Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Author Archives: Gerald Barnett
Status Update
If you are looking for new posts, you have just a bit longer to wait. Life pulls many ways! But I’ve got a number of articles drafted and more planned. When things settle down, I’ll have more time. Then things … Continue reading
Funnel vision and university default exclusive licensing
Much of the current, dominant narrative about patents at universities depends on looking isolating single inventions at a single institution with a single profile for use. “Inventions,” so this narrative go, will not be used or developed unless for each … Continue reading
Posted in Policy, Technology Transfer
Tagged defection, exclusive licensing, funnel, narrative, patent, technology transfer, turdly
Comments Off on Funnel vision and university default exclusive licensing
Learning from Latker’s 1984 “Federal Initiatives for Innovation” Talk, 3
Norman Latker, formerly patent counsel at the NIH and chief architect of Bayh-Dole and its extension by Presidential memorandum to all federal contracting, argues that if federal inventions are not privately owned and exploited for their exclusionary and financial value, … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy
Tagged Bayh-Dole, exclusive license, Latker, risk capital
Comments Off on Learning from Latker’s 1984 “Federal Initiatives for Innovation” Talk, 3
Learning from Latker’s 1984 “Federal Initiatives for Innovation” Talk, 2
Let’s return to Norman Latker’s talk from 1984, “Federal Initiatives for Innovation.” Keep in mind, Latker drafted the IPA master agreement, the Bayh-Dole Act, Reagan’s 1983 memorandum that displaced the Kennedy and Nixon patent policies, the 1984 amendments to Bayh-Dole … Continue reading
Senator Nelson on the problem of “public interest” in federal patent policy, 2
The federal public policy for inventions made in federally funded work then becomes “whatever the contractor that hosts the work chooses to do, so long as the contractor files a patent application.” In Bayh-Dole, there’s no federal review of a … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy
Tagged Bayh-Dole, Latker, Public Citizen, public interest
Comments Off on Senator Nelson on the problem of “public interest” in federal patent policy, 2
Senator Nelson on the problem of “public interest” in federal patent policy, 1
The “public interest” plays an important role in federal invention policy. In 1963, President Kennedy announced a policy that permitted nonprofit organizations to request to retain title to inventions made in federally funded work, providing that Where the commercial interests … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Vannever Bush
Tagged Bayh-Dole, IPA, Nelson, patent policy, public interest
Comments Off on Senator Nelson on the problem of “public interest” in federal patent policy, 1
Learning from Latker’s 1984 “Federal Initiatives for Innovation” Talk
In 1984 Norman Latker, who as NIH patent counsel drafted the Bayh-Dole Act on the sly, gave a talk (“Federal Initiatives For Innovation“) to the American Intellectual Property Association. At the time, Latker worked for the Department of Commerce, and … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Technology Transfer, Vannever Bush
Tagged Bayh-Dole, Latker
Comments Off on Learning from Latker’s 1984 “Federal Initiatives for Innovation” Talk
Congressional Intent and Bayh-Dole reasonable terms
We have looked at the idea of Congressional intent in the Bayh-Dole Act and contrasted this intent with the claims of enemies of Bayh-Dole who argue that they have secret inside knowledge of the true intent that should govern the … Continue reading
Congressional Intent and Bayh-Dole’s government license
Some folks who claim to advocate “for” Bayh-Dole, but actually are the law’s worst enemies, argue using the line “Bayh-Dole was never intended . . . .” They leave out the part about who they mean has been doing the … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged Bayh-Dole, government license, intention
Comments Off on Congressional Intent and Bayh-Dole’s government license
Another Question on RE: Does a subject invention have to be enabling?
A new question showed up in the RE search queue: “does a subject invention have to be enabling?” How to unwind this one? We can try. Another way to put it might be, “when does something new–an idea, an insight, … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged (f)(2), 35 USC 201(e), 35 USC 202(c)(1), 37 CFR 401.14(c)(1), disclosure, enablement, subject invention
Comments Off on Another Question on RE: Does a subject invention have to be enabling?