Tag Archives: Bayh-Dole

Why is an invention a subject invention?–2

Posted on November 10, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

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

Posted on November 4, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

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

Posted on October 24, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

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

Posted on October 15, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

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

Posted on September 28, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

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

Crap, crap, crap, Bayh-Dole, and crap (short attention span version)

Posted on September 28, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

Bayh-Dole is crap. Bayh-Dole practice is crap. Bayh-Dole outcomes are crap. Universities bluff about Bayh-Dole and about their metrics. Federal agencies don’t protect the public from university patent abuse. Federal agencies don’t act on the rights Bayh-Dole reserves for them. … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , | Comments Off on Crap, crap, crap, Bayh-Dole, and crap (short attention span version)

If you are against a crappy law like Bayh-Dole

Posted on September 23, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

Kevin E. Noonan, a biotech patent attorney, made an interesting assertion in a LinkedIn comment on the fourth article in this series. Maybe he was being flippant, but let’s consider: People against Bayh-Dole just support private industry (much of it … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on If you are against a crappy law like Bayh-Dole

Reflections on Shill Reflections on Bayh-Dole, 4: Fake history, executive branch patent policy, and contamination

Posted on September 18, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

Back to reflecting on fake history, namely this: prior to the Act, the government often funded research to spark innovation, but then put the research in the public domain for non-exclusive licensing,… Executive branch patent policy from Kennedy on (until … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Reflections on Shill Reflections on Bayh-Dole, 4: Fake history, executive branch patent policy, and contamination

Reflections on Shill Reflections on Bayh-Dole, 3: Fake history, sparking innovation, and a pernicious requirement

Posted on September 18, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

[I have made revisions and additions and placed the second half of this article in part 4.] We are still reflecting on reflections on Bayh-Dole by “leaders” hoping that you will follow them. More: prior to the Act, the government … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Reflections on Shill Reflections on Bayh-Dole, 3: Fake history, sparking innovation, and a pernicious requirement

Reflections on Shill Reflections on Bayh-Dole, 2: Commercialization and certainty

Posted on September 17, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

We are working through reflections of Bayh-Dole made by some iron rings in cows’ noses that claim to give milk–er, “industry leaders.” The exercise is useful not merely to mock them for their nonsense–mockery is here salutory and inclusive–but also … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Reflections on Shill Reflections on Bayh-Dole, 2: Commercialization and certainty