Summary Report on 

Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer 

FY 2003 Activity Metrics and Outcomes 

2004 Report to the President and the Congress 

under the Technology Transfer and Commercialization Act 

 

Office of the Secretary 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

December 2004 

Table of Contents 

Foreword ............................................................................................................3 

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................4 

Chapter 1. Purpose and Principal Findings 

1.1 Background

1.2 Scope of this Report .....................................................................................6 

1.3 Principal Findings .......................................................................................8 

 ...............................................................................................5 

Chapter 2. Trends in Federal Lab Technology Transfer 

2.1 Cooperative Research and Development Relationships ..........................................15 

2.2 Invention Disclosure and Patenting .................................................................23 

2.3 Licensing – Lab Inventions and Other Intellectual Property ....................................28 

2.4 Other Activity Measures ..............................................................................42 

2.5 Outcomes from Technology Transfer ...............................................................43 

Chapter 3. Summary of Statistics on Technology Transfer Activities and Outcomes Provided 

by the Agencies in their FY 2003 Annual Reports

3.1 Department of Agriculture ...........................................................................47 

3.2 Department of Commerce ............................................................................57 

3.3 Department of Defense ................................................................................71 

3.4 Department of Energy .................................................................................79 

3.5 Environmental Protection Agency ..................................................................99 

3.6 Department of Health and Human Service ........................................................105 

3.7 Department of the Interior ..........................................................................113 

3.8 National Aeronautics and Space Administration ................................................119 

3.9 Department of Transportation .....................................................................127 

3.10 Department of Veterans Affairs ...................................................................133 

Appendix: 

Agency Progress in Strengthening Performance Metrics for Federal Lab Tech Transfer .......139 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 1 

December 2004 
List of Figures and Tables 

Figure 2.1 Cooperative Research and Development Agreements, All Federal Labs, FY 1999-2003 

Figure 2.2 CRADAs (total active), by Agency, FY 1999-2003 

Figure 2.3 Other Collaborative R&D Relationships vs. CRADAs, All Federal Labs, FY 2001-2003 

Figure 2.4 Invention Disclosure and Patenting, All Federal Labs, FY 1999-2003 

Figure 2.5 Invention Disclosure and Patenting, by Agency, FY 1999-2003 

Figure 2.6 Active Licenses, Inventions and Other Intellectual Property, All Federal Labs, 

 FY 1999-2003 

Figure 2.7 Active Licenses, Inventions and Other Intellectual Property, by Agency, FY 1999-2003 

Figure 2.8 Income from Licensing, All Federal Labs, FY 1999-2003 

Figure 2.9 Income from Licensing, by Agency, FY 1999-2003 

Table 1.1 – Overview of the Types of Information on Federal lab Technology Transfer Collected in 

 the Annual Reporting Process 

Table 2.1 – Estimated Budget Resources for Federal Lab R&D Spending, FY 2000-2002, 

 Ranked by Annual Level 

Table 2.2 – Collaborative Relationships for R&D, FY 1999-2003 

Table 2.3 – Invention Disclosure and Patenting, FY 1999-2003 

Table 2.4 – Active Licenses, Inventions and Other Intellectual Property, FY 1999-2003 

Table 2.5 – Active Licenses, by Type, FY 1999-2003 

Table 2.6 – Income from Licensing, FY 1999-2003 

Table 2.7 – Characteristics of Income Bearing Licenses, FY 1999-2003 

Additional data tables (not numbered) appear in the individual agency sections of Chapter 3. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 2 

December 2004 
Foreword 

America’s economy and technology sectors lead the world, thanks in large measure to our well 

developed capacity for innovation. Even so, the forces of economic globalization continue to 

gain momentum and are changing trade, technology sourcing, capital flows, and the movement 

of technical talent in significant ways. Our present leadership notwithstanding, we are likely in 

the years ahead to face more significant challenges to our innovative capacity and long-term 

competitiveness than ever before. 

In its May 2003 report, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology 

(PCAST) emphasized the critical role that transfer of federally funded research and development 

results has played in helping to move ideas from the realm of research into commerce and the 

marketplace. Indeed, the effective transfer of federal technology -- that is, diffusing the new 

knowledge and inventions created by federal research and development funds to American firms 

and entrepreneurs with the capabilities to translate these advances into commercially significant 

products and processes -- will likely continue to be essential in sustaining U.S. competitiveness 

and leadership in the global economy in the years ahead. 

 

America’s federal laboratory system, comprised by world-class scientists and research facilities, 

is a key element of the Nation’s infrastructure for innovation. The federal labs offer a critical 

and fertile resource for early-stage, high-risk research and development -- the kind of work on 

basic science and basic technology that gives rise to revolutionary new know-how and 

technologies with the prospect of important commercial impacts. 

Congress has mandated -- through several significant pieces of legislation since 1980 -- that part 

of the federal labs' mission be to promote the transfer of federal technology. And, indeed, 

federal lab technology transfer activities to date have contributed significantly to the national 

technology transfer success story the PCAST report describes. 

Recognizing the importance of this role and national policymakers’ continued interest that the 

Nation’s technology transfer policies perform as effectively as possible, Congress has asked the 

Department of Commerce to regularly report on the status of technology transfer by the federal 

labs. This latest report edition provides current evidence that the federal labs’ participation in the 

technology transfer process continues to grow, with numerous examples cited of transferred 

federal technology and industry-federal lab research and development cooperation having 

provided a basis for new products and processes with commercial significance and often also 

enhanced federal lab capabilities. 

Carlos M. Gutierrez 

Secretary of Commerce 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 3 

December 2004 
Acknowledgments 

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

Administration, Department of Commerce. 

The Office of Technology Policy appreciates the effort and cooperation of senior technology transfer 

personnel at the ten federal agencies whose federal lab technology transfer activities are documented 

in this report: 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 the Department of Commerce’s own 

federal labs. 

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

Office of Technology Policy, at 202.482.6394. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 4 

December 2004 
Chapter 1 

Purpose and Summary of Major Findings 

1.1 Background 

This Summary Report provides an updated review and analysis of the federal laboratories’1

utilization of the technology transfer authorities provided to them under federal law.2

 This is a new 

edition of the annual report series for the President and Congress established under the Technology 

Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-404, signed November 1, 2000).3

 The present 

report covers the technology transfer activities of the federal laboratories through FY 2003. 

Periodic reporting to the President and Congress on the vigor of federal laboratory technology 

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

Innovation Act of 1980.4

 From 1987 through early 2002, the Office of Technology Policy (OTP) at 

the Department of Commerce prepared Biennial Reports in response to this requirement.5

 In late 

2000, the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act revised and enlarged the existing StevensonWydler Act reporting process. This revised reporting process took effect in calendar year 2002, in 

conjunction with the FY 2003 federal budget cycle and agencies’ reports on their FY 2001 

technology transfer activities. 

Under the new law, reporting responsibilities operate along two tracks. 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.6

 The 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 5 

 

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 Bayh-Dole 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 immediately prior Summary Report is U.S. Department of Commerce, Summary Report on Federal Laboratory 

Technology Transfer: Agency Approaches; FY 2001 Activity Metrics and Outcomes, September 2002 

(www.technology.gov/Reports.htm). 

4

 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. 

5

 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 (www.technology.gov/Reports.htm). 

6

 Since July 2003, this agency technology transfer reporting has been a part of the Office of Management and Budget’s 

Circular A-11 guidance to federal agencies for preparation of annual budget documents (see Part 2, Section 25.5, Table 1). 

December 2004 
Secretary of Commerce subsequently prepares an overall federal assessment for the President and 

Congress based on the program information in these agency reports.7

 

In its May 2003 report on the topic, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology 

(PCAST) emphasized the critical role that transfer of federally funded research and development 

results has and continues to play in moving ideas from the realm of research into commerce and the 

marketplace.8

 The request for regular public reporting -- to which this present report responds -- 

reflects national policymakers’ interest in ensuring that the Nation’s technology transfer policies 

perform as effectively as possible.9

1.2 Scope of this Report 

Ten major federal agencies have significant federal laboratory operations.10 This Summary Report

provides activity statistics and other performance information about each: 

• 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) 

All of these agencies, together with their component divisions, bureaus and labs, have established 

programs for transferring the technology arising out of their ongoing lab science and technology 

endeavors. 

This Summary Report draws upon the statistics and other information provided by the agencies in 

their individual annual reports to the Office of Management and Budget. The reporting statute 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 6 

 

7

 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). 

 

8

 Executive Office of the President, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Report on Technology 

Transfer of Federally-Funded R&D: Findings and Proposed Actions, May 15, 2003. 

9

 The “transfer of federally funded R&D” encompasses the transfer of research and development results both from the 

federal laboratories and from extramural recipients of federal research support such as universities. The present report 

focuses solely on the federal laboratories. Statistics on university technology transfer are compiled annually by the 

Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM); the most recent such report is for FY 2003 (see 

www.autm.net/index_ie.html). 

10 The National Science Foundation is not a member of this group since it primarily funds extramural (e.g., university) 

research and does not maintain its own federal laboratories. The Department of Homeland Security continues to rapidly 

evolve and has not yet become a member of the group of reporting agencies. 

December 2004 
requests the agencies 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 (see Table 1.1), including the incidence of collaborative relationships for research and 

development (such as Cooperative Research and Development Agreements) and frequently cited 

indicators of intellectual property management such as invention disclosure, patenting, and licensing. 

Table 1.1 – Overview of the Types of Information on Federal Lab Technology Transfer 

Collected in the Annual Reporting Process 

Category of Federal Lab 

Tech Transfer Activity 

Tech Transfer Measures Discussed 

ACTIVITIES Collaborative research & 

development relationships 

▪ Cooperative Research and Development Agreements 

(CRADAs) 

▪ Other types of collaborative research and development 

relationships 

Intellectual property 

management 

▪ Invention disclosure 

▪ Patenting 

 - Patent applications 

 - Patents received 

▪ Licensing: lab inventions and other intellectual property 

 - 

 - 

 - 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L

L

L

icensing levels 

icense management 

icensing 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 content of the agency reports -- and concomitantly this Summary Report -- builds on that 

established over the years by OTP and the agencies in preparing the (aforementioned) Biennial 

Reports, as well as responding to new data requirements identified by 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 Transfer11 -- to develop a common report content and 

 

11 The Interagency Working Group on Technology Transfer (IWGTT) 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. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 7 

 

December 2004 
format.12 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, improved private industry 

production processes, improved capabilities and technologies that flow back into the federal labs as a 

result of technology transfer relationships with outside organizations. 

A short summary of the report’s key findings follows. Chapter 2 analyzes the trends in federal 

technology transfer activities within and across the federal lab agencies over the past five years. 

Chapter 3 is organized by agency and summarizes key information from each agency’s annual report 

for FY 2003. These summaries tabulate key technology transfer activity statistics, and discuss the 

technology transfer outcome cases submitted by the agency. The Appendix comments on the 

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

 

1.3 Principal Findings 

● Recent Trends in Federal Lab Technology Transfer Activity Levels 

Collaborative Research and Development Relationships 

Relationships for cooperative research and development (R&D) between federal laboratories and 

outside partners (such as private companies, universities, units of state or local government, nonprofit institutions, or other non-federal organizations) are widely viewed as conducive settings for 

technology transfer. Beyond the new know-how and new technology that may result, these joint 

efforts can often confer a mutually advantageous leveraging of partners’ resources and technical 

capabilities, as well as avenues for a partner to gain new competences and absorb a portion of the 

skills of its partnership colleagues. 

One frequently used mechanism for establishing these joint relationships is the Cooperative Research 

and Development Agreement (CRADA), which was legislated by the Congress in the late-1980s to 

encourage the federal labs to participate in R&D partnerships for the purpose of advancing promising 

technologies toward commercialization. Although, CRADAs are not the only way through which 

federal labs can engage in cooperative R&D, as other types of collaborative R&D relationships are 

possible. 

-- The CRADA mechanism is multifaceted and can be used to address several kinds of transfer and 

intellectual protection needs. Beginning this year, the statistics are presented to draw a clearer 

distinction between “traditional” applications of the CRADA (i.e., collaborative R&D activities 

between a federal lab and one or more non-federal partners) and “non-traditional” applications (i.e., 

use of the CRADA mechanism for special purpose applications such as to transfer materials or 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 8 

 

12The 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. These guidelines have been updated regularly (by OTP in cooperation 

with the Interagency Working Group) since first drafted in 2001. They have been incorporated into OMB’s Circular A11 since mid-2003 (see further discussion in the Appendix of this report.) 

 

December 2004 
facilitate technical assistance activities that may yield information needing intellectual property 

protection). 

-- This year’s statistics for the federal labs as a whole places the level of traditional CRADAs active 

in FY 2003 at 2,936; the corresponding level for non-traditional CRADAs is 2,615. The total 

number of traditional CRADAs has been a fairly stable 2,800-3,000 active CRADAS in each of the 

last five years (FY 1999-2003). Furthermore, the annual flow of newly executed traditional 

CRADAs has remained vigorous: some 700-950 new agreements initiated each year. The most 

noticeable development over this period has been the sharp increase in the use of the CRADA 

mechanism for special purposes: around 200 active non-traditional CRADAs in FYs 1999 and 2000, 

but expanding sharply to levels of 2,500-2,600 in FYs 2002 and 2003. 

-- DOD accounted for 52% of all active traditional CRADAs in FY 2003; DOE for 23%; HHS and 

USDA for 8-9% each (together totaling about 91% of all federal lab CRADAs). Only three of the 

agencies reported active non-traditional CRADAs: DOC was by far the most, accounting for 70% in 

FY 2003; DOD, 24% and HHS, 6%. (In interpreting these share figures across the agencies, it is 

essential to recognize that agencies like DOD, DOE, HHS, and NASA have far greater budget 

support for their federal lab operations than the other agencies -- accounting together for about 85% 

of all federal lab R&D support in recent years.13) 

-- A more varied picture emerges when the analysis delves below the aggregate, to look at agencyby-agency trends. For traditional CRADAs, the total active level has increased somewhat over the 

last five years at DOD, EPA, DOT, and the VA. The trend at DOE, HHS, USDA has been slow 

decline, and sharp decline at DOC. For non-traditional CRADAs, the standout trend has been the 

large increase over the last two years at DOC. 

-- The revised annual reporting process starting in FY 2001 provided the agencies with an 

opportunity to identify collaborative R&D relationships other than CRADAs and to comment on 

their contributions to the agency’s technology transfer program. Three agencies have, thus far, acted 

to provide this kind of information: USDA, DOC, and NASA. It appears that other agencies may 

also do so in future reporting cycles. Data collection on this topic remains at an early stage, but 

should improve in future cycles. Interestingly, however, the latest data tallies some 5,639 active 

relationships in FY 2003 -- well more than both the 2,936 and 2,615 federal lab totals reported in FY 

2003 for, respectively, traditional CRADAs and non-traditional CRADAs. 

 

Invention Disclosure and Patenting 

Federal lab activities in the areas of invention disclosure and patenting (including both patents 

applied for and patents received) are often cited as indictors of the labs’ active management of 

intellectual assets and technical know-how. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 9 

 

 

13 In reviewing the findings throughout this report, it must be recognized there are considerable differences among 

agencies in the levels of budget resources for federal laboratory research and development operations. In FY 2002, almost 

36% of the federal total was directed toward DOD labs. Federal lab operations at DOE received 19%, and 18% at HHS, 

12% at NASA, 5% at USDA, 4% at DOC, 2% at DOI and VA, 1% at EPA and DOT. These differences in resources are 

important considerations when comparing agencies’ levels of technology transfer activities. 

December 2004 
-- This year’s statistics for the federal labs as a whole places total invention disclosures in FY 2003 at 

4,348; total patent applications at 2,242; and total patent issues at 1,607. There has been a gradual 

increase in this aggregate level of invention disclosure throughout the last five years (FY 1999-2003). 

Although, the corresponding levels of patent applications and patent issues have each been more 

nearly flat over the same period. 

-- DOD and DOE together accounted for about 65% of the federal labs’ total for invention 

disclosures in FY 2003, 75% of the total patent applications, and 78% of the total patent issues. 

Adding the contributions of HHS and NASA brings these totals, respectively, to 93%, 94%, 96%. 

The contributions of the other six agencies (USDA, DOC, DOI, VA, EPA, and DOT) reflect the 

small remainder for each of these indicators. (See also footnote 13 earlier for statistics on the relative 

size of the budget support for these agencies’ federal labs.) 

-- A somewhat more varied set of trends is evident when the agencies are considered separately. For 

the four agencies that account for most of the activity in this realm, invention disclosures have 

exhibited a generally increasing trend over the last five years at DOD, HHS, and NASA -- although 

the trend has been more nearly flat at DOE. DOD, DOE, and HHS have exhibited some increases in 

annual levels of patent applications and patent issues; NASA patent applications and patent issues 

have been more nearly flat over the same period. 

Licensing 

Licensing is one the chief mechanisms through which inventions and other intellectual prope

resulting from agency supported R&D can be transferred to outside parties to promote further

development, utilization, and commercialization. 

The licensing statistics distinguish several types (and several subclasses) of licenses: 

“inventions” (e.g., licenses of patented inventions, material transfer licenses for inventions) a

“other intellectual property” (e.g., licenses of copyrighted intellectual property, material trans

licenses for non-inventions).

-- This report’s latest round of statistics for the federal labs as a whole indicates 6,443 licenses w

active in FY 2003. Of these, 3,656 were invention licenses (the vast majority, patent licenses); 2,

were other IP licenses (around two thirds, copyright licenses). The broad pattern has been substa

growth in overall federal lab licensing over the last five years (FY 1999-2003). 

-- DOE licenses accounted for about 57% of the federal lab total in FY 2003; HHS, for 21%; 

NASA, for 8%; DOD, for 6%; USDA, for 4% (these all sum together to 96% of the federal l

total). The rest of the agencies (DOC, DOI, VA, EPA, and DOT) accounted for the small 

remaining fraction of the federal lab total. (See also footnote 13 earlier for statistics on the relat

size of the budget support for these agencies’ federal labs.) 

-- In keeping the trends in other technology transfer realms, there are both similarities and differe

across the agencies in emphases. For most of the agencies, the current license portfolio is 

overwhelmingly invention licenses, and, at that, predominantly patent licenses. Most of the agen

have small to zero levels of other IP licenses. DOE is the exception to this trend, where the curr

level (FY 2003) of active other IP licenses is double that of invention licenses. Beyond the alrea

rty

nd

fer

ere 

787

ntial

ab

ive

nces

cies 

ent 

dy

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 10 

December 2004 
mentioned large differences between DOE, HHS and the rest of the agencies in the level of licensing, 

for most all of the agencies, the level of active licenses has been either growing (DOE, HHS, NASA, 

and USDA) or remained largely flat over the last five years (DOC, DOD, VA, EPA, and DOT). 

-- Total license income for all the federal labs together in FY 2003 amounted to $96.8 million. Most 

all of this income arose from invention licenses ($93.9 million); only a little from other IP licenses 

($3.2 million). Furthermore, the level of income has been increasing at a significant pace over the 

last five years. About 49% of this income came in the form of earned royalties. For the federal labs 

as a whole, some 62% of the 6,443 licenses active in FY 2003 were income bearing in some way. 

Around three quarters of these income bearing licenses were non-exclusive. 

-- HHS licenses accounted for 56% of all federal lab income in FY 2003, no doubt reflecting the 

comparatively high economic value and strong commercialization opportunities associated with new 

technologies in the biosciences realm. DOE licenses accounted for 27% of total income; DOD, 

10%; NASA, 3%; and USDA, 2%. The rest of the agencies represented far smaller shares. 

-- Most all of the agencies derive the preponderance of their license income from invention licenses. 

Only DOE, HHS, and NASA indicated income from other IP licenses. DOE is exceptional in that 

other IP licenses accounted for as much as 8% of the agency’s license income total in FY 2003. 

There is variability among the agencies with respect to the fraction of all licenses that are income 

bearing; the incidence of exclusive, partially exclusive, and non-exclusive licenses; and the extent to 

which annual license income results from earned royalties 

-- The agencies that account for the lion’s share of license income -- HHS, DOE, DOD, and NASA -- 

have all exhibited consistent growth in license income over the last five years. Year-to-year growth 

has been less consistent over the same period for most of the other agencies. In fact, the five year 

pattern for DOC and DOT has more nearly been one of declining license income. 

● Downstream Outcomes from Federal Lab Technology Transfer 

All of the agencies now regularly provide selected cases of downstream outcomes (success stories) 

from their technology transfer activities as part of their annual reporting. 

Across all the agency reports this year, some 112 cases are documented -- summaries of which 

appear in the agency sections in Chapter 3 of this report. The cases illustrate a variety of outcome 

types: including new technologies and know-how resulting from cooperative research and 

development between federal labs and industry partners, licensing of federal lab inventions and other 

intellectual property to private companies for further development and commercialization, 

improvements in federal lab capabilities from cooperative research and development relationships 

and licensing activities. 

This growing case record continues to indicate that federal technology transfer mechanisms are 

helping to move federal lab science and technology to the outside and are having useful impacts in 

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

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 11 

December 2004 
● Agency Progress in Improving Performance Metrics 

There have been a number of improvements since last report. Agency responsiveness to the annual 

reporting requirement of the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act has generally improved 

since the first cycle under the new process in FY 2001. Some of this is progress up the learning 

curve; some, stronger encouragement from the Office of Management and Budget (guidelines for the 

reporting are now included in OMB’s Circular A-11); also, many of the agencies have been working 

to improve their management information systems to enable timely and reliable presentation of the 

data requested by the technology transfer reporting process. Incremental improvements are being 

made in the standardized data collection instrument which provides guidance to the agencies in 

preparing annual reports based on the experience of previous reporting cycles. These improvements 

have included expanded opportunity for agencies to include data for activity metrics in technology 

transfer areas beyond the conventional realms of cooperative R&D, invention disclosure/patenting, 

and licensing. 

The outstanding performance metrics challenges remain, as they have for some time, in the areas of 

measuring downstream impacts from the federal labs’ technology transfer activities and in 

identifying and using measures that can help technology transfer managers better understand the 

effectiveness and productivity of the programs they operate. In general, it remains far easier to 

assemble statistics on technology transfer activities (e.g., CRADAs established, patents received, 

licenses executed) than it is to measure downstream benefits and the effectiveness of implemented 

federal lab programs for technology transfer. 

As noted just above, the agencies now regularly provide a selected set of cases that illustrate kinds of 

downstream impacts their technology transfer activities are having. But the analytical effort 

continues to emphasize case histories, with little attention to systematic quantitative measures. 

Likewise, there is only a little information collected currently by the federal labs that addresses 

technology transfer program effectiveness and productivity. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 12 

December 2004 
Chapter 2 

Recent Trends in Federal Lab Technology Transfer 

This chapter broadly highlights the major trends in federal lab technology transfer activities evident 

in the annual reporting data available for FY 1999-2003. The statistics address both federal lab 

system as a whole and comparatively across the ten agencies with federal laboratory systems. 

This chapter’s analysis draws on the activity and outcome information provided by the agencies in 

their annual reports on federal lab technology transfer for FY 2003 (summaries of which are 

available in Chapter 3). The discussion covers all of the principal measurement areas listed earlier in 

Table 1.1: cooperative R&D relationships, patenting, licensing of intellectual property, and 

downstream outcomes arising from these transfer relationships. 

Before turning to what this information shows, several orienting points are important to remember 

when considering this data on a time-series and comparative cross-agency basis: 

● One of the challenges in identifying valid trends in time series data for technology transfer activity 

measures is that single year-to-year comparisons can be misleading. Performance is influenced by 

complex factors, notably, the often irregular pace at which ongoing R&D yields new knowledge, 

inventions, and, thereby, opportunities for technology transfer. Trends evident over several years, or 

longer, normally will provide a sounder basis for useful conclusions. 

● Considerable differences exist among the agencies in the level of budget resources to support 

federal lab science and technology – which ultimately influences the resources available to support 

lab technology transfer activities.14 

As Table 2.1 indicates, DOD receives by far the greatest level of budget support for its federal lab 

operations: about 36% of all federal spending for federal lab R&D in FY 2002 (the most recent year 

for which published figures are available). Federal lab operations at DOE and HHS also receive 

sizable budget support, but both are about half the DOD level. NASA is a third of the DOD level. 

USDA and DOC are, respectively, a seventh and a tenth of the DOD level. The rest of the agencies 

(DOI, VA, EPA, and DOT) are substantially smaller. 

Many of the activity statistics cited throughout this chapter indicate that DOD, DOE, HHS, and 

NASA dominate federal lab technology transfer by a wide margin -- accounting for 90% or more of 

the federal lab totals, depending on the measure. In keeping with the above, this is not surprising, 

since these four agencies account for about 85% of all federal lab R&D spending. 

● Beyond the comparative level of budget resources, there are also some differences among the 

agencies in the nature and intensity of particular technology transfer activities that reflect differences 

in the types of technology transfer authorities allowed, the agency mission, the strategy to achieve 

mission, and associated program priorities. 

2004 Summary Report on Fe

December 2004 

deral Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 13 

 

14 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. 
● A final consideration is that the new annual reporting process has continued to evolve since its first 

cycle in FY 2001, as have the agency responses to its needs.15 This adds some complexity when the 

annual data is used for time series analysis purposes. (Although, this is not universal across the data 

from all agencies, and any effects on the numbers are not readily generalized.) 

Table 2.1 – Estimated Budget Resources for Federal Lab R&D Spending, FY 2000-2002, 

Ranked by Annual Level 

Department 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Total 

Obligations 

(million $) 

Obligations -- 

Federal Labs* 

(million $) 

Total 

Obligations 

(million $) 

Obligations -- 

Federal Labs* 

(million $) 

Total 

Obligations 

(million $) 

Obligations -- 

Federal Labs* 

(million $) 

Defense $33,167 $8,870 $36,334 $9,595 $34,235 

Energy 6,063 4,378 6,712 4,768 6,322 4,537

HHS 18,426 3,595 21,355 4,048 23,816 4,514

NASA 6,882 2,923 7,221 3,142 7,259 3,020

Agriculture 1,747 1,152 1,980 1,257 1,806 1,268

Commerce 1,037 755 1,112 865 1,112 912

Interior 580 506 624 538 564 497

Veterans Affairs 342 342 350 350 360 360

EPA 523 320 608 342 556 321

Transportation 467 198 609 215 585 237

$8.874

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, since the latter generally do not distinguish spending on federal 

lab activities from extramural performers (e.g., universities). 

*“FY 2000 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 Obligations for Total Research and Development, by Major Agency 

and Performer, 1951-2002. The figures for FY 2001 and 2002 are listed by NSF as “preliminary.” FY 2002 is the 

most recent year for which published data is available. 

 

15 The data collection framework used by the agencies in preparing reports is essentially the same for FY 2002 and 2003 -- 

and is not expected to significantly change over the foreseeable future. The framework for the FY 2001 is largely the 

same, but did not include several data categories (particularly, the expanded categories for license types) that were 

subsequently added. Figures reported for FY 1999 and 2000 reflect the data framework from the prior Biennial Report 

process under the Stevenson-Wydler Act. Many of the data definitions there are very similar to what has been used from 

FY 2001 onward; although, the categories of data requested then was not as extensive as at present. Another issue is that 

as the agencies have worked to implement the new reporting process since FY 2001, some have widened the breadth of 

coverage of reporting units across their agencies -- most notably DOD (which now includes a number of defense agencies, 

in addition to the prior principal focus on the three service branches -- Army, Navy, and Air Force). 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 14 

December 2004 
2.1 Collaborative Research and Development Relationships 

Relationships for cooperative R&D between federal laboratories and outside partners (such as private 

companies, universities, units of state or local government, non-profit institutions, or other nonfederal organizations) are widely viewed as fertile settings for technology transfer. Beyond the new 

know-how and new technology that may result, these joint efforts can often confer a mutually 

advantageous leveraging of partners’ resources and technical capabilities, as well as avenues for a 

partner to gain new competences and absorb a portion of the skills of its partnership colleagues. 

One frequently used mechanism for establishing these joint relationships is the Cooperative Research 

and Development Agreement (CRADA), which was legislated by the Congress in the late-1980s to 

encourage the federal labs to participate in R&D partnerships for the purpose of advancing promising 

technologies toward commercialization.16 Although, CRADAs are not the only way in which federal 

labs can engage in cooperative R&D, as other types of collaborative R&D relationships are possible. 

■ Cooperative Research and Development Agreements 

Figure 2.1 Cooperative Research and Development 

Agreements, All Federal Labs, FY 1999-2003

2,996 2,939

2,816

2,936

945

829

679 704

822

231 194

833

2,509

2,615

78 75

247

1,926

2,837

1,878

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

Traditional CRADAs -Total Active Traditional CRADAs - New in FY

Non-Traditional CRADAs - Total Active Non-Traditional CRADAs - New in FY

 

16 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 government-owned/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. For a general discussion of the CRADA, see the Federal 

Laboratory Consortium’s Technology Transfer Desk Reference, May 2002, Section 3 (accessible at www.federallabs.org). 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 15 

December 2004 
Figure 2.1 and Table 2.2 provide statistics on the federal labs’ use of the CRADA mechanism over 

the last five years (FY 1999-2003). This information addresses both the federal labs as an aggregate 

whole (i.e., total activity for all ten agencies summed together) and each agency separately. 

These statistics also distinguish “traditional” and “non-traditional” CRADAs. The CRADA 

mechanism is multifaceted and can be used to address several kinds of technology transfer and 

intellectual property protection needs. The “traditional” category refers to the most straightforward 

application, namely, collaborative R&D activities between a federal lab and one or more non-federal 

partners. The “non-traditional” category refers to special purpose applications of the CRADA 

mechanism, such as to transfer materials or to facilitate technical assistance activities that may yield 

information needing intellectual property protection. 

Table 2.2 – Collaborative Relationships for R&D, FY 1999-2003 

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

DOD ▪ Traditional CRADAs, total active in the FY 1,350 1,364 1,418 1,376 1,523

 - New, executed in the FY 449 425 296 347 523

 ▪ Non-traditional CRADAs, total active in FY -- -- 547 537 611

 - New, executed in the FY -- -- 163 102 107

 ▪ Other collaborative relationships, total active in FY -- -- 0 0 0

 - New, executed in the FY 0 0

DOE ▪ Traditional CRADAs, total active in the FY 715 687 558 680 661

 - New, executed in the FY 240 151 204 192 140

 ▪ Non-traditional CRADAs, total active in FY 0 0 0 0

 - New, executed in the FY 0 0 0 0

 ▪ Other collaborative relationships, total active in FY -- -- 0 0 0

 - New, executed in the FY 0 0

HHS ▪ Traditional CRADAs, total active in the FY 237 244 289 261 254

 - New, executed in the FY 58 50 61 52 54

 ▪ Non-traditional CRADAs, total active in FY 231 194 209 209 173

 - New, executed in the FY 78 75 76 74 48

 ▪ Other collaborative relationships, total active in FY -- -- 0 0 0

 - New, executed in the FY 0 0

NASA ▪ Traditional CRADAs, total active in the FY 1 1 1 1

 - New, executed in the FY 1 0 0 0

 ▪ Non-traditional CRADAs, total active in FY 0 0 0 0

 - New, executed in the FY 0 0 0 0

 ▪ Other collaborative relationships, total active in FY 81 104 1,053 1,104 1,056

 - New, executed in the FY n/a 30 496 537 385

USDA ▪ Traditional CRADAs, total active in the FY 298 257 217 222 223

 - New, executed in the FY 101 69 49 58 51

 ▪ Non-traditional CRADAs, total active in FY -- -- 2 3 6

 - New, executed in the FY -- -- 0 1 4

 ▪ Other collaborative relationships, total active in FY -- -- 3,679 3,211 2,769

 - New, executed in the FY -- -- 1,040 1,416 1,480

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 16 

December 2004 
DOC ▪ Traditional CRADAs, total active in the FY 275 221 188 139 92

 - New, executed in the FY 67 46 26 26 12

 ▪ Non-traditional CRADAs, total active in FY -- -- 59 1,744 1,811

 - New, executed in the FY -- -- 0 1,693 1,755

 ▪ Other collaborative relationships, total active in FY -- -- 1,575 1,694 1,814

 - New, executed in the FY -- -- n/a n/a n/a

DOI ▪ Traditional CRADAs, total active in the FY 30 40 41 n/a n/a

 - New, executed in the FY 10 8 14 n/a n/a

 ▪ Non-traditional CRADAs, total active in FY -- -- 9 n/a n/a

 - New, executed in the FY -- -- 7 n/a n/a

 ▪ Other collaborative relationships, total active in FY -- -- 0 n/a n/a

 - New, executed in the FY 0 0 0

VA ▪ Traditional CRADAs, total active in the FY 1 2 2 2 10

 - New, executed in the FY 1 2 0 2 8

 ▪ Non-traditional CRADAs, total active in FY -- -- 0 0 0

 - New, executed in the FY -- -- 0 0 0

 ▪ Other collaborative relationships, total active in FY -- -- 0 0 0

 - New, executed in the FY 0 0 0

EPA ▪ Traditional CRADAs, total active in the FY 38 44 45 55 77

 - New, executed in the FY 13 40 18 18 27

 ▪ Non-traditional CRADAs, total active in FY -- -- 3 4 14

 - New, executed in the FY -- -- 1 3 12

 ▪ Other collaborative relationships, total active in FY -- -- 0 0 0

 - New, executed in the FY 0 0 0

DOT ▪ Traditional CRADAs, total active in the FY 51 79 78 80 96

 - New, executed in the FY 5 38 11 9 7

 ▪ Non-traditional CRADAs, total active in FY 0 0 4 12 0

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

 ▪ Other collaborative relationships, total active in FY -- -- 0 0 0

 - New, executed in the FY 0 0 0

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

TOTALS ▪ Traditional CRADAs, total active in the FY 2,996 2,939 2,837 2,816 2,936

 - New, executed in the FY 945 829 679 704 822

 ▪ Non-traditional CRADAs, total active in FY 231 194 833 2,509 2,615

 - New, executed in the FY 78 75 247 1,878 1,926

 ▪ Other collaborative relationships, total active in FY -- -- 6,307 6,009 5,639

 - New, executed in the FY -- -- n/a n/a n/a

All the federal labs taken together, the total number of traditional CRADAs (Figure 2.1) has been 

fairly stable over the last five years (FY 1999-2003): in the range of 2,800-3,000 CRADAs active 

each year. Furthermore, the annual flow of newly executed traditional CRADAs has remained 

vigorous: some 700-950 new agreements initiated each year. 

The most visible departure over this period is the sharp increase in use of the CRADA mechanism for 

special purposes other than cooperative R&D. Again, for all the federal labs together, in FYs 1999 

and 2000, there were around 200 active non-traditional CRADA. However, in FYs 2002 and 2003, 

the total active figure had reached 2,500-2,600. This represents a sharp expansion in a short period 

of time -- up to nearly the current level of total active traditional CRADAs. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 17 

December 2004 
Figure 2.2(a) CRADAs (total active), by Agency, 

FY 1999-2003

687

537 558

1,523

611 661

1,350

715

0 0 0 0

1,364 1,418

547

0 0

1,376

680

0

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

DoD - Traditional

CRADAs

DoD - Non-Traditional

CRADAs

DoE - Traditional

CRADAs

DoE - Non-Traditional

CRADAs

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

Figure 2.2(b) CRADAs (total active), by Agency, 

FY 1999-2003

237 231

1 1

261 209

1 0

254

173

0 0

194

244

1 0 0

289

209

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

HHS - Traditional

CRADAs

HHS - Non-Traditional

CRADAs

NASA - Traditional

CRADAs

NASA - Non-Traditional

CRADAs

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

0

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 18 

December 2004 
Figure 2.2(c) CRADAs (total active), by Agency,

FY 1999-2003

0

275

0

257

0

221

0

217

2

188

59

222

3

139

1,744

223

6

1,811

298

92

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

USDA - Traditional

CRADAs

USDA - Non-Traditional

CRADAs

DoC - Traditional

CRADAs

DoC - Non-Traditional

CRADAs

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

Figure 2.2(d) CRADAs (total active), by Agency, 

FY 1999-2003

30 0 10 40 020 41 n/a n/a 9 n/a n/a 2 2 10 0 0 0

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

DoI - Traditional CRADAs DoI - Non-Traditional

CRADAs

VA - Traditional CRADAs VA - Non-Traditional

CRADAs

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 19 

December 2004 
Figure 2.2(e) CRADAs (total active), by Agency,

 FY 1999-2003

38 0 51 0 44 0 79 0 45 3 78 4 55 4 80 12 77 14

96

0

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

EPA - Traditional

CRADAs

EPA - Non-Traditional

CRADAs

DoT - Traditional

CRADAs

DoT - Non-Traditional

CRADAs

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

DOD is by far the most prolific when it comes to traditional CRADAs; it accounted for 52% of 

all active federal lab CRADAs in FY 2003. DoE accounted for 23%; HHS and USDA, each for 

8-9%. CRADA use at the other agencies (DOC, DOI, VA, EPA, and DOT) is significantly 

smaller. NASA is an exception among the agencies, with its lack of use of the CRADA 

mechanism -- although for a reason.17 These relative shares have remained largely unchanged 

over the last five years. 

With respect to non-traditional CRADAs, DOC accounted for almost 70% of federal lab agreements 

of this type active in FY 2003. DOD, 24%; HHS, 6%. The other agencies either did not use this type 

of CRADA (DOE, NASA, VA, DOT) or accounted for very little of the all federal lab total (EPA, 

USDA). 

