Category Archives: Bayh-Dole

Study Example 1: “Reasonable terms” in Bayh-Dole

Here is Joseph Allen, attempting to make the case that “reasonable terms” in Bayh-Dole’s definition of practical application applies only to licensing terms: Bayh-Dole adopted many of these terms with their original meaning. Section 203 says that the agency funding … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Study Example 1: “Reasonable terms” in Bayh-Dole

Bayh-Dole Adds Bureaucracy, 2: Complications of Ownership Positions

So far, this should all be easy and clear. Heh. The Nixon patent policy states the general federal policy for inventions made with federal support. A set of specialty statutes supersede the Nixon patent policy for specific contracting purposes. Bayh-Dole … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Adds Bureaucracy, 2: Complications of Ownership Positions

Bayh-Dole Adds Bureaucracy, 1: Conditional Preemption

Bayh-Dole conditionally preempts federal statutes pertaining to the ownership of inventions made with federal support (35 USC 210(a)). If a party to a federal funding agreement acquires ownership of such an invention–a subject invention–then Bayh-Dole conditions, as conveyed through that … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Adds Bureaucracy, 1: Conditional Preemption

The Arizona Commerce Authority Guidance on Bayh-Dole, 5

What might the Arizona Commerce Authority do to revise their guidance? Here are some helpful suggestions. First, audience. Focus on small company issues and leave the nonprofits for another time. There’s plenty written for nonprofits elsewhere. Give an account of … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The Arizona Commerce Authority Guidance on Bayh-Dole, 5

The Arizona Commerce Authority Guidance on Bayh-Dole, 4

We are dealing with Arizona Commerce Authority advice about Bayh-Dole and IP rights. Almost done. Or fed up. Or bored with such nonsense. But first, march-in. Then general gestures about IP. The government’s march-in rights are one of the most … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The Arizona Commerce Authority Guidance on Bayh-Dole, 4

The Arizona Commerce Authority Guidance on Bayh-Dole, 3

We continue with our review of the Arizona Commerce Authority’s account of Bayh-Dole. The ACA has made these points [our comment]: Bayh-Dole is really broad [yes–but its breadth is not just in the scope of what’s patentable, but also in … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The Arizona Commerce Authority Guidance on Bayh-Dole, 3

The Arizona Commerce Authority Guidance on Bayh-Dole, 2

We are working our way through the Arizona Commerce Authority’s unhelpful misguidance to small businesses regarding Bayh-Dole. Our first article worked through the ACA’s fake law and fake history, culminating with its note about Stanford v Roche, a case important … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The Arizona Commerce Authority Guidance on Bayh-Dole, 2

The Arizona Commerce Authority Guidance on Bayh-Dole, 1

Here is the Arizona Commerce Authority providing advice about IP and the Bayh-Dole Act in the SBIR/STTR programs to small businesses. The article was apparently written a decade ago, updated with a note after Stanford v Roche (2011), and apparently … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The Arizona Commerce Authority Guidance on Bayh-Dole, 1

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 , , | Comments Off on More Discussion of “Reasonable Terms” Nonsense

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 , , , | Comments Off on Department of Education Open Licensing and Bayh-Dole Goofiness