licenses, total active in the FY — — 1,041 1,222 1,007 

- New, executed in the FY 208 192 212 

■ Licenses for Other IP(2), total active in the FY — — 323 386 360 

■ Elapsed execution time, licenses granted in the FY 

- Range (low-high)/Median (months) — — — — 

■ Licenses terminated for cause in the FY — — — — 

■ Total income from all active licenses (thousands) — — $44,821 $52,547 $46,722 

• Income from invention licenses (thousands) $5,839 $19,727 $42,599 $48,592 $41,322 

• Income from Other IP licenses (thousands) — — $2,222 $3,955 $5,400 

■ Licenses bearing royalty income in the FY — — 223 230 727 

- Exclusive/partially exclusive/nonexclusive — — — — 108/13/606 

• Earned royalty income (ERI) in the FY (thousands) — — $34,599 $43,892 $36,612 

- Range of ERI (low-high) — — — — n/a** 

- Median ERI — — — — n/a** 

- ERI subtotal from top 1% of licenses — — — — 

- ERI subtotal from top 5% of licenses — — — — 

- ERI subtotal from top 20% of licenses — — — — 

■ Disposition of income (royalties, other payments) 

• Income distributed (thousands) — — — — 

III. Other Activity Measures 

The data in this table cover the following departmental bureaus/divisions/services/offices: National Institutes of Health, Food 

and Drug Administration, and Centers for Disease Control. 

(1) Executed under CRADA authority (15 U.S.C. Sec. 3710a) but used for special purposes, such as material transfer CRADAs or 

technical assistance that may result in protected information. 

(2) “Other Intellectual Property (IP)” includes computer software, tangible research products (such as biological materials), and protected data. 

**NIH, FDA, and CDC each list statistics for these measures in their separate reports. An HHS-wide figure was not, however, provided. 

R&D = research and development; CRADA = Cooperative Research and Development Agreements; FY = fiscal year; ERI = earned 

royalty income; n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report; — = Data not requested from agency in previous 

years’ reports; nr = Data not relevant: either the agency does not engage in this type of technological transfer activity or the information is not useful in describing the agency’s programs. 

42 2.6 Department of Health and Human Services 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Technology Transfer Outcomes 

HHS’s FY 2001 report did not provide specific examples of successful downstream outcomes 

arising from the technology transfer activities of NIH, FDA, or CDC. 

Nevertheless, NIH observed that its technology transfer program, based on royalty income 

generated from over 1,500 licenses, is presently the most successful technology transfer program in the U.S. Government. NIH technologies are currently part of 200 products on the 

market, including 15 therapeutic drugs and vaccines. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 43 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

2.7 Department of the Interior11 

Agency Approach and Plans for Technology Transfer 

The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) is the Nation’s principal land and water resource 

management agency. DOI’s stated mission is to protect and provide access to the Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor trust responsibilities to Indian tribes and commitments to 

island communities. In support of this mission, DOI conducts scientific research, provides wise 

stewardship of energy and mineral resources, fosters sound use of land and water resources, 

and conserves and protects fish and wildlife. 

DOI consists of eight bureaus: the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation), Bureau of Land Management, Fish & Wildlife Service, Minerals Management 

Service, the National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Office of Surface Mining. 

USGS is recognized as the primary science arm of DOI and manages the largest R&D budget 

program among the DOI bureaus. 

All of the DOI bureaus work closely with universities, States and local governments, private 

industry, nongovernment entities and other Federal agencies to meet their science and technology needs. In any given year, the DOI bureaus usually have several thousand scientific cooperative projects and volunteer programs under way across the Nation. 

Only USGS and the Bureau of Reclamation maintain technology transfer functions that are funded and staffed. USGS has historically provided technology transfer assistance to the unstaffed 

bureaus when requested. The Bureau of Reclamation has conferred technology transfer authority 

to the Director of Research. In the Fish & Wildlife Service, CRADA authority has been given to 

the R&D Centers. In the National Park Service, individual parks and scientific support centers 

have authority to enter into CRADAs. Legal assistance for all the bureaus with patent filing, 

licensing, and CRADAs is obtained from the Solicitor’s office in Washington, D.C., with additional patent search, application, and prosecution support provided by private firms. 

U.S. Geological Survey 

USGS is responsible for monitoring ground and surface water quality and providing scientific 

information related to the environment, natural hazards, mineral, energy, water, and biological 

resources, as well as serving as the principal civilian mapping agency. For technology transfer, 

USGS is deemed a single laboratory with its Office of Research and Technology Applications 

(ORTA) located in Reston, Virginia. This ORTA coordinates technology transfer at 35 major 

USGS laboratories and several hundred field offices across the country. 

11 This section draws on text and statistics in DOI’s FY 2001 “agency report on utilization” under 15 

U.S.C. Sec. 3710(f). For additional details, readers should consult the agency’s report: U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Annual Report on Technology Transfer: Programs, Plans, FY 2001 Activities and Achievements, 

September 2002. 

44 2.7 Department of the Interior 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Technology under development at USGS ranges widely, from underwater mining technology 

to high-power software search engines. Several new cooperative projects begun in 2001 illustrate this range: 

■	 

■	 

■	 

■	 

■	 

■	 

A unique cooperation with Florida International University and a newly formed spin-off 

company is demonstrating seamless images over personal computers; offering choices 

for selection of layered data; offering the capability to create new mapping data; and 

developing new customers for USGS DOQ and LANDSAT data. 

A cooperation with the National Stone and Gravel Association (NGSA) incorporates USGS 

data and map generation technology with databases and contact information provided 

by NGSA to offer new directory and sales contact resources for an underserved industry segment. 

In the environmental arena, a major U.S. oil company is working with the National Wetlands 

Research Center to explore how LIDAR images can be used for environmental benchmarking and to track and quantify biodiversity concerns. 

USGS has several cooperative partnerships with both independent and national gas suppliers 

interested in USGS capability and geophysical tool kits for identifying coal-bed 

methane. This work is expected to help identify and quantify new coal methane 

reserves in the United States. 

USGS has teamed with a Fortune 500 company to analyze and retest government and private core samples for chemicals of commercial interest to contemporary industry. The 

original characterization of chemical elements was done with less sophisticated equipment and focused on traditional minerals; the current characterization is looking for 

chemical elements that may not even have been economically relevant 50 years ago. 

USGS biologists are working on several cooperative projects with pharmaceutical companies to 

test and develop new aquaculture drugs that will benefit wild fish populations as well 

as U.S. aquaculture. 

Bureau of Reclamation 

The Bureau of Reclamation is responsible for Federal water management and hydropower 

production in numerous facilities throughout the 17 Western States. Reclamation operates 348 

reservoirs and 58 hydroelectric plants, making it the Nation’s largest wholesale water supplier 

and the fifth largest electric utility in the West. Reclamation manages several research programs 

that provide advanced solutions to a broad range of water and power management issues. The 

research results serve to improve Reclamation water management practices, increase water supply, and ensure cost-effective power-generation operations to the benefit of stakeholders. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 45 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

The Director of Research, based in Washington, DC, supports technology transfer through 

staffing of a Technology Transfer Liaison (TTL) function. Strengthening the role of this function, with the objective of enhancing the outcomes of the research programs, is a new and 

important initiative currently under way at Reclamation. 

■

■

■

■

	 

	 

	 

	 

Four research focus areas. Reclamation conducts research in the following four missionrelated focus areas: water and power infrastructure reliability and safety, water delivery 

reliability, reservoir and river operations decision support, and water supply technologies. The broad scope of Reclamation research means that licensable innovations can 

range from a special diet for insects bred to eat noxious weeds, to improved methods 

for concrete repair. Much of the research is conducted in-house by scientists and engineers at the laboratories of the Technical Service Center (TSC) at the Federal Center in 

Denver, Colorado; the Water Quality Improvement Center (WQIC) in Yuma, Arizona; 

and at numerous field facilities. A significant portion of R&D is also procured through 

contracts and cooperative agreements, with ever-increasing care taken to ensure sound 

private-sector stewardship of intellectual property developed under these vehicles. 

RD3—a new emphasis for Reclamation research. Reclamation’s mission-focused research 

programs are highly applied. Since such is the case, there is now, under new research 

leadership, a strong push to demonstrate and deploy, not merely publish, successful 

research results. Researchers are being encouraged to adopt an RD3 (research, development, demonstration, and deployment) mindset. This new thrust is aimed at promoting rapid deployment of new innovations throughout those Reclamation water 

and power operations that can benefit from them. This objective stems from the need 

to shorten what have historically been long adoption cycles for new Reclamation 

innovations. 

A “DOD paradigm” for technology transfer. This new emphasis on accelerating deployment of Reclamation research results creates the need for a technology transfer paradigm very similar in objective, albeit much smaller in scope and size, to that employed 

by DOD. Reclamation, like DOD, views technology transfer as much more than a 

means to enable industry to access government-developed innovations. Because 

Reclamation, like DOD, is a prime user of the technologies it develops, promoting 

technology transfer is a way to meet its mission more effectively and to do it in winwin-win fashion: promoting economic development in the private sector, leveraging 

outside resources through private-sector partnerships, and enhancing the organization’s ability to reliably procure enhanced capabilities at reduced costs. 

TTL plays a key role in enhancing RD3 outcomes. The research programs, now measured 

and rewarded on their support of demonstration and deployment, are recognizing 

how private-sector partnerships can accelerate the process. By raising the researcher’s 

awareness of the enabling technology transfer legislation, emphasizing the benefits 

46 2.7 Department of the Interior 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

and rewards of exploiting it, and providing hands-on support, TTL can contribute 

significantly to the success of the research program. 

■	 TTL program management—past, present, and future. Prior to FY 2002, the TTL function 

was based in Washington, DC, and staffed by an individual who provided Reclamationwide technology transfer support. In mid-FY 2002, the Washington TTL manager 

retired and Reclamation’s Research Director contracted with a management firm to fill 

the role. The function was moved to Denver to enable more hands-on support to the 

largest group of innovators. The contractor provides an on-site facilitator that serves 

both the TSC and field offices. The current program is conducted according to four 

guiding principles: 

•	 

•	 

•	 

•	 

Inform: Promote the benefits, raise awareness, and infuse new skills 

Reclamation-wide. 

Engage: Provide responsive, on-the-ground, one-on-one support to the 

innovators. 

Reward: Reward the innovators for their contributions and managers for 

their support. 

Measure: Keep score on program outcomes, costs, and trends. 

Providing support to the innovators near the source of the innovations is proving to be a successful model. Overall, the program is geared toward bottom-up empowerment of 

Reclamation engineers and scientists, with an emphasis on encouraging more grassroots, 

entrepreneurial business thinking and infusing new skills into the repertoire of those innovators who are inclined to participate in the process. These program enhancements should significantly increase the number of both CRADAs and royalty-bearing licenses. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 47 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

FY 2001 Overview of Technology Transfer by the Agency’s Federal Labs 

Table 2.7. Summary Measures of Technology Transfer Activities 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 

I. Collaborative Relationships for R&D 

■ CRADAs, total active in the FY 12 15 30 40 50 

- New, executed in the FY — — 10 8 21 

• Nontraditional(1) CRADAs, total active in the FY — — — — 9 

- New, executed in the FY — — — — 7 

■ Other types of collaborative R&D relationships — — — — nr 

II. Intellectual Property Management 

■ New inventions disclosed 26 2 8 16 6 

■ Patent applications filed 15 2 3 5 22 

■ Patents issued — — 1 4 2 

■ Invention licenses, total active in the FY — — 12 6 8 

- New, executed in the FY 0 2 2 

■ Licenses for Other IP(2), total active in the FY — — 0 0 0 

■ Elapsed execution time, licenses granted in the FY 

- Range (low-high)/Median (months) — — — — 3-4/3.5 

■ Licenses terminated for cause in the FY — — — — 0 

■ Total income from all active licenses (thousands) — — $1,640 $850 $235 

• Income from invention licenses (thousands) $1,640 $850 $235 

• Income from Other IP licenses (thousands) — — 0 0 0 

■ Licenses bearing royalty income in the FY — — 11 5 6 

- Exclusive/partially exclusive/nonexclusive — — — — 0/0/6 

• Earned royalty income (ERI) in the FY (thousands) — — $1,640 $850 $220 

- Range of ERI (low-high) — — — — $2-20 

- Median ERI — — — — n/a 

- ERI subtotal from top 1% of licenses — — — — n/a 

- ERI subtotal from top 5% of licenses — — — — n/a 

- ERI subtotal from top 20% of licenses — — — — n/a 

■ Disposition of income (royalties, other payments) — — — — 

• Income distributed (thousands) $235(3) 

- Inventor awards 7% 

- Salaries of some tech transfer staff 43% 

- Patent filing prep. fees, patent annuity payments 43% 

- Fees to laboratories 8% 

III. Other Activity Measures 

(none cited by the agency) — — — — nr 

The data in this table cover the following departmental bureaus/divisions/services/offices: Figures for FY 2001 include the 

activities of the U.S. Geological Survey and the Bureau of Reclamation. Prior years include only the U.S. Geological Survey. 

(1) Executed under CRADA authority (15 U.S.C. Sec. 3710a) but used for special purposes, such as material transfer CRADAs or 

technical assistance that may result in protected information. 

(2) “Other Intellectual Property (IP)” includes computer software, tangible research products (such as biological materials), and 

protected data. 

(3) Most of the reported income stems from the royalty stream created by a patent infringement judgment won by the Department 

of the Interior. Because of the particulars of the case, no significant portion of these royalties is payable to the individual inventors. 

As general policy for the sharing of royalty income with inventors, the U.S. Geological Survey’s sharing percentage is 33 percent 

and Reclamation’s is 30 percent. 

48 2.7 Department of the Interior 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Technology Transfer Outcomes 

DOI’s FY 2001 report identified several USGS-industry field test/engineering support projects 

and Bureau of Reclamation technologies and related projects that illustrate the successful 

downstream outcomes arising from the department’s Technology Transfer Program (TTP): 

U.S. Geological Survey 

■	 

■	 

■	 

Coal mine drainage technology demonstration. The program provided a technical operator and 

independent research evaluation of a coal mine drainage technology demonstration at 

Friendship Hill National Historic Site. Influent acidity at this site was about 1,000 mg/L, 

with up to 200 mg/L Fe. During the 14 months of operation, 40 million liters of AMD 

were neutralized using 60,000 pounds of limestone. Among other things, the data developed by this demonstration showed that the technology could handle acidic sludge, and 

that the process, despite highly acidic coal, resisted armoring. The active remediation 

method was developed by USGS Restoration Technology Group, Leetown Science Center. 

