In December 2024, the National Science Foundation (NSF) released a Request for Comments (RFC) seeking public input to inform the adoption of new Intellectual Property (IP) provisions that the agency intends to use in future public-private partnerships. CCC is very pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this crucial conversation because effective IP management is essential for translating research into real world impact, and fair ownership policies are necessary to effectively engage all involved parties. Below is a breakdown of some key considerations that CCC members suggested to improve the implementation of the suggested IP provisions:

The Importance of University Input

Researchers at US universities make up a significant portion of individuals requesting NSF funding for research. Most universities have dedicated tech transfer offices that guide faculty and students through IP-related decisions. It is critical that NSF engages actively with these tech transfer offices to ensure the proposed IP options align with university policies and incentivize researcher participation. We suggest that researchers at US universities make their tech transfer offices aware of this Request for Comment, and that these tech transfer offices provide their input on the proposed IP provisions. The NSF comment form deadline has been extended until February 21.

How NSF Can Assist with Adopting IP Provisions

NSF could assist researchers with considering various IP models by providing more guidance and centralized resources to promote successful engagement with NSF funds. In addition to the NSF I-Corps program, other programs, such as SPRINT and APEX supplements provide often crucial support to researchers during vulnerable stages of technology transfer. In our RFI response, we also suggested that NSF proposals require a brief initial statement of how the applicants intend to manage intellectual property considerations, to ensure that proposers are considering this from the get-go rather than much later in the process. IP issues are often overlooked until they become a problem. Requiring research groups to address these issues while writing a proposal encourages proactive planning, sets clearer expectations, and helps prevent conflicts. 

Read the CCC’s full response here for more details.

This RFC response was authored by: David Danks (University of California – San Diego), Catherine Gill (Computing Community Consortium), Daniel Lopresti (Lehigh University), Brian Mosely (Computing Research Association), Pamela Wisniewski (Vanderbilt University), and Holly Yanco (University of Massachusetts – Lowell). Please note any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the authors’ affiliations, or of the National Science Foundation, which funds the CCC.