Category Archives: Bayh-Dole

What we learn from Stanford v. Roche

There are some valuable insights, but first the obvious.  Short form, big picture. 1.  Bayh-Dole is no vesting statute. 2.  Inventors own their inventions made with federal support. 3.  University administrators don’t understand Bayh-Dole or innovation. 4.  AUTM is an … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on What we learn from Stanford v. Roche

The Dark Lesson

There is a dark lesson in the Stanford v. Roche situation. For two years, university patent administrators have led an all-out attack on research inventors, have distorted Bayh-Dole, and demonstrated they form a monoculture of inventor-loathing, bureaucracy-creating political operators. It’s … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on The Dark Lesson

100% Bayh-Dole

There’s talk that the Stanford v. Roche decision somehow forces a change in university practice from using promises to assign in patent agreements to present assignments of future inventions. This is nonsense. The same loons who could not read Bayh-Dole … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on 100% Bayh-Dole

Seven Claims about Bayh-Dole

Let’s look at some of the claims made about Bayh-Dole. 1.  Bayh-Dole is about commercialization. Only a little tiny bit.  Get over it. No, really.  Look at the objectives of the Act, at 35 USC 200.  The primary emphasis is … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Seven Claims about Bayh-Dole

Harmonizing with the Wrong Thing

Which is more important, to harmonize US patent law with that of other countries, or to keep it consistent with the insights expressed in the US Constitution, which supports progress through the personal rights of inventors? The Constitution allows the … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, IP, Policy | Comments Off on Harmonizing with the Wrong Thing

Some of my favorite quotes

From the Opinion: The Act’s disposition of rights—like much of the rest of the Bayh-Dole Act—serves to clarify the order of priority of rights between the Federal Government and a federal contractor in a federally funded invention thatalready belongs to … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Comments Off on Some of my favorite quotes

Supreme Court rules on Bayh-Dole

From the Syllabus: Held: The Bayh-Dole Act does not automatically vest title to federally funded inventions in federal contractors or authorize contractors to unilaterally take title to such inventions. University faculty leadership now need to use this opportunity to reform … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Comments Off on Supreme Court rules on Bayh-Dole

University invention law in Ohio [updated with translations]

Here’s an interesting bit from the Ohio Revised Code (my emphasis in the text): 3345.14 Rights to and interests in discoveries, inventions or patents – establishment of rules. (B) All rights to and interests in discoveries, inventions, or patents which … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, IP, Policy | Tagged , | Comments Off on University invention law in Ohio [updated with translations]

The imp of the improbable

I’m working through The Black Swan by Nassim Taleb.   The book is about the ways in which we underestimate the improbable.  More deeply, it is about how little we know about the world and how much we fool ourselves into … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on The imp of the improbable

Closer to Which Heart?

Science has recently published an analysis of the Stanford v. Roche case.  AAAS came in as an amicus on the side of Stanford.   The account is useful for what it leaves out and for what it spins.   My comments aim … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Closer to Which Heart?