Stanford and the University of Alabama each hold one of the 65 
IPA's now being administered by the Department. 
Second, under grants and contracts with institutions having no 
identified technology transfer capability, the Department utilizes a 
provision deferring determination of ownership until an invention has 
been made. Under the deferred determination provision, an innovating 
institution may petition the Department for ownership of an invention 
after it is identified. In the past, approximately 90 percent of all 
such petitions have been granted on the basis of a satisfactory insti- 
tution plan for development or licensing, subject, however, to conditions 
similar to those contained in the Department's IPA's. 
The Department's normal policy of allocating invention rights 
is designed to facilitate the transfer of technology from the bench 
to the marketplace, by assuring that the innovating institution has 
the right to convey those intellectual property rights necessary to 
induce Industrial Investment and continued development of inventions 
generated with Department support. Only the IPA policy, however, assures 
a management focal point in the innovating institution which is trained 
to solicit and establish timely rights in Intellectual property prior 
to invention. 
We have been advised by the Department Patent Branch that 167 
patent applications were filed from 1969 through the fall of 1974 under 
IPA '8. Approximately $24 million is committed to the development of 
inventions on the basis of licenses granted under these patent applica- 
tions. Meanwhile, we are advised that the Department, under the deferred 
determination provision, has granted 162 of the institutions' 178 
petitions for ownership. Approximately $53 million was Invested or 
committed to development under the licenses awarded. The commitment 
of private risk capital in these Instances is viewed as evidence that 
a licensable patent right is a primary factor in the successful transfer 
of Department research results to Industry and the marketplace. 
It indeed appears that the incentives provided by Department patent 
policy have encouraged the development of new technology in general 
and afforded patent protection for some inventions to the economic 
benefit of the United States. 
The control of DNA research envisioned by the guidelines, however, 
requires a delicate balance between need for rapid exchange of informa- 
tion unhampered by undue concern for patent rights and a potential for 
achieving uniformity in safety practices through conditions of licensure 
under patent agreements. 