This technology received a Federal Laboratory Consortium award for Technology 

Excellence and Commercialization in FY 2001. There are entities interested in licenses. 

Multisensor monitoring of salt water intrusion. TTP expanded a project started last year 

with the City of Cape Cod, Massachusetts. As a result of the water quality information 

generated by the demo unit, the city has now installed a series of sensor arrays at strategic locations to test multisensor monitoring of salt water intrusion. TTP initially funded 

the research that developed the Robowell technology under its competitive grant program and funded the field tests for another year as part of the USGS commitment to the 

Coastal Initiative. As a result of the data developed for the city, a small U.S. company has 

taken a 2-year research license. 

Upgrade of aerial mapping calibration unit. Under an interagency agreement with DOEKansas City, TTP has funded the retrofit of the USGS analog Optical Science Laboratory 

(OSL), which serves as the official aerial mapping calibration unit for cameras in the 

United States and North American Free Trade Agreement partners. The retrofit focuses 

on upgrading the light source and electrical wiring in the 50-year-old system. The 

importance of the USGS Report of Calibration is that it allows private companies to 

compete for Federal agency aerial image contracts. The importance of the calibration 

program was the subject of a 1998 paper by the American Society for Photogrammetry 

and Remote Sensing and an industry panel report looking into the technical needs of 

the OSL into the 21st century. 

R&D = research and development; CRADA = Cooperative Research and Development Agreements; FY = fiscal year; ERI = earned 

royalty income; n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report; — = Data not requested from agency in previous 

years’ reports; nr = Data not relevant: either the agency does not engage in this type of technological transfer activity or the information is not useful in describing the agency’s programs. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 49 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Reclamation 

■	 

■	 

■	 

ArmorwedgeTM is a low-cost concrete tile used in a multiple block array to protect against 

erosion resulting from overtopping of earthen embankment dams. This technology was 

developed and patented by Bureau of Reclamation hydraulic engineers at the Technical 

Service Center (TSC). The product is licensed to Armortec of Bowling Green, Kentucky. 

Selenium removal process. This is an innovative chemical process for removing selenium 

from wastewater prior to discharge into the environment. Developed by a Reclamation 

chemist in the TSC to address selenium levels in irrigation water found to be harmful to 

wildlife, this process is licensed to Radian-URS Corp. (Austin, Texas) for reducing emissions in fossil-fueled power plants. Interest has recently been rekindled in utilizing this 

process for its original irrigation water treatment application. 

The Water Quality Improvement Center, in Yuma, Arizona, where the Colorado River crosses 

the U.S. border into Mexico, is a particularly noteworthy operation in respect to technology transfer, especially the utilization of CRADAs. Reclamation operates the WQIC as a 

part of the overall operation of the 73 million gallon-per-day reverse osmosis Yuma 

Desalting Plant (YDP). The YDP purifies agricultural drainage for return to the Colorado 

River immediately upstream of its crossing into Mexico. Inaugurated in 1997, WQIC 

investigates and evaluates processes and technology to reduce the costs of operating the 

YDP. WQIC supports an applied research program that serves as an evaluation and 

deployment site for research products developed both on-site and elsewhere. To date, 

WQIC has yielded excellent results in a number of areas: 

Recent CRADAs 

•	 

•	 

•	 

•	 

•	 

•	 

•	 

Soil-Aquifer Treatment Comparison—with Arizona State University 

Membrane Spacer Testing—with a New Mexico company 

Scaling/Fouling Reduction Testing—with a U.S. firm 

Compatibility Testing of Low-Pressure Membranes—with a U.S. chemical company 

Membrane Pretreatment of Groundwater Test—with a Canadian firm 

Somerton, Arizona, Water Quality Testing—with the City of Somerton, Arizona 

Development of a New Reverse Osmosis Membrane—with a small business U.S. 

50 2.7 Department of the Interior 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

R&D firm 

•	 Mobile Pilot-Treatment Plant Design/Build for Saudi Arabia—with a Saudi corporation 

Lab Enhancements 

•	 CRADAs typically executed by WQIC are funded by the collaborator to exploit 

WQIC’s unique facilities and work with the knowledgeable lab staff. The revenue 

from these efforts has been re-invested in the laboratory to enhance its capabilities 

and maintain state-of-the-art facilities. 

Professional Degree Program 

•	 To complement its research program and further the transfer of advanced water 

treatment technology, WQIC co-created and now hosts an award-winning college 

degree program in water treatment technology and operations. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 51 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

2.8 National Aeronautics and Space Administration12 

Agency Approach and Plans for Technology Transfer 

The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as amended (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2451 et seq.) provides the statutory basis for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) 

activities. Section 102(d) (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2451(d)) requires the conduct of NASA’s aeronautical 

and space activities, among other things, to materially contribute to 

The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the 

atmosphere. 

To further this goal, NASA has both an Intellectual Property Program and a Commercial 

Technology Program. 

NASA’s Intellectual Property Program, which is administered by the Office of General 

Counsel, includes policy development and operations necessary for the establishment, protection, maintenance, licensing, right to use, and disposal of intellectual property rights in inventions, discoveries, innovations, writings, data, computer software, and semiconductor mask 

works that are created, acquired, or used in the performance of NASA programs. Such rights 

include those relating to inventions, patents, copyright, trademarks, trade secrets, and other 

legal means affording proprietorship in a person or the government. The program is managed 

to achieve the following objectives: 

■	 

■	 

■	 

■	 

■	 

Stimulate the creation, identification, and use of new technology in NASA programs; 

Foster the widest practical and appropriate dissemination and commercial utilization 

of new technology arising out of NASA programs; 

Protect the government’s interests in intellectual property; 

Protect private interests in intellectual property; and 

Recognize and reward innovation. 

NASA’s Commercial Technology Program, which is a part of the Office of Aerospace 

Technology, includes Commercial Programs, Technology Transfer Agents, and the Small 

Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Program. NASA’s Commercial Technology Program facilitates the transfer of NASA inventions, innovations, discoveries, and improvements developed 

12 This section draws on text and statistics in NASA’s FY 2001 “agency report on utilization” under 15 

U.S.C. Sec. 3710(f). For additional details, readers should consult the agency’s report: Annual Report on 

Technology Transfer: Programs, Plans, FY 2001 Activities and Achievements, April 24, 2002. 

52 2.8 National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

by NASA personnel or in partnership with industry/universities to the private sector for commercial application leading to greater U.S. economic competitiveness. 

The goal of Commercial Programs is to share the harvest of NASA’s technology programs with 

the U.S. industrial/scientific community. The goal encompasses the commercialization of technology developed in all of NASA’s enterprises, in past as well as current programs. The NASA 

Commercial Programs mission includes a variety of mechanisms for achieving its goals: partnerships with industry/academia; Federal/State/local alliances; emphasis on commercialization in new R&D procurements; electronic commerce; training and education of NASA 

employees/contractors; employee accountability; and application of performance goals/metrics. 

The goal of Technology Transfer Agents is to facilitate the transfer of NASA and other federally 

sponsored research and technology (and associated capabilities) to the U.S. private sector for 

commercial application. The purpose of this program goal is to enhance U.S. industrial growth 

and economic competitiveness. 

The goal of the SBIR Program is to promote the widest possible award of NASA research contracts to the small business community as well as to promote commercialization of the results 

of this research by the small business community. Established by Congress, the SBIR program 

(which includes NASA’s Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs) helps NASA 

develop innovative technologies by providing competitive research contracts to U.S.-owned 

small businesses. 

Strategies for Achieving Goals 

NASA’s strategies for pursuing these goals are as follows: 

Commercial Programs 

Commercial Programs introduce a new way of doing business that involves a mix of practices/mechanisms that enable the Agency to align its way of doing business more closely with 

that of the private sector. The common denominator in these practices is technology partnerships. Technology partnerships are business arrangements among government, industry, 

and/or academia wherein each party commits resources to the accomplishment of mutually 

agreed upon objectives and shares the risks and rewards of the endeavor. 

The success of Commercial Programs is accomplished through 

■	 

■	 

An extensive outreach program (technology dissemination and marketing); 

An electronic commerce/information network (via the Internet) that greatly facilitates 

the transfer of technology and allows very efficient implementation of our technology 

business contacts and services; 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 53 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

■	 

■	 

Training and education of NASA employees to emphasize program relevance to 

national needs and to facilitate program implementation; and 

The use of metrics that address day-to-day management processes as well as bottomline results. 

Technology Transfer Agents 

Technology Transfer Agents facilitate the transfer/use of NASA and other federally sponsored 

research and technology (and associated capabilities) to the U.S. private sector for commercial 

application to enhance U.S. industrial growth and economic competitiveness. Technology 

Transfer Agents include funding for the National Technology Transfer Center (NTTC) at 

Wheeling Jesuit College in West Virginia and the TechLink Center at Montana State University. 

In conformance with congressional direction, NASA has funded the NTTC since 1990. The 

NTTC serves as a national resource for the transfer and commercialization of Federal research 

and technology. A key, ongoing strategy is to align and integrate NTTC operations with the 

NASA Commercial Technology Programs in support of the NASA Commercial Technology 

Mission. This strategy provides a foundation upon which the NTTC may fulfill its national role 

through technology transfer programs funded by other Federal agencies and the provision of 

cost-recovery products and services. Accordingly, NASA has facilitated the involvement of 

other Federal agencies to leverage and extend NTTC capabilities funded by NASA and has 

enabled the NTTC to implement cost-recovery activities in support of the overall Federal technology transfer mission. The NTTC performs four core roles: 

(1) Serves as a national gateway for Federal technology transfer and commercialization, 

assisting U.S. industry to locate and access NASA and other federally sponsored technology resources and sources of technical/business assistance; 

(2) Assesses NASA and other Federal technologies for commercial potential, and facilitates partnerships for technology commercialization; 

(3) Develops and delivers professional-level training in technology transfer and commercialization for NASA, Federal agencies, and other public- and private-sector audiences; 

and 

(4) Promotes U.S. industry awareness and utilization of NASA and other federally sponsored research and technology resources available for commercial purpose. 

Also in conformance with congressional direction, NASA continues to fund a cooperative 

agreement with Montana State University to operate the TechLink Center, a rural technology 

transfer and commercialization center. The mission of the TechLink Center is to assist firms 

and targeted industries in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Idaho to utilize and commercialize technologies from NASA, Federal laboratories, and universities. 

54 2.8 National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Small Business Innovative Research Program 

The SBIR Program helps NASA develop innovative technologies by providing competitive 

research contracts to U.S.-owned small businesses. The program is structured in three phases. 

Phase I is the opportunity to establish the feasibility, technical merit, and NASA mission need 

of a proposed innovation. Selected competitively, Phase I contracts have a term of 6 months 

and currently do not exceed $70,000. Phase II is the major R&D effort in SBIR. The most promising Phase I projects are selected to receive contracts worth up to $600,000 for up to 2 years. 

Approximately 45 percent of Phase I projects are approved for Phase II. Phase III is the completion of the development of a product or process to make it marketable. SBIR Program funding 

cannot be used to support Phase III. Private-sector investment and sales of products and services based on the SBIR technology are the usual sources of Phase III funding. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 55 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

FY 2001 Overview of Technology Transfer by the Agency’s Federal Labs 

Table 2.8. Summary Measures of Technology Transfer Activities 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 

I. Collaborative Relationships for R&D 

■ CRADAs, total active in the FY 0 0 1 1 1 

- New, executed in the FY — — 1 0 0 

• Nontraditional(1) CRADAs, total active in the FY — — — — 0 

- New, executed in the FY — — — — 0 

■ Other types of collaborative R&D relationships — — — — 0 

II. Intellectual Property Management 

■ New inventions disclosed 538 517 525 574 696 

■ Patent applications filed 181 164 129 109 151 

■ Patents issued — — 87 99 159 

■ Invention licenses, total active in the FY — — 249 214 292 

- New, executed in the FY 40 47 42 

■ Licenses for Other IP(2), total active in the FY — — 22 32 36 

■ Elapsed execution time, licenses granted in the FY 

- Range (low-high)/Median (months) — — — — 4–49.9/14.4 

■ Licenses terminated for cause in the FY — — — — 23 

■ Total income from all active licenses (thousands) — — $823 $1,008 $1,971 

• Income from invention licenses (thousands) $818 $762 $1,319 

• Income from Other IP licenses (thousands) — — $5 $246 $652 

■ Licenses bearing royalty income in the FY — — 19 17 114 

- Exclusive/partially exclusive/nonexclusive — — — — 57/13/44 

• Earned royalty income (ERI) in the FY (thousands) — — $388 $175 $521 

- Range of ERI (low-high) — — — — $.07–232 

- Median ERI — — — — $22 

- ERI subtotal from top 1% of licenses — — — — * 

- ERI subtotal from top 5% of licenses — — — — * 

- ERI subtotal from top 20% of licenses — — — — $420 

■ Disposition of income (royalties, other payments) — — — — 

• Income distributed (thousands) $1,451 

- Inventors 42% 

- NASA Centers 15% 

- U.S. Treasury 17% 

- California Institute of Technology 25% 

III. Other Activity Measures 

■ See note (3) below. — — — — 

The data in this table cover the following departmental bureaus/divisions/services/offices: The FY 2001 figures are comprehensive 

of NASA’s Federal labs and research centers, including the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The figures for prior years do not include the 

JPL activities. 

(1) Executed under CRADA authority (15 U.S.C. Sec. 3710a) but used for special purposes, such as material transfer CRADAs or technical assistance that may result in protected information. 

(2) “Other Intellectual Property (IP)” includes computer software, tangible research products (such as biological materials), and protected data. 

(3) NASA regards its communication of information about NASA technologies to industry (including small businesses and individuals) as another important aspect of its overall technology transfer activities. For this purpose, NASA publishes Innovations, Spin-off, 

and TechBriefs. It also maintains an agency-wide technology transfer database, TechTracS, which provides World Wide Web (Internet) 

access to 18,000 supported NASA technologies. NASA collects and maintains data on the distribution of these publications and 

56 2.8 National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Technology Transfer Outcomes 

NASA’s FY 2001 report indicated that diverse kinds of downstream benefits had arisen from 

the agency’s technology transfer activities: 

(1) Technology arising under a collaborative RD&D relationship had either become commercially available or worked to strengthen NASA’s capabilities; 

(2) Technology licensed by the agency had become commercially available; and 

(3) Products or processes developed by agency licensees had strengthened NASA’s capabilities. 

