Management Guide to Intellectual Property for State Departments of Transportation (2015)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

100 1. Wyatt, T., “In Search of Reasonable Compensation: Patent Infringement by Defense Contractors with the Authorization and Consent of the U.S. Government,” 20 Fed. Cir. B. J. 79, 2010. 2. Liberman, A., “The Management of Intellectual Property in Australia,” les Nouvelles, Vol. XXXIX, No. 4, Dec. 2004, pp. 176–182. 3. Sandeen, K., “Preserving the Public Trust in State-Owned Intellectual Property: A Recommendation for Legislative Action,” McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific, 2001. 4. Bosworth, D. and E. Webster, The Management of Intellectual Property, Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., Northampton, Mass., 2006. 5. See 35 U.S.C. § 101, which states that patent protection is potentially available for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 6. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b): “In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.” 7. Carstens, D., “Legal Protection of Computer Software: Patents, Copyrights, and Trade Secrets.” Journal of Contemporary Law, Vol. 20, 1994, pp. 13–76. 8. Conley, J. and D. Orozco, Technical Note: Intellectual Property—The Ground Rules. Kellog School of Management, Northwestern University, Case No. 7-305-501, 2005. 9. Conley and Orozco, 2005. 10. Harder, B., NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 355: Transportation Technology Transfer: Successes, Challenges, and Needs, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005. 11. Special Report 256: Managing Technology Transfer: A Strategy for the Federal Highway Administration, Research and Technology Coordinating Committee, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999; Hockaday, T., “Phases of Growth in University Technology Transfer,” les Nouvelles, Vol. XLVIII, No. 4, Dec. 2013, pp. 275–279; Davis, J., and S. Harrison, Edison in the Boardroom—How Leading Companies Realize Value from Their Intellectual Assets, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 2001, 210 pp.; and Bhakuni, N., “From Conception to Commercialization—University Technology Transfer Practices in the United States,” les Nouvelles, Vol. XLI, No. 2, June 2006, pp. 62–64. 12. Sullivan, P. and L. Edvinsson, “A Model of Managing Intellectual Capital,” Technology Licensing, R. L. Parr and P. Sullivan, eds., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1996, p. 255. 13. Bradley, J., “The Ins and Outs of Intellectual Property Management Strategy,” working paper, Oct. 2010; Bosworth, D. and E. Webster, The Management of Intellectual Property, Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., Northampton, Mass., 2006.; and Davis, J. and S. Harrison, Edison in the Boardroom—How Leading Companies Realize Value from Their Intellectual Assets, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 2001, 210 pp. 14. Teece, D., “Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, Collaboration, Licensing, and Public Policy,” Research Policy, Vol. 15, No. 6, Dec. 1986. 15. Blakeney, M., “Conducting IP Audits,” in Executive Guide to Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices, 2007, pp. 515–526. Available online at: www. ipHandbook.org. 16. Pefile, S. and A. Krattiger, “Training Staff in IP Management,” in Executive Guide to Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices, 2007, pp. 597–615. Available online at: www.ipHandbook.org. 17. Millar, L. and J. Bradley, “Commercialization Analyst Interns: A Programmatic Approach to Screening New Technology,” LES/AUTM, 2006 Spring Meeting. 18. Tease, A., “IP Audits: Exploring the Attics and Depths,” Landslide, Vol. 3, No. 1, Sept.–Oct. 2010, pp. 32–34. Notes

