Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Tag Archives: (f)(2)
University of Connecticut patent practice hash, 3
Here’s UConn’s policy on invention ownership: Under Connecticut state law, the University owns all inventions created by employees in the performance of employment with the University or created with University resources or funds administered by the University (“University Inventions”). No … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy
Tagged (f)(2), 10a-110a, academic freedom, Bayh-Dole, Connecticut General Statutes, Moloch beer
Comments Off on University of Connecticut patent practice hash, 3
The devils in the details: Bayh-Dole supports academic freedom, 2
Part 1 of this article is here. By requiring the contractor to require “technical” employees to make a written agreement, (f)(2) does some fundamental things within the framework of definitions set up by Bayh-Dole. Watch the devils tumble out in … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Freedom, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche
Tagged (f)(2), 37 CFR 401.9, Bayh-Dole, devil, patent, subject invention, WARF
Comments Off on The devils in the details: Bayh-Dole supports academic freedom, 2
Enforce Bayh-Dole To Reform Bayh-Dole
I posted the first half of an article that lays out how Bayh-Dole, if university adminstrators complied with the law and its patent rights clause, would support the academic freedom of faculty inventors. I also pushed a related tweet thread … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged (f)(2), 35 USC 200, Bayh-Dole, Darth Vader, enforce
Comments Off on Enforce Bayh-Dole To Reform Bayh-Dole
The devils in the details: Bayh-Dole supports academic freedom, 1
Bayh-Dole supports the academic freedom of faculty inventors. University administrators refuse to comply. Here, we walk through the law, the implementing regulations, the various patent rights clauses to show the result. Fair warning to university administrators reading this piece. I … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Freedom, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche
Tagged (f)(2), 37 CFR 401.14, 37 CFR 401.9, academic freedom, Bayh-Dole, contractor, funding agreement, patent, subject invention, turdly
Comments Off on The devils in the details: Bayh-Dole supports academic freedom, 1
Bayh-Dole Basics, 4: contractor comments
Bayh-Dole defines anyone on the other side of a funding agreement from a federal agency as a contractor. The term is arbitrary and misleading. Let’s look at both aspects. The standard patent rights clause requires the contractors that host federally … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged (f)(2), 37 CFR 401.14(a), 37 CFR 401.9, Bayh-Dole, contractor, faux, predatory, small business, Stanford v Roche, subcontract
Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Basics, 4: contractor comments
Bayh-Dole Basics, 4: contractor
A primary focus of Bayh-Dole is the disposition of invention rights in funding agreements between federal agencies and nonprofit organizations and small businesses. Funding agreements can take the form of contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements, and these agreements are extended … Continue reading
You should want to see Bayh-Dole operate as written. Here’s why.
Let’s start with some Bayh-Dole basics. Bayh-Dole preempts all other statutes but Stevenson-Wydler on matters of federal policy on inventions made in research contracts (35 USC 210). Bayh-Dole is the only authority on the matter. Bayh-Dole requires federal agencies to … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged (f)(2), assignment, Bayh-Dole, KEI, Stanford v Roche, subject invention, substantial rights
Comments Off on You should want to see Bayh-Dole operate as written. Here’s why.
Two ways to turn an invention into a subject invention, 1
[this article refers to Bayh-Dole’s implementing regulations before NIST’s May 2018 changes–37 CFR 401.14(a) becomes 37 CFR 401.14, and NIST adds a goofball assignment clause under which contractors must require inventors to assign subject inventions–inventions that the contractors already own. … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged (f)(2), assignment, Bayh-Dole, subject invention
Comments Off on Two ways to turn an invention into a subject invention, 1
The NIH’s View of Bayh-Dole Compliance
In 2015, Ann Hammersla gave a talk at an NIH Regional Seminar that includes a discussion of Bayh-Dole. There are numerous problems with Hammersla’s treatment of Bayh-Dole, but we’ll leave most of those for the attentive reader to pick through. … Continue reading
Bayh-Dole nonsense in a talk at the University of Pittsburgh
Last year (March 2016), Joe Allen gave a talk at the University of Pittsburgh, “Patent Ownership Under Bayh-Dole, reported in the University Times. Called “a key architect of the Bayh-Dole Act,” Allen manages to fill a talk summary with mostly … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer
Tagged (f)(2), 401.14, Allen, Bayh-Dole, Harbridge House, Pittsburg, SPRC, Stanford v Roche
Comments Off on Bayh-Dole nonsense in a talk at the University of Pittsburgh