Category Archives: History

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

Posted on June 25, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

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

Posted on June 24, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

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

Posted on June 20, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

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 , , , | Leave a comment

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

Posted on June 10, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

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

Posted on June 7, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

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

Bayh-Dole Basics, 8: Reasonable Terms Comments-1

Posted on June 5, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

This will be longish. It’s a document of the details. In a world where people spout TL;DR for most any issue of substance, and want a sound bite to gulp instead, this ain’t it. Perhaps we can get all brief … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Basics, 8: Reasonable Terms Comments-1

Invention Option Theory and Bayh-Dole Crock Work

Posted on March 15, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

At one point, many years ago, I thought Bayh-Dole was totally clever. I was very wrong, but here’s how I thought Bayh-Dole worked. The federal government had a general claim under federal law to own any invention made under federal … Continue reading →

Posted in Agreements, Bayh-Dole, History | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Invention Option Theory and Bayh-Dole Crock Work

The FPR criteria for invention ownership–2

Posted on March 5, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

We are talking the proposed goals for federal policy on the disposition of inventions made in projects worthy of federal support, circa 1973, by way of a Department of Commerce committee report. The report recommended as goals for deciding ownership … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The FPR criteria for invention ownership–2

The FPR criteria for invention ownership–1

Posted on March 1, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

In June 1973, The Executive Subcommittee of the Federal Council for Science and Technology’s Committee on Government Patent Policy at the U.S. Department of Commerce, tasked with the codification of the patent policy established by President Nixon, made the following … Continue reading →

Posted in History, Policy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The FPR criteria for invention ownership–1

Patent rights follow-up: from the FPR to BD–2

Posted on February 28, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

We are working through the Federal Procurement Regulations (1975) advice with regard to the exercise of rights in inventions made in projects receiving federal support. We have looked at the first part of the opening statement and made the point … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Patent rights follow-up: from the FPR to BD–2