Notes 101 19. Bishop, J., “The Challenge of Valuing Intellectual Property Assets,” Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, Vol. 1, No. 1, Spring 2003, pp. 59–65. 20. Krattiger A., R. Mahoney, L. Nelson, A. Bennet, K. Satyanarayana, G. Graff, C. Fernandez, and S. Kowalski, “Institutional Policies and Strategies,” in Executive Guide to Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices, 2007, pp. 65–72. Available online at: www. ipHandbook.org; and Shane S. and T. Stuart, “Organizational Endowments and the Performance of University Start-ups,” Management Science, Vol. 48, No. 1, 2002, p. 154–170. 21. Krattiger et al., 2007. 22. Blakeney, 2007. 23. Abrams, I., G. Leung, and A. Stevens, “How Are U.S. Technology Transfer Offices Tasked and Motivated— Is It All About the Money?”Research Management Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2009. 24. Sharer, M. and T. Faley, “The Strategic Management of the Technology Transfer Function—Aligning Goals with Strategies, Objectives, and Tactics,” les Nouvelles, Sept. 2008; and Allan, M., “Review of Best Practices in University Technology Licensing Offices,” AUTM Journal, Vol. XIII, 2001. 25. Smith, G. and R. Parr, Valuation of IP and Intellectual Assets, 3rd Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 2000. 26. Millar, L. and J. Bradley, “Commercialization Analyst Interns: A Programmatic Approach to Screening New Technology,” LES/AUTM, 2006 Spring Meeting. 27. Sandeen, 2001. 28. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 2007. 29. Farrar, J., “Patent Eligibility of Gaming Technology,” SHFL Entertainment, 2013. 30. 35 U.S.C. § 101. 31. 35 U.S.C. § 151. 32. Conley, J. and D. Orozco, “Technical Note: Innovation and Invention—A Patent Guide for Inventors and Managers,” Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University. 33. Conley and Orozco, 2005. 34. Vermont, S., “Risk and Reward—More Patent Facts and Stats,” in B. Berman, From Ideas to Assets: Investing Wisely in Intellectual Property, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 2002. 35. 35 U.S.C. § 102(f), 2010. 36. 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), 2010. 37. Pub. L. No. 112-29, Sept. 16, 2011. 38. Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 3, Sept. 16, 2011 (to be codified at 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)). 39. Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 3, Sept. 16, 2011 (to be codified at 35 U.S.C. §§ 135, 291). 40. 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), 2010. 41. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), 2010. 42. Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 3, Sept. 16, 2011 (to be codified at 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)). 43. Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 8, Sept. 16, 2011 (to be codified at 35 U.S.C. § 122(e)). 44. 35 U.S.C. § 301, 2010. 45. Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 3, Sept. 16, 2011 (to be codified at 35 U.S.C. § 135). 46. 35 U.S.C. § 135, 2010. 47. Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 6, Sept. 16, 2011 (to be codified at 35 U.S.C. § 321). 48. Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 6, Sept. 16, 2011 (to be codified at 35 U.S.C. § 311). 49. 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-314, 2010. 50. 35 U.S.C. §§ 302-305, 2010. 51. Pub. L. No. 112-29, §§ 6(d), 6(h)(2)(A), Sept. 16, 2011 (to be codified at 35 U.S.C.§§ 141, 329). 52. 35 U.S.C. § 145, 2010. 53. Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 1999. 54. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8. 55. 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). 56. 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). 57. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 1991. 58. See Waldman Pub. Corp. v. Landoll, Inc., 43 F.3d 775, 782, 2d Cir. 1994. 59. Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-568, 102 Stat. 2853, 1988. 60. See 134 Cong. Rec. H3082, daily ed. May 10, 1988 (statement of Rep. Robert Kastenmeier). 61. 17 U.S.C. §§ 401(d), 402(d). 62. Conley, J. G., “Intellectual Capital Management: Original Expressions and Copyrights,” Northwestern University, Fall 2011, Slide #15. 63. 17 U.S.C. § 102. 64. 17 U.S.C. § 106. 65. 17 U.S.C. § 411.