This aggregate picture masks, however, a diverse mix of year-to-year changes when each agency’s 

CRADA use is viewed separately (Table 2.2 and Figures 2.2 a-e). 

For traditional CRADAs, the total active level has increased somewhat over the recent five year 

period at DOD, EPA, DOT, and VA. By contrast, the trend at DOE, HHS, and USDA has been slow 

decline. At DOC, the total active level has declined precipitously over the five year period -- 

standing in FY 2003 at about a third of the total active level in FY 1999. 

 

17 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. 

2004 Summary Re

December 2004 

port on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 20 
For non-traditional CRADAs, the standout trend has been the large increase in the last two years at 

DOC. The other noticeable trends are a slow increase over the five year period at DOD and slow 

decline at HHS. 

■ Other Types of Collaborative R&D Relationships 

As noted earlier, CRADAs are not the only mechanism through which cooperative R&D 

relationships can be established between federal labs and non-federal partners. Commencing with 

the revised federal lab technology transfer reporting process in FY 2001, the agencies have had an 

opportunity to identify the use of such alternative mechanisms and to comment on their contribution 

to the agency’s technology transfer program. 

A few of the agencies now indicate their use of such alternative approaches: USDA, DOC, and 

NASA. Although, these reflect a wide variety in types of relationships (see tabulation below). 

Figure 2.3 provides totals for these “other collaborative R&D relationships” across all the federal 

labs together for FY 2001-2003. (Comparable figures for traditional and non-traditional CRADAs 

active in those years are also provided, as points of comparison.) 

Obviously, there is currently a large volume of these “other cooperative R&D relationships” -- well 

beyond the totals of active CRADAs. On the other hand, it is difficult to yet discern trends in these 

reported statistics, since it is presently unclear that all the agencies are reporting comprehensively on 

the level of use of these mechanisms (several additional cycles of reporting will likely be needed to 

develop a data record that can be a basis for analysis). 

Figure 2.3 Other Collaborative R&D Relationships vs. 

CRADAs, All Federal Labs, FY 2001-2003

2,837 2,816 2,936

833

2,509

6,307

6,009

2,615

5,639

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500

6,000

6,500

7,000

FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

Tradtional CRADAs - Total Activel Non Traditional CRADAs - Total Active

Other R&D Relationships - Total Active

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 21 

December 2004 
● Department of Agriculture (Agricultural Research Service)

- Trust fund agreements 

- Reimbursable agreements 

- Material transfer agreements 

A Trust Fund Cooperative Agreement involves cooperative research between the Agricultural 

Research Service (ARS) and another party in which ARS is paid in advance to conduct 

research and 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 privatesector partner pays ARS the difference. For either agreement, both the private-sector 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. 

Material transfer agreements established by ARS also provide a basis for cooperative R&D 

with outside partners. 

● Department of Commerce (National Institute of Standards and Technology) 

- Facility use agreements 

- Guest scientists and engineers 

- Collaborative standards contributions 

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. 

● National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

- Space Act agreements 

- Jet Propulsion Laboratory tasks 

- Software usage agreements 

NASA enters into collaborative R&D relationships through the use of Space Act agreements. 

Collaborative R&D also occurs through certain Jet Propulsion Lab contracts and through 

software agreements executed with industry. 

Numerical statistics on all these measures appear in the respective agency sections in Chapter 3 of 

this report. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 22 

December 2004 
2.2 Invention Disclosure and Patenting 

Federal lab activities in the areas of invention disclosure and patenting (including patents applied for 

and patents received) are often cited as indicators of the labs’ active management of intellectual 

assets and technical know-how.18 

Figure 2.4 Invention Disclosure and Patenting, All Federal 

Labs, FY 1999-2003

3,649 3,566

3,962

4,135

4,348

2,092 2,132 2,180 2,118

1,450 1,444 1,605 1,498 1,607

2,242

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

Inventions Disclosed Patent Applications Patents Issued

For all of the federal labs totaled together, there has been a gradual increase over the last five years 

(FY 1999-2003) in the level of invention disclosure (Figure 2.4). Although, the levels of patent 

applications and patent issues have been more nearly flat over the same period. The FY 2003 figures 

place total invention disclosures at 4,348; total patent applications at 2,242; and total patent issues at 

1,607 (Figure 2.4). All are at the highest levels for these indicators reported over the last five years. 

Unsurprisingly, the agencies with the larger federal laboratory systems dominate these activity 

categories (Table 2.3). DOD and DOE account by far for most of these totals: 31% and 34%, 

respectively, of all invention disclosures that year; 36% and 39% of all patent applications; and of 

39% and 39% of patent issues. HHS and NASA activities are also sizable, although at levels well 

below those of DOD and DOE: 11% and 17%, respectively, of all invention disclosures; 12% and 

7% of all patent applications; and 9% and 9% of all patent issues. The modest remainder in each 

case includes the other six agencies (USDA, DOC, DOI, VA, EPA, and DOT). These agency shares 

 

18For a background discussion see the Federal Laboratory Consortium’s Technology Transfer Desk Reference, May 2002, 

Section 4.3-4.4 (accessible at www.federallabs.org). Also, care must particularly be taken in identifying valid trends in 

time series data for these activity measures. Single year-to-year comparisons can be misleading. A lab’s activities in this 

realm particularly are influenced by complex factors, notably the typically irregular pace at which ongoing R&D yields 

new knowledge and inventions. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 23 

December 2004 
Table 2.3 – Invention Disclosure and Patenting, FY 1999-2003 

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

DOD ● New inventions disclosed in the FY 1,060 991 1,005 1,122 1,332

● Patent applications filed in the FY 703 774 809 829 810

● Patents issued in the FY 547 553 619 617 619

DOE ● New inventions disclosed in the FY 1,474 1,371 1,527 1,498 1,469

● Patent applications filed in the FY 850 788 792 711 866

● Patents issued in the FY 525 515 605 551 627

HHS ● New inventions disclosed in the FY 328 375 434 431 472

● Patent applications filed in the FY 241 263 255 262 279

● Patents issued in the FY 180 132 119 116 136

NASA ● New inventions disclosed in the FY 525 574 696 775 736

● Patent applications filed in the FY 129 158 152 166 163

● Patents issued in the FY 87 148 159 128 136

USDA ● New inventions disclosed in the FY 162 109 118 151 121

● Patent applications filed in the FY 84 78 83 90 60

● Patents issued in the FY 74 64 64 53 64

DOC ● New inventions disclosed in the FY 38 34 26 17 21

● Patent applications filed in the FY 30 20 12 12 5

● Patents issued in the FY 28 18 21 20 9

DOI ● New inventions disclosed in the FY 8 16 6 n/a

● Patent applications filed in the FY 3 5 22 n/a

● Patents issued in the FY 1 4 2 n/a

VA ● New inventions disclosed in the FY 48 85 131 125 183

● Patent applications filed in the FY 37 35 38 34 36

● Patents issued in the FY 0 1 4 4

EPA ● New inventions disclosed in the FY 5 11 17 16

● Patent applications filed in the FY 15 10 14 14 23

● Patents issued in the FY 8 6 12 9

DOT ● New inventions disclosed in the FY 1 0 2 0

● Patent applications filed in the FY 0 1 3 0

● Patents issued in the FY 0 3 0 0

TOTALS ● New inventions disclosed in the FY 3,649 3,566 3,962 4,135 4,348

● Patent applications filed in the FY 2,092 2,132 2,180 2,118 2,242

● Patents issued in the FY 1,450 1,444 1,605 1,498 1,607

8

1

8

n/a

n/a

n/a

4

0

0

0

have remained roughly the same throughout the last five years. 

The trends over this period are more diverse when each agency is examined separately (Table 2.3 

and Figures 2.5 a-e). Invention disclosures have been generally increasing at DOD, HHS, 

NASA, and VA over the last five years. The level has been generally flat or somewhat declining 

at the other agencies. Over the same period, DOD, DOE, and HHS have exhibited some 

increases in annual levels of patent applications and/or patent issues. The trends are, for the 

most, flat or declining at the other agencies. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 24 

December 2004 
Figure 2.5(a) Invention Disclosure and Patenting, by Agency, 

FY 1999-2003

553

788

619

1,498

711

551

1,332

810

619

866

627

1,060

547

1,474

525

703

850

515

774

1,371

9911,005

809 792

605

1,527

829

1,122

617

1,469

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

DoD - Inv.

Disclosures

DoD - Patent

Applications

DoD - Patents

Issued

DoE - Inv.

Disclosures

DoE - Patent

Applications

DoE - Patents

Issued

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

Figure 2.5(b) Invention Disclosure and Patenting, by Agency, FY 

1999-2003

328

241 180 119 129

431

262

116

775

166 128

472

279

136

736

163 136

525

87

574

132 158

375

263

148 152

255

434

696

159

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

HHS - Inv.

Disclosures

HHS - Patent

Applications

HHS - Patents

Issued

NASA - Inv.

Disclosures

NASA - Patent

Applications

NASA - Patents

Issued

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 25 

December 2004 
Figure 2.5(c) Invention Disclosure and Patenting, by 

Agency, FY 1999-2003

84 74 38 30 28

109 78 64 34 20 18

118 83 64 26 12 21

151

90 53 17 12 20

121

60 64 21 5

162

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

USDA - Inv.

Disclosures

USDA - Patent

Applications

USDA - Patents

Issued

DoC - Inv.

Disclosures

DoC - Patent

Applications

Doc - Patents

Issued

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

9

Figure 2.5(d) Invention Disclosure and Patenting, by 

Agency, FY 1999-2003

8 3 1 16 48 37 5 4

85 35 6 22 2 1 38 4

125

34 4

183

36 0 8

131

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

DoI - Inv.

Disclosures

DoI - Patent

Applications

DoI - Patents

Issued

VA - Inv.

Disclosures

VA - Patent

Applications

VA - Patents

Issued

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 26 

December 2004 
Figure 2.5(e) Invention Disclosure and Patenting, by 

Agency, FY 1999-2003

5 11 17 16 14 15 10 14 14 8 6 12 9 10 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 23 8 0 0

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

EPA - Inv.

Disclosures

EPA - Patent

Applications

EPA - Patents

Issued

DoT - Inv.

Disclosures

DoT - Patent

Applications

DoT - Patents

Issued

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

3 0 0 0

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 27 

December 2004 
2.3 Licensing – Lab Inventions and Other Intellectual Property 

Licensing is one the main mechanisms through which inventions and other intellectual property 

resulting from agency supported R&D can be transferred to outside parties to promote 

commercialization and utilization.19 Licensing is widely employed by the federal labs as a 

technology transfer tool. 

The tables and charts below provide several perspectives on the level of the federal labs’ licensing 

activities, the types of licenses in place, and the annual income derived (if any) from these licenses. 

In keeping with current convention, the licensing statistics distinguish inventions and other 

intellectual property.

20 Several subclasses of licenses are also distinguished under each of these two 

basic categories.21 

■ Licensing Levels 

Figure 2.6 Active Licenses, Inventions and Other Intellectual 

Property, All Federal Labs, FY 1999-2003

3,864

4,275 4,394

6,056

6,443

3,035 3,140

3,580

1,322 1,429 1,254

2,476

2,787

3,656

2,719

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

All licenses active in the FY Active invention licenses Active Other IP licenses

 

19 For a background discussion see the Federal Laboratory Consortium’s Technology Transfer Desk Reference, May 2002, 

Section 4.5 (accessible at www.federallabs.org). 

20The “inventions” and “other intellectual property” distinction follows language in current federal statute. “Invention” 

refers to any invention or discovery that is or may be patentable or otherwise protectable under federal statute. “Other 

intellectual property” refers to intellectual property other than inventions or discoveries that may nonetheless be 

protectable, such as through copyright. 

21 For “invention” licenses: patent (including patent application) licenses, material transfer licenses, other kinds of 

invention licenses. For “other intellectual property” licenses: copyright licenses, material transfer licenses for noninventions, other kinds of other IP licenses. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 28 

December 2004 
For the federal labs together, these statistics (Figure 2.6) indicate there were 6,443 licenses active in 

FY 2003. Of these, 3,656 are invention licenses (the vast majority are patent licenses); 2,787 are 

other IP licenses (around two thirds of these are copyright licenses). The general pattern has been 

substantial growth in licensing over the last five years. (Although, some of the year-to-year growth 

evident in the chart, particularly in the last several years, reflects more comprehensive reporting by 

the agencies and the inclusion of a wider set of license categories since FY 2002). 

Again, a few of the agencies dominate the overall federal lab picture. DOE licenses accounted for 

about 57% of the federal lab total in FY 2003. HHS accounted for 21%; NASA for 8%; DOD for 

6%; USDA for 4%. The rest of the agencies (DOC, DOI, VA, EPA, and DOT) accounted for only a 

small fraction of the federal lab total. 

As with the other technology transfer activity areas, there are both similarities and differences across 

the agencies in emphases (Table 2.4, Table 2.5, Figures 2.7a-e). 

For most of the agencies, the current license portfolio is overwhelmingly invention licenses -- and, at 

that, predominantly patent licenses (Table 2.5). Most of the agencies have small to zero levels of 

other IP licenses. DOE is the exception to this trend, where the current level (FY 2003) of active 

other IP license is double that of invention licenses.22 

Beyond the already mentioned large differences between DOE, HHS and the rest of the agencies in 

the level of licensing, for most all of the agencies, the level of active licenses has either growing or 

remained stable over the last five years (Figure 2.7a-e). 

Table 2.4 – Active Licenses, Inventions and Other Intellectual Property, FY 1999-2003 

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

DOD ● All licenses, number total active in the FY -- -- 288 471 364

▫ New, executed in the FY -- -- -- n/a n/a

▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY 177 189 283 350 361

▫ New, executed in the FY 61 67 49 39 49

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY -- -- 5 121 3

▫ New, executed in the FY -- -- -- n/a n/a

DOE ● All licenses, number total active in the FY 1,922 2,070 2,005 3,459 3,687

▫ New, executed in the FY 202 169 226 694 711

▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY 981 1,094 1,162 1,327 1,223

▫ New, executed in the FY 202 169 226 206 172

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 941 976 843 2,132 2,464

▫ New, executed in the FY -- -- -- 488 539

HHS ● All licenses, number total active in the FY 1,364 1,608 1,367 1,357 1,380

▫ New, executed in the FY -- -- -- 220 211

▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY 1,041 1,222 1,007 1,213 1,298

▫ New, executed in the FY 208 192 212 198 199

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 323 386 360 144 82

▫ New, executed in the FY -- -- -- 22 12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22 The majority of these other IP licenses are copyright licenses for software; the agency also cites a substantial number of 

non-invention material transfer licenses. In contrast to other agencies, many of DOE’s federal labs are government 

owned-contractor operated (GOCO), where the staff are not federal employees and, thereby, may copyright work products

(such as computer software) developed through lab activities. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 29 

December 2004 
NASA ● All licenses, number total active in the FY 288 305 328 357 521

▫ New, executed in the FY 58 67 65 62 267

▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY 230 238 292 290 295

▫ New, executed in the FY 46 46 42 52 66

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 58 67 36 67 226

▫ New, executed in the FY 12 21 23 10 201

USDA ● All licenses, number total active in the FY 218 225 255 267 270

▫ New, executed in the FY 29 24 32 26 27

▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY 218 225 255 267 270

▫ New, executed in the FY 29 24 32 26 27

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 0 0 0 0 0

▫ New, executed in the FY 0 0 0 0 0

DOC ● All licenses, number total active in the FY 43 43 40 41 101

▫ New, executed in the FY 8 4 5 5 5

▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY 43 43 40 41 101

▫ New, executed in the FY 8 4 5 5 5

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 0 0 0 0 0

▫ New, executed in the FY 0 0 0 0 0

DOI ● All licenses, number total active in the FY 12 6 8 n/a n/a

▫ New, executed in the FY 0 2 2 n/a n/

▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY 12 6 8 n/a n/a

▫ New, executed in the FY 0 2 2 n/a n/

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 0 0 0 n/a n/

▫ New, executed in the FY 0 0 0 n/a n/

VA ● All licenses, number total active in the FY -- -- 86 81 88

▫ New, executed in the FY -- -- -- 5 7

▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY -- -- 76 69 76

▫ New, executed in the FY 47 3 5 3 7

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 0 0 10 12 12

▫ New, executed in the FY 0 0 -- 2 0

EPA ● All licenses, number total active in the FY 17 18 16 23 32

▫ New, executed in the FY 2 3 4 9 9

▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY 17 18 16 23 32

▫ New, executed in the FY 2 3 4 9 9

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 0 0 0 0 0

▫ New, executed in the FY 0 0 0 0 0

DOT ● All licenses, number total active in the FY 0 0 1 0 0

▫ New, executed in the FY 0 0 1 0 0

▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY 0 0 1 0 0

▫ New, executed in the FY 0 0 1 0 0

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 0 0 0 0 0

▫ New, executed in the FY 0 0 0 0 0

999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

TOTALS ● All licenses, number total active in the FY ,864 4,275 4,394 6,056 6,443

▫ New, executed in the FY 299 269 335 1,021 1,291

▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY ,719 3,035 3,140 3,580 3,656

▫ New, executed in the FY 603 510 578 538 588

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY ,322 1,429 1,254 2,476 2,787

▫ New, executed in the FY 12 21 23 522 752

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9

9

a

a

a

a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FY 1

3

 

 2

 

 1

 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 30 

December 2004 
Table 2.5 – Active Licenses, by Type, FY 1999-2003 

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

DOD ● All licenses, number total active in the FY -- -- 288 471 364

 ▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY 177 189 283 350 361

 - Patent licenses, total active in FY 177 189 283 350 361

 - Material transfer (inventions), tot active in FY 0 0 -- 0

 - Other invention licenses, total active in FY 0 0 -- 0

 ▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY -- -- 5 121 3

 - Copyright licenses (fee bearing) 0 0 -- n/a

 - Material transfer (non-inv.), total active in FY 0 0 -- n/a

 - Other 0 0 -- n/a

DOE ● All licenses, number total active in the FY 1,922 2,070 2,005 3,459 3,687

 ▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY 981 1,094 1,162 1,327 1,223

 - Patent licenses, total active in FY -- -- 1,162 1,327 1,223

 - Material transfer (inventions), tot active in FY -- -- 0 0 0

 - Other invention licenses, total active in FY -- -- 0 0 0

 ▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 941 976 843 2,132 2,464

 - Copyright licenses (fee bearing) -- -- -- 1,525 1,823

 - Material transfer (non-inv.), total active in FY -- -- -- 581 604

 - Other -- -- -- 26 37

HHS ● All licenses, number total active in the FY 1,364 1,608 1,367 1,357 1,380

 ▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY 1,041 1,222 1,007 1,213 1,298

 - Patent licenses, total active in FY -- -- -- 736 765

 - Material transfer (inventions), tot active in FY -- -- -- n/a n/a

 - Other invention licenses, total active in FY -- -- -- n/a n/a

 ▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 323 386 360 144 82

 - Copyright licenses (fee bearing) -- -- -- n/a n/a

 - Material transfer (non-inv.), total active in FY -- -- -- n/a n/a

 - Other -- -- -- 144 82

NASA ● All licenses, number total active in the FY 288 305 328 357 521

 ▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY 230 238 292 290 295

 - Patent licenses, total active in FY 230 238 292 290 295

 - Material transfer (inventions), tot active in FY 0 0 0 0

 - Other invention licenses, total active in FY 0 0 0 0

 ▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 58 67 36 67 226

 - Copyright licenses (fee bearing) 52 60 36 67 29

 - Material transfer (non-inv.), total active in FY 0 0 0 0

 - Other 6 7 0 0

USDA ● All licenses, number total active in the FY 218 225 255 267 270

 ▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY 218 225 255 267 270

 - Patent licenses, total active in FY -- -- 255 267 269

 - Material transfer (inventions), tot active in FY -- -- 0 0 1

 - Other invention licenses, total active in FY -- -- 0 0 0

 ▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 0 0 0 0

 - Copyright licenses (fee bearing) 0 0 0 0

 - Material transfer (non-inv.), total active in FY 0 0 0 0

 - Other 0 0 0 0

0

0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0

0

0

197

0

0

0

0

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 31 

December 2004 
DOC ● All licenses, number total active in the FY 43 43 40 41 101

▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY 43 43 40 41 101

- Patent licenses, total active in FY 43 43 40 41 101

- Material transfer (inventions), tot active in FY 0 0 0 0 0

 - Other invention licenses, total active in FY 0 0 0 0 0

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 0 0 0 0 0

- Copyright licenses (fee bearing) 0 0 0 0 0

- Material transfer (non-inv.), total active in FY 0 0 0 0 0

- Other 0 0 0 0 0

DOI ● All licenses, number total active in the FY 12 6 8 n/a n/a

▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY 12 6 8 n/a n/a

 - Patent licenses, total active in FY -- -- -- n/a n/a

 - Material transfer (inventions), tot active in FY -- -- -- n/a n/a

 - Other invention licenses, total active in FY -- -- -- n/a n/a

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 0 0 0 n/a n/a

- Copyright licenses (fee bearing) 0 0 0 n/a n/a

- Material transfer (non-inv.), total active in FY 0 0 0 n/a n/a

- Other 0 0 0 n/a n/a

VA ● All licenses, number total active in the FY -- -- 86 81 88

▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY -- -- 76 69 76

- Patent licenses, total active in FY 0 0 -- n/a n/a

- Material transfer (inventions), tot active in FY 0 0 -- n/a n/a

- Other invention licenses, total active in FY 0 0 -- n/a n/a

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 0 0 10 12 12

- Copyright licenses (fee bearing) 0 0 -- n/a n/a

- Material transfer (non-inv.), total active in FY 0 0 -- n/a n/a

- Other 0 0 -- n/a n/a

EPA ● All licenses, number total active in the FY 17 18 16 23 32

▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY 17 18 16 23 32

- Patent licenses, total active in FY -- -- 16 23 32

- Material transfer (inventions), tot active in FY -- -- 0 0 0

- Other invention licenses, total active in FY -- -- 0 0 0

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 0 0 0 0 0

- Copyright licenses (fee bearing) 0 0 0 0 0

- Material transfer (non-inv.), total active in FY 0 0 0 0 0

- Other 0 0 0 0 0

DOT ● All licenses, number total active in the FY 0 0 1 0 0

▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY 0 0 1 0 0

- Patent licenses, total active in FY 0 0 1 0 0

- Material transfer (inventions), tot active in FY 0 0 0 0 0

- Other invention licenses, total active in FY 0 0 0 0 0

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 0 0 0 0 0

- Copyright licenses (fee bearing) 0 0 0 0 0

- Material transfer (non-inv.), total active in FY 0 0 0 0 0

- Other 0 0 0 0 0

Y 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

TOTALS ● All licenses, number total active in the FY 3,864 4,275 4,394 6,056 6,443

▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY 2,719 3,035 3,140 3,580 3,656

- Patent licenses, total active in FY 450 470 2,049 3,034 3,046

- Material transfer (inventions), total active in FY -- -- -- 0 1

 - Other invention licenses, total active in FY -- -- -- 0 0

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 1,322 1,429 1,254 2,476 2,787

- Copyright licenses (fee bearing) -- -- -- 1,592 1,852

- Material transfer (non-inv.), total active in FY -- -- -- 581 604

- Other -- -- -- 170 316

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 32 

December 2004 
Figure 2.7(a) Active Licenses, Inventions and Other Intellectual 

Property, by Agency, FY 1999-2003 

976

471 364 350 361

3

1,223

2,464

n/a n/a

1,922

941

177

981

189

2,070

n/a n/a

1,094

288 283

1,162

843

2,005

5

1,327

121

3,459

2,132

3,687

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

DoD - All

licenses

DoD - Inv.

Licenses

DoD - Other IP

licenses

DoE - All

licenses

DoE - Inv.

Licenses

DoE - Other IP

licenses

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

Figure 2.7(b) Active Licenses, Inventions and Other Intellectual 

Property, by Agency, FY 1999-2003 

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000 1,608

1,367 1,380 1,298

1,500 1,364 1,357 1,222 1,213

1,007 1,041

1,000 386 305 328 521

500 292 323 360 357 295 288 230 238 290 226 144 82 58 67 67 36

0

HHS - All HHS - Inv. HHS - Other IP NASA - All NASA - Inv. NASA - Other IP

licenses Licenses licenses licenses Licenses licenses

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 33 

December 2004 
Figure 2.7(c) Active Licenses, Inventions and Other 

Intellectual Property, by Agency, FY 1999-2003 

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500 267 225 225 267 218 255 270 218 255 270

101 101 0 0 0 0 0 43 43 40 41 43 43 40 41 0 0 0 0 0

0

USDA - All USDA - Inv. USDA - Other IP DOC - All DOC - Inv. DOC - Other IP

licenses Licenses licenses licenses Licenses licenses

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

Figure 2.7(d) Active Licenses, Inventions and Other 

Intellectual Property, by Agency, FY 1999-2003 

12 660000 8 8 12 000 76 10 81 69 12 88 76 0 0 12 86 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

DOI - All licenses DOI - Inv.

Licenses

DOI - Other IP

licenses

VA - All licenses VA - Inv.

Licenses

VA - Other IP

licenses

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 34 

December 2004 
Figure 2.7(e) Active Licenses, Inventions and Other 

Intellectual Property, by Agency, FY 1999-2003 

17 18 16 23 32 17 18 16 23 32 0000 0000 0 110 0000 000

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

EPA - All

licenses

EPA - Inv.

Licenses

EPA - Other IP

licenses

DOT - All

licenses

DOT - Inv.

Licenses

DOT - Other IP

licenses

0

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

■ Income from Licensing 

Figure 2.8 Annual Income from Licenses, All Federal Labs,

 FY 1999-2003

$120,000,000

$100,000,000 $97,301,864

$93,944,392 $88,727,248

$85,046,535

$80,275,068

$80,000,000 $75,948,164

$71,644,694

$64,372,530 $68,193,371

$60,353,927

$60,000,000

$47,190,465 $47,452,911 $44,517,931

$40,000,000

$20,000,000

$7,460,793 $8,017,926

$3,998,603 $3,662,713 $3,204,472 n/a

$0 n/a

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

All Income Invention licenses Other IP licenses Earned royalty income

Figure 2.8, Tables 2.6 and 2.7, Figures 2.9a-e provide several perspectives on the income the federal 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 35 

December 2004 
labs have received annually from active licenses over the last several years.23

For the federal labs as a whole, some 62% of the 6,443 licenses active in FY 2003 were income 

bearing in some way. Around three quarters of these income bearing licenses were non-exclusive 

(Table 2.7). 

Total license income for all the federal labs together in FY 2003 amounted to $96.8 million (Figure 

2.8, Table 2.6). Nearly all of this income arose from invention licenses ($93.9 million); only a little 

($3.2 million) from other IP licenses (Table 2.6). Furthermore, the level of this income has been 

expanding at a significant pace over the last five years (Figure 2.8). About 49% of this income came 

in the form of earned royalties. 

There are both similarities and differences when the circumstances of the separate agencies are 

considered. 

HHS licenses accounted for 56% of all Fed lab income in FY 2003 -- reflecting comparatively high 

economic value and strong commercialization opportunities associated with new technologies in the 

biosciences realm. DOE licenses accounted for 27% of total income; DOD, 10%; NASA, 3%; and 

USDA, 2%. The rest of the agencies represented far smaller shares. This pattern of relative agency 

roles has remained largely the same over the last several years. 

Most all of the agencies derive most of their license income from invention licenses. Only DOE, 

HHS, and NASA report income from other IP licenses (Table 2.6). DOE is exceptional in that other 

IP licenses accounted for as much as 8% of the agency’s license income total in FY 2003 (similar 

figures have prevailed in previous years). 

There is variability among the agencies with respect to the fraction of all licenses that are income 

bearing; the incidence of exclusive, partially exclusive, and non-exclusive licenses; and the extent to 

which annual license income results from earned royalties (Table 2.6) 

The agencies that account for most of the license income -- HHS, DOE, DOD, and NASA -- have all 

exhibited consistent growth in license income over the last five years (Table 2.6, Figures 2.9a-e). 

Year to year growth has been less consistent over the same period for the other agencies. In fact, the 

five year pattern has been nearly one of declining license income for DOC and DOT. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 36 

 

23 Several definitions (used currently by the agencies in reporting) regarding income from licenses are useful to mention 

here. In general, license income can arise in one or more of several ways: license issue fees, earned royalties, minimum 

annual royalties, paid-up license fees, and reimbursement for full-cost recovery of goods and services provided by the lab 

to the licensee (including patent costs). 

“Income/royalty-bearing license” = a license whose negotiated terms provide for receipt of income (or royalties) by the 

licensor. 

“Total income from license” = income of any form (see above), paid to licensor (in a given year), that arises from an 

active license. 

“Earned royalty income” = royalty payment to a licensor that is based on the use of a licensed invention (usually, a 

percentage of sales or of units sold); not a license issue fee or a minimum royalty. 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. 

 

December 2004 
Table 2.6 – Income from Licensing, FY 1999-2003 

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

DOD ● Total income, all licenses active in FY $2,005,000 $2,213,000 $6,465,468 $6,715,597 $9,965,586

▪ Invention licenses $2,005,000 $2,213,000 $6,383,468 $6,713,679 $9,965,586

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY $0 $0 $82,000 $1,918 $0

● Total Earned Royalty Income (ERI) -- -- n/a n/a n/a

DOE ● Total income, all licenses active in FY $11,764,000 $15,840,000 $21,403,362 $23,476,716 $25,805,498

▪ Invention licenses $10,199,000 $12,710,000 $18,921,843 $21,253,279 $23,669,908

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY $1,545,000 $2,836,000 $1,870,071 $2,223,437 $2,135,590

● Total Earned Royalty Income (ERI) $1,975,000 $2,228,000 $7,832,481 $5,604,774 $6,611,568

HHS ● Total income, all licenses active in FY $44,821,000 $52,547,000 $46,722,000 $52,882,331 $55,198,722

▪ Invention licenses $42,599,000 $48,592,000 $41,322,000 $51,868,102 $54,570,939

 ▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY $2,222,000 $3,955,000 $5,400,000 $1,014,229 $627,783

● Total Earned Royalty Income (ERI) $34,599,000 $43,892,000 $36,612,000 $36,012,005 $38,338,328

NASA ● Total income, all licenses active in FY $1,360,061 $1,756,796 $1,970,739 $2,498,167 $2,852,985

▪ Invention licenses $1,128,458 $1,087,003 $1,318,884 $2,075,038 $2,411,886

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY $231,603 $669,793 $651,855 $423,129 $441,099

● Total Earned Royalty Income (ERI) $183,294 $116,490 $521,164 $554,769 $814,624

USDA ● Total income, all licenses active in FY $2,377,000 $2,555,000 $2,622,000 $2,571,378 $2,290,903

▪ Invention licenses $2,377,000 $2,555,000 $2,622,000 $2,571,378 $2,290,903

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

● Total Earned Royalty Income (ERI) $1,843,000 $1,843,000 $1,409,252 $1,569,877 $1,560,825

DOC ● Total income, all licenses active in FY $405,469 $186,368 $268,568 $164,622 $127,566

▪ Invention licenses $405,469 $186,368 $268,568 $164,622 $127,566

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

● Total Earned Royalty Income (ERI) $405,279 $186,368 $263,568 $99,152 $127,566

DOI ● Total income, all licenses active in FY $1,640,000 $850,000 $235,000 n/a n/a

▪ Invention licenses $1,640,000 $850,000 $235,000 n/a n/a

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY $0 $0 $0 n/a n/a

● Total Earned Royalty Income (ERI) $1,640,000 $850,000 $220,000 n/a n/a

VA ● Total income, all licenses active in FY -- -- $38,000 $18,000 $153,000

▪ Invention licenses -- -- $23,000 n/a n/a

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY -- -- $14,000 n/a n/a

● Total Earned Royalty Income (ERI) -- -- $17,000 n/a n/a

EPA ● Total income, all licenses active in FY -- -- $544,431 $400,437 $907,604

▪ Invention licenses -- -- $544,431 $400,437 $907,604

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY -- -- $0 $0 $0

● Total Earned Royalty Income (ERI) -- $533,906 $315,000 $677,354 $0

DOT ● Total income, all licenses active in FY $0 $0 $5,500 $0 $0

▪ Invention licenses $0 $0 $5,500 $0 $0

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

● Total Earned Royalty Income (ERI) $0 $0 n/a $0 $0

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

TOTALS ● Total income, all licenses active in FY $64,372,530 $75,948,164 $80,275,068 $88,727,248 $97,301,864

▪ Invention licenses $60,353,927 $68,193,371 $71,644,694 $85,046,535 $93,944,392

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY $3,998,603 $7,460,793 $8,017,926 $3,662,713 $3,204,472

● Total Earned Royalty Income (ERI) -- -- n/a n/a n/a

● Total income, all licenses active in FY -- -- -- -- --

▪ Invention licenses 93.8% 89.8% 89.2% 95.9% 96.5%

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 6.2% 9.8% 10.0% 4.1% 3.3%

● Total Earned Royalty Income (ERI) -- -- n/a n/a n/a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 37 

December 2004 
Table 2.7 – Characteristics of Income Bearing Licenses, FY 1999-2003 

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

DOD ● All licenses, number total active in the FY -- -- 288 471 364

● All income bearing licenses, number -- -- -- n/a n/a

▫ Exclusive -- -- -- n/a n/a

▫ Partially exclusive -- -- -- n/a n/a

▫ Non-exlusive -- -- -- n/a n/a

DOE ● All licenses, number total active in the FY 1,922 2,070 2,005 3,459 3,687

● All income bearing licenses, number -- -- 1,012 2,523 2,523

▫ Exclusive -- -- 174 301 246

▫ Partially exclusive -- -- 112 136 235

▫ Non-exlusive -- -- 726 2,086 2,042

HHS ● All licenses, number total active in the FY 1,364 1,608 1,367 1,357 1,380

● All income bearing licenses, number -- -- -- 751 821

▫ Exclusive 0 0 0 115 121

▫ Partially exclusive 0 0 0 11

▫ Non-exlusive 0 0 0 625 691

NASA ● All licenses, number total active in the FY 288 305 328 357 521

● All income bearing licenses, number 163 171 105 131 247

▫ Exclusive 87 99 53 64 139

▫ Partially exclusive 14 13 13 17 19

▫ Non-exlusive 62 59 39 50 89

USDA ● All licenses, number total active in the FY 218 225 255 267 270

● All income bearing licenses, number -- -- 241 265 268

▫ Exclusive -- -- n/a 179 183

▫ Partially exclusive -- -- n/a 37 41

▫ Non-exlusive -- -- n/a 49 44

DOC ● All licenses, number total active in the FY 43 43 40 41 101

● All income bearing licenses, number 20 18 22 39 37

▫ Exclusive -- -- 16 19 20

▫ Partially exclusive -- -- 5 2 0

▫ Non-exlusive -- -- 4 18 17

DOI ● All licenses, number total active in the FY 12 6 8 n/a n

● All income bearing licenses, number 11 5 6 n/a n

▫ Exclusive -- -- 0 n/a n/a

▫ Partially exclusive -- -- 0 n/a n/a

▫ Non-exlusive -- -- 6 n/a n/a

VA ● All licenses, number total active in the FY -- -- 86 81 88

● All income bearing licenses, number -- -- 58 60 67

▫ Exclusive -- -- 3 4 8

▫ Partially exclusive -- -- 2 2 2

▫ Non-exlusive -- -- 53 54 57

EPA ● All licenses, number total active in the FY 17 18 16 23 32

● All income bearing licenses, number -- -- 16 23 32

▫ Exclusive 0 0 6 7

▫ Partially exclusive 0 0 2 2

▫ Non-exlusive 0 0 8 14 23

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 7

 2

 

/a

/a

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 38 

December 2004 
DOT ● All licenses, number total active in the FY 0 0 1 0

● All income bearing licenses, number 0 0 1 0

▫ Exclusive 0 0 0 0

▫ Partially exclusive 0 0 0 0

▫ Non-exlusive 0 0 1 0

 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

TOTALS ● All licenses, number total active in the FY 3,864 4,275 4,394 6,056 6,443

● All income bearing licenses, number -- -- -- 3,792 3,995

▫ Exclusive -- -- -- 689 724

▫ Partially exclusive -- -- -- 207 308

▫ Non-exlusive -- -- -- 2,896 2,963

● All licenses, number total active in the FY -- -- -- -- --

● All income bearing licenses, number -- -- -- 62.6% 62.0%

▫ Exclusive -- -- -- 18.2% 18.1%

▫ Partially exclusive -- -- -- 5.5% 7.7%

▫ Non-exlusive -- -- -- 76.4% 74.2%

0

0

 0

 0

 0

FY

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.9(a) Income from Licenses, by Agency, FY 1999-2003 

$9,965,586 $9,965,586

$0

$25,805,498 $23,669,908

$2,223,437

$21,253,279

$23,476,716

$6,713,679

$1,918

$6,715,597

$2,135,590

$0

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

DoD - All Income DoD - Inv.

Licenses

DoD - Other IP

licenses

DoE - All Income DoE - Inv.

Licenses

DoE - Other IP

licenses

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 39 

December 2004 
Figure 2.9(b) Income from Licenses, by Agency, FY 1999-2003 

$2,498,167 $2,075,038 $423,129

$55,198,722 $54,570,939

$627,783

$1,014,229

$51,868,102 $52,882,331

$441,099 $2,852,985 $2,411,886

$0

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

HHS - All Income HHS - Inv.

