Tag Archives: Stanford v Roche

Whistling all the way to the bank, revisited 1

Posted on February 12, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

Back in 2010, I wrote an article titled “Whistling all the way to the bank.” The article explored the problem of compensation tied to the argument that the Bayh-Dole Act was a “vesting statute” that vested ownership of inventions made … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Whistling all the way to the bank, revisited 1

Bayh-Dole’s only purpose is to exploit public suffering for profit

Posted on January 10, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

The Bayh-Dole Act was created to permit the pharmaceutical industry to gain patent monopolies over inventions in medicinal chemistry made with federal government support. I have been through the history. I have worked through law for a decade. I practiced … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole’s only purpose is to exploit public suffering for profit

Bayh-Dole the Monster

Posted on September 25, 2017 by Gerald Barnett

The Bayh-Dole Act makes a great deal about public interest. Throughout the law are gestures toward worthy objectives–use of inventions, manufacturing in the United States, government licenses, and the right of federal agencies to step if they need to. But … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole the Monster

Penn State’s Protection Racket, 14: Assignment and Present Assignment

Posted on August 17, 2017 by Gerald Barnett

Here’s Penn State’s current IP Agreement’s sort-of assignment clause: In so agreeing, I especially acknowledge my responsibilities: (1) to assign and do hereby assign to the University (or its designee) all rights which I have or may acquire in inventions, … Continue reading →

Posted in Agreements, Present Assignment | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Penn State’s Protection Racket, 14: Assignment and Present Assignment

Sublicensing in Bayh-Dole

Posted on June 20, 2017 by Gerald Barnett

Let’s look at sublicensing of inventions made with federal support. Here’s the summary: Contractors can distribute rights in subject inventions (even in advance) by assignment, substitution, and subcontracting. (35 USC 201) A contractor can grant sublicenses if it loses title … Continue reading →

Posted in Agreements, Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Sublicensing in Bayh-Dole

Bayh-Dole nonsense in a talk at the University of Pittsburgh

Posted on June 7, 2017 by Gerald Barnett

Last year (March 2016), Joe Allen gave a talk at the University of Pittsburgh, “Patent Ownership Under Bayh-Dole, reported in the University Times. Called “a key architect of the Bayh-Dole Act,” Allen manages to fill a talk summary with mostly … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole nonsense in a talk at the University of Pittsburgh

Going to Eleven on NIST and (f)(2)

Posted on May 6, 2017 by Gerald Barnett

NIST is drafting new rules for the standard patent rights clause authorized by Bayh-Dole. Included in the proposed new provisions is a requirement that contractors require the assignment of inventions to the contractor. This is a bad idea. Besides, it’s … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Policy, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Going to Eleven on NIST and (f)(2)

Working through an old op/ed on university ownership of inventions

Posted on December 6, 2016 by Gerald Barnett

I was out browsing the web and came across an op/ed from 2011 published in the Baylor University magazine Lariat. The anonymous author was opining about the Stanford v Roche case and the title makes clear the position: “Patents should … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Working through an old op/ed on university ownership of inventions

Royalty sharing as federally mandated divisiveness

Posted on November 8, 2016 by Gerald Barnett

Here’s a sliver of divisiveness in Bayh-Dole (35 USC 202(c)(7)). In the case of a nonprofit organization, …. (B) a requirement that the contractor share royalties with the inventor On the face of it, this seems to be a happy requirement. … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Royalty sharing as federally mandated divisiveness

Bayh-Dole served up by the Catholic University of America’s general counsel

Posted on October 12, 2016 by Gerald Barnett

Here’s a bit from the office of general counsel at Catholic University of America. See how many things this statement of Bayh-Dole gets wrong in only four sentences. I’ll give you a few minutes. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 (Patent … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole served up by the Catholic University of America’s general counsel