C.F.R. » Title 48 » CHAPTER 1—FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION › SUBCHAPTER E—GENERAL CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS › PART 27—PATENTS, DATA, AND COPYRIGHTS › Subpart 27.2—Patents and Copyrights

48 C.F.R. § 27.202-1

27.202-1 Reporting of royalties.

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) To determine whether royalties anticipated or actually paid under Government contracts are excessive, improper, or inconsistent with Government patent rights the solicitation provision at 52.227-6 requires prospective contractors to furnish royalty information. The contracting officer shall take appropriate action to reduce or eliminate excessive or improper royalties.

(b) If the response to a solicitation includes a charge for royalties, the contracting officer shall, before award of the contract, forward the information to the office having cognizance of patent matters for the contracting activity. The cognizant office shall promptly advise the contracting officer of appropriate action.

(c) The contracting officer, when considering the approval of a subcontract, shall require royalty information if it is required under the prime contract. The contracting officer shall forward the information to the office having cognizance of patent matters. However, the contracting officer need not delay consent while awaiting advice from the cognizant office.

(d) The contracting officer shall forward any royalty reports to the office having cognizance of patent matters for the contracting activity.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2003–2003 · leading case: Parker Beach Restoration, Inc. v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 126 (Fed. Cl. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Parker Beach Restoration, Inc. v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 126 (Fed. Cl. 2003). “The GRADA did not include the Government’s standard authorization and consent clause as set forth by 48 C.F.R. §§ 27.202-1 (a), 52.227-1. 1 The GRADA did include a non-indemnity clause in the event that infringement occurred, making no guarantee that the project would not…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.