Tag Archives: Federal Procurement Regulations

Bayh-Dole’s “subject invention” botch of the Federal Procurement Regulations, 1

Bayh-Dole botches its management of invention ownership. To see how, we need to look at how Bayh-Dole in 1980 changed the Federal Procurement Regulations put in place in 1975. In particular, let’s look at how the definition of subject invention … Continue reading

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

Patent agreements in Federal Procurement Regulations and Bayh-Dole, 2

If we return for a moment to O’Connor’s article–it is a great read for what it aims to do, but for O’Connor’s theme of abstract mistaken assumptions rather than providing a specific account of Latker’s lack of drafting ability–there is … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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 , , , , , | Leave a comment

Invention, subject invention, and the clever scheme of Bayh-Dole

Here is the definition of invention in the Kennedy executive branch patent policy, 1963 (Section 4(b)): Invention or Invention or discovery–includes any art, machine, manufacture, design, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, or any variety … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Invention, subject invention, and the clever scheme of Bayh-Dole