Tag Archives: 35 USC 200

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

Bayh-Dole’s patent law policy on patent property rights, 2

Posted on April 2, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

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 →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole’s patent law policy on patent property rights, 2

Bayh-Dole’s patent law policy on patent property rights, 1

Posted on April 1, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

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 →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole’s patent law policy on patent property rights, 1

WARF, Vitamin D, and the Public Interest, 2

Posted on October 4, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

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 , , , , , , | Comments Off on WARF, Vitamin D, and the Public Interest, 2

Enforce Bayh-Dole To Reform Bayh-Dole

Posted on March 12, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

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 , , , , | Comments Off on Enforce Bayh-Dole To Reform Bayh-Dole

Bayh-Dole basics, 1: public covenant comments

Posted on February 23, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

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 , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole basics, 1: public covenant comments

Bazooka or Squirt Gun?: Working through 35 USC 200

Posted on October 29, 2016 by Gerald Barnett

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 , , , , , , | 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?

Posted on September 19, 2016 by Gerald Barnett

[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 , , , , , | Comments Off on Would an Apple and Broadcom v Caltech case deliver a second pounding to faux Bayh-Dole?