Tag Archives: patent rights clause

Xtandi, Bayh-Dole, and how Pfizer might stop worrying and love the march in

Posted on March 23, 2023 by Gerald Barnett

The American Prospect has an interesting piece (“A Big Miss on Drug Prices”) on the NIH yet again defying the Bayh-Dole Act and refusing to launch an investigation into whether UCLA and Pfizer have met Bayh-Dole’s standard (35 USC 201(f)) … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Xtandi, Bayh-Dole, and how Pfizer might stop worrying and love the march in

You can do anything you want at Bayh-Dole’s restaurant, 2

Posted on April 18, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

We are dealing with the practice reality that under the Bayh-Dole Act: anyone can do pretty much anything they want. Federal agencies can do anything they want, provided they follow Bayh-Dole’s procedures (or work around them). Contractors can do antyhing … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on You can do anything you want at Bayh-Dole’s restaurant, 2

3 More Oddities of 35 USC 210

Posted on January 7, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

We are working through oddities of Bayh-Dole’s assertion of precedence over other Acts. 11. Consider some possible variations on 35 USC 210’s treatment of precedence. Here’s the present text of the start of 210(a) again: This chapter shall take precedence … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on 3 More Oddities of 35 USC 210

The consequences of Bayh-Dole non-disclosure of inventions, 1

Posted on October 21, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

If the federal government had the courage to enforce any one thing in Bayh-Dole, it would be the nonprofit assignment and accounting requirements at 35 USC 202(c)(7). The federal government taking title to non-disclosed subject inventions is mostly useless. Let … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The consequences of Bayh-Dole non-disclosure of inventions, 1

USC still misrepresents Bayh-Dole, 2018 version-Fitt 2

Posted on August 2, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

[Update 2/10/2021–still misrepresents, still wrong.] USC’s “Bayh-Dole Act Obligations for Universities” overdramatizes–no, misrepresents–Bayh-Dole. USC turns to its own policies. Even here, things are not quite what they seem. Under the USC Intellectual Property Policy, with some exceptions called out within … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Tagged , , | Comments Off on USC still misrepresents Bayh-Dole, 2018 version-Fitt 2

“Government” rights in federally supported inventions, 1

Posted on November 20, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

Bayh-Dole requires federal agencies to use a patent rights clause that includes a provision under which contractors who obtain ownership of a patentable invention made in the performance of work under a federal funding agreement and elect to retain that … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on “Government” rights in federally supported inventions, 1

Best practices in university invention management, 5

Posted on June 8, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

More fun examples from the ipHandbook to demonstrate, ahem, best practices in university ownership of inventions. The visiting scientist. Professor from another university visits and invents. He is compensated through funds from Professor Z’s federal contract. That is, if he … Continue reading →

Posted in Agreements, Policy | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Best practices in university invention management, 5

The mistaken assumptions of Bayh-Dole, 2

Posted on May 11, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

We are working with an article by Sean O’Connor to get at an underlying problem with discussion of Bayh-Dole. O’Connor, a law professor, appears to be working diligently to find a way to “fix” Bayh-Dole so that universities end up … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The mistaken assumptions of Bayh-Dole, 2

The mistaken assumptions of Bayh-Dole, 1

Posted on May 10, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

I know this article by Sean O’Connor on the mistaken assumption in Bayh-Dole is six years old and I have discussed this issue previously, but since it is out there on the web, and as far as I know it hasn’t … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on The mistaken assumptions of Bayh-Dole, 1

What has NIST done, actually?-1

Posted on May 2, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

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 , , , , , , | Comments Off on What has NIST done, actually?-1