Tag Archives: invention

A sense of proportion–4

To lay it out in bullet points, the now dominant university patent-based approach to research inventions defaulting to exclusive licenses: fragments invention platforms with no way to restore them attracts speculative investors while pushing away companies raises barriers to early … Continue reading

Posted in Fun, History, Innovation, Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

A sense of proportion–3

Prior to federal funding becoming the dominant source of university research funding, most universities operated their invention policies with a review committee that made recommendations to the university president with regard to particular inventions. The volume of invention reporting was … Continue reading

Posted in History, Policy, Sponsored Research, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

A sense of proportion–2

University administrators have engaged in a thirty-year effort of research invention management that creates patent gridlock for what amounts to a tiny bit of the overall inventive activity in the country. That’s the black border area on this nice blue … Continue reading

Posted in Fun, History, Policy, Sponsored Research | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Protection” of inventions in Bayh-Dole

Twitter thread: Federal patent law uses “protect” with respect to inventions only in Bayh-Dole’s strange definition of invention at 35 USC 201(d): “is or may be patentable or otherwise protectable under this title” What does it mean to “protect” an … Continue reading

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

Another question on RE: When does Bayh-Dole not apply?–4

Now that you have a better idea about Bayh-Dole and have done some thinking about why someone might want it Bayh-Dole to apply and others might not want it to apply, let’s work the definition of invention (at 35 USC … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Another question on RE: When does Bayh-Dole not apply?–4

Another question on RE: When does Bayh-Dole not apply?–3

Back for more of when Bayh-Dole does not apply, I see. Well, let’s get serious about this. Let’s look at the Bayh-Dole definitional cascade for subject invention. We worked through “invention”–strange, broad, both patentable and not demonstrably not patentable, except … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Another question on RE: When does Bayh-Dole not apply?–3

Invention is not a thing, 14

Bayh-Dole’s public protection apparatus, even unused as it is, makes it clear that the federal invention economic system is intended to be different from that of private exploitation of patents for financial gain. In the federal economic system, patents are … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Invention is not a thing, 14

Invention is not a thing, 13

There are two things that might prompt a university dealing in patents to adopt a policy default of non-exclusive licensing. One involves Bayh-Dole. The other involves a general argument directed at patenting’s public purpose–especially when a patent is held by … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Invention is not a thing, 13

Invention is not a thing, 12: Licensing practices that recognize inventions aren’t things

We have spent a great deal of time working through federal policy on research inventions to show how the idea that an invention is not a thing plays out–less well than one would like. Despite ambiguities, it would appear that … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Invention is not a thing, 12: Licensing practices that recognize inventions aren’t things

Invention is not a thing, 11: Working requirements and the scope of “work”

A similar analysis then can be done for the working requirement under Bayh-Dole for patents on subject inventions in other countries. Just because a contractor achieves practical application of an instance of a subject invention in the United States does … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Invention is not a thing, 11: Working requirements and the scope of “work”