Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Author Archives: Gerald Barnett
Bayh-Dole the Giant Turd
Howard Forman, a patent attorney, introduced the claim that the federal government had 26,000 unused patents in his testimony before a House subcommittee in 1976, and that the reason for the nonuse was that the government made the inventions available … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet
Tagged 28K patents, Bayh-Dole, giant turd
Comments Off on Bayh-Dole the Giant Turd
Five easy ways to circumvent Bayh-Dole’s “manufactured substantially” requirement
Bayh-Dole makes American manufacture of product based on subject inventions the centerpiece of the law. Bayh-Dole’s statement of policy and objective calls out promotion of inventions “made in the United States by United States industry and labor” (35 USC 200). … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged 204, assignment, Bayh-Dole, exclusive license, manufactured substantially, sole license
Comments Off on Five easy ways to circumvent Bayh-Dole’s “manufactured substantially” requirement
NSF’s circumvention of Bayh-Dole in cooperative research centers
Bayh-Dole positions the “preference” for United States industry as the most important provision of the law, asserting precedence over any other part of Bayh-Dole (see 35 USC 203). Bayh-Dole requires owners of subject inventions to require certain exclusive licensees to … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Sponsored Research
Tagged Bayh-Dole, circumvent, NSF
Comments Off on NSF’s circumvention of Bayh-Dole in cooperative research centers
What the NIH says about Bayh-Dole, 3
Now we arrive at the source of the NIH’s conflation in its most recent “background” misrepresentation of Bayh-Dole. We are deep into the federally owned invention side of Bayh-Dole, section 209(a), in a list of the requirements that must be … Continue reading
What the NIH says about Bayh-Dole, 2
We are working through the NIH’s most recent misrepresentation of the Bayh-Dole Act. In the first part of this effort, we looked at the NIH’s bungling of the basic premise of Bayh-Dole and the concept of practical application. Bayh-Dole’s first … Continue reading
What about inventions made on equipment purchased with federal funds?
How does the Bayh-Dole Act apply to inventions made using equipment purchased with federal funding? Here’s the thing–Bayh-Dole applies to inventions owned by a contractor–a party to a federal funding agreement for research or development. If the inventor is not … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged 37 CFR 401.1, Bayh-Dole, equipment, federal grant, ownership, rotsa ruck
Comments Off on What about inventions made on equipment purchased with federal funds?
What the NIH says about Bayh-Dole, 1
The NIH has published comments on the NIST changes to the regulations that implement the Bayh-Dole Act and the standard patent rights clause. Jamie Love at Knowledge Ecology International calls out in a tweet a passage in the “Background” section in … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Open Source, Policy
Tagged Bayh-Dole, crock, NIH, Stanford v Roche, subject invention
Comments Off on What the NIH says about Bayh-Dole, 1
Alternatives to Intellectual Property
I wrote a Quora answer to the question “What are the alternatives to intellectual property?” I cross-post it here. ***** Let’s divide things into intellectual property (IP—patents, copyrights, trademarks) and non-IP intangible assets (NIPIA). NIPIA assets include all sorts of … Continue reading
Patent agreements in Federal Procurement Regulations and Bayh-Dole, 2
If we return for a moment to O’Connor’s article–it is a great read for what it aims to do, but for O’Connor’s theme of abstract mistaken assumptions rather than providing a specific account of Latker’s lack of drafting ability–there is … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche
Tagged assignment, Bayh-Dole, Federal Procurement Regulations, Latker, O'Connor, patent agreement, sly, written agreement
Comments Off on Patent agreements in Federal Procurement Regulations and Bayh-Dole, 2
Patent agreements in Federal Procurement Regulations and Bayh-Dole, 1
Sean O’Connor starts an excellent article that gives a detailed account of history behind the Bayh-Dole Act (“Mistaken Assumptions: the Roots of Stanford v. Roche in Post-War Government Patent Policy“) this way: The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 was built on a … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, History
Tagged (f)(2), Bayh-Dole, Federal Procurement Regulations, mistaken assumption, patent agreement, written agreement
Comments Off on Patent agreements in Federal Procurement Regulations and Bayh-Dole, 1