Licenses

HHS - Other IP

licenses

NASA - All

Income

NASA - Inv.

Licenses

NASA - Other IP

licenses

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

Figure 2.9(c) Income from Licenses, by Agency, FY 1999-2003 

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$2,290,903

$0 $127,566 $0

$2,377,000 $2,377,000 $405,469 $405,469 $164,622 $164,622

$2,571,378 $2,571,378

$2,290,903

$127,566

$0

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

USDA - All

Income

USDA - Inv.

Licenses

USDA - Other IP

licenses

DOC - All Income DOC - Inv.

Licenses

DOC - Other IP

licenses

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 40 

December 2004 
Figure 2.9(d) Income from Licenses, by Agency, FY 1999-2003 

$0 $0 $0

$1,640,000 $1,640,000

n/a n/a n/a

$850,000 $850,000

n/a n/a n/a $235,000 $235,000 $38,000 $23,000 $14,000

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $18,000 n/a n/a n/a

$153,000

n/a n/a

$0

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

DOI - All Income DOI - Inv.

Licenses

DOI - Other IP

licenses

VA - All Income VA - Inv.

Licenses

VA - Other IP

licenses

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

Figure 2.9(e) Income from Licenses, by Agency, FY 1999-2003 

$400,437 $400,437 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$544,431 $544,431 $5,500 $5,500

$907,604 $907,604

$0

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

EPA - All Income EPA - Inv.

Licenses

EPA - Other IP

licenses

DOT - All Income DOT - Inv.

Licenses

DOT - Other IP

licenses

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 41 

December 2004 
■ Disposition of License Income

As part of the revised annual reporting process under the Technology Transfer Commercialization 

Act, the federal labs (starting with the FY 2001 reporting), the federal labs were asked to provide 

data on their disposition of income derived from invention licenses active in the fiscal year -- that is, 

license income dollars distributed to various types of recipients (e.g., inventors, within-agency uses). 

Nine of the ten reporting agencies provided data for FY 2003 on the issue. The fraction of license 

income distributed “to inventors” continues to vary widely across the agencies: from zero to 68% 

(among the reporting agencies). And, for most of the agencies, the remainder of disposed income 

was directed to internal purposes such as “additional R&D,” “patent filing expenses,” or “other fees.” 

Agency by agency details on these measures can be found in the agency sections of Chapter 3. 

■ License Management Issues 

The revised annual reporting process established under the Technology Transfer Commercialization 

Act requested the federal labs (starting with the FY 2001 reporting) to provide annual performance 

information on some license management issues. The specific items are: 

● Elapsed time for licenses executed in the fiscal year 

● Licenses terminated for cause in the fiscal year 

Most of the agencies now provide this information (with a focus on invention licenses). Agency by 

agency figures for FY 2001-2003 can be found in the agency summary sections of Chapter 3. 

In general, there are wide differences in the agency experiences: e.g., the average elapsed time for 

execution (among the agencies reporting) in FY 2003 ranged from 1.4 to 10.1 months; the minimum 

time was only a few days, the maximum was 39.3 months; there is little suggestion of a trend change 

in these times over the three fiscal years for which data is now available. 

2.4 Other Activity Measures 

The revised reporting process in place since FY 2001 provides the federal labs with opportunity to 

include data on activity measures additional to the core items (cooperative R&D, patenting, and 

licensing) that thus far have been the focus of this chapter. The labs are free to identify and discuss 

such “other” measures, to the extent they are deemed important for characterizing the overall 

technology transfer program. 

In the last several years, a growing number of agencies have made a point of discussing such 

additional activities. Thus far, however, only two agencies have incorporated metrics for these 

“other activities” in their annual reporting: 

● Department of Commerce 

- Standard Reference Materials available 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 42 

December 2004 
- Standard Reference Materials sold 

- Standard Reference Data titles available 

- Number of Items Calibrated 

- Technical publications produced

● Department of Energy 

- Work-for-Others agreements 

- User facility agreements, projects 

A concise account of these activity measures and the FY 1999-2003 statistics provided can be found 

in each agency’s individual section in Chapter 3 of this report. 

The nature and annual level of these activities vary widely. But, in most cases, the annual volume is 

quite large -- at levels similar to or greater than those of core technology transfer activities -- and has 

remained so for a number of years. 

2.5 Outcomes from Technology Transfer

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 published in May 2002 and continuing on in the present 

report) to submit current examples of successful downstream technology transfer outcomes. 

More than 110 such outcome cases were included by the federal labs in their annual technology 

transfer reports for FY 2003. These cases are listed and described later in this Summary Report (see 

the agency summary sections of Chapter 3). 

The agencies were requested to provide a selected set of illustrative outcome cases. Accordingly, the 

cases reported in Chapter 3 are not an exhaustive tally of all downstream technology transfer 

outcomes achieved by the federal labs in FY 2003. 

It is often difficult 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 involves a number of years, so that tangible results can take some 

time before becoming apparent. Despite these challenges to analysis and long term downstream data 

collection, many agency technology transfer professionals and other knowledgeable analysts regard 

downsteam outcome cases as much better evidence of technology transfer program performance than 

the quantitative activity statistics described earlier in this chapter. 

 

The transfer of federal lab know-how and technology to private industry partners can provide 

benefits to the partners and to society in numerous ways. 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 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 43 

December 2004 
cooperative federal lab/industry partnership can yield new technology and know-how that may 

improve the federal lab’s capabilities for its mission-related work. 

All of these kinds of outcomes are illustrated in agency outcome cases described in Chapter 3. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 44 

December 2004 
Chapter 3 

Summary of Statistics on Technology Transfer Activities and Outcomes 

Provided by the Agencies in their FY 2003 Annual 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 USC Sec. 

3710(f). As noted in Chapter 1 of this report, each agency is directed to discuss in these annual 

documents the agency’s 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: 

• 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) for the most recently closed fiscal year (FY 2003) and several 

prior years (chiefly, FY 1999-2002). 

• 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.24 For greater detail, reader should consult each agency’s primary 

document; citations are provided in the sections below. 

 page 

3.1 Department of Agriculture ...........................................................................47 

3.2 Department of Commerce ............................................................................57 

3.3 Department of Defense ...............................................................................71 

3.4 Department of Energy .................................................................................79 

3.5 Environmental Protection Agency ...................................................................99 

3.6 Department of Health and Human Services ......................................................105 

3.7 Department of the Interior ..........................................................................113 

3.8 National Aeronautics and Space Administration ................................................119 

3.9 Department of Transportation ......................................................................127 

3.10 Department of Veteran Affairs .....................................................................133 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 45 

 

24 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 and should be consulted for additional detail. 

December 2004 
2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 46 

December 2004 
Department of Agriculture 

3.1 Department of Agriculture 

This section summarizes the statistics and other data provided by the department in its annual reports 

on the technology transfer activities and outcomes of its federal laboratories. Currently, these reports 

provide data through FY 2003. This information covers the activities of the Agricultural Research 

Service (ARS) and other federal lab technology transfer across the department (unless otherwise 

noted in the tables below). For additional details, readers should consult the department’s full 

report.25 

■ Collaborative Relationships for Research and Development

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● CRADAs, total active in the FY(1) -- -- 219 225 229

 - New, executed in the FY -- -- 49 59 55

(2) ▪ Traditional CRADAs, total active in the FY 128 229 298 257 217 222 223

 - New, executed in the FY 101 69 49 58 51

(3) ▪ Non-traditional CRADAs, total active in FY -- -- 2 3 6

 - New, executed in the FY -- -- 0 1 4

● Other collaborative R&D relationships

▪ Material transfer agreements, total at end of FY -- -- -- n/a n/a

 - New, executed in the FY -- -- -- 436 355

▪ Reimbursable agreements, totat at end FY -- -- 2,192 1,896 1,625

 - New, executed in the FY -- -- 518 510 623

▪ Trust agreements, total at end FY -- -- 1,487 1,315 1,144

 - New, executed in the FY -- -- 522 470 502

 

 

 

 

 

CRADA = Cooperative Research and Development Agreement

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of past years.

(1) “Active” = legally in force at any time during the FY. “Total active” includes all agreements executed under CRADA authority (15 USC 3710a).

(2) CRADAs involving collaborative research and development by a federal laboratory and non-federal partners.

(3) CRADAs used for special purposes -- such as material transfer or technical assistance that may result in protected information.

■ Invention Disclosure and Patenting 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● New inventions disclosed in the FY(1) 158 133 162 109 118 151 121

● Patent applications filed in the FY(2) 76 80 84 78 83 90 60

● Patents issued in the FY 74 64 64 53 64

(1) Inventions arising at the federal lab. 

(2) Tally includes: U.S. patent applications, foreign patent applications filed on cases for which no U.S. application was filed, divisional applications,

and continuation-in-part applications. Excludes: provisional, continuation, duplicate foreign, and PCT applications. 

 

25 U.S. Department of Agriculture, FY 2003 Annual Reporting on Agency Technology Transfer, TT2003.USDA, 

November 10, 2003. Report prepared in response to 15 USC Sec. 3710(f) (requiring an annual “agency report on 

utilization” for agencies with federal laboratories) and submitted to OMB (consistent with Circular A-11 guidelines). 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 47 

December 2004 
Department of Agriculture 

■ Licensing

Profile of Active Licenses 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● All licenses, number total active in the FY(1) 218 225 255 267 270

 ▫ New, executed in the FY 29 24 32 26 27

 ▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY 218 225 255 267 270

 ▫ New, executed in the FY 33 21 29 24 32 26 27

(2) - Patent licenses, total active in FY -- -- 255 267 269

 ▫ New, executed in the FY -- -- 32 26 26

 - Material transfer (inventions), tot active in FY -- -- 0 0 1

 ▫ New, executed in the FY -- -- 0 0 1

(3) - Other invention licenses, total active in FY -- -- 0 0 0

 ▫ New, executed in the FY -- -- 0 0 0

 ▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 0 0 0 0 0

 ▫ New, executed in the FY 0 0 0 0 0

 - Copyright licenses (fee bearing)

 ▫ New, executed in the FY

 - Material transfer (non-inv.), total active in FY

 ▫ New, executed in the FY

 - Other (4)

 ▫ New, executed in the FY

Forest Service/USDA included in the data starting in FY 2002.

Multiple inventions in a single license are counted as one license. Licenses that include both patents and copyrights

(i.e., hybrid licenses) are reported as patent licenses -- and not included in the count of copyright licenses.

 -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of past years.

(1) “Active” = legally in force at any time during the FY. 

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(3) No licenses of this type indicated as active.

(4) No licenses of this type indicated as active.

Licensing Management 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● Elapsed execution time,(1) licenses granted in FY

▪ Invention licenses 

▫ average months -- -- 3.5 6.5 7.0

▫ minimum -- -- 2.0 1.9 2.8

▫ maximum -- -- 6.1 11.5 13.3

(2) - Patent licenses

▫ average months -- -- 3.5 6.5 7.1

▫ minimum -- -- 2.0 1.9 2.8

▫ maximum -- -- 6.1 11.5 13.3

● Number of licenses terminated for cause in FY

▪ Invention licenses -- -- 1 3 0

(2) - Patent licenses -- -- 1 3 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Data included in this table (intentionally) addresses only invention licenses, with patent licenses distinguished as a subclass.

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) Date of license application to the date of license execution. (Date of license application is the date the lab formally

acknowledges the written request for a license from a prospective licensee and agrees to enter into negotiations.)

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications which are licensed.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 48 

December 2004 
Department of Agriculture 

Characteristics of Licenses Bearing Income

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● All income bearing licenses, number -- -- 241 265 268

▫ Exclusive -- -- n/a 179 183

▫ Partially exclusive -- -- n/a 37 41

▫ Non-exclusive -- -- n/a 49 44

▪ Invention licenses, income bearing -- -- 241 265 267

▫ Exclusive -- -- n/a 179 183

▫ Partially exclusive -- -- n/a 37 41

▫ Non-exclusive -- -- n/a 49 43

 Patent licenses,(1) income bearing -- -- 241 265 267

▫ Exclusive -- -- n/a 179 183

▫ Partially exclusive -- -- n/a 37 41

▫ Non-exclusive -- -- n/a 49 43

▪ Other IP licenses, income bearing -- -- 0 0 0

▫ Exclusive -- --

▫ Partially exclusive -- --

▫ Non-exclusive -- --

 - Copyright licenses (fee bearing) -- --

▫ Exclusive -- --

▫ Partially exclusive -- --

▫ Non-exclusive -- --

● All royalty bearing licenses,

(2) number -- -- 56 67 75

▪ Invention licenses, royalty bearing, number -- -- 56 67 75

(1) - Patent licenses, royalty bearing -- -- 56 67 75

▪ Other IP licenses, royalty bearing -- -- 0 0 0

 - Copyright licenses (fee bearing)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forest Service/USDA included in the data starting in FY 2002.

In general, license income can result from various sources: license issue fees, earned royalties, minimum annual royalites, paid-up license fees, and

reimbursement for full-cost recovery of goods and services provided by the lab to the licensee (including patent costs).

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of past years.

(1) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(2) Note that royalties are one component of total license income.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 49 

December 2004 
Department of Agriculture 

Income (annual) from Licenses

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● Total income, all licenses active in FY (1) $2,377,000 $2,555,000 $2,622,000 $2,571,378 $2,290,903

▪ Invention licenses $559,000 $1,635,000 $2,377,000 $2,555,000 $2,622,000 $2,571,378 $2,290,903

 - Patent licenses (2) $2,377,000 $2,555,000 $2,622,000 $2,571,378 $2,290,903

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

 - Copyright licenses

● Total Earned Royalty Income (ERI) (3) $1,843,000 $1,843,000 $1,409,252 $1,569,877 $1,560,825

▫ Median ERI -- -- $5,723 $5,096 $3,102

▫ Minimum ERI -- -- $78 $79 $159

▫ Maximum ERI -- -- $563,320 $569,265 $236,306

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses -- -- dw dw dw

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses -- -- $723,167 $794,418 $696,532

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses -- -- $1,109,051 $1,254,545 $1,292,383

 ▪ Invention licenses $1,843,000 $1,843,000 $1,409,252 $1,569,877 $1,560,825

▫ Median ERI -- -- $5,723 $5,096 $3,102

▫ Minimum ERI -- -- $78 $79 $159

▫ Maximum ERI -- -- $563,320 $569,265 $236,306

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses -- -- dw dw dw

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses -- -- $723,167 $794,418 $696,532

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses -- -- $1,109,051 $1,254,545 $1,292,383

 - Patent licenses (2) $1,843,000 $1,843,000 $1,409,252 $1,569,877 $1,560,825

▫ Median ERI $5,723 $5,096 $3,102

▫ Minimum ERI $78 $79 $159

▫ Maximum ERI $563,320 $569,265 $236,306

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses dw dw dw

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses $723,167 $794,418 $696,532

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses $1,109,051 $1,254,545 $1,292,383

 ▪ Other IP licenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

▫ Median ERI

▫ Minimum ERI

▫ Maximum ERI

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses

 - Copyright licenses

▫ Median ERI

▫ Minimum ERI

▫ Maximum ERI

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forest Service/USDA included in the data starting in FY 2002.

 -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years. dw = Data withheld to protect proprietary information.

(1) Total income includes license issue fees, earned royalties, minimum annual royalties, paid-up license fees, and reimbursement for full-cost

recovery of goods and services provided by the lab to the licensee (including patent costs).

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(3) “Earned royalty” = royalty based upon use of a licensed invention (usually, a percentage of sales or units sold). Not a license fee or minimum royalty.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 50 

December 2004 
Department of Agriculture 

Disposition of License Income 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● Income distributed (1)

▪ Invention licenses, total distributed -- -- $2,621,900 $2,463,240 $2,586,583

 - To inventors -- -- $681,700 $543,336 $540,399

26% 22% 21%

(2) -To other -- -- $1,940,200 $1,919,904 $2,046,184

74% 78% 79%

(3) - Patent licenses, total distributed -- -- $2,621,900 $2,463,240 $2,586,583

 - To inventors -- -- $681,700 $543,336 $540,399

26% 22% 21%

(2) -To other -- -- $1,940,200 $1,919,904 $2,046,184

74% 78% 79%

 

Forest Service/USDA included in the data starting in FY 2002.

Invention licenses are the chief policy interest regarding distribution of income; content of this table reflects this focus.

 -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) Income includes royalties and other payments received during the FY.

(2) Salaries of (some) technology transfer staff; patent filing preparation fees and patent annuity payments; other technolgy transfer expenses.

(3) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

■ Other Performance Measures 

None cited.

■ Downstream Outcomes

USDA’s FY 2003 report provided the following selected examples of downstream outcomes arising 

from the technology transfer activities of the department’s federal laboratories: 

● An ARS-developed rapid avian influenza diagnostic test was used to help control a 

disease outbreak of this virus in an emergency situation. This rapid, sensitive, polymerase chain 

reaction (PCR) test was used in March 2002 during an avian influenza outbreak in turkeys and 

chickens in Virginia. This is the first time a PCR diagnostic test was used to help control a major 

animal disease outbreak in the United States. Concerns about the virus becoming highly pathogenic 

and potentially disrupting poultry trade led the state to make a decision to eradicate the virus by 

identifying and destroying infected flocks. 

The existing detection method used to identify infected birds was time consuming, and required daily 

handling of eggs. The emergency situation called for a more efficient alternative. ARS's real-time 

PCR test, which allowed for quick testing of birds versus eggs, was compared to the other method 

through a cooperative effort with Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service staff and animal health 

officials from Virginia. Results showed that ARS's test provided similar sensitivity and specificity 

for the particular strain of avian influenza as the other test. With the ARS PCR test, results could be 

obtained within 3 to 24 hours, compared to several days with the old test method. The Virginia 

situation generated widespread interest nationwide, and ARS scientists have facilitated the use of this 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 51 

December 2004 
Department of Agriculture 

test by veterinary diagnostic labs in more than 10 states. In addition, ARS researchers are working 

with international partners in Chile, Hong Kong, Canada, Peru, Mexico, and South Korea to teach 

them how to use and implement the test to help control the virus in those countries. 

● NWAC103, the first USDA fish germplasm release, is making a huge splash with commercial 

catfish producers. Catfish producers have long awaited development of a new higher performing 

catfish variety. Now, thanks to this joint release effort between ARS and Mississippi Agricultural 

and Forestry Experiment Station researchers, producers are now stocking NWAC103 fingerlings. In 

2002, 141 million catfish fry were produced, which was an increase of 281 percent over the amount 

produced during 2001. Other catfish varieties usually require 18 to 24 months to reach market size, 

but the new catfish line grows up to 20 percent faster in the pond so it can be marketed sooner. 

NWAC103 catfish consume 10 to 20 percent more feed and can grow 9 percent faster than other 

commercial catfish lines currently in use. They also tend to mature earlier and produce more eggs. 

The NWAC103 catfish are the first line to be certified using DNA fingerprinting methods developed 

by ARS scientists. 

● 100% Natural Fruit Bars. ARS researchers have patented (Patent Number 6,027,758) and 

transferred technology for forming 100% fruit bars. Fruit puree is the primary ingredient used in 

forming these fruit products. One fruit bar is the equivalent of two servings of fruit. The bars are 

flavorful, nutritious and convenient. For these reasons, ARS’s technology should help consumers 

meet USDA daily dietary recommendations. The invention has been licensed to HR Mountain Sun, 

Hood River, Oregon. The company has constructed a manufacturing plant in North Bonneville, 

Washington—an area with 30 percent unemployment. Ninety new jobs have been created. They are 

selling three types of pear bar products—a plain pear bar, a blueberry bar, and a cranberry bar. 

Several grocery chains are selling the Gorge DelightsTM bars, including Rosauer’s, Albertsons, 

Thrifty, and some U.S. Commissaries. The bars are now being sold in over 400 Albertsons stores 

and have received international interest from businesses in Malaysia, South Korea, Jamaica, South 

Africa, Italy, and many other foreign countries. They are also being distributed through the 

Washington school lunch program. 

This technology started from a grass roots effort for pear growers to add-value and create new 

markets for pear products and has recently expanded beyond pears into other fruits and vegetables. 

This research is part of an overall ARS effort to develop technologies that will permit year round 

processing of seasonal crops by making value-added products from bulk processed ingredients such 

as fruit and vegetable purees. Fruit and vegetable products are limited because the technology for 

processing them is restricted to relatively few forms (canning or freezing), which must be done 

immediately after harvest. Processing systems such as this enable large amounts of materials to be 

partially processed into stable forms within the short harvest season, and then made into a variety of 

products throughout the year. 

TM ● VerifEYE , a new optical detection system that inspects meat for fecal contamination, should 

help the industry meet Pathogen Reduction and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point 

(HAACP) regulations. These regulations require meat and poultry plants to implement a system to 

improve the safety of their products, and ultimately prevent fecal contamination of meat food 

products. Fecal contamination can carry pathogenic bacteria such as Escherichia coli 0157:H7, and 

these bacteria can cause foodborne illness in people. The new technology, developed cooperatively 

by ARS and Iowa State University researchers, uses specific color wavelengths to detect even minute 

amounts of fecal matter on meat during processing. Light emitted from the carcass is electronically 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 52 

December 2004 
Department of Agriculture 

analyzed to check for contamination. If contamination is detected, the carcass is identified for further 

sanitization. Current inspection methods rely heavily upon visual inspections, but fecal matter 

undetected by the human eye may still be present. 

This new technology offers the industry a more reliable method for ensuring a safe food product. 

The patented (Patent Number 5,914,247) technology is licensed to eMerge Interactive Inc., a 

technology company located in Sebastian, Florida. The company is currently marketing a hand-held 

version of the technology in North America and distributors in the United Kingdom and New 

Zealand are marketing the technology in the European and Australian market. A full-carcass 

scanning device has also been developed and tested in collaboration with Excel Corporation. Excel 

has leased the system for installation in their beef processing plants. Additional patents on variations 

of the technology are also being sought. 

● A safe, effective alternative to broadcast fumigation could help reduce an over reliance on 

methyl bromide, which is scheduled to be phased out in the United States in 2005 due to its status as 

an ozone depleting compound. Soil fumigants are used to disinfest agricultural soils of pathogens, 

nematodes, and weeds; and they have traditionally been applied by injecting them directly into the 

soil. Some alternative fumigants do not move as readily through the soil as methyl bromide when 

injected into the soil, thus reducing efficacy. A team of ARS scientists developed methods for 

applying soil fumigants using drip irrigation systems, which enhance the distribution of the 

alternative fumigants in the soil. This makes the alternative fumigants more acceptable as methyl 

bromide replacements and helps reduce the potential for alternative fumigants to escape into the 

atmosphere. ARS scientists entered into a Cooperative Agreement with the California Strawberry 

Commission to conduct tests and demonstrate the effectiveness of ARS’s drip irrigation technology 

for strawberry production. Because of the team’s success in communicating their results, 

manufacturers quickly developed suitable new chemicals and registered these products with federal 

and state agencies. 

Western growers of fruits and vegetable such as strawberries, melons, tomatoes, and peppers have 

rapidly adopted this technology and are benefiting significantly from it. Growers were able to adopt 

the technology without changing their production systems. EPA label registrations have been 

granted for three drip-applied fumigant formulations—Telone EC, InLine, and Chloropicrin. In 

2002, nearly 10 percent of U.S. commercial strawberry crops were grown on land using ARS’s 

technology, as well as nearly 2,000 acres of tomatoes, peppers, and melons. In addition to U.S. 

growers, the technology is receiving international interest from growers in Italy and Spain. 

● National Phosphorus Indexing (P Index). A national effort that includes ARS scientists, as well 

as scientists from other USDA agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, various universities, 

and extension specialists has led to the development and implementation of a standard for managing 

and assessing the risk of phosphorus loss on agricultural fields and water ways. Phosphorus is an 

essential nutrient for crop and animal production, but excess phosphorus runs off into nearby water 

systems—degrading water quality. The team developed scientific standards for a Phosphorus Index, 

which addresses real world environmental concerns in an effective and practical way. The tool helps 

users to identify and prioritize alternative management options available to them, thereby providing 

flexibility in developing remedial strategies for managing phosphorus loss. 

Team members are working extensively with federal, state, and local government agencies; 

agricultural organizations; and environmental organizations to educate them on the issues involved, 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 53 

December 2004 
Department of Agriculture 

and on how best to implement this strategy. More than 1000 field agents and nutrient management 

consultants across the United States have received training on how to use the P Index. In addition, 

overseas researchers and advisors from Brazil, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, and the 

United Kingdom have adopted and modified versions of the P Index to apply the approach to their 

own countries’ needs. This work will benefit all Americans because it will help maintain a cleaner, 

healthier environment. 

● NuSun, a new ARS-developed sunflower germplasm, has had a profound impact on the sunflower 

industry. NuSun is a hybrid sunflower plant that produces higher amounts of oleic acid than 

traditional sunflower plants. Oleic acid is believed by some scientists to have substantial health 

benefits, including lowering blood cholesterol levels. ARS scientists worked closely with 

representatives from the snack food industry, oil refiners, crushers, seed company breeders, public 

researchers, and growers to develop and test the NuSun plants. Favorable test results led to rapid 

industry acceptance of NuSun oil, which is now being used by restaurants and the snack food 

industry. Earlier this year, Frito-Lay announced it would use NuSun oil in its new “All Natural” line 

of snack food products; and the products are now in stores. 

In 2002, U.S. production of NuSun oil seed sunflower was approximately 850,000 acres, which 

accounted for 40 percent of the total U.S. oilseed sunflower production. The oil from the plant has 

superior cooking qualities and lasts longer in frying vats. In addition, NuSun oil does not require 

hydrogenation—a process that produces trans fatty acids, which are known to be detrimental to 

human cardiovascular health. Recent Food and Drug Administration industry requirements to label 

food products containing trans fatty acids underscores the importance of NuSun and its continued 

impact on the food industry and health-conscious consumers. 

● Honeybees resistant to Varroa destructor (V. destructor), a parasitic mite of honeybees, are now 

available to beekeepers. V. destructor infestations have been devastating to the U.S. beekeeping 

industry. Since its arrival in the United States in 1987, beekeepers have fought the mite—which can 

wipe out an entire bee colony, sometimes during the course of the summer—using miticides. Over 

the years, however, the mites have developed resistance to each new chemical control. In addition to 

V. destructor, Acarapis woodi, another parasitic honeybee mite, has become a problem for the bee 

industry. This mite infests the trachea or breathing tubes of honeybees resulting in colony losses, 

reduced pollination ability, and reduced colony production. This mite has also developed resistance 

to chemical control methods. 

A team of ARS researchers led the effort to select, test and breed Russian honeybees that would be 

naturally resistant to both mites. The team also selected for high honey production to assure the 

value of the stock. ARS scientists entered into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement 

with a beekeeper to breed and gather information on honeybee queens for commercial production. 

Now, thanks to ARS’s efforts, it is estimated that nearly 40 percent of the Nation’s 2.5 million 

commercial honeybee colonies are currently stocked with Russian honeybees—producing an annual 

honey crop valued at about $85 million, and pollinating crops valued at $6 to $8 billion. The Russian 

honeybees typically produce about 10 percent more honey per colony and can survive northern 

winters. Treatment savings using the new bees totals about $17 million a year. 

● ARS-developed cropping system technologies are improving economic and environmental 

sustainability of agriculture in the Palouse region of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. These 

integrated systems include continuous reduced tillage and no-tillage, direct-seed organic systems, 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 54 

December 2004 
Department of Agriculture 

perennial polyculture, and restoration of native prairies. ARS scientists have transferred these 

research results directly to growers at a major industry tradeshow, annual field days, workshops, and 

during field research tours organized by ARS. A survey conducted by an ARS researcher 

documented that 61percent of the growers surveyed are currently using technologies from ARS, 

yielding significant benefits to them and to the region’s environment. 

● Hop Powdery Mildew Infection Risk Forecaster. Currently, 75 percent of hop acreage in the 

Pacific Northwest is using this ARS-developed forecasting model for detecting powdery mildew, an 

important hop disease in that region. Four years of research culminated in the public release of this 

model on the Internet, which provides growers with a two-week history of infection risk, the current 

day’s risk, and a forecast of infection risk for the next five days. ARS research defined critical 

temperatures influencing infection frequency and host susceptibility. Once ARS researchers created 

and validated the infection risk model, they partnered with FieldWise and Fox Weather to develop 5-

day forecasts for each weather station using proprietary algorithms and historical site-specific 

weather data. This increased the risk index’s utility. In 2001 and 2002, growers using ARS’s model 

to assist in fungicide applications reported using 1.5 fewer fungicide applications, while suffering 55 

percent less powdery mildew infection in their hop crops. Combining the model with other cultural 

practices has helped reduce hop production costs related to powdery mildew control from $460 per 

acre to $196 per acre. 

● A new method for collecting ram semen. This method has a worldwide impact on preserving 

animal germplasm. The method uses a vial, which is placed in the ewe’s vagina to collect semen, 

allowing for easy semen recovery. The semen can then be extended, frozen, transported, and used to 

artificially inseminate large numbers of ewes or stored in germplasm banks. This innovation has the 

potential to replace the artificial-vagina method for collecting semen, which has been in use for more 

than 60 years and requires a considerable training period for rams. ARS researchers transferred this 

technology to scientists and technicians at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center (USMARC). 

USMARC personnel have used the procedure to collect semen from large numbers of untrained rams 

that represent defined genetic lines of sheep. Approximately 10,000 units of semen from these rams 

have been added to the Animal Germplasm Preservation Program in Fort Collins, Colorado. 

● Conservation system technologies. ARS researchers in the southern U.S. region have played an 

active role both nationally and internationally in promoting conservation tillage systems using a 

combination of face-to-face farmer interactions, publications, Web site development, personal 

interactions, meetings, and conferences. Statistics indicate that no-tillage cotton in the Southern 

states grew from 627,000 acres in 1998 to more than 1,938,000 acres in 2002, a threefold increase. 

A 2003 National Cotton Council of America survey reported that 57 percent of the total cotton acres 

in the Southeast was in no-tillage. Annually, conversion of over 1.31 million acres of cotton in the 

Southeast to no-tillage saves 10.6 million tons of soil worth $198 million in on-farm and off-site 

impacts, and $39 million in fuel and labor costs.

● Cotton gin schools. As part of a unique technology transfer effort, ARS annually participates and 

helps sponsor gin schools, which are designed to transfer ginning technology directly to the users. At 

these schools, cotton ginners learn firsthand from ARS scientists and our Cotton Technology 

Transfer Extension Coordinator the latest information about preserving fiber quality and increasing 

gin efficiency using the latest ARS-research results. In addition, ARS hosts a Textile Manufacturing 

Symposium and a Cotton Ginning Symposium at gin and textile labs to benefit county extension 

agents in cotton producing states. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 55 

December 2004 
Department of Agriculture 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 56 

December 2004 
Department of Commerce 

3.2 Department of Commerce 

This section summarizes the statistics and other data provided by the department in its annual reports 

on the technology transfer activities and outcomes of its federal laboratories. Currently, these reports 

provide data through FY 2003. This information covers the activities of the department’s following 

bureaus: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST -- Technology Administration), the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Institute for 

Telecommunications Science (ITS -- National Telecommunications and Information Administration). 

Unless otherwise noted, the figures below are totals across all these branches. For additional details, 

readers should consult the department’s full report.26 

■ Collaborative Relationships for Research and Development

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● CRADAs, total active in the FY(1) -- -- 247 1,883 1,903

 - New, executed in the FY -- -- 26 1,719 1,767

(2) ▪ Traditional CRADAs, total active in the FY 275 221 188 139 92

 - New, executed in the FY 67 46 26 26 12

(3) ▪ Non-traditional CRADAs, total active in FY -- -- 59 1,744 1,811

 - New, executed in the FY -- -- 0 1,693 1,755

● Other collaborative R&D relationships

▪ Facility use agreements NIST -- -- 372 391 512

▪ Guest scientists and engineers NIST -- -- 1,200 1,300 1,300

▪ Collaborative standards contributions ITS -- -- 3 3 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CRADA = Cooperative Research and Development Agreement

 -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) “Active” = legally in force at any time during the FY. “Total active” includes all agreements executed under CRADA authority (15 USC 3710a).

(2) CRADAs involving collaborative research and development by a federal laboratory and non-federal partners.

(3) CRADAs used for special purposes -- such as material transfer or technical assistance that may result in protected information.

■ Invention Disclosure and Patenting

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● New inventions disclosed in the FY(1) 46 65 38 34 26 17 21

● Patent applications filed in the FY(2) 28 35 30 20 12 12 5

● Patents issued in the FY 28 18 21 20 9

(1) Inventions arising at the federal lab. 

(2) Tally includes: U.S. patent applications, foreign patent applications filed on cases for which no U.S. application was filed, divisional applications,

and continuation-in-part applications. Excludes: provisional, continuation, duplicate foreign, and PCT applications. 

 

26 U.S. Department of Commerce, Annual Report on Technology Transfer: Approach and Plans, FY 2003 Activities and 

Achievements, January 5, 2004. Report prepared in response to 15 USC Sec. 3710(f) (requiring an annual “agency report 

on utilization” for agencies with federal laboratories) and submitted to OMB (consistent with Circular A-11 guidelines). 

(Report available on the Internet at www.technology.gov/Reports.htm) 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 57 

 

December 2004 
Department of Commerce 

■ Licensing 

Profile of Active Licenses 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● All licenses, number total active in the FY(1) 43 43 40 41 101

▫ New, executed in the FY 0 4 8 4 5 5 59

▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY 43 43 40 41 101

▫ New, executed in the FY 8 4 5 5 59

(2) - Patent licenses, total active in FY 43 43 40 41 101

▫ New, executed in the FY 8 4 5 5 59

 - Material transfer (inventions), tot active in FY 0 0 0 0 0

▫ New, executed in the FY 0 0 0 0 0

(3) - Other invention licenses, total active in FY 0 0 0 0 0

▫ New, executed in the FY 0 0 0 0 0

 ▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 0 0 0 0 0

▫ New, executed in the FY 0 0 0 0 0

 - Copyright licenses (fee bearing)

▫ New, executed in the FY

 - Material transfer (non-inv.), total active in FY

▫ New, executed in the FY

 - Other (4)

▫ New, executed in the FY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Multiple inventions in a single license are counted as one license. Licenses that include both patents and copyrights

(i.e., hybrid licenses) are reported as patent licenses -- and not included in the count of copyright licenses.

(1) “Active” = legally in force at any time during the FY. 

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(3) No licenses of this type indicated as active.

(4) No licenses of this type indicated as active.

Licensing Management 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● (1) Elapsed execution time, licenses granted in FY

▪ Invention licenses 

▫ average months -- -- 5.4 5.8 1.4

▫ minimum -- -- 2.0 2.5 1.0

▫ maximum -- -- 8.0 8.0 10.0

(2) - Patent licenses

▫ average months -- -- 5.4 5.8 1.4

▫ minimum -- -- 2.0 2.5 1.0

▫ maximum -- -- 8.0 8.0 10.0

● Number of licenses terminated for cause in FY

▪ Invention licenses -- -- 7 3 1

(2) - Patent licenses -- -- 7 3 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Data included in this table (intentionally) addresses only invention licenses, with patent licenses distinguished as a subclass.

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) Date of license application to the date of license execution. (Date of license application is the date the lab formally

acknowledges the written request for a license from a prospective licensee and agrees to enter into negotiations.)

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications which are licensed.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 58 

December 2004 
Department of Commerce 

Characteristics of Licenses Bearing Income 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● All income bearing licenses, number 20 18 22 39 37

▫ Exclusive -- -- 16 19 20

▫ Partially exclusive -- -- 5 2 0

▫ Non-exclusive -- -- 4 18 17

▪ Invention licenses, income bearing 20 18 22 39 37

▫ Exclusive -- -- 16 19 20

▫ Partially exclusive -- -- 5 2 0

▫ Non-exclusive -- -- 4 18 17

 - Patent licenses,(1) income bearing 20 18 22 39 37

▫ Exclusive -- -- 16 19 20

▫ Partially exclusive -- -- 5 2 0

▫ Non-exclusive -- -- 4 18 17

▪ Other IP licenses, income bearing 0 0 0 0 0

▫ Exclusive

▫ Partially exclusive

▫ Non-exclusive

 - Copyright licenses (fee bearing)

▫ Exclusive

▫ Partially exclusive

▫ Non-exclusive

(2) ● All royalty bearing licenses, number 20 18 22 36 34

▪ Invention licenses, royalty bearing, number 20 18 22 36 34

(1) - Patent licenses, royalty bearing 20 18 22 36 34

▪ Other IP licenses, royalty bearing 0 0 0 0 0

 - Copyright licenses (fee bearing)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In general, license income can result from various sources: license issue fees, earned royalties, minimum annual royalites, paid-up license fees, and

reimbursement for full-cost recovery of goods and services provided by the lab to the licensee (including patent costs).

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of past years.

