Author Archives: Gerald Barnett

I have been working through Bayh-Dole.  You may have noticed.   The question that comes up is how does title to subject inventions get from the inventors to universities?   There are three possibilities. 1) universities rely on their own patent agreements … Continue reading →

I promised one more angle on Stanford v. Roche.  Here it is.  Read on, if you must.   What happens if AUTM’s cruel world argument prevails?  Let’s say the Supreme Court goes, why yes, Bayh-Dole *is* a vesting statute.  Is that … Continue reading →

What are some possible outcomes of Stanford v. Roche?  We will start out simple.  Then we will go into the darkness with a flickering candle. 1. AUTM is right and Bayh-Dole is a vesting statute.  Urk, cruel world. 2. The … Continue reading →

I was looking at the AUTM Practice Manual the other day.  The part about Bayh-Dole, written by a WARF attorney.  Funny, it argues that a university had better have an invention assignment policy to ensure that it can comply with … Continue reading →

Under the standard patent rights clause in Bayh-Dole (37 CFR 401.14(a)), a university taking title to subject inventions is restricted in its use of royalty income under section (k)(2) and (k)(3): (2) The contractor will share royalties collected on a … Continue reading →

When an invention is made, title to the invention—essentially the standing to file a patent application and have a patent issue in your name—is with the inventors.  Under the Patent Act, for that title to shift to anyone else, the … Continue reading →

Bayh-Dole is a law setting out how federal agencies contract with universities for invention rights. The key element is 37 CFR 401.14(a)(f)(2), the written agreements universities are to have with research employees that fully implement everything that Bayh-Dole is concerned with. Continue reading →