Category Archives: Bayh-Dole

We are going to have the discussion anyway

Posted on May 4, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

Karen White over at Almost White Pages has good thoughts about the challenges of providing university inventors with choices about who manages their inventions.  It’s clear this is not an easy issue, and I agree with Karen that it is … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on We are going to have the discussion anyway

What rot hath Bayh-Dole wrought?

Posted on April 28, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

What hath Bayh-Dole wrought? Or, more pointedly, what have university invention administrators done with the opportunity presented by Bayh-Dole? Over the past 30 years, university administrators have successfully: Changed a clustered federal system of patent accumulation for open release into … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Tagged , | Comments Off on What rot hath Bayh-Dole wrought?

What is and what should never be

Posted on April 28, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

I have a special regard for the Bayh-Dole Act from spending so much time working with it. I am impressed with the way that it balances uniform agency policy regarding federally supported inventions with the diversity of practices potentially available … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on What is and what should never be

A map of the Atlantic

Posted on April 22, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

The Atlantic has published yet another retrenchment piece by Allen and Bayh.  At least there is no question where they stand on the matter:  comprehensive, compulsory stripping of faculty rights to inventions is the way to prosperity and should be … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on A map of the Atlantic

The Dumbest Possible Model

Posted on April 18, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

It’s hard to describe how devastating the Stanford v Roche decision is to autocracy-minded university bureaucrats.  They claimed Bayh-Dole requires university ownership. So they instituted policies that require university ownership, “to comply with Bayh-Dole”. Then they argued in Stanford v Roche … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Commons, Policy, Present Assignment, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | 1 Comment

How Bayh-Dole was used to expand university IP claims

Posted on April 16, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

I’ve put together a graphic that shows a cascade of possible places where a university and faculty might consider the matter of ownership of inventions and works of authorship. I’ve arranged things into various rows, each with a corresponding letter … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Present Assignment, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on How Bayh-Dole was used to expand university IP claims

A carefully crafted scheme

Posted on April 14, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

How should a federal government deal with ownership of inventions made at universities with federal support? Consider the situation that existed at the time the Bayh-Dole Act was being implemented.  Many universities did not have technology transfer offices of the … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on A carefully crafted scheme

A present assignment wouldn’t have saved Stanford claim

Posted on April 13, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

Since the topic keeps coming up, let’s look again at Stanford v Roche.   The standard analysis is that the case teaches universities that they have to make their invention assignment agreements “tighter”.  The argument goes, in Stanford v Roche a … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Present Assignment, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on A present assignment wouldn’t have saved Stanford claim

A serious flaw in a paper about a serious flaw in Bayh-Dole that isn’t a flaw

Posted on April 12, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

A recent paper argues that there’s a hole in Bayh-Dole’s treatment of assignments.  I thought that for a while, but then I went and read the law and the implementing regulations and realized that there was no hole. In Stanford … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Innovation, Policy, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on A serious flaw in a paper about a serious flaw in Bayh-Dole that isn’t a flaw

The Retrenchment Movement

Posted on April 12, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

The Stanford v. Roche case was about how universities get ownership of inventions under Bayh-Dole. Stanford argued vesting. The Solicitor General argued voiding all other alternatives. WARF argued faculty were gullible, inept, and selfish. AUTM threw sticks and dirt in … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Tagged , | Comments Off on The Retrenchment Movement