Avoiding reach-through claims: Problems arise when institutions try to exaggerate their interests in an invention with reach-through claims . These conditions pose problems not only in terms of intellectual property policy, but also from a negotiating point of view and will probably delay the implementation of a final agreement. These conditions are almost impossible to implement and are therefore of limited use. A counter-reach-through policy should apply to all A.A. – research institutes should be very cautious about notions generally related to research materials shared by industry. Similarly, institutions should not be tempted to insert reach-through provisions into ATMs, even if they only seek to promote access to research tools. If, particularly in all forms of licensing agreements with industry, retain rights to materials for further research, it is difficult to insist on an extensive set of rights for research on derived materials. Indeed, such a provision was considered highly problematic in the initial MTA for the distribution of European resources within the ICC for international partners . Systemic issues arise when deposit AAAs or ASAs sharing a resource with members of a consortium contain reach-through provisions that must be enforced by the receiving institution on behalf of the home institution. In this scenario, there are no direct benefits for the host institution, but it is contractually bound to enforce rights on behalf of another institution. Universities, in particular public universities and universities whose research is largely supported by public funds, are required to ensure that their innovations are made available to the public in a careful and timely manner. In the United States, this obligation is based on the Bayh-Dole Act, which has a stated purpose.” the public availability of inventions” as well as the philosophical missions of most universities. One of the ways to achieve availability is by licensing inventions to private companies that can invest the often considerable R&D efforts required to produce authentic products.
The public interest obligation may be compromised by ASAs that require the supplier to be granted a non-exclusive, free license to inventions. If the company was not interested in commercializing the invention, the existence of its non-exclusive and free license could prevent other companies from obtaining a license, as they do not have the exclusivity to invest in the development of the technology, which would effectively put the technology “on the site”. . . .