Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Author Archives: Gerald Barnett
The Government Patent Market for Public Health Inventions, 4
The NIH’s Institutional Patent Agreement program, then, (i) ignores the distinction in the Kennedy patent policy between inventions made in research directly concerned with public health and inventions made in other research, (ii) expressly authorizes contractors to grant exclusive licenses, … Continue reading
The Government Patent Market for Public Health Inventions, 3
The NIH’s Institutional Patent Agreement program was framed in terms of the Kennedy patent policy. It ignored, however, the Kennedy patent policy distinction between discoveries directly related to public health and other discoveries. It could do so because it set … Continue reading
The Government Patent Market for Public Health Inventions, 2
There is another way, however, in addition to march-in, for the government to influence the commercial exploitation of health-related inventions made with federal support. Bayh-Dole has a clever design, but the people who drafted it made their mistakes. March-in has … Continue reading
The Government Patent Market for Public Health Inventions, 1
Let’s look at two things–Bayh-Dole’s standard patent right clause license to the government and 28 USC 1498. First, 28 USC 1498: Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is used or manufactured by … Continue reading
Bayh-Dole the Monster
The Bayh-Dole Act makes a great deal about public interest. Throughout the law are gestures toward worthy objectives–use of inventions, manufacturing in the United States, government licenses, and the right of federal agencies to step if they need to. But … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche
Tagged Bayh-Dole, invention, monster, NIH, patent, Stanford v Roche
Comments Off on Bayh-Dole the Monster
The laboratory and discovery
It’s a nice thought that faculty and students make their discoveries “in the lab” as a recent APLU infographic depicts. There certainly are discoveries made in laboratory work. But discoveries are also made out collecting samples, and in work shops, … Continue reading
Posted in Freedom, Innovation, Policy
Comments Off on The laboratory and discovery
Fenn and Shaw
Here are two court decisions at cross-purposes. In 1997, Shaw v The Regents of the University of California held that a patent agreement should be interpreted using common law of contracts and rejected the Regents contention that its patent policy … Continue reading
Posted in Agreements
Comments Off on Fenn and Shaw
The Key Provisions of Bayh-Dole
Now, with all that fusstation from the University of Pittsburgh out of the way, we might ask then what are the “key provisions” of Bayh-Dole that a university should make faculty and the public aware of. Only One Key Provision … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Technology Transfer
Tagged Bayh-Dole, compliance, contractor, invention, inventor, patent, patent rights clause
Comments Off on The Key Provisions of Bayh-Dole
The University of Pittsburgh’s Fake News Summary of Bayh-Dole, 4
We are working through the University of Pittsburgh summary of the Bayh-Dole Act, and I at least am getting increasingly grouchy as I do. How can someone writing for university faculty “innovators” get things so wrong in some many places? … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, History, Policy, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on The University of Pittsburgh’s Fake News Summary of Bayh-Dole, 4
The University of Pittsburgh’s Fake News Summary of Bayh-Dole, 3
We are working through the fake history published by the University of Pittsburgh regarding the Bayh-Dole Act and its “key provisions.” “Fake” is too light a word for it, but it’s trendy and so people get the general idea. Really, … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, History, Policy, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on The University of Pittsburgh’s Fake News Summary of Bayh-Dole, 3