Tag Archives: Stanford v Roche

Federal law on inventions made with federal support, 2

Next, we add citations and qualifications to ground this framework. Specialty statutes for specific federal purposes control federal claims of ownership of inventions made under federal contract. See the list of such statutes at 35 USC 210. If a specialty statute … Continue reading

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

What the NIH says about Bayh-Dole, 1

The NIH has published comments on the NIST changes to the regulations that implement the Bayh-Dole Act and the standard patent rights clause. Jamie Love at Knowledge Ecology International calls out in a tweet a passage in the “Background” section in … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Open Source, Policy | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on What the NIH says about Bayh-Dole, 1

Exceptional Circumstances in Bayh-Dole, 2

Here’s the slide from Dr. Thomas that starts our descent into darkness. Part of the slide contents is accurate. Part is slipped. Let’s take up the slipped. First, Bayh-Dole does not say the federal government “retains patent rights” when the … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Exceptional Circumstances in Bayh-Dole, 2

AAU, APLU, and others aim to “bolster” federal technology transfer, 5

Higher education associations, led by AAU and APLU, give advice to NIST about ways to bolster federal technology transfer by telling NIST about non-federal university technology transfer. The HEAs have insisted that Bayh-Dole has been working as intended, which we … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on AAU, APLU, and others aim to “bolster” federal technology transfer, 5

The NIH’s View of Bayh-Dole Compliance, 4

Here’s the NIH offering an overview of Bayh-Dole for its SBIR and STTR programs. Much of the “information” here appears to be drawn from an NIH Q&A document from 1995. That document, “A ’20-20′ View of Invention Reporting to the … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The NIH’s View of Bayh-Dole Compliance, 4

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

What has NIST done, actually?-2

Let’s work through what NIST has done with its new rule on assignment of subject inventions by written agreement. The Supreme Court in Stanford v Roche (2011) ruled that Bayh-Dole’s contracting provisions apply only to subject inventions, and that subject inventions … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on What has NIST done, actually?-2

What has NIST done, actually?-1

NIST has made an attempt to turn Bayh-Dole into a vesting statute. From all appearances, that is what a casual reader would think has happened with NIST’s new subject invention assignment language. With help from inept (if not complicit) university … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on What has NIST done, actually?-1