Category Archives: Bayh-Dole

Undisclosed subject inventions made in development and commercialization contracts

A note on subject inventions not disclosed under Bayh-Dole–and a place for auditors to romp and play as auditors are wont to do, if auditors were ever to romp and play with regard to anything consequential in Bayh-Dole. What follows … Continue reading

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

Bayh-Dole’s Ruby Slippers

This is a story about 35 USC 201(b), 35 USC 202(a), 37 CFR 401.9, and 37 CFR 401.14(f)(2) and (g)(1). These provisions of Bayh-Dole, implementing regulations, and standard patent rights clause, when read together, create ruby slippers. The story requires … Continue reading

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

More Impractical Advice About NIST’s Changes to Bayh-Dole’s Regulations

NIST–can’t live with them, but law firms sure can. Here’s another law firm popping off about NIST’s recent revisions to Bayh-Dole’s implementing regulations and standard patent rights clause. Keep in mind that NIST’s chief counsel is already on record not … Continue reading

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

Illusions of Bayh-Dole: “manufactured substantially” 4

Previous articles in the series are here, here, and here. There’s a simple point to make about Bayh-Dole’s section 204 requirement that exclusive licenses to use or sell products based on a subject invention in the United States include an … Continue reading

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

Ten Year Note

Ten years ago, on September 4, 2008, I started the Research Enterprise blog. My idea was to use the blog to document what I had learned about university-based technology transfer over 15 years of licensing practice, and to describe ways … Continue reading

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

Exceptional Circumstances in Bayh-Dole, 10

We have been circling around the central problem of “exceptional circumstances” in Bayh-Dole. The law works to allow organizations to make decisions about patent monopolies that preempt other statutes–ones that “require a disposition of rights inconsistent” with Bayh-Dole’s arbitrary preemption … Continue reading

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

Who Owns Digital Learning Resources?–3

Plotkin moves on to make another good point–that “Big Pharma is the Model.” And it is–but the model is something other than the Cohen-Boyer patents that Plotkin launches into. Plotkin does not appear to recognize that Cohen-Boyer gene-splicing inventions were … Continue reading

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

Who Owns Digital Learning Resources?–2

We are looking at an article by Hal Plotkin, published a couple of years ago, that argues against the extension of Bayh-Dole to cover educational materials. Plotkin creates a dichotomy between universities wanting to play at being, or pandering to, … Continue reading

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

Who Owns Digital Learning Resources?–1

In March 2016, Hal Plotkin published “Who Owns Digital Learning Resources Funded by Taxpayers,” an article on the Department of Education’s proposal to require open licensing of works created with Department funding. Plotkin notes the objections of AAU and APLU … Continue reading

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

Bayh-Dole preempts NIH policy on improper financial gain

Here’s a passage from the NIH Grants Policy Statement (Part I, Chapter 4): NIH grants are subject to requirements intended to ensure that recipient organizations handle their Federal awards responsibly. Recipients are required to adopt and enforce policies that minimize … Continue reading

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