Tag Archives: (f)(2)

Bayh-Dole support for inventors and free competition

I made this a twitter thread. I’ll post it here as well and work to round it out as I have time. It’s the flip side of being blunt about what happens under Bayh-Dole if an inventor does not assign … Continue reading

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

Being blunt about Bayh-Dole operations, 2

Under Bayh-Dole, a federal contractor has no special right, and no obligation, to take ownership of inventions arising in federally supported research or development. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in Bayh-Dole that suggests that Congress had any intention to make … Continue reading

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

9 things Bayh-Dole does not require universities to do, part 3

We have worked through nine things Bayh-Dole does not require. Let’s come back around and work through in detail the disclosure requirement that Bayh-Dole does not require. Bayh-Dole has a disclosure requirement that is to be placed in the default … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on 9 things Bayh-Dole does not require universities to do, part 3

Reagan’s Executive Order 12591-4

In the implementation of Bayh-Dole, then, employee-inventors own unless they assign rights, such as to an institutional Contractor. We can use “Contractor” with a capital “C” to follow the usage in the Federal Procurement Regulation’s patent rights clause that implements … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Reagan’s Executive Order 12591-4

Bayh-Dole’s “subject invention” botch of the Federal Procurement Regulations, 3

A careful read of Bayh-Dole and its omission of the patent agreement requirement argues not only did Bayh-Dole reverse the “presumption” of federal ownership of inventions made under contract but also repudiated the federal requirement that contractors own inventions so … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole’s “subject invention” botch of the Federal Procurement Regulations, 3

Patent agreements in Federal Procurement Regulations and Bayh-Dole, 1

Sean O’Connor starts an excellent article that gives a detailed account of history behind the Bayh-Dole Act (“Mistaken Assumptions: the Roots of Stanford v. Roche in Post-War Government Patent Policy“) this way: The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 was built on a … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Patent agreements in Federal Procurement Regulations and Bayh-Dole, 1

Bayh-Dole’s Ruby Slippers

This is a story about 35 USC 201(b), 35 USC 202(a), 37 CFR 401.9, and 37 CFR 401.14(f)(2) and (g)(1). These provisions of Bayh-Dole, implementing regulations, and standard patent rights clause, when read together, create ruby slippers. The story requires … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole’s Ruby Slippers

More Impractical Advice About NIST’s Changes to Bayh-Dole’s Regulations

NIST–can’t live with them, but law firms sure can. Here’s another law firm popping off about NIST’s recent revisions to Bayh-Dole’s implementing regulations and standard patent rights clause. Keep in mind that NIST’s chief counsel is already on record not … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on More Impractical Advice About NIST’s Changes to Bayh-Dole’s Regulations

Mapping Bayh-Dole Flow of Control

I have updated this article from June 24, 2011  in light of the Stanford v Roche decision. In its previous version, the article sets out the idea that a federal agency has a right to claim title to inventions made … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Sponsored Research | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Mapping Bayh-Dole Flow of Control

Only Bayh-Dole and University Research Enterprise, 4

Consider, then, this (f)(2) written agreement requirement that’s outside Bayh-Dole but made a condition of federal funding agreements anyway. The (f)(2) requirement is most certainly not a private patent agreement between a university as employer and its faculty inventors. It … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Only Bayh-Dole and University Research Enterprise, 4