Author Archives: Gerald Barnett

Why Bayh-Dole is Inspired Legislation

Patentdocs has a useful discussion of Stanford v. Roche, covering the key elements of the case and the history of decisions up to November of last year.   At the end, Kevin Noonan makes an effort to get at why there … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Comments Off on Why Bayh-Dole is Inspired Legislation

Your transfer to the unknown has come through

You know, the money sweet spot for invention commercialization is to take acute conditions and make them chronic.   That’s like a drug to treat the pain rather than an intervention that cures the condition causing the pain, or providing protection … Continue reading

Posted in IP, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Your transfer to the unknown has come through

A New Kind of Innovation Practice

Sloppy practice leaves university technology transfer programs exposed to claims of failure of consideration and lack of just compensation. A better way is to return to voluntary practice. Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, IP, Sponsored Research | Comments Off on A New Kind of Innovation Practice

Opening up technology transfer

Open innovation presents challenges to conventional forms of university technology transfer, even as the conventional forms are a start at open innovation. Continue reading

Posted in Commons, IP, Social Science | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Opening up technology transfer

Under strictly controlled conditions…

Section (e) ensures that pre-existing commitments by a university are still valid even if the government takes title to subject inventions, and certainly so otherwise, so long as the university reports the invention and there is practical application with benefits to the public. Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | 1 Comment

We have questions

When we interpret Bayh-Dole as a social text, we get beyond the immediate claims and into a territory that tests our competence. Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, IP, Literature, Social Science, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on We have questions

Not all title are belong to us

It’s clear that the standard patent rights clause in 37 CFR 401.14(a) does not expect to get all rights to title in inventions made in the course of federally funded research.  The written agreement in (f)(2) concerns itself only with … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Comments Off on Not all title are belong to us

It's just compensation

There are two ways there could be just compensation.  The first form of compensation is the provision of federal funds in support of research proposed by PIs.  It’s their work that the government supports.   Invention rights are deliverables in that … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Comments Off on It's just compensation

Whistling all the way to the bank

If  Bayh-Dole is a vesting statute, then it appears to be unconstitutional under the 5th Amendment. At the time of compulsory acquisition of title to inventions for public use, there’s no  just compensation. But hooray I think Bayh-Dole is constitutional, … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | 1 Comment

What Remains to Be Seen

I want to return to a paragraph from a previous post and go another direction with it: While the standard patents rights clause is indeed standard, the only two things about it that are standard are that it applies in … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on What Remains to Be Seen