Category Archives: Bayh-Dole

Exceptional Circumstances in Bayh-Dole, 9

We are working through the idea of exceptional circumstances in Bayh-Dole. There’s a problem here that lies at the root of the federal policy. Bayh-Dole states an arbitrary default–if a federal contractor acquires a patentable invention made in a project … Continue reading

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

Exceptional Circumstances in Bayh-Dole, 8

We  have looked at the NIH’s views on exceptional circumstances. We started with Dr. Thomas’s 2008 talk, with a discussion about how his talk fundamentally misrepresented Bayh-Dole. We then checked out the PHS Technology Transfer Manual’s statements of policy and … Continue reading

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

Exceptional Circumstances in Bayh-Dole, 7

The 2013 version of the PHS Technology Transfer Manual 607.1 on exceptional circumstances lists a set of questions that ought to be considered by those in an NIH institute or center (IC) in preparing a determination of exceptional circumstances. These … Continue reading

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

Exceptional Circumstances in Bayh-Dole, 6

You may think it’s mean of me to pick on Dr. Thomas for a talk that’s a decade old, and presented before the Stanford v Roche case was decided. If so, then you might want to consider the Public Health … Continue reading

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

Exceptional Circumstances in Bayh-Dole, 5

Despite the recognition that there are all sorts of federal research programs primarily directed at nonprofit-hosted research that would benefit from a determination that Bayh-Dole’s default provisions do not do a good job of promoting Bayh-Dole’s stated policy and objectives, … Continue reading

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

Exceptional Circumstances in Bayh-Dole, 4

In more plain language, even with regard to outcomes, Bayh-Dole is crappy public policy. At best, Bayh-Dole has enabled a betting parlor managed by nonprofits for the future value of patent rights, especially those patents directed at controlling the “market” … Continue reading

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

Exceptional Circumstances in Bayh-Dole, 3

“Exceptional” circumstances are not stated by Bayh-Dole to be rare or unusual ones–they could be common. Exceptional circumstances are those circumstances in which Bayh-Dole’s arbitrary default at 35 USC 202(a) is not the best thing for promoting the policy and … Continue reading

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

Exceptional Circumstances in Bayh-Dole, 2

Here’s the slide from Dr. Thomas that starts our descent into darkness. Part of the slide contents is accurate. Part is slipped. Let’s take up the slipped. First, Bayh-Dole does not say the federal government “retains patent rights” when the … Continue reading

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

Exceptional Circumstances in Bayh-Dole, 1

In 2008, Dr. Jeffrey W. Thomas, then a senior advisor to the Technology Transfer Center at the National Cancer Institute, gave a talk on Bayh-Dole’s exceptional circumstances. The slide deck is still up at a federal laboratory consortium web site. … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Exceptional Circumstances in Bayh-Dole, 1

AAU, APLU, and others aim to “bolster” federal technology transfer, 7

Frankly, I am weary of working through the HEAs’ nonsense advice to NIST. I expect you are too. Bullshit is so much more difficult to pin down than carefully reasoned discussion. It’s worth respecting carefully reasoned discussion, even if one … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on AAU, APLU, and others aim to “bolster” federal technology transfer, 7