Author Archives: Gerald Barnett

Does Bayh-Dole apply only to patentable IP?

Here is a question at Research Enterprise. Does Bayh-Dole apply only to patentable IP? Answer: No. In its contracting parts, Bayh-Dole applies to subject inventions, and the definition of subject invention includes more than patentable IP but also restricts what … Continue reading

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

University inventions that aren’t exactly worthless-4

If we work through these issues, it is apparent that it is a very special case where an invention cannot be used unless it is first productized, and that such productization will not be undertaken by the federal government, or … Continue reading

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

University inventions that aren’t exactly worthless-3

To show the limits of policy rationalizations over the university use of patents to benefit the public, let’s consider only those university inventions that have “worth”–that aren’t (in the eyes of university administrators, at least) “worthless.” If we work this … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

University inventions that aren’t exactly worthless-2

Companies, it turns out, are pretty good at evaluating inventions that are “worth” something to them. Companies with large research enterprises appear to be less good than others, however. The story at Xerox PARC was that inventors hoped that their … Continue reading

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

University inventions that aren’t exactly worthless-1

Let’s work the logic of university administrators thinking, ahem, about innovation. We have to do this sort of thing because it appears few university administrators bother with logic. Logic certainly is easily distracted by fallacies and is perhaps then overrated. … Continue reading

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

When is an invention a subject invention?–5

We have pounded our way through the definition of subject invention. We started with the observation that Bayh-Dole is part of federal patent law, not merely an executive branch regulation. Bayh-Dole preempts other federal law and executive branch patent policy … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , | Comments Off on When is an invention a subject invention?–5

When is an invention a subject invention?–4

We are working through Bayh-Dole’s definition of “subject invention” at 35 USC 201(e). For an invention to be a subject invention, it must meet every element of the definition. Folks can’t just say something is a subject invention and by … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on When is an invention a subject invention?–4

When is an invention a subject invention?–3

We are dealing with when an invention becomes a subject invention under Bayh-Dole. An invention must meet every element of Bayh-Dole’s definition at 35 USC 201(e) to become a subject invention and cause Bayh-Dole to preempt most other federal law … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , | Comments Off on When is an invention a subject invention?–3

When is an invention a subject invention?–2

We are working through the answer to when an invention is a Bayh-Dole subject invention. The reasoned answer is when the invention meets every element of the definition of subject invention at 35 USC 201(e). The simple answer in practice … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , | Comments Off on When is an invention a subject invention?–2

When is an invention a subject invention?–1

A search query here at Research Enterprise recently asked how to determine if an invention is a “government subject invention.” Here is your answer. Keep in mind that Bayh-Dole is poorly drafted, not enforced, not complied with, and there’s plenty … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , | Comments Off on When is an invention a subject invention?–1