Author Archives: Gerald Barnett

The NIH’s View of Bayh-Dole Compliance, 3

We are working through NIH guidance on Bayh-Dole reporting requirements. In the process we are making note about how thoroughly NIH misrepresents Bayh-Dole. Sloppy? Indifferent? Does it matter? The next bit is going to be a bother: If it helps, … Continue reading

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

The NIH’s View of Bayh-Dole Compliance, 2

A while ago, I worked through a slide in an NIH presentation about Bayh-Dole compliance. The conclusion there was that the presentation was sloppy, lacked important details, and misrepresented the Bayh-Dole standard patent rights clause. There are other accounts of … Continue reading

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

Bayh-Dole Up Your Counsel, 4

We are working through the UpCounsel account of Bayh-Dole. It’s not all terrible. There are some useful points to come. Overall, however, the work here is sloppy, misleading, not what one would expect for a barrel full of part-time legal … Continue reading

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

Bayh-Dole Up Your Counsel, 3

I won’t belabor the problems in the next section of UpCounsel’s account of Bayh-Dole. The major provisions of Bayh-Dole are 1) a public covenant that runs with patent property rights on inventions arising in federally supported research or development–and specifically … Continue reading

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

Bayh-Dole Up Your Counsel, 2

This is UpCounsel’s 11 minute Q & A on the Bayh-Dole Act. We are working through it, Mystery Science Fiction Theatre 3000 style. Are you Joel? Am I Tom Servo? And who is the mad Dr. Forrester who keeps making … Continue reading

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

Has NIST finally created a foobar standard patent rights clause?

Words in laws ought to mean something. According to Bayh-Dole’s standard patent rights clause, the initial contractor must require its employees to make a written agreement to establish the government’s rights in subject inventions. But, but, but . . . … Continue reading

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

Bayh-Dole Up Your Counsel, 1

A lawyer staffing service and web site, UpCounsel, has a friendly page that offers “everything you need to know” about the Bayh-Dole Act. They promise you can learn what you need with an “11 min read.” I think it’s something … Continue reading

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

NIST smokes Stanford v Roche, 2

Let’s get simple about the NIST rule change on assignment of subject inventions. This requires logic. I’m sorry about that. I know it’s not the Bayh-Dole way. Supreme Court: Bayh-Dole applies only to subject inventions. A subject invention is an … Continue reading

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

The mistaken assumptions of Bayh-Dole, 2

We are working with an article by Sean O’Connor to get at an underlying problem with discussion of Bayh-Dole. O’Connor, a law professor, appears to be working diligently to find a way to “fix” Bayh-Dole so that universities end up … Continue reading

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

The mistaken assumptions of Bayh-Dole, 1

I know this article by Sean O’Connor on the mistaken assumption in Bayh-Dole is six years old and I have discussed this issue previously, but since it is out there on the web, and as far as I know it hasn’t … Continue reading

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