NASA’s report included the following examples of these successful outcomes: 

■	 

■	 

■	 

Plant stress detection technology. NASA and Spectrum Technologies, Inc. (of Plainfield, 

Illinois) worked together to transfer a plant stress detection technology, originally developed for the Stennis Space Center, to the commercial marketplace. The product, the 

Spectrum Chlorophyll Meter, can detect plant stress up to 16 days before plant deterioration is visible, by measuring chlorophyll content through the amount of light energy 

reflected from the plant. Early detection of plant stress through chlorophyll loss can lead 

to healthier forests and more productive farms. The Spectrum Chlorophyll Meter became 

available in Spectrum’s 2001 Spring Product Catalog. 

Technology assistance to a major U.S. auto company that solves an important manufacturing 

problem. NASA’s Technology Assistance Program at the Stennis Space Center provided 

assistance to Saturn Electronics & Engineering, Inc. (of Marks, Mississippi) to solve an 

intermittent problem with automotive underhood lamps. Saturn’s production facility 

produces more than 1 million lamps and switches monthly but had been experiencing 

intermittent problems with underhood lamp assemblies for some time. Saturn’s own 

prior efforts to diagnose and solve the problem had been unsuccessful. Technical assistance provided by NASA’s Materials and Contamination Laboratory and Stennis 

Prototype Laboratory indicated that the failures were caused by a buildup of carbonbased contaminants on switch components. Saturn’s implementation of NASA’s recommendations resulted in the failure rate dropping from an unacceptable 2 percent to less 

than 0.02 percent. 

Command and Control Toolkit.TM NASA licensed its Control Monitor Unit software technology to the Command and Control Technologies Corporation (CCT, of Titusville, Florida) 

accessions to TechTracS and related websites. However, these data are not presently used in the formulation of policy or management 

of NASA’s technology transfer programs. 

R&D = research and development; CRADA = Cooperative Research and Development Agreements; FY = fiscal year; ERI = earned 

royalty income; — = Data not requested from agency in previous years’ reports; * = Cannot disclose without revealing proprietary 

information. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 57 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

in 1997. CCT is now commercializing a trio of products based on this technology and is 

automating commercial, multivehicle spaceport launch control systems in four States 

(spaceport agencies in Florida, Alaska, Virginia, and Washington). One of the products is 

the Command and Control Toolkit. The other two are T-Zero(tm) launch control software 

and the Spaceport RangeNet(tm) software, both of which augment the capabilities of the 

Command and Control Toolkit. CCT was started in 1997 as a spin-off of a three-person 

McDonnell Douglas Space Systems (now Boeing) management team. In April 2000, CCT 

moved its headquarters to an office near the Kennedy Space Center. The company was 

recognized as the NASA Kennedy Space Center Small Business Subcontractor of the Year 

for 1998; in 2000 it was named one of the hundred fastestgrowing companies in Florida. 

■	

■	

■	

SureBoltTM ultrasonic bolt tension gage system. The American Remote Vision Company 

(ARVC, of Titusville, Florida) is marketing a highly accurate ultrasonic bolt tension gage: 

the SureBolt system, a complete unit contained within a laptop computer. ARVC developed its product based on technology invented and patented by NASA at the Kennedy 

Space Center (KSC). NASA engineers used the prototype to remotely measure tension in 

critical bolts attached to a space station structure and its six access hatches during preflight pressurized verification testing. Using a digital signal processing technique, the 

gage proved more reliable on every test and bolt than all other available gages. SureBolt 

analyzes bolt tension instead of torque and uses the entire echo for more reliability, accuracy, and ease of use. 

Active Particle Fallout Monitor. The Aerospace Engineering Group (AEG, of Beltsville, 

Maryland) is commercializing the Active Particle Fallout Monitor (APFM), an automated 

monitoring system that will benefit both NASA and private industry. AEG joined with 

NASA in January 1999 at the Kennedy Space Center in a Cooperative Agreement to commercialize the KSC-developed prototype. AEG obtained exclusive license rights to the 

APFM, developed by NASA’s Contamination Monitoring Laboratory. AEG has targeted 

numerous private and government sectors for marketing the commercial APFM, including the aerospace, aeronautical, semiconductor processing, electronics fabrication, and 

medical industries, and other arenas in which space-flight hardware is processed or fabricated. The market also potentially includes hotels, apartment complexes, corporate buildings, and any environment where the quality of air is of sufficient concern that facilities 

managers perceive the need to provide assurance of air quality to occupants. 

Colorless and Low Dielectric Polyimide Thin Film is a high-tech thermoplastic invented by 

scientists at NASA’s Langley Research Center (Hampton, Virginia). Originally developed 

for solar propulsion and power, the material has remarkable qualities of transparency, 

ultraviolet (UV) resistance, and operating temperatures. This material technology is 

regarded to have numerous commercial applications and has been licensed to SRS 

Technologies (Huntsville, Alabama) and Triton Systems Inc. (Chelmsford, Massachusetts) 

for development. The material offers protection from UV radiation as a coating for art 

58 2.8 National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

and outdoor statues. It promises UV protection as an additive to cosmetics and exterior 

paints. It offers temperature resistance when used in the form of solid components in 

electronic devices like liquid crystal displays and in flexible, printed circuit boards. When 

cast as large thin films, the thermoplastic material serves exceptionally well as a solar 

thermal concentrator for space-based propulsion and power concepts and, potentially, for 

inflatable large space antennas. Future aerospace applications may include use in optics 

for space telescopes or spaceborne lasers; antennas for communications, surveillance, and 

positioning; solar shielding; and aircraft and missile cabling. 

■	 

■	 

Multiwavelength laser with dental applications. Lantis Laser, Inc. (a start-up company in 

Hewitt, New Jersey) is working with the NASA Langley Research Center (under a Space 

Act agreement) to refine a NASA Langley-developed method for producing two distinct 

wavelengths from a single laser and apply it to dentistry. NASA Langley developed the 

technology in support of one of NASA’s remote sensing programs. Lantis Laser views the 

multiwavelength laser as the breakthrough needed for a dental laser that would knock 

down the price barrier that has kept painless laser dentistry out of reach of most dentists 

and their patients. The goal of the joint work is to produce the two specific wavelengths 

that have been approved by the FDA for use in dentistry. One wavelength is effective on 

hard tissue, such as teeth, and will replace the dentist’s drill. The other wavelength is 

effective on soft tissue, such as gums, and will replace the scalpel for gum surgery. 

Application of VISAR technology. Intergraph Government Solutions (Huntsville, Alabama) 

has employed NASA’s Video Image Stabilization and Registration (VISAR) technology to 

develop its Video Analyst SystemTM which offers broadcast-quality analysis features on 

Intel-based hardware. VISAR was developed by NASA Marshall Space Flight Center scientists to improve the clarity of video footage by correcting distortions caused by adverse 

conditions. VISAR uses a video processing algorithm to co-align video image fields by 

analyzing the picture pixel and removing the effects of translation, magnification, and 

rotation. Video Analyst is a comprehensive, effective, and affordable solution for 

advanced video analysis and enhancement. It combines capabilities previously found 

only in high-end broadcast quality systems with the tools necessary to capture, analyze, 

enhance, and edit any type of video. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 59 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

2.9 Department of Transportation13 

Agency Approach and Plans for Technology Transfer 

The Department of Transportation (DOT) is the Federal steward of the Nation’s transportation 

system. It houses many transportation agencies and programs, all of which aim to use their 

R&D work to fulfill DOT’s key goals: safety, homeland security, mobility and economic 

growth, human and natural environment, and organizational excellence. 

Although the majority of DOT’s research funds support extramural research, four of DOT’s 

modal administrations operate R&D facilities of a type that warrant participation in CRADA 

and patent licensing programs: the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA), the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), 

and the United States Coast Guard (USCG). 

Federal Aviation Administration 

The FAA plays a variety of regulatory roles in air transportation and carries out an extensive 

research and technology program to support those responsibilities. The program is carried out 

in cooperation with the regulated industries and other Federal agencies and includes research 

on air traffic control systems, weather research, airport technology, aircraft safety technology, 

and airport security technology. 

Federal Highway Administration 

The FHWA plays a key role in improving the quality of the Nation’s transportation systems, 

providing grants and an aggressive research program to support the State and local agencies 

primarily responsible for our highways. The research it sponsors explores material, structural, 

and information technologies designed to promote efficient and safe use of the highways. The 

Intelligent Transportation System, one of its most interesting programs, works with industry, 

State and local agencies, and consumers to support research applying information technologies 

to improve highway safety, increase efficiency, and reduce energy use and adverse environmental impacts. Many other FHWA programs promote the development and transfer of innovative transportation technologies to State and local agencies. 

Research and Special Programs Administration 

RSPA is responsible for the safe and secure movement of hazardous materials to industry and 

consumers by all modes of transportation, including pipelines; coordination of rapid response 

to transportation emergencies; and the advancement of science and technology for national 

transportation needs. 

13 This section draws on text and statistics in DOT’s FY 2001 “agency report on utilization” under 15 

U.S.C. Sec. 3710(f). For additional details, readers should consult the Department’s report: FY 2001 

Annual Report on Technology Transfer, July 2002. (See http://t2.dot.gov.) 

60 2.9 Department of Transportation 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

RSPA manages DOT’s multimodal research programs; coordinates DOT’s research and development strategic planning efforts; supports multimodal research, education, and technology transfer through 33 University Transportation Centers; and oversees the work of the Transportation 

Safety Institute. Through R&D, engineering, and analysis, RSPA’s Volpe National Transportation 

Systems Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, helps decision-makers define problems and pursue solutions to lead transportation into the 21st century. Its work includes a broad mix of projects that cut across traditional transportation modes and technical disciplines. 

United States Coast Guard 

USCG has a wide-ranging mission that includes setting standards for commercial vessels, 

licensing seamen, safeguarding ports and waterways, and providing radio-navigation systems. 

Its research programs support all of these missions, including work on search and rescue capabilities, marine navigation, marine safety, maritime law enforcement, and integrated command, 

control, communications, computer, and intelligence systems. 

Technology transfer activities across DOT are coordinated at the departmental level through 

the Technology and Innovation Committee. Each DOT modal administration designates a representative to the committee, which meets bimonthly to discuss technology transfer issues and 

upcoming plans and opportunities, and to exchange information on cross-cutting technologies. 

Each year, the committee publishes a “Guide to Transportation Technology and Innovation.” 

This guidebook is intended as an overview of innovation and technology transfer activities in 

DOT. It serves both as a quick reference to points of contact for a basic understanding of innovation, research, and technology activities at DOT and as a source of help for pursuing more 

formal technology- and innovation-sharing partnerships.14 

Presently, DOT is forging partnering ventures in the areas of strategic planning, enabling 

research, and education. Some examples are the initiatives of the National Transportation 

Science and Technology Strategy; partnerships on transportation information infrastructure, 

next-generation vehicles, and transportation physical infrastructure; and the Garrett A. Morgan 

Technology and Transportation Futures Program. 

14 The annual “Guide to Transportation Technology and Innovation” can be found on DOT’s website at 

http://t2.dot.gov/guide/index.html. DOT’s Technology Transfer website (http://t2.dot.gov) provides additional information on DOT agencies, DOT laboratories, partnership opportunities, the 

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program, as well as other current information on the 

Department’s technology transfer. Another DOT website, the Transportation Science and Technology 

homepage, http://scitech.dot.gov, is a one-stop resource for additional information on Federal, 

national, and international transportation planning, technology, and R&D activities. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 61 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

FY 2001 Overview of Technology Transfer by the Agency’s Federal Labs 

Table 2.9. Summary Measures of Technology Transfer Activities 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 

I. Collaborative Relationships for R&D 

■ CRADAs, total active in the FY 1 37 51 79 82 

- New, executed in the FY — — 5 38 11 

• Nontraditional(1) CRADAs, total active in the FY — — — — 4 

- New, executed in the FY — — — — 0 

■ Other types of collaborative R&D relationships — — — — n/a 

II. Intellectual Property Management 

■ New inventions disclosed 1 0 1 0 2 

■ Patent applications filed 1 2 0 3 3 

■ Patents issued — — 0 3 0 

■ Invention licenses, total active in the FY — — 0 0 1 

- New, executed in the FY 0 0 1 

■ Licenses for Other IP(2), total active in the FY — — 0 0 0 

■ Elapsed execution time, licenses granted in the FY 

- Range (low-high)/Median (months) — — — — n/a 

■ Licenses terminated for cause in the FY — — — — 0 

■ Total income from all active licenses (thousands) — — $0 $0 $5.5 

• Income from invention licenses (thousands) 

• Income from Other IP licenses (thousands) — — 

$0 

$0 

$0 

$0 

$5.5 

$0 

■ Licenses bearing royalty income in the FY — — 0 0 1 

- Exclusive/partially exclusive/nonexclusive — — — — 0/0/1 

• Earned royalty income (ERI) in the FY (thousands) — — $0 $0 n/a 

- Range of ERI (low-high) — — — — n/a 

- Median ERI — — — — n/a 

- ERI subtotal from top 1% of licenses — — — — n/a 

- ERI subtotal from top 5% of licenses — — — — n/a 

- ERI subtotal from top 20% of licenses — — — — n/a 

■ Disposition of income (royalties, other payments) — — — — 

• Income distributed (thousands) $3.6 

- To inventor 61% 

- Patentability search and provisional patent filing 39% 

III. Other Activity Measures 

(none cited by the agency) — — — — nr 

The data in this table cover the following departmental bureaus/divisions/services/offices: Federal Aviation Administration, 

Federal Highway Administration, and Research and Special Programs Administration. 

(1) Executed under CRADA authority (15 U.S.C. Sec. 3710a) but used for special purposes, such as material transfer CRADAs or 

technical assistance that may result in protected information. 

(2) “Other Intellectual Property (IP)” includes computer software, tangible research products (such as biological materials), and protected data. 

R&D = research and development; CRADA = Cooperative Research and Development Agreements; FY = fiscal year; ERI = earned 

royalty income; n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report; — = Data not requested from agency in previous years’ 

reports; nr = Data not relevant: either the agency does not engage in this type of technological transfer activity or the information is 

not useful in describing the agency’s programs. 

62 2.9 Department of Transportation 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Technology Transfer Outcomes 

DOT’s FY 2001 report provided the following examples of successful downstream outcomes 

arising from its technology transfer activities: 

■	 

■	 

■	 

Operational capabilities of security screening equipment. FAA has used the CRADA mechanism to evaluate the operational capabilities of security screening equipment. This 

approach allows use of real test samples, providing actual performance data. Should the 

technology not be advanced to the stage of deployment, the company then has the 

opportunity to work with the scientists and test director to improve performance. The 

data generated through this mechanism are shared with the appropriate government 

entities. 

