Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Author Archives: Gerald Barnett
Two Key Moves in IPA to Bayh-Dole
The short form on IPAs vs Bayh-Dole. Two big changes: 1. Bayh-Dole removes the requirement for university ownership The IPAs forced university ownership of inventions made by anyone working on a federally funded project–faculty, subcontractors, volunteers. Bayh-Dole and its CFR … Continue reading
TLO Summits, Cheap Talk, and Sacrifices
James Mawson has a thoughtful account of a recent meeting at UCSF to discuss how university technology transfer offices could better deal with current conditions for research, licensing, and money. A description of a meeting isn’t, of course, the meeting … Continue reading
Posted in Bozonet, Policy, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on TLO Summits, Cheap Talk, and Sacrifices
The Free Play of Free Intellects
The Bayh-Dole Act has been championed as a great turning point in the federal government’s management of inventions made by university faculty (for the most part) supported by federal money. The impression meant to be left with us is that … Continue reading
Posted in Agreements, Commons, Freedom, History, IP, Technology Transfer, Vannever Bush
Tagged free play, Vannevar Bush
Comments Off on The Free Play of Free Intellects
IPA compared with BD and its CFR and SPRC
I have created a table that lays out some of the differences between the 1968 HEW Institutional Patent Agreement template and the Bayh-Dole Act, the implementing regulations at 37 CFR Part 401, and in particular the Standard Patent Rights Clause … Continue reading
I want my, I want my IPA–Part IV
Previous parts of this essay (I, II, and III) have taken up the structural shift of Bayh-Dole from the Institutional Patent Agreement, removing assignment to the university but also relaxing licensing oversight to the point of non-consequence. What is left … Continue reading
I want my, I want my IPA–Part III
Part III continues a discussion of the changes from the Institutional Patent Agreement to the Standard Patent Rights Clause authorized by Bayh-Dole. (Part I is here; Part II, here). The Bayh-Dole Act was passed like swiss cheese, with a bunch … Continue reading
I want my, I want my IPA–Part II
The first part of this essay showed how the architecture of the Institutional Patent Agreement differs from the new structure introduced by the Bayh-Dole Act. An IPA was a master agreement while Bayh-Dole was embedded in patent law, applied to … Continue reading
I want my, I want my IPA–Part I
From time to time advocates of the idea that Bayh-Dole vests ownership of inventions with employers argue that the intent of the law was to build off of the Institutional Patent Agreement model developed by the NIH. The IPA approach … Continue reading
A Provisional History
I have been trying to figure out what happened to Research Corporation and why AUTM is so antagonistic to the idea of faculty inventors having a choice of who they work with to deploy their research findings. I call it … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on A Provisional History
Patent litigation: the new public purpose of the American research university
While working on a new Guide to Bayh-Dole (one that COGR has yet to thank me for), I spent some time looking at recent patent infringement litigation initiated by universities. It’s not a pretty picture. In “Sue U.,” Jacob H. … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, IP, Policy, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on Patent litigation: the new public purpose of the American research university