(1) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(2) Note that royalties are one component of total license income.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 59 

December 2004 
Department of Commerce 

Income (annual) from Licenses 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● Total income, all licenses active in FY (1) $405,469 $186,368 $268,568 $164,622 $127,566

▪ Invention licenses $52,000 $42,000 $405,469 $186,368 $268,568 $164,622 $127,566

 - Patent licenses (2) $405,469 $186,368 $268,568 $164,622 $127,566

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

 - Copyright licenses

● Total Earned Royalty Income (ERI) (3) $405,279 $186,368 $263,568 $99,152 $127,566

▫ Median ERI -- -- n/a $3,633 $696

▫ Minimum ERI -- -- $1,100 $800 $1,060

▫ Maximum ERI -- -- $137,427 $27,969 $39,716

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses -- -- n/a $20,094 $35,472

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses -- -- n/a $20,470 $35,236

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses -- -- n/a $51,800 $45,943

▪ Invention licenses $405,279 $186,268 $263,568 $99,152 $127,566

▫ Median ERI -- -- n/a $3,633 $696

▫ Minimum ERI -- -- $1,100 $800 $1,060

▫ Maximum ERI -- -- $137,427 $27,969 $39,716

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses -- -- n/a $20,094 $35,472

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses -- -- n/a $20,470 $35,236

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses -- -- n/a $51,800 $45,943

 - Patent licenses (2) $405,279 $186,268 $263,568 $99,152 $127,566

▫ Median ERI -- -- n/a $3,633 $696

▫ Minimum ERI -- -- $1,100 $800 $1,060

▫ Maximum ERI -- -- $137,427 $27,969 $39,716

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses -- -- n/a $20,094 $35,472

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses -- -- n/a $20,470 $35,236

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses -- -- n/a $51,800 $45,943

▪ Other IP licenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

▫ Median ERI

▫ Minimum ERI

▫ Maximum ERI

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses

 Copyright licenses

▫ Median ERI

▫ Minimum ERI

▫ Maximum ERI

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in previous

(1) Total income includes license issue fees, earned royalties, minimum annual royalties, paid-up license fees, and reimbursement for full-cost

recovery of goods and services provided by the lab to the licensee (including patent costs).

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(3) “Earned royalty” = royalty based upon use of a licensed invention (usually, a percentage of sales or units sold). Not a license fee or minimum royalty.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 60 

December 2004 
Department of Commerce 

Disposition of License Income 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● Income distributed (1)

▪ Invention licenses, total distributed $405,469 $186,368 $268,568 $164,622 $127,565

 - To inventors $146,957 $77,931 $106,440 $67,387 $52,903

36% 42% 40% 41% 41%

(2) -To other $258,512 $108,437 $162,128 $97,235 $74,662

64% 58% 60% 59% 59%

(3) - Patent licenses, total distributed $405,469 $186,368 $268,568 $164,622 $127,565

 - To inventors $146,957 $77,931 $106,440 $67,387 $52,903

36% 42% 40% 41% 41%

(2) -To other $258,512 $108,437 $162,128 $97,235 $74,662

64% 58% 60% 59% 59%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Invention licenses are the chief policy interest regarding distribution of income; content of this table reflects this focus.

(1) Income includes royalties and other payments received during the FY.

(2) To internal purposes at NIST, NOAA, ITS

(3) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

■ Other Performance Measures

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

Standard Reference Materials available NIST 1,288 1,292 1,335 1,353 1,214

Standard Reference Materials sold NIST 33,347 34,020 31,985 30,996 29,527

Standard Reference Data titles available NIST 60 63 65 90 106

Number of items calibrated NIST 3,118 2,969 3,192 2,924 3,459

Technical publications produced NIST 2,270 2,250 2,207 2,236 1,918

Technical publications produced ITS 32 20 17 17 20

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. 

 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 61 

December 2004 
Department of Commerce 

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. 

■ Downstream Outcomes

DOC’s FY 2003 report provided the following selected examples of downstream outcomes arising 

from the technology transfer activities of the department’s federal laboratories: 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

• NIST helping prepare an 'out of this world' atomic clock. Setting the world’s clocks from a 

timepiece far above the Earth someday may be the norm if the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST)-led program to put an atomic clock aboard the International Space Station (ISS) 

proves successful. This effort is part of the NASA-funded Primary Atomic Reference Clock in Space 

(PARCS) mission, scheduled to fly on the ISS in early 2006. PARCS will be used to test 

gravitational theory, study laser-cooled atoms in microgravity and explore ways to improve the 

accuracy of timekeeping on Earth. Atoms in microgravity can be slowed to speeds significantly 

below those used in atomic clocks on Earth, providing a predicted 10-fold improvement in clock 

accuracy. (The current U.S. standard, the NIST-F1 clock, is accurate to within one second in 30 

million years.) The PARCS space clock will be compared continuously to the hydrogen maser, a 

fundamentally different clock, to provide a test of an Einstein theory that predicts that two different 

kinds of clocks in the same environment will keep the same time. To measure gravitational 

frequency shift, comparisons will be made between the space clock and a clock on Earth. Signals 

conveyed to the ground from such space clocks someday might serve as an international time 

standard available to anyone around the world. PARCS is a cooperative effort involving NASA’s Jet 

Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), NIST, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, the University of 

Colorado at Boulder, and the University of Torino in Italy. JPL is leading the actual development of 

the space package.

• Peanut butter standard spreads quality. The National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) recently issued Standard Reference Material (SRM) 2387, a peanut butter sample 

characterized with state-of-the-art measurement methods to provide values for fat, protein, vitamins, 

minerals, and other substances it contains. It can be used by food manufacturers to validate 

production and quality control procedures, as well as to ensure accurate labeling of product content. 

The new SRM is the first NIST food-matrix reference material with values assigned for 18 individual 

amino acids -- the building blocks of proteins -- and for aflatoxins, carcinogenic substances produced 

by mold in crops. It also is the only SRM that is high in both fat content and protein, making it useful 

in evaluating the fat and protein content of other food products. SRM 2387 already has found a 

scientific use in evaluating allergen test kits. Even a trace of peanut protein can cause serious 

reactions, including death, if someone is highly allergic. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 62 

• New NIST facility soon will be ‘reflecting’ on safer signs. Roadways should get safer in the 

future, now that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has developed a way to 

accurately and reliably measure how light reflects off stop signs and other road markings. Road 

signs and markings are designed to be visible at night by retroreflectivity -- that is, they reflect some 

December 2004 
Department of Commerce 

of the light emitted by a vehicle’s headlights back toward the driver’s eyes. However, measurements 

of retroreflectivity have varied so much among different devices and laboratories that federal 

transportation officials have been unable to define minimum standards for this congressionally 

mandated characteristic. Recently, NIST established a facility, funded by the Transportation 

Research Board of the National Cooperative Research Program, that resolves numerous measurement 

problems and improves accuracy. Inside the facility, one finds a long black tunnel with a set of 

tracks on which sits an instrumented platform. Signs or materials are mounted on the platform, which 

can be moved 3 to 30 meters (10 to 100 feet) from a light source at one end of the tunnel. Using 

custom software, scientists precisely control all of the components and measure the characteristics of 

light reflected from the sign to a detector located close to the source. NIST expects that the facility 

will begin providing calibration services early in 2004. 

• Standard improves tests of male DNA. Mother Goose tells us that boys are made of “snips and 

snails and puppy dog tails.” She was clearly misinformed about the snails and tails, but she was on to 

something with the snips. What you really need to build a boy is a “Y” chromosome, and it turns out 

that SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms), known by the biotech cognoscenti as simply “snips,” 

can be helpful in sorting out who fathered the boy. If DNA can be thought of as an instruction book 

for building a specific person, then SNPs are single letters at an exact location in that book that tend 

to vary among individuals. A new Standard Reference Material (SRM) issued by the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) uses both SNPs and STRs (sections where three to five 

DNA “letters” form repeating patterns) to help improve the reliability of laboratory analyses of male 

DNA. The result of several years of research, the standard consists of six vials of very carefully 

analyzed DNA. Five are male samples, and one is female. Laboratories that perform forensics or 

paternity DNA analyses can use the SRM to double check the accuracy of their equipment and test 

procedures for analyzing the Y chromosome. It also may be helpful for population studies that study 

whether the human race evolved from one or many “Adams.” Each vial comes with certified DNA 

sequences for 22 different STR locations and 42 different SNPs. 

• System helps ensure reliability of military communications. The Army, Navy, and Air Force 

use thousands of miles of optical fibers on ships, planes and land-based installations to transmit voice 

and data. They needed a simple, effective, and highly accurate way to measure the amount of light 

delivered by these glass “wires” at key points in the transmission system. Power degradation along 

the network can cause communication failure. Working with ILX Lightwave Corp.of Bozeman, 

Montana, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) came up with a system capable 

of world-class optical measurements with push-button convenience. The system consists of a NISTdesigned optical detector and an optical multimeter -- designed by ILX Lightwave -- that measures 

light emitted from a fiber over a wide range of wavelengths. There are two versions of the novel 

detector: one using silicon-based sensors and the other using germanium-based sensors. The sensors 

connect directly to an optical fiber without any additional optics and with barely measurable light 

loss. Measurement uncertainty is half that of previous optical fiber power detectors. The new 

systems are now being shipped to military calibration centers where they will be used to annually 

check the accuracy of optical fiber power systems utilized in the field.

• Standards to help manufacturers measure micromachine properties. When a car collides with 

another car, a tiny device called an accelerometer detects the change in motion and sets off an air 

bag, an innovation that has saved many lives. The accelerometer is one of the most common uses of 

microelectromechanical systems (MEMS), but scientists and engineers also are starting to use them 

in devices ranging from angioplasty pressure sensors and pacemakers to optical disk drives. MEMS, 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 63 

December 2004 
Department of Commerce 

also known as micromachines, are a relatively new technology that uses existing microelectronics 

manufacturing methods to create complex machines with micrometer feature sizes. MEMS devices 

represent a rapidly growing component of the semiconductor industry. Many micromachines contain 

moving parts that are combined with integrated circuits. Like most high-tech devices, they must be 

made with precise dimensions and materials properties to operate properly. To help manufacturers 

ensure that their devices meet these exacting specifications, National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) scientists and engineers helped develop three ASTM International standard test 

methods for the thin films used to make micromachines. The test procedures, which are the first such 

standards in the world, will be published in The Annual Book of ASTM International Standards this 

month. The standards are expected to facilitate global commerce in MEMS technologies by enabling 

measurements that will lead to the development of more reliable and reproducible MEMS devices. 

The three standards provide detailed instructions for measuring thin-film dimensions and "strain," a 

property related to the stress in the thin film. NIST researchers have created a Web site to help 

semiconductor manufacturers perform the complex mathematical calculations required by the new 

standard test methods. For further information, see www.eeel.nist.gov/812/test-structures.

• NIST helps chip industry measure features by counting atoms. The quest to develop the 

nanotechnology equivalent of ruler length measurement references based on the spacing of atoms in 

a perfectly ordered crystal has inspired a burst of innovation at the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST). Progress to date has yielded a novel device that can resolve distances 

smaller than the radius of an atom and a reliable method for writing 10 nanometer sized features on 

silicon. NIST researchers are packaging the new technology and know-how into a scanning 

tunneling microscope (STM) system designed to write patterns with dimensions determined by 

counting the atoms that make up the patterns’ structural features. Ultimately aiming for an accuracy 

of better than 1 nanometer, the team intends to supply the semiconductor industry with benchmark 

references to calibrate measurement tools used in research and production. To measure exceedingly 

small distances, members of the “atom-based artifacts project” developed a novel diode laser-based 

interferometer. The new, compact instrument incorporates elements of two types of existing 

interferometers -- devices that determine the distance between two objects on the basis of light 

interference patterns -- but achieves much higher levels of resolution. To date, the team has measured 

distances in increments smaller than 10 picometers, or less than one hundredth of a nanometer. 

Efforts to produce durable, silicon-based measurement references have paid off with a method for 

reliably writing patterns with 10 nanometer line widths -- equivalent to about 30 silicon atoms across. 

These STM-written patterns are long-lived, even outside of a vacuum, and recent work suggests that 

reactive ion etching can increase their three dimensional relief.

• Tooth, heal thyself. “Smart materials” invented at the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) soon may be available that stimulate repair of defective teeth. Laboratory 

studies show that these composites, made of amorphous calcium phosphate embedded in polymers, 

can efficiently promote re-growth of tooth structures. In the presence of saliva-like solutions the 

material releases calcium and phosphate ions, forming a crystalline calcium phosphate similar to the 

mineral found naturally in teeth and bone. Developed through a long-standing partnership between 

NIST and the American Dental Association (ADA), initial applications for these bioactive, 

biocompatible materials include adhesive cements for orthodontic braces and anti-cavity liners 

underneath conventional fillings. NIH and NIST entered into an interagency agreement whereby 

NIST took the lead on prosecuting and licensing the smart dental material. After further 

development, NIST exclusively licensed the invention to the ADA, which has signed one 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 64 

December 2004 
Department of Commerce 

commercialization license to date. This activity is an example of increasingly close ties between 

federal agencies, non-profit organizations, and the private sector. 

• Hairs’ to better drug testing. There’s a relatively new weapon in the battle against illicit drug 

use -- hair. Unlike urine or other body fluids, hair tissue retains traces of cocaine and other drugs for 

at least 90 days (not just two or three). Hair also is easier to collect and harder to switch or 

contaminate. As a result, hair analysis increasingly is used to screen job applicants, athletes, and 

others for illicit drug use. The accuracy of such tests now can be checked through the use of two new 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Standard Reference Materials (SRM’s). The 

standards consist of human hair segments that have been soaked in solutions containing target drugs 

and then carefully measured for drug concentrations. SRM 2379 is designed for calibrating tests of 

stimulants (“uppers”) such as cocaine and PCP, while SRM 2380 helps check tests for depressants 

(“downers”), such as codeine and THC (the active ingredient in marijuana). Drugs usually are not 

detectable in hair samples until 10 days after use, so hair analysis is likely to complement rather than 

completely replace traditional screening methods. 

• Device lets blind feel images. A new technology developed by National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST) researchers allows people who are blind or visually impaired to feel 

electronic images. Called a tactile graphic display, the device uses an array of more than 3,000 

rounded pins that can be raised in any pattern and then locked into place. The inspiration for the 

tactile graphic display came from a “bed of nails” toy found in a novelty store. The NIST researchers 

just needed a way to connect an array of moveable pins with electric signals. The answer came in the 

form of outdated technology. The researchers took a 20-year-old scientific pen plotter and made it 

work upside down. Instead of pushing a pen down to draw images on paper, the device now pushes 

pins up to form an image. Unlike embossed images on paper, the tactile display can be used over and 

over again. Each image is sent electronically to the device, which uses software to determine how to 

create a tactile display that matches the image. The display converts scanned illustrations, 

photographs, map outlines, or other graphical images into raised patterns and can translate images 

displayed on Internet Web pages or in electronic books. After the pins are “viewed” with the 

fingertips, they can be withdrawn to form a flat surface ready to be reset into a new image. NIST is 

working with the private sector to apply the technology under a non-exclusive research license. In 

addition, several patents are pending on the technology and commercialization licenses are available.

• Finding dirty bombs and other radiation threats. In an age of terrorism, law enforcement 

agents and other first responders need to be prepared for a wide range of threats, including so-called 

“dirty bombs” and other radiation hazards. To help ensure the performance of devices used to detect 

such threats, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) researchers are working with the 

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI) to develop new standards for a variety of radiation detectors and monitors. With 

partial funding from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and NIST’s Office of Law 

Enforcement Standards, NIST researchers are investigating a wide variety of detection devices, 

ranging from 3-meter-high portal towers that scan truck trailers while they move through checkpoints 

to small, pager-size monitors that serve as personal dosimeters. Many of these devices originally 

were designed for monitoring workers in factories and laboratories. The new standards under 

development will ensure that the devices work as intended under the new conditions now 

encountered in homeland security related tasks. For example, some devices work differently in the 

rain or high humidity conditions, as well as in wide temperature ranges. So far, the NIST researchers 

also have found that the calibration of some detectors depends a lot on the exposure rate and energy 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 65 

December 2004 
Department of Commerce 

of the radiation detected. The accuracy of 19 different hand-held detectors ranged within plus or 

minus 5 percent of the actual radiation value to plus or minus 40 percent depending on whether they 

were measuring high, medium, or low energy radiation sources.

• Ensuring the safety of first responder gas masks. Firefighters and other first responders faced 

with a terrorist attack soon will breathe a little easier knowing that their gas masks have been tested 

to ensure they work properly under emergency response conditions. Air purifying respirators, 

commonly known as gas masks, protect workers from hazards associated with chemical, biological, 

radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) agents. The National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) has teamed up with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and 

the U.S. Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command to develop a full suite of gas mask 

standards for civilian workers. Scientists will soon begin live agent testing of masks at the Army’s 

Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland, one of only a few nationwide laboratories that can do such 

tests safely. The tests will ensure that the masks protect workers from a mustard blistering agent and 

from the nerve gas sarin. The tests are done on specially designed mannequins that can precisely 

measure minute amounts of vapor that may penetrate through the masks. Masks worn by first 

responders must meet different standards from those designed for troops. Most military uses involve 

outdoor attacks where air currents would naturally disperse chemicals or other hazardous agents. The 

civilian testing procedures address release of a hazardous agent inside buildings or other closed 

environments. The standard will include a maximum penetration rate for hazardous substances and 

methods for testing the fit of gas masks for individuals. 

• Helping consumers choose among house repair options. House maintenance is a never-ending 

and costly task. Roofing, siding, windows and even garage doors wear out. Now researchers at the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have developed a software program that takes 

the guesswork out of replacement decisions. The free program, called NEST (for National Economic 

Service-life Tools), allows homeowners to select the most cost-effective replacement material for 

roofing, siding, windows, and garage doors. It also provides, for the user’s own zip code, cost 

estimates for replacements, including the cost of local labor and local materials, as well as the cost of 

maintenance. NEST currently consists of two software tools. “NEST Builder” and “Durability 

Doctor.” NEST Builder asks homeowners to specify the house layout and size, as well as various 

kinds of materials used for roofing, siding, windows, and garage doors. The software program uses 

the information to build a virtual or graphic model of a user’s home. “Durability Doctor” then 

combines the house model data with information on material cost and service life of the selected 

housing component. It estimates the installation and maintenance cost as well as the monthly 

financing cost of each alternative over the product's lifetime. Consumers then can compare costs for 

nine different types of roofing, four garage door materials, six types of windows and eight varieties 

of siding. “Durability Doctor” also reports which replacements are the most durable, have the lowest 

installation cost and lowest life-cycle cost for each housing component. NIST developed NEST with 

funds from the Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing, a government-industry initiative 

led by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to modernize the homebuilding industry. 

• Designing efficient cooling systems for the dog days of summer. New software developed by 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) can help cooling system manufacturers meet 

Department of Energy goals calling for a 20 percent increase in energy efficiency of residential air 

conditioners by 2006. Manufacturing engineers can use the software, called EVAP-COND, to 

improve evaporators and condensers, two types of heat exchangers that are essential components of 

every air conditioner. Improved heat exchangers mean increased energy efficiency. The software 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 66 

December 2004 
Department of Commerce 

simulations depict the performance of evaporators and condensers working with any one of 10 

cooling agents, including new generation atmospheric ozone-safe hydrofluorocarbon fluids and 

“natural refrigerants,” such as carbon dioxide or propane. The software’s computer graphics package 

enables engineers to observe and to understand refrigerant behavior throughout the simulated heat 

exchanger. Different designs can be tested to achieve desired environmental results. According to 

the software developer, “EVAP-COND can increase design engineer productivity and can reduce 

laboratory testing, thus shortening design-to-production time. This software can save manufacturers 

time and money, while it is helping to conserve energy.” NIST developed the software with funds 

from the 21st Century Research Program of the Air-conditioning and Refrigeration Technology 

Institute and the U.S. Department of Energy. The Windows-based program can be downloaded from 

www2.bfrl.nist.gov/software/evap-cond/.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

• Hurricane Isabel. Without NOAA’s excellent forecasts and end-to-end teamwork, Hurricane

Isabel’s toll on lives and property would have been even more devastating. NOAA’s track forecast was 

outstanding. Isabel swept over the East Coast some 38 hours after well-positioned hurricane warnings 

and track forecasts had been issued. This is 14 possibly life-saving hours ahead of NOAA’s 24-hour lead 

time goal. The Director and Deputy Director of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center gave 180 broadcast 

interviews. National Hurricane Center staff handled an additional 280 phone interviews, plus another 45 

in Spanish. On the Monday after, the Center Director briefed President Bush and several governors via 

video teleconference as they reviewed Isabel’s wrath in a number of states. 

• Improved hurricane forecasts. NOAA’s National Weather Service (NWS) announced it will begin 

issuing five-day hurricane forecasts, extending the three-day forecasts issued since 1964. NWS cited 

customer needs for longer-range forecasts and major improvements in track forecasting skill over the past 

few decades as reasons for lengthening the forecasts. The new forecast is to move resources out of harms 

way, such as U.S. Navy ships. The decision to extend the forecasts came after two years of successful 

testing with data from the 2001 and 2002 seasons, indicating the five-day track forecast will be as 

accurate as the three-day forecast was 15 years ago. 

• Tornado warnings save lives. NOAA and our Nation owe a heartfelt thanks to the many dedicated 

men and women in the National Weather Service who worked tirelessly during the May 4-10 outbreak of 

severe weather. Early reports indicated that about 400 tornadoes hit 10 central and southern U.S. states 

during this record-breaking week. The preliminary average lead time provided for all tornado events is 

about 19 minutes - well above our current 11 minute performance goal. During this period, NOAA staff 

residing in these hard-hit communities literally lived in their offices, working to save lives rather than 

returning home to their own families. Undoubtedly the tragic loss of life would have been even higher 

without the front-line commitment of so many NOAA staff. On May 8, for example, a severe weather 

forecast briefing was broadcast live over NOAA Weather Radio transmitters in the Oklahoma City area – 

nearly three hours before tornadoes hit. Heavily promoted among local media and emergency managers, 

the briefing carried up-to-the-minute information on timing, location, and expected impact. Tornado 

safety rules and preparedness were highlighted in the briefing. Then, as an F4 tornado tore through 

heavily populated areas in and around Oklahoma City, our forecasters broadcast continuing live updates 

of the storm’s track on NOAA Weather Radio. Listeners phoned and e-mailed our Norman Forecast 

Office with thanks for outstanding service, and Oklahoma Governor Henry issued praise for the advance 

notice that saved lives. Missouri Governor Holden expressed appreciation as well. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 67 

December 2004 
Department of Commerce 

• Electronic commerce and print-on-demand for nautical charts. The Office of Coast Survey, 

National Ocean Service and OceanGrafix collaborated in a CRADA to build Print on Demand/ecommerce for NOAA’s suite of 1,000+ nautical charts. This technology prints charts only when ordered, 

and from digital files that NOAA updates daily. Electronic commerce software controls the automatic 

assembly and printing of ordered charts from digital files. The CRADA furthered NOAA’s mission by 

providing mariners with nautical charts that are up-to-date with all critical corrections, a federal 

requirement for regulated vessels. Further, the transferred technology permits the customization of charts; 

eliminates inventory, warehouses, and the wasteful disposal of obsolete charts, thus reducing costs; and 

eliminates labor and errors in order taking and fulfilling. The most important result will be improved 

safety and efficiency of marine transportation, and the protection of life, property, and the marine 

environment. 

• Public release of atmosphere and ocean models and model output. The Geophysical Fluid 

Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) has released several Earth System model components and model data to 

the public and university collaborators. A new Atmospheric Model (AM2) has been released to university 

collaborators the latest versions of the Modular Ocean Model (MOM4), an ocean model expressed in 

isopycnal coordinates (HIM), and the Flexible Modeling System (FMS) infrastructure on which these 

models are based have been released and are available at http://nomads.gfdl.noaa.gov/. Model output 

from several experimental programs at GFDL, including Decadal-Centennial Coupled Climate and 

Ocean Data Assimilation are also available. There have been downloads to over 10,000 distinct 

hosts, including over 720 for MOM, almost 600 for HIM, and almost 800 for the FMS infrastructure. 

Nearly a terabyte of data has been requested. 

• Web-based access to distributed data sets. The Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory 

(PMEL) has transferred Live Access Server (LAS) software for web-based browsing (visualization) 

and downloading (subsetting) of earth science data sets to a broad scientific community. LAS 

presents geographically distributed data sets as a unified virtual data base. It is compatible with 

scientific data networking provided by the Open Source Project for a Network Data Access Protocol 

(OPeNDAP, formerly known as DODS). PMEL promoted the use of LAS throughout the Nation and 

the world. There are approximately 50 installations of LAS in research institutions spanning, 

NOAA, NASA, the U. S. Navy, Department of Energy, and national and international research 

institutions, such as the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, the 

British Atmospheric Data Center, and the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. 

• Scientific Graphics Toolkit and ncBrowse. The Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory 

(PMEL) has developed Java-based tools to more easily visualize oceanographic (and other) data for 

both Web-based and desktop applications. The Scientific Graphics Toolkit (SGT) is designed to aid 

developers in producing scientific graphics applications. SGT has found a large international 

audience with over 5,800 sites from 70 countries having downloaded the toolkit. The ncBrowse is a 

general purpose Java desktop application designed to enable users to interactively browse and 

visualize data from netCDF files and OPeNDAP resources. NetCDF is a file format that is 

commonly used by the oceanographic community to store both observations and model results. The 

ncBrowse has also found an international and cross-discipline audience with users from over 4,000 

sites from 60 countries downloading the application. The ncBrowse is included with the Precision 

Agricultural-Landscape Modeling System (PALMS) distribution from the University of WisconsinMadison and the International Oceanographic Data and Information Exchange (IODE) Ocean 

Teacher Data Management Resource Kit.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 68 

December 2004 
Department of Commerce 

National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

• Video quality metric. ITS developed a superior method of measuring video quality objectively 

by machine that closely predicts the quality that subjective human views would perceive. The 

technology is covered by three patents owned by ITS/NTIA. In FY 2003, the ITS method was 

adopted by the ANSI as a U.S. national standard. In addition, the ITU tested a number of proposed 

video quality metrics from around the world and found the ITS method superior. It is anticipated that 

ITS’ method will soon be an international standard. 

ITS targeted this technology for commercial development, with the potential of producing a royalty 

income for the laboratory within one year. More than 200 copies of software implementing the 

method have been requested this FY for purposes of evaluation. Negotiations for a commercial 

license have begun with a U.S. corporation. 

• Comarco cellular test equipment. Comarco, Inc. (a U.S. test equipment manufacturer), signed a 

patent license for the use of ITS’ MNB speech quality estimation algorithm. Comarco based its QMOS algorithm on the ITS MNB algorithm and offered it for sale as an available software tool in 

several of the Comarco cellular test equipment product lines. This test equipment is used by major 

cell phone service providers to test, diagnose, and maintain their cellular radio systems.

• Personal communication services (PCS). Much of ITS’ 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. Collaboration between ITS and Motorola was instrumental 

in Motorola receiving a license (valued at $100,000,000) to provide PCS in Hong Kong. PCS has 

now been commercialized worldwide, and new developments continue as PCS is extended to third 

generation PCS and beyond. ITS continues this work in FY 2003 through a CRADA with Lucent 

Technologies’ Bell Laboratories to investigate smart antenna performance, a technology that is 

targeted to dramatically increase the capacity of wireless systems and, therefore, reduce the problem 

of spectrum crowding. This technology is 2 to 4 years from commercial application. 

• Local multipoint distribution services (LMDS). ITS has been a premier laboratory in millimeter 

wave research for two decades. CRADAs with private industry have enabled ITS to apply this unique 

expertise to radio propagation for LMDS. LMDS provides broadband wireless communications for 

business and residential applications. Systems have been deployed in the U.S. and a number of U.S. 

companies are exporting systems and services. Research into LMDS was conducted with Hewlett 

Packard, U.S. West, and Lucent Technologies.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 69 

December 2004 
Department of Commerce 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 70 

December 2004 
Department of Defense 

3.3 Department of Defense 

This section summarizes the statistics and other data provided by the department in its annual reports 

on the technology transfer activities and outcomes of its federal laboratories. Currently, these reports 

provide data through FY 2003. This information covers the activities of the department’s following 

services and agencies: Air Force, Army, Navy, Uniformed Services University of the Health 

Sciences, and several other defense agencies (unless otherwise noted in the tables below). For 

additional details, readers should consult the department’s full report.27 

■ Collaborative Relationships for Research and Development

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● CRADAs, total active in the FY(1) -- -- 1,965 1,913 2,134

 - New, executed in the FY -- -- 459 449 630

(2) ▪ Traditional CRADAs, total active in the FY 113 845 1,350 1,364 1,418 1,376 1,523

 - New, executed in the FY 449 425 296 347 523

(3) ▪ Non-traditional CRADAs, total active in FY -- -- 547 537 611

 - New, executed in the FY -- -- 163 102 107

● Other collaborative R&D relationships

-- -- 0 0 0

 

 

Figures prior to FY 2001 include the activities of only the Air Force, Army, and Navy.

CRADA = Cooperative Research and Development Agreement

 -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) “Active” = legally in force at any time during the FY. “Total active” includes all agreements executed under CRADA authority (15 USC 3710a).

(2) CRADAs involving collaborative research and development by a federal laboratory and non-federal partners.

(3) CRADAs used for special purposes -- such as material transfer or technical assistance that may result in protected information.

■ Invention Disclosure and Patenting 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● New inventions disclosed in the FY(1) 1,383 1,168 1,060 991 1,005 1,122 1,332

● Patent applications filed in the FY(2) 807 759 703 774 809 829 810

● Patents issued in the FY 547 553 619 617 619

Figures prior to FY 2001 include the activities of only the Air Force, Army, and Navy.

(1) Inventions arising at the federal lab. 

(2) Tally includes: U.S. patent applications, foreign patent applications filed on cases for which no U.S. application was filed, divisional applications,

and continuation-in-part applications. Excludes: provisional, continuation, duplicate foreign, and PCT applications. 

 

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

Technology Transition,” March 2004 (prepared in response to 10 USC 2515). (Report available on the Internet at 

http://www.dtic.mil/techtransit ) 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 71 

December 2004 
Department of Defense 

■ Licensing

Profile of Active Licenses 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● All licenses, number total active in the FY(1) -- -- 288 471 364

▫ New, executed in the FY -- -- -- n/a n/a

▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY 177 189 283 350 361

▫ New, executed in the FY 15 34 61 67 49 39 49

(2) - Patent licenses, total active in FY 177 189 283 350 361

▫ New, executed in the FY 61 67 49 39 49

 - Material transfer (inventions), tot active in FY -- 0 0

▫ New, executed in the FY -- 0 0

(3) - Other invention licenses, total active in FY -- 0 0

▫ New, executed in the FY -- 0 0

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY -- -- 5 121 3

▫ New, executed in the FY -- -- -- n/a n/a

 - Copyright licenses (fee bearing) -- n/a n/a

▫ New, executed in the FY -- n/a n/a

 - Material transfer (non-inv.), total active in FY -- n/a n/a

▫ New, executed in the FY -- n/a n/a

 - Other (4) -- n/a n/a

▫ New, executed in the FY -- n/a n/a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figures prior to FY 2001 include the activities of only the Air Force, Army, and Navy.

Multiple inventions in a single license are counted as one license. Licenses that include both patents and copyrights

(i.e., hybrid licenses) are reported as patent licenses -- and not included in the count of copyright licenses.

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years

(1) “Active” = legally in force at any time during the FY. 

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(3) No licenses of this type indicated as active.

(4) No licenses of this type indicated as active.

Licensing Management 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● Elapsed execution time,(1) licenses granted in FY

▪ Invention licenses 

▫ average months -- -- n/a 7.6 5.4

▫ minimum -- -- n/a 2.0 1.1

▫ maximum -- -- n/a 36.0 21.9

(2) - Patent licenses

▫ average months -- -- -- 7.6 5.4

▫ minimum -- -- -- 2.0 1.1

▫ maximum -- -- -- 36.0 21.9

● Number of licenses terminated for cause in FY

▪ Invention licenses -- -- 2 6 21

(2) - Patent licenses -- -- -- 6 21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Data included in this table (intentionally) addresses only invention licenses, with patent licenses distinguished as a subclass.

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) Date of license application to the date of license execution. (Date of license application is the date the lab formally

acknowledges the written request for a license from a prospective licensee and agrees to enter into negotiations.)

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications which are licensed.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 72 

December 2004 
Department of Defense 

Characteristics of Licenses Bearing Income 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● All income bearing licenses, number -- -- -- n/a n/a

▫ Exclusive -- -- -- n/a

▫ Partially exclusive -- -- -- n/a n/a

▫ Non-exclusive -- -- -- n/a n/a

▪ Invention licenses, income bearing -- -- -- 99

▫ Exclusive -- -- -- 59

▫ Partially exclusive -- -- -- 17 23

▫ Non-exclusive -- -- -- 48 65

 - Patent licenses,(1) income bearing -- -- -- 99 135

▫ Exclusive -- -- -- 59

▫ Partially exclusive -- -- -- 17 23

▫ Non-exclusive -- -- -- 48 65

▪ Other IP licenses, income bearing -- -- -- n/a n/a

▫ Exclusive -- -- --

▫ Partially exclusive -- -- --

▫ Non-exclusive -- -- --

 - Copyright licenses (fee bearing) -- -- --

▫ Exclusive -- -- --

▫ Partially exclusive -- -- --

▫ Non-exclusive -- -- --

● All royalty bearing licenses,

(2) number -- -- n/a n/a n/a

▪ Invention licenses, royalty bearing, number -- -- n/a 96 124

(1) - Patent licenses, royalty bearing -- -- -- 96 124

▪ Other IP licenses, royalty bearing -- -- -- n/a n/a

 - Copyright licenses (fee bearing) -- -- --

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In general, license income can result from various sources: license issue fees, earned royalties, minimum annual royalites, paid-up license fees, and

reimbursement for full-cost recovery of goods and services provided by the lab to the licensee (including patent costs).

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of past years.

(1) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(2) Note that royalties are one component of total license income.

n/a

135

55

55

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 73 

December 2004 
Department of Defense 

Income (annual) from Licenses

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● Total income, all licenses active in FY (1) $2,005,000 $2,213,000 $6,465,468 $6,715,597 $9,965,586

▪ Invention licenses $2,005,000 $2,213,000 $6,383,468 $6,713,679 $9,965,586

 - Patent licenses (2) $2,005,000 $2,213,000 $6,383,468 $6,713,679 $9,965,586

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY $0 $0 $82,000 $1,918 $0

 - Copyright licenses -- -- -- n/a n/a

● Total Earned Royalty Income (ERI) (3) -- -- n/a n/a n/a

▫ Median ERI -- -- n/a n/a n/a

▫ Minimum ERI -- -- $75 $22 $200

▫ Maximum ERI -- -- $3,912,000 $4,358,315 $1,500,000

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses -- -- n/a n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses -- -- n/a n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses -- -- n/a n/a n/a

▪ Invention licenses -- -- -- n/a n/a

▫ Median ERI -- -- --

▫ Minimum ERI -- -- --

▫ Maximum ERI -- -- --

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses -- -- --

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses -- -- --

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses -- -- --

 - Patent licenses (2) -- -- -- n/a n/a

▫ Median ERI -- -- --

▫ Minimum ERI -- -- --

▫ Maximum ERI -- -- --

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses -- -- --

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses -- -- --

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses -- -- --

▪ Other IP licenses -- -- -- n/a n/a

▫ Median ERI -- -- --

▫ Minimum ERI -- -- --

▫ Maximum ERI -- -- --

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses -- -- --

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses -- -- --

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses -- -- --

 - Copyright licenses -- -- -- n/a n/a

▫ Median ERI -- -- --

▫ Minimum ERI -- -- --

▫ Maximum ERI -- -- --

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses -- -- --

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses -- -- --

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses -- -- --

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figures prior to FY 2001 include the activities of only the Air Force, Army, and Navy.

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) Total income includes license issue fees, earned royalties, minimum annual royalties, paid-up license fees, and reimbursement for full-cost

recovery of goods and services provided by the lab to the licensee (including patent costs).

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(3) “Earned royalty” = royalty based upon use of a licensed invention (usually, a percentage of sales or units sold). Not a license fee or minimum royalty.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 74 

December 2004 
Department of Defense 

Disposition of License Income 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● Income distributed (1)

▪ Invention licenses, total distributed -- -- n/a $2,041,787 $3,127,386

 - To inventors -- -- n/a $761,136 $1,828,904

20% 37% 58%

(2) -To other -- -- n/a $1,280,651 $1,298,482

80% 63% 42%

(3) - Patent licenses, total distributed -- -- -- n/a n/a

 - To inventors -- -- -- n/a n/a

(2) -To other -- -- -- n/a n/a

 

Invention licenses are the chief policy interest regarding distribution of income; content of this table reflects this focus.

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) Income includes royalties and other payments received during the FY.

(2) Further details not provided by the agency.

(3) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

■ Other Performance Measures 

None cited. 

