Tag Archives: Bayh-Dole

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: Licensing practices that recognize inventions aren’t things

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, Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Invention is not a thing, 11: Working requirements and the scope of “work”

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

An invention is not a thing, 10: Broad patent rights and licensing practices

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 , , , | Comments Off on An invention is not a thing, 9

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 , , , | Comments Off on An invention is not a thing, 8

An invention is not a thing, 7

Here we start to get at this problem of an invention not being a thing. The instance of an invention that might get one a patent is not necessarily the instance that one would build as a prototype. Furthermore, the … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on An invention is not a thing, 7

Another question on RE: what to do if a subcontractor has a subject invention?–1

Bother. For the TL;DR crowd, I’ll copy the end to the beginning: What to do if a subcontractor has a subject invention? It’s not yours. It’s theirs. If the subcontractor is a company, then if you have previously negotiated a … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Another question on RE: what to do if a subcontractor has a subject invention?–1

Another question on RE: Can Bayh-Dole void an exclusive license?

Can Bayh-Dole void an exclusive license? Let’s unravel this one. A rewrite– Question: Can a federal agency void an exclusive license under Bayh-Dole’s standard patent rights clause? Answer: Yes. Now some text. The exclusive license voiding has more to it … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Another question on RE: Can Bayh-Dole void an exclusive license?