Some Questions from a Future FAQ on Bayh-Dole

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 create standard patent rights clauses for these funding agreements.

There are presently three such clauses: 1) 37 CFR 401.14(a), the general-purpose clause; 2) 37 CFR 401.14(b), a specialized clause for the Department of Energy’s nuclear propulsion and weapons program; and 3) 37 CFR 401.9, a clause for use when inventors retain their invention rights. The general-purpose clause is actually two clauses–one for small businesses, and another created by adding a special section for nonprofits. A standard patent rights clause may be modified by an agency in accordance with Bayh-Dole when there is a finding of “exceptional circumstances” and certain other circumstances involving foreign countries, intelligence gathering, and some DOE owned, contractor-operated laboratories. The DOE nuclear propulsion and energy clause at 37 CFR 401.14(b) is an example of such a clause.

The actual requirements that a university must follow for grant-funded research are therefore a matter of federal contracting in each instance of an award. The standard federal grant funding agreement is 2 CFR 200, and intangible property rights, including patent rights, are addressed at 2 CFR 200.315 and 2 CFR 200.316. 2 CFR 200.315(c) incorporates 37 CFR part 401 by reference. A university may breach its federal contract obligations by failing to comply with the standard patent rights clause, but a university cannot violate the Bayh-Dole law.

Q. What are the implications for university policy of this distinction between Bayh-Dole the statute and the patent rights clauses authorized by Bayh-Dole?

A. The requirements created by Bayh-Dole come within a university’s policies on sponsored research. 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

When the pseudo-Bayh-Dole prophecy fails

In 1956, Leon Festinger and others published an account of a group in Chicago that believed that the world was about to be destroyed by a flood, but that those who took the appropriate actions would be rescued by a spaceship piloted by the Guardians, hyper- intelligent aliens from the planet Clarion.

Well, the predicted time came and the Guardians didn’t show up, which was a bummer for the group, but then the world wasn’t destroyed by a flood either. But the group didn’t give up on their idea. Continue reading

Posted in Bozonet, Policy, Social Science, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on When the pseudo-Bayh-Dole prophecy fails

Voyage of the beagles

It’s not that I wanted to take a hiatus from posting ideas here at the Research Enterprise blog, but other writing tasks and various gusts of the life winds took me away from this forum. But I intend to be back at it now, with plenty of new material.

The management of intellectual property continues to be an area of importance for universities, and one that from the looks of things they haven’t got figured out. The University of California is putting $250M into a venture fund for “its” startups, run by the owner of a professional basketball team. Somehow, that doesn’t appear to be a formula for success, but then speculation is about gaming a system, not about supporting the development of new public services. As universities become rentiers rather than entrepreneurs–as Piketty predicts happens as capital grows and ages–we might expect that the prevailing metaphor for university IP management will move even further toward the rentier model, which will just seem “natural”–especially if each university vice provost for research sees most other university vice provosts for research trying the same set of things.

Dog breeds can be classified by trainability, with some breeds, such as poodles, requiring five or fewer repetitions to learn a new task. Beagles, on the other hand, may require up to a hundred reps to learn a new behavior, and even then perhaps only if they see other beagles doing the same thing. Continue reading

Posted in Bozonet, History, Policy, Startups, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Voyage of the beagles

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

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 memo, a June 2011 Supreme Court decision (Stanford v. Roche), provided a ruling whereby university inventors could inadvertently and/or incorrectly assign rights to future inventions to a third party, that by policy, belong to the institution. To minimize the possibility of a similar situation occurring with a Cornell invention and to a Cornell inventor, President Skorton has recommended, and the Cornell Board of Trustees has adopted, a procedural amendment to Policy 1.5 whereby all new and all current academic and graduate student appointees are now required to complete a new Inventions and Related Property Rights Assignment form.

This account is goofy–and wrong. The ruling in the case at the appeals court level was that the inventor in question had properly assigned his invention to the company that agreed to host him for a year to learn how to use their proprietary technology. Stanford knew of the situation. Stanford approved of the situation. The invention was clearly–so said the court–within the scope of the company’s patent agreement with the inventor. Stanford’s policy made clear that the situation was entirely proper–the post doc was working off-campus, at the company, and agreed that anything invented as a result of that work was owned by the company. The company would never have allowed the extended “visit” had the postdoc and Stanford been unwilling to agree to this condition. 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?

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 that is much more expensive and much less productive, all the while destroying academic freedom and suppressing collaboration. For some, this price is well worth the opportunity for windfall profits. For others–they simply deny there are any adverse effects of the law.

Since the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation was one of the leading advocates for Bayh-Dole, supplying one of the “Three Amigos” who pushed the law through Congress, we might consider how the University of Wisconsin adjusted to the new law to suit its own self-interest.

The Bayh-Dole Act required federal agencies sponsoring research at universities to adopt a uniform approach to the management of patent rights. This approach took the form of standard patent rights clauses placed in all funding agreements. The effect of Bayh-Dole, therefore, was to change the contracting terms and conditions under which universities operated when receiving federal funds to support their faculty’s research. 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?

UW's President Continues UW's Rank Deception

On September 30, University of Washington interim president Ana Mari Cauce sent out an email to alumni, including me, on the topic of “kicking off a new year.” The aim of the email was a pitch for donations, of course. Following a paragraph about having a record number of freshmen this year, Dr. Cauce writes about innovation:

Students also want to pursue their futures here because they see the UW gaining acclaim worldwide, as the most innovative public university in the world and as the 15th university overall in the Academic Ranking of World Universities. These rankings are well-earned, because they are reflections of the difference our faculty, staff and alumni make every day. From founding startups in Seattle’s booming innovation ecosystem to tracking poached ivory in Africa, you are truly creating a world of good.