■ Downstream Outcomes

DOD’s report for FY 2002 included the following selected examples of downstream outcomes from 

the department’s technology transfer activities: 

Army 

• Chemical Biological Explosives Containment System/Workshelter. The primary system, 

Chemical Biological Explosives Containment System (CBECS) is a pneumatic structure supporting a 

Kevlar tent with a filling sock for aqueous foam. It is approximately 7 feet in diameter at the base 

and tapers to about 4 feet in diameter at the top. Once inflated, the unit is designed to be placed over 

the device/munition and filled with blast suppressive foam. The secondary containment shelter 

(workshelter) is also an airframe, which is easily inflated and placed over the primary containment 

system (CBECS). The workshelter is designed to contain/mitigate the residual effects (primarily, 

escaping fragments and vapors/aerosols from the primary containment system) associated with the 

detonation of the device/munition. The Army’s Edgewood Chemical Biological Center entered into 

a patent license agreement with ZUMRO Inc. (Willow Grove, Pennsylvania), a leader in the life 

safety industry, to market CBECS to commercial customers. Both the primary and secondary 

containment systems were jointly designed by the Army’s Chemical/Biological Counterterrorism 

Team and ZUMRO and then fabricated by ZUMRO. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 75 

December 2004 
Department of Defense 

• Topical skin-protectant cream for civilian applications. The Army’s Medical Research 

Material Command has signed a patent license agreement to allow commercial development by a 

medium-sized U.S. pharmaceutical firm of a topical skin-protectant cream for nursing home and 

hospital prescription use. The cream was developed initially by Army Medical Research ICD for 

protection against chemical weapons exposure. It is expected to have widespread non-military uses, 

including skin protection against harsh chemicals in the home or industrial settings and for protection 

against irritants such as poison ivy. 

• Biological detection kit. Development and technology transfer activities by the Army’s 

Edgewood Chemical Biological Center have yielded a commercially available biological detection 

kit (BDK), BioHazTM, which provides users with capability to sample and detect biological materials 

in suspect samples. Increased potential for the use of biological agents as weapons of terror and 

mass destruction underscores the importance of finding means to sample and detect such agents in a 

rapid and effective manner. The BDK developed by the Army team consists of sampling and 

detection equipment for biological agents over large area surfaces and in liquid, air, and small solid 

samples. The kit is a single, integrated package that can analyze samples for the presence of DNA, 

protein, and bacteria. The BDK uses existing techniques from food safety, personal air monitoring, 

and analysis venues and integrates them with new approaches to create a technology that can very 

easily be used in the field. Several CRADAs were involved in developing the BDK: with New 

Horizons Diagnostics Inc., to package the kit, and with the EAI Corporation, to further refine and 

market the kit. An Information Exchange Agreement was established with the Military Institute of 

Hygience and Epidemiology in Poland to enable joint development of the spore luminescence 

protocol for the kit. The BioHazTM is currently being marketed by the Response Equipment 

Corporation (subsidiary of EAI Corp.). The kit is also being marketed by New Horizons Diagnosics, 

Inc., as SWIPETM. The technology is currently being used by Hazardous Materials teams in several 

U.S. cities. 

• Integrated Virus Detection System. An Army scientist at the Edgewood Chemical Biological 

Center has developed a fundamentally new method for detecting and identifying viruses and 

nanoparticles. The Integrated Virus Detection System (IVDS) is a patented approach that relies on 

the properties of size and density to identify and count viruses and other extremely small particles 

without the use of biochemical reactions. The IVDS technology has been transferred to the 

commercial sector, through an exclusive license to the Virus Detection Company. Several industries 

are expected to benefit from this new technology: bioprocessing (to develop new products, including 

vaccines), materials (refine nanoparticle based creations), computers (computing devices with 

improved nanometer-sized separations and tolerances). In addition, the IVDS has provided a new 

standard of measurement on the nanometer scale that relies on instruments such as 

electronmicrography and light scattering. 

Navy 

• Techniques to diagnose or monitor sleep breathing disorders. The Navy’s Naval Underwater 

Weapons Center has signed two patent license agreements (in FY 2001) with Predictive Technology, 

Inc., a small company (in Massachusetts) formed to commercialize the use of non-linear signal 

processing techniques to diagnose or monitor sleep breathing disorders. The patented invention 

makes it possible to reduce medical and insurance costs by allowing a patient to be diagnosed for 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 76 

December 2004 
Department of Defense 

sleep apnea in a doctor’s office while awake in a 20-30 minute test, rather than needing to undergo an 

all-night stay at a sleep clinic. 

• Plasma arc waste destruction system. Over the last decade, researchers at the Carderock 

Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center have been investigating plasma arc technology as 

means to destroy shipboard combustible solid waste. (The technology utilizes an electric arc in a gas 

to produce a plasma that is hotter than the surface of the sun.) From this work, an NSWC scientific 

team has recently developed the Plasma Arc Waste Destruction System (PAWDS), which offers a 

small size, rapid, and efficient operation and the ability to incinerate a wide variety of garbage. The 

NSWC team moved this patented technology forward through both a CRADA and licensing 

agreement with PyroGenesis Inc., a private firm that develops and commercializes customized 

thermal plasma technologies. PyroGenesis plans to manufacture and install PAWDS on commercial 

cruiseliners. 

• Advanced nontoxic fouling release coating. A Naval Research Laboratory scientist has worked 

to develop and commercialize an environmentally safe coating system for ship hulls and pipeline 

applications (e.g., power plant water intakes). This patented coating system reduces the problem of 

biofouling (the undesired growth of barnacles, mussels, algae, etc.) with the use of toxic metals and 

biocides. The coating provides instead a surface to which organisms find it difficult to adhere. This 

new technology responds to a pressing need for an environmentally safe method for controlling 

biofouling that can replace the current methods that use metals and other chemicals that are 

potentially harmful to aquatic life and workers. To move the technology to the marketplace, NRL 

has licensed the coating system to a private company, Smart Surfaces LLC (Annapolis, Maryland), 

which plans to promote its use on commercial, private, and government ships, and as well in power 

plant water intake systems. 

• High speed, ultrastable, fiber optic communications laser. A team at the Naval Research 

Laboratory has developed an advanced fiber optic laser that is capable of generating ultrashort 

pulses of light. Because pulsed laser light is used to carry digital information, NRL’s ultrastable and 

ultrafast laser technology enables development of next generation communications systems. In 

addition, the patented technology can be used for radar systems and for other applications such as 

navigation and surveillance. The laser is being transferred by NRL for commercial development 

through licensing partnerships with two companies: PriTel, Inc., and Calmar Optcom. Presently, a 

number of products manufactured and marketed under these licensing agreements: four models of 

optical clocks, three optical transmitters, and two high power polarization maintaining fiber 

amplifiers. 

• Digital image enhancement. A team at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center is working to apply 

digital image enhancement -- technology developed initially for underwater mine hunting sonar -- to 

the medical community to help in detecting small lesions in mammograms. Several CRADAs and a 

licensing agreement have been established to aid in the development and transfer of the technology: 

to Advanced Image Enhancement, Inc., and to the Slater Center for Interactive Technologies. It is 

expected that digital image enhancement will enable doctors to have greater success in detecting 

early stage breast cancer. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 77 

December 2004 
Department of Defense 

Air Force 

• Vein Viewer -- a system and method for enhanced visualization of subcutaneous structures. 

Scientists at the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Materials and Manufacturing Directorate 

developed this breakthrough medical technology for locating veins and arteries in wounded soldiers 

on the battlefield. The Vein Viewer is a system and method for enhancing visualization of veins, 

arteries, or other subcutaneous natural or foreign structures of the body and for facilitating 

intravenous insertion or extraction of fluids, medication, or the like. The Viewer is comprised of a 

light source for illuminating or trans-illuminating a portion of the body with light of selected 

wavelengths, a low-level light detector (such as an image intensifier tube, including night vision 

goggles; a photomultiplier tube, photodiode, or charge coupled device) for generating an image of 

the illuminated body portion, and optical filter(s) of selected spectral transmittance (located at the 

light source, detector, or both). The primary medical application for this new technology is in 

locating veins and arteries. The capability will also help doctors locate foreign objects such as 

bullets or shrapnel under the skin. Infrared Imaging Systems (IRIS) is a start-up company 

(Columbus, Ohio) specifically founded to exploit this technology. The Air Force currently has an 

exclusive license with IRIS on the original patent and also a follow-on CRADA for further 

development of the technology. 

• Pinpoint WeatherNet Project. The Pinpoint WeatherNet Project (PWP) is a CRADA between 

the Office of Technology Transfer for Education (OTTE) at the Air Force Research Laboratory’s 

Directed Energy and and Space Vehicles Directorates and KOB-TV in New Mexico. PWN provides 

high quality weather stations for New Mexico middle schools. In FY 2002, 48 schools participated. 

Also in FY 2002, PWN became part of the Homeland Security WeatherNet Network, a partnership 

between the National Weather Service and Automated Weather Source. 

• Lightweight, carbon composite cages for low heat generation bearings. A team at the Air 

Force Research Laboratory’s Propulsion Directorate has developed a composite cage for rolling 

element bearings. The lightweight, carbon-carbon and carbon-phenolic composite cages enable 

rolling element bearings to operate at a higher speed with signficiantly less frictional heat generation 

than bearings fitted with traditional steel and cotton-based phenolic cages. The technology was 

developed in cooperation with a CRADA partner, Allcomp Inc., which has also received an 

exclusive license to the patent. Potential beneficiaries of this new technology include domestic 

bearing manufacturers and users of rotating equipment and turbomachinery. 

National Security Agency 

• SilentRunner® for continuous monitoring and analysis of network activity and security 

performance. NSA has licensed the SilentRunner® product and technology to the Raytheon 

Company. SilentRunner® passively gathers data about a network, its structure, its traffice, and its 

users through analysis of raw network packets. The raw packets are assembled and organized into a 

knowledge base that provides a detailed activity display of the network. The level of analysis 

enables assessment of real time data related to security risks and network vulnerabilities. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 78 

December 2004 
Department of Energy 

3.4 Department of Energy 

This section summarizes the statistics and other data provided by the department in its annual reports 

on the technology transfer activities and outcomes of its federal laboratories. Currently, these reports 

provide data through FY 2003. This information covers the activities of all the department’s 

government owned/government operated (GOGO) and government owned/contractor operated 

(GOCO) laboratories. For additional details, readers should consult the department’s full report.28 

■ Collaborative Relationships for Research and Development

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● CRADAs, total active in the FY(1) 715 687 558 680 661

- New, executed in the FY 240 151 204 192 140

▪ Traditional CRADAs,(2) total active in the FY 1 1,392 715 687 558 680 661

- New, executed in the FY 240 151 204 192 140

▪ Non-traditional CRADAs,(3) total active in FY 0 0 0 0 0

- New, executed in the FY 0 0 0 0 0

● Other collaborative R&D relationships

-- -- 0 0

 

 

 

 

 

0

CRADA = Cooperative Research and Development Agreement

 -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years. Figures are CRADAs "active during the FY" for FY 2002; "active at the end of the FY" for 

earlier years.

(1) “Active” = legally in force at any time during the FY. “Total active” includes all agreements executed under CRADA authority (15 USC 3710a).

(2) CRADAs involving collaborative research and development by a federal laboratory and non-federal partners.

(3) CRADAs used for special purposes -- such as material transfer or technical assistance that may result in protected information.

■ Invention Disclosure and Patenting 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● New inventions disclosed in the FY(1) 1,335 1,758 1,474 1,371 1,527 1,498 1,469

● Patent applications filed in the FY(2) 366 571 850 788 792 711 866

● Patents issued in the FY 525 515 605 551 627

(1) Inventions arising at the federal lab. 

(2) Tally includes: U.S. patent applications, foreign patent applications filed on cases for which no U.S. application was filed, divisional applications,

and continuation-in-part applications. Excludes: provisional, continuation, duplicate foreign, and PCT applications. 

 

28 U.S. Dept. of Energy, Office of Policy and International Affairs, Annual Report on Technology Transfer and Related 

Technology Partnering Activities at the National Laboratories and Other Facilities, Fiscal Year 2003, February 2004. 

Report prepared in response to 15 USC Sec. 3710(f) (requiring an annual “agency report on utilization” for agencies with 

federal laboratories) and submitted to OMB (consistent with Circular A-11 guidelines). (Report available on the Internet 

at http://techtransfer.energy.gov/reports.html) 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 79 

December 2004 
Department of Energy 

■ Licensing

Profile of Active Licenses 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● All licenses, number total active in the FY(1) 1,922 2,070 2,005 3,459 3,687

▫ New, executed in the FY 202 169 226 694 711

▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY 981 1,094 1,162 1,327 1,223

▫ New, executed in the FY 62 140 202 169 226 206 172

(2) - Patent licenses, total active in FY -- -- 1,162 1,327 1,223

▫ New, executed in the FY -- -- 226 206 172

- Material transfer (inventions), tot active in FY -- -- 0 0

▫ New, executed in the FY -- -- 0 0 0

- Other (3) invention licenses, total active in FY -- -- 0 0 0

 ▫ New, executed in the FY -- -- 0 0 0

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 941 976 843 2,132 2,464

▫ New, executed in the FY -- -- -- 488 539

- Copyright licenses (fee bearing) -- -- -- 1,525 1,823

▫ New, executed in the FY -- -- -- 332 348

- Material transfer (non-inv.), total active in FY -- -- -- 581 604

▫ New, executed in the FY -- -- -- 153 180

- Other (4) -- -- -- 26 37

▫ New, executed in the FY -- -- -- 3 11

 

 

 

 

 

 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Multiple inventions in a single license are counted as one license. Licenses that include both patents and copyrights

(i.e., hybrid licenses) are reported as patent licenses -- and not included in the count of copyright licenses.

 -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) “Active” = legally in force at any time during the FY. 

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(3) No licenses of this type indicated as active.

(4) Bailment agreements, trademarks, etc.

Licensing Management 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● Elapsed execution time,(1) licenses granted in FY

▪ Invention licenses 

 ▫ average months -- -- n/a 4.2 4.4

 ▫ minimum -- -- n/a 0.3 0.3

 ▫ maximum -- -- n/a 15.5 24.5

(2) - Patent licenses

▫ average months -- -- n/a 4.2 4.4

▫ minimum -- -- n/a 0.3 0.3

▫ maximum -- -- n/a 15.5 24.5

● Number of licenses terminated for cause in FY

▪ Invention licenses -- -- 60 77 35

 - Patent (2) licenses -- -- 60 77 35

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Data included in this table (intentionally) addresses only invention licenses, with patent licenses distinguished as a subclass.

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) Date of license application to the date of license execution. (Date of license application is the date the lab formally

acknowledges the written request for a license from a prospective licensee and agrees to enter into negotiations.)

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications which are licensed.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 80 

December 2004 
Department of Energy 

Characteristics of Licenses Bearing Income

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● All income bearing licenses, number -- -- 1,012 2,523 2,523

▫ Exclusive -- -- 174 301 246

▫ Partially exclusive -- -- 112 136 235

▫ Non-exclusive -- -- 726 2,086 2,042

▪ Invention licenses, income bearing -- -- -- 1,123 1,056

▫ Exclusive -- -- -- 263 215

▫ Partially exclusive -- -- -- 123 196

▫ Non-exclusive -- -- -- 737 645

(1) - Patent licenses, income bearing -- -- -- 1,123 1,056

▫ Exclusive -- -- -- 263 215

▫ Partially exclusive -- -- -- 123 196

▫ Non-exclusive -- -- -- 737 645

▪ Other IP licenses, income bearing -- -- -- 1,400 1,467

▫ Exclusive -- -- -- 38 31

▫ Partially exclusive -- -- -- 13 39

▫ Non-exclusive -- -- -- 1,349 1,397

- Copyright licenses (fee bearing) -- -- -- 1,173 1,352

▫ Exclusive -- -- -- 29 25

▫ Partially exclusive -- -- -- 7 35

▫ Non-exclusive -- -- -- 1,137 1,292

(2) ● All royalty bearing licenses, number 193 220 1,012 2,523 2,523

▪ Invention licenses, royalty bearing, number -- -- -- 1,123 1,056

(1) - Patent licenses, royalty bearing -- -- -- 1,123 1,056

▪ Other IP licenses, royalty bearing -- -- -- 1,400 1,467

- Copyright licenses (fee bearing) -- -- -- 1,173 1,352

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In general, license income can result from various sources: license issue fees, earned royalties, minimum annual royalites, paid-up license fees, and

reimbursement for full-cost recovery of goods and services provided by the lab to the licensee (including patent costs).

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of past years.

(1) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(2) Note that royalties are one component of total license income.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 81 

December 2004 
Department of Energy 

Income (annual) from Licenses

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● Total income, all licenses active in FY (1) $11,764,000 $15,840,000 $21,403,362 $23,476,716 $25,805,498

▪ Invention licenses $2,560,000 $3,455,000 $10,199,000 $12,710,000 $18,921,843 $21,253,279 $23,669,908

 - Patent licenses (2) -- -- -- $21,253,279 $23,669,908

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY $1,545,000 $2,836,000 $1,870,071 $2,223,437 $2,135,590

 - Copyright licenses -- -- -- $1,869,644 $2,100,886

● Total Earned Royalty Income (ERI) (3) $1,975,000 $2,228,000 $7,832,481 $5,604,774 $6,611,568

▫ Median ERI -- -- n/a $4,000 $3,000

▫ Minimum ERI -- -- $2 $23 $3

▫ Maximum ERI -- -- $1,584,922 $793,802 $913,000

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses -- -- $2,699,134 $1,550,000 $1,478,000

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses -- -- $5,271,631 $3,696,000 $3,789,000

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses -- -- $7,162,951 $4,571,000 $5,962,000

▪ Invention licenses -- -- -- $5,310,178 $6,063,693

▫ Median ERI -- -- -- $6,000 $5,000

▫ Minimum ERI -- -- -- $25 $3

▫ Maximum ERI -- -- -- $793,802 $913,000

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses -- -- -- $793,802 $1,478,000

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses -- -- -- $3,418,529 $3,197,000

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses -- -- -- $5,067,977 $5,363,000

- Patent licenses (2) -- -- -- $5,310,178 $6,063,693

 ▫ Median ERI -- -- -- $6,000 $5,000

 ▫ Minimum ERI -- -- -- $25 $3

 ▫ Maximum ERI -- -- -- $793,802 $913,000

 ▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses -- -- -- $793,802 $1,478,000

 ▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses -- -- -- $3,418,529 $3,197,000

 ▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses -- -- -- $5,067,977 $5,363,000

▪ Other IP licenses -- -- -- $294,597 $547,875

▫ Median ERI -- -- -- $1,000 $1,000

▫ Minimum ERI -- -- -- $23 $10

▫ Maximum ERI -- -- -- $68,802 $168,000

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses -- -- -- $69,000 $168,000

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses -- -- -- $114,591 $316,000

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses -- -- -- $196,945 $480,000

- Copyright licenses -- -- -- $293,297 $546,182

▫ Median ERI -- -- -- $2,000 $1,000

▫ Minimum ERI -- -- -- $23 $10

▫ Maximum ERI -- -- -- $68,802 $168,000

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses -- -- -- $68,802 $168,000

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses -- -- -- $100,052 $272,000

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses -- -- -- $187,169 $480,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) Total income includes license issue fees, earned royalties, minimum annual royalties, paid-up license fees, and reimbursement for full-cost

recovery of goods and services provided by the lab to the licensee (including patent costs).

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(3) “Earned royalty” = royalty based upon use of a licensed invention (usually, a percentage of sales or units sold). Not a license fee or minimum royalty.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 82 

December 2004 
Department of Energy 

Disposition of License Income

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● Income distributed (1)

▪ Invention licenses, total distributed -- -- $16,356,052 $16,422,696 $19,540,000

 - To inventors -- -- $5,942,497 $6,386,213 $5,624,000

36% 39% 29%

(2) -To other -- -- $10,413,555 $10,036,483 $13,916,000

64% 61% 71%

 - Patent (3) licenses, total distributed -- -- $16,356,052 $16,422,696 $19,540,000

 - To inventors -- -- $5,942,497 $6,386,213 $5,624,000

36% 39% 29%

(2) -To other -- -- $10,413,555 $10,036,483 $13,916,000

64% 61% 71%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Invention licenses are the chief policy interest regarding distribution of income; content of this table reflects this focus.

 -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) Income includes royalties and other payments received during the FY.

(2) To DoE laboratories' management and operating contractor for research, development, technology transfer, training, education and other activities consistent

with laboratory mission and objectives.

(3) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

■ Other Performance Measures 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

Work-for-Others agreements -- new, executed in FY -- -- -- 1,934 1,952

User Facility

-- Agreements, total active in FY -- -- -- -- 3,688

-- Projects, total active in FY -- -- -- -- 5,333

 

 

■ Downstream Outcomes

DOE’s FY 2003 report provided the following selected examples of downstream outcomes arising 

from the technology partnering/transfer activities of the department’s federal laboratories: 

● ADVISORTM improves automotive design productivity. ADVISORTM (ADvanced Vehicle 

SimulatOR) software provides a specialized tool for the automotive engineering community to 

quickly simulate the performance of a large number of vehicle design options, therefore reducing the 

time and expense involved in building and testing prototypes. ADVISORTM software can simulate 

and analyze light and heavy vehicles—including hybrid electric and fuel cell vehicles. It tests the 

effect of changes in vehicle components (such as motors, batteries, catalytic converters, climate 

control systems, and alternative fuels) and other modifications that might affect fuel economy, 

performance, or emissions. Using ADVISORTM software, companies can: (1) reduce testing time to 

evaluate various vehicle powertrain alternatives, (2) assist in developing fuel-efficient vehicles and 

components, and (3) provide a shared simulation tool for government, universities, and industry. 

The Vehicle Systems Analysis Team at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

developed the first version of ADVISORTM in 1994 with the help of industry partners to simulate and 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 83 

December 2004 
Department of Energy 

analyze various performance aspects of conventional and advanced vehicles. ADVISOR 2003TM was 

also licensed to AVL Powertrain Engineering Inc. (AVL). The license agreement for the ADVISOR 

software and a related CRADA facilitates the transfer of the ADVISOR software from NREL to 

AVL and ultimately to wide application in the transportation sector. AVL will in turn provide a 

highly visible commercial outlet for NREL's advanced vehicle simulator research, leading to more 

significant uses of the ADVISORTM software by automakers and ultimately the development of more 

efficient advanced vehicles worldwide. The associated three-year CRADA will also enhance the 

transfer of the ADVISORTM software to market and will help position AVL to provide 

comprehensive services and solutions to its clients. By facilitating the design of more efficient 

vehicles, ADVISORTM will directly contribute to the reduction of petroleum use and oil imports in 

the U.S. economy. 

● Alpha particle immunotherapy for treating leukemia and solid tumor metastases. One 

promising new cancer treatment is alpha particle immunotherapy (APIT), a technology that makes it 

possible to treat patients with malignancies of the hematopoietic system, such as leukemia, as well as 

metastasis from many solid tumors effectively and with fewer side effects than other treatments. This 

technology combines the power of alpha particle-emitting radioactive isotopes (actinium-225 or 

bismuth-213) with monoclonal antibodies that bind to and destroy specific cancer cells, but not the 

nearby healthy tissue. Early trials at major research centers yielded encouraging results. 

The primary supplier of APIT is MedActinium, a small radiopharmaceutical firm in Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee. MedActinium turned to researchers at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) to 

help solve two obstacles to commercial use of APIT: purifying the isotope and binding it to the 

antibody to create a stable product. This resulted in new separations chemistry for generating 

bismuth-213 and a key enabling technology for putting actinium-225 on monoclonal antibodies. The 

result is that these powerful new radioisotopes are now available to treat patients with leukemia or 

fast-spreading solid-tumor cancers. 

This technology partnership involved collaborative efforts among private industry, academic research 

institutions, and U.S.Government agencies. PNNL built on relationships with the pharmaceutical 

industry dating from 1986. PNNL research in APIT-enabling technologies was part of a larger effort 

to develop beneficial uses for radioactive materials remaining from weapons production during the 

Cold War. The technology partnering arrangements were fast-tracked during the planning for initial 

clinical trials. The effort included exclusive license agreements for five immunology patents, 

negotiation and conclusion of a separate Technology Management Agreement with an earlier 

research partner, and establishment of a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement 

(CRADA) for further research. The transfer was completed in January 2003. 

The transfer of technologies from PNNL to MedActinium is a contributing factor in the ability of the 

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and other research medical centers to continue the quest for 

effective cancer treatments. A second round of clinical trials is scheduled to begin the fall of 2004 at 

Sloan-Kettering. 

● Battery chemistry is the key to tiny rechargeable battery for microstimulator. Battery 

chemistry developed by Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) and its research partners enabled the 

development of a microbattery to power an implantable bion® microstimulator that could help 

restore nerve and muscle function in patients suffering from a variety of medical conditions, 

including stroke, Parkinson's disease, and urinary urge incontinence. In feasibility trials, a prototype 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 84 

December 2004 
Department of Energy 

bion was implanted in patients to treat urinary urge incontinence, with promising results. The battery 

chemistry will provide calendar life significantly greater than that of commercially available lithiumion batteries. 

The bion® currently in feasibility trials comprises three integrated parts: the battery, which operates 

at normal body temperature, developed by Quallion LLC and ANL; an advanced microstimulator, 

developed by Advanced Bionics Corporation; and a control system, developed by Advanced Bionics 

Corp., to manage remote reprogramming and battery recharging. 

ANL is working with the University of Wisconsin and Quallion, LLC, to develop a next-generation 

cell chemistry that could give even longer life. Development of the bion microstimulator was funded 

by a grant to Quallion under the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Advanced 

Technology Program. The foundation for ANL's research was provided by battery development for 

hybrid electric vehicles, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies program. 

● Cancer treatment using brachytherapy. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and an 

industry partner, Isotron, are collaborating through a CRADA to boost the treatment possibilities for 

brain tumors and other types of cancer resistant to conventional techniques with X-rays or gamma 

radiation. The objective is to miniaturize the radioactive sources and enhance a cancer treatment 

known as neutron brachytherapy. The treatment could enable physicians to deliver a powerful dose 

of cell-killing neutrons directly to a tumor, using a catheter to funnel the radioactive wire to the site. 

These research scientists have reduced the diameter of the californium source by more than half, and 

the neutron emitter can now be applied to organs previously inaccessible. By concentrating the 

radioactivity, the treatment time can also be shortened – thus limiting the exposure to medical staff. 

ORNL produces californium-252 in its High Flux Isotope Reactor; nuclear researchers fabricate the 

wire-like sources in shielded “hot cells” near the reactor. 

● Cold ion deposition technology. Researchers at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) 

have developed a unique and proprietary method of rapidly killing bacterial spores. The technology 

uses the positive ions from a light atom and accelerates them through a high energy potential. The 

ions are driven toward a surface on which the bacterial spores are located with energy sufficient to 

damage the spores and render them no longer viable. 

 

The commercial application of this technology is the cleaning and sanitizing of plastics used in food 

and beverage packaging and has been called the cold ion deposition technology (CID) by the 

company seeking to commercialize the process. Rather than using heat, water, or chemicals to kill 

germs, the system uses non-thermal plasma. CID technology uses the ions generated from the 

plasma to destroy any microbial spores on the inner surface of the container. This is a safe, efficient, 

inexpensive mechanism for cleaning and sanitizing plastics, and will not alter the taste of the 

beverage. PlaZtec, LLC was formed to commercialize technologies that are beneficial to the 

environment and global societies as a whole. Cold ion deposition (CID) is the first technology that 

PlaZtec is focusing on, with an initial application being in the non-alcoholic beverage bottling 

industry. 

 

● Decontamination solution for chemical and biological warfare agents. A decontamination 

formulation originally developed at Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) that renders harmless 

chemical and biological warfare agents has been selected for use by the U.S. Central Command 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 85 

December 2004 
Department of Energy 

(CENTCOM). CENTCOM placed an order with EnviroFoamTM Technologies for several thousand 

gallons of the company’s EasyDECONTM solution. EnviroFoam licensed the formulation for 

EasyDECON from Sandia in August 2000. The formulation neutralizes both chemical and biological 

agents and is nontoxic, noncorrosive, and environmentally acceptable. The formulation can be 

deployed as a foam, mist, fog, spray, or liquid. The Sandia formulation, on which EasyDECON is 

based, has proven effective against both biological and chemical agents, can be applied with current 

military hardware, has shown no collateral damage, and creates an effluent capable of being washed 

down the drain. EnviroFoam was one of two U.S. companies granted nonexclusive licenses to the 

decontamination formulation, which has been under development at Sandia since 1997. 

● Efficient photovoltaic solar cells becoming widely deployed. CIGS (Cu(In,Ga)Se2) is a 

recrystallization method for fabricating thin-films on a substrate for semiconductor device 

applications, particularly solar cells. Global Solar Energy’s (GSE) thin-film technology involves 

sequentially depositing thin layers of CIGS materials onto stainless steel substrates. The resulting 

product is lightweight, flexible and free of the fragility of crystalline silicon PV technologies. CIGS 

cells have reached efficiencies of more than 19 percent, higher than other thin-film PV cells, such as 

amorphous silicon. 

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has entered into a licensing agreement with 

Global Solar Energy. The CIGS technology will provide Global Solar Energy a highly effective way 

to manufacture and sell thin-film PV solar cells, introducing “the world’s lightest, most flexible solar 

panel.” The solar cells come in 5, 10 or 20-watt sizes and can be used as a battery charger as well as 

direct power source for portable electronics such as GPS, cell phones, and laptop computers. These 

applications have a wide range of civilian and military uses for field applications, such as heaters for 

personal warmth and survival, as well as powering equipment. The technology may ultimately find 

uses in micro-grid and village power stations, telecommunications, and stand-alone and remote 

power systems. 

Upon securing the CIGS patent license, GSE signed an exclusive agreement with CIP Global 

Technologies of Montreal, the world’s largest manufacturer of consumer solar products, to 

commercialize the CIGS thin film products. It is anticipated that the thin film products will be sold 

at stores like Radio Shack, Wal-Mart, and Costco. GSE also signed an agreement with SunWize, a 

photovoltaics company in New York, who will be sole distributor of the CIGS thin film products to a 

worldwide client base. 

 

● Electrodynamic ion funnel. Mass spectrometry is a widely used tool in environmental, 

biotechnology, clinical, and drug testing applications, as well as in medical, biological, and other 

broad areas of scientific research. The use of mass spectrometry is strongly affected by the 

sensitivity of the measurement that can be made. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s (PNNL) 

Electrodynamic Ion Funnel can be used to increase sensitivity for many forms of mass spectrometry. 

The Electrodynamic Ion Funnel is a revolutionary development that focuses ions in gases, greatly 

improving the sensitivity of analytical devices such as mass spectrometers that depend on ion 

formation and transfer in the presence of gases. An additional benefit of the ion funnel can be a 

significant reduction in the cost of mass spectrometers as a result of its use. 

Through a non-exclusive licensing mechanism, PNNL successfully transferred the ion funnel 

technology to three leading manufacturers of mass spectrometers: Micromass in 2001, Biospect, Inc. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 86 

December 2004 
Department of Energy 

in 2002, and Bruker Daltonics, Inc. in 2003, all major manufacturers of mass spectrometers. 

Micromass’ applications focus on the biotechnology, pharmaceutical, clinical, analytical, 

environmental and geologic sciences. Bruker Daltonics, Inc. is a leading manufacturer of mass 

spectrometry instruments and accessories for pharmaceutical, biochemical, and chemical research. 

Biospect, Inc., wants to use mass spectrometry to analyze human bodily fluids as a way to predict for 

diseases. The ability to define and monitor biological states through analysis of bodily fluids could 

lead to a revolution in medicine and biomedical research. Through their connections, these two 

companies will enable broader use of mass spectrometers using the ion funnel. 

● Field-ready DNA testing systems. Cepheid – a California start-up company that executed its 

license with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in 1996 -- has recently received much 

attention for its field-ready DNA testing systems for rapid detection of deadly biothreat agents such 

as anthrax. Cepheid is developing fully integrated portable instruments and laboratory systems that 

can be used for rapid detection of infectious disease agents, human genes, and industrial and 

environmental contaminants quickly and accurately. These products will enhance U.S. biodectector 

capabilities, which limit current ability to protect against biological terrorism, thereby supporting 

DOE’s mission in responding to weapons of mass destruction and to counter terrorism. The 

adaptation of LLNL technology, which is the basis of the Smart Cycler®, a portable unit that allows 

customers to obtain bio-analytical results when and where they are needed. 

In May 2003, Cepheid announced that the United States Postal Service (USPS) awarded Northrop 

Grumman Corporation's Security Systems LLC unit a contract to manufacture and integrate 

Biohazard Detection Systems (BDS) nationwide. Northrop Grumman is the prime contractor and 

systems integrator of the BDS, which uses polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology, developed 

by Cepheid, to rapidly analyze air samples taken from the mail sorting systems and detect trace levels 

of DNA from anthrax spores and other biological agents as it moves through the mail processing 

equipment. The BDS incorporates Cepheid’s GeneXpert® modules as its detection and 

identification system. Cepheid’s GeneXpert® fully automated gene analysis system also won an 

R&D 100 Award in 2002. Technology licensed from LLNL is at the heart of this instrument as well. 

In a September 2003 Global Security Newswire article, a USPS representative indicated that a 15-

city test of the BDS was completed last month, and a USPS spokesman was quoted as describing the 

test as a “resounding success.” 

● Globus alliance leaders win FLC award. The Federal Laboratory Consortium (FLC) gave a 

2003 Award for Excellence in Technology Transfer to Argonne National Laboratory's scientists in 

recognition of their leadership in Grid computing on behalf of the Globus Alliance. The FLC awards 

annually recognize federal laboratory employees who have taken technology from the laboratory and 

applying it in the outside world. 

Since 1996, the Globus Alliance has developed open-source Globus Toolkit software that is central 

to virtually every major deployment of the Grid, an interconnected computing environment that is 

transforming the nature of science and engineering research. The technology lets users share 

computing power, databases, and other tools securely online across corporate, institutional, and 

geographic boundaries without sacrificing local autonomy. In addition to its broad adoption for 

research, the Globus Toolkit is a de facto standard adopted by major information technology 

companies. 

First funded by the Department of Energy as fundamental research and development, the Globus 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 87 

December 2004 
Department of Energy 

Alliance has been embraced by companies like IBM, Oracle, Platform, Entropia, Compaq, Cray, 

SGI, Sun, Veridian, Fujitsu, Hitachi, and NEC. Each uses the Globus Toolkit as the basis for 

significant commercial products and services. The project's federally sponsored mission continues 

while scientists are working with public- and private-sector partners to define new standards called 

the Open Grid Services Architecture, which promises increases in the availability of Grid 

applications. 

● GREET model now includes additional hydrogen fuel pathways and fuel cell vehicle options. 

When advanced vehicle technologies and new transportation fuels are being introduced, they first 

must be examined on a full fuel-cycle basis, including energy feedstock production, fuel production, 

and vehicle operations. To assist in this evaluation, Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) scientists 

developed a model called GREET (Greenhouse-gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in 

Transportation) to conduct full fuel-cycle analyses. The computer tool evaluates more than 35 fuel 

production pathways and more than 50 vehicle technologies/fuel systems on a consistent, systematic 

basis. Since the first version was released in 1996, the model has been updated in response to 

changing users’ needs and industry trends. There are now 1,100 registered GREET users in both the 

public and private sectors throughout North America, Europe, and Asia. The model provides 

information for a variety of industry, government, and academic organizations and institutions. 

In one instance, GREET was used to analyze advanced vehicles and new fuels in a major well-towheels study conducted for General Motors Corporation (GM). GM, ANL scientists, British 

Petroleum, ExxonMobil, and Shell participated in the study. When Phase 1 of the study was 

completed, GM noted, “The results of the work will continue to influence the automotive and energy 

industries and government policymakers as we progress toward the introduction of advanced fuels 

and powertrains.” Phase 2 of the study, with a focus on criteria pollutant emissions, will be 

completed by GM, ChevronTexaco, and Shell. 

GREET was also used for a milestone government study on ethanol. GREET’s analysis of ethanol’s 

greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) emissions may have influenced the public debate on ethanol’s 

energy and GHG emission benefits. In a cover letter for the study, Jim Edgar, then Governor of the 

State of Illinois, said, “Illinois is very pleased to have sponsored and published the results of this 

research study. The results clearly identify that ethanol outperformed conventional and reformulated 

gasoline with respect to energy use and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The institution 

responsible for this study, Argonne National Laboratory, is the recognized leader in modeling fuel 

cycle fossil energy use and greenhouse gas emissions related to the transportation sector. . . .What 

this means for the agriculture community, ethanol producers, environmentalists, and policymakers is 

that ethanol fuel deserves a major role in any global climate change strategy to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions in the transportation sector.” 

● Grid technology is successfully integrated with inSORS software. The Access Grid Toolkit 2.0 

and the inSORS software IG2.0 are now interoperable, thanks to collaboration between Argonne 

National Laboratory (ANL) and inSORS Integrated Communications, Inc. This technical milestone is 

critical in meeting the increasing demand for group-to-group collaboration across the computing 

environment, using multimedia large-format displays for distributed workshops, lectures, and 

training. The integration of the two technologies combines the benefits of the ANL-developed 

Access Grid, including open source software, with the specialized applications features provided by 

the inSORS software, such as record and playback capabilities and remote control for cameras. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 88 

December 2004 
Department of Energy 

● Guest room occupancy sensor/LED nightlight. As part of a small CRADA partnership with The 

Wattstopper, Inc. and in collaboration with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) developed an integrated occupancy 

sensor/nighlight providing significant energy and cost savings. LBNL research showed that hotel 

bathroom lights are repeatedly left on when rooms are vacated or used as nightlights during slumber. 

According to the research, bathroom lights remained on anywhere from four to eight hours. To 

address the problem, LBNL and Wattstopper developed an occupancy sensor with a built-in 

nightlight. When the main bathroom lights are shut off (also timer controlled), a pair of super bright 

LED’s built into the switch turn on automatically – providing an effective very low energy nightlight. 

