Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Author Archives: Gerald Barnett
In Defense of Inventor Liberty
University patent administrators are proposing a distorted reading of federal regulations in an effort to ensure that you never own your own inventions, even when you make them on your own time, outside of the use of university facilities. They think it makes … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Social Science, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on In Defense of Inventor Liberty
What if…Bayh-Dole is more clever than folks possibly imagine?
I am looking at the following argument. It is a what-if. It takes a very different approach to those arguments that assume that Stanford has a subject invention and is losing licensing income but for the action of an imprudent … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Comments Off on What if…Bayh-Dole is more clever than folks possibly imagine?
Thanksgiving
With this holiday in America being a time for giving thanks after the harvest and for the establishment of a constitutional government devoted to safety and happiness, making it a truly economic celebration built on a recognition of the good … Continue reading
Posted in History, Social Science, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on Thanksgiving
How is a Subject Invention perhaps like a Work For Hire?
Bayh-Dole defines a subject invention at 35 USC 201(e) (and repeated in the implementing regulations at 37 CFR 401.2(d)) as any invention of a contractor conceived or first actually reduced to practice in the performance of work under a funding … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged Bayh-Dole, subject invention, work for hire
Comments Off on How is a Subject Invention perhaps like a Work For Hire?
The Bitter Irony of Vesting
As you might have noticed if you have followed the development of my discussions on this blog, I have spent much time working through Bayh-Dole, often in association with the Stanford v. Roche case. As I’ve pointed out, I am … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on The Bitter Irony of Vesting
For every scenario, other scenarios
AUTM imagines faculty researchers messing around with patent obligations and creating a situation where no one has undivided ownership of a research invention. To AUTM, this is horrifying. How can one make money exclusively licensing to monopolists to make a … Continue reading
Posted in Agreements, IP, Sponsored Research, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on For every scenario, other scenarios
IP in 3DP
There are a couple of articles out now looking at IP in 3d printing. For the UK, see this article by Simon Bradshaw, Adrian Bowyer, and Patrick Haufe, and for the US, this white paper by Michael Weinberg. These articles … Continue reading
Posted in 3D Printing, IP
Comments Off on IP in 3DP
A Patent License in the DFARS
With all the talk about template patent licenses these days, I thought it might be worth pointing out that in the DFARS there is a template patent license that the Government expects when obtaining patent rights. You can find it … Continue reading
Posted in IP, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on A Patent License in the DFARS
Minimum Policy, Phase 2
[This is a pre-Stanford v Roche discussion. I have updated it for current CFR references. A contractor does not “elect title”–a contractor may “elect to retain title” that the contractor has obtained by conventional means. A contractor’s option under a … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Technology Transfer
Tagged (f)(2), Bayh-Dole, elect to retain title, principal investigator, title
Comments Off on Minimum Policy, Phase 2
Two paths you can go by
One can read Bayh-Dole to be a means of stripping university research personnel of their invention rights. This is the tornado view of Bayh-Dole. Wherever there is federal funding to universities, because Bayh-Dole says the university may elect to retain … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Comments Off on Two paths you can go by