Tag Archives: march-in

Contractor Background Rights and March-in

Bayh-Dole’s march-in provisions (35 USC 203) are worthless. They were designed to be worthless, except for creating a show of public oversight and intervention that allowed Bayh-Dole to get through Congress and be signed into law. Bremer bragged about how … Continue reading

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

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

In Bayh-Dole the march-in for health or safety needs is drafted to prevent the government from breaking up private patent monopolies on supported inventions merely because there are health or safety needs. The default public policy in Bayh-Dole is that … Continue reading

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

Bayh-Dole Basics, 8: Reasonable Terms Comments-7

Now let’s look at Bayh-Dole’s treatment of march-in (35 USC 203(a)) and “reasonable terms”: . . . the Federal agency . . . shall have the right . . . to require the contractor . . . to grant a … Continue reading

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

Bayh-Dole Basics, 8: Reasonable Terms Comments-5

We are working through the prior federal regulations in an effort to understand the “reasonable terms” requirement in Bayh-Dole’s 35 USC 203(a)(1) march-in condition. In the Kennedy executive branch patent policy, contractors had two primary routes to retain ownership of … Continue reading

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

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

Bayh-Dole Basics, 8: Reasonable Terms Comments-1

This will be longish. It’s a document of the details. In a world where people spout TL;DR for most any issue of substance, and want a sound bite to gulp instead, this ain’t it. Perhaps we can get all brief … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Basics, 8: Reasonable Terms Comments-1

Bayh-Dole Basics, 8: Reasonable Terms

Bayh-Dole policy (35 USC 200) that the patent system is to be used “to promote the utilization of inventions arising in federally supported research or development.” That “utilization” is then set forth in the definition of “practical application” (35 USC … Continue reading

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

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

The dogs in the manger, 1

In 1979, R. Tenney Johnson, a career federal attorney,┬átestified before the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space on Senate bill S. 1215, the “Science and Technology Research Development Utilization Policy Act.” This was the bill that was competing with … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on The dogs in the manger, 1

Bayh-Dole Up Your Counsel, 3

I won’t belabor the problems in the next section of UpCounsel’s account of Bayh-Dole. The major provisions of Bayh-Dole are 1) a public covenant that runs with patent property rights on inventions arising in federally supported research or development–and specifically … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Up Your Counsel, 3