Microscale combustion calorimeter to determine flammability properties of new polymers. Use of 

a microscale combustion calorimeter patented by an FAA scientist has allowed scientists 

at the FAA’s Fire Safety Laboratory to develop a process to determine the flammability 

properties of new polymers in milligram sample sizes. A licensing agreement with Dow 

Chemical, along with access to Dow’s ultra-fire-resistant polymers (as well as polymers 

developed by the FAA), has resulted in improvements in the mathematical characterization of required fire-retardant properties and a decrease in the amount of new material 

necessary for sampling and evaluation. 

Laser illuminators. As part of aviation safety efforts, the FAA initiated a CRADA to assess 

the use of laser illuminators and to ascertain which areas of airport visual guidance could 

benefit from this technology. This work indicated that the surfaces of existing runway 

and taxiway markings on the airfield were an application. As a result, the FAA initiated a 

Broad Agency Announcement to solicit products that might directly reduce runway 

incursions. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 63 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

2.10 Department of Veterans Affairs15 

Agency Approach and Plans for Technology Transfer 

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) research program has, in the past, supported the 

development of innovations with major clinical and commercial impact. Examples include the 

radioimmunoassay, computerized axial tomography (CAT) scanner, “Seattle Foot” (a special 

prosthesis that allows lower-limb amputees to run and engage in active movements), and the 

nicotine patch. Nevertheless, the VA’s role in these advances has not been well recognized. For 

many years, the VA adopted a simple hands-off approach to the intellectual property generated 

by VA researchers. The VA waived ownership rights, tasking the inventor and usually the local 

VA medical center academic affiliate with patenting, marketing, and licensing responsibilities. 

As a result, the VA lost opportunities to show veterans, Congress, and the American public the 

tangible products resulting from its intramural research program. In addition, this approach 

meant that important discoveries by VA investigators with no access to a local technology transfer program or not of interest of a private firm were not disseminated for the public good. 

Accordingly, to better serve the VA and the Nation’s veterans, the VA Office of Research and 

Development (ORD) has taken steps to track, assess, translate, and disseminate VA-supported 

discoveries and inventions. In February 2000, a first Director of the VA’s Technology Transfer 

Program (TTP) was appointed. Since then, the TTP’s mission has been redefined to include 

translating results of worthy discoveries by VA researchers into clinical practice. 

To facilitate this effort, ORD has implemented a program that rigorously evaluates all inventions, educates inventors about their rights and obligations, obtains patents, and assists in the 

commercialization of new products. In addition, consistent policies have been established to 

govern the relationships among the investigator/inventor, local VA medical center, academic 

partner, and industry. Also, the VA is working with and promoting collaboration with its academic affiliates (university medical schools) through a model Cooperative Technology 

Administration Agreement (CTAA). Use of the CTAA allows the VA to advantageously access 

existing intellectual property expertise at these universities, resulting in a beneficial situation 

for both the VA and academic partners, and strengthening existing collaborations. 

The VA currently lists the following overall goals for its technology transfer activities: 

■	 

■	 

Move VA innovations “from bench to bedside”; 

Continue building internal/external capacity and expertise for managing intellectual 

property; 

15 This section draws on text and statistics in the VA’s FY 2001 “agency report on utilization” under 15 

U.S.C. Sec. 3710(f). For additional details, readers should consult the agency’s report: Annual Reporting 

on Agency Technology Transfer, Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Research and Development, 

Technology Transfer Program, June 2002. 

64 2.10 Department of Veterans Affairs 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

■	 

■	 

■	 

■	 

■	 

■	 

■	 

■	 

■	 

■	 

■	 

■	 

Identify, select, and implement an IP tracking system; 

Refine the system for acquiring patents and property rights; 

Continue negotiating CTAAs with VA academic affiliates; 

Continue to seek the counsel of the TTP advisory subcommittee; 

Continue internal and external education programs; 

Educate VA staff at all levels about the new technology transfer policy; 

Retain ownership and internal licensing rights, to ensure access by veterans to new 

technologies resulting from the VA’s investment in research; 

Support a high-quality intramural research program and move discovery from the laboratory to clinical practice in a timely manner; 

Insure that inventors and their host VA medical centers receive optimal advice and 

support, so that they may realize equitable compensation and recognition; 

Maintain and improve the TTP website (www.vard.org); 

Enhance the partnership with academic affiliates in the area of technology transfer; 

and 

Continue to fund cutting-edge research that leads to discoveries or inventions that 

advance medical science and benefit veteran patients, investigators, the taxpayers, and 

the entire Nation. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 65 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

FY 2001 Overview of Technology Transfer by the Agency’s Federal Labs 

Table 2.10. Summary Measures of Technology Transfer Activities 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 

I. Collaborative Relationships for R&D 

■ CRADAs, total active in the FY 2 14 1 2 2 

- New, executed in the FY — — 1 2 0 

• Nontraditional(1) CRADAs, total active in the FY — — — — 0 

- New, executed in the FY — — — — 0 

■ Other types of collaborative R&D relationships — — — — nr 

II. Intellectual Property Management 

■ New inventions disclosed 58 36 48 85 78** 

■ Patents applications filed 1 2 37 35 38** 

■ Patents issued — — 0 1 4** 

■ Invention licenses, total active in the FY — — n/a n/a 76** 

- New, executed in the FY 47 3 5** 

■ Licenses for Other IP(2), total active in the FY — — 0 0 10** 

■ Elapsed execution time, licenses granted in the FY 

■ 

- Range (low-high)/Average (months) — — — — n/a 

Licenses terminated for cause in the FY — — — — 2** 

■ Total income from all active licenses (thousands) — — n/a $1,021 $38** 

• Income from invention licenses (thousands) n/a n/a n/a $1,021 $23** 

• Income from Other IP licenses (thousands) — — 0 0 $14** 

■ Licenses bearing royalty income in the FY — — n/a 58** 

- Exclusive/partially exclusive/nonexclusive — — — — 3/2/53** 

• Earned royalty income (ERI) in the FY (thousands) — — n/a n/a $17** 

- Range of ERI (low-high) — — — — $0.008-6** 

- Median ERI — — — — $0.481** 

- ERI subtotal from top 1% of licenses — — — — n/a 

- ERI subtotal from top 5% of licenses — — — — n/a 

- ERI subtotal from top 20% of licenses — — — — n/a 

■ Disposition of income (royalties, other payments) — — — — 

• Income distributed (thousands) $0 

III. Other Activity Measures 

■ See note (3) below. — — — — 

The data in this table cover the following departmental bureaus/divisions/services/offices: Veterans Affairs (VA) laboratories and 

VA academic affiliates (university medical schools) with which the VA has an active Cooperative Technology Administration 

Agreement (CTAA). 

(1) Executed under CRADA authority (15 U.S.C. Sec. 3710a) but used for special purposes, such as material transfer CRADAs or 

technical assistance that may result in protected information. 

(2) “Other Intellectual Property (IP)” includes computer software, tangible research products (such as biological materials), and protected data. 

(3) While not an activity measure in the output sense above, the VA report also provided statistics that indicated it was continuing 

to expand the scope of its tech transfer system through new CTAAs with additional academic affiliates. 

**Reported figures are incomplete – the majority of the VA’s CTAA academic affiliates data was not available at the time of preparation of this report, since they were not yet due according to the CTAA reporting schedule. 

R&D = research and development; CRADA = Cooperative Research and Development Agreements; FY = fiscal year; IP = intellectual property; ERI = earned royalty income; n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report; — = Data not requested 

from agency in previous years’ reports; nr = Data not relevant: either the agency does not engage in this type of technological 

transfer activity or the information is not useful in describing the agency’s programs. 

66 2.10 Department of Veterans Affairs 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Technology Transfer Outcomes 

The VA’s FY 2001 report indicated that technology arising from one of its CRADAs had 

become commercially available. It did not, however, include specific examples of downstream 

outcomes arising from the agency’s technology transfer activities. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 67 

-

-

-

■ 

■ 

■ 

■	 

■	 

■ 

■ 

•	 

•	 

•	

•	

• 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

CHAPTER 3 

TRENDS IN FEDERAL LAB TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 

The information provided by the agency reports covers a diversity of topics related to Federal 

lab technology transfer activities (such as cooperative research and development [R&D] relationships, patenting, invention licensing) and some of the downstream outcomes arising from 

these transfer relationships. Nonetheless, cross-agency comparisons of activity levels or how the 

FY 2001 program statistics relate to those of previous years are not readily visualized through the 

previous chapter’s presentation format. The broad purpose of this chapter is to analyze the 

recent and longer-term trends in technology transfer activities that have prevailed for the Federal 

lab system as a whole and to compare and contrast individual agencies’ activities. This analysis 

combines the FY 2001 data with that of the prior Federal lab technology transfer surveys prepared by the Department of Commerce (Office of Technology Policy) for the periodic Biennial 

Reports under the Stevenson-Wydler Act1 (many of the data series are complete back to FY 1987). 

The analysis and discussion cover a number of topics; a basic roadmap of the focus and organization is as follows: 

Category of Federal Lab 


Tech Transfer Activity
 Tech Transfer Measures Discussed 

Activities Collaborative Research & 

Development (R&D) 

Relationships 

Cooperative Research and Development 

Agreements (CRADAs) 

Other types of collaborative R&D relationships 

Intellectual Property 

Management 

Invention Disclosure 

Patenting 

Patent applications 

Patents received 

Licensing: lab inventions and other 

intellectual property 

Licensing levels 

License management 

Licensing income 

Total income 

Royalty income 

Disposition of income 

Other Activity Measures As identified and discussed by the agencies 

Downstream 

Outcomes 

Case examples provided by the agencies 

The most recent Biennial Report is Office of Technology Policy, U.S. Department of Commerce, Recent 

Trends in Federal Lab Technology Transfer: FY 1999-2000 Biennial Report, May 2002. (Report available 

on the Internet at http://www.ta.doc.gov/Reports.htm.) 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 69 

1 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

The statistics and trends discussed throughout this chapter again confirm there are significant 

differences among the agencies in the nature and intensity of technology transfer activities. 

Some of these differences reflect differences in agency mission, strategy to achieve mission, and 

associated program priorities. However, there are also large differences among the agencies in 

the level of budget resources available to support Federal lab science and technology, which 

ultimately influences the resources available to support lab technology transfer activities.2 

Table 3.1. Estimated Budget Resources for Federal Lab R&D Spending, 

FY 1999–2001, Ranked by Budget Level 

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 

Total Obligations— Total Obligations— Total Obligations— 

Obligations Federal Labs* Obligations Federal Labs* Obligations Federal Labs* 

Department (million $) (million $) (million $) (million $) (million $) (million $) 

Defense $35,646 $9,271 $36,876 $9,826 $36,297 $9,329 

Energy 6,010 4,308 6,306 4,520 6,793 4,885 

HHS 15,915 3,337 18,140 3,714 19,235 3,934 

NASA 9,526 3,665 9,568 3,614 9,602 3,793 

Agriculture 1,614 1,083 1,752 1,134 1,779 1,251 

Commerce 990 713 1,041 753 1,127 776 

Interior 642 568 566 495 619 546 

Veterans Affairs 339 339 367 367 367 367 

Transportation 667 223 700 217 866 296 

EPA 532 211 537 127 530 125 

Budget figures include spending for basic research, applied research, development, R&D facilities and equipment. Budget 

“authority” and “obligations” measure spending in different ways. “Obligations” are reported here, rather than the more frequently cited “budget authority” figures, because the latter generally do not distinguish between spending on Federal lab activities and spending on extramural performers (e.g., universities). 

*Obligations – Federal Labs” sums spending for Federal research by intramural performers and all Federally funded Research and 

Development Centers (FFRDCs). This sum is used as a measure of federal lab budget resources and is the basis for the above 

ranking of the departments. 

Source: National Science Foundation, Federal Funds for Research and Development, Detailed Historical Tables, Fiscal Years 1951-2001. 

The figures for FY 2000 and 2001 are listed by the National Science Foundation as “preliminary.” 

Comparisons of agencies’ estimated budget resources are important in understanding the relative size and scope of Federal lab technology transfer activities. As Table 3.1 indicates, DOD 

receives by far the greatest level of budget support for its Federal lab operations. Federal lab 

operations at DOE, HHS, and NASA also receive sizable budget support, but at levels 40 to 

50% that of DOD. USDA and DOC represent a “third tier” of budget support, each receiving 

roughly a tenth of DOD’s level. The other four departments receive still smaller levels of bud2 Across the departments, budget resources for Federal lab technology transfer activities are generally 

not a separate budget line item. Typically, technology transfer is funded from a lab’s overhead 

account and usually must compete with other demands for these general resource dollars. 

70 Trends in Federal Lab Technology Transfer 
get support. From another perspective, DOD and DOE together account for 56% of total 

Federal budget support for Federal lab R&D operations; adding HHS and NASA brings the 

cumulative total to 87%; and with USDA and DOC, to 95%. (This array of percentage comparisons is worth noting as a working basis for considering agency fractions of technology transfer activities discussed in the rest of this chapter.) 

In addition, for comparison of annual statistics for program performance, single, year-to-year 

comparisons may not be informative. Performance is influenced by complex factors, including 

the usually irregular pace at which R&D yields new knowledge and inventions. Trends evident 

over several years or longer normally will provide a sounder basis for useful conclusions. 

3.1 Collaborative Research and Development Relationships 

Figure 3.1 Active CRADAs, All Federal Labs, FY 1987–2001 

4,000 

3,500 

3,000 

2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

FY1987 FY1990 FY1990 FY1996 FY1999 

Total Number of Active CRADAs in the FY Number of New CRADAs in the FY 

Data on the number of new CRADAs executed each year were not collected from the agencies until FY 1997. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Cooperative Research and Development Agreements 

CRADAs remain widely used by the Federal labs as a means of establishing and conducting 

R&D partnerships with U.S. industry or other non-Federal parties. Congress legislated the 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 71 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

CRADA mechanism in the late 1980s to encourage the Federal labs to participate in R&D partnerships for the purpose of advancing promising technologies toward commercialization.3 

The statistics indicate that over the past 5 fiscal years (FY 1997-2001) the Federal labs have executed roughly a thousand new CRADAs annually (Figure 3.1). Over the same period, the total 

of active CRADAs has been approximately between 3,100 and 3,600.4 

The vast majority of active CRADAs, however, arise from the activities of only a few of the 

agencies (Figures 3.2a,b). In FY 2001, DOD, DOE, and HHS together accounted for 84%; including USDA and DOC, the cumulative total is 95%. The remaining five departments (NASA, 

DOI, VA, DOT, EPA) account for only a small fraction of the total.5 This basic pattern has 

remained largely the same since the early 1990s. 

