Category Archives: Bayh-Dole

It’s a dead parrot, guys

Joe Allen, whom I respect a great deal for his work on Bayh-Dole, won’t give up after the ruling on Stanford v Roche.  He has published a piece that aims to undermine the arguments I made in a commentary published … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on It’s a dead parrot, guys

Getting it clear on the Stanford v Roche decision

While the history of the work to create the Bayh-Dole Act is always fascinating, the intentions and later reasoning about the law by advocates for legislation does not necessarily translate into the intention of Congress, nor to the actual language … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | 3 Comments

The loss of university invention selectivity

A primary argument for university involvement in the management of federally supported inventions was that university agents were reporting something like 30% of their inventions under management were being placed with commercialization partners, while the federal agencies’ rate was something … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on The loss of university invention selectivity

The Root of the Problem

In the current Businessweek there’s a short interview by Tom Keen with John Taft about the idea of stewardship in the banking industry.  The parallels with university IP are striking: [T]he leaders of our financial institutions lost touch with their … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Innovation, Policy, Social Science | Comments Off on The Root of the Problem

IP policy architectures, simpler than possible

One of the challenges of dealing with university technology transfer is that many of the descriptions of what is to be accomplished are cast in the singular, without context.  Policies are then built around these singularities, and anything multiple is … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Social Science, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on IP policy architectures, simpler than possible

Mapping Invention Portfolio Expectations

What is the shape of the unknown?  One might think, well, if it’s unknown, then how can we know?  And yet we work with the unknown all the time.  In this series of essays, a lot of my work has … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, IP, Present Assignment, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Mapping Invention Portfolio Expectations

Patent battles and research fragmentation

John Dvorak over at PC Magazine has an interesting comment on the patent battles shaping up in mobile.  His more general observation, however, is what  caught my eye: This whole idea of actual inventions and the monopoly is over. Around … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Commons, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Patent battles and research fragmentation

Projects, the Treatment for Fool's Dream Virus

The gulf between the Supreme Court decision in Stanford v Roche and the push in universities for present assignments is huge.   The Court decided the question whether Bayh-Dole was a vesting statute.  It said no. Wasn’t.  By doing that, … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Projects, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Projects, the Treatment for Fool's Dream Virus

Please Leave the Den Now

Attorneys analyzing Stanford v Roche and the Bayh-Dole Act from a distance need to understand: Bayh-Dole is directed at federal agencies.  It requires agencies to use a standard patent rights clause in their funding agreements.  The patent rights clause is … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet | Comments Off on Please Leave the Den Now

Recycling Losing Arguments as Policy Intent

In a recent essay on the Stanford v Roche decision, Sean O’Connor gives a fascinating perspective on the push by the University of California to impose a present assignment obligation on faculty.  I could not figure how they could rationalize … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Present Assignment, Stanford v Roche | Comments Off on Recycling Losing Arguments as Policy Intent