Category Archives: Stanford v Roche

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

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