Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Category Archives: Stanford v Roche
Outline of the federal framework for the disposition of inventions
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 Bayh-Dole, federal, framework, inventions, patents
Comments Off on Outline of the federal framework for the disposition of inventions
Undermining Bayh-Dole by relying on it? 1
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 Bayh-Dole, invention, Reimers
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
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
“Government” rights in federally supported inventions, 1
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 Bayh-Dole, government license, inherent government function, patent rights clause, slop
Comments Off on “Government” rights in federally supported inventions, 1
Patent agreements in Federal Procurement Regulations and Bayh-Dole, 2
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 assignment, Bayh-Dole, Federal Procurement Regulations, Latker, O'Connor, patent agreement, sly, written agreement
Comments Off on Patent agreements in Federal Procurement Regulations and Bayh-Dole, 2
Invention, subject invention, and the clever scheme of Bayh-Dole
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 bamboozled, Bayh-Dole, Federal Procurement Regulations, invention, subject invention
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
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 (f)(2), Bayh-Dole, clueless, garble, impractical advice, NIST, present assignment, ridiculous
Comments Off on More Impractical Advice About NIST’s Changes to Bayh-Dole’s Regulations
Best practices in university invention management, 1
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 invention, ipHandbook, ownership, policy
Comments Off on Best practices in university invention management, 1
Has NIST finally created a foobar standard patent rights clause?
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 assignment, Bayh-Dole, new rule, NIST
Comments Off on Has NIST finally created a foobar standard patent rights clause?
NIST smokes Stanford v Roche, 2
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 equitable title, NIST, prissy, Stanford v Roche, vesting, written agreement
Comments Off on NIST smokes Stanford v Roche, 2