COGR responds to the NIH’s draft policy requiring licensees of NIH technologies to submit access plans aimed at promoting patient access, expressing support for the...
Intellectual Property Rights
IP rights encompass the legal protections and policies that secure ownership of intellectual outputs resulting from research.
Featured
Joint Comments to USPTO on 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The Association of American Universities (AAU), Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), and COGR submitted comments supporting the U.S. Patent and...
COGR Responds to NSF RFC on Proposed Intellectual Property Options
COGR submitted a response to the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) request for comments regarding proposed new intellectual property (IP) frameworks for public...
Resources
Point of Contact
Kevin Wozniak
Director, Research Security & Intellectual Property
All Intellectual Property Rights Articles
COGR Responds to NSF RFC on Proposed Intellectual Property Options
COGR submitted a response to the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) request for comments regarding proposed new intellectual property (IP) frameworks for public-private partnerships, expressing concern that prescribed, inflexible IP terms could hinder successful technology transfer and commercialization of federally funded research. COGR argued that current practices, which allow for the negotiat
COGR Submits Comments to NIH on Intramural Research Program Policy: Promoting Equity Through Access Planning
COGR responds to the NIH’s draft policy requiring licensees of NIH technologies to submit access plans aimed at promoting patient access, expressing support for the aim of equity but cautioning that such requirements may unintentionally complicate technology commercialization and deter potential licensees due to increased risks and uncertainties. COGR recommends that NIH focus on adjusting its own
COGR & AAU Submit Joint Comments in Response to Unlocking the Full Potential of Intellectual Property by Translating More Innovation to the Marketplace (Docket No. PTO-C-2024-004)
COGR and AAU, representing leading U.S. research universities, submitted comments to USPTO Director Kathi Vidal expressing agreement with AUTM’s positions and addressing key issues impacting university technology transfer and innovation commercialization. They voiced serious concerns about NIST's draft march-in rights framework, warning that its adoption could deter investment and harm patent lice
COGR Submits Comments to NIST on Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March In Rights
COGR, representing over 200 U.S. research institutions, submitted comments urging the withdrawal of the proposed Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights under the Bayh-Dole Act. COGR argues that the Framework, particularly its consideration of product pricing as a trigger for march-in, would undermine successful technology transfer practices, deter industry p
Tech Transfer Tutorial V3
This document provides a detailed overview of technology transfer practices in U.S. colleges and universities, emphasizing the role of research institutions in advancing economic development through the formal commercialization of intellectual property. It explains the foundational legal, policy, and operational frameworks—particularly the Bayh-Dole Act—that enable universities to patent and licen
Material Transfer in Academia: 20 Questions and Answers (2021 Update)
The document provides a comprehensive overview of material transfer agreements (MTAs) in academic research, emphasizing their critical role in regulating the exchange of research materials—especially in the life sciences—and addressing complex issues such as ownership rights, academic freedom, liability, and compliance with legal and ethical standards. It outlines common challenges faced by resear
April 30, 2015 - Abusive Litigation Practices of Patent Trolls
COGR and other higher education associations released a statement expressing the view that bipartisan legislation introduced in the Senate, seeking to address abusive litigation practices of patent trolls while protecting the integrity of our patent system, was a substantial improvement over the pending House version (HR 9).
