Tag Archives: Wixon

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 , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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 , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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