Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Category Archives: Stanford v Roche
NIST smokes Stanford v Roche
I don’t know what NIST folks were thinking (fortunately). But here’s what may have happened. They may have in fact read Stanford v Roche, but that clearly has not helped them. They are still clueless. Supreme Court: Bayh-Dole applies only … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche
Tagged Bayh-Dole, NIST, Stanford v Roche, stupid
Comments Off on NIST smokes Stanford v Roche
University of Connecticut patent practice hash, 4
So now back to UConn’s patent policy claim. Look at it again: Under Connecticut state law, the University owns all inventions created by employees in the performance of employment with the University or created with University resources or funds administered … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Stanford v Roche
Tagged IP policy, Stanford v Roche, University of Connecticut
Comments Off on University of Connecticut patent practice hash, 4
University of Connecticut patent practice hash, 1
Let’s work through the University of Connecticut’s intellectual property practice on disclosure and ownership of inventions. We will start in the middle, with a disclosure form–much like a university inventor might do. UConn has an “Innovation Alert” web “portal” that … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Present Assignment, Stanford v Roche
Tagged Bayh-Dole, Connecticut, invention disclosure, Moloch beer, present assignment, Stanford v Roche
Comments Off on University of Connecticut patent practice hash, 1
The devils in the details: Bayh-Dole supports academic freedom, 2
Part 1 of this article is here. By requiring the contractor to require “technical” employees to make a written agreement, (f)(2) does some fundamental things within the framework of definitions set up by Bayh-Dole. Watch the devils tumble out in … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Freedom, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche
Tagged (f)(2), 37 CFR 401.9, Bayh-Dole, devil, patent, subject invention, WARF
Comments Off on The devils in the details: Bayh-Dole supports academic freedom, 2
The devils in the details: Bayh-Dole supports academic freedom, 1
Bayh-Dole supports the academic freedom of faculty inventors. University administrators refuse to comply. Here, we walk through the law, the implementing regulations, the various patent rights clauses to show the result. Fair warning to university administrators reading this piece. I … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Freedom, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche
Tagged (f)(2), 37 CFR 401.14, 37 CFR 401.9, academic freedom, Bayh-Dole, contractor, funding agreement, patent, subject invention, turdly
Comments Off on The devils in the details: Bayh-Dole supports academic freedom, 1
Whistling all the way to the bank, revisited 2
The “Whistling” article struggles with the problem of the standard patent rights clause language about “electing to retain title.” I’ve wondered over this wording for years. It appears to be at the heart of the “cleverly crafted scheme” to intercept … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Stanford v Roche
Tagged Bayh-Dole, institutional patent agreement, invention, IPA, research sponsor, scope of rights, sponsored research
Comments Off on Whistling all the way to the bank, revisited 2
Whistling all the way to the bank, revisited 1
Back in 2010, I wrote an article titled “Whistling all the way to the bank.” The article explored the problem of compensation tied to the argument that the Bayh-Dole Act was a “vesting statute” that vested ownership of inventions made … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche
Tagged Bayh-Dole, class action, eminent domain, invention, Stanford v Roche, status, vesting
Comments Off on Whistling all the way to the bank, revisited 1
Bayh-Dole’s only purpose is to exploit public suffering for profit
The Bayh-Dole Act was created to permit the pharmaceutical industry to gain patent monopolies over inventions in medicinal chemistry made with federal government support. I have been through the history. I have worked through law for a decade. I practiced … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Stanford v Roche
Tagged Bayh-Dole, bluster, Stanford v Roche
Comments Off on Bayh-Dole’s only purpose is to exploit public suffering for profit
The Biddle Report’s Perfectly Fine Assumptions
From time to time, I revisit territory. I wrote about this issue almost two years ago, now. I provide here a different angle that gets at the same point. Here’s Sean O’Connor proposing that a flawed assumption in the U.S. … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Stanford v Roche
Tagged assignment, assumption, Bayh-Dole, Biddle, faux, O'Connor
Comments Off on The Biddle Report’s Perfectly Fine Assumptions
Bayh-Dole the Monster
The Bayh-Dole Act makes a great deal about public interest. Throughout the law are gestures toward worthy objectives–use of inventions, manufacturing in the United States, government licenses, and the right of federal agencies to step if they need to. But … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche
Tagged Bayh-Dole, invention, monster, NIH, patent, Stanford v Roche
Comments Off on Bayh-Dole the Monster