Category Archives: Bayh-Dole

Bayh-Dole Secrecy, Part 5

We have looked at Bayh-Dole and at FOIA. The upshot is that the 1984 amendment that changed Bayh-Dole’s secrecy requirement at 202(c)(5) from “may” to “shall” apparently fails to meet the requirements of FOIA for withholding information. 202(c)(5) does not … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Secrecy, Part 5

The heart plug in federal grants and contracts

I see a question in my search feed: “Does a Bayh-Dole patent clause make a grant a contract?” Let’s sort this out. Short answer. No, the presence of a patent rights clause does not change the nature of the agreement. Bayh-Dole … Continue reading

Posted in Agreements, Bayh-Dole, History, Sponsored Research | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The heart plug in federal grants and contracts

Bayh-Dole Secrecy, Part 4

We have been looking at the Bayh-Dole Act’s secrecy provision regarding invention use reports. That provision was changed from “may” to “shall” in 1984, and we have argued that the change in wording requires us to look for a change … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Secrecy, Part 4

Not fixing a hole in Bayh-Dole

Bayh-Dole does not disturb federal common law with regard to inventions. Inventors supported by federal research funds own their inventions. The Supreme Court made this clear in Stanford v Roche. Bayh-Dole applies to subject inventions only. Subject inventions are patentable inventions … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Freedom | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Not fixing a hole in Bayh-Dole

Bayh-Dole Secrecy, Part 3

Let’s examine the 1984 amendment to Bayh-Dole’s secrecy provision for invention use reports in more detail. It is worth pointing out that Section 202 of Bayh-Dole has been routinely amended and it would be worth at some point to show the … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Secrecy, Part 3

Bayh-Dole Secrecy, Part 2

We are working through how Bayh-Dole, a law that requires the patent system be used to promote the use of subject inventions with public benefits on reasonable terms, comes to be a law that gives the impression that required reports … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Secrecy, Part 2

Royalty-free exclusive licenses under Bayh-Dole?

A question popped up in my WordPress dashboard as a search query–“Is it ok to grant an exclusive royalty-free license under Bayh-Dole?” I thought I’d give an answer. Yes. There’s a bit of a problem, though.

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Comments Off on Royalty-free exclusive licenses under Bayh-Dole?

Bayh-Dole Secrecy, Part 1

Bayh-Dole makes information about the use of subject inventions a federal secret. Or, more accurately, Bayh-Dole excludes subject invention use information from disclosure under the Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Or, yet more accurately, Bayh-Dole requires federal agencies to … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Secrecy, Part 1

What about “recalibrating” Bayh-Dole?

In 2013, Howard Markel published a “perspective” in the New England Journal of Medicine on the Bayh-Dole Act, “Patents, Profits, and the American People–The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980.” In his article, Markel argues that Bayh-Dole should be “recalibrated,” in part … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy | Comments Off on What about “recalibrating” Bayh-Dole?

The Lack of Debate on University IP Management

Julie Preston, writing in MedCity News (“Why does anybody own CRISPR? An argument against academic IP“), reports on a talk given by Michael Eisen a few days ago. Eisen has published an article at his blog on the patent fight … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Comments Off on The Lack of Debate on University IP Management