Tag Archives: Bayh-Dole

The consequences of Bayh-Dole non-disclosure of inventions, 3

Finally, we reach a non-empty consequence of an invention becoming a subject invention, even if not disclosed to the federal agency. This consequence has to do specifically with subject inventions made under the nonprofit patent rights clause. Bayh-Dole stipulates that … Continue reading

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

The consequences of Bayh-Dole non-disclosure of inventions, 2

We are looking at the consequences of a contractor not disclosing a subject invention to the federal agency that funded work in which the invention was made. One consequence is that the federal agency “may receive title” to such an … Continue reading

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

The consequences of Bayh-Dole non-disclosure of inventions, 1

If the federal government had the courage to enforce any one thing in Bayh-Dole, it would be the nonprofit assignment and accounting requirements at 35 USC 202(c)(7). The federal government taking title to non-disclosed subject inventions is mostly useless. Let … Continue reading

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

Invention is not a thing, 14

Bayh-Dole’s public protection apparatus, even unused as it is, makes it clear that the federal invention economic system is intended to be different from that of private exploitation of patents for financial gain. In the federal economic system, patents are … Continue reading

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

Invention is not a thing, 13

There are two things that might prompt a university dealing in patents to adopt a policy default of non-exclusive licensing. One involves Bayh-Dole. The other involves a general argument directed at patenting’s public purpose–especially when a patent is held by … Continue reading

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

Invention is not a thing, 12

We have spent a great deal of time working through federal policy on research inventions to show how the idea that an invention is not a thing plays out–less well than one would like. Despite ambiguities, it would appear that … Continue reading

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

Invention is not a thing, 11

A similar analysis then can be done for the working requirement under Bayh-Dole for patents on subject inventions in other countries. Just because a contractor achieves practical application of an instance of a subject invention in the United States does … Continue reading

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

Invention is not a thing, 10

We have worked through the idea of invention holes–that an invention generally consists of instances, and instances may be evaluated as “easy”–meaning they can be used immediately with little expense–and “difficult”–meaning they require substantial effort to move from reduction to … Continue reading

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

An invention is not a thing, 9

The public policy idea around Bayh-Dole march-in would appear to be straightforward. It was so in the Kennedy patent policy: make the benefits of using an invention accessible to the public in three years from the date of a patent … Continue reading

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

An invention is not a thing, 8

The question to ask is not what was intended by Bayh-Dole but rather what ought to be federal policy regarding inventions made in work for which those involved have gone out of their way to apply for federal funding. As … Continue reading

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