Monthly Archives: June 2017

The Poetry of Aspirational IP Systems

In 2015, Ann Hammersla, once a senior university licensing officer and now working for the NIH, gave a talk at an NIH Regional Seminar on Program Funding and Grants Administration–“Inventions, Data Sharing, Reports to NIH, and other Intellectual Property Considerations.” … Continue reading

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

Key Concept 4: Ad Hoc Patent Office

Ad Hoc Patent Office Institutions create ad hoc patent offices by compelling the assignment of patentable inventions, obtaining patents on those inventions issued to the institution, and then re-issuing the patents as private monopolies. Such ad hoc patent offices forestall … Continue reading

Posted in IP, Policy | Leave a comment

Key Concept 3: FOIL Technology

FOIL Technology FOIL is an acronym that stands for “Fragmented Ownership Institutionally Licensed.” Technology that is FOIL is fragmented across institutional owners that then seek to license their portion of the technology for development as a commercial product. FOIL is … Continue reading

Posted in Agreements, IP, Sponsored Research | Leave a comment

Key Concept 2: Substantial rights

Substantial Rights Substantial rights is a concept used by courts in considering whether an invention has been licensed or assigned. The substantial rights in an invention are the rights to make, use, and sell. If these rights are licensed exclusively, … Continue reading

Posted in Agreements, Bayh-Dole, IP | Leave a comment

Key Concepts 1: Dual Monopoly

Dual Monopoly A dual monopoly approach to innovation management involves both a comprehensive institutional demand for ownership of inventive work and an institutional determination to convey monopolies in that work for private exploitation. The first monopoly is an institutional one. … Continue reading

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

What should the federal government do with patents it issues to itself? Part 2

The Bayh-Dole Dissatisfaction with the Patent System According to its advocates, starting with Sen. Bayh, the idea of behind Bayh-Dole was to require federal agencies to pre-assign their ownership interest in invention contract deliverables to university contractors. It’s a clever … Continue reading

Posted in Agreements, Bayh-Dole, IP, Policy, Sponsored Research | Leave a comment

What should the federal government do with patents it issues to itself? Part 1

Here is a question: What should the federal government do with patents it issues to itself? Some Context In the 1940s and 1950s, as the United States government contracted for research services associated with the development of weapons systems and … Continue reading

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

A New Guide to Bayh-Dole–Outline Version

Here’s an alternative guide to Bayh-Dole. There’s a whole book in here, but I’ve left out the chapter and verse documentation and the historical evidence and interviews and the like. This is not the version of Bayh-Dole you will read … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Leave a comment

The bogus argument for “mixing” research funds, 5

Let’s say that companies have diverse views about patenting, as the Harbridge House report documented, and some companies might decline to participate in federal research because they can’t get title to inventions and won’t settle for a mere license. We … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Leave a comment

The bogus argument for “mixing” research funds, 4

The origins of the argument for “mixing” government and private research funds can be found in the 1968 Harbridge House report. The report identifies six industry attitudes toward patenting, ranging from indifference to defensive positions to critical to business. The special … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Sponsored Research | 1 Comment