Author Archives: Gerald Barnett

The Turning Point in Federal Patent Policy

1971. Here’s where things started to go bad. In 1963, President Kennedy issued a memorandum setting forth executive branch patent policy. When the federal government acquired inventions, the policy stipulated that patents would be made available “through dedication or licensing”–that … Continue reading

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

proto Bayh-Dole march-in, c. 1976

Bayh-Dole was the banana that finally stuck on wall, but Norman Latker had tried any number of schemes to circumvent federal policy requiring default open access to the inventions arising in work for which the federal government provided funding. People … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

NSF IPA Metrics 1974-78–Two tech transfer programs

Universities participating in the NSF’s IPA program operated two technology transfer programs. One program–the one endorsed by the IPA program–focused on patents and licensing. Of the 645 inventions reported by universities (and other nonprofits) made in work receiving NSF support … Continue reading

Posted in Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

NSF IPA Metrics 1974-78

Beginning in 1974, the NSF ran an Institutional Patent Agreement (IPA) program until IPAs were shut down in 1978 as ineffective and counter to public policy. Bayh-Dole, one among a number of attempts, replaced the lost IPA programs in 1981. … Continue reading

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

The Thornton Bill’s “purposes” and Bayh-Dole’s “policy and objectives”

Bayh-Dole states its policy and objectives at 35 USC 200. Here there are, with a more readable layout: It is the policy and objective of the Congress to use the patent system to promote the utilization of inventions arising from … Continue reading

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

Why is an invention a subject invention?–2

We had a look at antecedents to Bayh-Dole’s strange definition of “subject invention.” We saw that the definition has two purposes– (1) to identify the use of the term “invention” with patent law, so Bayh-Dole works with a defined term … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Why is an invention a subject invention?–1

Let’s look at three antecedents for Bayh-Dole’s definition of “subject invention”: The Institutional Patent Agreement master, 1968, that allowed participating non-profits to end-run DWEW contracting policy and take ownership of inventions made with NIH funding (Latker said that Bayh-Dole was … Continue reading

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

When to disclose inventions at universities? More!

Most university patent policies don’t specify exactly when to disclose an invention. “Promptly” is the recurrent–and meaningless–requirement. Here’s Northwestern University: to protect academic priority as well as commercial priority, any Inventor making any Invention or Discovery subject to this policy … Continue reading

Posted in Policy | Tagged , , | Comments Off on When to disclose inventions at universities? More!

Effective University Technology Transfer

“Technology transfer” is not so obvious an idea as it may seem. There’s technology transfer from developed nations to “developing” nations. There’s technology transfer from one industry to another. There’s technology transfer from applications in the military to civilian uses. … Continue reading

Posted in Freedom, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Effective University Technology Transfer

Search on RE: Bayh-Dole provisions and subject inventions

Here’s a recent search on Research Enterprise: “bayh-dole provisions only apply to subject inventions.” Is it a question? Is it an assertion? Does Bayh-Dole apply only to subject inventions? No. Some Bayh-Dole provisions do apply to subject inventions, but much … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Search on RE: Bayh-Dole provisions and subject inventions