Category Archives: Stanford v Roche

What "of the contractor" teaches us about "subject inventions"

Posted on January 10, 2012 by Gerald Barnett

[In a previous essay, I worked through problems with “of the contractor” and argued that the interpretation had to include employees who invent even if they had not assigned to the contractor.  Here, I explain in more detail how this … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche | Comments Off on What "of the contractor" teaches us about "subject inventions"

What SvR Means: Five Key Points

Posted on December 21, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

What does Stanford v Roche mean for research enterprise? 1.  Federal university research innovation policy favors freedom over compulsory practices. Bayh-Dole rolled back agency compulsory invention ownership policies to create a powerful group of expert, university-based, independent investigators with access … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on What SvR Means: Five Key Points

Undoing the Work of the Grifters

Posted on December 4, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

When you clear away the BS, you may as easily get mystery as clarity.  For innovation management, mystery is acceptable. I’ve been trying to get at what is going on with the present assignment push in universities.  It appears to … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Undoing the Work of the Grifters

Apply This 1% Solution to the Affected Areas…

Posted on November 30, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

UCSF has produced a short PowerPoint presentation [since removed] that lays out their rationale for changing their policy from a “promise to assign” to a “present assignment.”   You can flip through the slides in a few seconds. Standard story. Stanford … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Apply This 1% Solution to the Affected Areas…

Sample language for my UC friends

Posted on November 30, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

I worked for six years in the University of California system, dealing with IP and research contracts.   Given the current changes to patent policy being sent out to policy under the “the Supreme Court made us change policy, but this … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Stanford v Roche | Comments Off on Sample language for my UC friends

MIT's Patent Policy Problem

Posted on October 28, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

During the kerfluffle known as Stanford v Roche, one of the big advocates for Bayh-Dole as a vesting statute was MIT.   The MIT amicus brief is here.   It’s in this amicus brief that the idea that a present assignment trumping … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Policy, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on MIT's Patent Policy Problem

Time to Reboot the Franchise

Posted on October 19, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

I have been working through University of Washington policy on inventions.   One of the interesting–and dismaying–aspects of the Washington policy is its use of conflict of interest policies to route intellectual property ownership to the control of administrators.   I know, … Continue reading →

Posted in Policy, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Time to Reboot the Franchise

Washington’s little "it’s not a policy change"

Posted on October 17, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

Here’s more evidence in the wild about how administrators are warping the Stanford v. Roche decision.  Here it is the University of Washington, sending out a note to faculty about little technical changes in approval forms for consulting, claiming it’s … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Policy, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Washington’s little "it’s not a policy change"

Wisconsin offers a little choice

Posted on September 30, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

The University of Wisconsin had a strong tradition of faculty ownership of IP and control over research activities.  Faculty negotiated their own sponsored research agreements, for instance, with regard to IP.  Wisconsin wasn’t alone in this.  Until recently, Stanford had … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Wisconsin offers a little choice

New earth

Posted on July 28, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

The Supreme Court ruling in Stanford v Roche makes it clear that the Bayh-Dole Act does not vest title in inventions with universities, does not mandate that universities take title, does not constrain inventors to assign only to their university … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on New earth