iEdison is the federal government’s shared system for a compliance obligation that catches a lot of research administrators off guard: under the Bayh-Dole Act, a university, nonprofit, or small business that receives federal research funding does not just get to keep the patent rights to an invention arising from that work — it has to actively report, elect, and periodically account for that invention to the funding agency, on specific deadlines, or risk the agency taking title outright. iEdison is the single online system nearly every federal funding agency now relies on to run that reporting relationship. This guide covers what iEdison actually is, who is required to use it, the full invention disclosure–to–utilization-report lifecycle and its deadlines, and what happens when an institution misses one.
What is iEdison?
iEdison (interagency Edison) is the federal government’s online reporting system for the invention-disclosure, patent-election, and utilization-reporting obligations that the Bayh-Dole Act imposes on recipients of federal research funding. It is the practical, day-to-day mechanism institutions use to satisfy those obligations — the underlying legal requirements come from the statute and its implementing regulations (covered below), not from iEdison itself, but in practice compliance runs through this one system.
iEdison has a longer history than its current branding suggests, and the details matter for anyone citing it: the system was originally built by the National Institutes of Health in 1995 as “Edison,” then opened to other agencies under the “interagency Edison” name two years later. In 2016, the National Academies recommended moving stewardship of the system out of NIH, and in August 2022 the platform was rebuilt and transferred to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which — as the Department of Commerce component with authority to issue Bayh-Dole’s implementing regulations — now hosts and maintains it at iedison.nist.gov. Accounts migrated automatically from the legacy NIH eRA system; access today requires both an iEdison account and a linked login.gov account. Older references describing iEdison as an “NIH system” describe its origin, not its current home — get this right in institutional policy documents, since the login process and support contacts changed with the move.
NIST’s own description states iEdison is used by more than 30 federal agencies for invention and patent reporting, which is the real reason the system exists: rather than every funding agency running its own separate invention-reporting portal, a university that holds awards from, say, NIH, NSF, and the Department of Energy in the same year reports into one shared system instead of three.
The legal basis: the Bayh-Dole Act and 37 CFR Part 401
The reporting obligations iEdison exists to administer come from two layers of federal law:
- The Bayh-Dole Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 200–212 (formally part of the Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act of 1980), which lets universities, nonprofits, and small businesses elect to retain title to inventions made with federal funding — reversing the government’s earlier default practice of taking title itself — in exchange for specific disclosure, reporting, and utilization obligations. 35 U.S.C. § 202 is the operative section: it requires the contractor to disclose each subject invention to the funding federal agency “within a reasonable time” and sets out the contractor’s right to elect to retain title.
- 37 CFR Part 401, the implementing regulation, which turns that statutory “reasonable time” language into specific, enforceable deadlines through the standard patent rights clause at 37 CFR § 401.14. Nearly every federal grant, cooperative agreement, or contract that involves a “funding agreement” under Bayh-Dole incorporates this clause (or an agency-specific variant of it) by reference. The exact deadlines below come from this regulation, not the statute itself.
A term worth being precise about: Bayh-Dole’s obligations attach only to a subject invention — defined at 35 U.S.C. § 201(e) as “any invention of the contractor conceived or first actually reduced to practice in the performance of work under a funding agreement.” An invention made with no federal funding involvement, or one that falls outside the scope of the specific funded project, is not a subject invention and doesn’t trigger these reporting duties — though institutions still need a documented process for making that determination correctly, since getting it wrong in either direction creates real risk.
Who has to use iEdison
The reporting obligation runs to any organization that is a “contractor” under Bayh-Dole on a federal funding agreement — defined broadly at 35 U.S.C. § 201(b) to cover contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements funding experimental, developmental, or research work. In practice, that means:
- Universities and other nonprofit institutions holding federal research grants or cooperative agreements (the large majority of iEdison’s real-world use).
- Small business firms performing federally funded research, including SBIR and STTR awardees.
- Any contractor — nonprofit or small business — performing research or development work under a federal contract that incorporates the Bayh-Dole patent rights clause.
Large businesses generally fall under separate, agency-specific patent rights clauses (often derived from the FAR or an agency supplement) rather than the nonprofit/small-business clause at 37 CFR 401.14 itself, but the same underlying disclosure-election-utilization structure typically applies. The obligation is institutional, not personal: the recipient organization (through its technology transfer office, sponsored programs office, or equivalent) is the “contractor” responsible for iEdison reporting, even though the reporting is triggered by an individual inventor’s disclosure. 37 CFR 401.14(f)(2) requires the institution to have a written agreement with its research employees obligating them to disclose each subject invention promptly, in writing, to the personnel responsible for patent matters — this internal disclosure is what starts the federal reporting clock.
The invention reporting lifecycle, step by step
The sequence below is what iEdison exists to track. Each step has a real deadline in 37 CFR 401.14, and each one depends on the one before it — a late internal disclosure compresses every downstream deadline.
