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 Depart- 
ment as assignee of the invention could either pursue the licensing of 
whatever patent applications were filed or dedicate issued patents to 
the public. 
A. 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 first 
option as in A., 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 
nonexclusive 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 expeditiously without an undue burden on 
disclosure. I am especially mindful of the concerns expressed at the 
1-3 
[ 23 ] 
