Category Archives: Stanford v Roche

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

Faux Bayh-Dole and Stanford v Roche

I have been tracing the history of two versions of Bayh-Dole. One version is based in the law as written and reflected in the implementing regulations and the standard patent rights clause. The second version shows up immediately after the … Continue reading

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

Wisconsin continues to defy the US Supreme Court, five years on

Here is an excerpt from the University of Wisconsin’s current patent policy regarding the Bayh-Dole Act, under the heading “Federal Agreements”: In order to expand public use of inventions and in recognition of the need for establishing government-wide policies for the … Continue reading

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

Stanford v Roche was not about how to make Bayh-Dole into a vesting statute

The Stanford v Roche decision was not at all about the proper technical steps to make Bayh-Dole into a vesting statute. Even the Court’s minority opinion–what the lawyer-krakkens fixated on–was a musing on whether there should be any difference in the equitable ownership of an … Continue reading

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

The NSF recommends bureaukleptic compliance

Here’s interesting guidance in a footnote to the current NSF statement of terms and conditions for grants to universities: Footnote 2 offers a “reminder” that universities should adopt a present assignment in “employee assignment agreements.” The idea is that somehow … Continue reading

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

From provider to predator: University of Texas patent policy, Part 3

In Part 2 of this series I compared the preambles of the 1977 and 1988 versions of the University of Texas System patent-cum-intellectual property policies. The 1946 policy was so straightforward that it did not need a preamble. It was … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, History, Policy, Stanford v Roche | 2 Comments