Tag Archives: NIST

The AUTM CEOs Speech, Fitt 2

We are working through a speech that the CEO of the Association of University Technology Managers gave at a recent symposium sponsored by NIST with the dubious title “Unleashing American Innovation.” Our CEO has made pompous claims about his organization … Continue reading

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

The AUTM CEOs Speech, Fitt 1

As part of NIST’s recent symposium on “unleashing American innovation,” the CEO of the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) read a talk. Let’s work through his talk and see what we can learn. I have made a transcript so … Continue reading

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

A law firm opines about a NIST rule, and I opine about the opining

A law firm gives an overview of the new NIST regulations for Bayh-Dole. It leads with fake history. Not a good sign. First enacted in 1980, the Bayh-Dole Act (as amended, the “Act”) for the first time permitted research institutions … Continue reading

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

Unleashing American Innovation

NIST convened a symposium in April 2018 titled “Unleashing American Innovation”: On April 19, 2018, thought leaders from across government, industry and academia gathered in Washington, D.C., to discuss how we can work together to address systemic barriers to catalyze the … Continue reading

Posted in Technology Transfer | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Has NIST finally created a foobar standard patent rights clause?

Words in laws ought to mean something. According to Bayh-Dole’s standard patent rights clause, the initial contractor must require its employees to make a written agreement to establish the government’s rights in subject inventions. But, but, but . . . … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Has NIST finally created a foobar standard patent rights clause?

NIST smokes Stanford v Roche, 2

Let’s get simple about the NIST rule change on assignment of subject inventions. This requires logic. I’m sorry about that. I know it’s not the Bayh-Dole way. Supreme Court: Bayh-Dole applies only to subject inventions. A subject invention is an … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on NIST smokes Stanford v Roche, 2

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

NIST smokes Stanford v Roche

I don’t know what NIST folks were thinking (fortunately). But here’s what may have happened. They may have in fact read Stanford v Roche, but that clearly has not helped them. They are still clueless. Supreme Court: Bayh-Dole applies only … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on NIST smokes Stanford v Roche

“the same provisions as the contractor” in (k)(1)

Here’s a follow-up note on the nonprofit assignment restriction in 37 CFR 401.14(k)(1). With the NIST changes in the standard patent rights clauses, we might ask again about the interpretation of “such assignee shall be subject to the same provisions … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on “the same provisions as the contractor” in (k)(1)

NIST’s other changes to Bayh-Dole’s implementation, 2

We are working through NIST’s other changes to the implementation of the Bayh-Dole Act. It’s a rather strange exercise, since the standard patent rights clause required by Bayh-Dole as a default is not enforced and universities comply only with the … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , | Comments Off on NIST’s other changes to Bayh-Dole’s implementation, 2