The sharp slowdown in the growth of active CRADAs after FY 1996 — readily apparent in 

Figure 3.1 — has been the subject of comment in the most recent editions of the Department of 

Commerce’s (Office of Technology Policy) Biennial Report on Federal lab technology transfer.6 

The FY 2001 data point (Figure 3.1) might seem to indicate a forthcoming CRADA resurgence; 

this uptick results from a FY 2001 accounting revision by one of the more CRADA-intensive 

3	 CRADA authority was first established by the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986. This Act applied 

only to government-owned/government-operated (GOGO) laboratories. But only a few years later, the 

National Competitiveness Technology Transfer Act of 1989 enlarged the authority to governmentowned/contractor-operated (GOCO) labs (most of which are part of the Department of Energy’s laboratory system). The effect of both Acts together was to extend the CRADA option fully throughout the 

U.S. Federal lab system. 

4 The figures for “active CRADAs” listed in Figure 3.1 (and elsewhere in this document), for the period 

of FY 1996 and later, are somewhat larger this year than reported in previous editions of the 

Department of Commerce’s Federal lab technology transfer reports. These revisions reflect modifications in the guidelines on counting CRADAs, which took effect with the FY 2001 reporting. The agencies are now asked to tally all CRADAs executed under the authority of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 3710a, including both “standard” and “nontraditional” CRADAs. (An example of a “nontraditional” CRADA is the 

material transfer CRADAs increasingly used in recent years by agencies such as HHS.) This procedural revision was implemented to ensure consistency in counting across the agencies. Note that additional statistics are now provided to indicate the incidence of these differing CRADA mechanisms 

across the agencies (see the statistical tables in Chapter 2 and the Appendix). 

5 NASA is an exception among the Federal labs in its use of the CRADA mechanism. NASA continues 

to rely primarily on transfer authorities granted to it by the Space Act of 1958. This Act gives NASA 

broad authority to enter into “other agreements” with the private sector and others. These agreements 

are not regarded as procurements, grants, or cooperative agreements and are not subject to the rules 

governing such agreements. NASA believes its technology transfer objectives can be achieved with 

greater flexibility through use of the Space Act. 

6 Office of Technology Policy, U.S. Department of Commerce, Recent Trends in Federal Lab Technology 

Transfer: FY 1999-2000 Biennial Report, May 2002, p. 13. Office of Technology Policy, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Tech Transfer 2000: Making Partnerships Work, May 2000, p. 88. (Both documents are 

available on OTP’s website: http://www.ta.doc.gov/Reports.htm.) 

72 3.1 Collaborative Research and Development Relationships 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

agencies.7 But when adjusted, the FY 2001 level for total active CRADAs is largely the same as 

the FY 2000 level. 

The Department of Commerce’s Biennial Report of May 2002 (covering through FY 2000) indicated that much of the post-FY 1996 decline in all active CRADAs arose from steep declines in 

CRADA incidence at both DOE and DOC. With the FY 2001 data now included, it is apparent 

there has been a further CRADA decline at both these agencies. With the FY 2001 data, the 

USDA also now appears to be experiencing a decline in CRADA incidence, although at a much 

more gradual pace than DOE and DOC. By contrast, CRADA use at HHS remains on a modest 

expansionary path. And stronger growth appears under way at DOD, although more than half 

the expansion in FY 2001 stems from the broader counting base now being used. DOI, DOT, 

and EPA all continue to exhibit some growth in CRADA use, but at far lower levels than the 

other agencies. 

Figure 3.2(a) Active CRADAs, by Agency, Selected Years 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1,000 

1,200 

1,400 

1,600 

1,800 

2,000 

113 

845 

1,350 

1,364 

Defense 

1 

110 

1,392 

152 

715 

468 

687 

438 

558 

1,965 

Energy HHS 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 

0 

490 

FY 2000 

0 1 1 1 

NASA 

FY 2001 

128 

229 

298 

219 

257 

Agriculture 

With FY 2001, DOD has expanded statistical coverage of the department’s technology transfer activities to include a number of defense agencies (see DOD section in Chapter 2). Previously, the coverage 

had been limited to the three major military services (Army, Navy, Air Force). This revision brought 

more than 300 defense agency CRADAs into the active tally that had not previously been included in 

the reported data. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 73 

7 
Figure 3.2(b) Active CRADAs, by Agency, Selected Years 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1,000 

1,200 

1,400 

1,600 

1,800 

2,000 

82 

407 

275 

221 188 

Commerce 

12 15 30 40 50 

Interior 

FY 1990 FY 1995 

2 14 1 2 2 

Veterans Affairs 

FY 1999 FY 2000 

1 37 51 79 82 

Transportation 

FY 2001 

11 30 38 44 48 

EPA 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

A variety of factors appear involved in the agencies where CRADA use has been declining in 

recent years. Some labs have shifted toward greater selectiveness in partnering — the result 

of emerging budget constraints and/or a desire to focus on fewer but higher quality CRADA 

relationships. For others, revisions in lab mission strategy are working to decrease the need 

for exclusive relationships with individual companies. Externally, interest by some potential 

CRADA partners may be declining because of perceived logistical/administrative burdens in 

establishing such relationships. Also, some agencies are now exploring alternative mechanisms 

for collaborative R&D relationships (see below). Finally, there is a natural nonlinearity at play 

in the incidence numbers — a good example being the expiration of a consortia CRADA with 

many partners, which would not typically be immediately replaced in kind. 

Other Types of Collaborative R&D Relationships 

CRADAs are not the only means by which the Federal labs can conduct cooperative R&D with 

private industry or other non-Federal organizations. The revised Federal lab technology transfer reporting process provided agencies with a FY 2001 opportunity to identify the use of such 

alternative mechanisms and comment on their contribution to the agency’s technology transfer 

program. Several of the agencies indicated their use of such alternative approaches. 

■	 Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (ARS): Trust Fund and Reimbursable 

Cooperative Agreements. A Trust Fund Cooperative Agreement involves cooperative research 

between ARS and another party in which ARS is paid in advance to conduct research and 

74 3.1 Collaborative Research and Development Relationships 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

the exclusivity of resulting intellectual property is not a priority for the cooperating party. 

This agreement may also request the private-sector partner to share in the cost of a 

research project conducted by ARS. The agreement can also be used to allow privatesector partners the use of laboratory facilities, which in some cases may require a formal 

lease. A Reimbursable Cooperative Agreement is like a Trust Fund Agreement in arrears; the 

private-sector partner pays ARS the difference. For either agreement, both the privatesector partner and ARS should be actively engaged in the cooperative effort, mutually 

contribute resources to the research effort, and specifically state mutual interest in the 

agreement’s objectives. 

Either type of agreement may offer companies an advantageous way to directly support 

an ARS project or program. USDA’s technology transfer statistics (see Chapter 2) indicate 

that 106 Trust Fund/Reimbursable Cooperative Agreements were executed in FY 2001 

through facilitation by ARS’ Office of Technology Transfer, compared with 49 new 

CRADAs and 219 total active CRADAs. 

■	 Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): guest 

researchers and facility users. Each year, numerous researchers visit NIST to participate in 

collaborative projects and/or to use NIST’s research facilities. NIST makes its facilities 

available for limited periods to domestic guest researchers to collaborate with NIST staff 

on R&D projects of mutual interest or to transfer NIST techniques, procedures, and best 

practices. NIST provides neither direct salary nor subsistence support to domestic guest 

researchers. NIST’s Foreign Guest Researcher Program offers scientists from around the 

world the opportunity to work collaboratively with researchers in the NIST laboratories. 

Foreign guest researchers enter into clearly defined Guest Researcher Agreements that 

describe the proposed research project and its mutual benefit to the guest researcher 

and the NIST host. The majority of foreign guest researchers receive no stipend from 

NIST. However, NIST has the authority to pay financial assistance to foreign guest 

researchers when such payment would facilitate a NIST program. NIST’s statistics for 

FY 2001 (see Chapter 2) indicate that these collaborative relations number in the many 

hundreds annually. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 75 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

3.2 Invention Disclosure and Patenting
 

Figure 3.3 Invention Disclosure and Patenting, All Federal Labs, FY 1987–2001 

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

3,500 

4,000 

4,500 

FY1987 FY1992 FY1997 

Inventions Disclosed Patent Applications Patents Issued 

Data on the number of patents issued annually were not collected from the agencies until FY 1997. 

The overall level of invention disclosure annually by the Federal labs has generally remained 

constant since the early 1990s (Figure 3.3).8 Much the same is true for Federal lab patenting 

(i.e., patents applied for and patents received). However, it appears that the level of patenting 

has been trending somewhat upward since the late 1990s. 

DOD, DOE, HHS, and NASA are particularly prominent when it comes to Federal lab invention disclosures and patenting (Figures 3.4a-e). In FY 2001, DOD and DOE accounted for 65% 

of all invention disclosures, 74% of all patent applications, and 76% of all patents received by 

the Federal labs. With the addition of HHS and NASA activities, these cumulative shares 

become, respectively, 94%, 92%, and 94%. The other six agencies disclose inventions and 

patent, but at much lower levels. This basic pattern has prevailed for some time. 

8 The Federal labs’ activities in the areas of invention, patenting, and licensing are frequently cited as 

indicators of their active management of intellectual assets and technical know-how. One of the challenges in identifying valid trends in time series data for these activity measures is that single year-toyear comparisons can be misleading. Performance is influenced by complex factors, notably the irregular pace at which ongoing R&D yields new knowledge and inventions. 

76 3.2 Invention Disclosure and Patenting 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

These aggregates mask, however, substantial differences in the trends for individual agencies 

(Figures 3.4a-e). Among the four major agencies for the past 5 years, the annual number of 

invention disclosures has been trending upward at NASA and HHS and downward at DOD, 

and has remained largely unchanged at DOE. Over the same period, patent applications and 

patents received rose at DOE, but remained relatively unchanged at DOD. The number of 

patent applications has been unchanged at NASA and HHS. The number of patents received 

has moved upward at NASA, but downward at HHS. 

Figure 3.4(a) Invention Disclosure and Patenting, by Agency, Selected Years 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 77 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1,000 

1,200 

1,400 

1,600 

1,800 

1,383 

1,168 

1,060 

991 1,005 

DoD - Inv. 

Disclosures 

807759703 

774 809 

DoD - Patent 

Applications 

FY 1990 

553 571

788 

619 

366 

1,335 

n/a n/a 

1,758 

850 

1,474 

547 

1,371 1,527 

792 

DoD - Patents 

Issued 

DoE - Inv. 

Disclosures 

DoE - Patent 

Applications 

FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 

515 

n/a n/a 

525 

605 

DoE - Patents 

Issued 
Figure 3.4(b) Invention Disclosure and Patenting, by Agency, Selected Years 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1,000 

1,200 

1,400 

1,600 

1,800 

215 

328 307 

375434 

HHS - Inv. 

Disclosures 

239 241

166 

263 255 

HHS - Patent 

Applications 

FY 1990 

180 

119 

n/a n/a 

132 

HHS - Patents 

Issued 

FY 1995 FY 1999 

538 

181 129 

517 

164 

525 

574 

109151 

696 

NASA - Inv. 

Disclosures 

NASA - Patent 

Applications 

FY 2000 FY 2001 

n/a n/a 

87 99 

159 

NASA - Patents 

Issued 

Figure 3.4(c) Invention Disclosure and Patenting, by Agency, Selected Years 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1,000 

1,200 

1,400 

1,600 

1,800 

158133 109118 

162 

USDA - Inv. 

Disclosures 

76 80 84 78 74 64 83 n/a n/a 64

USDA - Patent 

Applications 

USDA - Patents 

Issued 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 

46 65 35 32 26 

DoC - Inv. 

Disclosures 

FY 2000 FY 2001 

28 35 27 18 12 

DoC - Patent 

Applications 

n/a n/a 26 14 22

Doc - Patents 

Issued 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

78 3.2 Invention Disclosure and Patenting 
Figure 3.4(d) Invention Disclosure and Patenting, by Agency, Selected Years 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1,000 

1,200 

1,400 

1,600 

1,800 

26 8 16 6 

DoI - Inv. 

Disclosures 

2 15 3 5 22 1 4 4 

DoI - Patent 

Applications 

DoI - Patents 

Issued 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 

2 n/an/a 8 0 

48 37 85 35 38 58 36 78 

VA - Inv. 

Disclosures 

VA - Patent 

Applications 

FY 2000 FY 2001 

1 4 

VA - Patents 

Issued 

Figure 3.4(e) Invention Disclosure and Patenting, by Agency, Selected Years 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1,000 

1,200 

1,400 

1,600 

1,800 

10 0 

DoT - Inv. 

Disclosures 

1 2 2 n/a n/a 0

DoT - Patents 

Issued 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 

1 0 3 3 0 3 

DoI - Patent 

Applications 

12 15 6 24 5 17 15 7 

EPA - Inv. 

Disclosures 

EPA - Patent 

Applications 

FY 2000 FY 2001 

11 10 n/a n/a 8 6 12

EPA - Patents 

Issued 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 79 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

3.3 Licensing: Lab Inventions and Other Intellectual Property
 

Figure 3.5 Active Licenses, Inventions, and Other Intellectual Property, 

All Federal Labs, FY 1999–2001 

596 511 578 

2,736 

3,009 3,142 

1,302 1,413 

1,254 

4,038 

4,422 4,396 

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

3,500 

4,000 

4,500 

5,000 

FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 

Inv Lic - New in FY Inv Lic - Tot Active in FY Other IP Lic - Tot Active in FY All Lic Active in FY 

Data collection for most of the measures began in FY 1999. Only figures for “Invention Licenses – New in FY” are available for 

earlier dates (see Appendix Table A.3). 

Licensing Levels 

Licensing of Inventions. The Federal labs reported 3,142 active licenses for inventions in FY 

2001 (Figure 3.5). This figure is 4% greater than the FY 2000 total of 3,009; growth in FY 2000 

over the previous year was about 10%.9 In the past several years, the Federal labs have been 

executing some 500 to 600 new invention licenses annually, compared with 300 to 400 in the 

mid-1990s. 

Collection of data on total active invention licenses began in FY 1999 and, thus, the longer-term 

trend for this measure, either across the Federal labs or by agency, is unknown. However, 

data on new invention licenses executed in the fiscal year have been collected since 1987 (see 

Appendix Table A.3). And these data suggest that total annual active invention licenses have 

been consistently growing from a low level in the later 1980s. 

9 The total invention licenses figures cited here for FY 1999 and 2000 are slightly higher than listed in the 

Department of Commerce’s (Office of Technology Policy) May 2002 Biennial Report for FY 1999-2000. 

