Category Archives: Stanford v Roche

The banal myth of the necessary institutional monopoly

Posted on June 8, 2017 by Gerald Barnett

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 | Comments Off on The banal myth of the necessary institutional monopoly

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

Posted on June 7, 2017 by Gerald Barnett

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 | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole nonsense in a talk at the University of Pittsburgh

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

Posted on May 29, 2017 by Gerald Barnett

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 | Comments Off on How Bayh-Dole went wrong and what might be done, 1

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

Posted on May 6, 2017 by Gerald Barnett

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 | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Going to Eleven on NIST and (f)(2)

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

Posted on January 2, 2017 by Gerald Barnett

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

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

Posted on December 6, 2016 by Gerald Barnett

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 | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Working through an old op/ed on university ownership of inventions

They just can’t kill the beast

Posted on September 2, 2016 by Gerald Barnett

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 | Comments Off on They just can’t kill the beast

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

Posted on August 28, 2016 by Gerald Barnett

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

Posted on August 25, 2016 by Gerald Barnett

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 | Comments Off on There never was a promise to assign

Faux Bayh-Dole and Stanford v Roche

Posted on August 24, 2016 by Gerald Barnett

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 | Comments Off on Faux Bayh-Dole and Stanford v Roche