California's economy is built on high-tech innovation, and intellectual property (IP) ownership and development are vital to the successful transition of this innovation into the marketplace. Evidence suggests that most IP is turned into products only when there is a significant economic incentive to do so. But in California, IP policies and contracting procedures can be a labyrinthian ordeal for researchers; regulations are handled piecemeal by each state agency, making incentives uncertain or difficult to establish. If a proposed resolution is passed, CCST will be asked to help lay the groundwork for the state to streamline these procedures.

"The development of innovative technologies and the underlying ownership of IP is a pretty fundamental issue in California. Managing the IP process appropriately is a vital economic issue for our state." -Gene Mullin State Assembly Member

Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 252, authored by Assembly Member Gene Mullin, requests CCST, in collaboration with its sustaining institutions, and state agencies including the Attorney General and the Department of General Services, to conduct an analysis of California's IP policies and make recommendations for streamlining the process. Statements of support for the resolution have been provided by the University of California, Stanford University, and the California Healthcare Institute.

At the federal level, policies such as the Bayh-Dole Act provide guidance on the handling and ownership of IP produced when the government contracts with the private sector or academia. However, at the state level, there are considerable inconsistencies on how IP is handled among state agencies. A lack of consensus on existing IP and lack of understanding about the research enterprise and technology transfer, as well as lack of state government incentives for developing IP into marketable products makes it difficult for California to implement an effective IP policy. The University of California, for example, entered into 900 contracts with 74 state agencies for a total of $220 million in 2003, most of which had to be negotiated individually.

IP has been a subject of discussion in the Legislature several times in recent years; but as a 2000 report from the Bureau of State Audits concluded, California lacked adequate knowledge about its IP to move forward effectively. The issue was raised more recently in the Legislature by Assembly Member Cindy Montanez, who was concerned that state government-produced IP be used to benefit the public.

ACR 252 asks CCST to produce a report with guidelines and principles that will allow uniformity in the way the state addresses IP created under state contracts, licenses, and agreements. To accomplish this, a group of IP experts and stakeholders from the research community as well as members from industry groups and government research laboratories will be convened in a process similar to that employed in the Public Interest Energy Research review currently underway. If ACR 252 is passed, it will be the first time a state has explored a comprehensive strategy for IP policy management.