Category Archives: Stanford v Roche

The NIH’s complicity in faux Bayh-Dole and high drug prices

Here’s “A ’20-20′ View of Invention Reporting to the National Institutes of Health”–published by the NIH in 1995. 2. WHAT IS THE BAYH-DOLE ACT AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? The Bayh-Dole Act encourages researchers to patent and market their inventions … Continue reading

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

The banal myth of the necessary institutional monopoly

Louis Rosenfeld wrote an insightful article in Clinical Chemistry on the discovery of insulin “Insulin: Discovery and Controversy.” Three collaborators in the research had a disagreement over inventive contributions to various portions of the work and to settle their disputes gave … Continue reading

Posted in Innovation, Policy, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

Bayh-Dole nonsense in a talk at the University of Pittsburgh

Last year (March 2016), Joe Allen gave a talk at the University of Pittsburgh, “Patent Ownership Under Bayh-Dole, reported in the University Times. Called “a key architect of the Bayh-Dole Act,” Allen manages to fill a talk summary with mostly … Continue reading

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

How Bayh-Dole went wrong and what might be done, 1

This article starts a series on structural problems in Bayh-Dole. As an architecture to take ownership of inventions from university investigators, Bayh-Dole suffers from significant flaws. The effort by university patent brokers and their biotech partners has been to cover … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Stanford v Roche | Leave a comment

Going to Eleven on NIST and (f)(2)

NIST is drafting new rules for the standard patent rights clause authorized by Bayh-Dole. Included in the proposed new provisions is a requirement that contractors require the assignment of inventions to the contractor. This is a bad idea. Besides, it’s … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Policy, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche | Leave a comment

Nothing more. Why (f)(2) isn’t an assignment requirement, and can’t be.

NIST proposes to “clarify” the (f)(2) clause of the standard patent rights clause authorized by Bayh-Dole to turn it into an assignment clause. This is wrong. I will explain. 1.  Bayh-Dole does not require an assignment clause. Bayh-Dole gives no … Continue reading

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

Working through an old op/ed on university ownership of inventions

I was out browsing the web and came across an op/ed from 2011 published in the Baylor University magazine Lariat. The anonymous author was opining about the Stanford v Roche case and the title makes clear the position: “Patents should … Continue reading

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

They just can’t kill the beast

After the Supreme Court ruled in Stanford v Roche, Joe Allen and Howard Bremer wrote an article (“After Stanford v Roche: Bayh-Dole Still Stands“) in which they asserted that they argued against the idea that Bayh-Dole vested with contractors ownership of inventions … Continue reading

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

Senator Bayh’s inventor-loathing faux Bayh-Dole Act

There has been plenty written about the practice lesson taught by the Supreme Court decision in Stanford v Roche. I’m dismayed how much of it shows no evidence of an awareness of the facts of the case and the primary … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Stanford v Roche | 1 Comment

There never was a promise to assign

When Stanford in its litigation against Roche appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, it included in its petition for certiorari a declaration by Luis Mejia, the licensing manager responsible for filing the patents and offering an exclusive license to Roche. … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Present Assignment, Stanford v Roche | Leave a comment