Category Archives: Bayh-Dole

“Finding 3: The system put in place by the Bayh-Dole Act, that is, university ownership of inventions from publicly funded research and latitude in exercising associated IP rights subject to certain conditions and limitations, is unquestionably more effective than its … Continue reading →

Finding 2: The transition of knowledge into practice takes place through a variety of mechanisms… Here we have a conflation of knowledge and technology transfer. Technology transfer is not about knowledge transfer. Or, the report might point out that university … Continue reading →

Well, the National Research Council has deliberated on university technology transfer, and apparently can’t get past the linear model, the consensus view of patent licensing, commercialization as the high point of dishing public assets to the wealthy and powerful, and … Continue reading →

Lots of questions remain from our variation on the theme. What about F’s written agreement? Can F sign any documents for the company, such as the declaration and oath that F is a true inventor? F has an obligation to … Continue reading →

We have looked at five ways Bayh-Dole can play out with a single faculty researcher, who we call F. These are government title, university title, third party title, inventor title, and public domain. We have emphasized that Bayh-Dole makes uniform … Continue reading →

Way 5. The university declines to elect to retain title, the government declines to request title, and F does not request to retain title. The invention enters the public domain (one year from publication or other statutory bar). Bayh-Dole does … Continue reading →

We can work a few variations now with faculty member F. The university has a standard IP policy with a promise to assign to the university. Let’s look at four basic possible outcomes. Then we can start to add variations. … Continue reading →