An AOR (Allocation of Rights) document is a non-monetary agreement that defines the rights between the parties to the existing (context) and future (priority) intellectual property rights. As a rule, IP is discussed in promotion contracts associated with other terms and conditions. If IP rights are required to be set before an assignment document, an AOR is used. As a general rule, an AOR does not grant each party the use of the project IP exclusively and without compensation for the realization of the project. It also contains the possibility of negotiating an exclusive license in a separate agreement. If you submit an SBIR or STTR proposal, an AOR is required before a declaration of commitment executed is made available to the company. This is necessary to ensure that all background IPs are identified and protected, while creating rights on Foreground IP. Because the SBIR and STTR proposals are funded by the Confederation, the Bayh-Dole Act is used in accordance with 37 CFR 401, which says what we invent, we own, what you invent, you own, and jointly created inventions are shared property. The agreement consists of a proposal that must be accepted by the party to which the proposal is submitted and, if that proposal is adopted, it will become a promise of the parties on which they have agreed.
The parties have the right to be brought to justice in the event of non-compliance with the contract. Last summer, after a five-day lawsuit over a federal government contractor`s default lawsuit against another contractor, the Fairfax County Circuit Court denied a multi-million euro verdict on the grounds that there was no contract at all.  In this case, the Claimant stated that he had entered into a “team agreement” with the respondent under which the Claimant would support the Respondent`s proposal. In return, certain subcontracts of the tender are reserved by the defendant to the applicant. The teaming agreement invited the parties to then agree by mutual agreement on the actual volume of work and the financial conditions. In the end, however, the claimant was excluded from the defendant`s postponement of work in the market. In his written decision to overturn a jury`s arbitration award for non-subcontracting to the defendant for the project, the Circuit Court judge cited Virginia`s long-standing law that “a contract is enforceable; it is necessary for the Contracting Parties to agree on conditions which are sufficiently secure in the present circumstances. Simple agreements to agree in the future are too vague and too indefinite to be implemented. In the Fairfax County Circuit Court case, the judge found that the permanent terms of the team agreement with respect to the work actually to be done by the applicant indicated that the parties could not intend to be bound to obligations after the award. Consequently, there was no enforceable agreement between the parties to the teaming agreement on the provision of work to promote an awarded market offer. The complainant contractor had contributed to all aspects of the development of a successful federal contract proposal, but could not claim any benefit from this contract work. .