Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Top 48 Hour View List
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Tag Archives: 35 USC 200
Reflections on Shill Reflections on Bayh-Dole, 1: Intent and utilization
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 35 USC 200, Bayh-Dole, ineptocrats, intent
Leave a comment
Bayh-Dole’s patent law policy on patent property rights, 2
We are working through Bayh-Dole’s statement of policy at 35 USC 200 on the premise that this statement of policy, a part of patent law, has a material effect on the patent property rights of all inventions within the scope … Continue reading
Bayh-Dole’s patent law policy on patent property rights, 1
Bayh-Dole, part of federal patent law, starts with a statement of “Policy and Objective” at 35 USC 200. Usually, commentators treat this bit as “preamble” or “a restatement of legislative intent” or, bluntly, inoperative fluff. The commentators are wrong. 35 … Continue reading
WARF, Vitamin D, and the Public Interest, 2
We have worked through a 1945 appeals court reasoning about the University of Wisconsin’s president’s refusal to allow the licensing of an invention beneficial to public health for use in food products that might compete with State of Wisconsin dairy … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Commons, History, Policy
Tagged 35 USC 200, 35 USC 202, Bayh-Dole, Canned Water 4 Kids, IPA, monopoly meme, public interest
Comments Off on WARF, Vitamin D, and the Public Interest, 2
Enforce Bayh-Dole To Reform Bayh-Dole
I posted the first half of an article that lays out how Bayh-Dole, if university adminstrators complied with the law and its patent rights clause, would support the academic freedom of faculty inventors. I also pushed a related tweet thread … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged (f)(2), 35 USC 200, Bayh-Dole, Darth Vader, enforce
Comments Off on Enforce Bayh-Dole To Reform Bayh-Dole
Bayh-Dole basics, 1: public covenant comments
University patent administrators ignore Bayh-Dole’s statement of policy at 35 USC 200. At best, they treat it as a statement of objectives, not policy, and that these objectives are a problem for Congress if no one bothers to accomplish them. … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged 35 USC 200, Bayh-Dole, invention, public covenant
Comments Off on Bayh-Dole basics, 1: public covenant comments
Bazooka or Squirt Gun?: Working through 35 USC 200
Bayh-Dole gets at monopoly pricing through patent law, not licensing restrictions. Bayh-Dole is a part of federal patent law, not federal procurement regulations. This was a big change from the prior practice, including the Institutional Patent Agreement program. Unlike the … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged 35 USC 200, Bayh-Dole, covenant, march-in, policy, price, utilization
Comments Off on Bazooka or Squirt Gun?: Working through 35 USC 200
Would an Apple and Broadcom v Caltech case deliver a second pounding to faux Bayh-Dole?
[Yes, you read the title correctly–Apple and Broadcom should be suing Caltech.] In Bayh-Dole, the public covenant that runs with patent rights in subject inventions is not as well developed as it was in the Institutional Patent Agreements. It is … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Litigation
Tagged 35 USC 200, Apple, Bayh-Dole, Broadcom, Caltech, screw it all
Comments Off on Would an Apple and Broadcom v Caltech case deliver a second pounding to faux Bayh-Dole?