Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Category Archives: Bayh-Dole
Summary points about Bayh-Dole
Bayh-Dole applies to federal agencies in their contracting with universities. It does not apply directly to universities. A standard patent rights clause (SPRC) is established by the Secretary of Commerce under the authority of Bayh-Dole. Universities agree to the SPRC, … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on Summary points about Bayh-Dole
Voluntary assignment complies with Bayh-Dole
From a US university IP policy: Federal law and regulations provide that the University has the right to retain title to any inventions conceived or made in whole or in part during federally funded grants and contracts….. The following is … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Comments Off on Voluntary assignment complies with Bayh-Dole
"Of the contractor" and Subject Inventions
Stanford v Roche makes clear that Bayh-Dole is not a vesting statute. It does not confer ownership of inventions made with federal support on contractors. Individual inventors own title to their inventions, and title is transferred by written agreement, as … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche
Comments Off on "Of the contractor" and Subject Inventions
Lessons, vol. 5
5. Bad advice abounds. There is plenty of bad advice abounding. This stuff is not nearly as interesting to work through. And it takes some time to chase down the implications of the advice. But if you hang with all … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on Lessons, vol. 5
Lessons, vol 4.
4. AUTM is an inventor-loathing organization. This lesson is not one that carries any pleasure to write about. It’s good that Bayh-Dole is not a vesting statute and that inventors own title to their inventions. That’s just patent law. It … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on Lessons, vol 4.
Lessons, vol. 3
This one will be longer. Sometimes the simple lessons are the hardest to make stick. 3. University administrators don’t understand Bayh-Dole or innovation. Coleridge quipped that you know someone when you understand what they don’t know. Let’s get to … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on Lessons, vol. 3
Lessons, vol. 2
2. Inventors own their inventions made with federal support. Stanford v. Roche is not simply a decision that argues for an additional technical step on the inevitable road to take all invention rights away from inventors as expeditiously and inevitably … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on Lessons, vol. 2
Lessons, vol. 1
I will follow up on the points I made in a previous post with regard to Stanford v. Roche. I will take these one by one. 1. Bayh-Dole is no vesting statute. Bayh-Dole does not overturn US patent law on … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on Lessons, vol. 1
Bozocratic Dumbthink Alert
DLA Piper sent me an “alert” email with the heading “A Victory for Roche in a Case over Inventors’ Rights.” It includes this advice: The decision re-emphasizes the importance of university employers to require all employees and consultants to execute … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Policy, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer
1 Comment
Born to Waxen Wood
Vivek Wadhwa’s column at The Washington Post gets at the issues nicely. This is a golden opportunity, he writes, to rethink the university approach to research commercialization. Bayh-Dole is good law. But the university implementation of it is not good … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on Born to Waxen Wood