In cooperation with the partnership, the Double Tree Hotel in Sacramento recently installed the 

combination occupancy sensor/LED nightlights in 400 guestrooms. The new integrated occupancy 

sensor/nightlights resulted in a 50 percent reduction in guest room light usage with cost savings 

exceeding $8,000 per year. Guests of one hotel commented on improved comfort and safety, 

because the LED lights provide enough light to safely navigate a room without the blinding glare 

from turning on the lights in a dark room. While occupancy sensors and nightlights have been 

around for years, this partnership-developed occupancy sensor is the first to have a built-in highefficiency nightlight. 

Steps are under way to implement the energy saving device in Hawaii where there are many hotels 

and electricity costs are among the highest in the Nation. The program is targeted at 50,000 units 

with a projected energy savings of $8,000,000 over ten years. In addition to hotels, the device is 

suitable for residential construction, military housing, senior housing, and convalescent homes. 

Implementing the technology is simple and inexpensive; without risk, it improves safety and results 

in a significant energy savings. 

● Handheld advanced nucleic acid analyzer (HANAA). In January 2003, Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory (LLNL) signed a non-exclusive license for the Handheld Advanced Nucleic 

Acid Analyzer (HANAA) technology, expected to be useful for chemical and biological detection, 

with Smiths Detection – Edgewood, Inc. (formerly Environmental Technologies Group, Inc. and now 

a subsidiary of Smiths Aerospace). The HANAA technology is at the heart of Smiths Detection BioSeeqTM product, currently being marketed as the first portable, hand-held thermocycler capable of 

detecting both bacterial and viral pathogens. Smiths Detection’s objective is to provide the 

Department of Defense and the intelligence agencies with highly portable, advanced, bio-detection 

instruments and to further the DOE objective of putting advanced instrumentation for the detection of 

biological terrorist agents into the hands of first responders. The HANAA analyzes biological 

samples for the presence of specific DNA sequences that serve as the fingerprints of specific 

pathogens. It can simultaneously test four samples, each for two different DNA sequences, and have 

the results in about 20 minutes. The HANAA provides the first truly man-portable, handheld, fieldworthy, real-time PCR bio-detection instrument. It is ideally suited for emergency response where 

biological pathogens are suspected, and for field monitoring where portability and fast answers are 

critical (e.g., monitoring water or food supplies for biological contamination in real time). It can also 

be used in intelligence, combat, or reconnaissance missions. 

● Implantable drug delivery devices. Advanced Neuromodulation Systems, Inc. (ANS) and Sandia 

National Laboratories (SNL) recently executed a Work-for-Others agreement and related intellectual 

property agreements to explore the possibility of using a microelectromechanical system based 

microvalve in implantable drug delivery devices. ANS designs, develops, manufactures, and markets 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 89 

December 2004 
Department of Energy 

advanced implantable neuromodulation devices that deliver electrical current or drugs directly to 

targeted areas of the body to manage chronic pain. Commercialization of the microvalve technology 

in a medical application could lead to other applications that directly support SNL's national security 

mission. 

● Inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry collision cell technology. The Inductively 

Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry (ICP/MS) Collision/Reaction Cell (CRC) Technology 

developed at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) has advanced the analysis capabilities 

of mass spectrometer instruments worldwide. ICP/MS can now detect and measure many important 

elements that are not detectable with conventional mass spectrometry. This technology has had a 

significant and widespread impact in the analytical chemistry world because of its broad applications 

in environmental monitoring and testing, biotechnology, semiconductor manufacturing, and 

homeland security. Battelle, operating contractor for PNNL, has successfully licensed this 

technology to manufacturers in several countries. Currently, more than 60 percent of the mass 

spectrometers sold worldwide incorporate the CRC technology developed at PNNL. 

● Inductrack technology. In July 2003, General Atomics signed a license with Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) for the Inductrack technology, a magnetic levitation system 

using new configurations of high-field permanent magnets to create its own levitating fields for 

urban and high-speed maglev train systems. The features of this unique technology include passive 

levitation leading to fail-safe behavior upon power loss, lower cost, and maintenance requirements 

compared to those of existing maglev systems, tight turn radius, steep hill-climbing capability, low 

noise, and low environmental impact. General Atomics is the prime contractor for the General 

Atomics Low Speed Maglev Technology Development Project, one of the projects funded by the 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as part of their Urban Maglev Program. The overall objective 

of this FTA program is to develop magnetic levitation technology as a cost effective, reliable, and 

environmentally sound transit option for urban mass transportation in the United States. The 

Inductrack system represents an enabling technology for urban maglev transportation that General 

Atomics hopes to apply to cities throughout the nation. 

● Magnetic-microsphere-based technology for molecular separation and detection. 

Biophoretix, an Albuquerque-based biotechnology startup company, entered into an exclusive license 

agreement with Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) to commercialize a magnetic-microspherebased technology for molecular separation and detection. The technology’s potential ranges from 

ensuring the safety of the world’s food, water, and air supplies to monitoring the efficacy of medical 

treatments. Biophoretix develops, manufactures, and markets diagnostic and discovery systems based 

on its multiplexed separation technology, which integrates easily with existing bioassay and detection 

systems. The Biophoretix platform can make current tests more sensitive, cheaper, and faster, while 

enabling many tests that are currently not possible. 

Initial applications of the technology include accurate CD4/CD8 lymphocyte counts, necessary for 

monitoring drug therapies for AIDS, at a cost and speed that make access to monitoring attainable in 

the developing world. Monitoring in the United States and other developed nations is slow, 

expensive, and reliant on central clinical laboratories. This technology offers promise of closing that 

gap with its rugged, inexpensive, and portable platform. Other applications include a hepatitis panel, 

complete blood counts, and any testing that requires the sorting of cells or other biological material. 

Target markets for separating biological materials include: clinical diagnostics, drug discovery, 

environmental monitoring, and for use in bioterrorism detection. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 90 

December 2004 
Department of Energy 

 

● Micro high-G acceleration devices in collaborative development. Recently, Sandia National 

Laboratories (SNL) and the ENDEVCO Corporation, a leading supplier of dynamic instrumentation 

for vibration, shock, inertial motion, and dynamic pressure measurements, signed a CRADA to 

develop a high-G robust (60,000 g’s) low-volume, low-power, accelerometer and acceleration 

recording device. The CRADA will help SNL design and develop smaller, lower power, acceleration 

recording devices in support of its Defense Program and Emerging Threats missions. ENDEVCO 

will be better able to meet its needs as a supplier to both the defense industry and DOE/DP by 

increasing capabilities for future weapon systems. 

● Millimeter wave holographic screening device. During research originally intended for the 

Federal Aviation Administration to augment current airport security systems, a breakthrough 

technology was developed. This technology, with applications spanning entertainment, health, 

apparel, and security arenas, has significant benefits to each industry and their consumers. The 

millimeter-wave holographic screening device, developed by researchers at the Pacific Northwest 

National Laboratory (PNNL) will be used by two different companies in two very different 

industries: security and apparel. 

 

The screening device uses non-harmful, ultra high-frequency radio waves to penetrate clothing, 

enabling security personnel to detect both metallic and nonmetallic concealed objects. This 

technology can also be used to obtain accurate volumetric body measurements for improved apparel 

fitting. The high-speed, full-body measurements capability offers significant advantages over 

systems currently in the marketplace. 

This innovative technology uses radar cylindrical holographic techniques invented at PNNL and a 

new combined imaging algorithm to obtain complete body measurements while the individual 

remains fully clothed in normal attire. The system rapidly scans objects and sends reflected signals 

into a high-speed image processing computer and then produces a high-resolution 3-D image from 

the data. 

PNNL has successfully licensed this technology to a company formed to offer it to the security 

market and is under option to a second company whose vision is to transform the way clothing is 

marketed and produced. 

● Miniature integrated nuclear detection system with improved detection capability. The 

Miniature Integrated Nuclear Detection System (MINDS) is a type of radiation detector. The 

MINDS system acts as a warning system to detect radiation from gamma and/or neutron emitters, 

contained in objects, containers, or vehicles, or carried by a pedestrian, and differentiate between 

sources of radiation from threatening radio nuclides. If the source of radiation is from a threatening 

radionuclide, the MINDS activates an alarm when the signal from the detection system exceeds a 

threshold. The system is very small and can be manufactured for a very modest cost. A field 

prototype has been developed. The combination of low cost, modest size and ease of 

manufacturability makes the MINDS a potential system that can be deployed fairly soon and perhaps 

provide the detection and monitoring capability needed to prevent another terrorist attack. 

The development of the MINDS technology is a joint effort between the U.S. Department of 

Energy's Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory and the Rutgers University Center for Advanced 

Information Processing (CAIP). The effort was also supported by funding from the U.S. Army at 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 91 

December 2004 
Department of Energy 

Picatinny Arsenal. The Princeton University Office of Research and Project Administration is in 

discussions with potential licensees for the technology. 

● Monitor for air particulates. Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) has licensed an 

environmental monitoring tool to Advanced Realtime Technologies (ART), LLC, to develop a 

commercial version of a cost-effective, real-time, continuous, field-portable, air-particulate monitor. 

The core technology for ART was developed at LANL to compliment the Department of Energy’s 

Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program. The Laboratory’s Industrial Business Development 

(IBD) Division is assisting Advanced Realtime Technologies with business development. The 

technology will have broad applications in environmental monitoring, occupational safety inspection, 

mining processes, and the aerospace, semiconductor, and petrochemical industries. 

The instrument will combine the advantages of a highly sensitive laboratory technique with the 

portability and ease-of-use of an in-the-field instrument. It can be used for on-site environmental 

pollution monitoring, real-time occupational safety inspection, and industrial process control. 

Through real-time, highly sensitive detection in the field, the instrument can provide instant feedback 

to site-workers, allowing them to take prompt action to avoid overexposure to harmful chemicals or 

environmental hazards. 

● Novel chemical sensing technologies for safety. Development of chemical sensing technologies, 

and especially sorbents for surface acoustic array (SAW) sensors, is a long-standing aim of 

researchers at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). Arising out of this work is a patented 

hydrogen bonding polymer sorbent directed towards the detection of nerve agents, which was 

recently licensed by Battelle, operator of PNNL, to BAE Systems Integrated Defense Solutions. This 

hydrogen bonding hybrid organic/inorganic polymer was designed to be selective for nerve agents, 

and displays four times greater sensitivity to nerve agents than any other known polymer used in 

SAW devices. BAE Systems uses this polymer in the “JCAD Chem SentryTM” (Joint Chemical 

Agent Detector) currently being delivered to the armed services. This is a small, hand-held device 

that offers state-of-the-art chemical warfare detection capabilities. BAE’s system using PNNL 

developed technology will soon to be available in a version for sale to civilian markets. 

● Opening new markets for agricultural by-products. Each year, the U.S. corn milling industry 

generates almost 14 billion pounds of fiber (as hulls) during the processing of corn kernels to obtain 

starch, protein, and vegetable oils. Cattle feed is the primary use for this fiber byproduct and is 

typically the lowest value product of corn milling. But processes developed through a Cooperative 

Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) between Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

(PNNL) and the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) show promise for changing the way 

corn kernels are processed. 

Researchers at PNNL have developed processes that will reclaim greater value from this resource by 

separating the corn fiber into its basic components: lipids, carbohydrates, proteins. These products 

will then be used to produce fuel ethanol and the building blocks for industrial chemicals, as well as 

higher value food, feed, and consumer products. The group is taking a low-market value byproduct 

and opening up new markets, while also creating new supplies for existing, higher-margin markets. 

Initiated in 2001, the CRADA extends previous work, which resulted in technology for converting of 

five-carbon and six-carbon sugars derived from corn fiber to ethylene glycol or propylene glycol. In 

order to commercialize the technology, Battelle and NCGA have entered into license and income 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 92 

December 2004 
Department of Energy 

sharing agreements. Battelle, as operator of PNNL, serves as the commercialization agent for 

laboratory-derived technologies. 

Depending upon how the conversion process is conducted, one may obtain either mixed or pure 

streams of the glycol products. The mixed products production process was licensed to NCGA for 

use as coalescing solvents, paraffin substitutes, and industrial emulsifiers; with Battelle retaining 

responsibility for licensing the pure products production process, and then sharing that licensing 

income with NCGA. Researchers from Michigan State University also contributed to the work 

developing the six-carbon conversion process, and the license and income sharing agreements 

between Battelle and NCGA were specifically crafted to reflect their contribution and to return 

licensing income to Michigan State. 

● Oak Ridge National Laboratory wins four R&D 100 awards. In FY 2003, researchers at the 

Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) won four research and 

development awards from R&D Magazine (which since 1963 has given the awards for the 100 most 

significant innovations of the year). ORNL’s total of 116 awards is second only to General Electric. 

The following inventions received honors: 

RAMiTS, Raman Integrated Tunable Sensor, is a compact, “point-and-shoot,” fully integrated, 

battery-operated Raman monitor and is based on solid-state acousto-optic tunable filter technology. 

Outside the laboratory, this device can perform qualitative analysis of chemical and biological 

samples in seconds. RAMiTS can identify hundreds of substances, including toxic chemicals, byproducts from explosives, biomedical markers, pharmaceuticals, and illicit drugs. RAMiTS also 

could help revolutionize sensing applications such as environmental monitoring, medical diagnostics, 

and homeland security, researchers said. 

MicroTrapMS is a highly miniaturized ion trap mass spectrometer that is based on ORNL patented 

technology. The product can be used for applications from on-line screening for toxins in municipal 

watersheds to detecting hazardous substances at airport checkpoints. MicroTrapMS will enhance 

real-time capabilities of field engineers to sweep many local areas for pesticides, drugs, explosives, 

and more. MicroTrapMS has the power of a conventional mass spectrometer at a lower cost. 

CF8C-Plus is designed to drastically improve high-temperature durability, performance, and 

reliability based on ORNL’s unique engineered microstructure alloy development methodology. The 

engineered microstructure method dramatically changes CF8C-Plus from steel that cannot be used 

above 600-650 degrees Celsius to steel that can be used up to 850 degrees Celsius and resists failure 

during creep, mechanical fatigue and thermal fatigue. Developers said that end users like Caterpillar 

or commercial foundries like MetalTek will benefit from CF8C-Plus because it is a cost-effective 

product with higher performance and immense reliability. 

The Uncooled Micromechanical Infrared Camera (UMIR-Cam) is a sensitive, miniature imaging, and 

infrared photo-detection device. It runs at room temperature and can be used in a number of 

endeavors, including night vision, industrial process monitoring, and medical imaging. It also can 

help firefighters see through smoke and has particularly important uses in the commercial and 

military sectors, because infrared radiation is the second-most intense source of radiation in our 

environment. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 93 

December 2004 
Department of Energy 

● Processing technology for cleaning, decontaminating, and etching surfaces. APJeT, a startup 

company that holds an exclusive license for materials processing technology developed at Los 

Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), recently announced $3 million in funding by two strategic 

investors. APJeT’s technology was invented at Los Alamos National Laboratory by, a LANL 

physicist who is now APJeT’s president and CEO. The technology produces a gas stream of reactive 

chemicals that can clean, decontaminate, etch, or coat surfaces at atmospheric pressure and low 

temperatures. Heretofore, such plasma treatments could take place only in a vacuum, a process that is 

considerably slower and more costly than the APJeT solution. 

The new technology aids in treating synthetic fibers to make them absorb or repel water, removing 

photo-sensitive material from silicon wafers, depositing thin films, and decontaminating surfaces 

exposed to chemical and biological warfare agents, such as anthrax spores. It could also be used in 

sterilizing medical products for the health care industry. Other investors in the company include Air 

Products & Chemicals of Allentown, Pennsylvania, a market leader in industrial gas and chemical 

processing, and Advanced Energy Industries of Fort Collins, Colorado, a global leader in plasma 

source and power supply systems used in the manufacture of semiconductors, data storage products, 

and flat panel displays. 

 

● PVScan and Reflectometer. PVScan is a high-speed optical scanner designed for characterizing 

photovoltaic (PV) materials and devices. It is used to analyze defects in semiconductor material and 

identify problems in the fabrication of electro-optical devices such as PV cells. The system is 

capable of measuring defect densities, grain-boundary distributions, reflectance, and light-beaminduced current (LBIC) on devices up to 20 cm x 20 cm and at rates up to 10 cm per second. The 

system, recognized by an R&D 100 award as one of the best technologies of the year in 1993, 

provides valuable information for both crystal growers and process engineers, who require quick 

feedback on process changes. It has worldwide economic development applications for the 

semiconductor and PV markets by being able to quickly test for and identify defects in the wafers so 

that the manufacturing processes may be changed and quality may be improved, thus improving the 

efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the product. 

The Reflectometer is a patented optical system for determining physical characteristics of a solar cell. 

It is used to help PV manufacturers and research and development laboratories produce high yields of 

high-quality cells to make high-quality PV modules. Using reflectance spectroscopy, the 

Reflectometer can measure physical parameters of wafers, wafer surfaces, and other materials 

deposited during solar cell fabrication. The market strength for the Reflectometer is through its 

unique design approach to production monitoring systems that is capable of very high throughput 

with accuracy and sensitivity. 

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) entered into licensing agreements with GTi 

Equipment Technologies, Inc. (GTi) to further develop and commercialize the PVScan and 

Reflectometer technologies. GTi is a small but profitable business specializing in the design and 

production of semi-custom and specialty equipment for materials processing industries, serving niche 

markets for semiconductor and photovoltaic applications. GTi’s solar division provides equipment, 

support, and training for turnkey solar panel manufacturing projects worldwide. GTi has already 

begun selling new products that integrate these technologies. 

● RadScout radiation detector and analyzer. The ORTEC Products business unit of AMETEK 

signed a non-exclusive license agreement with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 94 

December 2004 
Department of Energy 

April 2003 to commercialize the Lab’s RadScout radiation detector and analyzer. The technology is 

a premier example of Homeland Security applications moving to the market place. ORTEC, based in 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee, will incorporate the RadScout technology into its next generation of advanced 

portable nuclear detection systems. The detector features a miniaturized refrigeration system that 

eliminates the need to carry liquid nitrogen to cool the device’s high-purity germanium crystals. 

Those crystals are used to detect minute amounts of neutrons and gamma rays emitted by radioactive 

materials. First responders can use these high-performance, high-resolution portable systems at 

border crossings, cargo ship docks, transportation terminals, post offices, etc., to quickly differentiate 

between potentially dangerous radioactive materials and harmless radiation sources, and to determine 

whether or not they pose a threat. ORTEC plans to market the detector within a year as the Detective 

and Detective-EX. The detectors are part of a suite of technologies either offered or under 

development by ORTEC for Homeland Security. 

 

● R&D awards for Sandia National Laboratories’ technologies. Developed under a Shared 

Vision program, the SnifferStarTM mounts on a drone aircraft for remote surveillance of battlefield 

situations where suspect plumes or clouds are present. The detector’s primary purpose is to save lives 

by warning soldiers that chemical weapons are present on a battlefield. The entire module weighs 

less than a golf ball, operates on 0.5 watts, and uses the wind generated by the motion of the craft to 

collect samples for analysis. SnifferStar technology isolates compounds of concern from common 

interferents and is capable of analyzing chemical blister and nerve agents in 20 seconds. The device 

also has potential for use in public buildings and military bases. 

Acoustic telemetry technology, developed at SNL in cooperation with Extreme Engineering Ltd. of 

Calgary, Alberta, and with support from DOE, represents the fulfillment of an oil-industry quest that 

goes back to the 1940s. As more accessible reserves have been depleted, deeper and more complex 

extraction techniques have become necessary, making better communication between the driller and 

the drill bit more critical. Existing communication methods, based on mud-pulse techniques, were 

revolutionary when introduced in the early 1980s. But mud-pulse is slow—much, much slower than 

even first-generation telephone modems. Acoustic telemetry technology uses the well-drilling tubing 

as the data transmission medium and sound waves as the data carrier, creating a 10-fold improvement 

in data rates and thereby improving drilling control and accuracy. 

A large group of collaborators from SNL, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory were honored for developing the Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography 

(EUVL) Full-Field Step-Scan System, a technological advance that will lead to dramatic 

improvements in the speed and memory of computer systems. (See also previous section). 

Researchers created the only system that can pattern full chip-size areas on silicon wafers with 

features as small as 50 nanometers. It is the embodiment of a set of groundbreaking technologies that 

were considered by many to be impossible as recently as a few years ago. In addition to the national 

laboratory team, the award is being given jointly to Northrop Grumman Space Technology/Cutting 

Edge Optronics. The work was done in partnership with an industrial consortium comprising Intel, 

Motorola, AMD, Infineon, IBM, and Micron. Intel ordered the first production-level instrument 

based on this technology last year. 

The Low Emissions Atmospheric Metering Separator (LEAMS) is a family of atmospheric 

geothermal separators used in developing geothermal power. LEAMS safely contains and cleans the 

steam vented into the atmosphere of polluting solids, liquids, and noxious gasses. LEAMS can be 

used in drilling, well testing, and geothermal power plant start-up. In partnership with Sandia, 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 95 

December 2004 
Department of Energy 

LEAMS technology was developed by Two-Phase Engineering and Research, Inc., Santa Rosa, 

California, and fabricated by Drill Cool Systems, Inc., Bakersfield, California. 

The Adaptive Optics Phoropter system uses a micro-electro-mechanical (MEMS) based deformable 

mirror technology in a compact, transportable system that expands upon traditional devices used for 

optometry. In addition to determining corrections needed for near-sightedness, far-sightedness and 

astigmatism, it also determines correction needed for high-order aberrations that can interfere with 

night vision and can provide a preview of correction to a patient. Technologies from astronomy and 

micromachining are combined to advance the study and treatment of retinal diseases. Applications 

for the tool include generation of improved prescriptions for custom contact lenses or laser eye 

surgery, as well as high-resolution retinal imaging. The partnership, led by Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory, includes Sandia, the University of Rochester, Wavefront Sciences, Boston 

Micromachines Corp., and Bausch & Lomb. 

Lightning strikes, equipment failures, or other anomalies in electric powered transmission systems 

can cause brown-outs or even network failures. But a fast-response semiconductor device developed 

under Sandia’s direction allows a utility to rapidly convert energy stored in a DC device into AC 

power and minimize the effects of interruptions on electrical devices. Under the auspices of the DOE 

Energy Storage Systems Program, Sandia-led researchers at Virginia Tech in developing the 

advanced semiconductor unit, called an ETO (emitter turn-off thyristor). The ETO is rated at 4,000A 

and 4,500V and can switch power at 1-3 kHz—far exceeding other devices. The component could 

become a critical part of inverters, motor controllers, and many other power electronics systems that 

require medium voltage and high-current switches. In addition to inventors at Virginia Tech, the 

ETO was developed with Solitronics (a Blacksburg, Virginia, small business) marketing the ETO and 

the American Competitiveness Institute in Philadelphia. 

● RAMSM/VAMSM technology aids in assessing vulnerabilities to the Nation’s infrastructure 

and facilities. In response to an increased need for assessing the vulnerabilities of dams, 

transmission lines, water utilities, communities, and chemical facilities, Sandia National Laboratories 

(SNL) has developed a variety of risk assessment methodologies (RAMsSM) and vulnerability 

assessment methodologies (VAMsSM) and licensed these technologies to the private and public 

sector. These commercial licenses are offered with very reasonable financial terms in an effort to 

encourage the participation of many small business entities. The licenses allow non-SNL personnel 

to train third parties in the use of some of the methodologies (i.e. RAM-WSM and CVAMSM) and 

standard licenses that allow access some of the methodologies quickly (i.e. RAM-DSM and RAMTSM). Beyond simply developing the licensing mechanisms, techniques have been developed to 

ensure that export control requirements are met while still providing exceptional turn-around when 

licensing requests are made, with licenses being placed within 24 hours of the initial contact in timecritical situations. In all, more than 200 licenses have been put in place for the various RAMsSM and 

VAMsSM technologies. 

● Safer stun grenades protect hostages, can be reused for training. Diversionary devices – also 

called stun grenades or flash-bangs – are used when law enforcers need to temporarily disable the 

occupants of a room, for example, in hostage situations. To use a stun grenade, the officers break 

down a door or smash a window of the room containing the hostages and captors, then lob in the 

explosive device. The nonlethal device – about the size of a soda can – creates a blinding, deafening, 

but not deadly explosion. Most devices currently in use contain a metal powder that violently 

combines with an oxidizer. When this mixture is ignited by a grenade-style fuse, an explosion takes 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 96 

December 2004 
Department of Energy 

place within the body of the device, creating a zone of extreme pressure that may be dangerous if the 

device lands too near a person. The explosion also destroys the shell of the device, making the 

current flash-bangs expensive to use as training tools. 

Prison officials require a grenade that, if remaining whole after use, is too soft and flexible to be used 

as a weapon by rioting convicts. Soldiers need a lightweight canister that can be carried over long 

distances. Police do not want the canister to contain any explosive material that could be turned into 

a bomb. 

SNL’s new configuration satisfies a variety of law enforcement needs. The explosive source in 

Sandia National Laboratories’ (SNL) stun grenade fans out as an airborne powder before it ignites, 

making it less dangerous. This new device is made of plastic and contains metal powder but no 

oxidizer. Instead of ignition within the device, the particles are forced out like a burst of talcum 

powder through holes in the bottom of the canister. The particles form a sheet of metal dust about 

five feet in diameter before igniting by combining with oxygen present in the atmosphere. The 

distributed powder lowers the pressure in the immediate vicinity of the exploded device to a safer 

level. This design leaves the canister undamaged, making it more economical to use as a training 

device. 

● Simulation of comet impact. Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) has been asked by the Denver 

Museum of Nature and Science to develop a realistic computational simulation of a comet impact on 

Jupiter’s moon Europa. This work builds on SNL’s past analysis of the Shoemaker-Levy (SL9) 

impact on Jupiter itself. The SL9 work won several international awards and is generally regarded as 

the most predictive of analyses completed before the impact. SNL will use the shock physics code 

CTH to model the first few minutes of the hypothetical impact event. SNL is the developer of the 

CTH code, which is widely used in the DOE and DoD weapons laboratories. CTH was developed 

with DOE funds for Defense Program needs and is currently receiving support and development 

funds from the DoD/DOE Memorandum of Understanding for conventional munitions. 

 

● Solar water heating technology transferred. The Salt River Project (SRP) Agricultural 

Improvement and Power District (in Arizona) has signed a CRADA and a Work-for-Others 

agreement with Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) and a manufacturing license agreement with 

Energy Laboratories, Inc. to develop an innovative all-stainless-steel solar domestic water heater. 

SNL developed and patented a laser welding process used in assembling the solar array. The laser 

welder and associated equipment will be loaned to SRP for the duration of the agreements and used 

at the Energy Labs’ manufacturing facility in Jacksonville, Florida, to prove this technique in a 

manufacturing environment. SNL also has the expertise and data on stainless steel to achieve 

certification from the Solar Rating and Certification Corporation. Two other SNL patents (pending) 

are used for the solar selective black coating that is applied to the copper fins used in the solar panels. 

● Tank retrieval processes. Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) has recently completed a 

USIC/IPP-funded CRADA with Mississippi State University’s Diagnosis and Instrumentation 

Analysis Laboratory (MSU/DIAL) for developing technologies to retrieve liquid and solid 

radioactive wastes from tanks used during cold-war weapons production. The partners, including 

participants from the Newly Independent States of the Former Soviet Union, successfully 

demonstrated three technologies: chemical softening of hard sludges, bulk retrieval of liquid and 

solid sludges, and separation of radioactive components in aqueous solutions. One emerging 

technology, the pulsating mixing pump, has been demonstrated to Hanford and Savannah River Site 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 97 

December 2004 
Department of Energy 

personnel. The pump has no replaceable parts inside the tank, is easily mounted on the tank top, and 

recirculates the water or other liquid being used to mobilize the tank wastes. The Russian-developed 

pulsating mixing pump offers a cost-effective and operationally efficient way to support DOE’s 

commitment to resolve tank waste problems at contaminated sites. The technology is now being 

commercialized through the creation of a company (employing the Russian personnel and 

management) that will offer tank retrieval and decontamination services worldwide. This secondphase activity is conducted under the Nuclear Cities Initiative Program of DOE-NNSA Russian 

Transitions Initiative Office. 

● U.S. military using gun-shot residue kit in Iraq. On August 5, 2003, MSNBC News reported 

that U.S. military forces in Iraq are using a Sandia National Laboratories’ developed gun powder 

residue kit to identify whether a suspected shooter has fired a weapon in the previous 24-48 hours. 

The field test kits, known to the military as RIFFs, are produced by Law Enforcement Technologies, 

Inc., of Colorado Springs, Colorado. MSNBC quotes retired Army special operations forces leader 

Colonel Andy Gembara, now a board member of Law Enforcement Technologies, “The Army 

wanted something small. It is meant to be provided to patrols and to MPs (military police) so they 

can help sort out the good guys from the bad guys.” Gembara says the Army and Marine Corps have 

purchased thousands of cases of the kits in the past few months. 

● VISTA, an intuitive Web-based software for visualizing genome comparisons. Now that the 

Human Genome Project is nearly complete, one of the most promising new paths to gaining useful 

knowledge from the human DNA sequence is the growing field of comparative genomics. By 

comparing the human genome with the genomes of various other organisms, scientists can identify 

common regions of DNA, gain insights into how genes are switched on and off, and further their 

understanding of the human genome’s evolution, structure and function. 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) has developed a user-friendly computer program, 

VISTA, which enables researchers to quickly compare the genomes of various organisms. VISTA 

(Visualization Tool for Alignments) software depicts long sequence alignments of DNA from two or 

more species in an easy-to-read graphical format that clearly illustrates the extent to which the 

sequences are similar or different. VISTA also functions to match common regions of DNA from 

two different organisms, at lengths of DNA ranging from less than a single gene to whole genomes. 

LBNL has also implemented a multi-pronged approach to ensure the software’s broad dissemination. 

The lab developed a Web site and Web interface so that the programs could be used over the Web or 

downloaded to the user’s computer. VISTA has become one of the most popular and widely praised 

comparative genomics tools available to biologists, geneticists, and biomedical researchers. In FY 

2003, researchers from 41 countries used the system, submitting nearly 22,000 DNA sequences to the 

VISTA Web site for analysis. LBNL also granted close to 1,000 academic research licenses in FY 

2003 and sold its eighth commercial license. LBNL continues to make the program available over 

the Web free of charge. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 98 

December 2004 
Environmental Protection Agency 

3.5 Environmental Protection Agency 

This section summarizes the statistics and other data provided by the department in its annual reports 

on the technology transfer activities and outcomes of its federal laboratories. Currently, these reports 

provide data through FY 2003. This information covers the activities of the agency’s Office of 

Research and Development (ORD) and other divisions with federal lab technology transfer. For 

additional details, readers should consult the department’s full report.29 

■ Collaborative Relationships for Research and Development

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● CRADAs, total active in the FY(1) -- -- 48 59 91

 - New, executed in the FY -- -- 19 21 39

(2) ▪ Traditional CRADAs, total active in the FY 11 30 38 44 45 55 77

 - New, executed in the FY 13 40 18 18 27

(3) ▪ Non-traditional CRADAs, total active in FY -- -- 3 4 14

 - New, executed in the FY -- -- 1 3 12

● Other collaborative R&D relationships

-- -- 0 0 0

 

 

 

 

 

CRADA = Cooperative Research and Development Agreement

 -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) “Active” = legally in force at any time during the FY. “Total active” includes all agreements executed under CRADA authority (15 USC 3710a).

(2) CRADAs involving collaborative research and development by a federal laboratory and non-federal partners.

(3) CRADAs used for special purposes -- such as material transfer or technical assistance that may result in protected information.

■ Invention Disclosure and Patenting 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● New inventions disclosed in the FY(1) 12 15 5 11 17 16 1

● Patent applications filed in the FY(2) 6 24 15 10 14 14 2

● Patents issued in the FY 8 6 12 9 8

 -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) Inventions arising at the federal lab. 

(2) Tally includes: U.S. patent applications, foreign patent applications filed on cases for which no U.S. application was filed, divisional applications,

and continuation-in-part applications. Excludes: provisional, continuation, duplicate foreign, and PCT applications. 

4

3

 

29 Environmental Protection Agency, “Annual Report on Federal Lab Technology Transfer in FY 2003,” March 2004. 

Report prepared in response to 15 USC Sec. 3710(f) (requiring an annual “agency report on utilization” for agencies with 

federal laboratories) and submitted to OMB (consistent with Circular A-11 guidelines). 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 99 

December 2004 
Environmental Protection Agency 

■ Licensing

Profile of Active Licenses 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

● All licenses, number total active in the FY(1) 17 18 16 23

▫ New, executed in the FY 2 3 4 9

▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY 17 18 16 23

▫ New, executed in the FY 1 1 2 3 4 9

(2) - Patent licenses, total active in FY -- -- 16 23

▫ New, executed in the FY -- -- 4 9

- Material transfer (inventions), tot active in FY -- -- 0 0

▫ New, executed in the FY -- -- 0 0

- Other (3) invention licenses, total active in FY -- -- 0 0

▫ New, executed in the FY -- -- 0 0

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 0 0 0 0

▫ New, executed in the FY 0 0 0 0

 - Copyright licenses (fee bearing)

▫ New, executed in the FY

 - Material transfer (non-inv.), total active in FY

▫ New, executed in the FY

 - Other (4)

▫ New, executed in the FY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Multiple inventions in a single license are counted as one license. Licenses that include both patents and copyrights

(i.e., hybrid licenses) are reported as patent licenses -- and not included in the count of copyright licenses.

 -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) “Active” = legally in force at any time during the FY. 

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(3) No licenses of this type indicated as active.

(4) No licenses of this type indicated as active.

Licensing Management 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● (1) Elapsed execution time, licenses granted in FY

 ▪ Invention licenses 

▫ average months -- -- n/a n/a n/a

▫ minimum -- -- 3.0 3.0 3.0

▫ maximum -- -- 12.0 12.0 12.0

(2) - Patent licenses

▫ average months -- -- n/a n/a n/a

▫ minimum -- -- 3.0 3.0 3.0

▫ maximum -- -- 12.0 12.0 12.0

● Licenses terminated for cause, in the FY

▪ Invention licenses -- -- 0 0 0

 (2) - Patent licenses 0 0 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Data included in this table (intentionally) addresses only invention licenses, with patent licenses distinguished as a subclass.

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) Date of license application to the date of license execution. (Date of license application is the date the lab formally

acknowledges the written request for a license from a prospective licensee and agrees to enter into negotiations.)

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications which are licensed.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 100 

December 2004 
Environmental Protection Agency 

Characteristics of Licenses Bearing Income

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● All income bearing licenses, number -- -- 16 23 32

▫ Exclusive 6 7 7

▫ Partially exclusive 2 2 2

▫ Non-exclusive 8 1 2

▪ Invention licenses, income bearing -- -- 16 23 32

▫ Exclusive 6 7 7

▫ Partially exclusive 2 2 2

▫ Non-exclusive 8 1 2

 - Patent licenses,(1) income bearing 16 23 32

▫ Exclusive 6 7 7

▫ Partially exclusive 2 2 2

▫ Non-exclusive 8 1 2

▪ Other IP licenses, income bearing -- -- 0 0 0

▫ Exclusive

▫ Partially exclusive

▫ Non-exclusive

 - Copyright licenses (fee bearing)

▫ Exclusive

▫ Partially exclusive

▫ Non-exclusive

● All royalty bearing licenses,

(2) number -- -- 16 23 32

▪ Invention licenses, royalty bearing, number -- -- 16 23 32

(1) - Patent licenses, royalty bearing 16 23 32

▪ Other IP licenses, royalty bearing -- -- 0 0 0

 - Copyright licenses (fee bearing)

4

4

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

3

3

 

 

 

 

In general, license income can result from various sources: license issue fees, earned royalties, minimum annual royalites, paid-up license fees, and

reimbursement for full-cost recovery of goods and services provided by the lab to the licensee (including patent costs).

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of past years.

(1) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(2) Note that royalties are one component of total license income.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 101 

December 2004 
Environmental Protection Agency 

Income (annual) from Licenses 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● Total income, all licenses active in FY (1) -- -- $544,431 $400,437 $907,604

▪ Invention licenses -- -- $544,431 $400,437 $907,604

 - Patent licenses (2) $544,431 $400,437 $907,604

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY -- -- $0 $0 $0

● Total Earned Royalty Income (ERI) (3) -- -- $533,906 $315,000 $677,354

▫ Median ERI n/a n/a n/a

▫ Minimum ERI n/a n/a n/a

▫ Maximum ERI n/a n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses n/a n/a $500,000

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses n/a n/a $500,000

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses n/a n/a $500,000

▪ Invention licenses $533,906 $315,000 $677,354

▫ Median ERI n/a n/a n/a

▫ Minimum ERI n/a n/a n/a

▫ Maximum ERI n/a n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses n/a n/a $500,000

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses n/a n/a $500,000

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses n/a n/a $500,000

 - Patent licenses (2) $533,906 $315,000 $677,354

▫ Median ERI n/a n/a n/a

▫ Minimum ERI n/a n/a n/a

▫ Maximum ERI n/a n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses n/a n/a $500,000

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses n/a n/a $500,000

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses n/a n/a $500,000

Other IP licenses $0 $0 $0

▫ Median ERI

▫ Minimum ERI

▫ Maximum ERI

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses

- Copyright licenses

▫ Median ERI

▫ Minimum ERI

▫ Maximum ERI

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses

 

 

 

 - Copyright licenses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ▪

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) Total income includes license issue fees, earned royalties, minimum annual royalties, paid-up license fees, and reimbursement for full-cost

recovery of goods and services provided by the lab to the licensee (including patent costs).

