Category Archives: Stanford v Roche

Best practices in university invention management, 1

Things get complicated that don’t have to be complicated when it comes to university ownership of inventions. Administrators make things complicated, then argue for lots of money to pay for the talent to navigate those complications, and then more money … Continue reading

Posted in Agreements, Bozonet, Freedom, Policy, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Has NIST finally created a foobar standard patent rights clause?

Words in laws ought to mean something. According to Bayh-Dole’s standard patent rights clause, the initial contractor must require its employees to make a written agreement to establish the government’s rights in subject inventions. But, but, but . . . … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Has NIST finally created a foobar standard patent rights clause?

NIST smokes Stanford v Roche, 2

Let’s get simple about the NIST rule change on assignment of subject inventions. This requires logic. I’m sorry about that. I know it’s not the Bayh-Dole way. Supreme Court: Bayh-Dole applies only to subject inventions. A subject invention is an … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on NIST smokes Stanford v Roche, 2

NIST smokes Stanford v Roche

I don’t know what NIST folks were thinking (fortunately). But here’s what may have happened. They may have in fact read Stanford v Roche, but that clearly has not helped them. They are still clueless. Supreme Court: Bayh-Dole applies only … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on NIST smokes Stanford v Roche

University of Connecticut patent practice hash, 4

So now back to UConn’s patent policy claim. Look at it again: Under Connecticut state law, the University owns all inventions created by employees in the performance of employment with the University or created with University resources or funds administered … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , | Comments Off on University of Connecticut patent practice hash, 4

University of Connecticut patent practice hash, 1

Let’s work through the University of Connecticut’s intellectual property practice on disclosure and ownership of inventions. We will start in the middle, with a disclosure form–much like a university inventor might do. UConn has an “Innovation Alert” web “portal” that … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Present Assignment, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on University of Connecticut patent practice hash, 1

The devils in the details: Bayh-Dole supports academic freedom, 2

Part 1 of this article is here. By requiring the contractor to require “technical” employees to make a written agreement, (f)(2) does some fundamental things within the framework of definitions set up by Bayh-Dole. Watch the devils tumble out in … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Freedom, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on The devils in the details: Bayh-Dole supports academic freedom, 2

The devils in the details: Bayh-Dole supports academic freedom, 1

Bayh-Dole supports the academic freedom of faculty inventors. University administrators refuse to comply. Here, we walk through the law, the implementing regulations, the various patent rights clauses to show the result. Fair warning to university administrators reading this piece. I … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Freedom, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The devils in the details: Bayh-Dole supports academic freedom, 1

Whistling all the way to the bank, revisited 2

The “Whistling” article struggles with the problem of the standard patent rights clause language about “electing to retain title.” I’ve wondered over this wording for years. It appears to be at the heart of the “cleverly crafted scheme” to intercept … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Whistling all the way to the bank, revisited 2

Whistling all the way to the bank, revisited 1

Back in 2010, I wrote an article titled “Whistling all the way to the bank.” The article explored the problem of compensation tied to the argument that the Bayh-Dole Act was a “vesting statute” that vested ownership of inventions made … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Whistling all the way to the bank, revisited 1