Whatever else is wrong with this paragraph (UW was ranked 14th, not 15th, for instance), Dr. Cauce does not let on that the rankings have next to nothing to do with “the difference [UW] faculty, staff and alumni make every day.”

The Thomson Reuters “innovation” rankings are based almost entirely on patent and publication analytics, and don’t deal with innovation. Continue reading

Posted in Bozonet, Innovation, Metrics | Comments Off on UW's President Continues UW's Rank Deception

How Bayh-Dole dammed, and then damned, the commons

This is the third article in a series. The first is here. The second, here.

The motivating driver of the Bayh-Dole Act, if we can be blunt, was to put the affiliated research foundations in a position to keep with impunity any federally supported invention they could get assigned to them. This workaround was necessary because certain agencies–the Public Health Service and Department of Energy, in particular–had policies that expected public ownership (that is federal ownership) of inventions made with public support. For health care, this policy followed a long tradition, also at universities, of holding that it was unethical for medical interventions to be monopolized by anyone–and this position was argued especially for inventions made at organizations operating in the public interest, such as universities, state governments (in the case of public universities), and the federal government. About all that’s left now of this argument is the practice of refusing to permit the enforcement of patents on surgery techniques. But at one time the prohibition was much broader. Harvard’s patent policy went so far as to offer legal assistance to faculty seeking to overturn any medical patent. Loma Linda University’s policy declared such patenting unethical and prohibited it. How times change.

Similarly, the Department of Energy managed much of the nation’s nuclear energy research programs, and there were (and still are) some touchy things about uranium and plutonium that might not be entirely well off if a “free market” were to develop in these things. It is understandable that the DOE might want to limit universities from hauling off and creating monopolies around advances in nuclear energy (or weapons! or propulsion systems! or, or, oh gawd!) and then licensing these monopolies off to the highest bidder. Thus, the DOE policy was to look at each invention case-by-case. Makes some sense, doesn’t it?  Continue reading

Posted in Bad Science, Commons, History, Metrics, Policy | Comments Off on How Bayh-Dole dammed, and then damned, the commons

Bayh-Dole was written for the research foundations. Pity for us all that it didn’t work out.

After I wrote the previous article, it struck me that the origins of Bayh-Dole really are with the affiliated research foundations trying to license patents to industry, not with the universities, and not even with Research Corporation (which remained neutral on the matter, according to a reliable source who was close to the action). Thus, the expansion of focus in Bayh-Dole should be thought of as moving from the affiliated research foundations, which wanted access to federally supported inventions without having to show a plan and without federal agency oversight, to nonprofits in general, and thus including universities (only a handful of which had their own licensing operations), and finally reaching to small businesses. It’s not clear that university officials or small business persons were advocates at all for the law. I see nothing to indicate that university faculty in general thought the Bayh-Dole Act was important to their work. No outpouring of public support. A dog of a bill, snuck through a lame-duck Congress. From what I have read (and heard), Bayh-Dole was a creature of Purdue Research Foundation, Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, and the “three amigos”–the patent counsel at the NIH, patent counsel at WARF, and a staffer for Senator Bayh.

Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Present Assignment | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole was written for the research foundations. Pity for us all that it didn’t work out.

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

[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 made with federal support–agencies do not have to collect utilization reports, cannot publicly release the information in those reports via FOIA, and must navigate a mind-numbing protocol to “march-in” when nothing or worse is being done with those patent rights. But I want to look at something less obvious but just as bad in Bayh-Dole.

Bayh-Dole was motivated by university-affiliated research foundations not getting access to federally supported inventions when they thought they ought to. One big fuss was at Purdue Research Foundation. The Wisconsin Research Foundation joined in. Some universities also conducted their extramural research by means of a research foundation–SUNY’s research foundation is a notable example. Thus, as Bayh-Dole was being drafted, it could not be just about the affiliated research foundationsuniversities. The affiliated research foundations universities were included as well. In Bayh-Dole, this expansion from university to research foundation to university is found in the definition of “nonprofit organization”: 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)

The Road to Redemption

Here’s a story in today’s Seattle Times about AnswerDash, a company formed by students and faculty at the University of Washington’s Information School (my emphasis):

The company, founded in 2012, has raised more than $5 million, including a $2.9 million round led by Voyager Capital last week. The company plans to use the funds to hire sales and marketing staff and continue updating the product, Colleran said.

Here’s what the University of Washington’s tech transfer office claims, in its press release about setting a record for startups in FY 2014:

FY 2014 UW Start-Up Companies:

AnswerDash – Has developed contextual Q&A technology that provides website and web application users with instant context-sensitive answers right when and where they need them. As users ask new questions over time, an “answer layer” builds up over a site or application, enabling future visitors to find answers easily without having to ask again.

Clearly, the University is wrong about when AnswerDash (formerly Quazzow) was started. It’s like this, company after company, among those 18 record-setting startups.

AnswerDash looks like an interesting company. Pity that it is still housed at UW, given that it has raised $5.4M in venture financing. Continue reading

Posted in Innovation, Metrics, Policy, Startups | Comments Off on The Road to Redemption