Tag Archives: Bayh-Dole

What the NIH says about Bayh-Dole, 2

We are working through the NIH’s most recent misrepresentation of the Bayh-Dole Act. In the first part of this effort, we looked at the NIH’s bungling of the basic premise of Bayh-Dole and the concept of practical application. Utilization is … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Commons, Open Source | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

What about inventions made on equipment purchased with federal funds?

How does the Bayh-Dole Act apply to inventions made using equipment purchased with federal funding? Here’s the thing–Bayh-Dole applies to inventions owned by a contractor–a party to a federal funding agreement for research or development. If the inventor is not … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

What the NIH says about Bayh-Dole, 1

The NIH has published comments on the NIST changes to the regulations that implement the Bayh-Dole Act and the standard patent rights clause. Jamie Love at Knowledge Ecology International calls out in a tweet a passage in the “Background” section in … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Open Source, Policy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Patent agreements in Federal Procurement Regulations and Bayh-Dole, 2

If we return for a moment to O’Connor’s article–it is a great read for what it aims to do, but for O’Connor’s theme of abstract mistaken assumptions rather than providing a specific account of Latker’s lack of drafting ability–there is … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Patent agreements in Federal Procurement Regulations and Bayh-Dole, 1

Sean O’Connor starts an excellent article that gives a detailed account of history behind the Bayh-Dole Act (“Mistaken Assumptions: the Roots of Stanford v. Roche in Post-War Government Patent Policy“) this way: The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 was built on a … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Invention, subject invention, and the clever scheme of Bayh-Dole

Here is the definition of invention in the Kennedy executive branch patent policy, 1963 (Section 4(b)): Invention or Invention or discovery–includes any art, machine, manufacture, design, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, or any variety … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Nonsense about Bayh-Dole from Bio, 2018 edition–2

We are working through the 2018 version of Bio’s misinfographic about Bayh-Dole and its relationship to drug prices. Bio report metrics from an AUTM report as if they are facts. But these are not facts–they are estimates from an unvalidated … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Nonsense about Bayh-Dole from Bio, 2018 edition–1

Let’s look at a new infographic from Bio about Bayh-Dole. It’s largely the same as the old infographics. The point of the infographic is to create the impression that the Bayh-Dole Act has been wildly successful and that any effort … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

WARF, Vitamin D, and the Public Interest, 3

The appeals court in Vitamin Technologists sets up the case for compulsory licensing of inventions owned by public universities as instruments of state governments. That is, the appeals court establishes the basis for public march-in when a state owns a … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Commons, History, Policy | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

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 , , , , , , | Leave a comment