Overview
Title
Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive, Co-Exclusive or Partially Exclusive Patent License
Agencies
ELI5 AI
NASA wants to give permission to a company called AVO Photonics, Inc. to use an invention, but they are also open to hearing from other people who might want to use it, too, until the end of March 2025.
Summary AI
NASA plans to grant an exclusive, co-exclusive, or partially exclusive patent license for a specific invention, a micro non-planar ring oscillator, to AVO Photonics, Inc. This decision is not final, and NASA will consider objections and competitive applications submitted by March 31, 2025. These objections should contain evidence showing that the patent license would not align with federal regulations. For further inquiries, individuals can contact NASA’s Agency Counsel for Intellectual Property.
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 issued a notice of its intent to grant a patent license for an invention to AVO Photonics, Inc., a company based in Pennsylvania. This decision, however, has yet to be finalized, and people have until March 31, 2025, to submit objections or competing applications. The particular invention is a micro non-planar ring oscillator, which has various applications, especially in fields demanding precision in signal generation and noise reduction.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several key issues and concerns emerge from the notice. Firstly, there is a potential perception of favoritism or lack of transparency, as AVO Photonics, Inc. is identified by name as the intended recipient of the license. This may raise questions about the selection process used to determine their suitability for this opportunity.
Secondly, while NASA welcomes objections and competing applications, these will not be made available for public inspection. This limitation, coupled with the notice's specification that objections are not subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act, can be seen as lacking transparency. Interested parties might see this as a barrier to understanding or influencing the decision-making process.
The notice uses technical language surrounding patent types, such as "exclusive," "co-exclusive," and "partially exclusive." For those unfamiliar with patent law, these terms might be confusing and could benefit from additional explanation or simpler wording to enhance public understanding.
A crucial detail that is glossed over is the absence of a detailed explanation of why AVO Photonics, Inc. is being considered for this license. This lack of clarity might lead to concerns about the transparency and fairness of NASA’s decision-making process.
Additionally, the vague mention that the "fields of use may be limited" could lead to misunderstandings about the scope and potential applications for the license, potentially causing confusion among stakeholders.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this document signifies NASA’s ongoing efforts to license its federally owned inventions, contributing to technological advancement and commercial application. However, the opaque process may hinder public engagement or trust. Those interested in how publicly funded technologies are commercialized might find such opacity concerning.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For businesses and innovators in applicable fields, the licensing opportunity could be significant, providing access to cutting-edge NASA technology. However, potential competitors might feel disadvantaged due to the perception that the selection process isn't clearly outlined. They may view this as an uneven playing field, especially if they're unsure how NASA evaluates competing applications.
Moreover, organizations keen on transparency and good governance could find the notice’s limitations on public access to objections and lack of detailed explanations problematic. These stakeholders might argue for reforms to ensure a more open and transparent process, enhancing public trust and perception of fairness in licensing decisions.
In conclusion, while NASA’s notice represents a valuable opportunity for collaboration and innovation, it also highlights areas where transparency and clarity could be improved to better serve the public interest and maintain stakeholder confidence.
Issues
• The notice of intent to grant a patent license involves AVO Photonics, Inc., which may imply that this particular organization is receiving favorable treatment unless a transparent selection process has been followed.
• The process for public objection is limited to written submissions, and the notice specifies that these will not be made available to the public or released under the Freedom of Information Act. This lack of transparency might raise concerns.
• The language specifying the types of licenses (exclusive, co-exclusive, partially exclusive) might be unclear to stakeholders unfamiliar with patent law terminology.
• There is no detailed explanation of why AVO Photonics, Inc. is being considered for this particular license, which could be perceived as a lack of transparency in decision-making.
• The mention that the fields of use may be limited lacks specificity and could cause confusion or misinterpretation.
• No specific criteria or process for evaluating competing applications is provided, which could lead to perceptions of ambiguity in the decision-making process.