Tag Archives: subject invention

The NIH’s View of Bayh-Dole Compliance, 6

Research Enterprise has been examining the NIH’s representation of Bayh-Dole. So far we have seen that the NIH persists in citing a 1995 document that gives “guidance” that the Supreme Court in Stanford v Roche (2011) rejected. But the NIH … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The NIH’s View of Bayh-Dole Compliance, 6

The NIH’s View of Bayh-Dole Compliance, 5

We are working NIH’s not so tasty guidance to participants in its SBIR and STTR programs directed at small businesses. We reach the NIH’s account of the “principal features” of Bayh-Dole, at least with regard to “intellectual property” requirements: Principal … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on The NIH’s View of Bayh-Dole Compliance, 5

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

NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 5

Unlike the other various fakographics and misguidances and misrepresentations of Bayh-Dole that we have reviewed, this slide deck by NIST’s chief counsel is distinctive, since NIST has primary responsibility for Bayh-Dole’s implementation and patent rights clauses. Thus, a failure to … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 5

NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 4

One last slide from NIST’s chief counsel’s talk from 2013. Much to discuss. How to unwind this assertion? The Bayh-Dole Act requires federal agencies to use an arbitrary default patent rights clause. In the absence of Bayh-Dole, executive branch patent … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 4

NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 3

NIST’s chief counsel gives, let us say, a unhelpful representation of the law. Let’s continue with his second slide titled “Bayh-Dole Highlights.” The government does not “retain” a license. The government is entitled to receive that license. The law uses … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 3

NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 2

As further evidence that NIST’s chief counsel does not properly describe Bayh-Dole, consider this point in his first slide of Bayh-Dole “highlights”: This point is accurate only in an obscure technical sense. Bayh-Dole does not preclude a contractor, having obtained … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 2

NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 1

In 2011, the Supreme Court provided a clear interpretation of the Bayh-Dole Act in Stanford v Roche. Bayh-Dole applies only to subject inventions. A subject invention is a patentable invention made in work funded by the federal government and owned … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 1

Guide to Bayh-Dole by the Layers, 1

[4/30/18: fixed an editing artifact, bringing together text on “housekeeping” into a single section where it belongs] A helpful way to look at Bayh-Dole is as a set of layers of law, regulation, contracting, enforcement, and outcomes. There are at … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Guide to Bayh-Dole by the Layers, 1

Subject invention reporting and federal funding agreements

It would be interesting to see an audit of university invention reporting practices, especially in light of the definition of “funding agreement” and what it means for an invention to be made “in the performance of work under a funding … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Subject invention reporting and federal funding agreements