Category Archives: Bayh-Dole

Is this what Congress intended when it passed Bayh-Dole?

Would Congress have passed Bayh-Dole if things had been stated clearly? It is the policy and objective of Congress that nonprofit organizations should, for inventions arising in federally supported research or development: strip inventors of their common law rights in … Continue reading

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

How Bayh-Dole Is Intended to Work, circa 1992, Part 2

We are working through a paragraph from a law review article from 1992, taken perhaps out of context, but setting out how Bayh-Dole was “intended” to work. Our problem is not so much with the law professor who wrote the … Continue reading

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

How Bayh-Dole Is Intended to Work, circa 1992, Part 1

I found a passage quoted from an article from 1992 in Wisconsin Law Review–“Faculty Generated Inventions: Who Owns the Golden Egg?” by Pat K. Chew, a distinguished law professor now at the University of Pittsburgh. Chew describes how Bayh-Dole is … Continue reading

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

Invention Option Theory and Bayh-Dole Crock Work

At one point, many years ago, I thought Bayh-Dole was totally clever. I was very wrong, but here’s how I thought Bayh-Dole worked. The federal government had a general claim under federal law to own any invention made under federal … Continue reading

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

Fantasy depictions of technology transfer, 3

Despite all this discussion of university fantasy depictions of a technology transfer process, their invocation of the Bayh-Dole Act as their justification, and the reality that actual practice is nowhere like their depictions of process, success, or history, there are … Continue reading

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

Fantasy depictions of technology transfer, 2

The standard accounts of the “technology transfer process” seem so clear and plausible that you may well believe they are generally accurate, even if there might be “technical details” that they gloss over. But these standard accounts are largely, almost … Continue reading

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

On reasonable terms

Here is the definition of  to the point of practical application in the Federal Procurement Regulations, finalized in 1975, just five years before Bayh-Dole (41 CFR 1-9.107-5(a)(5)): “To the point of practical application” means to manufacture in the case of … Continue reading

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

The FPR criteria for invention ownership–2

We are talking the proposed goals for federal policy on the disposition of inventions made in projects worthy of federal support, circa 1973, by way of a Department of Commerce committee report. The report recommended as goals for deciding ownership … Continue reading

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

Patent rights follow-up: from the FPR to BD–2

We are working through the Federal Procurement Regulations (1975) advice with regard to the exercise of rights in inventions made in projects receiving federal support. We have looked at the first part of the opening statement and made the point … Continue reading

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

Patent rights follow-up: from the FPR to BD–1

Here’s some advice in the Federal Procurement Regulations (1975) with regard to the operation of the patent rights clause covering subject inventions. Bayh-Dole is built from the ruins of the IPA program and the FPR by the same folks who … Continue reading

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