Category Archives: Stanford v Roche

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

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 | 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

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)

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.

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

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

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

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 | Comments Off on There never was a promise to assign

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