Tag Archives: Latker

Bayh-Dole, Tyrannosaurus

Bayh-Dole is a mess of a law. There’s the mess of the conception itself, the disgusting and ineffectual idea that the federal government should sue its citizens for using inventions made with public funding to advance public purposes–and should do … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole, Tyrannosaurus

The point at which federal patent policy in 1971 broke from public interest

Here’s the point at which federal patent policy broke from the public interest. In 1971, President Nixon revised the Kennedy patent policy. One of the revisions was to the federal disposition of inventions. Here’s Kennedy: Government-owned patents shall be made … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History | Tagged , | Comments Off on The point at which federal patent policy in 1971 broke from public interest

The Purpose of Bayh-Dole: Some History

Bayh-Dole re-establishes a patent monopoly pipeline from federal funding to the pharmaceutical industry. The NIH first created this patent pipeline in 1968 when Norman Latker, patent counsel at the NIH, restarted the Institutional Patent Agreement program that had been allowed … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The Purpose of Bayh-Dole: Some History

Bayh-Dole Basics, 8: Reasonable Terms Comments-2

Now we get to government rights under march in. Here we have complications. In 1968, Norman Latker, NIH’s patent counsel, revived the Institutional Patent Agreement program, under which the NIH (and later the NSF) contracted with nonprofits so that a … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Basics, 8: Reasonable Terms Comments-2

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

Exceptional Circumstances in Bayh-Dole, 5

Despite the recognition that there are all sorts of federal research programs primarily directed at nonprofit-hosted research that would benefit from a determination that Bayh-Dole’s default provisions do not do a good job of promoting Bayh-Dole’s stated policy and objectives, … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Exceptional Circumstances in Bayh-Dole, 5

The mistaken assumptions of Bayh-Dole, 2

We are working with an article by Sean O’Connor to get at an underlying problem with discussion of Bayh-Dole. O’Connor, a law professor, appears to be working diligently to find a way to “fix” Bayh-Dole so that universities end up … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The mistaken assumptions of Bayh-Dole, 2

The mistaken assumptions of Bayh-Dole, 1

I know this article by Sean O’Connor on the mistaken assumption in Bayh-Dole is six years old and I have discussed this issue previously, but since it is out there on the web, and as far as I know it hasn’t … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on The mistaken assumptions of Bayh-Dole, 1

Does Bayh-Dole Require Reasonable Pricing?

[Revised and extended for clarity] Short answer: no, but well, sort of, er, actually–yes! but not what you might expect. In 2005, Norman J. Latker, the key draftsman of both the Institutional Patent Agreement and Bayh-Dole published a critique, along with … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Does Bayh-Dole Require Reasonable Pricing?