Tag Archives: NIST

NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 1

Posted on April 25, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

In 2011, the Supreme Court provided a clear interpretation of the Bayh-Dole Act in Stanford v Roche. Bayh-Dole applies only to subject inventions. A subject invention is a patentable invention made in work funded by the federal government and owned … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 1

Pissed at NIST, short form

Posted on April 13, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

Supreme Court: Bayh-Dole applies only to subject inventions. Subject inventions are ones owned by a contractor. Congress did not intend a sea-change in initial invention ownership. Bayh-Dole does not apply to inventions made in projects with federal support until contractors … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Pissed at NIST, short form

NIST makes Bayh-Dole a vesting statute

Posted on April 12, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

NIST has issued its final rule on Bayh-Dole and disregards the Supreme Court on the ownership of subject inventions. The Supreme Court was clear that Bayh-Dole’s definition of subject invention means that an invention must be “owned by the contractor” to … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on NIST makes Bayh-Dole a vesting statute

Going to Eleven on NIST and (f)(2)

Posted on May 6, 2017 by Gerald Barnett

NIST is drafting new rules for the standard patent rights clause authorized by Bayh-Dole. Included in the proposed new provisions is a requirement that contractors require the assignment of inventions to the contractor. This is a bad idea. Besides, it’s … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Policy, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Going to Eleven on NIST and (f)(2)

Not fixing a hole in Bayh-Dole

Posted on March 14, 2017 by Gerald Barnett

Bayh-Dole does not disturb federal common law with regard to inventions. Inventors supported by federal research funds own their inventions. The Supreme Court made this clear in Stanford v Roche. Bayh-Dole applies to subject inventions only. Subject inventions are patentable inventions … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Freedom | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Not fixing a hole in Bayh-Dole