Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Tag Archives: exclusive license
Smells Like Bayh-Dole Spirit
Bayh-Dole has two main concerns: contractor patent rights (35 USC 202-204) and federal agency disposition of patents (35 USC 207-209). These two sets of provisions work together in odd but let’s say intended ways. For instance, 35 USC 207(a)(2) authorizes … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged Bayh-Dole, bluntly, exclusive license
Comments Off on Smells Like Bayh-Dole Spirit
A little expansion on varieties of exclusive license in university tech transfer
I expanded a discussion of the odd wording of Bayh-Dole’s 35 USC 204, which restricts the US manufacturing requirement to exclusive licenses “to use or to sell” in the United States. If the holder of patent rights on a subject … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged assignment, Bayh-Dole, exclusive license
Comments Off on A little expansion on varieties of exclusive license in university tech transfer
Bayh-Dole’s anti invention-flipping provision for nonprofits, or where’s that $250B?
Let’s look at Bayh-Dole’s anti-invention flipping protection of the public, aimed at nonprofits. Here’s the text, at 35 USC 202(c)(7)(A): In the case of a nonprofit organization, (A) a prohibition upon the assignment of rights to a subject invention in … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged assignment, Bayh-Dole, exclusive license, flip
Comments Off on Bayh-Dole’s anti invention-flipping provision for nonprofits, or where’s that $250B?
Learning from Latker’s 1984 “Federal Initiatives for Innovation” Talk, 3
Norman Latker, formerly patent counsel at the NIH and chief architect of Bayh-Dole and its extension by Presidential memorandum to all federal contracting, argues that if federal inventions are not privately owned and exploited for their exclusionary and financial value, … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy
Tagged Bayh-Dole, exclusive license, Latker, risk capital
Comments Off on Learning from Latker’s 1984 “Federal Initiatives for Innovation” Talk, 3
Another question on RE: are exclusive license and assignment the same thing?
Here’s another question on RE: “is an exclusive license of technology and an assignment the same thing?” Answer: yes and no. Let’s talk exclusive license and assignment of inventions rather than technology. An assignment expressly conveys title to an invention. … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged 35 USC 202(c)(7)(A), assignment, exclusive license
Comments Off on Another question on RE: are exclusive license and assignment the same thing?
The VPR Letters, No. 4
Dear Vice Provost for Research, It’s been a while, and I thought I would drop you another note to help you with your management of university-hosted intellectual property. I once was contacted by a vice provost of research at a … Continue reading
Posted in Bozonet, Commons, Freedom, Policy
Tagged conflict of interest, exclusive license, exploiter, maximal, non-exclusive license, VPR
Comments Off on The VPR Letters, No. 4
The Turning Point in Federal Patent Policy
1971. Here’s where things started to go bad. In 1963, President Kennedy issued a memorandum setting forth executive branch patent policy. When the federal government acquired inventions, the policy stipulated that patents would be made available “through dedication or licensing”–that … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Freedom, History, Policy
Tagged exclusive license, IPA, Kennedy, Latker, Nixon, patent policy
Comments Off on The Turning Point in Federal Patent Policy
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 204, Bayh-Dole, exclusive license, industry, preference
Comments Off on The non-preference for US manufacturing under Bayh-Dole
If you are against a crappy law like Bayh-Dole
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 204, Bayh-Dole, exclusive license, manufactured substantially
Comments Off on If you are against a crappy law like Bayh-Dole
University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 3: Yale patent policy on exclusive licensing
University patent policies do not address exclusive licensing, and yet exclusive licensing is at the core of much current university patent practice. Exclusive licensing is the key thing that Bayh-Dole enabled. And Bayh-Dole, in its federal agency licensing authorization, pees … Continue reading
Posted in Policy
Tagged exclusive license, patent policy, Yale
Comments Off on University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 3: Yale patent policy on exclusive licensing