Monthly Archives: April 2012

What rot hath Bayh-Dole wrought?

What hath Bayh-Dole wrought?  Or, more pointedly, what have university invention administrators done with the opportunity presented by Bayh-Dole? Over the past 30 years, university administrators have successfully: Changed a clustered federal system of patent accumulation into a dispersed university … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Leave a comment

What is and what should never be

I have a special regard for the Bayh-Dole Act from spending so much time working with it. I am impressed with the way that it balances uniform agency policy regarding federally supported inventions with the diversity of practices potentially available … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

A map of the Atlantic

The Atlantic has published yet another retrenchment piece by Allen and Bayh.  At least there is no question where they stand on the matter:  comprehensive, compulsory stripping of faculty rights to inventions is the way to prosperity and should be … Continue reading

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

The Dumbest Possible Model

It’s hard to describe how devastating the Stanford v Roche decision is to autocracy-minded university bureaucrats.  They claimed Bayh-Dole requires university ownership. So they instituted policies that require university ownership, “to comply with Bayh-Dole”. Then they argued in Stanford v Roche … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Commons, Policy, Present Assignment, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | 1 Comment

How Bayh-Dole was used to expand university IP claims

I’ve put together a graphic that shows a cascade of possible places where a university and faculty might consider the matter of ownership of inventions and works of authorship. I’ve arranged things into various rows, each with a corresponding letter … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Present Assignment, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

A carefully crafted scheme

How should a federal government deal with ownership of inventions made at universities with federal support?  Consider the situation that existed at the time the Bayh-Dole Act was being implemented.  Many universities did not have technology transfer offices of the … Continue reading

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

A present assignment wouldn’t have saved Stanford claim

Since the topic keeps coming up, let’s look again at Stanford v Roche.   The standard analysis is that the case teaches universities that they have to make their invention assignment agreements “tighter”.  The argument goes, in Stanford v Roche a … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Present Assignment, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

A serious flaw in a paper about a serious flaw in Bayh-Dole that isn’t a flaw

A recent paper argues that there’s a hole in Bayh-Dole’s treatment of assignments.  I thought that for a while, but then I went and read the law and the implementing regulations and realized that there was no hole. In Stanford … Continue reading

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

The Retrenchment Movement

The Stanford v. Roche case was about how universities get ownership of inventions under Bayh-Dole.  Stanford argued vesting.  The Solicitor General argued voiding all other alternatives.  WARF argued faculty were gullible, inept, and selfish.  AUTM threw sticks and dirt in … Continue reading

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

Penn State gets innovative

[updated 5/31/16 to repair/replace broken links; PSU has removed the committee report proposing the change in industry contracting requirements] Penn State has for years been one of the leaders in industry sponsored research.  In the past few months, they have … Continue reading

Posted in Policy, Sponsored Research, Technology Transfer | 1 Comment