Monthly Archives: October 2011

Evaluating university claims of invention ownership

I am working through this idea that an invention is owned by a university merely as the result of work within the scope of employment or through the use of university facilities (and resources and funding and whatever–class 3 unknown). … Continue reading

Posted in IP, Policy, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

An Exclusive Enjoyment

This case (US v Dubilier Condenser) from 1933 makes an interesting point regarding the idea of a patent as a “monopoly” (citations removed, my bold): Though often so characterized a patent is not, accurately speaking, a monopoly, for it is … Continue reading

Posted in IP, Policy | Leave a comment

All your works are belong to USC

Here’s one for you, from the University of Southern California Intellectual Property Policy.  See if you can figure out what’s wrong untrue with this statement: Both California and federal law provide that the University owns all intellectual property created or … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, IP, Policy, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

Present Assignment ADD at UC

The University of California has present assignment language in its “Patent Acknowledgment“: I acknowledge my obligation to assign, and do hereby assign, inventions and patents that I conceive or develop within the course and scope of my University employment while … Continue reading

Posted in Agreements, Policy, Technology Transfer | 1 Comment

Drafting the Unknown

As I’m reading through university IP policies, I’ve begun to notice how those drafting the policies are grappling with the unknown.  There are a number of unknowns–many policies don’t evidence that the drafters know IP, and others work hard to … Continue reading

Posted in Agreements, IP, Policy, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

Fixin' for Some Bayh-Dole Fixing

Here’s more in the wild on vesting interpretations of Stanford v. Roche.  Written by a suit of attorneys at the firm of Bracewell & Guiliani, it gets a piece of the Supreme Court decision right, does a decent job summarizing … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Innovation, Social Science, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

The Party Boat

Here’s a bit from the Rice University Invention and Patent Policy: In the case of Government-supported research, the Bayh-Dole Act and subsequent amendments and federal regulations provide the basis for current University technology transfer practices. Accordingly, while the University is … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

MIT's Patent Policy Problem

During the kerfluffle known as Stanford v Roche, one of the big advocates for Bayh-Dole as a vesting statute was MIT.   The MIT amicus brief is here.   It’s in this amicus brief that the idea that a present assignment trumping … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Policy, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

The "Patent Problem" in 1948

I’ve been looking at university patent policies lately and came across this discussion of university patent policies by Archie Palmer from 1948, produced by the National Research Counsel and available through Google Books. The discussion is notable for the clarity … Continue reading

Posted in IP, Policy, Technology Transfer | 2 Comments

The CHARM Act of 2012

We’ve had some long posts lately.  It’s been necessary.   And there will be more, to show just how thoroughly technology transfer programs have run amok, how there are viable and attractive alternatives, that there are folks ready to develop these … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment