Category Archives: Stanford v Roche

The Retrenchment Movement

Posted on April 12, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

The Stanford v. Roche case was about how universities get ownership of inventions under Bayh-Dole. Stanford argued vesting. The Solicitor General argued voiding all other alternatives. WARF argued faculty were gullible, inept, and selfish. AUTM threw sticks and dirt in … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Tagged , | Comments Off on The Retrenchment Movement

It’s a dead parrot, guys

Posted on April 11, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

Joe Allen, whom I respect a great deal for his work on Bayh-Dole, won’t give up after the ruling on Stanford v Roche.  He has published a piece that aims to undermine the arguments I made in a commentary published … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on It’s a dead parrot, guys

Getting it clear on the Stanford v Roche decision

Posted on March 28, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

While the history of the work to create the Bayh-Dole Act is always fascinating, the intentions and later reasoning about the law by advocates for legislation does not necessarily translate into the intention of Congress, nor to the actual language … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | 3 Comments

Projects, the Treatment for Fool's Dream Virus

Posted on February 21, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

The gulf between the Supreme Court decision in Stanford v Roche and the push in universities for present assignments is huge.   The Court decided the question whether Bayh-Dole was a vesting statute.  It said no. Wasn’t.  By doing that, … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Projects, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Projects, the Treatment for Fool's Dream Virus

Recycling Losing Arguments as Policy Intent

Posted on February 20, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

In a recent essay on the Stanford v Roche decision, Sean O’Connor gives a fascinating perspective on the push by the University of California to impose a present assignment obligation on faculty.  I could not figure how they could rationalize … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Present Assignment, Stanford v Roche | Comments Off on Recycling Losing Arguments as Policy Intent

The Double-Cross

Posted on February 11, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

The question has come up:  doesn’t a present assignment approach protect faculty from the conniving tricks of companies that will cheat them out of their rightful royalties to inventions? The answer is no.  It won’t–not as a condition of employment … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Present Assignment, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on The Double-Cross

Practical Lessons for University Counsel

Posted on February 6, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

Here’s a typical slide deck (it opens in PowerPoint–sorry non-‘Softies) [now deleted–but here is a similar slide deck, posted at the University of Tennessee at about the same time, by Lakita Cavin, a staff attorney, and displaying similar problems] talking … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Practical Lessons for University Counsel

Senate Bill 6542: Innovation Bill of Rights

Posted on February 4, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

Senator Maralyn Chase has introduced a bill in the Washington State senate that would prohibit public universities from making compulsory claims of ownership of intellectual property based on employment or use of facilities unless required by a sponsor of research. … Continue reading →

Posted in Policy, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Senate Bill 6542: Innovation Bill of Rights

Where’d you go, Ohio?

Posted on January 27, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

I have written previously about the State of Ohio’s effort to frustrate federal invention policy by asserting that public universities in the state own all inventions made in research done in state facilities or by university employees in the scope … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Policy, Present Assignment, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Where’d you go, Ohio?

Oh, to be the happy dog again

Posted on January 15, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

There has been a lot of bad advice for universities out there in the wake of Stanford v Roche.   It almost appears to be orchestrated talking points on the need for universities to implement present assignments to prevent another outcome … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Present Assignment, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Oh, to be the happy dog again