Tag Archives: disclosure

Bayh-Dole Basics, 7: Disclosure comments, 4

Though it’s rather useless to do so, let’s consider then the steps required by a Bayh-Dole compliant disclosure. I say it’s useless because no one complies with Bayh-Dole and federal agencies don’t care. The law doesn’t operate but enables something … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Basics, 7: Disclosure comments, 4

Bayh-Dole Basics, 7: Disclosure comments, 3

We are considering disclosure under Bayh-Dole. You may have thought that every invention made with anything like federal support must be disclosed. That you now know is not true. Under Bayh-Dole, inventors have no obligation to disclose anything, though they … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Basics, 7: Disclosure comments, 3

Bayh-Dole Basics, 7: Disclosure comments, 2

We are working through the details of Bayh-Dole’s requirement that all subject inventions must be disclosed. What are subject inventions? What is the scope of a funding agreement? Who must disclose? What is the nature of the disclosure? Good questions, … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Basics, 7: Disclosure comments, 2

Bayh-Dole Basics, 7: Disclosure comments, 1

This will be longish. For the brief of heart, here’s a synopsis. Invention disclosure is the heart of Bayh-Dole standard patent rights compliance. Disclosure is not reporting that an invention exists. Disclosure means providing, for an invention owned by a … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Basics, 7: Disclosure comments, 1

Bayh-Dole Basics, 7: Disclosure

The Bayh-Dole Act requires contractors who acquire title to an invention made in the performance of work under a federal funding agreement to disclose that invention to the federal government. Here’s 35 USC 202(c)(1), specifying one condition among others that … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Basics, 7: Disclosure

University of Connecticut patent practice hash, 2

The definition of subject invention in federal funding agreements is not a matter of university administrator preference. Either an invention meets the definition of subject invention or it doesn’t. The administrator’s job is to gather the documentation that provides the … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on University of Connecticut patent practice hash, 2

Penn State’s Protection Racket, 14: Assignment and Present Assignment

Here’s Penn State’s current IP Agreement’s sort-of assignment clause: In so agreeing, I especially acknowledge my responsibilities: (1) to assign and do hereby assign to the University (or its designee) all rights which I have or may acquire in inventions, … Continue reading

Posted in Agreements, Present Assignment | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Penn State’s Protection Racket, 14: Assignment and Present Assignment

The IPA and Wisconsin’s 1969 Patent Policy, 2

This article starts here: The IPA and Wisconsin’s 1969 Patent Policy, 1 In the new 1969 Wisconsin patent policy, we encounter a corporate agent and the passive voice: “it has become necessary for the University to scrutinize with care the … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Sponsored Research | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on The IPA and Wisconsin’s 1969 Patent Policy, 2

Do what you have promised to do: Further consequences of (f)(2)

[Updated with a discussion of NIST’s May 2018 rule change] The (f)(2) requirement in the standard patent rights clause authorized by the Bayh-Dole Act is a requirement for the host university to delegate, to flow down, to subcontract a portion … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Innovation, Policy | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Do what you have promised to do: Further consequences of (f)(2)