Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Tag Archives: Stanford v Roche
The mistaken assumptions of Bayh-Dole, 2
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 Bayh-Dole, Bremer, crap, Latker, NIST, O'Connor, patent rights clause, Stanford v Roche
Comments Off on The mistaken assumptions of Bayh-Dole, 2
NIST smokes Stanford v Roche
I don’t know what NIST folks were thinking (fortunately). But here’s what may have happened. They may have in fact read Stanford v Roche, but that clearly has not helped them. They are still clueless. Supreme Court: Bayh-Dole applies only … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche
Tagged Bayh-Dole, NIST, Stanford v Roche, stupid
Comments Off on NIST smokes Stanford v Roche
What has NIST done, actually?-2
Let’s work through what NIST has done with its new rule on assignment of subject inventions by written agreement. The Supreme Court in Stanford v Roche (2011) ruled that Bayh-Dole’s contracting provisions apply only to subject inventions, and that subject inventions … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged (f)(2), assignment, Bayh-Dole, equitable claim, NIST, service invention, Stanford v Roche
Comments Off on What has NIST done, actually?-2
What has NIST done, actually?-1
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 assignment, Bayh-Dole, hogwash, NIST, patent rights clause, Stanford v Roche, subject invention
Comments Off on What has NIST done, actually?-1
NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 1
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 Bayh-Dole, NIST, patent rights clause, presumption, Stanford v Roche, subject invention, Wixon
Comments Off on NIST’s Chief Counsel on Bayh-Dole, 1
The Faster Cures FAQ on Bayh-Dole, 2
We are working through the Faster Cures FAQ on Bayh-Dole. 2. What does Bayh-Dole say about the ownership of inventions and technologies? Pursuant to Bayh-Dole, universities and other nonprofit organizations that receive federal funding, may “elect to retain title to … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged Bayh-Dole, invention, patent, Stanford v Roche
Comments Off on The Faster Cures FAQ on Bayh-Dole, 2
University of Connecticut patent practice hash, 4
So now back to UConn’s patent policy claim. Look at it again: Under Connecticut state law, the University owns all inventions created by employees in the performance of employment with the University or created with University resources or funds administered … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Stanford v Roche
Tagged IP policy, Stanford v Roche, University of Connecticut
Comments Off on University of Connecticut patent practice hash, 4
University of Connecticut patent practice hash, 1
Let’s work through the University of Connecticut’s intellectual property practice on disclosure and ownership of inventions. We will start in the middle, with a disclosure form–much like a university inventor might do. UConn has an “Innovation Alert” web “portal” that … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Present Assignment, Stanford v Roche
Tagged Bayh-Dole, Connecticut, invention disclosure, Moloch beer, present assignment, Stanford v Roche
Comments Off on University of Connecticut patent practice hash, 1
Bayh-Dole Basics, 4: contractor comments
Bayh-Dole defines anyone on the other side of a funding agreement from a federal agency as a contractor. The term is arbitrary and misleading. Let’s look at both aspects. The standard patent rights clause requires the contractors that host federally … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged (f)(2), 37 CFR 401.14(a), 37 CFR 401.9, Bayh-Dole, contractor, faux, predatory, small business, Stanford v Roche, subcontract
Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Basics, 4: contractor comments
You should want to see Bayh-Dole operate as written. Here’s why.
Let’s start with some Bayh-Dole basics. Bayh-Dole preempts all other statutes but Stevenson-Wydler on matters of federal policy on inventions made in research contracts (35 USC 210). Bayh-Dole is the only authority on the matter. Bayh-Dole requires federal agencies to … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged (f)(2), assignment, Bayh-Dole, KEI, Stanford v Roche, subject invention, substantial rights
Comments Off on You should want to see Bayh-Dole operate as written. Here’s why.