Tag Archives: scope

Univeristy and Exclusive Licensee Exposure to Bayh-Dole Non-Compliance

I’ll try to make this simple. When a university creates a written policy that commits it to attempting to commercialize inventions made with federal support, that policy alters the scope of any proposal the university submits for federal funding. Commercialization … Continue reading

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

Another question on RE: When does Bayh-Dole not apply?–2

Let’s get into the details–dance with devils, reveal Bayh-Dole’s true character. Get some sympathy. Let’s consider again that heading of Title 35 USC, Chapter 18: “Patent Rights in Inventions Made with Federal Assistance.” In Bayh-Dole, “patent rights” are restricted, relative … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Another question on RE: When does Bayh-Dole not apply?–2

Another question on RE: When does Bayh-Dole not apply?–1

When does Bayh-Dole not apply? Bayh-Dole is part of federal patent law, Title 35 USC, placed in Chapter 18 with heading “Patent Rights in Inventions Made with Federal Assistance.” Thus, broadly, we can expect that Bayh-Dole does not apply to … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Another question on RE: When does Bayh-Dole not apply?–1

An invention is not a thing, 2: The fringe cases and federal policy

We are working through the logic of Bayh-Dole’s requirements on ownership of inventions made in work receiving federal support. We have made the point that an invention is not a thing–it is a category, a set, a collection of ways … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on An invention is not a thing, 2: The fringe cases and federal policy

An invention is not a thing, 1: the “may be patentable” category

An invention is not a thing. An invention not a “cotton gin” or a “light bulb,” even though a cotton gin and a light bulb were once inventive. It doesn’t help to use things as proxies for inventions. An invention … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Tagged , , | Comments Off on An invention is not a thing, 1: the “may be patentable” category

Oh wow–short form

Bayh-Dole has to be broad Bayh-Dole’s scope has to be as broad as the broadest federal statute or regulation pertaining to federal rights to inventions. In Bayh-Dole, “subject invention” is defined broadly to include conception or first actual reduction to … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , | Comments Off on Oh wow–short form

The IPA and Wisconsin’s 1969 Patent Policy, 5

Start here: The IPA and Wisconsin’s 1969 Patent Policy, 1 The new 1969 Wisconsin patent policy broadens the scope of the university’s interest in patents yet further: Here is the Wisconsin IPA definition of “subject invention”: Both elements are essential … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Sponsored Research | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The IPA and Wisconsin’s 1969 Patent Policy, 5