Tag Archives: patent rights clause

Subject invention reporting and federal funding agreements

Posted on March 23, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

It would be interesting to see an audit of university invention reporting practices, especially in light of the definition of “funding agreement” and what it means for an invention to be made “in the performance of work under a funding … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Subject invention reporting and federal funding agreements

Xtandi demonstrates how Bayh-Dole is a do WTF you want law, 3

Posted on March 16, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

The first part of this article is here. The exclusive license that UCLA granted to Medivation meets the requirements for an assignment of the subject invention. The license grants substantially all rights in the subject invention (to all compounds for … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Xtandi demonstrates how Bayh-Dole is a do WTF you want law, 3

Xtandi demonstrates how Bayh-Dole is a do WTF you want law, 2

Posted on March 15, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

The first part of this article is here. To explore these issues, let’s take a look at Xtandi, a prostate cancer drug that has received press recently in the debate over high drug prices. Xtandi sells in the U.S. for … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Xtandi demonstrates how Bayh-Dole is a do WTF you want law, 2

The Key Provisions of Bayh-Dole

Posted on September 20, 2017 by Gerald Barnett

Now, with all that fusstation from the University of Pittsburgh out of the way, we might ask then what are the “key provisions” of Bayh-Dole that a university should make faculty and the public aware of. Only One Key Provision … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Key Provisions of Bayh-Dole

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

Conspiracy against inventors’ rights and 18 USC 241/42 USC 1983

Posted on June 9, 2016 by Gerald Barnett

University administrators have been fond to claim that the Bayh-Dole Act gives their universities ownership of inventions made with federal support–or a right of first refusal, or a prohibition on assigning ownership to anyone other than the university. This was … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Litigation, Policy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Conspiracy against inventors’ rights and 18 USC 241/42 USC 1983

Bayh-Dole Flow Down

Posted on February 17, 2016 by Gerald Barnett

Every so often I make an effort to show graphically how Bayh-Dole operates. The Bayh-Dole Act authorizes (arrow 1) the Department of Commerce to create regulations governing the disposition of patentable inventions made in the performance of work supported by … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Flow Down

Some Questions from a Future FAQ on Bayh-Dole

Posted on January 14, 2016 by Gerald Barnett

Q. Can a university violate the Bayh-Dole Act? A. No. Bayh-Dole applies to federal agencies. The law requires federal agencies to adopt uniform practices regarding patent rights to inventions in funding agreements. Bayh-Dole (now) authorizes the Department of Commerce to … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Present Assignment, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Some Questions from a Future FAQ on Bayh-Dole