The upward revisions reflect counting adjustments applied in FY 2001 by several of the agencies. 

80 3.3 Licensing: Lab Inventions and Other Intellectual Property 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

All the Federal lab agencies currently have active invention licenses (Figures 3.6a,b). 

Nonetheless, there are large differences in the comparative levels. HHS and DOE account for 

the majority of this licensing activity — 37% and 32%, respectively, in FY 2001. NASA (9%), 

DOD (9%), and USDA (8%) account for most of the rest. The other five departments (DOC, 

DOI, VA, DOT, EPA) together accounted for 5% of all active invention licenses in FY 2001. 

Licensing of Other Intellectual Property. The definition of “Other IP” for the FY 2001 report 

encompasses the following: computer software, tangible research products (such as biological 

materials), and protected data.10 

The agencies reported a total of 1,254 active “Other IP” licenses across all the Federal labs in 

FY 2001, compared with 1,302 and 1,413 in FY 1999 and 2000, respectively.11 The vast majority 

of these are Other IP licenses by DOE (67%) and HHS (29%). The rest is accounted for by 

NASA (2.9%), VA (0.8%), and DOD (0.4%). The other five agencies reported no active “Other 

IP” licenses. 

License Management Issues. The FY 2001 revised reporting process requested the Federal labs 

to address the following items: 

Elapsed time for license execution: Five of the ten agencies provided statistics for this question. 

Among these reporting agencies, the median value ranged from 3.1 to 14.4 months. The shortest reported time was 2 months; the longest was 49.9 months. 

Licenses terminated for cause: The agencies reported a total of 105 license terminations in FY 2001 

(out of 4,396 total active licenses, including inventions and Other IP). DOE accounted for 60 of 

these; NASA for 23; HHS for 10; and DOC for 7. The other six agencies reported zero or a very 

small number. 

The specific data for these indicators can be found in the statistical summary tables for each 

agency in Chapter 2. 

10	 To improve clarity, the FY 2001 definition of “Other IP” was revised somewhat from that used for 

the FY 1999–2000 agency survey. The principal components of the FY 1999–2000 definition were nonpatented intellectual property (tangible research products such as biological materials), authored 

works (such as software, engineering drawings, reference data), and information deemed commercially valuable by a partner and appropriately protected by the lab (such as know-how used at the lab 

and applied to solve a specific problem relating to the partner’s product). This revision of the definition does not appear to have significantly affected the comparability of the agencies’ counts of Other 

IP licenses across FY 1999, 2000, and 2001. 

11	 The Other IP licenses figures cited here for FY 1999 and 2000 are significantly reduced from those 

reported previously in the May 2002 Biennial Report for FY 1999-2000. These changes reflect corrected 

data submitted by the DOE. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 81 
Figure 3.6(a) Active Invention Licenses, by Agency, FY 1999–2001 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1,000 

1,200 

1,400 

177 189 

283 

Defense 

981 

1,094 

1,162 

Energy 

FY 1999 

1,041 

1,222 

1,007 

HHS 

FY 2000 FY 2001 

249 

214 

292 

NASA 

218 225 255 

Agriculture 

Figure 3.6(b) Active Invention Licenses, by Agency, FY 1999–2001 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1,000 

1,200 

41 41 39 

Commerce 

12 6 8 

Interior 

FY 1999 

76 

n/a n/a 

Veterans Affairs 

FY 2000 FY 2001 

0 0 1 

Transportation 

17 18 

EPA 

19 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

82 3.3 Licensing: Lab Inventions and Other Intellectual Property 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Income from Licensing 

Figure 3.7 Annual Income from Licenses—Inventions and Other IP, 

All Federal Labs, FY 1999–2001 

90,000 

60,060 

7,037 

63,831 

80,275 

71,101 68,862 

8,018 

3,772 

75,898 

0 

10,000 

20,000 

30,000 

40,000 

50,000 

60,000 

70,000 

80,000 

FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 

Thousand $ Annually 

Invention Licenses Other IP Licenses All Licenses 

Income figures in this chart are inclusive of all forms of income forthcoming from active licenses in the fiscal year, whether from 

earned royalties or other kinds of payments. 

Income from Invention Licenses. The Federal labs reported $71.1 million in income (royalties 

and other payments) from invention licenses in FY 2001 (Figure 3.7). This figure is about 3% 

greater than the comparable FY 2000 total of $68.9 million. 

Invention license income has grown vigorously for many years (Figure 3.8). Nearly all the 

agencies presently derive some income annually from invention licenses, and most have 

experienced a rising level of license income throughout the past decade (Figures 3.9a,b). 

Nevertheless, there are significant differences among departments in the amount of income 

derived from invention licenses. Historically, HHS licenses have predominated, accounting 

yearly for some 70% of all invention license income for most of the past decade. However, in 

FY 2001, that majority lessened somewhat; HHS accounted for only about 58%. In the same 

year, DOE accounted for 27% and DOD for 9%. The other seven agencies, which accounted for 

the remaining 6%, presently have much smaller annual income flows from invention licensing. 

Royalty-Bearing Licenses: For all the Federal labs in FY 2001, some 2,191 licenses were royalty 

bearing (compared to a total of 3,142 active invention licenses in that year). About 70% of these 

royalty-bearing licenses were nonexclusive; 22% were exclusive; and 9% were partially exclu2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 83 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

sive. Agency by agency, however, the distribution among these three kinds of licenses varied 

widely (see each agency’s summary statistics table in Chapter 2 and also Appendix Table A.4). 

Figure 3.8 Income Annually from Invention Licenses, All Federal Labs, 

FY 1987–2001 

0 

10,000 

20,000 

30,000 

40,000 

50,000 

60,000 

70,000 

80,000 

FY1987 FY1990 FY1993 FY1996 

Thousand $ Annually 

All income annually Income annually from earned royalties 

FY1999 

Figures on earned royalties were not systematically collected from the Federal labs until FY 1999. 

Earned Royalty Income: About 75% ($53.2 million) of the $71.1 million invention license income 

from all Federal labs in FY 2001 came in the form of earned royalty income (Figure 3.8).12 

However, this figure is heavily influenced by HHS’ large fraction of all invention license 

income, as earned royalty income accounted for about 89% of all invention license income at 

HHS in FY 2001. Earned royalty income’s share of all invention license income varied considerably across other agencies, from 40% to 100%. 

Starting with the FY 2001 reporting, the Federal labs were requested to provide data on the distributional characteristics of the earned royalty income annually per license across their portfolio of active licenses (i.e., median, range, by income percentiles). Four of the ten agencies provided most, if not all, of this information; another three agencies provided at least some key 

elements. The reported figures differ widely across the agencies; for details, see the summary 

12 “Earned royalties” are annual payments made to a lab by the licensee that are based on the sale or 

use of licensed laboratory intellectual property. Such payments are earned income from the commercial marketplace, which can be taken as a measure of a lab’s active management and successful transfer of its intellectual property. 

84 3.3 Licensing: Lab Inventions and Other Intellectual Property 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

statistics table for each agency in Chapter 2. In brief summary, earned royalty income per 

license ranged from several dollars to more than $4.2 million annually; the lowest median 

value was $4,000 annually, and the highest was $75,000. 

Income from “Other Intellectual Property” Licenses. Annual income from “Other IP” licenses 

by all Federal labs in FY 2001 totaled a little over $8 million. The distribution is as follows: 

HHS (68%), DOE (23%), NASA (8%), and DOD (1%). 

Figure 3.9(a) Annual Income from Invention Licenses, by Agency, Selected Years 

0 

10,000 

20,000 

30,000 

40,000 

50,000 

60,000 

Thousand $ Annually 

2,560 

113 

2,005 818 

18,922 

1,319 

239 

5,839 

349 

3,455 

646 

19,727 

10,199 

42,599 

762 

2,213 

48,592 

12,710 

6,383 

41,322 

Defense Energy HHS NASA 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 

1,635 2,622 559 

2,377 

2,555 

Agriculture 

Disposition of Income. As part of the FY 2001 revised reporting process, the Federal labs were 

asked to provide data on their disposition of income derived from licenses active in the fiscal 

year — that is, license income dollars distributed to various types of recipients (e.g., inventors, 

within-agency uses). Eight of the ten agencies provided quantitative responses to this question. 

The agencies differed somewhat in the recipient categories used to report. Nonetheless, “to 

inventors” was common to all the reporting agencies. The range of responses was 0 to 61%, 

with most of the agencies reporting between 20 and 42%. The balance of disposed income, for 

most of the agencies, was devoted to internal purposes such as “additional R&D,” “patent 

filing expenses,” or “other fees.” 

Further details on these measures can be found in the statistical summary tables for each 

agency in Chapter 2. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 85 
Figure 3.9(b) Annual Income from Invention Licenses, by Agency, Selected Years 

0 

10,000 

20,000 

30,000 

40,000 

50,000 

60,000 

Thousand $ Annually 

42 159 422 

Commerce 

52 269 850 

2,000 

1,640 

Interior 

FY 1990 FY 1995 

41 235 

1,021 n/a n/a n/a 

Veterans Affairs 

FY 1999 FY 2000 

23 

Transportation 

FY 2001 

n/a n/a 0 0 6 3 110 n/a 

EPA 

00 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

3.4 Other Activity Measures 

The FY 2001 revised reporting process provides the Federal labs with the opportunity to 

include data on “additional” activity measures deemed important in characterizing the overall 

technology transfer program — that is, measures other than the usual indicators for cooperative R&D, patenting, and licensing. 

The DOC’s NIST responded at some length in the FY 2001 reporting, providing a number of 

supplementary activity measures. Other agencies indicated the prospect of doing so in the 

future. 

■	 Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology: Standard Reference 

Materials, Standard Reference Data, calibration services, technical publications. NIST indicated 

that the general focus of its technology transfer activities is the broad dissemination of 

research results to industry, rather than the creation of patents and associated licenses 

(see DOC section in Chapter 2). Thus, NIST uses a diverse group of mechanisms to transfer the knowledge and technologies that result from its laboratory research. So, in addition to activity data for cooperative R&D, patenting, and licensing, the NIST report also 

provided quantitative measures (see Chapter 2) for the following: 

86 3.4 Other Activity Measures 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

•	 

•	 

•	 

•	 

Standard Reference Materials. Standard Reference Materials (SRMs) are the definitive source of measurement traceability in the United States. NIST produces and 

disseminates (sells) SRMs to a large and diverse group of customers, including 

private-sector laboratories, universities, and other Federal agencies. NIST SRMs 

support industrial materials production and analysis, environmental analysis, 

health measurements, and basic measurements in science and metrology. 

Standard Reference Data. Standard Reference Data titles (SRDs) provide numeric 

data to scientists and engineers for use in technical problem solving, research, and 

development. NIST produces and makes available SRDs through sales or free distribution. NIST’s SRD databases cover many areas of science, including analytical 

chemistry, atomic and molecular physics, biotechnology, and materials science. 

Calibration Services. NIST laboratories provide physical measurement services for 

their customers, including calibration services, special tests, and measurement 

assurance programs (MAPs). Calibration services and special tests are characterizations of particular instruments, devices, and sets of standards with respect to international and national standards. NIST’s calibration services are designed to help the 

makers and users of precision instruments achieve the highest possible levels of 

measurement quality and productivity. NIST offers more than 500 different types of 

physical calibrations covering the following measurement areas: dimensional; 

mechanical, including flow, acoustic, and ultrasonic; thermodynamic; optical radiation; ionizing radiation; electromagnetic; and time and frequency. 

Technical Publications. NIST uses publications as one mechanism to transfer the 

results of its work to the U.S. private sector and to other government agencies that 

need cutting-edge measurements and standards. Many of these results appear in 

prestigious scientific journals and withstand peer review by the scientific community. Others appear in technological forums where measurement standards and technologies developed by NIST staff (at times in collaboration with private-sector partners) are disseminated. 

In addition, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration indicated the important role 

that communication of information about NASA technologies to industry (including to small 

businesses and individuals) played in its overall technology transfer program. The NASA 

report noted a number of current agency venues through which this purpose is being pursued: 

the agency publishes Innovations, Spin-off, and TechBriefs; it also maintains an agencywide technology transfer database, TechTracS, which provides World Wide Web (Internet) access to 

18,000 supported NASA technologies. The agency did not, however, provide metrics for these 

activities for this year’s report. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 87 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

3.5 Outcomes from Technology Transfer 

The transfer of Federal lab know-how and technology to private industry partners can provide 

benefits to the partners and to society. For example, (1) new technology developed by a Federal 

lab’s scientists and engineers (and protected as intellectual property) might be licensed to one or 

more private industry partners that develop and successfully commercialize new products and 

processes based on that technology; (2) new technology or know-how developed as the result 

of a cooperative R&D partnership between a Federal lab and an industrial partner may provide 

new ways for the industrial partner to improve a product line or production processes; or (3) the 

same kind of cooperative Federal lab/industry partnership can yield new technology and knowhow that may improve the Federal lab’s capabilities for its mission-related work. Realizing such 

outcomes continues to be a primary motivation for Federal technology transfer policy. 

It is often difficult, however, to analytically demonstrate direct connections between Federal 

lab technology transfer actions and eventual commercial products/processes, because many 

actors and actions may be involved after transfer from a Federal lab. Moreover, the actual 

development and commercialization of an idea often takes a number of years, so that tangible 

results can take some time before becoming apparent. 

To better understand what outcomes are being achieved from Federal lab technology transfer, 

the agencies have been invited as part of the overall annual reporting process (starting with 

the Department of Commerce’s Biennial Report of May 2002 and continuing on in the present 

report) to submit current examples of successful downstream technology transfer outcomes. 

The example cases submitted as part of the FY 2001 activities report are described in each 

agency’s section in Chapter 2. As a summary tally of this FY 2001 outcomes information, all 10 

of the agencies indicated that there had been successful downstream outcomes from the technology transfer of their Federal labs. Eight of the ten agencies provided several illustrations of 

these successes (which are described in Chapter 2). 

88 3.5 Outcomes from Technology Transfer 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

CHAPTER 4 

AGENCY PROGRESS IN STRENGTHENING 

PERFORMANCE METRICS 

Throughout the past few years there has been significant progress in improving the data 

available about the current activities and achievements of Federal lab technology transfer 

programs. Some of this progress reflects the agencies’ need to respond to the new and expanding requirements for statutory reporting. Some is the result of agency efforts to improve overall 

management capabilities, of which technology transfer is a part. At the same time, there 

remain some enduring challenges for performance metrics, particularly with regard to program productivity and effectiveness. 