102 Management Guide to Intellectual Property for State Departments of Transportation 66. 17 U.S.C. § 201(d)(1). 67. 17 U.S.C. § 201(d)(2). 68. 17 U.S.C. § 205(a). 69. 17 U.S.C. § 205(c). 70. 17 U.S.C. § 101. 71. 17 U.S.C. § 107. 72. Dodds, J., S. Somersalo, S. Kowalski, and A. Krattiger, “IP and Information Management: Libraries, Databases, Geographic Information Systems, and Software,” in Executive Guide to Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices, 2007, pp. 419–429. Available online at: www.ipHandbook.org. 73. 17 U.S.C. § 109(a). 74. 17 U.S.C. § 109(b). 75. See 17 U.S.C. § 109(b)(1)(A), making an exception to the default rule against duplication and transfer of digital media in cases where the purchaser is “authorized by the owners of copyright in the sound recording or the owner of copyright in a computer program.” 76. Montague, B., “Why You Should Use a BSD Style License for Your Open Source Project,” 2013. Available online at: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/bsdl-gpl/article.html#current-bsdl. 77. Lindberg, V., Intellectual Property and Open Source, O’Reilly Media, 2008. 78. Barrett, M., “Finding Trademark Use: The Historical Foundation for Limiting Infringement Liability to Uses ‘In the Manner of a Mark’,” Wake Forest Law Review, Vol. 43, Winter 2008, pp. 893–977; and Port, K., “The Congressional Expansion of American Trademark Law: A Civil Law System in the Making,” Wake Forest Law Review, Vol. 35, Winter 2000, pp. 827–913. 79. Conley, 2005. 80. 15 U.S.C. § 1051. 81. 15 U.S.C. § 1114. 82. 15 U.S.C. § 1125. 83. Conley, 2005. 84. Conley and Orozco, 2005. 85. Conley and Orozco, 2005. 86. Fisher, 1997. 87. 532 U.S. 23, 2001. 88. White, B., “Protecting Patent Owners from Infringement by the States: Will the Intellectual Property Rights Restoration Act of 1999 Finally Satisfy the Court?” 35 Akron L. Rev. 531, 2004. 89. Conley and Orozco, 2005. 90. Conley and Orozco, 2005; and Yoffie, D., “Intellectual Property and Strategy,” Harvard Business School, Case No. 9-704-493, Apr. 2005. 91. Albert, D., “Trade Secrets in the United States,” Intellectual Asset Management, July/Aug. 2010, pp. 93–96. 92. Albert, 2010. 93. Albert, 2010. 94. U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 8. 95. See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 118, 2012: “A person to whom the inventor has assigned or is under an obligation to assign the invention may make an application for patent.” 96. See, e.g., St. Louis & O’Fallon Coal Co. v. Dinwiddie, 53 F.2d 655, 662 (D. Md. 1931). 97. U.S. v. Dubilier Condenser Corp., 289 U.S. 178, 188–89, 1933: “Since the servant uses his master’s time, facilities, and materials to attain a concrete result, the latter is in equity entitled to use that which embodies his own property and to duplicate it as often as he may find occasion to employ similar appliances in his business. But the employer in such a case has no equity to demand a conveyance of the invention, which is the original conception of the employee alone, in which the employer had no part. This remains the property of him who conceived it, together with the right conferred by the patent, to exclude all others than the employer from the accruing benefits. These principles are settled as respects private employment.” 98. 17 U.S.C. § 201(b), 2012. 99. 17 U.S.C. § 101, 2012. 100. See, e.g., Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 751–52, 1989: “In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common law of agency, we consider the hiring party’s right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished. Among the other factors relevant to this inquiry are the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the location of the work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the extent of the hired party’s discretion over when and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the work is part of

