Tag Archives: title

University of Illinois Guidance on Bayh-Dole, c. 2006 and 2022

Posted on December 19, 2022 by Gerald Barnett

Here is a representation of the Bayh-Dole Act, from a University of Illinois OTM brochure from 2006: The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 determined that the University retains title to intellectual property created using Federal funding. With this ownership comes the … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on University of Illinois Guidance on Bayh-Dole, c. 2006 and 2022

A law firm opines about a NIST rule, and I opine about the opining

Posted on June 18, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

A law firm gives an overview of the new NIST regulations for Bayh-Dole. It leads with fake history. Not a good sign. First enacted in 1980, the Bayh-Dole Act (as amended, the “Act”) for the first time permitted research institutions … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on A law firm opines about a NIST rule, and I opine about the opining

The NIH’s View of Bayh-Dole Compliance, 8

Posted on May 29, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

We are working through the NIH’s policy manual on Bayh-Dole. We reach a helpful list. Some of the steps required by the regulation to retain intellectual property rights to subject inventions include: Report all subject inventions to NIH. Make efforts … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The NIH’s View of Bayh-Dole Compliance, 8

Bayh-Dole Basics, 5: invention assignment comments

Posted on March 9, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

Here is a basic distinction. Bayh-Dole prohibits nonprofits from assigning subject inventions except to an invention management organization or with the approval of the federal agency–and then only if the assignee accepts the nonprofit patent rights clause. Bayh-Dole says nothing … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Basics, 5: invention assignment comments

Minimum Policy, Phase 2

Posted on November 14, 2010 by Gerald Barnett

[This is a pre-Stanford v Roche discussion. I have updated it for current CFR references. A contractor does not “elect title”–a contractor may “elect to retain title” that the contractor has obtained by conventional means. A contractor’s option under a … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Minimum Policy, Phase 2