1. Inventor discloses to the institution
Before anything reaches iEdison, the inventor discloses the invention internally, in writing, to the institution’s technology transfer office or equivalent patent-matters personnel — a contractual requirement under 37 CFR 401.14(f)(2), not a courtesy. This internal invention disclosure is what starts the federal reporting clock; institutions cannot rely on an informal conversation or a conference abstract as the disclosure event.
2. The institution reports the subject invention to the funding agency — within two months
Under 37 CFR 401.14(c)(1), the institution must disclose the subject invention to the federal funding agency within two months after the inventor’s written disclosure to the institution’s patent-matters personnel. In practice, this is done by filing an invention disclosure report in iEdison, which routes the report to the correct funding agency (or agencies, if the work was supported by more than one award).
3. Election of title — within two years of disclosure to the agency
Once the agency has been notified, the institution must decide whether it wants to keep patent rights. 37 CFR 401.14(c)(2) gives the institution up to two years from the date it disclosed the invention to the federal agency to notify the agency in writing whether it elects to retain title. This election is also filed through iEdison.
That two-year window can be compressed: if a publication, sale, or public use has already started the one-year statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) running on U.S. patentability, the agency may shorten the election period to as little as 60 days before the end of that one-year period. This is the single most common way institutions lose patent rights unnecessarily — a delayed disclosure or a rushed publication can silently collapse the two-year election window down to weeks. CASRAI’s guide on 35 U.S.C. § 102 patent novelty and invention disclosure timing covers how that statutory bar interacts with the Bayh-Dole election clock in more depth.
4. Filing the patent application — within one year of election
If the institution elects to retain title, 37 CFR 401.14(c)(3)(i) requires it to file its initial patent application within one year after election of title — or, if earlier, before the end of any statutory period in which valid U.S. patent protection could still be obtained. A common first move at this stage is a provisional application; CASRAI’s guide on provisional patent applications covers that filing type, its cost, and its own 12-month clock in detail.
Once a patent application is filed on a subject invention, 37 CFR 401.14(f)(4) requires the institution to include a standard government-support statement in the specification, identifying the funding agreement and stating that the government has certain rights in the invention. This is also where the government’s own rights attach in practice: 37 CFR 401.14(b) reserves the federal government a nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up license to practice the subject invention worldwide, regardless of who holds title.
5. Annual utilization reporting — for as long as the government asks
This is the step the “utilization report” in this guide’s title refers to, and it’s the one institutions most often let lapse once the excitement of filing a patent has passed. Under 37 CFR 401.14(h), the funding agency may request periodic reports — no more frequently than annually — on the utilization or efforts to obtain utilization of a subject invention for which a patent application has been filed or which has been licensed, even if unpatented. The report must cover, at minimum:
- The status of development of the invention (research, prototype, licensed, commercially available, etc.);
- The date of first commercial sale or use, if any; and
- Gross royalties received by the institution, if any.
Utilization reports serve a real policy purpose beyond box-checking: they are the government’s primary window into whether Bayh-Dole’s core goal — actually getting federally funded inventions into practical use, not just patented and shelved — is happening. A pattern of non-utilization across an agency’s portfolio is part of what informs any consideration of march-in rights under 35 U.S.C. § 203, a separate and distinct remedy from the title-forfeiture consequence covered below — march-in lets an agency require licensing to third parties under narrow statutory conditions, rather than taking title itself.
Deadlines at a glance
| Step | Deadline | Regulatory source |
|---|---|---|
| Inventor discloses to institution | Promptly, per the institution’s employee agreement | 37 CFR 401.14(f)(2) |
| Institution reports invention to the funding agency (via iEdison) | Within 2 months of the inventor’s written disclosure | 37 CFR 401.14(c)(1) |
| Election of title | Within 2 years of disclosure to the agency (may be shortened to as little as 60 days before a 35 U.S.C. §102(b) statutory bar expires) | 37 CFR 401.14(c)(2) |
| Initial patent application filed | Within 1 year of election of title (or earlier, if a statutory bar is closer) | 37 CFR 401.14(c)(3)(i) |
| Utilization report | No more frequently than annually, when requested by the agency | 37 CFR 401.14(h) |
Consequences of noncompliance
Bayh-Dole’s title-retention right is conditional, not automatic, and 37 CFR 401.14(d)(1) spells out the consequence directly: if the institution fails to disclose or elect title to a subject invention within the times specified in paragraph (c), or fails to file a patent application within the times specified, the federal agency may require the institution to convey title to the invention to the federal government. This is not a hypothetical penalty clause — it is the mechanism that makes the whole disclosure/election/filing sequence enforceable, and it is the single biggest reason a missed iEdison deadline is a real institutional risk, not just an administrative lapse.