• Improvements in Technology Transfer Data from the Expanded Statutory 

Reporting 

The new reporting requirements of the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000 

(TTCA) have prompted improvements in the scope and quality of the data from the Federal 

labs about the status of their technology transfer programs. This has added to improvements 

that were already underway as part of the evolving procedures for the Biennial Report, prepared by the Department of Commerce’s Office of Technology Policy (OTP), under the 

Stevenson-Wydler Act. 

For the FY 1999–2000 Biennial Report, OTP developed a more extensive survey instrument to 

collect data on technology transfer activities from the Federal labs. New questions were asked 

to better gauge the latest trends in cooperative R&D relationships and licensing. A wider set of 

questions about licensing activities was raised—such as questions about royalty income and 

the licensing of intellectual property other than patented inventions. Also, in recognition of 

strong congressional and administration interest, the Federal labs were asked to provide examples of downstream outcomes resulting from their technology transfer activities (such as new 

products in the commercial marketplace, improved private industry production processes, or 

enhanced Federal lab capabilities flowing back from joint R&D activities with outside partners). The agencies generally were responsive to OTP’s request for such data. 

Changes in the Federal lab reporting process instituted in 2002 as part of implementing the 

TTCA have further expanded the scope of the data collection. Notably, the new law required 

the Federal labs to discuss in some depth how they managed their intellectual property and 

the nature of their current programs and plans to implement the technology transfer function. 

It also requested greater statistical detail about licensing—concerning the nature and distribution of earned royalty income, the annual disposition of income (e.g., to inventors, to other 

agency purposes), and licensing management practices (such as the time involved in license 

execution). As noted in Chapter 1, OTP worked closely with the Interagency Working Group 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 89 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

on Technology Transfer to review and refine the data collection procedures of the existing 

Stevenson-Wydler Act reporting and to integrate the TTCA’s new data requirements. That 

process yielded general guidelines and clarifications of data collection issues that were useful 

to the agencies in preparing their own annual reports in 2002. 

Similarly, in this first cycle of reporting under the new TTCA procedures, the Federal labs generally were responsive in reporting the required data. Not all agencies were able to respond 

completely to all the data requests—but most agencies proved able to provide much of it. The 

greatest difficulty appeared to be posed by some of the new questions related to license income 

and license management, for which data were not immediately available to some of the agencies. However, it appears that most data limitations should diminish in subsequent reporting 

cycles. 

One development emerging from the Interagency Working Group’s efforts to craft general 

guidelines for metric reporting under the TTCA was the desire of some of the agencies to 

include performance measures for technology transfer beyond the usual indicators for 

CRADAs, invention licensing, and the like. This stemmed from perceptions that for some 

agencies the technology transfer mission may be achieved in part through means other than 

sole use of the Stevenson-Wydler and Bayh-Dole authorities—such as through novel R&D 

partnering arrangements, technical publishing, and guest use of research facilities. This 

first Summary Report provides metrics data for such “other” activities by two agencies: 

the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service use of Trust Fund/Reimbursable Cooperative 

Agreements as another option for establishing cooperative R&D relationships with external 

partners and the DOC’s National Institute of Standards and Technology use of guest 

researchers and facility users, Standard Reference Materials, Standard Reference Data, calibration services, and technical publications as key components of the overall technology transfer 

effort (see Chapter 3 for details). In future reporting cycles, other agencies may elect to broaden 

their reporting in similar ways. 

With respect to information about downstream outcomes from technology transfer, in both the 

FY 2001 reporting under the TTCA and earlier in the FY 1999–2000 Biennial Report, the agencies 

presented numerous examples of success (typically in the form of case histories). The extent of 

the information provided indicates there is much the agencies are able to cite in this vein. The 

agencies appear to clearly recognize the interest in, and importance of, explaining the benefits 

that arise from the investment of public resources in R&D. Some agencies have indicated plans 

to expand their abilities to better track the downstream results of the technology transfer they 

initiate. Thus, it appears likely that agencies’ information about outcomes will increase in 

future reporting cycles. 

90 Agency Progress in Strengthening Performance Metrics 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

• Agency Efforts to Strengthen Technology Transfer Metrics to Improve Overall 

Agency Management Capabilities—A Current Example 

Some agencies are also now seeking to improve their metrics and data for technology transfer 

as part of a larger plan to improve overall agency management performance. The Department 

of Energy’s current efforts are particularly notable. With support from the organizations managing and operating its national laboratories and other facilities, the Department has recently 

developed a “Reporting and Appraisal Guide for Technology Partnering Programs.”1 This 

guide serves as an aid to systematic organization and reporting of technology partnership data 

and suggests objectives and measures for comprehensive and consistent evaluation of laboratory and facility performance in this area. 

DOE views technology partnering—defined to include an array of activities associated with technology transfer, research collaborations, use of scientific facilities, and intellectual property—as 

an increasingly important means (in addition to contracts, grants, and other forms of financial 

assistance) for DOE to accomplish its public missions. Similarly, DOE’s partners view technology 

partnering as an increasingly attractive means by which they can access the unique technical 

expertise of DOE facilities and technical personnel to help them solve problems and meet their 

own organizational goals. 

Consistent with this growth in activity, there is growing interest in reporting information 

regarding technology partnering and including the matter as an area in the periodic performance appraisals of the management and operations of DOE’s laboratories and facilities. Field 

practices for technology partnering vary widely depending on the needs and requirements of 

each DOE laboratory and facility, as facilities differ in the extent and nature of their partnering 

activities. In addition, data collection methods in the past were ad hoc, complicated by inconsistently defined terms, and did not well anticipate reporting needs of higher authorities. 

In 2001, DOE’s Technology Transfer Working Group, made up primarily of representatives 

from DOE headquarters and its regional offices, recognized the need for more consistent and 

effective methods for both reporting and evaluating technology transfer and partnership activities. This group organized a team, including additional representatives from the contractors 

that manage and operate DOE laboratories and facilities, that was chartered to develop a guide 

that would (a) provide voluntary guidelines for appraising technology transfer performance 

and (b) standardize requirements for record-keeping and reporting in order to satisfy a variety 

of monthly, quarterly, and annual reporting needs. 

The resulting DOE “Reporting and Appraisal Guide for Technology Partnering Programs,” 

completed in June 2002, provides a useful blueprint for the entire DOE technology transfer 

community. It provides a standard guide across a diverse DOE complex for setting expectations regarding performance and systematizing data gathering and reporting. It is also a help1 Currently, an internal DOE working paper, dated June 1, 2002. 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 91 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

ful reference for training new technology transfer practitioners. Finally, the guide is expected to 

improve administrative efficiency and lessen burdens of reporting to higher authorities by 

lending more coherency to record-keeping and standardizing automated reporting formats. 

• Other Observations about Performance Metrics for Technology Transfer 

What remains the most difficult metrics challenge for the technology transfer community is to 

identify and put measures in place that can help technology transfer managers better understand the effectiveness and productivity of the programs they operate. Counts of licenses, 

CRADAs, royalty income, and other traditional measures are typically not difficult to assemble 

—although significant time and resources may be needed to establish appropriate databases, 

particularly where an agency’s technology transfer activities are widely distributed across 

numerous labs. Such data can be useful in providing a picture of the priorities and depth of an 

agency’s technology transfer activities. But these measures do not directly address questions 

about program effectiveness or productivity—such as how well collaborative R&D relationships with external partners are working, whether the licensing strategies employed are facilitating new technology commercialization to the maximum extent, and what return on investment is being realized from the eventual downstream outcomes. This finding is not particularly new, but it highlights the primary area of performance metrics where the community yet 

needs to make progress. 

Finally, the TTCA’s requirement for each agency to provide an annual discussion of the current 

plans for its Federal lab technology transfer programs and the intended contributions to 

agency mission could galvanize the agencies’ thinking about the scope and priorities of their 

technology transfer activities. For most agencies, this benefit was probably not fully realized in 

this first cycle of reporting under the TTCA. 

92 Agency Progress in Strengthening Performance Metrics 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

APPENDIX 

STATISTICAL TABLES FY: 1987–2001 

Table A.1 Cooperative Research and Development Agreements by Federal Labs and 

Research Centers 

Table A.2 Invention Disclosure and Patenting by Federal Labs and Research Centers 

Table A.3 Licensing — Inventions and Other Intellectual Property by Federal Labs 

and Research Centers 

Table A.4 Income from Licensing by Federal Labs and Research Centers 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 93 
Table A.1 Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAS) by Federal Laboratories 

and Research Centers 

94 2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

FY1987 FY1988 FY1989 FY1990 FY1991 FY1992 FY1993 FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 

Agriculture CRADAs, total active 9 51 98 128 177 172 172 208 229 244 273 288 298 257 219

 New in FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 93 102 101 69 49 Nontraditional, total active --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 New in FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 

Commerce CRADAs, total active 0 9 44 82 115 177 292 368 407 406 377 337 275 221 188

 New in FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 90 77 67 46 26 Nontraditional, total active --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 New in FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 

Defense CRADAs, total active 3 10 36 113 193 277 365 563 845 1,086 1,360 1,424 1,350 1,364 1,965

 New in FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 408 399 449 425 459

 Nontraditional, total active --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 330

 New in FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 82 

Energy CRADAs, total active 0 0 0 1 43 250 582 1,094 1,392 1,677 963 868 715 687 558

 New in FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 274 266 240 151 204

 Nontraditional, total active --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0

 New in FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 

EPA CRADAs, total active 0 0 2 11 31 30 28 35 30 35 34 37 38 44 48

 New in FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 11 12 13 10 19 Nontraditional, total active --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3

 New in FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1 

HHS CRADAs, total active 22 28 89 110 144 146 149 147 152 n/a n/a n/a 468 438 490

 New in FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 87 153 149 136 125 137

 Nontraditional, total active --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a n/a n/a 231 194 209

 New in FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 43 121 106 78 75 76 

Interior CRADAs, total active 0 0 1 12 11 1 3 9 15 22 23 30 30 40 50

 New in FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 9 7 10 8 21

 Nontraditional, total active --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 9 New in FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 

NASA CRADAs, total active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 

(1) New in FY	 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 1 0 0

 Nontraditional, total active	 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 New in FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 

Transportation CRADAs, total active 0 0 0 1 9 17 30 38 37 43 36 39 51 79 82

 New in FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 14 13 5 38 11 Nontraditional, total active --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 4 New in FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 

Veterans Affairs CRADAs, total active 0 0 1 2 8 8 7 9 14 17 12 15 1 2 2

 New in FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 6 9 1 2 0

 Nontraditional, total active --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 New in FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 
Table A.1 Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAS) by Federal Laboratories 

and Research Centers 

FY1987 FY1988 FY1989 FY1990 FY1991 FY1992 FY1993 FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 

Totals CRADAs, total active 34 98 271 460 731 1,078 1,628 2,471 3,121 3,530 3,078 3,038 3,227 3,133 3,603

 New in FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,058 1,034 1,023 874 926

 Nontraditional, total active --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 0 231 194 555

 New in FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 43 121 106 78 75 166 n/a = requested agency data not available at time of this report. --- = data not requested from agency in reporting for prior years.


NOTES: The figures reported by the agencies are for all CRADAs established under the authority of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 3710a. This includes "nontraditional" CRADAS such as those arranged by the
National Institutes of Health. starting in FY 1996 to transfer the research materials of its intramural laboratories. Beginning with FY 2001, the agencies have been asked to identify how many of their 
total active CRADAs have this "nontraditional" status.


FY 2001 is the first year for which agency data on Federal lab technology transfer is available through the revised reporting process of the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000. Figures for
 FY 1987-2000 reflect the biennial reporting process established by the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986.
Figures on the number of new CRADAs yearly were not requested from the agencies until FY 1997 and, in general, are not readily available for the prior years.
(1) Prior to 1999, NASA performed all of its technology transfer under the provisions of the 1958 Space Act. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 95 
Table A.2 Invention Disclosure and Patenting by Federal Laboratories and Research Centers 

FY1987 FY1988 FY1989 FY1990 FY1991 FY1992 FY1993 FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 

Agriculture	 Inventions disclosed 83 144 127 158 127 83 110 111 133 129 260 208 162 109 118 

Patent applications filed 44 50 71 76 110 70 68 40 80 91 56 64 84 78 83 

Patents issued --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 45 75 74 64 64 

Commerce Inventions disclosed 43 31 49 46 30 55 66 51 65 71 58 40 35 32 26 

Patent applications filed 8 15 28 28 18 53 43 41 35 60 49 66 27 18 12 

Patents issued --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 23 19 26 14 22 

Defense	 Inventions disclosed 953 1,147 1,153 1,383 1,524 1,283 1,189 1,172 1,168 1,115 1,150 1,028 1,060 991 1,005 

Patent applications filed 343 447 616 807 919 850 835 732 759 716 735 755 703 774 809 

Patents issued --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 554 579 547 553 619 

Energy	 Inventions disclosed 857 1,003 1,053 1,335 1,666 1,698 1,443 1,588 1,758 1,886 1,500 1,313 1,474 1,371 1,527 

Patent applications filed 252 336 382 366 397 432 497 543 571 564 705 751 850 788 792 

Patents issued --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 384 512 525 515 605 

EPA	 Inventions disclosed 0 0 0 12 20 9 22 19 15 20 9 14 5 11 17 

Patent applications filed 4 5 5 6 8 12 15 15 24 18 13 11 15 10 7Patents issued --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 12 1 8 6 12 

HHS	 Inventions disclosed 194 226 209 215 215 311 282 307 307 305 268 287 328 375 434 

Patent applications filed 98 145 225 239 261 224 193 171 166 147 148 132 241 263 255 Patents issued --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 152 171 180 132 119 

Interior	 Inventions disclosed 3 6 3 26 26 1 2 2 2 2 5 5 8 16 6

Patent applications filed 5 4 11 15 21 1 2 2 2 2 2 5 3 5 22

Patents issued --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1 3 1 4 4 

NASA	 Inventions disclosed 496 462 532 538 570 416 384 457 517 550 550 554 525 574 696 

Patent applications filed 94 129 125 181 205 225 185 179 164 123 140 105 129 109 151 

Patents issued --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 94 105 87 99 159 

Transportation	 Inventions disclosed 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 4 2 4 1 0 2 

Patent applications filed 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 2 1 3 0 3 3 Patents issued --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 1 0 3 0 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

96 2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 
Table A.2 Invention Disclosure and Patenting by Federal Laboratories and Research Centers 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

FY1987 FY1988 FY1989 FY1990 FY1991 FY1992 FY1993 FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 

Veterans Affairs	 Inventions disclosed 33 28 42 58 33 44 39 45 36 71 40 50 48 85 78 

