Monthly Archives: November 2020

Necessary Federal Exclusive Licensing

Posted on November 29, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

The Harbridge House report in 1968 mused that based on survey responses from nonprofit patent administrators, . . . the inventions must frequently arise from basic research and require substantial private development before reaching the stage where they are commercially … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Necessary Federal Exclusive Licensing

The Turning Point in Federal Patent Policy

Posted on November 28, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

1971. Here’s where things started to go bad. In 1963, President Kennedy issued a memorandum setting forth executive branch patent policy. When the federal government acquired inventions, the policy stipulated that patents would be made available “through dedication or licensing”–that … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Freedom, History, Policy | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on The Turning Point in Federal Patent Policy

proto Bayh-Dole march-in, c. 1976

Posted on November 21, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

Bayh-Dole was the banana that finally stuck on wall, but Norman Latker had tried any number of schemes to circumvent federal policy requiring default open access to the inventions arising in work for which the federal government provided funding. People … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on proto Bayh-Dole march-in, c. 1976

NSF IPA Metrics 1974-78–Two tech transfer programs

Posted on November 20, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

Universities participating in the NSF’s IPA program operated two technology transfer programs. One program–the one endorsed by the IPA program–focused on patents and licensing. Of the 645 inventions reported by universities (and other nonprofits) made in work receiving NSF support … Continue reading →

Posted in Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on NSF IPA Metrics 1974-78–Two tech transfer programs

NSF IPA Metrics 1974-78

Posted on November 19, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

Beginning in 1974, the NSF ran an Institutional Patent Agreement (IPA) program until IPAs were shut down in 1978 as ineffective and counter to public policy. Bayh-Dole, one among a number of attempts, replaced the lost IPA programs in 1981. … Continue reading →

Posted in History, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , | Comments Off on NSF IPA Metrics 1974-78

The Thornton Bill’s “purposes” and Bayh-Dole’s “policy and objectives”

Posted on November 18, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

Bayh-Dole states its policy and objectives at 35 USC 200. Here there are, with a more readable layout: It is the policy and objective of the Congress to use the patent system to promote the utilization of inventions arising from … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The Thornton Bill’s “purposes” and Bayh-Dole’s “policy and objectives”

Why is an invention a subject invention?–2

Posted on November 10, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

We had a look at antecedents to Bayh-Dole’s strange definition of “subject invention.” We saw that the definition has two purposes– (1) to identify the use of the term “invention” with patent law, so Bayh-Dole works with a defined term … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , | Comments Off on Why is an invention a subject invention?–2

Why is an invention a subject invention?–1

Posted on November 4, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

Let’s look at three antecedents for Bayh-Dole’s definition of “subject invention”: The Institutional Patent Agreement master, 1968, that allowed participating non-profits to end-run DWEW contracting policy and take ownership of inventions made with NIH funding (Latker said that Bayh-Dole was … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Why is an invention a subject invention?–1