Tag Archives: invention

The Faster Cures FAQ on Bayh-Dole, 1

Posted on April 9, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

Faster Cures has at its web site a FAQ on Bayh-Dole. Let’s work through their account of Bayh-Dole and help them where they appear challenged. 1. What is the Bayh-Dole Act? Co-sponsored by Senators Birch Bayh of Indiana and Robert … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Faster Cures FAQ on Bayh-Dole, 1

University of Connecticut patent practice hash, 2

Posted on March 27, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

The definition of subject invention in federal funding agreements is not a matter of university administrator preference. Either an invention meets the definition of subject invention or it doesn’t. The administrator’s job is to gather the documentation that provides the … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on University of Connecticut patent practice hash, 2

The IPA and Wisconsin’s 1969 Patent Policy, Table of Links

Posted on March 10, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

In May 2017 I wrote a series of articles that traced the development of the University of Wisconsin’s patent policy, how the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation shaped federal policy to disenfranchise faculty inventors in favor of its own money-making ventures … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The IPA and Wisconsin’s 1969 Patent Policy, Table of Links

Bayh-Dole basics, 2: subject invention comments

Posted on March 1, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

There are three categories of invention in Bayh-Dole–inventions arising in federally supported research or development, subject inventions, and inventions owned by the federal government. The general scope of Bayh-Dole given in 35 USC 200 is that of “inventions arising in … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole basics, 2: subject invention comments

Bayh-Dole basics, 1: public covenant comments

Posted on February 23, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

University patent administrators ignore Bayh-Dole’s statement of policy at 35 USC 200. At best, they treat it as a statement of objectives, not policy, and that these objectives are a problem for Congress if no one bothers to accomplish them. … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole basics, 1: public covenant comments

How Bayh-Dole complicates the definitions in Stevenson-Wydler

Posted on February 15, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

The only law that Bayh-Dole does not expressly supersede is the Stevenson-Wydler Act. It’s worth comparing language in the two laws, as Bayh-Dole draws from Stevenson-Wydler, but then works its own magic. Consider the definition cascade on inventions. Here’s Stevenson-Wydler: … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on How Bayh-Dole complicates the definitions in Stevenson-Wydler

Whistling all the way to the bank, revisited 2

Posted on February 13, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

The “Whistling” article struggles with the problem of the standard patent rights clause language about “electing to retain title.” I’ve wondered over this wording for years. It appears to be at the heart of the “cleverly crafted scheme” to intercept … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Whistling all the way to the bank, revisited 2

Whistling all the way to the bank, revisited 1

Posted on February 12, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

Back in 2010, I wrote an article titled “Whistling all the way to the bank.” The article explored the problem of compensation tied to the argument that the Bayh-Dole Act was a “vesting statute” that vested ownership of inventions made … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Whistling all the way to the bank, revisited 1

Bayh-Dole in another simple diagram

Posted on February 9, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

Bayh-Dole conflates three distinct forms of federal contracting for research and then moves one form–university-hosted research–into the category of another, procurement from commercial firms. Here’s the diagram:   The effect of Bayh-Dole is depicted by the blue arrows. The box … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole in another simple diagram

University of Utah’s Mount Stupid Disclosure Claim, 3

Posted on February 8, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

Now let’s look at what the University of Utah requires by way of assignment. My snark controls have apparently failed. I will try to line out at least some of the snark. Here is a link to the template Assignment … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Policy, Sponsored Research | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on University of Utah’s Mount Stupid Disclosure Claim, 3