UNCLASSIFIED

1. UNCLASSIFIED ARL Domestic Technology Transfer April 2010 BRAC to the Future UNCLASSIFIED

2. ARL Domestic Tech Transfer Organization Chart Michael Rausa – ARL ORTA Office of Research and Technology Applications • michael.rausa@us.army.mil • 410-278-5028

3. Where the ORTA fits into the T2 process……. (The Arbiter)

4. Agreements Administered By the ARL ORTA Office • CRADAs • Patent License Agreements • Test Service Agreements • Software Release Agreements (AR 5-11) • Joint Ownership Agreements • Material Transfer Agreements • NDAs

5. Agreements Active FY06-09 *CRADA data does not include projects in multi-task CRADAs or amendments

6. Program Revenues per FY * To date

7. Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA) • Description: A Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) is a written agreement between one or more federal laboratories and one or more non-federal parties under which the government, through its laboratories, provides personnel, facilities, equipment or other resources with or without reimbursement (but not funds to non-federal parties). The non-federal parties provide personnel, funds, services, facilities, equipment or other resources to conduct specific research or development efforts that are consistent with the mission of the laboratory.  • Authority:   CRADAs are authorized by 15 U.S.C. 3710a and implemented by Executive Order 12591 (10 April 1987). The governing Army regulation is AR 70-57, Military-Civilian Technology Transfer, dated 26 February 2004. • When a CRADA is Appropriate: CRADAs provide an easy way to collaborate with ARL. CRADAs allow ARL researchers to exchange technical expertise with non-federal partners, and to accept reimbursement for research conducted under the CRADA. CRADAs also protect a researcher's rights and those of ARL to inventions the researcher may make. CRADAs are appropriate when ideas, staff, materials, and equipment are to be exchanged over a period of time for the purpose of collaboration and/or an invention may result. Funds may be provided to ARL under a CRADA. • Who May Participate in CRADAs:   CRADAs must involve at least one non-federal party. In addition to ARL scientists, the other participants in a CRADA may be one or more of the following: • Private corporations (U.S. or foreign) • Nonprofit and not-for-profit institutions (U.S. or foreign) • State and local governments (U.S.) • Other federal agencies (U.S.)

8. CRADA Initiation Process Bench level or Branch management expresses desire to work w/ non-governmental entities ARL ORTA Office reviews to determine best vehicle for effort Permission slip percolates up the chain of command to the Director, ARL for Go/No Go decision. Info is distributed to all ARL Directorate Directors for comment. (10 day window for comment) No Go CRADA process stops CRADA CRADA Permission Slip TSA TSA is initiated; CRADA process stops As a result of reviewing the TSA data, a determination is made that collaboration is required/desired. Go ORTA Ofc negotiates proposed revisions to terms & conditions of the CRADA in concert with the ARL Legal Ofc. until all parties are in agreement. ORTA office makes a determination concerning the proposed CRADA’s format based upon: - Historical data (existing/past CRADAs) - Existing multi-task CRADA? - Probability of a broad spectrum of efforts Single task determination Revised terms & conditions ORTA Ofc. develops the single task CRADA (SOW & boilerplate) in concert w/ technical and legal staff unacceptable Multi-task CRADA determination Documentation provided to potential partner for review & comment Y ORTA Ofc. develops the CRADA SOW and administrivia in concert w/ technical and legal staff Previously existing multi-task CRADA with partner? acceptable N Partner executes documentation Y Previously existing generic overarching CRADA boilerplate? Local ORTA Ofc. circulates documentation through sponsoring Directorate for concurrence N ORTA/ARL Legal develop initial generic multi-task CRADA boilerplate Director, ARL signs CRADA Collaborative work is initiated

9. CRADA Permission Slip • 1. Collaborating Parties: Dr. Scott Kerick and Dr. Michael LaFiandra of ARL-HRED, Dismounted Warrior Branch and Dr. Amy Haufler and Dr. Brad Hatfield of the University of Maryland. • 2. Purpose of Collaboration: To support and facilitate a program of research investigating cognitive neuroscience as related to human motor behavior and peak Soldier performance. Particular attention will be paid to the effects of work-related stress, job demands, leadership and teamwork on cognitive load, information processing and task performance. These variables will be examined from neuro-physiological, biomechanical and behavioral levels of analyses. Specifically. one planned investigation will focus on the role of teamwork on soldier performance during a paired shooting task as examined by neuro-physiological and kinematic variables. It is hypothesized that team membership (i.e., individuals working together in a functionally positive or essential manner for optimal task performance) will reduce cognitive load as evidenced by decreasing nonessential neurocognitive processes. This would indicate that teamwork facilitates the conservation of attentional capacity and would free the soldier to address new (e.g., surprise) or additional task demands. • 3. Anticipated Duration: 2 years • 4. Directorate Involved: HRED • 5. Projected Technical Return on ARL Investment in Collaboration: This project is in support of the Neuroscience STI, and will provide real-time information on the effects of shooting tasks on the cognitive load and neurophysiology of the individual soldier and pairs of Soldiers. • 6. Comment of concurrence by any other Directorate anticipated to be involved: No other directorates involved • 7. Projected Contribution Distribution: University of Maryland is primarily interested in using one of our facilities for data collection. As such, they are carrying the majority of the burden for this effort. HRED's contribution is in terms of supporting their data collection and running the facility. The approximate distribution is: • a. HRED: 0.25 -0.5 work year, use of DISAL T Facility and other equipment, assistance in recruiting human subjects. • b. University of Maryland: 125K • 8. ARL Technical point of contact(s) phone: Dr. Scott Kerick, (410) 278-5833 and Dr. Michael LaFiandra (410) 278-5973 • 9. Foreign Nationals Involved: Yes, Dr. Brad Hatfield (University of Maryland) is a Canadian citizen.