Beyond the immediate risk to a specific invention, a pattern of late or missing iEdison reporting can also affect an institution’s standing with a funding agency more broadly — much the way missed final reports at grant closeout do (see CASRAI’s guide on federal grant closeout). Utilization reporting failures are frequently the quieter compliance gap: an institution that reliably discloses and elects title on time can still fall behind once a patent has issued and the invention moves into licensing, because there’s no equivalent “hard stop” event forcing attention back to it the way a filing deadline does.
NIH awards: iEdison at grant closeout
NIH and other Public Health Service agencies layer an additional, agency-specific requirement onto the general Bayh-Dole structure: at the end of a grant that is not being renewed, the institution must submit a Final Invention Statement and Certification (HHS Form 568) through iEdison as part of the closeout package, confirming all subject inventions under that award have been reported. This is not a universal, government-wide closeout form — other agencies handle invention certification at closeout differently — so institutions managing awards across multiple funders should confirm each agency’s specific closeout instructions rather than assuming NIH’s process generalizes.
Practical tips for research administrators and TTOs
- Treat the internal disclosure date as the real deadline trigger, not the iEdison filing date. The two-month agency-disclosure clock starts when the inventor discloses in writing to patent-matters personnel — a delay in logging that internal disclosure eats directly into the federal deadline.
- Track election-of-title deadlines against publication and disclosure plans, not just the calendar. A planned conference talk, thesis defense, or paper submission can trigger the 35 U.S.C. §102(b) one-year bar and compress a two-year election window to weeks — coordinate with the inventor’s publication timeline before it happens, not after.
- Build a standing utilization-report calendar, separate from the filing/election calendar. Because utilization reports recur for as long as an agency requests them, they’re the deadline most likely to fall through administrative cracks once initial excitement about a new patent has passed.
- Confirm iEdison account access uses the current NIST-hosted system, not legacy NIH eRA credentials. Institutions that haven’t touched iEdison since before the August 2022 migration may have stale account information; access now requires a linked login.gov account.
- Don’t assume one federal award means one agency’s rules. A single invention arising from co-funded work (e.g., NIH and NSF) may need to be reported to more than one agency in iEdison, and closeout-stage requirements (like NIH’s HHS Form 568) are agency-specific.
Frequently asked questions
Is iEdison the same thing as the Bayh-Dole Act?
No. The Bayh-Dole Act (35 U.S.C. §§ 200–212) and its implementing regulation (37 CFR Part 401) are the law that creates the disclosure, election, and utilization-reporting obligations. iEdison is the online system the government built to administer compliance with those obligations — the reporting mechanism, not the legal requirement itself.
Does iEdison apply to SBIR and STTR awards?
Yes. SBIR and STTR awards to small businesses are funding agreements under Bayh-Dole, and awardees report subject inventions arising from that funded work through iEdison the same way universities and nonprofits do.
What happens if an institution never files an invention disclosure at all?
If a subject invention is never disclosed to the funding agency within the required timeframe, 37 CFR 401.14(d)(1) allows the agency to require the institution to convey title to the government — the institution can lose the right to retain and license the invention entirely, independent of whether it would otherwise have qualified.
Who at a university is actually responsible for iEdison filings?
The institution — typically its technology transfer office or equivalent — is the “contractor” responsible under Bayh-Dole, not the individual inventor. The inventor’s obligation is the internal, written disclosure to the institution’s patent-matters personnel that starts the clock; the institution’s TTO or sponsored-programs office then handles the actual iEdison filings.
Does an institution have to keep filing utilization reports forever?
The funding agency can request utilization reports no more frequently than annually, and can continue requesting them for as long as the subject invention remains patented or licensed. There is no fixed statutory end date in 37 CFR 401.14(h) itself — institutions should treat utilization reporting as an ongoing obligation tied to the life of the patent or license, not a one-time filing.
Related CASRAI resources
- Technology Transfer & Innovation — the cluster hub for CASRAI’s tech transfer and IP compliance content.
- 35 U.S.C. § 102: Patent Novelty and Invention Disclosure Timing — how the statutory novelty bar interacts with Bayh-Dole’s election-of-title clock.
- Provisional Patent Applications — the filing TTOs commonly use to meet the one-year post-election deadline.
- Open Source Software Licensing in University Technology Transfer — IP disposition questions Bayh-Dole’s patent-focused framework doesn’t cover.
- Federal Grant Closeout: The Process and a Practical Checklist — where NIH’s iEdison-linked invention certification fits into the broader closeout package.
- NSF I-Corps Program — a common next step once a federally funded invention has been disclosed and title elected.
- SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research) — the small-business funding mechanism most commonly subject to Bayh-Dole reporting alongside university awards.
- Sponsored research agreement — the funding-agreement vehicle that most often creates subject inventions in a university setting.
