Author Archives: Gerald Barnett

The non-preference for US manufacturing under Bayh-Dole

A recent search at RE was looking for “preference for manufacturing in US under Bayh-Dole.” There’s a series of articles here on 35 USC 204. There’s also discussion of the related march-in provision at 35 USC 203(a)(4) and the broader … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The non-preference for US manufacturing under Bayh-Dole

University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 11: Two key provisions

A university patent policy designed to promote effective technology transfer will have these key provisions: Voluntary participation Default institutional non-exclusive FRAND offer These are key elements. FRAND is “fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory.” We will work through the reasons why these … Continue reading

Posted in Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 11: Two key provisions

University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 10: Exclusivity compared

Now let’s look at a university that defaults to seeking an exclusive patent licensee instead. That comparison is even worse for leading with a patent license vs research review. There are way fewer folks out there in the technical world … Continue reading

Posted in Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 10: Exclusivity compared

University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 9: Booking transfer income

We are considering scenarios that involve patentable inventions as a way to get at what a university patent policy should look like to support effective technology transfer. We compared two scenarios. In the first, a university offers a non-exclusive patent … Continue reading

Posted in Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , | Comments Off on University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 9: Booking transfer income

University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 8: Transfer parameters

We are comparing two technology transfer scenarios as a way to get at effective university technology transfer policy. Here are the scenarios again: Scenario 1: University offers a non-exclusive patent license for $5,000 with no post-license assistance other than delivery … Continue reading

Posted in Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , | Comments Off on University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 8: Transfer parameters

University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 7: Transfer pathways

We are working through what a university patent policy should look like to support effective technology transfer practices. The Eat and Fart model–claim ownership of everything and mostly fart away opportunities to transfer so long as one exclusive deal every … Continue reading

Posted in Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 7: Transfer pathways

University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 6: Consider two scenarios

Once in Weisskirchen a man said: . “I never, never do that.” At the exact same time in Mühlhausen a woman said: “Beef with horseradish.” Both of them said what they said, because there was no other way. from “Glocke.” … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 6: Consider two scenarios

University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 5: Transfer relationships and leading assets

We are working on university patent policies for effective technology transfer. I have described the Eat and Fart model that dominates university patent practice: eat everything, fart a lot, and drop a financial turd once every decade or two to … Continue reading

Posted in Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 5: Transfer relationships and leading assets

Crap, crap, crap, Bayh-Dole, and crap talking points

Think of these as presentation slides, but without the actual mental pain of seeing slides. Bayh-Dole has failed to produce the outcomes claimed has destroyed university research freedom and technology transfer is a drafting nightmare of inconsistencies, half-hearted gestures, and … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , | Comments Off on Crap, crap, crap, Bayh-Dole, and crap talking points

Crap, crap, crap, Bayh-Dole, and crap (short attention span version)

Bayh-Dole is crap. Bayh-Dole practice is crap. Bayh-Dole outcomes are crap. Universities bluff about Bayh-Dole and about their metrics. Federal agencies don’t protect the public from university patent abuse. Federal agencies don’t act on the rights Bayh-Dole reserves for them. … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , | Comments Off on Crap, crap, crap, Bayh-Dole, and crap (short attention span version)