Category Archives: Stanford v Roche

Outline of the federal framework for the disposition of inventions

Posted on December 3, 2022 by Gerald Barnett

Here is an outline of the federal framework for inventions. I have included links to various documents. Lots more to be said, and the brief account here is more gist than deep summary, but perhaps you find it helpful. Plenty … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Undermining Bayh-Dole by relying on it? 1

Posted on March 10, 2022 by Gerald Barnett

I feel like Charlie Chaplin in a pie factory. Before I could work through an op/ed by Niels Reimers in the Mercury News last April (2021) that the Bayh-Dole Coalition has dredged up to contest the use of march-in to … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Commons, Policy, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Undermining Bayh-Dole by relying on it? 1

The use of the patent system for federal research results, 2: Why universities patent

Posted on July 30, 2021 by Gerald Barnett

For an account that covers reasonably well the context for universities getting involved in patenting, see Elizabeth Popp Berman’s 2006 paper “Why Do Universities Patent? The Role of the Federal Government in Creating Modern Technology Transfer Practice” (draft here). What … Continue reading →

Posted in History, Patents, Policy, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on The use of the patent system for federal research results, 2: Why universities patent

“Government” rights in federally supported inventions, 1

Posted on November 20, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

Bayh-Dole requires federal agencies to use a patent rights clause that includes a provision under which contractors who obtain ownership of a patentable invention made in the performance of work under a federal funding agreement and elect to retain that … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on “Government” rights in federally supported inventions, 1

Patent agreements in Federal Procurement Regulations and Bayh-Dole, 2

Posted on October 18, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

If we return for a moment to O’Connor’s article–it is a great read for what it aims to do, but for O’Connor’s theme of abstract mistaken assumptions rather than providing a specific account of Latker’s lack of drafting ability–there is … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Patent agreements in Federal Procurement Regulations and Bayh-Dole, 2

Invention, subject invention, and the clever scheme of Bayh-Dole

Posted on October 15, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

Here is the definition of invention in the Kennedy executive branch patent policy, 1963 (Section 4(b)): Invention or Invention or discovery–includes any art, machine, manufacture, design, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, or any variety … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Invention, subject invention, and the clever scheme of Bayh-Dole

More Impractical Advice About NIST’s Changes to Bayh-Dole’s Regulations

Posted on September 14, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

NIST–can’t live with them, but law firms sure can. Here’s another law firm popping off about NIST’s recent revisions to Bayh-Dole’s implementing regulations and standard patent rights clause. Keep in mind that NIST’s chief counsel is already on record not … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on More Impractical Advice About NIST’s Changes to Bayh-Dole’s Regulations

Best practices in university invention management, 1

Posted on June 4, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

Things get complicated that don’t have to be complicated when it comes to university ownership of inventions. Administrators make things complicated, then argue for lots of money to pay for the talent to navigate those complications, and then more money … Continue reading →

Posted in Agreements, Bozonet, Freedom, Policy, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Best practices in university invention management, 1

Has NIST finally created a foobar standard patent rights clause?

Posted on May 15, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

Words in laws ought to mean something. According to Bayh-Dole’s standard patent rights clause, the initial contractor must require its employees to make a written agreement to establish the government’s rights in subject inventions. But, but, but . . . … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Has NIST finally created a foobar standard patent rights clause?

NIST smokes Stanford v Roche, 2

Posted on May 14, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

Let’s get simple about the NIST rule change on assignment of subject inventions. This requires logic. I’m sorry about that. I know it’s not the Bayh-Dole way. Supreme Court: Bayh-Dole applies only to subject inventions. A subject invention is an … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on NIST smokes Stanford v Roche, 2