Tag Archives: practical application

The use of the patent system for federal research results, 5: Possibilities of patent use

We are working through and around FSA order 110-1, the first major federal executive branch policy regarding inventions made in federally funded work, issued in 1952. The Supreme Court in its 1933 decision in Dubilier said the it was up … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The use of the patent system for federal research results, 5: Possibilities of patent use

An invention is not a thing, 9

The public policy idea around Bayh-Dole march-in would appear to be straightforward. It was so in the Kennedy patent policy: make the benefits of using an invention accessible to the public in three years from the date of a patent … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on An invention is not a thing, 9

An invention is not a thing, 6: Invention holes, practical application, and development

An invention is a collection of things, a set, a door of opportunity and whatever an inventor and others see through that door. A patent is an inventor’s claim to exclusivity in what the inventor, perhaps with help from others, … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on An invention is not a thing, 6: Invention holes, practical application, and development

Bayh-Dole Basics, 8: Reasonable Terms

[Short: There are two “reasonable” terms in Bayh-Dole. The first has to do with reasonable terms on offer to the public. These terms, including price, are the terms a reasonable person would expect if there were competition, even if a … Continue reading

Posted in Agreements, Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Basics, 8: Reasonable Terms

Bayh-Dole Basics, 7: Disclosure comments, 1

This will be longish. For the brief of heart, here’s a synopsis. Invention disclosure is the heart of Bayh-Dole standard patent rights compliance. Disclosure is not reporting that an invention exists. Disclosure means providing, for an invention owned by a … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Basics, 7: Disclosure comments, 1

Utilization and commercialization in Bayh-Dole

Bayh-Dole’s stated policy and objective is utilization of inventions arising in federally supported research or development–not specifically commercialization: . . . use the patent system to promote the utilization of inventions arising from federally supported research or development . . … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Utilization and commercialization in Bayh-Dole

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 , , , , , , | Comments Off on NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 5

Guide to Bayh-Dole by the Layers, 7

Eighth layer: Outcomes We reach the eighth and final layer of Bayh-Dole: outcomes. We can consider four elements of outcomes: activity, cost, practical application, and the effects of patent monopoly exclusion on such things as research, rapid industry and professional … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Guide to Bayh-Dole by the Layers, 7

Bayh-Dole’s Public Covenant, 1

Patents on Subject Inventions Are Not Ordinary Patents It has been clear since at least the late 1940s that patents on inventions made with federal government support should not be treated like ordinary patents. No one–even the advocates for Bayh-Dole–has … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole’s Public Covenant, 1