Federal Circuit Holds Post-Invention Funding Agreement Subject to Government Licensing Provision of Bayh-Dole Act

March 15, 2024

Reading Time : 2 min

The Federal Circuit held that a subcontractor’s receipt of retroactive payment from a government grant brought the subcontractor’s work under Bayh-Dole even though the work was performed before the contract was entered into. In so doing, the Federal Circuit determined that the government had a license to the patent at issue because the invention was actually reduced to practice by individuals who were later paid for the work under a subcontract of an NIH grant.

The relevant inventions related to transgenic mice that develop Alzheimer’s disease at an accelerated rate. The mice were first developed by four scientists at the University of South Florida (USF), one of whom submitted an application in 1995 for NIH funding to support the work. All four scientists were identified as people who were expected to contribute to work associated with the grant. Shortly after the project began, two of the scientists moved to the Mayo Clinic. And shortly after that, in September 1996, the NIH awarded the grant to Mayo.  The mice, however, remained housed at USF. In April 1997, the two scientists remaining at USF informed the two scientists at the Mayo Clinic that they had successfully observed the development of Alzheimer’s pathology in mice, i.e., the inventions were actually reduced to practice in April 1997.

More than a year after the grant was awarded, Mayo and USF entered into a subcontract, which expressly stated that it was executed to comply with the NIH guidelines that require such contracts when grant-covered work occurs at a different institute. The effective date of the subcontract was September 1997. It was undisputed that the April 1997 work performed by USF was covered by the NIH grant, and that USF accepted grant funds from Mayo for the April 1997 work. Based on these facts, the Court of Federal Claims found Bayh-Dole applied to the USF patents because the mice were actually reduced to practice in the performance of work under a funding agreement.

On appeal, USF argued that Bayh-Dole did not apply because the subcontract was not in place at the time of the work and because there was no legally adequate implied agreement in place when the April 1997 work was performed.

The Federal Circuit rejected both arguments, holding that Bayh-Dole broadly defines “funding agreement” to include any subcontract of any type, which must be interpreted to include payment for work already performed before the subcontract is executed or its effective date. The court found this interpretation confirmed by USF’s own position that Mayo paid it retroactively with grant funds for the April 1997 work. The Federal Circuit also remarked that its conclusion was bolstered by the fact that it is not uncommon for subcontracts of this type to be executed after a federal grant is awarded, even though work under the grant begins beforehand. According to the Federal Circuit, this practice supports looking to the facts of the agreement and actual funding, as it did here.

Practice Tip: When evaluating the applicability of Bayh-Dole to intellectual property, parties should look at the factual circumstances around conception, reduction to practice and how the funding was treated by those involved, as this decision makes clear that the timing of payment of funds or execution/effect of any subcontracts is not likely to be determinative.

Univ. of S. Fla. Bd. Of Trustees v. United States, 92 F. 4th 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2024)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 11, 2025

In considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of the “child” patent for purposes of indirect and willful infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 8, 2025

Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using plaintiff’s trade secrets. The district court further required defendants to reassign to plaintiff patents and patent applications that disclosed or were derived from plaintiff’s trade secrets as part of its equitable relief.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2025

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the “entire market value rule.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.