the United States; and Agree to allow the government to "march in" and require licenses to be granted, or to grant licenses, in certain circumstances, such as if the organization has not taken effective steps to achieve practical application of the invention. Certain additional requirements apply to nonprofit organizations only. Nonprofits must also: Assign rights to a subject invention only to an organization having as a primary function the management of inventions, unless approved by the Federal agency; Share royalties with the inventor; Use the balance of royalties after expenses for scientific research or education; Make efforts to attract, and give preference to, small business licensees. Subject inventions A subject invention is defined as "any invention of the contractor that is conceived or first actually reduced to practice in the performance of work under a funding agreement." The U.S. Supreme Court in Stanford v Roche made clear that "of" in "of the contractor" means ownership. ("And 'invention owned by the contractor' or 'invention belonging to the contractor' are natural readings of the phrase “invention of the contractor.”). If an invention is not owned by a party to the federal funding agreement, then it cannot be a subject invention and does not come within the scope of Bayh–Dole. The CFR addresses the relationship between federal funding and other funding that may supplement the federally supported research. If an invention is made outside the research activities of the federally funded research "without interference with or cost to the government-funded project," then the invention is not a subject invention. Similarly, an invention is not a subject invention if it arises in closely related research outside the "planned and committed activities" of the federally funded project, and the closely related research does not "diminish or distract from the performance" of the federally funded project. Legal proceedings and case law There is a growing body of case law on Bayh–Dole. Ownership of inventions Stanford v. Roche, was a case decided by the Supreme Court that held that title in a patented invention vests first in the inventor, even if the inventor is a researcher at a federally funded lab subject to the Bayh–Dole Act. The judges affirmed the common understanding of US Constitutional law that inventors automatically own their inventions, and contractual obligations to assign those rights to third parties are secondary. The case arose because a Stanford employee, who was under obligation to assign