Monthly Archives: June 2011

5 Things to Learn about Stanford v Roche

1. Assignment of inventions to the university is not a condition of federal funding or federal law. Whatever demands assignment, it ain’t Bayh-Dole.  It is not true, and it is not even credible after Stanford v. Roche, to claim that … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on 5 Things to Learn about Stanford v Roche

Summary points about Bayh-Dole

Bayh-Dole applies to federal agencies in their contracting with universities. It does not apply directly to universities. A standard patent rights clause (SPRC) is established by the Secretary of Commerce under the authority of Bayh-Dole.  Universities agree to the SPRC, … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Summary points about Bayh-Dole

Voluntary assignment complies with Bayh-Dole

From a US university IP policy: Federal law and regulations provide that the University has the right to retain title to any inventions conceived or made in whole or in part during federally funded grants and contracts…..  The following is … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Comments Off on Voluntary assignment complies with Bayh-Dole

"Of the contractor" and Subject Inventions

Stanford v Roche makes clear that Bayh-Dole is not a vesting statute. It does not confer ownership of inventions made with federal support on contractors. Individual inventors own title to their inventions, and title is transferred by written agreement, as … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche | Comments Off on "Of the contractor" and Subject Inventions

Lessons, vol. 5

5. Bad advice abounds. There is plenty of bad advice abounding.   This stuff is not nearly as interesting to work through.  And it takes some time to chase down the implications of the advice. But if you hang with all … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Lessons, vol. 5

Pearling the Bozonet

Over at Pearltrees, I have been building out a documentary record of web materials that I have found useful in innovation, 3d printing, and related areas.  One of these involves the continuing development of bozonet theory.  Below is an embedded … Continue reading

Posted in Bozonet | Comments Off on Pearling the Bozonet

Lessons, vol 4.

4.  AUTM is an inventor-loathing organization. This lesson is not one that carries any pleasure to write about.  It’s good that Bayh-Dole is not a vesting statute and that inventors own title to their inventions.  That’s just patent law.  It … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Lessons, vol 4.

Lessons, vol. 3

This one will be longer.   Sometimes the simple lessons are the hardest to make stick. 3.  University administrators don’t understand Bayh-Dole or innovation. Coleridge quipped that you know someone when you understand what they don’t know.   Let’s get to … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Lessons, vol. 3

Lessons, vol. 2

2.  Inventors own their inventions made with federal support. Stanford v. Roche is not simply a decision that argues for an additional technical step on the inevitable road to take all invention rights away from inventors as expeditiously and inevitably … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Lessons, vol. 2

Lessons, vol. 1

I will follow up on the points I made in a previous post with regard to Stanford v. Roche.  I will take these one by one. 1. Bayh-Dole is no vesting statute. Bayh-Dole does not overturn US patent law on … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Lessons, vol. 1