Overview
Title
Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive, Co-Exclusive or Partially Exclusive Patent License
Agencies
ELI5 AI
NASA wants to give a special permission to a company named SynMatter LLC to use an invention that stops things from getting rusty. If other people think this isn't fair, they can tell NASA before the end of January 2025.
Summary AI
NASA plans to grant a patent license to a company called SynMatter LLC for inventions related to anti-corrosion materials. This license could be exclusive, co-exclusive, or partially exclusive, giving SynMatter LLC the right to use these inventions in the U.S. However, NASA invites written objections or competing applications by January 30, 2025, if anyone believes this license should not be granted. This process follows certain U.S. laws and regulations about licensing inventions developed with federal funding.
Abstract
NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive patent license to practice the inventions described and claimed in the patents and/or patent applications listed in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
NASA has announced its intention to grant a patent license to SynMatter LLC, a company based in Orlando, Florida, for technology related to anti-corrosion materials. The license could be exclusive, co-exclusive, or partially exclusive, meaning SynMatter could have unique rights to use these patented inventions in the United States. However, NASA is open to objections or competing applications until January 30, 2025. This move follows federal regulations that govern the licensing of inventions developed with government funding.
Summary of the Document
NASA's notice is essentially a public declaration that it plans to grant SynMatter LLC special rights to utilize specific patented technologies. These technologies relate to materials designed to control corrosion, potentially benefiting industries that deal with metal preservation and longevity. The notice requires any interested parties who believe the license should not be granted to submit their objections by the specified deadline. If no objections or competing applications are received, the license may proceed as anticipated.
Issues and Concerns
The document presents several issues worth noting. Firstly, the intention to grant either an exclusive, co-exclusive, or partially exclusive license raises questions about fairness and transparency. Without explicit clarification, this could lead to concerns about monopolizing technology development or stifling competition.
Secondly, the language saying that "fields of use may be limited" is somewhat ambiguous. A more precise explanation is necessary to understand the boundaries and restrictions of the license. This lack of clarity may cause uncertainty among interested parties who may want to engage with or challenge the licensing process.
The decision that objections will not be made public or available for inspection could impact transparency. While there may be legal or privacy justifications, such a practice might reduce public trust in the process.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
For the broader public, this notice indicates NASA's commitment to transferring federally funded technologies to the private sector, hoping to promote innovation and commercialization. Successful licensing could lead to advancements in materials science that benefit consumers and industries that rely on anti-corrosion solutions.
However, for specific stakeholders, such as SynMatter LLC and its competitors, this notice holds significant implications. For SynMatter, securing the license could represent a major step forward in their business development, potentially enhancing their market position. Conversely, competitors might view this as a challenge, especially if the license significantly restricts their ability to use similar technologies.
In summary, while the notice demonstrates NASA's efforts to commercialize federally funded innovations, it also highlights the need for careful consideration of issues related to fairness, transparency, and the potential market impact. How these licenses are granted, and under what terms, could have lasting consequences for industries relying on these technologies, underscoring the importance of stakeholder participation in the objection process.
Issues
• The document mentions the potential grant of an exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive patent license, which could raise concerns if due diligence is not thoroughly conducted to ensure the license is granted in a fair and transparent manner.
• The language regarding the 'fields of use may be limited' is somewhat vague and could be made clearer to better understand the extent and limitations of the granted license.
• The notice states that 'objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection', which may reduce transparency and accountability.
• The document refers to the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations, which may not be well-known to all readers, potentially making the notice difficult to fully understand without additional context.
• The potential for the license to be denied even if no objections are raised introduces ambiguity and might require additional clarification.
• The process for submitting objections and requests for further information is only detailed in brief, potentially making it difficult for interested parties to engage with the process effectively.