Author Archives: Gerald Barnett

"Of the contractor" and Subject Inventions

Posted on June 22, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

Stanford v Roche makes clear that Bayh-Dole is not a vesting statute. It does not confer ownership of inventions made with federal support on contractors. Individual inventors own title to their inventions, and title is transferred by written agreement, as … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche | Comments Off on "Of the contractor" and Subject Inventions

Lessons, vol. 5

Posted on June 20, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

5. Bad advice abounds. There is plenty of bad advice abounding.   This stuff is not nearly as interesting to work through.  And it takes some time to chase down the implications of the advice. But if you hang with all … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Lessons, vol. 5

Pearling the Bozonet

Posted on June 17, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

Over at Pearltrees, I have been building out a documentary record of web materials that I have found useful in innovation, 3d printing, and related areas.  One of these involves the continuing development of bozonet theory.  Below is an embedded … Continue reading →

Posted in Bozonet | Comments Off on Pearling the Bozonet

Lessons, vol 4.

Posted on June 15, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

4.  AUTM is an inventor-loathing organization. This lesson is not one that carries any pleasure to write about.  It’s good that Bayh-Dole is not a vesting statute and that inventors own title to their inventions.  That’s just patent law.  It … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Lessons, vol 4.

Lessons, vol. 3

Posted on June 15, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

This one will be longer.   Sometimes the simple lessons are the hardest to make stick. 3.  University administrators don’t understand Bayh-Dole or innovation. Coleridge quipped that you know someone when you understand what they don’t know.   Let’s get to … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Lessons, vol. 3

Lessons, vol. 2

Posted on June 14, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

2.  Inventors own their inventions made with federal support. Stanford v. Roche is not simply a decision that argues for an additional technical step on the inevitable road to take all invention rights away from inventors as expeditiously and inevitably … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Lessons, vol. 2

Lessons, vol. 1

Posted on June 14, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

I will follow up on the points I made in a previous post with regard to Stanford v. Roche.  I will take these one by one. 1. Bayh-Dole is no vesting statute. Bayh-Dole does not overturn US patent law on … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Lessons, vol. 1

Bozocratic Dumbthink Alert

Posted on June 13, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

DLA Piper sent me an “alert” email with the heading “A Victory for Roche in a Case over Inventors’ Rights.” It includes this advice: The decision re-emphasizes the importance of university employers to require all employees and consultants to execute … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Policy, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | 1 Comment

Born to Waxen Wood

Posted on June 10, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

Vivek Wadhwa’s column at The Washington Post gets at the issues nicely.  This is a golden opportunity, he writes, to rethink the university approach to research commercialization. Bayh-Dole is good law.  But the university implementation of it is not good … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Born to Waxen Wood

What we learn from Stanford v. Roche

Posted on June 10, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

There are some valuable insights, but first the obvious.  Short form, big picture. 1.  Bayh-Dole is no vesting statute. 2.  Inventors own their inventions made with federal support. 3.  University administrators don’t understand Bayh-Dole or innovation. 4.  AUTM is an … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on What we learn from Stanford v. Roche