Category Archives: Stanford v Roche

Go West for Innovation!

Posted on July 13, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

Here is the biggest outcome of Stanford v Roche: Bayh-Dole does not require universities to take ownership of inventions made with federal funds, does not mandate that universities do so, does not restrain the rights of inventors so they can … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Commons, Policy, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Go West for Innovation!

Corrections Appended

Posted on July 11, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

Here is a university article from April, before the Supreme Court decision. I was hoping that the correction appended would have to do with errors having to do with Bayh-Dole, but no, it was not to be. Thus, I’ve supplied … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Corrections Appended

Good News! Universities may now destroy open research and violate Bayh-Dole at will!

Posted on July 11, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

Here is some advice for universities on Stanford v. Roche (“Notwithstanding The Supreme Court’s Ruling Against Stanford, Universities Have The Means To Protect Their Rights In Faculty Inventions”): “In a 7-2 decision delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court affirmed … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Good News! Universities may now destroy open research and violate Bayh-Dole at will!

5 Things to Learn about Stanford v Roche

Posted on June 28, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

1. Assignment of inventions to the university is not a condition of federal funding or federal law. Whatever demands assignment, it ain’t Bayh-Dole.  It is not true, and it is not even credible after Stanford v. Roche, to claim that … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on 5 Things to Learn about Stanford v Roche

"Of the contractor" and Subject Inventions

Posted on June 22, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

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

Posted on June 20, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

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.

Posted on June 15, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

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

Posted on June 15, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

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

Posted on June 14, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

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

Posted on June 14, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

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