[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 32, Volume 1]
[Revised as of January 1, 2008]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 32CFR37.205]

[Page 205]
 
                       TITLE 32--NATIONAL DEFENSE
 
              CHAPTER I--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
 
PART 37_TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS--Table of Contents
 
      Subpart B_Appropriate Use of Technology Investment Agreements
 
Sec.  37.205  What judgments must I make about the nature of the project?

    You must:
    (a) Conclude that the principal purpose of the project is 
stimulation or support of research (i.e., assistance), rather than 
acquiring goods or services for the benefit of the Government (i.e., 
acquisition);
    (b) Decide that the basic, applied, or advanced research project is 
relevant to the policy objective of civil-military integration (see 
appendix A of this part); and
    (c) Ensure that, to the maximum extent practicable, any TIA that 
uses the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2371 (see appendix B of this part) does 
not support research that duplicates other research being conducted 
under existing programs carried out by the Department of Defense. This 
is a statutory requirement of 10 U.S.C. 2371.
    (d) When your TIA is a type of assistance transaction other than a 
grant or cooperative agreement, satisfy the condition in 10 U.S.C. 2371 
to judge that the use of a standard grant or cooperative agreement for 
the research project is not feasible or appropriate. As discussed in 
appendix B to this part:
    (1) This situation arises if your TIA includes a patent provision 
that is less restrictive than is possible under the Bayh-Dole statute 
(because the patent provision is what distinguishes a TIA that is a 
cooperative agreement from a TIA that is an assistance transaction other 
than a grant or cooperative agreement).
    (2) You satisfy the requirement to judge that a standard cooperative 
agreement is not feasible or appropriate when you judge that execution 
of the research project warrants a less restrictive patent provision 
than is possible under Bayh-Dole.