As noted, Stanford has indicated some willingness to consider 
modification of their IPA as it relates to such research. There are a 
number of possible policy options, short of the present allocation of 
rights under the IPA, which could be considered for discussion with 
Stanford and as possible alternatives to the present allocation of 
rights made under all other IPA's. Some of these options are as follows: 
(1) Institutions could be discouraged from filing patent applications 
on inventions arising from recombinant DNA research. If this option 
were pursued, publication would be relied on to cut off all possible 
adverse patent claims. 
(2) Institutions could be asked to file patent applications on inventions 
arising from recombinant DNA research and to dedicate all issued patents 
to the public. This would, to a greater extent than (1), block adverse 
patent claims. 
(3) Institutions could be asked to assign all inventions made in 
performance of recombinant DNA research to the Department. The 
Department as assignee of the invention could either pursue the 
licensing of whatever patent applications were filed or dedicate 
issued patents to the public. 
(4) The Department could continue to permit institutions to exercise 
their first option to ownership under the IPA but require that all 
licensing of patented inventions be approved by the Department. The 
Department could set certain conditions for approval, such as compliance 
with the NIH guidelines on recombinant DNA research. 
(5) The Department could permit institutions to retain their f j.rst 
option as in (4), but approve only exclusive licenses. Here, as above, 
the Department could set out conditions to account for the special 
nature of recombinant DNA research, both in approved exclusive and non- 
exclusive licenses. 
If it is determined that institutions with IPA's should be 
permitted to retain ownership of inventions arising from recombinant 
DNA research, I am concerned about the effect of the processing of 
patent applications on the dissemination of research information. 
Under United States law, an inventor has a one-year period of grace 
after research results are published in which to file in order to 
obtain a valid United States patent. However, valid protection in a 
number of foreign countries requires that a patent application be 
filed prior to publication. If one publishes first, valid patent 
protection cannot be obtained in such countries. Our patent people 
believe that any necessary patent applications can be handled expedi- 
tiously without an undue burden on disclosure. I am especially mindful 
[ 50 ] 
