Tag Archives: Bayh-Dole

War and Publification of Medicine Development, 3

Think of it this way, at least simplistically. You are patent counsel for the NIH in 1968. You have no control over how the NIH allocates funding, and the NIH chooses to fund lots of research and declines to fund … Continue reading

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

War and Publification of Medicine Development, 1

In 1944, President Roosevelt asked Vannevar Bush to respond to four questions (or, perhaps it was Vannevar Bush who arranged for President Roosevelt to ask him four questions). These questions formed the foundation for his report Science the Endless Frontier. … Continue reading

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

University breach of Bayh-Dole’s standard patent rights clause

Let’s get at the consequence of two non-Bayh-Dole provisions injected into the standard patent rights clause stipulated by Bayh-Dole: the (f)(2) written agreement requirement and the (g)(1) requirements on subcontracts. In particular, let’s look at what happens when a university … Continue reading

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

A non-compliant Bayh-Dole written agreement at Yale-5

We are working through Yale’s “Patent Policy Acknowledgement & Agreement.” We have been looking at Paragraph 6 of the Yale patent policy to try to make sense of what inventions Yale really does assert an interest in. Paragraph 6 demands … Continue reading

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

A non-compliant Bayh-Dole written agreement at Yale-4

We are working through Yale’s “Patent Policy Acknowledgement & Agreement.” Most recently we borked about employment and faculty freedom. Now let’s look at how the agreement deals with consulting. It tries to worry the problem of conflicting obligations–Yale doesn’t want … Continue reading

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

A non-compliant Bayh-Dole written agreement at Yale-3

We are working through Yale’s “Patent Policy Acknowledgement & Agreement.” The agreement requires personnel signing it to “abide” by Yale’s patent policy, as if that patent policy does not apply but for this agreement. That’s a bit odd. Even odder, … Continue reading

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

A non-compliant Bayh-Dole written agreement at Yale-2

Now let’s look at a “Patent Policy Acknowledgement & Agreement” from Yale University. Here it is: Yale’s web site asserts that this agreement is required “for grant and patent compliance.” That’s a strange combination–grant and patent. One might think grant … Continue reading

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

A non-compliant Bayh-Dole written agreement at Yale-1

Bayh-Dole’s standard patent rights clause introduces a requirement not in Bayh-Dole. 37 CFR 401.14(f)(2) requires contractors to require their employees, other than clerical and non-technical employees, to make a written agreement to protect the government’s interest in subject inventions: The … Continue reading

Posted in Agreements, Bayh-Dole, Policy, Present Assignment | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

3 More Oddities of 35 USC 210

We are working through oddities of Bayh-Dole’s assertion of precedence over other Acts. 11. Consider some possible variations on 35 USC 210’s treatment of precedence. Here’s the present text of the start of 210(a) again: This chapter shall take precedence … Continue reading

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

10 Oddities of 35 USC 210

The Bayh-Dole Act does not repeal prior law with regard to inventions arising from federally supported research or development. Instead, it selectively preempts statutes (with some exceptions). Here is the start of 35 USC 210(a): This chapter shall take precedence … Continue reading

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