Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Author Archives: Gerald Barnett
We are not talking about the rainbows
A while ago, Research Enterprise argued that the “manufactured substantially” requirement in Bayh-Dole, for all its gesture toward American manufacturing, is a nearly empty requirement. Absurdly narrow, easy to circumvent, waivable by federal agencies (“we tried and failed” or “we … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged Bayh-Dole, pharmaceutical industry, pipeline, rainbows
Comments Off on We are not talking about the rainbows
Some reading for technology transfer professionals
Every so often I have asked people what articles ought to be required reading for people in university technology transfer. One great suggestion is David Teece’s “Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy.” Another has … Continue reading
Posted in Technology Transfer
Tagged reading list, technology transfer
Comments Off on Some reading for technology transfer professionals
University of Connecticut patent practice hash, 4
So now back to UConn’s patent policy claim. Look at it again: Under Connecticut state law, the University owns all inventions created by employees in the performance of employment with the University or created with University resources or funds administered … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Stanford v Roche
Tagged IP policy, Stanford v Roche, University of Connecticut
Comments Off on University of Connecticut patent practice hash, 4
University of Connecticut patent practice hash, 3
Here’s UConn’s policy on invention ownership: Under Connecticut state law, the University owns all inventions created by employees in the performance of employment with the University or created with University resources or funds administered by the University (“University Inventions”). No … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy
Tagged (f)(2), 10a-110a, academic freedom, Bayh-Dole, Connecticut General Statutes, Moloch beer
Comments Off on University of Connecticut patent practice hash, 3
University of Connecticut patent practice hash, 2
The definition of subject invention in federal funding agreements is not a matter of university administrator preference. Either an invention meets the definition of subject invention or it doesn’t. The administrator’s job is to gather the documentation that provides the … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy
Tagged 37 CFR 401.14, Bayh-Dole, Connecticut, disclosure, invention, patent
Comments Off on University of Connecticut patent practice hash, 2
University of Connecticut patent practice hash, 1
Let’s work through the University of Connecticut’s intellectual property practice on disclosure and ownership of inventions. We will start in the middle, with a disclosure form–much like a university inventor might do. UConn has an “Innovation Alert” web “portal” that … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Present Assignment, Stanford v Roche
Tagged Bayh-Dole, Connecticut, invention disclosure, Moloch beer, present assignment, Stanford v Roche
Comments Off on University of Connecticut patent practice hash, 1
Subject invention reporting and federal funding agreements
It would be interesting to see an audit of university invention reporting practices, especially in light of the definition of “funding agreement” and what it means for an invention to be made “in the performance of work under a funding … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged Bayh-Dole, funding agreement, nonprofit, patent rights clause, subject invention
Comments Off on Subject invention reporting and federal funding agreements
The effect of eliminating Bayh-Dole invention reporting
The invention reporting requirement is fussy bureaucracy as it is presently practiced. Federal agencies appear to do nothing with the information reported other than to run up costs at taxpayer expense to receive the information. Nothing meaningful happens as a … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged Bayh-Dole, enforcement, kill Bayh-Dole, patent right clause, shadow patent office, subject invention
Comments Off on The effect of eliminating Bayh-Dole invention reporting
Why universities might fail to report subject inventions
James Love asks why universities fail to report subject inventions. The question might seem rather odd, because in practice Bayh-Dole has been construed to give university administrators incentives to expand the definition of subject invention and so claim anything and … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged Bayh-Dole, invention disclosure, KEI, reporting, subject invention
Comments Off on Why universities might fail to report subject inventions
Nonprofit assignment of subject inventions in the standard patent rights clause 37 CFR 401.14(a)(k)(1)
[As of May 14, 2018, NIST has relettered things so the reference is now 37 CFR 401.14(k)(1)–there cannot be multiple standard patent rights clauses anymore–just one big honking one with a maze of conditionals.] Universities ubiquitously claim as a matter … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged (k)(1), 35 USC 202(c)(7), assignment, Bayh-Dole, subject invention
Comments Off on Nonprofit assignment of subject inventions in the standard patent rights clause 37 CFR 401.14(a)(k)(1)