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(3) “Earned royalty” = royalty based upon use of a licensed invention (usually, a percentage of sales or units sold). Not a license fee or minimum royalty.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 102 

December 2004 
Environmental Protection Agency 

Disposition of License Income

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● Income distributed (1)

▪ Invention licenses, total distributed -- -- $533,906 $315,000 $677,354

- To inventors -- -- $186,867 $110,250 $178,971

35% 35% 26%

(2) -To other -- -- $347,039 $204,750 $498,383

65% 65% 74%

(3) - Patent licenses, total distributed -- -- $533,906 $315,000 $677,354

 - To inventors -- -- $186,867 $110,250 $178,971

35% 35% 26%

(2) -To other -- -- $347,039 $204,750 $498,383

65% 65% 74%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Invention licenses are the chief policy interest regarding distribution of income; content of this table reflects this focus.

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) Income includes royalties and other payments received during the FY.

(2) To the agency's laboratories.

(3) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

■ Other Performance Measures 

 

None cited. 

■ Downstream Outcomes

EPA’s FY 2003 report included the following selected examples of downstream outcomes from the 

technology transfer activities of its federal labs. 

● Technology for the Identification and Quantification of Molds Using Quantitative 

Polymerase Chain Reaction (QPCR). This technology was developed by EPA without a CRADA. 

However, since the technology was patented, EPA has entered into approximately 15 CRADAs (with 

more on the way) with companies in the United States and the European Union. Through these 

CRADAs, EPA scientists have been training company staffs in the protocols and application of the 

technology. The CRADAs have also given EPA access to collaborations with scientists around the 

world. These collaborations are bringing samples and data into the laboratory that would not have 

been available to the EPA. EPA is now respected for its leadership on this issue. EPA scientists are 

now invited to provide lectures, presentations and training to other government agencies, civic, 

academic, medical, construction and legal groups. The EPA is now a major player in the world in 

improving our understanding of building ecology, where humans spend 90 percent of their time. 

The technology is now commercially available in the United States and the European Union. 

Information on the technology and a list of the companies that have licensed the technology can be 

found at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/moldtech.htm. Additionally, companies in Canada, Japan, 

and Australia are in various stages of licensing the technology. Although the technology was only 

patented in 2002, at last reporting well over $1 million in business had already been done. This 

technology has created jobs for American people and income for U.S. companies. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 103 

December 2004 
Environmental Protection Agency 

As a spin-off of this technology, applications in other fields are being identified. For example, one of 

the licensed companies is going to be using this technology to monitor mold contamination in food, 

feed and pharmaceuticals. Molds, and the toxins they produce, are major issues in agriculture and 

the food and drug industry. Use of this technology should help prevent these kinds of contamination 

or, at least, identify when they have occurred before they become a part of the final product. 

In medicine, hospitals have a major problem with nosocomial mold infections in their patients. 

These types of infections frequently (60-90 percent) result in the death of the patient. Use of this 

technology in the health care arena is already happening. Although not directly EPA’s “business,” 

this application will likely prevent deaths in hospitals. 

As a result of license fees and royalties, the laboratory has been able to invest in new developments 

that are furthering its leadership role in building ecology and health studies. For example, a patent 

was recently filed on a new technology for measuring “human exposure to molds.” This will form 

the basis for new technology, which is in the process of being commercialized. Our strong position 

in the field, as a result of the previous licensing, will allow EPA to help our clients – the American 

people – by providing the technology for addressing human exposures. We are transferring this new 

technology to CDC-NIOSH, so that it can better investigate workplace problems. 

● Hydraulic Hybrid Motor Vehicles. The EPA, through its National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions 

Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan, owns several patents for inventions related to fuel efficient 

hybrid motor vehicles, particularly highly efficient hydraulic hybrid vehicles. The EPA’s hydraulic 

hybrid vehicles have shown the potential for significantly greater fuel mileage (and reduced cost), 

even compared to new, state-of-the-art gas-electric hybrid vehicles that are currently gaining acclaim 

among the environmental community. Currently, first generation demonstration vehicles for the 

EPA’s hydraulic hybrid technology have been completed and tested with great success. As a recent 

example, in November 2003, a demonstration EPA hydraulic hybrid urban delivery vehicle (using a 

2003 Ford F550 chassis) competed in the heavy duty portion of the international Michelin Challenge 

Bibendum, and received attention for achieving a top award (“A”) in energy efficiency at the 

competition. Because of the technology’s promise for the future, multiple industry partners continue 

to be actively engaged in working with the EPA to further develop this hydraulic hybrid technology 

for commercial production.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 104 

December 2004 
Department of Health and Human Services 

3.6 Department of Health and Human Services 

This section summarizes the statistics and other data provided by the department in its annual reports 

on the technology transfer activities and outcomes of its federal laboratories. Currently, these reports 

provide data through FY 2003. This information covers the activities of the department’s following 

divisions: National Institutes of Health (NIH), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Centers 

for Disease Control (CDC). For additional details, readers should consult the department’s full 

report.30 

■ Collaborative Relationships for Research and Development

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● CRADAs, total active in the FY(1) 468 438 498 470 427

 - New, executed in the FY 136 125 137 126 102

▪ Traditional CRADAs,(2) total active in the FY 110 152 237 244 289 261 254

 - New, executed in the FY 58 50 61 52 54

▪ Non-traditional CRADAs,(3) total active in FY 231 194 209 209 173

 - New, executed in the FY 78 75 76 74 48

● Other collaborative R&D relationships

-- -- 0 0 0

 

 

 

 

 

CRADA = Cooperative Research and Development Agreement

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) “Active” = legally in force at any time during the FY. “Total active” includes all agreements executed under CRADA authority (15 USC 3710a).

(2) CRADAs involving collaborative research and development by a federal laboratory and non-federal partners.

(3) CRADAs used for special purposes -- such as material transfer or technical assistance that may result in protected information.

■ Invention Disclosure and Patenting

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● New inventions disclosed in the FY(1) 215 307 328 375 434 431 472

● Patent applications filed in the FY(2) 239 166 241 263 255 262 279

● Patents issued in the FY 180 132 119 116 136

(1) Inventions arising at the federal lab. 

(2) Tally includes: U.S. patent applications, foreign patent applications filed on cases for which no U.S. application was filed, divisional applications,

and continuation-in-part applications. Excludes: provisional, continuation, duplicate foreign, and PCT applications. 

 

30 National Institutes of Health, Office of Technology Transfer, Agency Annual Report on Federal Laboratory Technology 

Transfer: Fiscal Year 2003 Activities, NIH, CDC, and FDA, January 2004. Report prepared in response to 15 USC Sec. 

3710(f) (requiring an annual “agency report on utilization” for agencies with federal laboratories) and submitted to OMB 

(consistent with Circular A-11 guidelines). 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 105 

December 2004 
Department of Health and Human Services 

■ Licensing

Profile of Active Licenses 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● All licenses, number total active in the FY(1) 1,364 1,608 1,367 1,357 1,380

▫ New, executed in the FY -- -- -- 220 211

▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY 1,041 1,222 1,007 1,213 1,298

▫ New, executed in the FY 208 192 212 198 199

 - Patent (2) licenses, total active in FY -- -- -- 736 765

▫ New, executed in the FY 115 119

 - Material transfer (inventions), tot active in FY -- -- -- n/a n/a

▫ New, executed in the FY n/a n/a

(3) - Other invention licenses, total active in FY -- -- -- n/a n/a

▫ New, executed in the FY n/a n/a

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 323 386 360 144 82

▫ New, executed in the FY -- -- -- 22 12

 - Copyright licenses (fee bearing) -- -- -- n/a n/a

▫ New, executed in the FY n/a n/a

 - Material transfer (non-inv.), total active in FY -- -- -- n/a n/a

▫ New, executed in the FY n/a n/a

(4) - Other -- -- -- 144 82

▫ New, executed in the FY 22 12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Multiple inventions in a single license are counted as one license. Licenses that include both patents and copyrights

(i.e., hybrid licenses) are reported as patent licenses -- and not included in the count of copyright licenses.

 -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) “Active” = legally in force at any time during the FY. 

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(3) No licenses of this type indicated as active.

Licensing Management 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● Elapsed execution time,(1) licenses granted in FY

▪ Invention licenses 

▫ average months -- -- n/a 6.3 5.6

▫ minimum -- -- n/a 0.03 0.03

▫ maximum -- -- n/a 61.0 51.5

 - Patent (2) licenses

▫ average months -- -- n/a 9.1 8.4

▫ minimum -- -- n/a 0.03 4.0

▫ maximum -- -- n/a 61.0 51.5

● Number of licenses terminated for cause in FY

▪ Invention licenses -- -- n/a 12 6

(2) - Patent licenses -- -- n/a 10 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Data included in this table (intentionally) addresses only invention licenses, with patent licenses distinguished as a subclass.

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) Date of license application to the date of license execution. (Date of license application is the date the lab formally

acknowledges the written request for a license from a prospective licensee and agrees to enter into negotiations.)

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications which are licensed.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 106 

December 2004 
Department of Health and Human Services 

Characteristics of Licenses Bearing Income 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● All income bearing licenses, number -- -- -- 751 821

▫ Exclusive 115 121

▫ Partially exclusive 11 9

▫ Non-exclusive 625 691

▪ Invention licenses, income bearing -- -- -- 723 761

▫ Exclusive 106 116

▫ Partially exclusive 11 9

▫ Non-exclusive 606 636

- Patent licenses,(1) income bearing 494 520

▫ Exclusive 113 111

▫ Partially exclusive 11 9

▫ Non-exclusive 370 400

▪ Other IP licenses, income bearing -- -- -- 14 7

▫ Exclusive 9 4

▫ Partially exclusive 0 0

▫ Non-exclusive 5 3

- Copyright licenses (fee bearing) 0 0

▫ Exclusive

▫ Partially exclusive

(2) ● All royalty bearing licenses, number 223 230 727 383 478

▪ Invention licenses, royalty bearing, number -- -- -- 369 425

 - Patent (1) licenses, royalty bearing 206 236

▪ Other IP licenses, royalty bearing -- -- -- 14 5

 - Copyright licenses (fee bearing) 0 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ▫ Non-exclusive

 

 

 

 

In general, license income can result from various sources: license issue fees, earned royalties, minimum annual royalites, paid-up license fees, and

reimbursement for full-cost recovery of goods and services provided by the lab to the licensee (including patent costs).

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of past years.

(1) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(2) Note that royalties are one component of total license income.

3

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 107 

December 2004 
Department of Health and Human Services 

Income (annual) from Licenses

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● Total income, all licenses active in FY (1) $44,821,000 $52,547,000 $46,722,000 $52,882,331 $55,198,722

▪ Invention licenses $5,839,000 $19,727,000 $42,599,000 $48,592,000 $41,322,000 $51,868,102 $54,570,939

 - Patent licenses (2) -- -- -- $35,503,320 $35,695,820

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY $2,222,000 $3,955,000 $5,400,000 $1,014,229 $627,783

● Total Earned Royalty Income (ERI) (3)

 - Copyright licenses --

$34,599,000

--

$43,892,000

--

$36,612,000

0

$36,012,005

0

$38,338,328

▫ Median ERI -- -- n/a n/a n/a

▫ Minimum ERI -- -- n/a n/a n/a

▫ Maximum ERI -- -- n/a n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses -- -- n/a n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses -- -- n/a n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses -- -- n/a n/a n/a

▪ Invention licenses -- -- -- $35,616,859 $37,923,105

▫ Median ERI n/a n/a

▫ Minimum ERI n/a n/a

▫ Maximum ERI n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses n/a n/a

 - Patent licenses (2) $21,595,052 $20,858,675

▫ Median ERI n/a n/a

▫ Minimum ERI n/a n/a

▫ Maximum ERI n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses n/a n/a

▪ Other IP licenses -- -- -- $395,146 $415,223

▫ Median ERI n/a n/a

▫ Minimum ERI n/a n/a

▫ Maximum ERI n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses n/a n/a

- Copyright licenses 0

▫ Median ERI

▫ Minimum ERI

▫ Maximum ERI

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years. dw = data withheld by agency 

to protect proprietary information.

(1) Total income includes license issue fees, earned royalties, minimum annual royalties, paid-up license fees, and reimbursement for full-cost

recovery of goods and services provided by the lab to the licensee (including patent costs).

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(3) “Earned royalty” = royalty based upon use of a licensed invention (usually, a percentage of sales or units sold). Not a license fee or minimum royalty.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 108 

December 2004 
Department of Health and Human Services 

Disposition of License Income 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● Income distributed (1)

▪ Invention licenses, total distributed -- -- n/a n/a $54,474,175

- To inventors -- -- n/a n/a $7,391,171

14%

 -To (2) other -- -- n/a n/a $47,083,004

86%

(3) - Patent licenses, total distributed -- -- -- n/a n/a

- To inventors -- -- -- n/a n/a

 -To (2) other -- -- -- n/a n/a

 

 

 

 

 

 

Invention licenses are the chief policy interest regarding distribution of income; content of this table reflects this focus.

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

Difference between "total income" (previous table) and "income distributed" is due to holdovers.

(1) Income includes royalties and other payments received during the FY.

(2) Income distributed to NIH Institutes and Centers, FDA, and partners of Interinstitutional Agreements.

(3) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

■ Other Performance Measures 

 None cited. 

■ Downstream Outcomes

HHS’ FY 2003 report provides the following selected examples of downstream outcome arising from 

the technology transfer activities of the department’s federal labs: 

National Institutes of Health 

● Formulation technology in the cancer drug Velcade®. Velcade® is the first therapy for 

multiple myeloma approved by the FDA in more than 10 years. A license to Millennium 

Pharmaceuticals (L-271-2001/0) concerned the formulation technology for this cancer drug. With 

the incidence of multiple myeloma expected to reach 15,000 new cases annually, the development of 

this product dramatically supports the public health mission of the NIH. 

● Software for data management. A license to Agilent Technologies (9L-073-2002/0) has resulted 

in development of a scientific software platform for data management. This platform will allow 

basic researchers to more easily distribute and share their research findings. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 109 

● New molecular diagnostic for adverse effect predispositions to 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy. 

A license to IMPATH (L-310-2002/0) has addressed development of a new molecular diagnostic 

used for the identification of pre-dispositions to adverse effects following treatment with the common 

chemotherapy 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). Approximately 1 percent of the general population carries this 

mutation, which results in severe toxicity and oftentimes death, following 5-FU treatment. Early 

diagnosis will aid in determining which patients should not undergo 5-FU treatment and should 

prevent these premature deaths. 

December 2004 
Department of Health and Human Services 

● Tissue microarray products. A license to Chemicon International (L-179-2002/0) concerns 

development of tissue microarray products. Tissue microarray technology is expected to expedite 

drug discovery. This means that news drugs can be developed more expeditiously than in the past, 

which should also positively affect the public health mission of the NIH. 

● DNA-based vaccine therapeutic for treating a variety of solid and hematological cancers. 

Currently available cancer therapeutics have a variety of mild-to-severe side effects. Although, 

cancer vaccines, which have recently been successful in several clinical trials, offer the promise of a 

therapeutic with few-to-none side effects. A license to Cell Genesys (L-078-2003) is for a cancer 

vaccine, which will be based on a National Cancer Institute technology, mesothelin (which is 

expressed in a number of different cancers but not in normal tissue). Cell Genesys plans to pursue 

pancreatic cancer as a first target, which is a disease for which there are few effective treatment 

options. 

● Cell line that expresses hyper-glycosylated human chorionic gonadotropin. A license to 

Nichols Institute Diagnostics (L-015-2003) is for a cell line that expresses hyper-glycosylated human 

chorionic gonadotropin (HCG). HCG is expressed most highly during pregnancy, and is used as a 

marker to detect Downs Syndrome in-utero. Current assays for Downs Syndrome are problematic 

for two reasons. First, because the detection rate is relatively low: the currently available test only 

detects Downs approximately 50-85 percent of the time, depending on exactly which tests are 

performed. Second, there is also a high rate of false positives: the vast majority of women who 

receive a positive result will, in fact, have normal babies. This causes much unneeded stress on 

families and medical professionals. It is anticipated that this cell line, when integrated into a new test 

kit for Downs Syndrome, will greatly increase detection rates, and decrease false positive readings 

for tests performed as part of an amniocentesis. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

● Recombinant DNA antigen for West Nile Virus. In 1999, New York City and surrounding 

areas experienced an outbreak of viral encephalitis that caused seven deaths with 62 confirmed cases. 

Concurrent with this outbreak, local health officials observed increased mortalities among birds 

(especially crows) and horses. The outbreak was subsequently shown to be caused by West Nile 

Virus (WNV), a mosquito borne flavivirus that is transmitted by various species of mosquitoes. The 

most serious manifestation of WNV infection is fatal encephalitis (inflammation of the brain) in 

humans and horses, as well as mortality in certain domestic and wild birds. In 2002, there were 4,156 

and 14,571 reported cases of WNV human and equine infection, respectively, with the virus reaching 

44 states. Faced with the rapid spread of WNV, CDC worked quickly with national and state 

authorities to develop a comprehensive national response plan. 

Accurate WNV diagnostic tests and preventatives are essential tools for the development of effective 

surveillance, prevention, and control of WNV. In response to this crisis, CDC developed a 

recombinant plasmid expressing a critical WNV antigen that provided the necessary specificity for 

diagnostic purposes and proved highly effective as a vaccine. CDC has patent applications pending 

on both the early flavivirus constructs and the WNV specific construct. This antigen was 

incorporated into a diagnostic test for WNV IgM and IgG antibodies in humans and animals. The 

tests were immediately distributed to national and state public health labs in order to facilitate the 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 110 

December 2004 
Department of Health and Human Services 

formation of a national surveillance program. The value of this antigen over then available antigens 

for diagnostic testing was quickly recognized by the private sector and the antigen has now been 

licensed to 10 companies for use in WNV diagnostics worldwide. Within two months of the first 

commercial license, the WNV recombinant antigen was available as a commercial product and, 

within one year, a diagnostic test kit incorporating the antigen received FDA approval. 

In direct collaboration with the academic community and the private sector, CDC facilitated the use 

of the WNV recombinant DNA as a vaccine in horses and birds. Currently working its way through 

USDA approval, the horse vaccine will be the first recombinant DNA vaccine approved for use 

anywhere in the world. As a second-generation horse vaccine, the CDC WNV recombinant DNA 

will provide greater vaccine efficacy and allow for improved surveillance by providing researchers 

with the ability to distinguish between natural infection and vaccine-induced immunity. In 2002, an 

emergency effort was initiated to evaluate the DNA vaccine for protection of birds on the endangered 

species list and resulted in the vaccination of more than 220 condors in the California condor 

recovery program. 

● Improved detection technology for occupational and general public exposures to lead. Lead 

poisoning is a global problem having significant public health and occupational health consequences. 

Worldwide, 240 million people are estimated to have health risks from lead poisoning. There is no 

level of lead in blood that is considered normal or safe. Lead is the number one environmental health 

hazard to children. From a U.S. public health perspective, about 900,000 children ages 1 to 5 have a 

blood lead level of concern. Occupational exposure to lead is one of the most common over 

exposures found in U.S. industry, and a leading cause of workplace illness. The U.S. Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has deemed the reduction of occupational lead exposure a 

priority. 

 

In response, scientists at CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 

developed a new handwipe technology for lead, as a cost effective way to significantly reduce lead 

exposures in workers as well as the general public through risk awareness. The technology is novel, 

sensitive, and specific. The results of a test are immediate: a color change from yellow to red 

indicates the presence of lead (the red color is intended to suggest to the user: "Stop! If it's red, 

there's lead!"). The method will identify lead in the tens of millionths of a gram! The technology was 

awarded a U.S. patent and is licensed to SKC, Inc., a U.S. company that is a global leader in 

sampling technologies. The company has created a web site for this technology 

(http://www.skcinc.com/prod/550 001.asp), and it is selling well. Through this successful 

technology transfer to SKC, this invention is now available to help industries to meet OSHA's goal of 

reducing occupational lead exposure and help the U.S. Public Health Service meet its Healthy People 

2010 goal to reduce the number of persons with elevated blood lead levels to zero by the year 2010. 

● Pneumococcal vaccine. CDC’s pneumococcal vaccine candidate, patented and licensed to 

Aventis Pasteur, is nearing the successful completion and phase 1 clinical trials and is scheduled to 

begin phase 2 trials later this year. This vaccine recognizes all 90 serotypes of streptococcal 

pneumonia. Currently available vaccines recognize only 16 of the serotypes. Diseases caused by this 

infectious agent include pneumonia in children and adults, and otitis media in children, the dreaded 

ear infection that so plagues our children in their infant and toddler years. We anticipate that in just a 

few more years, both of these diseases will be completely preventable through early vaccination. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 111 

December 2004 
Department of Health and Human Services 

● Automatic warning system for mine worker exposures to nearby vehicles and machinery. In 

response to a fatal mining accident, CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) invented a new technology that will save the lives of mothers and fathers who toil in our 

Nation’s mines. The installation of our Perimeter Warning System in large mining vehicles and 

machinery automatically alerts the operator to the presence of workers near enough to the equipment 

to be in danger of being struck by the vehicle or machinery, allowing the shutdown of the equipment 

in time to avoid a potentially fatal accident. 

● Human Microvascular Endothelial Cell Line. CDC continues to distribute widely the Human 

Microvascular Endothelial Cell Line, HMEC-1 that was developed by CDC scientists several years 

ago. Endothelial cells are crucial components of basic physiological processes such as tumor growth, 

wound healing, graft rejection, inflammation, circulation, and immune function. Most of these 

processes occur at the blood vessel level. The very qualities of endothelial cells present a problem 

for researchers because they are difficult to isolate and have a limited life span. As a result, scientists 

have had to use highly variable human tissue or live animals to conduct experiments. When faced 

with this problem, two scientists at CDC’s National Center for Infectious Disease used human cells 

provided by Emory University to create HMEC-1, the first immortalized human microvascular 

endothelial cell line that retains the morphological, phenotypical, and functional characteristics of 

normal cells. 

Other scientists and physicians throughout the United States and in 25 other countries on six 

continents have distributed this cell line for use. The HMEC-1 cell line is now used as an alternative 

to animal testing in the cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries to screen new compounds and drugs 

for toxicity to skin. Its impact includes a significant reduction in the use of animals in laboratory 

experiments and testing, and its widespread use as an essential tool for many scientists for research in 

the fields of drug screening, viral infectivity, immune function, wound healing, toxicity testing, and 

carcinogenicity testing. The cells are also used to produce and harvest cellular products used in 

cancer screening protocols. In addition, HMEC-1 is used to coat vascular prostheses, such as stints, 

to reduce rejection. 

Food and Drug Administration 

● Dimethyl penclodedine, a possible cancer therapeutic. Xanthus Life Sciences recently licensed 

(L-105-2002) a patent from the FDA, which claims demethyl penclomedine. This compound is the 

active metabolite of penclomedine. Penclomedine has been shown in several clinical trials to be 

potentially useful as a cancer therapeutic for a wide variety of solid tumors. Unfortunately, 

penclomedine has an unacceptable level of toxicity at therapeutic dosages. The active metabolite, 

demethyl penclomedine, appears to have little to no toxicity at therapeutic dosages, and should be 

useful in treating solid tumors. This compound might also be useful in treating tumors that have not 

responded to other treatment regimens. Xanthus has identified this compound as a lead compound, 

and plans to begin clinical trials within three years. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 112 

December 2004 
Department of the Interior 

3.7 Department of the Interior 

This section summarizes the statistics and other data provided by the department in its annual reports 

on the technology transfer activities and outcomes of its federal laboratories. Currently, these reports 

provide data only through FY 2001. This information covers the activities of the department’s 

following bureaus: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Bureau of Reclamation (unless otherwise noted 

in the tables below). For additional details, readers should consult the department’s full report.31 

■ Collaborative Relationships for Research and Development

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● CRADAs, total active in the FY(1) -- -- 50 n/a n/a

 - New, executed in the FY -- -- 21 n/a n/a

(2) ▪ Traditional CRADAs, total active in the FY 12 15 30 40 41 n/a n/a

 - New, executed in the FY 10 8 14 n/a n/a

▪ Non-traditional CRADAs,(3) total active in FY -- -- 9 n/a n/a

 - New, executed in the FY -- -- 7 n/a n/a

● Other collaborative R&D relationships

-- -- 0 n/a n/a

 

 

Figures for FY 2001 include activities of the USGS and the Bureau of Reclamation. Figures for prior years include only the USGS.

CRADA = Cooperative Research and Development Agreement

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) “Active” = legally in force at any time during the FY. “Total active” includes all agreements executed under CRADA authority (15 USC 3710a).

(2) CRADAs involving collaborative research and development by a federal laboratory and non-federal partners.

(3) CRADAs used for special purposes -- such as material transfer or technical assistance that may result in protected information.

■ Invention Disclosure and Patenting 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● New inventions disclosed in the FY(1) 26 2 8 16 6 n/a n/a

● Patent applications filed in the FY(2) 15 2 3 5 22 n/a n/a

● Patents issued in the FY 1 4 2 n/a n/a

Figures for FY 2001 include activities of the USGS and the Bureau of Reclamation. Figures for prior years include only the USGS.

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. 

(1) Inventions arising at the federal lab. 

(2) Tally includes: U.S. patent applications, foreign patent applications filed on cases for which no U.S. application was filed, divisional applications,

and continuation-in-part applications. Excludes: provisional, continuation, duplicate foreign, and PCT applications. 

 

31U.S. Department of the Interior, Annual Report on Technology Transfer: Programs, Plans, FY 2001 Activities and 

Achievements, September 2002. DOI has not yet provided similar reports for FY 2002 and 2003. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 113 

December 2004 
Department of the Interior 

■ Licensing

Profile of Active Licenses 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● All licenses, number total active in the FY(1) 12 6 8 n/a n/a

▫ New, executed in the FY 0 2 2 n/a n/a

▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY 12 6 8 n/a n/a

▫ New, executed in the FY 0 2 2 n/a n/a

(2) - Patent licenses, total active in FY -- -- -- n/a n/a

▫ New, executed in the FY -- -- -- n/a n/a

- Material transfer (inventions), tot active in FY -- -- -- n/a n/a

▫ New, executed in the FY -- -- -- n/a n/a

(3) - Other invention licenses, total active in FY -- -- -- n/a n/a

▫ New, executed in the FY -- -- -- n/a n/a

Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 0 0 0 n/a n/a

▫ New, executed in the FY 0 0 0 n/a n/a

- Copyright licenses (fee bearing) n/a n/a

▫ New, executed in the FY n/a n/a

- Material transfer (non-inv.), total active in FY n/a n/a

▫ New, executed in the FY n/a n/a

- Other (4) n/a n/a

▫ New, executed in the FY n/a n/a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ▪

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figures for FY 2001 include activities of the USGS and the Bureau of Reclamation. Figures for prior years include only the USGS.

Multiple inventions in a single license are counted as one license. Licenses that include both patents and copyrights

(i.e., hybrid licenses) are reported as patent licenses -- and not included in the count of copyright licenses.

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) “Active” = legally in force at any time during the FY. 

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(3) No licenses of this type indicated as active.

(4) No licenses of this type indicated as active.

Licensing Management 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● Elapsed execution time,(1) licenses granted in FY

 ▪ Invention licenses 

▫ average months -- -- 3.5 n/a n/a

▫ minimum -- -- 3.0 n/a n/a

▫ maximum -- -- 4.0 n/a n/a

 - Patent (2) licenses

▫ average months -- -- -- n/a n/a

▫ minimum -- -- -- n/a n/a

▫ maximum -- -- -- n/a n/a

● Number of licenses terminated for cause in FY

▪ Invention licenses -- -- 0 n/a n/a

(2) - Patent licenses -- -- -- n/a n/a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Data included in this table (intentionally) addresses only invention licenses, with patent licenses distinguished as a subclass.

Data lin this table (intentionally) addresses only invention licenses, with patent licenses distinguished as a subclass.

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) Date of license application to the date of license execution. (Date of license application is the date the lab formally

acknowledges the written request for a license from a prospective licensee and agrees to enter into negotiations.)

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications which are licensed.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 114 

December 2004 
Department of the Interior 

Characteristics of Licenses Bearing Income

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● All income bearing licenses, number 11 5 6 n/a n/a

 Exclusive -- -- 0 n/a n/a

 Partially exclusive -- -- 0 n/a n/a

 Non-exclusive -- -- 6 n/a n/a

▪ Invention licenses, income bearing 11 5 6 n/a n/a

▫ Exclusive -- -- 0 n/a n/a

▫ Partially exclusive -- -- 0 n/a n/a

▫ Non-exclusive -- -- 6 n/a n/a

 - Patent licenses,(1) income bearing -- n/a n/a

▫ Exclusive -- n/a n/a

▫ Partially exclusive -- n/a n/a

▫ Non-exclusive -- n/a n/a

▪ Other IP licenses, income bearing 0 0 0 n/a n/a

▫ Exclusive n/a n/a

▫ Partially exclusive n/a n/a

▫ Non-exclusive n/a n/a

- Copyright licenses (fee bearing) n/a n/a

▫ Exclusive n/a n/a

▫ Partially exclusive n/a n/a

▫ Non-exclusive n/a n/a

● (2) All royalty bearing licenses, number 11 5 6 n/a n/a

▪ Invention licenses, royalty bearing, number 11 5 6 n/a n/a

 - Patent (1) licenses, royalty bearing -- -- -- n/a n/a

▪ Other IP licenses, royalty bearing 0 0 0 n/a n/a

 - Copyright licenses (fee bearing)

 ▫

 ▫

 ▫

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figures for FY 2001 include activities of the USGS and the Bureau of Reclamation. Figures for prior years include only the USGS.

In general, license income can result from various sources: license issue fees, earned royalties, minimum annual royalites, paid-up license fees, and

reimbursement for full-cost recovery of goods and services provided by the lab to the licensee (including patent costs).

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of past years.

(1) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(2) Note that royalties are one component of total license income.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 115 

December 2004 
Department of the Interior 

Income (annual) from Licenses

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● Total income, all licenses active in FY (1) $1,640,000 $850,000 $235,000 n/a n/a

▪ Invention licenses $1,640,000 $850,000 $235,000 n/a n/a

 - Patent licenses (2) -- -- -- n/a n/a

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY $0 $0 $0 n/a n/a

 - Copyright licenses

● Total Earned Royalty Income (ERI) (3) $1,640,000 $850,000 $220,000 n/a n/a

▫ Median ERI -- -- n/a n/a n/a

▫ Minimum ERI -- -- $2,000 n/a n/a

▫ Maximum ERI -- -- $20,000 n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses -- -- n/a n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses -- -- n/a n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses -- -- n/a n/a n/a

▪ Invention licenses -- -- -- n/a n/a

▫ Median ERI

▫ Minimum ERI

▫ Maximum ERI

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses

 - Patent licenses (2) n/a n/a

▫ Median ERI

▫ Minimum ERI

▫ Maximum ERI

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses

▪ Other IP licenses $0 $0 $0 n/a n/a

▫ Median ERI

▫ Minimum ERI

▫ Maximum ERI

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses

 - Copyright licenses n/a n/a

▫ Median ERI

▫ Minimum ERI

▫ Maximum ERI

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figures for FY 2001 include activities of the USGS and the Bureau of Reclamation. Figures for prior years include only the USGS.

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of previous years.

(1) Total income includes license issue fees, earned royalties, minimum annual royalties, paid-up license fees, and reimbursement for full-cost

recovery of goods and services provided by the lab to the licensee (including patent costs).

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(3) “Earned royalty” = royalty based upon use of a licensed invention (usually, a percentage of sales or units sold). Not a license fee or minimum royalty.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 116 

December 2004 
Department of the Interior 

Disposition of License Income

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● Income distributed (1)

▪ Invention licenses, total distributed -- -- $235,250 n/a n/a

 - To inventors -- -- $16,375 n/a n/a

7%

(2) -To other -- -- $218,875 n/a n/a

93%

(3) Patent licenses, total distributed -- -- -- n/a n/a

 - To inventors -- -- -- n/a n/a

(2) -To other -- -- -- n/a n/a

 

 

 

 -

 

 

Invention licenses are the chief policy interest regarding distribution of income; content of this table reflects this focus.

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in previous

(1) Income includes royalties and other payments received during the FY.

(2) To agency (internal): salaries of some tech transfer staff, patent filing preparation fees, patent annuity payments, fees to agency labs.

Note on FY 2001 figures: Most of the reported income stems from the royalty stream created by a patent infringement judgment won by

the department. Because of the particulars of the case, no significant portion of these royalties is payable to the individual investors.

As a general policy, USGS's royalty sharing percentage is 33%; the Bureau of Reclamation's is 30%.

(3) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

■ Other Performance Measures

None cited.

 

■ Downstream Outcomes

No outcome examples to cite. Information on DOI technology transfer activities in FY 2002 or 

2003 are not yet available from the department for this report. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 117 

December 2004 
Department of the Interior 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 118 

December 2004 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

3.8 National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

This section summarizes the statistics and other data provided by the department in its annual reports 

on the technology transfer activities and outcomes of its federal laboratories. Currently, these reports 

provide data through FY 2003. This information covers the activities of all of NASA’s federal labs 

and research centers, including the Jet Propulsion Lab run by the California Institute of Technology 

(unless otherwise noted in the tables below). For additional details, readers should consult the 

department’s full report.32 

■ Collaborative Relationships for Research and Development

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● CRADAs, total active in the FY(1) 0 0 1 1 1 1 0

 - New, executed in the FY 1 0 0 0 0

(2) ▪ Traditional CRADAs, total active in the FY 0 0 1 1 1 1 0

 - New, executed in the FY 1 0 0 0 0

(3) ▪ Non-traditional CRADAs, total active in FY 0 0 0 0 0

 - New, executed in the FY 0 0 0 0 0

● Other collaborative R&D relationships

(4) (5) ▪ Space Act Agreements , JPL Tasks , Software 

(6) Useage Agreements : total active in the FY 81 104 1,053 1,104 1,056

 - New, executed in the FY n/a 30 496 537 385

 

 

 

CRADA = Cooperative Research and Development Agreement

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report.

(1) “Active” = legally in force at any time during the FY. “Total active” includes all agreements executed under CRADA authority (15 USC 3710a).

(2) CRADAs involving collaborative research and development by a federal laboratory and non-federal partners.

(3) CRADAs used for special purposes -- such as material transfer or technical assistance that may result in protected information.

(4) NASA does not often employ CRADA authority to enter into collaborative R&D; it instead uses its broad authority under the

National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 to enter into Space Act Agreements. NASA has not in the past tracked the number of Space 

Act agreements, but it plans to do so in the future

(5) R&D tasks reported by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), as part of NASA's overall R&D effort.

(6) Agreements executed with industry.

■ Invention Disclosure and Patenting 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● New inventions disclosed in the FY(1) 538 517 525 574 696 775 736

● Patent applications filed in the FY(2) 181 164 129 158 152 166 163

● Patents issued in the FY 87 148 159 128 136

(1) Inventions arising at the federal lab. 

(2) Tally includes: U.S. patent applications, foreign patent applications filed on cases for which no U.S. application was filed, divisional applications,

and continuation-in-part applications. Excludes: provisional, continuation, duplicate foreign, and PCT applications. 

 

32 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Annual Report on Technology Transfer: Programs, Plans, FY 2003 

Activities and Achievements, July 2004. Report prepared in response to 15 USC Sec. 3710(f) (requiring an annual 

“agency report on utilization” for agencies with federal laboratories) and submitted to OMB (consistent with Circular A-11 

guidelines). 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 119 

December 2004 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

■ Licensing

Profile of Active Licenses 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

● All licenses, number total active in the FY(1) 288 305 328 357

▫ New, executed in the FY 58 67 65 62

▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY 230 238 292 290

▫ New, executed in the FY 46 46 42 52

(2) - Patent licenses, total active in FY 230 238 292 290

▫ New, executed in the FY 46 46 42 52

- Material transfer (inventions), tot active in FY 0 0 0 0

▫ New, executed in the FY 0 0 0 0

(3) - Other invention licenses, total active in FY 0 0 0 0

▫ New, executed in the FY 0 0 0 0

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 58 67 36 67

▫ New, executed in the FY 12 21 23 10

- Copyright licenses (fee bearing) 52 60 36 67

▫ New, executed in the FY 10 20 23 10

- Material transfer (non-inv.), total active in FY 0 0 0 0

▫ New, executed in the FY 0 0 0 0

- Other (4) 6 7 0 0

▫ New, executed in the FY 2 1 0 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Multiple inventions in a single license are counted as one license. Licenses that include both patents and copyrights

(i.e., hybrid licenses) are reported as patent licenses -- and not included in the count of copyright licenses.

 -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) “Active” = legally in force at any time during the FY. 

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(3) No licenses of this type indicated as active.

(4) Releases for Open Channel Web licenses.

