Monthly Archives: September 2017

The Government Patent Market for Public Health Inventions, 4

The NIH’s Institutional Patent Agreement program, then, (i) ignores the distinction in the Kennedy patent policy between inventions made in research directly concerned with public health and inventions made in other research, (ii) expressly authorizes contractors to grant exclusive licenses, … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History | Leave a comment

The Government Patent Market for Public Health Inventions, 3

The NIH’s Institutional Patent Agreement program was framed in terms of the Kennedy patent policy. It ignored, however, the Kennedy patent policy distinction between discoveries directly related to public health and other discoveries. It could do so because it set … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History | Leave a comment

The Government Patent Market for Public Health Inventions, 2

There is another way, however, in addition to march-in, for the government to influence the commercial exploitation of health-related inventions made with federal support. Bayh-Dole has a clever design, but the people who drafted it made their mistakes. March-in has … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History | Leave a comment

The Government Patent Market for Public Health Inventions, 1

Let’s look at two things–Bayh-Dole’s standard patent right clause license to the government and 28 USC 1498. First, 28 USC 1498: Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is used or manufactured by … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History | Leave a comment

Bayh-Dole the Monster

The Bayh-Dole Act makes a great deal about public interest. Throughout the law are gestures toward worthy objectives–use of inventions, manufacturing in the United States, government licenses, and the right of federal agencies to step if they need to. But … Continue reading

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

The laboratory and discovery

It’s a nice thought that faculty and students make their discoveries “in the lab” as a recent APLU infographic depicts. There certainly are discoveries made in laboratory work. But discoveries are also made out collecting samples, and in work shops, … Continue reading

Posted in Freedom, Innovation, Policy | Leave a comment

Fenn and Shaw

Here are two court decisions at cross-purposes. In 1997, Shaw v The Regents of the University of California held that a patent agreement should be interpreted using common law of contracts and rejected the Regents contention that its patent policy … Continue reading

Posted in Agreements | Leave a comment

The Key Provisions of Bayh-Dole

Now, with all that fusstation from the University of Pittsburgh out of the way, we might ask then what are the “key provisions” of Bayh-Dole that a university should make faculty and the public aware of. Only One Key Provision … Continue reading

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

The University of Pittsburgh’s Fake News Summary of Bayh-Dole, 4

We are working through the University of Pittsburgh summary of the Bayh-Dole Act, and I at least am getting increasingly grouchy as I do. How can someone writing for university faculty “innovators” get things so wrong in some many places? … Continue reading

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

The University of Pittsburgh’s Fake News Summary of Bayh-Dole, 3

We are working through the fake history published by the University of Pittsburgh regarding the Bayh-Dole Act and its “key provisions.” “Fake” is too light a word for it, but it’s trendy and so people get the general idea. Really, … Continue reading

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