Category Archives: Bayh-Dole

A null hypothesis for the ITIF panel on Bayh-Dole

The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, a  self-described think tank based in Washington DC, will have a panel soon featuring Joe Allen and representatives from BIO and AUTM. Here’s the topic of the discussion: Join us on March 7 for … Continue reading

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

Are copyrights considered inventions under Bayh-Dole?

I saw a search show up here at Research Enterprise–“Are copyrights considered inventions under Bayh-Dole?” Simple answer. No. Brief answer. Copyright is a form of intellectual property. At one time, perhaps, the idea of copyright was itself a social invention. … Continue reading

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

Another university misrepresents Bayh-Dole

Here’s another misrepresentation of Bayh-Dole by a university technology transfer office–at Loma Linda University. This statement is typical of what happens when someone relies on the information put out by organizations such as AUTM–information people ought to be able to … Continue reading

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

Unhelpful NIAID guidance on Bayh-Dole, 2

We are working through another unhelpful NIAID document on Bayh-Dole. With such ubiquitous misinformation put out as authoritative, it is no wonder that Bayh-Dole has become an excuse for what amounts to ad hoc law, created by wonderful agreement between … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Unhelpful NIAID guidance on Bayh-Dole, 2

Unhelpful NIAID guidance on Bayh-Dole, 1

[NIAID had this document up for all of 2017, as far as I can tell. They have now removed it, and purged it from Google’s cache. But as far as I know, they have not corrected their misrepresentation nor broadcast … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Unhelpful NIAID guidance on Bayh-Dole, 1

Oh wow–short form

Bayh-Dole has to be broad Bayh-Dole’s scope has to be as broad as the broadest federal statute or regulation pertaining to federal rights to inventions. In Bayh-Dole, “subject invention” is defined broadly to include conception or first actual reduction to … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , | Comments Off on Oh wow–short form

Oh wow. Implications of Bayh-Dole’s broad scope

For Bayh-Dole’s preemption to operate “uniformly,” Bayh-Dole’s scope has to be as broad as any federal statutes and executive branch patent policy. Since those statutes and executive branch patent policy do not worry who has ownership of any invention “arising … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Oh wow. Implications of Bayh-Dole’s broad scope

Reagan’s Executive Order 12591-4

In the implementation of Bayh-Dole, then, employee-inventors own unless they assign rights to the Contractor. We can use “Contractor” with a capital “C” to follow the usage in the Federal Procurement Regulation’s patent rights clause that implements the Nixon patent … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Reagan’s Executive Order 12591-4

Reagan’s Executive Order 12591-3

President Reagan’s Executive Order 12591 does one more odd thing. It makes the contractor’s title to patents conditioned on a government license. But this government license is not the one required by Bayh-Dole. Here’s Bayh-Dole (35 USC 202(c)(4)): With respect … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Reagan’s Executive Order 12591-3

Reagan’s Executive Order 12591-2

So far we have discussed President Reagan’s Executive Order 12591 mandating the promotion of commercialization (something not in Bayh-Dole) by having federal agencies grant title to patents to all contractors–not just to large companies that otherwise operated still under the … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Reagan’s Executive Order 12591-2