Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Category Archives: Bayh-Dole
What has NIST done, actually?-3
The start of this article is here. We have been working through what NIST’s introduction of an assignment requirement for subject inventions actually does. In one view, nothing. In another, a technical if not prissy requirement that inventions a contractor … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged antipattern, assignment, equitable ownership, Moloch, NIST
Comments Off on What has NIST done, actually?-3
What has NIST done, actually?-2
Let’s work through what NIST has done with its new rule on assignment of subject inventions by written agreement. The Supreme Court in Stanford v Roche (2011) ruled that Bayh-Dole’s contracting provisions apply only to subject inventions, and that subject inventions … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged (f)(2), assignment, Bayh-Dole, equitable claim, NIST, service invention, Stanford v Roche
Comments Off on What has NIST done, actually?-2
What has NIST done, actually?-1
NIST has made an attempt to turn Bayh-Dole into a vesting statute. From all appearances, that is what a casual reader would think has happened with NIST’s new subject invention assignment language. With help from inept (if not complicit) university … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged assignment, Bayh-Dole, hogwash, NIST, patent rights clause, Stanford v Roche, subject invention
Comments Off on What has NIST done, actually?-1
NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 5
Unlike the other various fakographics and misguidances and misrepresentations of Bayh-Dole that we have reviewed, this slide deck by NIST’s chief counsel is distinctive, since NIST has primary responsibility for Bayh-Dole’s implementation and patent rights clauses. Thus, a failure to … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged Bayh-Dole, NIST, patent rights clause, practical application, public benefit, subject invention, Wixon
Comments Off on NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 5
NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 4
One last slide from NIST’s chief counsel’s talk from 2013. Much to discuss. How to unwind this assertion? The Bayh-Dole Act requires federal agencies to use an arbitrary default patent rights clause. In the absence of Bayh-Dole, executive branch patent … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged Bayh-Dole, clocks, licensing, NIST, patent rights clause, subject invention, Wixon
Comments Off on NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 4
NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 3
NIST’s chief counsel gives, let us say, a unhelpful representation of the law. Let’s continue with his second slide titled “Bayh-Dole Highlights.” The government does not “retain” a license. The government is entitled to receive that license. The law uses … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged Bayh-Dole, government license, march-in, NIST, patent rights clause, subject invention, Wixon
Comments Off on NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 3
NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 2
As further evidence that NIST’s chief counsel does not properly describe Bayh-Dole, consider this point in his first slide of Bayh-Dole “highlights”: This point is accurate only in an obscure technical sense. Bayh-Dole does not preclude a contractor, having obtained … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged (f)(2), Bayh-Dole, commercialization, NIST, patent rights clause, subject invention, Wixon
Comments Off on NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 2
NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 1
In 2011, the Supreme Court provided a clear interpretation of the Bayh-Dole Act in Stanford v Roche. Bayh-Dole applies only to subject inventions. A subject invention is a patentable invention made in work funded by the federal government and owned … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged Bayh-Dole, NIST, patent rights clause, presumption, Stanford v Roche, subject invention, Wixon
Comments Off on NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 1
Guide to Bayh-Dole by the Layers, 7
Eighth layer: Outcomes We reach the eighth and final layer of Bayh-Dole: outcomes. We can consider four elements of outcomes: activity, cost, practical application, and the effects of patent monopoly exclusion on such things as research, rapid industry and professional … Continue reading
Guide to Bayh-Dole by the Layers, 6
Sixth layer: Government rights Seventh layer: Enforcement of patent rights clauses We must also consider the flip side of contractor non-compliance with Bayh-Dole’s standard patent rights clause–federal agency enforcement of the patent rights clauses, waiver of these clauses, and federal … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged Bayh-Dole, enforcement, march-in
Comments Off on Guide to Bayh-Dole by the Layers, 6