Category Archives: Technology Transfer

University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 10: Exclusivity compared

Posted on October 7, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

Now let’s look at a university that defaults to seeking an exclusive patent licensee instead. That comparison is even worse for leading with a patent license vs research review. There are way fewer folks out there in the technical world … Continue reading →

Posted in Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 10: Exclusivity compared

University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 9: Booking transfer income

Posted on October 6, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

We are considering scenarios that involve patentable inventions as a way to get at what a university patent policy should look like to support effective technology transfer. We compared two scenarios. In the first, a university offers a non-exclusive patent … Continue reading →

Posted in Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , | Comments Off on University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 9: Booking transfer income

University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 8: Transfer parameters

Posted on October 5, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

We are comparing two technology transfer scenarios as a way to get at effective university technology transfer policy. Here are the scenarios again: Scenario 1: University offers a non-exclusive patent license for $5,000 with no post-license assistance other than delivery … Continue reading →

Posted in Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , | Comments Off on University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 8: Transfer parameters

University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 7: Transfer pathways

Posted on October 4, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

We are working through what a university patent policy should look like to support effective technology transfer practices. The Eat and Fart model–claim ownership of everything and mostly fart away opportunities to transfer so long as one exclusive deal every … Continue reading →

Posted in Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 7: Transfer pathways

University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 5: Transfer relationships and leading assets

Posted on September 30, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

We are working on university patent policies for effective technology transfer. I have described the Eat and Fart model that dominates university patent practice: eat everything, fart a lot, and drop a financial turd once every decade or two to … Continue reading →

Posted in Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 5: Transfer relationships and leading assets

University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 4: The Eat and Fart Model

Posted on September 26, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

No one in their right mind reads a book primarily because it has a copyright. “Gosh, all these books in the public domain–I need to find one with a solid, enforced copyright!” Similarly, technologists with stable brains do not seek … Continue reading →

Posted in Metrics, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 4: The Eat and Fart Model

University Patent Thickets

Posted on September 24, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

Here’s a passage from Walton Hamilton and Irene Till, “What is a Patent” in the Spring 1948 issue of Law and Contemporary Problems: It is the very purpose of the patent lawyer to flood the office with an endless stream … Continue reading →

Posted in Commons, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on University Patent Thickets

Reflections on Shill Reflections on Bayh-Dole, 1: Intent and utilization

Posted on September 16, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

Rebecca Tapscott has posted an article at IP Watchdog, “Industry Leaders Reflect on Bayh-Dole at 40.” There are lots of problems with this article–and with the “leaders’” “reflections” when it comes to Bayh-Dole. But hey, folks are entitled to mis-remember … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Reflections on Shill Reflections on Bayh-Dole, 1: Intent and utilization

University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 2: Non-exclusive, voluntary, negotiated practice for effective technology transfer

Posted on September 10, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

We will get into the operational details of non-exclusive, voluntary, negotiated university IP management for effective technology transfer. Short answer–everything is navigable and has already been done, even if folks have forgotten how to do it. We can look at … Continue reading →

Posted in Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 2: Non-exclusive, voluntary, negotiated practice for effective technology transfer

University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 1: Outline

Posted on September 8, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

Universities have never had patent policies centered on technology transfer. Not back when, not now. It should come as no surprise that universities don’t track technology transfer and don’t report their outcomes. What would a university technology transfer IP policy … Continue reading →

Posted in Policy, Projects, Technology Transfer | Tagged , | Comments Off on University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 1: Outline