A community resource for the acquisition workforce not a .gov website
part52.dev Federal Acquisition Clause Monitor
This page provides structured context for use with AI assistants like Gemini or ChatGPT. Copy the URL and provide it to your assistant, or use the "Copy for AI assistant" button below to copy the text content directly. A plain-text Markdown version is also available.
Download .md

52.227-7 Patents—Notice of Government Licensee.

Prescription and Applicability

FAR Prescription, 27.202-5(b)

(b) If the Government is obligated to pay a royalty on a patent involved in the prospective contract, insert in the solicitation a provision substantially the same as the provision at 52.227-7, Patents-Notice of Government Licensee. If the clause at 52.227-6 is not included in the solicitation, the contracting officer may require offerors to provide information sufficient to provide this notice to the other offerors.

Current Text

52.227-7 Patents—Notice of Government Licensee.

As prescribed at 27.202-5(b), insert the following provision:

Patents—Notice of Government Licensee (APR 1984)

The Government is obligated to pay a royalty applicable to the proposed acquisition because of a license agreement between the Government and the patent owner. The patent number is ____ [ Contracting Officer fill in ], and the royalty rate is ____ [ Contracting Officer fill in ]. If the offeror is the owner of, or a licensee under, the patent, indicate below:

( ) Owner ( ) Licensee

If an offeror does not indicate that it is the owner or a licensee of the patent, its offer will be evaluated by adding thereto an amount equal to the royalty.

(End of provision)

[49 FR 12988, Mar. 30, 1984, as amended at 72 FR 63066, Nov. 7, 2007]

Suggested Questions

You can ask your AI assistant:

  • Should I include this provision in my solicitation?
  • Does this clause apply to commercial acquisitions?
  • Does this clause apply to R&D contracts under Part 35?
  • Which alternate should I use for a multiple-award contract?
  • Are there any active Class Deviations that modify this clause?
  • What changed in the most recent amendment?