Tag Archives: Bayh-Dole

UW’s Fast Start template, another bad bureaucratic idea gone bad, 6

The University of Washington recently “rolled out” a “FAST start” template license agreement for university spinout companies–companies started by inventive researchers at the university to develop their inventions as commercial products. For spinout companies, the UW’s practice is to demand … Continue reading

Posted in Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on UW’s Fast Start template, another bad bureaucratic idea gone bad, 6

UW’s Fast Start template, another bad bureaucratic idea gone bad, 4

H. Holden Thorp, editor in chief at Science magazine and formerly chancellor at Washington University and before that the University of North Carolina, published an editorial in Science, “An opportunity to improve innovation” that provides insight on the UW FAST … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on UW’s Fast Start template, another bad bureaucratic idea gone bad, 4

Necessary Federal Exclusive Licensing

The Harbridge House report in 1968 mused that based on survey responses from nonprofit patent administrators, . . . the inventions must frequently arise from basic research and require substantial private development before reaching the stage where they are commercially … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Necessary Federal Exclusive Licensing

proto Bayh-Dole march-in, c. 1976

Bayh-Dole was the banana that finally stuck on wall, but Norman Latker had tried any number of schemes to circumvent federal policy requiring default open access to the inventions arising in work for which the federal government provided funding. People … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on proto Bayh-Dole march-in, c. 1976

The Thornton Bill’s “purposes” and Bayh-Dole’s “policy and objectives”

Bayh-Dole states its policy and objectives at 35 USC 200. Here there are, with a more readable layout: It is the policy and objective of the Congress to use the patent system to promote the utilization of inventions arising from … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The Thornton Bill’s “purposes” and Bayh-Dole’s “policy and objectives”

Why is an invention a subject invention?–2

We had a look at antecedents to Bayh-Dole’s strange definition of “subject invention.” We saw that the definition has two purposes– (1) to identify the use of the term “invention” with patent law, so Bayh-Dole works with a defined term … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , | Comments Off on Why is an invention a subject invention?–2

Why is an invention a subject invention?–1

Let’s look at three antecedents for Bayh-Dole’s definition of “subject invention”: The Institutional Patent Agreement master, 1968, that allowed participating non-profits to end-run DWEW contracting policy and take ownership of inventions made with NIH funding (Latker said that Bayh-Dole was … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Why is an invention a subject invention?–1

Search on RE: Bayh-Dole provisions and subject inventions

Here’s a recent search on Research Enterprise: “bayh-dole provisions only apply to subject inventions.” Is it a question? Is it an assertion? Does Bayh-Dole apply only to subject inventions? No. Some Bayh-Dole provisions do apply to subject inventions, but much … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Search on RE: Bayh-Dole provisions and subject inventions

The non-preference for US manufacturing under Bayh-Dole

A recent search at RE was looking for “preference for manufacturing in US under Bayh-Dole.” There’s a series of articles here on 35 USC 204. There’s also discussion of the related march-in provision at 35 USC 203(a)(4) and the broader … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The non-preference for US manufacturing under Bayh-Dole

Crap, crap, crap, Bayh-Dole, and crap talking points

Think of these as presentation slides, but without the actual mental pain of seeing slides. Bayh-Dole has failed to produce the outcomes claimed has destroyed university research freedom and technology transfer is a drafting nightmare of inconsistencies, half-hearted gestures, and … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , | Comments Off on Crap, crap, crap, Bayh-Dole, and crap talking points