Tag Archives: Federal Procurement Regulations

The FPR criteria for invention ownership–1

In June 1973, The Executive Subcommittee of the Federal Council for Science and Technology’s Committee on Government Patent Policy at the U.S. Department of Commerce, tasked with the codification of the patent policy established by President Nixon, made the following … Continue reading

Posted in History, Policy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The FPR criteria for invention ownership–1

Patent rights follow-up: from the FPR to BD–2

We are working through the Federal Procurement Regulations (1975) advice with regard to the exercise of rights in inventions made in projects receiving federal support. We have looked at the first part of the opening statement and made the point … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Patent rights follow-up: from the FPR to BD–2

When to disclose inventions? Part II: Bayh-Dole, 2

We are explaining why, despite widespread insistence by folks who set themselves up as experts, there’s no obligation in Bayh-Dole for inventors to disclose inventions made under a federal contract. The first point to be made is that if one … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on When to disclose inventions? Part II: Bayh-Dole, 2

15 USC 2218(d)

[updated to make clear 15 USC 2218(d) is specific to fire prevention and control legislation] A federal statute passed in 1974 establishes a federal policy with regard to inventions made with federal support–15 USC 2218(d), part of a fire safety … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on 15 USC 2218(d)

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

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 , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Patent agreements in Federal Procurement Regulations and Bayh-Dole, 2

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

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