Tag Archives: Bayh-Dole

Assigning the SPRC

Posted on March 9, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

Melba Kurman asks in a comment to the previous post that I discuss assignment of the SPRC in more detail. Melba has an interesting blog on university technology management, so check it out here. [The blog has been retired–but for … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Assigning the SPRC

The Secret Fingers-Crossed Version of Bayh-Dole

Posted on March 4, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

[This article was written before the Supreme Court decided Stanford v Roche (June, 2011). It was also written before NIST did its crazy stupid overhaul of the codification of Bayh-Dole at 37 CFR 401, changing references and adding its dumber … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , | Comments Off on The Secret Fingers-Crossed Version of Bayh-Dole

The Policy and the Damage Done

Posted on January 19, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

Here is a state law pertaining to employer claims to employee inventions: Sec. 2. Employee rights to inventions ‑ conditions). (1) A provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign or offer to assign any of … Continue reading →

Posted in IP, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on The Policy and the Damage Done

How is a Subject Invention perhaps like a Work For Hire?

Posted on November 24, 2010 by Gerald Barnett

Bayh-Dole defines a subject invention at 35 USC 201(e) (and repeated in the implementing regulations at 37 CFR 401.2(d)) as any invention of a contractor conceived or first actually reduced to practice in the performance of work under a funding … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on How is a Subject Invention perhaps like a Work For Hire?

Minimum Policy, Phase 2

Posted on November 14, 2010 by Gerald Barnett

[This is a pre-Stanford v Roche discussion. I have updated it for current CFR references. A contractor does not “elect title”–a contractor may “elect to retain title” that the contractor has obtained by conventional means. A contractor’s option under a … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Minimum Policy, Phase 2

37 CFR 401.9

Posted on November 4, 2010 by Gerald Barnett

There’s something interesting about 37 CFR 401.9.  Okay, so you don’t have Bayh-Dole memorized.  37 CFR 401.9 is the provision that implements, among other things, 35 USC 202 (d), which is the part of the Act that allows inventors to … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on 37 CFR 401.9

Optimal Boeufmerde: AUTM’s model of tech transfer can’t get any better

Posted on August 4, 2010 by Gerald Barnett

The Kauffman Foundation (reminder: co-funds RTEI but has nothing to do with this blog or my opinions) suggested in a recent proposal that university licensing practice was “sub-optimal.” This has gotten the rile up in the lost territorial alley dog … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, IP, Metrics, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Optimal Boeufmerde: AUTM’s model of tech transfer can’t get any better

Hmpf Vol 1, appendix

Posted on July 28, 2010 by Gerald Barnett

The paper argues that Bayh-Dole represents a societal statement encouraging universities to work closely with industry despite cultural differences and the prospect for conflict of interest, and that with thoughtfulness these challenges can be met so that federally supported inventions … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Technology Transfer | Tagged , | Comments Off on Hmpf Vol 1, appendix

Hmpf Issue Vol. 1

Posted on July 28, 2010 by Gerald Barnett

[Revised 9/11/2019 to clean up the option theory]. I have been looking at this paper from 2002: “Academia, Industry, and the Bayh-Dole Act: An Implied Duty to Commercialize.” I’ve seen it before and always shied away from commenting, but with … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Hmpf Issue Vol. 1

Apply It Like It Is S v R

Posted on November 19, 2009 by Gerald Barnett

(Note: this post continues from the previous one. I don’t take up the particulars of the Stanford v. Roche case, and I wish the disputants, the judges, the attorneys and inventors all the best. Here, I aim to show how … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Sponsored Research, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Apply It Like It Is S v R