Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Author Archives: Gerald Barnett
Nothing more. Why (f)(2) isn’t an assignment requirement, and can’t be.
NIST proposes to “clarify” the (f)(2) clause of the standard patent rights clause authorized by Bayh-Dole to turn it into an assignment clause. This is wrong. I will explain. 1. Bayh-Dole does not require an assignment clause. Bayh-Dole gives no … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche
Comments Off on Nothing more. Why (f)(2) isn’t an assignment requirement, and can’t be.
Bayh-Dole all but mandates Government practice of subject inventions
The Bayh-Dole Act requires contractors retaining ownership of subject inventions to grant a non-exclusive license to the government. Commonly–and very wrongly–this license is depicted as a requirement that commercial vendors sell product based on subject inventions to the government “royalty-free”–meaning … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy
Tagged Bayh-Dole, government license
Comments Off on Bayh-Dole all but mandates Government practice of subject inventions
Federal patent policy for the 21st Century, Part 3
What’s funny (funny “strange” not funny “funny”) is that universities could implement the core of this version of the law themselves, right now, no politics necessary. Yes, there is still all the wasted paperwork to throw around under the current … Continue reading
Federal patent policy for the 21st Century, Part 2
In Part 1, I proposed a new law governing federal patent policy for public interest research conducted at universities–research to advance science and technology, or to address matters of public welfare. That new law carried with it public covenants that … Continue reading
Federal patent policy for the 21st Century, Part 1
How about a new Dole/Bayh Act? Of course, it will have different names attached to it. How about a law that tracks what Vannevar Bush recommended for scientific frontiers, nearly 75 years ago, in Science the Endless Frontier? One that puts inventors first. … Continue reading
Exclusive licensing in Bayh-Dole, Part 2: The Lost Requirements
Part 1 of this two-part series discussed the difference between exclusive license and assignment, and why Bayh-Dole’s wording on the one remaining restriction on exclusive licensing was worded as it was–“exclusive right to use or sell.” Let’s look at how … Continue reading
Evidence-based federal research patent policy
The Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking is holding a public hearing in Chicago in January for “any interested stakeholders” to provide input. Given that the commission’s statutory mandate is more toward database access and security, I’m not sure that the lack … Continue reading
Exclusive licensing in Bayh-Dole, Part 1: Licenses and Assignments
Here is what Bayh-Dole says about exclusive licenses: Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, no small business firm or nonprofit organization which receives title to any subject invention and no assignee of any such small business firm or nonprofit … Continue reading
Posted in Agreements, Bayh-Dole, IP
Tagged 35 USC 204, assignee, Bayh-Dole, do WTF law, exclusive license
2 Comments
Turning (f)(2) into an assignment clause violates Bayh-Dole
When I first looked through the proposed revisions to Bayh-Dole’s implementing regulations, it appeared that they applied to inventions made by federal employees and extended implementing regulations to include large businesses, consistent with a presidential executive order that does the … Continue reading
Boiling away “Why Bayh-Dole”
The basis of the patent system is individual inventor rights. Bayh-Dole strips these in favor of institutional exploitation. Bayh-Dole is inventor loathing. The results are terrible. Commercialization rates are 1/1oth what they were before Bayh-Dole. Bayh-Dole has created tens of … Continue reading
Posted in Bad Science
Comments Off on Boiling away “Why Bayh-Dole”