Tag Archives: FPR

The FPR criteria for invention ownership–2

We are talking the proposed goals for federal policy on the disposition of inventions made in projects worthy of federal support, circa 1973, by way of a Department of Commerce committee report. The report recommended as goals for deciding ownership … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The FPR criteria for invention ownership–2

Unhelpful NIAID guidance on Bayh-Dole, 2

We are working through another unhelpful NIAID document on Bayh-Dole. With such ubiquitous misinformation put out as authoritative, it is no wonder that Bayh-Dole has become an excuse for what amounts to ad hoc law, created by wonderful agreement between … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Unhelpful NIAID guidance on Bayh-Dole, 2

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

Bayh-Dole’s “subject invention” botch of the Federal Procurement Regulations, 2

We are looking at how Bayh-Dole botches invention ownership. Where the Federal Procurement Regulations implemented in 1975 were clear, Bayh-Dole in 1980 is muddy. The FPR approach is simple: contractors must have patent agreements that ensure that contractors will be … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole’s “subject invention” botch of the Federal Procurement Regulations, 2