10. Recently Established CRADAs

11. CRADA Success Story - Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected (MRAP) Armor Weight Reduction Spiral (MAWRS) • A CRADA effort between BAE and ARL resulted in a significant reduction in an MRAP’s armor package weight while improving ballistic protection against novel IED’s. • The R&D occurred in < 1 year; from concept to production-ready within five months. • Up-armored MRAP’s are presently in theatre in Iraq, saving lives. • The partners have continued their collaboration to apply novel armor packages to a broad spectrum of Army vehicles.

12. CRADA Success Story-MEMS Exchange • Task Order CRADA with Corporation for National Research Initiatives, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization doing business as the MEMS and Nanotechnology Exchange® • Speeds R&D of advanced technology by providing access to a national network of state-of-the-art design, fabrication and test facilities • NSA, Air Force and Navy are clients of MNX • Greatly facilitates access to world’s most diverse array of design and fabrication expertise • Reduces development cost for customers and promotes cost avoidance for DoD/MNX labs • To date, $~1M to ARL and increased knowledge and capability of its MEMS staff • Availability of MNX improves reliability during technology development cycle • Warfighter is benefactor of advances in biotech, comm technology, among many others

13. Test Service Agreements • Description: Department of Defense laboratories may make available to any person or entity (including universities), on a reimbursable basis, laboratory services for the testing of materials, equipment, models, computer software, and other items.   • Authority:   10 U.S.C 2539b authorizes the directors or commanders of government laboratories, centers, or other facilities to make available to any person or entity, at a prescribed fee, the services of the government facility for the testing of materials, equipment, models, computer software, and other items.  • When A TSA is Appropriate: A TSA should be used if the service is to be provided by the laboratory with no technical collaboration by the partner. The service performed must legitimately be the testing of materials, equipment, models, computer software, or other items. A TSA is not appropriate for research studies or investigations nor does it authorize the sale of products, only services. The entity requesting the laboratory's services must establish in writing that provision of the services will not constitute undue competition with the private sector and that the service requested does not involve expansion of laboratory capabilities or facilities, even if the requesting entity offers to finance the expansion. • Who May Participate in a TSA:   The legislation defines "person or entity" to be an individual, partnership, corporation, association, state, local, or tribunal government, or an agency or instrumentality of the United States. Thus, the only limitation on participants is that they may not be agencies of foreign governments.   

14. Recently Established TSAs

15. TSA Success Story – PGMM Flight Telemetry Testing • The Precision Guided Mortar Munition (PGMM) is a 120 mm high-explosive mortar round that provides a precision hit by maneuvering to a target that is illuminated by a laser designator. (1m accuracy; 12 km range) • The subminiature units that flew on PGMM projectiles contained novel ARL sensors that captured the motion of the projectile. • The advanced telemetry system that obtained the truth-in-flight data essential to analyzing the performance of guidance software. • The telemetry units were completely successful in all firings, surviving gun launch and providing key data on in-flight performance.

16. Licensing of ARL Intellectual Property • Description: ARL is authorized to license its intellectual property to private industry and other entities. Licenses are a means of achieving wider use of inventions created by ARL scientists. Once a patent application has been filed for an invention, that invention can be licensed for commercial development and use. This Patent License Agreement (PLA) may be non-exclusive, partially exclusive or exclusive. Regardless of the type of license negotiated, the government retains its rights to use an invention and to grant nonexclusive research licenses. Royalties are negotiated on a case-by-case basis, and take many factors into account, such as market size, exclusivity, or whether additional technology development is needed. The laboratory may provide technical assistance on a reimbursable basis, if needed to further develop the technology.  • Authority:   PLAs are authorized by 15 U.S.C. 3710a. The governing regulation is AR 70-57, Military-Civilian Technology Transfer, dated 26 February 2004.   • When a PLA is Appropriate:A PLA is appropriate to use when a company or other entity desires to license an ARL patent or patent application for commercialization or research purposes. There are three types of licenses that may be negotiated: • An exclusive license restricts the use of an invention to a single licensee. • A partially exclusive license allows multiple licensees, but restricts the use of the invention by any single licensee to a particular geographic area or to a particular use. • A nonexclusive license can be issued to any number of licensees. • Who May Participate?:   • Private corporations (U.S. or foreign) • Nonprofit and not-for-profit institutions (U.S. or foreign) • State and local governments (U.S.)

