Tag Archives: Bayh-Dole

Bayh-Dole Up Your Counsel, 1

Posted on May 15, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

A lawyer staffing service and web site, UpCounsel, has a friendly page that offers “everything you need to know” about the Bayh-Dole Act. They promise you can learn what you need with an “11 min read.” I think it’s something … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Up Your Counsel, 1

The mistaken assumptions of Bayh-Dole, 2

Posted on May 11, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

We are working with an article by Sean O’Connor to get at an underlying problem with discussion of Bayh-Dole. O’Connor, a law professor, appears to be working diligently to find a way to “fix” Bayh-Dole so that universities end up … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The mistaken assumptions of Bayh-Dole, 2

The mistaken assumptions of Bayh-Dole, 1

Posted on May 10, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

I know this article by Sean O’Connor on the mistaken assumption in Bayh-Dole is six years old and I have discussed this issue previously, but since it is out there on the web, and as far as I know it hasn’t … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on The mistaken assumptions of Bayh-Dole, 1

NIST smokes Stanford v Roche

Posted on May 9, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

I don’t know what NIST folks were thinking (fortunately). But here’s what may have happened. They may have in fact read Stanford v Roche, but that clearly has not helped them. They are still clueless. Supreme Court: Bayh-Dole applies only … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on NIST smokes Stanford v Roche

“the same provisions as the contractor” in (k)(1)

Posted on May 8, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

Here’s a follow-up note on the nonprofit assignment restriction in 37 CFR 401.14(k)(1). With the NIST changes in the standard patent rights clauses, we might ask again about the interpretation of “such assignee shall be subject to the same provisions … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on “the same provisions as the contractor” in (k)(1)

NIST’s other changes to Bayh-Dole’s implementation, 2

Posted on May 8, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

We are working through NIST’s other changes to the implementation of the Bayh-Dole Act. It’s a rather strange exercise, since the standard patent rights clause required by Bayh-Dole as a default is not enforced and universities comply only with the … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , | Comments Off on NIST’s other changes to Bayh-Dole’s implementation, 2

NIST’s other changes to Bayh-Dole’s implementation, 1

Posted on May 7, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

NIST’s new rules for the implementation of the Bayh-Dole Act go into effect in May 2018. I have worked through the assignment provision for federal contracts that has been added to the (f)(2) written agreement requirement and how nutty that … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on NIST’s other changes to Bayh-Dole’s implementation, 1

What has NIST done, actually?-2

Posted on May 3, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

Let’s work through what NIST has done with its new rule on assignment of subject inventions by written agreement. The Supreme Court in Stanford v Roche (2011) ruled that Bayh-Dole’s contracting provisions apply only to subject inventions, and that subject inventions … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on What has NIST done, actually?-2

What has NIST done, actually?-1

Posted on May 2, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

NIST has made an attempt to turn Bayh-Dole into a vesting statute. From all appearances, that is what a casual reader would think has happened with NIST’s new subject invention assignment language. With help from inept (if not complicit) university … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on What has NIST done, actually?-1

NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 5

Posted on May 1, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

Unlike the other various fakographics and misguidances and misrepresentations of Bayh-Dole that we have reviewed, this slide deck by NIST’s chief counsel is distinctive, since NIST has primary responsibility for Bayh-Dole’s implementation and patent rights clauses. Thus, a failure to … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 5