Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Tag Archives: NIST
“the same provisions as the contractor” in (k)(1)
Here’s a follow-up note on the nonprofit assignment restriction in 37 CFR 401.14(k)(1). With the NIST changes in the standard patent rights clauses, we might ask again about the interpretation of “such assignee shall be subject to the same provisions … Continue reading
NIST’s other changes to Bayh-Dole’s implementation, 2
We are working through NIST’s other changes to the implementation of the Bayh-Dole Act. It’s a rather strange exercise, since the standard patent rights clause required by Bayh-Dole as a default is not enforced and universities comply only with the … Continue reading
NIST’s other changes to Bayh-Dole’s implementation, 1
NIST’s new rules for the implementation of the Bayh-Dole Act go into effect in May 2018. I have worked through the assignment provision for federal contracts that has been added to the (f)(2) written agreement requirement and how nutty that … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged 37 CFR 401.14, Bayh-Dole, NIST
Comments Off on NIST’s other changes to Bayh-Dole’s implementation, 1
What has NIST done, actually?-3
The start of this article is here. We have been working through what NIST’s introduction of an assignment requirement for subject inventions actually does. In one view, nothing. In another, a technical if not prissy requirement that inventions a contractor … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged antipattern, assignment, equitable ownership, Moloch, NIST
Comments Off on What has NIST done, actually?-3
What has NIST done, actually?-2
Let’s work through what NIST has done with its new rule on assignment of subject inventions by written agreement. The Supreme Court in Stanford v Roche (2011) ruled that Bayh-Dole’s contracting provisions apply only to subject inventions, and that subject inventions … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged (f)(2), assignment, Bayh-Dole, equitable claim, NIST, service invention, Stanford v Roche
Comments Off on What has NIST done, actually?-2
What has NIST done, actually?-1
NIST has made an attempt to turn Bayh-Dole into a vesting statute. From all appearances, that is what a casual reader would think has happened with NIST’s new subject invention assignment language. With help from inept (if not complicit) university … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged assignment, Bayh-Dole, hogwash, NIST, patent rights clause, Stanford v Roche, subject invention
Comments Off on What has NIST done, actually?-1
NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 5
Unlike the other various fakographics and misguidances and misrepresentations of Bayh-Dole that we have reviewed, this slide deck by NIST’s chief counsel is distinctive, since NIST has primary responsibility for Bayh-Dole’s implementation and patent rights clauses. Thus, a failure to … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged Bayh-Dole, NIST, patent rights clause, practical application, public benefit, subject invention, Wixon
Comments Off on NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 5
NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 4
One last slide from NIST’s chief counsel’s talk from 2013. Much to discuss. How to unwind this assertion? The Bayh-Dole Act requires federal agencies to use an arbitrary default patent rights clause. In the absence of Bayh-Dole, executive branch patent … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged Bayh-Dole, clocks, licensing, NIST, patent rights clause, subject invention, Wixon
Comments Off on NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 4
NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 3
NIST’s chief counsel gives, let us say, a unhelpful representation of the law. Let’s continue with his second slide titled “Bayh-Dole Highlights.” The government does not “retain” a license. The government is entitled to receive that license. The law uses … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged Bayh-Dole, government license, march-in, NIST, patent rights clause, subject invention, Wixon
Comments Off on NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 3
NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 2
As further evidence that NIST’s chief counsel does not properly describe Bayh-Dole, consider this point in his first slide of Bayh-Dole “highlights”: This point is accurate only in an obscure technical sense. Bayh-Dole does not preclude a contractor, having obtained … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged (f)(2), Bayh-Dole, commercialization, NIST, patent rights clause, subject invention, Wixon
Comments Off on NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 2