17. Identification of ARL Technologies of Value – Licensing’s Starting Point

18. It May be Patentable, but is it of Commercial Value? • ARL Marketing Survey • Previously distributed/completed when the patent was issued. • Now completed at the disclosure stage. • Identifies the technology’s commercial potential and stage of development (TRL). • Clearly illuminates technological deadends, but is not the perfect crystal ball to predict successful commercialization.

19. ARL’s Mission –TRL- Patent Licensing Conundrum Avg. ARL Patent Disclosure TRL Most recent 25 reviewed by the ARL IEC Eureka! Actual application of the technology in its final form TRL 9:Actual system 'flight proven‘ through successful mission operations TRL1: Basic principles observed and reported TRL 4: Basic technological components are integrated to establish that the pieces will work together “If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be research”.   Albert Einstein

20. Technology Readiness Level (TRL)

21. Licensing Success StorySponge Grenade • A “Less-Lethal” technology patented by ARL (U.S. Patent # 6,041,712). • Licensed to Armor Holdings (DEFTEC) in 1999. • Original requirement was for use in Somalia (crowd control during food riots). • The spin-off to public safety applications was apparent from the start. • Currently in wide spread use in law enforcement and corrections. • Star performer of the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics Beer Riot.

22. Licensing Success Story - Ceramic Ferroelectric Materials • Paratek is a Columbia, MD company started by former ARL employees. • Based upon a spectrum of ARL ceramic ferroelectric materials and devices patents (scanning antenna) • ~$800K is royalties to date. • Long and convoluted path to develop technological focus. (’92 – present; original focus didn’t pan out) • Paratek recently signed an agreement with a supplier to a major cell phone manufacturer. • Antenna matching/impedance matching (< battery use by %30)

23. ARL IP Irons in the Fire • Vericor – Turbine Blade Coatings (VTD) • L3 – Quantum Well IR Technology (SEDD) • Dixie Chemical – Low VOC Resin Technology (WMRD/Drexel) • Harris Corp. – Aviation Weather Tool (CISD)

24. Partnership Intermediaries The Defense Authorization Bill of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 3715) enabled the creation of Partnership Intermediaries. PIs are state, local government, or nonprofit entities that facilitate federal technology transfer. They assist companies or educational institutions in utilizing federal technologies, provide assistance to ORTAs, and offer services that increase the likelihood of success of cooperative or joint activities of the laboratory with business or educational institutions. Do they work? At times………….

25. ARL Active Patent Licenses

26. Software – Trials and Tribulations Identify software that’s intended to be commercialized by both name/version Identify each author that contributed to the writing of the code, both concepts and punchers Identify all previous distributions of the code (person/organization/date/version/terms & conditions of use); whether in whole or in module form. Identify whether each author was a Government or Contractor employee Review the terms & conditions for each contract in order to determine what rights the Gov. and the Contractor have for each module of the code. Request an assignment from each of the contractors who wrote modules for the code. Identify the contract# for each contractor Negotiate assignment agreements For those Contractors that the Government cannot reach agreement with; remove their code(s) from the software. Form 1 the revised code for unlimited release to the public Announce the availability of the code for licensing in the Federal Register; schedule a licensing meeting open to all prospective licensees. Distribute Software License Applications to all interested parties Negotiate Software License Agreement(s) with Prospective Licensee(s) Review License applications and select the most appropriate potential Licensee(s) Distribute code to selected Licensee(s) for Commercialization Monitor Licensee(s) for performance

27. AR 5-11; Management ofArmy Models and Simulations • ARL frequently receives requests for ARL generated simulation codes and geometric models (target descriptions). • AR 5-11 mandates specific terms and conditions for release, whether to OGAs or OGA’s contractor. • These terms and conditions are expressed in MOAs (OGAs) and/or contract modifications (contractors). • Originally drafted to protect IP, ARL has found more value in protecting ARL’s technical reputation, the validity of the data produced by non-ARL users, and greatly enhanced ARL’s efforts at configuration control. • ARL has expanded the use of AR 5-11’s terms and conditions of release to apply to non-simulation codes via software release agreements.

28. Summary • If you wish to collaborate with ARL under a CRADA, complete a CRADA Permission Slip, and forward it to the ARL ORTA. • Should you desire access to ARL’s unique testing capabilities, contact the ORTA office. • All patent and software licensing efforts are administered by the ORTA Office. • ARL exists to support the Soldier.