Notes 103 the regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired party.” 101. See, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-61a, 2012: “The state shall be entitled to own the entire right, title and interest in and to any invention [of state employees] in which such invention is conceived in the course of performance of customary or assigned duties of the employee inventor or inventors . . .”; N.M. Stat. § 57-3C-3, 2012: “Inventions, innovations, works of authorship and their associated materials that are developed by a state employee . . . within the scope of his employment or when using state-owned or state-controlled facilities or equipment are the property of the state.” 102. See, e.g., N.M. Stat. 57-3C-4, 2012, providing that state employees receive “50 percent of the income collected on the invention or work” after expenses for registration, etc. 103. Virginia Transportation Research Council, Intellectual Property: A Handbook for Employees of the Virginia Department of Transportation, 2005. 104. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 3710a(b)(3)(C), 2012. 105. Lemley, M., “Beyond Preemption: The Law and Policy of Intellectual Property Licensing,” 87 Cal. L. Rev. 111, 1999. 106. See, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-61a, 2012: “The state shall be entitled to own the entire right, title and interest in and to any invention [of state employees] in which such invention is conceived in the course of performance of customary or assigned duties of the employee inventor or inventors. . . .”; N.M. Stat. § 57-3C-3, 2012: “Inventions, innovations, works of authorship and their associated materials that are developed by a state employee . . . within the scope of his employment or when using state-owned or state-controlled facilities or equipment are the property of the state.” 107. See, e.g., 48 C.F.R. § 27.404-3(2)(i), 2012. 108. See, e.g., 73 Fed. Reg. 74,570, Dec. 8, 2008. 109. See, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-61a, 2012: “[T]he employee inventor shall be deemed to be obligated, by reason of his employment by the state, to disclose his invention fully and promptly to an authorized executive of the state; . . . and to give all reasonable aid in the prosecution of such patent applications and the procurement of patents thereon. . . .” 110. See Los Alamos National Laboratories agreement, available online at: http://www.lanl.gov/careers/employees- retirees/new-hires/_assets/docs/intellectual-property-agreement.pdf. 111. See Los Alamos National Laboratories agreement, available online at: http://www.lanl.gov/careers/employees- retirees/new-hires/_assets/docs/intellectual-property-agreement.pdf. 112. Virginia Transportation Research Council, 2005. 113. See, e.g., N.M. Stat. 57-3C-4, 2012, providing that state employees receive “50 percent of the income collected on the invention or work” after expenses for registration, and so forth. 114. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. § 334.049(3), 2012; Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 201.205(b), 2012. 115. See, e.g., Okla. Stat. § 85.60, 2012; Or. Rev. Stat. § 291.042(1), 2012. 116. 15 U.S.C. § 3710a(b)(3)(C), 2012. 117. For example, the U.S. DOT may enter into CRADAS with TRB, state DOTs, local governments, “and their agents to conduct joint transportation research and technology efforts.” 23 U.S.C. § 502, 2012. 118. See, e.g., Porter v. Jackson, 668 F.Supp.2d 222, 232 n.9, D.D.C. 2009. 119. Bruner, P. L. and P. J. O’Connor, Jr., Bruner & O’Connor on Construction Law §§ 5:86, 7:126, 2002. 120. Bruner and O’Connor, §§ 5:86, 6:47. 121. Bruner and O’Connor, §§ 7:126, 17:87. 122. 48 C.F.R. § 27.303(a)(3), 2012. 123. See, e.g., Mont. Code Ann. § 20-25-109 (2012); N.M. Stat. § 57-3C-3, 2012. 124. Mikhail, P., “Hopkins v. Cellpro: An Illustration that Patenting and Exclusive Licensing of Fundamental Science is Not Always in the Public Interest,” 13 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 375, 2000; and Walterscheid, E., “The Need for a Uniform Government Patent Policy: The D.O.E. Example,” 3 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 102, 1990. 125. 35 U.S.C. § 202, 2012. 126. Exec. Order No. 12,591, 52 Fed. Reg. 13,414, Apr. 10, 1987. 127. 35 U.S.C. § 2013, 2012. 128. 17 U.S.C. § 105, 2012. 129. See, e.g., Schnapper v. Foley, 667 F.2d 102, 109, D.C. Cir. 1981; Schnapper v. Foley, 471 F.Supp. 426, 428, D.D.C. 1979. 130. 48 C.F.R. § 27.404-3, 2012. 131. McEwen, J., “The Impact of Stanford v. Roche on Technology Licensing Under Bayh-Dole 47-WTR,” Procurement Law 5, No. 3, 2012. 132. See Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Road Systems, Inc., 235 F.Supp.2d 536, 540, E.D. Tex. 2002. 133. See 23 C.F.R. § 420.121(b), 2012: “The State DOTs and their subrecipients may copyright any books, publica- tions, or other copyrightable materials developed in the course of the FHWA planning and research funded

