Category Archives: Stanford v Roche

The Biddle Report’s Perfectly Fine Assumptions

From time to time, I revisit territory. I wrote about this issue almost two years ago, now. I provide here a different angle that gets at the same point. Here’s Sean O’Connor proposing that a flawed assumption in the U.S. … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Stanford v Roche | Comments Off on The Biddle Report’s Perfectly Fine Assumptions

Bayh-Dole the Monster

The Bayh-Dole Act makes a great deal about public interest. Throughout the law are gestures toward worthy objectives–use of inventions, manufacturing in the United States, government licenses, and the right of federal agencies to step if they need to. But … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole the Monster

Nolo Press Still Confused About Bayh-Dole, 2

Now the Nolo page turns to Stanford v Roche. Given how Nolo can’t seem to get much at all right about Bayh-Dole, what do you think the odds are with Stanford v Roche? Stanford v. Roche (2011): The Supreme Court … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Present Assignment, Stanford v Roche | Comments Off on Nolo Press Still Confused About Bayh-Dole, 2

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 | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The NIH’s complicity in faux Bayh-Dole and high drug prices

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 | Tagged , , , , , , , | 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