Licensing Management 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● Elapsed execution time,(1) licenses granted in FY

▪ Invention licenses 

▫ median months 2.0 2.0 14.4 5.3 10.1

▫ minimum 0.1 0.1 4.0 0.7 2.0

▫ maximum 24.0 24.0 49.9 35.9 39.3

(2) - Patent licenses

▫ median months 2.0 2.0 14.4 5.3 10.1

▫ minimum 0.1 0.1 4.0 0.7 2.0

● Number of licenses terminated for cause in FY

24.0 24.0 49.9 35.9 39.3

▪ Invention licenses 0 0 21 32 20

(2) - Patent licenses 0 0 21 30 19

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ▫ maximum

 

Data included in this table (intentionally) addresses only invention licenses, with patent licenses distinguished as a subclass.

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) Date of license application to the date of license execution. (Date of license application is the date the lab formally

acknowledges the written request for a license from a prospective licensee and agrees to enter into negotiations.)

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications which are licensed.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 120 

December 2004 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Characteristics of Licenses Bearing Income 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● All income bearing licenses, number 163 171 105 131 247

▫ Exclusive 87 99 53 64 13

▫ Partially exclusive 14 13 13 17 19

▫ Non-exclusive 62 59 39 50 89

▪ Invention licenses, income bearing 131 133 98 119 206

▫ Exclusive 81 90 48 59 10

▫ Partially exclusive 13 13 13 17 19

▫ Non-exclusive 37 30 37 43 82

 - Patent licenses,(1) income bearing 131 133 98 119 206

▫ Exclusive 81 90 48 59 10

▫ Partially exclusive 13 13 13 17 19

▫ Non-exclusive 37 30 37 43 82

▪ Other IP licenses, income bearing 32 38 7 12 41

▫ Exclusive 6 9 5 5 34

▫ Partially exclusive 1 n/a 0 0 0

▫ Non-exclusive 25 29 2 7 7

 - Copyright licenses (fee bearing) 10 16 7 12 41

▫ Exclusive 2 5 5 5 34

▫ Partially exclusive 1 n/a 0 0 0

● All royalty bearing licenses,

(2) number 130 109 76 96 160

7 11 2 7 7

▪ Invention licenses, royalty bearing, number 113 84 72 86 128

(1) - Patent licenses, royalty bearing 96 84 72 86 128

▪ Other IP licenses, royalty bearing 17 25 4 10 32

 - Copyright licenses (fee bearing) 17 25 4 10 32

 

 

9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ▫ Non-exclusive

 

 

 

 

In general, license income can result from various sources: license issue fees, earned royalties, minimum annual royalites, paid-up license fees, and

reimbursement for full-cost recovery of goods and services provided by the lab to the licensee (including patent costs).

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of past years.

(1) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(2) Note that royalties are one component of total license income.

5

5

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 121 

December 2004 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Income (annual) from Licenses

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● Total income, all licenses active in FY (1) $1,360,061 $1,756,796 $1,970,739 $2,498,167 $2,852,985

▪ Invention licenses $1,128,458 $1,087,003 $1,318,884 $2,075,038 $2,411,886

 - Patent licenses (2) $1,128,458 $1,087,003 $1,318,884 $2,075,038 $2,411,886

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY $231,603 $669,793 $651,855 $423,129 $441,099

 - Copyright licenses $231,603 $669,793 $651,855 $423,129 $441,099

● Total Earned Royalty Income (ERI) (3) $183,294 $116,490 $521,164 $554,769 $814,624

▫ Median ERI $22,615 $15,446 $21,735 n/a $9,522

▫ Minimum ERI $18 $270 $71 $20 $65

▫ Maximum ERI $61,724 $72,888 $232,159 $90,000 $152,000

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses $61,724 $72,888 n/a n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses $61,724 $72,888 n/a n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses $100,820 $72,888 $419,867 n/a n/a

 ▪ Invention licenses $149,595 $90,001 n/a $311,987 $808,766

▫ Median ERI $16,477 $15,446 n/a $9,624

▫ Minimum ERI $18 $1,667 $20 $65

▫ Maximum ERI $61,724 $72,888 $90,000 $152,000

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses $61,724 $72,888 n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses $61,724 $72,888 n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses $100,820 $72,888 n/a n/a

 - Patent licenses (2) $149,595 $90,001 n/a $311,987 $808,766

▫ Median ERI $16,477 $15,446 n/a $9,624

▫ Minimum ERI $18 $1,667 $20 $65

▫ Maximum ERI $61,724 $72,888 $90,000 $152,000

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses $61,724 $72,888 n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses $61,724 $72,888 n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses $100,820 $72,888 n/a n/a

▪ Other IP licenses $33,700 $26,488 n/a $242,692 $5,858

▫ Median ERI $33,700 $13,379 n/a $5,858

▫ Minimum ERI $33,700 $270 $675 $5,858

▫ Maximum ERI $33,700 $26,218 $90,000 $5,858

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses $33,700 $26,218 n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses $33,700 $26,218 n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses $33,700 $26,218 n/a n/a

 - Copyright licenses $33,700 $26,488 n/a $242,692 $5,858

▫ Median ERI $33,700 $13,379 n/a $5,858

▫ Minimum ERI $33,700 $270 $675 $5,858

▫ Maximum ERI $33,700 $26,218 $90,000 $5,858

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses $33,700 $26,218 n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses $33,700 $26,218 n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses $33,700 $26,218 n/a n/a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) Total income includes license issue fees, earned royalties, minimum annual royalties, paid-up license fees, and reimbursement for full-cost

recovery of goods and services provided by the lab to the licensee (including patent costs).

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(3) “Earned royalty” = royalty based upon use of a licensed invention (usually, a percentage of sales or units sold). Not a license fee or minimum royalty.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 122 

December 2004 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Disposition of License Income 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● Income distributed (1)

▪ Invention licenses, total distributed $1,076,932 $1,044,003 $1,450,989 $1,220,890 $1,324,848

 - To inventors $828,930 $608,910 $615,558 $699,854 $905,477

77% 58% 42% 57% 68%

(2) -To other $248,002 $435,093 $835,431 $521,036 $419,371

23% 42% 58% 43% 32%

(3) - Patent licenses, total distributed $1,076,932 $1,044,003 $1,450,989 $1,220,890 $1,324,848

 - To inventors $828,930 $608,910 $615,558 $699,854 $905,477

77% 58% 42% 57% 68%

(2) -To other $248,002 $435,093 $835,431 $521,036 $419,371

23% 42% 58% 43% 32%

 

Invention licenses are the chief policy interest regarding distribution of income; content of this table reflects this focus.

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) Income includes royalties and other payments received during the FY.

(2) Returned to U.S. Treasury or to the originating laboratory, as provided by law.

(3) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

■ Other Performance Measures 

None cited. 

■ Downstream Outcomes

NASA’s FY 2003 report indicated that diverse downstream benefits had arisen from the agency’s 

technology transfer activities: a) technology arising under a collaborative research, development, 

and demonstration relationship had become commercially available; b) technology arising under a 

collaborative research, development, and demonstration relationship had worked to strengthen 

NASA’s capabilities; c) technology licensed by the agency had become commercially available; 

also d) products or processes developed by agency licensees had strengthened NASA’s capabilities. 

NASA collects “success stories,” following a standardized format, in order to maintain awareness of 

successful transfer and application of technology by industry and the public. While these success 

stories are anecdotal in nature, they are a useful indicator of the application of NASA technology. 

During the past fiscal year, a total of 183 such stories were documented. The following is a sampling 

of these cases: 

● Tool for real-time emergency action coordination (Stennis Space Center). The Real-Time 

Emergency Action Coordination Tool (REACT) is a decision support system developed to support 

various real-time models. Initially developed and deployed to support the St. Tammany Parish 

(Louisiana) EMOC flood mitigation efforts, REACT is extendable to support numerous types of 

geographic impact models. The main benefit REACT provides is integration of disparate 

information to enable more efficient decision-making by emergency management personnel. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 123 

December 2004 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

The system was developed to support a variety of impact models such as fires, hazardous material 

spills, airborne biochemical agents, and many others of crucial importance to first responders. This 

development provided NASA’s Earth Science Directorate with practical application as well as 

verification and validation regarding ongoing technological developments. 

REACT was the result of a Dual-Use contract and is an excellent example of how NASA and 

industry can partner to further develop a NASA technology while at the same time help fulfill a 

commercial need. 

● VolumeViewer - a high-resolution volumetric 3D display system (Stennis Space Center). 

VolumeViewer is a patented volumetric 3D display system that is fundamentally different from 

conventional 3D visualization technologies. It enables group viewing of a 360-degree, 3D volume 

display without wearing any special viewing aids or goggles. This provides both physiological and 

psychological depth cues to human viewers to truthfully perceive 3D objects. The system generates 

“fish-tank like” volumetric 3D images within a display media that has a physical 3D volume. 

The technological breakthroughs in the development of VolumeViewer have resulted in the release 

of a line of patented 3D cameras (under the name Rainbow 3D®, 3D digitizer systems (3D EI 

DigitizerTM, 3D Dental DigitizerTM), and 3D visualization and application software (3D SurgeonTM, 

3D MosaicTM, 3D FaceMapTM, 3D EnrollTM and 3D Face IDTM). Genex has also improved a related 

360-degree imaging technology (OmniEye®) using cameras pointed into a mirror to provide a 

panoramic view. Within the last 12 months sales of the 3D line of cameras have been approximately 

$350,000. Omni-Eye is presently being field tested by security dealers, and sales have been modest 

(about $50,000) over the past 12 months. Additionally, Genex has cross-licensing agreements with 

Align Technologies valued at $1,500,000. 

● The heart of the matter (Johnson Space Center). The same technology that pumps hundreds of 

thousands of gallons of fuel through the Space Shuttle's engines is helping those who need heart 

transplants survive the wait for a donor organ with tiny heart-assist implants. The ingenuity lies 

within the inner workings of the tiny, titanium pump, which houses the only moving part—an 

impeller—among the pump’s three main components that minimize blood-flow turbulence, guide 

direction and drive constant outflow. The single-rotating impeller, co-designed by a team of NASA 

engineers experienced on working with Shuttle fuel and oxidizer pumps, propels blood in a one-way, 

continuous flow. The heart pump weighs only 4 ounces, is silent in operation and measures only 

1”X3”, about the size of a “C” cell battery. 

This effort began in 1996 when NASA granted exclusive rights, under its patents for the mechanical 

left-ventricular assist device (LVAD), to MicroMed, which manufactures the heart assist pump, now 

called the MicroMed-DeBakey VAD®. The pump’s scalable design makes it possible to implant a 

smaller version in children. The heart assist pump has been implanted in about 240 adult patients, 

176 during European trials that began in 1998. U.S. trials began in 2000 and are still underway to 

reach a planned total of 180 implants. The heart pump has recently earned Food and Drug 

Administration approval for use in children between the ages of five and 16. 

● Rotating bioreactor (Johnson Space Center). A rotating bioreactor, invented at Johnson Space 

Center, has been licensed for development of medical products and for research in various biological 

areas. This license is provided under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement. The 

results of use of the bioreactor have increased understanding of the human liver in space; further use 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 124 

December 2004 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

is expected to provide new treatments of liver and kidney disorders. Key areas explored include: a 

liver assist device; liver cell and kidney cell production; and in-vitro studies of efficacy, toxicity, and 

metabolism. 

● Damage tolerant material development (Glenn Research Center). NASA Glenn Research 

Center’s (GRC’s) ballistic impact testing facility has been used to test how materials respond to high 

speed impacts. The 40 ft. gas gun can shoot a gas turbine blade at 2,000 ft./sec. The Center was 

approached by a small company with an innovative composite material in order to conduct a needed 

impact testing of its Tycor material. A partnership to conduct ballistic impact testing of Tycor was 

formed, which introduced NASA Glenn researchers to Webcore’s material. Tycor’s successful 

performance led to a partnership including GRC, Webcore, the Air Force, and GE Aircraft Engines, 

to develop a damage tolerant fan case using Tycor material. 

● Lithium battery development (Glenn Research Center). Researchers at Glenn developed an 

innovative rod-coil polymer electrolyte for lithium batteries, and have been designing and testing 

new lithium battery concepts incorporating this new electrolyte material. Energizer signed an 

agreement to access NASA’s electrolyte technology and battery development results. Energizer 

expects this partnership to lead to better performing, lower cost lithium batteries. A space act 

agreement was negotiated. This partnership gives NASA access to Energizer’s considerable battery 

design and manufacturing experience. Energizer is able to prototype new battery designs, more 

quickly than NASA, which will accelerate NASA’s development of a new lithium battery for 

aerospace applications. 

● Hydrogen fuel reformer (Glenn Research Center). In the course of developing fuel cell 

technologies, a partnership with Catacel led to improved design and performance of fuel reformers 

and heat exchangers. The partnership has led to reduced development costs and the development of a 

new product that is estimated to reduce fuel savings on a commercial aircraft flight of up to 20 

percent for auxiliary power generation. The new product is estimated to eventually create 50 new 

jobs for the firm. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 125 

December 2004 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 126 

December 2004 
Department of Transportation 

3.9 Department of Transportation 

This section summarizes the statistics and other data provided by the department in its annual reports 

on the technology transfer activities and outcomes of its federal laboratories. Currently, these reports 

provide data through FY 2002. This information covers the activities of the department’s following 

agencies: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and 

Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) (unless otherwise noted in the tables below). 

For additional details, readers should consult the department’s full report.33 

■ Collaborative Relationships for Research and Development

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● CRADAs, total active in the FY(1) -- -- 82 92 96

 - New, executed in the FY -- -- 11 14 7

(2) ▪ Traditional CRADAs, total active in the FY 1 37 51 79 78 80 96

 - New, executed in the FY 5 38 11 9 7

(3) ▪ Non-traditional CRADAs, total active in FY 0 0 4 12 0

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

● Other collaborative R&D relationships

-- -- 0 0 0

 

 

 

 

 

CRADA = Cooperative Research and Development Agreement

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) “Active” = legally in force at any time during the FY. “Total active” includes all agreements executed under CRADA authority (15 USC 3710a).

(2) CRADAs involving collaborative research and development by a federal laboratory and non-federal partners.

(3) CRADAs used for special purposes -- such as material transfer or technical assistance that may result in protected information.

■ Invention Disclosure and Patenting 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● New inventions disclosed in the FY(1) 1 0 1 0 2 0 0

● Patent applications filed in the FY(2) 1 2 0 1 3 0 0

● Patents issued in the FY 0 3 0 0 0

(1) Inventions arising at the federal lab. 

(2) Tally includes: U.S. patent applications, foreign patent applications filed on cases for which no U.S. application was filed, divisional applications,

and continuation-in-part applications. Excludes: provisional, continuation, duplicate foreign, and PCT applications. 

 

33 U.S. Department of Transportation, FY 2003 Annual Report on Technology Transfer, October 2003. Report prepared in 

response to 15 USC Sec. 3710(f) (requiring an annual “agency report on utilization” for agencies with federal 

laboratories). 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 127 

December 2004 
Department of Transportation 

■ Licensing

Profile of Active Licenses 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● All licenses, number total active in the FY(1) 0 0 1 0 0

▫ New, executed in the FY 0 0 1 0 0

▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY 0 0 1 0 0

▫ New, executed in the FY 0 0 1 0 0

(2) - Patent licenses, total active in FY 1 0 0

▫ New, executed in the FY 1 0 0

- Material transfer (inventions), tot active in FY 0 0 0

▫ New, executed in the FY 0 0 0

(3) - Other invention licenses, total active in FY 0 0 0

▫ New, executed in the FY 0 0 0

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 0 0 0 0 0

▫ New, executed in the FY 0 0 0 0 0

- Copyright licenses (fee bearing)

▫ New, executed in the FY

- Material transfer (non-inv.), total active in FY

▫ New, executed in the FY

- Other (4)

▫ New, executed in the FY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Multiple inventions in a single license are counted as one license. Licenses that include both patents and copyrights

(i.e., hybrid licenses) are reported as patent licenses -- and not included in the count of copyright licenses.

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) “Active” = legally in force at any time during the FY. 

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(3) No licenses of this type indicated as active.

(4) No licenses of this type indicated as active.

Licensing Management 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● (1) Elapsed execution time, licenses granted in FY

▪ Invention licenses 

▫ average months -- -- n/a * *

▫ minimum -- -- n/a * *

▫ maximum -- -- n/a * *

(2) - Patent licenses

▫ average months -- -- n/a * *

▫ minimum -- -- n/a * *

▫ maximum -- -- n/a * *

● Number of licenses terminated for cause in FY

▪ Invention licenses -- -- 0 0 0

(2) - Patent licenses -- -- 0 0 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* No new licenses were executed in FY 2002 or 2003

Data included in this table (intentionally) addresses only invention licenses, with patent licenses distinguished as a subclass.

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) Date of license application to the date of license execution. (Date of license application is the date the lab formally

acknowledges the written request for a license from a prospective licensee and agrees to enter into negotiations.)

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications which are licensed.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 128 

December 2004 
Department of Transportation 

Characteristics of Licenses Bearing Income 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● All income bearing licenses, number 0 0 1 0 0

▫ Exclusive 0

▫ Partially exclusive 0

▫ Non-exclusive 1

▪ Invention licenses, income bearing 0 0 1 0 0

▫ Exclusive 0

▫ Partially exclusive 0

▫ Non-exclusive 1

- Patent licenses,(1) income bearing 1

▫ Exclusive 0

▫ Partially exclusive 0

▫ Non-exclusive 1

▪ Other IP licenses, income bearing 0 0 0 0 0

▫ Exclusive

▫ Partially exclusive

▫ Non-exclusive

 Copyright licenses (fee bearing)

▫ Exclusive

▫ Partially exclusive

●

▫ Non-exclusive

(2) All royalty bearing licenses, number 0 0 1 0 0

▪ Invention licenses, royalty bearing, number 1 0 0

(1) - Patent licenses, royalty bearing

▪ Other IP licenses, royalty bearing 0 0 0

- Copyright licenses (fee bearing)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In general, license income can result from various sources: license issue fees, earned royalties, minimum annual royalites, paid-up license fees, and

reimbursement for full-cost recovery of goods and services provided by the lab to the licensee (including patent costs).

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of past years.

(1) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(2) Note that royalties are one component of total license income.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 129 

December 2004 
Department of Transportation 

Income (annual) from Licenses

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● Total income, all licenses active in FY (1) $0 $0 $5,500 $0 $0

▪ Invention licenses $0 $0 $5,500 $0 $0

 - Patent licenses (2) $5,500

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

● Total Earned Royalty Income (ERI) (3)

 - Copyright licenses

$0 $0 n/a $0 $0

▫ Median ERI n/a

▫ Minimum ERI n/a

▫ Maximum ERI n/a

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses n/a

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses n/a

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses n/a

▪ Invention licenses n/a

▫ Median ERI

▫ Minimum ERI

▫ Maximum ERI

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses

 - Patent licenses (2) 

 Median ERI

 Minimum ERI

 Maximum ERI

 ERI from top 1% of licenses

 ERI from top 5% of licenses

 ERI from top 20% of licenses

▪ Other IP licenses n/a

▫ Median ERI

▫ Minimum ERI

▫ Maximum ERI

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses

 - Copyright licenses

▫ Median ERI

▫ Minimum ERI

▫ Maximum ERI

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses

▫

▫

▫

▫

▫

▫

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. 

(1) Total income includes license issue fees, earned royalties, minimum annual royalties, paid-up license fees, and reimbursement for full-cost

recovery of goods and services provided by the lab to the licensee (including patent costs).

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(3) “Earned royalty” = royalty based upon use of a licensed invention (usually, a percentage of sales or units sold). Not a license fee or minimum royalty.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 130 

December 2004 
Department of Transportation 

Disposition of License Income 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● Income distributed (1)

Invention licenses, total distributed $0 $0 $3,625 $0 $0

 - To inventors $0 $0 $2,225 $0 $0

61%

(2) -To other $0 $0 $1,400 $0 $0

39%

(3) - Patent licenses, total distributed -- -- $3,625 $0 $0

 - To inventors -- -- $2,225 $0 $0

61%

(2) -To other -- -- $1,400 $0 $0

39%

 ▪

 

 

 

 

 

Invention licenses are the chief policy interest regarding distribution of income; content of this table reflects this focus.

 -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) Income includes royalties and other payments received during the FY.

(2) To agency: patentability search, provisional patent filing

(3) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

■ Other Performance Measures 

 None cited. 

■ Downstream Outcomes

DOT’s reports for FY 2002 and 2003 report provided the following selected examples of 

downstream outcomes arising from the technology transfer activities of the department’s federal labs: 

Federal Highway Administration 

● Development of software toolbox to aid roadway design. The Federal Highway 

Administration’s (FHWA) Turner-Fairbank Research Center signed a CRADA in 2003 with CaiCE 

(now part of Autodesk) to develop a toolbox that would serve as an interface between their products 

such as CAiCE Visual Transportation 10 and software utilized by Turner-Fairbank for the purposes 

of evaluation. The development of this toolbox has enabled staff at state departments of 

transportation to utilize CAiCE software to design the geometry of roadways, and export that data 

utilizing this CAiCE toolbox. The toolbox enables FHWA to import the data in a format that is 

accepted by their software. In turn, the designers of the roadway geometry can then utilize FHWA 

software to evaluate the design. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

● Partnership to promote education. The FAA’s William J. Hughes Technical Center entered into 

a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Atlantic City Board of Education. The MOA is to 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 131 

December 2004 
Department of Transportation 

provide technical, professional, and engineering employees to serve in various teaching capacities. 

The MOA is effective through June 30, 2006. 

Research and Special Programs Administration 

● Dissemination of technology through multiple CRADAs. In support of the Federal Transit 

Administration’s Advanced Public Transportation Systems (APTS) program, the Volpe Center 

developed a Mobile Showcase. The APTS Mobile Showcase is a 48-foot trailer with expandable 

sides that serves as a research lab, classroom, and briefing facility on wheels that tours the country 

and demonstrates transit-related Intelligent Transportation Systems initiatives to encourage their 

adoption at the local level. These technologies range from improving operations, such as automated 

vehicle location (AVL) system; improving communications, such as mobile data terminals; 

improving passenger service, such as real-time information kiosks; and improving safety, such as 

pedestrian detection technologies. The showcase also serves as a mechanism for educating the transit 

community. Hands-on technical courses taught during Showcase visits to transit agencies give the 

individuals visiting the opportunity to gain firsthand knowledge about APTS technologies. In 2003, 

the Mobile Showcase has traveled to numerous transit agencies and to national, state, and regional 

transit and transportation conferences to provide transportation professionals, legislative and 

executive branch officials, and the general public with increased exposure to APTS technology. A 

large number of technology manufacturers, suppliers, vendors, and consultants are participating in 

this program through Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs). Currently, 

there are 44 active CRADAs supporting this program. 

● FLC education and training. The Volpe Center’s technology transfer representative currently 

serves as the Chair of the Federal Laboratory Consortium’s (FLC) Education and Training 

Committee. This committee has developed a Technology Transfer Training Resources Data Base that 

will feature all technology transfer courses currently available through the federal laboratory system 

and technology transfer associations such as the Association of University Technology Managers and 

the National Technology Transfer Center. It is also in the process of developing on-line technology 

transfer training that will be made available through the FLC’s Web site (www.federallabs.org) and 

will further the state of technology transfer education. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 132 

December 2004 
Department of Veterans Affairs 

3.10 Department of Veterans Affairs 

This section summarizes the statistics and other data provided by the department in its annual reports 

on the technology transfer activities and outcomes of its federal laboratories. Currently, these reports 

provide data through FY 2003. This information covers the activities of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

laboratories and VA academic affiliates (university medical schools) with which the VA has an 

active Cooperative Technology Administration Agreement (CTAA). For additional details, readers 

should consult the department’s full report.34 

■ Collaborative Relationships for Research and Development 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● CRADAs, total active in the FY(1) -- -- 2 2 10

 - New, executed in the FY -- -- 0 2 8

(2) ▪ Traditional CRADAs, total active in the FY 1 2 2 2 10

 - New, executed in the FY 1 2 0 2 8

(3) ▪ Non-traditional CRADAs, total active in FY -- -- 0 0 0

 - New, executed in the FY -- -- 0 0 0

● Other collaborative R&D relationships

-- -- 0 0 0

 

 

 

 

 

CRADA = Cooperative Research and Development Agreement

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) “Active” = legally in force at any time during the FY. “Total active” includes all agreements executed under CRADA authority (15 USC 3710a).

(2) CRADAs involving collaborative research and development by a federal laboratory and non-federal partners.

(3) CRADAs used for special purposes -- such as material transfer or technical assistance that may result in protected information.

■ Invention Disclosure and Patenting 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● New inventions disclosed in the FY(1) 48 85 131 125 183

● Patent applications filed in the FY(2) 37 35 38 34 36

● Patents issued in the FY 0 1 4 4 8

Reported figures for FY 2001 and 2002 are incomplete: data from many of the VA's academic affiliates was not available at the time of 

this report, since they were not yet due according to the CTAA reporting schedule.

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) Inventions arising at the federal lab. 

(2) Tally includes: U.S. patent applications, foreign patent applications filed on cases for which no U.S. application was filed, divisional applications,

and continuation-in-part applications. Excludes: provisional, continuation, duplicate foreign, and PCT applications. 

 

34 Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Research and Development, Technology Transfer Program, Annual Reporting 

on Agency Technology Transfer, FY 2005 Budget Submission, March 2004. Report prepared in response to 15 USC Sec. 

3710(f) (requiring an annual “agency report on utilization” for agencies with federal laboratories) and submitted to OMB 

(consistent with Circular A-11 guidelines). 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 133 

December 2004 
Department of Veterans Affairs 

■ Licensing

Profile of Active Licenses 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● All licenses, number total active in the FY(1) -- -- 86 81 88

 ▫ New, executed in the FY -- -- -- 5 7

 ▪ Invention licenses, total active in the FY -- -- 76 69 76

 ▫ New, executed in the FY 47 3 5 3 7

(2) - Patent licenses, total active in FY -- n/a n/a

 ▫ New, executed in the FY -- n/a n/a

 - Material transfer (inventions), tot active in FY -- n/a n/a

 ▫ New, executed in the FY -- n/a n/a

(3) - Other invention licenses, total active in FY -- n/a n/a

 ▫ New, executed in the FY -- n/a n/a

 ▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY 0 0 10 12 12

 ▫ New, executed in the FY 0 0 -- 2 0

 - Copyright licenses (fee bearing) -- n/a n/a

 ▫ New, executed in the FY -- n/a n/a

 - Material transfer (non-inv.), total active in FY -- n/a n/a

 ▫ New, executed in the FY -- n/a n/a

 - Other (4) -- n/a n/a

 ▫ New, executed in the FY -- n/a n/a

Reported figures for FY 2001 and 2002 are incomplete: data from many of the VA's academic affiliates was not available at the time of this report,

since they were not yet due according to the CTAA reporting schedule.

Multiple inventions in a single license are counted as one license. Licenses that include both patents and copyrights

(i.e., hybrid licenses) are reported as patent licenses -- and not included in the count of copyright licenses.

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) “Active” = legally in force at any time during the FY. 

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(3) No licenses of this type indicated as active.

(4) No licenses of this type indicated as active.

Licensing Management 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● (1) Elapsed execution time, licenses granted in FY

▪ Invention licenses 

▫ average months -- -- n/a n/a n/a

▫ minimum -- -- n/a n/a n/a

▫ maximum -- -- n/a n/a n/a

(2) - Patent licenses

▫ average months -- -- -- n/a n/a

▫ minimum -- -- -- n/a n/a

▫ maximum -- -- -- n/a n/a

● Number of licenses terminated for cause in FY

▪ Invention licenses -- -- 2 n/a n/a

(2) - Patent licenses -- -- -- n/a n/a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Data included in this table (intentionally) addresses only invention licenses, with patent licenses distinguished as a subclass.

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) Date of license application to the date of license execution. (Date of license application is the date the lab formally

acknowledges the written request for a license from a prospective licensee and agrees to enter into negotiations.)

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications which are licensed.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 134 

December 2004 
Department of Veterans Affairs 

Characteristics of Licenses Bearing Income 

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● All income bearing licenses, number -- -- 58 60 67

▫ Exclusive -- -- 3 4 8

▫ Partially exclusive -- -- 2 2 2

▫ Non-exclusive -- -- 53 54 57

Invention licenses, income bearing -- -- -- 60 67

▫ Exclusive 4 8

▫ Partially exclusive 2 2

▫ Non-exclusive 54 57

 - Patent licenses,(1) income bearing 60 67

▫ Exclusive 4 8

▫ Partially exclusive 2 2

▫ Non-exclusive 54 57

Other IP licenses, income bearing -- -- -- n/a n/a

▫ Exclusive

▫ Partially exclusive

 ▫ Non-exclusive

 - Copyright licenses (fee bearing)

▫ Exclusive

▫ Partially exclusive

▫ Non-exclusive

(2) ● All royalty bearing licenses, number -- -- 58 n/a n/a

▪ Invention licenses, royalty bearing, number -- -- -- n/a n/a

(1) - Patent licenses, royalty bearing

▪ Other IP licenses, royalty bearing -- -- -- n/a n/a

 

 

 

 ▪

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ▪

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 - Copyright licenses (fee bearing)

Reported figures for FY 2001 and 2002 are incomplete: data from many of the VA's academic affiliates was not available at the time of

this report, since they were not yet due according to the CTAA reporting schedule.

In general, license income can result from various sources: license issue fees, earned royalties, minimum annual royalites, paid-up license fees, and

reimbursement for full-cost recovery of goods and services provided by the lab to the licensee (including patent costs).

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of past years.

(1) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(2) Note that royalties are one component of total license income.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 135 

December 2004 
Department of Veterans Affairs 

Income (annual) from Licenses

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● Total income, all licenses active in FY (1) -- -- $38,000 $18,000 $153,000

▪ Invention licenses -- -- $23,000 n/a n/a

 - Patent licenses (2) -- n/a n/a

▪ Other IP licenses, total active in the FY -- -- $14,000 n/a n/a

 - Copyright licenses -- n/a n/a

● Total Earned Royalty Income (ERI) (3) -- -- $17,000 n/a n/a

▫ Median ERI $481 n/a n/a

▫ Minimum ERI $8 n/a n/a

▫ Maximum ERI $6,000 n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses n/a n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses n/a n/a n/a

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses n/a n/a n/a

▪ Invention licenses -- -- -- n/a n/a

▫ Median ERI

▫ Minimum ERI

▫ Maximum ERI

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses

 - Patent licenses (2) -- -- -- n/a n/a

▫ Median ERI

▫ Minimum ERI

▫ Maximum ERI

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses

▪ Other IP licenses -- -- -- n/a n/a

▫ Median ERI

▫ Minimum ERI

▫ Maximum ERI

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses

- Copyright licenses -- -- -- n/a n/a

▫ Median ERI

▫ Minimum ERI

▫ Maximum ERI

▫ ERI from top 1% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 5% of licenses

▫ ERI from top 20% of licenses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reported figures for FY 2001 and 2002 are incomplete: data from many of the VA's academic affiliates was not available at the time of

this report, since they were not yet due according to the CTAA reporting schedule.

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) Total income includes license issue fees, earned royalties, minimum annual royalties, paid-up license fees, and reimbursement for full-cost

recovery of goods and services provided by the lab to the licensee (including patent costs).

(2) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

(3) “Earned royalty” = royalty based upon use of a licensed invention (usually, a percentage of sales or units sold). Not a license fee or minimum royalty.

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 136 

December 2004 
Department of Veterans Affairs 

Disposition of License Income

FY 1990 FY 1995 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

● Income distributed (1)

▪ Invention licenses, total distributed -- -- n/a $15,000 $129,000

 - To inventors -- -- n/a $0 $0

0% 0%

(2) -To other -- -- n/a $15,000 $129,000

100% 100%

(3) - Patent licenses, total distributed -- -- -- n/a n/a

 - To inventors -- -- -- n/a n/a

(2) -To other -- -- -- n/a n/a

 

 

 

 

 

 

Invention licenses are the chief policy interest regarding distribution of income; content of this table reflects this focus.

n/a = Data not available from agency at time of this report. -- = Data not requested from agency in reports of earlier years.

(1) Income includes royalties and other payments received during the FY.

(2) VA Medical Center labs

(3) Patent license tally includes patent applications that are licensed.

■ Other Performance Measures 

 

 None cited. 

■ Downstream Outcomes

The VA’s FY 2003 report did not provide information on downstream outcomes from the technology 

transfer activities of its federal labs. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 137 

December 2004 
Department of Veterans Affairs 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 138 

December 2004 
Appendix 

Agency Progress in Strengthening Performance Metrics for Federal Lab 

Technology Transfer 

A portion of the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act (which provides the statutory basis for 

this annual federal laboratory reporting) tasks this Summary Report with providing a regular update 

on progress made by agencies in improving performance assessment of technology transfer programs 

by federal agencies.35 

The commentary below addresses this topic. This provides an update since the last published report 

(the September 2002 edition of the Summary Report). These observations reflect the perspective of 

the Office of Technology Policy, which for some time has had a leading role in preparing the 

Summary Reports and developing the conceptual framework and process elements for the reporting 

process. 

Noteworthy Achievements 

● The Office of Management and Budget’s Circular A-11 (starting with the July 2003 edition) now 

formally recognizes the annual agency utilization report on federal lab technology transfer36 as a 

component of the agency’s annual budget proposal documents (see Section 25.5, Table 1, “Has 

technology transfers”). The Circular A-11 outlines requested report content (referencing the 

guidelines developed by the Interagency Working Group on Technology Transfer), as well as 

clarifies the timing of agency submission of report materials. 

● Agency responsiveness to the annual reporting requirement has generally improved since the first 

cycle of the revised reporting process in FY 2001. Some of this improvement reflects movement 

along the learning curve gained from the experience of the now several completed reporting cycles. 

Some reflects the guidance of OMB’s revised Circular A-11, which attaches the technology transfer 

reporting more concretely to the agency budget proposal process. In addition, many of the agencies 

have been working to improve their management information systems to enable more timely and 

reliable presentation of the data requested by the reporting process. While there remains room for 

further improvement, there has been significant progress since the first reporting cycle. 

● The standardized data framework prepared for the agencies to use in assembling information for 

their annual reports (guidelines developed through the Interagency Working Group on Technology 

Transfer) has been reviewed and improved each year since first used in the FY 2001 reporting. Most 

of these changes have been incremental in nature, reflecting issues raised by the previous year’s 

reporting cycle, and the framework is now approaching a fairly stable form. One significant change, 

nevertheless, introduced in mid-2002, is an enlarged typology of licenses -- this, to better capture the 

existing diversity of license type utilization across the agencies and to provide a better basis for 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 139 

December 2004 

 

35 See 15 United States Code Sec. 3710 (g)(2)(B)(iii) 

36 See 15 United States Code Sec. 3710 (f) 
tracking what is expected to be a growing mix of license types in the future. The new license schema 

retains the statutory distinction between “invention” licenses and “other intellectual property (IP)” 

licenses, but adds several subcategories for each. 

● Over the last several years, many of the agencies have sought to sharpen the description of their 

federal lab technology transfer efforts: broader concepts of the what and how of technology transfer 

relevant to their technology areas, interest in the use of new kinds of mechanisms, greater clarity in 

how technology transfer efforts play a role in achieving the agency’s overall mission. Accordingly, 

there is interest in identifying metrics, beyond the usual core measures, that can better reflect this 

wider group of activities. Thus far, this interest has become palpable in only a few agencies 

incorporating new measures into their annual reporting: for example, the “other types of 

collaborative R&D relationships” identified by USDA, DOC, and NASA and the “other activity 

measures” identified by DOC and DOE (see Chapter 2 for details). These additional measures tend 

to reflect the specifics of an agency’s mission and operating environment. Nonetheless, more 

agencies may pursue a similar approach in the future, as they become more familiar with the 

initiatives that the “first mover” agencies are taking. 

The Issues Still Outstanding 

● Agencies recognize the widespread interest of policymakers and other stakeholders in identifying 

and counting 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. Yet, as ever, doing so in a comprehensive way faces both resource and 

analytical challenges that remain hard to overcome. 

The downstream outcomes that most vividly indicate the success of federal lab technology transfer 

activities (e.g., a commercially successful new product or process) are often several developmental 

stages and considerable calendar time downstream from the federal lab’s technology transfer 

relationship with an outside party. Also, not all technology transfer relationships yield success that 

so visible. As a practical reality, most federal lab technology transfer offices do not have the 

resources to maintain comprehensive databases over a long period of time to track all relevant 

developments arising from the transfer of federally funded research and development. For better or 

worse, the case study method, based in large part on anecdotal knowledge of successful downstream 

outcomes, remains the prime information tool in this realm. 

Some efforts are underway to better use patent databases (in the United States and abroad), which are 

increasingly comprehensive and accessible via Internet channels, to systematically assess benefits 

resulting from the transfer of federally funded research and development.37 However, patents cover 

only part of the full scope of federal lab technology transfer activities. 

● What remains (as it has, for some time) the most difficult metrics challenge for the technology 

transfer community is to identify and put measures in place that can help technology transfer 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 140 

 

37For example, the work of the Office of Planning & Analysis in the Department of Energy’s Office of Science over the 

last several years to bring new analytical tools to bear in assessing the performance of research programs 

(www.science.doe.gov/sc-5) 

December 2004 
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 and maintain 

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 research and 

development 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 far from 

new, but it identifies a primary area of performance metrics where the community yet needs to make 

progress. 

2004 Summary Report on Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Page 141 

December 2004