PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.4859 / 105th Congress

Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 1998

Received in the Senate.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 20, 1998

Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 1998 - Amends the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (Stevenson-Wydler Act) to revise requirements regarding enumerated authority under a cooperative research and development (R&D) agreement to permit Government laboratories to grant licenses to federally owned inventions for which a patent application was filed before the granting of the license, and directly within the scope of work under such agreement. (Sec. 3) Rewrites Federal restrictions on the licensing of federally owned inventions. Requires a license applicant to make a commitment to achieve practical utilization of the invention within a reasonable time. Requires such a license to include provisions: (1) retaining a nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up license for the Federal agency to practice the invention or have the invention practiced throughout the world by or on behalf of the U.S. Government; (2) requiring periodic reporting on use of the invention by the licensee only to the extent necessary to enable the Federal agency to determine whether the licensee is complying with license terms; and (3) empowering the Federal agency to terminate the license if the licensee has been found by a competent authority to have violated the Federal antitrust laws in connection with its performance under the license agreement. Prohibits an agency from granting an exclusive or partially exclusive license on a federally-owned invention unless: (1) it has provided 15 days' public notice and considered all comments received; and (2) the person requesting the license has supplied to the agency a plan for development and-or marketing of the invention. Exempts from these requirements the licensing of any inventions made under an R&D agreement. (Sec. 4) Makes certain technical amendments to: (1) the Bayh-Dole Act with regard to Government acquisition of the rights of a private party to a federally owned invention; and (2) the Stevenson-Wydler Act relating to, among other things, the distribution of royalties received by Federal agencies. (Sec. 6) Requires each Federal agency with a federally funded laboratory that has one or more R&D agreements under the Stevenson-Wydler Act to report to the Committee on National Security of the National Science and Technology Council (Committee) and the Congress on the general policies and procedures that agency uses to gather and consider the views of other agencies on joint work statements, or R&D agreements in the case of certain laboratories, with respect to major proposed R&D agreements that involve critical national security technology or may have a significant impact on domestic or international competitiveness. Directs the Committee to: (1) determine the adequacy of existing procedures and methods for interagency coordination and awareness with respect to R&D agreements; and (2) establish and distribute to appropriate Federal agencies specific criteria to indicate the necessity for gathering and considering agency views on such statements or agreements, as well as additional procedures, if any, for carrying out such gathering and considering. Amends the Stevenson-Wydler Act to provide for increased flexibility for Federal laboratory partnership intermediaries. Directs the General Accounting Office to study and report to the Congress on the potential risks to the U.S. biotechnology industry relating to biological deposits in support of biotechnology patents. Requires the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to consider the recommendations of such study in drafting regulations affecting biological deposits. Revises Federal patent law to authorize, upon timely request, the treatment of a provisional application as a written application, notwithstanding the absence of a claim. Applies current statutory abandonment treatment to a provisional application 12 months after the application filing date only if such a request is not made.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Morella, Constance A. [R-MD-8] · R–MD

Committees

  • Judiciary Committee
  • Science, Space, and Technology Committee
1 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Received in the Senate.

  2. Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

  3. On passage Passed without objection.

  4. Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed without objection.

  5. Mrs. Morella asked unanimous consent to discharge from committee and consider.

  6. Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR H11679-11681)

  7. Committee on Judiciary discharged.

  8. Committee on Judiciary discharged.

  9. Committee on Science discharged.

  10. Committee on Science discharged.

  11. Referred to House Judiciary

  12. Referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

  13. Referred to House Science

  14. Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.

  15. Introduced in House

  16. Introduced in House

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.R.4859 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.4859 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.4859 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.4859 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.

View full prompt & sources