Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Category Archives: Technology Transfer
Good News! Universities may now destroy open research and violate Bayh-Dole at will!
Here is some advice for universities on Stanford v. Roche (“Notwithstanding The Supreme Court’s Ruling Against Stanford, Universities Have The Means To Protect Their Rights In Faculty Inventions”): “In a 7-2 decision delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court affirmed … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer
Tagged assignment, of the contractor, Stanford v Roche
Comments Off on Good News! Universities may now destroy open research and violate Bayh-Dole at will!
Spoiling the Soda
I am working to describe how Bayh-Dole operates. That means: building a general picture from the details, rather than assuming a simple, general picture and then ignoring all the details that don’t fit in. It also means: considering how universities … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on Spoiling the Soda
The road to serfdom, patent reform version
At IP Watchdog, Eric Guttag is out with a piece on the effect of patent reform legislation on Bayh-Dole compliance. It’s an important topic, and Guttag raises some valuable points. But at the root of it, he is working with … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Social Science, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on The road to serfdom, patent reform version
5 Things to Learn about Stanford v Roche
1. Assignment of inventions to the university is not a condition of federal funding or federal law. Whatever demands assignment, it ain’t Bayh-Dole. It is not true, and it is not even credible after Stanford v. Roche, to claim that … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on 5 Things to Learn about Stanford v Roche
Summary points about Bayh-Dole
Bayh-Dole applies to federal agencies in their contracting with universities. It does not apply directly to universities. A standard patent rights clause (SPRC) is established by the Secretary of Commerce under the authority of Bayh-Dole. Universities agree to the SPRC, … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on Summary points about Bayh-Dole
Lessons, vol. 5
5. Bad advice abounds. There is plenty of bad advice abounding. This stuff is not nearly as interesting to work through. And it takes some time to chase down the implications of the advice. But if you hang with all … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on Lessons, vol. 5
Lessons, vol 4.
4. AUTM is an inventor-loathing organization. This lesson is not one that carries any pleasure to write about. It’s good that Bayh-Dole is not a vesting statute and that inventors own title to their inventions. That’s just patent law. It … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on Lessons, vol 4.
Lessons, vol. 3
This one will be longer. Sometimes the simple lessons are the hardest to make stick. 3. University administrators don’t understand Bayh-Dole or innovation. Coleridge quipped that you know someone when you understand what they don’t know. Let’s get to … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on Lessons, vol. 3
Lessons, vol. 2
2. Inventors own their inventions made with federal support. Stanford v. Roche is not simply a decision that argues for an additional technical step on the inevitable road to take all invention rights away from inventors as expeditiously and inevitably … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on Lessons, vol. 2
Lessons, vol. 1
I will follow up on the points I made in a previous post with regard to Stanford v. Roche. I will take these one by one. 1. Bayh-Dole is no vesting statute. Bayh-Dole does not overturn US patent law on … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on Lessons, vol. 1