Tag Archives: reasonable terms

March-in rights, Xtandi, and Bayh-Dole’s patent rights clause

Posted on March 3, 2023 by Gerald Barnett

Senator Bernie Sanders just tweeted about Xtandi, asking patients taking Xtandi to share their stories. The prostate cancer drug Xtandi was invented by taxpayer-funded scientists at UCLA, but now costs Americans nearly $190,000 — or up to six times the … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, high priced drugs | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on March-in rights, Xtandi, and Bayh-Dole’s patent rights clause

The Bluntly Essence of Bayh-Dole’s Contracting Provisions

Posted on January 8, 2023 by Gerald Barnett

Let’s be super bluntly. The essence of Bayh-Dole’s contracting provisions is: Make new product available promptly, and at a competitive price. That’s it. That’s what all the apparatus and fuss is about, and what federal agencies refuse to recognize or … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The Bluntly Essence of Bayh-Dole’s Contracting Provisions

A very short primer on reasonable price

Posted on April 21, 2022 by Gerald Barnett

Joe Allen writes this: “Price was not something march-in rights were ever meant to control, and wielding them this way would be a misuse of the law and it would kill Bayh-Dole.” This is nonsense. Allen provides no evidence for … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on A very short primer on reasonable price

Bayh-Dole, Competition, Reasonable Terms, and March-in (Short Version)

Posted on March 30, 2022 by Gerald Barnett

How are competition, reasonable terms, and march-in related in Bayh-Dole? Here is the short version. Bayh-Dole stipulates that a contractor must timely achieve practical application of a subject invention and must reasonably satisfy public health needs in doing so. 35 … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole, Competition, Reasonable Terms, and March-in (Short Version)

IP Watchdog Misses the Mark on March-In Rights

Posted on May 6, 2020 by Gerald Barnett

IPWatchdog, a blog site, published on April 22, 2020 an article by Joseph Allen arguing that the Washington Post got Bayh-Dole’s march-in provision all wrong. But Allen has got it wrong. Let’s be clear, then, about Bayh-Dole and march-in. Even … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on IP Watchdog Misses the Mark on March-In Rights

Study Example 1: “Reasonable terms” in Bayh-Dole

Posted on July 31, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

Here is Joseph Allen, attempting to make the case that “reasonable terms” in Bayh-Dole’s definition of practical application applies only to licensing terms: Bayh-Dole adopted many of these terms with their original meaning. Section 203 says that the agency funding … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Study Example 1: “Reasonable terms” in Bayh-Dole

More Discussion of “Reasonable Terms” Nonsense

Posted on July 19, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

Or, why certain Bayh-Dole pundits are wrong and how federal march-in might be something that companies might really want! There is absolutely no way that “reasonable terms” as a standard for march-in means “licensing terms” and does not concern “price.” … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on More Discussion of “Reasonable Terms” Nonsense

Bayh-Dole Basics, 8: Reasonable Terms Comments-9

Posted on June 28, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

We can now–finally–oh gawd this is painful–turn to the place of “reasonable terms” in all of this mess of Bayh-Dole march-in. Simply, Bayh-Dole march in concerns itself with benefits of use available to the public on reasonable terms, not licenses … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Tagged , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Basics, 8: Reasonable Terms Comments-9

Bayh-Dole Basics, 8: Reasonable Terms Comments-8

Posted on June 26, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

In Bayh-Dole the march-in for health or safety needs is drafted to prevent the government from breaking up private patent monopolies on supported inventions merely because there are health or safety needs. The default public policy in Bayh-Dole is that … Continue reading →

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

Bayh-Dole Basics, 8: Reasonable Terms Comments-5

Posted on June 20, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

We are working through the prior federal regulations in an effort to understand the “reasonable terms” requirement in Bayh-Dole’s 35 USC 203(a)(1) march-in condition. In the Kennedy executive branch patent policy, contractors had two primary routes to retain ownership of … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Basics, 8: Reasonable Terms Comments-5