Category Archives: Policy

University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 11: Two key provisions

Posted on October 13, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

A university patent policy designed to promote effective technology transfer will have these key provisions: Voluntary participation Default institutional non-exclusive FRAND offer These are key elements. FRAND is “fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory.” We will work through the reasons why these … Continue reading →

Posted in Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 10: Exclusivity compared

Posted on October 7, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

Now let’s look at a university that defaults to seeking an exclusive patent licensee instead. That comparison is even worse for leading with a patent license vs research review. There are way fewer folks out there in the technical world … Continue reading →

Posted in Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 9: Booking transfer income

Posted on October 6, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

We are considering scenarios that involve patentable inventions as a way to get at what a university patent policy should look like to support effective technology transfer. We compared two scenarios. In the first, a university offers a non-exclusive patent … Continue reading →

Posted in Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 8: Transfer parameters

Posted on October 5, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

We are comparing two technology transfer scenarios as a way to get at effective university technology transfer policy. Here are the scenarios again: Scenario 1: University offers a non-exclusive patent license for $5,000 with no post-license assistance other than delivery … Continue reading →

Posted in Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 7: Transfer pathways

Posted on October 4, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

We are working through what a university patent policy should look like to support effective technology transfer practices. The Eat and Fart model–claim ownership of everything and mostly fart away opportunities to transfer so long as one exclusive deal every … Continue reading →

Posted in Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 5: Transfer relationships and leading assets

Posted on September 30, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

We are working on university patent policies for effective technology transfer. I have described the Eat and Fart model that dominates university patent practice: eat everything, fart a lot, and drop a financial turd once every decade or two to … Continue reading →

Posted in Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 3: Yale patent policy on exclusive licensing

Posted on September 22, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

University patent policies do not address exclusive licensing, and yet exclusive licensing is at the core of much current university patent practice. Exclusive licensing is the key thing that Bayh-Dole enabled. And Bayh-Dole, in its federal agency licensing authorization, pees … Continue reading →

Posted in Policy | Tagged , , | Comments Off on University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 3: Yale patent policy on exclusive licensing

Reflections on Shill Reflections on Bayh-Dole, 7: Grubbers, innovation, and march-in

Posted on September 21, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

Reflections on Bayh-Dole by “industry leaders”–shills out shilling for industry. Good shilling earns shillings, so it is a viable career choice. We use these shills reflecting on Bayh-Dole to also reflect on Bayh-Dole, though our reflections won’t earn us any … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Reflections on Shill Reflections on Bayh-Dole, 7: Grubbers, innovation, and march-in

Reflections on Shill Reflections on Bayh-Dole, 6: Fragmentation, lockup, and babble talk

Posted on September 20, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

We are still reflecting on reflections on Bayh-Dole. It’s a hall of mirrors, with reflections all the way down to the insubstantial substance of the operation of the statute itself. We continue with a reflection on a reflection of what … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Reflections on Shill Reflections on Bayh-Dole, 6: Fragmentation, lockup, and babble talk

Reflections on Shill Reflections on Bayh-Dole, 5: Incentives and basic research

Posted on September 19, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

We have been working through a set of reflections on Bayh-Dole by a set of patents-in-healthcare shills. We are at this claim: prior to the Act, the government often funded research to spark innovation, but then put the research in … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Reflections on Shill Reflections on Bayh-Dole, 5: Incentives and basic research