104 Management Guide to Intellectual Property for State Departments of Transportation project. The FHWA reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, the work for Government purposes.” 134. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. §§ 13.03, 13.37, 2012. 135. See, e.g., Okla. Stat. § 85.60, 2012. 136. Mireles, M., “States as Innovation System Laboratories: California, Patents, and Stem Cell Technology,” 28 Cardozo L. Rev. 1133, 2007. 137. See Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Intellectual Property Issues in State & Local Procurement: An Overview & Comparison of Representative State Terms & Conditions, Nov. 7, 2003, available online at: http://www. gibsondunn.com/fstore/documents/pubs/ABA_Presentation-2003-State_Local_Procurement.pdf. 138. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 2013. 139. 17 U.S.C. § 101, 2012. 140. See Garcia–Goyco v. Puerto Rico Highway Authority, 275 F.Supp.2d 142, D.P.R. 2003. 141. 23 U.S. § 502, 2012. 142. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. § 333.049, 2012; Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 201.205, 2012. 143. See, e.g., Okla. Stat. tit. 74, § 85.60, 2012, authorizing “the Office of Management and Enterprise Services [to] be the exclusive agency to negotiate and contract for the retention of patents and copyrights on material and property developed through state contracts.” 144. 35 U.S.C. § 118, 2012. 145. See, e.g., Cal. Const. art. 16, § 6. 146. N.Y. Assembly Bill 8787, 2007–08 Session. 147. 48 C.F.R. § 52.227-13, 2012. 148. 23 C.F.R. § 635.411(a), 2012. 149. 23 C.F.R. § 635.411(a), 2012. 150. 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a), 2012. 151. Wyatt, 2010. 152. See, e.g., Jacobs Wind Electric Co., Inc. v. Fla. Dept. of Transp., 626 So.2d 1333, 1337, Fla. 1993. 153. See, e.g., Auerbach v. Sverdrup Corp., 829 F.2d 175, 181, D.C. Cir. 1987, holding that contractors for the District of Columbia DOT may be liable for copyright infringement for the use of an architect’s design previously developed under contract to the federal government. 154. Federal Highway Administration, FHWA, State DOT, and MPO Rights to Copyrighted and Patented Items Developed with FHWA Planning and Research Funds, Mar. 11, 2004, available online at: http://www.fhwa. DoT.gov/hep/guidance/sprpat.cfm. 155. 17 U.S.C. § 107, 2012. 156. 17 U.S.C. §§ 107–118, 2012. 157. Madey v. Duke Univ., 307 F.3d 1351, 1362, Fed. Cir. 2002. 158. 35 U.S.C. § 271(e), 2012. 159. U.S. Const. Amend. XI: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” 160. Jacobs Wind Electric Co. v. Fla. Dept. of Transp., 919 F.2d 726, Fed. Cir. 1990. 161. See, e.g., State Contracting & Engineering Corp. v. Condotte America, Inc., 346 F.3d 1057, Fed. Cir. 2003, upholding a $5 million judgment against a contractor for infringing a patented tidal flow system developed under State DOT contract; Evergreen Safety Council v. RSA Network, Inc., 2011 WL 2462303, W.D. Wash. 2011, indicating that federal copyright remedies might be available against a state DOT contractor for its use of contract deliverables prepared by its subcontractor. 162. Jacobs Wind Electric Co. v. Fla. Dep’t of Transp., 626 So.2d 1333, Fla. 1993. 163. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank, 526 U.S. 627, 1999. 164. See, e.g., 48 C.F.R. § 52.227-14, 2012. 165. 48 C.F.R. § 252.227-7013, 2012. 166. 18 U.S.C. § 1905, 2012. 167. See U.S. Geological Survey, Contractor Employee Non-Disclosure Agreement, available online at: www. usgs.gov/contracts/acq_opp/EROS_tech_library/fot/sec_j_3.doc; U.S. General Services Administration, Non-Disclosure Agreement, available online at: http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/staffoffices/NDA.pdf. 168. Samuelson, in Kluwer Law International, 2006. 169. Swearingen, W. and T. Slaper, “Economic Impacts of Technology Transfer: Two Case Studies from The U.S. Department of Defense,” les Nouvelles, Vol. XLVII, No. 2, June 2012, pp. 163–173; Kunstadt, R., and I. Maggioni, “A Proposed U.S. Public Patent Pool,” les Nouvelles, Vol. XLVI, No. 1, Mar. 2011, pp. 10–13; Bhakuni, 2006; Dodds et al., 2007; Pitkethly, R., “IP Strategy,” in Executive Guide to Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices, 2007, pp. 459–473. Available online at: www.ipHandbook.org; and Madl, L., “Profit and Common Good: Friend or Foe in Technology Transfer,”

