Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Category Archives: Bayh-Dole
What if…Bayh-Dole is more clever than folks possibly imagine?
I am looking at the following argument. It is a what-if. It takes a very different approach to those arguments that assume that Stanford has a subject invention and is losing licensing income but for the action of an imprudent … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Comments Off on What if…Bayh-Dole is more clever than folks possibly imagine?
How is a Subject Invention perhaps like a Work For Hire?
Bayh-Dole defines a subject invention at 35 USC 201(e) (and repeated in the implementing regulations at 37 CFR 401.2(d)) as any invention of a contractor conceived or first actually reduced to practice in the performance of work under a funding … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged Bayh-Dole, subject invention, work for hire
Comments Off on How is a Subject Invention perhaps like a Work For Hire?
The Bitter Irony of Vesting
As you might have noticed if you have followed the development of my discussions on this blog, I have spent much time working through Bayh-Dole, often in association with the Stanford v. Roche case. As I’ve pointed out, I am … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on The Bitter Irony of Vesting
Minimum Policy, Phase 2
[This is a pre-Stanford v Roche discussion. I have updated it for current CFR references. A contractor does not “elect title”–a contractor may “elect to retain title” that the contractor has obtained by conventional means. A contractor’s option under a … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Technology Transfer
Tagged (f)(2), Bayh-Dole, elect to retain title, principal investigator, title
Comments Off on Minimum Policy, Phase 2
Two paths you can go by
One can read Bayh-Dole to be a means of stripping university research personnel of their invention rights. This is the tornado view of Bayh-Dole. Wherever there is federal funding to universities, because Bayh-Dole says the university may elect to retain … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Comments Off on Two paths you can go by
Why Bayh-Dole is Inspired Legislation
Patentdocs has a useful discussion of Stanford v. Roche, covering the key elements of the case and the history of decisions up to November of last year. At the end, Kevin Noonan makes an effort to get at why there … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Comments Off on Why Bayh-Dole is Inspired Legislation
A New Kind of Innovation Practice
Sloppy practice leaves university technology transfer programs exposed to claims of failure of consideration and lack of just compensation. A better way is to return to voluntary practice. Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, IP, Sponsored Research
Comments Off on A New Kind of Innovation Practice
Under strictly controlled conditions…
Section (e) ensures that pre-existing commitments by a university are still valid even if the government takes title to subject inventions, and certainly so otherwise, so long as the university reports the invention and there is practical application with benefits to the public. Continue reading
We have questions
When we interpret Bayh-Dole as a social text, we get beyond the immediate claims and into a territory that tests our competence. Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, IP, Literature, Social Science, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on We have questions
Not all title are belong to us
It’s clear that the standard patent rights clause in 37 CFR 401.14(a) does not expect to get all rights to title in inventions made in the course of federally funded research. The written agreement in (f)(2) concerns itself only with … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Comments Off on Not all title are belong to us