Author Archives: Gerald Barnett

Another question on RE: what to do if a subcontractor has a subject invention?–3

Posted on October 9, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

Now for the mess. The standard patent rights clause inserts a provision that’s not authorized by Bayh-Dole and is a screwed up version of an FPR provision. This is the provision for a written agreement in 37 CFR 401.14(f)(2). The contractor agrees … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , | Comments Off on Another question on RE: what to do if a subcontractor has a subject invention?–3

Another question on RE: what to do if a subcontractor has a subject invention?–2

Posted on October 8, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

We are working through what to do if a subcontractor under a federal funding agreement for research or development has a subject invention–that is, an invention within the definition set out by Bayh-Dole that the subcontractor has acquired and was … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Another question on RE: what to do if a subcontractor has a subject invention?–2

Another question on RE: what to do if a subcontractor has a subject invention?–1

Posted on October 7, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

Bother. For the TL;DR crowd, I’ll copy the end to the beginning: What to do if a subcontractor has a subject invention? It’s not yours. It’s theirs. If the subcontractor is a company, then if you have previously negotiated a … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Another question on RE: what to do if a subcontractor has a subject invention?–1

Another question on RE: Can Bayh-Dole void an exclusive license?

Posted on October 4, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

Can Bayh-Dole void an exclusive license? Let’s unravel this one. A rewrite– Question: Can a federal agency void an exclusive license under Bayh-Dole’s standard patent rights clause? Answer: Yes. Now some text. The exclusive license voiding has more to it … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Another question on RE: Can Bayh-Dole void an exclusive license?

An invention is not a thing, 4: Compounds patented by GSK

Posted on October 3, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

An invention is not a thing, it is a collection or set. Consider this invention, “Compounds.” A US patent (10,428,078) was issued to GlaxoSmithKline Intellectual Property Development Limited on October 1, 2019–just a few days ago. An earlier patent (10,125,141) … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Tagged , , | Comments Off on An invention is not a thing, 4: Compounds patented by GSK

An invention is not a thing, 3: Some university policy definitions of invention

Posted on September 30, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

An invention is not a thing. An invention is a set of practices and objects. Invention is broader than just what’s patentable, as is the case with Bayh-Dole’s definition of invention, which includes stuff that’s not patentable and stuff that … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on An invention is not a thing, 3: Some university policy definitions of invention

An invention is not a thing, 2: The fringe cases and federal policy

Posted on September 28, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

We are working through the logic of Bayh-Dole’s requirements on ownership of inventions made in work receiving federal support. We have made the point that an invention is not a thing–it is a category, a set, a collection of ways … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on An invention is not a thing, 2: The fringe cases and federal policy

An invention is not a thing, 1: the “may be patentable” category

Posted on September 27, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

An invention is not a thing. An invention not a “cotton gin” or a “light bulb,” even though a cotton gin and a light bulb were once inventive. It doesn’t help to use things as proxies for inventions. An invention … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Tagged , , | Comments Off on An invention is not a thing, 1: the “may be patentable” category

Would you believe still more on Can universities assign patent rights under Bayh-Dole?

Posted on September 25, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

The distinction between exclusive license and assignment also matters in Bayh-Dole practice. Bayh-Dole’s definition of funding agreement at 35 USC 201(b) makes clear that any assignment by a contractor extends the funding agreement–and necessarily the patent rights clause–to the assignee. … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Would you believe still more on Can universities assign patent rights under Bayh-Dole?

More on Can universities assign patents rights under Bayh-Dole?

Posted on September 24, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

35 USC 201(b) makes clear that any assignee of a subject invention becomes a party to the funding agreement–a “contractor” in Bayh-Dole’s definitional usage: The term “funding agreement” means any contract, grant, or cooperative agreement entered into between any Federal agency, other … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on More on Can universities assign patents rights under Bayh-Dole?