Tag Archives: Bayh-Dole

Another question on RE: Are data rights subject to Bayh-Dole?

Posted on October 25, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

Are data rights subject to Bayh-Dole? No. Sigh. Yes, in a way. Data rights generally involve the right to control disclosure and/or use of technical information generated within research, experimental, or development work. While some data may involve copyrights (as … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Another question on RE: Are data rights subject to Bayh-Dole?

The consequences of Bayh-Dole non-disclosure of inventions, 3

Posted on October 23, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

Finally, we reach a non-empty consequence of an invention becoming a subject invention, even if not disclosed to the federal agency. This consequence has to do specifically with subject inventions made under the nonprofit patent rights clause. Bayh-Dole stipulates that … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The consequences of Bayh-Dole non-disclosure of inventions, 3

The consequences of Bayh-Dole non-disclosure of inventions, 2

Posted on October 22, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

We are looking at the consequences of a contractor not disclosing a subject invention to the federal agency that funded work in which the invention was made. One consequence is that the federal agency “may receive title” to such an … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The consequences of Bayh-Dole non-disclosure of inventions, 2

The consequences of Bayh-Dole non-disclosure of inventions, 1

Posted on October 21, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

If the federal government had the courage to enforce any one thing in Bayh-Dole, it would be the nonprofit assignment and accounting requirements at 35 USC 202(c)(7). The federal government taking title to non-disclosed subject inventions is mostly useless. Let … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The consequences of Bayh-Dole non-disclosure of inventions, 1

Invention is not a thing, 14

Posted on October 18, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

Bayh-Dole’s public protection apparatus, even unused as it is, makes it clear that the federal invention economic system is intended to be different from that of private exploitation of patents for financial gain. In the federal economic system, patents are … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Invention is not a thing, 14

Invention is not a thing, 13

Posted on October 17, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

There are two things that might prompt a university dealing in patents to adopt a policy default of non-exclusive licensing. One involves Bayh-Dole. The other involves a general argument directed at patenting’s public purpose–especially when a patent is held by … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Invention is not a thing, 13

Invention is not a thing, 12: Licensing practices that recognize inventions aren’t things

Posted on October 16, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

We have spent a great deal of time working through federal policy on research inventions to show how the idea that an invention is not a thing plays out–less well than one would like. Despite ambiguities, it would appear that … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Invention is not a thing, 12: Licensing practices that recognize inventions aren’t things

Invention is not a thing, 11: Working requirements and the scope of “work”

Posted on October 15, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

A similar analysis then can be done for the working requirement under Bayh-Dole for patents on subject inventions in other countries. Just because a contractor achieves practical application of an instance of a subject invention in the United States does … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Invention is not a thing, 11: Working requirements and the scope of “work”

An invention is not a thing, 10: Broad patent rights and licensing practices

Posted on October 14, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

We have worked through the idea of invention holes–that an invention generally consists of instances, and instances may be evaluated as “easy”–meaning they can be used immediately with little expense–and “difficult”–meaning they require substantial effort to move from reduction to … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on An invention is not a thing, 10: Broad patent rights and licensing practices

An invention is not a thing, 9

Posted on October 12, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

The public policy idea around Bayh-Dole march-in would appear to be straightforward. It was so in the Kennedy patent policy: make the benefits of using an invention accessible to the public in three years from the date of a patent … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on An invention is not a thing, 9