Author Archives: Gerald Barnett

Bayh-Dole support for inventors and free competition

I made this a twitter thread. I’ll post it here as well and work to round it out as I have time. It’s the flip side of being blunt about what happens under Bayh-Dole if an inventor does not assign … Continue reading

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

Being blunt about Bayh-Dole operations, 2

Under Bayh-Dole, a federal contractor has no special right, and no obligation, to take ownership of inventions arising in federally supported research or development. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in Bayh-Dole that suggests that Congress had any intention to make … Continue reading

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

Being blunt about Bayh-Dole operations

Let’s be blunt. If you are a federal contractor and you don’t take/accept ownership of an invention arising in federally supported research or development, you have no Bayh-Dole obligations with regard to that invention. You do not have to get … Continue reading

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

The IPA and Bayh-Dole on nonprofit assignment of subject inventions, 4

Well, now we can look at Bayh-Dole’s nonprofit assignment provision. It’s in Bayh-Dole’s specification for what must be included in a patent rights clause that runs with any funding agreement with a nonprofit or small business. Here, 35 USC 202(c)(7)(A): … Continue reading

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

The IPA and Bayh-Dole on nonprofit assignment of subject inventions, 3

We are working through the approaches of the IPA master and Bayh-Dole’s standard patent rights clause to the assignment of inventions by nonprofit organizations. Unlike the IPA, which was a federal master contract made with selected organizations, Bayh-Dole is a … Continue reading

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

An odd statement of government interest in a Navy “UFO” patent

Here’s US patent 10322827. One of the “UFO” patents. It’s interesting physics, if not controversial, for being innovative in an institutional world that has made innovation mostly boring. But we are concerned with something else here.

Posted in Innovation, Patents | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The IPA and Bayh-Dole on nonprofit assignment of subject inventions, 2

We have looked at the IPA assignment clause. Since the IPA is specific to nonprofits, there’s no reason to call out nonprofitedness. But there is a reason then to restrict any later invention assignment to nonprofit assignees. Why? The point … Continue reading

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

The IPA and Bayh-Dole on nonprofit assignment of subject inventions, 1

Norman Latker, patent counsel at the NIH, drafted Bayh-Dole on the sly, working against HEW policy on inventions to create an easier pathway by which nonprofits could pass exclusive control of inventions made in work receiving NIH funding to the … Continue reading

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

Misconceptions about the law that catalyzed 40 years of university patent bungling

In a recent op/ed (“The Law That Catalyzed Nobel Prize-Winning Research at UC Berkeley”), Carol Mimura argues, in effect, that provisions of Bayh-Dole should not be used to deter price gouging or to increase the availability of needed medical treatments. … Continue reading

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

A question on RE: practice the invention

Search on RE: “what does “practice the invention” mean under bayh dole.” Practice means “to make, use, or sell” an invention. Practice means to use any of the substantial rights to a patentable invention. Practice means to “work” an invention … Continue reading

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