Tag Archives: NIH

Exceptional Circumstances in Bayh-Dole, 1

In 2008, Dr. Jeffrey W. Thomas, then a senior advisor to the Technology Transfer Center at the National Cancer Institute, gave a talk on Bayh-Dole’s exceptional circumstances. The slide deck is still up at a federal laboratory consortium web site. … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Exceptional Circumstances in Bayh-Dole, 1

The NIH’s View of Bayh-Dole Compliance, 8

We are working through the NIH’s policy manual on Bayh-Dole. We reach a helpful list. Some of the steps required by the regulation to retain intellectual property rights to subject inventions include: Report all subject inventions to NIH. Make efforts … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The NIH’s View of Bayh-Dole Compliance, 8

The NIH’s View of Bayh-Dole Compliance, 7

We have come full circle through NIH’s garbled version of Bayh-Dole, having been referred by the NIH’s SBIR guidance back to the NIH’s policy manual regarblization of Bayh-Dole in section 8.2.4. Section 8.2 has a bunch of data and research … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The NIH’s View of Bayh-Dole Compliance, 7

The NIH’s View of Bayh-Dole Compliance, 6

Research Enterprise has been examining the NIH’s representation of Bayh-Dole. So far we have seen that the NIH persists in citing a 1995 document that gives “guidance” that the Supreme Court in Stanford v Roche (2011) rejected. But the NIH … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The NIH’s View of Bayh-Dole Compliance, 6

The NIH’s View of Bayh-Dole Compliance, 5

We are working NIH’s not so tasty guidance to participants in its SBIR and STTR programs directed at small businesses. We reach the NIH’s account of the “principal features” of Bayh-Dole, at least with regard to “intellectual property” requirements: Principal … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on The NIH’s View of Bayh-Dole Compliance, 5

The NIH’s View of Bayh-Dole Compliance, 4

Here’s the NIH offering an overview of Bayh-Dole for its SBIR and STTR programs. Much of the “information” here appears to be drawn from an NIH Q&A document from 1995. That document, “A ’20-20′ View of Invention Reporting to the … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The NIH’s View of Bayh-Dole Compliance, 4

The NIH’s View of Bayh-Dole Compliance, 3

We are working through NIH guidance on Bayh-Dole reporting requirements. In the process we are making note about how thoroughly NIH misrepresents Bayh-Dole. Sloppy? Indifferent? Does it matter? The next bit is going to be a bother: If it helps, … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The NIH’s View of Bayh-Dole Compliance, 3

The NIH’s View of Bayh-Dole Compliance, 2

A while ago, I worked through a slide in an NIH presentation about Bayh-Dole compliance. The conclusion there was that the presentation was sloppy, lacked important details, and misrepresented the Bayh-Dole standard patent rights clause. There are other accounts of … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , | Comments Off on The NIH’s View of Bayh-Dole Compliance, 2

Bayh-Dole the Monster

The Bayh-Dole Act makes a great deal about public interest. Throughout the law are gestures toward worthy objectives–use of inventions, manufacturing in the United States, government licenses, and the right of federal agencies to step if they need to. But … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole the Monster

What should the federal government do with patents it issues to itself? Part 3

Here is one of the most provocative parts of Vannevar Bush’s Science the Endless Frontier: Science Is a Proper Concern of Government It has been basic United States policy that Government should foster the opening of new frontiers. It opened … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Freedom, History, Policy, Sponsored Research | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on What should the federal government do with patents it issues to itself? Part 3