(12) Several developments inthe modern research environment have contributed to this trend towards collaboration. Cooperation may benefit firmsby allowing them to share risks and costs. (16) 
Congress has also endeavored to create an environment conducive to research associationsbetween and among public, private, and non-profit entities. (37) 

		Patent Acquisition and Enforcement

In order to obtain patent protection, innovative individuals and firms must prepare and submitapplications to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). As the Patent Act states:
In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, eachof the joint owners of a patent may make, use, offer to sell, or sell the patented invention in theUnited States, or import the patented invention into the United States, without the consent of andwithout accounting to the other owners. The Patent Law Amendments Act of 1984 provided a response to this situation by retainingthe rule that identifying the correct inventor or inventors is a condition of patentability. In particular, when a claimed invention resulted from joint researchbetween two or more entities, the CREATE Act excludes certain prior art developed by one of theresearchers from the nonobviousness analysis if:
the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of parties to a joint researchagreement that was in effect on or before the date the claimed invention wasmade;
the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within thescope of the joint research agreement; and
the application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended todisclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement. (86)
Some examples illustrate this standard. (91)
As a result, some commentators have called for more specific legislative guidance on thejoint inventorship standard. One possible reform would be to stipulate a clear rule, or possibly a listof factors that courts should consider, with respect to joint inventorship. (92) 
On the other hand, fashioning a workable standard of joint inventorship might prove verydifficult. As discussedpreviously, if more than one individual qualifies as an inventor of a particular patented invention,then these individuals are deemed to be "joint owners" who hold the patent as"tenants-in-common." (95) Under this legal arrangement, each joint owner owns an undivided interest in the entire property. In light of the usual rule governing a tenancy-in-common relationship, however, somecommentators have observed that joint owners of a patent are at each other's mercy. (99) The policy basisfor this rule appears to be premised upon creating the maximum opportunity for the patentedtechnology to be exploited in the marketplace. Some observers believe that it is inappropriate to"transpose pre-1984 concepts of joint ownership into the new post-1984 inventorship law .. . ." (108) Inparticular, a broad conception of joint inventorship, in combination with atenancy-in-common ownership paradigm, may allow a joint inventor to enjoy economicrewards that are not commensurate with his contribution to the patent. Another possibility would be to consider ownership issues on a claim-by-claim basis,rather than a patent-by-patent basis. (112) In weighing the desirability of any alternative to the current regime, one factor to beconsidered is ease of judicial administration. (113) Anotherconcern may be diminution of the incentives of one joint owner to commercialize the patentedinvention. Concluding Observations

Although amendments to the patent statute have clarified rules pertaining tocooperative research and development endeavors, concerns about the standards of jointinventorship and joint ownership persist.
Innovative individuals and firms have increasingly engaged in collaborative research. Thegreater complexity of modern technology, heightened specialization in advanced fields, improvedmeans of communications, and the desire to share the risks and expenses of high technology researchhave each contributed to this trend. Congressional interest in creating an environment conducive tocollaborative research has resulted in numerous legislative initiatives. The Patent Law AmendmentsAct of 1984 and the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act of 2004are among those that have clarified patent law rules regarding joint inventors and cooperativeresearch endeavors.
Observers have nonetheless expressed concerns that applicable patent law standards maydiscourage, rather than foster, collaboration among researchers. Some patent law experts believe thatcurrent rules identifying the members of a research team who qualify as joint inventors are toolenient, vague, and unpredictable. This standard may lead to uncertainties with respect to patentownership. It may also encourage strategic claims drafting during patent acquisition andenforcement.
Another target of concern is the current legal rule governing the joint ownership of patents. In the event more than one individual is considered to be a co-inventor of an invention that ispatented, each such person is regarded as a joint owner of that patent. U.S. patent law further deemsa joint owner of a patent to enjoy a "tenancy-in-common," which allows him to exploit a patentwithout regard to the other owners. This property rule appears to maximize the opportunity forexploitation of the patented invention in the marketplace. Yet, because every inventor receives fullrights in an invention no matter what the extent of his contribution, this ownership principle couldpossibly lead to inequitable distributions of the profits of patented inventions.
If Congress should deem a legislative response to be appropriate, some commentators havecalled for more specific legislative guidance on the joint inventorship standard. A possible reformwould be to stipulate bright-line rules, or possibly a list of factors that courts should consider, withrespect to joint inventorship. On the other hand, fashioning a workable standard of jointinventorship might prove difficult or ultimately be unnecessary.
In addition, alternative ownership rules--such as considering ownership on a claim-by-claim,rather than a patent-by-patent basis--are a possibility. In weighing the desirability of any alternativeto the current regime, concerns for ease of judicial administration and the diminution of theincentives of one joint owner to commercialize the patented invention may be appropriate. However,the patent statute's joint inventorship and joint ownership standards are effectively default rules. Ascollaborative researchers may reach alternative arrangements via contract, legal reform in this areamay not be a compelling need.