Tag Archives: Bayh-Dole

The mistaken assumptions of Bayh-Dole, 2

We are working with an article by Sean O’Connor to get at an underlying problem with discussion of Bayh-Dole. O’Connor, a law professor, appears to be working diligently to find a way to “fix” Bayh-Dole so that universities end up … Continue reading

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

The mistaken assumptions of Bayh-Dole, 1

I know this article by Sean O’Connor on the mistaken assumption in Bayh-Dole is six years old and I have discussed this issue previously, but since it is out there on the web, and as far as I know it hasn’t … Continue reading

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

NIST smokes Stanford v Roche

I don’t know what NIST folks were thinking (fortunately). But here’s what may have happened. They may have in fact read Stanford v Roche, but that clearly has not helped them. They are still clueless. Supreme Court: Bayh-Dole applies only … Continue reading

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

“the same provisions as the contractor” in (k)(1)

Here’s a follow-up note on the nonprofit assignment restriction in 37 CFR 401.14(k)(1). With the NIST changes in the standard patent rights clauses, we might ask again about the interpretation of “such assignee shall be subject to the same provisions … Continue reading

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

NIST’s other changes to Bayh-Dole’s implementation, 2

We are working through NIST’s other changes to the implementation of the Bayh-Dole Act. It’s a rather strange exercise, since the standard patent rights clause required by Bayh-Dole as a default is not enforced and universities comply only with the … Continue reading

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

NIST’s other changes to Bayh-Dole’s implementation, 1

NIST’s new rules for the implementation of the Bayh-Dole Act go into effect in May 2018. I have worked through the assignment provision for federal contracts that has been added to the (f)(2) written agreement requirement and how nutty that … Continue reading

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

What has NIST done, actually?-2

Let’s work through what NIST has done with its new rule on assignment of subject inventions by written agreement. The Supreme Court in Stanford v Roche (2011) ruled that Bayh-Dole’s contracting provisions apply only to subject inventions, and that subject inventions … Continue reading

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

What has NIST done, actually?-1

NIST has made an attempt to turn Bayh-Dole into a vesting statute. From all appearances, that is what a casual reader would think has happened with NIST’s new subject invention assignment language. With help from inept (if not complicit) university … Continue reading

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

NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 5

Unlike the other various fakographics and misguidances and misrepresentations of Bayh-Dole that we have reviewed, this slide deck by NIST’s chief counsel is distinctive, since NIST has primary responsibility for Bayh-Dole’s implementation and patent rights clauses. Thus, a failure to … Continue reading

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

NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 4

One last slide from NIST’s chief counsel’s talk from 2013. Much to discuss. How to unwind this assertion? The Bayh-Dole Act requires federal agencies to use an arbitrary default patent rights clause. In the absence of Bayh-Dole, executive branch patent … Continue reading

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