Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Author Archives: Gerald Barnett
Evaluating university claims of invention ownership
I am working through this idea that an invention is owned by a university merely as the result of work within the scope of employment or through the use of university facilities (and resources and funding and whatever–class 3 unknown). … Continue reading
Posted in IP, Policy, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on Evaluating university claims of invention ownership
An Exclusive Enjoyment
This case (US v Dubilier Condenser) from 1933 makes an interesting point regarding the idea of a patent as a “monopoly” (citations removed, my bold): Though often so characterized a patent is not, accurately speaking, a monopoly, for it is … Continue reading
All your works are belong to USC
Here’s one for you, from the University of Southern California Intellectual Property Policy. See if you can figure out what’s wrong untrue with this statement: Both California and federal law provide that the University owns all intellectual property created or … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, IP, Policy, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on All your works are belong to USC
Present Assignment ADD at UC
The University of California has present assignment language in its “Patent Acknowledgment“: I acknowledge my obligation to assign, and do hereby assign, inventions and patents that I conceive or develop within the course and scope of my University employment while … Continue reading
Posted in Agreements, Policy, Technology Transfer
1 Comment
Drafting the Unknown
As I’m reading through university IP policies, I’ve begun to notice how those drafting the policies are grappling with the unknown. There are a number of unknowns–many policies don’t evidence that the drafters know IP, and others work hard to … Continue reading
Posted in Agreements, Bozonet, IP, Policy, Technology Transfer
Tagged bozonet, Eriugena, policy, unknown
Comments Off on Drafting the Unknown
Fixin' for Some Bayh-Dole Fixing
Here’s more in the wild on vesting interpretations of Stanford v. Roche. Written by a suit of attorneys at the firm of Bracewell & Guiliani, it gets a piece of the Supreme Court decision right, does a decent job summarizing … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Innovation, Social Science, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on Fixin' for Some Bayh-Dole Fixing
The Party Boat
Here’s a bit from the Rice University Invention and Patent Policy: In the case of Government-supported research, the Bayh-Dole Act and subsequent amendments and federal regulations provide the basis for current University technology transfer practices. Accordingly, while the University is … Continue reading
MIT's Patent Policy Problem
During the kerfluffle known as Stanford v Roche, one of the big advocates for Bayh-Dole as a vesting statute was MIT. The MIT amicus brief is here. It’s in this amicus brief that the idea that a present assignment trumping … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Policy, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on MIT's Patent Policy Problem
The "Patent Problem" in 1948
I’ve been looking at university patent policies lately and came across this discussion of university patent policies by Archie Palmer from 1948, produced by the National Research Counsel and available through Google Books. The discussion is notable for the clarity … Continue reading
Posted in IP, Policy, Technology Transfer
2 Comments
The CHARM Act of 2012
We’ve had some long posts lately. It’s been necessary. And there will be more, to show just how thoroughly technology transfer programs have run amok, how there are viable and attractive alternatives, that there are folks ready to develop these … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on The CHARM Act of 2012