Patent applications filed n/a n/a 3 8 n/a 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 37 35

Patents issued --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a n/a 0 1 4 

Totals Inventions disclosed 2,662 3,047 3,168 3,772 4,213 3,901 3,538 3,753 4,001 4,153 3,842 3,503 3,646 3,564 3,909 

Patent applications filed 848 1,131 1,466 1,727 1,940 1,867 1,838 1,724 1,803 1,723 1,850 1,894 2,089 2,083 2,172 

Patents issued --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,265 1,466 1,448 1,391 1,608 

38 

n/a = requested agency data not available at time of this report. --- = data not requested from agency in reporting for prior years

NOTES: FY 2001 is the first year for which agency data on federal lab tech transfer is available through the revised reporting process of the Technology Transfer Commercialization
Act of 2000. Figures for FY 1987-2000 reflect the Biennial Reporting process established by the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986.
Figures on the number of patents issued yearly were not requested from the agencies until FY 1997 and, in general, are not readily available for the prior years.
For several of the years reported, the government-wide totals for lab patent applications and patents issued ignore the presence of n/a entries in the departmental data. However,
 the missing figures are few and small in magnitude and do not substantially bias the federal-wide totals provided.
 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 97 
Table A.3 Licensing—Inventions and Other Intellectual Property by Federal Laboratories 

and Research Centers 

FY1987 FY1988 FY1989 FY1990 FY1991 FY1992 FY1993 FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 

Agriculture Total licenses active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 218 225 255

 Invention licenses, active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 218 225 255 New, executed in the FY 30 24 23 33 29 31 28 9 21 26 22 23 29 24 31

 Other IP licenses, active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 0 For non-patented IP --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 --­

 For authored works --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 --­

 For other info. deemed commercially valuable --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 --­

Elapsed time, licenses executed in FY median (months) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3.1

 minimum --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2

 maximum --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 6 

Licenses terminated for cause in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1 

Commerce Total licenses active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 41 41 39

 Invention licenses, active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 41 41 39 New, executed in the FY 0 0 1 0 2 5 3 3 4 10 11 17 7 4 5 Other IP licenses, active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 0 For non-patented IP --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 --­

 For authored works --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 --­ For other info. deemed commercially valuable --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 --­

Elapsed time, licenses executed in FY median (months) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 5

 minimum --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2

 maximum --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 8 

Licenses terminated for cause in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 

Defense Total licenses active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 193 208 288

 Invention licenses, active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 177 189 283 New, executed in the FY 10 10 14 15 25 19 20 28 34 41 34 34 61 67 49

 Other IP licenses, active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 16 19 5

 For non-patented IP --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 16 19 --­ For authored works --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 --­

 For other info. deemed commercially valuable --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 --­Elapsed time, licenses executed in FY median (months) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a

 minimum --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a maximum --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a 

Licenses terminated for cause in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 

Energy Total licenses active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,922 2,070 2,005

 Invention licenses, active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 981 1,094 1,162

 New, executed in the FY 37 43 57 62 75 81 96 118 140 154 175 162 202 169 226

 Other IP licenses, active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 941 976 843 For non-patented IP --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 49 92 --­

 For authored works --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 854 844 --­

 For other info. deemed commercially valuable --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 38 40 --­

Elapsed time, licenses executed in FY median (months) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a

 minimum --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a

 maximum --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a 

Licenses terminated for cause in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --­

EPA Total licenses active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 17 18 19

 Invention licenses, active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 17 18 19 New, executed in the FY 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 9 1 2 1 0 2 3 4 Other IP licenses, active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 0 For non-patented IP --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 --­

 For authored works --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 --­

 For other info. deemed commercially valuable --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 --­

Elapsed time, licenses executed in FY median (months) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a

 minimum --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3

 maximum --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 10 

Licenses terminated for cause in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

98 2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 
Table A.3 Licensing—Inventions and Other Intellectual Property by Federal Laboratories 

and Research Centers 

FY1987 FY1988 FY1989 FY1990 FY1991 FY1992 FY1993 FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 

HHS Total licenses active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,364 1,608 1,367

 Invention licenses, active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,041 1,222 1,007 New, executed in the FY 35 42 48 47 69 96 99 151 176 193 208 215 208 192 212

 Other IP licenses, active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 323 386 360

 For non-patented IP --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 323 386 --­

 For authored works --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 --­

 For other info. deemed commercially valuable --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 --­Elapsed time, licenses executed in FY median (months) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a

 minimum --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a

 maximum --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a 

Licenses terminated for cause in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 10 

Interior Total licenses active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 12 6 8

 Invention licenses, active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 12 6 8 New, executed in the FY 3 3 0 0 0 n/a n/a 8 3 n/a 0 0 0 2 2 Other IP licenses, active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 0 For non-patented IP --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 --­

 For authored works --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 --­ For other info. deemed commercially valuable --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 --­

Elapsed time, licenses executed in FY median (months) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3.5

 minimum --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 maximum --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 4 

Licenses terminated for cause in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 

NASA Total licenses active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 271 246 328

 Invention licenses, active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 249 214 292

 New, executed in the FY 13 7 7 6 4 5 12 11 29 36 36 40 40 47 42

 Other IP licenses, active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 22 32 36

 For non-patented IP --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 --­

 For authored works --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 22 32 --­ For other info. deemed commercially valuable --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 --­

Elapsed time, licenses executed in FY median (months) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 14.4

 minimum --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 4 maximum --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 49.9 

Licenses terminated for cause in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 23 

Transportation Total licenses active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 1

 Invention licenses, active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 1 New, executed in the FY 0 0 0 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 1 0 0 1 Other IP licenses, active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 0 For non-patented IP --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 --­ For authored works --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 --­ For other info. deemed commercially valuable --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 --­

Elapsed time, licenses executed in FY median (months) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a

 minimum --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a

 maximum --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a 

Licenses terminated for cause in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 99 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
Table A.3 Licensing—Inventions and Other Intellectual Property by Federal Laboratories 

and Research Centers 

FY1987 FY1988 FY1989 FY1990 FY1991 FY1992 FY1993 FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 

Veterans Affairs Total licenses active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a n/a 86

 Invention licenses, active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a n/a 76

 New, executed in the FY 0 0 0 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 47 3 5 Other IP licenses, active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 10

 For non-patented IP --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 --­ For authored works --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 --­ For other info. deemed commercially valuable --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 --­

Elapsed time, licenses executed in FY median (months) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a

 minimum --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a maximum --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a 

Licenses terminated for cause in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 

Totals Total licenses active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 4,038 4,422 4,396

 Invention licenses, active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2,736 3,009 3,142

 New, executed in the FY 128 129 150 164 206 239 260 337 408 462 487 492 596 511 577

 Other IP licenses, active in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,302 1,413 1,254

 For non-patented IP --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 388 497 --­

 For authored works --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 876 876 --­

 For other info. deemed commercially valuable --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 38 40 --­Elapsed time, licenses executed in FY median (months) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a

 minimum --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 maximum --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 49.9 

Licenses terminated for cause in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 105 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE n/a = requested agency data not available at time of this report. --- = data not requested from agency in reporting for prior years. NOTES: FY 2001 is the first year for which agency data on federal lab tech transfer is available through the revised reporting process of the Technology Transfer Commercialization
 Act of 2000. Figures for FY 1987-2000 reflect the Biennial Reporting process established by the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986.
 Many of the data elements in this table were not requested from the federal lab agencies until FY 1999; some not until FY 2001. 

100 2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 
Table A.4 Income From Licensing by Federal Laboratories and Research Centers 

FY1987 FY1988 FY1989 FY1990 FY1991 FY1992 FY1993 FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 

Agriculture Total income, all licenses active in the FY (thousand $) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $2,377.0 $2,555.0 $2,622.0

 Income from invention licenses $133.0 $120.0 $420.0 $559.0 $836.0 $1,044.0 $1,483.0 $1,450.0 $1,635.0 $2,091.0 $2,300.0 $2,400.0 $2,377.0 $2,555.0 $2,622.0

 Income from Other IP licenses --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 

Number of licenses bearing royalty income in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a n/a 120

 Exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 78

 Partially exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 19

 Non-exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 23

 Earned royalty income in the FY (thousand $) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $1,843.0 $1,843.0 $1,409.0 

Commerce Total income, all licenses active in the FY (thousand $) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $421.6 $159.0 $268.6

 Income from invention licenses $34.0 $81.0 $62.0 $52.0 $26.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $42.0 $0.3 $196.0 $241.0 $421.6 $159.0 $268.6

 Income from Other IP licenses --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 

Number of licenses bearing royalty income in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 19 17 21

 Exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 13

 Partially exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 5

 Non-exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3

 Earned royalty income in the FY (thousand $) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $421.6 $159.0 $269.0 

Defense Total income, all licenses active in the FY (thousand $) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $2,004.9 $2,212.9 $6,465.5

 Income from invention licenses $44.0 $49.0 $211.0 $239.0 $286.0 $331.0 $567.0 $1,081.0 $646.0 $836.0 $924.0 $1,560.0 $2,004.9 $2,212.9 $6,383.5

 Income from Other IP licenses --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $0.0 $0.0 $82.0 

Number of licenses bearing royalty income in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 42 29 113

 Exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 42

 Partially exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 22

 Non-exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 49

 Earned royalty income in the FY (thousand $) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $864.9 $671.9 $6,383.5 

Energy Total income, all licenses active in the FY (thousand $) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $11,744.0 $15,545.5 $21,403.4

 Income from invention licenses $346.0 $545.0 $1,499.0 $2,560.0 $3,193.0 $2,369.0 $2,703.0 $2,915.0 $3,455.0 $4,122.0 $8,009.0 $10,536.0 $10,199.0 $12,710.0 $18,921.8

 Income from Other IP licenses --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $1,545.0 $2,835.5 $1,870.1 

Number of licenses bearing royalty income in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 193 220 1,012

 Exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 174

 Partially exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 112

 Non-exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 726

 Earned royalty income in the FY (thousand $) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $1,975.0 $2,228.0 $7,832.5 

EPA Total income, all licenses active in the FY (thousand $) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a n/a $544.4

 Income from invention licenses $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3.0 $74.0 $60.0 $75.0 $230.0 $110.0 $300.0 $60.0 $100.0 n/a n/a n/a

 Income from Other IP licenses --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a n/a $0.0 

Number of licenses bearing royalty income in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a n/a 19

 Exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 6 Partially exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1 Non-exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 12

 Earned royalty income in the FY (thousand $) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a n/a n/a 

HHS Total income, all licenses active in the FY (thousand $) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $44,821.0 $52,547.0 $46,722.1

 Income from invention licenses $4,245.0 $5,434.0 $4,804.0 $5,839.0 $13,384.0 $10,133.0 $13,584.0 $18,654.0 $19,727.0 $27,277.0 $35,692.0 $39,500.0 $42,599.0 $48,592.0 $41,322.1

 Income from Other IP licenses --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $2,222.0 $3,955.0 $5,400.0 

Number of licenses bearing royalty income in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 223 230 727

 Exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 108

 Partially exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 13

 Non-exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 606

 Earned royalty income in the FY (thousand $) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $34,599.0 $43,892.0 $36,612.5 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer 101 
Table A.4 Income From Licensing by Federal Laboratories and Research Centers 

FY1987 FY1988 FY1989 FY1990 FY1991 FY1992 FY1993 FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 

Interior Total income, all licenses active in the FY (thousand $) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $1,640.0 $850.0 $235.0

 Income from invention licenses $1,000.0 $38.0 $61.0 $41.0 $58.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2,000.0 $2,000.0 $2,000.0 $2,000.0 $2,000.0 $1,640.0 $850.0 $235.0

 Income from Other IP licenses --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 

Number of licenses bearing royalty income in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 11 5 6

 Exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0

 Partially exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0

 Non-exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 6

 Earned royalty income in the FY (thousand $) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $1,640.0 $850.0 $220.0 

NASA Total income, all licenses active in the FY (thousand $) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $822.7 $1,008.0 $1,971.2

 Income from invention licenses $73.0 $79.0 $84.0 $113.0 $292.0 $133.0 $158.0 $311.0 $349.0 $343.0 $521.0 $565.0 $818.0 $762.0 $1,318.9

 Income from Other IP licenses --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $4.7 $246.0 $651.9 

Number of licenses bearing royalty income in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 19 17 114

 Exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 57

 Partially exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 13

 Non-exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 44

 Earned royalty income in the FY (thousand $) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $388.0 $174.8 $521.2 

Transportation Total income, all licenses active in the FY (thousand $) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $0.0 $0.0 $5.5

 Income from invention licenses n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5.5

 Income from Other IP licenses --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 

Number of licenses bearing royalty income in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 1 Exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 Partially exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 Non-exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1 Earned royalty income in the FY (thousand $) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $0.0 $0.0 n/a 

Veterans Affairs Total income, all licenses active in the FY (thousand $) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a $1,021.0 $37.6

 Income from invention licenses n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $0.0 $0.0 n/a $1,021.0 $23.2

 Income from Other IP licenses --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $0.0 $0.0 $14.4 

Number of licenses bearing royalty income in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a n/a 58

 Exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 Partially exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 Non-exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 53

 Earned royalty income in the FY (thousand $) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- n/a n/a $17.3 

Totals Total income, all licenses active in the FY (thousand $) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $63,831.3 $75,898.4 $80,275.2

 Income from invention licenses $5,875.0 $6,346.0 $7,141.0 $9,406.0 $18,149.0 $14,070.0 $18,570.0 $26,641.0 $27,964.0 $36,969.3 $49,702.0 $56,902.0 $60,059.5 $68,861.9 $71,100.6

 Income from Other IP licenses --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $3,771.7 $7,036.5 $8,018.3 

Number of licenses bearing royalty income in the FY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 507 518 2,191 Exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 481

 Partially exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 187

 Non-exclusive --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,523

 Earned royalty income in the FY (thousand $) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- $41,731.6 $49,818.7 $53,264.9 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE n/a = requested agency data not available at time of this report. --- = data not requested from agency in reporting for prior years.

NOTES: FY 2001 is the first year for which agency data on federal lab tech transfer is available through the revised reporting process of the Technology Transfer Commercialization
Act of 2000. Figures for FY 1987-2000 reflect the Biennial Reporting process established by the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986.
As apparent, a few of the agencies could provide only n/a responses to these questions. Nonetheless, federal-wide totals are reported. The extent of bias due to this unavailable information
is not fully clear at present, but is likely to be small in most cases.
 

102 2002 Summary Report: Federal Lab Technology Transfer