Tag Archives: Federal Procurement Regulations

The FPR criteria for invention ownership–1

Posted on March 1, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

In June 1973, The Executive Subcommittee of the Federal Council for Science and Technology’s Committee on Government Patent Policy at the U.S. Department of Commerce, tasked with the codification of the patent policy established by President Nixon, made the following … Continue reading →

Posted in History, Policy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The FPR criteria for invention ownership–1

Patent rights follow-up: from the FPR to BD–2

Posted on February 28, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

We are working through the Federal Procurement Regulations (1975) advice with regard to the exercise of rights in inventions made in projects receiving federal support. We have looked at the first part of the opening statement and made the point … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Patent rights follow-up: from the FPR to BD–2

When to disclose inventions? Part II: Bayh-Dole, 2

Posted on January 15, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

We are explaining why, despite widespread insistence by folks who set themselves up as experts, there’s no obligation in Bayh-Dole for inventors to disclose inventions made under a federal contract. The first point to be made is that if one … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on When to disclose inventions? Part II: Bayh-Dole, 2

15 USC 2218(d)

Posted on November 23, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

[updated to make clear 15 USC 2218(d) is specific to fire prevention and control legislation] A federal statute passed in 1974 establishes a federal policy with regard to inventions made with federal support–15 USC 2218(d), part of a fire safety … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on 15 USC 2218(d)

Bayh-Dole’s “subject invention” botch of the Federal Procurement Regulations, 1

Posted on November 9, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

Bayh-Dole botches its management of invention ownership. To see how, we need to look at how Bayh-Dole in 1980 changed the Federal Procurement Regulation put in place in 1975. In particular, let’s look at how the definition of subject invention … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole’s “subject invention” botch of the Federal Procurement Regulations, 1

Patent agreements in Federal Procurement Regulations and Bayh-Dole, 2

Posted on October 18, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

If we return for a moment to O’Connor’s article–it is a great read for what it aims to do, but for O’Connor’s theme of abstract mistaken assumptions rather than providing a specific account of Latker’s lack of drafting ability–there is … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Patent agreements in Federal Procurement Regulations and Bayh-Dole, 2

Patent agreements in Federal Procurement Regulations and Bayh-Dole, 1

Posted on October 17, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

Sean O’Connor starts an excellent article that gives a detailed account of history behind the Bayh-Dole Act (“Mistaken Assumptions: the Roots of Stanford v. Roche in Post-War Government Patent Policy“) this way: The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 was built on a … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Patent agreements in Federal Procurement Regulations and Bayh-Dole, 1

Invention, subject invention, and the clever scheme of Bayh-Dole

Posted on October 15, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

Here is the definition of invention in the Kennedy executive branch patent policy, 1963 (Section 4(b)): Invention or Invention or discovery–includes any art, machine, manufacture, design, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, or any variety … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Invention, subject invention, and the clever scheme of Bayh-Dole