Notes 105 Beyond the First World: Global New & Best Practices for Managers of Innovation and Intellectual Property, July 2010. 170. Burke v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 598 F.2d 688, 691, 1st Cir. 1979. 171. Samuelson, in Kluwer Law International, 2006. 172. Khan, R., Changing the World by Technology Transfer, Xlibris Corporation, 2011, 196 pp.; and Licensing Executive Society, “IP Licensing Basics,” 2012. 173. 48 C.F.R. § 52.227-11(d)(2). 174. 48 C.F.R. § 52.227-14(c)(1)(iii). 175. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 3710(a)(1), 2012: “[T]he Federal Government shall strive where appropriate to transfer federally owned or originated technology to State and local governments and to the private sector.” 176. Mireles, 2007. 177. Harder, B., The International Technology Scanning Program—Summary Report. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Office of International Programs. Available online at: http://international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/trpm/01.cfm. 178. Fraser, J., “Communicating the Full Value of Academic Technology Transfer: Some Lessons Learned,” Tomorrow’s Technology Transfer, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2009, pp. 9–21. 179. Swearingen and Slaper, 2012. 180. FHWA; Connecticut Department of Transportation. 181. See Stabilized Earth Structures, U.S. Patent No. 4,116,010, filed Sep. 24, 1976; Constructional Works, U.S. Patent No. 3,686,873, filed May 25, 1970; Constructional Works, U.S. Patent No. 3,421,326, filed Mar. 27, 1964. 182. Neumann v. Vidal, Civ. Action No. 81-0459, 1981 WL 2218, at *1, D.D.C. Jul. 2, 1981. 183. Christopher, B., Reinforced Soil Structures, Vol. II. Summary of Research & Systems Information, Report No. FHWA-RD-89-043, Nov. 1989. 184. Neumann v. Vidal, Civ. Action No. 81-0459, 1982 WL 1847, at *5 n.6, D.D.C. May 27, 1982. 185. See Neumann v. Vidal, 710 F.2d 856, 858, D.C. Cir. 1983. 186. See Neumann v. Vidal, Civ. Action No. 81-0459, 1981 WL 2219, at *1, D.D.C. Nov. 9, 1981: “The list of projects in which The Reinforced Earth Company has built its walls . . . demonstrates that most of the defendants’ work has been on highway and road projects.” 187. McKibben, J., “Using Alternative Retaining Walls in Rebuilding the Freeway System in Atlanta,” TR News, No. 114, pp. 32–37, Sept. 1984. 188. Bailey, W., “Georgia Stabilized Embankment Wall Construction,” in 34th Annual Highway Geology Symposium Final Proceedings, Vol. 21, May 2–4, 1983. 189. Neumann v. Vidal, Civ. Action No. 81-0459, 1981 WL 2219, at 117. 190. Leary, R. and G. Klinedinst, “Retaining Wall Alternates,” in 34th Annual Highway Geology Symposium Final Proceedings, pp. 61–68, 1983. 191. Telephone interview with Paul Liles, Assistant Director, Engineering Division, Georgia DOT, April 16, 2013. 192. McKibben, 1984. 193. Affidavit of Michael J. Fowler at 2, Pike Industries, Inc. v. State of Vermont, Docket No. TB-326, Vt. Transp. Bd. Dec. 3, 2009 [hereinafter Fowler Affidavit]. 194. Method and Device for Producing a Surface Coating on a Surface such as a Road, U.S. Patent No. 5,069,578, filed Jul. 19, 1990. 195. U.S. Trademark Serial No. 78306084, filed Sep. 26, 2003. 196. See, e.g., SemMaterials, L.P. v. Martin Brothers Construction, No. 08-CV-00843, E.D. Cal. Jul. 15, 2009; SemMaterials, L.P. v. Asphalt Alliance, Inc., No. 05-CV-00320, D. Idaho Jan. 25, 2007. 197. 23 C.F.R. § 635.411(a), 2012. 198. 23 C.F.R. §§ 635.411(b)–(c), 2012. 199. Fowler Affidavit, at 2–4. 200. Fowler Affidavit, Exh. 2, at VTRANS 0037. 201. Fowler Affidavit, Exh. 10, at VTRANS 0073–0075. 202. Fowler Affidavit, Exh. 15, at VTRANS 0094. 203. Fowler Affidavit, at VTRANS 4–5. 204. Pike Industries, Inc. v. State of Vermont, Docket No. TB-326, 17, Vt. Transp. Bd. Jun. 9, 2010. 205. Pike Industries, Inc. v. State of Vermont, at “Conclusions of Law.” 206. Pike Industries, Inc. v. State of Vermont. 207. See, e.g., Road Science, LLC v. Shilling Construction Co., Inc., No. 10-CV-0031, N.D. Okla. Mar. 27, 2013; Road Science, LLC v. Continental Western Transportation Co., Inc., No. 09 -CV-02023, E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2009. 208. Rut Resistant Coating and Method of Applying Rut Resistant Coating, U.S. Patent No. 7,802,941, filed Apr. 28, 2008. 209. Roadtec, Inc. v. Road Systems, LLC, No 10-CV-00338, 2012 WL 2149749, E.D. Tenn. Jun. 1, 2011.

