Category Archives: Stanford v Roche

A bureaucrat’s thumb in every hopeful innovation pie

Posted on November 28, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

Advocates of the “faux” Bayh-Dole make the claim that the inspired part of the Act is that it gives ownership of faculty inventive work supported by federal funds to university bureaucrats for their fun and profit. I know, I’ve skipped … Continue reading →

Posted in Agreements, Bayh-Dole, Policy, Present Assignment, Stanford v Roche | Comments Off on A bureaucrat’s thumb in every hopeful innovation pie

Summary Re-writing Bayh-Dole

Posted on September 15, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

[Updated with new examples to replace ones since removed from the web–whack-a-mole time] I have pointed out how AUTM’s summary of Bayh-Dole puts its own misleading spin on the law.  Here is how this bad advice works in the wild.  … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Stanford v Roche | Comments Off on Summary Re-writing Bayh-Dole

We could use better guidance on Bayh-Dole

Posted on June 15, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

I like how Eric Guttag goes after legal ideas.  I appreciate the way he digs into things, and his willingness to acknowledge when he needs to change his point of view.  Some time ago, he posted an excellent discussion of … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Present Assignment, Stanford v Roche | Comments Off on We could use better guidance on Bayh-Dole

IP Governance or IP Management?

Posted on May 31, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

After Bayh-Dole was passed, university administrators got the idea that universities had to have policy statements to claim ownership of inventions to comply with Bayh-Dole.  The idea was that “elect to retain title” meant “elect title” which meant “title vests … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on IP Governance or IP Management?

More Evidence in the Wild

Posted on May 22, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

Here is another example in the wild of the mischaracterization of Bayh-Dole.  This is a document that offers a “Brief Guide to Intellectual Property in a University Context”.   My point is to document how Bayh-Dole has been represented by university … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, IP, Policy, Stanford v Roche | Comments Off on More Evidence in the Wild

Blasts from the Past

Posted on May 12, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

Here is the University of Arizona invention policy statement from 1939.  Simple voluntary approach with a breakout for expressly set out positions, with inventors owing 10% of their proceeds to the University if they are not using Research Corporation and … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Blasts from the Past

What is and what should never be

Posted on April 28, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

I have a special regard for the Bayh-Dole Act from spending so much time working with it. I am impressed with the way that it balances uniform agency policy regarding federally supported inventions with the diversity of practices potentially available … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on What is and what should never be

The Dumbest Possible Model

Posted on April 18, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

It’s hard to describe how devastating the Stanford v Roche decision is to autocracy-minded university bureaucrats.  They claimed Bayh-Dole requires university ownership. So they instituted policies that require university ownership, “to comply with Bayh-Dole”. Then they argued in Stanford v Roche … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Commons, Policy, Present Assignment, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | 1 Comment

How Bayh-Dole was used to expand university IP claims

Posted on April 16, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

I’ve put together a graphic that shows a cascade of possible places where a university and faculty might consider the matter of ownership of inventions and works of authorship. I’ve arranged things into various rows, each with a corresponding letter … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Present Assignment, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on How Bayh-Dole was used to expand university IP claims

A present assignment wouldn’t have saved Stanford claim

Posted on April 13, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

Since the topic keeps coming up, let’s look again at Stanford v Roche.   The standard analysis is that the case teaches universities that they have to make their invention assignment agreements “tighter”.  The argument goes, in Stanford v Roche a … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Present Assignment, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on A present assignment wouldn’t have saved Stanford claim