Category Archives: Stanford v Roche

Some Questions from a Future FAQ on Bayh-Dole

Posted on January 14, 2016 by Gerald Barnett

Q. Can a university violate the Bayh-Dole Act? A. No. Bayh-Dole applies to federal agencies. The law requires federal agencies to adopt uniform practices regarding patent rights to inventions in funding agreements. Bayh-Dole (now) authorizes the Department of Commerce to … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Present Assignment, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Some Questions from a Future FAQ on Bayh-Dole

Cornell’s incompetent "procedural revision" of its patent policy

Posted on October 27, 2015 by Gerald Barnett

In 2013, Robert A. Burhman, Vice President for Technology Transfer at Cornell University, sent a letter out to faculty making a claim about Stanford v. Roche: As you may also know, and as discussed in more detail at the end of this … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Policy, Stanford v Roche | Comments Off on Cornell’s incompetent "procedural revision" of its patent policy

Can’t you see what Wisconsin has been doin’ to free?

Posted on October 16, 2015 by Gerald Barnett

In the summer of 1981, the Bayh-Dole Act went into effect, launching a tsunami that would sweep away the existing infrastructure for faculty-led use of patents to develop research discoveries. In its place, thirty-five years later, sits a manager-led system … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Policy, Stanford v Roche | Comments Off on Can’t you see what Wisconsin has been doin’ to free?

How Bayh-Dole failed to protect faculty inventors (from university administrators)

Posted on September 28, 2015 by Gerald Barnett

[Now with some revisions in the second paragraph that on reflection were worth making.] There are a number of things wrong with the Bayh-Dole Act, such as the lack of accountability for the disposition of privately held patents on inventions … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Present Assignment, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on How Bayh-Dole failed to protect faculty inventors (from university administrators)

Nolo Can’t Get Either Bayh-Dole or Stanford v Roche Right

Posted on February 22, 2015 by Gerald Barnett

I have always liked Nolo Press publications. They are usually well written, easy to read, and affordable. But here’s a bit from Nolo’s “Legal Encyclopedia” doing a number on Bayh-Dole–and this is after Stanford v Roche, because they manage to … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Present Assignment, Stanford v Roche | 1 Comment

The new university zombie IP policies

Posted on November 30, 2014 by Gerald Barnett

Migitating Private Business Use In a recent on-line article, Peter H. Serreze at Ropes & Gray, discusses private business use. The article offers strategies to mitigate the effect of the 5% limit on private business use (PBU) for the proceeds … Continue reading →

Posted in Policy, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The new university zombie IP policies

You Make the Call–NIH Version

Posted on October 19, 2014 by Gerald Barnett

It’s time for you to test your reading ability with that of the aces at the NIH. Let’s see how well you can do! Here is NIH guidance on Bayh-Dole compliance for awardees of NIH grants: The Bayh-Dole Act includes … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche | Comments Off on You Make the Call–NIH Version

Misunderstandings of Bayh-Dole

Posted on December 14, 2013 by Gerald Barnett

Sean O’Connor has written a well documented and argued article regarding the history of the Bayh-Dole Act and what he argues is a flaw in government reasoning regarding assignment practices for inventions that arises from a report written in 1947 … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Misunderstandings of Bayh-Dole

"Effectuating" a change in university policy statements about Bayh-Dole

Posted on October 31, 2013 by Gerald Barnett

Here’s a passage from Rutgers’ patent policy: D. Reservation of Rights in Sponsored Research. Ownership of patents arising from work sponsored by Federal agencies shall be subject to the provisions of Public Law 96-517, the Bayh-Dole Act as amended, other … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Stanford v Roche | Comments Off on "Effectuating" a change in university policy statements about Bayh-Dole

I wish I had a neurolyzer.

Posted on September 4, 2013 by Gerald Barnett

There is a continuing effort to misconstrue the Supreme Court decision in Stanford v Roche.  Here is an excerpt from a newspaper article on the reasons why the University of Utah changed their policy to make even more claims to … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Stanford v Roche | Comments Off on I wish I had a neurolyzer.