106 Management Guide to Intellectual Property for State Departments of Transportation 210. Guardrail End Terminal, U.S. Patent No. 4,928,928, filed Jan. 12, 1988. 211. Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Road Systems, Inc., 235 F.Supp.2d 536, 539–40, E.D. Tex. 2002. 212. Defendants’ Reply in Support of Their Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss Trinity Industries, Inc. for Lack of Standing at 1–2, Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Road Systems, Inc., No. 98-CV-01623, E.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2002. 213. MwRSF—Midwest Roadside Safety Facility—About Us. Accessed on May 31, 2013, available online at: http://mwrsf.unl.edu/history.html. 214. Sequential Kinking Guardrail Terminal System, U.S. Patent No. 5,775,675, filed Apr. 2, 1997. 215. Sicking, D., “Development of a Flared Energy-Absorbing Terminal for W-beam Guardrails,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1690, Washington, D.C., pp. 8–16, 1999. 216. Guardrail Cutting Terminal, U.S. Patent No. 6,022,003, filed Nov. 7, 1994. 217. Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Road Systems, Inc., No. 98-CV-01623, E.D. Tex. Sep. 13, 2002. 218. Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Road Systems, Inc., 121 F.Supp.2d 1028, 1042, E.D. Tex. 2000. 219. Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Road Systems, Inc., 235 F.Supp.2d 542, 545, E.D. Tex. 2002. 220. Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Road Systems, Inc., at 543. 221. Agreed Order of Dismissal, Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Road Systems, Inc., No. 98-CV-01623, E.D. Tex. Mar. 14, 2003. 222. Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Road Systems, Inc., 235 F.Supp.2d 536, 540, E.D. Tex. 2002. 223. Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Road Systems, Inc., at 538. 224. Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike, Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Road Systems, Inc., No. 98-CV-01623, E.D. Tex. Dec. 18, 2002. 225. See, e.g., High-Impact, Energy-Absorbing Vehicle Barrier System, U.S. Patent No. 7,410,320, filed Aug. 31, 2005; High-Impact, Energy-Absorbing Vehicle Barrier System, U.S. Patent No. 6,926,461, filed Apr. 8, 2002. 226. Tannenbaum, B., “Where Miles of Murals Preach a People’s Gospel,” The New York Times, May 26, 2002, AR 29. 227. Jones, R., “A Long Goodbye for the Olympic Murals,” Los Angeles Times, Sept. 27, 1998. 228. Cal. Civ. Code § 987, 2012. 229. Cal. Civ. Code § 987, 2012. 230. 17 U.S.C. § 106A, 2012. 231. 17 U.S.C. § 113(d), 2012. 232. Jones, 1998. 233. Martin, H. and L. Munoz, “Taggers, Caltrans Take a Toll on Freeway Murals,” Los Angeles Times, May 3, 2001. 234. Munoz, L., “Distinctive L.A. Art Legacy Under Siege,” Los Angeles Times, July 27, 1999. 235. Jones, 1998. 236. Martin, H., “State to Fund Mural Face Lifts,” Los Angeles Times, March 8, 2002. 237. Abram, S. and S. Doyle, “L.A.’s Disappearing Murals: Taggers, Time, Caltrans Cover Up City’s Historic Streetside Art ‘Galleries’,” Los Angeles Daily News, Oct. 21, 2007. 238. Waldie, D., “Trying to Picture L.A. Clearly,” Los Angeles Times, Sept. 6, 2004. 239. Abram, 2007. 240. Haithman, D., “Muralists are Seeing Red,” Los Angeles Times, July 21, 2006. 241. Abram and Doyle, 2007. 242. Complaint at 5, Romero v. Cal. Dep’t of Transp., No. 08-CV-08047 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2008). 243. Abram and Doyle, 2007. 244. Romero v. Cal. Dep’t of Transp., No. 08-CV-08047, 2009 WL 650629, at *2, C.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2009. 245. Romero v. Cal. Dep’t of Transp., at *3. 246. Romero v. Cal. Dep’t of Transp., at *4. 247. Boehm, M., “Muralist Frank Romero Sues Caltrans for Painting over Freeway Work,” Los Angeles Times, May 29, 2009. 248. Vankin, D., “Olympic Glory Reborn,” Los Angeles Times, Mar. 2, 2013.