Category Archives: Bayh-Dole

More Discussion of “Reasonable Terms” Nonsense

Or, why certain Bayh-Dole pundits are wrong and how federal march-in might be something that companies might really want! There is absolutely no way that “reasonable terms” as a standard for march-in means “licensing terms” and does not concern “price.” … Continue reading

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

Department of Education Open Licensing and Bayh-Dole Goofiness

We have looked at fresh worthlessness of Bayh-Dole march-in in the context of Bayh-Dole’s defaults on required background invention licensing when a contractor licenses a foreground subject invention. We noted that 35 USC 202(f) provides for federal agencies to include … Continue reading

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

Contractor Background Rights and March-in

Bayh-Dole’s march-in provisions (35 USC 203) are worthless. They were designed to be worthless, except for creating a show of public oversight and intervention that allowed Bayh-Dole to get through Congress and be signed into law. Bremer bragged about how … Continue reading

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

Bayh-Dole Basics, 8: Reasonable Terms Comments-9

We can now–finally–oh gawd this is painful–turn to the place of “reasonable terms” in all of this mess of Bayh-Dole march-in. Simply, Bayh-Dole march in concerns itself with benefits of use available to the public on reasonable terms, not licenses … Continue reading

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

Bayh-Dole Basics, 8: Reasonable Terms Comments-8

In Bayh-Dole the march-in for health or safety needs is drafted to prevent the government from breaking up private patent monopolies on supported inventions merely because there are health or safety needs. The default public policy in Bayh-Dole is that … Continue reading

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

Bayh-Dole Basics, 8: Reasonable Terms Comments-7

Now let’s look at Bayh-Dole’s treatment of march-in (35 USC 203(a)) and “reasonable terms”: . . . the Federal agency . . . shall have the right . . . to require the contractor . . . to grant a … Continue reading

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

Bayh-Dole Basics, 8: Reasonable Terms Comments-6

Now let’s look at the transmogrification of the definition of practical application from Kennedy to Bayh-Dole. In doing so, we also will see how the usage of “reasonable terms” arises, along with Bayh-Dole’s introduction of “reasonably satisfies.” This gets detailed. … Continue reading

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

Bayh-Dole Basics, 8: Reasonable Terms Comments-5

We are working through the prior federal regulations in an effort to understand the “reasonable terms” requirement in Bayh-Dole’s 35 USC 203(a)(1) march-in condition. In the Kennedy executive branch patent policy, contractors had two primary routes to retain ownership of … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Basics, 8: Reasonable Terms Comments-5

Bayh-Dole Basics, 8: Reasonable Terms Comments-4

We are working through the details of prior treatments of what becomes “reasonable terms” in Bayh-Dole’s definition of “practical application.” This definition in turn becomes the threshold for federal agency march-in under 35 USC 203(a)(1)–the first of the four march-in … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Basics, 8: Reasonable Terms Comments-4

Bayh-Dole Basics, 8: Reasonable Terms Comments-3

We are working through the NIH’s Institutional Patent Agreement master template to establish the context for Bayh-Dole’s use of “reasonable terms” in its definition of practical application, which in turn establishes the march-in threshold for 35 USC 203(a)(1), one of … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Basics, 8: Reasonable Terms Comments-3