Monthly Archives: June 2016

A Good Policy for a Patent-Trolling University

Let’s continue the discussion of how university-owned patents might differ from other patents. We have considered the idea of “first use exhaustion” under Bayh-Dole: if the express purpose of Bayh-Dole is to use the patent system to promote utilization of … Continue reading

Posted in Litigation, Policy | Leave a comment

Free Competition and Reasonable Pricing of Products Based on Subject Inventions

I have argued that the Bayh-Dole Act establishes, for inventions made with federal support at universities, a principle of patent exhaustion. We might call it a “first use” exhaustion of patent rights. Since the express, statutory purpose of the Act … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, IP | Leave a comment

University Patent Management, Part I

Should a patent on an invention made at a university be managed any differently from a patent on an invention made in a company or made by an independent inventor? That’s a fundamental question, and one that shapes university patent policies … Continue reading

Posted in IP, Policy | Leave a comment

Some Lessons Learned

Here are some things I’ve learned over the years working in university technology transfer: University technology transfer is fundamentally instruction–“a classroom for companies.” Technology transfer is a matter of instruction, opportunity, and goodwill. It is not a system that can … Continue reading

Posted in Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

Cockroach Living in Technology Transfer

I didn’t intend to end up in university technology transfer, but I fell down a rabbit hole and here I still am. I have seen university technology transfer from both sides now. For 12 years, I worked for the University … Continue reading

Posted in History, Projects, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

Conspiracy against inventors’ rights and 18 USC 241/42 USC 1983

University administrators have been fond to claim that the Bayh-Dole Act gives their universities ownership of inventions made with federal support–or a right of first refusal, or a prohibition on assigning ownership to anyone other than the university. This was … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Litigation, Policy | Leave a comment

The Very Model of a Modern University IP Policy Preamble

Recently, I have worked through intellectual property policies at Michigan and Texas. No university administrator is willing to write “We demand to own your work to try to make money, preferably by partnering with monopolist speculators.” That would violate the … Continue reading

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

Subject Patent Exhaustion

Caltech has just sued Apple for infringement of a patent. The patent in question, “Serial concatenation of interleaved convolutional codes forming turbo-like codes” (US Patent No. 7,116,710) includes this statement of government interest: GOVERNMENT LICENSE RIGHTS The U.S. Government has … Continue reading

Posted in Agreements, Bayh-Dole, Commons, Litigation | Leave a comment

From provider to predator: University of Texas patent policy, Part 4

In 2005, BethLynn Maxwell, a patent attorney then in the Intellectual Property Section of the Office of General Counsel for the University of Texas System, published a brief article on the Bayh-Dole Act, “Twenty-Five Years After Bayh-Dole” in the Office of … Continue reading

Posted in Bozonet, Metrics, Policy, Technology Transfer | 1 Comment

From provider to predator: University of Texas patent policy, Part 3

In Part 2 of this series I compared the preambles of the 1977 and 1988 versions of the University of Texas System patent-cum-intellectual property policies. The 1946 policy was so straightforward that it did not need a preamble. It was … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, History, Policy, Stanford v Roche | 2 Comments