Tag Archives: written agreement

Patent agreements in Federal Procurement Regulations and Bayh-Dole, 2

If we return for a moment to O’Connor’s article–it is a great read for what it aims to do, but for O’Connor’s theme of abstract mistaken assumptions rather than providing a specific account of Latker’s lack of drafting ability–there is … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Patent agreements in Federal Procurement Regulations and Bayh-Dole, 1

Sean O’Connor starts an excellent article that gives a detailed account of history behind the Bayh-Dole Act (“Mistaken Assumptions: the Roots of Stanford v. Roche in Post-War Government Patent Policy“) this way: The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 was built on a … Continue reading

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

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

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

Do what you have promised to do: Further consequences of (f)(2)

[Updated with a discussion of NIST’s May 2018 rule change] The (f)(2) requirement in the standard patent rights clause authorized by the Bayh-Dole Act is a requirement for the host university to delegate, to flow down, to subcontract a portion … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Innovation, Policy | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Do what you have promised to do: Further consequences of (f)(2)

(f)(2), The Soul of Bayh-Dole

[Updated May 2018 to deal with the NIST screwballedness.] At the heart of the Bayh-Dole Act is the disposition of ownership in inventions made with federal funding at universities. That disposition is intended to provide benefits to the public through … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Present Assignment | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on (f)(2), The Soul of Bayh-Dole